After citizen's and town employees sat in the wicked heat and humidity for hours on Monday night, a break was called, a the local Casella manager approached Chairman Moriarty, and left the room.It was announced shortly after that the agenda would be removed and that a Council of the whole meeting would be held instead of going by the Agenda. If only the citizen's of this town had as much power as the Casella manager... Now this agenda item is being published for a third time, and despite what the Agenda claims, Councilors have openly discussed a motion that will be made after "discussion" of doom and gloom that will befall us. If a Vote is expected, it is supposed to be in the Agenda. Why is this not being revealed?Why isn't the question on this Agenda?Is it true that money has been spent at great cost to the taxpayer to come up with legal cover to allow our former interim town manager to remain long enough to "discuss" a vote that already failed 7-2 ? Does thus not ignore President Kennedy's advice to "never negotiate out of fear"?It would be nice to make the legal opinion public as soon as possible, along with its price tag.
The legal opinion has been released as it is public record-one of the things I appreciate about the Chairman is that he does not run the clock on information requests, waiting out ten days to hide information.The legal opinion would be impressive and would defend extending Mr..Paicos's time here iF the acting Town Manager has never been refered to as the Acting Town ManagerThe Attorney giving the opinion protects himself by stating something like "the facts as I understand them" which allows the person giving the opinion to make presumptions and guess at the historical context or trust vague or inaccurate information provided.For the same reason this discussion did not occur the first time it was on the Agenda, it should certainly not occur the third time.A solemn promise was once made that the $108 million + landfill deal would be evaluated by the community in an open public gearing if it would ever proceed in any form. Although I am pleased by the vote on Ammendment One, that vote was premature because the community has yet to have a public hearing to evaluate the Landfill agreement, an agreement that has proven to be a colossal failure in almost every catagory.Certainly the missing $80 million+ should be explained before any discussion about additional agreements proceed. An open public hearing, perhaps with the appropriate Senate Committee having oversight on Landfills should be assembled so our Community can proceed on this matter in a considerate and prudent manner.Imagine lending money or extending a lease with a tenant that significantly disturbs the neighborhood with explosions and foul odors, a tenant that has ruined the ground water, a tenant that has provided well under 20% the income guaranteed. What responsible party would consider extending or even discussing extending the agreement?The time has come for a true report card offered by the stakeholding taxpayers-not a report card prepaired by an errant party requiring serious evaluation.
All comments subject to moderation. All commenters must use their own name or a screen name. No comments labelled as "Anonymous" will be published. To use your name or a screen name select "Name/URL" from the drop down menu. Insert you name in the "Name" space and leave the "URL" space blank.