I do believe I will have to watch the board of selectmen meeting for September 11, 2017 again. I distinctly heard the interim town administrator comment on using sand in the winter time and it is actually cheaper to use salt. It actually save taxpayer dollars in the long run.
A stated approximate cost of $250,000.00 for a storage building or structure was given as the deterrent at present. Could that be a logical and common sense use for that elusive free cash the selectmen and auditors keep talking about? Perhaps if that money ever comes to fruition? I hope the Capital planning committee has that on their radar. I mean it seems the move would be cheaper in the long run and more efficient and that would equate to saving taxpayer dollars.
What a concept, use a deicing product that unlike sand, actually melts snow and ice and is cheaper to use when you consider total costs.
On that note, I think I will have a cold adult beverage.
But I do need to watch that meeting again as there was a LOT to take in!
Tuesday, September 12, 2017
From the Templeton Town by-laws:
Article VIII – Records and Reports
Section 2. All officers, boards, standing committees, and special committees of the town having charge of the expenditure of town money shall annually report thereon in writing in such manner as to give the citizens a fair and full understanding of the objects and methods of such expenditures, referring, however, to the report of the Town Accountant for statements in detail of receipts and payments, and may make therein such recommendations as they deem proper. Such reports shall be submitted to the Selectmen for inclusion in the Annual Town Report on or before the thirty-first (31) day of January of each year.
Section 4. The Annual Town Report shall contain, in addition to the reports of officers, boards, and committees as hereinbefore provided, a detailed report of all moneys received into and paid out of the town treasury in the financial year next preceding, showing separately payments made from the proceeds of loans as capital outlays for permanent improvements; the report of the collector of taxes, of receipts, payments and abatements; statements of all funds belonging to the town or held for the benefit of its inhabitants; a statement of the liabilities of the town on bonds, notes, certificates of indebtedness, or otherwise, and of indebtedness authorized but not incurred, and the purpose thereof: a statement of transfers made to or from any appropriation: abstracts of the records of the meetings of the town held since publication of the last annual report; a complete list of town officers and appointees for the municipal year: and such other matters as the said report is required by law to contain, or as may be inserted by the Selectmen under the discretion granted them by law.
Section 5. The Selectmen, or the Town may direct that the Assessors’ valuation list, standing votes of the town, and the rules or regulations adopted by any officer, board or committee, be printed either separately or as part of the Annual Town Report. Sections 1-5 Originally Passed 3-5-51
Massachusetts General Law, chapter 41:
Section 61: Annual report
Section 61. The town accountant shall make an annual report, to be published as a town document, giving a statement of all receipts and expenditures of the town for the past financial year, including those of funds managed by trustees or commissioners for the town and showing also the amount of each specific appropriation, the expenditures therefrom, and the purpose for which money has been spent; and said statement shall be arranged in accordance with the classifications prescribed by the director of accounts. Such report shall contain a statement of any change in the amount of the town debt during the year and a list of indebtedness incurred and unpaid at the end of the financial year.
So where is the report from the town accountant (late) that was promised by July 1, 2017?
Monday, September 11, 2017
So did Members of the Templeton Advisory Committee violate the open Meeting Law?
While this does not address that question, it does seem to provide some information on the subject of blogs and face book and what constitutes a violation or possible violation;
"The Open Meeting Law does not restrict an individual's right to make comments to the general public."
The following was received via email from the division of open government. It is long and probably not that interesting of a read for most people. It is one of four examples sent to me concerning my questions on the alleged OML violations filed against the Advisory Committee.
Joslin Murphy Brookline Town Counsel 333 Washington Street Brookline, MA 02445 RE: Open Meeting Law Complaint Dear Attorney Murphy: This office received a complaint from Brooks Ames on May 22, alleging that the Brookline Board of Selectmen (the "Board") violated the Open Meeting Law, G.L. c. 3OA, §§ 18-25.1 The complaint was originally filed with the Board on or about April 18, and you responded, on behalf of the Board, by letter dated May 5. In his complaint, Mr. Ames alleges that the Board created a subcommittee that did not comply with the Open Meeting Law. Additionally, Mr. Ames alleges that, based on comments posted on a Board's member's personal Facebook page, the Board deliberated outside of a meeting. Following our review, we find that the Board did not violate the Open Meeting Law. In reaching a determination, we reviewed the original complaint, the Board's response to the complaint, and the complaint filed with our office requesting further review. We also reviewed the notice, minutes and video-recording of the Board's March 7 meeting, as well as the Facebook post at issue. We find the facts as follows. The Board is a five-member public body, thus three members constitute a quorum. In the fall 2016, the Board began reviewing the Town's policies pertaining to immigrants and refugees, in particular, a 2012 Special Order of the Brookline Police Department concerning Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") detainers. In January 2017, the Board voted to refer the matter to the Town's Commission for Diversity, Inclusion and Community Relations (the "Diversity Commission") for 1 All dates refer to the year 2017, unless otherwise indicated. FACTS o review and a recommendation to the Board. The Diversity Commission provided written proposed policies to the Board on February 15. On March 7, the Board held a public hearing regarding those proposed policies. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Board chair then suggested that the Board approve certain portions of the draft proposal, but leave open the possibility of revising other sections based on the public comment received that evening. The chair suggested that the draft be sent back to the Diversity Commission to incorporate the public's comments. Noting that no member of the Diversity Commission was at the meeting, the chair asked whether a Board member would "lead the effort" to complete the task. Board member Nancy Daly suggested that Board member Bernard Greene lead the effort. Then, as another Board member spoke, Ms. Daly turned to Mr. Greene and offered to help him. While the Board did not formally appoint Mr. Greene to undertake the revision project, the chair addressed him when the chair stated that some sections of the document remained unapproved pending further revision and consideration. Following this meeting, Ms. Daly and Mr. Greene, along with the Police Chief and a member of the Diversity Commission, Tony Naro, worked to finalize the document for the Board's review at its April 18 meeting. Ms. Daly emailed her suggested edits to Mr. Greene, who then made his own changes to the draft, which he may have emailed back to Ms. Daly. On April 14, Mr. Greene published a link to the draft, via the Town's website, on his Facebook page with the following comments: "Proposed policies prepared by Selectmen Daly and me with the support of Tony Naro and Chief O'Leary. Comments/critiques are welcome." Any person with a Facebook account can access this post. Two other Board members are "friends" with Mr. Greene on Facebook. DISCUSSION 1. The Board Did Not Create a Subcommittee Subject to the Open Meeting Law. The Open Meeting Law applies only to a public body, which is defined, in relevant part, as "a multiple member board, commission, committee or subcommittee within the executive or legislative branch or within any county, district, city, region or town, however created, elected, appointed or otherwise constituted, established to serve a public purpose[.]" G.L. c. 30A, § 18. A "subcommittee" is defined as a multiple-member body created to advise or make recommendations to a public body. G.L. c. 30A, § 18. The complaint alleges that the Board created a subcommittee, consisting of Mr. Greene and Ms. Daly, tasked with revising the Town's draft policies pertaining to immigrants and refugees. We find that the Board did not create a subcommittee during its March 7 meeting. Our analysis hinges on the Board's action and whether it intended to 2 create a multiple-member body. See OML 2016-59; OML 2014-63.2 We find that the Board sought a single volunteer to work on the draft. Ms. Daly nominated Mr. Greene. The Board took no vote, but proceeded with an understanding that Mr. Greene would review the draft. During further discussion, Ms. Daly turned to Mr. Greene and offered to assist him. Had the Board formally appointed the two to collectively revise the draft policies, it would have created a subcommittee. However, we find that Ms. Daly, on her own initiative, offered to assist Mr. Greene in carrying out the task. This does not create a subcommittee. See OML 2016-106. Accordingly, we find that the Board did not violate the Open Meeting Law. II. The Board Did Not Improperly Deliberate Via Facebook. The Open Meeting Law requires that all deliberation occur during a properly noticed meeting. See G.L. c. 30A, § 18. The law defines "deliberation" as "an oral or written communication through any medium, including electronic mail, between or among a quorum of a public body on any public business within its jurisdiction^]" Id; see also OML 2016-104 (even the expression of an opinion of one public body member on matters within a public body's jurisdiction to a quorum of a public body is a deliberation, even if no other public body member responds). The complaint alleges that a quorum of the Board improperly communicated via Facebook when Mr. Greene posted a link on his public Facebook page to the draft policy revisions published on the Town website and invited comments or critiques regarding the draft. No Board members responded to the post. The Open Meeting Law does not restrict an individual's right to make comments to the general public. Rather, it restricts communication between or among a quorum of a public body outside of a meeting, indicating that the communicator's intent must be examined. Because Mr. Greene's post was directed to members of the public with Facebook accounts, rather than specifically to the Board, and because no Board member responded to the post, we find no violation. Additionally, even if a quorum of the Board had viewed the post, the link to the Town website could be considered the distribution of a document to be distributed in preparation for the Board's next meeting. See G.L. c. 30A, § 18 ('"deliberation"' shall not include the distribution of other procedural meeting [sic] or the distribution of reports or documents that may be discussed at a meeting, provided that no opinion of a member is expressed"). CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, we find that the Board did not violate the Open Meeting Law. We now consider the complaint addressed by this determination to be resolved.
This determination does not address any other complaints that may be pending with our office or the Board. Please feel free to contact our office at (617) 963-2540.
Open Meeting Law determinations may be found at the Attorney General's website,
Since members of the Advisory Committee were expressing opinions on the selectmen and failing to follow their own policies, which are not within the Advisory Committee's jurisdiction, I believe that could be the reason the selectmen abruptly dropped the open meeting law complaints against members of Advisory Committee.
No resignations, no big changes, no Attorney General in Town, nothing, just the sound of silence!
dave smart - wrong again!
While this does not address that question, it does seem to provide some information on the subject of blogs and face book and what constitutes a violation or possible violation;
"The Open Meeting Law does not restrict an individual's right to make comments to the general public."
The following was received via email from the division of open government. It is long and probably not that interesting of a read for most people. It is one of four examples sent to me concerning my questions on the alleged OML violations filed against the Advisory Committee.
Joslin Murphy Brookline Town Counsel 333 Washington Street Brookline, MA 02445 RE: Open Meeting Law Complaint Dear Attorney Murphy: This office received a complaint from Brooks Ames on May 22, alleging that the Brookline Board of Selectmen (the "Board") violated the Open Meeting Law, G.L. c. 3OA, §§ 18-25.1 The complaint was originally filed with the Board on or about April 18, and you responded, on behalf of the Board, by letter dated May 5. In his complaint, Mr. Ames alleges that the Board created a subcommittee that did not comply with the Open Meeting Law. Additionally, Mr. Ames alleges that, based on comments posted on a Board's member's personal Facebook page, the Board deliberated outside of a meeting. Following our review, we find that the Board did not violate the Open Meeting Law. In reaching a determination, we reviewed the original complaint, the Board's response to the complaint, and the complaint filed with our office requesting further review. We also reviewed the notice, minutes and video-recording of the Board's March 7 meeting, as well as the Facebook post at issue. We find the facts as follows. The Board is a five-member public body, thus three members constitute a quorum. In the fall 2016, the Board began reviewing the Town's policies pertaining to immigrants and refugees, in particular, a 2012 Special Order of the Brookline Police Department concerning Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") detainers. In January 2017, the Board voted to refer the matter to the Town's Commission for Diversity, Inclusion and Community Relations (the "Diversity Commission") for 1 All dates refer to the year 2017, unless otherwise indicated. FACTS o review and a recommendation to the Board. The Diversity Commission provided written proposed policies to the Board on February 15. On March 7, the Board held a public hearing regarding those proposed policies. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Board chair then suggested that the Board approve certain portions of the draft proposal, but leave open the possibility of revising other sections based on the public comment received that evening. The chair suggested that the draft be sent back to the Diversity Commission to incorporate the public's comments. Noting that no member of the Diversity Commission was at the meeting, the chair asked whether a Board member would "lead the effort" to complete the task. Board member Nancy Daly suggested that Board member Bernard Greene lead the effort. Then, as another Board member spoke, Ms. Daly turned to Mr. Greene and offered to help him. While the Board did not formally appoint Mr. Greene to undertake the revision project, the chair addressed him when the chair stated that some sections of the document remained unapproved pending further revision and consideration. Following this meeting, Ms. Daly and Mr. Greene, along with the Police Chief and a member of the Diversity Commission, Tony Naro, worked to finalize the document for the Board's review at its April 18 meeting. Ms. Daly emailed her suggested edits to Mr. Greene, who then made his own changes to the draft, which he may have emailed back to Ms. Daly. On April 14, Mr. Greene published a link to the draft, via the Town's website, on his Facebook page with the following comments: "Proposed policies prepared by Selectmen Daly and me with the support of Tony Naro and Chief O'Leary. Comments/critiques are welcome." Any person with a Facebook account can access this post. Two other Board members are "friends" with Mr. Greene on Facebook. DISCUSSION 1. The Board Did Not Create a Subcommittee Subject to the Open Meeting Law. The Open Meeting Law applies only to a public body, which is defined, in relevant part, as "a multiple member board, commission, committee or subcommittee within the executive or legislative branch or within any county, district, city, region or town, however created, elected, appointed or otherwise constituted, established to serve a public purpose[.]" G.L. c. 30A, § 18. A "subcommittee" is defined as a multiple-member body created to advise or make recommendations to a public body. G.L. c. 30A, § 18. The complaint alleges that the Board created a subcommittee, consisting of Mr. Greene and Ms. Daly, tasked with revising the Town's draft policies pertaining to immigrants and refugees. We find that the Board did not create a subcommittee during its March 7 meeting. Our analysis hinges on the Board's action and whether it intended to 2 create a multiple-member body. See OML 2016-59; OML 2014-63.2 We find that the Board sought a single volunteer to work on the draft. Ms. Daly nominated Mr. Greene. The Board took no vote, but proceeded with an understanding that Mr. Greene would review the draft. During further discussion, Ms. Daly turned to Mr. Greene and offered to assist him. Had the Board formally appointed the two to collectively revise the draft policies, it would have created a subcommittee. However, we find that Ms. Daly, on her own initiative, offered to assist Mr. Greene in carrying out the task. This does not create a subcommittee. See OML 2016-106. Accordingly, we find that the Board did not violate the Open Meeting Law. II. The Board Did Not Improperly Deliberate Via Facebook. The Open Meeting Law requires that all deliberation occur during a properly noticed meeting. See G.L. c. 30A, § 18. The law defines "deliberation" as "an oral or written communication through any medium, including electronic mail, between or among a quorum of a public body on any public business within its jurisdiction^]" Id; see also OML 2016-104 (even the expression of an opinion of one public body member on matters within a public body's jurisdiction to a quorum of a public body is a deliberation, even if no other public body member responds). The complaint alleges that a quorum of the Board improperly communicated via Facebook when Mr. Greene posted a link on his public Facebook page to the draft policy revisions published on the Town website and invited comments or critiques regarding the draft. No Board members responded to the post. The Open Meeting Law does not restrict an individual's right to make comments to the general public. Rather, it restricts communication between or among a quorum of a public body outside of a meeting, indicating that the communicator's intent must be examined. Because Mr. Greene's post was directed to members of the public with Facebook accounts, rather than specifically to the Board, and because no Board member responded to the post, we find no violation. Additionally, even if a quorum of the Board had viewed the post, the link to the Town website could be considered the distribution of a document to be distributed in preparation for the Board's next meeting. See G.L. c. 30A, § 18 ('"deliberation"' shall not include the distribution of other procedural meeting [sic] or the distribution of reports or documents that may be discussed at a meeting, provided that no opinion of a member is expressed"). CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, we find that the Board did not violate the Open Meeting Law. We now consider the complaint addressed by this determination to be resolved.
This determination does not address any other complaints that may be pending with our office or the Board. Please feel free to contact our office at (617) 963-2540.
Open Meeting Law determinations may be found at the Attorney General's website,
Since members of the Advisory Committee were expressing opinions on the selectmen and failing to follow their own policies, which are not within the Advisory Committee's jurisdiction, I believe that could be the reason the selectmen abruptly dropped the open meeting law complaints against members of Advisory Committee.
No resignations, no big changes, no Attorney General in Town, nothing, just the sound of silence!
dave smart - wrong again!
Dave Smart - wrong again!
dave smart makes a point of repeating over and over - sort of like a stuck toilet flush with the water going 'round and 'round that it is a few Advisory Committee members who are the problem and they are the reason for Town financial issues.
At the last Advisory Committee meeting, Templeton resident Bernard Heaney took the time to come to a meeting and point out his efforts and frustration with the selectmen and town administrator. He put together 106 pages of information to make his point of lack of reporting by the town accountant and treasurer. Mr. Heaney made the point that regardless of no audits, "there can be no reason why a report of known income and expenses should not be reported at the end of any fiscal year."
That is the exact point current members of the Advisory Committee have been making for at least a year. I have posted that on this blog multiple times. It seems that there are other Templeton residents who feel the same way, the selectmen and especially the chairman, John Caplis, do not see fit to respond to a citizen's questions or concerns.
The above mentioned material seems to point out that it is not just a few vocal members of the Advisory Committee who hold that view, there are other Town residents who feel the same way.
It appears dave smart is wrong again!
dave smart makes a point of repeating over and over - sort of like a stuck toilet flush with the water going 'round and 'round that it is a few Advisory Committee members who are the problem and they are the reason for Town financial issues.
At the last Advisory Committee meeting, Templeton resident Bernard Heaney took the time to come to a meeting and point out his efforts and frustration with the selectmen and town administrator. He put together 106 pages of information to make his point of lack of reporting by the town accountant and treasurer. Mr. Heaney made the point that regardless of no audits, "there can be no reason why a report of known income and expenses should not be reported at the end of any fiscal year."
That is the exact point current members of the Advisory Committee have been making for at least a year. I have posted that on this blog multiple times. It seems that there are other Templeton residents who feel the same way, the selectmen and especially the chairman, John Caplis, do not see fit to respond to a citizen's questions or concerns.
The above mentioned material seems to point out that it is not just a few vocal members of the Advisory Committee who hold that view, there are other Town residents who feel the same way.
It appears dave smart is wrong again!
Sunday, September 10, 2017
Templeton citizen submits 106 pages to the chairman of the board of selectmen detailing the failures to follow the Templeton Town by-laws and Massachusetts General laws. Those pages were sent back on October 30, 2016. A receipt shows delivered /accepted on November 3, 2016. To date, no response from the person those 106 pages were addressed to; Chairman John Caplis. Almost a year and nothing. I believe that pretty much says it all, the selectmen have no regard for the citizenry of Templeton.
The "package" detailed the lack of financial information, the failure to follow Town by-laws and state law. The selectmen ignore the resident and demonstrate their continued path of failing to listen and respond when residents come calling. That report to effort and time, but the chairman of the board of selectmen responds with nothing. Just like his name calling buddy who seems to have his finger stuck on the repeat key for "LMAO 2 funny seriously" dave smart. No logical explanation, no facts, no material, no case for why things remain the same; nothing but the sound of silence.
The resident who attended an Advisory Committee meeting has seen the budget versus actual and the lack of detail and transparency.
The selectmen meet and talk but nothing changes, dave smart drives around in a Town Vehicle and those two items are like a toilet with the flush handle stuck. The water in the bowl goes round and round butt nothing else happens.
In the Gardner News, there is an article with selectmen Fortes talking about creative accounting and finance. I thought the Town was going to do things correctly moving forward rather than continue with the creative accounting. Same old same old, just like dave smart driving around in a Town truck and the water in the bowl going round and round.
I wonder how the Town's Bond Rating is coming? I wonder how much of the Town vehicle fuel fund will be used to cover other expenses and how much will be used on fuel?
Remember being told that after the audits, the Town will have and does now have "good clean numbers"? Why do the numbers on the budget versus actual keep changing with the same old line of "adjusting entries per the auditors", well what happened to those "good clean numbers"
Where is the promised by July 1st financial addendum to the annual Town report with the Treasurer's and accountants report as well as the updated report of the Advisory Committee?
Nothing but the sound of silence.
The "package" detailed the lack of financial information, the failure to follow Town by-laws and state law. The selectmen ignore the resident and demonstrate their continued path of failing to listen and respond when residents come calling. That report to effort and time, but the chairman of the board of selectmen responds with nothing. Just like his name calling buddy who seems to have his finger stuck on the repeat key for "LMAO 2 funny seriously" dave smart. No logical explanation, no facts, no material, no case for why things remain the same; nothing but the sound of silence.
The resident who attended an Advisory Committee meeting has seen the budget versus actual and the lack of detail and transparency.
The selectmen meet and talk but nothing changes, dave smart drives around in a Town Vehicle and those two items are like a toilet with the flush handle stuck. The water in the bowl goes round and round butt nothing else happens.
In the Gardner News, there is an article with selectmen Fortes talking about creative accounting and finance. I thought the Town was going to do things correctly moving forward rather than continue with the creative accounting. Same old same old, just like dave smart driving around in a Town truck and the water in the bowl going round and round.
I wonder how the Town's Bond Rating is coming? I wonder how much of the Town vehicle fuel fund will be used to cover other expenses and how much will be used on fuel?
Remember being told that after the audits, the Town will have and does now have "good clean numbers"? Why do the numbers on the budget versus actual keep changing with the same old line of "adjusting entries per the auditors", well what happened to those "good clean numbers"
Where is the promised by July 1st financial addendum to the annual Town report with the Treasurer's and accountants report as well as the updated report of the Advisory Committee?
Nothing but the sound of silence.
-
Dave smart - wrong!
- Advisory Committee handled every financial transfer (s) that came before them. Some transfer action took two meetings in part because the Town Administrator and selectmen FAILED to provide proper documentation. In fact, it was Advisory Committee members work that discovered and forwarded to the town accountant that the balance of the town vehicle fuel fund was off by $3,000.00 dollars. Oops!
- If the pie that smart uses is a reference to the Templeton town reserve fund, that is under control of Advisory or finance committee per Massachusetts General Law. If he does not like that, contact your state legislature. The are rules and laws that govern how and what it can be used for. It is also not the Advisory Committee fund, it belongs to the town and is voted on at town meeting, as to how much will be put into that fund.
Dave smart - wrong again!
Friday, September 8, 2017
Terenzini tells `Rest of Story'.
Link/Page Citation
Byline: James F. Russell
SPENCER - Town Administrator Carter Terenzini takes aim at "Maggots of Malice" in a memorandum he distributed this week to municipal employees, selectmen and colleagues.
Mr. Terenzini's memorandum, titled "The Rest of the Story," discusses an affair he had with a woman he supervised, refers to an administrator's position he applied for but did not get, and suggests that the job recruiter double-crossed him. "I have drawn the wrath of the local Maggots of Malice," the memo, dated Aug. 19, says. The memo does not identify them.
The Telegram & Gazette reported Aug. 18 that officials in Oberlin, Ohio, where Mr. Terenzini was seeking the city manager's job, removed him from consideration. Oberlin officials said the action was taken last week because Mr. Terenzini - despite being asked by the recruiter if he might be carrying negative baggage - failed to disclose the affair and the private reprimand Spencer selectmen handed him in 2005. Officials said Mr. Terenzini applied for the Oberlin job in March.
In an interview with the newspaper Aug. 17, Mr. Terenzini initially said he did not wish to comment on the Oberlin decision to drop him from consideration, where he was among eight finalists. Mr. Terenzini said it was a personnel matter, and reporting on it represented "yellow journalism."
He said he did not disclose the affair to the Ohio recruiter because "It was not requested. ... This was not asked for."
Byline: James F. Russell
SPENCER - Town Administrator Carter Terenzini takes aim at "Maggots of Malice" in a memorandum he distributed this week to municipal employees, selectmen and colleagues.
Mr. Terenzini's memorandum, titled "The Rest of the Story," discusses an affair he had with a woman he supervised, refers to an administrator's position he applied for but did not get, and suggests that the job recruiter double-crossed him. "I have drawn the wrath of the local Maggots of Malice," the memo, dated Aug. 19, says. The memo does not identify them.
The Telegram & Gazette reported Aug. 18 that officials in Oberlin, Ohio, where Mr. Terenzini was seeking the city manager's job, removed him from consideration. Oberlin officials said the action was taken last week because Mr. Terenzini - despite being asked by the recruiter if he might be carrying negative baggage - failed to disclose the affair and the private reprimand Spencer selectmen handed him in 2005. Officials said Mr. Terenzini applied for the Oberlin job in March.
In an interview with the newspaper Aug. 17, Mr. Terenzini initially said he did not wish to comment on the Oberlin decision to drop him from consideration, where he was among eight finalists. Mr. Terenzini said it was a personnel matter, and reporting on it represented "yellow journalism."
He said he did not disclose the affair to the Ohio recruiter because "It was not requested. ... This was not asked for."
In the Aug. 19 memo to town employees, Mr. Terenzini wrote: "For candidates like me with potential public relations issues in their careers, it is never easy to know when to bring such matters forward. ... The Recruiter, by maintaining he had asked me any such questions, despite the fact he did not, then further damaged my credibility...."
Mr. Terenzini later adds: "By this becoming such an incident in the other community, and many thanks to the local Sultans of Sensationalism, ours was forced to live through it again...."
The Spencer administrator did not return calls to his office yesterday seeking clarification of his memo. Calls placed to Joshua Kim Associates, the Ohio-based recruiter, were not immediately returned yesterday. Oberlin Councilor Anthony J. Mealy said in an interview last week that Mr. Terenzini "should have let somebody know upfront. To leave information like that out, I don't think was very fair."
Mr. Terenzini later adds: "By this becoming such an incident in the other community, and many thanks to the local Sultans of Sensationalism, ours was forced to live through it again...."
The Spencer administrator did not return calls to his office yesterday seeking clarification of his memo. Calls placed to Joshua Kim Associates, the Ohio-based recruiter, were not immediately returned yesterday. Oberlin Councilor Anthony J. Mealy said in an interview last week that Mr. Terenzini "should have let somebody know upfront. To leave information like that out, I don't think was very fair."
Contacted last night, Spencer Selectman Peter J. Durant said Mr. Terenzini "wrote that in response to an article in the paper, and as far as I am concerned this is a closed issue and the board needs to move on with the business of running the town." Mr. Durant declined to comment on Mr. Terenzini's reference to Maggots of Malice.
Referring to the affair, Mr. Terenzini wrote in the memo that "I do not pretend that how I deal with the issue of my original lapse in judgment is an excuse for the fact that it happened. However, the continuing pillaring (sic) some want to subject us all to is the unfortunate plight of communities and public employees when our lives are turned into pinatas for the press and others. This is the case where I have drawn the wrath of the local Maggots of Malice and the press is more than willing to release illegally obtained personnel documents supposedly sealed in fairness to the employee."
According to the Nov. 28, 2005, minutes of an executive session, Spencer selectmen had three choices: fire Mr. Terenzini, suspend him or issue a written reprimand. Selectmen voted to privately reprimand Mr. Terenzini, "citing the board's belief that the Administrator's conduct constituted a potential violation of MGL c. 268A Standards of Conduct and was evidence of an egregious lack of good judgment on his part to the detriment to the town." Selectmen ordered him to "attend a seminar on employee harassment."
Mr. Terenzini found himself in hot water when he applied for a job in Ashland in 2004. His resume appeared to show he had a bachelor's degree. He later wrote a letter to the chairman of the Ashland selectmen when questions were raised about his education. Mr. Terenzini wrote: "I want to correct this ... I earned an associate's degree."
Selectman Joseph E. DeCoff II said Mr. Terenzini's memo was e-mailed to him Monday.
"That's his spin on his poor choices," Mr. DeCoff said. "I know he is trying to leave, and I wish him the best of luck. Yesterday would not be soon enough." Mr. DeCoff said he is troubled by the administrator's reference to "Maggots of Malice" in the memo to town employees and selectmen.
A copy of a contract shows Mr. Terenzini earns about $95,000 per year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Couldn't get the ac to meet to do transfers or share the pie they had.