Another lawsuit ruling against the Town of Exeter!

Today’s Exeter News-Letter (April 29, 2014) reports that the Town has lost a federal lawsuit on wrongful termination stemming from actions between 2009 and 2010. This loss will cost the Town about $200,000 plus the cost of the Town’s attorney.
This comes on the heels of the Pine Road decision against the Town, the cost of which is yet to be released, but will likely be very expensive.
It also follows the lawsuit filed by former selectman Ferraro that supposedly cost the Town $10,000.
What about the citizens’ lawsuit over the illegal amendments of citizen petition warrant articles at the 2011 Deliberative Session? The Town had to pay those legal fees as well as the fees for the Town’s attorney(s). Those costs were in the order of $15-20,000.
And then there was the complaint by the former Water & Sewer Superintendent. Didn’t the Town settle that by paying about $150,000?
So, because of these lawsuits, the Town (meaning the taxpayers) is probably looking at losses well north of ONE-HALF A MILLION DOLLARS!
Does anyone else see that the common denominator in these adverse legal actions is the Town Manager and his management failures?

Train Station Welcome Center

     A meeting of the Train Committee is scheduled for Monday, April 28th at 5 p.m. In the Chamber of Commerce office.  The agenda includes an update on the Welcome Center project.  As noted in a previous posting, money is still being spent on this project.  The question should be raised whether this is a viable project given the likely high cost.
     Also on the agenda is a discussion of the parking situation at the train station.  This is by far the bigger issue.  The shortage of parking has created issues for merchants in the area.  It undoubtedly stands in the way of increasing ridership and the long term viability of the Downeaster.
     Public input is sorely needed to influence the actions of this committee.  Setting priorities for future proposed spending in light of other costs facing taxpayers is of the utmost importance.

Who's in charge of Board of Selectmen meetings? - Commentary

     Some weeks back Selectman Chartrand basically challenged Don Clement for leadership of the Board by stating the he, as vice chairman, shared leadership responsibilities with the Chairman.  Clement immediately pushed back by pointing out that the vice chair sat in for the chair in his or her absence - period.  There were a number of occasions where Chartrand attempted to influence the running of a meeting.  Well, it seems nothing has changed.
     This was evidenced in the discussions that took place on the proper placing of public comment in the agenda.  There is every reason to believe Chartrand was behind the move and in some manner influenced Chairperson Gilman to make the change.  Why do I say this?  Gilman originally made a feeble attempt to explain her position by saying that residents were speaking at public comment on items placed later on the agenda.  She wanted to see the Board's business carried out in a more efficient manner, thus public comment should be after business was conducted.  (Clearly this ignores the fact that public comment is business for the Board.)  She was corrected when it was pointed out that Clement used to ask those wishing to speak at public comment to hold off on comments on agenda items until they came up.  So, in the final discussion of the placement of public comment Gilman took Chartrand's approach that it often set the tone of the meeting.  Huh?  Chartrand was often the cause of bad tone when he argued with residents or made his demeaning or condescending comments.  When Selectwoman Surman asked Gilman for an example of a meeting going bad because of tone, Gilman did not respond with any.  Truth is, it never happened.  Chartrand cannot handle dissent or criticism and his words and body language speak volumes.
     The question is, will Gilman be her own person or will she be a puppet for Chartrand?  She has the experience to lead the meetings, but does she have the independence?  We are already seeing Selectwoman Belanger take  her lead from Chartrand and since she was hand picked by him  to run for Selectman this is no surprise. 

Board of Selectmen Meeting Minutes

     It was disturbing enough to learn some months back that the Town Manager, Russ Dean, was editing the minutes of the Board of Selectmen meetings.  While he said it was doing so to correct grammar, spelling and such, the very fact that he was handling the minutes raised serious questions.  Were minutes being "sanitized?"  Whether he is still doing this or not is uncertain.  Now we find the public cannot amend meeting minutes found to be incomplete or incorrect.
     Last evening Brian Griset attempted to have the Board amend the minutes of a previous meeting to accurately state what he had said at that meeting.  His request was voted down on the basis that there is no provision for a member of the public to amend meeting minutes.  Selectwoman Surman was the only member of the Board that showed common sense when she stated that she saw no good reason why amendments requested by the public could not be made to correct the record.
     What was very troubling was Selectman Chartrand's comment that the minutes were a summary of the meeting and did not have to be in detail.  This is absurd and he should know better.  The minutes of the Board of Selectmen meetings are legal documents (as Frank Ferraro stated later in the discussion) and as such have been used in court cases to support a particular position.  The video record of the meetings are not archived for a particularly long period of time, while written minutes are kept for quite some time and are often used as a reference in subsequent meetings.
     If Chartrand's view was pursued (and that seems to be the case), then who makes the decision what is included and what is not in the minutes?  The recorder?  The Town Manager when he edits the minutes for "grammar and spelling?"  How is anyone who goes before the Board assured that there is an accurate recording of their issue?  The voted upon decision?  How about public comment?  Are those remarks excluded because they might place the Board in a bad light?  (This was the argument used to unilaterally decide to move public comment to the end of the meeting as it "often set a bad tone for the meeting.")  We have seen repeated instances of the minutes being incomplete and attempts to amend defeated.
     The audacity of this Board, save a couple of saner heads, to run things their own way needs to cease.  These folks should know and follow the laws and established procedures in conducting Town business and to focus on serving residents and not themselves.  We will continue to police them and to communicate here and in the local newspapers when they step out of line.  We need to be able to at least trust our Town government to act in an ethical manner.

Public Comment - The public prevails

     Tonight, Selectwoman Gilman broke the tie by voting to keep public comment as the fourth item on the agenda following bid openings.  The vote followed discussion by Board members and then those of the public present.  Selectman Chartrand commented that they had voted Gilman to chair the Board and he would follow her wishes.  Selectman Clement and Selectwoman Surman commented in favor of having public comment at the beginning of the meeting.  Gilman read from a paper a prepared statement that, in summary, showed her position to be to have public comment at the end of the meeting.  She, in the space of two weeks, changed her reasoning to be that of Chartrand's that having comment at the beginning of the meeting often set a bad tone for the entire meeting.  Surman asked Gilman for an example of such a disrupted meeting and Gilman could produce none.
     Public comment from more than a half dozen in attendance spoke unanimously to keeping public comment at the beginning of the meeting.  Even Bill Campbell, a former Selectman, felt strongly that it should remain at the beginning.
     A motion was made by Clement to leave public comment fourth on the agenda and Surman seconded the motion.  Again Chartrand said he would go along with whatever Gilman wished.  But catch this.  When Gilman asked for a vote, Chartrand and Bellanger (no surprise) voted against the motion and Gilman had not yet voted.  So much for Chartrand voting to support Gilman as she voted to approve the motion, breaking the tie. 

Demolition on 1 Franklin Street

     Acting with an approval in hand, Al Lampert gave his contractor permission to commence demolition.  Al had already expressed to the Historic District Commission (HDC) that it was commercially impractical to save any of the "historic" walls of the old garage.  In fact, in trying to save some of the internal block wall he was asking for approval for a building 35 foot in height, which exceeded the 25 feet allowed.  He and his team of architects had been sent back to the drawing board for a redo once again at a cost to him.
     It really did seem like an endless gauntlet to obtain a final approval from the HDC and send the project along to the Planning Board.  It is difficult not to understand the frustration of this developer trying to do right by the downtown and to make major improvements to a very rundown part of downtown.  It is difficult to see this property as being the "gateway" to downtown given it is off the beaten path and is only seen by a driver entering Exeter from High Street at his or her peril of slamming into a pedestrian or vehicle in an often congested Water Street.
     Pam Gjettum, HDC chairwoman, clearly demonstrated a lack of professionalism in her recorded interview with the Exeter News-Letter.  "Outraged" at the audacity of Al Lampert to legitimately proceed with demolition, she stated, "I personally would never give him permission to do anything."  This certainly brings into question her ability to continue functioning on the HDC where much of what is deliberated upon is subjective or opinion.  She seems to be taking matters far too personally in a job that requires a collaborative approach to working with developers.
       

Let's see some serious Town financial goals.

     One really does wonder if it is arrogance, inattention, lack of interest or what when we learn that those responsible for spending tax dollars don't spend it wisely.  It really does seem that those in town management look at property tax payers as one big piggy bank.  For instance, there was much chest beating on the part of some members of the Board of Selectmen and the Town Manager when they reduced the proposed 2014 budget increase from 4.4% to 2.78%.  But, for those who witnessed the meeting as the Board reviewed proposed reductions, it seemed a bit of theater.
     Town Manager, Russ Dean went down a list of proposed reductions that his department managers offered as items they could forgo.  When they reached their goal of a 1.5% reduction, they stopped, leaving $250,000 in proposed reductions not addressed.  Then when then Selectman Ferraro offered tens of thousands more in proposed reductions, he was ignored.  It is difficult to find any good reason why the Board did not complete the review of proposed reductions, particularly when they were ones proposed by department heads saying they would not affect services.
     There are some who feel that running a business and running a town are not the same.  That is, a business manager could not function in town government.  That is the dumbest and most arrogant comment one could make.  Management principles are transferable and particularly in the budgeting process.  It is a matter of attitude and believing and practicing in service to the customer.  Not just in delivering services because it seems near universal that the Town delivers good services.  But,  how efficient and cost effective are these services?  Therein lies a fertile area for some serious work.  Hopefully, when the Board of Selectman set goals for 2014 they will consider some reaching goals in the financial area for Town management to work to achieve on behalf of the taxpayers.  And, by the way, why did department heads have money in the proposed budget for items the town did not need to provide services?  This should send a strong signal to Budget Recommendation Committee members.

Spend like it was your own money?

     A little bird told me that the Highway Department has decided to keep the sand spreaders on their dump trucks a little while longer just in case we get some snow or ice.  As a result, the DPW had to use two front-end loaders to move the sand pile at the Simpson pit (on Cross Road) from one location to another, a very inefficient process.

      What is more concerning is that when it came time for a coffee break, I have been told that those DPW workers drove the two loaders about 2.5 miles to the Deep Meadow store and then back to the pit. It had to have taken them more than an hour to get there, get their coffee and get back to work; and there were two of them. Think of the cost in manpower and fuel to just go get coffee.

     Are either of these activities really responsible use of taxpayers’ money?

     Couldn’t DPW wait until the spreaders were taken off the trucks to move the sand pile?

     Couldn’t the management of DPW let the loader operators use a pickup truck to go get their coffee?

     Every little bit of inefficiency costs us money we didn't have to spend.  It is a matter of attitude and that starts at the top with management.

The continuing saga of 1 Franklin Street.

     For those readers who do not check the Town's website for scheduled meetings, the Historic District Commission is meeting at 7 pm, Thursday, April 17th.  On the agenda are continuing discussions of Al Lampert's proposed mixed use development of his property where the garage now stands.  Al could use some who support his efforts to attend and show an interest and speak out at the appropriate time.  The review of his plans by the HDC has gone on long enough.  It is time he receive approval to proceed with demolition as the construction season has started and time is a wasting.

TIF - What is the will of the people?

     Kathy Corson spoke up in Friday's TIF sub-committee meeting stating exactly what was included in an earlier post (3/27) on this blog.  The voters defeated Article 19 that would have allowed the Town to adopt a tax incentive financing district.  Why?  Shouldn't open hearings be held to try to elicit the answer.  The Town Manager's argument against open hearings is that usually some proposal is presented for those present to comment upon.  In this case there is no well defined proposal.
     It could be countered that the TIF sub-committee could present their goal and an outline of their plan.  They do have a goal and that is to establish a "piggy bank" (Sylvia von Aulock's words) to fund downtown improvement projects.  And, they have an outline of a plan (their latest draft report from October) that could be used to spell out the direction they propose to go.  While the chairman of the sub-committee wishes to go full speed ahead on a detailed TIF proposal, no one supported Corson's proposal of holding some open informational sessions.  Again the committee feels they understand the will of the people and that it was voted down because of a few "mischief makers" (Dan Chartrand's words) and lack of education on the TIF plan.
     The Town needs to repair the sidewalks and $80,000 was voted to start the process.  The question is, what other projects are needed downtown to remedy the "wear and tear" that the sub-committee feels is keeping downtown from realizing its full potential to attract visitors?  One can readily see that business/building owners need to spend some money scraping and painting and repairing the glazing in storefront windows.  A few trees either need to be replaced or pruned.  The street pavement is a disaster.  Just these items alone would improve downtown's appearance.  The Town and business owners share responsibility for these items. 
     Al Lampert is already into the process of developing his properties on Franklin Street.  Eric Chinburg has just filed his application to develop property on Chestnut Street and will soon be going before the ZBA.  So, where is the need to set up a TIF district if development is already taking place?
     It should be noted that timing is the issue in being able to take advantage of the cash for the "piggy bank" (TIF) that these anchor projects might provide.  But, is TIF just another way to get money for downtown beautification projects that were voted down in previous years?  The question that needs to be answered is, "Should the incremental property tax receipts go to downtown projects or to the general fund and schools to pay for other needed projects?"  What is the will of the people?

Development in Exeter - Not a favorable climate

     Town Planner, Sylvia von Aulock, sits along side the Planning Board at hearings as their technical advisor and is an active participant.  Apparently this is as it should be, but what is troubling is the manner in which she participates.  Witness past meetings wherein she kept coming forward, from meeting to meeting, with additional requirements for the Exeter Sportsman Club to respond to.  Finally, to put a stop to what appeared to be delaying tactics on her part, the Board was requested to prepare a complete and final listing of their concerns (there ended up being about 17) and to present them to the Club to respond to at a future meeting.  A satisfactory response would then lead to approval to proceed.
     The problem with von Aulock sitting on the Planning Board is that we see her bring her personal opinions forth instead of declaring whether the project conforms to the regulations and to the Technical Committee's comments.  In fact, the Site regulations state that she (the Technical Committee chair) is supposed to submit the Technical Committee's written comments to the Board before the hearing on a project.  This has not been the case.  She often hits the developer with her personal comments either the day before, or day of, the hearing or, more troubling at the hearing.  Is she so busy she cannot meet the requirements of the Site regulations?  The fact is that the regulations specifically state that all review by the technical committee, which she is the head, MUST be completed at least 10 days before the hearing to allow the public notice to be published. Yet year after year, time and again Ms. von Aulock violates the regulations by adding additional issues and personal comments of her own at the last minute causing additional delays in the approval process.
     Her failure to respond as required is a disservice to the developer.  It likely leads to unnecessary additional hearings as the developer and/or architect is unable to prepare for what could be a shorter, more focused meeting and a follow up meeting is bound to be required.  This type of approach leads to nit picking and personal agenda items not supported by regulations and drives up the project costs for the developer.  So, one continues to ask, "Is Exeter really a favorable place for developers to do business?" 
        

Who oversees the Boards and Commissions?

     Accountability has two sides.  One is being accountable for doing one's job and being responsible for the results.  The other is being held accountable for not doing what is not one's responsibility.  It is this latter that is most troubling when viewing the actions of some of our town's Boards and Commissions. 
     When a Board or Commission is called upon to review and act upon a matter brought before them by a citizen, it is expected that they will deliberate within approved guidelines, regulations and laws within the authority of their respective body.  When they venture outside these boundaries and inject their subjective views and opinions they are violating their mandate.  The trouble is, no one seems to be in a hierarchical position to correct their behavior.  Since there is a Selectman assigned to each Board and Commission, one would think that maybe that is his or her job, but that is not clear.  Thus, it seems to be left up to the person seeking the Board or Commission's action to challenge them when they drift onto a tangent.  Unfortunately this individual is in an awkward position to do this since it could negatively impact receiving a sought after approval.
     Fortunately, there are legal remedies available to the citizen.  In the case of a Planning Board issue, the matter can be taken to the Zoning Board of Adjustment.  Or, if the matter is serious enough, to Superior Court.  Again, the negativity of taking either action could "poison the well" for future dealings.
     The Exeter New-Letter printed a well stated editorial in Tuesday's paper bringing to its readers the plight of Al Lampert trying to gain approval to begin development of proposed projects on his properties on Franklin Street.  The newspaper ended by stating that it is hoped that Al's return to the Historic District Commission on April 17th will result in a long overdue approval that he seeks to allow demolition to begin.  While he could certainly proceed as in the previous paragraph, all would be better served if the Commission issued the approval that is due him.