What is good government?

On March 7, 2013, I posted a blog “Interesting Legal Situation”. Within this blog is a link to an e-mail exchange between Town Counsel, Chris Stewart and myself. The e-mail thread concerns having legal counsel review Citizen petitions. Chris wrote:

From: "stewy5@comcast.net" <stewy5@comcast.net>
Date: March 5, 2013 2:19:59 PM EST
To: Julie Farrell <jfarrell59@gmail.com>
Cc: PDeRensis@aol.com, towncoordinator@templeton1.org, pderensis@dwboston.com Subject: Re: 1156:6

My only concern is that if we spend money for legal to write a citizens petition motion, are we setting a precedent to do this? As Julie stated we have not done so in the past and I feel the citizens do not want us spending town finances this way. Therefore my opinion is we do not start this trend.

Chris

Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID

My question is, “What is good government?” Why is there one set of rules as a member of the BOS and a very different set of rules for the Light and Water Commissioners?

Example 1 - Under Chapter 164 the manager of the Light and Water plant has a lot of authority. Did the manager of TMLWP have the legal authority to expend $10,000 on a Citizen Petition? Yes, he does have that authority! However, it is the Commissioners job to oversee the manager; to provide direction and guidance.

The Chairman if TMLWP Commissioners, Dana Blais stated in the Gardner News on March 26, 2013:

“It’s his job to find out by any means what would transpire if a petition like this had passed. …” [Emphasis added].

In my opinion, expending $10,000 of ratepayer money to determine the legality of a Citizens Petition is excessive. The $10,000 expenditure to determine the legality of a Citizen petition is in direct opposition to the position taken by the Chairman of the BOS regarding using legal counsel for Citizen petitions. The Chairman of the BOS also serves as a Light and Water Commissioner.

Different rules for different boards = bad government.

Example 2 – Open Meeting Law (OML) Complaints

On March 14, 2013 The Office of the Attorney General issued a determination on the OML complaints I filed against the TMLWP Commissioners in May, June and July of 2012.  [Full Text of the determination]. OML website.

“ii. The Water Commission's May 1, 2012 Discussion Regarding a Town Fluoride Vote Was Not Appropriate for Executive Session Under the Open Meeting Law. “

“iii. The Board Failed to Comply with Certain Procedural Requirements Before Convening in Executive Session. “

“iv. The Board Failed to Comply With Notice Posting Requirements under the Open Meeting Law. “

“v. The Board Failed to Conduct a Periodic Review to Justify Continued Nondisclosure of Executive Session Minutes under the Open Meeting Law. “

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, we find that the Board violated the Open Meeting Law by failing to follow required procedures for entering into executive session and by failing to include sufficient detail about anticipated discussion topics in its meeting notices. We also find that the Water Commission violated the Open Meeting Law by improperly discussing a topic that was not appropriate for executive session behind closed doors. We order immediate and future compliance with the Open Meeting Law, and caution that future similar violations may be considered evidence of intent to violate the Law. In addition, we order the Board to view the video training on the Open Meeting Law available at the Attorney General's website, and certify in writing to our office, within thirty (30) days after receiving this determination, that all of its members have done so.

Finally, we order the Board to review the minutes from the executive session of both meetings and: (1) release all portions that were not appropriate for discussion in executive session; and (2) determine whether continued non-disclosure of the portions of the discussion that were appropriate for executive session under the Open Meeting Law is warranted, and publicly announce that determination during an open session meeting. Both aspects of this review must occur within thirty (30) days of receiving this determination. “

Again, different rules for different boards. However the Attorney General disagrees.

What is good government?

I have been accused of having an “agenda”. I do have an “agenda”. My “agenda” is to implement good governmental practices in the Town of Templeton. That is my “agenda”. My goal is decide and vote on issues that I believe are in the best interest of the residents, citizens, taxpayers and ratepayers (the “shareholders”) in the Town of Templeton. For too long Templeton town government has been in disarray and factionalized.

My goal in posting blogs is to provide the citizens of Templeton with information, which in the past was never revealed, even with public record requests. I believe in our town coordinator’s mantra “Facts, Law, Transparency” I believe if we follow the guidelines of “Facts, Law, Transparency” we can achieve good government in Templeton. [On a personal note, I would add “Accountability” to the mantra.]

With new town counsel, a new treasurer, a new accountant and a new town coordinator, Templeton can begin the process of moving toward good governmental policies, practices and procedures.

The election on April 30^th, will decide the direction of the Town. Will we continue to make progress along the path to good government? Or will we return to the days of no accountability, no transparency, no facts and very expensive “law”?

I plan on supporting candidates who will work toward good government.

My opinion…supported by FACTS ! ! !

Julie Farrell