Bloated Town Government

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

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

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

Police, French Park and More

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

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

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

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

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

Town Election

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

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

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

Common Driveways

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

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

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

Police Station

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

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

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

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

Campaign Signs and Dirty Tricks?

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

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

Nicholson Road/Millard Road

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

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

Cell Phone Service and "Right" to Speak

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

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

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

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

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

Common Driveway Bylaw

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Planning Board Hearings; and NIMBYism

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

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

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

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

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

Quorum Requirement for Town Meeting

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments welcome, especially from the town hall denizens.

Town Meeting: Nicholson Road, Driveways and Cell Towers

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

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

More on all these matters later.

Ducking Responsibility

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

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

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

Caucus Results

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

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

Blog Criticisms

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

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

Citizens' Petitions

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

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

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

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

Egremont Library

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

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

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

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

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

Town Budget

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More on Cell Phone Service

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

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

Res ipsa loquitur!!

Cell Phone Service

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

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

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

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