ARA backs director - The Sun Chronicle Online - News

34 South Main St., Attleboro, MA - Directions - (508) 222-7000

Attleboro Foxboro Mansfield Norfolk North Attleboro Norton Plainville Rehoboth Seekonk Taunton Wrentham

News

ARA backs director

BY GEORGE W. RHODES SUN CHRONICLE STAFF

Monday, June 8, 2009 2:18 AM EDT

ARA executive director Michael Milanoski spekas in the City Hall council chambers in January 2007. (Staff file photo by Tom Maguire)

Top Headlines

A whale of a job

Survey says: Seekonk voters get their chance

Norton, state officials to plot GM strategy

Rival schools team up to aid pantries

RI man arrested on OUI count

Print this story

Email this story

Panel gives Milanoski a vote of confidence

ATTLEBORO - Michael Milanoski, the embattled executive director of the Attleboro redevelopment Authority, got a vote of confidence from his boss, the ARA board.

The board voted 4-0 to accept a performance evaluation which gave Milanoski high marks.

Chairman of the personnel committee, Max Volterra, said Milanoski has executed his tasks at high level.

"Michael has exceeded our expectations in almost all areas," Volterra said.

Volterra said the committee determined that Milanoski needed to improve in some areas of communication.

"He has improved, and we are satisfied with his performance," Volterra said.

Mayor Kevin Dumas has pressured the board for more than six months to seek Milanoski's resignation, charging the director is responsible for the $3 million to $4 million debt incurred by the city's industrial business park project.

Board members have staunchly defended Milanoski, arguing that many of the circumstances that resulted in the debt were out of anyone's control.

Dumas wants the city to take over management of ARA projects and install an economic development director to run the operation under his supervision.

Benton Keene, the fifth member of the board, was absent and did not vote.

In past comments, he endorsed the mayor's move to replace Milanoski, but said he worked well with Milanoski when he was ARA chairman.

Return to Previous Page

*Member ID:
*Password:
	Forgot Your Password?

View Comments » 103 comment(s)

Post Your Comments

s-plumb wrote on Jul 6, 2009 6:23 AM:

" Poll is now closed. See reults here:
http://thesunchronicle.ning.com/forum/topics/declaration-of-independence "

s-plumb wrote on Jun 26, 2009 1:11 PM:

" Though not reported, the US House will be voting today to increase our taxes on all utilities, as well as gasoline. The legislation is HR2454 and is co-authored by our own Ed Markey. Its reported that the average familys utility cost will increase by over $2500/yr, and the price of gasoline will be raised to $4/gal based on todays prices.
The upside is that Al Gore, Senator Pelosi, and Ed Markey himself all have investments in green / carbon credit outfits, and will be the benefactors.
Ive called Rep. McGoverns office, and found that he is in favor of the bill. Please look into it and at least express your opinion, by calling Jims office at 202-225-6101.
Thanks for your consideration. "

DawnANewDay wrote on Jun 26, 2009 10:40 AM:

" For anyone who read in Thursday (6-25) Sun about the City taking on up to 4 mill of the ARA debt, there is a letter in today's letter to the editor from Mr. LaCasse (6-26), saying that the City is not willing to take on the debt and the Sun had it wrong. There is also a small "correction" noted under the letter from the Editorial staff. The facts show that Mayor Dumas has said over and over that he doesn't want the tax payers to be burden with the debt, it seemed amazing that the paper got that wrong. But then again this is the same paper who continues to fault the City of Attleboro for not giving the ARA some of the CDBG grant money this year, even though HUD has come out and said that the ARA should not have been given the money in the past years and they want the money given before this year BACK! Yet the Sun still likes to mention when noting that the ARA cant pay their administrative bills that its the City's fault for holding back CDBG funds (which the ARA does not in fact qualify for - See April 10, 2009 Sun article that stated: "HUD questioned the ARA's financial stability and said neither project can meet HUD deadlines for job creation, which govern the use of the cash.") "

thomas wrote on Jun 25, 2009 5:43 PM:

" The ARA needs to let go of the "egos" and let the city do what is best. Why should tax payer pay for the ARA's debt? The bad management of the park is the problem. So, the ARA wants to let the city take over the debt? How the ARA get to where they are today (debt)? Is that not basically admitting "bad management" and they have zero control of the debt and the project? Enough is enough. "

s-plumb wrote on Jun 25, 2009 1:58 PM:

" This paper still doesnt get it. If youre so inclined please visit: http://thesunchronicle.ning.com/forum/topics/declaration-of-independence

Venting is okay, but its best to bring something to the site or learn from it. I happen to be the worst offender in mouthing off, but would like normal folks to do what they can. Post your own notes from council meetings, so that those who couldnt attend dont have to rely on this paper for their sole source for information.
The original Kool-Aid letter/petition is posted there along with the poll site link. Ill try to consolidate some of the materials, including a re-post of the mayors task force findings, which reviews the original charter, which I believe laid the terms that NO city money was to be used. Please indicate your willingness to sign the petition, and post whatever youd like. I havent started collecting signatures myself, but that doesnt mean that any number of folks cant download a copy and get as many signatures as you can. Copies can then either be uploaded or we can collect them, and forward the results to media outlets, as well as key figures, so that our true voices are heard. If you have documents youd like posted anonymously, send them to splumb2009@yahoo.com. "

steves wrote on Jun 25, 2009 12:04 PM:

" Did you see the article in todays opinon section ?
Dosen't sound like anything I heard last Tues nite. "

s-plumb wrote on Jun 25, 2009 9:49 AM:

" New documents are in the discussion flow at: http://thesunchronicle.ning.com/forum/topics/declaration-of-independence?id=2002433%3ATopic%3A20747&page=2#comments
Keep'em coming. splumb2009@yahoo.com "

s-plumb wrote on Jun 24, 2009 7:12 PM:

" When Goerge Rhodes publishes the minutes from yesterday afternoon's ARA meeting, which were illegally kept from him, you can judge for yourself just how seriously Milanoski has taken your views, while at the same time admitting (for the 1st time) that the ARA was $4.5 million in debt. "

late to the party wrote on Jun 24, 2009 3:34 PM:

" ricknkim - Maybe joke is not the correct word (sorry s-plumb). I do, however, think Milanoski thinks this is a game. You are correct that he is a career motivated individual and would not want to jeopardize his future. However, I have worked in the private sector long enough to know who is interested in the projects they manage and who is just interested in themselves. If Milanoski throws enough people under the bus and keeps him self untouchable, he wins. Milanoski's goals are much different from that of the Mayor. When I listen to the Mayor speak, I feel a sense of honesty. When I hear Milanoski speak, I feel he is playing a game of chess and the people he is speaking to are the Pawns. I don't pretend to know everything, but I have been around long enough to have met a few "milanoki's" in my day. He is not good for Attleboro and the ARA needs to put their egos aside and release him of his duties. He may have been good at snookering the state out of grant monies but now that the money is earmarked, we need a real manager to see the project through to completion. "

ricknkim wrote on Jun 24, 2009 10:33 AM:

" Do you really believe MM thinks this is a big joke? I doubt it, his reputation for future employment is tied to these projects/their success and I am sure he's put in too much sweat equity to take it all as a joke. He may not be polished and has certainly made blunders, but I would have a hard time believing he's laughing about his/ARA/IBP's current predicament. I'm speculating here, of course. "

s-plumb wrote on Jun 24, 2009 10:25 AM:

" I don't really know where this will end up, but after last night's meetings, that specific question has now probably dropped to at least 2nd tier.
It's tough to imagine what will happen to the land, donated by the city to the ARA, when the inevitable bankruptcy plays out. But then again, Milanoski feels this is a big joke. "

ricknkim wrote on Jun 24, 2009 9:40 AM:

" I believe it is soley grant money along with past building/property sales and future sales of land in the IBP, no? From the look of the article in todays paper, that money sure has dried up for work on the IBP - now they want to hand it over to the city. "

s-plumb wrote on Jun 23, 2009 4:35 PM:

" Here's a fundamental question that to my knowledge the ARA has refused to answer. Whoever gets there 1st, please ask "Who is funding the ARA?" As far as I know they're funding should have dried up by now. "

mike wrote on Jun 23, 2009 3:51 PM:

" ricknkim - it is the legal responsibility to post public meetings at least 24-hours in advance. I think it is s-plumb's point that they post the meetings at the bare minimum time frame to limit public knowledge of the meetings. I took it one step further to point out that a reminder is being sent out by the ARA's admin and only remind a select few, including Lisa Nelson from Congressman McGovern's office. Was this illegal? Absolutely not. Is it hypocritical for the ARA to be miffed when they feel left out of the loop but then leave that mayor's office absent from the reminder? Absolutely.

I would also like to remind everyone that tonight there is a public hearing on the budget at City Hall and the ARA so conveniently scheduled there meeting the same night. Could this be an oversight on their part? Wouldn't surprise me because they seem to overlook a lot of things. Or could it be a strategic move on their part to thwart the public's wishes by creating a scheduling conflict? You decide. "

s-plumb wrote on Jun 23, 2009 12:57 PM:

" I asked that question, but in an ADD-type moment I was more thrown by the location of the public meeting, not being on city property. I found that they can legally hold a meeting in Max's office, but forgot to pursue the time question. I'll see if I can find out. "

ricknkim wrote on Jun 23, 2009 11:42 AM:

" What legal responsibility does the ARA have to make board meeting announcements to the public or the mayor/council? "

s-plumb wrote on Jun 23, 2009 11:33 AM:

" mike: You can't really have a re-minder without an initial announcement. Basically you get it, but this is some of the "behind the scenes", that we typically do not see.
They're accountable to no one here in town, which is why our voices must be heard.
http://thesunchronicle.ning.com/forum/topics/declaration-of-independence?id=2002433%3ATopic%3A20747&page=2#comments "

mike wrote on Jun 23, 2009 8:55 AM:

" Thanks, plumb - now how come the Mayor's office was not cc'd on this email reminder from the Adminstrative Assistant of the ARA? Of course this is a hypothetical question because I already know the ARA does not play fair and thus probably instructed Ms Cruff not to remind them. But it does lead me to remind everyone that Max cries fowl publicly everytime he feels he is slighted by the Mayor. Didn't he whine last winter when he was invited to a meeting that was promised to him by the Mayor but then he didn't like the meeting because it did not have all the people he wanted so then he said the real meeting never happened.......? Enough with this garbage. ARA GO AWAY! "

s-plumb wrote on Jun 23, 2009 5:46 AM:

" !!Another last minute announcement!!
From: Bonnie
To: pret ; Pret Stevenson ; Don Smyth ; Max Volterra ; Captain Ben Keene ; michellebenny@aol.com ; Nancy Maguire Heath
Cc: Ron Dubuc ; Meg Ross ; Edward J Casey ; Judi Quinn ; Nelson, Lisa ; BERGEVINEW@verizon.net
Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 5:09 PM
Subject: ARA Board Meeting

Hello All:

Just a reminder that an ARA Board meeting has been posted for Tuesday, June 23, 2009 at 5:15 p.m. at Maxs office.

Bonnie Cruff

Administrative Assistant

Attleboro Redevelopment Authority

8 North Main Street, Suite 204

Attleboro, MA 02703

t: (508) 222-4012

f: (508) 226-3632

bcruff@attlebororedevelopmentauthority.us "

s-plumb wrote on Jun 21, 2009 7:43 AM:

" steves: It was mentioned somewhere in here. I've posted the comments from George's article on the Attleboro sect of the forums, along with the petition:
http://thesunchronicle.ning.com/forum/topics/declaration-of-independence

Don't forget to take the poll:
http://www.misterpoll.com/polls/437983 "

steves wrote on Jun 20, 2009 9:06 PM:

" S-Plumb
what is that you are refering to?
I can't find anything thru a search or in the forums. "

s-plumb wrote on Jun 20, 2009 6:51 PM:

" I just read the ridicule of the efforts of many by George Rhodes. As if we didn't have enough motivation, this certainly supplies more. "

s-plumb wrote on Jun 17, 2009 1:09 PM:

" The signature page is in the discussion section.
http://thesunchronicle.ning.com/forum/topics/declaration-of-independence "

s-plumb wrote on Jun 17, 2009 12:48 PM:

" Give me a few hours, and Ill post a signature page to be used with the We the people Declaration. Please download and have a few friends sign it. Then take another set and place it in every Cumbys & donut shop and liquor store you can find. Bring it to your barber/hairstylist. Camp outside Stop & Shop, bring it to city hall. Gather as many signatures as possible, perhaps this suffice and gain the reporters attention . "

ricknkim wrote on Jun 17, 2009 9:24 AM:

" I think opposition to the ARA is "heard" all the time in the SC - not a week goes by without a couple articles about the IBP, MM, ARA, etc. If you want more press for the opposition and hopeful ouster, I'd suggest getting some concrete evidence and specific examples - so far, the most recent claims/opposition seem quite unorganized and opinionated rather than a smoking gun. Just a suggestion. "

TB wrote on Jun 17, 2009 8:12 AM:

" s-plumb - it seems as though we won't be heard by the SC, and an unbiased look at this from the outside is not a bad thing. The Providence tv stations might also take interest:

WPRI: Newsroom: 401-438-3310 or internet@wpri.com
WJAR: 401-455-9105 or news@wjar.com "

s-plumb wrote on Jun 16, 2009 12:07 PM:

" Vote:www.misterpoll.com/polls/437983
Correct email is splumb2009@yahoo.com
Councilor Allard is councilorallard@comcast.net
Link to "Declaration of Freedom from Milanoski run ARA http://thesunchronicle.ning.com/forum/topics/declaration-of-independence "

s-plumb wrote on Jun 16, 2009 10:35 AM:

" Just posted it here...
http://thesunchronicle.ning.com/forum/topics/declaration-of-independence "

s-plumb wrote on Jun 16, 2009 10:28 AM:

" www.misterpoll.com/polls/437983

Steves: I've just scanned the copy I received last week. I'm pressed for time but would be glad to oblige. splumb@yahoo.com, and Ill send it your way. If someone has the time to post it, that would be helpful. "

steves wrote on Jun 16, 2009 10:05 AM:

" Can someone post the "kool-aid" letter,there is mention of it in today's paper (page B-5 Attleboro notebook) It says waste of time but does not mention the content.

www.misterpoll.com/polls/437983 "

ricknkim wrote on Jun 16, 2009 9:30 AM:

" I'd have to agree with you in most regards AttleboroResident regarding the use/re-use of exhisting business parks and other open lots in the city versus the ledge-lots in the incomplete IBP.

However, one point is important to note regarding the use of exhisting parks, old mills, etc. The majority of companies prefer to build their own building spec'd precisely to their needs rather than go into an older building and rehab it/retro fit it as best they can - cleaner and easier in their minds. Therefore, these old BPs and mills are at a disadvantage from the perspective.

A wind Farm would be cool since it is the 2nd highest elevation in Attleboro I believe. However, I doubt the return on such an investment would even scratch the surface in paying off the current debt of the IBP. I'd like to see them finish the roads and get some business in there but I fear that most companies will shy away from the site due to the much higher costs related to building on ledge. The city can give all the tax incentives it wants but then what benefit to the taxpayers is left? "

s-plumb wrote on Jun 16, 2009 9:29 AM:

" www.misterpoll.com/polls/437983
TB:Excellent! We don't get heard here, so let's force the issue. I think we've been civil in this discourse. A double-dog dare, wouldn't be out of line. "

TB wrote on Jun 16, 2009 8:55 AM:

" AttleboroResident, the poll is a great idea, and could help get the attention of the last remaining (one or two) investigative reporters in this area. If many people called the Providence Journal, perhaps that would spark their interest: News tip line: (401) 277-7303.

Or write letters to the editors of larger newspapers like the Globe and ProJo, so they know that there is a story here and a groundswell of support for the ouster of MM and a change in the ARA board. The more people that make noise, the more likely this will be investigated by a news organization outside of Attleboro and the more likely we'll get the full story. "

kim allard wrote on Jun 16, 2009 7:26 AM:

" Just a correction my email is councilorallard@comcast.net. The council can't attend the ARA meeting since we have a Council meeting at 7. I would love to hear from anyone wishing to express their thoughts. My home phone is 508-222-3733. "

s-plumb wrote on Jun 16, 2009 5:34 AM:

" www.misterpoll.com/polls/437983
steves: The time of the meeting is odd, but it appears to be a "normal" ARA tactic. Please forward your concerns, before or after the meeting, to a council member. Kim Allard has posted her address here often: kaallard@comcast.net
I believe that on this issue, we may want to stay in contact. My address is splumb2009@yahoo.com.
Others may wish to post theirs as well. "

DawnAnewDay wrote on Jun 15, 2009 10:08 PM:

" I think the poll started today is an interesting start. Would be great if the person who started it or another wrote a letter to the Editor with the link. I believe the Voters of Attleboro are starting to wake up and want to know whats going on. Steve P thanks for keeping us informed - you need to post your personal email again so that people on here can start sending you their private emails so that we all have a way to connect.

www.misterpoll.com/polls/437983 "

steves wrote on Jun 15, 2009 8:37 PM:

" I would love to attend that meeting.
Unfortunatly the time frame doesn't work for me.

www.misterpoll.com/polls/437983 " "

s-plumb wrote on Jun 15, 2009 7:33 PM:

" steves: thanks for keeping the poll visible. www.misterpoll.com/polls/437983
This meeting in Max's office should be attended by as many as possible, so there is proper representation, no matter what side you're on. The paper can only report (or choose to ignore) reality. The council members were only informed this morning, as the announcement was posted at 4:12 Fri afternoon. "

steves wrote on Jun 15, 2009 6:02 PM:

" Good poll idea, how do we spread the word.
Then we need to get it to the Mayor,ARA and council

www.misterpoll.com/polls/437983 " "

s-plumb wrote on Jun 15, 2009 12:55 PM:

" ***Just In***
A meeting of the ARA Board to be held on Tuesday June 16, 2009 at 5:15 PM at the Law Offices of Max Volterra
was posted in the City Clerks Office at 4:12 PM on Friday 6/12/09. "

s-plumb wrote on Jun 15, 2009 12:50 PM:

" kudos on the poll. FYI: I visited 2x, to view progress (honestly) I would like a real un-bias poll; Point being you cannot vote twice from the same ip address. There have already been more votes cast than were cast by the board members last week. "

s-plumb wrote on Jun 15, 2009 11:55 AM:

" One correction to the headline and one of the questions in the survey. The vote backing Milanoski was not unanimous, as only 4 of 5 board members voted.
Im reviewing a ton of questions from just one meeting the council presented through their liaison to the ARA. Its my understanding that few if any were every answered.
It was also noted in the communication that the council is, at times given barely 24 hours notice to meet in Maxs office on ARA issues. Why doesnt the paper question this practice? Shouldnt all meetings be posted and take place in a neutral venue? "

AttleboroResident wrote on Jun 15, 2009 11:20 AM:

" ricknkim - I do have to agree that the questions are somewhat biased against the ARA and IBP. That was not intentional, but in rereading them, your NRA comparison probably will pan out. I let the poll not require login to encourage more users to respond. There may be supporters of the ARA and IBP who would answer positively to an anonymous poll but not want to engage in an active forum. We'll see. "

AttleboroResident wrote on Jun 15, 2009 11:13 AM:

" ricknkim - I have never supported the IBP. My opinion is and has been that the available lots in the existing business parks as well as the brown lots throughout the city should have been built out before taking private land and plans to build on well documented ledge started.

As for next steps for what do do with the road to nowhere... not sure really. If the city continues to own it, it should be revenue generating. A wind or solar farm? That is probably far fetched but there maybe federal dollars to offset some costs. Rezone as residential and see what if any developers what to purchase smaller sections, using the income to cover existing debts?
My criticalness of the ARA is that despite the existing and previous issues, that are marching full steam ahead with little change to their plans, at least that's what I've been able to gather from the SC. New leadership may bring with it new ideas. "

ricknkim wrote on Jun 15, 2009 11:07 AM:

" AttleboroResident - I like the idea of polling and getting some additional buzz around the IBP and your effort. Until there is serious numbers of residents preasuring the ARA board, city hall, etc., there will be little movement in a positive direction. However, I think there are flaws in the polling question(s) development and the audience answering it to have any scientific validity. It is kind of like having a poll at an NRA convention about gun rights, the results are predictable based upon the population used for the sample. "

ricknkim wrote on Jun 15, 2009 10:58 AM:

" I think it is great to be critical of the ARA, in fact it is important to be critical of all things connected with the city/government in hopes it will lead to a better-run program and result in a good product/end result. However, complaining has its limits. Perhaps a complimentary approach might be to propose alternatives to the current/proposed plans and management ideas.

There is a ton of critics about the IBP (I for one have huge questions about the viability and pro forma that the earlier "visionaries" used in dreaming up the IBP as a good idea for the city to get involved in) but there is very little in the way of creative ideas on these blogs. With the current state of the IBP, how do you folks propose the ARA/city move forward? I think selling some of the land for private development was a way to get needed funds to complete roadwork design/etc. How else do you propose the ARA move the project forward? Many say they should scrap the whole thing. What cost will that have on the city or on us, the taxpayer? What could the land be used for instead of an IBP, could that use provide any monetary benefit to the city? "

AttleboroResident wrote on Jun 15, 2009 10:39 AM:

" Thought this poll might be a way to gage response regarding the ARA and IBP. Please only answer once. Pass along to friends. If you have a question you want added, post it.

ARA Poll: http://www.misterpoll.com/polls/437983 "

s-plumb wrote on Jun 14, 2009 12:59 PM:

" Apparently the Milanoski Kool-Aid letter has been circulated to many. It's difficult to believe that this paper in not aware of this grass-roots movement, yet refuses to acknowledge this action, in support of our elected officials.
If there were such a movement against any other entity or individual, it would be front-page news. We should all demand that this paper cover the news. They dont have to go far, as they have their own copy. "

steves wrote on Jun 14, 2009 11:48 AM:

" Give him one of the lots in the IBP as severance pay and SHOW HIM THE DOOR.
Throw in a gold watch it will be cheeper in the long run. "

snarky wrote on Jun 14, 2009 11:25 AM:

" This article should be called "ARA backs director and turns 'back's' on Attleboro" "

saywhat wrote on Jun 13, 2009 1:43 PM:

" s-plumb: For someone who complains about the SC all the time, you sure do read it lots. You seem to be on here all the time which leads me to wonder: Where would s=-plumb be without the chronicle? "

s-plumb wrote on Jun 13, 2009 10:50 AM:

" Within the past week, I received a mailing, which included a 2 page declaration that reflects many views expressed here. Included was a Milanoski Kool-Aid package, with a disclaimer WARNING: MAY BE HARD TO SWALLOW. This declaration if the author agrees, could be posted on the Forum section of the SC web-site (a suggestion posted on the board), where electronic yas and nays could be collected. If this too is ignored, physical signatures could be collected.
There is no 1 leader. There are many individuals who were really awakened by this final slap in the face by the SC in reporting on the actions of 4 of 5 members of the ARA. Thats my take on how things will or should procede. "

s-plumb wrote on Jun 13, 2009 9:59 AM:

" Within the past week, I received a mailing, which included a 2 page declaration that reflects many views expressed here. Included was a Milanoski Kool-Aid package, with a disclaimer WARNING: MAY BE HARD TO SWALLOW. This declaration if the author agrees, could be posted on the Forum section of the SC web-site (a suggestion posted on the board), where electronic yas and nays could be collected. If this too is ignored, physical signatures could be collected.
There is no 1 leader. There are many individuals who were really awakened by this final slap in the face by the SC in reporting on the actions of 4 of 5 members of the ARA. Thats my take on how things will or should procede. "

DawnANewDay wrote on Jun 12, 2009 9:46 PM:

" So Ok S-Plumb. What's the next step? What do you recommend the people of Attleboro do? It seems that people on here are looking for a leader - a go to guy. Will you lead? Do you have a plan? "

s-plumb wrote on Jun 12, 2009 6:35 PM:

" There is much more agreement than disagreement regarding the ARA, and the need for change.
As for the SC having reporters...dont hold your breathe. They only publish what's given to them, from the ARA, like they used to do for the Cub Scouts, and Little League recorders of the week. If there were a common mans ACLU, wed have a remedy. "

late to the party wrote on Jun 12, 2009 5:09 PM:

" AttleboroResident, what downtown revitalization work are you referring to that Milanoski has done? From my understanding, all he has done so far is over pay for Ottmar's building and take a few other properties for the future Intermodal Center that will probably never get done if Milanoski is in charge. The only visible work to date by the ARA downtown is the recent, temporary ingress/egress for the communter lot. That is it. Am I missing something? "

AttleboroResident wrote on Jun 12, 2009 2:45 PM:

" Hey ricknkim, I am critical of MM in his handling of the IBP but do give him some credit for the downtown revitalization work. With that being said, the IBP is sinking the ARA and our city if we get stuck with the bills. Unlike the laws at sea, this captain should abandon ship and not go down with it.

We need new blood in the ARA or to abolish it. The board obviously can't see past itself to determine right from wrong. They've dug their feet in the sand and we're all losing.

I too would like to see an investigative report on the IBP. There's got to plenty of dirt to unearth. The financial connection between BCS and ARA could be one. Then all the land deals were certain members of ARA made quite a profit. Maybe a story for one of SC's short term interns??? "

ricknkim wrote on Jun 12, 2009 1:13 PM:

" Pardon me if I have little to no respect for state and federal representatives - any statements made are subject to change with the wind (or with the right amount of money placed in their hand).

I think the ARA board has shot themselves in the foot by flaunting their 100% support of MM without communicating clear/concise reasoning behind it. When someone makes a mistake and then admits to it and makes corrective actions, they gain a ton of respect from me. I think the ARA board has failed at this and instead they simply support MM as a political maneuver against city hall. Too bad, Attleboro loses in this political peeing match. As long as the board is happy along with McGovern and other political hacks - that's all that matters, right?

Too bad the SC doesn't have a true investigative reporter who could piece this spider web together and exploit what truly is happening - gone are the days of real reporting with the demise of newspapers. "

s-plumb wrote on Jun 12, 2009 12:20 PM:

" ricknkim: I agree that there would have been issues either way, but no one can fire the guy, and his immediate fate is determined by 4-5 people. They have to be concerned, by the statements made by both federal and state representatives, in tacit support of the director. "

ricknkim wrote on Jun 12, 2009 10:01 AM:

" It is okay to disagree, I don't think for a moment that I am 100% correct or that I have all the answers. I think many complaints and some ill-will about MM are warranted based upon some mistakes he's made and his apparent "needs improvement" people skills.

However, I still think he does not deserve all the blame and bashing he constantly takes from the regular posters about the ARA. Seems like most guilty parties aren't shouldering their share, if any, of the blame about the IBP/site location/vision/pro-forma/ projections. Sign of the times I guess, lack of accountability, but then again, many posters here aren't pressing the issue beyond MM so why admit guilt if you can skirt it at MM's expense?

I think the IBP was doomed long before being passed to the ARA S-plumb. I think the ARA does have some talent and good ideas. Unfortunately the IBP has created a complete lack of confidence in it and turned a blind eye to any positive work they do/could do. "

late to the party wrote on Jun 12, 2009 9:13 AM:

" Sorry ricknkim, but I agree with splumb on this one. You have good managers and bad managers. Then you have Mike Milanoski who is not either. He is talented but to limit the negativity I will refrain from explaining where his talents "lie." This problem was here prior to the economic crisis and will remain until Milanoski leaves the job. "

s-plumb wrote on Jun 11, 2009 5:04 PM:

" The govt should never be involved in a project like this. That's common sense. However, Milanoski is the largest part of that so-called perfect storm. He was the worst possible individual you could task with this fiasco. He has no roots here, and no incentive to succeed. This is why he felt perfectly comfortable driving the city into the ground, and keeping elected officials at bay. Once the reigns were passed to the ARA in Nov 2002, we were doomed. "

vote wrote on Jun 11, 2009 3:55 PM:

" Good points, ricknkim. It was Smyth and Volterra, particulary Smyth, who pushed for the Ides Hill location. This was well before Milanoski's hiring. And as Don Smyth himself explained to the council, he was well aware of, if not actually involved in writing, the earth removal ordinance which the ARA is now trying to sneak around. Smyth is not so vocal about saving this project now, he'd rather hide behind BCC's accomplishments. At least Volterra has not run away. As they say, "It's the location, stupid!" Even the Automatic Machine folks, who've been quite charitable towards the ARA, said that in the end they could not build there because it would cost an extra $2 million to deal with all the ledge. "

ricknkim wrote on Jun 11, 2009 3:23 PM:

" I think MM has his faults and should be open to admitting past and present mistakes . . . but, I don't think he's nearly as incompetant as many of you make him out to be. Project management of this scale, on a less than desirable project and under the perfect storm of economic conditions is not nearly as easy as many here seem to believe.

Much blame should be placed on the shoulders of those who thought government should get involved in IBP development game to begin with - was it MM who sought the current location for the IBP? I'm not sure, but I don't think so. MM was brought in to manage a poorly planned development from the get go. Why not hold those who dreamed the idea/location up accountable rather than the person charged with managing it? Is it so much bad management or more of a victim of the economic crisis? "

s-plumb wrote on Jun 10, 2009 1:28 PM:

" Here's the link to the task force report:
http://sunchronicle.com/pdf/ARA-report-11-19-08.pdf "

s-plumb wrote on Jun 10, 2009 1:15 PM:

" 1st, I received my Kool-Aid last night. Thanks. That is a fantastic idea!
A fact sheet on the ARA would be a great value. The problem is that the facts are sparse. This guys been stone walling the councils requests for years.
My suggestion would be to compile council minutes, assuming theyre searchable. Anything less would allow for interpretation. Included in this should be the mayors task force report, which had a nice summary of when this started (Nov. 2002?), and what the situation was in the Fall 08. The law covering Authorities should also be accessible, so the obstacles are understood by all. We can all put out some feelers, to see whats available. This is a place to start. It may take some time, but this is a worthy effort. "

AttleboroResident wrote on Jun 10, 2009 7:08 AM:

" Mike, my error. Misunderstood your post. DawnANewDay, yes that is what I'm looking for too. We need a place outside of individual articles to keep track of all the facts surrounding the ARA and the IBP. There are a few forums that cover ARA in the SC Blogs site but not a consolidated list of facts and time lines for IBP. As these stories drop offline, we lose the posts individuals have made.
see this site:
http://thesunchronicle.ning.com/forum "

DawnANewDay wrote on Jun 9, 2009 6:21 PM:

" TO: S Plumb or someone with ARA history. Would you please start an ARA FACTS Forum in the Sun Chronicle Online Community section for all of us who want a place that all the information can be gathered together. We need a place to go to get the history on the ARA. "

mike wrote on Jun 9, 2009 5:19 PM:

" To AttleboroResident - I am not sure what you mean by posting a link to my blog. Do you mean a private blog? Would love to help you but I am not sure how. Please let me know as I would love to share all of the facts and more to anyone interested in knowing them. Oh, and one more thing - GO AWAY ARA!!!!!!!! "

AttleboroResident wrote on Jun 9, 2009 3:38 PM:

" To Mike: Can you post a link to your blog? You've listed a great level of detail here. Many facts that I have lost track of.

I agree with most posts here that this story is not news and does not belong on the front page. If it wasn't so sad, it may fit in the comics. Who out there believed that the outcome of this vote would be anything less? We need new life in the ARA or to abolish it. "

s-plumb wrote on Jun 9, 2009 12:09 PM:

" SC has enough posts to keep this as headline news for the next month, management, as well as the politicians supporting the ARAs executive director should get the message. In fact, lets look at how theyve colluded. The SC filed a complaint with the AGs office in November/ December, claiming that the mayor had basically violated the rights of Mr. Milanoski, by holding an illegal meeting to oust him. No one told Mr. Kirby that his paper reported on the meeting in question. The AG concluded that the charge was without merit.
About a month later they ran a full page ad by Mr. Ottmar, who was ranting about the politicians in both Attleboro and North Attleboro. The paper quickly interviewed Mr. Kirby, and printed his reaction; mostly on the IBP aspect. Then they re-ran the entire letter for free, and continued to report on it for another day.
Then the w/e expose of the life and times of Michael Milanoski. The piece brought tears to many an eye, when we found he had children. Then again, most of the folks he dealt with also have children.
Why is this paper AGGRESSIVELY LOBBYING in favor of this individual and 4 others, at the expense of the citys 42,000 residence? Did they come to the aid of anyone on the receiving end of Mikes handiwork? Nope. I remember the quote from a staff writer in 2003 for the greater goodSC & staff, you wrote it, now live it :) "

Atticus wrote on Jun 8, 2009 10:40 PM:

" "Board members have staunchly defended Milanoski, arguing that many of the circumstances that resulted in the debt were out of anyone's control."

This shows a further degree of ineptness, possibly including the whole board. At the outset those things known to be outside anyone's control should have been minimized, if not brought under control. Anything which can go wrong will go wrong.

"The best laid plan does not survive contact with the enemy". "

DawnANewDay wrote on Jun 8, 2009 9:43 PM:

" Every time I read the article or the blogs today about this, I still have to come back to S-Plumb's 5:33 AM remarks below, which were so simple and so well said " Why is this advertisement on the front page? This should be in the classified section. " I still think that was probably the best "post" of the day ...and just about sums it all up! "

mike wrote on Jun 8, 2009 9:35 PM:

" For starters, the director of community development's last name is Pina, not Depina. Second, your assertion that the "money was being distributed incorrectly" shows you did not read my blog or other's blogs earlier, nor did you do you homework. The monies that were distributed 2-years earlier (2-years before Sal Pina was hired by Dumas) were correctly funded. The issue was that the ARA was supposed to show job creation according to the HUD requirements within a certain period of time. They did not and still have not and that is why HUD is asking for the money back. As someone mentioned earlier, please do you homework before making incorrect statements. "

ucbruin wrote on Jun 8, 2009 7:49 PM:

" Mike, maybe you can fill me in here. I seem to remember that it was after Mr. DePina was hired that the monies you refer to was denied to the ARA because Mr. DePina brought to the Administration's attention that the money was being distributed incorrectly. Am I correct on this? Is this what you remember too? "

GetItRight wrote on Jun 8, 2009 7:28 PM:

" Fire Milanoski NOW. Volterra needs to go too. "

mike wrote on Jun 8, 2009 6:10 PM:

" To add to your comments, LTTP, I would also like to say to UCBRUIN that granting a small portion of the City Block Grant Money (CDBG as you call it) was not strictly for the IBP. It was also meant to assist the ARA with their other projects like the Intermodal Center in downtown and the Cookson Campus project across from Sturdy. This money was given to the ARA with the best of intentions. I think why the mayor is so mad at Milanoski and the ARA is because they hosed him and the city council with BS. They took the money, lied about the timeframes, lied about job creation and then asked for more money. He didn't give it to them and they publicly berated him for it. If it were me, I probably would have given them all of the grant money considering the dog and pony shows they did. All those pretty drawings of downtown they kept publishing. All bullsh**!!! "

late to the party wrote on Jun 8, 2009 5:50 PM:

" ucbruin - your points are as dull as beach stone. The ARA promised they would only need City assistance for 18-months. That is documented and fact. The money came from the CDBG fund which is allowable under HUD guidelines. So what the Mayor did 2 years ago and the year before that was completely acceptable within HUD regulations. He also gave a smaller portion than requested by the ARA and they were not happy. They took it anyway. So it is not correct when you say 'this money was technically not suppose to be given to the ARA.' What is correct is that the ARA promised job creation and has not made good on that promise. That is why HUD is now asking for them to return the money. If you follow the timeline and look at the facts you will reach another conclusion. That is of course (and please don't take this personally) you are not a total idiot. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I assume you will see my side sooner than later. "

ucbruin wrote on Jun 8, 2009 5:28 PM:

" L/P-that's my point. In the Mayor's/Admin's past budgets money meant for community development was given to the ARA. If I am correct in my interpretation of the situation, this money was technically not suppose to be given to the ARA. If this is correct then who should be held responsible for a budget which gave away money that should not have been given away? The author of the budget or someone else? "

late to the party wrote on Jun 8, 2009 5:25 PM:

" Oh, and you are also incorrect about the City Council having control over the ARA. Do you homework on "Authorities" or "Public Benefit Corporations." It is surprising how limited legislative and administrative control over these bodies exist. To say any elected official who was voted in within the last 5-years should leave is irresponsible. This ill conceived business park was the brain child of elected officials dating back to the 80's and 90's. It was not until Milanoski took the helm (about 5-years ago) that the promises got bigger and the return got smaller. Given the amount of book cooking and deceit that has been coming from the ARA and its Director, I am surprised at how quickly this Mayor and Council caught on. You should really take a closer look at what is really going on here. "

late to the party wrote on Jun 8, 2009 5:11 PM:

" Wait just a second, ucbruin. You have it all wrong. It is not the Mayor/Administration that mis-spent the HUD money. The appropriation of monies under HUD guidelines was supposed to produce jobs. Jobs that Milanoski and the ARA promised would be created. It was a domino effect of mismanagement on behalf of the ARA that has held up the IBP and thus has not created jobs. The last HUD money that was distributed to the ARA was over 2 years ago before the economic crisis thus leaving the empty excuses by the ARA and Milanoski null and void. It was not until a year ago when the Mayor announced that HUD money was not going to be granted to the ARA (also before the economic meltdown). It was at this point that Max, Don and the rest of the board (whose names held more clout then) tried to strong arm the Mayor through public threats both at Council meetings and through this newspaper to get him to give in. Instead of giving in, he went one step further and asked for the Director's resignation. Kudos to Mayor Dumas then and kudos to him now. You have it all wrong ucbruin. "

ucbruin wrote on Jun 8, 2009 4:56 PM:

" Mike, I'm no miracle worker...I wouldn't know what to do to correct the problems facing the ARA/IBP and the City. I am just trying to point out that current problems to the City's budget and IBP are sometimes out of the control of any individual. IBP problem compounded by the fact HUD money may have been improperly distributed in past City budgets written by the Mayor and approved by the Council. Don't scapegoat just 1 of several participants in this mess. Look at the broad picture and you may just notice that I am not attacking the Mayor/Admin, just trying to point out what loooks like poor leadership of all 3 entities or an unfortunate economic situation which was beyond their control. "

mike wrote on Jun 8, 2009 4:43 PM:

" I agree with all of you slamming ucbruin's comments. No compromises. The mayor is correct. Get rid of Milanoski. This is not a time for the kumbaya, let's all just get along BS. This mayor continues to exceed my expectations - especially with last weeks budget! I'll bet you if he was in charge of the ARA, the IBP would be in the black and we would already have tenants in there generating much needed tax revenue. "

ucbruin wrote on Jun 8, 2009 4:42 PM:

" I am the 1st to admit that I don't know the entire history of the ARA/IBP. I just know that this is a problem created by not just 1 person or entity. ARA/MM, Mayor/Administration, Council each have a role in the poor results of the IBP. ARA/MM for poor communication, Mayor/Admin for not doing his due dilegence regard HUD money distribution and Council for using the "excuse" that they have no power over the ARA and therefore provided no oversight, yet now cry over the "split" milk. Either get rid of all or get rid of none. There is no individual villian nor hero in this mess. "

s-plumb wrote on Jun 8, 2009 1:58 PM:

" Also of note are the removal by this paper of most comments relating to ARA "funding", "rezoning", etc. Do an archives search, and check it out...I think comments by Dawn & Doug were allowed to stay, but most were removed. Talk about controlling the news! "

s-plumb wrote on Jun 8, 2009 12:44 PM:

" I try not to comment on these stories, because it gives the SC and Milanoski undeserved visibility when they both have caused more pain to this city than any others. I'd be glad to exchange quips and battle stories at splumb2009@yahoo.com. "

attman63 wrote on Jun 8, 2009 12:23 PM:

" What did the Mayor say when asked to comment on this vote? It seems like the thing to do would either ask for a comment or leave him out of the story altogether. "

snooker wrote on Jun 8, 2009 10:32 AM:

" attleboroguy...obviously ucbruin doesn't comprehend what is going on! This mayor is doing very well..in fact exceptionaly well in this economy. Look around at other area communities.

s-plumb, your silence is deafening!!!! "

RICKYL1024 wrote on Jun 8, 2009 10:12 AM:

" The problem is Max Volerra and others who support Mike Milanoski,these people need to be put out to pasture and removed from the ARA board. they, along with Milanoski have misled the tax payers for far too long. "

common_sense wrote on Jun 8, 2009 10:09 AM:

" He needs our confidence, the taxpayers, not the boards.
What don't they understand, we (the taxpayers) don't like him, he has mismanaged the IPB, it's in debt and we the taxpayers want him gone. I can't see how the IPB can successful proceed in this enviroment. "

chartley-sam wrote on Jun 8, 2009 10:05 AM:

" Booooooo!Hisssss!!! "

attleboroguy wrote on Jun 8, 2009 9:44 AM:

" Hey ucbruin. Get rid of the Mayor you said. Are you crazy, did you not read the paper this Saturday which showed how the mayor presented a budget to the city council, which in these tough economic times, prevented 60 people from being laid off and our water/sewer and trash rates not being increased? "

steves wrote on Jun 8, 2009 9:34 AM:

" Exceeded expectations WOW that bar wasn't set very high!!
This group really is thick as theives,if this were any private buisness this clown would be long gone just from a PR standpoint.
Please explain how his pay comes from our taxes yet we have no control over him. "

reb715 wrote on Jun 8, 2009 8:16 AM:

" " arguing that many of the circumstances that resulted in the debt were out of anyones control"... what a joke ...isn't that what we have a manager for... to keep things in control...the management of the city and ARA are looking like a bunch of fools...what a disgrace our leadership is "

kevin h. wrote on Jun 8, 2009 8:01 AM:

" The whole board is to blame for the inept way it does business. They are rats.
DISSOLVE THE ARA NOW!!!!! "

doug wrote on Jun 8, 2009 7:43 AM:

" " "Vote of confidence from his boss, the ARA board" Take that from whence it comes!! " "

attlebrockton wrote on Jun 8, 2009 7:42 AM:

" The story should read the Sun Chronicle will stop at nothing to keep this story alive and support the ARA .Isn't the Mayor's point about the ARA is that they don't get it? At least they take a vote to prove they are aslmost unified in their blinders. "

kathy flynn wrote on Jun 8, 2009 7:41 AM:

" "Michael has exceeded our expectations in almost all areas," Volterra said.

Let's see Max. In which areas did he exceed: misleading the taxpayers, city, and state officials? Failing to properly monitor costs, expenses, or just flat out misleading the taxpayers, city and state officials such costs and expenses?

Regardng the communications improvement: does that mean he's learned to double-speak properly, or he's learned how to miscommunicate with sounding like he's miscommunicating.

Milanoski and the ARA board must go. "

DawnANewDay wrote on Jun 8, 2009 7:31 AM:

" S-Plumb: You really should do comedy stand up, you had me in tears when I read your post. How can you be so funny and so true at the same time? "

woodglue wrote on Jun 8, 2009 7:16 AM:

" It is a shame that we suckers (taxpayers) can't vote on this matter,
then we could end the constant foolishness that seems to revolve around this individual. "

ucbruin wrote on Jun 8, 2009 6:29 AM:

" In my opinion all/every City leader(s) and ARA members who have been involved in the ARA and IBP for the past 5+ years are equally "slick" as MM. I think the best would be to either have the Mayor and ARA work together or get rid of them all...Mayor, ARA members, MM, and the too long sitting Council members. Time for an over-haul. "

s-plumb wrote on Jun 8, 2009 5:33 AM:

" Why is this advertisement on the front page? This should be in the classified section. "

late to the party wrote on Jun 8, 2009 4:41 AM:

" I guess one could say Milanoski's communication has improved if the goal is for him to slither around topics and skillfully dodge others. He has gotten quite good at that. Max must be giving him lessons. I watched him recently at a City Council meeting and he was slick. I had to jump in the shower right after because I felt so slimy but he sure was slick. "

RSS |

Sitemap | About Us | Contact Us | Archives | Subscribe | Classifieds | Place an Ad

©Copyright 2009