Health care and employees

This article was cited in comments on the last post. I thought I would bring it up to this level. I think it illustrates a good point about health care and I hope we can get it done in Dartmouth. I would start talking to our municipal unions right now about it. It is going to take a bit to get it done but I think it is needed. In my opinion, an even better solution would be to get national health care like most of the other developed world. Then the burden would not only be taken off states, towns, and cities but corporations, companies and small businesses. It could help our country compete in the global economy since European, Japanese and Chinese companies don't have to pay these costs. Click here to read on!

Revenue and fiscal health

I have stated what Dartmouth's fiscal problem is and defined the cause of that problem (link here). Now let's look at the possible solutions to matching the rates of growth of expenses to revenues. There are two obvious remedies to reconcile the rates of growth. The first is to increase the rate of growth of revenues, the second is to reduce the rate of growth of expenditures.
Let's examine the first option, increasing the rate of growth of revenue. The lion's share of revenue raised by the town comes from real property taxes on existing homes and businesses. The addition of new homes and businesses (new growth) adds to the amount of taxes which can be assessed. However, state law limits the growth of the existing property tax base to 2-1/2% per year. So the rate of revenue increase is limited to 2-1/2% per year plus the amount of new growth. New growth revenue is added on top of the 2-1/2% increase of the existing tax base. It is important to note that the following year, revenue from properties that had been new growth are now included in the tax base and grows at 2-1/2% per year. In order to have and sustain a higher rate of revenue growth, the town must continually add more and more homes and businesses (or properties with higher and higher valuation). Dartmouth has seen revenue growth rates in the 5-7% range in the past but that rate of growth has slowed as the available buildable area is used up and the national economy slows. While the rate of new construction may pick up again in the future, it is difficult to predict the amount and timing of that increase. The town residents have also shown little interest in adopting policies to increase the amount of new growth.
Another means to increase revenue growth rate is for the voters to approve an override of the 2-1/2% provision of the state statute. This override vote is required to be a dollar amount that is added to the tax base. The dollar amount of the override is permanent. However once that dollar amount is added via an override, it also grows at only 2-1/2% per year. So you can get a one year increase in the rate of revenue growth by approving an override, but the next year you are back to 2-1/2%.
As you can see, the avenues available to increase the property tax revenue growth rate beyond 2-1/2% are to pass serial overrides or aggressively promote new growth in the town. The townspeople have shown little enthusiasm for overrides or increased growth, so I submit that increasing the rate of revenue growth is not a viable option for curing our fiscal crisis.
On a final note, it seems that some on our Select Board do not understand the root cause of our budget woes. Our Select Board chair person is quoted as stating, "We have a revenue problem". Link here to Chronicle article.
As I showed above and in the last paragraph of this post, increased revenue via an override is a short term solution. If a differential in the rates of spending and revenue exist and it does, expenses quickly overtake an override increase amount. Rather we need to examine and change the rate of growth of expenses to return to fiscal health. Our ability to change the rate of growth of revenue is limited as I have just shown. In a upcoming post, I will look at ways that expenditure growth rate can be changed.
As always, let me know if you find fault in my analysis or think that I've missed other ways to change the rate of revenue growth. Click on comments and have a go. Click here to read on!

There are needs and then there are needs

The school administration have put forth their needs. The Select Board had the Police Chief and Library Director last week to detail what they see as their needs. The plan is to have the other department heads come before the Board to lay out the needs of their departments as well. Finally all these needs will be rolled up into an override question or questions. There is only one group whose needs will not get a public airing. That group is the taxpayers! And especially the group of taxpayers will suffer the most if the needs of all the departments in the town are met. Some who comment here feel that I just don't understand the needs of the school department or Council on Aging or whoever.
But I have been going around the neighborhoods of the town, knocking on doors to collect nomination signatures, and talking to the people of the town. Some of those residents have been telling me about the burden that property taxes place on them. Elderly on fixed income and people on disability tell me that their property tax bills now amount to their monthly income for 2 or 3 months. They are worried about how they will pay an increase if an override passes. Just as the costs to the town for heat, light, insurance, and fuel have outstripped the town's revenues, so have they increased for those in our community on fixed income. $200 or even $500 more a year in taxes will not cause me undue pain and maybe not you either. But keep in mind that there are many in our community who cannot afford that kind of increase. Who may have to sell their home or go without necessities if an override passes. So when you hear the town departments ask for this many thousand or millions of dollars for their needs, keep in mind the very real needs of your neighbors. They will not get an override to pay their increased tax bills. There are needs and then there are needs.
Update I published this post a few week ago and thought it deserved another posting. Click here to read on!

Fundraiser dinner tonight, Radio tomorrow

I will be having a fundraising dinner tonight from 5 to 8 PM at the Dartmouth VFW. Stop by and chat if you like. I will be on WBSM radio 1420 AM with Evan Rousseau tomorrow morning from 9-10 AM. Click here to read on!

Common Sense Solutons

The public deserves answers, not rhetoric. Give the unvarnished truth to the voters. They know what is best for the town and themselves. You don't have to sell it to them, they'll know what is right if they are given all the information.

Common Sense Solutions for Dartmouth's Fiscal Crisis

I believe that we cannot tax our way to fiscal health. If expenses are growing faster than revenue, raising taxes is a temporary solution. The rate of growth of expenditures must be reduced for the town to thrive in the long term.

Spend on necessities first
• Prioritize spending- highest to lowest
(police 1st, etc. Cut from lowest, add to highest when funds become available.)

Analyze future costs of present actions
• Eliminate personal contracts
(Assign to a non union pay scale with the pay rates to the town's advantage, raises to be merit based only and subject to available funds)
• Every new expenditure must be examined for long term affordability
(Hiring new employees, purchasing new equipment)
• The long term sustainability of present operations must be analyzed.
(If we cannot pay for them, we need to look at ways to change. Privatize, automate, contract out)

Find creative ways to reinvent government
• Cut management costs
(It seems that all cuts fall on those employees who actually provide the services. We need to look at upper and mid management first)
• Our residents are a great resource
(Townspeople have a wide variety of knowledge and skills, embrace their participation and expertise, follow up on their ideas)
• Copy what works, change what doesn't
(Many towns have been in this situation, find out what they did)
• Information technology has transformed our world. Use it to transform the operations of our town
(Online payments, direct deposits, useful & effective town website)

Communicate and cooperate
• Budget for the town must consider all departments
(School v general gov't has to end, budget summit with all involved, consensus solutions)
• Tell the taxpayers everything, hear them out
(no sweetheart contracts, no golden handshakes, no behind the scenes maneuvering, let the public speak to Board)

My position on split tax rate
I support the split tax rate. I would vote to retain it at the current 40% and would raise it if residential valuations continue to rise faster than commercial values. The split rate has corrected an inequity that has been growing over the past 10 years. I would not lower it below 40% in my 3 year term. Click here to read on!

Rotary Candidate's Forum tonight

I will be making a presentation and taking questions tonight at the Rotary Candidate's Night at the Town Hall at 7PM, Room 304. My opponent in the Select Board race, Ms Horan McLean, will also be attending as well as the School Committee candidates. Come by if you can and listen and ask questions. I understand it will be live on DCTV, Channel 18. Tune in if you can't get to the town hall. Click here to read on!

In the news

There were articles about the Select Board race in today's Standard-Times and Chronicle. You can read the S-T article here. The Chronicle article was not online as yet.
UPDATE The Chronicle article is now onine here Click here to read on!

Chronicle questions

The editor of the Chronicle emailed some questions for Select Board candidates. The questions were provided by Mr Barboza to me and Ms Horan McLean. I thought I would share my answers with you here.

Select Board Questions

1. What do you think are the best strategies or new ideas that can be used to help solve Dartmouth’s financial problems?

Prioritize, Plan, Partner, and Communicate

Dartmouth's financial problem is that expense is growing at a faster rate than revenue. Therefore, an override is a temporary solution since it fails to address the root cause. Without question, some sort of override is needed to sustain the town. But by itself, an override will not solve our problem. In order to reconcile the rate of growth of expense with that of revenue (this is sometimes called a structural deficit), we must change our way of doing business. First , we need to have a discussion in the town and set our priorities. Having defined those priorities, spend on the highest priorities and hold down increases or cut the lowest priorities. Any spending increases must be closely examined for the future affordability. Current spending must be examined for sustainability. Every opportunity to reduce the rate of growth of spending must be sought out and implemented. We need to partner with employees, citizens, UMass Dartmouth and other communities and government agencies to find ways to deliver services at reduced costs. Finally, the electorate must be kept abreast of the progress made in the process.



2. In your opinion, what are the most important override questions on the ballot in this year’s election?

The politically correct answer is that all are equally important. Since the override questions will be decided an the same day as my candidacy, I could pander to the voters and support them all. It would probably get me a few votes. I will not give that answer because I feel that what has been lacking in town is the leadership needed to make difficult decisions and to take the needed actions to correct our problem. Refer to my answer to the first question as to how I would go about that.

Question 1 is $500K for 7 police officers, I support this question because I feel the town places high priority in public safety. I met with the Police Chief and was convinced of the need.

Question 2 is $89K for additional funds for the library. I find this question puzzling. It does not give the library enough funding to meet the certification requirements and, due to the closing of two branches, the town should be able to spend less if only one building is open and staffed. While I personally hope this passes since I value the library, I would not have voted to put it on the ballot or would have included this modest amount in the general government question.

Question 3 is $2.1 million dollars for the schools. This question includes about $1 million for new personnel. With cost of living adjustments and step increases, the rate of growth of expense for these new hires will approach 7%. That rate of increase is not sustainable from the tax levy over the long term. It includes $667K for technology and instructional materials and $400K for reopening two schools. The school department wil get a $1.6 million increase in their budget because higher mandated spending by the state. Since the school department will get increased funding and because of hiring people that we cannot afford going forward, I do not support this question.

Question 4 is $325K for extracurricular sports and music fees. This override costs the town twice the $325K tag. We lose $325K in revenue and must make it up with $325K in spending. School fees are a fact of life throughout the state. I do not support this question.

Question 5 is $1.5 million for general government. This question will not effect the funding of the police department because the Select Board has decided that their budget will not be cut, even if this question fails. The town departments need $1.2 million dollars for level service funding for FY 09. The other $300K is to hire new personnel. If this question passes, the town will be able to sustain level services for ONE year, FY 09. The next year, unless significant reductions in the rate of growth of expense are made, the town will fall short of funds again. I think that this work should have begun already this year but it has not. If the question fails, deep cuts will have to be made in the various departments. The result of these will be a significant reduction of services. I reluctantly support the question but we have work to do here and it needs to start immediately. I will not support additional overrides until there is quantifiable progress in cost reduction and planning.

Question 6 is $1 million appropriation to the Stabilization fund. This question is needed to extend level services funding through FY11. I want to see progress toward goals before providing added revenue and I do not support this question.

Question 7 is a debt exclusion for maintaining and improving town buildings. I support this question.



3. Do you think Dartmouth taxpayers have been getting their money’s worth in municipal services, at all levels, from clerks and road crews to senior administrators, in the last few years?

The current fiscal crisis has been on the horizon for several years. Our senior town administrators have not taken effective steps to avert or ameliorate the problem. This is a failure of planning and foresight. There has also been a failure to communicate the true nature and magnitude of the fiscal crunch. The DOR stated in their report that a multi year forecast and financial plan be prepared and that furthermore, the plan be presented to the public in a format that facilitates understanding. This has not yet occurred and should have been a integral step in planning for override questions. Uncertainty and confusion on the part of the voters will not be helpful in securing added revenue. Everyone in Dartmouth is going to have to share some of the burdens of our fiscal constraints, taxpayers and town employees.



4. How would you vote on a hypothetical personnel bylaw that would cap municipal executive salaries at $100,000 a year, perhaps with standardized benefits, for all department heads now holding personal contracts?

I support a plan to put the management and supervisory personnel on a salary schedule with defined ranges for each position. Those ranges should be set by amending our Personnel Bylaw to include these positions in a schedule similar to those schedules for other town employees. Personal service contracts should be eliminated except as allowed by state law. Salary increases should be based on merit and progress in achieving goals set in annual reviews. These contracts should be limited in duration to one year as they are subject to appropriation by Town Meeting. Benefits should be standardized and limited to those available to all employees.



5. If you had a one-wish magic wand, what one wish for Dartmouth would you make on April 2, the day after the election?

My wish would be that our community would come together in a spirit of compromise and cooperation to help solve our town's fiscal problems, put aside past differences ,and recognize our common interests. Regardless of the outcome of the override question votes, there is serious and difficult work ahead. My wish is to lead in using our collective wisdom, energy, and talent to make us a better town and community

6. Briefly suggest what leadership, organizational, or other special skills that make you a good candidate for the Select Board

I believe that my leadership skills gained through my service in the Air Force and work as a manager, supervisor, and task team leader can help to move the town forward. My training as an engineer gives me problem solving skills and critical thinking abilities that can aid in formulating our future path. Engineering problems involve constraints and compromises. Even the space shuttle is built by the lowest bidder. Engineers work to provide the best possible solution within the constraints. I will bring that ability to the board. Openness, transparency and a fair hearing of all sides promotes confidence in and support for our town's decision making process. As a Select Board member, I will strive to be a model of civil discourse, courtesy, and respect for my fellow citizens. I want to bring fiscal responsibility, transparency and civil discourse to the Select Board. I ask for your vote on April 1st. Click here to read on!

Weird outcomes

Some recent comments have observed that the a la carte menu for the current override questions can lead to some pretty weird outcomes. For instance, if the school question passes and the general government question fails, the school department will be hiring 20 or so employees, while the town side is forced to lay of an estimated 34. Another example is if the library question passes and the general government question fails, the library is still short of the required funding and may lose ceritfication even though the question for the library passed. My wife and I have been sort of kicking around scenarios to see who can come up with the weirdest. Hey, it's just the two of us and the cat now that the kids are grown. You'll be here someday too.
As I have said in previous posts, I am not a fan of this approach. I would rather have seen a single override question that allowed the town and schools to be funded at level services for enough time to effect change. But it is what it is. The town has published a guide for the override questions on their website according to our Executive Administrator and Budget Director at tonight's Select Board meeting. Darned if I could find it though. If you come across it, please let me know the URL so I can link to it.
Update
The override information link scrolls across the main page and you click on it. Or you can go there directly by clicking here
I didn't look closely enough last night I suppose but thanks to reader Matt for getting me the link. Click here to read on!

Youth lacrosse coaching

Tomorrow afternoon begins another youth lacrosse season. Our Dartmouth teams compete in the Under 11, Under 13 and Under 15 age groups with teams from 22 other towns in the South Shore, Cape and Islands region of the Mass Bay Youth Lacrosse League (MBYLL). We practice and play our home games at Friends Academy. Thanks to headmaster and lacrosse enthusiast, Andy Rodin, for use of their fields. Our practices are 5:15 to 6:45 PM Tuesdays and Thursdays. Our eight games are played from April 6 to June on Sunday afternoons. We are always looking for coaches who have played the game. So if you fit that bill and want to coach, give a call to me at 774-274-7738.
Our program and the MBYLL follow the policies of the Positive Coaching Alliance which promotes sportmanship and learning life lessons. Our league doesn't have standings, playoffs or all star teams. We play to have fun and to learn the game of lacrosse. I think the MBYLL is the finest youth sports organization I have ever been associated with and if you love lacrosse, you'll love our program.
I get the pictures that I use on my blog from the LAX.com website. As you can tell, I am a Syracuse lacrosse fan. Just thought I ought to give them credit for the great pictures. Click here to read on!

Down to the wire

I will be speaking and taking questions at the Rotary Candidates night on Thursday at 7pm. It will be held in the Select Board meeting room at Town Hall. It will aso be televised on Channel 18 DCTV.

My fundraising dinner will be at the Dartmouth VFW on Cross Road from 5-8PM on Friday March 28th. I will be there to speak with those in attendance. Tickets are $20 and can be bought at the door or you can call 508-992-4343 or email pokanoketlax@hotmail.com

Look for my ads in Tuesday's Standard Times or Wednesday's Chronicle. Robert Barboza, the editor of the Chronicle, may also have a column on the positions taken by my opponent and me. He had emailed a questionnaire to me and I have returned it to him.

I will be on WBSM radio, AM 1420, on Saturday morning, March 29th, with Evan Rousseau from 9 to 10AM. We will be talking about my candidacy and he may take a few calls.

I will be attending the Grange Candidate chicken dinner on Sunday at 1 PM and will have some brief remarks.

I hope to meet and speak with some of you at these events. See you around! Click here to read on!

Fundraising dinner

I will have a fund raising dinner for my Select Board campaign on March 28th, 5-8 PM at the Dartmouth VFW on Cross Road, Tickets are $20 and the menu is Italian fare. Tickets can be bought beforehand by calling 508-992-4343, 508-636-2537, or emailing pokanoketlax@hotmail.com. You can also buy tickets at the door. Remember to vote on APril 1st! Click here to read on!

Per pupil expenditure and school budgets

This is the third posting about school funding and the opinion contained is from Mr Lynam of the Finance Committee. It uses the case of Falmouth as an illustration of why per pupil expenditures can vary widely. Finally it covers the reduction in Chapter 70 money that Dartmouth is likely to see due to a reduction in the target aid percentage of those funds for our district.

Falmouth is a case in point :
I choose Falmouth because their school population of 4,047 is close to our own 4,300 students ..... and their 33,644 residents closely approximates our 31,389. Their tax rate is $5.25 / K .. ours is $6.77 / K. The average single family home pays $ 2,878 in taxes where in Dartmouth the average home would pay $ 2,763 [ the State average being $3,799 ] This is where the similarities end, however.

The average single family house is valued at $408,190 in Dartmouth and $ 548,225 in Falmouth ... AND ... where Dartmouth has 9,532 single family parcels, Falmouth has 17,993. The whole point is that although we are comparable in many ways, the difference in land valuation between Falmouth and Dartmouth is enormous. Dartmouth has a 2004 assessed value of $ 4.3 Bil as opposed to Falmouth’s $ 9.1 Bil. The FY07 levy limit for Dartmouth of $ 38 Mil is dwarfed by Falmouth’s $ 64.7 Mil. It is this giant valuation and taxing ability that earns them a MGR of 7.67 vs our MGR of 6.32.

When this growth rate is plugged into the funding formula year after year it results in a Required Local Contribution number ( $36.8 Mil ) for Falmouth that exceeds the entire Foundation Budget by some $3.2 Mil. Their ‘Target Local Contribution” level [ I’ll get to that later ] , unlike Dartmouth’s, is LOWER than they presently pay so this number is reduced by the formula to $35 Mil ...... still $1.4 mil ABOVE the total foundation budget. Now add in $ 4.6 mil in local Chapter 70 monies and it is easy to see how their local Required Net School Spending reaches $ 37.4 Mil ........119.39% above the Foundation Budget with 85.15 % of it coming right out of their [ considerable ] local tax receipts.

Conclusion :
In answer to the question, “ Why do some communities spend so much more per student than Dartmouth ? “

The answer [ ignoring special needs cases and extraordinary circumstances ] is that they have more apparent valuation and, by extension, theoretically more tax revenue to spend than Dartmouth. The State formula then MAKES them spend it on Education, so the State doesn’t have to, by manipulation of the MRG factor...... Which brings us to the next piece of the funding dilemma.

Target Aid Percentage :
Presently, our Chapter 70 monies cover 28.78% of all our education spending with the remaining 71.22% coming from our general revenues. The aim is to get us up to 79.78% thereby reducing our Chapter 70 support to only 20.22%. This adjustment would cost Dartmouth an additional $3,088,451 ( for FY07 ) from our general revenues ..... in a way, they have already started down this path.

Opinion :
There are two ways to decrease the target aid percentage: Reduce the Chapter 70 aid outright or slow the rate of increase in Chapter 70 monies so that they are eventually overtaken by inflation, MGR adjustments and the fact that a 4.5% rise in the foundation budget is just too little, requiring addition appropriations above required NSS. It is the latter that I believe is happening.

In the last five years the Chapter 70 monies, as a % of actual NSS has been dropping steadily. In 2002 it stood at 28.67% ~ 27.67% ~ 26.93% ~ 25.36% ~ 25.79% in 2006. This represents a reduction of 2.88% in our Local Chapter 70 Education Aid for the period 2002 through 2006 as a percentage of actual NSS. This equates to nearly $1 mil for FY07 alone, across all educational spending. [ $34,255,600 x 2.88% = $986K ]

Chapter 70 monies [ School Funds and State Aid for Public Schools ] are Determined under Chapter 70: Section 12 of the General Laws of Massachusetts. They consist of “State School Aid “ & “Education Improvement Amounts “ . The amounts paid out the previous year are indexed by an inflation number derived from the “Implicit Price Deflator for State Government Services”, published by the US Department of Commerce. This % increase is capped at 4% / yr.

Under Chapter 70: Section 13 [ Allocation of Funds } These monies are then apportioned to the communities such that, after the required local contribution is calculated, the State Aid monies are then used to fund the difference to the foundation budget amount. Any funds left over, or the result of excessive State Aid [ as in the case of Falmouth ] , are then distributed equally among the communities by a formula that is still unclear to me at this time.

All the above is “ Subject to Funding “ at the State level. If there are insufficient monies to go around, everyone’s share is reduced by an equal amount predicated upon the number of students Statewide. The shortfall will, of course, be made up by the communities.

Click here to read on!

Laws and libraries

We have been struggling in Dartmouth with our library funding and state certification. There are several conflicting interests between state requirements and recent developments in our Dartmouth libraries. Here are the requirements for state certification.
The Dartmouth Public Library must be open at least 63 hours per week. See 605 CMR 401 (3) & 78 MGL 19b
The Dartmouth Public Library must allocate a minimum of 13% of its "total annual budget for books and periodicals." See 605 CMR 401 (5)
There is a formula for determining minimum funding. 78 MGL 19B states that

"No city or town shall receive any money under this section in any year when the appropriation of said city or town for free public library services is below an amount equal to the average of its appropriation for free public library service for the three years immediately preceding, increased by two and one-half per cent of said average."

In Dartmouth, we have taken several measures to reduce costs at our public library. These include closing two branch libraries and reducing the hours and appropriations of the libraries.
The law requires us to spend 2-1/2% more than the average of the past three years appropriation while containing no provision for taking into account the closing of some of the branches. The state grant amounts are modest ($40K) but our budget shortfall is large ($325K). So we find ourselves between a rock and a hard place. We must cut costs to keep the town solvent but we must spend more in order to keep our certification. I have been told that our library lends more books to other libraries than are lent to us. I hope that the state library board would take that into account at certification time as well but the law seems clear. You can read the MBLC's Waiver Letter
There is an accommodation policy to allow reduced hours and materials expenditure which results in lowered grant amounts. Click here to read on!

School funding explained, Part 2

This is the second post in a continuing series on school funding written by Greg Lynam of the Finance Committee. The first post can be found here

Foundation Budget, MRG & Case Study:
As we have already discussed, the DOE fabricates an educational budget for ALL the public school children of Dartmouth. This ‘Foundation Budget’, as it is called, is divided on a per student basis among the public school systems that Dartmouth participates in, namely the “Greater New Bedford Regional Vocational Technical High School” , “Bristol County Agricultural High School”, and our own “Dartmouth Public School system”.

The ‘Foundation Budget’ is built up for each school system on a “Per Student” basis. In other words, ‘a’ particular student in ‘a’ particular grade with ‘a’ specific attribute is budgeted ‘a’ particular amount of money for each of 11 cost categories such as Administration, Instruction, Guidance, etc. These monetary amounts are for budgeting purposes ONLY. There is NO obligation on the part of ‘a particular school system to spend that particular amount of money on that particular student .. except.... that at least ½ of the amount attributed to maintenance MUST be spent per student.

ALL public school systems in the commonwealth receive EXACTLY the same dollar amount for the same category ‘kid’ regardless of if it’s Boston or Westport, Freetown or Dartmouth – each and every ‘Middle school kid’, for example, will be budgeted ( for FY 07 ) $ 5,706 ... EVERY High School kid will be budgeted $ 7,115 and every elementary kid will be assigned $ 6,019. A special need child in district is apportioned $20,822 ... out of district the amount rises to $ 21,750.

There are 14 such categories in all to include Kindergarten, Special Ed in and out of district, ELL [ English Language Learner ] , etc. As you can see, differing numbers of kids in particular grade levels in ‘a’ particular community will produce foundation budgets of differing amounts for differing communities. Special needs can cause wide gyrations.

I just said that EVERYBODY receives the same amount ... well, there is ALWAYS an ‘if’, ‘and’ or a ‘but’ ... Here it is :

On top of this is applied a “Wage Adjustment Factor” that attempts to compensate for the varying costs of labor in specific markets. Where the prevailing wage is significantly above the State average, the above amounts are adjusted upward among those 11 cost categories that are mostly labor . Dartmouth is at 100% ... no adjustment factor. Brockton, for example, is adjusted DOWNWARD to 93.3% of these allocations while Plymouth is adjusted UPWARDS to 102.9%. This might not sound like much, but that extra 2.9% of Plymouths $71 mil foundation budget is about $2 mil... more. [ about $237 / pupil ] The DOE estimates that the cumulative effect of these differences will cause a gyration in excess of $1,000 per student in Per Pupil Expenditures [ PPX ] from one community to the next.


Question: If everyone gets the same amount of money, why do some communities exceed our own PPX by a lot more than the expected $1,000 PP variance ?

That answer lies in the way the “ Required Local Contribution “ to education spending is derived. In determining the actual amount that MUST be spent [ Required Net School Spending ] there are two forces at work ... independent of each other.

It all started with a model school budget fabricated back in, “ .. the early 1990’s “ from a lot of assumptions by a lot of ‘experts’ in an effort to quantify, “... what constitutes an adequate-but not excessive-level of funding. “

Since 1994 this initial $ 19,111,921 budget has just been incremented each year, without regard to actual needs or expenditures, by an inflation factor limited, until recently, to 4.5 % per year. This is the Foundation Budget, we just went over above and in previous writings.

The fact of the matter is that foundation budgets have risen since 2000 by : 1.7% ~ 3.4% ~ 8.6% ~ 7.9% ~ 4.0% ~ 3.0% ~ 4.9% and in 2007 it increased by 5.9%

The second force is the “Required Local Contribution”, which is a calculation based not upon the Foundation budget, but based upon what ‘we’ were required to contribute the year before : [ ( THE PREVIOUS YEAR) x ( 100% + Municipal Revenue Growth Factor ) = Required Local Contribution ].

The Municipal Revenue Growth factor is simply the ratio of revenue growth from FY06 to FY07 .. it is as simple as that. Add the levy limit for FY06 + the General Revenue sharing monies + budgeted recurring local receipts [ $ 41,521,518 ] ... subtract this number from the same ( Est ) computations for FY07 [ accounting for new growth and prop 2.5 ] [ $ 44,146,974 ] = $2,625,456 .... now divide by the first number and voila ! ... “ Municipal Growth Rate “ factor [ MGR ] ... so simple, even a cave man can do it 

(( 41,521,518 – 44,146,974)/41,521,518) = .0632 ... or 6.32%

In the case of Dartmouth, this multiplier is 6.32% for FY 07.
This calculation has no bearing whatsoever on the actual foundation budget or the actual educational spending of Dartmouth or it’s actual needs.

Over the years it has ended up being an arbitrary amount predicated mainly on the assumed ability of the community to PAY. The greater the MRG ... the greater the increase in the “Required Local Contribution”, completely independent of the actual amount required to fund the school systems.

As you might imagine, a fast growing community in terms of overall property values and, by implication, tax collections will earn a high MRG and thus be required to pay an increasingly substantial amount as their “Required Local Contribution”. So much so that it is conceivable that it could, in fact, surpass the amount of the Foundation Budget itself!
This is exactly what happens in some communities, so the State has decided to limit this phenomenon to 150% of the Foundation Budget .

By the way ... “Required Net School Spending “ is the sum of all Chapter 70 monies + the “Required Local Contribution” + any monies the were required to be spent the year before, but were not. In the case of Dartmouth, however, the Foundation Budget is Required Net School Spending. ... at this time.

There is more coming on this subject. I have also been looking at the requirements for library spending. Stay tuned! Click here to read on!

At the Grange tonight at 7PM

I will be speaking and taking questions from those attending tonight at the Dartmouth Grange in Russels Mills Village at 7PM. Two candidates for School committee will also be there to present and answer questions. The Grange is on Fisher Road about 100 yards north of Russels Mills Road on the left hand side.
Hope to see you there! Click here to read on!

School Funding explained

Greg Lynam of the Finance Committee had sent me a primer on school funding some time ago and I thought I would share it with you. It is somewhat complicated but very well laid out in the presentation. The whole thing is lengthy and I will break it up into several posts for the sake of space. Here goes!

Down Quick & Dirty :

The DOE constructs an education budget for ALL the public school children of Dartmouth – regardless if they attend here, or at the Greater New Bedford Vocational Technical High School or the Bristol County Agricultural High School.

This budget is generated by assigning specific and different dollar amounts to each student in each of 14 grade levels or categories, such as Elementary, Middle, High School, Special needs, Vocational, etc. EVERY single city and town in the Commonwealth receives EXACTLY the same amount of money for ‘a’ child in ‘a’ particular category.

The differences between communities local school foundation budgets lies in the dispersion of children among the various categories in the schools ... AND the number of students attending the local schools vs the number of students attending the regional schools. In short, the money goes to school where the student goes to school.

The DOE acknowledges that these differences can cause gyrations in excess of $1K per child in Per Pupil Expenditures [ PPX ] from one community to the next. This is both normal and expected.

Who pays what portion of this “ Foundation Budget “ is determined by a State formula that calculates Dartmouth’s share of the cost based on what we paid the previous year, times a multiplier based on our calculated rate of growth .... this multiplier is called the Municipal Revenue Growth factor. The remaining share is picked up by the State in the form of Chapter 70 monies [educational aid ]

The respective shares of the “Foundation Formula“ are then further sub-divided, on a per pupil basis, to direct the funds to those educational facilities that the students attend, such as the Greater New Bedford Regional Vocational Technical High School, Bristol County Agricultural High School or our own local school system. The States Chapter 70 monies are sent directly to the school district the student attends. Thus, the money goes to school where the student goes to school.

In Dartmouth’s case, the States share is currently 28.78% of the Foundation Budget amount. By contrast, for New Bedford it is 86% of the Foundation amount.

This primer lays out how the foundation budget is determined for each district. Other amounts such as Minimum Net School Spending, the Local Required Contribution, etc. will be covered in subsequent posts. As I said this was sent some time ago and while accurate as to methods, some of the percentages and such may have changed. I have presented it here as a tool for understanding the process rather than the final word on the actual amounts. Click here to read on!

Increased State Aid announced

The state has allocated all of the 4.4% of added revenue to Chapter 70 aid. Dartmouth will receive about a 2% hike, about $200,000. You can read about it in the S-T here.
UPDATE
Mr Lynam of the Finance Committee has pointed out to me that the "increase" in state aid is not an increase. The aid announced is exactly the same as the governors House 2 budget amount from Jan 22. As sometimes occurs when talking about government numbers, things are not always as they seem. One needs to be careful about increases and cuts, increases are often over proposed amounts and cuts are often to requested increases. In both cases, the actual dollar amounts can be in the opposite direction that the wording, increase or cut, seems to indicate. That would seem to be the case here. Click here to read on!

Split, Splat, We were taking a bath!

I had asked frankg who served on the Tax Study committee if he would be willing to write something here about tax classification. He agreed and the following is his report.

Bill T. has asked me if would be interested in posting something on this Blog with regard to the split tax rate. Since I am a firm believer in sharing information, I have taken him up on his offer. Hopefully someone will find this interesting and worthwhile.

The split tax rate is always a topic for interesting discussions. Unfortunately most of the time it becomes an emotional one, not one based on facts. Two years ago when I was a member of the Tax Study Committee, I found there were many meetings with heated discussions because of the emotions involved. I found that the emotional arguments detracted from the fact-finding, and at the end of that committee’s tenure I still had unanswered questions. Since my engineering career was full of research and data analysis, I decided to continue the investigation for my own edification, and in fact enjoyed the many months spent researching the subject. What I found cleared up my 2 major questions, which were, what is it really for, and why do some communities use it and others don’t.

One of first things that some folks bring up is that it punishes business, but it didn’t make any sense to me that the law would have been created for that reason. What I found out is that the legislature created the tax classification law, i.e., the “split”, to be used as a correction factor because of an inherent inequity in the basic tax law.

Let me explain just what the problem is. The methods for valuing residential and business properties are very different. Most people are familiar with how residential values are determined, through “comps” from sales. If you have a 3 bedroom ranch on an acre of land your value gets based on similar home sales. However, business valuations are determined mostly by square footage of the building, the property is a business “tool”. It is called an “income model”. The value is assessed by how much rent that space COULD generate, if it were to be used that way, MINUS the business’s expenses. If the size of the building doesn’t change, the value hardly ever changes, and if it does, it is small amounts, up or down. The land that a business sits on doesn’t even escalate like residential land, because it is the internal building space that drives the equation.

Here is a practical example that is quite realistic for Dartmouth and many other communities. Let’s say that 10 years ago 2 properties were built, one a home and one a business, both worth $150K. Today, that home is worth about $350K while that business is still worth close to $150K. It could be $160K, or it could be $145K, but it is still close to the value at inception. These properties started out paying the same tax bill amount, but today the home pays a tax bill that is 2 1/3 times higher, that is a 233% increase in tax contribution to the town.

Now, here is how that problem plays out. It is important to remember that the total tax levy a town can raise is fixed by law, and the tax rate is a number back calculated from dividing the levy by the total town valuation. As the total valuation goes up, both from new growth and property values, the tax rate goes down as long as the increase in valuation is more than the 2.5% the levy increased. This has been quite common in our town. Well, even though the tax rate went down the residential tax bill goes up because of the valuation increase of that property. Simultaneously, the business tax bill usually goes down because the value didn’t change. Even if the business tax bill rises because of “rental space” value, it is a very small amount, and in no way matches what the resident faces. This is why I always caution that just looking at the tax rate doesn’t tell the entire story, valuations need to be considered as well.

Over time more and more of the tax levy is paid by the residential contribution. This is called “burden shifting”, and is exactly why tax classification, i.e. the split tax was created by the legislature. Please recognize that this is not the fault of the business, it is the system that is the problem. The same basic system is used everywhere in the state. This problem has been going on almost forever, and before the 1978 – 1979 time frame each community had their own way of dealing with the problem, usually by using a percentage of a property’s value to calculate taxes, with the percentage for a business different (higher) than the percentage for a residence.

Since part of the state aid formula is a community’s total valuation, the legislature decreed that everyone had to move to a 100% value model, and allowed the community to adjust the tax rate of the different classes of property to correct for the acknowledged valuation problem. This new system provided a way for everyone to do things the same way, and left it up to the local leaders to choose how much of a split they wanted to use, if any, and when to implement it.

The maximum split was 50%, but over time the legislature recognized that the problem continued to escalate, so for some communities the limit was raised to 75%, and in 2004 100% temporarily. Dartmouth is still bound by the 50% limit. Please note that even at the full 50% that wouldn’t make up for the 233% tax bill increase in the example I used above, but it is certainly better than having no split at all, as is the current 40%.

So, tax classification was not created to punish businesses, it was created to stop or alleviate some of the “punishment” inflicted on residents by not using the split rate choice available. Even at a full 50% split businesses would still be enjoying a break with regard to tax levy contribution. It is important to note that the problem continues to escalate, and be recognized by the legislature. There is legislation pending that would again change the limits to help the resident’s plight.

Ok, hopefully that explains the “why it exists” question, and now that we have been through the nuts and bolts of it, that leaves the “when is it used” part.

Because of the “apples and oranges” nature of the individual valuations, the extent of the problem is purely a function of what the make-up of the total town valuation is. If a community has no businesses they are all “apples” so no problem. If they have just 1 business they technically have the problem but it would be so insignificant that it would not be noticed or measurable. It would be lost in all the big numbers. So the best way to tell when it is appropriate to implement a split is to look at when other communities have “noticed” the problem, and when they reacted to it. In the DOR database it is very clear that 9% business component (CIP%) of the total valuation in a community is the break point.

With the data I worked with, there were 333 communities reporting, and of these, 141 were at or below 9% CIP%. Some use the split rate but most do not. The reason they don’t use it is because they don’t have a noticeable problem. Simply put, they don’t use it because they don’t need it. For those that have played in the statistical world, the total distribution is far from “normal” so one has to be careful about applying simple statistics. This grossly skews things for those that try and do simple averages, usually the opponents of the split rate. The analogy I used at the Tax Classification Hearing was that to include the 9% or below part of the database for comparison to us would be like doing a statistic on a hospital about healthy people.

We have 15.4% CIP this year, and for reference New Bedford had a 15.8% CIP, AND used an 83% split rate. They are one of the communities allowed to go above the 50%, and again, we are not. I am not sure what N.B. is currently using but I am sure it is similar to the data I used, but what is important to note is that our business component is more like a city than a town. Generally speaking, the higher a community’s business component the higher the split they use, to their individual allowable maximum, and this is certainly true of those in our situation. This makes sense because as I have shown, the more business you have the more stagnant valuations you have contributing to the total, so the more burden shifting you have to the residents. A larger correction factor is in order to help restore the tax burden, NOT to punish the businesses.

This is already longer than I had hoped, so let me leave you with these thoughts:

1. A 50% split rate is entirely appropriate for our town.
2. I am glad the majority of the Select Board chose to make the move to 40%, but it was obvious by their comments that it was done for the wrong reasons. It was done to sell overrides, and their reluctance to go the full 50% was emotional, not factual.
3. Remember that when you hear them say things such as “we don’t like to raise anyone’s taxes”, that by their inaction they have passively raised the resident’s tax burden every year by not choosing the split rate. The resident has seen a double hit each year, the normal increase in their own tax contribution, and also an increase to make up for the share of the business tax burden that gets shifted.
4. Even at the 40% split, the tax bill that a business is paying this year is NOT the highest bill they have seen. We have had at least a couple of years where our tax rate has been above $10, with one of those about $11. Because of the similar valuation to what they have now, those would have been their highest years. Last year was the highest tax bill the resident has seen, and it would have been higher yet again this year except for the implementation of the split rate.
5. This year residential values have dropped some, maybe 5% or 7%, while business valuations have risen roughly in that same range. Don’t let anyone tell you that things have normalized, and the split should be removed. Remember the 233% example above.
6. The reason for my pushing for the split rate was not to punish the “big box” stores, or any other business. It was to try and re-shift some, and only some, of the tax burden back to business, and get them to contribute their fair share to the tax levy, at least as much as the law currently allows. The residents have been subsidizing the business tax bill far too long. THAT is what is not fair.

I have posted in the past about the tax levy and tax rate and how they are related. You can find that here if interested Click here to read on!

The ghosts of contracts past

It seems that the personal service contracts that have generated so much heat at Select Board meetings recently will continue to haunt. In an opinion piece in today's Chronicle, Select Board member Diane Gilbert brings them up as tying our hands when trying to deal with the restructuring of town departments. It seems that "this board" has not managed to exorcise the specters of them yet. I'll post a link to the piece when it becomes available on the Chronicle website.
I can't say I understand what the rationale for including job, salary and benefit protection for town managers could be. No private company that I have worked for would include such language in their employment contracts. I think the best way to put this behind us is to just release the minutes and have those involved give an explanation of why they thought it necessary. Click here to read on!

State aid increase

The state legislature has agreed to increase local aid to cities and towns by 4.4%. That is welcome news to Dartmouth and other communities struggling to balance their budgets. You can read the S-T article about the increase in aid here. The distribution of the aid has yet to be announced but if Dartmouth were to receive an additional 4.4%, the amount would help cover the $1.2 million shortfall on the general government side. The override question for $1.5 million includes $300K of new spending.
I am not sure what portion of the aid the 4.4% includes but overall the state contributed about $12 million in Chapter 70 and other aid last year. 4.4% of that would be $528K. Again, I don't have all the details but any added revenue has to be welcome at this point.
UPDATEThis article from WICKED LOCAL Plymouth gives a little more detail on the categories of aid that will see increases Click here to read on!

Citizens and the public forum

There are many citizens of Dartmouth who give of their time and talents to serve the town. The list is lengthy and runs from PTO's, COA, town boards and committees, Town Meeting, select Board, and many others. Some citizens, while not serving as elected or appointed officials, contribute by attending meetings and adding their perspectives, asking questions, and giving advice. The citizens of this town are her greatest resource! In any government or organization, there are bound to be disagreements and differences of opinion. That is to be expected.
What I find disturbing right now in our town is the lack of civil discourse that occurs when these differences crop up. While I may disagree on an issue with Ellen, Barry, Liz, Nat, Henry, or Phil, I don't think they are bad people. I just disagree on a certain issue. There are some other issues that may come up on which we then might agree. And I am sure that I should I meet any of them at the beach or school event or other function, we'd all have a nice time together. I suggest that when thinking about these differences, both sides keep in mind that those on the other side are just like them. They love their children and families, go to work, school and church, play, suffer personal tragedies and triumphs. They don't hate you, wish you ill, or want to hurt you in any way. They have a different opinion, that's all.
Those others, as citizens, have the same right as you do to advance their arguments in the public forum, in newspaper opinions, public meetings, and even the blogosphere. The public is well able to discern what they will take or leave from the arguments of both sides. So inform them, convince them, make the best argument that you can. The people will see through demagoguery, deception or dishonesty and chose what is best for them. In our democratic system, everyone gets a say but the electorate decides. Click here to read on!

At the Vee March 12 at 7PM

If you want a chance to meet and question me, I will be at the VFW on Cross Road tomorrow night at 7PM. The VFW has opened their doors to the public for this meeting. I will being making a statement and taking questions from those in attendance. Click here to read on!

Going forward

I have posted previously here about a plan for an override question that I feel has merit. I would have framed an override question as one amount for the town (roughly $3.5 million) which would be sufficient to hold the town at level services and Minimum Net School Spending for a period of years. In any case, the override questions are on the same ballot as my name for Select Board. If I am elected, the override questions will have been decided and I will be operating the funding available as a result. It seems to me that the override campaigns have been long on scare tactics and short on the specifics that voters need to accurately assess the requests. I think when asking the taxpayer for more money, the town needs to clearly lay out what will be gained and what will be lost. In their report last July, the state DOR recommended a plan having 7 core elements to accomplish that. I have posted my thoughts about that plan here.
Regardless of the outcome of the override questions, the town is going to have to change the way that we do business. In order to do that, all the stakeholders in the town are going to have to make compromises. Town and school employees, town and school administrators, boards and commissions, Town Meeting, and citizens are going to need to work together to determine the future fiscal course of the town. I advocate a hard headed dollars and cents approach to this task. We need to stop clouding fiscal issues with emotional appeals and start dealing with the real issues. I have posted here as to what I think those issues are, but basically we cannot sustain our current spending from the tax levy because the rate of spending is out pacing the rate of growth of revenue. Pointing to the needs of the schools, COA, library or police department will not provide us answers on what must be done. We need to direct the town and school administrators to prepare budgets that reduce the rate of growth of costs to a specific target. That target being one which will get us to a sustainable fiscal position in a few years. The department heads need to be given specific budget targets for their operations. It is this kind of plan that businesses use when faced with a financial crisis. Click here to read on!

Will you help?

I have yard signs, bumper stickers and flyers for my Select Board candidacy available to anyone who would like one. Send me an email at pokanoketlax@hotmail.com if you would like any campaign materials. Thanks for reading here and adding to the discussion regardless of whether or not you support my run. Click here to read on!

Didn't make it

Yesterday, I posted that I would be returning to Town Hall today. Due to demands at my work on Friday, I could not get over there today. I'll try to get there Monday.

I have had a couple of comments about posting anonymously and wondering if they would be allowed to comment.
I allow anyone to post here, anonymously, under a pseudonym, or your name. I do not have access to any information about you other than what you see when you click on your name or pseudonym in a comment. None about anonymous posters.
I do not pre-screen the comments on this blog. When you type it and hit publish, it appears on the blog. I also get an email saying that you have posted a comment and the text. If the comment has any content that is remotely informative and is relatively civil in tone, it stays. If it is just mean spirited and personal, I delete it. Since starting this blog, I have removed a total of 3 comments. I believe that open discussion is the lifeblood of the democratic process. I think that presented with a wide range of opinion, most people can discern the side of the argument they favor and why they think that.
Many who contribute here have helped to move the arguments forward on both sides. Thanks for that and let's keep up the discussion. Click here to read on!

Who am I? Why am I running for Select Board?

Unless your son or daughter has played lacrosse in Dartmouth in the last few years, you probably have no idea who I am and you probably question my sanity for running for Select Board. Since I am not well known and quite sane, you may want a chance to assess me in person. There will be several opportunities in the next few weeks before the April 1st election to meet and question me if you would like.

On Wednesday , March 12th, I will be at the VFW on Cross Road at 7PM. The meeting is normally for members only, but they are opening this one up to the public.

On Saturday, March 15th, I will be at Candidate's Night at the Dartmouth Grange at 7PM

On Thursday, March 27th, I will be at Candidate's Night at the Town Hall, time to be determined
If you would like to host a few friends and neighbors and have me over for a cup of coffee and a chat, email me at pokanoketlax@hotmail.com and we can set up a time and date.
If none of those dates suit you and you are still curious, read here , watch me on You Tube here or just browse around the posts and comments here. I comment as BillT Click here to read on!

At the town hall

I had to visit the Town Clerk today to pick up a form. Since I was unable to attend the working session meeting of the Select Board on Monday, I thought as long as I was in town hall I'd go up to the Select Board office and get a copy of the minutes of the meeting. When I asked the clerk at the desk for the minutes, she said I could not have them because they had not been approved. I said they are public records and I had read the Public Records brochure from the Attorney General which states they don't have to be approved to be released. She said she didn't think they could be released but would check with Mike Gagne. She went to another office and returned. She said Mike said not only would they not give me the minutes but that I would have to file a written request to get them. I said OK, I will file a written request and I left the office. Now let me point out that I asked for the minutes of an open public meeting, not an executive session. I could have attended the meeting and heard everything that was said, but now I am told I can't have the minutes. Does that make sense to you?
The Attorney General's brochure on public meetings (link here) says,

When must minutes of an open meeting be made available to the public?
Minutes of open meetings, regardless of form, are public and must be made available at the close of the meeting.
There is no requirement that the minutes be transcribed or approved before they are made public. A records custodian should clearly mark all such minutes “unofficial.” Minutes of prior open meetings, regardless of form, should be reviewed and accepted promptly. Copies of the minutes of all open meetings should be readily available. Records custodians are strongly encouraged to waive all fees associated with the minutes of open meetings.

As to the need for the request to be in writing it says,

Must my request be in writing and do I need to use a specific form?
A written request is not required but it is recommended. An oral request, made in person (not by telephone), is valid under the Public Records Law. To appeal the records custodian’s response, however, a request must be in writing.

I will return to the office tomorrow, armed with the brochure from the Attorney General, and I will ask for the minutes. If I don't get them, the Attorney General and District Attorney will be hearing from me about this clear violation of the Public Records Act. But why would I be forced to jump through these hoops? It seem to me that this is just a tactic to intimidate those with less resolve or knowledge than I have from finding out what their government is doing. Come on, this was an open public meeting and a member of the public asked what went on, why not just tell them. This sort of behavior on the part of our town employees is what leads to suspicion and mistrust. I am sure that nothing of particular controversy occurred at the meeting. What could be the big deal about providing the minutes? Click here to read on!

Hey, I'm on You Tube

The Dartmouth Public Library has posted online interviews that they taped with me and Ms Horan Mclean here
I'm not sure if it was my bandwidth or that of the library but when I watched the video was pretty choppy and kept pausing.
Those of you who have been reading here will find that I am much more comfortable with the written word than in front of a video camera. Watching myself struggle for the right word on camera had me cringing. Oh, well. All in all, I think it is a pretty fair representation of my views although not particularly cogent and concise. See for yourself Click here to read on!

The long and winding road

The op ed letter in today's Standard Times from Mr Araujo was pretty typical of the sentiments I have heard in support of this year's override questions. While it is long on scorn for those who oppose the override questions, I find it short on sensible plans for returning Dartmouth to fiscal health.
I have posted about what I believe the problem is here. In a nutshell, our spending is growing faster than our revenue can grow. An override can raise the rate of growth of revenue for one year and then it is back to the same rate at a higher dollar amount. I have yet to see an argument from those who support an override that addresses this underlying problem. Even if some or all of the override questions pass this year, Dartmouth is going to have to aggressively cut costs all across the board. I don't know anyone who has looked at the numbers who disagrees with that contention. The Finance Committee estimates that the shortfall in budgets over the next five years is around $18 million dollars if all the departments remain at level services and the schools are kept at minimum net school spending(MNSS). I think that the proposed override questions add expense on top of those expenses which we could not sustain before. In a previous post, I have advocated the approach here that we maintain level services and MNSS until we can sort out how to proceed. By some estimates that would require a $3.5 million override. Whether that option will get a trial is still up in the air pending the April override question results and my own candidacy for Select Board. Whatever the outcome of the override questions, I am sure that most citizens will put their shoulder to the wheel and help to get us back on track. Many on both sides of the questions are doing that now even though they disagree. My point is that on April 2nd, come what may, we will still have lots of work to do. There are good people on both sides and plenty of common ground to find a basis for community action after the vote. Let's lower the rhetorical heat a bit. Click here to read on!

Pulling together

I have great confidence that Dartmouth can overcome it's current fiscal crisis. One of the main reasons for my optimism is the commitment that I see in many townspeople to help come up with solutions. There are people from all walks of life that are pulling together to lend their talents to help the town. Volunteers on the Finance Committee, Library Board, Council on Aging, Select Board, budget task force, privatization committee and many others are working tirelessly to come up with ideas for resolving this crisis. Another group working to help are our town employees. It is absolutely essential that every one of our public employees, regardless of department, do everything possible to help the town recover. One item that has been repeatedly mentioned is the need to amend contract terms with represented employees. One example of an opportunity to save money is going to biweekly payroll. Perhaps the town can approach the bargaining units and see if they would be willing to renegotiate the payroll issue now, prior to the end of the contract. Some may do so and we can reap some savings sooner. I don't see a down side to asking. The worst that can happen is that the bargaining units will decline and we will have to wait until the contract is up. Click here to read on!

Grass roots campaign

As frequent readers here may know, I am a candidate for Select Board in Dartmouth in the April 1 election. I have not been a public figure in town prior to running and many people of the town don't have any idea who I am or why I am running. I don't have much money to advertise my candidacy and while I have been trying to get out and go door to door, I find that progresses very slowly. So I am asking you, the readers and commenters here, to write letters to the editor to the Standard Times and Chronicle. If you think my ideas have merit and would serve the town well, then I would appreciate a letter of support. If not, then write a letter in opposition. Basically I need to get discussion going in the town on my candidacy and I am asking for your help.
A couple of items in this vein, I will be speaking and taking questions at the Dartmouth VFW on Cross Road on Wednesday, March 12th at 7PM. The VFW has opened the meeting up for the public to attend. If you would like to meet and question me, please attend. If you would like a flyer about my views or a bumper sticker to support my election, email me at pokanoketlax@hotmail.com and I'll send it along. If you would like to contribute to my campaign, money or time, email me as well. Thanks for your consideration and for reading or commenting here. Click here to read on!