French Park

Accolades to Jen Brown and the Egremont Fire Department. Jen traveled all the trails in French Park, mapped out (with Nick Ball) where the trails needed clearing and convinced the fire department to volunteer to do the clearing work. Way to go, JB and our intrepid fire fighters!!

Bloated Town Government

Two recent events have made me revisit an old and gnawing issue. First, I was chatting with a local contractor who, in dealing with one of our town boards, was getting a very slow and very dumb response. I have similar conversations about once a month. Second, some folks who recently moved here permanently and who describe themselves as advocates of "regulation" (i.e., left wingers) have found that "regulation" in Egremont means having to go before many boards and being subject to many conditions, some of them inconsistent, in order to be able to build something that every rational human being on earth would conclude was a good thing and ought to be allowed. And they're facing at least a six month delay - and lots of extra expense - as a result. So not surprisingly they're starting to question their political beliefs.

I went back to the 2008 Egremont annual report and counted the governmental positions in town. According to the report, we have 26 elected officials and 158 appointed officials. That's a total of 184 governmental positions for a town with a population of 1,036. That results in governmental positions equal to almost 18% of population.

Obviously, we have too many people with time on their hands, many of whom probably ought to get jobs or do something with their lives. Add to that the fact that many of these governmental officials have no or inadequate experience and training, and it doesn't take a genius to figure out what busybodiness occurs from this situation. And we've all seen how valid that old saw is: power corrupts. Egremont isn't exempt.

Police, French Park and More

The minutes of the May 26 selectmen's meeting raise several issues.

The Good: (1) Accolades to those organizing the Memorial Day parade. They deserve it. (2) Accolades to the selectmen for looking into solar operated street lights. Not as a politically correct "green" measure, but from a cost perspective. (3) Accolades to them for starting to be serious about fire hydrant maintenance. Few things are more important for the town to deal with. (4) Accolades to Friends of Prospect Lake and the selectmen for finally starting to fix public access to Prospect Lake, and making it safe. Prospect Lake is a town asset that should be usable by townspeople. (5) Accolades to the selectmen for saying (time will tell if they walk the walk) they will seek out people to fill positions on town boards and committees, rather than just picking from whoever volunteers. That latter approach has too often resulted in boards populated by people who don't have any expertise and, worse, do have an agenda.

The Bad: (1) The resignation of the office clerk provides an opportunity for streamlining the duties of the full time employees at town hall. But it looks like a little band-aiding will be done and then we'll just hire a replacement. Why not use temporary help while a full assessment is done on the best way to divvy up the day-to-day work? It's not a secret that some of our full time employees have bigger work loads than others. (2) At least one of the selectmen thinks that the Egremont on Parade committee can decide to whom the net proceeds of that event should go. But that decision, and the accountability that goes with it, rests with the selectmen. They can't delegate imporatnt decisions, and especially financial ones, to town boards under their control. That's just a way to duck responsibility.

The Ugly: Do we all have some genetic defect that causes us to be unable to deal with the police department and its problems? First, do we really need to spend $25,000 for what is now called the "police feasability study"? Based on my experience, there are plenty of folks in town who could do that study for free. But of course that wouldn't result in CYA. Second, why must we vote on new police space at a fall special town meeting? The minutes of the May town meeting require a report to the town by the fall, but not to a town meeting. Large potential expenditures shouldn't be considered at special town meetings, where attendance is often sparse and where those especially interested in the issue often "pack" the meeting. Third, it is "cart before the horse" to be making decisions on police space before deciding what to do about the police department. Issues such as department size and turnover still need to be dealt with, as does regionalization. Otherwise, we run the risk of having unused or even empty police space after spending lots of money to build it.

Despite the "bad" and the "ugly," I'm optimistic about the selectboard's direction and its willingness to deal rationally and intelligently with town government.

Town Election

Turnout: 491 voters. Wow!!
Selectman: Burdsall - 343, Turner - 145
Water Commissioner: Gossage - 274, Allen - 173
Tree Warden: Olmsred - 343, St. Pierre - 130.

There IS a silent majority in Egremont, as evidenced by the last two elections for selectman. Last year, Bruce Cumsky easily defeated Mary Brazie, and this year Richard Burdsall whomped Bruce Turner. Cumsky and Burdsall oppose town extravaganzas like the library, etc., while Brazie and Turner represent the "government as usual" crowd. During the last 5 years or so, when there has been a low voter turnout, whether at a town meeting or an election, the result has been more government or more employees or more expenditures or all three. But when the voter turnout has been large, the opposite occurs. Think the sewer system, the zoning bylaw power grabbing rewrite, the annex proposal, etc.

If we really believe in democracy, not oligarchy, we should increase the quorum requirement for town meetings, reduce or eliminate special town meetings and decide major issues by adding them as referendum matters on the ballots used for elections.

Common Driveways

Whatever else you think of town meetings, they certainly can be entertaining, sort of like the Marx Brothers or the Three Stooges can be entertaining.

After much debate, Egremont passed a common driveway bylaw last night. During the debate, a voter tried to amend the bylaw by raising the maximum grade requirement from 10% to 12%, pointing out that Egremont is a hilly town. Oh no, cried some of the advocates (including the planning board), that would present a safety problem. How would a fire engine, for example, handle a steep grade?

So let's see how this will work in practice. Each of two adjacent land owners is building a house. They decide it would be nice to have a common driveway. The new bylaw would require that the driveway meet certain standards that presumably make it better: a little wider, better drainage, etc. But, alas, they discover they can't meet the maximum grade requirement. So each of them builds a separate driveway that is less wide, more easily washed out and generally more dangerous, as well as less attractive, than the common driveway would have been. And this benefits the town exactly how?

Police Station

At last night's town meeting, the voters turned down Bruce Turner's proposal to borrow $500,000 to build a new police station, voting instead for yet another study of the town hall property at a cost not to exceed $25,000. The primary justification for spending $500,000 now, according to Turner, was that the town was just about to pay off significant other debt and therefore it was a good time to borrow more.

That argument was shot down by Charles Flynn of the school committee, who pointed out that significant capital expenditures would be required at the Sheffield school during the next few years, and Egremont's share of them would be considerable.

Both Selectman Bruce Cumsky and the Finance Committee said they felt a bit sandbagged by Turner's presentation at the meeting of written materials and a power point presentation that had not been disclosed to them before the meeting.

We are suffering through a capital markets meltdown caused in large part by people who thought it was smart, as they were paying off their mortgages, to go right out and borrow more. Are we going to learn anything from this crisis? With respect to some of our elected officials in Egremont, apparently the answer is no.

Campaign Signs and Dirty Tricks?

You know election time is near when lawn signs start showing up all over town. The first ones were Turner signs, and they were soon accompanied by Burdsall signs. But then some of the Burdsall signs disappeared. It wasn't Burdsall supporters who removed them. Dirty tricks, right here in Egremont?

You won't be seeing Allen for Water Commissioner signs. In fact you won't be seeing much in the way of campaign materials in that regard. My platform is pretty simple. When the town voted to take over the Water Company, voters were told the users would pay all the costs so the taxpayers would never have to subsidize it. That has't happened, and the subsidy grows larger every year. I think the Water Commissioners are honor bound to run the operation in a businesslike fashion designed to eliminate the taxpayer subsidy. That hasn't happened either. I'll see that it does.

Nicholson Road/Millard Road

The agenda for Tuesday's town meeting includes an item seeking to abandon a part of Nicholson Road from the NY state line to the Hakim property (that's the property on which a huge house is being built just off Route 23 at the state line). It has been reported to the selectmen that the sponsors of that item have decided not to move its adoption.

At last year's town meeting, a committee was appointed to make a recommendation on the proposal to abandon a part of Millard Road near the NY border. I'm told the committee concluded that there should not be an abandonment, so that item isn't on the agenda for the town meeting.

Cell Phone Service and "Right" to Speak

Yesterday the selectboard held a Saturday morning meeting so that second homeowners could vent. They did.

Most of the discussion revolved around the "right" to speak at town meetings. I understand it was passionate at times, but that not much substance was added to the debate. The issue should be resolved at the May town meeting, but if certain people don't get their way they may again decide to use that unneighborly device, the lawsuit. Sigh!

There was also a lot of disussion about cell phone service and our restrictive (that is, prohibitive) 17 page single spaced bylaw on cell towers and equipment. Most of the discussion was about the town hall site. Since the selectboard didn't make it clear, let me do so: THERE IS NO CHANCE IN HELL OF A TOWER BEING CONSTRUCTED ON THAT SITE. It's time (actually it's been time for quite a while) to stop talking about something that isn't going to happen and that just distracts us from meaningful discussion.

Let's see if we can break this down into simple components: (1) Townspeople overwhelmingly support cell phone service in town. (2) You can't have service without cell tower equipment. (3) A tower company has a deal with a property owner in the south half of town (which is where a tower has to be located) to put up a tower NOW. (4) At least one telecom company has indicated it would put an antenna on that tower. (5) Our zoning bylaw doesn't permit that tower for a whole bunch of reasons. (6) At the May town meeting we will vote on a zoning bylaw change that would permit that tower if it got a special permit from the selectboard. (7) Special permits require specific findings including compatibility with the neighborhood. (8) Special permits from the selectboard require that all three selectmen agree.

Am I missing something or is this a no brainer? The only reason not to vote for the zoning bylaw change is if you just don't want a cell tower in town and you don't care that you're keeping other people from living in the 21st century because you don't want to.

Common Driveway Bylaw

Article 26 on the agenda for the town meeting seeks to add a zoning bylaw allowing and regulating common driveways. When we adopt changes to town bylaws, the changes should be compatible with the bylaw being changed. When we don’t do that, we end up with inconsistencies and confusion that people unhappy with the change (and their lawyers) can then exploit for unintended consequences. In order to make the new common driveway bylaw compatible with the zoning bylaw, and to cure some mistakes and ambiguities in the proposed bylaw, I'm suggesting a number of changes. The first, and most obvious, one is to designate where the new bylaw goes; I'm suggesting making it section 4.3.6. The other changes are set forth below (the capital letters refer to the sections of the proposed bylaw). Stop reading now if you'll be bored by this wordsmithing. But just because it's boring doesn't mean it's not important.

A: Strike “abutting”; it’s meaningless. Strike “(s)”; singular is all that’s needed. Change “way” to “street”; that’s the correct defined term in the ZBL. Strike “that serves no more than four (4) dwelling units”; the bylaw is intended to govern ALL common driveways, and then prohibiting ones for more than 4 units in paragraph B. Add “so” before “only”; it’s an omission. Strike “the provisions of”; the permit will speak for itself, whether or not it contains “provisions”.

B: Change “units” to “dwellings”; that’s the term used in the ZBL. Change “dwelling units” to “dwellings”; same reason.

C. Strike “zoning”; this bylaw is right in the ZBL, and the ZBL doesn’t use that word in describing frontage. Strike the second sentence; it’s wrong; the “way” is most likely a public way, and there is no requirement nor procedure for a public way (or any other way, unless in a subdivision) to be acceptable to the Planning Board.

D. Change “requirements for” to “of”; it’s the design that must be adequate, not the design requirements. Delete the comma, or add one after “shall”; there should either be 2 or no commas.

E. Change “approved frontage” to “a street”; same reason as under A above.

F. Change “way” to “portion of the common driveway”; use of the term-of-art “way” is confusing in this context.

G. Add “permit for a” after “for a”; You don’t apply for a driveway, you apply for a permit. Change “driveways” at the end to “driveway”; it’s a mistake.
H. Add “on the lots served by the common driveway” after “buildings”; not all buildings are prohibited. Strike “approval plan”; it’s the permit that governs, not some approved plan. Strike “until”; or add “such time as” after it to maintain parallel structure. Change “have” to “has received”; grammar and a mistake.

Planning Board Hearings; and NIMBYism

The Planning Board last night held hearings on two citizens' petitions that are on the agenda for the town meeting: a new bylaw covering common driveways; and revised bylaws covering cell phone service.

The driveway bylaw was mostly supported by those in attendance. They included several local real estate people and Mike Parsons (the surveyor) . Bill Turner, Tom Race and Jim Noe all seemed to be supporters as well, at least if the bylaw met their standards. I suspect the PB will come out in support, perhaps with some alterations.

The cell phone service bylaw also had lots of support, as well as some opposition. There was lots of discussion on the proposal's shifting of jurisdiction from the PB to the selectboard. Those in favor of that shift spoke about the PB's having spent many years on the problem without producing a workable framework for getting cell phone service in town. Whether you believe the PB has been intentionally dragging its feet or not, the simple fact is that our bylaw structure hasn't resulted in a single tower or telecom company coming into Egremont, and there is little evidence that that will change if the PB retains jurisdiction.

It will be interesting to see what the PB recommends. In the meantime, a serious proposal for a tower is being made, but it won't fly unless the bylaw is changed. If you want more history on this issue, look at some of the past postings on this blog.

After the hearing, a small discussion took place in which a town official intimated that even I wouldn't be an advocate of this bylaw change if the tower was proposed to be located on property adjacent to mine. That's the classic argument for giving credence to NIMBYism. I said, quite honestly, that if what my neighbor was doing didn't adversely affect my health or safety, I had no right to object. Of course, that attitude isn't widely shared in Massachusetts or New England (even though it still is in my native midwest). How far we have come from the attitudes of our forebears! Selfishness (whether individual or collective) seems to be the order of the day.

Quorum Requirement for Town Meeting

One item on the agenda for the upcoming town meeting is a proposal to change the quorum requirement from 60 to 100. It was on the warrant last year but didn't get voted on for technical reasons.

We've all seen too many instances of meetings being "stacked" by a small group of people - often people who otherwise don't attend town meetings regularly - who have a particular interest in some matter and who pass (or defeat) that matter even though a more representative group of voters would have voted the other way. Would you want the US Senate to have a quorum requirement of 7 (out of 100) so that 4 senators could pass legislation even if the other 96 senators would have voted the other way? That's essentially the situation in Egremont.

On a number of occasions in recent years, we've had to rally voters to come to special town meetings because otherwise a small group of dedicated people would have pushed through some action that would have helped them but hurt the rest of us. That just isn't democratic and it just isn't right. And it should be changed.

The problem is even worse when it comes to special town meetings. They're often far more unrepresentative than annual town meetings, because the voters who are affected by the issue under consideration come out in droves but the voters who aren't directly affected by it tend to stay home. That has happened twice in recent memory at special meetings deciding whether to buy another fire truck. (I'm not saying we did or didn't need a new fire truck, only that the decision wasn't democratic.) And the problem is made worse by the tendency of our current selectmen to call special town meetings to decide important issues, a practice that I strongly disagree with.

The opposition to this change will come from the town hall denizens. They'll say it's too hard to get people to come to town meeting. It seems to me the solution to that is to streamline town meeting, not to have decisions made by too small a group. (And remember the old adage: "No man's life, liberty or property is safe while the legislature is in session." Some recent town meetings have made decisions so bad that we'd have been better off if the meeting hadn't happened.)

So come to the town meeting and vote yes on this change!

Comments welcome, especially from the town hall denizens.

Town Meeting: Nicholson Road, Driveways and Cell Towers

The agenda for the May town meeting is pretty full. There are hearings scheduled BEFORE the meeting as follows: (1) On Apr1l 14 at 7:00 the selectboard will hold a hearing on the citizens' petition to abandon part of Nicholson Road. That road runs from the top of Molasses Hill, past the Catamount parking lot and into the driveway of the Swiss Hutte. If the abandonment occurred, the portion from the east edge of the Hakim property to the state line would go. (2) The planning board will hold a hearing at 7:00 on April 22 on the citizens' petition to add a bylaw governing common driveways. (3) And at 7:30 on April 22, the planning board will hold a hearing on the citizens' petition to change the zoning bylaw regarding cell towers to, in essence, eliminate many pages of verbiage by replacing them with a short provision (thus making cell towers subject to the same special permit procedures and requirements as other uses) and making the selectboard, not the planning board, the permit issuing authority (like is the case now with internet service and wired telecommunications services).

If any of these matters are of interest to you, you ought to attend the hearing on it, as well as the town meeting. As I understand it, the Nicholson Road matter was put forward by Mr. Hakim. Neighbors (including Catamount) may not be happy with this proposal. The common driveway matter was put forward by people interested in the development off Oxbow Road on the Hillsdale side and off Millard Road in Egremont. It will likely be controversial. The cell tower zoning change was put forward by me and others who have been pushing for cell phone service in town for some time. It's particularly timely because a cell tower company is actively pursuing the possibility of a tower on a site not permitted under our existing bylaw. So we'll have to change the bylaw if we want that tower.

More on all these matters later.

Ducking Responsibility

When I go to the polls to vote, I like to know the positions of the candidates on issues important to me. And when I go to town meeting, I like to know the positions of the selectmen on the matters on the warrant. Sounds reasonable, right?

But our selectmen too often don't want to take positions. They frequently put items on the warrant not because they support them but because they want the voters to decide. In many cases that's appropriate, but aren't we at least entitled to know their positions on those items? We elect them to become familiar with and study the issues, and we need to know the results of that process because we may choose to go along with their recommendations. And when they explain their positions and the reasons for them, we can evaluate their performance to see if we want to re-elect them.

Alas, the selectmen seem to want to keep their positions to themselves. They refuse even to set forth their vote on the items they themselves put on the warrant! So if you want to know how a selectman feels about an issue, I guess you have to ask at the meeting when the issue arises. And don't be surprised if you get a wishy-washy answer or no answer.

Caucus Results

The democratic and republican caucuses were held last Saturday. As I understand it, Richard Burdsall got the nominations of both parties for selectman, defeating incumbent Bruce Turner; and there will be a contest for water commissioner between Sam Gossage, who got the democratic nomination, and Richard Allen, who got the republican nomination.

I don't plan on doing a lot of campaigning. I'm running to try to bring some business sense to the operation. It needs it.

Blog Criticisms

From time to time, a few of the denizens down at town hall have criticized this blog site for being inaccurate, or something like that. The criticisms usually correspond to a posting that takes a position that's unpopular at town hall. To be absolutely clear: (1) Comments on the postings on this blog are always welcomed and encouraged. (2) Inaccuracies in postings will always be corrected if and when the evidence shows those inaccuracies.

But if anyone complaining just complains, rather than taking the time to participate, you can be the judge of how valid the complaint is.

Citizens' Petitions

There are at least four citizens' petition items on the warrant for the May town meeting, and one selectmen's item that stems from a citizens' petition.

1. Amending the zoning bylaw to eliminate all the long, long verbiage on cell tower equipment and to substitute for it a short provision empowering the selectboard - not the planning board - to grant special permits for cell tower equipment.
2. Amending the general bylaw to confirm the moderator's right to allow nonresidents to speak at town meetings in his discretion. The Curnins lawsuits - seeking a "right" to speak - have muddied the water on this issue, and this change would clear them up.
3. Urging the selectmen to pursue reimbursement of the town's legal costs from anyone who sues the town seeking a "right" to speak. The courts have thus far uniformly rejected that contention, and it's not fair for us taxpayers to bear the burden of defending against it. This article also urges the moderator not to let speak any nonresident who has sued the town and hasn't reimbursed it for its legal costs.
4. Seeking an appropriation for blankets, supplies, etc., to be available at one or more locations in town in an emergency.

The selectmens' item is an amendment to the general bylaw to increase the quorum requirement for a town meetuing from 60 to 100. Sixty is less than 7% of the town's voters. With that low a number, all too often a smallish group of townspeople pack a town meeting and push through something advantageous to them but that wouldn't pass if everyone were to vote on it.

More on all these, and other items on the agenda for the meeting, during the next month or so. Comments welcome, as always.

Egremont Library

I hope townspeople diligently keep an eye on the "library locomotive" that keeps chugging down the track, despite the recession and the reality of coming cuts in town revenues and spending. The library committee met on February 5. I attended. It was a bit like watching one of those movies that takes place on another planet.

The committee members are well meaning folks, but they act as if they're not living in the real world. They're planning on submitting a grant application later this year that, if successful, would pay 60% (or is up to 60%?) of the first $1 million of something (cost?). That disclosure prompted several of the attendees to ask what the total cost estimate for a new library was. After some hemming and hawing, the answer was between $2 and $3 million.

The architect the committee hired (with the $20,000 the town voted to give them a year ago or so, which I voted against) has prepared a plan showing a pretty good sized building near the road at the town hall site. To mollify some of the objections to this project, the building includes a "meeting room" that could seat 100 people. Unfortunately that wouldn't allow town meetings to take place there because more than 100 people show up sometimes. That's only one of many design defects.

The committee says they're not planning on asking for any action at the May town meeting, but they may ask for a special town meeting in the fall to authorize applying for the grant. We all know what happens at special town meetings: The proponents turn out in force, most other townspeople don't bother to come, and the result is often not a democratic one. Also, asking for approval to apply for a grant without asking at the same time for the town's share of the money is just a tactic to get "a little bit pregnant."

It's time to get this locomotive off the track.

Town Budget

I went to the joint meeting of the selectboard and the finance committee last week. It was another eye opener. You just have to come to these meetings. They’re like Alice in Wonderland.

When the discussion got around to salaries, the discussion got a bit hot. The members of the finance committee, and Bruce Cumsky, seemed to generally be in favor of no salary increases. They spoke about the fact that many Egremonters are suffering financially, and that things may well get worse. They said at least two other towns in south county had decided on no increases.

But Bruce Turner said it was unfair not to give increases. And Tom Haas nodded his agreement. I think Turner volunteered to not increase his selectman’s salary, but he didn’t volunteer to reduce it.

Then Juliette Haas, a town employee, made a plea for raising salaries.

It’s important to point out some facts. Bruce Cumsky is a small businessman whose business is undoubtedly suffering. Several members of the finance committee are in similar positions. Bruce Turner is a municipal employee of a town in the eastern part of the state. He’s hoping for money from the feds to help bail out towns (and let them avoid tough financial decisions). Tom Haas is the husband of Juliette. He’s also a library trustee, and that board continues apace to plan a new town library. You decide how those facts affect people’s positions.

I strongly believe Tom Haas should recuse himself from all discussions and votes on salaries. That is especially true since the selectmen are considering across the board increases, not ones tailored to individual employees. If it were the latter, he could recuse himself from voting on Juliette’s salary, and his conflict of interest would not be as great, although it would still be a conflict.

There are a lot of Egremonters whose incomes have declined, in some cases by a lot. Members of the selectboard may think it unfair not to raise salaries. They ought to think about the unfairness of asking taxpayers whose incomes have gone down – sometimes way down - to pony up for town employees lucky enough to still be employed. And they ought to think about the inappropriateness of voting to increase compensation of their relatives.

More on Cell Phone Service

Lawyers have a Latin phrase - res ipsa loquitur - that means "the thing speaks for itself." After you read my earlier posting below on cell phone service, read these excerpts from the minutes of the selectboard meeting of January 13:

"[Eileen Vining] asked for a status report on the cell towers. The RFP is being reviewed by legal counsel who has promised it soon. . . . Conversations with providers have been that preliminary information rules out the town hall property and that the old landfill site on Phillips Road and the Kelly property on route 23 may be good sites. The planning board has agreed to make changes to the bylaw [editor's note: I thought it was the voters who made changes to our bylaws] that will be required to get service in Egremont, but will not do so without definitive information. If it is assumed that the current bylaw won't work it would take 6 to 7 weeks to follow the process for getting an amendment before the voters. The planning board wants clear parameters from providers first. The planning board plans to have nothing substantial for annual town meeting . . . ."

Res ipsa loquitur!!

Cell Phone Service

Let's briefly review the ongoing sorry saga on cell phone service in town. (1) Several years ago, we adopted a bylaw that effectively prevents cell towers (and therefore service) in town. Not surprisingly, no company has expressed any interest in dealing with that bylaw. (2) Last summer, a cell tower salesman suggested the possibility of a tower at town hall, the only possible site (as a practical matter) permitted under our bylaw (which bylaw would have to be signicantly changed even if the site were otherwise acceptable). He later concluded (surprise, surprise!) that the site wasn't possible because of proximity to the airport. (3) Rather than just concluding and openly espousing that we needed to scrap our bylaw and start over, our timid selectboard called a special town meeting last fall to approve leasing part of the town hall site to a tower or cell company, knowing (albeit sticking their heads in the sand) that there was no realistic chance of that process succeeding. Many of us pointed out at that time that it was a useless exercise that would only slow down the inevitable, i.e., adopting a new bylaw, and therefore slow down getting cell phone service in town. (4) After the town meeting approved leasing town hall property, the selectboard caused to be prepared the documentation for seeking bids for a cell tower at the town hall site.

So how is the process proceeding? It's not.

The idea, as I understand it, was, during 2008, to solicit bids, get no responses and therefore conclude that the process was hopeless, providing enough time to craft a new bylaw in 2009 in time for the May town meeting. But not even the first step has occurred. Goodbye, timing.

Many of us believe that our town needs cell phone service, that we must be proactive to get it, and that it is unacceptable for the selectboard to dither on this subject. It is time to act. Ask your selectmen to explain their inaction on this matter. And be prepared to vote on a new bylaw at the May meeting, hopefully one supported by the selectboard and the planning board, but that will be presented whether those boards act or not.

Police and the Police Station

I started thinking about how a business would go about dealing with the police/police station issue. First, it would analyze the need. Then it would analyze the choices. Then it would pick the choice that produced the desired result at the most economical cost.

Here's how that process would go.

Need: (a) Egremont spends much more on police, on a per capita basis, than most other towns our size. Are we getting value for our money? (b) Do we need that level of police presence? What does the chief think in that regard? (c) What would happen if we didn't have a police department? (d) What are the realistic space needs (not desires) of the department?

Choices: (a) There are serious discussions going on about consolidation of our two local school districts. How about police consolidation? (For that matter, how about fire department consolidation?) (b) How do Alford, Hillsdale, etc., provide police protection? Is the way they do it appropriate for Egremont? (c) If we cut the budget to a level in line with other towns our size, what would we lose in protection? (d) Taking into account the realistric needs of the police department, could we consolidate some of the second floor offices to provide more space for the department?

Costs: (a) Should we be spending more money on a department that already costs far more than other towns? If so, how much more? (Does anyone do cost/benefit analyses in Egremont?) (b) We're looking at a possibly protacted period of hard economic times. Other costs of government will likely increase. Can we afford increased police department spending under those circumstances? (c) What's the difference in cost between putting an addition onto town hall and building a new structure? What do we get/lose for that difference?

One other factor that people keep using to justify action is the noncompliance of town hall with handicapped access. I modestly suggest the possibility of doing nothing in that regard, at least for now. First, there are many ways we can provide practical access for the relatively small number of people in town who are affected, rather than spending huge amounts reconfiguring town hall. Second, I don't see much risk of zealous enforcement by government agencies in times when towns are strapped for funds. Whether I'm right or wrong, why not wait until they come after us?

French Park Fund
It's not too late to make a 2008 contribution to the French Park Fund. Write a check to "French Park Fund, Inc." and drop it off at town hall or at the North Egremont store or mail it to me at 223 Egremont Plain Rd, PMB 108, North egremont, MA 01252. Charity begins at home!!

Police Station

Minutes of a recent selectmen's meeting state that the estimated cost of a new police station looks to be about $500,000. Watch out, my friends! The "edifice complex" folks who hang out at town hall seem hell-bent on pushing through this project. They seem oblivious to what's going on in the economy, and to the real cuts that are inevitable in town government expenditures. Egremont needs some realistic budget assessments and decisions, and I'm not very confident that that's coming from our selectboard.

Housatonic River ACEC

A coalition of environmental groups has just proposed to the state that a 12 mile stretch of the Housatonic River between Pittsfield and Lee be designated an "area of critical environmental concern" (an "ACEC"), which would result in significantly increased restrictions on land use in the affected area, as well as further delays in the PCB cleanup of the river. I think this is a terrible and selfish idea and have filed the following comment on the proposal. You can file a comment by e-mail to elizabeth.sorenson@state.ma.us if you wish. If you agree with the comment I filed, you can just say you support the comment filed by Richard Allen. (If you disagree, file a contrary comment and/or enter a comment on this blog entry saying I'm wrong.)

"This is a formal comment to the proposed Housatonic River ACEC. Please include it in the record.

I have been an environmentalist for over 35 years, and am one of the founders of Environmental Advocates, the pre-eminent environmental lobbying group in New York. This comment reflects only my own views and not necessarlly those of EA or any other group.

I have read the proposal authored by the sponsoring coalition group carefully. It is one-sided, inaccurate in many respects, and insufficient to support an ACEC designation. While lip service is given to the 9 factors to be considered for ACEC designation, the proposal is deficient in providing actual evidence to support the proposal.

ACEC designation requires findings that the area is unique, or at least significantly different from comparable areas to merit special designation. Yet the proposal specifies only one stretch of the Housatonic for designation, and does not show that that stretch is significantly different from any other comparable portion of the river.

The reason for that presentation is obvious, and is evidenced often and overtly in the proposal itself. The real intent of the coalition is to interfere with the PCB cleanup of the river. Not satisfied with the results of years of detailed hearings and investigations into the PCB problems of the Housatonic, participated in by many of the coalition members, the coalition is obviously seeking a way to re-open the cleanup matter.

In our legal and regulatory system, there comes a time to close the record, make decisions and go forward. That time has occurred regarding the cleanup of the Housatonic. It is simply inappropriate to allow the coalition and its friends to overturn a result not to their liking. But much worse, it is unfair to the citizenry to delay once again cleaning up a problem that should be accomplished as soon as possible.

But apart from the environmental and health reasons that we should not engage in further delaying tactics, there are important economic reasons to deny this designation. Our state and our nation are facing difficult, and uncertain, and possibly prolonged economic times. With increasing numbers of Berkshire County residents likely to be unemployed or suffering reduced incomes, this is not the time to engage in the luxury of prolonged environmental battles. One of the factors that must be considered in proposing an ACEC is the economic impact. While cute arguments can be made to the contrary, there can be little doubt that designating the proposed area as an ACEC will result in less economic opportunity in the affected area. We cannot afford that result in these times. And with people in the construction trades facing fewer jobs and less work opportunities, we should be trying to create the jobs that the Housatonic cleanup will produce, not delaying them.

Respectfully submitted,
Richard M. Allen
45 Second Street
North Egremont, MA 01252
413-528-2108"

French Park

Tis the season to be charitable, and charity begins at home. Please make out as large a check as you can to "French Park Fund, Inc." and drop it off at town hall or at the North Egremont store or mail it to French Park Fund, 223 Egremont Plain Rd, PMB 108, North Egremont, MA 01252. Contributions are fully rax deductible and you'll get a receipt for tax purposes.

The Fund has two major projects in the works: replacing the children's playground and building a trail system. Volunteers are always welcome.

School Consolidation

It would be nice to know the position of our selectmen on this issue. Do you think one or more of them will let the rest of us know, by commenting on this posting or otherwise? Except maybe for Bruce Cumsky, don't hold your breath.

Governmental Positions

The town annual report just came out. I counted the number of governmental positions. Wow! We have about 900 registered voters. We have 25 elected officials and 155 appointed officials. So there is roughly one governmental position for every 5 voters. Do we really need that? No wonder there's so much governmental interference in our lives.

Unsung Heroes

There are many Egremonters who do good things for the town and its people but don't get (nor expect) credit for them. An example is the new hydrant, and its new source pond, on Blunt Road. That hydrant will be there if needed (God forbid) for a fire on Blunt Road, and, even if there never is a fire, will likely reduce the insurance premiums paid by those homeowners who are near it. Three people deserve accolades for getting that hydant and pond put in: Bill Weigle, for researching its location and shepherding it through all the approvals and other necessary actions; Bruce Bernstein, for allowing his land to be dedicated to that use; and Bill Warner, for digging the pond and doing the other heavy work at virtually no cost to the town.

These people are models for what it means to be a good neighbor. Unlike many Egremonters, they did the reverse of trying to stop what their neighbors were doing; they did what was right for everyone. There are far too many NIMBYs in Egremont who use the planning board, the conservation commission, the zoning board of appeals and the board of health to further their own selfish desires at the expense of their neighbors.

Thanks, Bill, Bruce and Bill, for your selfless attitude. Keep it up.

Selectmen Animosity

I went to the selectmen's meeting last night. It was a real eye opener. I urge all of you to go to a meeting to see how bad things have gotten. Animosity permeates the room and rudeness results.

Bruce Cumsky continues to raise issues and take positions that Bruce Turner and Tom Haas don't like. When Cumsky pushes the issue, Turner (and sometimes Haas) becomes rude, both to Cumsky and to whoever in the audience agrees with Cumsky. The atmosphere is pretty poisonous.

For example, last night Cumsky reiterated his request that all boards and departments prepare draft budgets for next year reflecting 5% expense reductions. That seems right to lots of us, since times are going to get very tough for towns and are already tough for many taxpayers. But Turner resists this openly, Haas more quietly. Turner says our taxes are relatively low, so we shouldn't be cutting expenses and the services they provide. That position might be defensible in ordinary times, but it's just irresponsible given what's going on in the world and in Massachusetts. Maybe things will get better, maybe they won't. But to not plan for bad times seems foolhardy.

Turner's position isn't surprising in light of his past positions. He has publicly stated more than once that since the town is in the process of paying off loans for some past capital items, we have the "opportunity" to rehabilitate the town hall, build a new library, etc. I call that the "edifice" complex. How about reducing taxes, Bruce? Tom?

As you might suspect, I am not well received at selectmen's meetings. But that won't stop me from publicizing the positions of our officials. The voters need to know who is watching out for them and who is watching out for themselves.

Don't believe me? Go to a meeting and see for yourselves. Disagree with me? Post your views; they're always encouraged.

Special Town Meeting

All the articles passed. One barely passed, the one about hiring an engineer (at up to $20,000) to analyze possible renovations at town hall. I'm told the opposition was based on getting experts in town to do the work, for free. But "cover your ass" mentality permeates town hall. Hmmmmm!

The cell tower charade also passed. Now the selectboard will put out an RFP for leasing town land to a tower company, with the expectation that no one will bid, and therefore we'll all rise up in opposition to the planning board and other cell opponents, and get a real cell tower bylaw passed, instead of the nonsensical (and probably illegal) one we have now. I've commented before about the oiliness of that approach, but we're stuck with it now.

I just hope the RFP doesn't screw things up, and there are several ways that could happen. First, there are cell tower companies out there, especially the smaller ones, that build up "inventories" of sites as a way to market themselves to the telecom companies. One or more of them might bid to increase their "inventory," even though they know there's no chance of actually erecting a tower on the town hall site. That can be handled by saying in the RFP that actual construction must start within, say, 6 months of awarding the contract, with penalties for not doing so. Second, the RFP should be completely consistent with the zoning bylaw. It should make it clear that a special permit is required from the planning board, not just approval by the selectboard, and should outline some of the provisions of the bylaw, such as no lights, minimum distances, etc. Otherwise, a bidder might argue that it reasonably believed the requirements set forth in the RFP were the only ones that had to be met. Third, the RFP should have tight time deadlines, but they should be realistic, or bidders could argue that it was impossible to comply. Same with other requirements: no impossibly difficult ones.

All of these problems, if the RFP isn't done right, could lead to having to start the process over and over, with delay after delay. That just plays into the hands of the "no cell towers ever" crowd.


I still don't understand why we have to go down this path at all. Why not just deal with the cell tower issue straight up? See my posting below under "Town Meeting: Cell Towers."

Cell Phones

The special town meeting is tomorrow. I spoke again today to the Mariner Tower rep who proposed the possibility of a tower at the town hall site earlier this year. He said he had not yet received a formal response from the FAA, but was confident the FAA would disapprove a tower at the town hall site. He also said he thought a tower at Proctor's farm could not get FAA approval. I suggested the Egremont Country Club, and he thought that site was too far east.

To cover the south half of town, the ideal site would be south of Route 23 and west of the south village. Any ideas?

Town Meeting: Water Company Cost Overruns

When will this nightmare end? Year after year, the water company takes in far less than it spends, and the taxpayers have to make up the difference. When the water company was established, townspeople were told it would be self-supporting. It's just not fair for most of us to have to bear the cost of our own wells, maintenance, water testing, etc, and then have to also subsidize the water company's customers. When are we going to say "enough" and elect water commissioners who will promise to set rates that will cover expenses? And if it turns out that can't be done, let's sell the water company to the users and let them control their own fate.

Town Meeting: Article 3

This article seeks $20,000 to hire someone to assess renovation of town hall. There is continuing concern about ADA compliance, and other renovations certainly could be considered. If this has to be done, I'd prefer using the expertise of townspeople (at no cost) rather than paying an outside consultant, but that attitude has always fallen on deaf ears down at town hall. Consultants often buttress the "edifice complex" of some of the town hall denizens, producing grandiose proposals like the ones I've starting hearing about for a library.

It's important to note this appropriation would be for town hall only, not a police station or a library or a senior center or any other pipe dream. Of course, one thing can lead to another, and I worry about the "getting a little bit pregnant" risk.

I need to be convinced that we really need to do this before I vote for it.

Town Meeting: Cell Towers

Article 1 on the warrant for the October 4 special town meeting seeks to empower the selectmen to lease a portion of the town hall property to a cell tower company. It is an exercise in futility.

Two years ago we adopted a cell tower zoning bylaw that was designed to prevent cell towers in town. Among its many defects: (1) Celltowers are permitted only at Catamount and the town hall property on Route 71. There has been a tower on Catamount for years and, despite some extensive marketing efforts by the company that owns it, no telecom company (i.e., cell phone company) is interested in putting an antenna on it. It's just in the wrong place; it doesn't provide coverage adequate for a telecom company to want to use it. The town hall property is in the runway path of the Great Barrington airport. It is likely the FAA would not permit any tower anywhere on the site, and it is virtually certain the FAA would not allow it if the airport owner and the pilots who use the airport are opposed. They are. (2) The bylaw doesn't permit any lighting on a tower. Can you imagine a tower in the runway path of an airport without lighting? (3) A tower must be at least 500 feet from any dwelling and at least one and one-half times its height from the property boundary. It's not clear those requirements could ever be met at the town hall site, especially given the need to erect a tower where it will provide the coverage the telecom companies want. (4) Even if all these (and a host of other) obstacles could be miraculously overcome, a tower would require a special permit from the planning board (which requires the positive vote of 4 of the 5 members of the PB), and their record on this issue doesn't inspire optimism.

I've spoken to the guy from Mariner Tower whose visit to town hall early this summer precipitated this article. He is pretty certain that no tower could be built at town hall. There is no reason to think any other tower company would feel otherwise. So what's the point of putting this empty exercise before the voters? There's a theory that once the voters approve it, get excited about the possibility of getting cell phone service in town and then find out it ain't gonna happen, they'll rise up in anger and demand that the zoning bylaw be changed. That's a tactic I might have come up with when I was a Wall Street lawyer. But it seems inappropriate in any open democratic process, and it doesn't pass my smell test.

I think we ought to face the cell phone service situation head-on. First, we should actively seek input from the tower companies and telecom companies. (Would you believe that when the PB formulated its bylaw 2 years ago, it didn't speak to a single tower company or telecom company?) I know from conversations with the companies that they need and want a tower in the south part of town, toward the east end. Second, we should amend the bylaw to permit towers where the companies want them. That doesn't risk having towers in inappropriate locations: the bylaw requires a host of "compatability" findings before a special permit will issue. Third, we should amend the bylaw to remove all its impediments that artificially prevent or seriously impede the companies from complying with it. (And if we don't do that, we risk a lawsuit from one of the companies seeking to hold our bylaw illegal under federal law, which it probably is.) Fourth, we should put the permitting authority in the selectboard. That's where the authority lies with respect to wired or wireless internet service (such as WiSpring), and the considerations for cell phone equipment are the same and should be before the same board.

So I'm planning to vote against article 1 on the ground that any amount we spend on this useless exercise is money wasted. And next May, if the selectboard won't do it, I'll put forth the changes suggested above by citizens' petition.

Saturday Special Town Meeting

Congratulations to the selectboard for holding the upcoming special town meeting on a Saturday. Neither I nor anyone else knows if more people will come to a Saturday meeting, but it's worth a try. We'll see.

Of course, more or fewer people come to town meetings depending on how controversial the agenda is. So counting heads at the upcoming meeting may not prove anything.

But we desparately need to increase attendance at town meetings, so it's important to determine whether Saturday mornings are better or worse than, say, Tuesday evenings. I think the selectboard intends to ask those who come to the upcoming meeting which they prefer. That will likely prove that the people who come to a Saturday meeting have a preference for Saturday. Duh! Why not poll the populace to see what they prefer? I can think of several ways to do that: (1) Use the town's e-mail list. (2) Have voters fill out a questionnaire at the next election opportunity. (3) Send something out with tax bills.

I can already imagine the objections down at town hall. Sometimes I think we have an aristocracy in this town, not a democracy.

Board of Health Dust-Up

This week's Berkshire Record reports on the BOH/Karen Waller dust-up at the Egremont Inn. From what I know, the article is fairly accurate. And it's more evidence of how a minor incident can be blown out of proportion by overly sensitive people. (I say minor incident, because no reasonable person could take Karen's alleged threat seriously.) I'll repeat my prior statement: If you work for the BOH and go around telling people they have to spend many tens of thousands of dollars to "fix" a problem with their septic systems that doesn't seem to be a problem at all, you better expect people to think you're just a little tyrannical and, now and then, to blow up at you. If you can't take that, quit. (Or better, lobby for a change in a law that is overkill.)

One thing I find interesting is that the complaint to the Board of Selectmen wasn't made by Sandra Martin, the alleged "victim," nor by the chairman of the Board of Health, but by the Board of Health clerk. Why? What's going on here?

Second Homeowners Selectmen's Meeting

I was out of town last Saturday, when a selectmen's meeting was held primarily to let second homeowners vent. I've heard there was a lot of venting. If you were there, why not post a comment with your viewpoint.

Annual Salaries

Returning to the salary overpayment matter: The best and fairest way to handle the problem of 52 weeks and one day in a year (two days in a leap year) is to determine the number of full pay periods in the upcoming fiscal year, divide the employee's annual salary by that number, and pay accordingly. That will always result in the employee getting exactly the annual salary that was approved at town meeting, and will make it much easier to handle the situation when an employee quits in mid-year and a replacement comes on board without any hiatus. But that's not what the selectmen decided to do. They decided to treat each year as having 52.2 weeks and determine salaries accordingly. That doesn't work as well and is mathematically flawed, but apparently other Massachusetts towns follow that path so we're not alone in our error.

I'm not sure what all this says about the state of math education in Massachusetts, but it's not comforting. Also, I'm ignoring the fiscal year ended 6/30/08. I'm waiting to see if we overpaid people in that year, which would be contrary to what we decided at town meeting.

Fire Truck

Most of you know that our new fire truck was in a very bad accident last Sunday on Creamery Road. Thank goodness there were no fatalities, although there was one badly hurt person. I'm told the town's insurance is applicable, but it's too early to tell what the net cost to the town will be.

Highway Truck

There is an Egremont highway truck parked behind some bushes on the south side of Boice Road. Not to worry. The truck is an old one that was sold recently by the town to a private buyer, and no one has yet removed the town's markings on it.

Board of Health

There was a dust-up last week when the Board of Health did a title 5 examination at the Egremont Inn. (In case you haven't heard, Steve and Karen are selling the Egremont Inn.) Things apparently were said that shouldn't have been said, and the Board of Health folks were quite upset, so much so that they formally complained to the Selectboard.

I wasn't there, so I don't know what happened or was said. But I'm a bit surprised that the Board of Health folks were shocked and dismayed - shocked and dismayed! - that anyone could blow up at them. Title 5 has cost Egremont property owners many millions of dollars, and it's the Board of Health that enforces it. Do they expect a property owner to receive the news that he or she is going to have to spend $20,000 to $80,000 (or more) with a big smile and a thank you?

Title 5 may be necessary in the eastern part of the state, but it's just a millstone out here. Apart from a drinking water problem in and around the north village, I'm not aware of any real water quality problem in town, at least not one that couldn't be solved by means a lot less expensive than a fully compliant title 5 system. But "clean water" has become a religious principle for many people - at least until they're the ones who have to spend all that dough.

Calendar Confusion

Most people know there are 52 weeks plus one day in a year (two days in leap years). But apparently not the folks at town hall in Egremont.

Each year we vote at town meeting to pay specified salaries for town positions. Say we vote to pay $52,000 for the town jester. If we pay the jester weekly, we shouldn't automatically pay $1,000 a week. Every seventh year or so (actually fewer because of leap years), there will be 53, not 52, paydays, so we'd end up paying $53,000, not $52,000.

How can you deal with this problem? The easiest way is to look at a calendar for the upcoming fiscal year, count the number of paydays, and divide the annual salary by that number. But what if you fail to do that, and find at the end of the year that there's one last payday and you've already paid out the whole annual salary? In Egremont, you just go ahead and overpay people (probably illegally) and then try to deal with the problem in the next year. Do you think our selectmen approve of doing that? You can probably guess.

Edifice Complex

I've previously posted warnings about the town's big spenders and their tactics to get expensive buildings (such as a library) built, whether townspeople want them or not. No matter how often or how strongly townspeople express their opposition, the big spenders don't give up.

Most recently, a meeting was held among the selectmen, the library committee, the finance committee and other groups to discuss a "master plan" for the town hall property. The meeting was to determine where a new police station, a new library and other structures should go. There wasn't much discussion about whether we NEED these things, but rather just where they'd go, as if it had already been decided to build them.

I'll post more info on this subject as time goes by. For now, let me just say that it seems the big spenders have put the cart before the horse: We should decide what we want to do about the police department before we build a police station, and we should decide what we want to do about the library before we build a library. That's especially true since consolidation of services among several towns is the most likely future development, including consolidation of school districts, fire protection, police coverage and libraries.

It's not hard to identify the big spenders, and I'll not name names just yet. But it's very disturbing to hear one of our selectmen say publicly - not once but twice - that both the library and the police station are "affordable" because we're about to pay off existing debt so will have money to spend on other things. Is that the kind of attitude you want on our selectboard? God forbid we should just reduce taxes!

Prospect Lake Boat Access

Well, I was wrong. Thanks to the efforts of town officials, especially Mary Brazie and Bruce Cumsky, the state folks came back pretty promptly and fixed the new boat ramp. They put in steps down toward the "canal" and, I think, dredged out the canal enough so a canoe or flat bottomed boat can now actually be launched and get to the lake. Good job, folks!

But there's still some bad news. They installed a big ugly sign board that has 9 warning signs on it: no swimming, no littering, no unleashed pets, no jet skis and no overnight parking each get a sign; cartop boats only; and some others. The most puzzling one says that anyone in a canoe or kayak must wear a flotation device, but only between September 15 and May 15. Isn't that backwards?

So now townspeople finally have boat access to Prospect Lake, but not swimming access. For swimming, you still have to park on the road and avoid the cars whizzing by. Parking in the new boat access lot and walking down the road to where you can get into the lake, whether or not you'd want to, and whether or not that's safe, is prohibited (at least theoretically): The lot warning signs specifically say it's only for cartop boat launching, not for parking and walking down the road. And a young man with a 3 year old told me recently the Egremont police told him not to park on the road. The officer must have thought he was supposed to park in the lot, but he didn't have a boat, he just wanted to go swimming. Looks like the police and the town need to get together and decide what's what.

Wetlands Mania

I live in a development on the west side of Prospect Lake. My neighbors and I have to maintain our own private roads, Lakeside Drive and Second Street. They run perpendicular to the hill that slopes down to the lake on that side, so we have constant problems with washouts, etc., and have to engineer ways to get water down the hill through culverts and ditches so the roads don't become dangerous or impassable.

At one particularly troublesome spot, water goes under a road via a culvert, then through a ditch down to a culvert under Lakeside, through that culvert and then on to the lake. The ditch between the two roads is on the line between two lots, each privately owned by different owners.

The problem is that the culvert under Second Street can't handle all the water when it rains really hard, or when the snow melts in the spring, or in snow/ice situations. So water flows over the road, often creating dangerous conditions, especially in winter, and water backs up on the uphill side of Second Street, causing a mess and jeopardizing a nearby well. The situation could be fixed by putting in a larger culvert under Second Street. But that would necessitate enlarging the ditch that goes down to Lakeside, so the consent and participation of the two owners of the lots (between which the ditch runs) would be necessary.

At our property owners meeting this July, we were going to vote to put in the larger culvert because one of the lot owners volunteered to enlarge the ditch if we would pay to rent the equipment required to do that, which we were ready to do. Sounds like a good, fair, neighborly way to handle a real safety problem, right?

Not so fast. There are "wetlands" close by. (I put it in quotes because ordinary human beings wouldn't think they were wetlands.) Replacing the culvert and enlarging the ditch would require filing a "Notice of Intent" with the Conservation Commission and the state DEP, and, with respect to enlarging the ditch, the filings could only be done by the property owner who volunteered to do the work. And the filings and related costs would be greater than the cost of renting the equipment and would probably double or triple the cost of the whole project, and would likely result in an "Order of Conditions" that would likely involve even more costs. And one of the conditions would likely be that replacement "wetlands" would have to be created covering an area equal to the area of the "wetlands" destroyed, meaning some nearby property owner would have to volunteer to have part of his property dedicated to being a "wetland".

Not surprisingly, no one volunteered. And not surprisingly, the ditch-enlarging volunteer changed his mind about the whole thing in a New York second. So a rational solution to a serious safety problem fell apart and was abandoned in another New York second. I would describe the reaction of the people at the meeting as one of stunned silence.

I think this is insane. Water is going to go down the hill to the lake no matter what is done or is not done. And washouts and ice on a road are real problems requiring real solutions. The people who think this grandiose, self-imposed, no-exceptions scheme for "protecting our wetlands" should be rigorously enforced even if it results in injuries to automobiles and people need to accept responsibility for the consequences of their actions. Fat chance.

Any wetlands defenders out there? Post a response.

Prospect Lake

For a long time, many of us have been urging the town to provide public access to Prospect Lake. To use the lake, you had to park right on Prospect Lake Road, then unload your boat, children, etc., with cars whizzing by. It was an accident waiting to happen.

So we were happy when the state announced a couple of years ago that they were going to create boat access (and maybe swimming access) from a vacant lot the state had acquired years ago, a lot that's not on the lake itself but on the major stream that feeds it (known to locals as the "canal"), about 300 feet or so to the west of the old dangerous access point on Prospect Lake Road. And, lo and behold, crews showed up in early summer to do the job. They cleared the lot, put in a "driveway", created a parking area, and built a long wooden ramp down to the canal so folks could take their boats down the ramp and launch them into the canal. But, for reasons only explicable to bureaucrats, they stopped the ramp short of the canal. To launch a boat, you'd have to carry your boat through a lot of muck and then somehow get into it.

It's a joke. Go look at it if you don't believe me. Lord knows how much taxpayer money was spent on a project that is totally useless. If folks use it at all, they'll just park their cars there and then walk 300 feet to the old spot to get into the lake. That won't significantly reduce the danger to pedestrians, so even that objective hasn't been achieved (and maybe even made worse).

What to do? Complaining to the state isn't going to accomplish anything. I think the town should just take the bull by the horns and finish the job by actually building a ramp into the canal. That probably violates all kinds of laws, so town hall probably won't do it. Who'd like to volunteer to help me do it at night on the sly?

Another lake subject: Friends of Prospect Lake arranged for another treatment of the weeds a few weeks ago, and it was very successful. I know there are people in town who don't like treating the lake with chemicals, but the ones used don't hurt anything except weeds, and providing public recreation is more important than appeasing what seems to be some people's unwarranted paranoia.

Library

The informational meeting on the library proposal was held today at the north firehouse. Quite a few folks came, I'd say about 50. They listened politely to the consultant the town hired as he went through his charts, talking about putting a new library here or there on town property He then opened up the meeting to questions from the floor. Most of the "questions" were statements in opposition to a new library, with a smattering of statements in support. The meeting then was broken up into groups that were supposed to talk about various aspects of the process, but I and lots of other people left because we weren't interested in various aspects of the process, we just wanted to express our opposition.

Any reasonable person would come away from the meeting with the belief that there was little - make that no - chance of a new library being built. But I'm sure the proponents won't get that message, just like the proponents of last year's annex proposal didn't get the message when the townspeople overwhelmingly expressed their opposition. That's not because the proponents are dense, it's because they're persistent. They use the "nose under the tent" approach: If you just keep talking about it (and hiring consultants to do fancy presentations), eventually it acquires a life of its own, and the opponents get tired of fighting.

So if you're opposed to spending any more time or money on the library dream, let the selectmen know. If we don't nip this thing in the bud, the proponents could slip it through.

Cell Phones

When the planning board proposed its new "improved" cell phone equipment zoning bylaw a couple of years ago, many of us said it was just a thinly disguised effort to keep cell phone equipment out of Egremont, and consequently it was likely illegal under federal law. (At the time, I was personally told that by representatives of two telecommunications companies.) Well, it looks like Verizon has now informed the town that they want to put cell phone equipment in town and can't under the PB's bylaw, and they may be ready to take legal action if the town doesn't do something.

It's always nice to be able to say "I told you so." But much more importantly, we need cell phone service in town, for safety as well as business reasons. It's time for the selectboard to act. We need a provision that permits - not prohibits - cell phone equipment. Our zoning bylaw contains a careful procedure for issuing special permits that could easily be extended to telecommunications equipment. But if we do that, we should also make the issuing authority the selectboard, not the PB. The PB's history of animosity toward telecommunications equipment disqualifies it from overseeing a permit process as important as this.

Board appointments

As is customary in June, the selectboard plans to fill vacancies in town boards and committees at its meeting next week. If you're interested in being on a board or committee, and have the necessary expertise, please, please submit your name by sending a short simple letter to town hall saying something like "I would like to be appointed to the XXXXXX." You may, but need not, add information on your qualifications and why you're interested.

The selectmen don't have a great track record in seeking out qualified candidates for town boards. They generally just appoint from whoever volunteers. (And they tend not to appoint people whose viewpoints thay don't like.) Not surprisingly, that often results in populating boards with folks who have a narrow agenda and/or perspective and not a great deal of expertise, and that often results in boards doing more harm than good to townspeople. These appointees may think they're saving the world but too often they're hurting us Egremonters.

Unfortunately, qualified people frequently don't like to serve on boards because they have real lives and don't want to spend their time dealing with what often seems unrealistic and impractical. You may feel that way, but I urge you to get involved. The next silly board action may be on your application!

Information Meetings

Two information meetings are being held on Saturdays in June: (1) The library study committee will try to convince Egremonters that we need a library to replace the old one. You might want to go, especially if you feel as I do that that's a pipe dream and the committee should hear the reality from taxpayers. (2) The conservation commission (and guest speakers) will hold forth on what's allowed and what's not on tree cutting. If you think you can cut down trees on your own property without restriction, think again. Big brother is watching.

Exact dates and times can be obtained from town hall. And there'll be sandwich boards at strategic locations in town announcing the meetings.

Selectmen's Meeting

Last week's selectmen's meeting was more cordial than the first one attended by new selectman Bruce Cumsky. The only controversy was created by me, when I suggested the selectboard - not the library committee - should approve expenditures under the library architectural contract. All three selectmen disagreed. One said that would be micromanaging. The other two believe that the library committee has spending power.

I'm not sure what the law is (I intend to research it), but as a matter of policy, I believe what town boards and committees do is subject to control by the selectboard, i.e., the buck stops there, not at the committee level. And I think that's particularly true when it comes to expenditures. I'd have to think twice about voting for budget items at the annual town meeting if I knew that the money would be spent by some committee without prior approval by the selectboard. What do you think?

Selectmen's Meeting

The first selectmen's meeting after the election was held this Tuesday. It was disheartening. You might expect that the two holdover selectmen would warmly welcome the new one and his participation in discussing town matters. Alas, there was almost no warmth and a great deal of ice at the meeting. I wondered if I was the only attendee who was taken aback by the proceedings, but I spoke to several other attendees immediately afterwards who were equally surprised and upset.

But Bruce Cumsky handled himself well, and it seems clear to me he's not going to back off raising points, whether or not they make the other two electmen uncomfortable. And one almost inevitable result will be more thorough analysis of matters that come before the board.

One example: Bruce Cumsky stated that he had spoken with over 400 registered voters during his campaign and that 99% of them said they didn't support spending money on a library. (I may not have those figures exactly right, but they're close.) I think that came as a surprise to the other two selctmen, but it shouldn't have. Hopefully the selectboard will take the pulse of the public a little more in the future, not just the pulse of the town hall denizens and their friends.

Town Meeting

As usual, it was entertaining. Two of the more outlandish comments:

"Why didn't you come talk to us sooner." Made by a selectman responding to a citizen complaint about road maintenance. I wasn't aware that citizens were required to tell the selectmen about road maintenance. I thought it was their responsibility. Silly me.

"It's not fair to say the budget is up 13%. It's only up 6% without the special articles." Made by a selectman upset by the finance committee's emphasis on the 13%. To the contrary, what is unfair is to take an item like painting the library and town hall out of the operating budget, make it a special article and then claim that it's not part of the increase.

Two items on the agenda were deferred, and will be voted on by ballot the next time there is a town-wide election opportunity: the proposal to allow nonresidents to speak at town meetings; and the proposal to change the quorum requirement for town meetings from 60 to 100. Do you feel strongly about those items? Post a comment.

Election Results

Selectman: Brazie 123; Cumsky 240

Planning Board: Martin 164; Vining 177

Moderator: Gage 207; Lamme 141

Library Trustee: Kane 75; Sheldon 230

In uncontested elections, Muskrat got the highest number of votes, Wood the lowest.

There are a lot of messages here, but as always there'll be lots of rationalizing them away, especially by the losers. Cumsky's win should send a definite message to the other two selectmen, but I suspect they won't get it. Vining's victory is hardly a ringing endorsement of the planning board; a more cogent explanation is that the PB has been lying low for the last two years after being slapped pretty hard by budget votes at town meetings. In my view, the less the PB does, the better off we all are.

Planning Board Election

Set forth below are the questions I posed to the candidates for Planning Board, and Sandra Martin's responses. Eileen Vining notified me that an ongoing family emergency prevented her from responding by yesterday's deadline.

1. What changes, if any, do you think should be made in Egremont's zoning bylaw?

Any changes to the Zoning Bylaws should go through a rigorous process of discussions, good ideas and hearings. Changes to the Bylaws often affect people’s property values and as such need a lot of discussion time to allow for all voters to weigh the pros and cons of any changes. Everyone involved in the process should come to the table with an open mind. That being said, my own personal thinking would lead me to consider rezoning the village centers to allow them to be built as they are today – mixed uses on lots with smaller frontages and setbacks.

2. What do you think should be done, if anything, to encourage small businesses in Egremont?

Small, local businesses are basic to rural communities and should be encouraged in ways that do not substantially impact their neighbors.

3. What is your position on shared driveways?

I would support shared driveways as they reduce the number of curb cuts on the road, keeping the rural look and feel. I would prefer a mini-subdivision Bylaw that allowed for a shared, private road that was reasonable and cost effective.

4. What is your position on rear lots (a rear lot being defined as one that is one acre or more in size with road frontage adequate for access to the lot but less than 150 feet)?

With substantially increased acreage requirements, I would support rear lots with reduced frontages. Again I would prefer a mini-subdivision Bylaw that would make dividing large parcels practical and the first choice of people dividing their land instead of the last.

5. What is your position on facilities and equipment for cell phones and high speed Internet access?

We need this technology and I support reasonable accommodation for the needed infrastructure. This technology is changing rapidly and will soon be doable without the mega-towers of the past. I don’t think we should wait, though and should move to allow towers as they are needed and the owners and neighbors agree to them.

Egremont Selectman Election

Set forth below are Bruce Cumsky's responses to the questions I posed to the two candidates for selectman. Mary Brazie declined to respond, despite my assurances to her that the responses would be published verbatim.


1. Do you think taxes in Egremont are too high, too low or about right? In what ways could they be reduced?

I strongly believe that taxes can never be too low. We all work hard for every penny we make and our goal should always be to have the lowest tax rate, and subsequently, lowest tax bill possible. I very much disagree with our current Selectmen who have openly stated that our tax rate is “too low.” They believe that we would be more attractive to the state, regarding grants and state funds, if we had a higher tax rate. Yet, experienced professionals completely disagree with this theory. More importantly, I do not believe that anyone (even if we have elected them) has the right to make that decision for those of us who actually own property here and pay property taxes. To artificially raise property taxes is just wrong. If ever there is a decision that should be made by the town as a whole, it is this one.

As for how the taxes can be reduced, quite simply through fiscal restraint, hard work, better research, bidding and negotiation. We must preserve and take better care of the town’s assets, buildings and equipment that we have now so we do not need to burden our taxpayers with the unnecessarily early purchase of new machinery, cars, etc.


2. What, if anything, do you think should be done about the police department? In particular, do you think we need 24-hour coverage?

This is an issue I have personally struggled with. I am a fan of the police department and the good work that they do. I have called on them during the day and night, and always gotten a quick and courteous response. But I have questioned the need for 24-hour police coverage in a town as small as Egremont. However, many people (my wife included) feel that the last thing we should sacrifice is the security of our families and neighbors.

A review of the town’s needs and what emergency services would be available during “off hours” would provide some direction. Many of our citizens are concerned with emergency health issues and I fully trust the Fire Department to provide immediate response and the proper care during a health emergency. I would work closely with our Chief and seek the right balance of coverage, but I would take a conservative approach because I hold our neighbor’s safety above all else.

3. What do you think about the quality of our appointed town boards (including the Board of Health, the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Conservation Commission) and what suggestions, if any, do you have for improving the quality?

The majority of the appointed town boards are strictly volunteer, people generously giving up time from their own lives to try and make ours better. For this I have nothing but the utmost respect. But in order for any group to function to the best of their abilities they must be made to feel that their hard work is appreciated. It is a proven fact that if you show people respect they will want to work even harder. Our Selectboard is not only there to appoint, but to support as well. These board members also need to see the face of a Selectman at occasional meetings, to hear in what ways the boards may need assistance.


The Selectboard has to be more active in reaching out to the community to bring in new faces. Appointments to any town position must be made carefully, looking for the best candidate for the position, not just the most popular person in the bunch.

It is also important to consider that not all boards are equal when evaluating results. Salaried employees should be held to a higher standard than volunteer board members.

Lastly, our town meeting is a time to celebrate our community and what we’ve accomplished over the year. A time to thank people for their efforts. A time to hear what our boards have done and what we may expect for the coming year.
This would be a welcome relief from the past years of surprise, anger and contentiousness. It all begins from the top and our leaders need to set the example.

4. Do you think town government over-regulates, under-regulates or regulates just about right, and what suggestions, if any, do you have for changes?

We have the purest form of town government existing (due to our size, with fewer than 6,000 voters) in the Town Meeting, where each voter becomes a “legislator” for the town. That allows us to “self-regulate.” We have discussed and approved bylaws that are appropriate for our community and that protect what we love in Egremont. Yet, I am concerned when I hear the words “overlay district” and “business district.” These often are followed by additional regulations that are not necessary and begin to restrict our property rights. Are we trying to solve non-existent problems or are we creating them?

I do think we can do a better job of guiding our citizens through the process and of making Town Hall more “user-friendly.” Town Hall is meant to help our citizens and we should do everything possible to guide, aide and counsel citizens through any regulatory process.

5. What do you think should be done about the Annex?

In the gloomy and uncertain economic situation this country finds itself in, I cannot understand why we are discussing this at this time. We need to be fiscally responsible and patient. Certainly, the Annex, which even the Selectboard cannot agree on its use, is of no clear need at this present time. I am surprised it is even coming to the table again after such a loud, boisterous negative response from the town at the special meeting last August. It was during that meeting that I strongly stated the request for funds was “two years too early.” It is still two years too early, considering the economy. I also strongly recommend against any expenditure, specifically the requested $15,000 in this year’s warrant for an engineering study. The first question asked by a qualified engineer would be “What is it to be used for?” It would be irresponsible to authorize this expenditure when the Selectboard is in total disagreement about the Annex’s use and when the community is questioning its need. It is time to stop exploratory expenses for items the citizens have not fully been informed about or are clearly not in agreement with regarding use or need. There is no crime in holding on to our tax dollars until the time comes when we are in actual need of something for the good of the town.

6. What do you think should be done about the library?

We have a lovely library. Speak to its users and they will tell you that our librarian, Sally Caldwell, can get whatever they request. If you review the library’s survey regarding use you will see that out of 222 responses, 67 never use the library, 97 rarely use it, 29 use it monthly and 28 use it weekly. Sally’s last report to the Selectboard discussed last summer’s use as sporadic, with some days being very slow. This level of use does not warrant a new library. I certainly respect the time and efforts given by many in pursuit of a new library, but sometimes a Selectman has to say no... not now. And remember, with a new library comes new maintenance, more overhead and more staff.

With half of our citizens over the age of 55 and considering retirement, if they aren’t retired already, it is time to consider the burdens we would be placing on them in the future. When over 40% of our citizens may see no increase, or even a decrease, in income for this and the next few years, it is no time to consider adding to the town’s debt and their tax burden.

But we must maintain our buildings, both inside and out. Structural repairs and painting, electrical and mechanical repairs are priorities. Before we consider any new project we should put our house in order. Of course, in today’s economy I also believe we can do better than expending $105,000 for painting of the library and town hall, and $5,420 to remove trees in front of the town hall. We need to bid tighter and harder. We need to do our homework better. The office of Selectman requires full attention for it to be done properly.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to share my views. If anyone would like to discuss Egremont's issues and opportunities further, please call me at 644-9934. I would really enjoy hearing your feedback.

Town Meeting

If you haven't done so, pick up a copy of the Finance Committee's recommendations. There are copies at town hall, the library, the North Egremont store and the South Egremont post office. There are some significant disagreements between the Finance Committee and the Selectboard, primarily with respect to the special articles. Without the special articles, the budget goes up by about 6% (a bit higher than other nearby town's budgets), but with them the budget goes up by over 13%.

COME TO THE TOWN MEETING! Whether you like the budget or don't, have a say in it.
Tuesday night at the Sheffield school.

Taxes and Assessments

A taxpayer revolt is brewing over the tax bills that went out recently. They reflect the town-wide reassessments that were finished recently, and that always produces howls.

Before you become one of the howlers, look at the total tax line on your bill and compare that number to last year. It's not the assessment that's important, it's how much tax you pay. If your taxes stayed the same, or went down, or went up by no more than the increase in town expenses (say about 5%), you're new assessment didn't hurt you and you should probably keep quiet.

When people started complaining to me (and more loudly to the assessors and town hall staff), at first I thought the complaints reflected the usual factors: for example, if someone's property hadn't been assessed in a long time, that property's assessment would go up by more than the average increase, resulting in an increase in tax. But not all the complaints can be explained by the usual factors, and I'm hearing about some real anomalies. E.g., I know of two very comparable houses, one of which saw its tax burden doubled and the other no increase. So I'm starting to think two other factors MIGHT be involved: Mistakes, too many of them; and flaws in the methodology, perhaps caused by the fact that the town-wide reassessments were done by one outfit at the beginning and a different outfit when the first one more or less disappeared.

In any event, remember that you have only until May 1 to file for an abatement, and you have to use the prescribed form. I'm told abatement filings are legion already.

Town Meeting

More on the town meeting: Article 13 seeks $15,000 to hire an engineering consultant to study the Annex (that's the white building between town hall and the north firehouse). After last August's rejection by town voters of the Annex renovation proposal, the Selectboard appointed a committee to study and report back on what to do with the Annex. The committee did so, and the Selectboard (one member in particular) was so unhappy with the report (primarily because it focused too much on new space for the police department) that the Selectboard decided not to put any proposal on the warrant for this meeting. But rather than accepting defeat, the Selectboard voted to seek money for yet another study. If that study's conclusions don't fit with the Selectboard's views of what the Annex should become, I bet they'll reject it again.

I'm pretty confident that town voters (in a representative vote, i.e., with more voters than the 60 to 80 who seem always to vote for bigger government) will never, ever approve spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on the Annex, regardless of the purpose. Never, ever. So spending $15,000 on another study is just a waste of money. And approving this money is just holding out false hope to the Annex proponents that they can eventually slip through their plans for it.

For years, the Selectboard has ignored my suggestion for what to do with it: Sell it or rent it to someone. It's been sitting there producing no benefit to the town for decades. Stop studying and dreaming, and do something meaningful.

P.S.: This issue is another reason why we should amend the bylaws to increase the quorum requirement. Otherwise the day may come when the meeting is stacked with proponents and they slip through something the vast majority are opposed to.

Annual Town Meeting

The warrant is out for the May meeting. You can get a copy at town hall or at either of the post offices. Lots of interesting stuff on the warrant, including 3 citizens' petitions, one of which seeks to permit nonresidents to speak at town meetings. (See several prior postings for background on this.) On the financial front, requested appropriations are up more than 10% over last year. Some of that is increases caused by higher utility costs, etc., but a lot of it is new expenditures sought by the selectmen. At a time when we're all facing increased costs, beats me why the selectmen think we need to spend more. COME TO THE MEETING IF YOU WANT TO HAVE INPUT ON THESE THINGS!

Town Election Caucus Results

I don't have the specific results of the Democratic caucus, but do of the Republican caucus. For selectman, it was Cumsky 11, Brazie 4 and Schoenfeld 2. For Moderator, Gage and Lamme each got 7 votes. For library trustee, Sheldon beat Kane by 8 to 7. For planning board, Vining edged out Martin, 9 to 7. All the other offices were uncontested.

I plan to send a list of questions to the candidates for contested positions and will publish the results.

Tanglewood

For Tanglewood denizens: The Tanglewood ticket office will open around mid-June. If you're an Egremont resident, you can go to the box office, with ID, and buy a season lawn pass for $75, good for most concerts. Wow!

Quorum Requirement for Town Meetings

One item on the agenda for the upcoming town meeting is a proposal to change the quorum requirement from 60 to 150. I'm the author of that proposal. I've seen too many instances of meetings being "stacked" by a small group of people - often people who otherwise don't attend town meetings regularly - who have a particular interest in some matter and who pass (or defeat) that matter even though a more representative group of voters would have voted the other way. Would you want the US Senate to have a quorum requirement of 7 (out of 100) so that 4 senators could pass legislation even if the other 96 senators would have voted the other way? That's essentially the situation in Egremont.

On a number of occasions in recent years, I (with the help of others) have had to rally voters to come to a town meeting because otherwise a small group of dedicated people would have pushed through some action that would have helped them but hurt the rest of us. That just isn't democratic and it just isn't right. And it should be changed.

The problem is even worse when it comes to special town meetings. They're often far more unrepresentative than annual town meetings, because the voters who are affected by the issue under consideration come out in droves but the voters who aren't directly affected by it tend to stay home. That has happened twice in recent memory at special meetings deciding whether to buy another fire truck. What if there were a special meeting to decide whether the town should take over the water company? You know what would happen - the water company users would descend on the meeting en masse to vote in favor of a takeover, and they might prevail, even though a representative vote would likely have been overwhelmingly the other way.

And the problem is made worse by the tendency of our current selectmen to call special town meetings to decide important issues, a practice that I strongly oppose. Most recent example: The selectmen were moving toward putting the annex/library issue on the agenda for the upcoming meeting, but now are talking about a special meeting later this year for that decision. Why? I have my suspicions. What are yours?

Curnins Speaking at Town Meeting

As I predicted, the Court of Appeals turned down the Curnins motion for an en banc rehearing of the denial of their lawsuit trying to force the town to let them speak at town meetings. Now, according to the local paper, they've filed an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court. My money says the Supreme Court will turn down that appeal. But the town will have to pay more legal fees to defend against the appeal.

I've noted before that I like the Curnins. I even have some sympathy for the proposition that nonvoters should be able to speak at town meetings. But when I asked Tom Curnin some time ago to drop the lawsuit in exchange for my helping to get the town to agree to let nonvoters speak, he turned me down. Therefore, my sympathy has disappeared. Maybe the town should let nonvoters speak only if the town is first reimbursed for all the costs of defending this silly and hopeless lawsuit.