Over the last eight months, one has, with all too much frequency, been witness to a deliberatory process by some officials based upon the practice of “Situational Convenience” as opposed to one grounded in the principle of “Argument Consistency”.
Situational Convenience allows an individual to deliberate issues before them based upon what it most convenient at the time in order to achieve or facilitate their personal proclivities. It affords one the luxury of taking contradictory and inconsistent positions at will, in direct response to the particular matter at hand. Argument Consistency, dictates a deliberatory process grounded in arguing positions consistently based upon principle, even when said principle is in opposition to one’s personal desires. It directs an individual to maintain consistency in approach and continuity of character so that all matters are deliberated with the highest level of intellectual honesty.
Undoubtedly, Situational Convenience provides immense freedom from the burdens associated with doing the principled thing, i.e. the right thing. As well, it spares one the need to become overly concerned with the details surrounding one’s position or those pesky reservations about bogging oneself down with the need to deliberate honestly and consistently.
Situational Convenience allows one the opportunity to argue for example, the extreme importance of obtaining Department Head input into the hiring of a new Town Administrator (T.A.) one week, then using said input to reject those finalists (for “unknown” reasons), while arguing their input as irrelevant several weeks later as it related to extending (in direct contradiction to the Town Charter) the term of our part-time/ interim Town Administrator.
Situational Convenience provides one the luxury of dismissing the sanctity of the Charter and characterizing that which is obviously clear and convincing language as merely “suggestive”, in one breath, while earlier conveying to the Building Inspector that the sign by-laws are “very clear” and “need to be enforced” with the next breath. For the record, the Town Charter, Zoning Bylaws, and General Bylaws all use the very same language, in the very same format, and provide the very same unequivocal strength of mandate.
The advantage of Situational Convenience is that it allows an individual to argue on the one hand that “we should always follow Town Counsels opinion whether we agree with it or not” (B.O.S. Chairwoman - Monday, January 4, 2010), while earlier arguing against Town Counsel’s opinion when said opinion suggested that the Chairwoman should leave the room during discussions pertaining to the appointment of a second Search Committee. During a meeting held Thursday, September 24, 2009, Chairman Blanchard challenged Town Counsels opinion that she should have no physical presence in the room during the committee appointment discussions and acquiesced only after considerable debate and a personal request from the B.O.S. vice-Chairman. In response to his request some 5 minutes into the discussion, Mrs. Blanchard replied, “Well Scott, seeing as your requesting that, I’ll abide by your request”. Her decision to comply with the request of myself and the vice-Chair had nothing to do with “following Town Counsel’s opinion”.
Situational Convenience as well, allows one the flexibility to be arbitrary and capricious in the execution of authority. For example, one can choose to extend a 200 gallon per day sewer request to a well known individual in August, while arguing against a similar request in December from one who is lesser known; this despite the situations being identical. To be clear, I voted for the request in August and would do it again today. I was quite prepared to support the December request were it brought to a vote. Simply stated there was no concrete rationale not to support these requests.
Perhaps one of the most beneficial aspects of Situational Convenience is that allows one to make countless campaign promises when seeking votes that become summarily jettisoned once the oath of office has been taken. Situational Convenience allows one to state that “Providing leadership as a selectman requires an open mind and a willingness to listen. I firmly believe that the town deserves an open board that is accessible to everyone” while simultaneously demonstrating the reverse. Equally, Situational Convenience allows one to state that they “will be a voice for open, accessible government that considers all sides of every issue” while practicing to the contrary.
There is nothing magical or special in terms of the Argument Consistency approach to reasoning, nor is it in any way remarkable; it is simply based upon good old fashioned honesty. I grew up in the projects (Great Brook Valley) and low-income districts in Worcester - Kilby Street and Gardner Streets. We had little, but my dad believed that regardless of what you did or did not have, you were certainly wealthy if you had integrity. I pray each day that I shall (as used in the mandatory) remain faithful to this approach engendered to me by my dad; a WW II marine veteran with an eighth-grade education. He was unmistakably, the smartest man I have ever known. He died 21 years ago at the age of 70. I endeavor always to honor his life with integrity.
In closing, I am obligated to share the following. During the two years prior to my January 2009 entry into the political arena, I strongly advocated against the politics of special-interest determinations and what I viewed as selective representation. I argued against what I believed to be “Situationally Convenient” deliberations by the Board at that time. I was quick to point out what I viewed as inconsistencies in their approach and the lack of balance. Though I still disagree with many of their positions taken at that time, I must admit that those inconsistencies were minor in magnitude in comparison to what is now taking place.
In support of what I believed was much needed change, I provided sustenance through blog postings, research, and letters to the editor for some who now themselves engage in acts that are, in my estimation, more egregious than any previously witnessed. Said postings, research, and letters were always factually based, honestly developed, and objectively vetted, though not void of my opinion either. Sadly however, the last eight months have resulted for me, in a rather telling evolution; such being that the selective self-interest governance I was so concerned with prior to January 2009, now appears so relatively minor and pale in comparison to those things I’ve witnessed as of late. In hindsight, things then may not have been so bad after all when taken on the whole in contrast to this era.
There’s an old saying about such things, “be careful what you wish for, you might just get it”.
Read more!
Friday, January 8, 2010
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Dismayed, Disappointed, But Ever More Determined
As we embark upon a new year, one accompanied with fresh opportunities, hopes, and dreams, there is pause to reflect upon the aspirations, expectations and prospects of a year now gone. Certainly for me, the past year has witnessed its share of excitement, expectation, and exuberance. As well, it has offered its share of dismay, disappointment, and disbelief.
The past year has proven to be an "eye-opening" experience that all too frequently has been witness to a one-dimensional, self-serving, and dishonest approach as it relates to important issues facing this community. During this period, I have gained deeper insights into not only the people, but the process of local governance. Suffice to say, I have encountered my share of disillusionment with this process, but equally so, I have gained a deeper appreciation for the importance of balance and moderation. During this period I have gained a deeper appreciation for the efforts of our Community Preservation Committee (CPC), the Conservation Commission (ConCom), the Public Lands Advisory Committee (PLAC), the Recreation Committee, and the Economic Development Committee (EDC). Each of these entities is crucial to the prosperity and protection of our community.
The year started with high hopes for me as two freshman selectmen were closing in on their first complete year and one had dreams of significant progress with their increasing experience and comfort level. Equally so however, doubts lingered and I decided to enter the race for selectman as a means of spiriting dialogue on important issues facing this community. With low expectations of earning a seat on the Board, but grateful for the opportunity to engage residents during my door-to-door campaign, I was no doubt exuberant when the final results came in.
That exuberance would guide my approach in terms of fulfilling campaign promises grounded in objective, principled, and accountable representation. Those pledges included the establishment of a coalition of business owners, government representatives, and residents in an effort to address the economic challenges facing our community. This alliance gave birth to the Merchants of Sturbridge, whose efforts have been well documented, requiring no redundancy here.
As well, there was significant progress made in terms of public access to information as each of the Charter designated boards/committees previously not offering on-line access to meeting minutes, has now implemented protocols to do so. We are grateful for their efforts. Equally so, the issues surrounding telecommunications service in Sturbridge - though previously relegated to little more than lip service - have been addressed frankly, directly, and comprehensively. There has been a significant push in terms of prioritizing this issue that has been chronicled here. One is cautiously optimistic that significant progress is unfolding and those efforts will soon bear fruit. To that end, we should be most grateful for the efforts of those members serving on the Cable Advisory Committee, in particular Jean Bubon, Mary Afable, and Al Jones.
There has also been progress in terms of the Town’s overall approach to management of the Sturbridge Landfill/Recycling Center. Increased cooperation among several members of the Board of Selectmen (B.O.S.) has resulted in better communication and collaboration with the Board of Health (B.O.H.). To that end, new initiatives currently being developed by the B.O.H. (including green proposals), will be soon forthcoming and there is little doubt that these initiatives will increase the efficiency of the Landfill/Recycling Center. One is grateful for the efforts of these elected health officials and their appointees.
The success of the Burgess School renovation proposal manifested as a result not of any efforts undertaken by the B.O.S., but rather in direct proportion to the outstanding labors undertaken by the members of the Burgess School Building Committee. They are to be congratulated, as they bear the rightful ownership of the success associated with this project.
In terms of the Town’s sewer service area, we have initiated discussions and have undertaken preliminary efforts towards identifying weaknesses in the current plan, most notably the lack of infrastructure on Route 15. One is hopeful that we will accomplish something substantial in the near future. To that end, one is grateful for the efforts of Selectman Ted Goodwin and his willingness to engage in an "alternate models approach". As well, Selectman Scott Garieri has provided support in terms of problem-solving this issue. This collaborative effort will no doubt result in a more pragmatic and progressive solution to some of the issues inherent with the current service area. The challenge before us now is refocusing our efforts, which for too long have been needlessly distracted elsewhere due to a Board member's personal proclivities.
There is still work to be done in terms of senior services and additional efforts are forthcoming. So too, I believe we need to develop a more practical user-friendly approach as it relates to the immediacy of resident access to pending budget requests. This will provide taxpayers with the ability to assess the tax impact of proposed requests in terms of their aggregate effect, as opposed to the more historical approach that tends to view such somewhat in isolation.
Certainly, over the last six months our focus has been by need, redirected to the appointment of a new Town Administrator (T.A.). The departure of our former T.A. has created a void requiring attention. Sadly however, there remains little doubt that a strong argument could be offered to suggest that this relatively straightforward process (or so one would think) has been plagued with missteps, misdirection, misinformation, and misrepresentation.
The self indulging approach undertaken by the B.O.S. Chair in personally voicing her opposition to individual Search Committee members relative to their established qualifications, coupled with her questionable participation in the committee selection process, as well as her involvement in discussions surrounding a complaint submitted to the B.O.S. by her husband, leave little doubt in my mind of her inability to objectively and fairly execute her duties. These actions and others chronicled here have resulted in a significant level of personal disappointment in terms of the high regard I previously held for this individual.
Adding to this disappointment, is the dismay experienced as a result of the attempts by Chairman Blanchard and our part-time T.A. to subordinate and usurp the very constitution of our community - the Sturbridge Town Charter. The first attempt dealt with an effort to wrestle control of Board of Health (B.O.H.) personnel away from their appointing authority, that being, the Board of Health. Basing their argument upon a favorable legal “opinion” from Town Counsel, which was squarely in opposition to the Town Charter, Mrs. Blanchard and Mr. Racicot sought B.O.S. support for this incursion into the sovereignty of the Board of Health. Their efforts were rejected by a majority of selectmen. Those efforts have been previously chronicled here.
This of course was followed by a second activist interpretation of the Town Charter by Mrs. Blanchard and Mr. Racicot (buttressed by another favorable legal “opinion”), seeking the extension of our agreement with the part-time/interim T.A.; this despite clear and convincing Charter language to the contrary. This effort proved successful as three members of the Board of Selectmen voted to support what amounts to a weakening of our constitution. Further information on this subject can be accessed here.
Though this issue is now behind us and one is resolved to live with the outcome, (that is after all, the role of democracy), it is wise to bear in mind that the occurrence of a single successful encroachment upon the documents held sacred relative to our town governance, will most assuredly lead to others. The gates have been opened and this should stir concern in all of us for despite one’s position in terms of this particular issue, there will undoubtedly come other excursions involving interpretist activism regarding the Charter. When such occurs, individuals may side differently on the particular issue in question, arguing vigorously in defense of the sanctity of our Charter. Sadly, the horse has now left the stable and reining him back will prove a very difficult endeavor. Such after all, is the nature of horses.
There was as well, a significant level of disbelief in terms of the misrepresentative statements made by at least 2 members of the B.O.S. One such case involved the most egregious of human failings, that being the bearing of false witness against a human being, as exemplified by one member of the B.O.S. It is one thing (though certainly wrong) for an individual to misstate the truth, as this particular individual has on several occasions; it is another entirely for that same individual to bear false witness. There is in my view, no greater sin than to bear false witness against a fellow human being. To specifically state that someone has done something, which one knows not to be true is the worst character defect an individual can harbor. To experience such was no doubt the lowest point of my year. I am still at a loss to understand the motivation of this particular colleague, chronicled here. The character failings of this individual were to say the least, disheartening. Yet, one is reminded that there is little benefit in dwelling on such things. Though our relationship has sustained irreversible damage, the need to work in a cooperative manner is vital to this community's success; thus, it is necessary to move on.
Equally troubling have been the misstatements – i.e. multiple broken promises of an individual once highly regarded by me. Pledging to “be a voice for open, accessible government that considers all sides of every issue” our chairman has (in my view), been anything but. Instead It is my firm believe that she has misused her position to better situate herself in a manner most influential and beneficial to her personal proclivities. This of course, with one goal in mind. As well Madam Chair has regularly endeavored to silence dissenting opinions based upon relevant, factual, and scientific information that directly challenges the legitimacy, or lack thereof, as it relates to positions she supports.
During her campaign in 2008, this same individual spoke of the need to “work together to end the divisiveness in town government that has developed over the past three years” prior to her election. Instead she has created more divisiveness by abandoning all reason in her efforts to influence the outcome of the T.A. search. As well, her attempts to usurp the Town Charter on multiple occasions have done little if anything to foster cooperation with other town entities and indeed everything to challenge it.
Her promise to “establish a partnership with the business community to develop a strategy that will help ensure [their ability] to remain and prosper in Sturbridge thereby increasing our tax base” proved to be nothing more than hollow words. The business partnership now existent within the community (established May – 2009 boasting over 100 members), was so undertaken and created void of any assistance on her part. To be sure however, other elected and appointed representatives have stepped up and provided a great deal of assistance and support. In the years ahead these partnerships will become ever more important and valuable.
Candidate Blanchard promised to “implement the long-delayed third DPW crew to improve the productivity and efficiency of that department”. To date, and certainly during my eight month tenure, this issue has yet to be raised a single time. To be clear, I am not suggesting one way or the other whether the merits of this promise; I’m merely stating the subject has failed to find its way onto our agenda. It is illogical to assume that an issue never discussed can become part of any deliberative process.
Then candidate Blanchard pledged as well to “move [the community] forward and deal with the important issues we face”, committing to “provide the leadership to accomplish this”. One might well suggest that our community is on a treadmill, feverishly running in place while the “important issues” facing us are tendered little more than lip service. We are a listing ship taking on water. This of course, due to the needless and all too frequent misdirection of our energy elsewhere.
As 2010 beckons, we are reminded that the campaign season will soon officially begin. The commencement of such will afford opportunity; said opportunity will thus provide choices and additional promises to be contemplated. Careful consideration and deliberation will no doubt be important as we weigh the importance of integrity and character.
For me certainly, there have been missteps as well. During my first month on the Board, while considering the reappointment of committee members, I refused to support a reappointment to the Conservation Commission (ConCom). Some suggested my position was personal due to the strained relationship existing between myself and the appointee; I can assure you that such was not the case. I firmly believed that a change was necessary on the ConCom.
Nevertheless, it was in hindsight, an appointment I should have remained silent on as it was simply too soon in my tenure to consider preventing a long-standing appointment. Equally noteworthy, too little time (16 months) had separated the strain between us and regardless of any genuine intentions, there existed doubt in the minds of some. The decision to engage this issue was clearly a misstep for me. With all sincerity, I can say with certainty that I am pleased the outcome was different from that which I supported during that period.
There is little doubt that I have learned a great deal this past year; some good, some otherwise. All however, very useful. I will continue to execute my responsibilities on behalf of residents with vigor, grounded in the philosophy of principles before personalities. The execution of my duties shall remain always, based upon, integrity, objectivity, balance, and accountability.
To be certain, despite the disappointments, dismay, and disillusionment, I am ever more determined to maintain my commitment to honest governance. Equally, I will continue to deliberate in a thoughtful, educated, informed, and self-less manner, ensuring always that my decisions are based upon intellectual deliberation and discovery, not self-aggrandizing emotions.
Read more!
The past year has proven to be an "eye-opening" experience that all too frequently has been witness to a one-dimensional, self-serving, and dishonest approach as it relates to important issues facing this community. During this period, I have gained deeper insights into not only the people, but the process of local governance. Suffice to say, I have encountered my share of disillusionment with this process, but equally so, I have gained a deeper appreciation for the importance of balance and moderation. During this period I have gained a deeper appreciation for the efforts of our Community Preservation Committee (CPC), the Conservation Commission (ConCom), the Public Lands Advisory Committee (PLAC), the Recreation Committee, and the Economic Development Committee (EDC). Each of these entities is crucial to the prosperity and protection of our community.
The year started with high hopes for me as two freshman selectmen were closing in on their first complete year and one had dreams of significant progress with their increasing experience and comfort level. Equally so however, doubts lingered and I decided to enter the race for selectman as a means of spiriting dialogue on important issues facing this community. With low expectations of earning a seat on the Board, but grateful for the opportunity to engage residents during my door-to-door campaign, I was no doubt exuberant when the final results came in.
That exuberance would guide my approach in terms of fulfilling campaign promises grounded in objective, principled, and accountable representation. Those pledges included the establishment of a coalition of business owners, government representatives, and residents in an effort to address the economic challenges facing our community. This alliance gave birth to the Merchants of Sturbridge, whose efforts have been well documented, requiring no redundancy here.
As well, there was significant progress made in terms of public access to information as each of the Charter designated boards/committees previously not offering on-line access to meeting minutes, has now implemented protocols to do so. We are grateful for their efforts. Equally so, the issues surrounding telecommunications service in Sturbridge - though previously relegated to little more than lip service - have been addressed frankly, directly, and comprehensively. There has been a significant push in terms of prioritizing this issue that has been chronicled here. One is cautiously optimistic that significant progress is unfolding and those efforts will soon bear fruit. To that end, we should be most grateful for the efforts of those members serving on the Cable Advisory Committee, in particular Jean Bubon, Mary Afable, and Al Jones.
There has also been progress in terms of the Town’s overall approach to management of the Sturbridge Landfill/Recycling Center. Increased cooperation among several members of the Board of Selectmen (B.O.S.) has resulted in better communication and collaboration with the Board of Health (B.O.H.). To that end, new initiatives currently being developed by the B.O.H. (including green proposals), will be soon forthcoming and there is little doubt that these initiatives will increase the efficiency of the Landfill/Recycling Center. One is grateful for the efforts of these elected health officials and their appointees.
The success of the Burgess School renovation proposal manifested as a result not of any efforts undertaken by the B.O.S., but rather in direct proportion to the outstanding labors undertaken by the members of the Burgess School Building Committee. They are to be congratulated, as they bear the rightful ownership of the success associated with this project.
In terms of the Town’s sewer service area, we have initiated discussions and have undertaken preliminary efforts towards identifying weaknesses in the current plan, most notably the lack of infrastructure on Route 15. One is hopeful that we will accomplish something substantial in the near future. To that end, one is grateful for the efforts of Selectman Ted Goodwin and his willingness to engage in an "alternate models approach". As well, Selectman Scott Garieri has provided support in terms of problem-solving this issue. This collaborative effort will no doubt result in a more pragmatic and progressive solution to some of the issues inherent with the current service area. The challenge before us now is refocusing our efforts, which for too long have been needlessly distracted elsewhere due to a Board member's personal proclivities.
There is still work to be done in terms of senior services and additional efforts are forthcoming. So too, I believe we need to develop a more practical user-friendly approach as it relates to the immediacy of resident access to pending budget requests. This will provide taxpayers with the ability to assess the tax impact of proposed requests in terms of their aggregate effect, as opposed to the more historical approach that tends to view such somewhat in isolation.
Certainly, over the last six months our focus has been by need, redirected to the appointment of a new Town Administrator (T.A.). The departure of our former T.A. has created a void requiring attention. Sadly however, there remains little doubt that a strong argument could be offered to suggest that this relatively straightforward process (or so one would think) has been plagued with missteps, misdirection, misinformation, and misrepresentation.
The self indulging approach undertaken by the B.O.S. Chair in personally voicing her opposition to individual Search Committee members relative to their established qualifications, coupled with her questionable participation in the committee selection process, as well as her involvement in discussions surrounding a complaint submitted to the B.O.S. by her husband, leave little doubt in my mind of her inability to objectively and fairly execute her duties. These actions and others chronicled here have resulted in a significant level of personal disappointment in terms of the high regard I previously held for this individual.
Adding to this disappointment, is the dismay experienced as a result of the attempts by Chairman Blanchard and our part-time T.A. to subordinate and usurp the very constitution of our community - the Sturbridge Town Charter. The first attempt dealt with an effort to wrestle control of Board of Health (B.O.H.) personnel away from their appointing authority, that being, the Board of Health. Basing their argument upon a favorable legal “opinion” from Town Counsel, which was squarely in opposition to the Town Charter, Mrs. Blanchard and Mr. Racicot sought B.O.S. support for this incursion into the sovereignty of the Board of Health. Their efforts were rejected by a majority of selectmen. Those efforts have been previously chronicled here.
This of course was followed by a second activist interpretation of the Town Charter by Mrs. Blanchard and Mr. Racicot (buttressed by another favorable legal “opinion”), seeking the extension of our agreement with the part-time/interim T.A.; this despite clear and convincing Charter language to the contrary. This effort proved successful as three members of the Board of Selectmen voted to support what amounts to a weakening of our constitution. Further information on this subject can be accessed here.
Though this issue is now behind us and one is resolved to live with the outcome, (that is after all, the role of democracy), it is wise to bear in mind that the occurrence of a single successful encroachment upon the documents held sacred relative to our town governance, will most assuredly lead to others. The gates have been opened and this should stir concern in all of us for despite one’s position in terms of this particular issue, there will undoubtedly come other excursions involving interpretist activism regarding the Charter. When such occurs, individuals may side differently on the particular issue in question, arguing vigorously in defense of the sanctity of our Charter. Sadly, the horse has now left the stable and reining him back will prove a very difficult endeavor. Such after all, is the nature of horses.
There was as well, a significant level of disbelief in terms of the misrepresentative statements made by at least 2 members of the B.O.S. One such case involved the most egregious of human failings, that being the bearing of false witness against a human being, as exemplified by one member of the B.O.S. It is one thing (though certainly wrong) for an individual to misstate the truth, as this particular individual has on several occasions; it is another entirely for that same individual to bear false witness. There is in my view, no greater sin than to bear false witness against a fellow human being. To specifically state that someone has done something, which one knows not to be true is the worst character defect an individual can harbor. To experience such was no doubt the lowest point of my year. I am still at a loss to understand the motivation of this particular colleague, chronicled here. The character failings of this individual were to say the least, disheartening. Yet, one is reminded that there is little benefit in dwelling on such things. Though our relationship has sustained irreversible damage, the need to work in a cooperative manner is vital to this community's success; thus, it is necessary to move on.
Equally troubling have been the misstatements – i.e. multiple broken promises of an individual once highly regarded by me. Pledging to “be a voice for open, accessible government that considers all sides of every issue” our chairman has (in my view), been anything but. Instead It is my firm believe that she has misused her position to better situate herself in a manner most influential and beneficial to her personal proclivities. This of course, with one goal in mind. As well Madam Chair has regularly endeavored to silence dissenting opinions based upon relevant, factual, and scientific information that directly challenges the legitimacy, or lack thereof, as it relates to positions she supports.
During her campaign in 2008, this same individual spoke of the need to “work together to end the divisiveness in town government that has developed over the past three years” prior to her election. Instead she has created more divisiveness by abandoning all reason in her efforts to influence the outcome of the T.A. search. As well, her attempts to usurp the Town Charter on multiple occasions have done little if anything to foster cooperation with other town entities and indeed everything to challenge it.
Her promise to “establish a partnership with the business community to develop a strategy that will help ensure [their ability] to remain and prosper in Sturbridge thereby increasing our tax base” proved to be nothing more than hollow words. The business partnership now existent within the community (established May – 2009 boasting over 100 members), was so undertaken and created void of any assistance on her part. To be sure however, other elected and appointed representatives have stepped up and provided a great deal of assistance and support. In the years ahead these partnerships will become ever more important and valuable.
Candidate Blanchard promised to “implement the long-delayed third DPW crew to improve the productivity and efficiency of that department”. To date, and certainly during my eight month tenure, this issue has yet to be raised a single time. To be clear, I am not suggesting one way or the other whether the merits of this promise; I’m merely stating the subject has failed to find its way onto our agenda. It is illogical to assume that an issue never discussed can become part of any deliberative process.
Then candidate Blanchard pledged as well to “move [the community] forward and deal with the important issues we face”, committing to “provide the leadership to accomplish this”. One might well suggest that our community is on a treadmill, feverishly running in place while the “important issues” facing us are tendered little more than lip service. We are a listing ship taking on water. This of course, due to the needless and all too frequent misdirection of our energy elsewhere.
As 2010 beckons, we are reminded that the campaign season will soon officially begin. The commencement of such will afford opportunity; said opportunity will thus provide choices and additional promises to be contemplated. Careful consideration and deliberation will no doubt be important as we weigh the importance of integrity and character.
For me certainly, there have been missteps as well. During my first month on the Board, while considering the reappointment of committee members, I refused to support a reappointment to the Conservation Commission (ConCom). Some suggested my position was personal due to the strained relationship existing between myself and the appointee; I can assure you that such was not the case. I firmly believed that a change was necessary on the ConCom.
Nevertheless, it was in hindsight, an appointment I should have remained silent on as it was simply too soon in my tenure to consider preventing a long-standing appointment. Equally noteworthy, too little time (16 months) had separated the strain between us and regardless of any genuine intentions, there existed doubt in the minds of some. The decision to engage this issue was clearly a misstep for me. With all sincerity, I can say with certainty that I am pleased the outcome was different from that which I supported during that period.
There is little doubt that I have learned a great deal this past year; some good, some otherwise. All however, very useful. I will continue to execute my responsibilities on behalf of residents with vigor, grounded in the philosophy of principles before personalities. The execution of my duties shall remain always, based upon, integrity, objectivity, balance, and accountability.
To be certain, despite the disappointments, dismay, and disillusionment, I am ever more determined to maintain my commitment to honest governance. Equally, I will continue to deliberate in a thoughtful, educated, informed, and self-less manner, ensuring always that my decisions are based upon intellectual deliberation and discovery, not self-aggrandizing emotions.
Read more!
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Serious Doubts
The opportunity to right a listing ship was lost last night (09-21-09) as a majority of the Board of Selectmen was unwilling to appoint any of the three finalists presented. One finalist, John D’Agostino, who served as the Town Administrator in Mansfield for 12 years, received support from Selectman Scott Garieri and myself. Both of us it appears, based upon the discussions held (audio in right sidebar), were in favor of offering Mr. D’Agostino the position of Sturbridge Town Administrator.
I’ll not comment too deeply at this point; the 29 minute audio clearly conveys my reasoning for supporting Mr. D’Agostino as my primary choice for the position. As well, it demonstrates my willingness to support any of the 3 finalists had someone been willing to work towards a consensus, based upon my belief that each possessed the ability to Administrate on behalf of the Board of Selectmen and the Town of Sturbridge.
Though I disagree with the reasoned rationale presented by Selectmen Ted Goodwin and Hal White as it related to their inability to support any of the three candidates, I do believe their decision was based upon purely genuine reservations maintained by them. As I stated last night during our discussions, Ted Goodwin is an honorable man and despite my disagreement with him on this issue, I have great respect for him and believe him true to his word. Though not stated last night, the same sentiment holds true for the position taken by Hal White. I believe his position was based upon honorable and genuine reservations held by him.
I do however; have serious doubts as it pertains to the position taken by the “Chairman” of the Board of Selectmen. I am unable to fundamentally view her position as anything other than self-serving and self-directed. Considering the full magnitude of what I view as influence pedaling and process manipulation detailed in a previous post (At All Costs), I am left to conclude that Mrs. Blanchard’s refusal to support any of the finalists stems solely from the absence of her husband’s name among them.
Read more!
I’ll not comment too deeply at this point; the 29 minute audio clearly conveys my reasoning for supporting Mr. D’Agostino as my primary choice for the position. As well, it demonstrates my willingness to support any of the 3 finalists had someone been willing to work towards a consensus, based upon my belief that each possessed the ability to Administrate on behalf of the Board of Selectmen and the Town of Sturbridge.
Though I disagree with the reasoned rationale presented by Selectmen Ted Goodwin and Hal White as it related to their inability to support any of the three candidates, I do believe their decision was based upon purely genuine reservations maintained by them. As I stated last night during our discussions, Ted Goodwin is an honorable man and despite my disagreement with him on this issue, I have great respect for him and believe him true to his word. Though not stated last night, the same sentiment holds true for the position taken by Hal White. I believe his position was based upon honorable and genuine reservations held by him.
I do however; have serious doubts as it pertains to the position taken by the “Chairman” of the Board of Selectmen. I am unable to fundamentally view her position as anything other than self-serving and self-directed. Considering the full magnitude of what I view as influence pedaling and process manipulation detailed in a previous post (At All Costs), I am left to conclude that Mrs. Blanchard’s refusal to support any of the finalists stems solely from the absence of her husband’s name among them.
Read more!
Due Diligence
This past Monday (December 14, 2009) the Board of Selectmen had the opportunity to interview the three finalists for the Sturbridge Town Administrator’s position. The three candidates offered diverse backgrounds along with a wide range of experiences and skill sets. There is little doubt that all are capable and possess the necessary tools to administrate on behalf of the town. It is hoped that by our next meeting a final determination will be made so that our community can move forward. There is little doubt that such would be of significant value to the residents of Sturbridge.
To that end, each member of the Board of Selectmen will have invested a great deal of time and effort in properly vetting the information they have amassed in relation to each of the candidates. It is certainly hoped, that concerned residents will have done the same as this process is as much yours as it is ours; we do in fact report directly to you.
In researching each candidate, it is wise to bear in mind that Google, Bing, and other type search engine “intelligence” gathering is an extremely limited approach that lacks the comprehensive tools necessary to make truly informed decisions of this magnitude. The information is often disassociated, disconnected, and often too dissected to be meaningful until juxtaposed against hard data. That “hard data” is not amassed without extensive and detailed research that would include federal, state, or municipal records, legal briefs and/or determinations, broad review of years and years of meeting minutes, coupled with intense review of multiple source news reports from a wide range of reputable organizations. As well, it would involve detailed information cross-referencing and multi-layered fact-checking to properly vet all data, supportive or otherwise.
An appropriate vetting of candidates, if done with the hopes of achieving the best results, must not be undertaken in a vacuum, nor should it be burdened with pre-determined prejudices or proclivities. It certainly cannot be accomplished unless so conducted in the most self-less manner. And therein of course is the great challenge; one that each of us must be amenable to addressing. At all times we must recognize that the information we gather, is only as good as the detailed scrutiny it can withstand.
Over the last few days, members of the Board of Selectmen have been “provided” information on candidate(s) that is clearly designed to bias the process against a particular candidate or candidates. Some of this information is “attributable” (for lack of a better term) to “specific” sources, while other information has been received from an “anonymous” individual or individuals. This information, though of significance to those providing it, fails to garner the level of merit some might prefer, as it appears to be grounded in less than admirable inspirations. Additionally, when subjected to the level of dispassionate scrutiny a process such as this merits, the information fails to convene its intended purpose; that of derailing the opportunity for serious consideration of at least one or more candidates.
As each of you in the community monitors this process and perhaps become apprised of “compromising information” relative to any of the candidates, bear in mind, that even the most reliable of individuals, may unknowingly be providing the most unreliable of information. This due, not to any misgivings or failures on their part, but rather, due to the failures or misgivings of those providing this so called valued information. Who among us, is without something in our past that could be misrepresented intentionally or otherwise by those who may not have the most objective of intentions?
As well, there are those among us who share the noblest of intentions, yet unwittingly fall victim to information not thoroughly or properly vetted. Each of us, citizen and selectman alike, must be ever vigilant in our deliberative process, guarding always against data-deficient determinations that lack the appropriate Due Diligence. Equally so, all of us must be ever vigilant against prejudgments motivated by personal proclivities, consciously or otherwise.
Read more!
To that end, each member of the Board of Selectmen will have invested a great deal of time and effort in properly vetting the information they have amassed in relation to each of the candidates. It is certainly hoped, that concerned residents will have done the same as this process is as much yours as it is ours; we do in fact report directly to you.
In researching each candidate, it is wise to bear in mind that Google, Bing, and other type search engine “intelligence” gathering is an extremely limited approach that lacks the comprehensive tools necessary to make truly informed decisions of this magnitude. The information is often disassociated, disconnected, and often too dissected to be meaningful until juxtaposed against hard data. That “hard data” is not amassed without extensive and detailed research that would include federal, state, or municipal records, legal briefs and/or determinations, broad review of years and years of meeting minutes, coupled with intense review of multiple source news reports from a wide range of reputable organizations. As well, it would involve detailed information cross-referencing and multi-layered fact-checking to properly vet all data, supportive or otherwise.
An appropriate vetting of candidates, if done with the hopes of achieving the best results, must not be undertaken in a vacuum, nor should it be burdened with pre-determined prejudices or proclivities. It certainly cannot be accomplished unless so conducted in the most self-less manner. And therein of course is the great challenge; one that each of us must be amenable to addressing. At all times we must recognize that the information we gather, is only as good as the detailed scrutiny it can withstand.
Over the last few days, members of the Board of Selectmen have been “provided” information on candidate(s) that is clearly designed to bias the process against a particular candidate or candidates. Some of this information is “attributable” (for lack of a better term) to “specific” sources, while other information has been received from an “anonymous” individual or individuals. This information, though of significance to those providing it, fails to garner the level of merit some might prefer, as it appears to be grounded in less than admirable inspirations. Additionally, when subjected to the level of dispassionate scrutiny a process such as this merits, the information fails to convene its intended purpose; that of derailing the opportunity for serious consideration of at least one or more candidates.
As each of you in the community monitors this process and perhaps become apprised of “compromising information” relative to any of the candidates, bear in mind, that even the most reliable of individuals, may unknowingly be providing the most unreliable of information. This due, not to any misgivings or failures on their part, but rather, due to the failures or misgivings of those providing this so called valued information. Who among us, is without something in our past that could be misrepresented intentionally or otherwise by those who may not have the most objective of intentions?
As well, there are those among us who share the noblest of intentions, yet unwittingly fall victim to information not thoroughly or properly vetted. Each of us, citizen and selectman alike, must be ever vigilant in our deliberative process, guarding always against data-deficient determinations that lack the appropriate Due Diligence. Equally so, all of us must be ever vigilant against prejudgments motivated by personal proclivities, consciously or otherwise.
Read more!
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Sturbridge/Fiskdale Seniors Helping Seniors
Recently, the Friends of Fiskdale-Sturbridge Seniors demonstrated yet again their comprehensive approach to supporting our seniors by way of a significant donation to the REAS Foundation. Citing the growing need among seniors within our community, Friends President Josephine Kaitbenski said that " The board members of the Friends of the Sturbridge/Fiskdale Seniors are pleased to have donated $500 to the REAS Foundation. We feel that this is what community is all about, people helping people".
Friends Treasurer Claire Cook echoed Ms. Kaitbenski's comments saying that "The Friends of the Sturbridge/Fiskdale Senior Center count it a privilege to help our seniors in whatever way we can. We appreciate what the REAS Foundation is doing to provide essential energy funds to seniors. REAS is filling a need in our community and this kindness has a great impact on all Sturbridge and Fiskdale citizens".
Jennifer Morrison - REAS Foundation Chief Administration Officer - thanked the Friends for their "generous contribution to the health and welfare of Sturbridge seniors and their tireless efforts on behalf of our senior community".
REAS Foundation Executive Director Thomas R. Creamer conveyed his "deep gratitude on behalf of the REAS Foundation for the generosity and support of the Friends of Fiskdale-Sturbridge Seniors" citing the "significance of Seniors helping Seniors".
Photo: Left to Right - Sally Ballard, Josephine Kaitbenski, Kathy Ashton, Jennifer Morrison (REAS Foundation), Barbara Search (REAS Foundation), Claire Cook, Aline Girourd, Lucy Vanderhoof, and Tina Galati.
Read more!
REAS Foundation receives major donation!
The REAS Foundation is the Residential Energy Assistance for Seniors Foundation, and is built upon the belief that the greatness of a community is ultimately judged not so much by the beauty or magnificence of its structures, but rather, by its compassion, contributions, and care for its most vulnerable members. Rising energy costs, which in turn drive the costs of many associated items, coupled with fixed incomes, have placed many of our seniors in difficult,and dangerous predicaments. Their incomes are now fast outpaced by escalating energy prices. Choices between fuel, food, and prescriptions medications are becoming all too common for many of our seniors.
“The Board of Trustees and I are happy to help contribute to such a worthwhile organization,” the Bank’s president and CEO, Phil Pettinelli (center of photo, flanked by Linda Cocalis (L) REAS Foundation Board of Director's and Jennifer Morrison (R) Reas Foundation Chief Administration Officer), said on offering Southbridge Savings’ donation. “Our Bank is committed to helping those in need in the areas that we serve.”
REAS Foundation Executive Director, Thomas Creamer, said, “To date this is the most generous donation our organization has received. The support provided by Southbridge Savings Bank to our senior community has and continues, to dramatically change the lives of local seniors.”
If you want to find more information about the REAS Foundation’s visit them at www.REASFoundation.org. Inquiries may be sent to info@REASFoundation.org or to P.O. Box 737, Fiskdale, MA 01518.
For more information about Southbridge Savings Bank, call 800-939-9103 or visit them on the Web at www.southbridgesavingsbank. com.
Read more!
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Revitalizing a Community through BUY LOCAL Campaigns!
One of the fundamental tenets of the Merchants of Sturbridge is that of Shopping and Buying Locally. To the end the Merchants of Sturbridge have introduced the 6.25 discount card which entitles card holders to a 6.25% discount at nearly 40 participating locations. These cards make great stocking stuffers for the holidays and are valid until December 31, 2010. They can be purchased at several locations in town (The Brier Patch Designs, The Visitor Center, The Bird Store and More, and the Sturbridge Scrapping Corner). More information is available at www.merchantsofsturbridge.com.
Below are stories of two Buy Local programs, one in Providence R.I., the other in Portland, ME. In reading them, simply substitute the name Sturbridge where the sponsoring towns are listed and consider the impact we can all have by Shopping and Buying Locally.
‘Buy Local’ campaigns help fight bad economy (Worcester Telegram & Gazette - Sunday, 12-06-09)
By Michelle R. Smith THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
PROVIDENCE — A lot of things have helped Deb Dormody and her partners turn their annual holiday crafts show, Craftland, into a year-round permanent store: a growing appreciation for handmade, unique goods, a desire to support the arts, and — surprisingly — the bad economy, which she says has pushed people to examine how they spend their money.
“People can feel really good about what they’re purchasing,” she said. “Being able to say to the recipient … ‘I know the person who made this. This person lives here in town.’ ”
Providence is among many cities and states that are pushing a “buy local” philosophy this holiday season, with Mayor David Cicilline saying the businesses are critical to the economy of the city, capital of a state where unemployment stands at 12.9 percent. New Mexico Gov. William B. Richardson urged residents of his state to spend $25 at each of two local stores this month, saying it could have a $27 million economic impact, and cities including Cambridge and Somerville, Mass., and Portland, Maine, have similar pushes.
A survey of independent retailers earlier this year by the Institute for Local Self-Reliance found that independent stores in cities with Buy Local campaigns saw a 3.2 percent drop in holiday sales last year, compared with a 5.6 percent drop in cities without one.
___________________________________________________________________________
A second and fairly comprehensive program, is one on Portland Me sponsored by the Portland Independent Business and Community Alliance
Why Support Locally Owned Businesses?
Our top ten reasons! You can also download this as a PDF flyer that you can print and distribute.
1. KEEP DOLLARS IN PORTLAND'S ECONOMY
For every $100 spent at a locally owned business, $45 stays in the local economy, creating jobs and expanding the city's tax base. For every $100 spent at a national chain or franchise store, only $14 remains in the community.[1]
2. EMBRACE WHAT MAKES PORTLAND UNIQUE
Portland is a city of neighborhoods. Where we shop, where we eat and hang out—all of it makes our neighborhood home. Chain stores are growing more aggressive throughout Portland and threatening to change the unique character of our city. One-of-a-kind, independent businesses are an integral part of what makes Portland a great place to live.
3. FOSTER LOCAL JOB CREATION
Studies show that locally owned businesses create more jobs locally and, in some sectors, provide better wages and benefits than national chains. [2]
4. HELP THE ENVIRONMENT
Local business owners tend to set up shop downtown and in walkable neighborhood business districts, rather than developing on the city's fringe or in suburban strip malls accessible only by automobile. Having a diverse array of businesses within walking or biking distance reduces the amount of driving Portland residents must do to shop for goods and services. It also helps to conserve land, limit sprawl and lessen traffic and air pollution.
5. NURTURE COMMUNITY
Independent businesses are owned by people who live in this community and are committed to investing in Portland's future. Studies have found that locally owned businesses contribute more than twice as much of their revenue to charitable causes as corporate chains do. And advocates of local causes find that local business owners are generally much more accessible than executives of large corporations based in other states. [3]
6. CONSERVE YOUR TAX DOLLARS
Small neighborhood and downtown businesses require less public infrastructure and make more efficient use of city services compared to sprawling big-box stores and shopping centers, which are far more costly in terms of road work and police services, according to studies. [4]
7. HAVE MORE CHOICES
A marketplace of thousands of small businesses helps to ensure more innovation and competition, and lower prices over the long term. Independent businesses, choosing products based on what their local customers need and desire, not a national sales plan, guarantees a more diverse range of product and service choices.
8. BENEFIT FROM LOCAL OWNERS' EXPERTISE
Local business owners and employees often possess a level of expertise and a passion for the products they sell that is unmatched by employees and managers of national chains. They also tend to have a greater interest in getting to know their customers—who are, after all, also their neighbors. Simply put, local owners and employees take a special pride in their trade.
9. PRESERVE ENTREPRENEURSHIP
Entrepreneurship fuels America's economic innovation and prosperity, and serves as a key means for families to move out of low-wage jobs and into the middle class. Plus, the success of locally owned, independent businesses provides real-life inspiration to our young people, proving that they can stay in Maine and prosper on their own terms.
10. ENSURE PORTLAND STANDS OUT FROM THE CROWD
In an increasingly homogenized world, communities that preserve their one-of-a-kind businesses and distinctive character are more likely to attract entrepreneurs and new investment. Portlanders place a high value on individuality and consider our homegrown enterprises a source of pride. They are also an attraction to visitors.
[1] Institute for Local Self-Reliance and Friends of Midcoast Maine, "The Economic Impact of Locally Owned Businesses vs. Chains: A Case Study in Midcoast Maine," Sept. 2003.
[2] Civic Economics,"The Andersonville Study of Retail Economics," October 2004; Civic Economics, "Economic Impact Analysis: A Case Study," December 2002; David Neumark, Junfu Zhang, and Stephen Ciccarella, "The Effects of Wal-Mart on Local Labor Markets," Public Policy Institute of California, April 2006; Arindrajit Dube, Barry Eidlin, and Bill Lester, "Impact of Wal-Mart Growth on Earnings throughout the Retail Sector in Urban and Rural Counties," Institute of Industrial Relations Working Paper Series, 2005.
[3] Institute for Local Self-Reliance and Friends of Midcoast Maine, "The Economic Impact of Locally Owned Businesses vs. Chains: A Case Study in Midcoast Maine," Sept. 2003; Patricia Frishkoff, Business Contributions to Community Service, Small Business Administration, 1991.
[4] Randall Gross, Development Economics, "Understanding the Fiscal Impacts of Land Use in Ohio," August 2004; Tischler & Associates, "Fiscal Impact Analysis of Residential and Nonresidential Land Use Prototypes," July 2002.
Read more!
Creating Traditions - BELIEVE
Holiday Wreaths, Christmas Trees, Illuminaries, and other decorations are ever so slightly contributing to a small, but visible sense of "magic" along Main Street. Surely as the years pass and our efforts grow, it is our fondest hope to re-establish Sturbridge as a must see destination during all holiday periods. The establishment of "new" traditions will no doubt take time and the aggregate efforts of an entire community. But therein lies the beauty of our collective endeavors, as the work of many hands is the very basis of what community stands for. To that end, we all have a great deal to look forward to.
Our most recent efforts in support of the 12 Days of Christmas is reflective of the community involvement required to establish and nurture traditions. Thus, we take a moment to recognize those who have contributed to this latest effort.
As many are now aware, residents and visitors are being welcomed by the Holiday Wreaths adorning Main Street from Town Common to Route 148. This simple element of the 12 Days of Christmas required a rather significant level of support. To that end, on behalf of the Merchants of Sturbridge and all Sturbridge residents, let me extend our deep gratitude to Phil Cambo of Northern Tree and his technician Dana Demetrius. Phil donated the truck and manpower at no charge to the community. This was an extremely generous donation on Mr. Cambo's part, as Dana spent 6 solid hours (non-stop) hanging the wreaths while I prepped them for him. The monotony of repetitive stops, boom lifts and lowering did nothing to dampen Dana's spirits as he was extremely pleased to be part of this effort. So too, we are indebted to Chief Thomas Ford who ensured the safety of workers and travelers via traffic management that came at no deficit to the community, either financially or service wise.
As well, we extend our generous thanks to Alex Pifer (The Seraph/Home) who lead and coordinated the Events Committee in support of the 12 Days of Christmas. Alex's enthusiasm and perseverance were critical to this effort. So too, we extend our thanks to Sandra Carroll of The Brier Patch Designs, who provided the 30 double-sided, 40" wreaths at wholesale cost; a remarkable savings to all. Sandra hosted a Wreath Decorating Party this past Wednesday attended by Sarah Hiser (Savior-Donner), Patti Affenito-MacConnell (Sturbridge Country Inn), Leslie Wong, Autumn Wong, Alex Pifer (The Seraph/Home), Emma Thorpe, Kim Toto (The Brier Patch Designs), and Bob Grant (The Brier Patch Designs). These individuals spent several hours preparing the wreaths and affixing the Believe ribbons to same, as well as weeks of planning and preparation; we are indebted to them for their hard work and commitment to this project. In addition, Ms. Wong has been coordinating the Luminary project on behalf of the Tantasqua Jr. High Student Council.
Special kudos as well to Cindy Howard of The Center for Hope who manufactured the Believe ribbons affixed to the wreaths, along with the soon to be decorated Christmas Trees. In terms of the Trees, we extend our thanks to Sarah (Salli) Greene of Velvet Greene who provided these beautiful trees at an exceptionally competitive price, along with Chris Rovezzi (Rovezzi's Ristorante) for his assistance with tree preparation and delivery. We also thank Tom Chamberland for his guidance and support in the tree stabilization aspects of this project. We were struggling in terms of appropriate mountings until he volunteered his services.
We also extend our gratitude to the following people who provided direct project support to the 12 Days of Christmas initiative over the last weeks and months, in addition to those previously listed; they are Peg O'Connor (New England Graphics) Brenda Higgins (The Handmaiden), Susan McDonough (Susan's Secret Garden), Julie Schutz (Sturbridge Scrapping Corner), Maryann Thopre (resident), Chris Tieri (Smith & Jones), Jeannine Creamer (resident), and Joni Light (The Copper Stallion).
Last and by no means least, we are eternally grateful to those individuals and businesses who provided the funding for the wreaths via sponsorship. Without their dedication to the community and image it conveys, we would not have had the opportunity to adorn our Main Street in this fashion. Kudos to the following in no particular order:
Hometown Bank
Nicole Barin (Romaldo's)
Jasmine Bell (Sadie Green's)
Jeff Bonja (Resident)
Sandra Carroll (The Brier Patch Designs)
Mike Cimini (Yankee Spirits)
Jeannine Creamer (Resident)
Penny Dumas (Resident)
Wally & Mary Hersee (Residents)
Brenda Higgins (The Handmaiden)
Sarah Hiser (Savior-Donner)
Susan McDonough (Susan's Secret Garden)
Jennifer Morrison (Sterling Engineering)
Peg O'Connor (New England Graphics)
Alex Pifer (The Serpah/Home)
Chris Rovezzi (Rovezzi's Ristorante)
Julie Schutz (Sturbridge Scrapping Corner)
The Friends of Fiskdale/Sturbridge Seniors
Maryann Thorpe (Resident)
Michael Thorpe (Resident)
Shaw's Supermarket
There are several other residents who sponsored wreaths through Sandra Carroll and others whose names I do not have. I apologize immensely for posting this out without those names and I trust that I will be able to provide them shortly.
We are thankful as well to the Tantasqua Town Common for their comprehensive coverage of the 12 Days of Christmas.
I'm certain I've forgotten to appropriately recognize the efforts/support of at least one or more individuals. So many have done so much to assist with this event that one becomes convinced of a memory lapse on my part. Please forgive and please notify me immediately of any omissions on my part so that they may be corrected.
With that, some of us are now off to erect the trees so that they may soon be decorated in honor of ALL Sturbridge residents.
Read more!
Monday, November 30, 2009
At All Costs!
Monday, December 7, 2009, the Town Administrator’s Search Committee (TASC) is expected to present the names of 3 finalists to the Board of Selectmen. These elected representatives of the people will then interview and vet those individuals, subsequently determining the next Sturbridge Town Administrator. As addressed in an earlier post, this process has not been without its share of controversy and one is unconvinced that we should presume the road ahead will be any different. Human nature is just that – human; as such, one is mindful always that the past is generally an accurate indicator of the future.
In the five months following the appointment of the first search committee (June 15, 2009), we have witnessed an unprecedented series of interactions that by any outside source, would appear suspect at best. Were one to reflect closely and objectively upon the events accompanying this search, one would be hard-pressed to conclude to the contrary that this process has been unnecessarily marred by interference and ethical miscues.
Consider the following synopsis of what we’ve witnessed in the last 5 months.
Monday, June 15, 2009: The initial TASC is appointed. Selectwoman Mary Blanchard participates in the appointment process despite advance knowledge that her husband would be applying. Unfortunately, I remained silent relative to her participation hoping it would be of no consequence. This was a clear error in judgment on my behalf. In hindsight, one might well argue that Mrs. Blanchard’s involvement constitutes (appropriately or otherwise) tampering. Were this a jury selection process, there is little doubt that such would be subject to challenge in our legal system.
Thursday, June 26, 2009: The Search Committee meets and establishes its criteria followed by a local and national posting of same.
Thursday, July 2, 2009: Several individuals contact me expressing relative to efforts aimed at modifying the previously posted criteria. Some contend it is an attempt to increase the odds of a local candidate who does not meet the job posting. I am asked to attend the meeting. I notified a reporter from the Town Common of same and he attended the meeting as well. After lengthy discussion the committee voted in the majority to maintain the previously established and posted criteria.
Monday, July 13, 2009: Charles Blanchard submits his application electronically, though his application is inconsistent with the established criteria.
Saturday, August 29, 2009: TASC meets in Executive Session. After that meeting the two previously scheduled TASC meetings of September 1 & 2 are cancelled. Undoubtedly, the TASC had completed its search and had determined the 3 finalists for presentation to the Board of Selectmen. At this very juncture the finalist’s names became a matter of public record under the the MA Open Meeting Law, (right sidebar) Exemption 8 (pages 22-24), as enforced and intrepreted by the Attorney General's office and is thus public property.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009: SEN reports (based upon statements from TASC committee members) that the names of the finalists will be released on September 7, 2009.
Wednesday, September 2, 2009: TASC Chairman Hillman electronically notifies the 3 finalists of their selection.
Sunday, September 6, 2009: A Telegram & Gazette story citing unnamed sources (from within the TASC) identifies local candidate Charles Blanchard as a finalist.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009: During a joint meeting of BOS & TASC, questions surface about the modification of previously established and posted criteria, which occurred without any public notification. In response to the concerns raised, four committee members resign. (Visitors to this site have had access to the audio portion of that meeting since September 9, as it accompanied an article titled "Audio of BOS-T.A. Search Committee Below (When a man assumes a public trust he should consider himself a public property - Thomas Jefferson)".
Thursday, September 24, 2009: A second TASC is appointed. Based upon Conflict of Interest guidelines and Town Counsel recommendation (the later provided by interim Town Administrator Mike Racicot) Mrs. Blanchard is asked to leave the room. She is understandably upset and challenges the opinion, but complies ultimately, after considerable discussion and a personal request from vice-Chairman Garieri. The Massachusetts Conflict of Interest guidelines (right side bar) clearly state that "... the wisest course of action is to leave the room...".
The following is an excerpt from same (page 1, 2nd paragraph): I. RESTRICTIONS ON YOUR ACTIONS A. Self-Dealing (Section 19) (right sidebar). The law generally prohibits you from taking any official action on matters affecting your own financial interests, or the financial interests of: your immediate family members (i.e., your spouse and the parents, siblings and children of either you or your spouse); partners; your employer(s) other than your town; anyone with whom you are negotiating or have an arrangement concerning prospective employment; or organizations for which you serve as an officer, director, partner, employee or trustee. As a Selectman, you may not act in any way that affects these interests, positively or negatively, nor may you act on any matter that affects these interests within the foreseeable future. If a matter affecting one of these interests comes up for consideration at a Selectmen’s meeting, the wisest course of action is to leave the room during discussion, deliberation and the vote on the matter, and make sure that the minutes of the meeting reflect your recusal.
Friday, September 25, 2009: Mr. and Mrs. Charles Blanchard (during separate visits) confront Selectman Scott Garieri in his place of business relative to the events of the previous evening and the overall process. These visits are highly inappropriate and certainly suspect by any candidate and/or spouse of same (particularly a spouse who maintains a seat on the Sturbridge Board of Selectmen).
Saturday, September 26, 2009: Mr. Charles Blanchard approaches and confronts the wife of Selectman Thomas R. Creamer challenging her support for his candidacy to the T.A. position. (This is inappropriate and in my view outrageous as Mrs. Creamer maintains no public profile, serves on no committees in town, and maintains absolute privacy relative to public matters.)
Tuesday, October 13, 2009: During a joint meeting between the newly appointed TASC and the B.O.S, all present are cautioned by me relative to the need to refrain from any activities that would cast a shadow on the search process. I indicate that 2 members of the BOS have already been approached, either directly or indirectly, by a candidate and his spouse, again warning all to guard against any actions that could taint the process.
Thursday, October 29, 2009: During a review of the TASC minutes, it is determined that Selectmen Scott Garieri conducted a "courtesy call" to Mr. Charles Blanchard regarding the resubmission of his application. No such call was authorized or sanctioned by the TASC. As well, this "courtesy" was not provided to other finalists. In his defense, Mr. Garieri argues that another (non-local) finalist had already submitted an application, thereby requiring no "courtesy call". One has to wonder why a local candidate whose wife serves on the B.O.S. required a special “courtesy call” to submit what a non-resident finalist was able to do without any “courtesies” extended.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009: The Telegram & Gazette emails the International City/County Managers Association (ICMA) seeking clarification on the potential conflict of interest involving Mr. and Mrs. Blanchard. This email became part of a public document forwarded to the B.O.S. on 11-13-09 by Mr. Charles Blanchard, thus establishing it as a public record.
Thursday, November 5, 2009: The previously referenced email is then forwarded by Ms. Michelle Frisby of the ICMA to Mr. Blanchard following a “courtesy call” she made to him about the T&G email request. Ms. Frisby fails to respond to the T&G request but instead takes the time to contact Mr. Blanchard, wishing him “good luck” with the process. For the record, Ms. Frisby is a family friend of the Blanchard's. (This determination is made based upon the email, which became a publid record on 11-13-09.)
The Telegram and Gazette subsequently reports (11-15-09) that Martha Prego, (Ms. Frisby's superior) did respond to a direct phone solicitation from the T&G wherein she emphatically states that a clear conflict of interest regarding the Blanchard’s exists.
Friday, November 13, 2009: Mr. Charles Blanchard submits a public letter to the Board of Selectmen requesting a “full investigation” into what he terms a “very serious violation of his rights”. Mr. Blanchard further suggests something amiss insofar as his previous selection as one of the 3 finalists juxtaposed against his failure to be selected into the final 10 of the most recent search.
Sunday, November 15, 2009: A Telegram & Gazette news story reports that “Martha Perego, director of ethics at the International City/County Management Association in Washington, D.C., said there is “clearly a conflict of interest” between an elected official serving on a board and their spouse working for that board.
The story further reports that “The average person on the street would say you can’t be independent when you’re thinking about somebody, you’re voting on the compensation, the continued employment, etc., of someone you’re related to,” Ms. Perego said Friday night from her home in Arlington, Va. “And beyond that, it’s the whole bias issue, because this person is on a board with people that she works with day in and day out. Just because she recuses herself doesn’t mean she doesn’t influence the outcome of the decision-making process.”
Monday, November 16, 2009: Chairman Mary Blanchard (wife of candidate Charles Blanchard) chairs a meeting wherein both Mr. and Mrs. Blanchard suggest foul play relative to Mr. Blanchard’s candidacy. Mrs. Blanchard attempts on several occasions to direct the conversation in a manner most conducive to Mr. Blanchard’s charges. This is, in my view, a clear manipulation of her position on the Board of Selectmen as well as a violation of the public trust. Mrs. Blanchard demonstrated her inability to maintain an objective discussion involving her husband (understandably so) and thus should have immediately recused herself. This was a clear example of the impracticality of her and her husband’s solicitation for the Town Administrator’s position. It certainly supports Ms. Perego’s position that there is “clearly a conflict of interest” between an elected official serving on a board and their spouse working for that board.
In considering this timeline, one is struck by the frequent questionable interdictions into this process by a local candidate and his spouse. Alternately, one is unable to document a single instance of “interference” by any of the other 49 initial candidates, nor the nearly 60 candidates associated with the second search process. Considering the significance of the Town Administrator’s position and the need for ensuring exceptional integrity and character on the part of the office holder, one becomes hard-pressed to now quantify this local candidate as a formidable option.
Noteworthy as well, with exceptions, press reports of the events surrounding this 5 month process – excepting those of a non-local based news outlet – have been all too frequently incomplete, inquiry deficient, and at times inaccurate. Consider the following:
The Town Common’s story relative to the November 16, 2009 selectmen’s meeting, reported that “Selectman Creamer ignored the Chairman's authority to direct the conversation" in response to Mrs. Blanchard’s attempts to control the discussion as it related to charges leveled by her husband in terms of his candidacy being “compromised”. Clearly, an astute observation, as I did ignore the Chairman's attempts to direct and manipulate the conversation in a manner more conducive to her husband’s liking. The role of the Chair is to maintain a neutral and objective discussion, not to, as some might suggest (including this weekly "newspaper"), direct the conversation in a manner more suitable to the personal proclivities of the Chair. Were the chairperson allowed to manipulate and direct all conversation, there would be few, if any discussions of merit, as the Chairman’s point of view would always dictate the final determination.
Most recently, during it’s pre-Thanksgiving release, this same newspaper reported that "According to [Selectman] Garieri, “he [Thomas Creamer] considered it [Charles Blanchard’s application] public information and said he would release it to the press. That’s a fact.” The statement allegedly was made at the Sept. 6 selectmen’s meeting. A meeting where Garieri said, “the town camera for some reason got shut off.” The Town Common story went on to say that "Furthermore, Creamer always records the meetings himself. But somehow, that camera was unplugged”.
To be clear the meeting in question actually took place on September 8, 2009 and visitors to this site know full well that the audio tape of that meeting has been hosted here since September 9, 2009. As well, the video of same was hosted on the Town’s Public Access Channel the days following the meeting. Clearly, a review of the tape by this weekly "newspaper" would have disproved Mr Garieri’s ascertains as well as his claims that the meeting was not video or audio taped. There appears to have been no attempt by this weekly "newspaper" to validate the accuracy or lack thereof relative to these unfounded misrepresentations, nor any attempt to access the Town’s video or my audio for that matter.
Equally, it appears that there were no attempts to verify the identity of at least one individual (the selectmen's representative to the TASC), in terms of his responsibly for “leaking” Mr. Blanchard’s name as a finalist to the press. Oddly, during the November 16 meeting while this same selectman/committee member was feigning righteous indignation about leaks, he was remind of his culpability for the leaks of information and his unsolicited correspondence to me regarding same. Mr. Garieri's response was that he had “never told anyone, anything”. When then asked if he would like the correspondence produced, he responded by saying that ‘if I [Scott Garieri] emailed anything to you then it was private”. One either did or did not leak information. Clearly he did.
Our local weekly “newspaper’s" response has been to simply ignore these inconsistencies as well as the unrelenting interference into this process by one candidate and his spouse, choosing instead to refrain from any true investigative vetting relative to this situation; or so at least, it appears.
These failures to vet information, investigate more deeply, and/or substantiate statements of alleged “fact” are no doubt disconcerting as the vast majority of residents obtain their information from printed media. To that end, a more comprehensive approach might have been expected and certainly would have better served the residents of Sturbridge.
The very reason that news blogging has become such an integral component of our public information system (particularly at the state and national level) is in large part due to the failure of all too many "news" outlets to fully vet and fully investigate the news. Many of the most significant news stories to break over the last 2 - 3 years have been as a direct result of bloggers. Would not all residents be better served by a more robust and comprehensive approach to reporting the news? It seems however that some have a proclivity to chase windmills rather than actually engaging dragons.
Beyond the missed opportunites by some local press representatives relative to the search for a new Town Adminstrator, the "at all costs" pursuit of the position by a local candidate - arguably spawned by an overwhelming sense of entitlement - has resulted in significant collateral damage that has shaken the faith of all too many in their elected officials. It is in our best interests always to remain wary of pursuits so vehemently undertaken on behalf of any ONE at the cost of the MANY.
The individual aspirations of the one, when balanced against the best interests of the many, should remain, at all times subordinate. To that end, the primary objective of the town’s senior appointed official is to endeavor always to serve the greater good. The path taken by at least one candidate apppears to be at odds with this obligation.
Thomas Jefferson once said that “All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent”. One has to question the cost to our community as a result of the self-indulgent political aspirations of "the few or the one". Surely an argument could be made that the price paid by our community, appears to be significantly in excess of the product’s ultimate value.
I have little doubt that there will be additional costs prior to the completion of this process.
Read more!
In the five months following the appointment of the first search committee (June 15, 2009), we have witnessed an unprecedented series of interactions that by any outside source, would appear suspect at best. Were one to reflect closely and objectively upon the events accompanying this search, one would be hard-pressed to conclude to the contrary that this process has been unnecessarily marred by interference and ethical miscues.
Consider the following synopsis of what we’ve witnessed in the last 5 months.
Monday, June 15, 2009: The initial TASC is appointed. Selectwoman Mary Blanchard participates in the appointment process despite advance knowledge that her husband would be applying. Unfortunately, I remained silent relative to her participation hoping it would be of no consequence. This was a clear error in judgment on my behalf. In hindsight, one might well argue that Mrs. Blanchard’s involvement constitutes (appropriately or otherwise) tampering. Were this a jury selection process, there is little doubt that such would be subject to challenge in our legal system.
Thursday, June 26, 2009: The Search Committee meets and establishes its criteria followed by a local and national posting of same.
Thursday, July 2, 2009: Several individuals contact me expressing relative to efforts aimed at modifying the previously posted criteria. Some contend it is an attempt to increase the odds of a local candidate who does not meet the job posting. I am asked to attend the meeting. I notified a reporter from the Town Common of same and he attended the meeting as well. After lengthy discussion the committee voted in the majority to maintain the previously established and posted criteria.
Monday, July 13, 2009: Charles Blanchard submits his application electronically, though his application is inconsistent with the established criteria.
Saturday, August 29, 2009: TASC meets in Executive Session. After that meeting the two previously scheduled TASC meetings of September 1 & 2 are cancelled. Undoubtedly, the TASC had completed its search and had determined the 3 finalists for presentation to the Board of Selectmen. At this very juncture the finalist’s names became a matter of public record under the the MA Open Meeting Law, (right sidebar) Exemption 8 (pages 22-24), as enforced and intrepreted by the Attorney General's office and is thus public property.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009: SEN reports (based upon statements from TASC committee members) that the names of the finalists will be released on September 7, 2009.
Wednesday, September 2, 2009: TASC Chairman Hillman electronically notifies the 3 finalists of their selection.
Sunday, September 6, 2009: A Telegram & Gazette story citing unnamed sources (from within the TASC) identifies local candidate Charles Blanchard as a finalist.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009: During a joint meeting of BOS & TASC, questions surface about the modification of previously established and posted criteria, which occurred without any public notification. In response to the concerns raised, four committee members resign. (Visitors to this site have had access to the audio portion of that meeting since September 9, as it accompanied an article titled "Audio of BOS-T.A. Search Committee Below (When a man assumes a public trust he should consider himself a public property - Thomas Jefferson)".
Thursday, September 24, 2009: A second TASC is appointed. Based upon Conflict of Interest guidelines and Town Counsel recommendation (the later provided by interim Town Administrator Mike Racicot) Mrs. Blanchard is asked to leave the room. She is understandably upset and challenges the opinion, but complies ultimately, after considerable discussion and a personal request from vice-Chairman Garieri. The Massachusetts Conflict of Interest guidelines (right side bar) clearly state that "... the wisest course of action is to leave the room...".
The following is an excerpt from same (page 1, 2nd paragraph): I. RESTRICTIONS ON YOUR ACTIONS A. Self-Dealing (Section 19) (right sidebar). The law generally prohibits you from taking any official action on matters affecting your own financial interests, or the financial interests of: your immediate family members (i.e., your spouse and the parents, siblings and children of either you or your spouse); partners; your employer(s) other than your town; anyone with whom you are negotiating or have an arrangement concerning prospective employment; or organizations for which you serve as an officer, director, partner, employee or trustee. As a Selectman, you may not act in any way that affects these interests, positively or negatively, nor may you act on any matter that affects these interests within the foreseeable future. If a matter affecting one of these interests comes up for consideration at a Selectmen’s meeting, the wisest course of action is to leave the room during discussion, deliberation and the vote on the matter, and make sure that the minutes of the meeting reflect your recusal.
Friday, September 25, 2009: Mr. and Mrs. Charles Blanchard (during separate visits) confront Selectman Scott Garieri in his place of business relative to the events of the previous evening and the overall process. These visits are highly inappropriate and certainly suspect by any candidate and/or spouse of same (particularly a spouse who maintains a seat on the Sturbridge Board of Selectmen).
Saturday, September 26, 2009: Mr. Charles Blanchard approaches and confronts the wife of Selectman Thomas R. Creamer challenging her support for his candidacy to the T.A. position. (This is inappropriate and in my view outrageous as Mrs. Creamer maintains no public profile, serves on no committees in town, and maintains absolute privacy relative to public matters.)
Tuesday, October 13, 2009: During a joint meeting between the newly appointed TASC and the B.O.S, all present are cautioned by me relative to the need to refrain from any activities that would cast a shadow on the search process. I indicate that 2 members of the BOS have already been approached, either directly or indirectly, by a candidate and his spouse, again warning all to guard against any actions that could taint the process.
Thursday, October 29, 2009: During a review of the TASC minutes, it is determined that Selectmen Scott Garieri conducted a "courtesy call" to Mr. Charles Blanchard regarding the resubmission of his application. No such call was authorized or sanctioned by the TASC. As well, this "courtesy" was not provided to other finalists. In his defense, Mr. Garieri argues that another (non-local) finalist had already submitted an application, thereby requiring no "courtesy call". One has to wonder why a local candidate whose wife serves on the B.O.S. required a special “courtesy call” to submit what a non-resident finalist was able to do without any “courtesies” extended.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009: The Telegram & Gazette emails the International City/County Managers Association (ICMA) seeking clarification on the potential conflict of interest involving Mr. and Mrs. Blanchard. This email became part of a public document forwarded to the B.O.S. on 11-13-09 by Mr. Charles Blanchard, thus establishing it as a public record.
Thursday, November 5, 2009: The previously referenced email is then forwarded by Ms. Michelle Frisby of the ICMA to Mr. Blanchard following a “courtesy call” she made to him about the T&G email request. Ms. Frisby fails to respond to the T&G request but instead takes the time to contact Mr. Blanchard, wishing him “good luck” with the process. For the record, Ms. Frisby is a family friend of the Blanchard's. (This determination is made based upon the email, which became a publid record on 11-13-09.)
The Telegram and Gazette subsequently reports (11-15-09) that Martha Prego, (Ms. Frisby's superior) did respond to a direct phone solicitation from the T&G wherein she emphatically states that a clear conflict of interest regarding the Blanchard’s exists.
Friday, November 13, 2009: Mr. Charles Blanchard submits a public letter to the Board of Selectmen requesting a “full investigation” into what he terms a “very serious violation of his rights”. Mr. Blanchard further suggests something amiss insofar as his previous selection as one of the 3 finalists juxtaposed against his failure to be selected into the final 10 of the most recent search.
Sunday, November 15, 2009: A Telegram & Gazette news story reports that “Martha Perego, director of ethics at the International City/County Management Association in Washington, D.C., said there is “clearly a conflict of interest” between an elected official serving on a board and their spouse working for that board.
The story further reports that “The average person on the street would say you can’t be independent when you’re thinking about somebody, you’re voting on the compensation, the continued employment, etc., of someone you’re related to,” Ms. Perego said Friday night from her home in Arlington, Va. “And beyond that, it’s the whole bias issue, because this person is on a board with people that she works with day in and day out. Just because she recuses herself doesn’t mean she doesn’t influence the outcome of the decision-making process.”
Monday, November 16, 2009: Chairman Mary Blanchard (wife of candidate Charles Blanchard) chairs a meeting wherein both Mr. and Mrs. Blanchard suggest foul play relative to Mr. Blanchard’s candidacy. Mrs. Blanchard attempts on several occasions to direct the conversation in a manner most conducive to Mr. Blanchard’s charges. This is, in my view, a clear manipulation of her position on the Board of Selectmen as well as a violation of the public trust. Mrs. Blanchard demonstrated her inability to maintain an objective discussion involving her husband (understandably so) and thus should have immediately recused herself. This was a clear example of the impracticality of her and her husband’s solicitation for the Town Administrator’s position. It certainly supports Ms. Perego’s position that there is “clearly a conflict of interest” between an elected official serving on a board and their spouse working for that board.
In considering this timeline, one is struck by the frequent questionable interdictions into this process by a local candidate and his spouse. Alternately, one is unable to document a single instance of “interference” by any of the other 49 initial candidates, nor the nearly 60 candidates associated with the second search process. Considering the significance of the Town Administrator’s position and the need for ensuring exceptional integrity and character on the part of the office holder, one becomes hard-pressed to now quantify this local candidate as a formidable option.
Noteworthy as well, with exceptions, press reports of the events surrounding this 5 month process – excepting those of a non-local based news outlet – have been all too frequently incomplete, inquiry deficient, and at times inaccurate. Consider the following:
The Town Common’s story relative to the November 16, 2009 selectmen’s meeting, reported that “Selectman Creamer ignored the Chairman's authority to direct the conversation" in response to Mrs. Blanchard’s attempts to control the discussion as it related to charges leveled by her husband in terms of his candidacy being “compromised”. Clearly, an astute observation, as I did ignore the Chairman's attempts to direct and manipulate the conversation in a manner more conducive to her husband’s liking. The role of the Chair is to maintain a neutral and objective discussion, not to, as some might suggest (including this weekly "newspaper"), direct the conversation in a manner more suitable to the personal proclivities of the Chair. Were the chairperson allowed to manipulate and direct all conversation, there would be few, if any discussions of merit, as the Chairman’s point of view would always dictate the final determination.
Most recently, during it’s pre-Thanksgiving release, this same newspaper reported that "According to [Selectman] Garieri, “he [Thomas Creamer] considered it [Charles Blanchard’s application] public information and said he would release it to the press. That’s a fact.” The statement allegedly was made at the Sept. 6 selectmen’s meeting. A meeting where Garieri said, “the town camera for some reason got shut off.” The Town Common story went on to say that "Furthermore, Creamer always records the meetings himself. But somehow, that camera was unplugged”.
To be clear the meeting in question actually took place on September 8, 2009 and visitors to this site know full well that the audio tape of that meeting has been hosted here since September 9, 2009. As well, the video of same was hosted on the Town’s Public Access Channel the days following the meeting. Clearly, a review of the tape by this weekly "newspaper" would have disproved Mr Garieri’s ascertains as well as his claims that the meeting was not video or audio taped. There appears to have been no attempt by this weekly "newspaper" to validate the accuracy or lack thereof relative to these unfounded misrepresentations, nor any attempt to access the Town’s video or my audio for that matter.
Equally, it appears that there were no attempts to verify the identity of at least one individual (the selectmen's representative to the TASC), in terms of his responsibly for “leaking” Mr. Blanchard’s name as a finalist to the press. Oddly, during the November 16 meeting while this same selectman/committee member was feigning righteous indignation about leaks, he was remind of his culpability for the leaks of information and his unsolicited correspondence to me regarding same. Mr. Garieri's response was that he had “never told anyone, anything”. When then asked if he would like the correspondence produced, he responded by saying that ‘if I [Scott Garieri] emailed anything to you then it was private”. One either did or did not leak information. Clearly he did.
Our local weekly “newspaper’s" response has been to simply ignore these inconsistencies as well as the unrelenting interference into this process by one candidate and his spouse, choosing instead to refrain from any true investigative vetting relative to this situation; or so at least, it appears.
These failures to vet information, investigate more deeply, and/or substantiate statements of alleged “fact” are no doubt disconcerting as the vast majority of residents obtain their information from printed media. To that end, a more comprehensive approach might have been expected and certainly would have better served the residents of Sturbridge.
The very reason that news blogging has become such an integral component of our public information system (particularly at the state and national level) is in large part due to the failure of all too many "news" outlets to fully vet and fully investigate the news. Many of the most significant news stories to break over the last 2 - 3 years have been as a direct result of bloggers. Would not all residents be better served by a more robust and comprehensive approach to reporting the news? It seems however that some have a proclivity to chase windmills rather than actually engaging dragons.
Beyond the missed opportunites by some local press representatives relative to the search for a new Town Adminstrator, the "at all costs" pursuit of the position by a local candidate - arguably spawned by an overwhelming sense of entitlement - has resulted in significant collateral damage that has shaken the faith of all too many in their elected officials. It is in our best interests always to remain wary of pursuits so vehemently undertaken on behalf of any ONE at the cost of the MANY.
The individual aspirations of the one, when balanced against the best interests of the many, should remain, at all times subordinate. To that end, the primary objective of the town’s senior appointed official is to endeavor always to serve the greater good. The path taken by at least one candidate apppears to be at odds with this obligation.
Thomas Jefferson once said that “All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent”. One has to question the cost to our community as a result of the self-indulgent political aspirations of "the few or the one". Surely an argument could be made that the price paid by our community, appears to be significantly in excess of the product’s ultimate value.
I have little doubt that there will be additional costs prior to the completion of this process.
Read more!
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Unintentional or Otherwise
Recent events are no doubt straining the patience of our community. The once seemingly simple search for a new Town Administrator has been anything but. Sadly, with so many significant issues necessitating our attention – decreasing tax revenues, declining economic tax base, infrastructure inadequacies on Route 15, shortages in our road management fund, sub-standard public-access telecommunications, increased recycling center/landfill costs, etc., as well as the many significant infrastructure projects currently scheduled, we are instead exhausting much too much effort trying to keeping an honest system, honest. Certainly, I am no a bystander to this debacle, but rather, an all too unwilling participant.
From the very beginning I had hoped that this process would be conducted as openly and event-free as possible, while protecting the confidentiality of candidates as governed by MA General Law. I did not anticipate what has amounted to influence pedaling (unintentional or otherwise), nor had I anticipated the challenges this community would unnecessarily face. Naïve perhaps, but nonetheless I believed this would be an entirely open and positive experience. Such, has not been the case.
As previously written, I believe that the responsibility for this unnecessary situation has, and continues to rest on the shoulders of two individuals, one an applicant, the other his wife. Intentionally or not, their actions have unnecessarily compromised the process. For the most part, the members of the two Town Administrator's Search Committees (TASC) have done a yeoman’s job. There have been some missteps, due mainly perhaps to inexperience and as well, I believe, some due to pressure, whether real or imagined from at least this same applicant and his spouse.
In what would surely be labeled “tampering” were this a case pending before a jury, an applicant and his wife, unintentionally or otherwise, have exerted influence on this process by inserting themselves into situations they should have avoided altogether. After the first search committee had established its minimum criteria, I became aware that there had been conversations with members of the TASC in an attempt to modify their pre-established and already posted criteria. Concerned individuals approached me with fears that the proposed criteria modifications may be an attempt to enhance the chances of a local applicant who did not meet the minimum criteria. True or not, this perception had already begun to manifest and I was asked by several individuals to attend the second meeting of the previous TASC in hopes of ascertaining the motivation behind this reconsideration of previously agreed upon and posted criteria.
After an exhaustive discussion relative to the minimum criteria, the majority of TASC members voted to maintain the qualifications as previously determined and posted. Yet, some six weeks later, when these same individuals came before the Board of Selectmen to discuss the finalists, it was learned that they had departed from their own previously established and nationally posted criteria with no public notification. This was disconcerting, as the newly determined and previously unannounced qualifications had not been made available to others who might have then opted to apply for the Town Administrator’s position. The appearance – real or perceived – was that a hometown candidate was garnering an advantage in the process. To be clear, I am not suggesting such is the case, I am emphatically stating that the perception was rife throughout our community. In the world of politics and business, perception is reality, regardless of the truth.
During this meeting joint meeting of the former TASC and the Board of Selectmen (B.O.S.) several questions were raised relative to the dramatic departure from the previously established criteria. Oddly, these direct and appropriate questions ultimately resulted in the unsolicited resignation of four members of that committee. In hindsight, we (the Board of Selectmen) should then have requested the resignation of the fifth TASC member (B.O.S. vice-Chairman Garieri) in order facilitate a completely fresh approach. I take full responsibility for not suggesting such, as I knew internally that it would have been the most appropriate course. I allowed my judgement to be clouded by my personal relationship with the vice-Chairman. That was an inexcusable lapse in sound reasoning on my part.
The formation of a new committee would certainly not be without its share of controversy either. During the Selectmen’s meeting of 09/24/09 wherein the appointment of a new TASC was to be discussed, the B.O.S. Chairwoman (based upon MA State Ethics Laws) was asked to leave the room during the appointment of a new committee. She had recused herself from participation, presumably because her husband either had, or intended to, resubmit an application. The MA State Ethics Commission in its law summary on Self Dealing, Section 1, Restrictions on Your Actions, states the following: “The law generally prohibits you from taking any official action on matters affecting your own financial interests, or the financial interests of: your immediate family members (i.e., your spouse and the parents, siblings and children of either you or your spouse)…”. It goes on to say that: “If a matter affecting one of these interests comes up for consideration at a Selectmen’s meeting, the wisest course of action is to leave the room during discussion, deliberation and the vote on the matter, and make sure that the minutes of the meeting reflect your recusal”. The Chairwoman was understandably upset with being asked to comply with this law summary as this course action (based upon her ascertain) had not previously been invoked by Board members. Regardless of what may have not occurred prior to my election to the Board, it is nonetheless the appropriate and best course of action to leave the room. This prevents any reticence on the part of Board members to openly discuss issues.
The following day (09-25-09) it was volunteered that Selectman and TASC member Scott Garieri had been approached by the Chairwoman, in direct relation to the Town Administrator’s search process. Approximately 90 minutes later, I witnessed former candidate Charles Blanchard approach Mr. Garieri and seek a personal audience with him. It was subsequently volunteered that the conversations were directly related to the previous night’s meeting as well as the search process.
Undoubtedly, the limited context of those conversations as addressed here, constitute nothing more than second hand information - i.e. hearsay, in that they reflect what was conveyed to me by Mr. Garieri, not what I actually heard transpire between the principals. To that end, they are subject to all manner of scrutiny. The only three individuals who can attest to the true nature of those conversations are those directly involved. Surely, their honest and uncensored clarifications are welcomed.
This interaction was followed by yet another questionable contact on the part of Mr. Charles Blanchard on 09/26/09 while Mrs. Jeannine Creamer (wife of Selectman Thomas R. Creamer) was assisting a friend with a craft booth on the Town Common. Mr. Blanchard approached, confronted, and challenged Mrs. Creamer’s support for his “candidacy” to the Town Administrator’s position. This was not the result of any general conversation they had engaged, but rather a singularly direct challenge specifically and solely directed at her and her support for him as Town Administrator.
In and of itself, this is most troubling, particularly in light of Mrs. Creamer’s non-existent public profile as it relates to town politics. Mrs. Creamer does not serve on any committees in town, takes no public positions on issues, nor does she publicly promote or challenge positions or issues. Thus, for all purposes, she maintains no political role or profile within the community that would in any way suggest it appropriate for this former candidate to challenge her relative to this issue. One might be tempted to view Mr. Blanchard’s action as an indirect attempt to influence my decision making.
Subsequent to these interactions it was later learned through a review of the TASC meeting minutes of 10/28/09, that the vice-Chair of the Board of Selectmen had personally phoned Mr. Blanchard regarding his necessity to resubmit his application for re-consideration. This contact was neither directed, nor had it been sanctioned by the other members of the TASC. Considering the issues that had already clouded this process, as well as the compromised level of public trust accompanying it, one becomes concerned with what could be argued has the appearance of a serious breach of protocol and good judgment.
Clearly, one recognizes - based solely upon this commitment made to the previous finalists by former TASC members - the apparent quandary, which may have manifested in this committee member's mind; to that end, I am obliged to believe that his intentions were pure. Equally so however, one recognizes – based upon the minutes – that none of the other 3 finalists were provided the same “courtesy” relative to their applications or this process.
Thus, one is forced to wonder why a former finalist, who resides locally, complimented by a family member holding public office who retains full knowledge of the application process, required a “courtesy call” regarding resubmission, while others did not. The minutes clearly reflect that this same “courtesy” was not extended to other finalists who neither reside locally, nor have any direct relations with local public officials. More to the point, the minutes emphatically demonstrate that one non-resident finalist resubmitted her/his application without any prompting whatsoever. One is struck by the contradiction in approach relative to these former finalists. Would it not have been reasonably fair to expect that a former resident finalist would have been as equally well schooled relative to the application process as any non-resident applicant and/or former finalist?
Again, I do recognize that these previous “commitments” may have influenced the contact initiated by the B.O.S. vice-Chairman with this former and potential local candidate. As such, I believe that his intentions were pure. I do question however, whether the so-referenced “courtesy call” was a direct or indirect result of any conscious or unconscious pressures manifesting in response to the unsolicited contacts he had with the former candidate and his wife. If a “courtesy call” was warranted, should not such have first been vetted and approved by the full committee?
Most recently, (Friday, November 13, 2009), Mr. Blanchard submitted a letter to the Board of Selectmen wherein he raised several concerns he had with the search process. This letter had been referenced on a correspondence list that is faxed out weekly to the press by the Town Administrator's secretary. Subsequent to that fax, I received an inquiry early Friday evening from a member of the press requesting a copy of the document. I obliged, as the letter was in fact a public document the moment we had received it and therefore subject to disclosure under the public records law.
To that end, consider the following excerpts taken directly from the Massachusetts Public Records Law Handbook:
Page 1 - “Every record made or received by a government entity is presumed to be a public record, unless it is subject to an exemption...”
Page 4 – “The Massachusetts Public Records Law provides that any person has an absolute right of access to public information…”
Page 4 – “There are no strict rules that govern the manner in which requests for public information should be made. Requests may be oral or written and may be made in person or through the mail…”
Page 5 – “All requests must receive a response as soon as practicable, without unreasonable delay and always within ten days..”.
Since Mr. Blanchard’s letter was not protected by Executive Session or Confidentiality privileges, there was no reason to refrain from honoring this request for public information
In his letter, Mr. Blanchard argues that his candidacy for the Town Administrator’s position was compromised due to the release of confidential information to the press. Certainly this is a serious charge on face value, as confidential information is just that, confidential. However, confidentiality is dictated by Massachusetts General Laws not by the individual wishes or preferences of public officials. Were it left solely to the discretion of public officials to determine when and what information should be released, there is little doubt the public would be left uninformed on an all too frequent basis.
In response to Mr. Blanchard's concerns pertaining to the release of his name as a finalist, coupled with the feigned indignation of the B.O.S. vice-Chairman relative to same, I found myself with little choice but to set the record straight. It should not have been necessary for me to do so, as that duty rests with the individual responsible. Yet, it was clear that this flagrant misdirection of the truth necessitated challenge and that responsibility unfortunately feel to me.
But therein lies the great irony, as the failure of the vice-Chair to acknowledge the truth may have unnecessarily created a challenge to the perception of one's credibility. Under the Open Meeting Law, the release of the finalists names by Mr. Garieri were completely consistent with the law and in no way constituted a violation. Simply stated, there was nothing wrong in his releasing the name(s) to the press; as such, his failure to acknowledge the truth was unnecessary. He did absolutely nothing that warranted any departure from fact.
Consider these sections excerpted directly from the State’s Open Meeting Law Guidebook, pertaining to Exemption 8, relative to Executive Session discussions or materials.
“(8) To Consider and Interview Applicants for Employment by a Preliminary Screening Committee or a Subcommittee Appointed by a Governmental Body if an Open Meeting will have a Detrimental Effect in Obtaining Qualified Applicants…
This amendment applies only to municipal and district governments. It permits a hiring subcommittee of a governmental body or a preliminary screening committee to conduct the initial screening process in executive session if an open meeting will have a detrimental effect on the governmental body’s ability to attract qualified applicants. The amendment does not apply to any stage in the hiring process after the screening committee or subcommittee votes to recommend a candidate or candidates to its parent body.” Author's Note: It is at this point - the establishment of a final list - that the names immediately become public domain.
The Open Meeting Law guidebook then goes on to provide the following example:
"A school committee is seeking to fill an opening for the position of superintendent of schools. It has received 100 applications in response to its advertisements; some of those responding expressly stated that they wished their applications to remain confidential. M.G.L. c. 214, §1B, a statute wholly independent and separate from the Open Meeting Law, protects an individual’s right to privacy against unreasonable, substantial or serious invasion. It may constitute an unreasonable or serious invasion of these applicants’ statutory right to privacy for the school committee to identify them by name and discuss their applications in an open meeting at the initial screening stages; if so, the discussion would be required to be held in an executive session. (Note, however, that the school committee would bear the burden of proving that the statutory privacy right of the applicants warranted the executive session.) As the committee’s selection process continues and the list of applicants is narrowed, however, the privacy rights of the individuals still under consideration recede in comparison to the public’s right to know who the school committee is seriously reviewing for the post. At least by the time the school committee (or a screening subcommittee of the school committee) has selected a list of semi-finalists, if not before, it is unlikely that the rights of privacy on the part of such persons would require or authorize an executive session to discuss them…
Note: Under a ruling of the Supervisor of Public Records, SPR 82-219, the names of the initial applicants for the superintendent’s position would not appear to be a public record, and would not be required to be included in the minutes of any meeting, whether open or closed, in which the applicants were discussed. However, in SPR 84-66 the Supervisor of Public Records ruled that the list of finalists’ names are public records. Although the Supervisor’s opinion addressed only the required release of finalists’ names, the reasoning of the opinion suggests that the names of semi-finalists would also be considered a public record subject to release to the public upon request.”
Considering the State’s guidelines, it is clear that there is no inherent right to privacy as it relates to release of finalists names, or for that matter, those of semi-finalists once a "...vote to recommend a candidate or candidates to its parent..." has occurred. Those names become public record the moment they are determined. To that end, the release of at least one name by individuals serving directly on the Town Administrator’s Search Committee, did not violate the Open Meeting Law; they were in fact, consistent with same.
Thus, for all protestations to the contrary, there was nothing ethically or legally wrong with the release of names to the press by the Vice-Chair of the B.O.S. His actions constituted no wrongs when contrasted against the Open Meeting Law. Some well spent time (by the vice-Chair and others) reading and comprehending the laws by which we conduct our business, could have spared a great deal of unnecessary discomfort for all.
Undoubtedly, this process has been demoralizing for many and there are those who might suggest that turning a blind eye, a deaf ear, and a silent voice to this issue would have been the best course of action. Considering the challenges that have already manifested with this process, one might be tempted or even convinced to take such an approach. I categorically reject such and denounce any failure to openly address these issues as a blatant breach of the public trust.
Additionally and/or alternately, there are those who might argue that a few well placed editorials or blog postings – anonymously and otherwise, should dictate the course of town affairs. I dismiss those ascertains completely and contend that the final destination of all deliberations should be determined not by external pressures or influences, but rather through objective, scrupulous, and unassailable reflection.
As an elected official, I am reminded of the oath taken by all public servants, which requires our absolute honesty, unbridled objectivity, and unwavering commitment to faithfully execute one’s duties on behalf of all Sturbridge residents; not any Few, or any One. As much of a cliché as one might reference it, that oath still matters a great deal to many Sturbridge residents. It certainly means everything to me in fulfilling the great obligation and responsibility of office I am now honored to hold on behalf of all residents. I do hope, with each passing day, that I am executing my responsibilities in a manner consistent with your expectations.
It is my sincerest hope that we can soon return our focus to where it is most productive. Clearly, no resident, nor any member of the Board of Selectmen for that matter, relishes the distractions and embarrassment this has caused for our community. Considering such, I have infrequently questioned whether it might have been best for me to turn a blind eye to what was happening and simply hope for the best. To do so however, would have been a dereliction of my responsibility to the residents of this community. Doing the right thing, does come with a significant price and I hope we have not paid too steeply for what has transpired. There is little doubt that the demands of democracy can be most challenging; were that not the case, none of this would be of any consequence.
Perhaps, as the dust settles, each of us (the members of the B.O.S.) will embark upon some extensive soul searching in the hopes of gaining deeper insights into our solemn responsibility to the residents of our community. We do afterall serve you, and each of does well to remember at all times that principle, integrity, and character are the only appropriate tools for effecting positive change. Anything grounded in self-seeking or deception is ultimately destined for failure. I certainly recognize my obligation to do so.
Read more!
From the very beginning I had hoped that this process would be conducted as openly and event-free as possible, while protecting the confidentiality of candidates as governed by MA General Law. I did not anticipate what has amounted to influence pedaling (unintentional or otherwise), nor had I anticipated the challenges this community would unnecessarily face. Naïve perhaps, but nonetheless I believed this would be an entirely open and positive experience. Such, has not been the case.
As previously written, I believe that the responsibility for this unnecessary situation has, and continues to rest on the shoulders of two individuals, one an applicant, the other his wife. Intentionally or not, their actions have unnecessarily compromised the process. For the most part, the members of the two Town Administrator's Search Committees (TASC) have done a yeoman’s job. There have been some missteps, due mainly perhaps to inexperience and as well, I believe, some due to pressure, whether real or imagined from at least this same applicant and his spouse.
In what would surely be labeled “tampering” were this a case pending before a jury, an applicant and his wife, unintentionally or otherwise, have exerted influence on this process by inserting themselves into situations they should have avoided altogether. After the first search committee had established its minimum criteria, I became aware that there had been conversations with members of the TASC in an attempt to modify their pre-established and already posted criteria. Concerned individuals approached me with fears that the proposed criteria modifications may be an attempt to enhance the chances of a local applicant who did not meet the minimum criteria. True or not, this perception had already begun to manifest and I was asked by several individuals to attend the second meeting of the previous TASC in hopes of ascertaining the motivation behind this reconsideration of previously agreed upon and posted criteria.
After an exhaustive discussion relative to the minimum criteria, the majority of TASC members voted to maintain the qualifications as previously determined and posted. Yet, some six weeks later, when these same individuals came before the Board of Selectmen to discuss the finalists, it was learned that they had departed from their own previously established and nationally posted criteria with no public notification. This was disconcerting, as the newly determined and previously unannounced qualifications had not been made available to others who might have then opted to apply for the Town Administrator’s position. The appearance – real or perceived – was that a hometown candidate was garnering an advantage in the process. To be clear, I am not suggesting such is the case, I am emphatically stating that the perception was rife throughout our community. In the world of politics and business, perception is reality, regardless of the truth.
During this meeting joint meeting of the former TASC and the Board of Selectmen (B.O.S.) several questions were raised relative to the dramatic departure from the previously established criteria. Oddly, these direct and appropriate questions ultimately resulted in the unsolicited resignation of four members of that committee. In hindsight, we (the Board of Selectmen) should then have requested the resignation of the fifth TASC member (B.O.S. vice-Chairman Garieri) in order facilitate a completely fresh approach. I take full responsibility for not suggesting such, as I knew internally that it would have been the most appropriate course. I allowed my judgement to be clouded by my personal relationship with the vice-Chairman. That was an inexcusable lapse in sound reasoning on my part.
The formation of a new committee would certainly not be without its share of controversy either. During the Selectmen’s meeting of 09/24/09 wherein the appointment of a new TASC was to be discussed, the B.O.S. Chairwoman (based upon MA State Ethics Laws) was asked to leave the room during the appointment of a new committee. She had recused herself from participation, presumably because her husband either had, or intended to, resubmit an application. The MA State Ethics Commission in its law summary on Self Dealing, Section 1, Restrictions on Your Actions, states the following: “The law generally prohibits you from taking any official action on matters affecting your own financial interests, or the financial interests of: your immediate family members (i.e., your spouse and the parents, siblings and children of either you or your spouse)…”. It goes on to say that: “If a matter affecting one of these interests comes up for consideration at a Selectmen’s meeting, the wisest course of action is to leave the room during discussion, deliberation and the vote on the matter, and make sure that the minutes of the meeting reflect your recusal”. The Chairwoman was understandably upset with being asked to comply with this law summary as this course action (based upon her ascertain) had not previously been invoked by Board members. Regardless of what may have not occurred prior to my election to the Board, it is nonetheless the appropriate and best course of action to leave the room. This prevents any reticence on the part of Board members to openly discuss issues.
The following day (09-25-09) it was volunteered that Selectman and TASC member Scott Garieri had been approached by the Chairwoman, in direct relation to the Town Administrator’s search process. Approximately 90 minutes later, I witnessed former candidate Charles Blanchard approach Mr. Garieri and seek a personal audience with him. It was subsequently volunteered that the conversations were directly related to the previous night’s meeting as well as the search process.
Undoubtedly, the limited context of those conversations as addressed here, constitute nothing more than second hand information - i.e. hearsay, in that they reflect what was conveyed to me by Mr. Garieri, not what I actually heard transpire between the principals. To that end, they are subject to all manner of scrutiny. The only three individuals who can attest to the true nature of those conversations are those directly involved. Surely, their honest and uncensored clarifications are welcomed.
This interaction was followed by yet another questionable contact on the part of Mr. Charles Blanchard on 09/26/09 while Mrs. Jeannine Creamer (wife of Selectman Thomas R. Creamer) was assisting a friend with a craft booth on the Town Common. Mr. Blanchard approached, confronted, and challenged Mrs. Creamer’s support for his “candidacy” to the Town Administrator’s position. This was not the result of any general conversation they had engaged, but rather a singularly direct challenge specifically and solely directed at her and her support for him as Town Administrator.
In and of itself, this is most troubling, particularly in light of Mrs. Creamer’s non-existent public profile as it relates to town politics. Mrs. Creamer does not serve on any committees in town, takes no public positions on issues, nor does she publicly promote or challenge positions or issues. Thus, for all purposes, she maintains no political role or profile within the community that would in any way suggest it appropriate for this former candidate to challenge her relative to this issue. One might be tempted to view Mr. Blanchard’s action as an indirect attempt to influence my decision making.
Subsequent to these interactions it was later learned through a review of the TASC meeting minutes of 10/28/09, that the vice-Chair of the Board of Selectmen had personally phoned Mr. Blanchard regarding his necessity to resubmit his application for re-consideration. This contact was neither directed, nor had it been sanctioned by the other members of the TASC. Considering the issues that had already clouded this process, as well as the compromised level of public trust accompanying it, one becomes concerned with what could be argued has the appearance of a serious breach of protocol and good judgment.
Clearly, one recognizes - based solely upon this commitment made to the previous finalists by former TASC members - the apparent quandary, which may have manifested in this committee member's mind; to that end, I am obliged to believe that his intentions were pure. Equally so however, one recognizes – based upon the minutes – that none of the other 3 finalists were provided the same “courtesy” relative to their applications or this process.
Thus, one is forced to wonder why a former finalist, who resides locally, complimented by a family member holding public office who retains full knowledge of the application process, required a “courtesy call” regarding resubmission, while others did not. The minutes clearly reflect that this same “courtesy” was not extended to other finalists who neither reside locally, nor have any direct relations with local public officials. More to the point, the minutes emphatically demonstrate that one non-resident finalist resubmitted her/his application without any prompting whatsoever. One is struck by the contradiction in approach relative to these former finalists. Would it not have been reasonably fair to expect that a former resident finalist would have been as equally well schooled relative to the application process as any non-resident applicant and/or former finalist?
Again, I do recognize that these previous “commitments” may have influenced the contact initiated by the B.O.S. vice-Chairman with this former and potential local candidate. As such, I believe that his intentions were pure. I do question however, whether the so-referenced “courtesy call” was a direct or indirect result of any conscious or unconscious pressures manifesting in response to the unsolicited contacts he had with the former candidate and his wife. If a “courtesy call” was warranted, should not such have first been vetted and approved by the full committee?
Most recently, (Friday, November 13, 2009), Mr. Blanchard submitted a letter to the Board of Selectmen wherein he raised several concerns he had with the search process. This letter had been referenced on a correspondence list that is faxed out weekly to the press by the Town Administrator's secretary. Subsequent to that fax, I received an inquiry early Friday evening from a member of the press requesting a copy of the document. I obliged, as the letter was in fact a public document the moment we had received it and therefore subject to disclosure under the public records law.
To that end, consider the following excerpts taken directly from the Massachusetts Public Records Law Handbook:
Page 1 - “Every record made or received by a government entity is presumed to be a public record, unless it is subject to an exemption...”
Page 4 – “The Massachusetts Public Records Law provides that any person has an absolute right of access to public information…”
Page 4 – “There are no strict rules that govern the manner in which requests for public information should be made. Requests may be oral or written and may be made in person or through the mail…”
Page 5 – “All requests must receive a response as soon as practicable, without unreasonable delay and always within ten days..”.
Since Mr. Blanchard’s letter was not protected by Executive Session or Confidentiality privileges, there was no reason to refrain from honoring this request for public information
In his letter, Mr. Blanchard argues that his candidacy for the Town Administrator’s position was compromised due to the release of confidential information to the press. Certainly this is a serious charge on face value, as confidential information is just that, confidential. However, confidentiality is dictated by Massachusetts General Laws not by the individual wishes or preferences of public officials. Were it left solely to the discretion of public officials to determine when and what information should be released, there is little doubt the public would be left uninformed on an all too frequent basis.
In response to Mr. Blanchard's concerns pertaining to the release of his name as a finalist, coupled with the feigned indignation of the B.O.S. vice-Chairman relative to same, I found myself with little choice but to set the record straight. It should not have been necessary for me to do so, as that duty rests with the individual responsible. Yet, it was clear that this flagrant misdirection of the truth necessitated challenge and that responsibility unfortunately feel to me.
But therein lies the great irony, as the failure of the vice-Chair to acknowledge the truth may have unnecessarily created a challenge to the perception of one's credibility. Under the Open Meeting Law, the release of the finalists names by Mr. Garieri were completely consistent with the law and in no way constituted a violation. Simply stated, there was nothing wrong in his releasing the name(s) to the press; as such, his failure to acknowledge the truth was unnecessary. He did absolutely nothing that warranted any departure from fact.
Consider these sections excerpted directly from the State’s Open Meeting Law Guidebook, pertaining to Exemption 8, relative to Executive Session discussions or materials.
“(8) To Consider and Interview Applicants for Employment by a Preliminary Screening Committee or a Subcommittee Appointed by a Governmental Body if an Open Meeting will have a Detrimental Effect in Obtaining Qualified Applicants…
This amendment applies only to municipal and district governments. It permits a hiring subcommittee of a governmental body or a preliminary screening committee to conduct the initial screening process in executive session if an open meeting will have a detrimental effect on the governmental body’s ability to attract qualified applicants. The amendment does not apply to any stage in the hiring process after the screening committee or subcommittee votes to recommend a candidate or candidates to its parent body.” Author's Note: It is at this point - the establishment of a final list - that the names immediately become public domain.
The Open Meeting Law guidebook then goes on to provide the following example:
"A school committee is seeking to fill an opening for the position of superintendent of schools. It has received 100 applications in response to its advertisements; some of those responding expressly stated that they wished their applications to remain confidential. M.G.L. c. 214, §1B, a statute wholly independent and separate from the Open Meeting Law, protects an individual’s right to privacy against unreasonable, substantial or serious invasion. It may constitute an unreasonable or serious invasion of these applicants’ statutory right to privacy for the school committee to identify them by name and discuss their applications in an open meeting at the initial screening stages; if so, the discussion would be required to be held in an executive session. (Note, however, that the school committee would bear the burden of proving that the statutory privacy right of the applicants warranted the executive session.) As the committee’s selection process continues and the list of applicants is narrowed, however, the privacy rights of the individuals still under consideration recede in comparison to the public’s right to know who the school committee is seriously reviewing for the post. At least by the time the school committee (or a screening subcommittee of the school committee) has selected a list of semi-finalists, if not before, it is unlikely that the rights of privacy on the part of such persons would require or authorize an executive session to discuss them…
Note: Under a ruling of the Supervisor of Public Records, SPR 82-219, the names of the initial applicants for the superintendent’s position would not appear to be a public record, and would not be required to be included in the minutes of any meeting, whether open or closed, in which the applicants were discussed. However, in SPR 84-66 the Supervisor of Public Records ruled that the list of finalists’ names are public records. Although the Supervisor’s opinion addressed only the required release of finalists’ names, the reasoning of the opinion suggests that the names of semi-finalists would also be considered a public record subject to release to the public upon request.”
Considering the State’s guidelines, it is clear that there is no inherent right to privacy as it relates to release of finalists names, or for that matter, those of semi-finalists once a "...vote to recommend a candidate or candidates to its parent..." has occurred. Those names become public record the moment they are determined. To that end, the release of at least one name by individuals serving directly on the Town Administrator’s Search Committee, did not violate the Open Meeting Law; they were in fact, consistent with same.
Thus, for all protestations to the contrary, there was nothing ethically or legally wrong with the release of names to the press by the Vice-Chair of the B.O.S. His actions constituted no wrongs when contrasted against the Open Meeting Law. Some well spent time (by the vice-Chair and others) reading and comprehending the laws by which we conduct our business, could have spared a great deal of unnecessary discomfort for all.
Undoubtedly, this process has been demoralizing for many and there are those who might suggest that turning a blind eye, a deaf ear, and a silent voice to this issue would have been the best course of action. Considering the challenges that have already manifested with this process, one might be tempted or even convinced to take such an approach. I categorically reject such and denounce any failure to openly address these issues as a blatant breach of the public trust.
Additionally and/or alternately, there are those who might argue that a few well placed editorials or blog postings – anonymously and otherwise, should dictate the course of town affairs. I dismiss those ascertains completely and contend that the final destination of all deliberations should be determined not by external pressures or influences, but rather through objective, scrupulous, and unassailable reflection.
As an elected official, I am reminded of the oath taken by all public servants, which requires our absolute honesty, unbridled objectivity, and unwavering commitment to faithfully execute one’s duties on behalf of all Sturbridge residents; not any Few, or any One. As much of a cliché as one might reference it, that oath still matters a great deal to many Sturbridge residents. It certainly means everything to me in fulfilling the great obligation and responsibility of office I am now honored to hold on behalf of all residents. I do hope, with each passing day, that I am executing my responsibilities in a manner consistent with your expectations.
It is my sincerest hope that we can soon return our focus to where it is most productive. Clearly, no resident, nor any member of the Board of Selectmen for that matter, relishes the distractions and embarrassment this has caused for our community. Considering such, I have infrequently questioned whether it might have been best for me to turn a blind eye to what was happening and simply hope for the best. To do so however, would have been a dereliction of my responsibility to the residents of this community. Doing the right thing, does come with a significant price and I hope we have not paid too steeply for what has transpired. There is little doubt that the demands of democracy can be most challenging; were that not the case, none of this would be of any consequence.
Perhaps, as the dust settles, each of us (the members of the B.O.S.) will embark upon some extensive soul searching in the hopes of gaining deeper insights into our solemn responsibility to the residents of our community. We do afterall serve you, and each of does well to remember at all times that principle, integrity, and character are the only appropriate tools for effecting positive change. Anything grounded in self-seeking or deception is ultimately destined for failure. I certainly recognize my obligation to do so.
Read more!
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
The Sanctity of Our Town Charter
This past Monday, the INTERIM Town Administrator along with the Chairman of the Board of Selectmen, constructed (what in my view was) an ill-advised attempt to usurp the sanctity of the Sturbridge Town Charter. Citing an incomplete and poorly developed opinion from Town Counsel, (which by the way was heavily weighted in favor of increasing the Town Administrator's authority), the BOS Chairman and the Interim Town Administrator sought to wrestle control of Board of Health personnel.
This, in my view, is no inconsequential matter, as the Sturbridge Town Charter is for all intents and purposes, the very Constitution of our community. It is a document that not unlike the U.S. Constitution, defines the very manner by which we govern as well as the authority and jurisdiction of those we choose govern us. As such, it is the will of Sturbridge residents and like the U.S. Constitution, can only be modified or amended through a carefully executed and deliberate process undertaken and approved by those whose will it represents, the residents of Sturbridge.
Specifically, our Interim Town Administrator and the B.O.S. Chairman sought the authority and the approval of the Board of Selectmen to enter into Executive Session to hear allegations leveled against the Board of Health Agent. In so doing, they would have had the B.O.S. vote in the affirmative to enter into a hearing regarding an employee over whom neither the selectmen nor the Town Administrator have any jurisdiction, just as we have no authority over the School Committee, the Town Clerk, or the Town Moderator. By virtue of the Town Charter these entities are all sovereign in that they report directly to the voters of Sturbridge. Additionally, they have powers granted under the Charter to appoint and/or hire personnel. Such is the case with the Board of Health Agent, who is in fact appointed by the Board of Health.
To be clear, there may in fact be issues requiring attention as it relates to Board of Health personnel and if so, they should undoubtedly be addressed. So too, there may be issues requiring attention in any and every other department, board, committee, etc. that serves and/or governs our community. With that said, there is also a clear line of jurisdiction and authority in place with which to appropriately address issues should they arise. Were we to allow ourselves to overstep our authority or jurisdiction in one area, what then would prevent us from choosing a similar path in the future? Would we at some point attempt an interdiction into the affairs of the School Committee or the Town Clerk? At what point then, would our Town Charter cease to have any relevance?
During Monday’s selectmen’s meeting we were presented with an agenda item wherein we were asked to consider an Executive Session request from the Town Administrator and the B.O.S. Board Chairman concerning an employee over whom we have no direct jurisdiction. To that end, the Town Administrator provided an opinion from Town Counsel, which suggests – based upon their interpretation of the Charter – that the Health Agent falls under the jurisdiction of the Town Administrator as opposed to the Board of Health.
Town Counsel’s opinion is clearly at odds with the twenty plus year past practice within the Town of Sturbridge and certainly fails (in my humble opinion) to be consistent with my reading of the Town Charter as well as Massachusetts General Laws. So too, it is inconsistent with several legal interpretations provided to both the Board of Health and the Board of Selectmen.
In reviewing Section 5-3 of the Town Charter, there is nothing of consequence that one is able to identify that clearly or otherwise defines the Health Agent as an employee under the supervision and/or direct administration of the Town Administrator. Section 6.1 of the Town Charter clearly lists the personnel, boards, commissions, and committees directly responsible and accountable to the Town Administrator and conspicuous by its absence is that of the Board of Health and thus its agent.
In fact, Section 4-8 of the Town Charter clearly identifies the Board of Health as a sovereign entity accountable to the voters of Sturbridge, not the Town Administrator. To that end, MA General Law Chapter 111, Section 30, specifically states that “Boards of health may appoint agents or directors of public health to act for them in cases of emergency or if they cannot conveniently assemble, and any such agent or director shall have all the authority which the board appointing him had; but he shall in each case within two days report his action to the board for its approval, and shall be directly responsible to it and under its direction and control. An agent or director of public health appointed to make sanitary inspections may make complaint of violations of any law, ordinance or by-law relative to the public health”.
Section 6-2 of the Sturbridge Town Charter states that “The Town Administrator shall have the power to appoint such other individual town officers and members of boards and commissions as are authorized by the General Laws, this charter, or bylaws, and for whom appointment is not otherwise provided”. Clearly, as it references appointments “…as authorized by the General Laws…whom appointment is not otherwise provided”, I am unconvinced that the Town Administrator retains any supervisory jurisdiction over the Health Agent, since that appointment falls under MGL Chapter 111, Section 30.
Considering the contradictions between the Town Charter, which I view as direct reflection of the people’s will, and the opinion offered by Town Counsel, which I view as biasly weighted in favor of the Town Administrator, I could not and will not allow myself to support any action which is fundamentally in opposition to the Charter. Legal activism, is in my view, an inappropriate venue for Charter change, Town meeting is. If concerns or issues exist relative to the Board of Health or its personnel, then the appropriate course of action is to convey said concerns to the BOH, not to engage in activism inconsistent with the Charter.
Oddly, an argument offered by the B.O.S. Chairman in support of this misguided attempt to "consolidate power" within the Town Administrator's office, was her ascertain that the Board of Health, as a part-time board, was unable to appropriately supervise its personnel. Is not the Board of Selectmen a part-time board charged with supervising the Town Administrator and by extension all departments under our jurisdiction? One fails to find sufficient logic or intellectual consistency in the argument offered by the B.O.S. Chairman.
As a living document, the Town Charter is specifically vague in some areas, and specifically pointed in others. Where employment and appointments are concerned, I believe the Town Charter is not as ambiguous as some might like to suggest. It is my firm belief that a conservative approach should always be taken by public officials as it relates to the Town Charter and that wherever doubt exists, we should always err on the side of caution and not read things into the Charter we would like to see, but rather, read that which is actually written. To the extent that the Town Charter appropriately establishes separation of powers and represents the manifest will of the people, one should always defer to the collective intent of those who authorized it - the residents of Sturbridge - not the intent of individuals. To that end, I will not support any attempt to alter the Sturbridge Town Charter, short of Town Meeting.
Post Note: Is it not interesting, that the very same week we celebrate the birth of the United States Marine Corps (10 November 1775), and the very same week that we honor those men and women in uniform who have sworn "...to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies both foreign and domestic", we find ourselves witness to an attempt to circumvent our own Town Charter?
Read more!
This, in my view, is no inconsequential matter, as the Sturbridge Town Charter is for all intents and purposes, the very Constitution of our community. It is a document that not unlike the U.S. Constitution, defines the very manner by which we govern as well as the authority and jurisdiction of those we choose govern us. As such, it is the will of Sturbridge residents and like the U.S. Constitution, can only be modified or amended through a carefully executed and deliberate process undertaken and approved by those whose will it represents, the residents of Sturbridge.
Specifically, our Interim Town Administrator and the B.O.S. Chairman sought the authority and the approval of the Board of Selectmen to enter into Executive Session to hear allegations leveled against the Board of Health Agent. In so doing, they would have had the B.O.S. vote in the affirmative to enter into a hearing regarding an employee over whom neither the selectmen nor the Town Administrator have any jurisdiction, just as we have no authority over the School Committee, the Town Clerk, or the Town Moderator. By virtue of the Town Charter these entities are all sovereign in that they report directly to the voters of Sturbridge. Additionally, they have powers granted under the Charter to appoint and/or hire personnel. Such is the case with the Board of Health Agent, who is in fact appointed by the Board of Health.
To be clear, there may in fact be issues requiring attention as it relates to Board of Health personnel and if so, they should undoubtedly be addressed. So too, there may be issues requiring attention in any and every other department, board, committee, etc. that serves and/or governs our community. With that said, there is also a clear line of jurisdiction and authority in place with which to appropriately address issues should they arise. Were we to allow ourselves to overstep our authority or jurisdiction in one area, what then would prevent us from choosing a similar path in the future? Would we at some point attempt an interdiction into the affairs of the School Committee or the Town Clerk? At what point then, would our Town Charter cease to have any relevance?
During Monday’s selectmen’s meeting we were presented with an agenda item wherein we were asked to consider an Executive Session request from the Town Administrator and the B.O.S. Board Chairman concerning an employee over whom we have no direct jurisdiction. To that end, the Town Administrator provided an opinion from Town Counsel, which suggests – based upon their interpretation of the Charter – that the Health Agent falls under the jurisdiction of the Town Administrator as opposed to the Board of Health.
Town Counsel’s opinion is clearly at odds with the twenty plus year past practice within the Town of Sturbridge and certainly fails (in my humble opinion) to be consistent with my reading of the Town Charter as well as Massachusetts General Laws. So too, it is inconsistent with several legal interpretations provided to both the Board of Health and the Board of Selectmen.
In reviewing Section 5-3 of the Town Charter, there is nothing of consequence that one is able to identify that clearly or otherwise defines the Health Agent as an employee under the supervision and/or direct administration of the Town Administrator. Section 6.1 of the Town Charter clearly lists the personnel, boards, commissions, and committees directly responsible and accountable to the Town Administrator and conspicuous by its absence is that of the Board of Health and thus its agent.
In fact, Section 4-8 of the Town Charter clearly identifies the Board of Health as a sovereign entity accountable to the voters of Sturbridge, not the Town Administrator. To that end, MA General Law Chapter 111, Section 30, specifically states that “Boards of health may appoint agents or directors of public health to act for them in cases of emergency or if they cannot conveniently assemble, and any such agent or director shall have all the authority which the board appointing him had; but he shall in each case within two days report his action to the board for its approval, and shall be directly responsible to it and under its direction and control. An agent or director of public health appointed to make sanitary inspections may make complaint of violations of any law, ordinance or by-law relative to the public health”.
Section 6-2 of the Sturbridge Town Charter states that “The Town Administrator shall have the power to appoint such other individual town officers and members of boards and commissions as are authorized by the General Laws, this charter, or bylaws, and for whom appointment is not otherwise provided”. Clearly, as it references appointments “…as authorized by the General Laws…whom appointment is not otherwise provided”, I am unconvinced that the Town Administrator retains any supervisory jurisdiction over the Health Agent, since that appointment falls under MGL Chapter 111, Section 30.
Considering the contradictions between the Town Charter, which I view as direct reflection of the people’s will, and the opinion offered by Town Counsel, which I view as biasly weighted in favor of the Town Administrator, I could not and will not allow myself to support any action which is fundamentally in opposition to the Charter. Legal activism, is in my view, an inappropriate venue for Charter change, Town meeting is. If concerns or issues exist relative to the Board of Health or its personnel, then the appropriate course of action is to convey said concerns to the BOH, not to engage in activism inconsistent with the Charter.
Oddly, an argument offered by the B.O.S. Chairman in support of this misguided attempt to "consolidate power" within the Town Administrator's office, was her ascertain that the Board of Health, as a part-time board, was unable to appropriately supervise its personnel. Is not the Board of Selectmen a part-time board charged with supervising the Town Administrator and by extension all departments under our jurisdiction? One fails to find sufficient logic or intellectual consistency in the argument offered by the B.O.S. Chairman.
As a living document, the Town Charter is specifically vague in some areas, and specifically pointed in others. Where employment and appointments are concerned, I believe the Town Charter is not as ambiguous as some might like to suggest. It is my firm belief that a conservative approach should always be taken by public officials as it relates to the Town Charter and that wherever doubt exists, we should always err on the side of caution and not read things into the Charter we would like to see, but rather, read that which is actually written. To the extent that the Town Charter appropriately establishes separation of powers and represents the manifest will of the people, one should always defer to the collective intent of those who authorized it - the residents of Sturbridge - not the intent of individuals. To that end, I will not support any attempt to alter the Sturbridge Town Charter, short of Town Meeting.
Post Note: Is it not interesting, that the very same week we celebrate the birth of the United States Marine Corps (10 November 1775), and the very same week that we honor those men and women in uniform who have sworn "...to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies both foreign and domestic", we find ourselves witness to an attempt to circumvent our own Town Charter?
Read more!
Sunday, November 8, 2009
REAS Foundation: We need your help in helping seniors!
The following article written by reporter Craig Semon, is reprinted here in full, as found in today's Sunday Telegram.
Dateline:11-08-09
By Craig S. Semon TELEGRAM & GAZETTE STAFF
The REAS Foundation is urging residents to be a pal to local seniors, helping them to stay warm and cozy this winter, and, this year donating has been made even easier with a PayPal service on the foundation’s Web site.
The REAS Foundation, which stands for Residential Energy Assistance for Seniors, was created last year by Selectmen Thomas R. Creamer and Scott A. Garieri to assist senior citizens on fixed incomes. Its initial goal was to provide heating assistance.
The year-round energy assistance program — the program is not solely about heating assistance — raised more than $28,500 — $8,000 more than its goal — for fuel and energy assistance for area seniors last winter.
By the end of February, the REAS Foundation had awarded 43 energy assistance grants. The average age of the recipients was 76 and the average household income was $18,560, according to Police Detective Mark Saloio, the foundation’s chief community outreach officer.
“There is definitely an absolute need for this assistance,” Officer Saloio said. “It is absolutely essential that we get community support. This foundation can only survive and flourish and help the seniors with community support. It cannot do so otherwise.”
Already, just for the month of October, the REAS Foundation has approved 17 applications and disbursed $7,500 to energy providers for fuel assistance for seniors, OfficerSaloio said.
The REAS Foundation has a balance of $4,045 to help seniors in the winter heating season, but it is looking for much more.
“Last year, people’s support was phenomenal” Officer Saloio said. “But it can’t be something that we let our guard down with. It has to be something we continue to have a commitment toward. Without that commitment, the REAS Foundation does not have the resources and, without the resources, we cannot give out energy assistance.”
The REAS Foundation has two campaigns: the 10K Circle of Friends and the 10K Circle of Businesses.
Officer Saloio pointed out that it is much easier to donate this year because of the addition of the PayPal feature on the foundation’s Web site ( www.reasfoundation.org).
“The elderly population needs more assistance than they will ever admit,” Officer Saloio said. “And the winter is just getting started. It’s only barely November.”
REAS operates in partnership with Southbridge Savings Bank, Sturbridge Police Department, Home Town Bank, Tasse’s Fuel Corp., Shaw’s Supermarkets, Southbridge Credit Union and The Publick House. If you need assistance, call (508) 434-4614; mail inquiries to REAS Foundation, P.O. Box 737, Fiskdale, MA 01518; or send an e-mail to info@ reasfoundation.org.
Read more!
Dateline:11-08-09
By Craig S. Semon TELEGRAM & GAZETTE STAFF
The REAS Foundation is urging residents to be a pal to local seniors, helping them to stay warm and cozy this winter, and, this year donating has been made even easier with a PayPal service on the foundation’s Web site.
The REAS Foundation, which stands for Residential Energy Assistance for Seniors, was created last year by Selectmen Thomas R. Creamer and Scott A. Garieri to assist senior citizens on fixed incomes. Its initial goal was to provide heating assistance.
The year-round energy assistance program — the program is not solely about heating assistance — raised more than $28,500 — $8,000 more than its goal — for fuel and energy assistance for area seniors last winter.
By the end of February, the REAS Foundation had awarded 43 energy assistance grants. The average age of the recipients was 76 and the average household income was $18,560, according to Police Detective Mark Saloio, the foundation’s chief community outreach officer.
“There is definitely an absolute need for this assistance,” Officer Saloio said. “It is absolutely essential that we get community support. This foundation can only survive and flourish and help the seniors with community support. It cannot do so otherwise.”
Already, just for the month of October, the REAS Foundation has approved 17 applications and disbursed $7,500 to energy providers for fuel assistance for seniors, OfficerSaloio said.
The REAS Foundation has a balance of $4,045 to help seniors in the winter heating season, but it is looking for much more.
“Last year, people’s support was phenomenal” Officer Saloio said. “But it can’t be something that we let our guard down with. It has to be something we continue to have a commitment toward. Without that commitment, the REAS Foundation does not have the resources and, without the resources, we cannot give out energy assistance.”
The REAS Foundation has two campaigns: the 10K Circle of Friends and the 10K Circle of Businesses.
Officer Saloio pointed out that it is much easier to donate this year because of the addition of the PayPal feature on the foundation’s Web site ( www.reasfoundation.org).
“The elderly population needs more assistance than they will ever admit,” Officer Saloio said. “And the winter is just getting started. It’s only barely November.”
REAS operates in partnership with Southbridge Savings Bank, Sturbridge Police Department, Home Town Bank, Tasse’s Fuel Corp., Shaw’s Supermarkets, Southbridge Credit Union and The Publick House. If you need assistance, call (508) 434-4614; mail inquiries to REAS Foundation, P.O. Box 737, Fiskdale, MA 01518; or send an e-mail to info@ reasfoundation.org.
Read more!
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Veteran's Day Announcement
Sturbridge Veterans Day celebration:
The Town of Sturbridge Veteran Services Department has partnered with the Champeau-Vilandre American Legion Post 109 to hold Veteran’s Day observances on Wednesday, Nov 11th from 5 to 9 PM at the American Legion Hall, 507 Main Street, and Sturbridge.
The Post will hold an open house from 5 to 9 pm and there will be a short veterans appreciation ceremony at 7 PM followed by a concert by “Celtic Thunder” a Pipes and Drum youth group. This ceremony and concert should last approximately 1 hour.
All residents, and most importantly all area veterans, are invited to attend. Light refreshments will be served.
Submitted by Tom Chamberland
Read more!
The Town of Sturbridge Veteran Services Department has partnered with the Champeau-Vilandre American Legion Post 109 to hold Veteran’s Day observances on Wednesday, Nov 11th from 5 to 9 PM at the American Legion Hall, 507 Main Street, and Sturbridge.
The Post will hold an open house from 5 to 9 pm and there will be a short veterans appreciation ceremony at 7 PM followed by a concert by “Celtic Thunder” a Pipes and Drum youth group. This ceremony and concert should last approximately 1 hour.
All residents, and most importantly all area veterans, are invited to attend. Light refreshments will be served.
Submitted by Tom Chamberland
Read more!
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Trail Help NEEDED!!!
Volunteers are needed to help on this final volunteer trail day for 2009, Saturday, Oct 31st, 12 noon to 3 PM. The Trail Committee wants to put its finishing touches on both the Pond loop and Cabin loop trails on the Heins Farm conservation lands.
Work includes spreading fine gravel, rock and root removal, along with some barb wire removal and trash pick up. Small utility type tractors urgently needed! Bring work shoes, work gloves, hard steel rakes, shovels and wheel barrows if you have them. Don't forget your water bottle!
Meet at the trail head parking lot, 197A Leadmine Rd.
Call Randy Redetzke for any questions: 508-344-9823
Submitted by Tom Chamberland
Read more!
Work includes spreading fine gravel, rock and root removal, along with some barb wire removal and trash pick up. Small utility type tractors urgently needed! Bring work shoes, work gloves, hard steel rakes, shovels and wheel barrows if you have them. Don't forget your water bottle!
Meet at the trail head parking lot, 197A Leadmine Rd.
Call Randy Redetzke for any questions: 508-344-9823
Submitted by Tom Chamberland
Read more!
Saturday, October 24, 2009
A Gathering Storm
Over the past 18 months the national economy has deteriorated at an unprecedented rate. Job losses, bank failures, real estate foreclosures, and unemployment figures continue to rise at historic levels; all of this at a time when paychecks and benefits are declining disproportionately. The national unemployment rate currently stands at 9.8%; during the same period last year it was recorded at 6.5%. Here in Massachusetts, unemployment now stands at 9.3% - a sharp contrast to the 5.6% figure of exactly 12 months ago.
The unraveling of our nation’s economic infrastructure has driven more Americans to food pantries, homelessness, and desperation. Many suffer in silence, agonizing each day over basic financial obligations they are now unable to meet. Families, faced with mounting economic pressures, find themselves feeling isolated, detached, and hopeless. The most vulnerable among us - our children and our seniors - are witnessing the destruction of confidence within their homes as they and their families try to cope.
Sadly, many of us are acutely unaware of the suffering just across the street, around the corner, or a mile down the road. Behind the well kept exteriors of our neighbors’ homes there is a silent storm that is ravaging all too many lives. Here in Sturbridge there are too many seniors who are facing the most desperate period in their lives. Men and women who have contributed to our community for years are now bracing for a winter that looks to be even more bleak than that experienced a year ago.
During our inaugural 2008 winter (October – February), the REAS Foundation processed 50 applications, 43 of which were approved for energy assistance. In the month of October 2009 alone, we have already received 17 requests for assistance. There is little doubt that in today’s spiraling economic climate, the need for assistance will be significantly higher than that witnessed last year.
More and more Sturbridge seniors are finding themselves with fewer options and are reaching out for help for the first time in their lives. For many it is a bitter pill to swallow. Years of hard work, frugal living, independence, and hopes for a comfortable retirement, have been supplanted by disproportionately rising costs and diminishing returns on their lifelong savings. Despair is creeping in.
The REAS Foundation is seeking your support in hopes that we as a community can ease the burden of those who built this magnificent community. Your tax deductible contribution can literally mean the difference between having to forgo much needed prescriptions or daily meals in order to have the funds necessary to pay the heating bill. Rest assured this is not hyperbole; it is a fact of life that we witnessed much too frequently last winter. It is also a fact that the generosity of Sturbridge residents altered the course of events for many seniors last year, bringing relief and hope to those in need.
Once again, as the storm gathers, we turn to you in our efforts to ease the despair now mounting within our community. Please consider joining our 10K Circle of Friends, wherein we hope to raise $10,000 by way of a $10.00 contribution from 1000 residents. Bear in mind that no contribution is too small and we welcome any assistance you might be able to provide. Donations can be made directly though our website via PayPal at www.reasfoundation.org. Checks made payable to the REAS Foundation can be mailed to: REAS Foundation, P.O. Box 737, Fiskdale, MA, 01518.
We thank you for your consideration as we endeavor to assist those qualifying Sturbridge seniors in need.
Thomas R. Creamer
Executive Director
REAS Foundation, Inc.
Read more!
The unraveling of our nation’s economic infrastructure has driven more Americans to food pantries, homelessness, and desperation. Many suffer in silence, agonizing each day over basic financial obligations they are now unable to meet. Families, faced with mounting economic pressures, find themselves feeling isolated, detached, and hopeless. The most vulnerable among us - our children and our seniors - are witnessing the destruction of confidence within their homes as they and their families try to cope.
Sadly, many of us are acutely unaware of the suffering just across the street, around the corner, or a mile down the road. Behind the well kept exteriors of our neighbors’ homes there is a silent storm that is ravaging all too many lives. Here in Sturbridge there are too many seniors who are facing the most desperate period in their lives. Men and women who have contributed to our community for years are now bracing for a winter that looks to be even more bleak than that experienced a year ago.
During our inaugural 2008 winter (October – February), the REAS Foundation processed 50 applications, 43 of which were approved for energy assistance. In the month of October 2009 alone, we have already received 17 requests for assistance. There is little doubt that in today’s spiraling economic climate, the need for assistance will be significantly higher than that witnessed last year.
More and more Sturbridge seniors are finding themselves with fewer options and are reaching out for help for the first time in their lives. For many it is a bitter pill to swallow. Years of hard work, frugal living, independence, and hopes for a comfortable retirement, have been supplanted by disproportionately rising costs and diminishing returns on their lifelong savings. Despair is creeping in.
The REAS Foundation is seeking your support in hopes that we as a community can ease the burden of those who built this magnificent community. Your tax deductible contribution can literally mean the difference between having to forgo much needed prescriptions or daily meals in order to have the funds necessary to pay the heating bill. Rest assured this is not hyperbole; it is a fact of life that we witnessed much too frequently last winter. It is also a fact that the generosity of Sturbridge residents altered the course of events for many seniors last year, bringing relief and hope to those in need.
Once again, as the storm gathers, we turn to you in our efforts to ease the despair now mounting within our community. Please consider joining our 10K Circle of Friends, wherein we hope to raise $10,000 by way of a $10.00 contribution from 1000 residents. Bear in mind that no contribution is too small and we welcome any assistance you might be able to provide. Donations can be made directly though our website via PayPal at www.reasfoundation.org. Checks made payable to the REAS Foundation can be mailed to: REAS Foundation, P.O. Box 737, Fiskdale, MA, 01518.
We thank you for your consideration as we endeavor to assist those qualifying Sturbridge seniors in need.
Thomas R. Creamer
Executive Director
REAS Foundation, Inc.
Read more!
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
REAS Foundation kicks off 2009/2010 Fundraising Campaign
Sturbridge, MA – The REAS Foundation of Sturbridge announces the launch of the 2009-2010 10K Circle of Friends and 10K Circle of Businesses. These two fundraising appeals form the foundation of such efforts for the year. REAS predicts that applications for assistance this heating season will far surpass the many applications received last year. REAS asks that 1,000 Sturbridge families donate just $10 each – less than the cost of going out to lunch one day. This effort alone will raise $10,000 to aid qualifying Sturbridge seniors who cannot meet their utility costs.
Similar to the 10K Circle of Friends, Jennifer Morrison of Sterling Engineering has renewed her 10K Circle of Businesses challenge. Sterling Engineering will make a matching donation of 10% of any other business donation, up to a maximum donation from Sterling of $1,000. When asked why, in these lean times, Sterling was willing to offer this challenge again Morrison stated, “That’s precisely why. Times are tough for everyone, but even more so for those among us who are most vulnerable – our seniors. How can we not help?”
REAS asks all who are interested in donating to please mail their check directly to: REAS Foundation, PO Box 737, Fiskdale, MA 01518 and earmark it for the 10K Circle. Additional information and news on these and other events may be found at the REAS website: www.reasfoundation.org.
Read more!
Similar to the 10K Circle of Friends, Jennifer Morrison of Sterling Engineering has renewed her 10K Circle of Businesses challenge. Sterling Engineering will make a matching donation of 10% of any other business donation, up to a maximum donation from Sterling of $1,000. When asked why, in these lean times, Sterling was willing to offer this challenge again Morrison stated, “That’s precisely why. Times are tough for everyone, but even more so for those among us who are most vulnerable – our seniors. How can we not help?”
REAS asks all who are interested in donating to please mail their check directly to: REAS Foundation, PO Box 737, Fiskdale, MA 01518 and earmark it for the 10K Circle. Additional information and news on these and other events may be found at the REAS website: www.reasfoundation.org.
Read more!
Sunday, September 20, 2009
CHILDREN’S CHOIR TRAVELS FROM UGANDA TO PERFORM AT STURBRIDGE WORSHIP CENTER ON OCTOBER 16
PRESS RELEASE
STURBRIDGE – Sturbridge Worship Center will host the Destiny Africa Children’s Choir on Friday, October 16, at 7pm on 9 Mashapaug Road in Sturbridge, MA. In the last year the choir has performed in the United Kingdom, including before British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Queen Elizabeth. And now, these children are bringing their talent and their passion to New England for their first USA Tour. Dressed in colorful garb, the choir will present a lively mix of traditional and contemporary songs and dances—and some awesome drumming. The choir is comprised of orphaned children, rescued from horrific and desperate situations in the war-torn and AIDS-ravaged villages of Uganda. This is a free event, open to the public. A free-will offering will be taken to fund and support the growth of the Kampala Children’s Centre, where the children live. For more information about this event, go to www.sturbridgeworshipcenter.org or call 508.347.9642. To learn more about the Destiny Africa Children’s Choir, their home in Uganda, other concerts scheduled in their USA Tour, or how you can help them through one of their support programs, go to www.kampalachildren.com.
Media Contact:
Stuart Rankin
Sturbridge Worship Center
508.347.9642
stuart@sturbridgeworshipcenter.org
Read more!
STURBRIDGE – Sturbridge Worship Center will host the Destiny Africa Children’s Choir on Friday, October 16, at 7pm on 9 Mashapaug Road in Sturbridge, MA. In the last year the choir has performed in the United Kingdom, including before British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Queen Elizabeth. And now, these children are bringing their talent and their passion to New England for their first USA Tour. Dressed in colorful garb, the choir will present a lively mix of traditional and contemporary songs and dances—and some awesome drumming. The choir is comprised of orphaned children, rescued from horrific and desperate situations in the war-torn and AIDS-ravaged villages of Uganda. This is a free event, open to the public. A free-will offering will be taken to fund and support the growth of the Kampala Children’s Centre, where the children live. For more information about this event, go to www.sturbridgeworshipcenter.org or call 508.347.9642. To learn more about the Destiny Africa Children’s Choir, their home in Uganda, other concerts scheduled in their USA Tour, or how you can help them through one of their support programs, go to www.kampalachildren.com.
Media Contact:
Stuart Rankin
Sturbridge Worship Center
508.347.9642
stuart@sturbridgeworshipcenter.org
Read more!
Friday, September 11, 2009
"Action will delineate and define you"
Over the last several days, much has been written and spoken regarding the Town Administrator's search process. Clearly, I've raised several questions about the evolution of that process, but not the integrity of those managing the process.My concerns with the committee's departure from the publicized vacancy posting should not be construed as a lack of confidence in their ability to conduct their charge. Rather, I was, and still remain concerned about the perception that said departure presented, not only to the community, but to applicants themselves. The failure of the committee to properly re-advertise the "relaxed" qualifications regardless of the rationale presented, remains a component of the perceptions which manifested during the process.
Perception in the world of public governance is central to the effectiveness of the democratic process. When one perceives government to be fair, principled, objective, and balanced, one's ability to maintain faith in that system remains unchallenged. Obviously, the opposite becomes the case when one perceives a shortcoming in any of those characteristics.
The members of the Search Committee do not - in my view - bear responsibility for the public perception that has engulfed the search for a new Town Administrator. They have been burdened by the failures of others and in fact have become casualties because of those failures. The responsibility for this unfortunate situation rests squarely on the shoulders of two individuals.
The failure or refusal of these two individuals to recognize the ramifications of maintaining a seat on the Board of Selectmen during this process and certainly after the names of the final three had been determined, (which clearly is confirmed by the Search Committee Chair beginning at 36 minutes into the audio) to a fundamental lack of good judgement. Indeed, it speaks as well to a lack of sound leadership. Whether conscious of the ramifications or not, the failure to identify them is of concern.
Maintenance of the public trust is critical in the equitable dispensation of democracy. To even consider a situation wherein one would continue to govern were a spouse to be selected for the town's top management position, regardless of any legal precedent for such, is an affront to that public trust, accidental or otherwise.
The members of the Search Committee, all reputable individuals, were unnecessarily placed in an untenable position by the failure of two individuals to put the public trust before any personal ambitions. So too, their decision unnecessarily burdened the the town's governing body - the Board of Selectmen.
Despite any rational explanation for the departure from established criteria (regardless of how legitimate the reasoning), nothing would or could overcome the perception that is pervasive within the community. Nor can any reasoning in terms of legal precedent be sufficient to alter the perception of what is right and what is not. The perception generated by this issue and the fallout from it, rests solely at the feet of two people who failed to do the right thing. Their decision placed the members of the Search Committee, the Board of Selectmen, and most importantly - the Town of Sturbridge, in an unnecessarily difficult predicament.
As I stated during public discussions relative to this issue Tuesday evening: just because something is legal, does not mean it is necessarily right. There was a time in this country when the Ethics Commission might have opined that it was acceptable to discriminate against women, minorities, and persons of color - simply because it was legal to do so; that certainly did not make it right.
Doing the right thing, can at times, be the absolutely most difficult thing to be burdened with. Clearly, there is little satisfaction in publicly challenging friends and/or acquaintances that one is on friendly terms with. Such is the case here, as those at the center of this storm span both categories. The right thing however, is, and shall remain always - the right thing. One cannot in good conscience walk away from doing that which is right simply because the alternative is more convenient or more comfortable. It is unfortunate that one could suggest that two individuals appear to have chosen a path, which prevented them from making the right decision, simply because doing the right thing - which required sacrifice - was not very comfortable
Thomas Jefferson once said that: "If you want to know who you are? Don't ask. Act! Action will delineate and define you".
Read more!
National Public Lands Day
Press release:Local Preparations underway for participating in the nation’s largest single volunteer day.
Sturbridge: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers at East Brimfield and Westville lakes along with the local trail committees of Brimfield, Sturbridge and Southbridge along with the Grand Trunk Trailblazers, are in final preparations for National Public Lands Day (NPLD) to be held on Saturday, September 26th from 8:30 am to noon.
NPLD is the nation’s largest one day event to encourage volunteerism to help support our public lands. Locally this year’s NPLD is the seventh consecutive event, organized by Park Ranger Tom Chamberland. This year’s effort is spread out over three towns, in Brimfield the trail committee along with the Corps of Engineers will be working on improving the Grand Trunk Trail portion of the Titanic Rail trail section off 5 Bridge Rd.
Work items include sign installation, and staining, brush cutting to improve safety for horseback riders, installation of fencing and spreading the fine gravel final trail surface. Registration will be held at the trail head parking lot on 5 bridge rd. starting at 8:30 am. A pizza lunch will be served at noon.
In Sturbridge, the trail committee will be focusing work on completing the 3 universally accessible trails on the Heins Farm Conservation lands. Volunteers are asked to meet at the trail head parking lot, 197a Leadmine Rd, about 1000’ after the Douty Rd intersection on the left. Work items include sign installation, rock and root removal from the cabin loop and pond loop trails, mowing of the Stafford Turnpike trail, trash and old fence removal from along Leadmine Rd, and spreading the fine gravel surface completing the pond loop trail. A pizza lunch will be provided at noon. The Sturbridge trail committee has a special need for small utility bucket type tractors to assist in the fine gravel work.
In Southbridge/Sturbridge volunteers are asked to meet in the Westville lake Park at shelter 2 joining the Grand Trunk trailblazers, Corp park rangers along with Southbridge trail committee members who will be working on trail tread improvements to sections of the West Street School trail and Heritage trail extension. Work on these trails also includes invasive plant removal and brush cutting. Work items in Westville Lake Park include trail tread improvements to the lake overlook trail, sign installation, invasive plant removal, stone wall rebuilding, and trash removal along the river and lake shore lines. A pizza lunch will be served in the park at noon
Pre registration is requested so appropriate plans can be made and pizza ordered. Walk in registration will be held at each area at 8:30 am. Volunteers are asked to bring work gloves, water bottle, and wear appropriate shoes and clothes for the work and weather. NPLD will be held rain or shine (except for extreme wet weather). For more information on NPLD visit their web site at http://www.publiclandsday.org/. Local registration for any of the above projects can be done by contacting Park Ranger Tom Chamberland at Thomas.a.chamberland@usace.army.mil or calling 508-347-3386, or contact Sturbridge Trail Committee chair Randy Redetzke at RRedet@charter.net or Tony Bys, Brimfield Trail committee vice chair at tbys9297@charter.net
Read more!
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Audio of BOS-T.A. Search Committee Below (When a man assumes a public trust he should consider himself a public property - Thomas Jefferson)
The following story clips appeared in local news media over the last seven days. They are provided solely as a reference points in terms of the discussion which took place regarding the finalists during last night's (09-08-09) selectmen's meeting.
BOARD KEEPS FINALIST LIST SECRETBY CRAIG SEMON
NEWS STAFF WRITER
Worcester Telegram and Gazette 09-09-09
Sturbridge - The Town Administrator Search Committee will be revealing the names of three finalists for the top municipal government spot on Tuesday night and sources say one of the names belongs to local resident Charles T. Blanchard.
...All of the search committee members, as well as Mr. Racicot, Mrs. Blanchard, Selectmen Edward P. Goodwin and Thomas R. Creamer were sent e-mails by the Telegram & Gazette and/or left messages on the phone requesting the names of the three finalists.
...Mr. Racicot, Mr. Creamer and Mr. Goodwin said they do not have the list of names. However Mr. Creamer said he could not find anything in the Town Charter that would either prohibit or support the release of the information that has been requested by the Telegram & Gazette.
STURBRIDGE — The tenure of interim Town Administrator Michael Racicot is winding down. Although no date for having a permanent replacement for former Town Administrator James Malloy has been set, the Town Administrator Search Committee will present its three suggested finalists to the Board of Selectmen on Monday, Sept. 8 at the Senior Center. Malloy departed Sturbridge after nearly 14 years to accept a similar position in Westborough in April.
“The three names will be announced that night at 7:30,” said Scott Garieri, the selectman representative on the search committee. Besides Garieri, the Search Committee is made up of Chairman Reed Hillman, Finance Director Barbara Barry, Finance Committee Chairman Kevin Smith and Tony Celuzza. The three candidates presented by the committee will be the sole survivors of an original applicant pool of more than 50 prospects.
“Forty nine applicants came in on time, two came in late,” Garieri said. “We narrowed it down.” The vetting process took that original figure down to 10, then five, and eventually down to the three that will be presented to the selectmen...
The audio is approximately 40 minutes long.
Read more!
BOARD KEEPS FINALIST LIST SECRETBY CRAIG SEMON
NEWS STAFF WRITER
Worcester Telegram and Gazette 09-09-09
Sturbridge - The Town Administrator Search Committee will be revealing the names of three finalists for the top municipal government spot on Tuesday night and sources say one of the names belongs to local resident Charles T. Blanchard.
...All of the search committee members, as well as Mr. Racicot, Mrs. Blanchard, Selectmen Edward P. Goodwin and Thomas R. Creamer were sent e-mails by the Telegram & Gazette and/or left messages on the phone requesting the names of the three finalists.
...Mr. Racicot, Mr. Creamer and Mr. Goodwin said they do not have the list of names. However Mr. Creamer said he could not find anything in the Town Charter that would either prohibit or support the release of the information that has been requested by the Telegram & Gazette.
The remainder of the story can be found at: http://www.telegram.com/article/20090906/NEWS/909060403
SEARCH DOWN TO THREE
BY CHRISTOPHER TANGUAY
NEWS STAFF WRITER
Southbridge Evening News 09-01-09
NEWS STAFF WRITER
Southbridge Evening News 09-01-09
STURBRIDGE — The tenure of interim Town Administrator Michael Racicot is winding down. Although no date for having a permanent replacement for former Town Administrator James Malloy has been set, the Town Administrator Search Committee will present its three suggested finalists to the Board of Selectmen on Monday, Sept. 8 at the Senior Center. Malloy departed Sturbridge after nearly 14 years to accept a similar position in Westborough in April.
“The three names will be announced that night at 7:30,” said Scott Garieri, the selectman representative on the search committee. Besides Garieri, the Search Committee is made up of Chairman Reed Hillman, Finance Director Barbara Barry, Finance Committee Chairman Kevin Smith and Tony Celuzza. The three candidates presented by the committee will be the sole survivors of an original applicant pool of more than 50 prospects.
“Forty nine applicants came in on time, two came in late,” Garieri said. “We narrowed it down.” The vetting process took that original figure down to 10, then five, and eventually down to the three that will be presented to the selectmen...
The audio is approximately 40 minutes long.
Read more!
Monday, September 7, 2009
The Responsibility of Office
Below is the Second Inaugural Address given by President George Washington on March 4, 1793. It is one of the shortest addresses offered by an American president. It is also one of the most significant, as it underscores the responsibility of elected officials; be they presidents, senators, congressmen, or selectmen. I frequently read this speech in hopes of remaining ever cognizant of the incredible obligation I have to you, the residents of Sturbridge.Though one surely cannot draw comparisons between the mighty office of the President of the United States and that of local selectman; one must bear in mind that the responsibility of elected public officials recognizes no distinction in terms of their obligation to the citizenry. Each day, I endeavor to fulfill my responsibilities in a manner befitting the trust you have placed in me. I am reminded always of my obligation to work for you with great vigor and honesty.
Second Inaugural Address (March 4, 1793)
George Washington
Fellow-Citizens:
I am again called upon by the voice of my Country to execute the functions of its Chief Magistrate. When the occasion proper for it shall arrive, I shall endeavour to express the high sense I entertain of this distinguished honor, and of the confidence which has been reposed in me by the people of United America.
Previous to the execution of any official act of the President, the Constitution requires an Oath of Office. This Oath I am now about to take, and in your presence, that if it shall be found during my administration of the Government I have in any instance violated willingly, or knowingly, the injunction thereof, I may (besides incurring Constitutional punishment) be subject to the upbraidings of all who are now witnesses of the present solemn Ceremony.
- George Washington
Read more!
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Sturbridge frustrated over static from Charter (A News Story From the Southbridge Evening News)
The following is a news story written by reporter Chris Tanguay as taken directly from the Southbridge Evening News:
BY CHRISTOPHER TANGUAY
NEWS STAFF WRITER
STURBRIDGE —
For the umpteenth time in the 10 years Sturbridge has been committed to a contract with Charter Communications, town officials — and residents — are looking for some clarity on he public access channel.
Selectman Thomas Creamer has just about had his fill of the cable system, which has generated more complaints than complements since the town entered into the agreement with Charter in 1999. “The overall sound and visual quality people get at their homes relative to our meetings is atrocious,” Creamer said.
Although issues with sound fading in and out during broadcasts and bad picture quality have been raised by citizens for years, poor reception of Sturbridge’s channel 12 seems to be in different degrees in different neighborhoods.
At Creamer’s Leadmine Road home, “It’s horrible.” “I have to turn the volume on my TV set up to 50,” Creamer said from his home on Tuesday. “If I switch the channel, it’s like you get blasted out of the house. The sound quality is horrible and the video quality is like looking through a lens that’s out of focus.” “You can’t physically see, sometimes, the look that’s on the selectmen’s faces when they’re sitting there,” he added.
Sturbridge’s frustration with the cable service is not limited to a few home viewers by any means. In the minutes of a March 7, 2005 Board of Selectmen meeting Robert Spain of Charter Communications said, in response to numerous complaints about the lack of audio clarity during broadcasts, the Sturbridge system would be checked on a monthly basis and problems would be fixed as they arise. During the Ask the Selectmen portion of that same meeting — a public phone-in question and answer session that fell by the wayside when meetings were moved to the Senior Center — a resident called to ironically report that the audio had been completely muted.
Also during the March 7, 2005 meeting, a Beaudry Road resident indicated there was no cable service in his neighborhood, to which Spain said easements may not have been granted in some areas allowing service to reach all residents in town, despite the contract clearly stating, “The Licensee shall make its Cable Service available to all residences in the Town as of the Effective Date of this License.”
Another complaint about sound quality is documented in the minutes of a March 20, 2006 meeting as well. At another 2005 meeting, selectmen fielded a question about the nonexistent senior citizens discount some residents believed was part of the town’s agreement with Charter. In the last two years, some thought had been put into Internet broadcasts or a change of service providers, though no headway was made on either front.
In February of this year, Creamer issued a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to then-Town Administrator James Malloy, asking for records documenting all money received from Charter Communications from the last five years — including a $50,000 one-time payment from the first year of the contract and smaller annual payments since then — and what that money has been used for, a copy of the contract between Sturbridge and Charter, and any communications between Charter and Sturbridge regarding ongoing broadcast issues.
To date, only the contract has been made available. In the post-Malloy months, Creamer made a similar request to Interim Town Administrator Michael Racicot, who is also a member of the Cable Advisory Committee. New to the town of Sturbridge, Racicot had to first get himself up to speed on the issue before answering anyone else’s questions.
“There’s no reason we have to pull teeth to get answers to questions everyone knows has been out there for years,” Creamer said, indicating that the issue has not been investigated with the vigor he believes it deserves.
“There’s probably still some of the financial details that I don’t have because the finance director has been on vacation,” Racicot said in regard to the request. “But I’m hoping to get that.” Racicot did indicate the primary use of the franchising fees taken in by the town from Charter are to pay Tantasqua High School students who film municipal government meetings, and that provisions for money to upgrade and maintain equipment will be worked out in the next cable contract.
Another aspect of Creamer’s request was for any communications between Sturbridge and other potential cable service providers either showing interest in working with the town, or declining such an option. “I haven’t been able to discover that there was any,” Racicot said.
“Here we are at the close of a 10 year contract marked by consistent complaints and we have undertaken no due diligence insofar as market shopping other providers in order to ensure the most competitive pricing and service,” Creamer said.
In recent weeks, the topic has been broached at several meetings of the Board of Selectmen, including a work session on Monday, July 10 when they met with the Cable Advisory Board.
Even still, with only three months left on the town’s contract with Charter Communications, Creamer said he is disappointed with the lack of attention the town’s cable system is receiving. “There is no sense of urgency with some members of the board,” Creamer said.
As the deadline for renewal of the contract approaches, Creamer said the town should be shopping around, soliciting potential service providers that may be able to replace Charter, which he said “has had a 10-year monopoly, and we’ve had nothing but problems them.”
According to Racicot, territories of service providers are split up into different sections of the commonwealth, with Charter being the only viable option for the time being. Verizon FiOS, a potentiality raised by Selectman Scott Garieri at a January 2009 meeting, may be coming to the area soon, but Racicot said at this point, there appears to be no other option besides Charter.
“You’re not really going to get another company that’s going to jump into the middle of another territory,” Racicot said. “When [Verizon] comes, we’ll be glad to hear from them but it’s on their schedule.”
With a minimum contract duration of three years if the town renews with Charter — and a maximum of 10 — Racicot said the Cable Advisory Committee has not yet made any recommendations to the Board of Selectmen as to what direction to go on the new contract.
“We will be holding pubic meetings where people who have issues can come to the Cable Committee, and hopefully the selectmen, and make their issues known to us,” Racicot said. No dates have been set for those meetings yet, but he speculated they would be in September.
The underlying issue is the inability for people to watch live broadcasts of municipal meetings, which everyone involved agrees is an important facet of transparent government.
With the majority of meetings now held in the Senior Center while the Town Hall is undergoing renovations — with most of the town’s broadcasting equipment inside — video recordings of meetings are played on somewhat inconsistent schedules.
“Why is it that we can watch the graduation of Tantasqua High School for three and a half straight months [on channel 13], but I can’t turn on channel 12 and see the Planning Board on a continuous loop, or the Board of Selectmen on a continuous loop, or the C o n s e r v a t i o n Commission?” Creamer questioned.
“I just want to let the citizens know we’re taking it seriously,” Racicot assured. “It’s much better to have it live, when it’s real time,” the Interim Town Administrator added. “I’ve worked in communities when we’d be discussing something and someone would come running through the door because they were watching it at
home and they wanted to join in. That’s real democracy.”
News staff writer Christopher Tanguay may be reached at (508) 909-4132, or by e-mail at ctanguay@stonebridgepress.com.
Read more!
BY CHRISTOPHER TANGUAY
NEWS STAFF WRITER
STURBRIDGE —
For the umpteenth time in the 10 years Sturbridge has been committed to a contract with Charter Communications, town officials — and residents — are looking for some clarity on he public access channel.
Selectman Thomas Creamer has just about had his fill of the cable system, which has generated more complaints than complements since the town entered into the agreement with Charter in 1999. “The overall sound and visual quality people get at their homes relative to our meetings is atrocious,” Creamer said.
Although issues with sound fading in and out during broadcasts and bad picture quality have been raised by citizens for years, poor reception of Sturbridge’s channel 12 seems to be in different degrees in different neighborhoods.
At Creamer’s Leadmine Road home, “It’s horrible.” “I have to turn the volume on my TV set up to 50,” Creamer said from his home on Tuesday. “If I switch the channel, it’s like you get blasted out of the house. The sound quality is horrible and the video quality is like looking through a lens that’s out of focus.” “You can’t physically see, sometimes, the look that’s on the selectmen’s faces when they’re sitting there,” he added.
Sturbridge’s frustration with the cable service is not limited to a few home viewers by any means. In the minutes of a March 7, 2005 Board of Selectmen meeting Robert Spain of Charter Communications said, in response to numerous complaints about the lack of audio clarity during broadcasts, the Sturbridge system would be checked on a monthly basis and problems would be fixed as they arise. During the Ask the Selectmen portion of that same meeting — a public phone-in question and answer session that fell by the wayside when meetings were moved to the Senior Center — a resident called to ironically report that the audio had been completely muted.
Also during the March 7, 2005 meeting, a Beaudry Road resident indicated there was no cable service in his neighborhood, to which Spain said easements may not have been granted in some areas allowing service to reach all residents in town, despite the contract clearly stating, “The Licensee shall make its Cable Service available to all residences in the Town as of the Effective Date of this License.”
Another complaint about sound quality is documented in the minutes of a March 20, 2006 meeting as well. At another 2005 meeting, selectmen fielded a question about the nonexistent senior citizens discount some residents believed was part of the town’s agreement with Charter. In the last two years, some thought had been put into Internet broadcasts or a change of service providers, though no headway was made on either front.
In February of this year, Creamer issued a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to then-Town Administrator James Malloy, asking for records documenting all money received from Charter Communications from the last five years — including a $50,000 one-time payment from the first year of the contract and smaller annual payments since then — and what that money has been used for, a copy of the contract between Sturbridge and Charter, and any communications between Charter and Sturbridge regarding ongoing broadcast issues.
To date, only the contract has been made available. In the post-Malloy months, Creamer made a similar request to Interim Town Administrator Michael Racicot, who is also a member of the Cable Advisory Committee. New to the town of Sturbridge, Racicot had to first get himself up to speed on the issue before answering anyone else’s questions.
“There’s no reason we have to pull teeth to get answers to questions everyone knows has been out there for years,” Creamer said, indicating that the issue has not been investigated with the vigor he believes it deserves.
“There’s probably still some of the financial details that I don’t have because the finance director has been on vacation,” Racicot said in regard to the request. “But I’m hoping to get that.” Racicot did indicate the primary use of the franchising fees taken in by the town from Charter are to pay Tantasqua High School students who film municipal government meetings, and that provisions for money to upgrade and maintain equipment will be worked out in the next cable contract.
Another aspect of Creamer’s request was for any communications between Sturbridge and other potential cable service providers either showing interest in working with the town, or declining such an option. “I haven’t been able to discover that there was any,” Racicot said.
“Here we are at the close of a 10 year contract marked by consistent complaints and we have undertaken no due diligence insofar as market shopping other providers in order to ensure the most competitive pricing and service,” Creamer said.
In recent weeks, the topic has been broached at several meetings of the Board of Selectmen, including a work session on Monday, July 10 when they met with the Cable Advisory Board.
Even still, with only three months left on the town’s contract with Charter Communications, Creamer said he is disappointed with the lack of attention the town’s cable system is receiving. “There is no sense of urgency with some members of the board,” Creamer said.
As the deadline for renewal of the contract approaches, Creamer said the town should be shopping around, soliciting potential service providers that may be able to replace Charter, which he said “has had a 10-year monopoly, and we’ve had nothing but problems them.”
According to Racicot, territories of service providers are split up into different sections of the commonwealth, with Charter being the only viable option for the time being. Verizon FiOS, a potentiality raised by Selectman Scott Garieri at a January 2009 meeting, may be coming to the area soon, but Racicot said at this point, there appears to be no other option besides Charter.
“You’re not really going to get another company that’s going to jump into the middle of another territory,” Racicot said. “When [Verizon] comes, we’ll be glad to hear from them but it’s on their schedule.”
With a minimum contract duration of three years if the town renews with Charter — and a maximum of 10 — Racicot said the Cable Advisory Committee has not yet made any recommendations to the Board of Selectmen as to what direction to go on the new contract.
“We will be holding pubic meetings where people who have issues can come to the Cable Committee, and hopefully the selectmen, and make their issues known to us,” Racicot said. No dates have been set for those meetings yet, but he speculated they would be in September.
The underlying issue is the inability for people to watch live broadcasts of municipal meetings, which everyone involved agrees is an important facet of transparent government.
With the majority of meetings now held in the Senior Center while the Town Hall is undergoing renovations — with most of the town’s broadcasting equipment inside — video recordings of meetings are played on somewhat inconsistent schedules.
“Why is it that we can watch the graduation of Tantasqua High School for three and a half straight months [on channel 13], but I can’t turn on channel 12 and see the Planning Board on a continuous loop, or the Board of Selectmen on a continuous loop, or the C o n s e r v a t i o n Commission?” Creamer questioned.
“I just want to let the citizens know we’re taking it seriously,” Racicot assured. “It’s much better to have it live, when it’s real time,” the Interim Town Administrator added. “I’ve worked in communities when we’d be discussing something and someone would come running through the door because they were watching it at
home and they wanted to join in. That’s real democracy.”
News staff writer Christopher Tanguay may be reached at (508) 909-4132, or by e-mail at ctanguay@stonebridgepress.com.
Read more!
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Charter Communications
Back on January 5, 2009, while addressing the Board of Selectmen I inquired about the status of service with Charter Communications and the possibility of implementing continuous loop broadcast of public meetings. The minutes of that meeting (page 5), partially capture that discussion as follows: "T. Creamer asked about broadcasting meetings on the public access channel continuously. J. Malloy said that a system for doing that was purchased about 10 years ago, and it never worked well, as it had to be set up manually. He said that it would take extra staff people to do it. He suggested live streaming of meetings on line, and offered to speak to Virtual Town Hall. He noted that the cost would be about $7,000 - $10,000 per year, and a lot of towns have live streaming broadcasting, which does not require having someone programming it constantly".The minutes continue by stating that "S. Garieri thought it would be a good thing to do. M. Blanchard said that it would be worthwhile to look into it. J. Malloy said that it would be necessary to buy different equipment to accomplish it. He said that every year Charter provides the Town with funding, and there is a balance of about $80,000 in the account". Despite agreement by all that it "would be worthwhile to look into" no such inquiry or subsequent follow-up seems to have occurred. There is at least, no record of such taking place.
Interestingly enough it was stated by the then Town Administrator that there was a balance of approximately "$80,000" in our Charter Communications account. This seemed odd considering the rather poor quality of the equipment available to the town for broadcast of its public meetings.
In response to this information I conducted some research attempting to gather an historical perspective relative to the issues with Charter Communications. In reviewing the minutes of the past six years I was astounded at the number of times that residents and public officials had raised concerns about the quality of service provided by Charter Communications and the "atrocious" (as one caller to Ask the Selectmen phrased it) quality of the public broadcasts.
After subsequent inquiries and discussions with appointed and elected officials, I submitted a Freedom of Information Request (FOIR) on February 19, 2009, which asked for the following information:
"1). The records documenting the revenue and or funds received from Charter Communications over the past five calendar and or fiscal years.
2). The records documenting the use and or disposition of those funds by the Town of Sturbridge over the past five calendar and or fiscal years.
3). A copy of the signed contract and or contracts between the Town of Sturbridge and Charter Communications for the past five years.
4). Any correspondence pertaining to inquiries in terms of the ongoing broadcast issues that have been sent by you (or any other town official acting your behalf) to Charter Communications, as well the responses from Charter Communication to those inquiries."
In response to my FOIR, I was provided with a copy of the Charter Communications contract, which was quite telling in and of itself as it identified in Article 6, Section 6.2 (page 22), of the contract that the Town of Sturbridge was to receive $50,000 “…payable in full following the Effective Date of [the] Renewal License…”. It further indicated in Article 7, Section 7.2 c (page 26), that the “Licensee [Charter Communications] shall annually pay an Additional License Fee of TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($10,000). The cumulative total of Additional License Fee payments shall not exceed $100,000 over the term of this License.” No accounting for the receipt or expenditure of these funds has been provided either publicly or in response to the FOIR submitted in February 2009.
Despite years of repeated complaints by residents and public officials alike, we now stand just months away from the conclusion of a 10-year contract with Charter Communications and we appear to be underwhelmed by any sense of urgency in conducting "due diligence" by way of "market shopping" for other alternatives. Consider the situation we now find ourselves in with regards to televised meetings. When asked by this selectman (at my first meeting) about any arrangements that may have been discussed to outfit the Senior Center with the capability to broadcast our meetings during the 16-18 month Town Hall renovation, I was told that Charter Communications indicated that they could not undertake that project due to budget restrictions on their end.
Certainly, with Charter Communications filing Chapter 11 one can understand the challenges inherent with running some additional overhead lines to and from the Senior Center, as we were to transfer and utilize our old equipment. Upon further review however, one has to ask oneself just how important a customer we are to Charter Communications when in the final year of a 10-year contract, they seem absolutely unwilling to work with us. One also has to wonder how a provider who maintained a monopoly in our town for 10 years despite consistent dissatisfaction with some of their service, can feel so comfortable demonstrating an unwillingness to work with us. Instead we find ourselves video taping public meetings with a $350.00 camcorder and displaying them on our public access channel at some point after the meeting.
Clearly, as previously stated, one might conclude that we appear to be underwhelmed with any sense of urgency in addressing the issues with our current cable provider, despite years of complaints. A review of the previous two posts with accompanying audio would seem to support such a conclusion. Surely over the years there has been much rhetoric offered by some with regards to this issue, yet the reality of our actions does not seem consistent with that rhetoric. There is little doubt that some members of the B.O.S. have a desire to conduct a full vetting of the current provider contract and approach; yet attempts to gather information and focus more attention to this issue have been met with less than enthusiastic embrace on the whole. This is unfortunate and I believe, a disservice to the residents of Sturbridge. Each of us has a responsibility to conduct our affairs with the highest regard on your behalf. Half measures will avail us little, if anything.
To be clear as stated in a previous post, I do not hold the members of the Cable Advisory Committee in any way harmful for this predicament; they perform their volunteer work based upon the direction they receive from the Board of Selectmen. To that end, we have failed to provide the appropriate guidance and direction to them that would have resulted in a different approach as it relates to options with regards to cable providers. Thus, we are, and will be responsible for what ultimately transpires over the next few months; indeed the next few years.
Read more!
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Charter Communications (Audio Discussion Below)
This past Monday, August 10, 2009 (in response to a request by this elected official several weeks ago), the Board of Selectmen and the Cable Advisory Committee held a joint public meeting to discuss our progress and approach in addressing the historical issues we have experienced with Charter Communications.
During my bid for office this past spring, I pledged that "within the first 3 months, I [would] initiate a request for a public accounting of all revenues associated with, and services provided by, Charter Communications." This pledge was accompanied by a Freedom of Information Request I submitted as resident on 02-19-09 seeking the following:
1) The records documenting the revenue and or funds received from Charter Communications over the past five calendar and or fiscal years.
2) The records documenting the use and or disposition of those funds by the Town of Sturbridge over the past five calendar and or fiscal years.
3) A copy of the signed contract and or contracts between the Town of Sturbridge and Charter Communications for the past five years.
4) Any correspondence pertaining to inquiries in terms of the ongoing broadcast issues that have been sent by you (or any other town official acting your behalf) to Charter Communications, as well the responses from Charter Communication to those inquiries.
Some of the information requested back in February, 2009, was provided, some was not.
During Monday's joint meeting, I requested that the Interim Town Administrator provide the following information (which was reemphasized in a detailed correspondence the following day), and that such be made available at an upcoming meeting of the Board of Selectmen:
1) A detailed accounting for the initial $50,000 provided to the town by Charter Communications, which was “…payable in full following the Effective Date of [the] Renewal License…” as found in Article 6, Section 6.2 (page 22) of the current provider contract.
2) An accounting of all funds received by the Town of Sturbridge (and expenditure thereof) from Charter Communications as found in Article 7, Section 7.2 c (page 25), which reads as follows: “Licensee shall annually pay an Additional License Fee of TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($10,000). The cumulative total of Additional License Fee payments shall not exceed $100,000 over the term of this License.”
3) A listing of all telecommunications providers/competitors that we have reached out soliciting Requests for Proposals.
4) Recent (within the last 6 months) Signed letters of confirmation or declination of the interest, or lack thereof by competitors in providing service or proposals to the Town of Sturbridge.
5) A written explanation of our approach in addressing the concerns raised by residents for years relative to our current service provider.
6) A plan demonstrating our “Market Shopping” approach towards ensuring that the residents of Sturbridge are being provided with the very best service from the very best provider available, and conversely, if appropriate, an explanation of our inability to do so.
A review of meeting minutes spanning 6 plus years highlights a myriad of complaints from residents ranging from poor audio/video reception of public access channels to what some characterize as a lack of programming choices. Despite multiple attempts by previous elected boards to resolve these issues, the problems have remained, for the most part, unresolved.
Interestingly enough, Robert Spain of Charter Communications appeared before the B.O.S. on March 7, 2005, to address the "...numerous complaints from the public about the sound quality of the meetings...", in addition to possible "senior discounts" and programming concerns. Yet, despite a commitment from Mr. Spain that "...their technicians [would] address..." the problems encountered with service, the issues remain unresolved.
Now, some 4 1/2 years removed from that 2005 meeting, and faced with a November, 2009, expiration to our 10 year contract, it appears we may have undertaken a less than earnest approach towards "market shopping" other providers in hopes of leveraging competitive pricing and services. During the discussion with the Cable Advisory Committee I was struck by what appeared to be a "...foregone conclusion that we were doing business solely with charter communications..." (audio recording below). This "sole-source" approach in preparing for our next telecommunications contract seems somewhat inconsistent with the reality a 10-year history marked with repeated complaints from both residents and public officials insofar as the level of service we've received from Charter Communications.
At least one long-time current member of the present Board of Selectmen as well as several current/previous members have challenged the level of service provided by our current provider and have attempted to have the issues rectified. Despite their patience and perseverance, little has changed. We now find ourselves at the cliff's edge with little margin for error.
To be clear, one must recognize that any failure to conduct a more comprehensive review and approach towards our telecommunications review is not, and certainly should not be considered a failure by the Cable Advisory Committee. The Cable Advisory Committee is just that - an advisory committee - whose guidance and direction is provided by the Town Administrator as directed by the Board of Selectmen. These problems have existed for years, this committee and its current membership has not. Their research, review, and recommendations are based upon the direction they receive from those who appoint them; ultimately, that is the Board of Selectmen. To that end WE have failed to prioritize this issue properly, despite years of identified issues and shortfalls as it relates to service and equipment.
I will not, and cannot speak for other members of the Board (some of whom have had to field resident concerns relative to our cable service for years), I will however speak for myself. I pledged to raise this issue within the first 3 months of my term and clearly, that I have done. As well, I did bring my concerns to the appointed and elected leadership of this community back in February 2009. It is obvious however, in light of the information received this past Monday, that I should have raised this issue sooner in my tenure, as the answers I received in February were insufficient and clearly, such remains the case. With only 3 months now available to research, review, and consider other options, we find ourselves in a less than admirable position in terms of leveraging competitive options. Clearly, we have an obligation to the residents of Sturbridge to endeavor with all urgency to undertake a more comprehensive approach to cable/telecommunications service to ensure the best proposal and the service possible. No doubt we have some work ahead of us.
Read more!
During my bid for office this past spring, I pledged that "within the first 3 months, I [would] initiate a request for a public accounting of all revenues associated with, and services provided by, Charter Communications." This pledge was accompanied by a Freedom of Information Request I submitted as resident on 02-19-09 seeking the following:
1) The records documenting the revenue and or funds received from Charter Communications over the past five calendar and or fiscal years.
2) The records documenting the use and or disposition of those funds by the Town of Sturbridge over the past five calendar and or fiscal years.
3) A copy of the signed contract and or contracts between the Town of Sturbridge and Charter Communications for the past five years.
4) Any correspondence pertaining to inquiries in terms of the ongoing broadcast issues that have been sent by you (or any other town official acting your behalf) to Charter Communications, as well the responses from Charter Communication to those inquiries.
Some of the information requested back in February, 2009, was provided, some was not.
During Monday's joint meeting, I requested that the Interim Town Administrator provide the following information (which was reemphasized in a detailed correspondence the following day), and that such be made available at an upcoming meeting of the Board of Selectmen:
1) A detailed accounting for the initial $50,000 provided to the town by Charter Communications, which was “…payable in full following the Effective Date of [the] Renewal License…” as found in Article 6, Section 6.2 (page 22) of the current provider contract.
2) An accounting of all funds received by the Town of Sturbridge (and expenditure thereof) from Charter Communications as found in Article 7, Section 7.2 c (page 25), which reads as follows: “Licensee shall annually pay an Additional License Fee of TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($10,000). The cumulative total of Additional License Fee payments shall not exceed $100,000 over the term of this License.”
3) A listing of all telecommunications providers/competitors that we have reached out soliciting Requests for Proposals.
4) Recent (within the last 6 months) Signed letters of confirmation or declination of the interest, or lack thereof by competitors in providing service or proposals to the Town of Sturbridge.
5) A written explanation of our approach in addressing the concerns raised by residents for years relative to our current service provider.
6) A plan demonstrating our “Market Shopping” approach towards ensuring that the residents of Sturbridge are being provided with the very best service from the very best provider available, and conversely, if appropriate, an explanation of our inability to do so.
A review of meeting minutes spanning 6 plus years highlights a myriad of complaints from residents ranging from poor audio/video reception of public access channels to what some characterize as a lack of programming choices. Despite multiple attempts by previous elected boards to resolve these issues, the problems have remained, for the most part, unresolved.
Interestingly enough, Robert Spain of Charter Communications appeared before the B.O.S. on March 7, 2005, to address the "...numerous complaints from the public about the sound quality of the meetings...", in addition to possible "senior discounts" and programming concerns. Yet, despite a commitment from Mr. Spain that "...their technicians [would] address..." the problems encountered with service, the issues remain unresolved.
Now, some 4 1/2 years removed from that 2005 meeting, and faced with a November, 2009, expiration to our 10 year contract, it appears we may have undertaken a less than earnest approach towards "market shopping" other providers in hopes of leveraging competitive pricing and services. During the discussion with the Cable Advisory Committee I was struck by what appeared to be a "...foregone conclusion that we were doing business solely with charter communications..." (audio recording below). This "sole-source" approach in preparing for our next telecommunications contract seems somewhat inconsistent with the reality a 10-year history marked with repeated complaints from both residents and public officials insofar as the level of service we've received from Charter Communications.
At least one long-time current member of the present Board of Selectmen as well as several current/previous members have challenged the level of service provided by our current provider and have attempted to have the issues rectified. Despite their patience and perseverance, little has changed. We now find ourselves at the cliff's edge with little margin for error.
To be clear, one must recognize that any failure to conduct a more comprehensive review and approach towards our telecommunications review is not, and certainly should not be considered a failure by the Cable Advisory Committee. The Cable Advisory Committee is just that - an advisory committee - whose guidance and direction is provided by the Town Administrator as directed by the Board of Selectmen. These problems have existed for years, this committee and its current membership has not. Their research, review, and recommendations are based upon the direction they receive from those who appoint them; ultimately, that is the Board of Selectmen. To that end WE have failed to prioritize this issue properly, despite years of identified issues and shortfalls as it relates to service and equipment.
I will not, and cannot speak for other members of the Board (some of whom have had to field resident concerns relative to our cable service for years), I will however speak for myself. I pledged to raise this issue within the first 3 months of my term and clearly, that I have done. As well, I did bring my concerns to the appointed and elected leadership of this community back in February 2009. It is obvious however, in light of the information received this past Monday, that I should have raised this issue sooner in my tenure, as the answers I received in February were insufficient and clearly, such remains the case. With only 3 months now available to research, review, and consider other options, we find ourselves in a less than admirable position in terms of leveraging competitive options. Clearly, we have an obligation to the residents of Sturbridge to endeavor with all urgency to undertake a more comprehensive approach to cable/telecommunications service to ensure the best proposal and the service possible. No doubt we have some work ahead of us.
Read more!
Friday, August 7, 2009
The HOGs Are Here (See video/audio above)
They arrived here with a police escort and quite a roar yesterday (see video/audio tribute in the right sidebar), and are now among us. Thousands of HOGs (Harley Owners Group), have descended upon Sturbridge and have brought a great sense of vibrancy and activity to our community. A quick drive or walk through town reveals "bikes" everywhere; in our shops, our restaurants, our hotels, and certainly all along our streets.
Sturbridge was most fortunate this year to play host to this elite group of riders who have literally invested thousands upon thousands of dollars into their "rides" and are now pumping the same into our local economy. And at a time in our history when people are spending less, traveling less, and doing less; we are in the midst of a weekend in which absolutely the opposite is happening.
To be clear, what we are witnessing this weekend will surely not result in any less empty storefronts (at least in the short term), nor will it result in the salvation of any business on the cusp of closing. It will however, provide a little breathing room for some and more importantly it will help send a message that is long overdue. That message being, that Sturbridge is "THE" place to hold a conference, "THE" place to plan your next event. This message has been getting out there a little more often and a little bit louder each time we have had an event come into town these past few months since the birth of the Merchants of Sturbridge (M.O.S.).
Each event results in days of preparation by the Merchants of Sturbridge, as residents, shopkeepers, government officials, and professional service providers plan and execute welcoming ceremonies which include welcome packages, official greetings, and ongoing direct interaction with visitors during their stay by members of M.O.S. Thus far, the results have been most positive as indicated by many of the event organizers who've shared the high spirits of those visiting our community, with many re-booking future events here in town.
For the last several weeks M.O.S. members and supporters have undertaken a great effort in helping to choreograph the welcome and stay of our honored guests. As well, one should not overlook the months of advance work done by representatives of the South Central Chamber of Commerce and the Central MA Convention & Visitors Bureau. Certainly, they all deserve our thanks: To that end, we offer our gratitude to the following:
Jeannine Creamer
Leslie Wong
Autumn Wong
Sylvia Wong
Maryann Thopre
Mike Thorpe
Emma Thorpe
Julie Schutz - Sturbridge Scrapping Corner
Jasmine Bell - Sadie Green's
Chris Rovezzi - Rovezzi's Ristorante
Bob Carroll - The Brier Patch
Lisa Kosinski - Park Place Salon
Helen Duda - Mt. Laurel Yarn Boutique
Andrew Duda - Mt. Laurel Yarn Boutique
Annie Chojnicki
Steve Chojnicki
Scott Garieri - Sturbridge Selectman
Tom Wright - Best Bib & Tucker
Adam Wright - Best Bib & Tucker
Salli Greene - Velvet Greene Nursery
Dick Vaughan - The Spirit 970 Radio
Jenn Harwich
Alix McNitt - Southcentral Chamber of Commerce
Rose Beam - Sturbridge Candy Company
Brian Amedy - Sturbridge Host Hotel
Jim Donahue, Ann Lindblad & Aaron McGarry - Old Sturbridge Village
The Sturbridge Police Department
The Sturbridge Parks and Recreation Department
The Sturbridge Board of Health
The Central MA Convention and Visitor's Bureau
In closing, perhaps the best and most important commentary on our efforts comes from those upon which our efforts were focused - the HOGs themselves - as conveyed via correspondence by Brian Amedy of the Host Hotel:
"...Once again the MOS group was a big hit. Numerous comments from the Hog Guests as to how welcomed they felt here in Sturbridge. THIS WAS THE BEST RECEPTION THEY'VE EVER HAD. Next year, when they go to Mystic they will have a hard act to follow...".
Once again a FANTASTIC JOB BY MOS
Read more!
Sturbridge was most fortunate this year to play host to this elite group of riders who have literally invested thousands upon thousands of dollars into their "rides" and are now pumping the same into our local economy. And at a time in our history when people are spending less, traveling less, and doing less; we are in the midst of a weekend in which absolutely the opposite is happening.
To be clear, what we are witnessing this weekend will surely not result in any less empty storefronts (at least in the short term), nor will it result in the salvation of any business on the cusp of closing. It will however, provide a little breathing room for some and more importantly it will help send a message that is long overdue. That message being, that Sturbridge is "THE" place to hold a conference, "THE" place to plan your next event. This message has been getting out there a little more often and a little bit louder each time we have had an event come into town these past few months since the birth of the Merchants of Sturbridge (M.O.S.).
Each event results in days of preparation by the Merchants of Sturbridge, as residents, shopkeepers, government officials, and professional service providers plan and execute welcoming ceremonies which include welcome packages, official greetings, and ongoing direct interaction with visitors during their stay by members of M.O.S. Thus far, the results have been most positive as indicated by many of the event organizers who've shared the high spirits of those visiting our community, with many re-booking future events here in town.
For the last several weeks M.O.S. members and supporters have undertaken a great effort in helping to choreograph the welcome and stay of our honored guests. As well, one should not overlook the months of advance work done by representatives of the South Central Chamber of Commerce and the Central MA Convention & Visitors Bureau. Certainly, they all deserve our thanks: To that end, we offer our gratitude to the following:
Jeannine Creamer
Leslie Wong
Autumn Wong
Sylvia Wong
Maryann Thopre
Mike Thorpe
Emma Thorpe
Julie Schutz - Sturbridge Scrapping Corner
Jasmine Bell - Sadie Green's
Chris Rovezzi - Rovezzi's Ristorante
Bob Carroll - The Brier Patch
Lisa Kosinski - Park Place Salon
Helen Duda - Mt. Laurel Yarn Boutique
Andrew Duda - Mt. Laurel Yarn Boutique
Annie Chojnicki
Steve Chojnicki
Scott Garieri - Sturbridge Selectman
Tom Wright - Best Bib & Tucker
Adam Wright - Best Bib & Tucker
Salli Greene - Velvet Greene Nursery
Dick Vaughan - The Spirit 970 Radio
Jenn Harwich
Alix McNitt - Southcentral Chamber of Commerce
Rose Beam - Sturbridge Candy Company
Brian Amedy - Sturbridge Host Hotel
Jim Donahue, Ann Lindblad & Aaron McGarry - Old Sturbridge Village
The Sturbridge Police Department
The Sturbridge Parks and Recreation Department
The Sturbridge Board of Health
The Central MA Convention and Visitor's Bureau
In closing, perhaps the best and most important commentary on our efforts comes from those upon which our efforts were focused - the HOGs themselves - as conveyed via correspondence by Brian Amedy of the Host Hotel:
"...Once again the MOS group was a big hit. Numerous comments from the Hog Guests as to how welcomed they felt here in Sturbridge. THIS WAS THE BEST RECEPTION THEY'VE EVER HAD. Next year, when they go to Mystic they will have a hard act to follow...".
Once again a FANTASTIC JOB BY MOS
Read more!
Monday, August 3, 2009
Supporting the Pan Mass Riders (see video & audio tribute in right sidebar)
For the 30th year in a row, thousands upon thousands of seemingly ordinary people have undertaken a rather extraordinary challenge. It is an endeavor that no doubt tests the limits of human endurance, both physical and psychological. It is as well, a rigorous undertaking, which provides no monetary reward for the thousands involved each year; nor for that matter, can any single participant identify any tangible benefit in terms of their individual efforts.
Yet, each year thousands of individuals from 37 states and 10 countries descend upon the small town of Sturbridge Massachusetts, as well as Wellesley and Borne, to participate in a grueling ride that for some will span 192 miles in two days. This year, these individuals, comprised of 5,204 cyclists and 3,000 volunteers assembled with one collective goal in mind - raising $30 million dollars in the fight against cancer.
And frankly, that is what makes these seemingly ordinary people, absolutely anything but. In fact these are remarkable people who dedicate their time, energy, personal resources, and certainly their love for family members, relatives, friends, and very often total strangers who have, are, or will at some time be faced with the horrors of cancer.
These individuals, heroes in every sense of the word, are people who come together annually in common cause and collectively become the single greatest army in the battle against cancer. The PMC website states that "To date, the PMC has raised more than $239 million that has been used to improve the lives of those suffering with cancer. It is the largest single contributor to the Jimmy Fund, bringing in nearly 50 percent of its annual revenue". It certainly seems fair to say that these seemingly ordinary people who have achieved such extraordinary success, are in fact, quite extraordinary themselves.
This past weekend, the Merchants of Sturbridge were privileged to be invited to participate in the welcoming ceremonies and had the opportunity to walk among these incredible individuals who had gathered here as one. They were people who spoke with us not of the challenges they faced, but rather, the challenges faced by those dealing with cancer. They were people who spoke not of the great battle they were waging against cancer as riders, but rather about the great battle being waged each day by those families faced with cancer itself.
Then of course, there were those riders and supporters who themselves are cancer survivors and have now engaged yet another epic battle; a battle being waged for those actively struggling with this insidious disease. To all of them, we offer our love, our hopes, and our prayers.
This was certainly an incredibly inspiring opportunity and one that truly touched all of us who were able to participate. The riders, supporters, and volunteers were true "Powers of Example" and left a lasting impression of courage and heroism. They also left each of us with a gift. The gift of true humility and love. For that, we are all most grateful.
I would personally like to express my gratitude to the following members and supporters of the Merchants of Sturbridge for their participation and support this weekend:
Ann Lindblad - (Old Sturbridge Village), our partners in this endeavor
Leslie Wong
Jeannine Creamer
Maryann Thorpe
Emma Thorpe
Karin Rokicki
Bob & Sandra Carroll - (The Brier Patch)
Susan McDonough (Susan's Secret Garden)
Helen & Andrew Duda (Mt. Laurel Yarn Boutique)
Steve Chojnicki
Annie Chojnicki
Salli Greene (Velvet Greene)
Chris Rovezzi (Rovezzi's Ristorante)
Brenda Higgins (The Handmaiden)
Kevin & Patti McConnell (Sturbridge Country Inn)
Alex Pifer (The Seraph)
Bill & Nancy Cormier (The Bird Store and More)
Pia Rogers (Sturbridge Coffee House)
Julie Schutz & Angela Berthuaime (Sturbridge Scrapping Corner)
Lynne Girouard and the Sturbridge Recreation Committee (decorating and staging a Pan Mass bike display)
Jasmine Bell (Sadie Green's)
Mike Harrington (Publick House Historic Inn)
Travelogdge (Route 15)
Alix McNitt and the Chamber of Commerce (whose efforts in support of the Pan Mass Challenge play an integral role each year)
Russ Prentice & Brian Amedy (Sturbridge Host Hotel - for their incredible coordination, support, and management efforts on behalf of the Pan Mass Challenge Event)
Chief Thomas Ford and the Sturbridge Police Department
And certainly, the citizens of Sturbridge who adorned Route 20 at 5:00 a.m. Saturday morning to cheer on the departing riders
Finally, we offer our prayers and love to those today who are struggling with this dreaded disease.
Read more!
Yet, each year thousands of individuals from 37 states and 10 countries descend upon the small town of Sturbridge Massachusetts, as well as Wellesley and Borne, to participate in a grueling ride that for some will span 192 miles in two days. This year, these individuals, comprised of 5,204 cyclists and 3,000 volunteers assembled with one collective goal in mind - raising $30 million dollars in the fight against cancer.
And frankly, that is what makes these seemingly ordinary people, absolutely anything but. In fact these are remarkable people who dedicate their time, energy, personal resources, and certainly their love for family members, relatives, friends, and very often total strangers who have, are, or will at some time be faced with the horrors of cancer.
These individuals, heroes in every sense of the word, are people who come together annually in common cause and collectively become the single greatest army in the battle against cancer. The PMC website states that "To date, the PMC has raised more than $239 million that has been used to improve the lives of those suffering with cancer. It is the largest single contributor to the Jimmy Fund, bringing in nearly 50 percent of its annual revenue". It certainly seems fair to say that these seemingly ordinary people who have achieved such extraordinary success, are in fact, quite extraordinary themselves.
This past weekend, the Merchants of Sturbridge were privileged to be invited to participate in the welcoming ceremonies and had the opportunity to walk among these incredible individuals who had gathered here as one. They were people who spoke with us not of the challenges they faced, but rather, the challenges faced by those dealing with cancer. They were people who spoke not of the great battle they were waging against cancer as riders, but rather about the great battle being waged each day by those families faced with cancer itself.
Then of course, there were those riders and supporters who themselves are cancer survivors and have now engaged yet another epic battle; a battle being waged for those actively struggling with this insidious disease. To all of them, we offer our love, our hopes, and our prayers.
This was certainly an incredibly inspiring opportunity and one that truly touched all of us who were able to participate. The riders, supporters, and volunteers were true "Powers of Example" and left a lasting impression of courage and heroism. They also left each of us with a gift. The gift of true humility and love. For that, we are all most grateful.
I would personally like to express my gratitude to the following members and supporters of the Merchants of Sturbridge for their participation and support this weekend:
Ann Lindblad - (Old Sturbridge Village), our partners in this endeavor
Leslie Wong
Jeannine Creamer
Maryann Thorpe
Emma Thorpe
Karin Rokicki
Bob & Sandra Carroll - (The Brier Patch)
Susan McDonough (Susan's Secret Garden)
Helen & Andrew Duda (Mt. Laurel Yarn Boutique)
Steve Chojnicki
Annie Chojnicki
Salli Greene (Velvet Greene)
Chris Rovezzi (Rovezzi's Ristorante)
Brenda Higgins (The Handmaiden)
Kevin & Patti McConnell (Sturbridge Country Inn)
Alex Pifer (The Seraph)
Bill & Nancy Cormier (The Bird Store and More)
Pia Rogers (Sturbridge Coffee House)
Julie Schutz & Angela Berthuaime (Sturbridge Scrapping Corner)
Lynne Girouard and the Sturbridge Recreation Committee (decorating and staging a Pan Mass bike display)
Jasmine Bell (Sadie Green's)
Mike Harrington (Publick House Historic Inn)
Travelogdge (Route 15)
Alix McNitt and the Chamber of Commerce (whose efforts in support of the Pan Mass Challenge play an integral role each year)
Russ Prentice & Brian Amedy (Sturbridge Host Hotel - for their incredible coordination, support, and management efforts on behalf of the Pan Mass Challenge Event)
Chief Thomas Ford and the Sturbridge Police Department
And certainly, the citizens of Sturbridge who adorned Route 20 at 5:00 a.m. Saturday morning to cheer on the departing riders
Finally, we offer our prayers and love to those today who are struggling with this dreaded disease.
Read more!
Monday, June 22, 2009
Celebrating Our Independence
In the coming days, communities and individuals alike will participate in public and private celebrations commemorating the birth of this great nation. Two hundred and thirty three years have passed since “The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America” was issued.
For John Hancock and the other 56 signatories to the “Declaration”, it was a monumental and courageous step that would alter the course of human events for time immortal. Our nation has become the world’s pre-eminent leader and has endured great suffering along with unparalleled success in becoming the most benevolent country history has ever witnessed. Surely, this is, and shall continue to be great cause for celebration among the citizenry of the United States, as well as those across the globe who depend upon us daily.
Here locally, we will be fortunate to lay witness to a dramatic and exciting Fourth of July celebration hosted by Old Sturbridge Village. Last year’s event was incredibly well choreographed and attended, with this year’s promising to be significantly more so. It will be a great opportunity for all of us to showcase the very best that Sturbridge has to offer in terms of amenities, hospitality, and safety.
With so much excitement surrounding the upcoming holiday, it is easy for many of us to lose sight of the annual tragedies that occur as a result of July 4th celebrations; some legal, most otherwise. Injuries – physical and emotional – resulting from burns, disfigurement, and even death are all too commonplace during the weeks surrounding our Independence Day celebrations. As well, one is all too familiar with increased news reports of alcohol related accidents and deaths resulting from a proclivity for increased alcohol consumption by a small yet not inconsequential percentage.
All Americans recognize the great desire and need to memorialize – through celebration - the great freedoms we enjoy as the world’s most sovereign people. It is a fundamental aspect of who we are as a people. With that said, one is reminded of last year’s tragic accident during a non-sanctioned pyrotechnics display, which resulted in serious injury to a visitor. Fortunately, this remote and regrettable accident is an extreme rarity in this area and hopefully one not likely to occur again.
Speaking as an individual member of your elected leadership, I invite all Sturbridge residents to celebrate the birth of our great nation with excitement and vigor; I also encourage each of us to do so in a safe, sanctioned, and sensible manner.
Have A Happy and Safe Fourth of July.
Thomas R. Creamer, Sturbridge Selectman.
Read more!
For John Hancock and the other 56 signatories to the “Declaration”, it was a monumental and courageous step that would alter the course of human events for time immortal. Our nation has become the world’s pre-eminent leader and has endured great suffering along with unparalleled success in becoming the most benevolent country history has ever witnessed. Surely, this is, and shall continue to be great cause for celebration among the citizenry of the United States, as well as those across the globe who depend upon us daily.
Here locally, we will be fortunate to lay witness to a dramatic and exciting Fourth of July celebration hosted by Old Sturbridge Village. Last year’s event was incredibly well choreographed and attended, with this year’s promising to be significantly more so. It will be a great opportunity for all of us to showcase the very best that Sturbridge has to offer in terms of amenities, hospitality, and safety.
With so much excitement surrounding the upcoming holiday, it is easy for many of us to lose sight of the annual tragedies that occur as a result of July 4th celebrations; some legal, most otherwise. Injuries – physical and emotional – resulting from burns, disfigurement, and even death are all too commonplace during the weeks surrounding our Independence Day celebrations. As well, one is all too familiar with increased news reports of alcohol related accidents and deaths resulting from a proclivity for increased alcohol consumption by a small yet not inconsequential percentage.
All Americans recognize the great desire and need to memorialize – through celebration - the great freedoms we enjoy as the world’s most sovereign people. It is a fundamental aspect of who we are as a people. With that said, one is reminded of last year’s tragic accident during a non-sanctioned pyrotechnics display, which resulted in serious injury to a visitor. Fortunately, this remote and regrettable accident is an extreme rarity in this area and hopefully one not likely to occur again.
Speaking as an individual member of your elected leadership, I invite all Sturbridge residents to celebrate the birth of our great nation with excitement and vigor; I also encourage each of us to do so in a safe, sanctioned, and sensible manner.
Have A Happy and Safe Fourth of July.
Thomas R. Creamer, Sturbridge Selectman.
Read more!
Revitalizing Our Community - The Merchants of Sturbridge
As many have no doubt heard or read about by now, Sturbridge public officials, residents, and members of the business community have undertaken a grass roots initiative aimed at revitalizing our community. This group, approximately one hundred strong, has been meeting for the last six weeks in an effort to develop a comprehensive strategy for reinvigorating our local economy and breathing excitement back into our community.In addition to what you may have heard from enthusiastic supporters or read about in the local news media, I wanted to provide a more detailed progress report, while simultaneously reviewing our brief history.
As some of you may recall, I had pledged during the election campaign to reach out to and work with the business community in an effort to stem the exodus of local merchants from our community. To that end, I initiated direct contact with retail establishments, local restaurants and attractions, along with local government representatives and residents soliciting their commitment to join to participate in a Downtown Revitalization Summit.
The “Summit” would provide an opportunity for various groups within the community to Communicate directly in hopes of laying the foundation for long-term Cooperation. Subsequently, it was hoped that this cooperation would result in better Coordination of community-wide efforts and a stronger Commitment from all to work collectively towards solving the issues facing the community.
In just under six weeks, we have witnessed some very impressive and inspiring progress, which is galvanizing increased support within the community. The “Downtown Revitalization Summit” has resulted in the formal establishment of the “Merchants of Sturbridge” (MOS), a comprehensive group of merchants, professional service providers, residents, and local public officials whose charge is to create a strong desire and reason for people to Shop, Eat, and Stay in Sturbridge.
The group at large has met three times, with each meeting witness to standing room only representation. The enthusiasm and energy present at each meeting is as palpable as a head-to-head finish-line race by world-class runners. Inspired by the overwhelming sense of hope within the group, the Publick House, Old Sturbridge Village, and Yogi Bear’s Jellystone Park have each pledged substantial donations to the group. Merchant, resident, and governmental members have responded by pledging personal donations towards our revitalization efforts.
Three committees have been formed within MOS to better channel and prioritize efforts. Each committee – Marketing Team, Events Committee, and Finance Committee are comprised of merchants, residents, and at least one local government representative so as to ensure a cohesive, coordinated, and comprehensive approach to identifying solutions to the challenges facing our community.
Soon, in small incremental steps, residents and visitors alike will begin to witness the fruits of labor produced by these committees and MOS at large. A Marketing Plan has been developed and is in a “pre-release” state as funding options are reviewed. The Events Committee is developing two “event blueprints” that will guide long-term (strategic) planning as well as short-term (tactical) planning efforts. The strategic blueprint is focused on creating four seasonal events designed to draw both residents and visitors alike to our town in celebration. The tactical blueprint is designed to capitalize on conferences, tour groups, and emerging events driven by the calendars of local attractions and hotels. The Finance Committee is in the preliminary stages of incorporating the Merchants of Sturbridge as a non-profit community entity with an overriding theme of “revitalizing and reinvigorating” our beloved community. The incredible devotion to this endeavor by the Sturbridge Business Community has been nothing short of inspirational.
An important and integral aspect of this cooperative relationship has been the input of resident members of the organization. Sturbridge residents are providing a balanced consumer perspective that integrates their financial concerns, hopes, and dreams, as well as their desire for a thriving community that capitalizes on and protects the character of Sturbridge. As well, they have stepped forward to provide direct assistance to merchants in beautifying our Main Street district. Over the last week, residents Karin Rokicki, Maryann Thorpe, Emma Thorpe, and Jeannine Creamer have donated their services to merchants, providing 21 hours of landscape work, with many more hours still committed.
Surely, in the grand scheme of things, our progress to date can only be measured in mere baby steps. When one views the enormous challenges before us and the long steady decline of our downtown district, (years in the making), coupled now with a beleaguered economy, it is clear that no quick-fix silver bullet is going to transform our community overnight. Nevertheless, one must bear in mind as well that a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step, and to that end, it is encouraging that we have already taken several steps and our stride at this point appears to be a comfortably enthusiastic one.
Read more!
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Elementary School Building Committee - NEWS RELEASE
NEWS RELEASE: IMMEDIATE
CONTACT: CHARLES T. BLANCHARD
chasblanchard@msn.com
508-277-9057
508-347-7285
UPDATE SET FOR BURGESS CONSTRUCTION
Decades-Old School Would
Modernize, Expand with State Funding
STURBRIDGE — The community-based Elementary School Building Committee announced today a public information meeting to spell out plans for construction and renovation of the 59-year-old Burgess Elementary School at 7:30 P.M. Wednesday, June 17, in the school building’s north cafeteria.
Opened in 1950, last expanded in 1972, and most recently structurally improved 19 years ago, the Burgess Elementary School has qualified for state reimbursement of a portion of construction costs of the projected 129,000-square-foot facility. It would occupy the present Burgess School site, off Cedar Street.
With an October 1, 2008, enrollment of 824 K through Grade 6 students plus the faculty and staff, Burgess is among the largest and least modern elementary schools in Massachusetts.
School Building Committee Vice Chairperson Charles T. Blanchard, in announcing the public information meeting, emphasized that “The faculty continue struggling admirably to bring to students the latest proven teaching approaches, and the staff are always striving to deliver support services in an outmoded schoolhouse that is fraught with gerry-rigged and piecemeal ‘fixes.’”
The information meeting will show a computerized ‘flyover’ illustration of the exterior, the floor plan and a side-by-side comparison of the building’s current limitations and the plan’s features.
Mr. Blanchard noted that “The plans that the School Building Committee will present at the information session fit the Massachusetts School Building Authority’s comprehensive, specific, detailed and interrelated guidelines that are calculated according to the state’s projections for Sturbridge’s future elementary school student census.”
Anticipating present conditions, Sturbridge voters established the Elementary School Building Committee seven years ago.
While the committee’s membership has changed somewhat over the years, its current composition includes: Mr. Blanchard, who is a former Sturbridge Selectman and current Town Administrator of Paxton; Dr. Daniel J. Carlson, Principal, Burgess Elementary School; William Chamberland, a facilities manager with building and maintenance experience; Elementary School Building Committee Chair and former School Committee Chair Angela Cheng-Cimini; Daniel G. Durgin, Superintendent, Tantasqua/Union 61 School District; Burgess Elementary School teacher and former Selectman William A. Emrich; Selectman Scott A. Garieri; Planning Board member Sandra Gibson-Quigley; Town Administrator James J. Malloy; Finance Committee member Laurance S. Morrison; Lisa O. Noonan, a Parent Teacher Organization leader and community activist; Dawn L. Pratt, a School Committee member; David Travinski, a Department of Public Works employee; and former Finance and School Committee member Holly O’Neil-Turley. Supporting the committee is Barbara Barry, the Sturbridge Finance Director, who is a Massachusetts Certified Public Purchasing Official.
Joining the School Building Committee members in presenting the plans at the public session will be architect Carl R. Franceschi, AIA, of the firm Drummey Rosane Anderson, of Newton Centre, and the project owner’s manager, Eric D. Moore, AIA, of the architectural firm Lamoureux Pagano Associates, of Worcester.
In reflection of the complexities that shape public construction, the School Building Committee remains in conversation with the Massachusetts School Building Authority. Mr. Blanchard said that he foresees a resolution of the talks in time for the state to decide whether to award final approval, which would lead to a Sturbridge Special Town Meeting, probably this fall, when voters would be asked to authorize a bond issue. The specifics of funding, he explained, will result from those talks.
Read more!
CONTACT: CHARLES T. BLANCHARD
chasblanchard@msn.com
508-277-9057
508-347-7285
UPDATE SET FOR BURGESS CONSTRUCTION
Decades-Old School Would
Modernize, Expand with State Funding
STURBRIDGE — The community-based Elementary School Building Committee announced today a public information meeting to spell out plans for construction and renovation of the 59-year-old Burgess Elementary School at 7:30 P.M. Wednesday, June 17, in the school building’s north cafeteria.
Opened in 1950, last expanded in 1972, and most recently structurally improved 19 years ago, the Burgess Elementary School has qualified for state reimbursement of a portion of construction costs of the projected 129,000-square-foot facility. It would occupy the present Burgess School site, off Cedar Street.
With an October 1, 2008, enrollment of 824 K through Grade 6 students plus the faculty and staff, Burgess is among the largest and least modern elementary schools in Massachusetts.
School Building Committee Vice Chairperson Charles T. Blanchard, in announcing the public information meeting, emphasized that “The faculty continue struggling admirably to bring to students the latest proven teaching approaches, and the staff are always striving to deliver support services in an outmoded schoolhouse that is fraught with gerry-rigged and piecemeal ‘fixes.’”
The information meeting will show a computerized ‘flyover’ illustration of the exterior, the floor plan and a side-by-side comparison of the building’s current limitations and the plan’s features.
Mr. Blanchard noted that “The plans that the School Building Committee will present at the information session fit the Massachusetts School Building Authority’s comprehensive, specific, detailed and interrelated guidelines that are calculated according to the state’s projections for Sturbridge’s future elementary school student census.”
Anticipating present conditions, Sturbridge voters established the Elementary School Building Committee seven years ago.
While the committee’s membership has changed somewhat over the years, its current composition includes: Mr. Blanchard, who is a former Sturbridge Selectman and current Town Administrator of Paxton; Dr. Daniel J. Carlson, Principal, Burgess Elementary School; William Chamberland, a facilities manager with building and maintenance experience; Elementary School Building Committee Chair and former School Committee Chair Angela Cheng-Cimini; Daniel G. Durgin, Superintendent, Tantasqua/Union 61 School District; Burgess Elementary School teacher and former Selectman William A. Emrich; Selectman Scott A. Garieri; Planning Board member Sandra Gibson-Quigley; Town Administrator James J. Malloy; Finance Committee member Laurance S. Morrison; Lisa O. Noonan, a Parent Teacher Organization leader and community activist; Dawn L. Pratt, a School Committee member; David Travinski, a Department of Public Works employee; and former Finance and School Committee member Holly O’Neil-Turley. Supporting the committee is Barbara Barry, the Sturbridge Finance Director, who is a Massachusetts Certified Public Purchasing Official.
Joining the School Building Committee members in presenting the plans at the public session will be architect Carl R. Franceschi, AIA, of the firm Drummey Rosane Anderson, of Newton Centre, and the project owner’s manager, Eric D. Moore, AIA, of the architectural firm Lamoureux Pagano Associates, of Worcester.
In reflection of the complexities that shape public construction, the School Building Committee remains in conversation with the Massachusetts School Building Authority. Mr. Blanchard said that he foresees a resolution of the talks in time for the state to decide whether to award final approval, which would lead to a Sturbridge Special Town Meeting, probably this fall, when voters would be asked to authorize a bond issue. The specifics of funding, he explained, will result from those talks.
Read more!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
