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"?