http://www.facebook.com/SheaForCouncil

This report doesn't help the city in any measurable way. It was a waste of $24,000. And using it as a road map for future investment will only waste more money.

The report does state that fire related calls represent only 6% of total calls for service received by the fire department. But then the report goes on about how to affect better fire response.

Perhaps a better emphasis would be to ask what we can do to better target our needs. For example, since medical related calls account for more than 80% of all calls for assistance, perhaps we need to get some other equipment that might be more helpful. Perhaps we need to staff differently. Perhaps we need a station closer to the turnpike.

We have a number of issues coming forward with the fire department. All three stations are said to need major repairs or replacing in the next 5 years or so. We currently are seeking to buy a new pumper truck. It doesn't seem practical to take a truck with a thousand gallons of water in it to a heart attack victim. That is many tons of truck rumbling down the road when a smaller, more agile truck could easily do the job. These are the types of questions that should have been addressed in the report.

These are also the types of questions that should have been asked last night at the council workshop on this report.

I'd like to apologize for calling you a curmudgeon. I had no right and I apologize.

The point of executive session is not to hide from the public, but to discuss matters relating to personnel or real estate. These sessions are designed to protect employee/employer confidentiality. It is not designed to hide anything from the public.

With regard to real estate, the objective is to prevent people from speculating (in an investment sense) on land the city is interested in developing and/or selling.

The choice of the council to replace Councilor Samson was in keeping with both the letter of the law and the spirit of the law regarding absent councilors. There is a process put in place by the charter which delineates the steps to follow in these situations. If you disagree with this provision of the council, please get involved in the next charter commission. There are several clauses in the charter I would like to have re-examined and hope to find a seat on the next commission - whenever that might take place. I hope to be seated beside you there.

In the comments you reference above, Mrs Herrick clearly states her bias in defense of farmers. Her comments reference only the remarks Ms Jaeger made pertaining to farmers. This particular rebuttal to Ms Jaeger has nothing to do with the past council's decision regarding Mr Aho's employment.

You know, as you are Mr Aho's current girlfriend, that the answer to why is unequivocally "no cause". You know that the council, including me, exercised the "No Cause" Clause in Mr Aho's contract to terminate him. For this reason, if a councilor or former councilor were to give a reason now, it might be grounds for Mr Aho to enter into litigation with the city. So, Mr Aho was terminated for "no cause". I'm sorry if that is not acceptable to you, but that is the reason. So, educated or uneducated people can think what they will, but that is the reason.

What is sketchy, Ms Jaeger, is the attempt at character assassination by labeling three of five councilors who voted to exercise their options in Mr Aho's employment contract. Using those particular labels, combined with your profile stating you are "a university educated Auburn resident" implies you believe you are better than the three councilors you label. What of the other two who voted to terminate? What do you really know about the three you chose to label? I, too, attended university. I served in the military. I have traveled extensively overseas, taught English, worked in banking, and was self-employed before turning to farming. But thank you for labeling me as a farmer. As Mrs Herrick stated in her post, farmers are great people who work hard and expect little. Fifty and sixty hour work weeks are a respite for farmers. Further, since five councilors voted to terminate MR Aho, please tell how I am "the fifth vote". It is really a matter of perspective. Any of the five could be termed "the fifth vote".

I am not trying to blame Mr Aho for all the troubles the city has had over the past few years. I truly wish him well.

Care to offer up an example to actually make your point?

Frank,
If you can tell us of another way of talking about this situation without using "low-income" please do and most of us would be glad to oblige. We are not trying to ban anyone from Auburn. We have a large number of places where the Auburn Housing Authority and others provide housing for low income folks. We have a larger percentage of low income folks in Auburn than other areas of the state. We provide a higher percentage of free and reduced cost meals at our schools than average in Maine. So, we are anything but anti low-income in this city.

What I personally would like to see is a plan to place low income people in currently vacant apartments or homes in Auburn. We have many landlords who have vacancies. Getting low-income folks into this housing stock would help the city and the low-income folks themselves. The landlords would have some incentive to keep their properties up, adding to the tax base. Instead we have "non-profit" developers buying up land, destroying buildings and building large low-income buildings. There are lots of examples throughout the country that point out the problems with concentrating large numbers of low-income folks in one area. Cabrini Green in Chicago is pretty much the poster child for this problem.

Like it or not, large concentrations of low-income folks historically don't attract new businesses to an area. Without this influx of businesses, the areas lack jobs or money and, almost without exception, deteriorate. Mixed housing seems to be a better alternative. Building mixed income housing on upper floors with small business offices/retail on the ground floor seems to pick up entire neighborhoods. Check out the Smart Growth Movement.

I'm sorry you feel those of us who have talked against this project are anti low-income. The truth is we aren't. We are for smart growth. The area in question is prime development for a bakery or coffee shop or other small retail spot. Wouldn't a restaurant be nice there, overlooking the river. That would add jobs and spruce up the neighborhood. It would fit with Auburn's Master Plan. If the developer wanted to put housing on upper floors, that would be great.

I find myself in an awkward situation. I go to council meetings and have been somewhat vocal in my opposition to Mayor Labonte's way of running the city. I have not been a fan of his policies.

I was at the meeting last night. I talked with the mayor. In this case he is making the best of a bad situation. The city staff basically shoved this down the last council's throats with little time to research as it "had to get done". The council trusted the staff and they were bamboozled as a result. The mayor got the developer to at least promise to donate a buildable lot on the Main Street side of this (bowling alley) project.

The project across the street is a lot more convoluted. CEI sought city funding in the form of a TIF last year and was denied by the council at that time. They were not in favor of this project for the same reasons the current council is not in favor of this project. But the planning board approved it, CEI got funding elsewhere, (I believe Maine State Housing, though I am unsure) and now will develop it into low income housing. I'm told there is nothing the city can do to stop it - despite two consecutive city councils' opposition.

We, the citizens of LA, need to step up and get these kinds of projects stopped. I'm not trying to stop low income people from moving into the area. I am trying to get our vacancies filled prior to using more ttaxpayer money to fund these unneeded projects. Plus, we are condemning our neighborhoods to 99 years of low income housing when we do these projects. The Webster School project is a prime example. It is a great looking rehab, but it must be low income for 99 years to come. The neighborhood is depressed now. Will it continue to be for 99 more years?

We need to seriously deal with low income in an intelligent manner. I don't seek to marginalize low income or ban them. I seek to work out an equitable solution and stop enriching these "non-profit" developers who are using the low income citizens to make lots of money for themselves. It does not make sense to spend $1,250,000 to make only $600,000 or so as a return.

This documentary, available at the Lewiston library, concerns Ms Rhee and her efforts to reform DC public schools. It is rather sympathetic to Ms Rhee and fairly anti teachers unions.

Please try to watch it. It will make you think, if only to research the situation more in depth.

Dan, any public group can ask to meet at city hall. We own the building. The Auburn Democrats meet there.

why does the city have to throw in more than a million dollars in incentives? The developer owns a hotel within a 1/2 mile of this location so he knows the market. If he thinks this site can support another hotel, why do the citizens of the twin cities have to give so much financial support? And for only 20 jobs, most of which will be lower wage jobs...

Thanks for nothing council and developer.

Please explain how the absence of a "real" city manager would make the plowing more professionally done. The director of public works, the deputy director of public works and the two operations managers of public works are the one responsible for plowing the roads. The city manager doesn't even need to know how a plow truck operates.

To blame this kind of a problem on the lack of a sitting city manager is assinine. The day to day responsibility of running the city lies with the department heads. Besides, Chief Crowell is every bit as qualified as any city manager save the experience. Chief Crowell, I believe was stated, has a graduate degree in public administration, same as a city manager. Plus, the Chief has gotten a great deal of experience as assistant city manager and acting city manager in the past couple years.

The only way we are going to get the city to run more smoothly is to let them know we are not happy. I had a number of calls last storm regarding this matter and discussed it with the public works department. They are taking all the feedback and working to make a better system. They are receptive to the publics input.

I was/am an Auburn Councilor at Large and would have loved to hear from you prior to last nights vote. I did hear from a number of residents who were happy with the proposed ban.

The fire chief made persuasive arguments that we should ban fireworks in our more built up neighborhoods due to the high density of residents, age and condition of those areas. He proposed setting a "zone" for fireworks. This would have resulted in two classes of Auburn citizens, those who had the right to use fireworks and those who didn't. This would have been unworkable for the police and just doesn't seem fair.

Two residents did come forward last night and argue for allowing the use of fireworks. They were passionate and made some good points. Then a state/regional fire investigator who lives in town countered with some equally good points. It was not an easy decision.

This is an area that can certainly be revisited.

If, as you state, the will of the people were to have fireworks, those folks should have made their views known. We had a workshop and two readings of the ordinance where public input was welcome. Plus, our email and phone numbers are listed on the city's website. Each citizen in Auburn has three councilors that represent them. Talk with all three that represent you and get your voice heard. Please.

Something no one here has suggested is to grow your own food. Kitchen gardens are capable of providing a good deal of food for not much of an investment. Granted this won't solve your food problem today, but it would help stretch those food dollars. There are many varieties of veggies that can be grown indoors or on a balcony.

If you would take a minute to breath and think about what someone says without attacking it would certainly help.

With regard to limiting the number of schools thus reducing expenses, money would be saved and then that money could be used elsewhere to educate kids. I never said we should simply reduce to save money and put it back in the taxpayers pocket. I was trying to offer up suggestions where money could be saved to help with the actual education of our kids. And immediately you brand me and others as tightwads who don't value education. That is unhelpful.

As far as tests are concerned, what would you suggest is a good method of evaluating teachers performance? The test scores are abysmal. The graduation rate is ridiculous. What can we look to to show how well the teachers are performing? You talk of power point presentations and such. Great. But if a kid has deep knowledge of a subject that kid should be able to answer a question about that knowledge. There has to be some mechanism in place to put a value on teachers' work.

I'm not sure why you assume I have been out of a classroom for a great length of time. You assume a lot. You assume everyone is against you. I don't believe anyone wants our children to fail. The public is frustrated with ever increasing costs and diminishing results. Why don't you spend your next 30 minutes not ranting about my response and some up with a solution other than to throw money at it. If we work together, we can tackle this problem. But your insistence that everyone is against you simply because money is one of many issues is, again, not helpful or accurate. What is your solution?

The city of Westbrook recently came out in the newspaper and used names, circumstances, dates and other details to discuss investigations and law suits in that city. Why can't Auburn be so transparent?

The investigation is over, let us see the results. Ms Roy has given the council permission to view her file and a copy of that investigation should be there if she was the one who filed the initial complaint.

Telling us the investigation found nothing and proving it are two entirely different matters - especially when the city manager was the one complained about, the one who hired the investigator and now has control of the results of the investigation. Even with all those cards stacked in his favor he will not release the results. Some smells in Auburn!

Laying hens are not the menace you are making them out to be. There are literally hundreds of cities and towns in the country that allow the keeping of laying hens. They are fascinating birds who do some real good.

The USDA requires four square feet of floor space per bird to be considered "humane" treatment. So your answer is 24 square feet of space for six birds, or about the size of your kitchen table. A coop of that size easily fits on pretty much any lot in Auburn.

Having hens does mean you don't have to pay for eggs most of the time. Six hens will yield perhaps 3-6 eggs a day until the girls are in molt - then they will not lay for a while until they cycle back out of it.

But the point is not the money saved, it is the thrill of having another opportunity for a pet. Only this one provides you with so much more than just love in return. As with any other pet, care and feeding are required. There are countless sources of information on the internet about how to care for chickens - though it is pretty simple.

The ordinance follows the same zoning rules for out buildings as is currently in place. The setbacks are still there and nothing has changed. I am sure there will be a couple calls to police about hens on the loose, but most people will take care of the hens. Most of the calls will come from people who have closed their minds to the idea that others should be allowed to have hens if they want.

The council did restrict the number of hens (limited to six) and the type (limited to laying hens) to make the new rules fair to all residents. They didn't want noisy roosters or messy ducks and geese all over town. This was a fair compromise.

This is another cop out and a way to allow people who fail to feel good about themselves. What is wrong with expecting a high score on any test? Why do we always seem to have to make excuses? These score are just plain awful.

Mr. Blake,
Though a great deal has been said regarding the financial cost to Auburn taxpayers for Ipads, many other objections have been raised as well.

First, there has been a lack of proof that the Ipads will even help with the goal of educating our children. If computers were the answer, it is said, all our recent high school graduates would be doing far better on the SAT's and other tests they are now taking. (See other story in this edition of the SJ). Many talk of younger folks not being able to make change without computer assistance. Does having an Ipad at such a young age help or hurt this issue? I know we have had high school kids work for us and they have struggled to make change, especially if someone hands them a bill and some change.

Also, the Ipad will make these young children targets for older kids or even adults who can't afford one and would like one. I hope Apple has put a GPS chip in there to monitor where the machines are at all times so they can be tracked if lost or stolen. But the worry is that the children could get hurt in one of these thefts.

Then we have the argument that electronics are making people less social and aware of others. Do these machines make people less able to cope socially? It used to be if you had a question you would ask your teacher or another student, now children are encouraged to look online for the answer. This is both good and bad. Is it teaching independence or isolation?

At the most recent city council meeting, Councilor Young, the mayor's representative to the school committee, made mention of Ipads next year. He stated he isn't sure where the funding will come for the Ipads for two grades next year. So, it seems we will be buying these for all kindergartners and first graders next year.

Councilor Herrick was taken a bit out of context in the article. He was saying that it would be best if the ordinance allowed only laying hens and not other birds who fit the definition of "poultry" which was the original wording in the ordinance.

Councilor Herrick just wanted to ensure that the ordinance wasn't too broad and allow smelly birds (like broiler chickens or production turkeys) or noisy birds (like roosters and guinea fowl) or messy birds (like geese and ducks). These are all great birds and well suited for farms and dinner tables, but probably would be best to keep out of the more densely populated areas of Auburn.

At least now you are able to raise laying hens legally in Auburn. Mr Herrick was the impetus behind this change at his constituents behest.

I thought I recognized your name. I went to your history and came up with this comment that came from you. Have you changed your mind?

MS Gerry
By Peter Blake Thu, 07/14/2011 - 02:55

Please have someone bring your petitions by my home on Winter St.

I was critical of you before we had a long and wonderful phone conversation.

You are the first local politician to call me instead of the other way around. Your expressions showed thought and character.

The city would be at a loss without you on the council in some form. I await the petitions and I know you know how to get in touch with me.

I wish you the best of luck in the upcoming election.

Talk about a myopic viewpoint. There seems to be a campaign to paint Mr Aho in the best possible light and the council as a bunch of back-stabbing do nothings. Along the way this paper conveniently omits facts and opinions unfavorable to Mr Aho.

The council has repeatedly found inconsistencies in the budgets from year to year and asked the manager for explanations. In response he gives more conflicting numbers. He has presented numbers differently from meeting to meeting seemingly to keep everyone off guard. He brags about transparency, but try to get to the bare facts and you will find transparency in very short supply. Find a real issue and he dismisses you out of hand. The city manager presented the council with a budget that represented adding $1.74 to the mil rate. When the council was done the rate increased only $.27. The council worked hard to find the cuts and keep taxes as low as they could. How is presenting an unreasonable increase an example of doing one's level best?

The high-level employees that you mention did not make Mr Aho happy so he used budget cuts as an excuse to rid the city of people he didn't like. And these cuts don't even make sense when using Mr Aho's own logic. He has stated that the Director of Public Works should stay and that the Deputy Director and two Operations Managers are needed to accomplish succession planning. The subordinates are to learn from the Director so when he leaves, they will know how to run the department. When asked he stresses the importance of succession planning. Now, if succession planning is so vital, why did he get rid of the assistant city manager position? Who is he going to pass his vast knowledge to so that the city may run smoothly should he be let go? Further, adding another level of management runs counter to everything private industry and management consultants recommend. A flatter business usually runs most efficiently.

You use the council's ability to compromise as a strike against it. You state that they change positions under public pressure. But is this not an example of open-mindedness? Previously you have harangued councilors for sticking to their guns as short-sighted and narrow minded.

Could you please have your reporters investigate a bit? I am sure you would find the city employees feelings to be more in line with the council. There is rumor in town that the non-union employees are working to unionize. The rumor states that Mr Aho's changes are largely the reason. Why not investigate that and shed some light on it for your readership? Or would that run counter to your propaganda efforts?

If I lived in Brewer and didn't have to see the state of the city everyday, I might be inclined to believe this "story". But living here tells a different tale.

The number of people let go over the last couple of years has been devastating to the city. The city manager has hired several "key" people who are loyal to him yet completely unqualified for the jobs for which they have been hired. Public Works is the premier example. The workers there are doing good work - as they always have - but are being extraordinarily mismanaged. The current management team that Mr Aho has out to work there is costing the city in excess of $300,000 a year - for four people. Why does a city the size of Auburn need a Director, a Deputy Director, and two Operations Managers? The top two positions aren't even located in public works but rather have offices in city hall. Are they really managing public works or just being lunch buddies with the city manager?

The city manager stated the current set-up, dubbed the "5P Management System", allows him to not hold department manager's meetings that were too unwieldy with 14 different department heads at one meeting. So he devised a more multi-leveled and expensive system. Further, two out of three of the team leaders are untested managers. Is this good management?

Jobs that used to take a few hours to a day to do are now taking considerably longer. It is not because the city council told Mr Aho where to cut. They offered up a challenge of a million dollars, but when he was unable to meet it, they reduced it to an acceptable level. Mr Aho could have chosen cuts more judiciously, but used the opportunity to rid the city of staff he deemed undesirable. There was no need to do what he did. There is STILL plenty of excess in the budgets that could be cut without hurting services.

Mr Aho's one true talent is politics. He is good at putting one over on people. He will stretch the truth to your face, if not outright lie. When pressed about the inaccurate numbers on the budget, he will insist they are right until he can no longer bluff his way through it and then he will dismiss the complainant out of hand. And I'm told he does this to staff regularly. Watch the city council meetings on Great Falls TV and you will see what I mean.

Mr Aho has worked tirelessly to pump up himself and his management system with near complete disregard for the citizens of this city. He came forward with a budget that would have added $1.74 per thousand to our tax rate - already one of the highest in the state. Because some members of the council have taken a close look at the budget they got that down to 27 cents per thousand, largely without the help of the city manager. He wasted a great deal of time complaining he didn't have any direction. Therefore, he did nothing.

Councilor Young did not help a bit. He proposes nothing. In fact, he has been known to fall asleep at meetings, again, look at the meeting on Great Falls TV. He is perhaps the least effective councilor on the council. You may disagree with Councilors Herrick, Farrell, Gerry, and Berube, but at least they are there trying to do what they think is right - not simply trying to gum up the works.

If you are so enthralled with Mr Aho and his 5P management system, why not get Brewer to offer his a job. That way it would be a win win for both municipalities.

I will sleep well tonight irregardless of your acceptance of my opinion on this or any other matter.

Veritas you continue to attack people here instead of the issue at hand. That is a great strategy and works for you most of the time. When it doesn't work, you simply redouble your effort and attack more vociferously. Well done.

Though I was a member of a union when I lived on the west coast and a shop steward, I became disillusioned with the actions of the union and, since it was a union shop, quit the company. I was just a small person in a large machine.

But my "qualifications" are not germaine to the issue at hand. We are discussing what the union is looking for in the emails. I know tron believes that the union is looking for a groundswell of support for their position, but what is their position? Do they believe they are exempt from what the city has told the firefighters to do as policy?

Anyone who has watched a council meeting or talked to Mr Herrick should know he is not the most glib person in town. That is not to say he is stupid as he is not, he is just not always the most elegant of speakers.

Councilor Herrick has stated he does not use email. I believe he means he has never sent an email. Which I believe is true. He has received emails, through his wife, and has even read them at council meetings. He has stated he did not have any emails pertaining to this matter except the ones sent to the entire council of which the union already has copies.

Mr Herrick is a bit of a throwback in that he conducts business by telephone. He has stated as such at council meetings. You can choose to believe him or not, but the city manager stated last council meeting that their lawyer has cleared Councilor Herrick of any wrongdoing. The city manager further stated that this was a closed matter.

Councilor Farrell has done everything legally. He has cited the law at council meetings to prove his rights. He is perfectly legal in requesting that fee which he has maintained he will donate to the city. I don't see where you can possibly state he is making up rules.

And again, show us an email from Councilor Herrick or stop making accusations you cannot prove. If you can prove it, please do otherwise stop accusing people.

If you take the money in this years budget ($1,491,182.00) and divide that by the number of Firefighters in the APD (36) you will get $41,422 basic pay. That is average basic pay of our front line firefighters. That total is more than the average household in Auburn brings home ($37,543).

If we then add overtime, holiday pay, and all the other pay categories, plus benefits, we are talking serious money. And that is far more generous than most residents of Auburn are making.

So, do you still consider APD to be getting insultingly low wages?

Please enlighten us as to what is insulting in an AFD entry level wage? You state it like you know it is insultingly low. What is the wage? I am not trying to fight, I am simply trying to understand your point of view...

Apparently you have some inside information regarding the fire department as you seem to be quite adament in your writing. I can claim no such source, only what I see in the public space.

First off, NO ONE stated or even suggested taxpayers pay for firefighters groceries. I'm not sure where you came up with that one.

As for your home burning, that is certainly a tragedy and I'm glad the fire department was able to help you save some of your belongings. No one stated the fire department is not helpful and needed. As far as others being as unfortunate speaking up, I have also lost something very dear in a fire. In our family's case, it was not something, it was someone, so we know the value of the fire department. They tried to save my nephew, but were unable to do so. My brother and sister-in-law have worked closely with the fire department in that town to help educate others so they don't lose family. So our family does have a great appreciation for the fire service. That too is not in question.

The question remains that the fire department seems to be on a witch hunt here. They have sued their employer instead of simply doing what they were told. If they don't feel they are doing wrong, then simply come forward and state that in public. What is the point in suing? Why put themselves and the city through a legal ordeal?

As for the ISO I would ask you to do your homework. I have done so and know that the ISO is irrelevent. Most insurance companies have stopped basing their rates on ISO ratings. There are many stories in Fire Chief Magazine stating as much. Just google it and you will see that I did my homework on this subject. Insurance companies, back in 2001 and 2002 began to realize the ISO standards are not reflective of actual loses in fires. As a point of fact, the Charleston fire service had an ISO rating of 1 - the best possible and extremely rare. There have only been 42 ratings that high out of thousands and thousands of fire services. So although that is something to rave about, it didn't help that same fire department from losing eight firefighters in a fire. (It may have been 7 or 9 - I can't remember for sure but will look it up if you want to challenge me on this). The point being that the ISO is not related to actual safety or skill. Finally, the fire department only accounts for 40% of the ISO rating. The water supply in the city, the allocation of equipment, the number of fire hydrants, E911 communications and other factors also contribute to our ISO rating.

As for singling our certain taxpayers for retribution, I hope you are correct. I am however reminded of a story I heard last year about a person who didn't pay a $75.00 a year fee to the fire department in their town and the fire department stood by and let the house burn down. Of recently in California there was a man who committed suicide by drowning himself in the ocean in clear view of 20 or so fire fighters and police. The firefighters refused to help because funding had been cut and they didn't have the water rescue certifications they needed and the police refused to help because it was not their policy to get involved if no harm was apparent to others. So, I'm sure the people in those communities didn't think their emergency services would fail them either, but they certainly did. I, personally don't think Auburn's emergency personnel would do those reprehensible things, but we never know for sure...

I'd really like to see this put to rest. I'd like to see more harmony in city government. I've talked with many city workers in the past couple weeks and it seems very few would consider themselves happy or even content with working for this city. That certainly has to change.

Why is there no mention of southern Auburn's ready made system of trails? The snowmobilers have made miles and miles or trails that connect to other trails leading all over the state. Perhaps those trails could be inventoried and studied. One trail leads to Bradbury Mt. State Park in Pownal. Wouldn't it be interesting to go from state park to state park?

It would be great to see a river trail all the way from downtown Auburn to Freeport as well. And there is some of that already made along the river by the snowmobile club.

And there are maps readily available with all the trails and connections in place. Why not publicize those trails and use them as a base for extending to the north areas?

I guess I don't understand why Councilors Farrell and Young are pleased with the city manager's performance.

The city manager has added yet another layer of government to our city with no discernible benefit. His 5P program has added three "super" managers in charge of multiple departments within the city. The manager stated that meeting with 14 department heads at one time was chaotic and unproductive. He further states that this new system is more productive as the meetings are more manageable.

The city manager was under no mandate to meet with all department heads at once. He could easily meet with a couple on Monday morning, a couple different ones on Tuesday and so forth. Or he could simply meet with them when there was an issue to discuss and not simply because tradition dictated a weekly meeting. There is no justification to meet if there are no issues to discuss. An open door policy and a professional attitude would encourage department heads to come to him if they had an issue.

Besides, with email and other electronic forms of communication these days problem solving should be far easier now more than ever before. So why do we need the 5P program?

But, if we must live with the 5P program, why did the city manager hire the three "super" managers that he did. One was a computer programmer prior to being named manager of the three person department. Almost immediately following this promotion she was then promoted to super manager over several departments. She has no prior experience in the other departments so why promote her? This is not to mention the tremendous increase in salary and stipend she received.

Further, another super manager has only been with the city less than a year before becoming a super manager. He was hired from the private sector which seems to impress Mr Aho but no one else. His private sector experience had nothing to do with his current job.

The third super manager is not a bad choice.Of we needed the 5P program he has the experience both as a manager and with the city to warrant the super manager title.

Mr Aho has further devastated our city employee morale. Talk to any city employee on the street and you are likely to hear complaints. Some complaining is normal, but the chorus of complaints I and others have heard is becoming deafening.

City budgets are continuing to climb while services are continuing to decrease. The city manager is quick to point out state revenue sharing is down or the economy is down or whatever, yet other cities have not increased their budgets as sharply as Auburn. Other cities have not added another layer of government and made taxpayers pay for it.

So that is just a snippet of the reasons people are unhappy with the city manager and the city of Auburn. If a couple councilors can't see that, then...

The final item on the council meeting last night was the city managers evaluation. I hope the council displayed their dismay and disapproval of Mr Aho's actions as of late.

If Mr Aho worked for a private company and treated his employer the way Mr Aho has treated this council he would be unemployed today. He has become arrogant and dismissive to the council and to city workers. This city has had it's fill of Mr Aho and the council would do well to ask for his resignation.

Proving your bias and ignorance again Ron. The analogy you use is so far off base it is ridiculous. The city manager is an employee of the city. The position is not equal to the city council. Therefore, it is not one branch controlling another branch.

Do you use this forum simply to fight just for sport or are you interested in offering any solutions to actual or perceived problems?

One of us misunderstood and it may be me. I understand that the city manager emails the weekly review to councilors and the Twin City Times on Sunday evening. Therefore, it is already at the publishers when the councilors read it - making any comments they would like to add irrelevant.

Look at this week's review and you will see the hedging that the councilors are talking about. The manager states "we expect to have enough money for spring clean up" (I'm paraphrasing) And his final sentence states that things could change and if there is a storm or some unforeseen event, we may not have enough for spring cleanup. So again, it is not a definite. He also states there may be a $10.00 charge depending if the city council wants it or not. So, again, more confusion. What is wrong with waiting until you have the information complete before publishing it?

Whether or not Councilors Gerry and Herrick are in cahoots, that would probably depend on where you stand politically. Do you support things they believe in (they are in sync) or do you oppose their common held belief (they are in cahoots). Some issues I agree with each of them, some I oppose them. I am at the meetings and I make my view known. Sometimes I think a particular councilor is a genius and other times I think the same councilor is an idiot. It all depends where their opinion and mine meet (or don't).

I think the sentence that I quoted earlier kind of set the tone for the editorial and I still feel it is not based in facts. Not one person is quoted as saying too much information is being presented to the public. The only thing that was said is that the information may not be completely accurate or clear.

The editorial board needs to get their collective head out of their posterior. Your blatant disregard for facts is quickly eroding any credibility you might enjoy.

The weekly review is being questioned not for the reason you state. The councilors in question don't like that the manager releases information without informing the council first. For example, the current weekly review states that we have enough money for spring cleanup. The council was concerned with Mr Aho stating this as we are still in budget talks and last year the on again off again statements regarding spring cleanup from the city really served to frustrate taxpayers. The council is trying to alleviate this type of frustration by asking the city manager to consult the council before publishing it.

The editorial board is truly hurting its credibility when it publishes statements so easily disproven. A quick look at the DVD of the last council meeting should set minds to ease that the council is not looking to keep secrets from the public by questioning the publishing of the weekly review.

Another ploy to sell more papers?

I would say that telling me to "grow up" is indeed bashing. So, you are not as civil as you profess, are you? Never did I defend the feud nor am I "getting lost in it". I pointed it out to give some historical perspective. Also, I think I pointed out that we are not talking about teaching here or education. We are talking about whether the school department conducted themselves properly in a budget meeting.

They were unprepared, did not provide information that is standard for these meetings, and presented an advertisement of sorts. Budget meetings are not the place for these actions. The presentation was informative (I did sit through it entirely), but not relevant to the task at hand.

If you look at my earlier post you will see that I did not question the need for excellent teaching in Auburn. I support excellent teaching in Auburn. I questioned the need for such an abundance of administration in the school system and the cost of that administration. I also questioned their priorities when they spend more than half a million dollars on 12 parking spaces at one school. Not once have I asked teachers to give up wages or benefits. So, don't read what you think I said, read what I did say.

And please, try to keep it civil.

I guess I don't understand why not joining a union entitles you to minimum wage? By that reasoning, all employees not in a union should be at minimum wage. Don't you think a person who isn't in the union has the right and ability to negotiate on their own?

I can't speak statewide, but I can speak to our situation here in Auburn.

The education budget for Auburn is equal to the rest of the municipal budget. We have 10 or so departments providing services for roughly the same money that we teach our children. That is expensive. Why does it take more than $30,000,000 a year to educate 3600 students? Why when enrollment is trending downward are cost spiraling upward?

I understand there are costs the school administration can't control. The cost of heating fuel, the cost of foodstuffs, etc. but there are lots of costs that can be controlled and, apparently, simply aren't.

For example, do we need so many administrators/principals/vice principals in our schools? Then to add a police presence seems excessive. Do we need to pay these folks so much money for a partial year of work? Superintendent of schools makes more than $105,000 a year. The business manager (what is his function?) makes more than $90,000. Many of the principals make more than $85,000. Why do we need this many administrators earning top dollar? Why should someone make more than $85,000 a year to oversee 200 or so kids 6 hours a day? And they have teachers to help them out.

Mr Morrill (city school superintendent) has said costs must go up 5% this year. He stated most of that was salaries and benefits. The average person in Auburn did not get a 5% raise this year or any year for that matter. How is that equitable? In the same article Mr Morrill stated we need to teach individually because that is the way people learn. I would imagine that is the way we all learn but we weren't taught that way. If a person was interested in a subject, they usually got the individual education on their own and didn't require a full school system to cater to them to teach them it individually. It would be great if it did, but the public simply can't afford that.

Yes, education is very important. I hope everyone gets a first rate education. I don't mind paying my fair share to provide that education. But there is a limit and the taxpayers have reached it. We can cut lots of areas, but education should not be taboo...

Mr Mayor why do we constantly look to the federal government to solve our problems? Why do we consistently look to throw more dollars at any "problem"?

If we work harder locally to keep taxes down, that would work to keep rental property rates down. If we look to streamline the local building codes and red-tape and fees involved in getting this housing ready to rent, that too would lower the cost of rentals. If we looked at our own zoning laws and found ways to put more housing in less area and kept our city centers filled prior to allowing sprawl (smart growth) we again would aid in the fight against higher rental rates.

The local demands, combined with the onerous state and federal mandates on housing have made the prospect of multi-unit ownership burdensome at best. I am NOT advocating for lax housing laws that will allow the growth of "slumlords", just a more balanced, streamlined approach.

We MUST do what we can at the local level while simultaneously working to change state and federal regulations that threaten our local communities.

I believe that you have made a convincing argument. This was one area Deputy CHief Moen highlighted in his "negatives" section last evening. At the time I thought this was somewhat of a smokescreen as everyone in the two departments are adults and should be able to act appropriately. I wasn't convinced this would prove to be such a hardship but you have stated the situation clearly and put it in more definite terms than were verbalized last evening. Thank you.

One thing the reporter didn't highlight was the fact that Grants Pass has a population one third more than Auburns and yet has fewer than half the number of firefighters we have. That tells me there is a problem either in Grants Pass or in Auburn.

I want to preface this by saying I have nothing but praise for the actual work our public sector employees perform for us. However, I think the services are too expensive for us to continue to purchase. Traditionally public sector employees enjoyed somewhat lavish pension plans in return for somewhat lower wages and almost guaranteed employment. Now, public sector employees make as much or more than private sector employees, continue to have lavish pension plans and almost guaranteed employment. It is very difficult to get any concessions from the unions - even in tough economic times like we've all experienced lately. The public is beginning to count their collective pennies and starting to realize the true cost of public sector labor.

According to maineopengov.org, we in Auburn have many teachers earning far more than the average resident earns. The top 20 school department earners each individually earn more than twice the average household income in Auburn. It was stated in the Sun Journal a few months back that the principals in Auburn were getting a raise to $85,000 a year and were upset that they had to now pay into their spouses' health care costs, unlike previously.

The government of Auburn has lost roughly 15-20 employees over the past couple years, but a far higher percentage of private sector employees have lost their jobs. The city has been to arbitration several times over the past few years, especially with the firefighters union and it costs the city tens of thousands of dollars. The union contracts are written so public sector employers have virtually no rights and no way to challenge employee conduct or job performance. The teachers union is notorious for blocking any sort of merit based pay and continue to hold to seniority as a basis for pay increases. This same union has made it virtually impossible to fire any teacher unless they do something illegal and not due to simple incompetent. If they were private sector employees, companies would never agree to those terms.

I can't completely blame the unions, they are looking out for themselves and their members, but they should take a step back and look at this objectively. They are making themselves unaffordable. Look at SD Warren as an example. The unionized employees there used to brag about triple overtime on Sundays and superior benefits. Now most of those same people are unemployed and SD Warren is just a memory - sold to Sappi.

With our cities, I read our greatest expense is for labor. Taxes used to pay those wages are eating up more of our paychecks. Look around, there are plenty of empty storefronts and houses for sale. These empty stores can't pay taxes.

Amtrak has such a limited schedule and a limited service area that it doesn't truly qualify to be called a "system". A proper system would have feeder trains from outlying areas bringing people to the main station that would then move them to a larger hub. Other nations have it down and we need to emulate them. Granted, a ton of money would be involved for this to happen, but it could and, I think, should. We used to have a trolley system in place that most say was marvelous until we fell in love with autos and auto travel. This has led to us building cities all spread out and now we need cars to go to grocery stores and Home Depot. If we built cities up instead of out, we could have a useful mass transit system.

If you eat anything natural, you eat meat. There are many animals living in the soils and on the plants that vegans eat. Some organics involve the use of "friendly" bugs and crawly things. Many animals are killed in the production of anything produced naturally. There is simply no way around it.

The regulations regarding animal slaughter do not allow us to take dead animals in for butchering. The animal has to be alive and healthy or we cannot put it into the human food chain. It is far better for everyone that way.

The fact that you will "allow" it other places than Auburn shows you are not concerned with the actual slaughter, you just don't want to be "near" it. The slaughter and the processing take place in a building where you will not see, smell, hear, touch, or taste anything.

If you ask nicely I'm sure the persons doing the processing will bring you a pork chop or t-bone on a nice Styrofoam platter wrapped in plastic, exactly like you find at any supermarket in America. That way you will know it is "natural"

You can't even cite one example? Just one...

The vote last night had nothing to do with Mr Linke or the Trapp Rd property. THis was a general vote on whether to allow slaughter facilities as stand alone businesses in the Ag/RP zone. Slaughter facilities are now allowed as an add on business to a farm, so this is only a minor change in reality.

I do feel these facilities are needed and would welcome them to the area. This will do nothing to sully the reputation of Auburn or the LA area. Try to name one other town with a slaughter facility. If you aren't in the business, I'm pretty sure you don't know where they are located and therefore don't think ill of those communities. There is nothing evil or sinister about slaughter houses in Maine. It is true that we don't want a huge factory slaughter facilty in the area. But that won't happen, we don't have the large factory farms that are needed to supply such a facility.

This is also not the first exception to the Ag/RP zoning. There is a waste treatment plant in the Ag zone with lots of heavy truck traffic, far more than would be there with a typical slaughter facility. Also, there have been exceptions for golf courses, large commercial greenhouses and other facilities - ask Mr Pheeny (sorry about the spelling), who commented on this very issue at the last planning board meeting.

I am grateful that the silent majority in Auburn have got their wish and added another potential business. This is certainly good news.

I believe the Chief of Police estimated the entire cost would be $40,000.00 though I'm not positive. I know he stated that Auburn Hall would only require about $12,000 in renovations so I believe the remaining $28,000 will be used in the move. Though we are still unclear about the fuel depot situation.

I think that is how it worked last night at the meeting, but I'm not 100% positive so don't quote me please.

I still don't understand why all the sensationalism regarding this proposal.

As I stated before, the Ag/Rp zone is pegged at 40% according to city staff. If you eliminate the Lake Auburn watershed, the Taylor Pond watershed, the Shoreland Water Protection area, golf courses, and parks, where the planning board is recommending slaugher facilities not be allowed, then we are down to about 20 - 25% of Auburn's land mass.

Slaughterhouses are a natural fit in an agricultural zone. As Mr Miller pointed out at the Oct 4, 2010 city council meeting, the Ag zone is really an industrial zone and is not intended to be a residential zone. The planning board has allowed strip zoning along many roads in the ag zone to become rural residential, putting the viability of the ag land further off the road in question. These strip zones should be dismantled and put back into ag zone for use in ag operations. Auburn has a history of strong farms and that is now sorely lacking due to the encroachment of rural residential and Low Density Country Residential zoning decisions. The Ag zone is not there for you to buy land, get the zoning changed, and then sell at a huge mark up. The zone is for raising animals and crops. The planning board is even proposing to ban drive through restaurant on Minot Ave, though drive through banks would be okay. The zoning laws in Auburn are in need of serious review and overhaul.

A call to our own city staff shows that property did not devalue when the chicken processing plant was opened on Trapp Rd a decade or so ago. Further research indicates that property has not devalued near other slaughterhouses in Maine.

The odors/nuisance issues are largely fictitious. Odors are common in the Ag zone as many of us have livestock. The letter write has animals are her address. Being animal owners, we have manure onsite. The slaughterhouse is not allowed by state and federal laws to stockpile manure or offal (the waste from slaughter activities). Offal must be sealed in containers and trucked offsite every day.

Road maintenance is an ongoing problem in Auburn. It is not slaughterhouses that made the roads in this city deteriorate. It is simply lack of attention and lack of money. We need to focus the money in city hall to areas that would benefit the public the most, including fixing our roads.

Research of other slaughter facilities in Maine shows that most use well water and private sewer. This is also regulated by state and federal laws and requires regular monitering and testing.

I called the author of the study that Ms Melaragno cites regarding the 37% of capacity figure. I forwarded a letter from the author stating the study was not to be used for local decision making and it pointed to the need for further study. Online sources will also indicate that there are hundreds of grocery stores within a couple hours of Auburn, but I bet Ms Melaragno would have no objection to another one coming to Auburn.

The point being that an individual might not want to use the facility, so don't. But some of us need these facilities. Everyone who eats meat needs slaughter faciities. Here in Maine we have only small facilities that process small numbers of animals and do it humanely, cleanly, and professionally. I don't want to truck my animals hours away to people I don't know and entrust them with my animals. I want local services provided by people I can talk with and get to know. If any slaughter facility that comes to Auburn is not staffed by caring professional people, it will fail.

The city manager and most everyone else says Auburn needs business. Here we have a viable business that wants to come to town. The answers to residents concerns are all readily available through state and federal agencies. This is not a conceptual business. They are actually in operation in other cities and towns in Maine. Go to those facilities and look around, there is nothing sinister about them. They are owned and operated by hardworking people doing an honest days work.