Comments/Questions on Livermore practices‏

Dwight E. Hines, Ph.D.

IndyMedia

42 Israelson Rd.

Livermore, Maine 04253

207-897-2032

dwight.hines@gmail.com

June 17, 2014

Ms. Renda Guild, Administrator & Town Clerk,

Town of Livermore

Dear Ms. Guild:

With respect to the Livermore Selectmen’s Meeting of June 16, 2014, please file these questions/comments with the Selectmen and the treasurer for public discussion at the July 1, 2014, Selectmen’s meeting.   

1)  From the comments made by the treasurer at the June 16th meeting, the heating oil companies are all refusing to bid in writing on providing heating oil to Livermore.  Is this acceptable to the Selectmen?

2)  From the comments made by the treasurer at the June 16th meeting, the SAVE organization sent a letter to the treasurer specifying the number of people they served, but included no independent or objective measures of the quality of services or measures from their clients on client satisfaction with services.   Is this acceptable to the Selectmen?

3)  From the comments made by the treasurer at the June 16th meeting, she met with a representative of MMA and decided to award them the contract for services they render, without any other discussions or bids with other providers.  Is this acceptable to the Selectmen?

4)  From the comments made by Ms. Guild on the $15,000.00 contract for property tax evaluations, there will be no competitive bidding on that contract because “They have been good to us.”   Is this acceptable to the Selectmen?

5)  During the June 16th meeting, Selectman Neuman, who has completely missed three Selectmen’s meetings and left one meeting early, stated that he would not attend the July 1, 2014, meeting.  Selectman Neuman would be missing the equivalent of two months of Selectmen’s meetings.  After some discussion, that included not paying Selectmen for missed meetings, Selectman Newman stated that I could circulate a petition to that effect and bring it before the Annual Town meeting next year.

Selectman Neuman, as usual, was partially correct.  In the Town of Peru, a petition was circulated and approved by town vote for an ordinance to remove an elected official for cause.  The town then passed a petition that recalled three selectmen at a special town meeting, thus avoiding the long wait to the next annual town meeting.   Looking back on the Peru process, I think there are better alternatives to consider for Livermore via Maine and Federal Courts:

1) Selectman Neuman swore a required oath of office before taking office and there is a special writ for the removal of officials who violate their oath of office (Maine Superior Court)

2) I believe Selectman Neuman is committing simple fraud by his multiple absences. (Small Claims Court);

3)  I believe Selectman Neuman has committed multiple violations of Maine’s Anti-SLAPP Law, which violations, taken individually appear simple but, taken collectively show a pattern and practice that are substantial violations that cumulatively violate Maine’s common laws on free speech and federal constitutional and statutory laws on free speech, including, but not limited to, 42 U.S.C § 1983.  (Maine State Superior Court; Federal Court).

4) On July 1, 2014, new Maine laws go into effect and it may be possible to include these controversies in a planned federal complaint, in the interest of judicial economy.  I will discuss this with attorneys.

Taking a court approach, compared to petitions, will allow for affidavits, interrogatories, and depositions that can explore related violations of common, civil and commercial rights.

Ms. Guild, please include a copy of the MMA paper explaining Executive Sessions that I sent you last week and a copy of the spreadsheet showing differences in cost of heating oil for Neuman Oil & SAD #73, if we had cooperated with them.

I will provide a copy of a template spreadsheet for showing cost differences in non-bid contracts vs bid contracts (15% vs 35%).

Dwight Hines

Copy:

Lisbon Reporter

Forbes