Vendetta (Part 2)

Here's what has happened since my previous posting on the vendetta against the finance committee being waged by Charlie Flynn and Bruce Turner.

Recall that Flynn claims he filed a complaint with the state ethics commission against members of the finance committee. (I say "claims" because he has chosen, in classic star chamber fashion, to trumpet the complaint without ever giving anyone - not even the members of the finance committee - a copy or disclosing what the complaint says.) He also filed a complaint charging the finance committee with violating the open meeting law.

So Laura sought town counsel's advice on how to handle these two complaints against a town committee filed by a citizen. (Charlie filed the first one before being elected selectman, and filed the second one expressly as a citizen, not a selectman.) Town counsel naturally expressed discomfort with giving advice since Charlie was now a selectman, and,in representing a town, counsel owes at least initial allegiance to the selectboard. So the finance committee chose to contact outside counsel, who gave them advice which they presumably followed.

But when Laura summarized the situation at a selectboard meeting and mentioned that the finance committee would be submitting a bill from counsel for payment, Flynn and Turner rebelled, indicating that they thought it shouldn't be payed by the town. Burdsall disagreed. Since no bill had been presented, the issue was at that point an academic one. And it should have stayed that way until a bill was presented.

But Flynn took it upon himself to raise the matter at the next selectboard meeting and definitively stated that he would not approve it if submitted. Turner agreed, noting as well that the town's insurance might cover the bill if the insurer had been notified beforehand; a fair point if the town had adopted a policy to that effect, but it hasn't. Again, Burdsall said he thought the bill should be paid.

Flynn seems not to have any grasp of what a conflict of interest is. He filed the complaints and shouldn't come within a mile of any discussion about covering the cost of defending against them. But inexplicably he was the one who put the matter on the agenda for the selectman's meeting and then raised it at the meeting.

The town has adopted a state law saying that elected and appointed officials will be indemnified against claims and lawsuits brought against them when acting as officials. That is eminently sensible. Volunteers, especially unpaid ones, shouldn't have to bear the risk and expense of defending against such claims. For example, last year, members of the hydrant committee sought and obtained assurances from the selectboard that they were indemnified should they be sued for taking care of the hydrants.

So Flynn and Turner can't refuse to pay the counsel bill or otherwise refuse to indemnify the finance committee members because the town has agreed to do so and wisely so. What the selectboard could do, if they chose to, is to adopt a policy that reasonable prior approval is necessary before incurring outside counsel costs; any such policy would be prospective only. But they can't just refuse to follow the law.

Flynn can't even discuss the matter, let alone vote on it, because he's the one who filed the complaints. He's already acted in a way that would permit an ethics complaint about him, and if he's wise he'll now say nothing further on the matter. (And he'll finally release a copy of what he filed.)

If you don't see this for what it is - a vendetta against the finance committee - consider this: If complaints had been filed against, for example, the board of health, and town counsel were conflicted from dealing with them, and the board of health hired outside counsel, would Flynn and Turner take the position the bill shouldn't be paid? And would they do that even before it was submitted?

Perhaps the most disturbing thing about this is the potential impact on volunteering for town boards and committees. It appears that a volunteer against whom a claim is brought will or will not be protected by the town depending on whether two selectmen do or don't like the volunteer. If the volunteer puts up a fight, he or she should ultimately prevail because those two selectmen can't override the law. But who wants to have to go through that fight?

Election (Part 3)

This is the third in a four-part series on the 2011 selectman's election.

As election day approached, it was clear the election would be close. It began to swing Laura's way when Charlie Flynn's Facebook page was disseminated, showing that he was a very conservative Republican in a pretty Democrat town. To counter that, Marj Wexler sent an email blast just before election day that changed more than enough votes from Laura to Charlie to win the election for him. I assume Charlie is grateful. The email Marj sent follows:

"Fellow Egremont Democrats,

"I apologize for using email for a political purpose. However, extraordinary events require otherwise-unacceptable means.

"Let's face it -- we have two right-wing candidates for selectboard. Laura's politics are clear. Anyone who has read Richard Allen's blog . . . knows that he is a destructive, divisive force in Egremont. Laura has never distanced herself in any way from his views.

. . . .

"I have watched Charlie listen to, and weigh, other people's ideas. I've seen him recognize an error in his thinking and adjust his position. He has a son in the active military, and another who is actively anti-war. He has to know how to respect both sides of an issue!

"Charlie thought he'd be running against Mr. Cumsky in this election -- and that's exactly what he's doing. Laura is Mr. Cumsky's choice -- was last year and is again this year. I voted -- in fact I campaigned! -- for Mr. Cumsky three years ago. I never guessed he would be so divisive, could create such havoc. It's been intensely embarrassing. And he's a Democrat, for heaven's sake! If Laura is elected, watch whom she appoints to the Finance Commission.

"OK, that's my rant. Now for my bumper sticker:

"DON'T LET RIGHT-WING REPUBLICANS USE SARAH PALIN TO HIGHJACK OUR LOCAL ELECTION!"

While the email speaks for itself, several points should be made. First, one wonders how many of the recipients were from the Egremont neighbors web sites. Second, with no evidence or knowledge, Marj attributes my political philosophy to Laura, about as sexist a comment as I can imagine. (Not to mention maligning me in the process.) Third, she denigrates Laura for being Bruce Cumsky's choice, with absolutely no mention of Laura's qualifications, carrying the sexism even further.

I appreciate that people can do and say things in the heat of an election that perhaps they regret. And Marj did later send out an email apology. But was it really an apology, or just a ploy? Consider: (1) The apology was to her readers, not to Laura or me (to whom she has still not apologized). (2) It was sent too late to rescind the effect of the first email on the election. (3) Marj came to see Laura several days after the election offering (presumably with Charlie's acquiescence) that he would publicly "eat crow" if Laura would drop her recount request.

So just who are the "destructive, divisive" forces in town?

Election (Part 2)

This is the second in a series of entries on the May selectboard election.

The first entry identified a letter to the editor of the Eagle from Peter Goldberg shortly before the election as a major contributor to the election’s result. That letter is set forth in full below:

“It was with dismay that I noticed the recent, public statement of support by the Egremont Finance Committee members for Selectman candidate Laura Allen. In these times of great economic challenge, town taxpayers look to our officials and, especially our financial watchdogs, for their expertise and guidance. Along with the Select Board members, the Finance Committee members deserve our highest trust. Unfortunately, that trust has now been broken with the inappropriate endorsement of one particular candidate.

“As private citizens, Finance Committee members are certainly entitled to voice their support for the candidate of their choice. However, in this case, the entire membership has chosen to cross the line of neutrality and ethical standards. My primary disappointment comes about because, as individuals, I know each member to be of good character and well qualified to be on the committee.

“It is unfortunate that their collective decision has caused me to lose trust in their work for our town. Therefore, I believe that it would be most appropriate for the members to resign immediately, reapply for membership when the new Select Board is seated, and assure the taxpayers that they will refrain from future actions that jeopardize their relationship with the public trust.”

I have read and re-read this letter many times in an attempt to unravel its inconsistencies and ascribe some legitimacy to what seems to be nothing more than an attempt to muzzle the views of five voters who favor the candidate Mr. Goldberg opposes, and to do so by defaming them. I’ve failed. Perhaps readers of this blog can offer rational explanations, and I encourage comments doing so.

It’s illuminating to briefly outline the backgrounds of the individuals who Mr. Goldberg castigates. In alphabetical order: Frank Penglase spent 38 years in corporate finance before retiring to Egremont; he was a senior vice president and treasurer of McGraw-Hill. Walter Rubenstein is an accountant who founded and ran an accounting firm in New York City for over 40 years. Steve Schoenfeld spent his entire career in financial services; in Egremont he has been a co-head of Egremont on Parade and a trustee of the French Park Fund. Laurie Warner has lived in Egremont for 30 years and manages the business of Wm. Warner Construction. Bill Weigle has lived in Egremont for over 70 years; he has been a selectman and a moderator and was a volunteer fireman for over 40 years. I believe none of them was ever publicly accused of being unethical until Mr. Goldberg chose to do so.

The First Amendment is critical to our democracy, and the most important part of the First Amendment is its absolute protection of a citizen’s right to speak out about candidates for office without restriction, no matter how right or wrong the views expressed or how abusive and critical those views are. And the protection obviously doesn’t stop applying because the views are expressed by a group of citizens rather than by one citizen. We need to constantly remind ourselves – and others – that rules and policies that muzzle or censor political views are steps on the path to totalitarianism.

And it is preposterous to suggest that a citizen – or group of citizens - lose the right to speak out about candidates by volunteering to serve on town committees. Indeed, the experience acquired by serving on a town committee may result in someone’s views becoming MORE relevant to the electorate. To try to muzzle or censor a citizen’s right – individually or collectively – to speak out strikes at the heart of our democratic system and should be condemned as strongly as possible.

It is important that people such as Mr. Goldberg be entitled to publish attacks on candidates, including attacking a candidate’s ethics. But that is not what he did. Rather, he attacked SUPPORTERS of a candidate. Worse, he didn’t even attack their views, but rather just accused them of being unethical, presumably for the offense of exercising their Constitutional right to express viewpoints about a candidate’s qualifications within their field of expertise.

I leave it to the readers of this blog to decide if Mr. Goldberg's "dismay" is simply misguided or something else. In any event, it seems to me that he owes the five of his neighbors named above a very sincere apology.

Egremont 2011 Election

This is the first of four entries I plan on the 2011 selectman election.

Several people - both Egremonters and outsiders - have asked me or Laura how she managed to lose. The answer is the skill, organization and diligence of the Flynn team. They outperformed my efforts as Laura's de facto campaign manager by a mile.

The team began preparing promptly after the 2010 election. They thought Bruce Cumsky would run for reelection in 2011, and their dislike for him was so strong that they would do anything to defeat him. Their first task was finding a very strong candidate, because Cumsky was a formidable opponent. The best they could do was Charlie Flynn, who had campaigned vigorously for Bruce Turner in 2010 and had endeared himself to the "defeat Cumsky" team.

Flynn had several election weaknesses, such as his being a staunch conservative in a town filled with liberals and that his election would put a second school employee on the selectboard, a potentially serious conflict. So the team's strategy was to downplay Flynn's positions and instead concentrate on Cumsky.

By the time Cumsky decided not to run for reelection, the team was so dedicated to defeating him that they couldn't help but be adamantly opposed to whoever replaced him. Transferring their dislike to Laura - which at first blush seems to be irrational - was not difficult since they considered her to be "too close to Cumsky" - a mantra they repeated often during the campaign - and they disliked her husband almost as much as they disliked Cumsky. The unfairness of that to Laura - and the patently sexist character of it - was disregarded.

It was not easy to attack Laura as if she were Cumsky. One of the members of the Flynn team (Peter Goldberg) even told Laura shortly before the election that he would have supported her had he known she would be running instead of Cumsky. So not surprisingly there were no attacks on her or her positions throughout the campaign. She was attacked solely through guilt by association.

Two events that could easily have swung the election to Laura were skillfully turned by the team to Flynn's benefit. First, the members of the finance committee publicly supported Laura because of the conflict issues that would inevitably arise from Flynn's being a school employee and member of the Southern Berkshire school committee. Bruce Turner is already disqualified from considering school issues as a result of being an employee of the school district and Flynn may well end up in the same position. The Flynn team quickly cobbled up a claim that the endorsement - which most of us, and the courts, would consider an exercise of First Amendment rights - somehow constituted an ethical violation. That caused voters to focus on the alleged violation and not on the substance of the conflict issue.

The second event was the discovery by someone of Flynn's own Facebook page, which clearly demonstrated his very conservative leanings. The page was widely emailed to voters. That event was cleverly blunted by the Flynn team by a widely distributed email claiming, with no factual support, that Laura was just as conservative as Flynn. Furthermore, the email stressed the theme that Flynn was actually running against Cumsky. While clearly insulting, the email swung at least a handful of voters back to Flynn.

I admire the tactics of the Flynn team if not its standards. As Laura's de facto campaign manager, had I been more aggressive in exposing those tactics, Laura might well have won.

Vendetta

The members of the finance committee publicly supported Laura Allen for selectman in the last election. Bruce Turner and Charlie Flynn don't like that. They don't think finance committee members should be able to express their support for a candidate. If this indefensible position were just an electioneering ploy, it would be reprehensible but transitory. But Turner and Flynn are on a vendetta against the finance committee. Don't believe it? Listen to their own words, spoken at the most recent selectboard meeting, well after the election:

Bruce Turner:

"I’ve got a concern that I’d like to make . . . . It troubles me that we have a finance committee that’s more concerned about the politics of this town rather than the business of this town. I also think it’s very unfortunate that they attack members of the board and members looking to be elected to the board because of the jobs we possess. As you know, we live in an area that doesn’t have a lot of good jobs around, and having a good job working with the school district I think is as good a job as any of the manufacturing jobs and a lot better than the manufacturing jobs in the area because we don’t have manufacturing in this area. We’ve become a very service-oriented community. . . . I’m deeply concerned and deeply troubled with the finance committee that we have now and I’m making that as an expression of my concern tonight."

Charles Flynn:

"As people may or may not be aware, because of the actions of the finance committee I have filed an ethics complaint with the state of Massachusetts as well as an open meeting law complaint with the state of Massachusetts. I would like to have a good relationship with this finance committee because I think it’s critical that the selectboard and the finance committee work closely together. If one were to look at the bylaws and look at Massachusetts general laws, the finance committee is an independent body that is to look after the finances of the town. And as Bruce said, it’s not a political body. I think those boundaries were stepped over during the election. Consequently, I do not feel that the current reappointees are people that I can support. . ."

P.S.: (1) No one on the finance committee attacked anyone "because of the jobs they possess." The members just pointed out their concern about the conflict issues that will arise if we have two selectmen who are closely affiliated with our schools. And they were right: those conflict issues have already arisen because of the rejection of the school budget and the school bond issue by two of the towns in our school district. And they'll keep arising, meaning we'll have only one independent selectman to protect the taxpayers and two who will often have to recuse themeselves, or worse. (2) The business of the town is somehow separate from the politics of the town? Not in this universe. (3) There is nothing in law or logic that makes one board or committee a "political body" and another one not. Where do they come up with this stuff? (4) Flynn's two complaints are specious. Town counsel has previously told the selectboard that muzzling the political views of town position holders violates their first amendment rights; and there was no violation of the open meeting law because the finance committee never met on the subject of Laura's candidacy. (5) The qualifications of the current members of the finance committee are really impressive. We're lucky to have them. Turner and Flynn just want people they can push around.

Police Station Redux

Some things just won't die no matter how often you shoot them. **** The townspeople who seem to have "edifice complex" are once again trying to put a new police station on the agenda for the May town meeting. Their rationale: The townspeople didn't understand the issue when they voted it down last November. (This is a typical elitist attitude. When a democratic vote goes against them, they attribute it to the voters' stupidity and conclude that those ignorant voters don't know what they're doing and we proponents are smarter than they are and must convince them that we're right.) **** As I've said many times, what the police building advocates ought to be doing, especially in light of the voters always having told them they don't want a new police station, is to analyze the police department's real needs - not "wouldn't it be nice" needs - and then strive to meet those needs by reallocating space at town hall, including whatever construction work might be necessary, to do it. There's plenty of space for that solution. For example, do the planning board and the conservation commission each need their own room at town hall? **** Grandiosity is often favored by those who don't mind paying more taxes. The pain they cause for those not so blessed is overlooked.

Democracy in Egremont

One expects dirty tricks in national politics, even at the state level. But in Egremont?

Republican or democratic party nominations for town offices aren't important enough to get excited about, but at least the process ought to be fair. That process always involves potential candidates expressing interest in being the nominee in writing to one or both parties, and their names being put on a ballot and then voted on by the few people who show up at the party caucus. The party leaders can exclude an interested person from being on the ballot, but that ought to be done only if there are very valid reasons to do so. Otherwise voters are denied the right to vote for whom they wish whether or not party leaders favor one candidate over others, just as is the case in primary votes for national or state offices.

In the latest town republican caucus, Laura Allen submitted a letter of interest in being the republican nominee for the selectboard four days before the date of the caucus. Recall that she was the republican nominee last year, so there can't be any legitimate reason not to put her on the caucus ballot. But when I showed up to vote at the caucus, her name was missing. I asked why. A republican official whose name I won't reveal right now said (1) he thought the letter she submitted was an advertisement that he threw away (try to make sense of that) and (2) that in any event the ballot had been prepared weeks before.

I can't believe politicos in Egremont could do this sort of thing. We should all condemn it loudly and forcefully. If the town hall denizens and their buddies are so jealous of their power as to play this way and thumb their noses at democracy, isn't it time to throw them all out?

Bruce Turner

Many of us tried to warn the voters last year that Bruce Turner might well be a big spender. Too bad people didn't listen. One of the warning signs last year was Turner's position that, since the town was close to paying off its past borrowings, it could "afford" to borrow more to pay for - among other things - a new police station. Now it looks like he meant it. At a recent selectboard meeting, he supported a proposal by the emergency management folks to look anew at a police station, and when the other two selectmen resisted, he proposed that the town spend $25,000 for yet another "needs assessment." That proposal is on hold, and before it gets a life of its own I suggest taxpayers make it clear to the selectboard - especially Bruce Turner - that that's a waste of money. Some years ago, the selectboard decided to annually raise the employees' share of the cost of health insurance until that share got up to a reasonable level. This year the share was to go up from 22% to 25%. When the selectboard recently voted to implement that scheduled increase, Turner objected, insisting that it should be accompanied by a raise in employee salaries. When the other two selectmen said no to that attempt, Turner voted against raising the employee contribution. Bruce Turner's positions likely stem from his having been a municipal employee for some time, so he's predisposed to favor increasing pay and benefits. I don't think those positions are in the taxpayers' interests. And Bruce is still clothed with that predisposition since he's now an employee of the school district. That fact alone should cause raised eyebrows. School expenses are almost half of the town's total budget, and Bruce must recuse himself from any discussions on school costs. So we have the equivalent of an absentee selectman regarding half of our budget, and one who's generally in favor of spending money regarding the other half. Is that what the voters want? I don't think so.

Unfunded Health Costs

State and local governments have usually ignored the financial ramifications of promising retirement benefits, including health insurance coverage, to employees. The accounting folks have finally gotten around to requiring those governments to at least acknowledge the future hit that taxpayers will take for being profligate. That includes Egremont. The town is not yet required to fund the future cost currently, but it should. Keep this item in mind when you consider the town budget at the town meeting in May. I'll bet the employees will try to downplay the matter. Here's hoping the finance committee raises it squarely.

Walking the South Village

The historical commission has published a brochure describing a walking tour of the buildings in the south village. It's packed with interesting info, even if you're not generally interested in this sort of stuff, and is well worth looking at whether or not you take the tour. Copies are available at town hall.

More on the Cumsky/Brazie Affair

Before you Monday morning quarterbacks reach conclusions, you should read the witness and police reports. If you think Cumsky should have just"man upped" to the situation, because Ron Brazie wouldn't really have hurt him, you might reach a very different conclusion from the reports. And you should be aware that, although Cumsky chose not to "press charges," the Egremont police decided the matter shouldn't just be dropped. They sought and obtained a court order pursuant to which Ron resigned his town positions and was ordered to stay away from town hall.

Let's not let the personalities distract us from the real problems exposed by this affair. First, the town cannot tolerate violence or threats of violence at town hall. That is -as it should be - the town's policy, and that policy includes a requirement that 911 be called immediately when an incident occurs. Second, at least one of the selectmen - guess who - didn't pay any attention to this affair for weeks after it occurred, and has now publicly admitted as much, and that he was culpable in not paying attention. That could open up the town to liability because the buck ultimately stops with the selectboard. Worse, that same selectman continues to insist that the selectboard can only act collectively, which would mean that if a masked gunman came into town hall and a selectman was there, he couldn't call 911 without first calling the other selectmen for permission. Yes, the selectmen generally act as a board; but that does not mean each of them is powerless. This is just a political ploy by that selectman to advance a different agenda. Third, the personnel situation at town hall is in a state of chaos. The employees don't get along, there is a lot of pettiness, and job performance is being adversely affected. (I don't want to get into detail here, but I assure you the situation is very very bad. Check it out.) And that is absolutely the responsibility of the selectboard. It is not enough for the selectboard to bring in a "consultant" to deal with the situation by asking everybody to make nice. They need to take immediate and firm action to rectify the situation.

Here's a question I don't know the answer to. Who is paying the fees of Judith Knight?

The Brazie-Cumsky Matter and the Berkshire Record

You may have seen an article in the Record on the disciplinary proceedings involving Mary Brazie, resulting from her failure to follow an instruction from Bruce Cumsky. I'll have lots to say about that after I finish my rooting around to get to the truth. But there are several things you ought to know right away.

First, the article in the Record follows that newspaper's tradition of almost always getting the story wrong, often totally wrong. But what do you expect from a newspaper that apparently has two requirements for being one of its reporters: you must have flunked high school English at least once; and you must be unable to use spell check or any of its equivalents.

Second, the performance of Judith Knight was abysmal. The disciplinary matter had been put on the agenda by Richard Burdsall, but it was tabled by the selectboard (not by Bruce Cumsky, as the Record implied). Nevertheless, Ms. Knight thereafter repeatedly attempted to speak on the matter despite being told repeatedly by Bruce Cumsky that she couldn't and should sit down. Her conduct was in clear violation of Massachusetts law regarding the conduct of public meetings (see chapter 39, section 23c). Perhaps Ms. Knight believes in civil disobedience, despite having run (unsuccessfully, thank God) for Berkshire County DA. This was not the time or place for civil disobedience.

Third, the action taken by the selctboard obviously made great sense. Rather than having a donnybrook at the meeting, they thought it best to try to reach some resolution by way of private discussions (and by the time you read this that may have happened). But some people attending the meeting apparently wanted to have a knock-down drag-out session right then and there. So much for civility in public discourse, at least in Egremont. Shame on those people.

Finally, the atmosphere at town hall couldn't be more toxic, and something will have to be done about it, but I'm not sure what until I get to the root of things. For those of you who work there, I suggest you try to remember what your job is, stick to doing it and stop trying to foment a revolution. That also goes for those of you who don't work there but for some reason can't seem to stop yourselves from interfering.

Cell Phone Service and the Planning Board

Mariner Tower has at long last submitted an application to the planning board to build a tower. It would be at Catamount, not at the previously discussed site on Route 23.

Bruce Cumsky, who is more aware of what Egremonters want than anyone, says that broadband Internet service is the issue that dwarfs all others in importance in Egremont. But cell phone service can't be far behind.

The Mariner Tower application will be a good test of the planning board's performance, and whether we should replace its members (or get rid of it entirely). Egremonters overwhelmingly support cell phone service, and I'm certain would overwhelmingly vote for this tower if they had the chance. So will the planning board do all it can (while following the law) to expedite approval, or will it drag its feet by hiring a consultant, nitpicking the application papers and insisting on a protacted hearing? Do they view their role as following the wishes of the voters, or do they want to substitute their judgment because they're smarter than we are? Let's all watch carefully.

If you support cell phone service, or even if you don't, make your views known. Write a letter to the planning board, with a copy to the selctboard. Better yet, attend at least one of the deliberations sessions. The planning board generally meets every other Monday evening.

Special Town Meeting Results

As expected, participation in the startup WiredWest (the coalition of towns that hopes to bring broadband to our homes and businesses) passed overwhemingly. The school committee's version of the new 5 town agreement beat out the Egremont version. The library proposal was badly defeated. And although it won a majority vote, the proposed modular police station on the annex site lost because it failed to get the required two-thirds vote.

Well over 100 voters came to the meeting. My "rule of town meetings" is that whenever more than 110 voters show up, they're there to vote no on whatever the issue is. In this case that issue was the library. The police station may be the exception that proves the rule.

Police Station

I'm voting against it for 3 reasons:

1. The federal and state governments are in real trouble as a result of too much spending and too much debt. Let's not make the same mistake in Egremont. We're looking at reduced money from the feds and from the state for many years. So we need the money in our reserve funds (including free cash) and shouldn't be spending it on a police station.

2. South Berkshire will see increasing regionalization in coming years. Each town having its own fire department, police department, etc., is expensive and inefficient, especially given implementation of more and more sophisticated equipment that often becomes obsolete quickly. Why build an edifice that is designed to last at least 50 years for a function that may not last more than 10 - or maybe even 5 - years?

3. I'm not convinced we've examined need - and need solutions - closely enough. I've heard about 8 reasons why we need a new police building, some of which seem a bit bogus, and the remainder of which should be looked at individually to see the best way to handle them. There is a lot of space at town hall that isn't being used as efficiently as it might. Does the police department need more record keeping space? I'm sure it can be found somewhere in town hall. Does the department need a "holding pen?" Why not just add a little space for that purpose at the south end of the town hall? If we go through the real needs one by one, I'll bet we can find separate solutions that cost a lot less than $400,000 to $500,000.

Special Town Meeting

There are 6 items to be voted on. Article 1 - authorizing progress on getting high speed internet - is a no brainer. Only a neanderthal would vote no. Article 6 is a technical matter involving $1,020, and is hardly worth mentioning.

Article 4 seeks authority for the library trustees to start down the path for a new - and very expensive - library. It looks like it will go down to overwhelming defeat, but don't get complacent, come to the meeting to make sure.

Articles 2 and 3 propose two different versions of the regional school agreement. One of them is the version put forward by the school committee and the other is the version put forward by the selectboard. The only difference is that the former would permit a school in the district to be closed by the vote of 4 of the 5 towns, whereas the latter would preserve the right of a town to veto an attempt to close a school in that town. This has been the subject of very heated debate and strongly held views on both sides.

I have no strong feelings about either version. But I intend to vote "yes" on both versions, because there is a financial impact, albeit not a huge one. That impact is this: If there is SOME agreement, Egremont will pay about $12,000 less as its school assessment next year than if there is NO agreement. So some agreement is better than no agreement.

Incidentally, the warrant wrongly states that the finance committee recommends approval of the selectmen's version and disapproval of the school committee's version. I think the finance committee's position is the same as that outlined above, but they'll announce their position at the meeting.

I'll do a separate posting on Article 5, the police station, in a day or so. In the meantime, make your positions known and COME TO THE MEETING!!

Selectmen Votes and the Egremont Taxpayers Association

There's an election on Tuesday, and I know who I'm voting for because I know where the candidates stand on the issues I care about. I can't imagine an office holder or candidate refusing to disclose his or her position on an issue if asked about it (although I know there may be a lot of wishy-washyness in that position).

Do you think Egremonters are entitled to know the positions of the selectmen on important issues? I do. One important issue is the library. But when I asked the selectmen to state their positions on the library at the informational meeting last Saturday, the response was some gobbledygook about how the selectmen were entitled to keep their views to themselves just like other voters. But they're not just other voters, they're elected officials whose positions we voters are entitled to know.

This is a good example of why the new effort to form an Egremont Taxpayers Association will hopefully be successful. One of that Association's objectives is to hold candidates' forums at which voters can find out what the candidates' positions are. The old Egremont Civic Association used to do that, but, alas, it died several years ago. If you're interested in the Egremont Taxpayers Association, send an email to Frank Penglase at penglase@verizon.net.

Water Company

The red ink just goes on and on. At the session appointing a new water commissioner (I applied but the commissioners and selectmen were having none of that), one of the commissioners, by posing a loaded question to the candidates, essentially said the water users were already paying too much and couldn't pay any more and the taxpayers would just have to suck up to it.

Do you suppose the commissioners will ever focus on getting their financial house in order by cutting costs, not coming back to the taxpayers to solve the water company's problems? I'm not aware of any constitutional right that the users have to be subsidized by the rest of us. I suspect that in the long run it would be cheaper for the taxpayers to pay for the users digging their own wells rather than pay a continuously rising subsidy.

Special Town Meeting

There will be one on November 6. It is very important. Voters will be considering (a) whether to go ahead with a new library, estimated cost in the millions, (b) whether to go ahead with a new police station, estimated cost $425,000, (c) which of two versions of a new school agreement to approve, and (d) whether to approve a resolution authorizing the selectmen to participate in a broadband consortium. (There is one other minor item on the agenda.)

The broadband resolution makes me a little queasy becasuse it gives the selectboard pretty much a blank check to do - and spend - whatever they wish. (They'll tell you that's not what it means, even though that's what it says.) But high speed computer access is so important that I'd probably authorize pretty much anybody to pursue it.

I will comment on the other matters in due course. I invite others to comment as well.

Board Supervision?

I attended a selectmen's meeting at the end of June that involved a little dust-up between the board of health and the selectboard (or at least its chairman). The selectboard didn't seem excited about the issue; the board of health thought it more serious. I was amused by the discussion (especially the attempt by the director of the board of health to provide legal justification for what the board was trying to do) but not bothered by it, until statements were made by two members of the board of health. Rather than characterizing those statements, I will simply quote the minutes of the meeting: "There was further discussion regarding the board of health's members' role regarding supervision of the director/clerk. Two of the board of health members attending stated that they do not supervise the director/clerk. Chairman Cumsky disagreed with that assertion."

Wow!! I was unaware that members of boards in Egremont don't supervise employees of that board. I wonder who does supervise them. And if board members don't supervise that board's employees, I wonder what the function of the board is.

This is obviously silly. What I'd really like to know is why the two board of health members would make statements so off the wall. What's going on here? Why can't the town hall denizens just do their jobs and not engage in political infighting?

Cell Phones and High Speed Internet

Egremonters have repeatedly said during the past few years that these subjects are more important to them than all other issues in town (with the possible exception of spendthrift plans for new buildings). So what are our elected officials doing about them?

Obviously not much. I and many others believe both the selectboard and the planning board should be out beating the bushes to get these services to our townspeople. That involves more than just waiting for someone to submit an application, or joining some group that is promising to look into the matter. What more important functions do they have? Do they serve the people or vice versa?

I invite the members of the selctboard and the planning board to respond to this posting with a report on their activities and plans for accomplishing these important tasks. If they fail to do so, I assume that means they're just going to sit back with "same old, same old." Sigh!!

Planning Board Appointment

The combined planning board and selectboard met and appointed Haeckel to fill the vacancy by a vote of 4 to 3. Most of the planning board and selectboard members had already made up their minds, so pretty much meaningless questions were asked of the candidates just to convey the impression that the voting members were on top of things.

Both candidaters were asked their views on cell service. Hudnut was pretty strongly in favor. Haeckel gave a carefully rehearsed answer: he "supports" it for all of Egremont (whatever that means) but insists on "prudent planning" to prevent inappropriate siting. We'll see how he actually acts when the time comes.

There was an interesting (I could use a much perjorative adjective) procedural move attempted by Vining and Krancer. They wanted a written "all at once" vote rather than a "one by one" oral vote starting with Proctor and ending with Krancer. The justification was that later votes could be influenced by the reasons stated for or against a candidate in prior votes. I guess more information and dialogue is a bad thing in their minds. Cumsky strongly objected and the motion was defeated 4 to 2 with Martinson abstaining. My guess on why they pushed this procedural move was that Vining and Krancer knew that Haeckel would get 3 votes but weren't sure about Martinson's vote, and were afraid she'd be influenced to vote for Hudnut, and that would never do because dissent on the planning board is not tolerated.

Here's my take on the voting motives:

Proctor (voted for Hudnut): Probably thought Hudnut the better candidate. Also influenced by the fact he's in the process of selling the farm and may need planning board approval (or at least cooperation) to maximize proceeds.
Cumsky (voted for Hudnut): Knows how strongly townspeople want cell phone service, and thinks he gains more votes than loses them by opposing the PB bloc's candidate.
Burdsall (voted for Hudnut): Wants cell service and knows Haeckel will be an impediment.
Vining (voted for Haeckel): The tiger does not change her stripes.
Turner (voted for Haeckel): Was paying back an election debt to the PB bloc of voters. Also dislikes anything supported by Cumsky or Allen.
Krancer (voted for Haeckel): The tiger's cub does not change her stripes.
Martinson (voted for Haeckel): Sigh! Probably didn't do her homework and didn't realize how important the cell service issue was and believed Haeckel's rehearsed answer on it.

Townspeople overwhelmingly view cell and high speed internet service as the most imporatant issues facing Egremont. The appointment of Haeckel is a step backward in those efforts. Those who voted for him need to be held accountable by the electorate, and should not escape by claiming other factors were involved (especially any asinine and self-serving statements that Haeckel needed less time to "come up to speed" on PB procedures). If by some miracle the PB actually becomes proactive and successful in bringing cell service and high speed internet to town, the Haeckel voters will be somewhat redeemed. If not, they should be thrown out of office, or, better yet, the PB should be eliminated (as we almost succeeded in doing about 10 years ago) and their functions shifted to the selectboard as Massachusetts law permits.

Planning Board Appointment

I sent the following email to our selectmen:

"To the Selectmen:

The upcoming appointment to the planning board is extremely important. Townspeople have indicated again and again that cell phone service and broadband access are the most important issues facing the town. With the very real possibility that a tower company may apply for a special permit soon, the attitude of the members of the planning board toward cell phone service becomes critical.

Given the importance of this matter, the appointment should not be made unless all the members of the selectboard and the planning board participate. In addition, the candidates should be required to state their positions on cell phone service and on the need for a cell tower in town. (They need not state their position on the Kelly site specifically.) One of the candidates has taken the position in the past that cell towers cause health problems (a position with no scientific support) and he should be specifically asked whether he has changed that position. It is simply not fair to have a planning board member appointed who is prone to vote contrary to the strong wishes of the vast majority of townspeople. "

You should make your views known. The town's email address is tegremont@yahoo.com. If you care about cell phone service, you should go to the appointment session and speak up. I will try to publish its date and time. It should also be posted at town hall and in the North Egremont store. Watch for it.

Election Results

For those of you who missed it, the interesting contested election results were:

Selectman: Turner 251, Allen 238, confirmed by recount.
Planning board, 2 year: Hudnut and Haeckel tied, confirmed by recount.

Under Massachusetts law, the tie for the planning board seat will be resolved not by another election, but rather by appointment (for a one year term). The appointment is by majority vote of the combined selectboard and planning board, i.e., the four planning board members and three selectmen. They can appoint anyone, but its likely they'll pick one of the two candidates. More on that later. The last time there was a vacancy on the planning board, certain members of the planning board engaged in some clandestine tactics designed to get who they wanted appointed. Stay tuned.

Selectboard Meeting

The first selectboard meeting following the election took place on Tuesday. It was very civil, there was no name calling, and it was blissfully short. All good signs.

The pending state legislation on wind power siting came up again. (See my various postings on this subject in the past.) The board voted (Bruce Turner abstaining) to confirm its past position on the legislation and to convey that confirmation to our local representatives. So Egremont continues to take the "Kennedy-like" position, namely that wind power is great but not in my town. The board justifies its position by saying "we favor wind power, but our planning board should have a say in where it goes." Can you imagine our planning board ever approving a wind turbine in Egremont? Hypocrisy reigns again.

Speaking of which, the planning board withdrew its ill-advised proposal to take away its own discretion to waive provisions of the cell tower bylaw when it became obvious that townspeople were overwhelmingly opposed to that proposal. So the way is now reasonably clear for Mariner Tower to formally apply for a special permit to construct a tower on the Kelly property. We'll see if that application is made. Cell towers need to go up when the telecom companies indicate a need, and the "window of opportunity" is often short. Because of all the foot dragging, the opportunity may have gone away. If we are ever going to get cell phone service in town, the planning board has to become much more proactive, or we need to take the permitting power away from the planning board and put it in the selectboard where it belongs.

Town Meeting

I am very much a democrat (lower case "d"), and the conduct of the town meeting always upsets me because its anti-democratic.
First, a relatively small number of people - less than 10% of the town's voters - make legislative decisions that bind everyone. That often leads to decisions at the town meeting that the voters who weren't there would have opposed in large numbers. Not right.
Second, the voters who are in attendance often don't have a clue as to what particular items on the agenda are about. That's especially the case when the matter is complicated (and,worse, when the board proposing it makes it complicated) and no one adequately explains what its real impact is. Not right.
I am particularly upset at the way the budget was handled at the last meeting. In all the years I've been going to town meetings, a voter was allowed to put a "hold" on a line item and then that item would be separately discussed and voted on. But this year John Walther put holds on a number of items (and I recall that someone else put holds on a an item or two), but the budget was voted on as a whole, with no separate vote on the held items. So there was no point to having holds. Not fair.
We need to revamp the town meeting process. We need the warrant to in English, not legalese. We need to know how the members of the selectboard voted on each item, and why. We need simple explanations of items on the agenda. And where an item is controversial, we need statements for and against, just like the state does on statewide referendum items. And we need some way that the voters and the people on the stage can hear and understand each other, which often isn't the case.

I'm Back!

Now that the election is over, I've been unmuzzled, and intend to speak out often and without restraint.

Let's start with the town meeting and the shameless political move made there by supporters of one candidate that resulted in a dumb financial decision.

At the end of every fiscal year, the town has an account called "free cash." It's the amount equal to the difference between what we brought in (taxes, fees, etc.) and what we spent. The town also has an account called "reserve fund." That's a sort of "rainy day" fund that can be used for unexpected - and usually big - items.

The state finance people wisely encourage towns to have a properly sized reserve fund to cover unexpected items to avoid a sudden bump-up in real estate taxes to pay for those items. And they say a town shouldn't spend its free cash account below a certain level because you may have an unexpected increase in some budgeted item - or an unexpected decline in some revenue source - that you'll need that cash to pay for. An example would be larger than expected outlays for major storm damage.

The town ended the fiscal year with more than the minimum necessary in free cash, so the selectboard, with the concurrence of the finance committee, recommended using some of it to pay for a few nonrecurring items and transferring $75,000 of it to the reserve fund.

One of the most contentious issues facing the town in recent years has been the continually increasing losses incurred by the water company. The finance committee squarely raised the issue for consideration by the voters by suggesting an upfront appropriation of $75,000 for the water company, rather than following our past practice of pretending that the water company would charge enough to its users to cover its costs and then "discovering" at the end of the year that there was a shortfall. (The whole issue of the water company and what to do about it will be the subject of future postings. Many townspeople - including me -are outraged.) That $75,000 appropriation was to be included in what would be covered by real estate taxes. Why? Because there's no sign that the shortfall is going away. It looks like it will be around forever, and you don't use free cash to cover something that's ongoing. That's like borrowing on your credit card and saying "well, I don't want to pay for it now; next year I'll tighten by belt."

But because one of the candidates for selectboard wanted to project an image of being a cost cutter, his supporters moved to pay that $75,000 out of free cash rather than through real estate taxes. Those supporters didn't object to any of the other expenditures in the budget. It was just a political move, not a fiscally responsible one. And those supporters carried the day at the meeting (Another reason why we need a larger quorum requirement at town meeting.)

Result: We put off an issue that should have been dealt with forthrightly; and we had to reduce the amount of free cash we put into the reserve fund. Let's hope our new selectman brings a bit more fiscal responsibility to selectboard meetings.

Berkshire Bank

The Bank is making charitable donations to local organizations, determined (at least in part) by vote of citizens. I'm putting in a pitch for you to vote for French Park Fund, 223 Egremont Plain Rd, PMB 108, North Egremont, MA 01252. To vote, go to http://www.berkshirebank.com/about_us/in_the_community/berkshire-bank-foundation/help-us-give-away-20000/vote-here/jte-vote-here and follow the instructions.

French Park Fund is conducting a major fund raising drive to buy new, modern, child-friendly playground equipment. Please send a tax deductible contribution to the Fund at the address above, or drop it off at town hall or the North Egremont store. Thanks!!

Doggie Day at French Park

The first annual Doggie Day at French Park, sponsored by the French Park Fund, was a spectacular success. Thanks to all who participated, and special thanks to Karen Cumsky, who worked tirelessly as the chief organizer, and Mickey Fierman, who beat the bushes for contributions.

Planning Board

The PB has announced it is considering a "fence" bylaw. Let them know how you feel about that. My preliminary reaction: Why do we need one? If it ain't broke . . .

Massive Capital Expenditures

Keep your ears to the ground on the two proposed Egremont edifices: The library committee continues on their merry way planning Egremont's taj mahal; and the selectboard seems increasingly hell bent on a new police building. Do you think either of these projects will be analyzed and/or presented in an objective fashion? Yeah, right. Why not have the analyses and presentations done by disinterested Egremonters?

This reminds me of the vote at the May town meeting on employee salaries. You may remember that the selectboard recommended raises but the finance committee was opposed. The vote was pretty close, but the raises were approved. But if you didn't count the votes of the employees and their families, the result would have been the opposite. Is there a lesson in here somewhere?

11/4/09: I hear the estimates are in for new police quarters, and they're in the stratosphere. Since crime rates in nearby towns that have no police are not higher than ours, why do we need to spend so much on police?

Doggie Day

If you have a dog, go to French Park next Saturday (October 10) for Doggie Day. I guarantee you'll have a good time. And you'll be helping raise money for replacing the outdated playground equipment at the park with stuff kids will love and will be a bit safer.

Wind Power

The selectmen are trying to contribute to wind in Massachusetts, although not to wind power. Here's their recent letter to our governor, our assemblyman and our senator on the pending wind power siting legislation before the state legislature. My comments are interspersed.

"The Selectboard of Egremont is writing to state its position regarding the developing legislation for the siting of wind turbines in Massachusetts. First, we want to be clear that we are in support of finding alternative energy sources for a secure and safe future of our great state and country. This is NOT a debate regarding wind power. We believe that there are many solutions that can be employed to gain our energy independence - wind, solar and hydro being just a few, and we support all well thought-out solutions." Whenever you see an introduction like this (especially in a politician's letter), you know what's going to follow. They don't really support it at all. This reminds me of what a very wise person told me years ago: Whenever someone stating a position uses the word "but" in a sentence, you can ignore everything in the sentence that precedes that word. Not surprisingly, here's what follows:

"The Selectboard of Egremont believes its local Planning Board has been duly elected by our citizens to act in their behalf and to review projects that fall under their jurisdiction. We believe that they have the greatest knowledge of our community and are in the appropriate position to recommend what is in the best interests of our community." Give me a break. Anyone who has spoken with our selectmen knows how they feel about the planning board. But I give them credit for their political astuteness. Whenever you don't want to take a position because it's going to cost you votes whichever way you go, figure out a way to duck.

"We disagree with any attempt to remove either Egremont’s Planning Board from the review and approval process regarding wind turbine siting locally or the Berkshire Regional Planning Commission from the review and approval process regionally. To be clear, this is not about wind power as an alternative energy source, but rather a matter of exercising local control of our community and having more say in its development than allowed by the recent legislative draft." Translated, we want the power to keep wind power installations out of our community. As the selectmen well know, the legislation doesn't just allow wind power anywhere the industry wants it. It sets out pretty thorough statewide standards that must be met for wind power installations. Local control will only put on additional limits (i.e., prohibitions); it certainly won't result in easing the statewide standards. If you lined up every expert in the world on this subject, with viewpoints across every spectrum imaginable, and they all agreed on the applicable standards, the NIMBYs in Egremont would still want to be able to veto an installation. So this IS about wind power, because it inevitably restricts it. So it's hypocritical for the selectboard to say, as they did, that they're in favor of wind power. What they should have said is that they're in favor of wind power only if it's somewhere else.

"Our citizens have placed their trust in our actions to protect their interests. While you are currently reviewing the wind turbine legislation we strongly request that you consider these comments as you move forward in preparing a fair, balanced and inclusive proposal." The legislation is already fair and balanced. And when it comes to something like wind power installations, I'd much rather put my trust in the experts, not people whose only interest is to keep it out regardless of its social value.

US Senate Election?!?!

I sent the following letter to Smitty Pignatelli (our MA state representative) and Ben Downing (our MA state senator):

Dear Mr. [Pignatelli][Downing]:
Changing the law on electing a U.S. senator would constitute politics stripped of even a modicum of principle, and the most egregious example of hypocrisy I have seen in my lifetime.

Elected representatives must sometimes take principled positions regardless of politics or political gain. Now is one of those times. Come election time, citizens will not forget or forgive those who demonstrate that they have no regard for principles.

Sincerely,
Richard M. Allen

Wind Energy

An article in today's WSJ highlighted the problems with wind energy caused by NIMBYism. All kinds of folks around the U.S. who call themselves "environmentalists" espouse full support for wind energy but suddenly find themselves objecting when an installation threatens their environs. Hypocrisy reigns.

Massachusetts is considering a law establishing statewide standards for siting wind energy installations but the NIMBYs are crying "local control." The proposed law doesn't say installations can go anywhere with no standards. It establishes stringent standards and applies them statewide. I haven't heard anyone saying the standards are no good. Rather the NIMBYs just want to be able to say "not here."

It is just pure hypocrisy to say you're in favor of wind power but opposed to this law.

French Park Dog Show

The French Park Fund is sponsoring a fun "doggie day" at French Park on October 10. There will be all kinds of events, and lots of dog contests like "best dressed dog" and "best kisser." Bring your dog and enter as many contests as you like for just $5. For more information, contact Karen Cumsky or Richard Goodkind or Carolyn Wilson.

Library

Congratulations to the library committee! They completely co-opted Michael Kelly, a reporter for the Berkshire Record, who wrote a front page article in this week's Record entitled "Egremont plans major replacement of library." Mr. Kelly, a bit of spadework would have revealed that the library committee may be planning for a new library, but the people of Egremont are not. Opposition is well over 90%.

Why? Well, for example the article didn't mention cost. The committee is playing that one close to the breast, but the realistic numbers are north of $4 million. That's more than $3,000 for each inhabitant of Egremont. No thanks, library committee, but Egremonters prefer to spend their money on things a bit more modern than a 20th century small town library.

The article says the large size was chosen to qualify for state grants. Come again? First, state grants are not free, they just amount to paying for something through state taxation rather than through local taxation. Second, let me get this straight: if the correct size of a project doesn't make economic sense, make it much bigger and then it does?

Cell Tower

Mariner Tower has started the permit process for a possible tower on the Kelly property, south of Route 23 and west of Route 41. There was a hearing before the conservation commission on August 27. It may be a precursor for the eventual hearing (or rather hearings - they'll go on forever) before the planning board. Specifically, a number of opponents showed up at the concom hearing, and they'll be out in force when the planning board starts its proceedings. The objections are the usual ones, all reflecting various forms of NIMBYism: traffic, construction noise and dust, effect on animal life, etc. There were also veiled threats of a lawsuit to stop the tower.

If you think Egremont should have cell phone service, you need to make your voice heard: call (or better write) the selectboard and the planning board and tell them you support the Mariner application. It's not too early.

Olver

What is our illustrious congressman afraid of? I called his office to find out the dates of his "town meetings." The imperious Mr. Olver is having none, apparently not caring what his constituents think about the important issues facing our country. After all, he's been annointed as our lifetime representative (or at least that's what he thinks).

I can't think of a single important congressional action that our congressman has accomplished during the many many years he's been in Washington. But he has certainly become part of the beltway crowd. It's time for him to go, gracefully or otherwise.

Egremont on Parade

The now annual "Egremont on Parade" was held at French Park last Sunday. Despite threatening weather, it was a great success. Congrats to Bonnie and all the others who organized and ran it as smoothly as silk. If you missed it, make certain to watch for it next year.

The next big event at the park will be a dog show in early October being organized by the French Park Fund. Watch for publicity. This is going to be one of the "funnest" events ever.

Wind Energy Siting

I have sent the following letter to our selectboard. The report referred to can be found at http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=eoeeaterminal&L=4&L0=Home&L1=Energy%2C+Utilities+%26+Clean+Technologies&L2=Renewable+Energy&L3=Wind&sid=Eoeea&b=terminalcontent&f=doer_renewables_wind_siting-reform&csid=Eoeea

July 28, 2009

Egremont Board of Selectmen

Dear Sirs:

Massachusetts is trying to encourage production of wind energy, an admirable goal. Because of undue delays caused by those who use local permitting requirements as tools to prevent projects they dislike, legislation entitled the “Wind Energy Siting Reform Act of 2009” has been introduced in the legislature. The legislation would make it more difficult for opponents to delay or kill wind projects. An objective report on the background and need for the legislation prepared by the state’s Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs is attached.

Eleanor Tillinghast and a few others in our area have been stirring up opposition to the legislation, and several selectboards have been asked to take positions opposing the legislation. For the reasons well stated in the report of Energy and Environmental Affairs, I urge the Egremont selectboard to resist those entreaties and to instead take appropriate actions in support of the legislation.

Restricting local jurisdiction is necessary wherever “not in my backyard” syndrome inhibits implementation of socially important goals. There are at least two similar situations affecting Egremont: Federal legislation (the Telecommunications Act of 1996) restricts the ability of towns to prevent cell towers; and state legislation (commonly known as an “anti-snob law”) restricts the ability of towns to prevent affordable housing. By cleverly finding ways around those laws, and goaded by people like Ms. Tillinghast, a few Egremonters have successfully resisted efforts to bringing cell phone service to townspeople, and successfully discouraged production of any affordable housing in town. It is precisely because of situations like these that the new wind siting legislation is so important. Egremont should support it.

Sincerely,
Richard M. Allen

Wind Energy

I'm always disgusted at people who claim to be acting on principle but show no consistency in their principles other than selfishness. Think of those rich people on Martha's Vineyard (or was it Nantucket?). They're really, really in favor of alternative energy sources -- until someone proposes them in their back yards. They strongly favor federal control of matters when they think the states will not do the "right" thing. But they decry the loss of "local control" when their own interests may be affected.

Such is the case with an activist in our area, who rallies and organizes support for the state to declare a portion of the Housatonic as a protected ACEC, whether the affected towns want that or not, but then rallies and organizes opposition to the state deciding where and how wind energy equipment will be located, bemoaning the loss of local control. This is just pure NIMBYism, and the only justification for NIMBYism is selfishness (or worse, imperialism). And collective selfishness is still selfishness, no matter how you rationalize it.

Governments learned long ago that when local opposition is inevitable to some program deemed of great public interest, local control must be squelched. For example, at the federal level, the need for nationwide cell phone service led Congress to strip localities of jurisdiction to stop cell towers (not that the law has stopped south Berkshire Luddites from opposing them). At the state level, the need for affordable housing led the legislature to strip local boards of their jurisdiction to cobble up spurious reasons to keep poor people out of their neighborhoods (same comment). Now the legislature understandably is going to strip local boards of jurisdiction over wind energy equipment. Can anyone doubt why?

This could be a good test for our planning board. So far, the PB has simply "questioned" the wisdom of the legislation. Let's await a more definitive position to see where the PB's stripes really are.

Egremont Police

There were two letters to the editor in last week's Berkshire Record, one castigating the newspaper for implying that the Egremont police did little more than giving out speeding tickets, and one castigating the newspaper for calling Egremont a speed trap. The first letter seems to treat every call to the police department as a police event. If you look at the annual police report, you'll start to chuckle at that characterization. The second letter made me chuckle without looking at anything else. If the whole world thinks that Egremont is a speed trap (and the whole world does), then guess what folks, IT IS A SPEED TRAP!

There are serious issues about our police department and what its future should look like, issues that merit serious discussion and decisions. Defending the department by mischaracterizing the facts doesn't help further that process.

For years I've jokingly suggested that we should eliminate the police department for one year and see if there's any measurable impact on crime in the town. If there isn't, why do we need the department? If there's more of this romanticization of the police department and what it does, I may start to make my own suggestion seriously.

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.