Town resident questions his town government. Town employee does not like being questioned, interferes with his free time.

So, the town employee, Templeton town administrator uses tax dollars to complain that a few town residents are causing him grief because tey are asking questions and then said town employee states he is going to talk with chairman of select board, who is a government employee (outside of being a paid selectman) to make a list of names of people asking questions and for information (a job of government employees) and make it sound like the residents are costing tax payers money by asking questions.

So, if you follow along, a town employee, adam LaMontagne, is using tax dollars, is time, town paper, computers, etc., to complain that a few residents are asking too many questions, which as the town employee tasked with day to day stuff of town governance and one of the town's records access officers, he is using tax dollars to complain about having to do his job? Wonderful, even Bear is shaking his head at that one! If this was not so serious, it would be damn funny, a town employee using town money to complain about having to do his job, fantastic.

 

latest from Templeton town administrator weekly report.

Our office has been receiving daily public records requests this week which has triggered a queue.

Each will be handled on a first come, first serve basis within the allowable time. We have a couple habitual records requestors in Town. I will be looking into the possibility of adding a part-time public records access officer/archivist position for the Town to respond to each accordingly. I will be examining with the Chair to see if we should post a log within the Weekly of the requestor’s name and whether they were assessed a fee or not.

Well, well well, it has come to try and intimidate people for asking for public information.

Habitual records requesters, well, I, Jeff Bennett have been asking for many public records of late and I have no intention of stopping. I know of another person who is requesting alot of information because the TA and others in town government are less than transparent. State law is almost everything that comes into town hall is public information. The TA is one of the towns record access officers per MGL. Apparently he does not like doing that job. Again, better transparency, less lying, less bullshit and answer the questions and maybe you get fewer requests for records. Obey the law, follow town bylaws and follow your own policy and maybe get fewer requests. You are not going to embarrass me mr. TA, just going to make me dig more and request more, make you earn your 100K per year.

 No matter how anyone tries to frame it, the Templeton advisory committee did not follow town bylaw, as in violated the bylaws of Templeton on September 20, 2023 during which the committee discussed and voted against a transfer from the town reserve fund. 

Templeton town bylaws clearly state:

§ 9-6

Meetings.

The Advisory Committee shall meet jointly with the Select Board whenever there is a request to consider adjusting spending limits on any revolving fund, any end of year financial transfer or any request of transfer from the Town reserve fund.

Failure to follow bylaws, policy, state law, etc., leads to a lack of trust in any entity. I hope this committee that is supposed to look at financial issues especially and at all articles for any town meeting, annual or special objectively and independently from the TA or selectmen, gets back on track and follows the bylaws of the town, which were voted on by the people of Templeton, which if one looks at history, finance committees were started and later mandated by state law, with the aim of helping people at town meeting have an understanding of what is being asked of them and what are the pro and cons of each article. Hard to trust any recommendations from an entity that fails to follow a simple bylaw.

Something to remember as one contemplates article 22 of the upcoming STM on November 15, 2023.

 https://www.templetonma.gov/home/select-board/pages/stone-bridge

 Do you know there is actually a written requirement for a PARCs grant.

I. REGULATIONS, STATUTES, OR AUTHORIZATION GOVERNING THIS GRANT PROGRAM: This BID is issued according to 301 CMR 5.00, 815 CMR 2.00 (Grants and Subsidies), and Chapter 102, Section 2A of the Acts of 2021 (An Act Relative to Immediate Covid-19 Recovery Needs). Note that application of funds from Chapter 102, Acts of 2021 to grant programs is at the discretion of the Secretary. All properties for which grant assistance is provided must be open to the general public (not local residents only) for appropriate active recreational use. All properties acquired or developed will become protected parkland under Article 97 of the Amendments to the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, dedicated to recreation use in accordance with M.G.L. Chapter 45.

Too bad the Parks commission in Templeton was created by special legislation rather than by acceptance of MGL chapter 45, section 2.

Not sure if this is a problem for Templeton getting the grant, but I am inquiring and letting the state know the details.

MGL chapter 45 - Section 2. A town may elect a board of park commissioners, consisting of three or five persons and prescribe their terms of office, or the members of a town planning board or department of public works, or road commissioners may if so authorized by vote of the town act as park commissioners therein. In a town which has not elected a board of park commissioners or has not authorized the town planning board so to act, the selectmen shall act as such board of park commissioners and have authority to approve or disapprove the acquisition of lands by eminent domain as set forth in section seventy-nine of chapter ninety-two and shall have all other powers and duties of a park commission. The mayor of a city may, with the approval of the city council, appoint a board of park commissioners for said city, consisting of five persons, who shall hold office for terms of one, two, three, four and five years respectively from the first Monday in May next following such appointment, or until their successors are qualified; and thereafter the mayor shall annually, before the first Monday in May, with like approval appoint one such commissioner for a term of five years from said first Monday in May. No member of the city council, clerk or treasurer of such city or town shall be such commissioner. In cities a vacancy in such board shall be filled in like manner for the residue of the unexpired term. A commissioner may be removed by a vote of two thirds of the voters of a town, or by a vote of two thirds of all the members of a city council. Such commissioners shall serve without compensation.

Powers and duties of boards of park commissioners

Section 5. Such boards may lay out and improve public parks, make rules for their use and government, appoint all necessary engineers, surveyors, clerks and other officers, including a police force to act in such parks, define their powers and duties and fix their compensation and do all acts needful for the proper execution of their powers and duties. They shall have the authority given to the mayor, aldermen, selectmen, road commissioners and tree warden respectively by section seven of chapter eighty-four and by chapter eighty-seven, in places under their jurisdiction. Subject to appropriation, such boards shall also have the power to conduct park programs and recreation activities at places other than such public parks.

All of Templeton selectmen and the town administrator need to read MGL chapter 45 section 5, probably multiple times, and realize to have a properly functioning Parks commission, the selectmen and TA need to get the hell out of the way, as Park commissioners have authority over parks, but since Templeton selectmen and adam lamontagne do not wish to get out of the way and want to argue or wish to not give up assumed authority, how can Templeton be eligible for a PARCs grant? The state agency/individuals who have oversight of the grant have been made aware of the Templeton situation concerning park commission and the refusal of the TA and selectmen to allow them to operate and function per MGL chapter 45, which I believe should disqualify the town for the grant and until that is settled, article 16 of the November 15, 2023 special town meeting should be passed over.

 By The Republican Editorials

The law is complicated, but for it to serve a civil society, it must be inherently fair. The plight of a Springfield woman now before the Supreme Judicial Court smacks of unfairness.

It is legal in Massachusetts for people in arrears on property taxes to face foreclosure on their homes. In the course of that, they have lost more than the security of shelter and dollar value of what’s owed to a municipality.

In May, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling, Tyler v. Hennepin County, Minnesota, that is likely to end this greedy feasting on misfortune. The high court found that this process violates the “Takings Clause” of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The ruling stands in conflict with Chapter 60 of the Massachusetts General Laws.

Springfield homeowner Ashley Mills and two legal groups want the SJC to broker an end to this practice. Attorney Frank Bailey, of the Pioneer Public Interest Law Center, says the Massachusetts statute contains language akin to what the high court found unconstitutional in Minnesota. New York and Nebraska have adjusted laws in light of the decision.

Massachusetts appears poised to join that movement away from a deeply unjust practice. After the May ruling, the Massachusetts Land Court said municipalities engaged in tax foreclosure cases must “provide just compensation to property owners.”

 

You forwarded this message on Thu 10/26/2023 12:53 AM

JB

jeff bennett

To:​Currie, Michael;​Toth, Timothy;​Rivard, Matthew;​Griffis, Terry;​Richard, Julie​

Thu 10/26/2023 12:53 AM

Good day, that time of the year so long days go late into evening, how ever, I still find time to do some reading. Since I am sure there is no funding in the GF budget for crack sealing and as a result of a public records request and a few questions, one response was a link to commbuys, I did some reading, saw the name of Clark and sent email asking a few things. Below is my email and response from Clark. So my question remains, if no money in GF budget for crack sealing, how was crack sealing on Partridgeville Road paid for? Route 101 from Gardner into East Templeton is a state road so TRD02 would most likely pay for that work, but Partridgeville Road still leaves a question. The town administrators lack of forthcoming responses to public records requests and questions are only going to hold for so long. On another note, just watched finance portion of your meeting, odd the accountant did not mention money lost on stabilization funds- investment income loss, which is evident when comparing August BvA with September BvA. Even more glaring is ack of question on it from any member of the board. Perhaps time to re-read your code of conduct, which is hilarious, considering who brought it forward. I mean the performance by Julie Richard on August 9, 2023 so called dog hearing makes it even more laughable. 

Jeff Bennett

---

From: Thompson Clark, Kelly (OSD) <Kelly.ThompsonClark@mass.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2023 10:33 AM
To: jeff bennett <j_bennett506@hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: crack sealing roads

 

Jeff, to what contract are you referring?  If you are referring to TRD02 which includes asphalt/paving services it is an active contract.  It renewed in SEPT2021 through AUG2024 and then has one more three-year renewal through 2027.  As for funding, that is a matter for the Town of Templeton as they are the ones paying for It not the State unless, it is a State road then the DOT likely procured the work and if the contract is active then there is no error.

 

From: jeff bennett <j_bennett506@hotmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2023 9:25 AM
To: Thompson Clark, Kelly (OSD) <Kelly.ThompsonClark@mass.gov>
Subject: crack sealing roads

 

CAUTION: This email originated from a sender outside of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts mail system.  Do not click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

 

Good day, Templeton town administrator forwarded me a document with your name attached to it, email dated May 27, 2021, regarding a contract for crack sealing roads in Templeton for a period of time ending June 30, 2023. A public bidding document can be found of Templeton town website. I observed the company doing crack sealing last week, October 2023, which is after the past contract has expired, which brings me to my question (as a concerned resident who tries to keep up with government stuff) If a contract expires for a service apparently paid for with state funds, how does that work? Is a bid for service for a stated period of time actually just an open ended contract with no time limit or limit on funds available either town or state funds?

Your help in guiding me to understand this is greatly appreciated.

 

regards,

Jeff Bennett

concerned resident and laymen.