Steve Urbon's article in today's Standard Times notes that old habits die hard and the meeting of South Coast towns last evening to discuss regionalizing services often strayed into reasons it couldn't be done. I thought that Roger Cabral of Acushnet's Finance Committee hit the nail on the head with his comment that,
"We filled a room with people because what we're doing now doesn't work. There are a lot of hurdles but we have to find a way to look at everything."Another frequent distraction was discussion of state rules that are unfunded mandates or interfere with co-operation. My feeling is that while state rules may be part of the problem, the problems themselves are ours to fix. Our state representatives may be able to provide some help but we can make their job easier by coming forward with well developed plans ...
...which they can take to the General Court.
I was encouraged by the turnout and the fact that everyone was ready to look to regional solutions. Dartmouth Select Board chair, Mr. Michaud offered to host the next meeting in Dartmouth and the feeling among attendees was it should be soon. The date for the next round is March 5th.
Frank Gracie, who attended the meeting, suggested to me afterwards that each town come to the next meeting with a list of the top 5 items that they will struggle to fund in FY10. We can look at the lists from each town and find common areas where towns may want to consider regional services. A good suggestion, I thought. A list of attendees will be distributed and when I receive it, I will contact the attendees and suggest Frank's idea.
I don't think that Westport was represented at the meeting which was disappointing as they may be a good partner for regional services with Dartmouth.
Several towns noted that they have already shared services with other towns in animal control, consolidated purchasing, and schools. Areas where those attending felt that a regional approach may be possible were emergency services dispatch, libraries, procurement, landfill monitoring, and health inspections.
I wonder if some entrepreneur might be able to come up with a private solution to some of these regional services. As an example, if all the towns of Bristol County were to tally up their spending for animal control, the amount might be $500K or more. Could a private company or non profit be contracted for some portion of that amount and provide 24/7 coverage to the entire county? It's really not that big an area and, with GPS technology, getting to addresses shouldn't be an issue. The contractor may even be able to provide better service at lower cost.
Other places that contractors may be a viable option is inspections, conservation or procurement.
Of course, the biggest hitter of all services is public schools. Acushnet Town Administrator Alan Coutinho quipped that since towns are told how much to spend, what they will contribute, and what must be taught, the state may as well take over the administration as well. Not that far fetched an idea if you consider it. Others pointed out that some states, New Jersey and Maine are forcing small districts to consolidate as a cost saving measure.
Tell us what you think in comments.
What do you think?
Posts
67 comments:
haste makes waste...take it slow..remember Bill the libraries need 2.5 percent increase no matter what..SB has already overlooked that ..what else is overlooked...take it slow..and do it right
I have not overlooked the requirement to increase library funding by 2-1/2%(MRA). The library has not received an increase like that for several years and have applied for waivers on that and other requirements for certification. They will not, in FY2010, get a 2-1/2% increase in funding absent town meeting changing the funding or an override for the library. The reason is that the town budget has other more pressing priorities, schools, police, roads.
Only one town of all those represented at last night's regional meeting was not going to cut the library budget for FY2010. Acushnet was the sole exception.
Dartmouth will be among those cutting the library budget. That cut is likely to be 15% or more. Last evening at the regional summit, town representatives suggested that towns who lose their state certification form their own lending association since it was likely that many would not meet the MRA. Perhaps the state board will relax their requirements. If not, many towns may fall short. One suggestion made was regional library service. That may also be a way around the MRA requirement. That needs to be pursued further.
The point is that Dartmouth and many other communities cannot afford to increase library spending when they are laying off cops, teachers, and road workers. It comes down to priorities and the money available.
Bill you are dooming the libraries back a generation, at a time when more people are relying on them. Is this something you hope is a permanent change or to get through the next few years? Did you attend or watch the Library's recent conference?
We need to think outside the box. Try a different way to deliver library services. Dartmouth will not be able to afford to increase the library 2.5 %. Also, it is not fair that other departments have to suffer and the library just sits there and expects to carry on as usual. Some of the suggestions at the regional meeting made sense. Why not look into some of the ways the several communities can come together and deliver library services to towns in the south coast.
The problem is that our expenses are growing at a higher rate than our revenues. That cannot be sustained. Until the rates of growth of these two are reconciled, Dartmouth will be in the red year after year. This is not a temporary situation. The town must find alternative ways to deliver services at lower cost. Everything must be considered. That is why the Library Trustees were asked to issue an RFP for library services. Unfortunately they won't do it. Perhaps we would have saved some money while retaining services, perhaps not. The only way to find out is to issue the RFP and evaluate the bids. I hope that the library funding can be restored sometime in the future. Whether we can meet the MRA, I don't know but it will take the combined effort of every department in town including the library to get there.
Bill,
I take issue with your reluctance to recognize the potential downside to privatization as well as your failure to discuss the importance of library services. There is no doubt that our town, state and nation face a historical financial crisis. The Mass Board of Library Commissioners recognizes this fact and is willing to grant waivers—assuming, of course, that the cuts to the library are not disproportionate when compared to those made to other town departments. And, I think that you’d agree that library services are not a luxury on par with going to eat or buying lottery tickets. Library services contribute to developing an educated and literate public, building community and providing access to technology. At a time when library use is increasing, and in a town that demonstrated its support for the library system by voting for the 2008 override, I’d hope that you and other Board members would recognize the importance of our library system.
I’ve spoken with members of the Privatization Study Group and have not heard any reason to believe that LSSI would save us money or improve service. There is good reason, however, to believe that with privatization Dartmouth will spend more, get less and send our tax dollars to executives hundreds of miles away (http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090131/OPINION/901310318). I fully support the Library Trustees’ decision not to submit an RFP to LSSI.
Maybe the library will ask for another override again this year. The town was good for one last year; maybe they will try again and hope voters will be good to them this year, too. As long as the voters are willing to give them what they want, they may just keep asking, who knows?
Just because the town passed an override for the library last year doesn't mean it will get another one. To throw that out there as a defense to ignore any effort to cut costs shows a lack of empathy for the taxpayers who are struggling to pay their bills. I did not hear Mr. Trimble say that the library wasn't important. What I did hear was that there have to be cuts made EVERYWHERE and/or we have to find new ways of delivering services. Mr. Sylvain, why won't the library get an RFP? The library is very important to a lot of people so why not make the effort? It is worth the effort wouldn't you agree?
Betsy, Do you understand with LSSI,, we will still have reduced services and be funded well below the MRA? Regionalization needs to be done carefully. We all want change and efficiency, but there is something to be said for preserving community.
To Mr. Sylvain, As you must be aware, library services have been evolving for years. At most college libraries, students use the internet for almost all of their research. Most of my college friends buy books on Amazon (used & new) if they can't find them at the library or must have them asap. But most information is available on the internet. I find the town library is used most by seniors and children. I think that's great, but why not develop a school library that could be used during the weekend or Summer for public. The books are sitting there anyway. People could still order books from the library on line and pick them up. We should have multiple uses for our libraries. If you only think one way, you'll lose the great experience of having free public libraries. You want things to stay the same and argue that is the only way it can be. There are other ways we can keep library services, but you must first admit that library services are evolving and we need to change the way we deliver those services.
Mr. Sylvain, we all want efficiency so may I ask you some questions regarding efficiency? How many employees work at Southworth? How many are full time and how many hours do each of them actually work? How many are part time and how many hours does each put in? How many receive benefits and how many hours does a part timer have to work to receive benefits? How many volunteers do you have and how many hours do they put in? My understanding is that you have 24 employees for one library and a part time north branch library. Please clarify.
Mr. Sylvain the report from the library was quite misleading and full of misinformation as pointed out by FinCom. The numbers used to dipute the feasibility of outsourcing were incorrect. Example the Sails figure and the cost of books figure. This makes your argument quite invalid, so again, why not put out an RFP?
I have no reluctance to look at contracting out library services in its entirety. Pros and cons have to be weighed. Right now, we cannot do that because we don't have all the information needed. An RFP would provide more information toward making that decision. Why not find out what our options are?
As a town, our choices are not between going out to eat and buying lottery tickets, but between having teachers in the classrooms, police on the streets, and passable roads to travel or library services. This is a zero sum game. Money spent in one place must come from another.
One benefit of contracting for services is that competition and the profit motive create incentive for the deliverer to reduce costs and maximize profits. If that can save the taxpayer money, I am all for it. The fact that a company gets to keep a portion of the funds as profit is what makes it work. What incentive does a bureaucracy have to reduce costs and improve service? Have the library administration come forward with an aggressive plan to reduce costs given the fact that our budget projections show continuing shortfalls? They seem to be putting all their eggs in one basket and counting on the MRA requirement or overrides to sustain the current operation. I can tell you that the current Select Board and Finance Committee will not provide enough funding to meet the MRA. No because they don't value the library but because there are higher priority items that must be funded first. An override may or may not be approved by the voters. If not, what then?
Over the next few months and years, all the town departments are going to have to find new ways to provide the services that we have. What we are doing now is not sustainable in any way. Overrides are stop gap measures. We must reduce the rate of growth of expense to match the rate of growth of revenue or have a budget crisis year after year. You and I disagree on the priority that library services should have, but I think I am with the majority on that prioritization.
Why do you all act like you are experts on the Library and their needs and who uses the library? What real information do you have to back up your statements. Yes LSSI is on paper less money, you will also get less. No not everythilng is on the internet, some people still read literature. Some people, more than ever cannot afford to buy their books used or new. You may believe what you say, but that does not make it so.
That's the point. We need more information thus the need for an RFP. You don't have to be an expert to understand that FinCom had strong objections to the numbers presented by the library to justify not seeking an RFP. You may not agree with opinions here but are you such an expert that you can question FinCom on their numbers?
To Betsy: I was NOT advocating another override! I hope I did not give you or anyone that impression!
I do know that another override request was a possible consideration for 2009 of those on the library board to help sustain its budget, though, which is the only reason I mentioned it.
I would hope that the good people of Dartmouth would give serious consideration to who asks for their money and research where it goes (or where it's gone) before they once again respond with open pockets to any further requests on anyone's part for more money.
None of us has deep pockets (or at least most of us don't) irregardless of how much we champion a cause.
Bill, you have stated that Pros and Cons need to be weighed, but i havent heard ANY CONS come from the SB about privatization in any Dept. It seems as if your mind is made up..what good does weighing pros and cons if the decision is already made up with the SB. Discuss the CONS on DCTV we have heard the PROS..lets hear the CONS..if you are really for the people you will let the PEOPLE KNOW EVERYTHING...including the CONS.
Agreed, it seems you represent the people who agree with you alone. The biggest difference between you, Mr. Michaud and Bob Carney and Natalie Dias is that they are trying to represent all residents not just their supporters. Diane is an island unto herself. I see value in having differences on the board, but sometimes cooperation requires compromise from both sides not just one.
How can you say the SB has made up their minds when they don't even have information from an RFP? They may say forget it, lets' go back to the drawing board! But whatever it is, we need to think outside the box. There are more ways to deliver library services than just the present way. At least admit that much!
Bill,
Anonymous 10:12 hit the nail on the head. You and Privatization Study Group only address the pros of privatization; you don’t even acknowledge the cons. Ignoring arguments that conflict with one’s ideology does not lead to good policy. Changes in the way the town does business are necessary, but they should be driven by evidence and reason.
You ask “Why not find out what our options are?” by submitting an RFP to LSSI. We should pursue alternatives that offer a realistic opportunity to save the town money while preserving quality service (e.g., regionalization). If you read my editorial, however, you know that there is good reason to believe that LSSI offers neither. What could a proposal by LSSI possibly reveal? From my perspective, an LSSI proposal would serve merely as fuel for an ideological fire. While your supporters may think this is a great idea now, they may be singing a different tune when the town begins paying more and getting less.
I encourage you to spend time exploring regionalization. I believe this is where we may find compromise, cost savings and quality service.
BTW: Did you attend the library’s forum in January? If not, why?
Is an RFP basically putting it out for bid? Why would the library do this if they had decided they had no desire to pursue privatization? There is plenty of available information to determine a ballpark figure of what LSSI would save us along with what we would likely lose, ie interlibrary loan. Frank G. made just such a presentation to the SB over a year ago. Also, why are you so opposed to letting the voters decide how to support the libraries? $100,000 override is equal to about $4 per person, umass students excluded. Again, I believe it comes down to my question, do you represent Dartmouth residents or just the ones who support your view, or is it so hard to let go.
To Mr. Sylvain. Why have you not answered the question put forth to you regarding library employees? Please inform the public so there are no misconceptions. We are all just seeking the truth aren't we?
I read your editorial and I have read testimonials from satisfied customers of LSSI. I have read letters from town and county administrators that say they have saved money with LSSI. You have cited some evidence that is not so. I don't have enough information to know one way or the other if savings are possible.
Your argument that LSSI will make a profit is not germane. What I care about is providing service. If LSSI can do that and make a profit, I'm fine with that.
Your argument that contracting for service will not help maintain certification is true. Neither will cutting the library budget without contracting out. The latter is going to occur unless funding can be found.
What will a proposal for contracted library services reveal? I don't know and neither do you. Let's find out.
Your premise is that the library will be certified and services not reduced. However, the library budget is likely to be cut significantly. What is the plan for operating the library and maintaining service when that occurs? Cut staff, reduce hours, reduce spending on materials, what will have to be done? Will we retain certification, I don't know?
Bill, Are you in favor of looking into regionalization? Let's try to find a way to do this so that services can continue and we don't need constant overrides to keep our library going.
Matt, we haven't spoken in over a year so you shouldn't make it sound like we have had a lot of conversation. My group found your letter rather insulting to a group of people who volunteer their time to try and offer alternatives to things. ALL we suggested is that more information should be obtained. This shouldn't be foreign to folks that tout education and learning.
No one has said the library is not important, but all you have to do is look at the town's priority list and see that the library is listed as a "3". The list goes from 1 to 4, with the "1s" being the most important. The 4s are almost all gone, so guess where the next focus is?
I agree that the library should not be privatized, but considering a company such as LSSI is outsourcing not privatization. There is a big difference that revolves around control. With outsourcing the town retains complete control through the Trustees, the outsourcing company would just do the functional management. All assets would remain ours. When we DID talk you expressed valid concerns about gifts, donations and such, and I followed up with LSSI and reported that those things remain with the town and under the discretion of the Trustees, not LSSI.
Our group clearly sees the handwriting on the wall with the library being a "3", something you folks don't seem to understand. By refusing to look at alternatives you are dooming what you hold so near and dear.
I have talked to several leaders of communities and every one of them has said that they have a better library now with LSSI than what they had before, and have saved millions for the taxpayers. Many have gone through their first contract with LSSI and are renewing, so how bad can they be?
You talk about decisions being driven by evidence yet you support not issuing an RFP that would provide just that. We don't know if outsourcing with LSSI is the right thing to do or not, but the evidence we have seen says it certainly is worth considering. Any contrary evidence is provided by hearsay and not the real facts that the RFP would provide.
The library response is always to stress the importance of its existence, and it is important, but to think it is as important as the police or the DPW is foolhardy. To refuse to seek change through new ideas just seals the fate of the likely outcome as we move forward with even more budget problems. The patrons are more likely to lose the valuable access with the stubborn position that has been shown. It seems as if the status quo is afraid to find out that a better library just might be available for less money. That attitude certainly doesn't help the taxpayers, including those that rely on the library.
Ray Medeiros thank you MATT. In fairness to open policy and transparency The current SB majority should not try to SELL a policy as they are in habit of doing..they should deliberate ALL areas including CONS..unfortunately they are trying to sell something like a salesman at your doorstep..giving you all the things you could do or save with this item..but fail to mention the things that might go wrong with it.
To Ray. No one has yet stated a good reason for not seeking an RFP. For someone who claims to want transparency why would you defend someone who refuses to gather and present the public with all the information?
Michael, Matt did state why he felt an RFP to LSSI was not a worthwhile effort. People here simply choose to ignore responses contrary to their thinking and state that the question has not been answered. Thank you Matt.
Ray did Matt also tell you that the numbers presented to FinCom by the library were not accurate? I cannot just accept what Mr. Syvain is saying because he has made his own arguments invalid by giving false information.
Michael-When did Matt give false information? He isn't a member of the library trustees.
ray medeiros, I was just stating that I would like to see open honest deliberation about the course of action into privatizing some of the town's resources. Some of the PROs have been laid on the table,but I havent heard anybody on the selectboard give an honest look at the COn's. It would be nice to have two sides to an issue be dicussed.
Sorry, Matt has based his argument on false information.
Not true Ray. Diane Gilbert has stated the cons several times. Maybe you are simply choosing to ignore evidence to the contrary because it suits your hinking.
Michael-Matt didn't base his argument on the trustees report
Matt is not on the library board of trustees or a town library employee, he is a librarian in the UMass Dartmouth system and is offering his professional opinion. Remember all those time folks talk about working with the university since they are in town and represent a FREE and valuable asset to our town? Well here is an example where we are able to tap into that valuable FREE resource and we choose to ignore it. Do we want the Univeristy's assistance or not? Or only when it suits a certain, pre-conceived argument. Which is it?
Michael-- What false information are you referring to? Give us specifics.
The library's report stated that if LSSI came in we would lose 200k through Sails. Not true. That money would still go through the Trustees. The library report also over stated the cost of books inflating the number. Just because someone is from UMass that doesn't automatically make his opinion right. Sounds like we have no right to question a UMass opinion because we might possibly be seeking help there. In reality all dartmouth citizens have a right to use the university's library. We don't need their permission. I have no problem with UMass giving an opinion. However I also reserve the right to question that opinion. I think the taxpayers have a right to all the information don't you? So again the question is asked. Why not seek an RFP?
If the library loses certification then SAILS is lost as well. Mr Sylvain has answered the question about the RFP as mentioned earlier. There is no 're-set' button either as Mr. Michaud claims.
I have advocated for looking at contracting out and regionalizing services as ways to reduce the cost of services that the town provides. The operative words here are looking at. The town cannot continue to deliver the same services without reducing the cost of those services. There is just no money to do so. That reduction is going to happen either by eliminating the services and laying off the employees or by finding ways to deliver those services at lower cost. One of these two is going to happen. Not might happen, will happen. Overrides, such as the $2.1 million from last year, do not solve the problem.
If I do not adocate for looking at these solutions, who will? Certainly not the entrenched bureaucracies. Common sense tells me that reducing administrative costs and economies of scale may save money. What is the down side? Some town employees may lose their employment. What I said above is that they are going to lose their jobs and we will lose the service if we do nothing, of that I have no doubt. How am I wrong there?
Frank,
Your group’s report is a public document that is being used to drive policy decisions. It is, and must be, open to criticism. My criticism of the report was certainly not intended to insult anyone. I think it is great that we have citizens willing to volunteer for the town. However, it is critical that our leaders understand that the report presents a unrealistically rosy picture and fails to acknowledge significant concerns surrounding LSSI.
Matt,
I read the report from the library trustees and director. It is on the library web site. It was basically a report that had a preconceived bias towards not putting out an RFP. In fact, I found it to be far more biased than the privatization report.
If by biased the library report was looking at the big picture and not solely what the cheapest way out is , then I don't really see a problem.
Mr. Sylvain. You continue to argue against it without seeking an RFP. Why not obtain one, present ALL the facts and then debate the pros and cons. Criticism is fine but how about doing all the research before forming an opinion. Aren't you a professor? Do you teach your students to form opinions without doing all the research and weighing all the factors?
Classic. We should seek the assistance of those professionals at UMass as a way of leveraging an asset in our backyard. When said assistance is rendered and it does not support our own conclusions call into question the professional's motivation and professionalism.
Here lies the difference. I have not come to any conclusions because I have not been presented with all the facts.
Ray medeiros,
Could you give the specifics on the cons that ms. Gilbert referred to.
Hello Everyone. Here is some information that is accurate.
I do not believe anyone has come to the Library trustees and asked to write up an RFP on there behalf. It costs money to create an RFP with all the current Library Services we currently have list properly and explained in detail in order to get a valid number for comparison… Again, it will cost the Town some amount of Money to write up a valid RFP. (Not a vague one like Frank G wrote up for comparison and has been used to argue this point forward).
Usually in Government when you go out for an RFP you usually need 3 responses in order to compare. LSSI is the only company out there with the remote ability to run our Library. There are others, but they do not seem to have the infrastructure to handle this type of undertaking.
In regards to the employees at the Library, this is public information and can be found by actually visiting your local Library and having a conversation with the Director. I believe the budget for the Library and personnel are public information.
The Library has taken steps in order to reduce expenses and has submitted a budget that reduces it by 15% as requested. (More can be answered by attending a Trustee meeting)
Even thought the Library would love to stay certified by meeting the requirements for MAR. If a waiver is obtained and we can effectively run Our Library while reducing the overall budget than the reason to privatize becomes a moot point.
Having a Library system that is run by the Town allows the people of Dartmouth to control where its money is being spent. If we sign a contract with a private company for one or two years we would be expected to come up with the cash regardless of our Towns future issues. Again.. If we sign a contract for $600k (Frank G’s number) and it’s for a year or two and the town gets into more financial difficulties next year, how are we going ask a private company to take a reduction in funds?
Some people may not be aware of this, but the Library already benefits from Regionalization in the form of membership in the SAILS network, which performs cataloging functions for its members, provides accress to group buying discounts, and facilitates inter-library lending between member libraries.
Also, the Library administration is aware that all town budgets will be cut by 15%, or perhaps more, and no one is counting on an override. Just like all town departments, the Library has submitted a reduced budget and started planning the for the cuts. As long as the library is not the only town department being drastically cut, the chances for a waiver from the Board of Library Commissioners is good.
As the Library's budget gets smaller, the potential savings from LSSI become less. The rough numbers that have been thrown around from LSSI sound good, but if we can reduce the budget and keep control local, isn't that a better scenario?
10:13, again, beware of an intent to ask for another override.
to anon 10:18, there will be overrides in this town's future. Nobody likes to admit it but that will be the choice before too much longer. I am not the previous anon library poster so I'm not saying the library will be asking for one just that there will need to be additional revenues sooner or later.
Ray you keep on insisting that the pros and cons be stated but since no hard numbers or data have actually been presented to the Select Board regarding CPR it is very difficult to present the pros and cons for anything. However Ms. Gilbert has on many occasions voiced her concerns regarding these issues. She has stated her concern regarding the library and how much control we could possibly be giving up and the effects outsourcing could have. She has also voiced her concerns about rushing into anything without weighing all the factors including the cons. What you continue to do is accuse the Select Board of failing to do something that would be irresponsible of them. You cannot present the pros and cons of anything until you have all the facts. I for one would not want my town officials to make decisions without FULLY researching all the information. Would you?
I wonder if Frank and Bill would consider submitting an RFP to Blackwater? Isn't it possible Blackwater could run our police department cheaper than the town does? Wouldn't an RFP just help us get all the facts?
Lets write a report highlighting benefits of a private police force. Of course this report wouldn't talk about any of the dangers or concerns. It would just ask for an RFP.
What's the harm? They seem to think it is smart spending time and money pursuing bad ideas. This is no different...
Hi Frank, Just one point regarding your comment that the Library is a 3 priority.
It will be a sad day in Dartmouth when all that’s left are the 1 priorities. That being said whether we privatize or not the Library is a priority 3. What difference does it make; you still have to come up with the funds to pay LSSI based on your contract agreement.
I realize you and your group worked very hard to give us options, Thank You.
Unfortunately when someone comes up with an idea good or bad others seem to run with it and make it look like it's the be all/end all and just don’t stop until they get there way…
No one has said outsourcing is the answer. We don't know whether it is or not because we don't have ALL the facts. It seems some would like to draw conclusions before doing all the research.
ray Medeiros,
I understand that no hard numbers have been forthcoming., but as Mr. Trimble stated CPR is definately going to happen. We ran out of options. (SB meeting feb.8). How can we say that when the pros and cons have not been weighed
To Ray. There isn't much weighing to do when you can no longer afford to provide services the way you have been. It isn't working so what would you suggest? Here are the options. 1.Major layoffs in which case we wouldn't have anyone to perform the services. 2.Fees for everything including plowing, road repair, more school user fees, park fees, more DPW fees for brush clearing etc. In other words every dept. would charge a separate fee for its service. This would be in addition to the property taxes already being paid and trash fees. 3.Cut to the bare bones and only provide those services we are mandated to provide such as police, fire, schools etc. This would mean no libraries, no COA, nothing that isn't absolutely necessary by law. 4.Pass overrides every year because that would be the only way to sustain the budget. The overrides would have to become larger every year to support the effects they would have on the budget. I don't think the town is willing to go there do you? 5.Change the way we provide services. Since salaries and benefits account for over 70% of the budget that is where we have to look when cutting costs. Pension reform would clearly help communities better manage employee costs. However local governments are mandated to use this system. As long as that is the case we cannot afford our employees. This has been well known for quite some time in the private sector where they switched to 401K type retirement plans. A company/municipality cannot continue to sustain the old pension system. The only way for governments to escape this self defeating system is to outsource, privatize etc. I do not wish to avoid offering town employees a retirement plan but until the state allows us to switch to a defined benefit plan, we have no choice but to seek alternatives. If you have any other suggestions on how we can maintain all of our services without changing anything, please fill us in.
Hi anonymous February 13, 2009 9:06 AM. I agree with you on all you say. The problem is that no one wants to change things because we want to, only because we have to. Some people react as if this is some sort of vendetta, and I can assure you that with the people I know working on things it is anything but that.
The other anonymous post addressed to Ray is a pretty good summary of the situation. Our backs are against the wall so we have to do something. We need to be very careful about how we implement change, and I am already on record as thinking privatization is a last resort, but in some cases there may be no other option. We DO need to look at everything, and not jump to something without thinking out all the options very thoroughly.
One thing that I promise is to research everything all the way through, both pros and cons. Unfortunately we are at the point where people are throwing rocks at the first step which is to start the looking. People throw up hearsay and personal beliefs to try and stop the looking around process, and this is self-defeating. Much of what is tossed around will prove to be bad ideas but how do we know if we don't look?
The library is a great example. The town HAS to cut expenses somewhere, and the library says we are important and doing a great job. Ok, true, but the town still needs to save money somewhere, and when you are considered a 3 you are going to be fair game sooner or later because there are 1s and 2s to fund, and they have already been deemed to be more important. The 3s are the nice-to-haves that Joe Michaud refers to.
No one wants to see that service, or any other, go away, but all one has to do is look in the paper today and see that 3 libraries have lost certification because of budget cuts, 2 of them local. Ours is ok for the time being, but for how long?
I would always prefer to see government entities reinvent themselves internally but that seems like it never happens, so we have to start looking outside for ideas. Regionalization could work on different levels, anywhere from agreements to full-fledged official partnerships. At the Regionalization meeting the other night the Freetown Selectman stated during the library discussion that all local communities should band together and loan each other books. That was the same thing I said during the privatization presentation last April, but no one seems interested, preferring to think that things will stay as they are, when they can't possibly.
It is important to try and save as much money as we can and still provide important services to the residents. The more money that can be saved in the 1s, 2s, and 3s will insure that the 3s can still exist. The 1s are the mandated items and the 2s can't go away because that is where things like the police, the DPW, and the schools reside as well as the Town Accountant, Clerk, Collector, and many other necessary functions. This puts even more pressure on anything less than a 2, even though 2s will suffer budget cuts also.
I also agree with your point about still having to pay LSSI and a contract. The problem here is that because of lack of planning for "this day" we are functioning in a reactionary mode, and saving $400K looks pretty attractive to a lot of people. Perhaps regionalization is a better path but it would need to save significant money and happen quickly to call the dogs off the hunt.
The looking around process should have started way before this, and the obstacles that keep getting in the way will only make us more and more reactionary, leaving no choices but cuts and more cuts, losing service after service. We need to get off our butts and really start digging at options so we CAN get to all the pros and cons of each idea and make smart choices. This is going to be a long road to travel and the longer we wait the worse it will be.
Mr. Gracie says "One thing that I promise is to research everything all the way through, both pros and cons." Yea, right. And for those who dare to speak truth to power, Mr. Gracie accuses them of "throwing rocks at the first step." So should people who disagree with Mr. Gracie just shut up and accept what he says?
Anyone concerned with honesty and transparency should be very aware of what is at stake in this year's election.
No, that is not what Mr. Gracie has said. What he is basically saying is we have to look at everything first before we throw stones at an idea. In other words all the information. You can't bring up changing any service in this town without someone already saying it won't work before it has been thoroughly looked into.
well if privatization could cost more than in house services dont you think it would be worth to look at that...I know that there are Cons to privatization..for instance...NYC solid waste is privatized and they have had to pay 500 million extra in services.
Also Cape Cod area of the State DPW is privatized..and when that contractor runs out of money OUR state men and women have to finish the job..DPW contracts are not bid within the same realms of construction bids..alot of times when the town gets an emergency call about a pothole for example..a private company may charge the town time and material for that time a crew is out. these are some basic examples.
Are you saying that OUR state employees work for free? Are you saying that we don't pay for time and material when the DPW fills a pothole? What is your point?
I am saying ...when a private company..like in cape cod..doesnt have the ability to do the job they were hired to do..either lack of money or staff..the BURDEN falles back on the state. which then takes guys away from a job they are doing somewhere else to pick up the slack of a private company..so not only are you paying a contractor but now you are paying a state worker to pick up the pieces...No the DPW does not do your road work time and material...a T/M project is a big profit making job..the state doesnt charge out to make profit..the private company WILL
The DPW pays time and material but not for profit ..but if a contractor charges time and material..it is a different game....time is calculated by 50% above what the actually worker gets paid in order to turn a profit for the company..and the material price is increased due to the fact that the private contractor is the middle man..If the State or town does the JOB the amount charged to the taxpayer is exactely what the crew gts paid..because nobody is making a profit..the price of material is not increased because there isnt a muiddle man.
Are you saying we are paying a contractor who didn't or can't do the work? That is a contract administration problem, not an argument against contracting out. The method that should be used to determine if a job should be contracted out is to weigh the cost of doing the task with DPW workers versus having a contractor do the work. If the contractor can do it for less, they get the job and if they make a profit, good for them. You have to consider the entire cost of having the DPW do it. That must include the cost of the benefits paid and the cost of having the equipment. You feel that the profit motive is a downside when in fact it is a benefit. Contractors have an incentive to reduce the costs to increase profits. Contractors must also compete with each other and the DPW in order to get the contract by providing a bid. The lowest bid will get the work. The result is taxpayer pays the lowest price available to do the task. If some of that price is profit I have no problem with that. No such incentive exists when government does the job. An example is that the DPW had three men on each truck that picked up trash, most private haulers have one or two. When the DPw had to compete against private haulers in providing the service, they reduced the number of workers on the truck to two. Before they had to compete, there was no incentive to reduce the number.
Bill have you studied the cost benefit of the Braga Bridge. Rather than having the State DPW do the job..our state contracted out that JOb..the company went belly up and now we the tax payer have to pay to have the job done by our in house guys ...as well as pay for the contractor for the work already done. We need to realize..the town gets material at a cheaper rate than a contractor would provide us...if Salt is 33 dollars a ton ..that is what is charged to the town..A private contractor will charge 40 or 50 dollars a ton for the same product
also Bill you speak of competition..what happens if competition is scarce and the TOWn doesnt have the equipment to do the Job...Dartmouth will pay through the nose..there are limited contractors that have the equpiment necessary to do some of the jobs required by the DPW
Hiring contractors won't work! Just look at all the good reasons given here. Just lay off town workers and provide what few services that you can for next year. Year after, more layoffs, close the library. After that, more layoffs, town hall open 3 days, next year, more layoffs and so on. Now that's a plan.
Post a Comment