Cleaning out the inbox ...

Cheers and jeers from around the news:

• Jeers to the town of Brunswick, and all elected officials who still don't recognize it's always best to err on the side of transparency. That's the easiest rule for dealing with sticky wickets of government, such as when — or when not — to bring the public business behind closed doors.

If an elected panel is unsure of which way is right, always presume transparency. If wrong, the transgression is minor compared to the opposite, which would be conducting public business in the gloaming of a shadowy, and probably illegal, executive session.

Brunswick councilors could have avoided the criticism — and perhaps repercussions — of its fumbling the managerial hire by using the presumption of sunshine. That they didn't, and that one councilor said the board was "stumbling in the dark," is inexcusable.

Another councilor said the process was hampered by a lack of a written policy. Yet the law is the law, and common sense is common sense. Abiding by one or the other would have been the right thing. It shouldn't take a written policy to realize that.

• Cheers to the U.S. Postal Service and the town of Otisfield for reaching the mutually beneficial conclusion to keep "Pandora," the town's lone public mailbox, from being removed. Hopefully, there are no hard feelings on either side.

The town got international attention for its impassioned defense of its mailbox. Yet while absolving a Maine community from a cost-cutting move won't measurably affect the postal budget, the service is still imperiled by deficit. Hard choices are ahead for the USPS.

Otisfield has shown the mail is still needed and valued. The trick for the USPS and Congress is converting this goodwill into sustainability, without gutting the service in the process.

• Cheers to Sen. Olympia Snowe for renewing calls to enact the aircraft passenger bill of rights, following another traumatic experience for air travelers in Minnesota. Forty-seven passengers on a Continental Airlines flight were stuck inside the plane for six hours in a weather-related delay.

First, that shouldn't happen. Keeping people confined in an aircraft for hours is not quite torture, but after six hours, few would argue that it's quite close to it. Passengers should have some avenue to protest their treatment in these delays, and a basic bill of rights would be it.

Airlines have opposed this, saying they don't need Congress to tell them how to treat their paying passengers. After this latest incident, however, this promise looks hollow. And the time for a passenger bill of rights seems due.

• And, finally, cheers to Sen. Susan Collins for telling the Sun Journal's editorial board this week the $2 billion injection to "cash for clunkers" should be its last funding gasp. We'd argue there never should have been a first one, but, hey, it's all moot now.

editorialboard@sunjournal.com

Stay informed — Get the news delivered for free in your inbox.

I'm interested in ...

In order to make comments, you must verify your account.

In order to comment on SunJournal.com, you must use your real name and include the town in which you live in your profile. A member of our staff will call you to verify this information. To join in, fill out your user profile completely and check the box "please verify my status." We'll get back to you within one business day to verify your account.

Login or create an account here.

Our policy prohibits comments that are:

  • Defamatory, abusive, obscene, racist, or otherwise hateful
  • Excessively foul and/or vulgar
  • Inappropriately sexual
  • Baseless personal attacks or otherwise threatening
  • Contain illegal material, or material that infringes on the rights of others
  • Commercial postings attempting to sell a product/item
If you violate this policy, your comment will be removed and your account may be banned.

Advertisement

Displaying comments, from newest to oldest

Robert61's picture

Dosh - the feds have said

Dosh - the feds have said nothing nor given back anything they took from the city - we all are in the dark on that case.

Robert61's picture

Just back from a week

Just back from a week volunteering at a Boy Scout camp, guess I missed all the excitement or lack thereof....Tron - couldn't help but notice how you mentioned my being so quiet after the (non)story about my influences at City Hall. Being in the Adirondacks and out of cell coverage and other electronic media it was not until yesterday that I returned and got such a belly laugh out of what the LSJ wrote.

But to this story, lewiston could soon face the same dilemma - when interviewing we would be expected to have a confidential issue at hand. At some point we must choose a candidate - do we do it in open session and then authorize the HR folks to make an offer? Where do you draw the line - healthy discussion needs to occur for all final candidates at some point - if you were a candidate would you want to be discussed in open session comparing your abilities and faults with others? Did the LSJ list the Editor candidates in public and publicly announce who they hired? Hmmmm...

So what happens when we completely remove executive session to quiet the boo birds? Do we negotiate union contracts in public? Do we negotiate potential business deals and TIFS where everyone knows (including our neighboring cities)? Where does anyone draw the line?

tron's picture

Well, Bob, attacking me

Well, Bob, attacking me right out of the gate. Contrary to what you write, I made very little mention of you or anything about Emailgate. Trying to get yourself brownie point with your employer by getting the government to do $50,000 worth of renovations. You work for a multimillion dollar company for Pete's sake. Let them pay for their own renovations.

I can't help but notice that your self proclaimed exile didn't prevent you from stating your side of the issue in the local right wing tabloid. And before your claim to have written it before you left, you made references to the SJ and the emails. I await the day you have the courage of your convictions to actually sit down and face an interview with an actual reporter, not some right wing "editor." But I promise you, I won't hold my breath.

Now executive sessions is not an all or nothing situation. You want everything to be behind close doors. But the legislation is meant to be interpreted very narrowly. Most of the executive sessions about the Bennett matter were held NOT to protect Mr. Bennett, but to protect you and Councilor Therriault. That is not the law's intention. It is not meant to protect councilors from getting black eyes from their actions. The assistant manager of Auburn, Ms Smith, is a finalist for the top job in Brunswick. Does that common knowledge hurt her in any way. Nope. Would you really consider hiring someone who is apply for the job behind his employer's back? And comparing the SJ to the city is ridiculous. The SJ answers only to its shareholders, which in the case of the city is the citizens. They have a right to know, and the law backs them up!

Robert61's picture

Tron, the LTTE in the TCT

Tron, the LTTE in the TCT was written before I left on vacation, and I can send you the original email I sent them to prove it. The LSJ had called a week prior to ask some questions - Scott Thistle called - and during that time he advised that the story was forthcoming, thus I was guessing it would be that Sunday edition. Course, they put none of my comments or interview material in the story after interviewing me for what may have been close to an hour. Thus you are wrong on three counts - (1) the first time I looked at that story today i saw posts from you asking why I was so quiet and i saw other stories the following days asking why I was so quiet for two days, (2) the LTTE in another paper was in fact written before I left and, (3) the telephone interview with an LSJ editor/wroter would seem to qualify as a sit down interview. So as to attacking, no defending yes, you attacked in my absence as you have continually, and I defended myself. I have always been open with this newspaper as much as possible and without breaking the confidence of an Executive Session, something others could learn from.

But lets get down to what was not in the article. First, my employer and the building are within Ward 7 that I represent, thus when asked if there was anything I told them I would find out and then they could go from there. Second, in doing so I went directly to the administrator Mr. Bennett as per his instructions not to interfere with staff in any way - I asked him to advise if the program still existed and if so to work with my direct report (the CFO) for further guidance and information. Lastly, I clearly disclosed in the original request that I did in fact work for a company who was partially owned by the same person who also owned the building, thus no hidden agenda there. Once the wheels were in motion, I bowed out and have not been involved since AND I do not personally benefit in any way from the grant, should it be given. The grants are available to any business and were a way of keeping our downtown healthy and vibrant - some called it the Walmart grants as businesses dowqntown could no longer keep up with the competition - it's available in many communities throughout this country. happens

I'd also like to point out that the grant is available for any downtown business that requests it - why should my employer suddenly be ineligible because an employee is a city councilor? I would think more people would be upset with a councilor who was a part owner of a building and asked for financial assistance that would personally enrich him. I'd also think people would be upset that a councilor was going to department heads directly instead of to the administrator as had been requested, but nope they seem to get a free pass.

If you think I'm attacking then I suggest you stop lobbing the first grenade.

jayla's picture

I can't believe I'm saying

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I agree with Tron...for once.

tron's picture

Jeers to the SJ for not

Jeers to the SJ for not allowing comments on the individual who was arrested for selling tractors on Ebay. I think someone's political clout influenced your judgement.

aronzio's picture
staff

Hold your horses, tron. I

Hold your horses, tron. I just checked that story, and there are comments. Nobody's clout influenced anything here. If you're having trouble posting on that story for some reason, send me an e-mail.

Thanks.

Anthony Ronzio
Editorial Page Editor
Sun Journal
tronzio@sunjournal.com

tron's picture

To be fair I did email Mr.

To be fair I did email Mr. Ronzio and here is what he wrote in part

"I'm confused about how that article ends too. It doesn't look right, but I neither have the authority nor the knowledge of how that story developed to make any changes.

I didn't know there were commenting difficulties on stories with PDF attaches, or the vids. I'll look into that on Monday. "

I mentioned that articles with videos and other attackments didn't allow for commentary. He says he didn't know, and I've never been steered wrong by him yet, so I believe him. It just seemed strange considering it was a councilors son, but let's be fair, how many people can control their 25yo son?

Advertisement