It struck me as being important to initiate a new post here. Thank you Flyspeck for alerting us to the DOR letter online. due to someone having a birthday thing tonite, I must be brief here.

First, a disclaimer. I know the letter writer, Ms. Kathleen Colleary. Unlike a certain "notalawyer", she is a lawyer and is a lawyer's lawyer. Brilliant, and very hard working. Some of us may not care for State employees, but all of us should be thankful that we have Kathleen Colleary working for us.

In the interest of brevity (hey! no cheering back there!), I will only refer to her last paragraph at this time. Most of what precedes the last paragraph I have addressed in previous posts.

"During the year the amount of the Town'a appropriation for health insurance needed in the Trust fund as a cushion to cover estimated and known claims from time to time is considered within the sound discretion of the TREASURER (my emphasis) to determine. If the fund grows too large, a premium holiday or reduction may be employed. If the fund becomes deficient, premium increases may be required, along with additional Town appropriations to cover them, if necessary, TO ASSURE THAT THE TOWN/EMPLOYEE RATIO OF CONTRIBUTIONS REMAINS AS PREVIOUSLY AGREED OR DETERMINED. (emphasis added)"

Well. It appears that Ms. Colleary has pointed the finger right at the Treasurer. Clearly, her point is that the Treasurer as fund custodian has the fiduciary reposibility to watch the yin and yang of the fund, and to report such variances from the expected as may occur, in order to maintain the proper ratio between the Town and its employees. So. if the fund was off track and an imbalance occurred skewing in the favor the Town, where was the Treasurer to say: Hey dudes! We gotta rebalance here, donchaknow? Where was the fund "custodian" assuring that the Town/employee ratio of contributions remains as previously agreed or determined?  Hmmmmm?

and one more thing before partying hearty. Given this letter, the (i)TA and the BoS HAD TO KNOW that the treasurer was specified in the law for this role & function. So why is Bliss under the bus? Nowhere in the law or the DOR's letter is there a mention of the Town accountant. Or, the auditor, for that matter. The BoS and its buttMonkey are on shaky ground indeed, if the best they can do is attempt to divert one's attention over there, where that Bliss monster lurks on the moors; when the reality is that the problem is right there, in their midst, sprayed with that teflon coating.

One can only hope that Mr. Bliss will come onto this site and set us all straight on this issue. Mr. Bliss, it is the only forum where you can speak directly to the issue(s), without the shuckin' & jivin', without the spin, without the misdirection plays of your enemies. I appeal to you directly to come to the site and lay out the facts, as you lived them.

Sigh, if only..........

Last edited by notalawyer (2009-10-08 19:13:49)