Special Town Meeting

Now that they've fired Reena, the hottest item on the warrant - $42,000 more for an interim chief - will likely not be moved by the selectboard.  That leaves far less controversy for the meeting and may tempt many people not to go.   If you're one of them, please reconsider.

The other item on the police budget is still there.  I suspect when the selectboard moves it, they'll leave out the part about more money for the chief's salary:  whoever they hire to replace Reena, presumably Shaw, will get a lower salary than Reena, so there's no reason to increase that amount. 

That leaves the increase in the secretary's salary - which I suspect will garner very substantial support - and the increase in what's labeled "collective bargaining."    There are two ways to approach that item. 

First, the voters level funded the police department at the May meeting.  That's a perfectly appropriate way to decide budget matters.  For example, the voters could say to the highway department "we think we should spend no more than $[          ] on highways; now you deal with spending that amount whatever way you think best, but don't exceed it."  That approach works equally well with the police department, since vacancies can be filled or not filled, hours can be arranged, part time versus full time officers can be used for specific tasks, etc.  Most people in the private and public sectors are required to follow that kind of mandate.  If they come back later in the year and say "well I spent too much, so I need more, please give it to me," they get their heads taken off.

Someone might say "yes, but unexpected items can't be budgeted at the beginning of the year, and the new collective bargaining agreement with the police unexpectedly raises their compensation."  But everyone knew a new agreement was in the offing, and the town has often had to estimate police compensation pending a new agreement.  In fact that's what we did in May.  So if the new agreement is too costly, turn it down.  (To illustrate the point, what if the selectboard negotiated an increase of $100,000 in police compensation.  Would the voters just go along?)

Equally important, the dollar increase being requested is pretty much a seat of the pants number.  It assumes certain staffing that may or may not be what actually happens.  And the contract itself is filled with ambiguities.  When the finance committee asked for explanations from Bill Tighe, he had to admit that there were ambiguities.  I've read the contract.  It's unclear on some very basic money matters.  And it says it's not even in effect until July 1, 2014, which means the old contract still controls.  So rather than just bless it, why not say to the selectboard "go back and fix it, and live with what we gave you in May"?

The Police Debacle Goes On

Out of the frying pan, into the fire.  The selectboard voted 3 to 0 tonight to terminate Reena effective immediately.  There should be an article in the Eagle tomorrow, and if it quotes any of the selectmen, I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that the quotes will just tighten the noose around their necks some more.  If you're selling your Egremont property, do it fast because your tax bill is going to go way up.  As a federal taxpayer, you owe a big chunk of your future to the Chinese.  As an Egremont taxpayer, you're going to owe a big chunk of your future to Reena Bucknell.

If any of you have the ear of any selectman, talk to him or her about thinking just a little bit before saying something that makes things worse.

I haven't been to recent selectboard meetings, but I went tonight.  I can report that, sadly, things have only changed for the worse.

First, Turner announced at the start of the meeting that he was banning any recording of it because the recording people hadn't indicated they were going to do so BEFORE the meeting, as opposed to at the outset of the meeting.  They read outloud the wording in the open meeting law, which does say "before," and by God we selectmen are going to enforce it against these disrespectful citizens who only want to trap us with our own words! 

There followed a rather bizarre discussion about Robert's Rules of Order, with the selectmen at first indicating they were going to follow it, but, well, not all the time.  When Weigle asked which edition of Robert's Rules they were going to follow, they admitted they didn't know there were several editions.  Pollard tried to bail them out with a rambling speech about how meetings should be (must be?) conducted, but was not terribly persuasive. How can you be persuasive when the real purpose of the selectboard's actions is to shut the citizenry up (at least those citizens who the selectboard doesn't like)?

Cumsky presented a letter outlining a conversation he'd had with an Assistant AG indicating that the open meeting law required that members of the public be able to hear the proceedings and that the selectboard must provide a room with adequate seating for the expected audience. Here it is:

That prompted Pollard to do a song and dance about how his prior contrary advice wasn't really to the contrary.  I can't wait to compare the transcripts.

What's so really, really bad about all this?  The selectmen have moved completely into the bunker, so the usual useful interplay between the citizens and the board - known as democracy - has been eliminated.  And pity poor Mr. Pollard, who has to defend the selectboard in implementing these attacks on the way democracy should work.

Then Brazie announced that one of the selectboard's ploys - to raid unused community policing grant money to pay for an extension of the temporary chief's tenure so they wouldn't have to ask the taxpayers to pony up at the special town meeting - probably wasn't going to work.  The finance committee had made inquiries at the state level and was told that that unused  money couldn't be used in that way because it probably had to be paid back to the state.   That really upset Flynn, who demanded to know if the nosy finance committee had put discussing that matter on their agenda!  Flynn apparently thinks it's okay to spend money illegally if you can just slip it by. 

Flynn then used that problem to launch into a tirade about Reena, and demanded to meet on what to do about her - i.e., let's fire her - by the end of this week.  He found it damnable that Reena hadn't spent the grant money and therefore put us into this terrible situation.  Of course, he overlooks that if she had spent the money it wouldn't be available, now would it?  (And he thinks a town employee should be criticized for NOT spending money?) It's the selectboard that applies for grants and is supposed to monitor them, not town employees; that's called accountability.  And there were several specific discussions with THIS selectboard about using that grant money for radio upgrades at the new police station, so they can't plead ignorance.  How wrong headed can you get? 

A bit of sad news is that Jim Fountain, the long time dump attendant, is quitting.  Much sadder is the selectboard's reaction.  Brazie announced that there was no need to advertise the position because a number of people had already indicated they were interested.  The fact that someone who is an outsider might be a better choice seems to be of no concern to this selectboard.  Cronyism reigns.  Indeed, when Cumsky asked what the board's policy was about advertising open positions, the response was that advertising was done only when there weren't people on the inside who were interested in the job.  I admire the honesty, but this is a really stupid way to do business, and the result is predictable.  It just worsens the "us against them" mentality that permeates town hall.  And there's no reason to hope that it's going to get better.  There's only one way to accomplish that.

 

Bucknell Matter Resolved? Redux

The answer to the question in the title to this posting is obvious.  Not on your bippy.  But here's a little twist on the subject:  At tonight's selectboard meeting I handed the reporter from the Record a note saying the Record had reported that a deal had been struck between the selectboard and Reena, quoting Brazie and Turner to that effect, and yet people who have talked to Reena report that it's news to her.  Where's the truth, I asked the reporter.  I expected him to bite into that tidbit like a bulldog.  What was his response?  "Call the paper," he said;  "I didn't write the story."  I guess the reporters don't talk to each other.