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.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
