|
| Thread: ACCOUNTABILITY | |||
|
|||
| KenK Joined: 01/11/08 Posts: 6 |
ACCOUNTABILITY 02/08/08 5:46 AM ACCOUNTABILITY By Ken Klinedinst From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia In leadership roles, accountability is the acknowledgment and assumption of responsibility for actions, products, decisions, and policies including the administration, governance and implementation within the scope of the role or employment position and encompassing the obligation to report, explain and be answerable for resulting consequences. Who is the Warner Board of Selectmen [referred to here on as the Board] accountable to as an elected board, individuals acting in their capacity as selectmen, and as selectmen who traverse across our town as residents, same as you and I? The Board is accountable to the laws of New Hampshire, the United States and to the residents and visitors to our town. Since the town election of 2005 I have been actively monitoring the Board of Selectmen public and non public meetings, where they have established a sizable track record of not being accountable. The following documentation was provided by the Board, by my request under the “Right To Know” laws of NH. All minutes are approved, the dates preceding the remarks are Board meetings and communications I had with the Board. All “meetings” and “work sessions” were public unless noted otherwise. PAYMENT OF INVOICES January of 2007 I received the present procedure for reviewing invoices for payment. The [TA] Laura Buono, stated “the invoices are being sent to each Department Head for approval prior to payment. I receive a copy of the check run for review and if I have questions on any payments, I research it. The checks and invoices are sent to the Treasurer for her signature on the checks.” March 20, 2007 Board meeting I submitted a letter stating this procedural change was initiated in 2005, shortly after the TA was hired and the Board had transferred their statutory authority from the Board to the TA, who is not a sworn town officer, not defined, or found, in New Hampshire Statutes, which is the controlling legal authority for the State of New Hampshire and its government. I explained this procedure had always been executed in front of the public by previous Boards and now it was gone. The Board replied we have never done that. We can’t remember when the last time that was done, and challenged me as to what Board was the last to follow this procedure. The Board replied to me in writing on 4/3/07, “Selectmen made no change to the processing of invoices and/or checks in 2006 nor was financial authorization transferred to the Town Administrator” At a subsequent meeting I sighted Board minutes from 2005 which stated the same members of this Board had been authorizing invoice payments in front of the public. These are the Statutes they are / were in violation of. Title VI: CHAPTER RSA 91-A requirement that Town business be conducted in public unless subject to an exemption. Title III: CHAPTER 41 CHOICE AND DUTIES OF TOWN OFFICERS 41:9 Financial Duties. I. The selectmen II. They shall draw orders upon the treasurer for the payment of all accounts and claims against the town allowed by them, and take proper vouchers therefor. The Selectmen, nor any elected official, drew “orders upon the Treasurer” III. They shall keep a fair and correct account of all moneys received, all accounts and claims settled and all orders drawn by them, and of all their other financial transactions in behalf of the town. VI. The selectmen shall be responsible for establishing and maintaining appropriate internal control procedures to ensure the safeguarding of all town assets and properties. DUTIES OF TOWN OFFICERS Town Treasurer 41:29 Duties. – I. The town treasurer shall have custody of all moneys belonging to the town, and shall pay out the same only upon orders of the selectmen, The Treasure was never given “orders” from the selectmen. The TA sent the invoices and check run directly to the Treasure for signature. July 24, 2007After two years of refusing to conduct Town financial business in public, the Board announced the use of a manifest as their method to publicly approve invoices for payment and to give “orders” to the Treasure for payment. This intentional delay by the Board put the Town at risk for another lawsuit. As previously stated, the TA provided me with the procedure for payment of invoices, in part, quoted here. “the invoices are being sent to each Department Head for approval prior to payment….” I reviewed a sample of “approved” invoices and found all are “approved” by the department head by writing their initials on the invoice. Approving an invoice for payment is not the same as certifying it correct with the full signature of the department head, which would them accountable for the bill being correct, thus reducing the possibility of fraud. MEETING NOTICES & MINUTES The Board has failed to “notice” public and non public meetings. When I asked for copies of notices, I was told we don’t save them and it is not required by statute to save notices. This is true there is no law to save notices, but how does the Board substantiate it complied with the law for noticing meetings? As of late 2007, the meeting notices are saved and filed providing accountability. INTERVIEWS AND HIRING FOR THE TA POSITION October 6, 2005 the Board held five individual non-public meetings, for TA job interviews, none were noticed. The Board went into these non-public meetings without having a public meeting first, did not properly state the topic of the non-public meetings, nor vote to come out of non-public, before entering into the next non-public meeting. October 18, 2005, 8:00 pm, a Tuesday, a “non-public (B)” meeting was held, all selectmen present, topic not stated, the Board reviewed the comments received about the TA candidate Laura Buono. Selectman Cook scheduled a meeting [no vote taken] for October 19, 2005, at 6: 00 pm, a Wednesday, to make a conditional offer to Laura Buono. These minutes included the following statement. “The Selectmen will meet a half hour before the meeting and review each others questions. A conditional offer of agreement will be decided on upon by the Selectmen after the meeting” This statement, commands a meeting will be held at October 19, 2005 at 5:30 pm, a quorum will be present, requiring noticing a public meeting at least 24 hours [note the meeting times] prior to the meeting. This was an illegal meeting RSA 91-A:2 Meetings Open to Public. October 19, 2005, at 6:00 pm meeting was held, without notice, as non-public, with all selectmen, Laura Buono and a resident of Warner present. The minutes were sealed. This was an illegal meeting RSA 91-A:2 Meetings Open to Public. October 23, 2005, 2:00 pm, Sunday, Work Session, not noticed, in attendance Selectmen Hartmann and Cook, Mary Whalen and Laura Buono. NOTE: Chairman Eigabroadt was not in attendance and no reason given for his absence. The purpose of the meeting was to offer the TA position to Laura Buono. The minutes established a salary range with a discussion about benefits. This was an illegal meeting RSA 91-A:2 Meetings Open to Public. October 25, 2005, 9:25 am Monday, Work Session, not noticed. The topics in the last paragraph were items from the Sunday, October 23, 2005 TA job offer meeting and Chairman Eigabroadt’s asking why the meeting was held on Sunday when he wanted to be part of the process. Selectman Cook “explained messages were left for Chairman Eigabroadt, and did not realize that Chairman Eigabroadt was unable to attend until after the meeting was held” Cook continued “The meeting was arranged due to a scheduling conflict with the candidate”. Why did the Board have to meet with the TA candidate on a Sunday? Knowing Chairman Eigabroadt wanted to attend and was absent, why did the Board meet? What day[s] were these messages left for Chairman Eigabroadt? Whose schedule was conflicting? When and how did Selectmen Hartman and Cook decide to hold this meeting on this day? Was it in person, email or by telephone? October 25, 2005, 6:00 pm Monday, public meeting, not noticed, accompanying agenda states, “any other business that may come before the board” “Non-public session per RSA 91-A:3 II (a)” There is no additional reference to a non-public session in these minutes for this meeting, or the work session held the same day. October 25, 2005 non-public session meeting not noticed, was held at 8:40 pm, Voting to move into non public, three minutes after the public meeting was adjourned at 8:37 pm. November 15, 2005 APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES Moving through two years of Board minutes reveals, weeks of delay between the date the meeting was held and the date it was approved. The Board has stated there is no statute requiring a deadline for the approval of minutes. This true, but to do business with long intervals before minutes are approved, allows the Board carte-blanche interpretation of the meeting and time to recreate the facts. The Board will deny this simply by offering unapproved minutes and, or the tape recordings as documentation. Tape recordings don’t require approval and are nothing more than the source for the minutes. Once minutes are approved, tapes can be destroyed at the discretion of the Board. This Board has initiated a technique to delay approving minutes. I refer to it as “the selectman is absent” and “I have had not had time to read the minutes” syndrome. The approval of minutes requires only two “yes” votes out of three. But this Board grants absence as a “courtesy” for not approving minutes. If a selectman is absent, the approval process is delayed as a courtesy, but not all the time. What qualifies the “courtesy” declaration is unknown since I have seen it work both ways when the same selectman has been absent. The excuse “I have had not had time to read the minutes”, is an unashamed dereliction of duty by an elected official and should not be tolerated by the Chairman of the Board or the public. The delaying of the approving minutes should not be done for the convenience of the Board and necessary corrections of the minutes should only take place at the public meetings. LAWSUITS Two lawsuits have been filed against the Town. One lawsuit names a Board member as the perpetrator; the second names members of the fire department. In both cases the Town has to respond to these charges through the courts. The Board is individuals elected to perform those duties assigned by law. When a Board member takes it upon himself to address an issue requested by a family member or friend, he has committed an act of undue authority, and abusive conduct. It is documented every member of this Board is guilty of exercising their power in that manner. LIABILITY There are areas where the Board has not been proactive in reducing the exposure of possible Lawsuits; most evident is the Odd Fellows building even as the Board spends money to for repairs, this looming structure, owned by the Town, uninhabited for years, is falling apart. The building has been, damaged by vandals, illegally entered, and pieces of the roof have fallen off. If the building caught fire, during daytime, at night, while school was in session or a section just fell and hit someone or a group of children, who would be held responsible? June 12, 2007 During this meeting a citizen asked the Board “to require the [Odd Fellows Building] committee to have a set date/month for their meetings so that the general public is aware of this schedule.” The Board replied, the “OFBC is not a regular Town board and it is not necessary to mandate regularly scheduled meetings or require the meetings to be tape recorded.” NOTE: On March 6, 2007, Board Chairman Hartman, representing the Board, signed a “Memorandum of Understanding” – “Joint Agreement Enabling Exploration and Feasibility for Engineering, Design and Funding for Central Parking Facility, Warner, NH. From Wikipedia: “A Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) is a legal document describing a bilateral or multilateral agreement between parties.” The MOU is non binding between the parties, but does declare the parties to a common purpose to develop a central parking facility, where the Odd Fellows building now stands. For the protection of the public against injury and lawsuits, the Board should mandate OFBC meetings, require they be tape recorded and minutes produced. Anytime the Board, in part or whole, inks a legal document, they are representing the residents of Warner it is the public’s business. Title VI: CHAPTER RSA 91-A requirement that Town business be conducted in public unless subject to an exemption. The MOU is another delaying element to demolishing the building, increasing the probability of an accident, fire or other unforeseen incident, resulting in lawsuits. Lack of a Traffic Control Signal on RT103 West at the intersection of Center Rd, MacDonald’s and the Irving gas station. This situation has been bounced around by the Board, progress is stagnant. At a Board meeting I asked who would be responsible if someone was killed at that location. The Board replied, the Town and State, yet the Board plays the Abbot and Costello game “who’s on first” handing it off to others to solve. It is time the Board act, to protect us from another lawsuit by appropriating the full amount of money to install the TCS thus forcing the state to take action with any issues they have. Although this Board has made corrections to some of their illegal procedures, their record is indelible. Because they have inflated ideas of their own importance, look for no change the way they do business. The Courts will do nothing except to order them to follow the statutes. It is up to the residents of Warner, to be the “watch dog” get involved and pull the Board’s leash when they fail to obey the law. |
||
| Link | Top | Bottom | |||
| CC Joined: 12/11/09 Posts: 2 |
RE: ACCOUNTABILITY 12/11/09 6:14 PM I am painfully aware of the way this Town runs their "behind the curtain" meetings. My question to the tax payers of this Town. When is ENOUGH... ENOUGH? I may not be a born and bred native of this Town, but I most certainly pay every penny the same way you do and incur the same painful increases in Taxes because someone behind the curtain states they NEED MORE MONEY... Well, I for one have had it with how much MORE and MORE and MORE this Town needs. What this Town needs.. is a local person leading this Town, one who lives and breaths every day and sees the people for who they are. Hard working people, with families, with histories in this town, with solidarity. A person who will be willing to take pay cuts to help the Town more forward, a person who is willing to cuts needless expenditures and make people accountable for their actions. |
||
| Link | Top | Bottom | |||
| paladin Joined: 12/12/09 Posts: 1 |
RE: ACCOUNTABILITY 12/14/09 6:08 AM “Behind the Curtain” I too have had it, but it is more than money, it is the Elitists who believe the taxpayers are surfs working for elected officials. Please accept my reply as one who has been deeply imbedded in the internals of the elected and appointed “public servants” of Warner, who I refer to as Elitists. I don’t want to come across as a know it all, but I support your concerns. Some topics you may not know about. 1. In 2005 the people of Warner voted to hire a Town Administrator {TA} the selling points was the Selectmen’s workload and grant writing. On a Sunday in October of 2005, the TA candidate met with 2 of the three selectmen, and two residents who were part of the interview team. One of the civilians is an attorney, the other I have no knowledge about. The missing selectman was the dissenter on the Board of Selectmen. He was never notified of this Sunday meeting. The “posting” of this meeting never took place; call it Secret, because that is what it was. Months after the TA was in position the selectmen, who met every Tuesday during the winter and every other Tuesday during the summer, changed their winter meeting schedule to every other Tuesday, mirroring the summer schedule. What happen to the work load? The board dumped it on the TA and the TA has never applied for a grant. The individual who was chairman of the board at the time of the TA hiring claimed to have done a background check and this candidate passed. A simple search, which is public information, of this hired person, in the archives of the Union Leader, and various search engines contradicts this chairman’s findings, and pictures a person with a tainted work history. At present, the TA is the highest, paid {$60,000 plus benefits} employee of the town, sets her own pay scale which is always approved by the board. Cut spending, eliminate the TA position and put the select board to work. 2. Annual town meetings. The annual town meetings are controlled by the moderator. The format is based on an obscure publication written forty plus years ago and likely out of print. The town meeting held last March had several very close voice votes, ruled on by the moderator, as the Nays being the winner. There are provisions for paper votes when the public sees a need, and should have been called for. The message here is to become very familiar with the meeting format. 3. The town has Bid Policy, which is sham, with loop holes allowing them to pick any bidder they wan, defeating the taxpayer’s goal of getting the best bang for the buck. Keep in mind this policy affects every department in the town. 4. The Abyss The famous Martin building, AKA as the Odd Fellows purchased by the town seven or eight years ago, has had use studies done almost every year as well as repairs, money down the drain. 5. The Highway department / transfer station is riddle with financial mismanagement, costing the taxpayers millions. Again the bid policy comes into play. It is not uncommon to hear “we have used them before, so let’s use them again” 6. We have a commercial zone, Exit 9; nothing has been done in a decade to add revenue to reduce or at least reduce the tax rate, by adding businesses in this Zone. Fact is many have been stymied; Hampton Inn Hotel is an example, by an Elitist group who call themselves, Smart Growth and has political ties to a national organization with same agenda. Several years ago many Warner Smart Growth members were appointed to the Planning and Zoning boards. These Elitists must be removed and examine their ties commercial work being done for the town. 7. When the Elitists are forced to reduce spending, it is always Fire, Police; this is their way of punishing the taxpayer for demanding lower spending. 8. The Conservation Commission. Up until the town meeting of 2009, the town voted to give the Conservation Commission $50,000 for many years, to protect private land from development. In 2009 it was reduced to $20,000. An example how this works is what took place in Hopkinton at a special town meeting on December 7, 2009. The taxpayer ponies up dollars, which is paid to the property owner, to place a covenant on his land, where the property can be sold but cannot be developed. In the case of Hopkinton, this fell between extortion and bribery. 9. The Town website. The Town website, is not an official website, it is not owned, or leased by the town, is run by a private individual who donates the site and his time to maintain it. The board of selectmen provides the data to the webmaster, who in turn posts it. The “rub” is if you point out an error, the selectmen will tell you the site is not an official site. Yet they will post official meeting notices as required by law, claiming they have complied with the law. They cannot have it both ways. Two or 3 years ago the town voted to purchase digital recorders to make archival records for the selectman’s meetings and other committees. These unedited recordings were to be placed on the town website, which was done for about six months, then removed. The board claimed the recordings caused the site to crash; the Elitists never had the problem resolved. What can be done? Just to name a few. 1. Expand the board of selectmen from three to five, with the risk you end up with a majority of Elitists. 2. Continue to establish an ethics committee. A warrant article was defeated at the last town meeting by a close voice vote. 3. Review bids, under the Right to Know laws. Publish you findings. Listen to the people on the street. 4. Establish an unofficial ethics committee where the public can raise issues for discussion and investigation. Professionally, P |
||
| Link | Top | Bottom | |||
| New Post |