Monday, December 6, 2010
Petition Drive
Concern Citizens of Clifton are starting a petition drive for an ethics and recall ordinance, then move to challenge the plowing contract - this is a disgrace
Plow and Sanding
Well the storm is over and the road is still waiting for plow and sand. Someone should mention to the plow, when it comes, there is a bus turn around and turn out that hasn't been touched. Nor did we plow Mill Lane to the end of the road at the MacDonald residence, instead we turned at the mailboxes. The video shows glare ice with packed wet snow and no sand! But all the trucks are plowing Springy Pond and Tradewinds, I hope we have a sand and salt log as required to insure our tax payer sand stays on town roads - this has been a hard fast rule for years, and it continues. Wonder what the DOT thinks of plowing state roads with a pickup truck. Try to drive a car to work or home...first time in 10 years the mail won't even attempt to deliver and got stuck....at $13,000 more a year....keep up the great job with our tax dollars.
Hey if you drive the gateway car in a bank robbery do you get charged?
Hey if you drive the gateway car in a bank robbery do you get charged?
TIF - Credit Enhancement for Wind Project
I am glad to see that we are moving forward with Mr. Fullers wind project, this will provide nice energy for the grid, construction work, maintenance jobs, wildlife habibat for deer and is just right to help the town.
The question that should be put before the voters is a simple one - Should a TIF be created for Mr. Fuller and the Town of Clifton. My answer would be YES as fast as we can approve a TIF, get it done.
If a TIF is not created the COUNTY will tax us more, the SCHOOL will get much more with no increase in students, our share of the school budget would be the highest. Heck maybe we could build our own school?
With a TIF, the town's valuation is removed so that it shelters a town from its school and county assessments, while protecting the town's percentage of state revenue sharing.
Pretty much, it's a tax shelter. Mr. Fuller is making an investment of capital into your community, you're giving them somewhat of a tax break.
If it was fully taxable, residents would pay more in school assessment, and more in county taxes, and it would reduce our revenue sharing, which means whatever we got for taxes from the wind project would be off set by the loss in sending more dollars to the county and school - worst with our high evaluation rates.
Oakfield Maine - created a wonderful TIF with First Wind and that should be used as a model with Mr. Fuller. In no way should the town be greedy, but clearly this would be a win win for both the town and Mr. Fuller.
There are several items to consider in the TIF; a direct payment to the town for use on roads and maintenance (we need capital improvements bad)(this could be $200-500,000 a year); college tuition payments for all high school students; direct payments to each resident household (would suggest starting with a formula like Oakfield, it could be an amount equal to a persons tax bill). The town should immediately take Mr. Fuller up on his offer to allow the town to place a turbine for its own use - then the town should apply for a USDA grant to install the turbine and the income from use should go directly back to the residents in the form of a dividend.
I would like to talk about college tuition for a moment, several towns in Maine provide funding to each student attending an approved college or university. Education is the key to our survival and think about the return. A child will never forget the help they would get in attending college and return to town that helped raise him or her knowing the value of a small town. If memory serves me correctly the little town of The Forks provides $2,000 to each student attending college. Think what this would do for our work force! Say we provided $2,000 a year to any student, regardless of age attending college, say to a limit of six years. The quality of life of our residents would improve, not to mention their income - it is a fact that income is directly related to college education - we always want more for our children. I don't care it is for auto body work, small engine repair, meat cutting, nursing or to be a doctor any enhanced education is great.
The question that should be put before the voters is a simple one - Should a TIF be created for Mr. Fuller and the Town of Clifton. My answer would be YES as fast as we can approve a TIF, get it done.
If a TIF is not created the COUNTY will tax us more, the SCHOOL will get much more with no increase in students, our share of the school budget would be the highest. Heck maybe we could build our own school?
With a TIF, the town's valuation is removed so that it shelters a town from its school and county assessments, while protecting the town's percentage of state revenue sharing.
Pretty much, it's a tax shelter. Mr. Fuller is making an investment of capital into your community, you're giving them somewhat of a tax break.
If it was fully taxable, residents would pay more in school assessment, and more in county taxes, and it would reduce our revenue sharing, which means whatever we got for taxes from the wind project would be off set by the loss in sending more dollars to the county and school - worst with our high evaluation rates.
Oakfield Maine - created a wonderful TIF with First Wind and that should be used as a model with Mr. Fuller. In no way should the town be greedy, but clearly this would be a win win for both the town and Mr. Fuller.
There are several items to consider in the TIF; a direct payment to the town for use on roads and maintenance (we need capital improvements bad)(this could be $200-500,000 a year); college tuition payments for all high school students; direct payments to each resident household (would suggest starting with a formula like Oakfield, it could be an amount equal to a persons tax bill). The town should immediately take Mr. Fuller up on his offer to allow the town to place a turbine for its own use - then the town should apply for a USDA grant to install the turbine and the income from use should go directly back to the residents in the form of a dividend.
I would like to talk about college tuition for a moment, several towns in Maine provide funding to each student attending an approved college or university. Education is the key to our survival and think about the return. A child will never forget the help they would get in attending college and return to town that helped raise him or her knowing the value of a small town. If memory serves me correctly the little town of The Forks provides $2,000 to each student attending college. Think what this would do for our work force! Say we provided $2,000 a year to any student, regardless of age attending college, say to a limit of six years. The quality of life of our residents would improve, not to mention their income - it is a fact that income is directly related to college education - we always want more for our children. I don't care it is for auto body work, small engine repair, meat cutting, nursing or to be a doctor any enhanced education is great.
Sunday, December 5, 2010
Concerned Citizens of Clifton
When it comes to Clifton citizens unhappy with government, the tea party isn’t the only thing brewing. Our meetings will be open format following the general principles established by the Tea Party Patriots.
A slew of hyper-local government watchdog and advocacy groups have popped up in Maine — formed by residents fed up with how tax dollars are spent and with elected officials they believe do not listen.
CCC’s mission said Lorin LeCleire, a founding member, is to inform people how their tax dollars are being spent. The group came together when they felt that the small board “was doing things under the table” LeCleire said.
The group is pushing for more transparent information, publishing of notices, a website and easier access to public documents.
Concern over how dollars are spent also spawned the Concerned Citizens of Clifton.
“Like everyone else, we see escalating property taxes and a lack of transparency in how things are handled,” said LeCleire, a founding member. “We want more transparency in the municipal government and accountability.” “We try to be the voice of people in town.”
The group is intended to be progressive with a mission to "promote ethics and accountability in government and public life by targeting government officials - regardless of party affiliation - who sacrifice the common good to special interests." CCC will advance its mission by engaging in public advocacy, public discussions, creating a shadow board to review events, Freedom of Information Act requests, media outreach and official complaints to government agencies such as the Maine Municipal Association and Attorney General’s Office if warranted.
We commend anyone who offers to serve in an elected position; in fact we would encourage everyone to get involved serving on a committee or running for a select board or planning board position. As Maine Municipal states in their articles voters are angry, it’s not voter apathy, but the feeling that the deals are already cut and dried and their vote doesn’t matter – we opt to change that view of our town and have everyone involved in the decision making process.
A slew of hyper-local government watchdog and advocacy groups have popped up in Maine — formed by residents fed up with how tax dollars are spent and with elected officials they believe do not listen.
CCC’s mission said Lorin LeCleire, a founding member, is to inform people how their tax dollars are being spent. The group came together when they felt that the small board “was doing things under the table” LeCleire said.
The group is pushing for more transparent information, publishing of notices, a website and easier access to public documents.
Concern over how dollars are spent also spawned the Concerned Citizens of Clifton.
“Like everyone else, we see escalating property taxes and a lack of transparency in how things are handled,” said LeCleire, a founding member. “We want more transparency in the municipal government and accountability.” “We try to be the voice of people in town.”
The group is intended to be progressive with a mission to "promote ethics and accountability in government and public life by targeting government officials - regardless of party affiliation - who sacrifice the common good to special interests." CCC will advance its mission by engaging in public advocacy, public discussions, creating a shadow board to review events, Freedom of Information Act requests, media outreach and official complaints to government agencies such as the Maine Municipal Association and Attorney General’s Office if warranted.
We commend anyone who offers to serve in an elected position; in fact we would encourage everyone to get involved serving on a committee or running for a select board or planning board position. As Maine Municipal states in their articles voters are angry, it’s not voter apathy, but the feeling that the deals are already cut and dried and their vote doesn’t matter – we opt to change that view of our town and have everyone involved in the decision making process.
Conflicts on Plowing!
Conflicts of Interests, Contracts and Plowing
As is the usual case in most small Maine towns, those without a public works department, a contract is awarded for winter maintenance or as is commonly referred to as the “plow contract”.
In Clifton the voters have allowed the select board to enter into multiple year contracts in a effort to reduce costs, all vendors a chance to make it worth their efforts and to lower paperwork associated with contracts.
In general Clifton is governed by Maine Statute’s, policies and directives suggested by Maine Municipal Association (an Association much like the NRA or Maine Dairy Farmers, it does not own or direct the town, nor is there a requirement the town be a member of MMA) and ordinances and wishes established by its residents.
These cover a board section of town government including Freedom of Information, public meetings, ethics, code of conduct, bidding ordinances, contract administration and employment law to list a few.
Over the past several cycles the “plow” contract has been a renewal three year agreement with the selected contractor.
The Town of Clifton has a bid ordinance enacted and recently amended by the voters (2010) requiring competitive bidding. There is an outline of steps for bidding in the Maine Municpal Manual on page 114 and strong advise from MMA that MMA itself can provide a model plow contract.
The bid process itself has some basic steps: specifications for the job, publishing notices (to avoid challenges to the bid and allowing fair and open bidding; opening and reviewing bids; accepting and awarding the winning bid. MMA also suggests language to avoid conflict of interest or perceived conflicts when hiring employees or contractors.
This was the year for renewal of our “plow” contract, from all indications there was a public publishing of soliciting bids for winter sand and plowing.
At the September meeting sealed bids were opened the stock pile of sand and plowing.
It should be noted that many Maine towns attempt to keep the work in town and employee local business. To this end they have ordinances allowing a 10% over run, meaning as long as the local bidder is within 10% of the low bid, it may be awarded to the local contractor. However Clifton doesn’t have such an ordinance at the time of this writing. It does however reserve the right to reject any and all bids by plainly stating such on the invitation is it so chose to do so.
Bids were opened and the stock piling of sand went for the first time in recent memory to an out of town bidder, the usual in town bidder was higher by a few hundred dollars. Remember, this is key to the questions coming forward. It was moved to accept the low bid in an effort to save money. Not based on experience, keeping sand and plowing together to avoid conflicts and problems as has occurred in the past, but because it was the low bid.
Next was the awarding of the plow contract. There were two bids, that of a local bidder and that of a person from out of town. The difference in pricing was great, exceeding $10,000 dollars. The bid was awarded by the board to the local contractor for the same price as previous years. It appeared that all was well, IT IS NOT.
Somewhere or how in the next few weeks a move was undertaken to void the opened and awarded plow contract with motions by Hatch, Jordan and Beachamp.
At the October meeting calls were placed with other vendors (not formal bids) and in fact the bidder who had play his card and his pricing asked for the new formal bid – the answer was that the town didn’t have a written specification bid this time – in a flurry the clerk made calls and to protect there interest provided the old bid sheet to the contractor.
At the next meeting, in a deal that had folks around town commenting a “ back room deal” “good old boy network” “or they are friends and didn’t like the previous contractor”, bids were opened and this time the two bids were from the previous awarded contractor and previous winter maintenance contractor and a new contractor, the husband of the clerk.
Within seconds, a new bid was awarded by (Hatch, Jordan and Beachamp) to the husband of the clerk for $13,000 more than the low bid. It should be pointed out that the previous awarded bidder had lowered his bid from the previous bid by a $1,000. This is what we call GREAT management of our tax dollars – looks like the ethics problems have come to Clifton from another town.
This does not even pass the straight faced test! It doesn’t smell right or appear right. Was the bid re published in the paper inviting formal bids?. Was the previous contract award resinded? Was certified mail with 10 day notice, as required by the contract ever sent to the previous contractor? Was there a meeting with the previous contractor? Did the new contractor have experience with plowing our town roads? Were the same requirements applied to both contractors regarding equipment? Clearly NO since they are sanding at 20 mph with a pickup sander something prohibited under previous contracts.
In fact having ridden with previous contractors and videoed the plowing efforts I know that in one application of sanding it takes at least four full dump truck loads of sand. A minimum of two loads for Route 180 and two additional loads for the remainder of town. And this is just one application and most storms require multiple applications.
This is just the kind of process that gets town’s in hot water, creates law suits and gets voters to the point of “throw the bums out”!
We wonder why voters are angry –
As a former select person, customers (that is what residents are) called and commented to me that the road was ice on the first storm, something that hasn’t happened for a long time. I suggested calling the folks that voted for the new contractor or better yet make it a matter of public record – call the Regional Dispatch Center or the Maine Department of Transportation. Image my surprise when dispatch contacted the previous plow contractor to sand the roads. A few hours later a pickup comes screaming up the road with a “wheelbarrow” sander in the back attempting to sand – it was a waste and made no difference whatsoever in the conditions, in fact the bus turn around wasn’t even plowed or sanded.
So during the course of the winter to insure that proper record of complaints is filed I suggest that you contact Regional Dispatch at 945-4636. Dispatch will contact the plow contractor and send a duplicate information sheet to the select board – there is no sense getting involved in family matters at the town office.
As was the case years ago, we haven’t learned from out mistakes, we probably will wind up paying out the nose and spending thousands on lawyers and lawsuits. From what I hear we have spent that on lawyers already……
As is the usual case in most small Maine towns, those without a public works department, a contract is awarded for winter maintenance or as is commonly referred to as the “plow contract”.
In Clifton the voters have allowed the select board to enter into multiple year contracts in a effort to reduce costs, all vendors a chance to make it worth their efforts and to lower paperwork associated with contracts.
In general Clifton is governed by Maine Statute’s, policies and directives suggested by Maine Municipal Association (an Association much like the NRA or Maine Dairy Farmers, it does not own or direct the town, nor is there a requirement the town be a member of MMA) and ordinances and wishes established by its residents.
These cover a board section of town government including Freedom of Information, public meetings, ethics, code of conduct, bidding ordinances, contract administration and employment law to list a few.
Over the past several cycles the “plow” contract has been a renewal three year agreement with the selected contractor.
The Town of Clifton has a bid ordinance enacted and recently amended by the voters (2010) requiring competitive bidding. There is an outline of steps for bidding in the Maine Municpal Manual on page 114 and strong advise from MMA that MMA itself can provide a model plow contract.
The bid process itself has some basic steps: specifications for the job, publishing notices (to avoid challenges to the bid and allowing fair and open bidding; opening and reviewing bids; accepting and awarding the winning bid. MMA also suggests language to avoid conflict of interest or perceived conflicts when hiring employees or contractors.
This was the year for renewal of our “plow” contract, from all indications there was a public publishing of soliciting bids for winter sand and plowing.
At the September meeting sealed bids were opened the stock pile of sand and plowing.
It should be noted that many Maine towns attempt to keep the work in town and employee local business. To this end they have ordinances allowing a 10% over run, meaning as long as the local bidder is within 10% of the low bid, it may be awarded to the local contractor. However Clifton doesn’t have such an ordinance at the time of this writing. It does however reserve the right to reject any and all bids by plainly stating such on the invitation is it so chose to do so.
Bids were opened and the stock piling of sand went for the first time in recent memory to an out of town bidder, the usual in town bidder was higher by a few hundred dollars. Remember, this is key to the questions coming forward. It was moved to accept the low bid in an effort to save money. Not based on experience, keeping sand and plowing together to avoid conflicts and problems as has occurred in the past, but because it was the low bid.
Next was the awarding of the plow contract. There were two bids, that of a local bidder and that of a person from out of town. The difference in pricing was great, exceeding $10,000 dollars. The bid was awarded by the board to the local contractor for the same price as previous years. It appeared that all was well, IT IS NOT.
Somewhere or how in the next few weeks a move was undertaken to void the opened and awarded plow contract with motions by Hatch, Jordan and Beachamp.
At the October meeting calls were placed with other vendors (not formal bids) and in fact the bidder who had play his card and his pricing asked for the new formal bid – the answer was that the town didn’t have a written specification bid this time – in a flurry the clerk made calls and to protect there interest provided the old bid sheet to the contractor.
At the next meeting, in a deal that had folks around town commenting a “ back room deal” “good old boy network” “or they are friends and didn’t like the previous contractor”, bids were opened and this time the two bids were from the previous awarded contractor and previous winter maintenance contractor and a new contractor, the husband of the clerk.
Within seconds, a new bid was awarded by (Hatch, Jordan and Beachamp) to the husband of the clerk for $13,000 more than the low bid. It should be pointed out that the previous awarded bidder had lowered his bid from the previous bid by a $1,000. This is what we call GREAT management of our tax dollars – looks like the ethics problems have come to Clifton from another town.
This does not even pass the straight faced test! It doesn’t smell right or appear right. Was the bid re published in the paper inviting formal bids?. Was the previous contract award resinded? Was certified mail with 10 day notice, as required by the contract ever sent to the previous contractor? Was there a meeting with the previous contractor? Did the new contractor have experience with plowing our town roads? Were the same requirements applied to both contractors regarding equipment? Clearly NO since they are sanding at 20 mph with a pickup sander something prohibited under previous contracts.
In fact having ridden with previous contractors and videoed the plowing efforts I know that in one application of sanding it takes at least four full dump truck loads of sand. A minimum of two loads for Route 180 and two additional loads for the remainder of town. And this is just one application and most storms require multiple applications.
This is just the kind of process that gets town’s in hot water, creates law suits and gets voters to the point of “throw the bums out”!
We wonder why voters are angry –
As a former select person, customers (that is what residents are) called and commented to me that the road was ice on the first storm, something that hasn’t happened for a long time. I suggested calling the folks that voted for the new contractor or better yet make it a matter of public record – call the Regional Dispatch Center or the Maine Department of Transportation. Image my surprise when dispatch contacted the previous plow contractor to sand the roads. A few hours later a pickup comes screaming up the road with a “wheelbarrow” sander in the back attempting to sand – it was a waste and made no difference whatsoever in the conditions, in fact the bus turn around wasn’t even plowed or sanded.
So during the course of the winter to insure that proper record of complaints is filed I suggest that you contact Regional Dispatch at 945-4636. Dispatch will contact the plow contractor and send a duplicate information sheet to the select board – there is no sense getting involved in family matters at the town office.
As was the case years ago, we haven’t learned from out mistakes, we probably will wind up paying out the nose and spending thousands on lawyers and lawsuits. From what I hear we have spent that on lawyers already……
The Public's Trust
The Public’s Trust
It is an honor and privilege to serve as a public official; it is not a position of power or one to reward friends or co-workers or one to seek special favors or for financial gain.
As elected public officials there are certain core values critical to maintaining the public’s trust of their respective local government. Honesty, integrity and openness are some of the moral and ethical values topping the list for public officials.
The Freedom of Information Act, voting and the right to free speech are just some of the protections put in place to allow citizens the right to oversee their governments. While this cannot always stop back room deals and shady business practices, it allows the public a means by which to call out issues of concern. Power and greed many times confuse the issue of doing “what is just and right”.
A short time ago a local resident who was hired as an assistant for the Town of Clifton put forth excellent draft language for ordinance consideration to the board of selectman. There were two draft ordinances, the first related to a “code of ethics” and the second was “provisions for recalling selectman”. Neither of these two documents saw a true reading or public hearing, nor did they get presented to the citizens of the town at the annual town meeting. Instead they were filed away.
The standards to which we hold our public officials are high and rightfully so, with that in mind efforts should be made to insure we have a “code of conduct and ethics” along with “recall” provisions to protect the values and wishes of the residents.
As a member of the CCCC (Concerned Citizens of Clifton Council) it is our hope that selectman will draft a model Ethics and Recall provision can be drafted by Maine Municipal Association and presented to the citizens at the 2011 Annual Spring Meeting.
It is an honor and privilege to serve as a public official; it is not a position of power or one to reward friends or co-workers or one to seek special favors or for financial gain.
As elected public officials there are certain core values critical to maintaining the public’s trust of their respective local government. Honesty, integrity and openness are some of the moral and ethical values topping the list for public officials.
The Freedom of Information Act, voting and the right to free speech are just some of the protections put in place to allow citizens the right to oversee their governments. While this cannot always stop back room deals and shady business practices, it allows the public a means by which to call out issues of concern. Power and greed many times confuse the issue of doing “what is just and right”.
A short time ago a local resident who was hired as an assistant for the Town of Clifton put forth excellent draft language for ordinance consideration to the board of selectman. There were two draft ordinances, the first related to a “code of ethics” and the second was “provisions for recalling selectman”. Neither of these two documents saw a true reading or public hearing, nor did they get presented to the citizens of the town at the annual town meeting. Instead they were filed away.
The standards to which we hold our public officials are high and rightfully so, with that in mind efforts should be made to insure we have a “code of conduct and ethics” along with “recall” provisions to protect the values and wishes of the residents.
As a member of the CCCC (Concerned Citizens of Clifton Council) it is our hope that selectman will draft a model Ethics and Recall provision can be drafted by Maine Municipal Association and presented to the citizens at the 2011 Annual Spring Meeting.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)