Before the Select Board meeting started on Thursday, Greg Jones had asked our Executive Director, Mike Gagne, about how the funds from an override were handled at Town Meeting. Essentially the question was, could Town Meeting vote to use the funds as they wished? I have posted about how the Town Meeting process works here. Mike had information from the state Department of Revenue (DOR) stating that the funds from an override are earmarked for the purpose stated on the ballot question. Town Meeting can vote to spend the funds or not, but the funds can only be spent for the purpose voted on. For example if an override question for $500,000 was passed to fund the police department, the Town Meeting can vote to spend it for police or put it in the Stab fund for future use for police, but cannot vote to use it for the schools or DPW.
The Mass General Law on overrides also contains the specific language that must be used when posing a override question. Link here. It was also discussed at the meeting that the override question cannot advocate for or against its passage in its text. In other words, the question must be neutral, "Shall $x taxes be assessed for instructional materials in the schools (or for additional police officers)?" is permitted but "Shall $x taxes be assessed for instructional materials to prevent our children for falling behind (or to fight rising crime)" would not.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Some points of interest on overrides
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
Bill, That may hold true for the town side but what about the schools? It is my understanding that once the money is appropriated to the schools we no longer have a say in how it is spent within the schools. In other words if we approve an override for textbooks and computers there is no guarantee that money will be used for that purpose in the future.
Bill, thanks for the info and links. It is interesting that what is stated is different than the answer I got when I asked the question when the first Officer Mello override was offered. I guess we are all learning as we go along. Learning is a good thing.
While reading paragraph g I get a slightly different interpretation than you. The example they use is for additional money for the Stab fund, but farther along in the paragraph they indicate that unless the voters agree to spend the acquired money on something different, i.e. it is not going to be spent on what was originally stated, it MUST be subtracted from the levy.
So, in the case of a police offering it appears it must be spent on the police, every year, or removed from the levy. I don't see the option to put it into the Stab fund for future (police) use, unless voted on by the taxpayers with a Stab fund statement. Otherwise it would be a Stab funding with a "maybe", and would not meet the requirement that it MUST be spent on what is stated. Sounds like they want the taxpayer to know exactly where and when the money is going, which is great.
In the case of the police this is moot because they would certainly continue to fund them, but in the case of Officer Mello, if he had a miraculous recovery, which we would all love to see, and didn't need the medical expenses, they would HAVE to be removed from the levy. I was told they COULD be removed, or an underride COULD be offered for the voters. Sounds to me like the removal is automatic and required, no choices.
I'll bet that first override would have had a much better chance of being passed if folks had known this.
Marianne - I would also bet that if the school question were very specific, like, "only computers and textbooks", the spending requirement would be the same, but if there is anything nebulous in the stated use, the spending could fit into the gray area at their discretion.
The proposed school override question rolls a bunch of different aspects into one, (texts, tech, teachers, etc) and the School Committee would probably be within their rights to move money around among the categories since they are all included in the question. The police question is more cut and dried as to where the money goes but not as to the amount of spending. Probably as long as the total police budget was greater than the override amount, you could argue that the money is being spent according to the question.
The discussion on Thursday was that the override funds not needed in the first year for police would be put into the Stab fund until needed. It could also go to the Reserve fund. In either case, it would be earmarked for the future police budgets.
If the override question is for the establishment of a stabilization fund, the Select Board must vote each year to allocate that money to the Stab fund or else the levy is reduced by the override amount. That differs from the case here of override revenue not spent in the year raised.
Post a Comment