![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/images/sp_en_8.gif)
Recently, there was a legal question that came up because the Town Council was unfamiliar with our Town Charter. Several citizens have read Section 6.05 (a) Amendment After Adoption and they all agree. Below is the excerpt from our Town Charter.
It appears clear that ALL revenues received by the town from any source needs to be brought before the council for acceptance. This will ensure all monies are accounted for and are properly disbursed in accordance with the Town Charters and all laws whether it is Federal or State. This was the point of contention; Does the forfeiture fund received by the Police Department have to follow our Town Charter?
On October 1, 2013, Chief Brooks gave a very good presentation as to the United States Department of Justice: Criminal Assets, Forfeiture and Money Laundering section and what these forfeiture funds could be used for. These forfeiture funds can ONLY be used by the Police Department for law enforcement purposes. Below is an excerpt from Chief Brooks’ presentation clearly outlining what forfeiture funds can be used for???
However, the Town Attorney, Roger Therriault, has presented a letter to the Town Council (See Below) which contradicts our Town Charter. In Attorney Therriault's, memorandum, he has stated the State Law MRSA Section 5824(3) requires approval by the legislative body of a municipality but he is not aware of any Federal requirements for the same. This is a Town Attorney which does not even acknowledge our town's Charter and its requirements. This is our town and we have a Charter the Town Council needs to follow.
So ask yourselves this question “Is our town attorney looking out for our best interest?”
Can anyone explain why our Charter was not referenced by OUR TOWN ATTORNEY?
According to our Charter, funds received after an approved budget must be approved by the Town Council and forfeiture funds are to spend for law enforcement purposes ONLY. However, these funds still come under the jurisdiction of the Town Charter and the Town Council. This is to ensure the integrity of the Council and the Town. Chief Brooks must spend these funds in accordance with our Purchasing Policy and must have the approval of the Town Council. This is in accordance with our Charter. No one has the authority to ignore our Charter and do whatever he wants.
.jpg)
Larry Fillmore
6 comments:
Mr Fillmore,
While I am not privy to Councilor Lunt’s email to Mr Therriault, exactly what in this memorandum would be Collusion? And for the sake of argument, that would mean you are alluding to and I quote, “an agreement between two or more parties, sometimes illegal and therefore secretive, to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically by defrauding or gaining an unfair advantage.”
I fail to see how this memorandum would indicate any sort of collusion or stupidity. It simply states there is no state requirement for the council to formally accept the funds. Additionally, since the funds in question cannot be used to replace any budgeted expenditures, they would not be available for supplemental appropriation by the council. As such, I do not believe they would fall under the section you reference nor any other area of the charter that I could find.
Gregg Garrison
Doesn't the charter supersede any federal or state law. I realize that the charter is often ignored for political purposes, but isn't it time to have the present council enforce the charter or change it by a vote. Also, in an effort to restore accountability to the taxpayers, shouldn't these funds be approved at an open council meeting and intended use for these funds be stated. That way no one will wonder what is going on behind closed doors and in secret. Let's use the money for the next budget and give the taxpayers a break for a change.
Gregg – Thank you for your comment. As far as the collusion goes, if you cannot figure it out, I cannot help you. The memo states nothing to the question of is the Town Council responsible for forfeiture funds after they are received by the town. The Charter is very specific about funds received after the approval of the budget. It even goes so far as to stipulate Federal revenue. Once the town receives these funds, the Town Council is responsible to ensure that these funds are used in accordance with the Federal requirements. The Town Council is required by Charter to ensure all expenditures are in compliance with the Town Charter, State and Federal laws. Without the oversight of the Council, there is no accountability. Everyone knows that the State and Federal agencies only audit a minimum number of these forfeiture funds so it is the responsibility of the Town Council to protect these funds. The fact that these funds cannot be utilized to replace budgeted expenditures only adds an additional requirement under Federal law but does not excuse the Police Department from following our Charter.
Mary-Ann makes a good point, the Charter supersedes state or federal laws if it is more stringent than those laws. It can add to but not take away from those laws.
The Article, memorandum and the Charter section presented are all in regard to acceptance of funds. I can find no requirement in the charter for the town council to formally accept these funds.
Expenditure of funds is not the topic of the article or the memorandum. I will not argue the responsibility for expenditure of funds, regardless of the source, but the funds received are NOT available for appropriation and as such would not subject to this section of the charter.
The Town Attorney's memorandum was in response to the question presented by Councilor Lunt. There is no requirement for the funds in question to be formally approved for acceptance by the council. These funds cannot be appropriated for use by the Council and do not fall under section 6.05 of the charter. That is it, nothing more. With out assuming councilor Lunt asked for more information, presuming the Town Attorney provided incorrect information or there is some type of collusion going on is, in my opinion, irresponsible.
Regardless, I will take this opportunity to wish all your readers a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year ...
Councilor Garrison,
You seem very quick to defend the aspect of “Collusion” and go so far as to say it is “irresponsible” but make no mention of it being Stupid as Mr. Fillmore presents. So are we the taxpayers suppose to “ass-u-me” the aforementioned action is Stupid and valid as a contentious point of discussion? Inquiring minds would like to know. Signed, Peter
Well Peter, I was not defending anything, I was questioning the validity of the statement of it being either based upon the subject of the memorandum and the quoted passage from the charter.
Post a Comment