|
From Magic City Morning Star Local MILLINOCKET -- The following is the email exchange which constitutes an illegal meeting. Although only Councilor Matt A. Polstein and Avern Danforth participated in the conversation, the fact that Polstein addressed it to 5 other councilors makes it a violation of the Open Meetings Act. The emails were, one and all, addressed to Polstein and Danforth, as well as Councilors Gail Fanjoy, David Nelson, John Davis, and Jimmy Busque, and Town Manager Gene Conlogue. The emails are posted here with the most recent at the top of the page, and as they were written, including misspellings and other errors, except for the actual email addresses of those involved. Polstein's emails are printed in bold for ease of reading. Matthew Polstein wrote: Gene, Avern and listed councilors, The reason we have a time crisis now is because this issue was not dealt with in an open and timely fashion. This is a major issue with many obvious and a number of not so obvious possible implications. I am frankly discusted with the timing of this and the short notice that we and the tax payers affected got on this issue. Jim and Gene frankly to me it looks like you pulled the wool over our eyes on a major issue and you now would have a vote on it while I am gone. If you had the time to get Steve Stanley to put in a bill why didn't you have time to inform us of your efforts......... IF thats the way we are going to do business on this council I can understand why Clint bailed out in East. Good will amongst councilors is vital to making progress. Vote on this issue in my absense and you will lose a big piece of mine. Gail, Dave, and Avern If this comes up I urge you to vote no and kill this effort as it can not pass with a 3 3 vote. It is extremely unlikely that unless significant new information came to light on this issue that I would ever vote for it. The 10% tax cap however is looking more and more attractive to me. Matthew A. Polstein From: Eugene Conlogue Matt, I will let Jimmy respond to how this idea was developed and unfolded as well as his contacts with Steve Stanley. Speaking at least for myself, you are wrong about me trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes. That is not the way I operate and you know that. While I see this annexation proposal as an opportunity for the Town, it is up to the Council to decide what it wants to do with it. The vote next week is necessary, as I explained in yesterday's e-mail, if this issue is going to have a chance for consideration and approval in Augusta this year. Waiting until the next Legislature would push the effective date of the annexation to at least July 1, 2006. At the last Council meeting, I looked to the Council for direction. The direction given was to proceed on this, including bringing it back to the Council on March 25 as an Order. I will do as was directed. It is up to the Council to decide whether to table, support, or oppose that Order. The timing has nothing to do with you being gone; you will recall you notified me of your need to miss next week's meeting earlier this week, not prior to last week's Council meeting. Gene Matthew Polstein wrote: Gene et al, If I painted with too broad a brush in my comment about pulling the wool over our eyes I apologize. The comment came from a sense on my part that someone tried to and you, had you known about the effort, have the political wisdom to have steered it in a better direction than it has taken. Did you know nothing of Jims efforts prior to us receiving notice of it the night before the council meeting. If you knew did it never enter your mind that the impacted tax payers as well as the rest of the council should have a reasonable amount of time to review and react to the proposal? Did you never advise Jim that perhaps he should talk to the council for an opinion on the matter before putting us in a position of having little or no time to respond? Our handling of this issue (and I use our loosely) is an embarrassment and a reaffirmation of the low regard in which we hold our largest tax payers and employers and that is exactly how they and other businesses will see it. When it comes to increasing the tax roles are we really willing to draw a line that avoids a single home that could thwart our efforts while grabbing the big money from someone who at least appears unable to defend themselves. I have never played the role of the playground bully and I don't plan to now. There has not been a stronger champion of doing what is reasonable and necessary to reduce the tax burden of the citizen of the town of Millinocket than myself in the past 4 years. But I will not be party to a robbery to help justify a lower mill rate or more likely, increased spending. Have we met our duty to the taxpayers of Millinocket If GLHA comes to accpt the reality of this gesture and decides it has less compelling reason to be based in a town that views it as little more than a source for easy money. Do we weant them to continue to invest millions, hire new employees and base them here in a town where they have asked for and we have offered, no tax breaks or incentives? Or do we want to make them more responsive to any town that might like to have them as a responsible corporate citizen? Finally, I will repeat that the current time crisis we face is not of my doing and If the council wants to make a decision to annex land it should do it calmly and prudently and if that means it doesn't happen until 2006, so be it. This is not a simple isssue. Matthew A. Polstein Subject: Re: Recreation and Collaboration Although I may not agree with all your points, this matter perhaps could have been handled differently. I will use it as a learning opportunity. Thanks. © Copyright 2002-2006 by Magic City Morning Star |