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.