It was a small group that met last night at the Holbrook Middle School at 6pm. Chairman Mario Teisl (rep from Holden) and Therese Anderson (rep from Eddington) were in attendance. Sylvia Ellis (rep from Holden) was absent and no one seemed to know why. Board Chairman, Don Varnum, Interim Superintendent, Ray Hart, and Business Manager, Yvonne Mitchell, were also present. This writer was the only member from the public in attendance.
A Financial Statement was passed out among those at the table. This writer did not receive one. I believe I heard comments to the effect that the September Financial Statement would be in Board members packet for the October Board meeting.
There was no indication that the format of the Financial Statement has been changed in any of the ways requested at the Public Hearing last May which would show comparison spending in line items for the current fiscal year to the previous year.
The group scheduled Board meetings through the last meeting in June (the 28th) which they all seemed to believe it would be the LAST SAD 63 School Board meeting, the inference (perhaps) being perhaps because of consolidation.
Mr. Hart pointed out it would be HIS last, presumably because it will be the conclusion of his contract.
Several minutes were spent when committee members worked to rearrange their committee meeting dates for the rest of the year, working up through April 2010 when they expect financial business to become a bit crunched because of (1) end of the fiscal year and (2) the possible consolidation with other districts. That generated various topics of conversation which this writer found of particular interest regarding the issue of consolidation.
Therese Anderson did most of the "information sharing" although Mr. Hart shared quite a bit of opinion sharing. The following is what I overheard from my position in the "audience."
(NOTE: I am paraphrasing here. I did not tape record this meeting.)
Anderson indicated there has been some response to Varnum's letters of inquiry (regarding whether the following towns wanted to start meetings to develop an RSU plan). Anderson stated she found it surprising that Orrington and Dedham don't want to meet until after the November vote. Anderson thought that having a potential RSU plan ready, or in the process of development would be better if started before November considering all that would be needed. [There was no mention of Otis, even though that town has indicated it would like to be a part of any RSU development with SAD 63.]
Hart stated he thought all that would be needed for any new RSU plan would be to take the "old" RSU plan and cross out all references to Brewer. (!)
Hart also pointed out that the Commissioner of Education is trying to get the Legislature to approve a revision of what would qualify as an approved RSU with student populations as low as 1,000 students, instead of the original requirement of 2,500. Since SAD 63 now appears to have close to 900 students, perhaps SAD 63 could qualify if it just consolidated with Dedham.....
(NOTE: But of course, until the Legislature makes up its mind on what constitutes an "approved RSU", who knows which way to jump?)
Anderson pointed out that one of the sticking points of the "old" plan was the local advisory boards. Some of the small towns like Clifton and some contingents in Eddington wanted the local advisory board, even if only to have a relationship with their rep on the RSU Board. Also there was the idea (in the old plan) that the local advisory board could raise additional money for their local school if there was an interest and the RSU budget hadn't funded as much as the local advisory board felt was needed.
Hart said that the local advisory boards had no authority and they were going to be eliminated...that where he lived the people who had wanted that idea had been told "no."
There was discussion as to what would happen state-wide if consolidation was voted down and those new RSUs decided to "divorce". It was also felt that if consolidation between SAD 63, Orrington and Dedham was agreed upon, each district would need to have a developed budget for 2010/2011 and then the three districts' business manager or bookkeeper would need to get together and form a co-ordinated budget. (!)
(NOTE: This writer wonders how any of the voters are expected to vote on such a plan - any plan? It appears Mr. Hart expects/assumes the voters of Eddington, Clifton and Holden will just go along with whatever the School Board puts in front of us - including the unknown costs of such a plan before any of the details or costs are known - under the threat of the State's penalty. We didn't do that the last time. Why would we a second time, especially when the last time people were generous with their suspicions of Orrington? And what about the details re: proportionate representation on the RSU Board, teacher contracts (and none have been initiated with the teachers in SAD 63), costs of school maintenance, and all the other issues that were raised the last time and haven't even been opened as of yet? And then there are presentations to the voters and the voting....)
(NOTE: #1.It is this writer's understanding that IF the November vote goes in the direction that consolidation stands, those districts that will need to consolidate will only have until January 2010 to file their voter approved plans with the Commissioner of Education for state approval. AND, the new RSUs will need to be prepared to go into effect July 1, 2010.
#2. No mention was made of the small community of Otis which has asked to be included in any RSU with SAD 63. Did they answer the letter of inquiry? What do they want to do? They voted not to consolidate with Ellsworth, so they do appear to still be looking for a district.)
At that point, Committee Chair, Mario Teisl, passed out a three-page document I had provided him (six copies).
The document is the result of a close review of the 2007-2008 SAD 63 Audit which was completed in early July 2009. It was produced as a result of the work of five individuals - four from Eddington and one from Clifton. We obtained the audit document in July and reviewed it carefully. After individual and collective review (two group meetings), there remained a list of questions we couldn't answer and also certain general suggestions.
It seemed appropriate that the Budget and Finance Committee review the document before passing it on to the full Board, in the hopes that answers could be provided by the end of November. Mario was very cordial when I gave him the document.
However.... Mr. Hart made several comments I think worthy of reporting.
Mr. Hart appeared to be offended that a group of citizens should take it upon themselves to review a District's Audit Report. He stated that the Board was an elected quasi-governmental body and did not need to answer to a citizens group. As an employee of the School Board, his tone was "interesting" to say the least.
(NOTE: I don't know about your feelings/thoughts, readers, but I think those people who are elected by the people are certainly required to answer to the people, especially to the people who elected them. Even more, I think the people who are employed by those elected by the people are answerable to the people who pay their salary. It's called "accountable government.")
This writer is a citizen and one of the people in the group of five who reviewed the Audit Report in question and participated in the development of the document delivered to Mr. Teisl. I had no problem pointing out to Mr. Hart that it is the citizens, voters, and taxpayers who provide the money who pay for the school district and they have every right to review and question how their money is being spent. And we have the right to ask the questions posed in the document and to expect answers. Additionally, some of the issues at the end of the document were raised at the Public Hearing on the School Budget last May and which voters stated they wanted to see as changes in the way the proposed school budget was presented.
At this point Mr. Hart was silent.
Mario pointed out that some of the questions appeared to related to the ongoing lawsuit and might involve privileged information which the Board might not be able to provide. I said, if that were the case, it was understandable they might not be able to answer the question as long as that is given as the reason.
Ms. Mitchell stated it might be sometime in November before she could provide the answers since she is scheduled for two weeks vacation in October.
At that point the meeting was adjourned - at approximately 6:40pm.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
SAD 63 COURT PROCEDING OCT. 5
There was a brief court appearance in the Penobscot County Superior Court in Bangor Monday between counsel representing the two opposing parties. The Plaintiff was not in attendance although there were the standard two (2) attorneys representing her and the standard one (1) attorney representing SAD63. Mr. Varnum, Chairman of the SAD 63 School Board, and School Board member, Karen Clark, and this writer were also in attendance.
Of the two attorneys in attendance representing the Plaintiff, the second chair was not the same individual who was present at the previous U.S. District Court hearing, but, as in that previous hearing, this attorney was young and did not speak or appear to have any function other than to listen to the individual who has been the primary legal counsel for the Plaintiff from the beginning. (NOTE: One expects the Plaintiff will be charged billing time for both attorneys.)
The purpose of the court appearance seemed to be administrative. Earlier filings (motions) by the parties (Plaintiff and Defendants) set time frames for various legal procedures, such as depositions, discovery, etc. The one set time frame was April 2010 when all procedures needed to be completed by both parties and a Jury Trial date could be set.
NOTE: This writer was able to ascertain on Monday that U.S. District Court Judge Kravchuk did not order the Plaintiff to take the majority of her issues to the State Commissioner of Education but, rather, determined those issues were not civil rights issues and therefore they had to be heard either by the State court level (Penobscot County Superior Court) OR by the State Commissioner of Education. It appears the Plaintiff still wants to go the State Court route and to avoid the Commissioner of Education route. (One wonders why.) And the Commissioner apparently wants to avoid doing what school law says that office should be doing as well. (One wonders why.)
Two issues were discussed between the judge and the legal counsel for the parties:
The first issue is that that neither party appears to need the remaining eight months allotted to gather additional statements (depositions) or documents (discovery) and therefore the question remains as to whether or not the April 2010 date for a potential Jury Trial is needed.
NOTE: This did not appear to mean that there would not be a Jury Trial - which could be a trial before the judge alone, instead of before a panel of people. On the other hand, the Plaintiff's attorney may feel it might make a better "show" to play out the case before a panel of citizens. The Plaintiff has added so many issues, and has tried to make the whole case sound so convoluted, it could be easy to confuse a group of people. That might work to the Plaintiff's benefit. Bottom Line, and let us be clear, - a Trial takes time and time costs more money, especially when the Plaintiff always needs to have a minimum of two attorneys at the table representing her.
Counsel for the Plaintiff pointed out they have filed a Motion for the two additional charges they have added to her case - Being a "Whistleblower" and then "Retaliation". In order to avoid having to rewrite all of the previously filed charges (heard in U.S. District Court), it was agreed by all parties and the judge, that the Plaintiff's attorney will simply list Charges 1-? and note "Reserved" to indicate their existence.
NOTE: This would seem to indicate that the Plaintiff's attorney plans to have every one of those charges heard before the Penobscot County Superior Court judge at the to-be-determined trial, in addition to these last two (new) charges.
The second issue related to an ADR. (This writer was not familiar with that acronym and had to ask another attorney in the elevator what it was. It obviously related to civil cases since it was also used in the case following the SAD 63 case in the same courtroom.) ADR stands for Alternative Dispute Resolution...meaning Negotiated Settlement.
The two parties' legal counsel were asking the judge to determine a date for ADR - whether it should be before the Jury Trial or after. (At least that's what this writer believes the discussion was about.) The judge appeared to indicate that he would get back to both sides regarding this decision.
This Writer's Thoughts... The first issue seemed pretty cut and dried. Neither side appeared to need more time to gather information. The fact that U.S. District Court Judge Krachuk didn't require the Plaintiff to go through the administrative process via the Commissioner of Education is disappointing - not to mention the avoidance of said Commissioner to do what this writer believes to be her job.
The clear indication that the Plaintiff's attorney plans to drag this matter out for as long as possible (meaning for as many billable hours - times two or more attorneys) for a matter that was pretty elementary at the beginning is the kind of stuff that causes people to lose respect for both the legal system in particular and for lawyers in general.
But what this writer finds disgusting is the thought of "negotiating" any kind of financial settlement with the Plaintiff, because the settlement will not be with the Plaintiff. Any "settlement" will have nothing to do with any merits of the Plaintiff's case. Anyone who knows or has followed the facts of the case knows there are no merits to the case, and there haven't been since the beginning. It has always been about money. It has always been about how one superintendent was going to lose her position if SAD 63 consolidated with Brewer and so she went beyond her authorized bounds to try to find other potential partners and was called on her actions. Then she tried to lie and intimidate staff and School Board members because of those actions as well.
And yet, when the School Board did what they are legally required to do and held a District employee accountable for her actions, that employee felt she could hold the Board and the District's taxpayers up for ransom. In the "real world" such employees are terminated. It's known as Just Cause. They may or may not be given any Severance Pay. If the Board even offered to pay a lump sum equal to the remainder of her contract (June 30, 2010) and benefits it would have been more than generous. Apparently she wanted more.
And here we are, more than two years later with a projected trial date six months from now - almost three years after the fact. Look at the legal costs that have incurred to both the Plaintiff and the Defendants since that initial meeting when a possible mediated settlement was offered. Think about how many more costs will be incurred over the next six months. And now there is talk of an ADR!? Any idea of how much $$$ the Plaintiff will be talking about this time???
I know all too well how people will argue that it is better to settle than to run the risk of court or jury ordered "damages" (translated = $$$). It is also the philosophy that "something" has to be awarded to pay for all the time and charges incurred by the losing party's legal counsel. But what if those charges were because of the actions of the legal counsel?
This is going to be the TAXPAYERS money! Yours and mine. And I, for one, am offended to think that I should have to pay one cent to the likes of the Plaintiff or the standards of her legal counsel. (NOTE: I have no problem with paying the fees of SAD 63's legal counsel. Having watched this gentleman - and isn't it amazing that one individual can do the job of representing the entire Board while it seems to require no less than two attorneys to represent the Plaintiff - I believe whatever SAD 63's attorney's bill will be, it will be justified...and less than the Plaintiff's attorney's bill!) But, any ADR will only result in paying the inflated legal costs the Plaintiff's attorney has generated.
This writer wonders what would happen if the SAD 63 taxpayers refused to pay the bill. We've been told we will have to vote to approve any loan needed to be taken out to pay the costs of this legal case. What if we voted "NO"? Could the court force us to change our vote? I wonder.
It just seems to me that to reward the Plaintiff anything in this matter is to set a precedent for other employees and leaves the Board and us vulnerable in future similar situations. Is this the way we raise our children? Is this the way we believe civil service should operate? A superintendent of schools is an employee, no more than a teacher or a public service worker or a professional or a child. We who have the authority (parent, supervisor, voter/taxpayer, employer) have the RESPONSIBILITY to not only set the standards of behavior and performance, we have the responsibility to hold those accountable to us to those standards. To provide any kind of reward for unacceptable performance should not be justified. Call it Tough Love, if you will. Maybe we should call it a Taxpayer Bill of Rights. I call it accountability.
Of the two attorneys in attendance representing the Plaintiff, the second chair was not the same individual who was present at the previous U.S. District Court hearing, but, as in that previous hearing, this attorney was young and did not speak or appear to have any function other than to listen to the individual who has been the primary legal counsel for the Plaintiff from the beginning. (NOTE: One expects the Plaintiff will be charged billing time for both attorneys.)
The purpose of the court appearance seemed to be administrative. Earlier filings (motions) by the parties (Plaintiff and Defendants) set time frames for various legal procedures, such as depositions, discovery, etc. The one set time frame was April 2010 when all procedures needed to be completed by both parties and a Jury Trial date could be set.
NOTE: This writer was able to ascertain on Monday that U.S. District Court Judge Kravchuk did not order the Plaintiff to take the majority of her issues to the State Commissioner of Education but, rather, determined those issues were not civil rights issues and therefore they had to be heard either by the State court level (Penobscot County Superior Court) OR by the State Commissioner of Education. It appears the Plaintiff still wants to go the State Court route and to avoid the Commissioner of Education route. (One wonders why.) And the Commissioner apparently wants to avoid doing what school law says that office should be doing as well. (One wonders why.)
Two issues were discussed between the judge and the legal counsel for the parties:
The first issue is that that neither party appears to need the remaining eight months allotted to gather additional statements (depositions) or documents (discovery) and therefore the question remains as to whether or not the April 2010 date for a potential Jury Trial is needed.
NOTE: This did not appear to mean that there would not be a Jury Trial - which could be a trial before the judge alone, instead of before a panel of people. On the other hand, the Plaintiff's attorney may feel it might make a better "show" to play out the case before a panel of citizens. The Plaintiff has added so many issues, and has tried to make the whole case sound so convoluted, it could be easy to confuse a group of people. That might work to the Plaintiff's benefit. Bottom Line, and let us be clear, - a Trial takes time and time costs more money, especially when the Plaintiff always needs to have a minimum of two attorneys at the table representing her.
Counsel for the Plaintiff pointed out they have filed a Motion for the two additional charges they have added to her case - Being a "Whistleblower" and then "Retaliation". In order to avoid having to rewrite all of the previously filed charges (heard in U.S. District Court), it was agreed by all parties and the judge, that the Plaintiff's attorney will simply list Charges 1-? and note "Reserved" to indicate their existence.
NOTE: This would seem to indicate that the Plaintiff's attorney plans to have every one of those charges heard before the Penobscot County Superior Court judge at the to-be-determined trial, in addition to these last two (new) charges.
The second issue related to an ADR. (This writer was not familiar with that acronym and had to ask another attorney in the elevator what it was. It obviously related to civil cases since it was also used in the case following the SAD 63 case in the same courtroom.) ADR stands for Alternative Dispute Resolution...meaning Negotiated Settlement.
The two parties' legal counsel were asking the judge to determine a date for ADR - whether it should be before the Jury Trial or after. (At least that's what this writer believes the discussion was about.) The judge appeared to indicate that he would get back to both sides regarding this decision.
This Writer's Thoughts... The first issue seemed pretty cut and dried. Neither side appeared to need more time to gather information. The fact that U.S. District Court Judge Krachuk didn't require the Plaintiff to go through the administrative process via the Commissioner of Education is disappointing - not to mention the avoidance of said Commissioner to do what this writer believes to be her job.
The clear indication that the Plaintiff's attorney plans to drag this matter out for as long as possible (meaning for as many billable hours - times two or more attorneys) for a matter that was pretty elementary at the beginning is the kind of stuff that causes people to lose respect for both the legal system in particular and for lawyers in general.
But what this writer finds disgusting is the thought of "negotiating" any kind of financial settlement with the Plaintiff, because the settlement will not be with the Plaintiff. Any "settlement" will have nothing to do with any merits of the Plaintiff's case. Anyone who knows or has followed the facts of the case knows there are no merits to the case, and there haven't been since the beginning. It has always been about money. It has always been about how one superintendent was going to lose her position if SAD 63 consolidated with Brewer and so she went beyond her authorized bounds to try to find other potential partners and was called on her actions. Then she tried to lie and intimidate staff and School Board members because of those actions as well.
And yet, when the School Board did what they are legally required to do and held a District employee accountable for her actions, that employee felt she could hold the Board and the District's taxpayers up for ransom. In the "real world" such employees are terminated. It's known as Just Cause. They may or may not be given any Severance Pay. If the Board even offered to pay a lump sum equal to the remainder of her contract (June 30, 2010) and benefits it would have been more than generous. Apparently she wanted more.
And here we are, more than two years later with a projected trial date six months from now - almost three years after the fact. Look at the legal costs that have incurred to both the Plaintiff and the Defendants since that initial meeting when a possible mediated settlement was offered. Think about how many more costs will be incurred over the next six months. And now there is talk of an ADR!? Any idea of how much $$$ the Plaintiff will be talking about this time???
I know all too well how people will argue that it is better to settle than to run the risk of court or jury ordered "damages" (translated = $$$). It is also the philosophy that "something" has to be awarded to pay for all the time and charges incurred by the losing party's legal counsel. But what if those charges were because of the actions of the legal counsel?
This is going to be the TAXPAYERS money! Yours and mine. And I, for one, am offended to think that I should have to pay one cent to the likes of the Plaintiff or the standards of her legal counsel. (NOTE: I have no problem with paying the fees of SAD 63's legal counsel. Having watched this gentleman - and isn't it amazing that one individual can do the job of representing the entire Board while it seems to require no less than two attorneys to represent the Plaintiff - I believe whatever SAD 63's attorney's bill will be, it will be justified...and less than the Plaintiff's attorney's bill!) But, any ADR will only result in paying the inflated legal costs the Plaintiff's attorney has generated.
This writer wonders what would happen if the SAD 63 taxpayers refused to pay the bill. We've been told we will have to vote to approve any loan needed to be taken out to pay the costs of this legal case. What if we voted "NO"? Could the court force us to change our vote? I wonder.
It just seems to me that to reward the Plaintiff anything in this matter is to set a precedent for other employees and leaves the Board and us vulnerable in future similar situations. Is this the way we raise our children? Is this the way we believe civil service should operate? A superintendent of schools is an employee, no more than a teacher or a public service worker or a professional or a child. We who have the authority (parent, supervisor, voter/taxpayer, employer) have the RESPONSIBILITY to not only set the standards of behavior and performance, we have the responsibility to hold those accountable to us to those standards. To provide any kind of reward for unacceptable performance should not be justified. Call it Tough Love, if you will. Maybe we should call it a Taxpayer Bill of Rights. I call it accountability.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
EDDINGTON SPECIAL TOWN MEETING - OCT. 6 - RESULTS
As usual, very few people showed up for the meeting. No comment.
All Selectmen and the Town Manager were present when the meeting was called to order promptly at 6PM. The monitor was nominated, seconded and voted for unanimously - the former Fire Chief. The current Fire Chief was approved to speak, if needed. (That vote was necessary because he is not an Eddington resident.)
There were a few questions. One being the same question I raised at the Public Hearing - how much is currently in the Fire Department Reserve Fund from which the $8,900. will be taken to match the Americorp grant (that was the final amount identified last night by the Fire Chief). The answer, provided by the Town Manager was: $81,300.
A second Fire Department fund was identified as well. I didn't write down the amount but it was over $5,000.
The second question requested the specified purpose of these two Fire Department Funds: The answer was: for any large Fire Department equipment purchases that might be needed without having to go to the town budget process. The Fire Chief stated that while he always had a "wish list", there were no large equipment needs at this time other than some hoses that might need to be replaced.
The third question, posed by this writer, was for purposes of clarification and that was to be sure that if the money was taken from the Reserve Fund, the townspeople would not see it added back in the town budget in fiscal year 2010-2011 for tax purposes. Chip Grover was the first to say it would not. Then Brian Glass confirmed that position. Then Chairwoman, Joan Brooks added her voice. Donn Goodwin and Charles Baker remained silent. on the issue.
There being no further discussion, the call for the vote was made and taken. Including the 5 Board members and the Town Manager, plus all 9 residents there to vote - the vote was unanimous to approve the money be taken from the Reserve Fund to match the Americorp grant.
All Selectmen and the Town Manager were present when the meeting was called to order promptly at 6PM. The monitor was nominated, seconded and voted for unanimously - the former Fire Chief. The current Fire Chief was approved to speak, if needed. (That vote was necessary because he is not an Eddington resident.)
There were a few questions. One being the same question I raised at the Public Hearing - how much is currently in the Fire Department Reserve Fund from which the $8,900. will be taken to match the Americorp grant (that was the final amount identified last night by the Fire Chief). The answer, provided by the Town Manager was: $81,300.
A second Fire Department fund was identified as well. I didn't write down the amount but it was over $5,000.
The second question requested the specified purpose of these two Fire Department Funds: The answer was: for any large Fire Department equipment purchases that might be needed without having to go to the town budget process. The Fire Chief stated that while he always had a "wish list", there were no large equipment needs at this time other than some hoses that might need to be replaced.
The third question, posed by this writer, was for purposes of clarification and that was to be sure that if the money was taken from the Reserve Fund, the townspeople would not see it added back in the town budget in fiscal year 2010-2011 for tax purposes. Chip Grover was the first to say it would not. Then Brian Glass confirmed that position. Then Chairwoman, Joan Brooks added her voice. Donn Goodwin and Charles Baker remained silent. on the issue.
There being no further discussion, the call for the vote was made and taken. Including the 5 Board members and the Town Manager, plus all 9 residents there to vote - the vote was unanimous to approve the money be taken from the Reserve Fund to match the Americorp grant.
Saturday, October 3, 2009
EDDINGTON SPECIAL TOWN MEETING - OCT 6 @ 6PM
I know you all have other plans, difficulty in getting home from work by 6pm, difficulty in getting home and feeding the family and getting out to the Town Office by 6pm (or being away from the children for a half-hour or so at that time - so bring the children. Show them Democracy in Action. Why Not?) - BUT
That's the time the Eddington Board of Selectmen have scheduled the Special Town Meeting - so make the effort. Because you need to VOTE. It's your civic responsibility and it is your right. Also, if you have children, you need to BE that role model that supports all you talk about when you talk about doing ones' duties (whether it be around the house - you do say to your children, don't you? - or when we look at stories on the TV about our military - or when you complain about our State government or Federal government).
What are we being called upon to VOTE about? Just two quick questions.
The first is to verify the Moderator for the Meeting. (That won't take much time, will it?)
The Second is Whether or Not to take approximately $8,500.00 from the Eddington Fire Reserve Account to use as Matching Funds for the Americorp Grant which will fund an 11 month Firefighter position at the Eddington Fire Department.
I attended the Public Hearing on this matter last Tuesday. (It was the first item taken up before the regular Selectmen's meeting agenda started.) The background of the grant and the benefits to the town were well explained by Eddington's Fire Chief.
That's the time the Eddington Board of Selectmen have scheduled the Special Town Meeting - so make the effort. Because you need to VOTE. It's your civic responsibility and it is your right. Also, if you have children, you need to BE that role model that supports all you talk about when you talk about doing ones' duties (whether it be around the house - you do say to your children, don't you? - or when we look at stories on the TV about our military - or when you complain about our State government or Federal government).
What are we being called upon to VOTE about? Just two quick questions.
The first is to verify the Moderator for the Meeting. (That won't take much time, will it?)
The Second is Whether or Not to take approximately $8,500.00 from the Eddington Fire Reserve Account to use as Matching Funds for the Americorp Grant which will fund an 11 month Firefighter position at the Eddington Fire Department.
I attended the Public Hearing on this matter last Tuesday. (It was the first item taken up before the regular Selectmen's meeting agenda started.) The background of the grant and the benefits to the town were well explained by Eddington's Fire Chief.
- This Grant will enable a full-time (5 days a week) firefighter position to be on duty during days.
- Having this position will enable a faster response to any calls for service. This can be the difference between saving a building or life - and not. Having this on-duty position may contribute to an improvement in the local insurance rating for residents of Eddington resulting in a possible reduction of home and structure insurance for some residents.
- Eddington's response time has been steadily improving because of having firefighters and personnel on duty at the Fire House. The "old system" of a Volunteer Fire Fighting Force is going the way of the covered wagon. It's taking too long to muster a volunteer crew to respond. (This writer also thinks response times can be impacted as homes and structures are being built further out and developments occur.)
- Craig Russell, who has been with the department and is considered the best candidate for the position, is the designated person for the position if the funding is improved. Craig has made a significant commitment to Eddington in that he has recently bought a house within close proximity to the Fire Department. (Craig also contributed significantly to the development to the town's new website - www.EddingtonMaine.gov
- There will be no need to add this amount to the coming year's taxes/2010/2011 town budget because there is approximately $83,000. remaining in the Fire Reserve Fund.
The town hopes to apply for subsequent grants in 2010 to continue the position after October 2010 when the current Americorp grant will expire. This is a matter that should come up during the PUBLIC HEARING before the March 2010 Town Meeting because the discussion of any matching funds should be approved at the Town Meeting. (Apparently residents aren't supposed to have the discussion AT the Town Meeting. This Writer's position is that as long as the Reserve Fund can be used for the matching funds - and as long as property taxes are not increased - this seems to be a good expenditure for the town.)
At the Public Hearing, this writer specifically asked questions and received the information reported in the last (dotted) item listed above. The Fire Chief also stated there had been a good article in the Bangor Daily News about the grant that same day (or the day before).
Because using the Fire Reserve Fund money to match the Americorp grant (1) will not add a tax burden to the town residents, (2) will not increase property taxes in the coming years, and (3) will benefit the town residents by increasing its fire safety and fire response time,
This Writer Endorses the Motion and encourages a "YES" vote.
As always, this writer encourages - URGES - Eddington registered voters to attend the Special Town Meeting and VOTE.
Friday, October 2, 2009
LEGAL PONDERINGS
I don't know if you've read through yesterday long posting re: the latest motions, responses and re-responses in the saga of the SAD 63 lawsuit originally filed by the former District Superintendent, Ms. Regan, following her termination by the School Board. If you think the posting was long, you should have seen how many pages of legal documents and attachments (all public documents) I had to read through to try to synopsize what I did post (!). It took over 5 hours just to create that posting. Never let it be said that I don't try to provide current news to the residents of this area.
But comes today and the results of my musings from all that reading. So, some thoughts of the differences between the legal representation of our School Board (the Defendants) and Ms. Regan (the Plaintiff). I will also preface this by saying that after nearly 30 years in a business that involved a professional relationship with the legal field and periodic forays into the courts and court system and attorneys (and having a son who is an attorney in private practice for 14 years), one might expect me to be a bit biased.
According to Webster's New World Dictionary ( a frequently used reference in my office), the word bias in this case would mean "a mental leaning or inclination; partiality; bent." I'll admit I am biased against the generic lawyer jokes that paint all lawyers as sharks, bad guys just out for blood and money. I say this because I know my son is not like that either as a man or as an attorney. And I've met other attorneys like him in my professional career. Recently met two right here in Ellsworth and Blue Hill. Like and respect them both.
On the other hand, I have met some others. I'll let it go at that.
So I have given some thought to my observations to the two attorneys representing the two opposing parties in this School Board v. Ms. Regan lawsuit.
I certainly found the courtroom "presentation" of the Plaintiff's attorney at the hearing in Judge Kravchuk's courtroom (U.S. District Court) more than a bit unusual. It was the first and only time I have seen the man in person BTW. Even more than his constant "dancing" up and down the aisle in the small courtroom, his frequent winking to his associate before taking his seat was not what I considered professional courtroom behavior for an accomplished litigator. (Maybe he was nervous - or claustrophobic?) Ms. Regan, who was seated at the far left of the Plaintiff's table and looking rather gaunt, was not once, to my recollection, acknowledged by the slightest gesture by the "second chair" attorney seated right next to her and in the middle of the table. Under other circumstances one might feel sympathy for her, as though she were being dragged along in the undertow of something over which she has no power of controlling or re-directing, especially at this point.
From what I have been able to read, and that's all I've been able to do - read public documents after they've become public - one might wonder if, back at the beginning, the Plaintiff reacted emotionally and defensively, perhaps out of fear or anger, at the thought of being chastised at best or terminated at worse. And then, by contacting an aggressive attorney, took a step she now regrets but can not reverse because she is in so deep financially. Perhaps, because that attorney saw the Defendants not as a Board and five individuals with limited financial resources but as the "deep pockets" of three towns of taxpayers there was no incentive to take a reasonable approach to what began as a simple situation that had been compounded by bad decisions on the part of two individuals - one who overstepped her authority and one who lied about the existence of the audio tape of the meeting where that authority had (or had not) been given. And that's what this is all about, people.
Remember that adage about telling a lie because then you have to tell another to cover the first etc.?
So back to ponderings...
In most cases, the Plaintiff has all the issues identified and documented first. Sometimes additional issues come out in the course of an investigation but they are almost minor and, for the most part, irrelevant. THE issue is what the Plaintiff goes to court on - for which she seeks redress. In this case one would have expected THE issue to be the termination. And for that, the Plaintiff could have gone to the Commissioner of Education if the Plaintiff was dissatisfied with her "hearing" before the School Board. But as I've written before, when all this began we were looking at possible consolidation and the elimination of Ms. Regan's position if SAD 63 consolidated with Brewer, and so perhaps the target was not reinstatement but money. For that, she had to go to Court. For that she needed an aggressive attorney.
On advice of her attorney, the Plaintiff has chosen more than once not to go to the Commissioner and instead has chosen to file numerous actions - sometimes in several courts simultaneously - and add to charge after charge...charges, which anyone who has read the time sequence of events as documented in the various depositions, are without merit.
The U.S. District Court has ruled against her on the majority of her claims and has at least encouraged her to take her primary complaint - the termination - to the Commissioner of Education. And still the Plaintiff refuses.
Now why would anyone do this? Can anyone truly believe that Ms. Regan is doing this? Or could it be that her attorney is pushing this covered wagon over the cliff in an attempt to drive up his fees and costs? Every time the Plaintiff's claim is amended, every time there is a motion filed in any court, every time a deposition is conducted (and all of the time each of these actions takes to write, file and complete) the attorneys get to bill at their hourly rate which must be well over $200. per hour. Eaton & Peabody is one of the largest law firms in Bangor with offices in Augusta, Brunswick and Ellsworth). And the Plaintiff has done a lot of all of these things. Since she has been unemployed (for the most part) most of this time, how can she (or her attorney) hope to pay this bill except by winning some kind of judgement against the Defendants? Which may explain why the Plaintiff's attorneys keep adding (looking for?) additional charges in the hopes that one of them will stick. Somewhere. Somehow. Even if it's only to pay Ms. Regan's attorneys' fees. Because you can expect there won't be anything left for Ms. Regan at this point.
Which takes me to the attorney representing the School Board and the five individuals also named as Defendants. I watched him as well at the U.S. District Court hearing. This attorney is calm, professional and contained in his presentations. He never moved from his position behind his assigned table. His arguments (that's what an attorney's justifications for his case's legal position is called - an argument) were rational, easy to follow, there was a sense of logic in his application of case precedents to the case at hand. And this man is no Fred Astaire. He didn't dance. Not one step. It was reassuring. He sat at his table alone. Not even a second chair so there was no winking - at anyone. Those Defendants who came to the hearing sat in a row behind him (not that there are that many rows in that small courtroom).
The Defendants' attorney has, for the most part been dealing with responding to all of the actions the Plaintiff has initiated. For every deposition the Plaintiff has required, someone from the Defendants' legal team had to be present. Of course the Plaintiff's legal team had someone there (one or more - more means each one gets to bill her for as many hours as the process takes) . Some of the Defendants were kept in their depositions in excess of eight hours. And the Plaintiff chose to depose a lot of people - not just the Defendants - which meant someone from the Defendants' legal team had to be there, too.
Thanks to the Plaintiff's attorney, some of the Defendants found that their personal lives being scrutinized - former marriages, even old parking tickets. I wonder how much that cost Ms. Regan. Dion Seymour and his wife were under such pressure and stress they have both experienced multiple strokes because of the harassment tactics employed by the Plaintiff's attorneys. I wonder if their medical bills could be charged to the Plaintiff's attorneys. This has all been because of the termination of an employee - and one who chooses not to use the proper procedure of appealing that termination.
Has the Defendants' attorney been recommending any course of action to look into the personal or professional background of the Plaintiff ? According to the public documents, No.
Has there been any attempt to discredit the Plaintiff other than to state the justification of grounds for the termination? According to the public document, No.
Has the Plaintiff even been willing to explain her actions to the Board that caused the termination in the first place? According to the public documents, No.
Has she been given that opportunity by the Defendants? Yes, with the support and encouragement of the Defendants' attorney. It was rebuffed by the Plaintiff's attorney with what was perceived as threats by both the Defendants and their attorney.
So, in Conclusion I think the School Board is walking the higher ground here. As a taxpayer here I feel we have the better attorney on several levels. I don't know what it will cost us in the long run. Maybe these latest motions to recover some of the School Board's legal costs will succeed. Maybe not. But I think Mr. Dench and his team serves us all well and should be commended.
Hats Off, Gentlemen and Ladies. Nice to have some of the good members of the Bench on our side.
But comes today and the results of my musings from all that reading. So, some thoughts of the differences between the legal representation of our School Board (the Defendants) and Ms. Regan (the Plaintiff). I will also preface this by saying that after nearly 30 years in a business that involved a professional relationship with the legal field and periodic forays into the courts and court system and attorneys (and having a son who is an attorney in private practice for 14 years), one might expect me to be a bit biased.
According to Webster's New World Dictionary ( a frequently used reference in my office), the word bias in this case would mean "a mental leaning or inclination; partiality; bent." I'll admit I am biased against the generic lawyer jokes that paint all lawyers as sharks, bad guys just out for blood and money. I say this because I know my son is not like that either as a man or as an attorney. And I've met other attorneys like him in my professional career. Recently met two right here in Ellsworth and Blue Hill. Like and respect them both.
On the other hand, I have met some others. I'll let it go at that.
So I have given some thought to my observations to the two attorneys representing the two opposing parties in this School Board v. Ms. Regan lawsuit.
I certainly found the courtroom "presentation" of the Plaintiff's attorney at the hearing in Judge Kravchuk's courtroom (U.S. District Court) more than a bit unusual. It was the first and only time I have seen the man in person BTW. Even more than his constant "dancing" up and down the aisle in the small courtroom, his frequent winking to his associate before taking his seat was not what I considered professional courtroom behavior for an accomplished litigator. (Maybe he was nervous - or claustrophobic?) Ms. Regan, who was seated at the far left of the Plaintiff's table and looking rather gaunt, was not once, to my recollection, acknowledged by the slightest gesture by the "second chair" attorney seated right next to her and in the middle of the table. Under other circumstances one might feel sympathy for her, as though she were being dragged along in the undertow of something over which she has no power of controlling or re-directing, especially at this point.
From what I have been able to read, and that's all I've been able to do - read public documents after they've become public - one might wonder if, back at the beginning, the Plaintiff reacted emotionally and defensively, perhaps out of fear or anger, at the thought of being chastised at best or terminated at worse. And then, by contacting an aggressive attorney, took a step she now regrets but can not reverse because she is in so deep financially. Perhaps, because that attorney saw the Defendants not as a Board and five individuals with limited financial resources but as the "deep pockets" of three towns of taxpayers there was no incentive to take a reasonable approach to what began as a simple situation that had been compounded by bad decisions on the part of two individuals - one who overstepped her authority and one who lied about the existence of the audio tape of the meeting where that authority had (or had not) been given. And that's what this is all about, people.
Remember that adage about telling a lie because then you have to tell another to cover the first etc.?
So back to ponderings...
In most cases, the Plaintiff has all the issues identified and documented first. Sometimes additional issues come out in the course of an investigation but they are almost minor and, for the most part, irrelevant. THE issue is what the Plaintiff goes to court on - for which she seeks redress. In this case one would have expected THE issue to be the termination. And for that, the Plaintiff could have gone to the Commissioner of Education if the Plaintiff was dissatisfied with her "hearing" before the School Board. But as I've written before, when all this began we were looking at possible consolidation and the elimination of Ms. Regan's position if SAD 63 consolidated with Brewer, and so perhaps the target was not reinstatement but money. For that, she had to go to Court. For that she needed an aggressive attorney.
On advice of her attorney, the Plaintiff has chosen more than once not to go to the Commissioner and instead has chosen to file numerous actions - sometimes in several courts simultaneously - and add to charge after charge...charges, which anyone who has read the time sequence of events as documented in the various depositions, are without merit.
The U.S. District Court has ruled against her on the majority of her claims and has at least encouraged her to take her primary complaint - the termination - to the Commissioner of Education. And still the Plaintiff refuses.
Now why would anyone do this? Can anyone truly believe that Ms. Regan is doing this? Or could it be that her attorney is pushing this covered wagon over the cliff in an attempt to drive up his fees and costs? Every time the Plaintiff's claim is amended, every time there is a motion filed in any court, every time a deposition is conducted (and all of the time each of these actions takes to write, file and complete) the attorneys get to bill at their hourly rate which must be well over $200. per hour. Eaton & Peabody is one of the largest law firms in Bangor with offices in Augusta, Brunswick and Ellsworth). And the Plaintiff has done a lot of all of these things. Since she has been unemployed (for the most part) most of this time, how can she (or her attorney) hope to pay this bill except by winning some kind of judgement against the Defendants? Which may explain why the Plaintiff's attorneys keep adding (looking for?) additional charges in the hopes that one of them will stick. Somewhere. Somehow. Even if it's only to pay Ms. Regan's attorneys' fees. Because you can expect there won't be anything left for Ms. Regan at this point.
Which takes me to the attorney representing the School Board and the five individuals also named as Defendants. I watched him as well at the U.S. District Court hearing. This attorney is calm, professional and contained in his presentations. He never moved from his position behind his assigned table. His arguments (that's what an attorney's justifications for his case's legal position is called - an argument) were rational, easy to follow, there was a sense of logic in his application of case precedents to the case at hand. And this man is no Fred Astaire. He didn't dance. Not one step. It was reassuring. He sat at his table alone. Not even a second chair so there was no winking - at anyone. Those Defendants who came to the hearing sat in a row behind him (not that there are that many rows in that small courtroom).
The Defendants' attorney has, for the most part been dealing with responding to all of the actions the Plaintiff has initiated. For every deposition the Plaintiff has required, someone from the Defendants' legal team had to be present. Of course the Plaintiff's legal team had someone there (one or more - more means each one gets to bill her for as many hours as the process takes) . Some of the Defendants were kept in their depositions in excess of eight hours. And the Plaintiff chose to depose a lot of people - not just the Defendants - which meant someone from the Defendants' legal team had to be there, too.
Thanks to the Plaintiff's attorney, some of the Defendants found that their personal lives being scrutinized - former marriages, even old parking tickets. I wonder how much that cost Ms. Regan. Dion Seymour and his wife were under such pressure and stress they have both experienced multiple strokes because of the harassment tactics employed by the Plaintiff's attorneys. I wonder if their medical bills could be charged to the Plaintiff's attorneys. This has all been because of the termination of an employee - and one who chooses not to use the proper procedure of appealing that termination.
Has the Defendants' attorney been recommending any course of action to look into the personal or professional background of the Plaintiff ? According to the public documents, No.
Has there been any attempt to discredit the Plaintiff other than to state the justification of grounds for the termination? According to the public document, No.
Has the Plaintiff even been willing to explain her actions to the Board that caused the termination in the first place? According to the public documents, No.
Has she been given that opportunity by the Defendants? Yes, with the support and encouragement of the Defendants' attorney. It was rebuffed by the Plaintiff's attorney with what was perceived as threats by both the Defendants and their attorney.
So, in Conclusion I think the School Board is walking the higher ground here. As a taxpayer here I feel we have the better attorney on several levels. I don't know what it will cost us in the long run. Maybe these latest motions to recover some of the School Board's legal costs will succeed. Maybe not. But I think Mr. Dench and his team serves us all well and should be commended.
Hats Off, Gentlemen and Ladies. Nice to have some of the good members of the Bench on our side.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
SAD 63 LAWSUIT ACTIVITIES - ONE FOR OUR SIDE
If you've been wondering what, if anything, has been happening re: the lawsuit between former SAD63 school superintendent Louise Regan and the SAD63 School Board (that terminated Ms. Regan as superintendent of the district), you are not alone. One does have to wonder why the State Commissioner of Schools has not taken most of this case into her office to decide whether or not the termination was justified. The second level of appeal is the Commissioner's jurisdiction and responsibility after all. And it would certainly stop this bleeding of taxpayer legal costs. This writer has wondered if it is the Commissioner's intention to stall any action on the part of her office until after November 2010 when the current Governor's administration will be out of office and therefore so will be the Commissioner. Of course, it was the Legislature who appointed the Commissioner and one does wonder from time to time just who the Commissioner reports to. It certainly is not us the taxpayers. In the meantime the legal costs continue to mount.
Which takes me to the latest salvo, this one being initiated by the legal counsel for the School Board. And a hearty "BRAVO" for him. (NOTE: The following is taken from public records and which I can therefore now report to you loyal and interested readers.)
What follows is more or less a word-for-word or selected phrase presentation from legal documents that were filed between August 21, 2009 and September 21, 2009 by the two litigating parties. I have not always used quotes because I think that would have been confusing in the wording. Where I thought it appropriate, I have noted "my opinion or thoughts." I have tried, to the best of my ability, given the vast number of pages reviewed, to give you an idea of what was filed and the positions submitted by the opposing counsels.
On August 21, 2009, Bryan M. Dench, Esq., with the firm of Skelton, Taintor & Abbott, P.A. and the lead attorney representing the SAD 63 School Board, filed a motion with the United States District Court, District of Maine for costs and attorney fees relating to the aforementioned legal action. It should be noted that Ms. Regan's legal actions have been not only against the entire SAD63 School Board but also additional individual law suits against five separate members of the Board, namely Dion Seymour (former rep from Holden), Karen Clark (rep from Eddington), Robert Kiah, III (former rep from Holden); Therese Anderson (rep from Eddington), and Linda Goodrich (former rep from Holden). All of these parties are referred to as the DEFENDANTS in the following legal documents and in the next several paragraphs.
To summarize the motion, which was made on behalf of the SAD 63 School Board and all five of the individual Defendants in the referenced matter, Mr. Dench provided various attachments showing which attorneys had worked on the Defendants' case, and the legal fees and costs the attorneys had incurred in defending the lawsuit. These fees and costs are associated with conducting depositions, drafting and revising pleadings and motions, and preparing for and engaging in oral arguments in state and federal courts. Hourly rates for the various attorneys involved ranged from $100. to $260. an hour depending on the level of experience of the individual and his/her position and level of responsibility on the case and within the firm, for example someone who is a law clerk to someone waiting to be admitted to the State Bar to an Associate to an experienced Litigator. The Defendants have incurred costs and attorney fees in the amount of $187,179.98 in defending against the Plaintiff (Regan)'s various civil rights claims.
This motion was, in effect, to recover those costs and fees from the Plaintiff Regan. The legal basis argued in the motion was under 42 U.S.C. section(s)-1983 & 1988. This all relates back to the original hearing before the U.S. District Court where Judge Kravchuk ultimately encouraged (maybe directed, this writer has never been exactly sure if the judge was ordering or recommending) the Plaintiff to take her case to the State Commissioner of Education. Based on the final court ruling (and my personal observation of the judge's questioning and body language during the proceeding) the court stated it found most (but not all) of the Plaintiff's charges to be unnecessary for court resolution (This writer's interpretation). NOTE: You can read more about this earlier court ruling regarding a Summary Judgement in an earlier posting.
This earlier ruling seems to be the basis of declaring the Defendant's victorious in the case overall and therefor grounds for enabling the Defendants to ask the court (same Judge Kravchuk) to qualify the Plaintiff's lawsuit as a "frivolous claim or action". (This writer's interpretation.) This is important because it may be the only basis under which the Defendants can obtain a court judgement requiring the Plaintiff to pay the fees and costs which the Defendants have incurred defending themselves. Since those fees and costs will ultimately be borne by us, the taxpayers, otherwise, this is an important filing. Especially if the court agrees.
So now comes the Plaintiff in response on September 11, 2009 through her counsel Thad Zmistowski, Esq. from the firm of Eaton Peabody objecting to the motion "because the Plaintiff's claim was not frivolous." The Plaintiff's attorney based his objection on three (3) reasons:
(1) Just because the Plaintiff did not prevail (win) in U.S. District Court does not mean her case was frivolous. The Plaintiff's attorney offered several case precedents to support this argument.
(2) That various filings by the Plaintiff and/or responses by the Defendants argued as to whether or not the Plaintiff had (or had not) been provided correct and objective opportunities to predeprivation due process indicated her civil rights claims were not being perceived as "frivolous" by even the Defendants. Furthermore, citing precedent cases which the Plaintiff believed to be relevant, the procedural availability of postdeprivation protection of having her case reviewed by the Commissioner of Education was not necessarily a guarantee of a lack of bias since she had already been termination.
(3) That even if the Defendants are entitled to the attorney fees and costs, the amount being asked for is "grossly exaggerated." The Plaintiff's attorney stated that in the unlikely event the Court determines the Plaintiff's civil rights claim was frivolous, the Defendants should not be awarded fees anywhere near the amount requested. The Plaintiff states any allowed fees should be limited to those fees incurred (only - emphasis added by this writer) in briefing for the civil rights aspect of the argument in the summary judgement materials and attending oral argument regarding same. (NOTE: This means limiting the attorney fees and costs to just what was needed in preparing and presenting for the U.S. District Court hearing for the Summary Judgement and nothing before that time or since. Note: There were County Superior Court hearings before the U.S. District Court and several depositions in preparation for the County court hearing not to mention all the preparatory work that lead up to the U.S. District Court filing all of which amounts to many hours and many $$$.)
Furthermore, Plaintiff argues that she "simply does not have the means to pay the Defendants' attorney fees. She is her family's primary bread winner and has been unable to obtain a position following her very public ordeal and termination." The Plaintiff's attorney cites Circuit court recognition of a plaintiff's ability to pay such an award or the imposition of one that will cause the plaintiff financial ruin. However, the Plaintiff is requesting permission by the Court to avoid having to go through the personal embarrassment of having to disclose her financial condition at this time unless the Court rules her case was frivolous and awards the Defendants a judgement for their attorneys fees and costs.
In Conclusion, the Plaintiff's attorney argued that it is exceedingly uncommon for the Court to rule a plaintiff's case to be frivolous; that while the Court did not agreed with the Plaintiff's position as to the applicability of federal law to her position, there is a "reasonableness" to why she might have thought is applicable and therefore why her case would not be considered frivolous; and finally, that any award to the Defendants should be limited to only those fees and costs that were incurred by the Defendants relating to the preparation for and presentation of the filing before the U.S. District Court requesting a Summary Judgement.
So then came the Defendants' MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES on September 21, 2009 (to the September 11 response of the Plaintiff):
Mr. Dench and his associate Michael S. Malloy filed a detailed motion continuing the request for attorneys fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1988 in which they reflect back to Judge Kravchuk's summary judgement in favor of the Defendants making the Defendants the Prevailing Party. Mr. Dench noted that "the applicable appeal time (to Judge Kravchuk's summary judgement) has elapsed without the Plaintiff seeking further review of the Court's dismissal of her civil rights claim, a claim which has been frivolous from the outset of this litigation. The Defendants hereby seek an award of $122,388.50 as a reasonable attorney's fee pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1988." Mr. Dench then followed up with documentation of the basis for the calculation of Defendants' attorney fees. Two particular cases are cited: Sullivan v City of Augusta, No. 04-32-B-W (D. Maine June 0, 2009) ---F. Supp.2nd ---, 2009 WL 1621110. Also included is the statement "When a defendant prevails in civil rights litigation, an award of reasonable attorneys' fees may be granted where the plaintiff's case was baseless." Hughes v Rowe, 440 U.S. 5, 14 (1980). "The individual Defendants and SAD 63 are the prevailing parties in plaintiff's section 1983 count. Despite Plaintiff's attempts to delay review of SAD 63's decision to terminate her employment, this Court entered summary judgement for all Defendants on the Plaintiff's section 1983 claim, finding that no due process violation occurred because Maine law 'flatly provides' her adequate procedural safeguards. Rec. Dec. 33-34. Rather than avail herself of her plain statutory remedies under Maine law, Regan advanced a baseless civil rights claim through multiple revisions of her complaint. She conducted far reaching discovery and engaged in bad faith conduct. Indeed, the aggressive posture of Regan and her counsel appears to have been motivated by the allure of economic rewards through litigation. In light of the Plaintiff's conduct, the Defendants should not be further burdened with the cost of self-defense. To this end, the Defendants request a reasonable award of their fees."
Specific issues addressed by the Defendants Counsel of interest are:
I. As Prevailing Parties, the Defendants are entitled to costs and attorney fees. "Prevailing Party" is defined as "one who has been award some relief by the courts." The summary judgement awarded by Judge Kravchuk constituted "an awarded of relief by the court." It also "decided on the merits and relief which it awarded to the Defendants. All federal litigation in this matter has been ended." If the Plaintiff's had wanted to appeal that judgement they needed to do so within the 30 day timeline. They didn't. The judgement now stands for the Defendants.
II. By Resisting the Defendants' Efforts to Engage the Plaintiff in Pre-termination and Post-Termination Hearings, and by Continuing to Assert Constitutional Violations Which Sher failed to Defend, the Plaintiff Continued to Assert a Frivolous Civil Rights Claim.
Among other cases cited, the most interesting quote follows - from Christiansburg, 434 U.S. at 422 (emphasis in original) which has to do with how a Plaintiff may be assessed attorney's fees where:
[a] court finds that his claim was frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless, or that the plaintiff continues to litigate after it clearly became so. And, needless to say, if a plaintiff is found to have brought or continued such a claim in bad faith, there will be an even stronger basis for charging him with the attorney's fees incurred by the defense.
Mr. Dench and Mr. Malloy continue with this argument with other court precedents and their relationship to Ms. Regan's case with specific details worth reading.
III. Attorney's Fees are Appropriate Because of Regan and her Counsel's Bad Faith and Sharp Tactics.
Not only are references made to acts of bad faith, but also acts of bullying Defendant individuals, and involving the police while misrepresenting actions about which she well knew the true facts.
IV. The costs and Fees Sought are Reasonable as they Have been Limited to the Section 1983 Litigation and Reflect the nature of this Litigation, and Apply Prevailing Hourly Rates.
Defense counsel maintained detailed contemporaneous time records. In preparation of this motion, the Defendants scrutinized every line of a 50+ page bill and eliminated dozens of hours of legal time which was incurred defending this dispute but which did not appear clearly related to the section 1983 litigation. This review has eliminated over $70,000 dollars from the total defense bill.
Additionally, the Plaintiff is herself responsible for the high defense costs. On July 15, 2008, Plaintiff objected to this Court's proposed scheduling order, and requested leave to conduct up to fifteen (15) depositions, which is three times the normally permitted by this Court. NOTE: There are several more examples shown where the Plaintiff cause delays and additional costs to the Defendants.
On the same date, September 21, 2009, the Defendants attorney ALSO filed a DEFENDANTS' REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES (This was in Response to the Plaintiff's September 11, 2009 objection to the August 21, 2009 Affidavit in support of Defendants' Motion for Costs and Attorneys' Fees - the first document at the top of this posting -: NOTE These guys had to have very busy those nights getting these responses done!)
Now come the Defendants through counsel and REPLY. And then the attorneys basically state the Plaintiff has failed to adequately oppose the arguments raised in the original Defendants Motion (the AFFIDAVIT) and has not shown that her unsuccessful civil rights claim has a basis in fact or law. Therefore, the court may award feed to the prevailing Defendants in frivolous civil rights cases. Therefore, the Defendants respectfully request that their motion be granted and that the court award them their attorneys' fees.
The reasons set forth are:
1. The Plaintiff's Due Process claims were baseless.
The Plaintiff addressed the SAD 63 Board through counsel when it met to consider her termination. The Plaintiff asked the Commissioner of Education to let her (the Plaintiff) to litigate in court before she (the Plaintiff) invoked her right to appeal her termination. She (the Plaintiff) even withdrew her case from the Maine Human Rights Commission before it could investigate her allegations, which her attorney described to the local newspaper as a "strategic decision to pull the case out of Human Rights and go directly into the courts." The BDN article was cited here. Simply put, the Plaintiff avoided what she sought in the section 1983 claim at every opportunity. The Defendants can imagine nothing more frivolous or circular than filing an expensive lawsuit and seeking attorneys' fees for something that one otherwise avoids.
2. The Plaintiff has not objected to the Defendants' argument that she continued to advance allegations that her privacy, free speech, and equal protection rights were violated.
When called to justify her (the Plaintiff's) decision to include sweeping and baseless allegations in her civil rights count, Plaintiff is conspicuously silent. The Plaintiff has provided no facts or basis for allegations that the Defendants violated her equal protection, privacy, and free speech rights. And she continued to assert those rights in her Second, Third and Fourth Amended Complaints. The court should conclude that, continuing to file such claims after failing to address them in her summary judgement papers and after discovery was completed, the Plaintiff was continuing to advance claims that were frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless, or that the plaintiff continued to litigate after it clearly became so - meeting the definition under Christiansburg Garment Co. v Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n, 434 U.S. 412, 422 (1978). As such, an award of attorneys' fees is justified.
3. The Plaintiff has failed to properly object to the requested fee.
The costs and fees are interrelated because of the number of Defendants and the numerous charges the Plaintiff has brought and the numerous Amended Complaints, not to mention the numerous depositions. The Plaintiff has failed to adequately opposed the Defendants motion with "citations and supporting authorities and affidavits and other documents setting forth or evidencing facts on which the objection is based," unlike the Defendants. The Plaintiff has not identified a single time entry in a bill over 50+ pages long nor a single rate to support her argument that the defense bill contains improper charges.
4. The Plaintiff misstates the Defendants' position regarding discovery in the state court, in a flawed attempt to show that the requested fee is too high.
This relates to the Plaintiff's ongoing (and in the writer's opinion..never ending attempts to add whatever claims she thinks will result in some monetary award) revised claims that are now in state court. The Plaintiff has a history of multiple filings in both federal and state court (talk about a "paper chase" and then the Defendants are constantly trying to respond and "catch up" which only adds more attorney costs and fees - my opinion). Even now, the Defendants are simply seeking an opportunity in state court to challenge claims that were filed after the motion for summary judgement was pending (in U.S. District Court) and which the Defendants have not yet had an opportunity to address.
5. The Plaintiff's financial circumstances should not be considered, uless this Court first concludes that her civil rights action was frivolous, and that the Defendants are entitles to recover a reasonable attorneys' fee.
There are two questions here: (1) Is the Plaintiff liable for the Defendants' attorneys' fees? Is seems the answer to that is if the Court determines that the Plaintiff has filed a frivolous claim against the Defendants (based on the definition and court precedents of a "frivolous" claim). If the court determines that the Plaintiff has filed a frivolous claim, she should be liable for those fees.
The second question is: If the Plaintiff is liable for the Defendants' defense costs, how much should the court award to the Defendants. To make that determination, the Court will have to weigh the Plaintiff's personal circumstances. This writer hopes that if the Court determines the Plaintiff is liable for the Defendants' defense costs, the Court will also take into consideration the personal, financial, emotional and physical costs that have been extracted from the Defendants and their families which has been considerable for some of them.
6. Plaintiff has continually threatened the Defendants that she would recover a higher fee than the one they now seek.
The Plaintiff and her attorney have threatened the SAD 63 Board from the beginning stating it was the Plaintiff's intention to recover not only her attorney's fees of over $150,000 but additional large financial rewards. The Plaintiff continues to prefer to litigate and acts as though she is entitled to compensation for claims that she later added and that have not even been heard - her Whistleblower allegation and her Maine Human Rights act retaliation claim. The Plaintiff speaks as if she has already earned these fees through a "successful prosecution" of claims when in fact the Defendants have not even had an opportunity to answer or otherwise challenge them.
In Conclusion, the Defendants acknowledge that a prevailing civil rights defendant must satisfy a different standard to recover attorneys' fees than a prevailing civil rights plaintiff. However, this is a classic case in which this Court should grant such a request because of the Plaintiff's continued waste of judicial resources, her insistence on litigating at every possible opportunity, and because granting attorneys' fees would further a recognized policy of deterring frivolous claims.
Now we can wait for the hearing to be scheduled at the U.S. District Court. And the beat goes on - and on - and on...
Which takes me to the latest salvo, this one being initiated by the legal counsel for the School Board. And a hearty "BRAVO" for him. (NOTE: The following is taken from public records and which I can therefore now report to you loyal and interested readers.)
What follows is more or less a word-for-word or selected phrase presentation from legal documents that were filed between August 21, 2009 and September 21, 2009 by the two litigating parties. I have not always used quotes because I think that would have been confusing in the wording. Where I thought it appropriate, I have noted "my opinion or thoughts." I have tried, to the best of my ability, given the vast number of pages reviewed, to give you an idea of what was filed and the positions submitted by the opposing counsels.
On August 21, 2009, Bryan M. Dench, Esq., with the firm of Skelton, Taintor & Abbott, P.A. and the lead attorney representing the SAD 63 School Board, filed a motion with the United States District Court, District of Maine for costs and attorney fees relating to the aforementioned legal action. It should be noted that Ms. Regan's legal actions have been not only against the entire SAD63 School Board but also additional individual law suits against five separate members of the Board, namely Dion Seymour (former rep from Holden), Karen Clark (rep from Eddington), Robert Kiah, III (former rep from Holden); Therese Anderson (rep from Eddington), and Linda Goodrich (former rep from Holden). All of these parties are referred to as the DEFENDANTS in the following legal documents and in the next several paragraphs.
To summarize the motion, which was made on behalf of the SAD 63 School Board and all five of the individual Defendants in the referenced matter, Mr. Dench provided various attachments showing which attorneys had worked on the Defendants' case, and the legal fees and costs the attorneys had incurred in defending the lawsuit. These fees and costs are associated with conducting depositions, drafting and revising pleadings and motions, and preparing for and engaging in oral arguments in state and federal courts. Hourly rates for the various attorneys involved ranged from $100. to $260. an hour depending on the level of experience of the individual and his/her position and level of responsibility on the case and within the firm, for example someone who is a law clerk to someone waiting to be admitted to the State Bar to an Associate to an experienced Litigator. The Defendants have incurred costs and attorney fees in the amount of $187,179.98 in defending against the Plaintiff (Regan)'s various civil rights claims.
This motion was, in effect, to recover those costs and fees from the Plaintiff Regan. The legal basis argued in the motion was under 42 U.S.C. section(s)-1983 & 1988. This all relates back to the original hearing before the U.S. District Court where Judge Kravchuk ultimately encouraged (maybe directed, this writer has never been exactly sure if the judge was ordering or recommending) the Plaintiff to take her case to the State Commissioner of Education. Based on the final court ruling (and my personal observation of the judge's questioning and body language during the proceeding) the court stated it found most (but not all) of the Plaintiff's charges to be unnecessary for court resolution (This writer's interpretation). NOTE: You can read more about this earlier court ruling regarding a Summary Judgement in an earlier posting.
This earlier ruling seems to be the basis of declaring the Defendant's victorious in the case overall and therefor grounds for enabling the Defendants to ask the court (same Judge Kravchuk) to qualify the Plaintiff's lawsuit as a "frivolous claim or action". (This writer's interpretation.) This is important because it may be the only basis under which the Defendants can obtain a court judgement requiring the Plaintiff to pay the fees and costs which the Defendants have incurred defending themselves. Since those fees and costs will ultimately be borne by us, the taxpayers, otherwise, this is an important filing. Especially if the court agrees.
So now comes the Plaintiff in response on September 11, 2009 through her counsel Thad Zmistowski, Esq. from the firm of Eaton Peabody objecting to the motion "because the Plaintiff's claim was not frivolous." The Plaintiff's attorney based his objection on three (3) reasons:
(1) Just because the Plaintiff did not prevail (win) in U.S. District Court does not mean her case was frivolous. The Plaintiff's attorney offered several case precedents to support this argument.
(2) That various filings by the Plaintiff and/or responses by the Defendants argued as to whether or not the Plaintiff had (or had not) been provided correct and objective opportunities to predeprivation due process indicated her civil rights claims were not being perceived as "frivolous" by even the Defendants. Furthermore, citing precedent cases which the Plaintiff believed to be relevant, the procedural availability of postdeprivation protection of having her case reviewed by the Commissioner of Education was not necessarily a guarantee of a lack of bias since she had already been termination.
(3) That even if the Defendants are entitled to the attorney fees and costs, the amount being asked for is "grossly exaggerated." The Plaintiff's attorney stated that in the unlikely event the Court determines the Plaintiff's civil rights claim was frivolous, the Defendants should not be awarded fees anywhere near the amount requested. The Plaintiff states any allowed fees should be limited to those fees incurred (only - emphasis added by this writer) in briefing for the civil rights aspect of the argument in the summary judgement materials and attending oral argument regarding same. (NOTE: This means limiting the attorney fees and costs to just what was needed in preparing and presenting for the U.S. District Court hearing for the Summary Judgement and nothing before that time or since. Note: There were County Superior Court hearings before the U.S. District Court and several depositions in preparation for the County court hearing not to mention all the preparatory work that lead up to the U.S. District Court filing all of which amounts to many hours and many $$$.)
Furthermore, Plaintiff argues that she "simply does not have the means to pay the Defendants' attorney fees. She is her family's primary bread winner and has been unable to obtain a position following her very public ordeal and termination." The Plaintiff's attorney cites Circuit court recognition of a plaintiff's ability to pay such an award or the imposition of one that will cause the plaintiff financial ruin. However, the Plaintiff is requesting permission by the Court to avoid having to go through the personal embarrassment of having to disclose her financial condition at this time unless the Court rules her case was frivolous and awards the Defendants a judgement for their attorneys fees and costs.
In Conclusion, the Plaintiff's attorney argued that it is exceedingly uncommon for the Court to rule a plaintiff's case to be frivolous; that while the Court did not agreed with the Plaintiff's position as to the applicability of federal law to her position, there is a "reasonableness" to why she might have thought is applicable and therefore why her case would not be considered frivolous; and finally, that any award to the Defendants should be limited to only those fees and costs that were incurred by the Defendants relating to the preparation for and presentation of the filing before the U.S. District Court requesting a Summary Judgement.
So then came the Defendants' MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES on September 21, 2009 (to the September 11 response of the Plaintiff):
Mr. Dench and his associate Michael S. Malloy filed a detailed motion continuing the request for attorneys fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1988 in which they reflect back to Judge Kravchuk's summary judgement in favor of the Defendants making the Defendants the Prevailing Party. Mr. Dench noted that "the applicable appeal time (to Judge Kravchuk's summary judgement) has elapsed without the Plaintiff seeking further review of the Court's dismissal of her civil rights claim, a claim which has been frivolous from the outset of this litigation. The Defendants hereby seek an award of $122,388.50 as a reasonable attorney's fee pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1988." Mr. Dench then followed up with documentation of the basis for the calculation of Defendants' attorney fees. Two particular cases are cited: Sullivan v City of Augusta, No. 04-32-B-W (D. Maine June 0, 2009) ---F. Supp.2nd ---, 2009 WL 1621110. Also included is the statement "When a defendant prevails in civil rights litigation, an award of reasonable attorneys' fees may be granted where the plaintiff's case was baseless." Hughes v Rowe, 440 U.S. 5, 14 (1980). "The individual Defendants and SAD 63 are the prevailing parties in plaintiff's section 1983 count. Despite Plaintiff's attempts to delay review of SAD 63's decision to terminate her employment, this Court entered summary judgement for all Defendants on the Plaintiff's section 1983 claim, finding that no due process violation occurred because Maine law 'flatly provides' her adequate procedural safeguards. Rec. Dec. 33-34. Rather than avail herself of her plain statutory remedies under Maine law, Regan advanced a baseless civil rights claim through multiple revisions of her complaint. She conducted far reaching discovery and engaged in bad faith conduct. Indeed, the aggressive posture of Regan and her counsel appears to have been motivated by the allure of economic rewards through litigation. In light of the Plaintiff's conduct, the Defendants should not be further burdened with the cost of self-defense. To this end, the Defendants request a reasonable award of their fees."
Specific issues addressed by the Defendants Counsel of interest are:
I. As Prevailing Parties, the Defendants are entitled to costs and attorney fees. "Prevailing Party" is defined as "one who has been award some relief by the courts." The summary judgement awarded by Judge Kravchuk constituted "an awarded of relief by the court." It also "decided on the merits and relief which it awarded to the Defendants. All federal litigation in this matter has been ended." If the Plaintiff's had wanted to appeal that judgement they needed to do so within the 30 day timeline. They didn't. The judgement now stands for the Defendants.
II. By Resisting the Defendants' Efforts to Engage the Plaintiff in Pre-termination and Post-Termination Hearings, and by Continuing to Assert Constitutional Violations Which Sher failed to Defend, the Plaintiff Continued to Assert a Frivolous Civil Rights Claim.
Among other cases cited, the most interesting quote follows - from Christiansburg, 434 U.S. at 422 (emphasis in original) which has to do with how a Plaintiff may be assessed attorney's fees where:
[a] court finds that his claim was frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless, or that the plaintiff continues to litigate after it clearly became so. And, needless to say, if a plaintiff is found to have brought or continued such a claim in bad faith, there will be an even stronger basis for charging him with the attorney's fees incurred by the defense.
Mr. Dench and Mr. Malloy continue with this argument with other court precedents and their relationship to Ms. Regan's case with specific details worth reading.
III. Attorney's Fees are Appropriate Because of Regan and her Counsel's Bad Faith and Sharp Tactics.
Not only are references made to acts of bad faith, but also acts of bullying Defendant individuals, and involving the police while misrepresenting actions about which she well knew the true facts.
IV. The costs and Fees Sought are Reasonable as they Have been Limited to the Section 1983 Litigation and Reflect the nature of this Litigation, and Apply Prevailing Hourly Rates.
Defense counsel maintained detailed contemporaneous time records. In preparation of this motion, the Defendants scrutinized every line of a 50+ page bill and eliminated dozens of hours of legal time which was incurred defending this dispute but which did not appear clearly related to the section 1983 litigation. This review has eliminated over $70,000 dollars from the total defense bill.
Additionally, the Plaintiff is herself responsible for the high defense costs. On July 15, 2008, Plaintiff objected to this Court's proposed scheduling order, and requested leave to conduct up to fifteen (15) depositions, which is three times the normally permitted by this Court. NOTE: There are several more examples shown where the Plaintiff cause delays and additional costs to the Defendants.
On the same date, September 21, 2009, the Defendants attorney ALSO filed a DEFENDANTS' REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES (This was in Response to the Plaintiff's September 11, 2009 objection to the August 21, 2009 Affidavit in support of Defendants' Motion for Costs and Attorneys' Fees - the first document at the top of this posting -: NOTE These guys had to have very busy those nights getting these responses done!)
Now come the Defendants through counsel and REPLY. And then the attorneys basically state the Plaintiff has failed to adequately oppose the arguments raised in the original Defendants Motion (the AFFIDAVIT) and has not shown that her unsuccessful civil rights claim has a basis in fact or law. Therefore, the court may award feed to the prevailing Defendants in frivolous civil rights cases. Therefore, the Defendants respectfully request that their motion be granted and that the court award them their attorneys' fees.
The reasons set forth are:
1. The Plaintiff's Due Process claims were baseless.
The Plaintiff addressed the SAD 63 Board through counsel when it met to consider her termination. The Plaintiff asked the Commissioner of Education to let her (the Plaintiff) to litigate in court before she (the Plaintiff) invoked her right to appeal her termination. She (the Plaintiff) even withdrew her case from the Maine Human Rights Commission before it could investigate her allegations, which her attorney described to the local newspaper as a "strategic decision to pull the case out of Human Rights and go directly into the courts." The BDN article was cited here. Simply put, the Plaintiff avoided what she sought in the section 1983 claim at every opportunity. The Defendants can imagine nothing more frivolous or circular than filing an expensive lawsuit and seeking attorneys' fees for something that one otherwise avoids.
2. The Plaintiff has not objected to the Defendants' argument that she continued to advance allegations that her privacy, free speech, and equal protection rights were violated.
When called to justify her (the Plaintiff's) decision to include sweeping and baseless allegations in her civil rights count, Plaintiff is conspicuously silent. The Plaintiff has provided no facts or basis for allegations that the Defendants violated her equal protection, privacy, and free speech rights. And she continued to assert those rights in her Second, Third and Fourth Amended Complaints. The court should conclude that, continuing to file such claims after failing to address them in her summary judgement papers and after discovery was completed, the Plaintiff was continuing to advance claims that were frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless, or that the plaintiff continued to litigate after it clearly became so - meeting the definition under Christiansburg Garment Co. v Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n, 434 U.S. 412, 422 (1978). As such, an award of attorneys' fees is justified.
3. The Plaintiff has failed to properly object to the requested fee.
The costs and fees are interrelated because of the number of Defendants and the numerous charges the Plaintiff has brought and the numerous Amended Complaints, not to mention the numerous depositions. The Plaintiff has failed to adequately opposed the Defendants motion with "citations and supporting authorities and affidavits and other documents setting forth or evidencing facts on which the objection is based," unlike the Defendants. The Plaintiff has not identified a single time entry in a bill over 50+ pages long nor a single rate to support her argument that the defense bill contains improper charges.
4. The Plaintiff misstates the Defendants' position regarding discovery in the state court, in a flawed attempt to show that the requested fee is too high.
This relates to the Plaintiff's ongoing (and in the writer's opinion..never ending attempts to add whatever claims she thinks will result in some monetary award) revised claims that are now in state court. The Plaintiff has a history of multiple filings in both federal and state court (talk about a "paper chase" and then the Defendants are constantly trying to respond and "catch up" which only adds more attorney costs and fees - my opinion). Even now, the Defendants are simply seeking an opportunity in state court to challenge claims that were filed after the motion for summary judgement was pending (in U.S. District Court) and which the Defendants have not yet had an opportunity to address.
5. The Plaintiff's financial circumstances should not be considered, uless this Court first concludes that her civil rights action was frivolous, and that the Defendants are entitles to recover a reasonable attorneys' fee.
There are two questions here: (1) Is the Plaintiff liable for the Defendants' attorneys' fees? Is seems the answer to that is if the Court determines that the Plaintiff has filed a frivolous claim against the Defendants (based on the definition and court precedents of a "frivolous" claim). If the court determines that the Plaintiff has filed a frivolous claim, she should be liable for those fees.
The second question is: If the Plaintiff is liable for the Defendants' defense costs, how much should the court award to the Defendants. To make that determination, the Court will have to weigh the Plaintiff's personal circumstances. This writer hopes that if the Court determines the Plaintiff is liable for the Defendants' defense costs, the Court will also take into consideration the personal, financial, emotional and physical costs that have been extracted from the Defendants and their families which has been considerable for some of them.
6. Plaintiff has continually threatened the Defendants that she would recover a higher fee than the one they now seek.
The Plaintiff and her attorney have threatened the SAD 63 Board from the beginning stating it was the Plaintiff's intention to recover not only her attorney's fees of over $150,000 but additional large financial rewards. The Plaintiff continues to prefer to litigate and acts as though she is entitled to compensation for claims that she later added and that have not even been heard - her Whistleblower allegation and her Maine Human Rights act retaliation claim. The Plaintiff speaks as if she has already earned these fees through a "successful prosecution" of claims when in fact the Defendants have not even had an opportunity to answer or otherwise challenge them.
In Conclusion, the Defendants acknowledge that a prevailing civil rights defendant must satisfy a different standard to recover attorneys' fees than a prevailing civil rights plaintiff. However, this is a classic case in which this Court should grant such a request because of the Plaintiff's continued waste of judicial resources, her insistence on litigating at every possible opportunity, and because granting attorneys' fees would further a recognized policy of deterring frivolous claims.
Now we can wait for the hearing to be scheduled at the U.S. District Court. And the beat goes on - and on - and on...
TWO OCTOBER FUNDRAISERS FOR GOOD CAUSES
Clewley Farm Restaurant will be hosting two important fundraisers in October. The rstaurant is located at 999 Main Road, Eddington 04428. Main Road is Route 9 for those readers not living in the Eddington/Clifton area - telephone # (207) 843-7446.
The first: October 10 will be an International Cuisine Buffet from 1:00pm to 8:00pm to raise money for the Last Chance Ranch, an equine rescue organization in Troy, Maine. The organizers will also be selling raffle tickets for a 50/50 raffle and gift certificates from local businesses. 100 percent of the proceeds earned from the buffet will be donated to the Last Chance Ranch specifically for the cost of hay, feed and other expenses the Ranch deems necessary. The organizers have given explicit instructions that the money donated is to be used solely for the care of the horses.
Staff from the Ranch will be on hand at the fundraiser to answer any questions people have about the equine rescue provided by the Last Chance Ranch. The cost of feeding and care of one horse averages $250.00 per month. Because of current economic conditions and their impact on families here in Maine, the costs of caring for family horses and pets have generated a significant increase in the number of horses being brought to rescue facilities. Adding to the problem will be the cost of hay this winter. The overabundance of rain this last spring and summer damaged a lot of the hay crops. Dairy farmers and people with horses are facing higher than normal prices for winter hay needs.
Because of the great need, Clewley Farm Restaurant has graciously offered the use of their facility to host this event with plans to host a second fundraiser in the late winter or early spring of 2010.
Organizers for the October 10th event are seeking raffle prizes and gift certificates. Anyone interested in contributing should contact Cheri White at 299-5996 or send her an email in care of Clewley Farm Restaurant at clewleyfarm@yahoo.com . Obviously everyone is hoping for a large turnout at this worthy fundraising event.
I expect the Five Seasons Gift Shop will be open during the event as well.
******
The Second fundraiser is Sunday afternoon, October 18 from 1:00pm - 2:30pm. Dola Hinckley will be giving a special performance of Gospel music (so the concert may go on longer since Dola's got quite a following and other singers are known to "drop in" and join her at the mike). This performance will benefit the Clifton Library. Coffee, tea and seasonal deserts will be served.
I wouldn't be surprised if the Five Seasons Gift Shop was open during this event, too. Items for sale in the Shop change all the time since many are one-of-a-kind items.
*****
Speaking of the Clifton Library - Some great new books came in the other day. And I have to talk about one particular author - Allan Folsom. I had never heard of this author before picking out a book written by him I found at the Clifton Library about a month ago. The title is "Day of Confession." It's a mystery thriller. GREAT BOOK and fantastic writing! The setting is Rome - actually it's mostly centered in the Vatican. Since I've been to Italy and to Rome and loved them both and this seemed like my kind of book, I brought it home. (The Clifton Library has very generous lending policies, BTW).
Well, that book was one of the BEST thrillers I've ever read. Could NOT put it down. It's a thick book - at least 300 pages which is what I like in a book. Something I can sink my teeth into (other than certain political situations around here, but I won't go there in this posting....). I couldn't wait to get started and once I did I couldn't wait to get back to it. Finished it in three days. Forget the TV. Never turned it on. I'd wake up at 4am and start. Would have to put it down to get certain duties taken care of and then back to the book. Bottom line: When I turned it in to the library, I looked for more books by that author (I'd checked him out on Google and learned that booked was only the second of five he'd had published - the most recent in 2009). There were no more at the Clifton Library. But I mentioned how good it was at the Eddington/Clifton Book Club meeting and to Librarian Caroline Baker. Well, the book was snatched right up - and God bless Caroline. She ordered some more by Allan Folsom. They just came in - THREE more of his books. (I checked out one yesterday. Didn't want to be piggy and take more than one at a time.) So, if it starts raining this weekend, forget the TV. I'll be reading (in addition to my posting responsibilities here and working on my own manuscript). Thank goodness I have all 130 bulbs in the ground. Now if only the gray squirrels and raccoon would just let them STAY there. But that's another story for another posting.
Next post is for the SAD63 lawsuit update. Coming up.
The first: October 10 will be an International Cuisine Buffet from 1:00pm to 8:00pm to raise money for the Last Chance Ranch, an equine rescue organization in Troy, Maine. The organizers will also be selling raffle tickets for a 50/50 raffle and gift certificates from local businesses. 100 percent of the proceeds earned from the buffet will be donated to the Last Chance Ranch specifically for the cost of hay, feed and other expenses the Ranch deems necessary. The organizers have given explicit instructions that the money donated is to be used solely for the care of the horses.
Staff from the Ranch will be on hand at the fundraiser to answer any questions people have about the equine rescue provided by the Last Chance Ranch. The cost of feeding and care of one horse averages $250.00 per month. Because of current economic conditions and their impact on families here in Maine, the costs of caring for family horses and pets have generated a significant increase in the number of horses being brought to rescue facilities. Adding to the problem will be the cost of hay this winter. The overabundance of rain this last spring and summer damaged a lot of the hay crops. Dairy farmers and people with horses are facing higher than normal prices for winter hay needs.
Because of the great need, Clewley Farm Restaurant has graciously offered the use of their facility to host this event with plans to host a second fundraiser in the late winter or early spring of 2010.
Organizers for the October 10th event are seeking raffle prizes and gift certificates. Anyone interested in contributing should contact Cheri White at 299-5996 or send her an email in care of Clewley Farm Restaurant at clewleyfarm@yahoo.com . Obviously everyone is hoping for a large turnout at this worthy fundraising event.
I expect the Five Seasons Gift Shop will be open during the event as well.
******
The Second fundraiser is Sunday afternoon, October 18 from 1:00pm - 2:30pm. Dola Hinckley will be giving a special performance of Gospel music (so the concert may go on longer since Dola's got quite a following and other singers are known to "drop in" and join her at the mike). This performance will benefit the Clifton Library. Coffee, tea and seasonal deserts will be served.
I wouldn't be surprised if the Five Seasons Gift Shop was open during this event, too. Items for sale in the Shop change all the time since many are one-of-a-kind items.
*****
Speaking of the Clifton Library - Some great new books came in the other day. And I have to talk about one particular author - Allan Folsom. I had never heard of this author before picking out a book written by him I found at the Clifton Library about a month ago. The title is "Day of Confession." It's a mystery thriller. GREAT BOOK and fantastic writing! The setting is Rome - actually it's mostly centered in the Vatican. Since I've been to Italy and to Rome and loved them both and this seemed like my kind of book, I brought it home. (The Clifton Library has very generous lending policies, BTW).
Well, that book was one of the BEST thrillers I've ever read. Could NOT put it down. It's a thick book - at least 300 pages which is what I like in a book. Something I can sink my teeth into (other than certain political situations around here, but I won't go there in this posting....). I couldn't wait to get started and once I did I couldn't wait to get back to it. Finished it in three days. Forget the TV. Never turned it on. I'd wake up at 4am and start. Would have to put it down to get certain duties taken care of and then back to the book. Bottom line: When I turned it in to the library, I looked for more books by that author (I'd checked him out on Google and learned that booked was only the second of five he'd had published - the most recent in 2009). There were no more at the Clifton Library. But I mentioned how good it was at the Eddington/Clifton Book Club meeting and to Librarian Caroline Baker. Well, the book was snatched right up - and God bless Caroline. She ordered some more by Allan Folsom. They just came in - THREE more of his books. (I checked out one yesterday. Didn't want to be piggy and take more than one at a time.) So, if it starts raining this weekend, forget the TV. I'll be reading (in addition to my posting responsibilities here and working on my own manuscript). Thank goodness I have all 130 bulbs in the ground. Now if only the gray squirrels and raccoon would just let them STAY there. But that's another story for another posting.
Next post is for the SAD63 lawsuit update. Coming up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
