I have seen several comments about the current members of our representative Town Meeting. I happened to be at the Town Clerk's office today and the Clerk, Lynn Medeiros, was kind enough to email a copy of her list to me.
You can find it at this link.
There are 39 members listed from each precinct,...
... except precinct 3 which has only 22. Precinct 3 should have 39 members as well but not enough citizens have come forward to serve as representatives in that precinct.
Friday, May 8, 2009
Current Town Meeting member list
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
100 comments:
WHY can't this kind of information be available on the town's website? The link provided at the Town Clerk's page is for 2006-2007 Town Meeting members! Like the copy of the school budget, important town information is nearly impossible to find online. As for Town Meeting, these people are supposed to represent us; how can they do that when it's nearly impossible to find out who they actually are?
Good question. I am working to get the town website improved.
How about the school department budget, Greg?, Phil?
The school finance information is part of their website - http://www.dartmouth.k12.ma.us/district/budget/index.html
I'm impressed by the fact that 9 of the 10 precincts now have full complements. Precinct 3, of course, is the sole exception. Precinct 3 is different because of UMass Dartmouth. If we could only get those college students to get involved...
Yes, sign those college kids up. Property taxes don't affect them and they are putty in the hands of the liberal elite. Babes in the woods without real life experiences of their own. Maybe we could throw a carrot out there for them like a free car for every student with passing grades, of course this would be paid for with property taxes that they don't pay. Once they see the gravy train, they will be sure to approve an orgy of spending that will drive the low life working class right out of town.
It's nice to see the "support" for our college students.
Sorry but stacking town meeting with employees is bad enough without throwing an extra 5-10% of people who don't pay property taxes. While anon 11:38 might be blamed for excessive use of sarcasm, he/she makes a very good point.
Amen. It's tough to wonder how Town Meeting has a chance to do the best for everyone in Dartmouth.
I don't disagree with the sentiment that people who become town meeting members have special interests, but so do the members of our select board. I am personally offended by Mr. Trimble's calling someone's opinion b***sh**. He is uninformed if he thinks that individuals opinion does not represent a sizable chunk of the town. I would like a sb that represents what is best for the whole town, not just a few. Bill Trimble is no more independent than any other politician. He is clearly bound to his ideology, more than most.
How many town employees are town meeting members, this gets interesting when business concerns cvacation and raises. Employees really shouldn't be members, how do we make this a bylaw or rule.
The issue of town employees in Town Meeting is a good one. I think looking at this question is one task the Charter Commission should take on. However, I'm not sure that a prohibition on employees serving in Town Meeting would meet state constitutional or statutory standards. The right to seek elective office is almost never justifiably restricted.
I believe the solution is to make Town Meeting members, whether employees or not, more accountable to the people they are supposed to represent. And, I think there are some simple things we can do to create that accountability. Keeping track of how (and whether) members vote and making that information easily accessible to the public is one way.
I'm not a town meeting member or a town employee, but I dread the day town meeting members are reluctant to vote or participate because of the criticism they will face on this blog and others.
I think TM members SHOULD be worried about criticism for how they vote--from blogs, letters to the editor, phone calls, emails. Wouldn't it be great if they had to be accountable to opposing candidates, too, who could study their record and explain to voters how they weren't representing the interests of their precincts' residents? This possibility is critical for a representative legislature to function properly.
I believe they do feel they represent their precincts. I think the end result of criticism, email and phonecalls will be less participation. If you are advocating a different form of gov't then you will have individuals paid and elected to do a job. I for one would feel less represented in that form of gov't, even if it is inevitable. Transparency is beautiful in theory but not always in practice. Town meeting members are citizens who take the time to volunteer in large part to preserve what they love about Dartmouth, and have diverse interests. People who don't feel their interests are being served should put in their name or support someone who will serve their interests.
I guess I believe that people will tend to govern in their own interests if nothing compels them to govern in the interests of the public. So, for me, accountability and electoral competition are cornerstones to a responsible government that serves all the citizens.
I don't disagree, but with all the transparency our sb works under, they each have their own interests and constituency. Simple human nature dictates Bill Trimble will never support an override at all costs, because he has created the vehicle which will unseat him if he ever did. Each member of the selectboard has an agenda that they believe is most prudent. Our current form of gov't provides more diversity of interests. I sometimes have wished we had a mayor to make decisions without all the divisiveness, but I want a wider range of interests served, not exclusively my own.
I have supported an override. I supported the override questions for police and general government in April 2008.
As Town Meeting votes go, they are done by hand vote in a public setting which does not lend itself to recording the individual votes of members. Most articles pass overwhelmingly which indicates that there is little controversy and broad support. Those which are close can be influenced by calling your Town Meeting representative and telling them how you feel about the issue. Most people don't take time or make the effort to even find out what is on the warrant, so I suspect that not many calls are made.
I am coming around to the view that a different form of government would suit the town better. I think that one or two meetings a year by the town's legislature is no longer sufficient to run the business of the town. I support a charter commission that has the power to look at different forms and recommend a change if they think that is needed.
Bill, the town is required to form a Charter Commission in 2010 by the stipulations in the Charter itself. It can do so earlier (i.e., this year) if it wishes. The Commission will have nine members: "the select board, the finance committee and the school committee shall each designate two persons, the planning board shall designate one person, and two persons shall be appointed by the town moderator."
I think the Charter Commission should take a serious look at alternative forms of government. However, I also think it should consider whether there are ways to fix what ails Town Meeting while retaining much of what people like about it. All options need to be considered and debated.
While it is true that the Town Charter provides for an appointed charter commission in 2010, that commission is limited under MGL in the actions that they can take. They can recommend changes to the Town Meeting within the current framework but cannot recommend a change in the form of government. See this post
Only an elected charter commission can change the form of government. All charter changes must go to the voters for approval.
Thanks for pointing out that distinction, Bill. Clearly, I think the sentiment in town runs toward getting a commission that can propose changes to form. I am not sure, though, what the statute means exactly by "legal voters" residing in town "at the time of the preceding state election." Do they mean people who are eligible to vote, registered to vote or actually voted?
Even if it's the latter, we'd need about 2500 signatures. Getting those will require a pretty big, coordinated effort. And if they mean registered or eligible voters, the petition drive would be huge.
OK, I'm ready to go door to door; anyone care to join me?!
Campaign has started early, Doug?
The former is the correct count. From MGL chapter 43 section 3 -"the revision of any charter so adopted shall be initiated by filing with the board of registrars of voters of the city or town a petition signed by at least fifteen per cent of the number of registered voters residing in said city or town at the preceding state election"
There are about 21,000 registered voters, so 15% of those comes to 3,150 signatures. Still, collecting 3,150 signatures is a daunting task
Should say 43B section 3
I believe that an elected charter commission should be formed. I would definitely put my name on the ballot if a movement in that direction gained steam. One thing is certain though. If people want to be represented they have to vote. They complain that Padanaram runs the town but precinct nine turns out 60% of voters while much of the rest of town turns out less than a third of that.
Doug, it seems by your posts that you are advocating for responsible government. You are now a town meeting member and think elected officials should be accountable for their votes. So I would like to know if you will vote to take money from the Stab fund to pay the youth advocate's salary. And do you still think the 8+ million override was a good idea?
Michael, I think your comment has ended the participation of Doug Roscoe on the Dartmouth Hitching Post!
michael, I would not support using stabilization funds to pay for the Youth Advocate. If we fund it, it needs to come from within Schedule A. Whether I would support doing that depends on what one proposes to cut to pay for it. I definitely value the service Kevin Lee provides, but the real issue, given fiscal constraints, is what gets valued more or less.
The override issue is not really pertinent to my Town Meeting service, since TM has nothing to do with proposing or approving an override. But, personally, I do think the $8.5M override was a good idea. We needed, and still need, that revenue to maintain adequate town services. I don't believe that "starving the beast" has forced us to become more efficient. We've become more efficient because people who have pushed the idea have won elective office. But, we've not just become a bit more efficient, we've also had to slash a lot of services without that override. And I think that's troubling.
That said, going forward I'd be supportive of a menu approach to overrides. Let the voters pick what they do and do not want to support. For instance, I think the issue of the Youth Advocate should come to the voters in the form of an override for that purpose. If we want that service, let the voters choose to support it with an override.
Now, may I please request that this thread not devolve into an override debate! Let's keep talking about the Charter issue. I think this is a critical debate to have.
Doug, FinCom said "no." I will go with their "no" before I go with your position of "let the voters pick."
What other options besides the STAB Fund and the tax levy (can we assume they mean override and didn't want to mention "that word" for fear of getting the public up in arms again?) has the Youth Commission sought or proposed? Are there grants available, or other financial assistance? Has anyone checked?
Can there be something workable with the counselors and others in the schools for these youth? Is there no community service in the area that could step in? No, it's not the comfort of a familiar face right off the bat, and trust will have to be built up, but, if it is help, even if not Mr. Lee directly, it still IS help. I find it difficult to believe there is absolutely no outside source that can offer assistance to those in need. And I find it difficult to believe that no one has any networking ability to search out this assistance. Ironically, Mr. Lee himself might know of outside sources that can help these children. I doubt he would want to leave these children high and dry, without providing them with means of help in his absence.
And I would like to please request that just because some people oppose funding the YA, that they not be subjected to the shameful behaviour displayed by many override supporters who not only were rude on occasion, but profane (children, included,) and quite vocal in characterizing override opposers as being "anti-children." These were not "anti-children" individuals then, and they are not "anti-children" now.
And, yes, I am in favor of a Charter Commission, the Charter rewritten, and a new form of government for Dartmouth.
Let's not forget that the override is still the elephant in the room, however. One of these days it will be prodded out as a means of "funding," AKA taxing us, for something again.
Doug, How can this thread not evolve into an override debate? It is clear that you have an agenda to continue your push for overrides. You've already gotten your override and it is obvious that your lust for spending other people's money has not been satisfied. What we really need at this point is an underrride. It is the only way to balance the radical tax and spend assault that you are imposing upon the people of dartmouth.
As far as Kevin Lee goes, not only can we not afford the position but 90% of other towns can't either. I am also sick and tired of his sick political antics.
"Roscoe" and "responsible" in the same post is an oxymoron. He supported a huge override that would have required even larger future overrides to sustain itself. Now he's throwing words like "responsible" out there. Kind of like Lara, the big fat LIAR, using fiscal responsibility in her campaign ads. They are both cut from the same cloth.
Doug, I know you are a smart guy but I'm not so dumb myself so please don't insult my intelligence. Since town meeting is where the budget is approved and the money appropriated, it is crucial for the people you represent as a town meeting member to know where you stand on town finances. Supporting every override is a major component of one's spending philosophy so I don't think I will be brushing that issue aside any time soon. Nice try though.
Doug, don't waste your time here trying to have a logical discussion. As you can see it will quickly degrade to name calling and insinuations based upon the past once they run out of intelligent points to make about the present.
Lee must go. There is no funding available. Even if we find a grant, it cannot be considered recurring revenue. We will be back in the same boat we were in with the extra senior center. It was less than four miles away from the Dartmouth street center, we provide transportation anyway, and I haven't heard any great protests from the seniors now that it's gone. It was a "nice to have."
Those ten or twenty people lobbying for Lee's position don't represent the will of the people. It is obvious most of the people want government to leave them alone, especially when it comes to taxes. How do I come to this conclusion? Most of them don't even bother to vote. The highest local election voter turnout in Dartmouth history was to defeat an ill-advised override. That was the single most motivating issue to get non-voters to vote.
I believe that the Charter Commission should be of the elected type so as not to limit the recommendations that they could make. The form of our government has been one of the topics discussed over the last few years so it wouldn't be prudent to have an appointed Commission that wouldn't be able to explore that.
Doug, Bill has listed in one of his topics the various forms of government that are approved for selection, and I was wondering if you or any of your students have ever done research on how many of each type are used in our state? I think some of this preliminary work would be an interesting foundation in anticipation of the Commission. Comparisons of things such as community size and budget would seem to be valuable when looking at what structure has been chosen, and probably other characteristics too.
The attack against Stone is a direct result of the posting by anon 10:22 and his attack against Trimble. Stone is clearly a LIAR and I will be relentless in saying so every time someone I favor is attacked. I have explained why Lara is a liar. Now I would like to know specifically why she withdrew her name from the Lincoln Park Stupid Growth Overlay District. I smell a scandal since she was so buddy buddy with the developers when she voted to move the new 40r project forward. If she has a conflict of interest, why did she not recuse herself from that vote?
Lara is a liar and she also supports bad development that benefits only a few wealthy developers who live in Padanaram.
My post on the alternative forms of municipal government can be found at this link These forms are not exclusive. Any other form can be proposed and adopted if the town votes for it, the form does not violate the state constitution or MGL, and the legislature approves.
A grant is non-recurring revenue, so, yes, it would probably have to be applied for each year, unless it was one of a longer duration. The suggestion for a grant was just a thought that I think was even mentioned at a recent Select Board meeting by one of the members.
Has a grant been explored since, for the possibilities of providing funding for Mr. Lee's job, even if only for a year, which is better than nothing? In the meantime, all concerned would now know they have options, and could be working on obtaining the grant for the upcoming year(s) as well.
I wonder if anyone from the Youth Commission has approached Ms. Copley with a request to find/write a grant up for the YA, or at least help them do so or steer them in the right direction. It seems others can find grants and apply for them, why can't the Youth Commission do the same?
With the problems facing our youth today that were nonexistent when many of us were in school, there should be a multitude of services out there, and I would like to think no one of them would turn away an emergency should a child or even an adult be in crisis.
There must be other services besides a reliance on Mr. Lee, as comforting as that may be for many of Dartmouth's youth.
While all are showing support for Mr. Lee, I hope he and they are looking into services that can assist the youth when Mr. Lee is not available to do so.
It will be a sad day if the Select Board reinstates the youth advocate position and salary, because it is the salary that is the issue. Hence, we cannot afford the person.
Will they now seek to "create" a new "position" for Mr. Lee, much as our municipal paralegal specialist did when her paralegal position was slated for elimination because then-town counsel was doing his own paralegal work and she would be redundant?
Will they ask the Select Board to put an override on the ballot for voters to determine the fate of the youth advocate position, to be voted on in a costly special election, or call for a special town meeting at a later date?
Maybe I'm wrong, but these seem like options to me, but not ones I hope are seriously considered by our Select Board. The Board has to act in our best interest, that is, the ENTIRE town's best interest.
Now is the time for Mrs. Dias to step up and work for all of us in town, as she is frequently stating that her decisions are made "in the best interest of the town."
Now is the time for Ms. Stone and Mr. Watson to consider all of us, as well. There should be unity on this issue and emotions, personal issues or opinions, agendas or anything else that is subjective to a member of the Board should and must be set aside for the greater good of the entire Town and its residents.
What do you have an attack dog now Bill? Not sure I understand this persons logic, nor do I want to.
Bill - please consider rants like those of 12:08 as unwelcome by deleting them (as you have been known do to with others) - thank you
Unfortunately, it is a fact that Stone lied to get elected. Now, a mere two months after being elected, she is embroiled in a scandal involving her support of 40r development in town. Not exactly hitting the ground running but more like hitting the ground flat on her face. Mind your manners and things will stay civil.
Why leave up all the negative posts about our new select board members? I don't find this practice very respectful of your fellow colleagues Bill.
You stated that you "want to fix what ails Town Meeting". No one could possibly disagree with that sentiment, but exactly what do you mean? What "ails" Town Meeting? This is a legitimate question. I'm not looking to put you on the spot, but I'm curious.
Thanks for the good question.
There are a few ailments. First, I don't think TM members, in general, understand very well the issues that come before them (though some do). They are overly reliant on the opinions of the Finance Committee, which itself is not elected. (Don't tell my wife I'm criticizing Fin Com!)
I also think TM fails to serve a representative function well. This is the point I was getting at in earlier posts.
Finally, I think TM does not really allow for proper deliberation. This is partly related to my first point--people don't know enough to make arguments on many issues. But, it also reflects on the size and procedures of the body. With close to 400 people, who have to do a whole year's worth of business in a day, the process just doesn't lend itself to real debates about the issues.
Why aren't you also complaining about the attacks on this blog against Trimble. Why only complain about attacks against the ever so irritating Lara? What's the matter? Don't like playing your own game? Too bad. Answer the question about her affiliation with these developers and why she didn't recuse herself from the vote she took.
Almost forgot, mind your manners and things will stay civil.
Bill has chosen to create this blog so he has the power if he chooses to control the posts. Lara has no control but unfortunately has become the target of your attacks. How do we know what Bill lets through and what he doesn't? He controls the spin and from what I read it never seems to appear to be in her favor.
Questioning Lara's political views and position are one thing but calling her a liar and accusing her of some scandal without any facts is just an outright attack on her character and shouldn't be allowed by a colleague.
Too bad for you. Trimble got attacked and you said nothing. Lara pays and will continue to pay every time this happens. Mind your manners.
You're off your nut.
Doug, it sounds like you just don't like what FinCom has been recommending to town meeting which is fiscal responsibillity. I had a feeling this was the direction pro-override people were going. Get override friendly appointees on FinCom so they will tell Dartmouth voters how badly we need an override. You know most people listen to FinCom. And from what I can tell, that is exactly what is happening. Speaking of your wife, what does a poli-sci professsor know about town finances? It isn't exactly her area of expertise now is it? Yet she was appointed to FinCom and someone who managed town finances for 30+ yrs. was rejected.
I'll speak for my own qualifications myself rather than having my husband do it for me. I am "just a political scientist" who studied state and local government in graduate school. I have taken graduate course work in state government, local government, public policy, state and local public policy, managing local government and statistical analysis (4 semesters worth of the latter). In fact, my graduate course work would qualify me to teach in a Master's of Public Administration program - just one of the types of degrees that would qualify someone to be our new town administrator. So basically, I'm qualified to teach people how to be local government administrators.
At UMass Dartmouth, my areas of teaching specialization include state politics, local politics, public policy and Massachusetts politics. Part of my job is to keep up with what's going on in the Massachusetts legislature, state finances and to understand state regulations, particularly those pertaining to local governments.
In addition, over the past several years, I've served on several town committees (the Budget and Revenue Task Force, the Privatization Committee), have secured several interns for the town and have had my students complete applied research projects for the town. I have no problem with you not agreeing with my policy positions - that's fine - but if you're going to disparage any of the numerous people who volunteer their time and effort to the town, at least have the guts to use your real name, like Bill T., Barry W., Frank G., Doug and so many others do here. I many not agree with all of these people on the list, but I RESPECT each one of them for stepping up to the plate to do what they think is right for this town and doing so in a public and open way.
It seems like some people have forgotten that we have given the town $2.1 million in overrides and $1.8 million was taken from operating costs with PAYT. That's about half of what was requested in the $8.5 million override. I'd say Dartmouth taxpayers have done their share of compromising and supporting the town.
You won't see anymore overrides like the 2007. From now on it will be menu driven because pro-overide folks know they can slowly chip away at the voters with individual questions. Talk of a ballot question for the youth advocate has already begun. They also know that voter turnout will not be as high which works in their favor.
Shannon, First of all I asked a simple question. I still don't know what qualifies you in finances. FinCom is about numbers.
"In fact, my graduate course work would qualify me to teach in a Master's of Public Administration program - just one of the types of degrees that would qualify someone to be our new town administrator. So basically, I'm qualified to teach people how to be local government administrators."
Since the Finance Director (Ed I.) is responsible for the financial end of the town, your comment is confusing.
Michael:
Are you suggesting that the town administrator plays no role in overseeing the town budget and that only the town finance director is important here? If so, I'd suggest that you attend a few FinCom meetings when we have a new town administrator to see how important that person is to what we do.
Second, managing the finances of a town is about more than money. Much of what we discuss and what we do is constrained by what the state says we can do. Thus, it is impossible to really understand town finances without understanding home rule and state government.
Next, my coursework in public policy, local government, statistical analysis and managing local government were about how governments operate, the constraints on local government operations, different methods of service provision (including contracting and privatization), budgeting processes in state and local governments, etc. I have a great deal of knowledge to draw on when examining town operations; of particular importance is that I have studied how other cities and towns do the same sorts of things that we do, so I know a lot about what current best practice is in many areas of town operations.
Finally, are you suggesting that ONLY people with financial experience can have positions on the FinCom? I would argue that we need people with a variety of experiences and backgrounds. For example, George Jacobs was a lawyer, law professor and judge. No financial experience there, but his expertise in the legal realm was invaluable to FinCom. Peter Friedman's expertise in engineering has been a tremendous asset to our discussion of the Quinn window and Wind Turbine projects; again, he doesn't have much of a "financial" background, but I wouldn't trade Pete for all the bankers and financial experts in town. The success of FinCom depends largely on having a variety of people who are able draw on a broad range of expertise and experience, so that we can thoroughly explore each and every issue that comes before us. Each of us plays a role on the Finance Committee - come to a meeting sometime and you'll see what I mean.
Who is this special "someone who managed town finances for 30+ years" who was rejected for the Finance Committee? Is it the same person who the moderator said demanded his resume back when he didn't get appointed? If it is, the guy sounds like someone not particularly well suited for the job.
Attack Lara Stone. Attack Doug Roscoe. Attack Shannon Jenkins. Attack, attack, attack. Do you guys have anything positive to say about anyone or anything?
I don't recall the groundswell of outrage when Diane Gilbert was being attacked. She shakes her head, she writes emails and asks questions. Never a criticizm of her votes, just personal attacks. Where were you then? Probably on the attack. You reap what you sow.
Why is there a problem with asking for one's resume back if not appointed? That automatically means one is not suited for the job? And why is the moderator divulging this information to the others? Is that what we can expect when volunteering to serve the town?
Yes Michael, if you spent any time at a finance committee meeting or with Shannon Jenkins you would know that she isn't just qualified, she is highly qualified and we are fortunate to have her.
Having attended my share of FinCom meetings, I would like to say that Shannon Jenkins is an asset to that board. She is knowledgable about public affairs and I agree with her that the committee should be well rounded.
Shannon and I have disagreed on issues. We have always disagreed in a civil and respectful manner. In fact, I have come to like Shannon.
The biggest thing we disagreed on was the 07 override. I don't know how she feels about it in hindsight but the main problem I had with it concerned the 10 year revenue projections. Not only was the override a large tax increase (26%?) but it was unsustainable and required ever increasing overrides going forward. Even with several overrides in between, the tenth year forecast required an override in excess of $20mil in order to be sustainable.
Shannon and I have differences of opinion and differences in what we can afford to ask from our government. I like to think that we both have a good understanding of the way things work on FinCom. I am a perpetual applicant to serve on FinCom myself and look forward to the day that I might work with her. Now that would be a well-rounded committee.
Barry, I have to agree with you there. You would truly be the representative of how the average resident of Dartmouth views the town's finances in context with his or her own.
And from differing philosophies comes greater understanding and the opportunity to come to the best financial conclusions for all of us.
I can see and hear the "discussions" now! But one thing we would all be certain of: we would know exactly where you and Shannon stand, and we would have all sides voiced and represented, with respect to both your individual financial philosophies.
We have an excellent FinCom membership now, and they should have all our thanks and gratitude for the excellent and hard work they have all done for our residents. Each and everyone of them is an assett.
I hope Mr. Sharek will seriously give consideration to you as a member of the FinCom.
Having followed the rationale of the 2007 override and it's longterm intent, I feel Barry again misrepresents it in his last post. The 2007 override, as I understood, was presented as a stabilizing measure for a 2-3 period as needed reforms took shape preventing the scenario Barry describes. This is why I continue to have a problem with how Barry handles the issue. Shannon, would you please comment on this?
Also, I regard Barry as having a contribution to make, but I do not view him as being a strong candidate for the FinCom.
I also do not hold it against Barry, but feel he positioned himself against the 2007 override primarily due to the personal impact it would have on him being among the minority of homeowners well above average/median property assessments. This was made clear with his comments stated at the first BOS meeting held at DMS. I do not regard Barry as representing the "average resident of Dartmouth...in context with his or her own" (as stated by 8:49).
I am happy to hear that Barry's attitude has changed regarding Shannon on the FinCom now viewing her as an asset. She is someone everyone can learn a great deal from, and is among those the Town is fortunate to have serve.
I would like to comment on a few things.
The SB does not have the power to put the YA job back into the budget. Presenting a balanced Schedule A to TM is the sole responsibility of the FinCom working in conjunction with the Director of Budget and Finance. The SB can of course make a recommendation, and work with the FinCom, but that is it.
For those talking about someone seeking an override for the YA position let me remind you that an override is only earmarked for a specific purpose for the first year. After that it becomes General Fund money to be used as is seen fit. That means if the position were restored through an override and the town were still in financial trouble, the following year the money could be used for something deemed a higher priority and the position could again disappear.
Shannon certainly doesn't need me to stick up for her but let me say that I have worked with her on 2 committees and on other subjects, and while we never agree on everything she is a pleasure to work with. She is smart, knowledgeable, dedicated, reasonable, and always presents her case very well. She also listens and that means good discussion is possible. When we have disagreed we have had that good discussion and looked for common ground to move forward.
This town needs a lot more of that.
I don't think that Mr. Walker has misrepresented the 2007 override request. It would have funded business as usual and there was no plan put forward that would have made substantive changes. I have frequently posted here that overrides cannot solve a budget shortfall if our expenses are growing at a faster rate than our revenues. That was the case in 2007 and is the case now. Passing an $8.5 million override would have provided temporary relief while not addressing the underlying problem. We would have been stuck with a 26% tax hike and then be looking at a deficit this year or next. That is what Mr. Walker has been saying all along. On the other hand, override advocates claimed that the town would fall into receivership, would not be recognizable as the same town, and would suffer wholesale layoffs. None of which have come to pass.
The approach taken since 2007 is to reduce the rate of growth of expense to reconcile it with the rate of growth of revenue. I think that is the correct one. That approach is working but we still have more to do. Once we have reached a sustainable budget (one where our on going revenues can pay for our on going expenses), the town can decide if they want to fund additional services via overrides. Even that must be carefully crafted so that the override amount will sustain the cost of the added service. For an example, the citizen sponsored warrant article is asking for $70,000 to fund the Youth Advocate. A salary is not the true cost of an employee. To get the actual cost of an employee to the town, you must add in benefits which is an additional 30-40% or $90-100,000 rather than $70,000.
I agree that any override, such as one that might be proposed for the YA, should include the total cost of providing that service. And it should definitely anticipate increases in the cost of providing that service. For instance, it might mandate that the cost of the YA service increase no more than 2.5% per year.
Regarding Bill's larger point about overrides, let me raise one objection and then I want to stop talking about overrides. While it makes sense to cut expenditures to keep in line with revenues, it is critical to realize that a major piece of our revenues--the property tax--is capped at 2.5% growth. 2.5% is not a magic number and is in fact a good bit below the average rate of inflation. So, if our costs grow at inflation and our revenues grow at a rate less than inflation, a budget deficit arises--and not because we spend too much but because our revenues don't keep pace with inflation. To argue we must slice expenditures to meet this artificially and arbitrarily capped rate of revenue growth is to argue we must steadily and regularly reduce our services.
To be sure, Barbara Anderson was well aware of this dynamic when she pushed Prop 2.5 in 1980. She's a libertarian and wants there to be less government, and 2.5% revenue growth guarantees a shrinking public sector. I'm not a libertarian. I believe government can and should provide a range of important public services.
I personally think Prop 2.5 should be amended so that the "magic number" is not 2.5 but a number that reflects the actual rate of inflation--or even better, the actual rate of inflation for the goods and services municipalities have to purchase (unlike the CPI, which targets consumer purchases). If this were the law, than I'd absolutely agree with Bill that any override should be a simple question of whether we want to add a service and pay for it. Right now, however, overrides are a necessary consequence of the law, and towns must consider them just to keep things level year to year.
I'd add that I'd much prefer we had other options for keeping our revenue streams even with inflation. Meals taxes or adequate state aid would fit the bill. I don't love the property tax. It's not a great tax by several criteria. But, it's the only thing we can control right now.
OK, I'm done talking about overrides. Really.
And I sincerely hope the Select Board does not entertain placing an override question on the ballot for the position of youth advocate. As FrankG said, if the youth advocate did get an override for his position, it would be for one year only, and that money then could be used for something else next year, bringing the Youth Commission back before the Select Board for still another override the following year and every year thereafter.
In the meantime, we, the taxpayers, are stuck with the override monies intended initially for the youth advocate position, forever. His position may not last past the first year the override funds him, but the override amount will never go away on our tax bills.
And, I sincerely hope Town Meeting members have the presence of mind to not let the emotionally charged atmosphere on the Town Meeting floor to persuade them to vote for the youth advocate funding, should the motion be made to do so.
What about a grant? Even if it's only for one year, it's at least one more year Mr. Lee can work. Isn't that worth something to him?
Has Ms. Shultz approached Ms. Copley on the issue yet?
Why do we hear STAB Fund or tax levy as the only options given by her for his funding? Easy(ier) to get money by asking for it from us, perhaps, than to search out a grant and then apply for it?
To reply to the point about 2.5% growth of property tax, I would argue that the property tax levy increases by 2.5% PLUS any new growth. If a town has no developable land then the tax increase would be 2.5%. That is not the case in Dartmouth. Even in bad economic times such as we find now, there is some additional increase in property tax above 2.5% due to this new growth. Whether that is enough to cover the rise in costs is another discussion.I would point readers to this post and the linked report by the General Court Commission of Municipal Relief. This report covers many of the points about how municipalities fund their operations and the challenges they face. It is long, 28 pages, but covers all the bases
One final note about municipal government is that I find they are slow to adopt the kinds of technology which has allowed private industry to have huge increases in productivity over the past years. Those who deal with the town departments regularly can attest that the use of paper, rather than electronic, files is persistent and somewhat maddening. To that end, I would like to try to assess how the town currently uses electronic files and web based applications. I think that Lara Stone and others on the SB may be interested in pursuing this. I know that Ms. Jenkins has a UMass Dartmouth class that has been looking at the website and how we use it as well. E-government has a tremendous potential to reduce the cost of municipal operations in my opinion.
Bill - As does Barry Walker, you misrepresent the 2007 override as well. Your response is the rhetoric used all along.
I repeat, the 2007 override was presented to stabilize services for a 2-3 year period as the very reforms being made now were made. You supported the alternative: PAYT and Fees. Repeatedly stating the 2007 override would have funded "business as usual" along with many of your other remarks is resorting to sensationalism and is a disservice to others. There was every intent to address underlying problems as did your approach. Two different approaches, both with merit. Both with the same goal: to address both expenses and revenue
I, too, want to move on from this as Doug has expressed. I appreciate Doug's expertise and hope he continues to serve our community.
Of course, new growth is added to the 2.5% because with new growth comes new demand for services (kids in schools, roads to plow and patrol, etc). Just get Greg Lynam started on street acceptances, and you'll see what I mean.
Nonetheless, as someone who brings her laptop to every FinCom meeting so as to avoid the use of paper (for productivity and environmental issues), I couldn't agree with Bill more about how we as a town need to do better with taking advantage of technology from a green (environmental and monetary) perspective. My students are still working on the project - hopefully, some good suggestions will come out of it.
It is difficult for me to conceive how the taxpayers would be in a better position today if they had increased property taxes by 26% in 2007 and since then. I honestly doubt that the actions to reduce costs would have been carried out if the money were available to spend. As I said, the dire warnings of doom have not been borne out and the town has begun to find its fiscal footing. That has taken some fees, an override and some cost cutting by town departments. There is more to do. Consolidation, regionalization and contracting out of services have only just begun to be explored.
I believe there will be an article on the town meeting warrant that asks for funding for the youth advocate. It is sponsored by Mike Gagne and other citizens. The fact that it raids the stab fund and doesn't take into account the cost of benefits may be a telling reason why the former Select Board did not renew his contract.
OK, just one more override post... :)
On Bill's point that we've turned out OK without the override because we've just cut the fat: we've actually reduced a lot of services. We closed two schools, a library branch and a senior center. Many other cuts, like street lights (and some library services) were restored only because...we passed an override. If you think these things should have been cut, that's fine. Personally, I don't, and we can agree to disagree about that. But I don't think it's accurate to say in effect "that everything's turned out just fine, we've kept services the same by getting leaner."
On the issue of new growth, I think the reality is that new growth creates demand for new services (as Shannon argues), but the new services needed probably cost a little less than the additional revenue from the taxes on that real estate. In other words, as Bill argues, new growth actually helps a bit to keep the real rate of growth in revenues closer to growth in expenditures for level services.
In fact, that is why Dartmouth has been able to go without an "adjustment override" for so long: new revenue from new growth has been pretty robust, as the town has exploded in both commercial and residential development over the last couple decades. But, rapid new growth won't necessarily go on forever, and certainly it's slowed lately. And, contrary to Bill's position, I don't think the bonus from new growth completely closes the gap between the rates of growth in revenues and level-service expenditures.
Also interesting to note that the original Prop 2.5 did not have a new growth provision. It was added by the legislature later, first as a local option and then as a mandatory provision.
We didn't close two schools. Dr. Russell closed two schools and from the ever changing numbers we kept hearing, it would seem we aren't really saving money. Another threat/punishment for not passing an override.
anon 4:17 As Bill has stated, we didn't pass the 2007 override and Dartmouth did not fall into the ocean. I think before you start accusing others of misrepresentation you should first recall the statements made by pro-override people.
The classic misrepresentation from the tax and spenders was those signs they had at the polls. "Vote yes, pay less." Ya right! Increase the tax levy by 26% and you'll pay less in taxes. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Pay up you rubes.
6:01 - maybe you could conduct a poll. How many are paying less now that PAYT and Fees are a reality than if the '07 override passed? Perhaps Doug could still provide us with the calculator to compare.
Barry certainly is, but how many are in his property assessment bracket?
5:37 - the "fall into the ocean comment" was sarcasm from opponents. Perhaps you could rethink your point.
Bill/4:31: my taxes at the time were approx. $2400. So, you're saying I would have realized an increase of over $600? Doug?
The town has made a lot of progress in addressing its structural financial problems over the last several years; but this progress would not have happened if the $8.5 Million override had passed. That override was in fact a recipe for disaster. For starters, it was structured to create pools of money in early years that would be drawn down as expenses increased above recurring revenue. [This was the advertised plan of the override.] When the pools of money were expended, we would be left with a severely out of balance budget. The override also funded many new services, which would have increased the base. Had we approved the $8.5 Million override, we would be facing deficits right now—and we would be masking those deficits by spending the accumulated one time revenues. Even worse, we would be driving toward a much more severe crisis in a year or two.
The bottom line is that trimming waste from a budget is not easy. It only seems to happen when it is driven by necessity. (By the way, I did support two of the more limited override questions last time; because in my opinion, they were structured prudently.)
Another point is that the senior center that was closed was funded with grant money. If "the big one" had passed, this would have been added to operating expenses. We would have actually been growing our expenses above the cost of inflation. Just imagine if we had grown our expenses only to be subsequently hit by the worst national fiscal crisis since the Great Depression. Peter Friedman is right. "The Big One" was a recipe for disaster.
My property assessment is around $560k. However, I drew all the plans myself, and the vast majority of the work to build the house, including landscaping, was done by Marianne and I. It's called sweat equity and I highly recommend that everyone give it a try. There are few things more rewarding than sitting in your own home and appreciating the fruits of one's labor. In my case, even the furniture was handmade. Frankly, I find the feeling of self-reliance even more rewarding than the fact that a house and lot assessed at $560k only cost about $325k. Does this make me eligable for an abatement?
to anon 11:17am From Peter Freidman's comments it seems Barry Walker didn't misrepresent anything. In fact I think he was right on in his assessment of the override. I'd have to say judging from his ability to understand how the town budget works, he would be a "strong candidate for the Finance Committee".
It would also seem from his own post that all this business about being a $million property owner and not really representative of the average citizen is just more propaganda. The average home price in Dartmouth is over $300k Mr. Walker claims it cost him $325k. to build his home. It would seem he works hard and is not afraid to get his hands dirty. Sounds like he's about average to me.
Selectperson Stone LOVED the "Big One."
This is who you voted into office, everyone.
Sorry if that's pretty much what I remembered about her as I voted.
As noted in other comments, the Vaz canter was created with grant money that ended and the town could not then sustain the center. Turning off the streetlights was a symbolic gesture and the savings after taking lamps out and putting some back was a few thousand dollars. The library has re-established some hours at the North Dartmouth branch and diverted money from salaries to materials, both positive developments. Also as noted in other comments, the two schools were closed. The economic benefit of that is unclear. I feel that it was done after having said that it must be done if an override fails, no one would step up and divert the money from somewhere else to keep at least one open. Just my opinion but if their were big savings from closing the schools weere did it go?
Barry's house is beautiful and one of my favorites in town. Perhaps he'd like to explain the status of his rental property that he's referred to publicly so others aren't misrepresented.
Peter's interpretation of the 07' override is just that. He's entitled to his opinion and I disagree with it. He talks of several years' progress yet '07 override request was made only two years ago. His opinion was based on the speculation no reforms would be made. In my opinion, "driven by necessity" in regards to trimming of wastes applied whether the override passed or not. This was made clear in the "advertized plan" of the override.
As stated many times, both approaches had merit. Both approaches had strong support as evidenced by the vote.
What has Barry Walker's properties to do with anything. That's what you got? Barry Walker owns property and Peter Friedman has an opinion.
Barry works hard for what he has and I'll take Dr. Friedman's opinion over most, especially some anonymous person who comes here and tries to cloud things with irrelevant innuendo and baseless chatter. Give us two concrete examples of what this "advertised plan" was going to change. We know what definitely would have changed, our tax bills!
Barry's property assessments are among the minority of those well above the average/median property assessments. The relevance is his personal decisions are based on that fact and are not relevant to those with average/median property assessments. Nothing clouded, irrelevant or baseless.
Barry is hardworking and that is not being disputed.
Tax bills would have been impacted as have PAYT/Fees had their impact. Efforts to trim wastes, regionalization, consolidation, etc. were all proposed changes.
I think it's inaccurate to say Barry's only motivated by a desire to pay less on his own property taxes. I've talked with Barry on many occasions, and I know that he's motivated by his beliefs about the proper scope of local government and how to get there. We disagree about this--I prefer a government that does a lot for residents and he prefers a government that does less and taxes less. But these kinds of ideological reasons are the best ones to have for getting involved in politics--and disagreements about them the best reasons to have political debates.
I'd also note, connected to this question as well as Swamp Yankee's question about the advertised plan, that both Barry and I believe strongly we need to make our town government more efficient. In fact, during the 2007 override campaign, he and I came together, with our respective organizations (the Coalition for Dartmouth and the Dartmouth Override Opponents), and drafted a lengthy set of recommendations for improving management of town government. We presented these to the Select Board and they became the basis of their "plan." (I know, it's not really what we need in a plan, but that's what they called it; in reality, it was just a plan for reforms, not a plan for long-term financial stability.)
Where Barry and I disagree is on whether these reforms would have happened even if the override passed (I think they would have, he doesn't) and whether these reforms alone would make a significant dent in our structural budget deficit (I think they won't, he thinks they will).
Barry, have I characterized your opinions correctly (I don't want to put words in your mouth)?
Two specific examples that is all that I asked for. Key word is specific.
If your point is that Barry has an interest in not raising property taxes because he owns property, you're right. He owns property but that doesn't change the truth or validity of what he said about the $8.5 million override. You're trying to make the value of his property the issue. Why?, because the override was irresponsible and you can't make come up with any facts that it wasn't.
No, Swamp Yankee, I'm trying to say the value of Barry's property is NOT relevant. I'm agreeing with you.
As for specifics, here are two from the document:
1. Privatize town services where it makes financial sense (e.g., trash collection, snow removal, pension fund management, payroll services).
2. Review benefits packages for part-time employees and explore feasibility of reducing expenditures on benefits among part-time employees.
There are dozens more. I'd be happy to send the full document to Bill if he would like to post it. In fact, it would be interesting to see how many of the recommendations have seen any serious consideration.
Let me add a couple items from the document that pertain to the point I raised in the first comment in this thread:
--Publish all budget information on the internet in an easy-to-read and easy-to-understand format. Increased budget items should be publicly justified. (For instance, if a department's budget request from one year to the next goes up 5%, there should be some explanation as to why it’s going up that much [fixed costs, new projects, etc]).
--Publish all reports and meeting minutes produced by town departments, commissions, committees and task forces on the internet (e.g., capital improvement planning committee report).
Relevance I see with respect to Barry's property value was his 2007 effort to claim your projections were erroneous with respect to how the majority of property owners may be impacted less when comparing tax increases to PAYT/Fees. What applied to his personal situation, did not apply to the majority. That's my only point regarding Barry's property value.
I followed Doug's campaign, and am glad he is clarifying positions for those unfamiliar with them. Doug's explaining what he and Barry's efforts had in common is helpful for all to know. I share Doug's opinions that differ with Barry. I also disagree with Peter F. as did other FinCom and BRTF members.
The claim that Barry Walker made is that the override tax increase in 2007 was a 26% increase in the tax levy. That's absolutely true. What I pay or you pay would depend on the valuation of our homes. No one's disputed that. Your point in bringing up his property valuation is what? That he owns valuable property? Does that change the amount of the increase or anything else? I think you're bringing it up in order to try to discredit Barry because you cannot dispute the facts he has.
Doug, If you are referring to the so called plan that was waved around by the some Select Board members, I have seen it and it is in no way a plan. It was a list of ideas, one on a page (so that the document had a lot of pages,I guess), which had no dollar amount attached to any item or analysis of the potential savings that would result or whether those savings taken as a whole would result in a budget that was sustainable. It was a list of ideas for potentially saving money, that's it. I don't think I have ever published it here because I didn't feel it had a lot of helpful information or merit.
Unfortunate that's your take on Barry and Doug's combined effort. I applaud them for having worked together, and would like to see more of it.
Bill: Doug's post made it clear the term "plan" was not to be taken in the way you've alluded to. I didn't, nor did I understand the SB to when using the word "plan" in referring to Doug and Barry's "ideas".
Swamp Yankee: Barry made many claims, and I've stated clearly my position with respect to one of them.
Bill, I agree it was not a real plan--it was exactly what you suggest: a list of ideas for potentially saving money. We still don't have real plan.
The document we presented wasn't intended to be a plan. It was supposed to be recommendations for cutting costs to help close the budget deficit. We drew input from Select Board members, people who were part of the BRTF, and individuals within the Coalition and the DOO.
The document that the Select Board was using is different than the document the Coalition and the DOO presented to the Select Board (though the latter was based on the former). The Coalition/DOO document had many more items, some of which were suggestions towards developing a real plan. For instance, one of the items in our document was the following:
Implement a regular planning process that develops a rolling five-year plan that projects best-case scenario, worst-case scenario and best-guess scenario. Budget and management choices should be developed for each scenario.
Doug, I would like to see the recommendations posted in their entirety that you and Barry worked on from everyone's ideas back in '07 that was passed on to the SB. I think many others would be interested as well and making their own assessment as to its merit.
Please consider offering it to momof3 to post. Thanks!
Doug, Please consider your own site. Close to half the voting population recognized the value of your input.
Here's a link to access the document on management reforms I've been discussing.
http://www.umassd.edu/cas/polisci/droscoe/reforms.pdf
Doug, could you retype that site? It looks like it got cut off. If it is the suggestions I read on another thread, it is an excellent framework for govt reform. Kudos to you & Barry.
momof3npt, I think the URL just wrapped onto the second line.
Post a Comment