"RE-ESTABLISHING CONSOLIDATION COMMITTEE
Selectman Patton commented that this can be a tool for the Town to have the Board of Finance, the Board of Education and the Board of Selectmen, along with staff, meet periodically to discuss different issues and problems. We can all offer solutions and ideas in terms of good relations, not us vs. them. We have different budgets but the money comes out of the same pocket. It worked well when we consolidated finances and went on to technology issues. It is a good planning tool. It is an avenue for all factions of the Town to talk, discuss problems, look at today and the future. Selectman Blessington asked what decision making power does it have? If you create a commission that does not have authority, people from the Board of Finance, Board of Education,Board of Selectmen and staff, they have to go back to their Board. It seems like creating a commission without real power is just for show.
Selectman Patton commented that if you have a formal committee it gives people an agenda, you can’t speak for a board as a whole but we never got into a real problem. Talk is not such a bad thing, it is a good thing. These people could come up with some recommendations, everyone thinks their problems are the most important; we need to deal with things collectively. We need to think and plan which way to go. First Selectman Eldredge commented that he understands his points but has a hard time supporting that idea. We can work back and forth; we solve problems by being asked. This is just another bureaucracy; he doesn’t feel like it is a plus. Selectman Patton asked what does it hurt? Many times when someone asks for help it is too late. First Selectman Eldredge commented that he agrees there needs to be interaction but in retrospect when he was a Board of Education member and financial consolidation took place, he felt that he lost the ability to act upon each financial detail. Selectman Blessington commented that we are creating bureaucracy that I do not see will really accomplish anything that can’t be accomplished at meetings; maybe we should have a meeting of the 3 organizations to see how they feel. They must have decision-making powers or it is not worth doing. Selectman Patton asked how do you think things get done? You have to look 10 years out; we should get together to plan things. First Selectman Eldredge commented that he
does not feel comfortable re-establishing this. Selectman Blessington commented me either.
SELECTMAN PATTON MOVED THAT WE APPROACH THE BOARD OF
EDUCATION AND THE BOARD OF FINANCE AND STAFF TO FORM A CONSOLIDATION COMMITTEE.There was no seconded. Motion fails."
Any thoughts on the Board of Education's request?
21 comments:
Once again, Mr. Eldredge and Mr. Blessington have proven that 1) they do not have the best interests of the townspeople at heart and 2) instead of creating "open" lines of communication that would lead to better decisions for all boards, they opted to keep that information to themselves.
It's clear what type of government they want for this town. When you realize how control hungry they are and couple that with the fact that they orchestrated the mass cross-endorsement on all the boards for this election, the picture comes into view.
Let's hope that this time around they will see the light and support better communication. And maybe even offer an explanation other than "no comment" to the rest of us.
So much for the "open" government they promised voters in the last election.
Boomerang you obviously have a short memory it was Patton and Lewis who tried to micromanage every aspect of the town government. So who really is the control freak. You need to open your eyes to reality.
to anonymous: You will find that there is a difference between "micromanaging" and advocating your position in full view of the public.
The committee that the Board of Education is proposing and the one I advocated for will allow the board members to recognize problems or issues sooner rather than later. It can also clear up any misunderstandings or miscommunications so they don't fester.
Unfortunately, my colleagues feel that anything that takes away from their 2-1 vote on the Board of Selectmen is a detriment to their power base. As an example, if you remember Eldredge/Blessington voted to hire a new law firm as Town attorney without interviewing any other law firm. They also hired the firm to handle Planning and Zoning, Zoning Board of Appeals and Inland Wetlands issues. The problem was that they didn't tell those boards. My suggestion to them from the beginning was to interview a few firms with the capabilites they were looking for and include members from the other commissions. That idea was shot down by Eldredge/Blessington. As it turned out, the other Boards decided they were happy with their present counsel and stayed with the one they had. Hence, we now have a high-powered Hartford law firm that charges more than we paid before because of lack of communication. The law firms are good firms but communication would have avoided the duplication of capabilites.
Willington Taxpayer
Concerning law firms used by the town would you please say what you said in another way. I did not understand it at all.
You said Eldredge/Blessington hired a new Town Attorney and also hired the same attorney to represent other boards.
Then you said the other boards remained with their past attorney.
This does not make any sense at all.
Which is it? Did Eldredge/Blessington hire an attorney for the other boards or not? If Eldredge/Blessington hired an attorney to represent the other Boards why do they still have their past attorney?
The answer to these questions is obvious. As all are well aware (or at least should be) BOS cannot hire an attorney for the other Boards.
As far as lack of communication, it is my understanding the Town has had a different attorney representing the town as relating to the various boards.
Under Patton/Lewis (Sentinels having a 2-1 margin on BOS)it is my belief there was an attorney representing the town and a seperate attorney representing other boards.
If this is true (I will stand corrected if fact shows)where does lack of communication come into this? This is apples to apples.
Eldrege/Blessington did appoint a town attorney as Patton/Lewis selected their attorney.
Eldredge/Blessington did inform all other Boards of their choice for Town Attorney. They also suggested these Boards consider using the same attorney to improve and streamline communications.
The other Boards chose to remain with their past counsel, as is their right as independent Boards.
What is wrong here?
In my opinion Willington Taxpayer is once again attempting to mislead and deceive the townspeople of Willington.
Eldredge/Blessington did not hire an attorney to represent any board other than Board of Selectmen. It is the obligation of the BOS to retain counsel as it is the obligation of other Boards to select counsel.
The disdain of townspeople exhibited is beyond belief.
to anonymous: Of course, the BOS has every right to hire their own legal counsel. The primary rationale for hiring
the big law firm was the principal's expertise in land-use issues. Why would the BOS need expertise in land-use issues? The firm would also charge us a lower hourly rate if the firm handled all of our legal work. Since Blessington/Eldredge wanted to go with one law firm for the Town (and I could make good arguments for that case), it made sense to me to get the other players involved like P&Z, ZBA and Wetlands, for a meeting of the minds to go in that direction and (here is the important part) collectively interview firms and select a firm they would all be comfortable with. In the present case, it was hire first, tell the other Boards this was the decision. When the members of the boards said they are not going along, it then became merely a suggestion. Because there was no communication, we now have a big Hartford law firm, with capabilities we don't need, all because there was no attempt at communication. I would never argue that the Board of Selectmen can't have their own legal counsel.
The only disdain I see for the Townspeople is an administration that feels the need to consistently work behind closed doors. Eldredge/Blessington never attempt to debate ideas, inform the public or have committees of other people because they would have to present and defend their ideas. Informing townspeople of what is happening is a critical part of leading the Town and it includes being available to reporters even when it is inconvenient. Informing townspeople, in and of itself, is not an easy thing in this Town where we have no reliable media outlet that covers the Town. Informing residents was one of the reasons the Willington website was created. I am sure that you subscribe to the minutes and agendas which was our attempt to help alleviate the problem of accessing information.
I sincerely appreciate you taking the time to be a part of this blog even if you don't agree with me. As I said before, I have no problem defending my opinions and statements in public.
The issue still remains. What do you think of the idea of an interboard committee? I believe it is a good idea for all of the reasons mentioned in the original post and more.
My thought is that a formal committee would not be constructive for the town or the members of each board.
Should a committee be formed it will just add one more layer in our government with no defined purpose. Also this could be used politically.
An informal meeting between the various boards would be a good idea, in my opinion, for the purpose of discussing how they all work together.
Should these dicussions lead to a specific area that should be addressed by a committee then a committee should be formed for that purpose only.
As we all know when a committee is formed it will come up with something as that is the reason for being.
By all means let the various boards meet together to discuss issues.
Maybe the town could rent the fire house and provide a modest lunch for all members to discuss their relations. Call it a workshop if you will. No need for guest speakers or lawyers, just our town governemt working to improve communication.
I think that might work.
Re: rationale for hiring BOS lawyer was expertise in land use.
Although the firm hired by Eldredge/Blessington does have expertise in land use it is hard to make the statement that this was the reason they were retained.
This firm was retained for the purpose of representing the BOS in town issues. They did offer a reduced rate should they have more business from the town. This is a normal business practice. In no way did BOS hire this firm based on the other boards using them.
The reason, in my opinion, that town counsel was changed is twofold, at least.
First:
It is normal for any administration to retain counsel they are comfortable with. Patton/Lewis did exactly the same thing.
Second:
There was, and remains, a serious issue concerning use of legal counsel by the Patton/Lewis administration.
A legal opinion was obtained and paid for by the town concerning eligibility of Mr. Eldredge to run for and serve as First Selectman of Willington.
The cost of this legal opinion has not been fully disclosed although it is in the range of thousands of dollars.
This cost to the town was incurred by Mr. Patton, serving as First Selectman, without any consent, or awareness of the BOS.
As Mr. Eldredge was running against Mr. Patton for the office of First Selectman, the appearance of misuse of town funds is evident.
For these reasons alone a change in town counsel was warrented.
to anonymous:
I am confused, you are against a formal committee of the various boards but would be in favor of an informal committee of the boards? I guess the distinction is that the informal committee would meet only once?
Communication is not a one time event. It is an ongoing activity that is necessary for an open government to function properly.
regarding anonymous comment on legal counsel:
It was very easy to make the statement that the reason the firm was retained was because of their expertise in land use. I was there. Blessington has never hidden the fact that he wanted to get rid of the current land-use attorney and this was his way to do it.
As stated previously, I never had an issue with them hiring an attorney they feel comfortable with.
As far as legal opinion regarding Mr. Eldredge serving as Selectman, no one questioned his right to run for any office. The opinion was requested after the election because the question was raised whether he can serve on the board and as an employee that reports directly to the board. In other words, can a person report to themselves? The answer was no. The Board of Selectmen then made changes to the jobs by moving the transfer station operator under public works and reconstituting the Recreation Commission. I don't see anything nefarious there.
As far as cost goes, the bills have been public record for four years. If you were so curious, why didn't you just ask for them? Again, there doesn't appear to be any mystery.
The question again is raised. What do you think of the idea of a multi-board commission?
If you will look at the A Sentinel Party link you will find the mission statement that Al and I wrote back in '95. It includes the pledge to create communication between the boards and commissions and the towns people. We accomplished this. The present administration has not followed through with this idea. It has been proposed by Patton and ignored by M&JB. It maybe due to some problem with trying to communicate with educated people.
Commission or Committee?
This is exactly what people are concerned about. A committee is proposed with no guidelines. Then in a matter of a few days it becomes a commission. At that point we have a problem, as to form a commission of independant boards whould certainly violate their independance.
I am only going on what you say. Look at what you have posted and you will note you have moved from committee to commission.
Committees and Commissions are two seperate animals.
Regarding legal fees, the timing of when the opinion was requested, the minutes of BOS authorizing this expenditure, and the total cost should be posted.
I believe the past is the past. Should you wish to have the research done on this issue it will be done.
Say so clearly and I will work on it.
You seem to only want to argue semantics and not answer the question.
Whether it's a committee or a commission, the idea that members of each board would get together to share information and maybe even strategize is a sound one. The fear that this would "violate" the individuals board's independence doesn't seem to be a rational one. This committee, commission, coffee clatch or "elected board member club" (whatever you want call it) could be designed in such as way as to not allow this to happen.
I think we should give our boards all the resources they need to make sound decisions and do their jobs. This means giving them access to information. How else do you propose they get this information? And how could this not benefit all townspeople of this generation and the ones to come?
To JACK - ASP "problem with trying to communicate with educated people" Quite an insight you provide to how your party thinks.
boomerang, you stole my answer. I have to wonder why a committee/commission/board set up to provide a public forum for exchanging information and discussing ideas is so controversial. It seems information must be controlled and filtered and shared with only a few people at a time. Every time I have suggested a committee to investigate some options or plans, it gets shot down.
to anonymous: knock yourself out and do the research. While you are at it, please find the BOS authorizations for other legal expenditures during the past years.
Willington Taxpayer:
You seem to have the information at hand on many issues but publish only that which appears beneficial to ASP.
As a matter of course it is important to note your effort to deflect the conversation by stating that other legal fees should be looked into.
This issue is simple. You have raised the subject of legal costs to the Town. You did so in a discussion of should we have a committee or commission comprised of various boards of the Town.
It is my belief that what you have stated is not true in fact. I also believe you have made a consience decision to not present the facts in an effort to mislead.
Semantics?
A town commission of boards (if you have never seen a non-sequitor you have now) is comparable to a "coffee clatch"?
Jack just maybe correct concerning communication.
If Mr./Ms. Anonymous is an elected board member, I'm sorry to all those elected board members who would be in the position to drink coffee and chat with this person if the idea the BoE put forth comes to life in any shape or form.
Clearly, Mr./Ms. Anonymous isn't interested in sharing information and building relationships and would rather create controversy, spread lies and put our elected officials at risk of doing a poor job because they don't have the information they need.
Anonymous said: "Willington Taxpayer, You seem to have the information at hand on many issues but publish only that which appears beneficial to ASP."
You complain about how John only talks about things that benefit ASP, and isn't it ironic that he doesn't delete all of your ANTI-ASP rants? If you were in his shoes, would you give him the same courtesy?
To Raplph Tulis: Of course you would think it's a good idea. You ran as a Sentinel before didn't you? The whole idea is an attempt to create another bureaucracy with no accountability to the people. It is nothing more than Patton trying to find a way to control things because he can't win at the voting booth.
Who knows where to download XRumer 5.0 Palladium?
Help, please. All recommend this program to effectively advertise on the Internet, this is the best program!
Post a Comment