CSD directors Mark Simon, Ray Tetreault and David Piepho interviewed seven candidates for the two empty director’s seats at Wednesday’s CSD meeting. The directors were unable to agree upon the appointments and will revisit the process again during a special meeting on Nov. 11.
Photo by Richard Wisdom
Photo by Richard Wisdom
Applicant Kevin Graves
Photo by Richard Wisdom
Photo by Richard Wisdom
Applicant Brian Dawson
Photo by Richard Wisdom
Photo by Richard Wisdom
Applicant Michael McCleery
Photo by Richard Wisdom
Photo by Richard Wisdom
Wednesday’s regular meeting of the CSD, whose top agenda item was the interview and appointment of two new board members, was anything but regular, beginning with a warning from the town’s police chief Lt. Mike Burton, and ending with an apology by CSD President Ray Tetreault for the board’s inability to reach a consensus.
“There have been some concerns about public safety at this meeting and it’s a concern to me that in a town with duck crossing signs and a country club we could not have a respectful meeting,” said Burton, referring to calls he had received from the general public. “As your chief of police I would be absolutely embarrassed for all of us if someone were to act out (at the meeting). I know it means a lot to you and I respect that, but I ask you to be respectful of each other.”
Nine residents originally pulled applications for the two seats left vacant by the resignations last month of Treasurer Dave Dove and Director Shannon Murphy-Teixeira, but only seven remained in the running by Wednesday night. Roger DiFate withdrew his application at the last minute, and Rose Solberg was a no-show.
The final applicants, Dominic Carano, Brian Dawson, Kevin Graves, Don Flint, Bud Kyle, Mike McCleery and Walter MacVittie, took turns at the podium, each offering a brief presentation to the board followed by questions from the directors.
Following the interviews, Tetreualt invited members of the audience to speak, but there were no takers. The first round of nominations followed, beginning with a motion from Director Simon for the appointment of Graves, followed by Tetreault nominating McCleery and Piepho nominating Dawson.
CSD law requires three votes to pass a motion, and because the usual five-member board is now only three, decisions must be unanimous for anything to pass.
Once the nominations were concluded, Piepho announced he would not agree to vote for candidates individually, but only in pairs, thereby eliminating the possibility that a lone appointee would be seated and empowered to cast a vote for or against the final appointee.
“I’m unwilling to do that,” said Piepho. “If we deadlock, then the one (vote getter) is the vote breaker … I wouldn’t put anyone in that position.”
The move surprised virtually everyone in the room, including town attorney John Stovall. Stovall explained that the usual procedure was to vote on candidates individually until two are selected. Piepho said he would not agree to that procedure, however, and after being assured by Stovall that voting on pairs of nominees was within CSD law, the process continued.
Tetreault proposed McCleery and Graves together, which was seconded by Simon, but vetoed by Piepho. Piepho then nominated Dawson and McCleery, but Simon and Teatreault voted no. Piepho then nominated Graves and Dawson, which Tetreault accepted but Simon rejected.
Piepho blamed the late delivery to the meeting of applicants’ resumés (they were not distributed until a few hours before the meeting) as a factor in the board’s inability to agree, but added that the board’s intention was to reach a consensus.
“I hope by calling a special meeting it shows we are not eager to hand this over to the Board of Supervisors,” said Piepho. “We may, but we’ll see.”
Tetreault said he was hopeful the board would eventually agree.
“I’m sorry we didn’t get the job done; it’s all about consensus and we’ll do whatever it takes to get it done.”
If the board is unable to fill the two seats at next week’s special meeting and does not call for a special election, the decision will go before the Board of Supervisors, which will have 30 days to appoint or call for a special election. In the event that the supervisors take no action, the town will be required to hold a special election.
The special meeting will be held on Wednesday Nov. 11 at 7 p.m. in the town offices, 1800 Willow Lake Road.
Click here for a follow-up to this story.
I also think (based on all of the comments below) that it would be helpful to the community if going forward the Press waits to receive the audio tape before reporting out on CSD meetings OR the Press should bring its own deck and make its own recording of the meeting if you want to report-out on the meeting sooner to the community. It doesn't server any of us (including the Press) if the information reported is inaccurate. This situation is not the first or second time that this has occurred. I attend most meetings and often discover that there are details left out and/or erroneously reported. I would appreciate a reply to this comment here in the blog so that we all have a sense of the process going forward. Inaccurate reporting hurts individuals in our community as well as hurts the process. Knowing that the Press will take the necessary steps to ensure this situation doesn't happen in the future will help to restore the credibility of your publication. While I know you probably don't like to hear that the Press' credibility has been questioned, based on everyone's comments I think you probably realize that what I'm saying is true.
There will also be a story in the print edition that goes to press Wednesday, and an update on the Web after Wednesday's meeting.
Wow,
What a bunch of whining cry babies and hypocrites. Let the CSD/MAC do their job and if you do not like who they appoint vote em out or recall em.
Quite frankly, if they appoint one of the people most of you are complaining about then that person will be a lame duck and the lawsuits would probably stop too.
Keep your friends close and your enemies closer
Virtually everyone in the room was surprised? I know I wasn’t. This direction of voting for two, was brought up at the prior CSD meeting. Then again you weren’t there. I was.
As a journalist isn’t your career goal to be somewhat interested in getting a story correct? Or is it more important to get it up quickly?
Hopefully the board can come to a conclusion and make sure this doesn't go to the BoS. It seems like a done deal!
You constantly make these mistakes and for some reason all your mistakes seem to benefit Don Flint and his friends. Coincidence?
We are working on an updated story. It will post as soon as it is done. It will reflect the fact that there were two votes taken last Wednesday. Some of the confusion in the earlier story comes the fact that President Tetreault believed there were three. He remembered voting for a slate with Brian Dawson after having voted once against a slate including him.
Once the story posted, we re-checked with him, and he was less certain. We checked with other sources and did not find a consensus, hence the earlier note in this thread from me.
Rick Lemyre
I suppose that besides getting the facts of almost every story slightly skewed, and quoting the biggest ringleaders of the community not as such but as credible sources, this is the final indication that the Press is nothing but an ad revenue-generating tabloid.
What garbage. Mr. Flint's action are deplorable.
You have no excuse to have this story wrong at this point, except this is what is needed for the press and Mr. Flint to push their agenda's. It is pretty clear the press will go to no extent to protect Don Flint and allow any attack on anyone else to stay put. Disgusting.
Oh. Ad sales.
I'm also glad someone here is sharing this information about Mr. Flint and his group. I have seen his website and I am tired of the "always Piepho's fault" crap.
Don Flint is a man who threatens litigation against the CSD and then applies for appointment to same.
Don Flint is a man who, during public comments at the meeting for appointments, moments before his interview, was brusque and confrontational with his interviewers.
Don Flint has a google website where all of the town's secret (read: public information) documents are held.
Don Flint is in Bill Richardson's pocket. Don't know who Bill Richardson is? See the links provided by the Press for related stories on this one, specifically "lawsuit against town moves forward".
Have your verified the misinformation you are putting in this artice?
I would suggest that the press corrects these errors and removes the two paragraphs before going to print. Putting assumptions in writing only perpetuates bad information. Unless that is your goal all along.
Also, did the press get the tapes? Are you ready to stop buying Don Flint's lies?
This guy bullies around the CSD, "I will keep coming until you do what I want". Let's talk about his behavior at the meeting? Let's talk about his threat of litigation?
Why is that not valid to you people?
What next, folks? He smokes cigarettes? He got a parking ticket in 1996? He got a D on a math test in the 8th grade? This is really petty nonsense, and frankly I'm glad we have elected people to handle the process.
I think we need to think about what a serious disqualifier is. Threats of litigation against the CSD would be a big one.