Friday, March 07, 2008

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).

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Test comment from blogger.

Anonymous said...

Hi Richard,

I'm not commenting to defend my husband. He has no problems doing that himself.

Instead, I want to discuss further this idea of fair pay. I am a fervent believer that you must pay people fairly IF they are doing a good job.

The bigger question is, are the taxpayers of Egremont getting what they are paying for? I spent a great deal of time at Town Hall last year while I was a member of the Board of Assessors and I have my own personal observations of this.

I think before we decide how much we should pay employees of this town, we should make sure that the jobs are being done to our satisfaction.

Some questions I would like to see raised are:

. Are employees working from 7:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. on town business or is a part (perhaps even a large part) spent on personal items?

. Does everyone have a back-up person who can take over if someone is unable to be in the office so that the town "machinery" runs smoothly?

. Are all taxpayers of this town treated equally by the staff? Is everyone given proper information, are they treated fairly, respectfully and professionally? Do any of our taxpayers feel "intimidated" when dealing with the Town Hall staff?

While I genuinely have immense respect for Mary Brazie, who I find to be a very hard working person, I believe it is an impossible task to have her critique the department she manages, and in some cases her own personal friends, and then as Selectman approve those decisions. In my opinion, the conflict is staggering.

We really need someone unbiased to take a good look at how our town staff is operating before we decide what pay raise they should receive. Raises should be performance based - not just a given.

If our staff's performance is exemplary then it is something that should be compensated.

I'm really looking forward to the Selectman Debates during this campaign season and also to the May meeting to discuss these concerns further with the taxpayers of Egremont.

On a different subject, kudos to you Richard for starting this blog. Here's hoping you have many more people sharing their varying views about this beautiful town we all love.

With best wishes, Karen Cumsky

Richard Allen said...

From Richard -

I pretty much agree with Karen, and disagree only in a few respects.

My biggest complaint about last year's employee raises was that the selectboard ignored (as Bruce Turner admitted at the meeting) the evaluation and increase procedures theretofore adopted by the selectboard at the suggestion of the employment consultant hired by - you guessed it - the selectboard.

And as for fair pay for fair work, I'd feel better about it if we didn't have 2 of the 3 selectmen employed by (or having a spouse employed by) the town. That results in taint across the board.

Will there be candidate debates? The Civic Association seems to have lost its way. I intend to submit questionnaires to all candidates and publish the results on this blog.

Anonymous said...

Hi Richard,

I've just read your blog and think I recognize myself in it. You are referring to my supporting the slightly higher increase than that recommended by the finance committee. Yes, I supported it. In calculating the difference, it came to so small an increase that it seemed fair to accept it.

You can occasionally hear me agreeing with the Selectboard when their recommendations are just. You can often see me agreeing with the Finance Committee, whose fiscally conservative approach and long-term cost consideration I agree with. You will find me agreeing with anyone that proposes FAIRNESS, because that is my guide. I have no other agenda but to be fair and honest and to strengthen our community.

But please don't let that 'town meeting moment' misquide you as to my approach to fiscal matters. I struggle, like most of our citizens, to make a living. I watch every dollar, spend carefully, and demonstrate that through both words and deeds.

I am fiscally conservative, yet fair. Governing isn't always about spending less. It's often about spending wisely. You have to squeeze budgets, bid tighter, get people to work both harder and better, and oversee the work. Any review of my efforts and successes with the Water Department can attest to that. I'll share a few results: a new rate policy that bills all customers for debt service and, additionally, ONLY for the water used. That is only fair to all and puts the control of spending in our customers hands. I've initiated a search of alternate energy – solar or hydro-electric – to end our dependancy on the National Grid (and save almost $14,000 per year); we have begun a Capital Improvement program that allows the Water Department to stay ahead of leaks and slowly replace worn out lines; and, our lines are almost completely mapped now. These are issues I ran on and delivered.

I will bring this passion to my seat on the Selectboard, if elected. Too often our citizens are surprised with requests for funding of major projects that they have heard little of. Too often they are given partial information regarding short AND long-term costs. Pet projects seem to move forward without regard to the priorities of our community, for the benefit of a few and at the expense of many. We need to ask the difficult questions, sometimes the unpopular questions. We need to demand more from our elected leaders. Demand that they question, evaluate, and question again.

But we need more for our community. We need a Master Plan, a plan that prioritizes and guides us, one that is fiscally responsible, one that strengthens our community for the future generations. Grants (which always come with baggage) should not drive our decisions, but NEED should.

I also believe that the Selectboard should be free of any conflict-of-interest. A board member cannot make an unbiased decision about a project they have been intimately involved with. Nor can a board member evaluate a department that they are also a member of. You just can't be a boss and an employee at the same time and objectively evaluate either departmental or personal performance.

Before you ask, yes, I would leave the Water Commission and the ZBA, if elected.

So, if we demand more from our elected officials, plan for a strong future, ask more questions and demand more answers... maybe we'll have friendlier town meetings where we can all celebrate what is great about our community.

So don't hold back your vote for me yet.... and call if you want to discuss more. 644-9934.

Best- Bruce