The recently disclosed payment to Bangor City Councilor Richard Greene of $750 for his “professional services” for the recording heard on the telephone message system at City Hall is appalling.

Initially, I asked myself how one responds to this absurdity? The answer came quickly, with disgust, when remembering that last month it was revealed that there had also been a charge brought against Bangor’s former mayor and current council member for an allegedly forged $9,000 invoice submitted for “usage fees” of nine “mayoral portraits” and another for $9,500 for restoration work to mayoral photos.

As a taxpayer, there are some questions that come to my mind for both Mr. Greene and Bangor’s other council members. First, does there not appear to be at least a glimmer of what might be termed cronyism that a councilor would even be tapped to do mayor-councilor portraits? Was this important (not to mention expensive) task ever put out to bid to perhaps see if others might be interested in doing work of equal or perhaps even better quality for less or equal payment? It just seems quite pricey to an average working man like me.

Next, I ask why policies are not in place that would assure the good residents of Bangor that their hard-earned tax dollars are spent prudently. I would posit that the approved $750 paid to Councilor Greene for a standard voice recording that is used on most business telephone systems is not prudent. I almost think that Frank Sinatra would consider coming back to use his “golden throat” on the answering machine for this “golden egg.”

Yes, it does seem outrageous when I have personally observed two individuals almost run over because of sidewalks not being plowed, hear regular lamentations from Bangor officials about the expenditures on road salt and sand, read stories about people losing their mufflers to cavernous potholes and that developing the city budget is so very challenging. Today’s economy has us all facing difficult choices.

The photo and recording expenditures seem to be extravagant based on the finished products the people of Bangor received. Sadly, the voting public in Bangor would most likely never have heard about this utterly shameless situation if the forgery charge had not become a storyline. The legal system, however, will decide Greene’s innocence or guilt.

There are more questions, however, that beg to be answered. Are there other cases of city officials doing work for the city of Bangor – even within the sector they serve in – and being paid such fine payment for services rendered? If the council was not aware of these events, then perhaps can it begin the task of ensuring that they ensure awareness of similar situations that might arise in the future?

If councilors feel that engaging their colleagues at prices seemingly far above the average is acceptable, is it not time to perhaps consider rethinking the policies that allow for this and possibly alter their collective position on this? If the councilors believe that these are truly reasonable expenditures, then is there not perhaps too much money, as opposed to not enough, flowing into city coffers? Finally, if Bangor city officials wish to regain full public trust, might it be a wise idea to consider engaging an independent auditor to assist them in clarifying and fulfilling their fiduciary responsibilities? It might be money better spent than on answering machine recordings and photographs.

What it entails to be a public servant and the meanings of integrity and public trust are the thoughts we can now all ponder as we await additional clarity on this matter.

Denis Cranson lives in Bangor.