If you are keeping track, Templeton is now looking for a DPW director, a fire fighter/Paramedic, an assistant town accountant, assistant town treasurer/collector. It looks like Templeton should have it's own window or signup desk at the local employment office.

Also, after watching last night's selectmen meeting, these selectmen do not seem  interested in helping out the people they are suppose to serve and work for.

If you wish to open or run a business in Templeton, bring your citizenship papers with you and be able to prove you have experience in something that you wish to try, you know, invest your time and money into, because at least one selectmen, Haley Brooks, thinks you have to have experience before you can run a business, involving your own time, money etc. Maybe that should be a requirement to be a selectmen?

Fellowship individual, Eric Pollitt is moving on, so add to the list of employees leaving Templeton.
I wonder what the common denominator is that is causing so many to leave employment in Templeton.

Some more Templeton information that you may not know.

Well, perhaps our crack financial team might?

From Tony Roselli

To Mary Carney and Templeton treasurer, accountant, T/A,

subject: draft Preliminary Official Statement (POS)

1. page 21 - change $1,939,512.00 to $1,179,268.00 - the deficits need to be netted against the unrestricted to get a net unassigned balance.

2. page 35 - there is no 2013 balance sheet presented. This needs to be included.

3. page 31 - those unassigned fund balances listed needed to be netted down for deficits (see comment 1 above)

4. page 38-39 - Not sure where the OPEB #s come from, but I informed Carter they were in accurate IMO so I can't stand by their validity. Town has never recognized OPEB ever and nobody at Town truly knows how to use the APOBEC model; I tried lining up the numbers with similar communities we audit and they are not close; we qualified the financial statements saying there was no OPEB, only light & water have it done so including this will contradict what's in the financial statements.

Hope that gives everyone a nice warm fuzzy feeling. Remember the words of the accountant, now we have good numbers. (after the 2013 to 2016 audits were completed and presented.

April 5, 2017 at 3:54 P.M., Town Administrator write;

MSBA wants to come out for a "small" meeting. I do not have a time yet.
It is imperative that we keep them in the fold (their patience wears thinner) Also, Mary C. has to have a solid number to borrow. If we go for the $5 million and then MSBA pulls out, I'm sitting on a pile of cash and nothing I can do with it. (I think he means the Town is stuck with it)

Included in the loop is Chris Casavant, superintendent of schools (for Town borrowing) but not the Town's finance committee - so much for transparency, inclusion and good governance.

Senator Gobi, Town Auditor, school superintendent but not the Town finance committee. I wonder if the selectmen will pull out all the stops and use all of these contacts to help the taxpayers of Laurel View Road, you know, some of the people paying for that big project.

Forget spending some of those taxpayers money on town counsel and just use already paid for services or people, like senator Gobi and the DOR, find a solution and help those taxpayers out.

Come on selectmen, do not work against the residents/taxpayers, work for them and with them, get the road repaired and accepted and move on.  24 homeowners filing suit against the Town is not a glowing endorsement for economic investment or business to move to Templeton; is that how they treat taxpayers (that is what a business is in the end, a taxpayer).

Began reading some emails and some material received via the mail (thanks justsmartenough) and after the first few pages, it is a wow!

email from Templeton town administrator too Henry Kahn from April 2017.

"The senator and I played a bit of tag (I owed her the follow-up) concerning a possible pull out by MSBA. In addition to the wrinkle of getting our FY 2017 books settled, we stand a very real chance of losing the MSBA $$s if we can't get started. Over borrowing in the initial phase will present very real problems as well.

Over borrowing, wonder if that is like taking out a larger mortgage than you can really afford, which causes you financial issues down the road (like losing your home, maybe twice)

In many of these emails concerning financial moves mostly related to the school, there is the inclusion of the Town Auditor; seems to show our great financial team is perhaps just window dressing actually being backed up by the firm of Roselli, Clark and associates, CPAs (who just received a five year contract with the Town; payment for services rendered? Just a thought that should give you a warm fuzzy feeling.

Another email from Mary Carney of Southwest financial (division of Hilltop Securities):
All,
Attached you will find a tentative financing schedule for the school BAN's. Please review and let me know if there are any conflicts. The most important date is April 24, 2017 selectmen's meeting date. There must be a majority of selectmen, the treasurer, the Town Clerk and the Clerk of the BOS in attendance at the meeting to execute to closing documents. The posted agenda for the meeting should include an item titled "Approval of the award of the notes." We expect to issue $5,000,000.00 Bond Anticipation Notes - $500,000.00 against articles 6 & 2 of March 29, 2014 Town Meeting as amended at the March 21, 2016 Town Meeting (special town meeting) and $4,500,000.00 against article 1 od the November 9, 2015 special town meeting for the school feasibility study and elementary school construction. Let me know if you have questions.
Thanks;
Mary.

funny thing is Templeton town administrator, treasurer, town accountant Tony Roselli and Megan Hyland were CC but not the Town Clerk.

Templeton, Massachusetts tentative financing schedule;
General obligation Bond Anticipation Notes dated April 28, 2017

April 5, 2017 - Tentative financing schedule & draft of preliminary official statement (POS) sent to Town for review and minor updates (who did the review, as the finance team lacks experience/knowledge of municipal borrowing)

April 6, 2017 - First Southwest sends POS to bond counsel for review

April 7, 2017 - Last day for Town to provide POS updates and satisfy legal requirements.

April 13, 2017 - Distribute BAN POS.

April 20, 2017 - Competitive bids received on BANs.

April 24, 2017 - Board of Selectmen meeting to approve and sign BANs and closing documents (to be confirmed)

April 25, 2017 - Executed Bond paperwork must be returned to First Southwest.

April 28, 2017 - Dated and delivery date of BANs.

Having watched the private road meeting about Laurel View Road, I think these citizens have had enough. I hope they do look into a lawsuit.  The Town Administrator  stating the Town has no money to do much if anything with regards to any kind of repairs on that road. Well, I recall the selectmen via the T/A let $190,000.00 plus ride over to next fiscal year which should mean a roll over to free cash (when certified by the DOR) as well as the T/A stating at an Advisory Committee meeting that he estimates certified free cash for Templeton this fall at about $800 thousand dollars. I think there would be some money to repair some issues on Laurel View Road. If the town has been plowing, sweeping and cutting brush and / or trees on the road for a number of years (over ten) and the town even repaired/rebuilt part of the road, maybe that would work for those residents in a court of law.

Besides, if the town does not plow the road, how would another town department do their job, Templeton light? These people have received a tax increase for services they probably will not have access to, fire and ambulance service.  Again, the Town was responsible for the permits, inspections and signing off for the building of this subdivision, so why now hold the residents responsible for the elected officials mis-steps. This has the appearance of T/A management and policy making, with the backing of selectmen. Time will tell how the selectmen feel on this issue. I hope the residents stand tall and tough and demand what is right.

I think I just felt a tremor of sorts, could that be the house of cards falling?

The Supreme Court protects even the unruliest of government critics from retaliation

By The Times Editorial Board

Jun 20, 2018 | 4:05 AM

 

Government officials who call the cops at public meetings to silence their critics can be held accountable — even if an arrest might be justified on other grounds. That was the reassuring conclusion of a ruling by the Supreme Court this week.

Monday’s 8-1 decision was a victory for Fane Lozman, the owner of a houseboat he kept at a marina owned by the city of Riviera Beach, Fla. As Justice Anthony Kennedy delicately put it in the majority opinion, Lozman had a “contentious” relationship with city officials. He filed a lawsuit alleging that an agreement the city made with developers violated Florida’s open-meeting law, and he testified more than 200 times, not always temperately, at City Council meetings.

In June of 2006, the council held a closed-door meeting in part to discuss Lozman’s lawsuit and, according to a transcript, one council member suggested that the city use its resources to “intimidate” Lozman and others who had filed suit. Later in the meeting, other members agreed on a “consensus” plan that Lozman said was designed to do just that. (The city maintained that the consensus was simply an agreement to invest resources in responding to lawsuits.)

Enter the Fray: First takes on the news of the minute from L.A. Times Opinion »

Five months later, Lozman was speaking during the public comment portion of a City Council meeting when he mentioned the arrests of two “corrupt” politicians from other jurisdictions. The same council member who had talked about intimidating Lozman reacted by summoning a police officer, who arrested Lozman. According to the city, Lozman was arrested because he violated rules by discussing issues unrelated to the city and wouldn’t leave the podium. The state's attorney concluded that there was probable cause for the arrest, but decided to dismiss the charges of disorderly conduct and resisting arrest.

Lozman then filed a federal civil rights claim arguing that his arrest was retaliation for the exercise of his 1st Amendment rights. He lost at the trial level after the judge instructed the jury that Lozman had to prove that the police officer lacked probable cause to arrest him. A federal appeals court ruled against him on essentially the same grounds.

In reversing that ruling, the Supreme Court recognized an important reality: that a particular arrest might be justified by probable cause and yet still be part of a conspiracy by a local government to retaliate against its critics (including through selective enforcement of the law). Kennedy noted that what Lozman was alleging was “a premeditated plan to intimidate him in retaliation for his criticisms of city officials and his open-meetings lawsuit.”

The court didn’t conclude that such a conspiracy had actually existed; it sent the case back down to the lower courts to consider that question. Still, this decision is significant in providing a check on local officials who might seek to use the police to silence their critics.

enjoy the read, especially justsmartenough -

Recent Supreme Court ruling gives one hope; there is still a chance!

"Government officials who call cops at public meetings to silence their critics can be held accountable - even if an arrest might be justified on other grounds."

Seems a certain city council had suggested the council use city resources to intimidate someone or others who critique the council or who had filed a lawsuit against the council.

Thinking out loud, seems like master Fortes as well as other selectmen and the town administrator may have used Town resources (selectmen meetings, perhaps town council) to try and silence some outspoken citizens (who happen to also have served on the Town Advisory Committee) that were especially critical and asked many questions concerning the selectmen actions in running the Town.

I hope the message is clear and gets through; retaliation or planned intimidation resulting from citizen (s) questioning or writing criticisms of elected public officials is a violation of first amendment rights. Just because you volunteer, does not mean you give up or lose those rights.