Sunday, November 07, 2010

Special Town Meeting Results

As expected, participation in the startup WiredWest (the coalition of towns that hopes to bring broadband to our homes and businesses) passed overwhemingly. The school committee's version of the new 5 town agreement beat out the Egremont version. The library proposal was badly defeated. And although it won a majority vote, the proposed modular police station on the annex site lost because it failed to get the required two-thirds vote.

Well over 100 voters came to the meeting. My "rule of town meetings" is that whenever more than 110 voters show up, they're there to vote no on whatever the issue is. In this case that issue was the library. The police station may be the exception that proves the rule.

Thursday, November 04, 2010

Police Station

I'm voting against it for 3 reasons:

1. The federal and state governments are in real trouble as a result of too much spending and too much debt. Let's not make the same mistake in Egremont. We're looking at reduced money from the feds and from the state for many years. So we need the money in our reserve funds (including free cash) and shouldn't be spending it on a police station.

2. South Berkshire will see increasing regionalization in coming years. Each town having its own fire department, police department, etc., is expensive and inefficient, especially given implementation of more and more sophisticated equipment that often becomes obsolete quickly. Why build an edifice that is designed to last at least 50 years for a function that may not last more than 10 - or maybe even 5 - years?

3. I'm not convinced we've examined need - and need solutions - closely enough. I've heard about 8 reasons why we need a new police building, some of which seem a bit bogus, and the remainder of which should be looked at individually to see the best way to handle them. There is a lot of space at town hall that isn't being used as efficiently as it might. Does the police department need more record keeping space? I'm sure it can be found somewhere in town hall. Does the department need a "holding pen?" Why not just add a little space for that purpose at the south end of the town hall? If we go through the real needs one by one, I'll bet we can find separate solutions that cost a lot less than $400,000 to $500,000.

Friday, October 29, 2010

Special Town Meeting

There are 6 items to be voted on. Article 1 - authorizing progress on getting high speed internet - is a no brainer. Only a neanderthal would vote no. Article 6 is a technical matter involving $1,020, and is hardly worth mentioning.

Article 4 seeks authority for the library trustees to start down the path for a new - and very expensive - library. It looks like it will go down to overwhelming defeat, but don't get complacent, come to the meeting to make sure.

Articles 2 and 3 propose two different versions of the regional school agreement. One of them is the version put forward by the school committee and the other is the version put forward by the selectboard. The only difference is that the former would permit a school in the district to be closed by the vote of 4 of the 5 towns, whereas the latter would preserve the right of a town to veto an attempt to close a school in that town. This has been the subject of very heated debate and strongly held views on both sides.

I have no strong feelings about either version. But I intend to vote "yes" on both versions, because there is a financial impact, albeit not a huge one. That impact is this: If there is SOME agreement, Egremont will pay about $12,000 less as its school assessment next year than if there is NO agreement. So some agreement is better than no agreement.

Incidentally, the warrant wrongly states that the finance committee recommends approval of the selectmen's version and disapproval of the school committee's version. I think the finance committee's position is the same as that outlined above, but they'll announce their position at the meeting.

I'll do a separate posting on Article 5, the police station, in a day or so. In the meantime, make your positions known and COME TO THE MEETING!!

Selectmen Votes and the Egremont Taxpayers Association

There's an election on Tuesday, and I know who I'm voting for because I know where the candidates stand on the issues I care about. I can't imagine an office holder or candidate refusing to disclose his or her position on an issue if asked about it (although I know there may be a lot of wishy-washyness in that position).

Do you think Egremonters are entitled to know the positions of the selectmen on important issues? I do. One important issue is the library. But when I asked the selectmen to state their positions on the library at the informational meeting last Saturday, the response was some gobbledygook about how the selectmen were entitled to keep their views to themselves just like other voters. But they're not just other voters, they're elected officials whose positions we voters are entitled to know.

This is a good example of why the new effort to form an Egremont Taxpayers Association will hopefully be successful. One of that Association's objectives is to hold candidates' forums at which voters can find out what the candidates' positions are. The old Egremont Civic Association used to do that, but, alas, it died several years ago. If you're interested in the Egremont Taxpayers Association, send an email to Frank Penglase at penglase@verizon.net.

Friday, October 15, 2010

Water Company

The red ink just goes on and on. At the session appointing a new water commissioner (I applied but the commissioners and selectmen were having none of that), one of the commissioners, by posing a loaded question to the candidates, essentially said the water users were already paying too much and couldn't pay any more and the taxpayers would just have to suck up to it.

Do you suppose the commissioners will ever focus on getting their financial house in order by cutting costs, not coming back to the taxpayers to solve the water company's problems? I'm not aware of any constitutional right that the users have to be subsidized by the rest of us. I suspect that in the long run it would be cheaper for the taxpayers to pay for the users digging their own wells rather than pay a continuously rising subsidy.

Special Town Meeting

There will be one on November 6. It is very important. Voters will be considering (a) whether to go ahead with a new library, estimated cost in the millions, (b) whether to go ahead with a new police station, estimated cost $425,000, (c) which of two versions of a new school agreement to approve, and (d) whether to approve a resolution authorizing the selectmen to participate in a broadband consortium. (There is one other minor item on the agenda.)

The broadband resolution makes me a little queasy becasuse it gives the selectboard pretty much a blank check to do - and spend - whatever they wish. (They'll tell you that's not what it means, even though that's what it says.) But high speed computer access is so important that I'd probably authorize pretty much anybody to pursue it.

I will comment on the other matters in due course. I invite others to comment as well.

Thursday, August 26, 2010

Board Supervision?

I attended a selectmen's meeting at the end of June that involved a little dust-up between the board of health and the selectboard (or at least its chairman). The selectboard didn't seem excited about the issue; the board of health thought it more serious. I was amused by the discussion (especially the attempt by the director of the board of health to provide legal justification for what the board was trying to do) but not bothered by it, until statements were made by two members of the board of health. Rather than characterizing those statements, I will simply quote the minutes of the meeting: "There was further discussion regarding the board of health's members' role regarding supervision of the director/clerk. Two of the board of health members attending stated that they do not supervise the director/clerk. Chairman Cumsky disagreed with that assertion."

Wow!! I was unaware that members of boards in Egremont don't supervise employees of that board. I wonder who does supervise them. And if board members don't supervise that board's employees, I wonder what the function of the board is.

This is obviously silly. What I'd really like to know is why the two board of health members would make statements so off the wall. What's going on here? Why can't the town hall denizens just do their jobs and not engage in political infighting?

Friday, July 30, 2010

Cell Phones and High Speed Internet

Egremonters have repeatedly said during the past few years that these subjects are more important to them than all other issues in town (with the possible exception of spendthrift plans for new buildings). So what are our elected officials doing about them?

Obviously not much. I and many others believe both the selectboard and the planning board should be out beating the bushes to get these services to our townspeople. That involves more than just waiting for someone to submit an application, or joining some group that is promising to look into the matter. What more important functions do they have? Do they serve the people or vice versa?

I invite the members of the selctboard and the planning board to respond to this posting with a report on their activities and plans for accomplishing these important tasks. If they fail to do so, I assume that means they're just going to sit back with "same old, same old." Sigh!!

Friday, July 09, 2010

Planning Board Appointment

The combined planning board and selectboard met and appointed Haeckel to fill the vacancy by a vote of 4 to 3. Most of the planning board and selectboard members had already made up their minds, so pretty much meaningless questions were asked of the candidates just to convey the impression that the voting members were on top of things.

Both candidaters were asked their views on cell service. Hudnut was pretty strongly in favor. Haeckel gave a carefully rehearsed answer: he "supports" it for all of Egremont (whatever that means) but insists on "prudent planning" to prevent inappropriate siting. We'll see how he actually acts when the time comes.

There was an interesting (I could use a much perjorative adjective) procedural move attempted by Vining and Krancer. They wanted a written "all at once" vote rather than a "one by one" oral vote starting with Proctor and ending with Krancer. The justification was that later votes could be influenced by the reasons stated for or against a candidate in prior votes. I guess more information and dialogue is a bad thing in their minds. Cumsky strongly objected and the motion was defeated 4 to 2 with Martinson abstaining. My guess on why they pushed this procedural move was that Vining and Krancer knew that Haeckel would get 3 votes but weren't sure about Martinson's vote, and were afraid she'd be influenced to vote for Hudnut, and that would never do because dissent on the planning board is not tolerated.

Here's my take on the voting motives:

Proctor (voted for Hudnut): Probably thought Hudnut the better candidate. Also influenced by the fact he's in the process of selling the farm and may need planning board approval (or at least cooperation) to maximize proceeds.
Cumsky (voted for Hudnut): Knows how strongly townspeople want cell phone service, and thinks he gains more votes than loses them by opposing the PB bloc's candidate.
Burdsall (voted for Hudnut): Wants cell service and knows Haeckel will be an impediment.
Vining (voted for Haeckel): The tiger does not change her stripes.
Turner (voted for Haeckel): Was paying back an election debt to the PB bloc of voters. Also dislikes anything supported by Cumsky or Allen.
Krancer (voted for Haeckel): The tiger's cub does not change her stripes.
Martinson (voted for Haeckel): Sigh! Probably didn't do her homework and didn't realize how important the cell service issue was and believed Haeckel's rehearsed answer on it.

Townspeople overwhelmingly view cell and high speed internet service as the most imporatant issues facing Egremont. The appointment of Haeckel is a step backward in those efforts. Those who voted for him need to be held accountable by the electorate, and should not escape by claiming other factors were involved (especially any asinine and self-serving statements that Haeckel needed less time to "come up to speed" on PB procedures). If by some miracle the PB actually becomes proactive and successful in bringing cell service and high speed internet to town, the Haeckel voters will be somewhat redeemed. If not, they should be thrown out of office, or, better yet, the PB should be eliminated (as we almost succeeded in doing about 10 years ago) and their functions shifted to the selectboard as Massachusetts law permits.

Tuesday, June 08, 2010

Planning Board Appointment

I sent the following email to our selectmen:

"To the Selectmen:

The upcoming appointment to the planning board is extremely important. Townspeople have indicated again and again that cell phone service and broadband access are the most important issues facing the town. With the very real possibility that a tower company may apply for a special permit soon, the attitude of the members of the planning board toward cell phone service becomes critical.

Given the importance of this matter, the appointment should not be made unless all the members of the selectboard and the planning board participate. In addition, the candidates should be required to state their positions on cell phone service and on the need for a cell tower in town. (They need not state their position on the Kelly site specifically.) One of the candidates has taken the position in the past that cell towers cause health problems (a position with no scientific support) and he should be specifically asked whether he has changed that position. It is simply not fair to have a planning board member appointed who is prone to vote contrary to the strong wishes of the vast majority of townspeople. "

You should make your views known. The town's email address is tegremont@yahoo.com. If you care about cell phone service, you should go to the appointment session and speak up. I will try to publish its date and time. It should also be posted at town hall and in the North Egremont store. Watch for it.

Thursday, June 03, 2010

Election Results

For those of you who missed it, the interesting contested election results were:

Selectman: Turner 251, Allen 238, confirmed by recount.
Planning board, 2 year: Hudnut and Haeckel tied, confirmed by recount.

Under Massachusetts law, the tie for the planning board seat will be resolved not by another election, but rather by appointment (for a one year term). The appointment is by majority vote of the combined selectboard and planning board, i.e., the four planning board members and three selectmen. They can appoint anyone, but its likely they'll pick one of the two candidates. More on that later. The last time there was a vacancy on the planning board, certain members of the planning board engaged in some clandestine tactics designed to get who they wanted appointed. Stay tuned.

Thursday, May 20, 2010

Selectboard Meeting

The first selectboard meeting following the election took place on Tuesday. It was very civil, there was no name calling, and it was blissfully short. All good signs.

The pending state legislation on wind power siting came up again. (See my various postings on this subject in the past.) The board voted (Bruce Turner abstaining) to confirm its past position on the legislation and to convey that confirmation to our local representatives. So Egremont continues to take the "Kennedy-like" position, namely that wind power is great but not in my town. The board justifies its position by saying "we favor wind power, but our planning board should have a say in where it goes." Can you imagine our planning board ever approving a wind turbine in Egremont? Hypocrisy reigns again.

Speaking of which, the planning board withdrew its ill-advised proposal to take away its own discretion to waive provisions of the cell tower bylaw when it became obvious that townspeople were overwhelmingly opposed to that proposal. So the way is now reasonably clear for Mariner Tower to formally apply for a special permit to construct a tower on the Kelly property. We'll see if that application is made. Cell towers need to go up when the telecom companies indicate a need, and the "window of opportunity" is often short. Because of all the foot dragging, the opportunity may have gone away. If we are ever going to get cell phone service in town, the planning board has to become much more proactive, or we need to take the permitting power away from the planning board and put it in the selectboard where it belongs.

Monday, May 17, 2010

Town Meeting

I am very much a democrat (lower case "d"), and the conduct of the town meeting always upsets me because its anti-democratic.
First, a relatively small number of people - less than 10% of the town's voters - make legislative decisions that bind everyone. That often leads to decisions at the town meeting that the voters who weren't there would have opposed in large numbers. Not right.
Second, the voters who are in attendance often don't have a clue as to what particular items on the agenda are about. That's especially the case when the matter is complicated (and,worse, when the board proposing it makes it complicated) and no one adequately explains what its real impact is. Not right.
I am particularly upset at the way the budget was handled at the last meeting. In all the years I've been going to town meetings, a voter was allowed to put a "hold" on a line item and then that item would be separately discussed and voted on. But this year John Walther put holds on a number of items (and I recall that someone else put holds on a an item or two), but the budget was voted on as a whole, with no separate vote on the held items. So there was no point to having holds. Not fair.
We need to revamp the town meeting process. We need the warrant to in English, not legalese. We need to know how the members of the selectboard voted on each item, and why. We need simple explanations of items on the agenda. And where an item is controversial, we need statements for and against, just like the state does on statewide referendum items. And we need some way that the voters and the people on the stage can hear and understand each other, which often isn't the case.

Sunday, May 16, 2010

I'm Back!

Now that the election is over, I've been unmuzzled, and intend to speak out often and without restraint.

Let's start with the town meeting and the shameless political move made there by supporters of one candidate that resulted in a dumb financial decision.

At the end of every fiscal year, the town has an account called "free cash." It's the amount equal to the difference between what we brought in (taxes, fees, etc.) and what we spent. The town also has an account called "reserve fund." That's a sort of "rainy day" fund that can be used for unexpected - and usually big - items.

The state finance people wisely encourage towns to have a properly sized reserve fund to cover unexpected items to avoid a sudden bump-up in real estate taxes to pay for those items. And they say a town shouldn't spend its free cash account below a certain level because you may have an unexpected increase in some budgeted item - or an unexpected decline in some revenue source - that you'll need that cash to pay for. An example would be larger than expected outlays for major storm damage.

The town ended the fiscal year with more than the minimum necessary in free cash, so the selectboard, with the concurrence of the finance committee, recommended using some of it to pay for a few nonrecurring items and transferring $75,000 of it to the reserve fund.

One of the most contentious issues facing the town in recent years has been the continually increasing losses incurred by the water company. The finance committee squarely raised the issue for consideration by the voters by suggesting an upfront appropriation of $75,000 for the water company, rather than following our past practice of pretending that the water company would charge enough to its users to cover its costs and then "discovering" at the end of the year that there was a shortfall. (The whole issue of the water company and what to do about it will be the subject of future postings. Many townspeople - including me -are outraged.) That $75,000 appropriation was to be included in what would be covered by real estate taxes. Why? Because there's no sign that the shortfall is going away. It looks like it will be around forever, and you don't use free cash to cover something that's ongoing. That's like borrowing on your credit card and saying "well, I don't want to pay for it now; next year I'll tighten by belt."

But because one of the candidates for selectboard wanted to project an image of being a cost cutter, his supporters moved to pay that $75,000 out of free cash rather than through real estate taxes. Those supporters didn't object to any of the other expenditures in the budget. It was just a political move, not a fiscally responsible one. And those supporters carried the day at the meeting (Another reason why we need a larger quorum requirement at town meeting.)

Result: We put off an issue that should have been dealt with forthrightly; and we had to reduce the amount of free cash we put into the reserve fund. Let's hope our new selectman brings a bit more fiscal responsibility to selectboard meetings.