French Park Fund
It's not too late to make a 2008 contribution to the French Park Fund. Write a check to "French Park Fund, Inc." and drop it off at town hall or at the North Egremont store or mail it to me at 223 Egremont Plain Rd, PMB 108, North egremont, MA 01252. Charity begins at home!!

Police Station

Minutes of a recent selectmen's meeting state that the estimated cost of a new police station looks to be about $500,000. Watch out, my friends! The "edifice complex" folks who hang out at town hall seem hell-bent on pushing through this project. They seem oblivious to what's going on in the economy, and to the real cuts that are inevitable in town government expenditures. Egremont needs some realistic budget assessments and decisions, and I'm not very confident that that's coming from our selectboard.

Housatonic River ACEC

A coalition of environmental groups has just proposed to the state that a 12 mile stretch of the Housatonic River between Pittsfield and Lee be designated an "area of critical environmental concern" (an "ACEC"), which would result in significantly increased restrictions on land use in the affected area, as well as further delays in the PCB cleanup of the river. I think this is a terrible and selfish idea and have filed the following comment on the proposal. You can file a comment by e-mail to elizabeth.sorenson@state.ma.us if you wish. If you agree with the comment I filed, you can just say you support the comment filed by Richard Allen. (If you disagree, file a contrary comment and/or enter a comment on this blog entry saying I'm wrong.)

"This is a formal comment to the proposed Housatonic River ACEC. Please include it in the record.

I have been an environmentalist for over 35 years, and am one of the founders of Environmental Advocates, the pre-eminent environmental lobbying group in New York. This comment reflects only my own views and not necessarlly those of EA or any other group.

I have read the proposal authored by the sponsoring coalition group carefully. It is one-sided, inaccurate in many respects, and insufficient to support an ACEC designation. While lip service is given to the 9 factors to be considered for ACEC designation, the proposal is deficient in providing actual evidence to support the proposal.

ACEC designation requires findings that the area is unique, or at least significantly different from comparable areas to merit special designation. Yet the proposal specifies only one stretch of the Housatonic for designation, and does not show that that stretch is significantly different from any other comparable portion of the river.

The reason for that presentation is obvious, and is evidenced often and overtly in the proposal itself. The real intent of the coalition is to interfere with the PCB cleanup of the river. Not satisfied with the results of years of detailed hearings and investigations into the PCB problems of the Housatonic, participated in by many of the coalition members, the coalition is obviously seeking a way to re-open the cleanup matter.

In our legal and regulatory system, there comes a time to close the record, make decisions and go forward. That time has occurred regarding the cleanup of the Housatonic. It is simply inappropriate to allow the coalition and its friends to overturn a result not to their liking. But much worse, it is unfair to the citizenry to delay once again cleaning up a problem that should be accomplished as soon as possible.

But apart from the environmental and health reasons that we should not engage in further delaying tactics, there are important economic reasons to deny this designation. Our state and our nation are facing difficult, and uncertain, and possibly prolonged economic times. With increasing numbers of Berkshire County residents likely to be unemployed or suffering reduced incomes, this is not the time to engage in the luxury of prolonged environmental battles. One of the factors that must be considered in proposing an ACEC is the economic impact. While cute arguments can be made to the contrary, there can be little doubt that designating the proposed area as an ACEC will result in less economic opportunity in the affected area. We cannot afford that result in these times. And with people in the construction trades facing fewer jobs and less work opportunities, we should be trying to create the jobs that the Housatonic cleanup will produce, not delaying them.

Respectfully submitted,
Richard M. Allen
45 Second Street
North Egremont, MA 01252
413-528-2108"

French Park

Tis the season to be charitable, and charity begins at home. Please make out as large a check as you can to "French Park Fund, Inc." and drop it off at town hall or at the North Egremont store or mail it to French Park Fund, 223 Egremont Plain Rd, PMB 108, North Egremont, MA 01252. Contributions are fully rax deductible and you'll get a receipt for tax purposes.

The Fund has two major projects in the works: replacing the children's playground and building a trail system. Volunteers are always welcome.

School Consolidation

It would be nice to know the position of our selectmen on this issue. Do you think one or more of them will let the rest of us know, by commenting on this posting or otherwise? Except maybe for Bruce Cumsky, don't hold your breath.

Governmental Positions

The town annual report just came out. I counted the number of governmental positions. Wow! We have about 900 registered voters. We have 25 elected officials and 155 appointed officials. So there is roughly one governmental position for every 5 voters. Do we really need that? No wonder there's so much governmental interference in our lives.

Unsung Heroes

There are many Egremonters who do good things for the town and its people but don't get (nor expect) credit for them. An example is the new hydrant, and its new source pond, on Blunt Road. That hydrant will be there if needed (God forbid) for a fire on Blunt Road, and, even if there never is a fire, will likely reduce the insurance premiums paid by those homeowners who are near it. Three people deserve accolades for getting that hydant and pond put in: Bill Weigle, for researching its location and shepherding it through all the approvals and other necessary actions; Bruce Bernstein, for allowing his land to be dedicated to that use; and Bill Warner, for digging the pond and doing the other heavy work at virtually no cost to the town.

These people are models for what it means to be a good neighbor. Unlike many Egremonters, they did the reverse of trying to stop what their neighbors were doing; they did what was right for everyone. There are far too many NIMBYs in Egremont who use the planning board, the conservation commission, the zoning board of appeals and the board of health to further their own selfish desires at the expense of their neighbors.

Thanks, Bill, Bruce and Bill, for your selfless attitude. Keep it up.

Selectmen Animosity

I went to the selectmen's meeting last night. It was a real eye opener. I urge all of you to go to a meeting to see how bad things have gotten. Animosity permeates the room and rudeness results.

Bruce Cumsky continues to raise issues and take positions that Bruce Turner and Tom Haas don't like. When Cumsky pushes the issue, Turner (and sometimes Haas) becomes rude, both to Cumsky and to whoever in the audience agrees with Cumsky. The atmosphere is pretty poisonous.

For example, last night Cumsky reiterated his request that all boards and departments prepare draft budgets for next year reflecting 5% expense reductions. That seems right to lots of us, since times are going to get very tough for towns and are already tough for many taxpayers. But Turner resists this openly, Haas more quietly. Turner says our taxes are relatively low, so we shouldn't be cutting expenses and the services they provide. That position might be defensible in ordinary times, but it's just irresponsible given what's going on in the world and in Massachusetts. Maybe things will get better, maybe they won't. But to not plan for bad times seems foolhardy.

Turner's position isn't surprising in light of his past positions. He has publicly stated more than once that since the town is in the process of paying off loans for some past capital items, we have the "opportunity" to rehabilitate the town hall, build a new library, etc. I call that the "edifice" complex. How about reducing taxes, Bruce? Tom?

As you might suspect, I am not well received at selectmen's meetings. But that won't stop me from publicizing the positions of our officials. The voters need to know who is watching out for them and who is watching out for themselves.

Don't believe me? Go to a meeting and see for yourselves. Disagree with me? Post your views; they're always encouraged.

Special Town Meeting

All the articles passed. One barely passed, the one about hiring an engineer (at up to $20,000) to analyze possible renovations at town hall. I'm told the opposition was based on getting experts in town to do the work, for free. But "cover your ass" mentality permeates town hall. Hmmmmm!

The cell tower charade also passed. Now the selectboard will put out an RFP for leasing town land to a tower company, with the expectation that no one will bid, and therefore we'll all rise up in opposition to the planning board and other cell opponents, and get a real cell tower bylaw passed, instead of the nonsensical (and probably illegal) one we have now. I've commented before about the oiliness of that approach, but we're stuck with it now.

I just hope the RFP doesn't screw things up, and there are several ways that could happen. First, there are cell tower companies out there, especially the smaller ones, that build up "inventories" of sites as a way to market themselves to the telecom companies. One or more of them might bid to increase their "inventory," even though they know there's no chance of actually erecting a tower on the town hall site. That can be handled by saying in the RFP that actual construction must start within, say, 6 months of awarding the contract, with penalties for not doing so. Second, the RFP should be completely consistent with the zoning bylaw. It should make it clear that a special permit is required from the planning board, not just approval by the selectboard, and should outline some of the provisions of the bylaw, such as no lights, minimum distances, etc. Otherwise, a bidder might argue that it reasonably believed the requirements set forth in the RFP were the only ones that had to be met. Third, the RFP should have tight time deadlines, but they should be realistic, or bidders could argue that it was impossible to comply. Same with other requirements: no impossibly difficult ones.

All of these problems, if the RFP isn't done right, could lead to having to start the process over and over, with delay after delay. That just plays into the hands of the "no cell towers ever" crowd.


I still don't understand why we have to go down this path at all. Why not just deal with the cell tower issue straight up? See my posting below under "Town Meeting: Cell Towers."

Cell Phones

The special town meeting is tomorrow. I spoke again today to the Mariner Tower rep who proposed the possibility of a tower at the town hall site earlier this year. He said he had not yet received a formal response from the FAA, but was confident the FAA would disapprove a tower at the town hall site. He also said he thought a tower at Proctor's farm could not get FAA approval. I suggested the Egremont Country Club, and he thought that site was too far east.

To cover the south half of town, the ideal site would be south of Route 23 and west of the south village. Any ideas?

Town Meeting: Water Company Cost Overruns

When will this nightmare end? Year after year, the water company takes in far less than it spends, and the taxpayers have to make up the difference. When the water company was established, townspeople were told it would be self-supporting. It's just not fair for most of us to have to bear the cost of our own wells, maintenance, water testing, etc, and then have to also subsidize the water company's customers. When are we going to say "enough" and elect water commissioners who will promise to set rates that will cover expenses? And if it turns out that can't be done, let's sell the water company to the users and let them control their own fate.

Town Meeting: Article 3

This article seeks $20,000 to hire someone to assess renovation of town hall. There is continuing concern about ADA compliance, and other renovations certainly could be considered. If this has to be done, I'd prefer using the expertise of townspeople (at no cost) rather than paying an outside consultant, but that attitude has always fallen on deaf ears down at town hall. Consultants often buttress the "edifice complex" of some of the town hall denizens, producing grandiose proposals like the ones I've starting hearing about for a library.

It's important to note this appropriation would be for town hall only, not a police station or a library or a senior center or any other pipe dream. Of course, one thing can lead to another, and I worry about the "getting a little bit pregnant" risk.

I need to be convinced that we really need to do this before I vote for it.

Town Meeting: Cell Towers

Article 1 on the warrant for the October 4 special town meeting seeks to empower the selectmen to lease a portion of the town hall property to a cell tower company. It is an exercise in futility.

Two years ago we adopted a cell tower zoning bylaw that was designed to prevent cell towers in town. Among its many defects: (1) Celltowers are permitted only at Catamount and the town hall property on Route 71. There has been a tower on Catamount for years and, despite some extensive marketing efforts by the company that owns it, no telecom company (i.e., cell phone company) is interested in putting an antenna on it. It's just in the wrong place; it doesn't provide coverage adequate for a telecom company to want to use it. The town hall property is in the runway path of the Great Barrington airport. It is likely the FAA would not permit any tower anywhere on the site, and it is virtually certain the FAA would not allow it if the airport owner and the pilots who use the airport are opposed. They are. (2) The bylaw doesn't permit any lighting on a tower. Can you imagine a tower in the runway path of an airport without lighting? (3) A tower must be at least 500 feet from any dwelling and at least one and one-half times its height from the property boundary. It's not clear those requirements could ever be met at the town hall site, especially given the need to erect a tower where it will provide the coverage the telecom companies want. (4) Even if all these (and a host of other) obstacles could be miraculously overcome, a tower would require a special permit from the planning board (which requires the positive vote of 4 of the 5 members of the PB), and their record on this issue doesn't inspire optimism.

I've spoken to the guy from Mariner Tower whose visit to town hall early this summer precipitated this article. He is pretty certain that no tower could be built at town hall. There is no reason to think any other tower company would feel otherwise. So what's the point of putting this empty exercise before the voters? There's a theory that once the voters approve it, get excited about the possibility of getting cell phone service in town and then find out it ain't gonna happen, they'll rise up in anger and demand that the zoning bylaw be changed. That's a tactic I might have come up with when I was a Wall Street lawyer. But it seems inappropriate in any open democratic process, and it doesn't pass my smell test.

I think we ought to face the cell phone service situation head-on. First, we should actively seek input from the tower companies and telecom companies. (Would you believe that when the PB formulated its bylaw 2 years ago, it didn't speak to a single tower company or telecom company?) I know from conversations with the companies that they need and want a tower in the south part of town, toward the east end. Second, we should amend the bylaw to permit towers where the companies want them. That doesn't risk having towers in inappropriate locations: the bylaw requires a host of "compatability" findings before a special permit will issue. Third, we should amend the bylaw to remove all its impediments that artificially prevent or seriously impede the companies from complying with it. (And if we don't do that, we risk a lawsuit from one of the companies seeking to hold our bylaw illegal under federal law, which it probably is.) Fourth, we should put the permitting authority in the selectboard. That's where the authority lies with respect to wired or wireless internet service (such as WiSpring), and the considerations for cell phone equipment are the same and should be before the same board.

So I'm planning to vote against article 1 on the ground that any amount we spend on this useless exercise is money wasted. And next May, if the selectboard won't do it, I'll put forth the changes suggested above by citizens' petition.

Saturday Special Town Meeting

Congratulations to the selectboard for holding the upcoming special town meeting on a Saturday. Neither I nor anyone else knows if more people will come to a Saturday meeting, but it's worth a try. We'll see.

Of course, more or fewer people come to town meetings depending on how controversial the agenda is. So counting heads at the upcoming meeting may not prove anything.

But we desparately need to increase attendance at town meetings, so it's important to determine whether Saturday mornings are better or worse than, say, Tuesday evenings. I think the selectboard intends to ask those who come to the upcoming meeting which they prefer. That will likely prove that the people who come to a Saturday meeting have a preference for Saturday. Duh! Why not poll the populace to see what they prefer? I can think of several ways to do that: (1) Use the town's e-mail list. (2) Have voters fill out a questionnaire at the next election opportunity. (3) Send something out with tax bills.

I can already imagine the objections down at town hall. Sometimes I think we have an aristocracy in this town, not a democracy.

Board of Health Dust-Up

This week's Berkshire Record reports on the BOH/Karen Waller dust-up at the Egremont Inn. From what I know, the article is fairly accurate. And it's more evidence of how a minor incident can be blown out of proportion by overly sensitive people. (I say minor incident, because no reasonable person could take Karen's alleged threat seriously.) I'll repeat my prior statement: If you work for the BOH and go around telling people they have to spend many tens of thousands of dollars to "fix" a problem with their septic systems that doesn't seem to be a problem at all, you better expect people to think you're just a little tyrannical and, now and then, to blow up at you. If you can't take that, quit. (Or better, lobby for a change in a law that is overkill.)

One thing I find interesting is that the complaint to the Board of Selectmen wasn't made by Sandra Martin, the alleged "victim," nor by the chairman of the Board of Health, but by the Board of Health clerk. Why? What's going on here?

Second Homeowners Selectmen's Meeting

I was out of town last Saturday, when a selectmen's meeting was held primarily to let second homeowners vent. I've heard there was a lot of venting. If you were there, why not post a comment with your viewpoint.

Annual Salaries

Returning to the salary overpayment matter: The best and fairest way to handle the problem of 52 weeks and one day in a year (two days in a leap year) is to determine the number of full pay periods in the upcoming fiscal year, divide the employee's annual salary by that number, and pay accordingly. That will always result in the employee getting exactly the annual salary that was approved at town meeting, and will make it much easier to handle the situation when an employee quits in mid-year and a replacement comes on board without any hiatus. But that's not what the selectmen decided to do. They decided to treat each year as having 52.2 weeks and determine salaries accordingly. That doesn't work as well and is mathematically flawed, but apparently other Massachusetts towns follow that path so we're not alone in our error.

I'm not sure what all this says about the state of math education in Massachusetts, but it's not comforting. Also, I'm ignoring the fiscal year ended 6/30/08. I'm waiting to see if we overpaid people in that year, which would be contrary to what we decided at town meeting.

Fire Truck

Most of you know that our new fire truck was in a very bad accident last Sunday on Creamery Road. Thank goodness there were no fatalities, although there was one badly hurt person. I'm told the town's insurance is applicable, but it's too early to tell what the net cost to the town will be.

Highway Truck

There is an Egremont highway truck parked behind some bushes on the south side of Boice Road. Not to worry. The truck is an old one that was sold recently by the town to a private buyer, and no one has yet removed the town's markings on it.

Board of Health

There was a dust-up last week when the Board of Health did a title 5 examination at the Egremont Inn. (In case you haven't heard, Steve and Karen are selling the Egremont Inn.) Things apparently were said that shouldn't have been said, and the Board of Health folks were quite upset, so much so that they formally complained to the Selectboard.

I wasn't there, so I don't know what happened or was said. But I'm a bit surprised that the Board of Health folks were shocked and dismayed - shocked and dismayed! - that anyone could blow up at them. Title 5 has cost Egremont property owners many millions of dollars, and it's the Board of Health that enforces it. Do they expect a property owner to receive the news that he or she is going to have to spend $20,000 to $80,000 (or more) with a big smile and a thank you?

Title 5 may be necessary in the eastern part of the state, but it's just a millstone out here. Apart from a drinking water problem in and around the north village, I'm not aware of any real water quality problem in town, at least not one that couldn't be solved by means a lot less expensive than a fully compliant title 5 system. But "clean water" has become a religious principle for many people - at least until they're the ones who have to spend all that dough.

Calendar Confusion

Most people know there are 52 weeks plus one day in a year (two days in leap years). But apparently not the folks at town hall in Egremont.

Each year we vote at town meeting to pay specified salaries for town positions. Say we vote to pay $52,000 for the town jester. If we pay the jester weekly, we shouldn't automatically pay $1,000 a week. Every seventh year or so (actually fewer because of leap years), there will be 53, not 52, paydays, so we'd end up paying $53,000, not $52,000.

How can you deal with this problem? The easiest way is to look at a calendar for the upcoming fiscal year, count the number of paydays, and divide the annual salary by that number. But what if you fail to do that, and find at the end of the year that there's one last payday and you've already paid out the whole annual salary? In Egremont, you just go ahead and overpay people (probably illegally) and then try to deal with the problem in the next year. Do you think our selectmen approve of doing that? You can probably guess.

Edifice Complex

I've previously posted warnings about the town's big spenders and their tactics to get expensive buildings (such as a library) built, whether townspeople want them or not. No matter how often or how strongly townspeople express their opposition, the big spenders don't give up.

Most recently, a meeting was held among the selectmen, the library committee, the finance committee and other groups to discuss a "master plan" for the town hall property. The meeting was to determine where a new police station, a new library and other structures should go. There wasn't much discussion about whether we NEED these things, but rather just where they'd go, as if it had already been decided to build them.

I'll post more info on this subject as time goes by. For now, let me just say that it seems the big spenders have put the cart before the horse: We should decide what we want to do about the police department before we build a police station, and we should decide what we want to do about the library before we build a library. That's especially true since consolidation of services among several towns is the most likely future development, including consolidation of school districts, fire protection, police coverage and libraries.

It's not hard to identify the big spenders, and I'll not name names just yet. But it's very disturbing to hear one of our selectmen say publicly - not once but twice - that both the library and the police station are "affordable" because we're about to pay off existing debt so will have money to spend on other things. Is that the kind of attitude you want on our selectboard? God forbid we should just reduce taxes!

Prospect Lake Boat Access

Well, I was wrong. Thanks to the efforts of town officials, especially Mary Brazie and Bruce Cumsky, the state folks came back pretty promptly and fixed the new boat ramp. They put in steps down toward the "canal" and, I think, dredged out the canal enough so a canoe or flat bottomed boat can now actually be launched and get to the lake. Good job, folks!

But there's still some bad news. They installed a big ugly sign board that has 9 warning signs on it: no swimming, no littering, no unleashed pets, no jet skis and no overnight parking each get a sign; cartop boats only; and some others. The most puzzling one says that anyone in a canoe or kayak must wear a flotation device, but only between September 15 and May 15. Isn't that backwards?

So now townspeople finally have boat access to Prospect Lake, but not swimming access. For swimming, you still have to park on the road and avoid the cars whizzing by. Parking in the new boat access lot and walking down the road to where you can get into the lake, whether or not you'd want to, and whether or not that's safe, is prohibited (at least theoretically): The lot warning signs specifically say it's only for cartop boat launching, not for parking and walking down the road. And a young man with a 3 year old told me recently the Egremont police told him not to park on the road. The officer must have thought he was supposed to park in the lot, but he didn't have a boat, he just wanted to go swimming. Looks like the police and the town need to get together and decide what's what.

Wetlands Mania

I live in a development on the west side of Prospect Lake. My neighbors and I have to maintain our own private roads, Lakeside Drive and Second Street. They run perpendicular to the hill that slopes down to the lake on that side, so we have constant problems with washouts, etc., and have to engineer ways to get water down the hill through culverts and ditches so the roads don't become dangerous or impassable.

At one particularly troublesome spot, water goes under a road via a culvert, then through a ditch down to a culvert under Lakeside, through that culvert and then on to the lake. The ditch between the two roads is on the line between two lots, each privately owned by different owners.

The problem is that the culvert under Second Street can't handle all the water when it rains really hard, or when the snow melts in the spring, or in snow/ice situations. So water flows over the road, often creating dangerous conditions, especially in winter, and water backs up on the uphill side of Second Street, causing a mess and jeopardizing a nearby well. The situation could be fixed by putting in a larger culvert under Second Street. But that would necessitate enlarging the ditch that goes down to Lakeside, so the consent and participation of the two owners of the lots (between which the ditch runs) would be necessary.

At our property owners meeting this July, we were going to vote to put in the larger culvert because one of the lot owners volunteered to enlarge the ditch if we would pay to rent the equipment required to do that, which we were ready to do. Sounds like a good, fair, neighborly way to handle a real safety problem, right?

Not so fast. There are "wetlands" close by. (I put it in quotes because ordinary human beings wouldn't think they were wetlands.) Replacing the culvert and enlarging the ditch would require filing a "Notice of Intent" with the Conservation Commission and the state DEP, and, with respect to enlarging the ditch, the filings could only be done by the property owner who volunteered to do the work. And the filings and related costs would be greater than the cost of renting the equipment and would probably double or triple the cost of the whole project, and would likely result in an "Order of Conditions" that would likely involve even more costs. And one of the conditions would likely be that replacement "wetlands" would have to be created covering an area equal to the area of the "wetlands" destroyed, meaning some nearby property owner would have to volunteer to have part of his property dedicated to being a "wetland".

Not surprisingly, no one volunteered. And not surprisingly, the ditch-enlarging volunteer changed his mind about the whole thing in a New York second. So a rational solution to a serious safety problem fell apart and was abandoned in another New York second. I would describe the reaction of the people at the meeting as one of stunned silence.

I think this is insane. Water is going to go down the hill to the lake no matter what is done or is not done. And washouts and ice on a road are real problems requiring real solutions. The people who think this grandiose, self-imposed, no-exceptions scheme for "protecting our wetlands" should be rigorously enforced even if it results in injuries to automobiles and people need to accept responsibility for the consequences of their actions. Fat chance.

Any wetlands defenders out there? Post a response.

Prospect Lake

For a long time, many of us have been urging the town to provide public access to Prospect Lake. To use the lake, you had to park right on Prospect Lake Road, then unload your boat, children, etc., with cars whizzing by. It was an accident waiting to happen.

So we were happy when the state announced a couple of years ago that they were going to create boat access (and maybe swimming access) from a vacant lot the state had acquired years ago, a lot that's not on the lake itself but on the major stream that feeds it (known to locals as the "canal"), about 300 feet or so to the west of the old dangerous access point on Prospect Lake Road. And, lo and behold, crews showed up in early summer to do the job. They cleared the lot, put in a "driveway", created a parking area, and built a long wooden ramp down to the canal so folks could take their boats down the ramp and launch them into the canal. But, for reasons only explicable to bureaucrats, they stopped the ramp short of the canal. To launch a boat, you'd have to carry your boat through a lot of muck and then somehow get into it.

It's a joke. Go look at it if you don't believe me. Lord knows how much taxpayer money was spent on a project that is totally useless. If folks use it at all, they'll just park their cars there and then walk 300 feet to the old spot to get into the lake. That won't significantly reduce the danger to pedestrians, so even that objective hasn't been achieved (and maybe even made worse).

What to do? Complaining to the state isn't going to accomplish anything. I think the town should just take the bull by the horns and finish the job by actually building a ramp into the canal. That probably violates all kinds of laws, so town hall probably won't do it. Who'd like to volunteer to help me do it at night on the sly?

Another lake subject: Friends of Prospect Lake arranged for another treatment of the weeds a few weeks ago, and it was very successful. I know there are people in town who don't like treating the lake with chemicals, but the ones used don't hurt anything except weeds, and providing public recreation is more important than appeasing what seems to be some people's unwarranted paranoia.

Library

The informational meeting on the library proposal was held today at the north firehouse. Quite a few folks came, I'd say about 50. They listened politely to the consultant the town hired as he went through his charts, talking about putting a new library here or there on town property He then opened up the meeting to questions from the floor. Most of the "questions" were statements in opposition to a new library, with a smattering of statements in support. The meeting then was broken up into groups that were supposed to talk about various aspects of the process, but I and lots of other people left because we weren't interested in various aspects of the process, we just wanted to express our opposition.

Any reasonable person would come away from the meeting with the belief that there was little - make that no - chance of a new library being built. But I'm sure the proponents won't get that message, just like the proponents of last year's annex proposal didn't get the message when the townspeople overwhelmingly expressed their opposition. That's not because the proponents are dense, it's because they're persistent. They use the "nose under the tent" approach: If you just keep talking about it (and hiring consultants to do fancy presentations), eventually it acquires a life of its own, and the opponents get tired of fighting.

So if you're opposed to spending any more time or money on the library dream, let the selectmen know. If we don't nip this thing in the bud, the proponents could slip it through.

Cell Phones

When the planning board proposed its new "improved" cell phone equipment zoning bylaw a couple of years ago, many of us said it was just a thinly disguised effort to keep cell phone equipment out of Egremont, and consequently it was likely illegal under federal law. (At the time, I was personally told that by representatives of two telecommunications companies.) Well, it looks like Verizon has now informed the town that they want to put cell phone equipment in town and can't under the PB's bylaw, and they may be ready to take legal action if the town doesn't do something.

It's always nice to be able to say "I told you so." But much more importantly, we need cell phone service in town, for safety as well as business reasons. It's time for the selectboard to act. We need a provision that permits - not prohibits - cell phone equipment. Our zoning bylaw contains a careful procedure for issuing special permits that could easily be extended to telecommunications equipment. But if we do that, we should also make the issuing authority the selectboard, not the PB. The PB's history of animosity toward telecommunications equipment disqualifies it from overseeing a permit process as important as this.

Board appointments

As is customary in June, the selectboard plans to fill vacancies in town boards and committees at its meeting next week. If you're interested in being on a board or committee, and have the necessary expertise, please, please submit your name by sending a short simple letter to town hall saying something like "I would like to be appointed to the XXXXXX." You may, but need not, add information on your qualifications and why you're interested.

The selectmen don't have a great track record in seeking out qualified candidates for town boards. They generally just appoint from whoever volunteers. (And they tend not to appoint people whose viewpoints thay don't like.) Not surprisingly, that often results in populating boards with folks who have a narrow agenda and/or perspective and not a great deal of expertise, and that often results in boards doing more harm than good to townspeople. These appointees may think they're saving the world but too often they're hurting us Egremonters.

Unfortunately, qualified people frequently don't like to serve on boards because they have real lives and don't want to spend their time dealing with what often seems unrealistic and impractical. You may feel that way, but I urge you to get involved. The next silly board action may be on your application!

Information Meetings

Two information meetings are being held on Saturdays in June: (1) The library study committee will try to convince Egremonters that we need a library to replace the old one. You might want to go, especially if you feel as I do that that's a pipe dream and the committee should hear the reality from taxpayers. (2) The conservation commission (and guest speakers) will hold forth on what's allowed and what's not on tree cutting. If you think you can cut down trees on your own property without restriction, think again. Big brother is watching.

Exact dates and times can be obtained from town hall. And there'll be sandwich boards at strategic locations in town announcing the meetings.

Selectmen's Meeting

Last week's selectmen's meeting was more cordial than the first one attended by new selectman Bruce Cumsky. The only controversy was created by me, when I suggested the selectboard - not the library committee - should approve expenditures under the library architectural contract. All three selectmen disagreed. One said that would be micromanaging. The other two believe that the library committee has spending power.

I'm not sure what the law is (I intend to research it), but as a matter of policy, I believe what town boards and committees do is subject to control by the selectboard, i.e., the buck stops there, not at the committee level. And I think that's particularly true when it comes to expenditures. I'd have to think twice about voting for budget items at the annual town meeting if I knew that the money would be spent by some committee without prior approval by the selectboard. What do you think?

Selectmen's Meeting

The first selectmen's meeting after the election was held this Tuesday. It was disheartening. You might expect that the two holdover selectmen would warmly welcome the new one and his participation in discussing town matters. Alas, there was almost no warmth and a great deal of ice at the meeting. I wondered if I was the only attendee who was taken aback by the proceedings, but I spoke to several other attendees immediately afterwards who were equally surprised and upset.

But Bruce Cumsky handled himself well, and it seems clear to me he's not going to back off raising points, whether or not they make the other two electmen uncomfortable. And one almost inevitable result will be more thorough analysis of matters that come before the board.

One example: Bruce Cumsky stated that he had spoken with over 400 registered voters during his campaign and that 99% of them said they didn't support spending money on a library. (I may not have those figures exactly right, but they're close.) I think that came as a surprise to the other two selctmen, but it shouldn't have. Hopefully the selectboard will take the pulse of the public a little more in the future, not just the pulse of the town hall denizens and their friends.

Town Meeting

As usual, it was entertaining. Two of the more outlandish comments:

"Why didn't you come talk to us sooner." Made by a selectman responding to a citizen complaint about road maintenance. I wasn't aware that citizens were required to tell the selectmen about road maintenance. I thought it was their responsibility. Silly me.

"It's not fair to say the budget is up 13%. It's only up 6% without the special articles." Made by a selectman upset by the finance committee's emphasis on the 13%. To the contrary, what is unfair is to take an item like painting the library and town hall out of the operating budget, make it a special article and then claim that it's not part of the increase.

Two items on the agenda were deferred, and will be voted on by ballot the next time there is a town-wide election opportunity: the proposal to allow nonresidents to speak at town meetings; and the proposal to change the quorum requirement for town meetings from 60 to 100. Do you feel strongly about those items? Post a comment.

Election Results

Selectman: Brazie 123; Cumsky 240

Planning Board: Martin 164; Vining 177

Moderator: Gage 207; Lamme 141

Library Trustee: Kane 75; Sheldon 230

In uncontested elections, Muskrat got the highest number of votes, Wood the lowest.

There are a lot of messages here, but as always there'll be lots of rationalizing them away, especially by the losers. Cumsky's win should send a definite message to the other two selectmen, but I suspect they won't get it. Vining's victory is hardly a ringing endorsement of the planning board; a more cogent explanation is that the PB has been lying low for the last two years after being slapped pretty hard by budget votes at town meetings. In my view, the less the PB does, the better off we all are.

Planning Board Election

Set forth below are the questions I posed to the candidates for Planning Board, and Sandra Martin's responses. Eileen Vining notified me that an ongoing family emergency prevented her from responding by yesterday's deadline.

1. What changes, if any, do you think should be made in Egremont's zoning bylaw?

Any changes to the Zoning Bylaws should go through a rigorous process of discussions, good ideas and hearings. Changes to the Bylaws often affect people’s property values and as such need a lot of discussion time to allow for all voters to weigh the pros and cons of any changes. Everyone involved in the process should come to the table with an open mind. That being said, my own personal thinking would lead me to consider rezoning the village centers to allow them to be built as they are today – mixed uses on lots with smaller frontages and setbacks.

2. What do you think should be done, if anything, to encourage small businesses in Egremont?

Small, local businesses are basic to rural communities and should be encouraged in ways that do not substantially impact their neighbors.

3. What is your position on shared driveways?

I would support shared driveways as they reduce the number of curb cuts on the road, keeping the rural look and feel. I would prefer a mini-subdivision Bylaw that allowed for a shared, private road that was reasonable and cost effective.

4. What is your position on rear lots (a rear lot being defined as one that is one acre or more in size with road frontage adequate for access to the lot but less than 150 feet)?

With substantially increased acreage requirements, I would support rear lots with reduced frontages. Again I would prefer a mini-subdivision Bylaw that would make dividing large parcels practical and the first choice of people dividing their land instead of the last.

5. What is your position on facilities and equipment for cell phones and high speed Internet access?

We need this technology and I support reasonable accommodation for the needed infrastructure. This technology is changing rapidly and will soon be doable without the mega-towers of the past. I don’t think we should wait, though and should move to allow towers as they are needed and the owners and neighbors agree to them.

Egremont Selectman Election

Set forth below are Bruce Cumsky's responses to the questions I posed to the two candidates for selectman. Mary Brazie declined to respond, despite my assurances to her that the responses would be published verbatim.


1. Do you think taxes in Egremont are too high, too low or about right? In what ways could they be reduced?

I strongly believe that taxes can never be too low. We all work hard for every penny we make and our goal should always be to have the lowest tax rate, and subsequently, lowest tax bill possible. I very much disagree with our current Selectmen who have openly stated that our tax rate is “too low.” They believe that we would be more attractive to the state, regarding grants and state funds, if we had a higher tax rate. Yet, experienced professionals completely disagree with this theory. More importantly, I do not believe that anyone (even if we have elected them) has the right to make that decision for those of us who actually own property here and pay property taxes. To artificially raise property taxes is just wrong. If ever there is a decision that should be made by the town as a whole, it is this one.

As for how the taxes can be reduced, quite simply through fiscal restraint, hard work, better research, bidding and negotiation. We must preserve and take better care of the town’s assets, buildings and equipment that we have now so we do not need to burden our taxpayers with the unnecessarily early purchase of new machinery, cars, etc.


2. What, if anything, do you think should be done about the police department? In particular, do you think we need 24-hour coverage?

This is an issue I have personally struggled with. I am a fan of the police department and the good work that they do. I have called on them during the day and night, and always gotten a quick and courteous response. But I have questioned the need for 24-hour police coverage in a town as small as Egremont. However, many people (my wife included) feel that the last thing we should sacrifice is the security of our families and neighbors.

A review of the town’s needs and what emergency services would be available during “off hours” would provide some direction. Many of our citizens are concerned with emergency health issues and I fully trust the Fire Department to provide immediate response and the proper care during a health emergency. I would work closely with our Chief and seek the right balance of coverage, but I would take a conservative approach because I hold our neighbor’s safety above all else.

3. What do you think about the quality of our appointed town boards (including the Board of Health, the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Conservation Commission) and what suggestions, if any, do you have for improving the quality?

The majority of the appointed town boards are strictly volunteer, people generously giving up time from their own lives to try and make ours better. For this I have nothing but the utmost respect. But in order for any group to function to the best of their abilities they must be made to feel that their hard work is appreciated. It is a proven fact that if you show people respect they will want to work even harder. Our Selectboard is not only there to appoint, but to support as well. These board members also need to see the face of a Selectman at occasional meetings, to hear in what ways the boards may need assistance.


The Selectboard has to be more active in reaching out to the community to bring in new faces. Appointments to any town position must be made carefully, looking for the best candidate for the position, not just the most popular person in the bunch.

It is also important to consider that not all boards are equal when evaluating results. Salaried employees should be held to a higher standard than volunteer board members.

Lastly, our town meeting is a time to celebrate our community and what we’ve accomplished over the year. A time to thank people for their efforts. A time to hear what our boards have done and what we may expect for the coming year.
This would be a welcome relief from the past years of surprise, anger and contentiousness. It all begins from the top and our leaders need to set the example.

4. Do you think town government over-regulates, under-regulates or regulates just about right, and what suggestions, if any, do you have for changes?

We have the purest form of town government existing (due to our size, with fewer than 6,000 voters) in the Town Meeting, where each voter becomes a “legislator” for the town. That allows us to “self-regulate.” We have discussed and approved bylaws that are appropriate for our community and that protect what we love in Egremont. Yet, I am concerned when I hear the words “overlay district” and “business district.” These often are followed by additional regulations that are not necessary and begin to restrict our property rights. Are we trying to solve non-existent problems or are we creating them?

I do think we can do a better job of guiding our citizens through the process and of making Town Hall more “user-friendly.” Town Hall is meant to help our citizens and we should do everything possible to guide, aide and counsel citizens through any regulatory process.

5. What do you think should be done about the Annex?

In the gloomy and uncertain economic situation this country finds itself in, I cannot understand why we are discussing this at this time. We need to be fiscally responsible and patient. Certainly, the Annex, which even the Selectboard cannot agree on its use, is of no clear need at this present time. I am surprised it is even coming to the table again after such a loud, boisterous negative response from the town at the special meeting last August. It was during that meeting that I strongly stated the request for funds was “two years too early.” It is still two years too early, considering the economy. I also strongly recommend against any expenditure, specifically the requested $15,000 in this year’s warrant for an engineering study. The first question asked by a qualified engineer would be “What is it to be used for?” It would be irresponsible to authorize this expenditure when the Selectboard is in total disagreement about the Annex’s use and when the community is questioning its need. It is time to stop exploratory expenses for items the citizens have not fully been informed about or are clearly not in agreement with regarding use or need. There is no crime in holding on to our tax dollars until the time comes when we are in actual need of something for the good of the town.

6. What do you think should be done about the library?

We have a lovely library. Speak to its users and they will tell you that our librarian, Sally Caldwell, can get whatever they request. If you review the library’s survey regarding use you will see that out of 222 responses, 67 never use the library, 97 rarely use it, 29 use it monthly and 28 use it weekly. Sally’s last report to the Selectboard discussed last summer’s use as sporadic, with some days being very slow. This level of use does not warrant a new library. I certainly respect the time and efforts given by many in pursuit of a new library, but sometimes a Selectman has to say no... not now. And remember, with a new library comes new maintenance, more overhead and more staff.

With half of our citizens over the age of 55 and considering retirement, if they aren’t retired already, it is time to consider the burdens we would be placing on them in the future. When over 40% of our citizens may see no increase, or even a decrease, in income for this and the next few years, it is no time to consider adding to the town’s debt and their tax burden.

But we must maintain our buildings, both inside and out. Structural repairs and painting, electrical and mechanical repairs are priorities. Before we consider any new project we should put our house in order. Of course, in today’s economy I also believe we can do better than expending $105,000 for painting of the library and town hall, and $5,420 to remove trees in front of the town hall. We need to bid tighter and harder. We need to do our homework better. The office of Selectman requires full attention for it to be done properly.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to share my views. If anyone would like to discuss Egremont's issues and opportunities further, please call me at 644-9934. I would really enjoy hearing your feedback.

Town Meeting

If you haven't done so, pick up a copy of the Finance Committee's recommendations. There are copies at town hall, the library, the North Egremont store and the South Egremont post office. There are some significant disagreements between the Finance Committee and the Selectboard, primarily with respect to the special articles. Without the special articles, the budget goes up by about 6% (a bit higher than other nearby town's budgets), but with them the budget goes up by over 13%.

COME TO THE TOWN MEETING! Whether you like the budget or don't, have a say in it.
Tuesday night at the Sheffield school.

Taxes and Assessments

A taxpayer revolt is brewing over the tax bills that went out recently. They reflect the town-wide reassessments that were finished recently, and that always produces howls.

Before you become one of the howlers, look at the total tax line on your bill and compare that number to last year. It's not the assessment that's important, it's how much tax you pay. If your taxes stayed the same, or went down, or went up by no more than the increase in town expenses (say about 5%), you're new assessment didn't hurt you and you should probably keep quiet.

When people started complaining to me (and more loudly to the assessors and town hall staff), at first I thought the complaints reflected the usual factors: for example, if someone's property hadn't been assessed in a long time, that property's assessment would go up by more than the average increase, resulting in an increase in tax. But not all the complaints can be explained by the usual factors, and I'm hearing about some real anomalies. E.g., I know of two very comparable houses, one of which saw its tax burden doubled and the other no increase. So I'm starting to think two other factors MIGHT be involved: Mistakes, too many of them; and flaws in the methodology, perhaps caused by the fact that the town-wide reassessments were done by one outfit at the beginning and a different outfit when the first one more or less disappeared.

In any event, remember that you have only until May 1 to file for an abatement, and you have to use the prescribed form. I'm told abatement filings are legion already.

Town Meeting

More on the town meeting: Article 13 seeks $15,000 to hire an engineering consultant to study the Annex (that's the white building between town hall and the north firehouse). After last August's rejection by town voters of the Annex renovation proposal, the Selectboard appointed a committee to study and report back on what to do with the Annex. The committee did so, and the Selectboard (one member in particular) was so unhappy with the report (primarily because it focused too much on new space for the police department) that the Selectboard decided not to put any proposal on the warrant for this meeting. But rather than accepting defeat, the Selectboard voted to seek money for yet another study. If that study's conclusions don't fit with the Selectboard's views of what the Annex should become, I bet they'll reject it again.

I'm pretty confident that town voters (in a representative vote, i.e., with more voters than the 60 to 80 who seem always to vote for bigger government) will never, ever approve spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on the Annex, regardless of the purpose. Never, ever. So spending $15,000 on another study is just a waste of money. And approving this money is just holding out false hope to the Annex proponents that they can eventually slip through their plans for it.

For years, the Selectboard has ignored my suggestion for what to do with it: Sell it or rent it to someone. It's been sitting there producing no benefit to the town for decades. Stop studying and dreaming, and do something meaningful.

P.S.: This issue is another reason why we should amend the bylaws to increase the quorum requirement. Otherwise the day may come when the meeting is stacked with proponents and they slip through something the vast majority are opposed to.

Annual Town Meeting

The warrant is out for the May meeting. You can get a copy at town hall or at either of the post offices. Lots of interesting stuff on the warrant, including 3 citizens' petitions, one of which seeks to permit nonresidents to speak at town meetings. (See several prior postings for background on this.) On the financial front, requested appropriations are up more than 10% over last year. Some of that is increases caused by higher utility costs, etc., but a lot of it is new expenditures sought by the selectmen. At a time when we're all facing increased costs, beats me why the selectmen think we need to spend more. COME TO THE MEETING IF YOU WANT TO HAVE INPUT ON THESE THINGS!

Town Election Caucus Results

I don't have the specific results of the Democratic caucus, but do of the Republican caucus. For selectman, it was Cumsky 11, Brazie 4 and Schoenfeld 2. For Moderator, Gage and Lamme each got 7 votes. For library trustee, Sheldon beat Kane by 8 to 7. For planning board, Vining edged out Martin, 9 to 7. All the other offices were uncontested.

I plan to send a list of questions to the candidates for contested positions and will publish the results.

Tanglewood

For Tanglewood denizens: The Tanglewood ticket office will open around mid-June. If you're an Egremont resident, you can go to the box office, with ID, and buy a season lawn pass for $75, good for most concerts. Wow!

Quorum Requirement for Town Meetings

One item on the agenda for the upcoming town meeting is a proposal to change the quorum requirement from 60 to 150. I'm the author of that proposal. I've seen too many instances of meetings being "stacked" by a small group of people - often people who otherwise don't attend town meetings regularly - who have a particular interest in some matter and who pass (or defeat) that matter even though a more representative group of voters would have voted the other way. Would you want the US Senate to have a quorum requirement of 7 (out of 100) so that 4 senators could pass legislation even if the other 96 senators would have voted the other way? That's essentially the situation in Egremont.

On a number of occasions in recent years, I (with the help of others) have had to rally voters to come to a town meeting because otherwise a small group of dedicated people would have pushed through some action that would have helped them but hurt the rest of us. That just isn't democratic and it just isn't right. And it should be changed.

The problem is even worse when it comes to special town meetings. They're often far more unrepresentative than annual town meetings, because the voters who are affected by the issue under consideration come out in droves but the voters who aren't directly affected by it tend to stay home. That has happened twice in recent memory at special meetings deciding whether to buy another fire truck. What if there were a special meeting to decide whether the town should take over the water company? You know what would happen - the water company users would descend on the meeting en masse to vote in favor of a takeover, and they might prevail, even though a representative vote would likely have been overwhelmingly the other way.

And the problem is made worse by the tendency of our current selectmen to call special town meetings to decide important issues, a practice that I strongly oppose. Most recent example: The selectmen were moving toward putting the annex/library issue on the agenda for the upcoming meeting, but now are talking about a special meeting later this year for that decision. Why? I have my suspicions. What are yours?

Curnins Speaking at Town Meeting

As I predicted, the Court of Appeals turned down the Curnins motion for an en banc rehearing of the denial of their lawsuit trying to force the town to let them speak at town meetings. Now, according to the local paper, they've filed an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court. My money says the Supreme Court will turn down that appeal. But the town will have to pay more legal fees to defend against the appeal.

I've noted before that I like the Curnins. I even have some sympathy for the proposition that nonvoters should be able to speak at town meetings. But when I asked Tom Curnin some time ago to drop the lawsuit in exchange for my helping to get the town to agree to let nonvoters speak, he turned me down. Therefore, my sympathy has disappeared. Maybe the town should let nonvoters speak only if the town is first reimbursed for all the costs of defending this silly and hopeless lawsuit.

Police Budget

A prior post talked about a BIG increase in the police budget due to the union contract "negotiated" with the union. Well, it's not as big as I first thought. The data I was looking at included an accounting change that lumped several police accounts into one, making the increase look bigger than it really was. Sorry!! I'll try to do my homework better in the future. (But there's still a big increase in the police budget.)

Town Elections

The caucuses were held Saturday. Alas, only 18 people showed up at the Republican caucus, a better - but hardly robust - 41 people at the Democratic. And same old, same old generally prevailed. Both parties (hmmmm!) chose the following as their candidates:

Selectman: Bruce Cumsky
Town Clerk: Margaret Muskrat
Tree Warden: Jimmy Olmsted
Library Trustee: Keila Sheldon
Planning Board: Eileen Vining
Planning Bd. Assoc: Bill Wood
Water Comm'r: Chuck Ogden
Cemetery Comm'r: David Campbell
Assessor (3 yr. term): Robin Goldberg
Assessor (1 yr. term): Florence Browner

The Democrats named Jim Lamme as their candidate for Moderator; the Republicans had a tie for that position so named no one.

More on all this later. In the meantime, you can start posting your comments about who is good, who is bad, and why.

Charges are flying back and forth regarding Millard Road, which runs north from Prospect Lake Road to the border with New York. Some of the property owners on Millard have put an item on the warrant for the town meeting seeking discontinuance of the portion of Millard that extends to the state line. The controversy apparently arose because of plans of the owner of the last piece of property before New York to divide it into a couple of lots, which could increase the traffic on Millard and maybe require more expensive road maintenance. But that owner says a discontinuance would give her a claim against the town for taking away her access. I don't know much more than that. Maybe some of the protagonists will post comments urging their respective positions. They're welcome to do so.

I'm confused. Last year the selectmen were pushing for doing away with electing the assessors and instead having them appointed by the selectboard. That, they said, would result in having more qualified folks as assessors. But a month ago or so, when Karen Cumsky resigned, creating an assessor vacancy, the selectboard decided not to appoint a successor and instead to have the voters pick one at the next town election. The most logical explanation for that flipflop: our three selectmen don't have the courage of their convictions. If there's a different explanation, I hope the selectmen will let us all know what it is. They're always free to comment right on this blog.

The republican and democratic "organizations" in town hold caucuses every year about this time to endorse candidates for town offices. Both organizations have some new blood this year; the democratic group had a complete turnover of people in what amounted to a revolt. It will be interesting to see if the new blood results in any changes. In the past, both parties made a few inquiries about who was contemplating running for office and then put the names on a ballot voted on at a caucus (usually on a Saturday), the winner getting the nomination. (Unless the people running the operation didn't like a candidate, in which case they'd leave that name off the ballot; so much for democratic principles.)

Government in Egremont has suffered for many years as a result of not reaching out to townspeople who are qualified but need a bit of encouragement to run for town office. You'd think the function of a party would be to do that reaching out, not just stick with the same old, tired volunteers, many of whom don't have the slightest qualifications for the office they're nominated for. Do you think the new blood will make that kind of effort? Don't bet on it.

I've submitted a citizens' petition to be included in the warrant for the May town meeting to amend the town bylaws by increasing the quorum requirement for town meetings from 60 to 150. The petition describes the reasons for doing so as follows:

"There are roughly 890 registered voters in Egremont. Only 60 of them have to show up at a town meeting to constitute a quorum. And most matters at town meeting require only a majority vote. That means 31 voters – 3.5% of registered voters – can make legally binding decisions for all of us. Even where our bylaws wisely require a two-thirds vote for important matters – like borrowing money or changing zoning requirements – a mere 5% of the voters can make those decisions and we’re all stuck with them.

Egremonters usually aren’t hurt by that low quorum requirement when it comes to routine matters. But when an important matter is on the agenda, the low quorum requirement all too often results in a small group of voters “stacking” the meeting, producing a result that the vast majority of Egremonters may strongly disagree with."

To those who object on the basis that we can't get that many people to come to a town meeting, I would reply that I recall at least three times in recent years that we have gotten more than 150 people to attend. And in all three cases, the decisions reached were far more representative of what townspeople really wanted than at meetings with only 60 or 70 attendees.

More on this later.

More on the police budget:

According to research Craig Elliott did several years ago, Egremont spends more per capita on police than all but a few towns in Massachusetts. Do we really need to spend so much? And are we getting value for what we spend? Now our selectboard has "negotiated" a contract with the police union (yes, we have a police union, and there are several people who should be tarred and feathered for that) that I'm hearing will result in a 35% increase in police employee costs. (I've got some tar and feathers left if anyone wants them.)

This has to stop. But there seems to be no one out there willing to propose how, certainly not our selectmen. That probably reflects the fear of being thrown out of office if you so much as whisper that police costs are too high. (That happened several years ago; all three selectmen were dumped for suggesting that we didn't need round the clock coverage.) Rena Orner made a great proposal at a town meeting a couple of years ago: She moved that we cut the police department budget by 5% and let the powers that be figure out how to implement the cuts. Somebody should do that at the May town meeting.

That's probably a bit less draconian than my proposal: Eliminate the police department for one year and see if it results in any increase in crime. If it doesn't, do it for another year, and so on. If there is an increase, you then have a measurement of the benefit and can judge whether that benefit is worth the cost.

I'm hearing rumors about a BIG increase in the police department budget, resulting from the new contract "negotiated" by the selectboard with the police union. I put that in quotes because I have serious reservations about both the ability of the current selectboard to negotiate and because a selectboard containing one town employee and the spouse of another town employee isn't very incentivized to cut employee costs. Let's see how the selectboard explains their action and how they propose to get the police budget under control.

By the way, one prospective candidate for selectman spoke passionately at last May's town meeting in favor of higher employee pay. I don't plan to vote for someone who has that kind of spending philosophy. There are many Egremonters who can afford a spend, spend, spend mentality. But there are many others who can't. They're the ones who stretch to pay their property taxes and who we drive out of town when they find they can't afford to live here. But we don't want them here anyway, right? Let them move to Hillsdale. Keep Egremont small and beautiful (and exclusive).

The great early twentieth century satirist H. L. Mencken once said "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." Could he have been talking about our Board of Health and Emergency Management Committee?

Elections: For selectman, I understand Mary Brazie, Bruce Cumsky and Steve Schoenfeld have taken out papers. Richard Burdsall is still considering.

Petitions are floating around Egremont and the other school district towns to have school committee members elected rather than appointed by the selectboards. Good or bad idea?

It's reported that the Egremont selectmen are in favor of electing school committee members. Their rationale is apparently based on what I'm told happened in Sheffield: Some or all the Sheffield-appointed committee members weren't in favor of backing out of the expense sharing arrangement, so the Sheffield selectboard replaced them with members who were in favor. That eventually led to the big increase in Egremont's share of the school budget.

But would electing school committee members be better? Shouldn't a town's committee members be doing what that town's selectboard wants? What happens if some group with its own particular agenda works hard and gets its own folks elected? That's happened in some midwest school districts that then voted to put creationism in the curriculum.

In New York, the school district is an entity, separate from the towns in the district, that has the power to govern, assess and tax. There it makes sense to have the school board members elected, and consequently beholden to all the voters in the district. But in Massachusetts, the school district isn't separate from its constituent towns, each of which has to separately vote on the school budget. So why shouldn't the school committee members represent their respective towns (and hence their respective selectboards)?

Sounds to me like this petition effort is a knee jerk response to Sheffield's unfortunate (for Egremont) action. Maybe we should all take a longer range look.

And the Egremont selectboard apparently doesn't see the irony in supporting election of school committee members within a year after supporting appointing, rather than electing, the board of assessors. You can get good people and you can get bad people on boards and committees. At least if they're appointed, it's easier to get rid of the bad ones. If you have the guts to do it.

Town meeting and town election are not far off. Who is thinking about running for the selectboard? One of our three current selectmen is a town employee and another is married to a town employee. It would be nice to cut that to one out of three: Since the selctboard generally votes pretty much across-the-board employee raises, I think those two selectmen are conflicted and ought not to vote on raises, leaving only one selectmen to make the decisions. Do you agree?

I had a guy from DirectTV out to look at my problem again. The problem is this: I and everybody else has to move to HD TV this year, and for us poor Egremonters who have to rely on satellites, that means getting a new bigger dish and reorienting it toward the HD satellite. For many Egremonters, that's no big deal. But for those with tree and mountain problems, it is. Seems the old dish could look through at least some tree leaves and other minor obstructions, but the new ones are more sensitive. Worse, the dish needs to look at 5 satellites, not just one, and those satellites are lower on the horizon than the old satellite. So the DirectTV guy stood on my deck and pointed to an area that had to be clear of obstructions for the dish to be able to pick up the signals. It was a pretty big area, a lot bigger than what I need now, and not quite in the same place as the area I use now. So I counted the trees, some of them pretty good sized, that I'm going to have to take down: about six of them.

Other Egremonters must be dealing with this problem. Any info you can add by commenting on this entry would be appreciated by all.

When the town voted to take over the water company that serves the south village, voters were told is wasn't the town that would be the owner but rather an "enterprise fund" that would be separate from the town, so the taxpayers would never have to pay anything, only the users would pay. Sorry, folks, but that was wrong. In Massachusetts, if an "enterprise fund" can't pay for itself, the shortfall must be made up by the town. That's what's been happening for several years now. At the annual town meeting we vote one appropriation for the next year's water company budget, being assured that the users will actually cover that amount, not the taxpayers, but then we separately vote on another appropriation to make up the last year's shortfall.

Apparently the state doesn't like that little subterfuge. The state thinks voters should be told upfront - if it's true as it has been for many years - that the water company is going to cost more than what they're going to charge the users, so that taxpayers know they're subsidizing the users. The state may insist we do that at this year's annual town meeting.

I'm told the water company could pay for itself without taxpayer money if it raised its rates by about 30% to 40%. That kind of increase may sound high, but it's is in line with what people in other towns hereabouts have been facing on their water and sewer bills. Most of us in town have to maintain and pay for our own wells and pumps. Should we have to subsidize the water company users? And should we think about electing water commissioners who have the guts to raise the rates to cover costs, rather than going for that good old money that grows on trees?

When I went to vote yesterday, I was surprised to see a number of names listed under "town committee" on the Democratic ballot. How did they get there? Was this some sort of palace coup?

Many Egremonters don't know that we have a unionized police department. (Some former Selectboard should be drawn and quartered for that sorry result.) I think the Selectboard just negotiated a new contract with the union, and I can bet it didn't come cheap.

We pay a lot for police protection, and many of us think we're throwing a lot of money away. Hillsdale, Alford and other nearby towns don't have police departments at all; they rely on county or state police or both, and there don't seem to be crime waves in those towns. But we not only have full and part timers, we have 24 hour a day coverage, which runs up the cost. Has anyone thought to ask the chief what she thinks about the 24 hour a day coverage? If she thinks it's unnecessary (or could be replaced with cheaper coverage), why would we continue it?

Do you remember the Planning Board several years ago pushing through repeal of the "back lot" provision of the zoning bylaw? The provision allowed a lot with less than 150 feet of frontage if it was behind a lot that met the frontage requirement and if it met certain other requirements. The PB at first proposed changing the provision (by repealing the old one and then adopting the revised one) to one they touted as making it better but that in reality sneakily gutted it. So the PB first pushed through the repeal and then recommended voting against the new provision, on a promise that they'd come up with a revised one that would be better. They've had two years to come up with the new one. Where is it? Do you sense any mendacity here?

The school situation continues to be a mess. Last year Sheffield rejected the contract that for years had allocated school costs among the five towns. With no contract, the state allocation formula sprang into effect. That resulted in a big decrease in Sheffield's allocation (which is why they rejected the contract, of course) and big increases for Egremont, New Marlborough and Monterey (Alford came out about the same). So last August Egremont voters bit the bullet and authorized an increase of about $120,000 as our increased share of the school budget.

New Marlborough has refused to go along, and their selectboard just voted to sue Sheffield, essentially for breach of contract. My take is that the suit is a loser, but it may put enough pressure on Sheffield that some sort of compromise can be reached.

In the meantime, the Egremont selectboard is getting antsy about why we didn't fight rather than caving in. Since our town counsel has a conflict, the selectboard is seeking approval to hire counsel to assess and watch over the situation. Fair enough so long as the amount isn't great, which it isn't.

But I hope the selectboard doesn't overlook the real problem here: no matter what happens in the school budget mess, Egremont is going to have to pay a lot more in the future as its share of school costs. That, combined with rising fuel and other costs, means we're looking at big tax increases and that we should be looking hard at reducing expenses wherever we can. Now that budget season is upon us, let's hope the selectboard does that and doesn't come up with any new ways to spend our tax money on pet projects of the denizens down at town hall.

Both the Eagle and the Record carried articles recently on the Curnin versus Egremont lawsuit. The articles make it sound like the fight is still on. I beg to differ. The fight's over, but the taxpayers are still being hit with the cost of the Curnins bulldog-like tenacity.



The federal judicial system has three levels of courts. The District Court is the trial level court; the Curnins lost there. The loser can appeal to a court of appeals, in this case the First Circuit Court of Appeals, which basically covers New England; the Curnins lost there too. The loser there can appeal to the Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court rejects the vast majority of appeals, that is, the Supreme Court just lets the Court of Appeals ruling stand.



The Curnins could try to appeal to the Supreme Court, but that appeal would probably be rejected. So they're trying the only other last ditch course open to them, namely an attempt to get all the judges on the First Circuit to rehear the appeal already decided against them. You see, the Courts of Appeals have lots of judges, but normally only three of them are assigned to decide a particular case. That's what happened in the Curnins case. But it's very difficult to convince the judges that a matter is so important that more than three judges ought to decide it, especially if the judges don't see some pretty serious error in what the three judges did. My money is on the judges rejecting the Curnins attempt to get all the judges to rehear their case. And after that, if I were the lawyer, I certainly wouldn't recommend an appeal to the Supreme Court, because it's very expensive, takes a long time and is very likely to fail.



But all of this fruitless activity takes a lot of time for the town's lawyers, and guess who's paying for them? If you think it's the town's insurance company, you don't understand experience rated insurance. Come on, Curnins, give up.

Local newspapers report that Bill O'Reilly's Fox News team was here in December haranguing the Great Barrington selectboard for calling the Main Street lights "holiday lights" instead of "Christmas lights." If the reports are true, it sounds to me like O'Reilly has gone a bit off the deep end again. I think treating Christmas with political correctness is stupid, and that what many towns have done in that regard is stupid, but I don't see why you can't call street lighting "holiday" lights. They're up there at least through New Year's, right? Comments?

A comment was made on my posting about the North Egremont post office, asking why all this was happening after many years. A combination of two phenomena is causing the problem: First the USPS has been trying to close small post offices for many years, including ours. Craig and friends beat back a pretty serious attempt several years ago by enlisting some political help. Second, Craig has been fighting with the USPS for several years over what they pay him to run the post office. It ain't much, and Craig isn't a charity. So when he really put his foot down last year the USPS got nasty, putting the screws on Craig and all us users. The threats have stopped, at least for now, but the changeover in address remains in effect.



Craig has the store on the market. If he sells the new owner will inherit the problem.