Police "Mistake"

I just learned that the selectboard made a "mistake" in the warrant.  They didn't mean to omit the request from the new guys for another $50,000 or so.  So I guess they're going to ask for an ADDITIONAL $50,000 for the police department at the town meeting.  When does the madness stop?  BE AT THE TOWN MEETING, SPEAK UP AND VOTE NO!

Police

Another total mess, but also an opportunity.

My conversations with many Egremonters lead inexorably to the same conclusion:  Reena isn't going to come back and the new guys aren't going to work out. 

This mess was totally brought to you by our selectmen.  They screwed it up about as completely as was possible.  They brought in the new guys without thinking through the costs or the morale problems, and then seized the opportunity to summarily "suspend" Reena without giving her any chance to be heard, in violation of about a dozen laws and rules and policies.  The claims against the town are potentially very costly.

I got the tape of the meeting at which the selectboard suspended Reena.  You should all read it, and I'll try to have copies available at the One Egremont meeting on May 4.  It just sort of gives you the feeling that this thing wasn't spontaneous, but rather was orchestrated. 

So what does the selectboard propose now that they've created this mess?  Well they did resist the new guys' request for an extra $50,000 for the police department (see Kevin Zurrin's blog for more on this), putting "only" $302,000 on the warrant, but they have no solution - and admitted it at a selectmen's meeting -  for how they're going to pay for the additional full time officer they decided we needed, except maybe to get rid of most or all of the part timers.  What a great idea!  Get rid of the officers we all know in favor of two new guys that we don't!  The ones who want tasers and lots of guns!  Brilliant! 

But, supposedly on the recommendation of our town counsel (he's such a convenient excuse for the selectboard), they put an item on the agenda for the special town meeting (the one that precedes the annual town meeting, and at which most people are coveniently asleep) asking for $15,000 for an interim acting police chief because they suspended our existing chief and it just isn't right to have the new guy acting as chief until the Reena thing is resolved.   If you think $15,000 is going to be enough for that little diversion, think again.

So let's summarize:  Our selectboard hires police officers without considering that we can't pay for them, either orchestrates or seizes the opportunity to suspend the existing chief without the slightest due process and without considering the costly lawsuits that will result, turns down the police budget when they wake up to the fact that we can't afford it without any realistic plan for how to pay for the police department they've created, and then asks us taxpayers to bail them out by paying for an interim police chief needed because the selectboard screwed up so badly.  I think I'll vote no. 

The opportunity, now that we're going to have to start from scratch: Let's seriously think about what we need for policing in Egremont.   How about one full timer and a few part timers?   Or why not do what Alford and Mt. Washington and Hillsdale do:  Rely on the state police (county police in Hillsdale) for a fraction of the cost that we pay.   We could probably get the state police to do a good job by paying them nothing in cash, but rather letting them use our wonderful new police station as a substation rent free. 

Water Department Budget

What a mess.  Can it get worse?  (Preliminary note:  all the figures in this posting are rounded.)

The selectboard approved a budget for the water department that shows $176,000 in revenues, $275,000 in expenses, and a $99,000 subsidy from the taxpayers. (And they try to disguise the subsidy by listing it as $68,000 under "tax levy subsidy" and $31,000 under "tax levy debt service (subsidy)."  A subsidy is a subsidy is a subsidy, folks.) 

The finance committee approved a budget showing $187,000 in revenues, $250,000 in expenses, and a $63,000 subsidy from the taxpayers.  The revenues are based on numbers from the water commissioners, adjusted upwards to reflect that everything is billed and collected, which hasn't happened in the past but should.  The expenses reflect primarily cutting salaries/wages and corresponding reductions in insurance costs. 

So the town meeting will decide which way to go.  Be there.

Ah, but there are 3 other items on the agenda that would change all this.  First, a citizens' petition to have the taxpayers pay all the debt service, forever.  That would amount to a taxpayer payment of $117,000 this year, would reduce the department expenses accordingly and result in a surplus of $18,000 on the selectmen's numbers, or $54,000 on the finance committee's numbers, which surplus would go to reduce the user fees, not back to the taxpayers.  Talk about a reach.  The selectboard and the finance committee are opposed to this proposal.  But if the voters foolishly approved it, it would of course change the water department budget, so the budget listed in the warrant and described above would have to be modified at the meeting; otherwise you'd have two hopelessly inconsistent voter actions.  

Second is a citizens' petition to cap the taxpayer subsidy at $40,000.  If the voters approved that, again you'd have to modify the budget listed in the warrant accordingly to avoid the hopeless inconsistency.

Third is a citizens' petition to charge the Great Barrington water users, since they don't pay taxes in Egremont, 150% of what the Egremont users pay.  That would also cause the budget listed in the warrant to be modified.

So how does the selectboard propose to deal with this?  They finally woke up to the first citizens' petition, realized that a vote on it had to precede the vote on the budget listed in the warrant and therefore moved it up in the agenda order so that it's just before that vote.  But they didn't move up the other two citizens' petitions, even after being expressly told that was equally necessary.  Why?  It can't be oversight, so the only reasons I can think of are stupidity or deviousness.  Will our selectboard ever start doing what makes sense?

Incidentally, I'm told that town counsel has advised that the 150% proposal is "illegal" or "not valid" or something like that, because you can't charge different rates to different users.  I've found nothing in Massachusetts law to support that conclusion.  And other town water departments in the state charge different rates to different users, based on seasonal variations, business versus residential use, elderly discounts, low income discounts, early pay discounts, etc.  Are they all illegal too?  So long as there's a rational basis for charging different rates to different users, it's okay.  And there sure is a rational basis for charging Great Barrington users more. 

Finance Committee Meeting

The finance committee meets tonight to finalize its position on the police budget, the water department budget, the fire engine and other important matters.  This is your chance to influence what happens at town meeting, and to observe the finance committee's performance.

Regarding the water department, the board of selectmen on Monday just punted.  The proposed budget submitted by the commissioners for consideration by the board can charitably be described as deficient, but describing it as a joke would be far more accurate.  The selectmen pretty much threw up their hands and retreated, saying "well it's the commissioners budget, not ours" and looking at the members of the finance committee who were present, hoping they'd be bailed out.  The board could have put items on the warrant directing changes in the water department's practices or procedures, but chickened out. 

There are three citizens' items on the warrant relating to the water department.  Each of the three would, if adopted, impact the department's budget, in two of the three cases dramatically.  So those items should be voted on before the budget, else there could be an irreconcilable conflict.  The selectmen decided Monday to move one of them up to precede the budget vote, but not the others.  Why?  You decide.  I have my suspicions.

The selectmen are punting on many budget items.  It's way past time to hold them accountable.  Make them state their positions on these issues.  Don't let them hide behind obfuscations. 

The Police, the Selectboard and the Finance Committee

Please read today's entries on www.eyeonegremont.com regarding the police.

The performance of the selectboard this year can only be described as disastrous.  I won't dwell on how this sorry situation came about except to point out that you get what you vote for.  

I believe the selectboard's primary job is to protect the taxpayers, not the town employees and not themselves.  They are not protecting the taxpayers.   The budget they're proposing will show  increase after increase, and they refuse to do anything meaningful to rein in the water department or the police department or the fire department.   Watching them throw up their hands on specific budget requests is like watching children.  They have no backbone.  They just keep trying to blame the finance committee for their own shortcomings.

Our only hope is the finance committee.  The committee that the selectboard successfully ousted two years ago wouldn't have tolerated this profligacy.  Will the replacement members stand up and do the right thing?   Or will they cave in with their tails between their legs. 

Whatever the finance committee does, get your butt to the town meeting AND VOTE NO ON THESE NONSENSICAL EXPENDITURES!  Our real estate values stay higher than those in our surrounding towns because we keep our taxes low.  Let's keep it that way.

Police Report

The report on the police department was received at town hall last Monday.  Why haven't the selectmen released it?  What are they hiding?

Town Budget

One of the problems with having three government employees as our selectmen is their tendency to be big spenders.  And, sure enough, their proposed budget this year shows some large increases. 

First, they want to give everyone a raise.  While state and local governments have been laying off employees and flat lining salaries, Egremont's selectmen are suggesting another salary increase this year.

How about $63,000 for a computer network?  While an effort is being made to get that number down, I'd like to see a better effort.  And pardon me if I'm skeptical about the expertise of our selectboard to get the right system at the right cost.  If the selectboard stayed out of it completely, I'd have more confidence.

How many fire engines do we need?  There's a proposal to spend $400,000 on another one.  And I'm told it doesn't have up-to-date technology.  One that does would actually cost a lot less, so why aren't we thoroughly exploring that?  Or doing without?

The jury is still out (in more ways than one) on the police department.  But in Reena's absence, our "acting chief" has proposed a budget almost 20% higher than the one that she had submitted earlier this year.   We don't need a Cadillac police department.  I remember when we had a one-man police department, and I'm not convinced that our big crew has produced a decrease in crime.

Finally, last year the new police station was approved - after the voters had turned it down twice - when the "edifice complex" crowd stacked a special town meeting.  But they swore the cost would NEVER exceed the amount approved.  So far the station has come in without huge cost overruns, but now there's a proposal to spend $13,000 to demolish the annex to provide parking space.  (People can't walk the 100 feet or so from the existing parking lot?)  That's just an end run around the approved amount.  Don't buy it.

Then there's the water department.

So what can you do about these things?  Come to the town meeting, stand up, say something and vote no. 

A Lesson in Rationalization

Some people, after convicting an impertinent citizen of saying things they don't like, need to justify their conduct by rationalizing it.   At the selectmen's meeting that followed Kevin's hearing last night, Bruce Turner agreed that the town needs a policy on what town officials can say publicly.   My immediate thought was that Venezuela is looking for a successor to Chavez, and perhaps Bruce should volunteer.  He's apparently unaware of the Constitution. 

And Charlie Flynn intimated that the failure to ferret out the water department's problems fell on - get ready for it - Laura Allen as the longstanding chairman of the finance committee!  When I noted that the town bylaws placed a duty on the finance committee to investigate the cost of maintenance of town departments but not town revenues, Mary Brazie tried to put the blame on the finance committee by referring  to the ensuing bylaw provision, which empowers the finance committee to summon information "for such examination considered by it necessary to the proper discharge of its duties."   Apparently she can't distinguish between a duty and a power.

Of course all the criticism on this blog and mine - as well as the public outrage - will have no positive effect on the entrenched denizens at town hall, who will continue to get deeper and deeper into the bunker and treat anyone who disagrees with them as enemies of the people.  Egremont has a government of some of the people, by some of the people and for some of the people.  To hell with everyone else.

Kangaroo Court

Last night, a vindictive selectboard orchestrated the ouster of Kevin Zurrin from the finance commitee, ostensibly because he exposed the town to a RISK of being sued for defamation, but in reality because he dared to challenge the town powerful.  You can read about it in today's Berkshire Eagle.

The ouster action was illegal for several reasons, and Kevin will eventually decide whether he wants to have the matter overturned in court and whether he wants to sue for a violation of his civil rights.

I'll have more to say about this in future blog postings.  Right now, I'm depressed about living in a town headed by people who care about themselves and their friends but no one else.