At last Thursday's Finance Committee meeting, there was a discussion of the FY2011 town budget. The preliminary budget shows a shortfall or deficit of about $217,000.
This budget level funds almost every town department at FY2010 levels. Some departments have budget cuts below the FY2010 level. Proposed funding for Elderly Nutrition is cut to zero from about $14,000, the Budget and Finance office is cut about $20,000, the Police Department is cut $67,0000, the Department of Public Works is cut $53,000, the Town Clerk office is cut $17,000, the Select Board office is cut $4,000, the Reserve Fund is reduced by $35,000, the police medical (Officer Mello) funding is cut $50,000 based on several prior years expenditures, the funding to eliminate school bus fees is reduced to zero from $91,000, and the communications budget is cut by $15,000.
Mandated spending proposed for the ambulance contract, health insurance, pensions, and the school department will rise by about $960,000 combined.
Proposed non-mandated spending increases are for the Library (about $50,000), Town Counsel (about $8,000) and the Budget and Finance tax title account ($25,000).
The added Library funding proposal is below the amount that would allow our library to maintain state certification without a waiver. The tax title increase is to continue aggressively seek delinquent taxes on properties.
The Select Board, Finance Committee and School Committee have pledged to make full day kindergarten (FDK) a top priority. To that end, the proposed town budget sets aside $230,000 from the meals tax receipts toward the cost of the FDK program. The cost of the program for the first year will be borne entirely by the school department and town since the foundation budget calculation uses the student population from the year before. The method of calculating foundation enrollment can be seen here. For FY2011, the foundation budget calculation will include the half day student population for FY2010 and not until 2012 will the FY2011 full day students be included in the foundation budget. The school department has estimated the additional cost for FDK for FY2011 to be nearly $600,000. A proposal to fund that amount includes the $230,000 plus an additional $100,000, $148,000 from the kindergarten revolving account, and about $121,000 from school department turnbacks. The difficulty is identifying where the extra $100,000 will come from, given that the proposed budget is already $217,000 in the red. Some have suggested that the remaining funds from the meals tax could be used. Unfortunately, that revenue has already been allocated to the school department through the Municipal Revenue Growth Factor (MRGF) calculation (MS Excel format) used by the state Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) to determine the town's required contribution to school funding. While the money was allocated to the schools,...
... it does not increase their total funding but rather has offset and reduced the state's contribution via Chapter 70 school aid. The MRGF number comes from the state Department of Revenue (DOR) and the calculation can be seen here in MS Excel format. That is really getting into the weeds of school finance but the short version is that all the revenue increase from the meals tax has been allocated to the school department when the $230,000 from the proposed budget is added in. Which still leaves us $217.000 short on the total budget and $100,000 short of the funding for FDK. Now I think that we can squeeze enough out of the budget here or there to cover the projected deficit and to provide something more than the $230,000 to the school department for FDK. How much more, I cannot say right now but $30,000 to 50,000 seems attainable. That means the school department would need to raise their contribution by $50,000 to $70,000 to make the financing work. Timing is a problem in making this commitment. If the school department is going to hire teachers and staff and get ready to register children for FDK next year, they need to start right now. But we don't know right now what the funding sources will be or if the Town Meeting will approve them. So the school department is going to have to go ahead as if the funding was settled and hope that it falls into place. Not an ideal situation. Nonetheless, I think we can fund the first year with a combination of town and school commitment.
The following years are where I see real trouble. The funding model that was presented calls for the town to provide the $230,000 from the meals/hotel tax and an additional $200,000 above that in FY2012. The $148,000 from the kindergarten revolving account will have been spent to support the first year, so it goes away. Due to the increased enrollment, some of the required school spending for the town will shift from the regional Voke assessment to the local district, about $47,000. Theoretically, Chapter 70 state aid will kick in at the FY2011 FDK enrollment number to support the foundation budget at somewhere between 17.5 to 22.5% and the town would be responsible for the remainder of the increased foundation except that the foundation budget was reduced by about 3% this year by fiat from the state and our total spending is above the foundation by some $2.5 million dollars. That means the state will not increase their Chapter 70 funding to help pay for FDK in FY2012. The program costs are forecast to increase by about 5% or $30,000. Therefore, the total needed for FDK is $630,000. I think that town may be able to increase funding somewhat but to reach $430,000 is unlikely in my opinion. I can realistically see $300,000 to 320,000. That means the school department contribution would have to rise another $90,00 to 110,000 to cover the FDK costs.
There are two sides to a budget, expense, which I have talked about, and revenue which I will now consider. I think that new growth on the tax levy side is going recover very slowly since the nexus of the financial downturn was in large part due to a collapse of real estate markets. State local aid may rebound somewhat by FY2012, but some of those funds are automatically apportioned to the school budget through the MRGF calculation. In addition, the contracts for town and school employees that are currently under negotiation are likely to include some adjustment of wages which will increase the town's expenditures. Eventually, growth in the foundation budget will overtake our spending above foundation and Chapter 70 will bear some of the costs. The caveat there is that our school population is falling (precipitously, it appears from the FDK student numbers). That decrease in student population would reduce the Chapter 70 contribution. Within the next few years, new growth will recover and provide increased revenue as well. As I see it, revenue is unlikely to grow enough to cover the cost of FDK in FY 2012 and for some time after.
The dilemma looking at the total town budget for FY2012 and beyond is that the increases in school department funding are mandatory once the student population has increased. There is no way for the town to cut back that expenditure. Which leaves only two options if the FY2012 budget has a serious deficit, cut spending in town departments, other than the school department, or ask the voters for an override. Town departments have been level funded or cut for several years now. There is not a lot to be wrung out of these departments. Consolidation, regionalization and privatization may lead to some savings but it would be a stretch to realize that in FY2012. Savings and revenue from wind turbines could provide relief but it looks like lawsuits will hold that up for years.
Which brings me to my final point in this very long post. I think it is fair to ask the voters for a modest override to fund full day kindergarten. I think an override amount of $200,000 to $250,000 would do the trick. If my scenario turned out to be overly pessimistic and the money isn't needed for FDK, it could be applied to reducing Pay as You Throw fees or some other direct benefit to the taxpayer.
What is being proposed with FDK is a major new program during a time of very tight budgets. The Select Board, the Finance Committee, and the School Committee are squarely behind the full day program but what is lacking is a funding source. Some believe that the townspeople will not support an override for this program. I disagree with that. I think that taking a case to the voters that early education is an important program which will benefit our town and children is a pretty easy sell. I am willing to make that argument to the voters. Some think we should fund the first year and then ask for an override to sustain town departments in some following year. Again, the rationale seems to be that the voters would not provide the funds to support the full day program. It has been suggested that the override request might be for ambulance services or some other expenditure. I think that approach is being less than forthcoming with the town. If we start a major new program which requires shifting resources to the school department, we should acknowledge that is what is being done.
What do you think? Tell us in comments.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Full Day Kindergarten and budget priorities
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
33 comments:
Bill, thanks for the update. This is much worse than I had thought. I was unaware that the town side had taken so many budget reductions and now it would appear they will be asked to do so again. This is typical of school politics. Implement a program all the while knowing that the funds will not be there in the future to cover it and the hell with the taxpayers.
I agree the schools should put their cards on the table instead of trying to pull one over on the taxpayers again. They are well aware that once the program is started, there is no going back. I think it is highly irresponsible to commit to this on the premise that we can probably, maybe fund it this year. If it is going to be this difficult coming up with the money this year, what happens next year when we have to come up with even more money since the $148,000 will be gone for good?
The taxpayers are the ones who will suffer for this. They are being left out of the process. What it comes down to is forcing an override on them. FDK will be implemented and next year we will have to fund it no matter what. We will get the song & dance about losing more services and paying more fees because there will be no money for the rest of the town to function.
The schools should be able to squeeze $200-250k out of their budget and there should be no need for an override!!! NO OVERRIDES!!!
I support full day kindergarten, but not an override for it.
To be clear, in most of the circumstance where Bill mentions cuts in department budgets, these budget cuts were requested by the departments themselves, for various reasons. For example, both the DPW and the Police requested less money next year due to turnover in personnel.
First of all, let me state that I support starting a full day kindergarten program. Second, I do not think that anyone is trying to hide anything from anyone. The budget and FDK discussions were held at a public meeting with the town leaders and all the town department heads in attendance. The town and school department did not invent the state funding formula. It is a system which municipal governments must live with, just like mandated funding for Veteran's Agents or library certification. I don't think that the school funding formulas are particularly bad or wrong headed. They generally do what they set out to do which is to ensure that schools are adequately funded. I am not complaining about school funding. I am simply pointing out that all town departments are struggling with funding and that taking on a new initiative at this time is very challenging. The logical result may require cuts to current programs or an override. I would prefer to ask for a modest override rather than cut from police, public works, libraries, the COA, or other departments and I would let the voters decide in advance which they would prefer, budgets cuts or a small tax hike to fund an important educational program.
Bill, Why can't we request a small thoughtful override to get the FDK investment off the ground? This is a great town-wide investment! 80% of Commonwealth communities have FDK. Everyone complains about taxes and needing new revenue. Everyone complains about the scores. FDK is going to be mandated by the state soon enough. Kudo's to Dartmouth for being ahead of this and proactively planning. When I look at towns that have FDK, many of them are the highest taxed towns and cities. We have a chance as one of the lowest taxed based communities to make a small investment as a town, which will benefit all! Least of which are the # 1 resource in our town, the children. Under investment is often worse than over-spending. The educational gains a child makes when they’re very little are very critical to the trajectory of their (education) for the future. If you want to be perfectly crude about it, these kids are going to be making the town money once FDK is off the ground. We get 1/2 the amount per student from the State now for 1/2 day K. The teachers are teaching (2) 1/2 day sections now, so what's the difference? None in their pay so why not get more per kid. And we know the longer we have them during the day, the better the MCAS scores will be. Sounds like a no-brainer to me. And lastly our town becomes and even more desirable place to live by offering this service which results in higher home values.
The schools have a bigger budget then the general town government yet they can't find any money in their budget. We should fire the school committee.
i will never vote for an override for FDK. The funding for the elderly nutrition is being cut to 0 from $14,000. How will this affect the elderly? Does this apply to meals on wheels and the daily lunches at the COA? In two years we will be back to where we were two years ago. Bring on a new form of government fast.
NO OVERRIDES.
Let's start a no override Tea Party in Dartmouth.
What about reinstating transportation fees or charging the initial activity fee before it was so generously cut in half when it was believed we had the money to do so and people wanted to be magnanimous and be big heroes in the eyes of the community, especially the parents?
Mr. Jones and Ms. Moniz were absolutely right on not voting to halve the activity fees in this school year. Now we are being begged for more money from the school. When it had money, it just couldn't wait to give it back.
Is this responsible? Most people have the brains to save money on the off chance there will be an emergency or time that it will be needed. Not our glorious School Committee, though. And they even managed to convince FinCom and the Select Board to go along with them. We all should have their powers of persuasion.
First, the schools have a history of fuzzy math so please don't try to make it look like I am out of line for saying so. Second, do you really believe that the public is fully aware of what is being done and how it will be done? FinCom meetings are not televised so all the hashing out that you are referring to is never made public except for those who are in the loop. Please don't give me the line that the public should attend the meetings if they want to be informed. When it is made public, I hope it is fully explained that if we can manage to scrape by this year, there will be no funding for this in the future. If there is truly a desire for transparency the public should also be told that there will have to be more services eliminated, more fees or an override to cover FDK. Third, it seems to me from her post that Shannon Jenkins is implying that cuts made from various departments were not mandated due to budget shortfalls but rather because the money was not needed. However we still seem to have a budget shortfall. With all the cuts that have been made and added fees, we are still coming up short. How can we possibly be thinking about adding another service???
To Anon 4:02
You said : This is typical of school politics. Implement a program all the while knowing that the funds will not be there ....the hell with the taxpayers.
Let us be clear. 'They' are not trying to pull anything on anyone. In each of the past several years the Fin Com has asked the schools what their most pressing need is that will result in the greatest improvement in educational quality for your children. It was the replacement of the outdated elementary reading series one year, it was the upgrading of outdated and inoperable computers the next, etc. We then recommended to Town Meeting the funding of these needs .. and it was done. These were paid for by one-time fall revenues. This year when the question as asked the answer was that FDK was that element that would give our kids the greatest boost in educational value for the money spent.
Unlike the one-time expenses above, the start of such a program is a recurring yearly expense. Because of this the School Committee was specifically asked, by me in fact, to formally vote to affirm that this was their top priority for spending of limited education dollars. That is exactly what they did .. no more and no less.
This was important in ascertaining their seriousness in committing to making the budget adjustments on their end to help fund this program should the Select Board determine it to be a priority goal for the town to achieve. All the more important because the General Government would have to trim as well.
Believe it or not there is an order of events in government although we don't often follow it. After all we are new at this, having been a town only since 1664 :) In the past there has been no direction, no vision, no goals to aspire to. We spent money on the fad of the moment hoping to get by 'this year' with no direction or purpose. That is not how it is suppose to work and we are trying to change it.
Elected boards only have but one duty to perform - that is to make policy and set goals in the furtherance of their departments mission. The Park department sets and votes on its goals, as does the Library as do the Schools. The Select Board evaluates those goals in light of Town wide needs and sets its goals accordingly. The Executive Administrator then puts together a budget recommendation designed to further those goals and the Fin Com reviews and adjusts the budget recommendation to insure it is fiscally responsible. Those recommendations go to Town Meeting for a vote.
Before all that can happen the Select Board needs to know what the needs are of the various departments. In this case it is the School Committees responsibility to make those needs known .. and that is exactly what they did.... nothing more, nothing less.
The ball is now in the Select Boards court ... that is why once upon a time they got the big bucks :)
Greg Lynam
Fin Com
Bill, I prefer budget cuts to tax hikes. Conservation agent could easily be cut. Westport gets the job done with a part timer. Their town is very similar to ours when it comes to land area and wetlands issues. There's thirty grand for you towards FDK.
Bill,
I found another $375.00 for FDK. The conservation agent gets $475 for a clothing allowance. Give him $100 for a pair of knee high rubber boots and use the rest for FDK.
Full disclosure is needed. Let the taxpayers know exactly what this program will mean. No sugar coating and no leaving out all the details. 1. It should be fully explained that we are not sure where the funding will come from this year. 2. We are not going to have the money for this next year or if it is believed we will, then a full financial plan showing where the money will come from for this plan in the future. 3. Once it has been implemented, the town will then be obligated to fully fund this new expense in the future.
I believe the whole community, taxpayers and town hall, have worked very hard and made sacrifices to bring our expenses in line. Residents are finally feeling at ease with Dartmouth's management. How do you think they will feel when they are told next year that we will once again be short a few hundred thousand?
I can guarantee you that there will once again be mistrust and total frustration when they find out we will either need another override, more reduced service or more fees. As Ms. Stone and others have pointed out many times, we are already at the bare bones as far as cutting. So will the various boards and town leaders be comfortable with telling the residents that we need an override after the fact? Will they be comfortable telling the residents that they knew the funding would not be there but they went ahead with the program anyway? Will they be comfortable telling the residents that fees will be increased or new fees will be implemented? If you don't believe these things will happen, then please show me where the money is going to come from to cover this expense in the future. I realize that the schools cannot give a precise funding plan but they should at least have a plan which would cover most of the costs on a yearly basis. You do not add an expense that only has a one year funding plan which is shaky at best.
I would suggest to those involved that if want to maintain any of the trust that has been won back, you will make every effort to FULLY DISCLOSE all the details of FDK. School forums and meetings that are not televised will not cut it. The majority of residents know nothing about this or about the lack of funding for it.
I found it very interesting that at last night's SB meeting, there was much discussion about how to word a ballot question. To those watching it appeared that Ms. Stone and Mr. Sharek (he was not present but Ms. Stone seemed to be speaking for him) were concerned about phrasing the question in such a way to get a particular response. Her claim was that most people would vote "yes" to the question and that was obviously not the response she was looking for. Now trying to phrase a question in order to get the desired response in an election is an ethics issue but it is a whole other topic that I will not go into now. It is, however, relevant to my point. If you were to ask residents if they would approve of FDK, most would of course say "yes". However, ask them if they would approve of FDK if it meant more cuts in service, more fees or an override? I think the answer would be quite different. How something is presented can make all the difference. Various town officials can go on TV and tell the public the information that will get the desired response or non-response. However, if all the information and possible scenarios are not disclosed, eventually the chickens will come home to roost when the taxpayers realize it was all a dog and pony show and now it's time to pay up.
March 1, 9:45, who's going to be the decision maker in determining what is a "thoughtful" override amount? Maybe a taxpayer (not associated with any town board, committee, department, etc.) ought to be seated on the panel that will make this determination.
Maybe then the officials could get an in-the-trenches viewpoint from someone who is struggling with his or her own budgetary problems on a daily basis and would learn precisely what problems these people face.
I'm sure you would hear different needs from our elderly than you would from parents. You might hear different needs and concerns from those unemployed because of layoffs the result of our economy. And even those newly graduated from college, perhaps even seeking jobs after spending how many thousands of dollars on a degree that they are wondering if they will ever get to use, especially if they have student loans to pay off.
Maybe adding an extra one or two "ordinary people" to the mix might provide some perspective on what people feel they can reasonably afford to pay for an override.
Consideration for our schools and our children is definitely a priority. But sometimes, to hear the discussions about where and how the additional money for the schools MUST be found is discouraging. Most people do not center their lives around the schools and have financial priorities equal to or greater than where money is coming from for FDK, believe it or not. It is equally as important to them how they are going to pay for their own financial obligations.
Bill, there shouldn't be any problem in identifying the individual who “suggested that the override request might be for ambulance services or some other expenditure.” We have a right to know what directions our officials, especially those whom we elect to represent us, are thinking in or considering when they are in charge of our taxpayer money. We have a right to know their names.
It's unfortunate there were no representatives from the press or no televised coverage at that meeting. If any meeting should have had coverage, this was it. I think it would have given many people pause and perhaps even surprised some, or at least given them a change of perspective after listening to the discussion that evening.
The individual you will not name is Lara Stone. The discussion that evening was obtaining funding for full-day kindergarten (FDK.)
It sounded like most attending were in agreement that an override from the public was not something to be counted on, especially if the money were to be used for the school. Past overrides for the school, both large and small in amount, have failed. Even Ms. Stone, a major player and proponent in the failed proposed $8.5 million override for the school and the smaller failed overrides following, admitted that at this time the school or town wouldn't get any override money from the taxpayers.
So it was rather startling when she next stated that “you can sell anybody anything” and then proceeded to tell everyone how that is done. (I may be paraphrasing here. She may have used the word “anyone” or words, “the public,” but you get the gist, don't you? I will use the word “anybody.” )
As I understood it, from Ms. Stone's explanation, the trick is not to immediately mention the reason for the override (or possibly not at all, if I read your post correctly) in this instance, funding for FDK.
The trick would be to first ask residents what service(s) they value and then state that there might not be money to fund this service and it would have to be cut. Apparently (again, as I see it) the theory is to build enough concern among residents that they may lose the service(s) they want or need and thus after word is spread throughout Town and people are panicking, momentum is gained for an override request to be made and placed on the ballot, with the expectation that residents, alarmed at the potential of losing their services, will vote “yes” for that override.
From her explanation, I concluded that Ms. Stone would be using psychology to target people's fears and imply the worst, thereby attaining her goal. Residents would vote “yes” to an override because the fear of losing their service would be uppermost in their minds overshadowing the fact that the money would really be going to the school, that is, if according to you, Bill, they even knew that fact to begin with. Perhaps that is precisely the reaction that would be counted on.
Thus, with an override voted in, the Town would now be able to give the school the money it asked asked for and that, presumably, the Select Board wanted it to have and would be willing to cut the Town budget still further to obtain it, or it would not have okayed an override question to even be placed on the ballot.
With voter acceptance of the override, residents would keep their services, but at the cost of increased taxes that remain on their tax bill forever. (I wonder if they would even remember THAT fact in their concern to save services?)
And, I would assume, if the Town rejected the override, funding for the residents' service(s) that were initially line-itemed would indeed be cut, and that money given to the school for FDK. Either way, as I see it, the school would benefit.
That, I believe, is what Ms. Stone meant by her statement that one can “sell anything to anybody.”
Bill Trimble: “If we start a major new program which requires shifting resources to the school department, we should acknowledge that is what is being done.”
Here is where it gets a little unclear for me. I wanted to assume that Ms. Stone's technique would nonetheless require that residents be informed beforehand that the override they would vote on would be, essentially, money over and above money for the service(s) they valued that was already line-item funded in the budget. I would have assumed they would understand that money was wanted for FDK and that if it were not realized through an override, residents might indeed lose the funding for their services that had ALL ALONG BEEN BUDGETED.
Your statement above leads me to believe that you did not interpret Ms. Stone's explanation in the same manner as I did. You seem to have understood that any override question put to the public would address money for services, with no mention of funding for FDK. Essentially voters possibly might not know or understand that the override they planned on voting “yes” for was actually additional money requested for the school, and that, if the school had not asked for FDK funding from the Town, there WOULD BE NO OVERRIDE REQUEST.
I wanted to give Ms. Stone the benefit of the doubt and believe the former interpretation. Your statement now leads me to understand quite the opposite: there was no intention under Ms. Stone's technique for full disclosure of where the override money was to go.
Bill Trimble: “I think that approach is being less than forthcoming with the town.”
Bill, you put it too kindly. I would call it deceit.
Deceit. Manipulation. Bait and switch. Playing head games with Dartmouth's residents. Preying on their fear. Reverse psychology for less-than-honorable intent. Take your choice; it's all far from being honest with the public. It's all dishonestly treating the public Ms. Stone is supposed to serve.
Didn't Ms. Stone tout her “soft skills” and her ability to work with people when she campaigned for a seat on the Select Board? Is this the way she would use these “skills” to get what she wants?
Now, how's that for transparency? Is that any way to regain the residents' trust in their Select Board? Remember the mantra, “transparency, responsibility, accountability” that the Select Board promised that we could expect from them?
Ms. Stone just blew it.
Thanks, Bill, for opening the door for this post. Ms. Stone's remark about “sell(ing) anything to anybody)” and her explanation on the technique to do so has bothered me, but I didn't know quite how to approach it. Your post provided me with the means to do so. As I mentioned, I wanted to give Ms. Stone the benefit of the doubt. I was actually starting to believe that Ms. Stone would, indeed, work for the benefit of the entire town and then she reveals her how-to-get-an-override technique by fooling the public. It's like a slap in the face to discover how devious a means might be utilized to gain a “yes” vote for an override.
I wonder if others, had they attended the meeting, would have been as surprised - - appalled is a better word - - as I was to hear Ms. Stone telling the Board and Committee members precisely how to dupe (without using this word, of course, but isn't that what it amounts to) the public and get what you want by doing so.
We've been treated shabbily by Select Board members, town leaders, and others in Town Hall in the past. (Remember the contracts-for-life? What did some people call them - - backdoor deals? Is this technique anything similar to that, do you think?) I sincerely hope we are not being taken again. I hope Dartmouth residents don't have you-know-what written across their foreheads. This time we know better because we know the approach to conning us into an override.
I am taking a deep breath before sending this. If it were not nagging at me quite so much, I might have just ignored what I heard Ms. Stone explain. The only problem with that is, should the technique ever be used, it would be too late and certainly too difficult a task to let the public know just what is happening to them.
I don't try to characterize what others are thinking. It is almost invariably wrong. So while you want to attribute all kinds of nefarious intent to Ms. Stone, I think that is misplaced. Her statement was made in an open meeting with dozens of people in attendance. Hardly the place to hatch a conspiracy and I don't think that was the intent.
I am concerned that the FDK program will result in a shortfall in our budget over the next few years. My post was to raise that concern and to point out that I believe the funding of FDK will require either cuts or override.
I have a short list of cuts that would provide the funding. I doubt that the School Committee would support several of the items on that list. So while the School Committee has set a priority to fund FDK, they would strenuously object if I proposed funding cuts from school crossing guards ($70,000) or Youth Advocate ($70,000). I do not select these budget items in order to raise alarm or generate controversy. Both of those funding sources were identified as a low priority, slated for cuts in previous years, and then restored. Both items remain a low priority in my opinion as they are services that are not provided by most other towns. Therefore, I would ask the School Committee to endorse spending cuts as identified by the Select Board and others as needed to pay for the FDK program. I am not sure they are prepared to do so.
Once again, I will state that I support the effort to have FDK in Dartmouth. I will make every effort to get the program funded. That said, I also want people to understand what the consequences of funding the FDK program are going to be. I believe that most residents will support the program and are willing to have fewer services or a small tax increase as a result. The question in this case is which is the better way, reduced services or a small override? If it is reduced services which should be targeted?
I suppose I also misinterpreted Lara Stone's obvious attempt to manipulate the outcome of a non-binding ballot question at last night's meeting. You seem to think that because she does so at open meetings, she can't really have unethical methods or intentions. Did you ever stop to think that she is so intent on getting what she wants, that she doesn't even realize it is unethical???
Thank you Ms. Days for being the eyes and ears of the residents. Bill, here is my question. You attended the meeting. Is what Ms. Days said about Lara Stone's suggested method for getting an override passed a total fabrication? I am not asking what her intent was. I am asking if that was what she said. If yes, then I would have to interpret it as trying to deceive or at the very least manipulate the voters.
Are we back to where we started when we couldn't trust our town officials to be open and honest? Was anyone at that meeting aghast at the very thought of such tactics??? I thought these kind of shenanigans were behind us.
With all due respect Mr. Lynam, I believe trying to get an override passed for FDK by telling the voters it is for some other service they feel they "need", IS trying to pull something.
I agree with anonymous about the conservation agent. Thirty thousand dollars would be a big help towards FDK. If we can come up with a few more good ideas like that, it would be easy to make up the difference to fund FDK and more.
Town Meeting is NUTS ! Here's a case to get rid of this form. Uneducated people on the issues form an opinion as they receive their packet or walk through the door minutes before the meeting starts...then VOTE! are you FN kidding me. Case and point: SB & FinCom a year ago recommended to TM that the Youth Commission was a nice to have but not necessary. Yet, emotional appeals are made from the floor of TM and motions are made to fund the line item and restore it to the budget causing a ripple effect. This was after, hard working professional folks who serve our boards vetted, debated and reviewed for hours prior to TM, only to have it changed in the waning minutes. Then we were told that this department would work hard to seek grants and other funding sources. Think thats happened? I haven't heard ANYTHING so I doubt it. So theres your bait and switch ! So, in the end TM funds $80K for a department that looks to serve only few in town and has no town-wide tax-payer appeal (other than wanting to do it). Yet, TM memebers won't go to their voters and explain the benefits of what small override, an INVESTMENT to a much larger population of children in town and explain what the benefits and the return on this investment are.
My motion from the floor will be to transfer $80K from YC to get FDK off the ground. No override necessary!!
Bill and other SC / FinCom officials...would you support this?
Just say NO to FDK....
To Anon 7:28
You said : With all due respect Mr. Lynam, I believe trying to get an override passed for FDK by telling the voters it is for some other service they feel they "need", IS trying to pull something.
You are absolutely right. In plain English, that was a dumb thing to say. No argument there AT ALL ! In fact if you were at the meeting you heard me immediately point to the "Priority list" on-screen as the places that should be first considered for reductions if needed.
Let me be clear : There is no need for an override. We live within our available revenues .. PERIOD !
I will never vote for an expense that carries with it the possibility of an override being needed to support it into the future.
We have ample revenues to fund FDK for FY 11 without an instants hesitation. At the moment the pause is in looking at the jump in funding needed for FY12, for as someone else pointed out the $148K is a one time amount.
In the years that follow modest yearly incremental monies from the General Fund will be required to keep up with normal inflation [ +-$22K / yr ] . Eventually Ch #70 will begin to pick up these costs and the General Fund portion should diminish over time.
A great deal depends on knowing the State Aid and local receipt revenues we can comfortably rely on looking forward. As it looks right now there is little comfort to be had but it is early in the game yet ... stay tuned.
Greg Lynam
Fin Com
Greg or Bill,
Why are the finance meeting not on television? Who is making the decision not to televise them? I have spoken to the people at DCTV and they said they tried doing them years ago but the committee at the time did not like it but it is now a new committee. Greg would you support having your meetings on TV? Bill could you ask DCTV if they would be willing to do the meetings? I think they should cover more meetings like health department, dpw, and it would be nice seeing the planning board and select board get on every other week schedules again so that we can see both meetings.
To Anon March 8, 2010 3:08
You asked : Greg would you support having your [ Fin Com ] meetings on TV?
A: This is something I have run hot and cold on for years, but I will be perfectly honest with you :
On the one hand it would offer the opportunity to educate people about how things really worked and intertwine ... on the other hand it would damage the working of the committee for the same reason people post here under the Anonymous handle.
The Fin Com is not elected. It does not fall under the Executive branch [ Select Board ], it is an agent of Town Meeting [ Legislative branch ]. Our function it is to gather the knowledge and insight needed to make responsible recommendations to the Town Meeting.
To that end it is vitally important that its members feel free to ask hard and probing questions and that those being asked feel free to answer completely and honestly. That does not happen in front of TV cameras. The mere presence of a faceless lens looking on and recording every word for future playback, out of context and for dubious purposes, understandably makes people hesitant to say much of substance or to explore far ranging possibilities for fear of public ridicule. This would mean that we would not get the substantive information and alternatives we need to make sound decisions and the town as a whole would suffer for it.
That said, these are public meetings and the public is more than welcome, for someone sitting in the audience does not have the same intimidating effect. People physically there are, in my experience, ALWAYS there to learn and understand and never do derogatory remarks show up here by those who do attend. They are following the conversation and if there is something that may need elaboration so onlookers will understand the context, we can 'see' that and add what is needed. There is opportunity following the meeting ask us individually about things that may be unclear.
None of these meetings, Select Board or Fin Com, are all that they seem to be. These are full time jobs attempted by part time people. There are countless hours of research and data that is read and evaluated before the meeting ever begins, therefore the meeting itself entails little discussion. This is why it only lasts 2 hours. The real work and understanding is done at home and, in the case of the Select Board, in the working sessions that although open to the public, are not televised. You don't really think that what you see on a Monday night is the full extent of discussions and evaluations ... Do you ?
... so please come to the Fin Com meetings. Our next meeting is on the 11th where we will meet with the Police and DPW . A larger budget overview will again take place on the 18th, both at 6:30 PM.
Would I support it being televised ?
On balance it is not something I would be willing to continue to participate in .... no.
Greg Lynam
Fin Com
WHERE IS THE PENCIL SHARPENING WHEN IT COMES TO THE SCHOOLS' OPERATING BUDGET????!!!!
Three joint meetings with the school committee and still not one source of funding from their own budget.
Bill tried to explain what was going on with FDK last night diplomatically. Here's the real simple explanation of what happened at the SB meeting last night. The schools are trying to get the general government side to pay 100% of FDK costs and Watson is facilitating it. As I said after last year's election, congratulations, the school committee now runs the town.
If you elect Shawn McDonald, you know the school will run the town. We still have time to do the right thing for residents and vote for Mr. Gracie for Select Board. You KNOW he has no agenda and no allegiance to a particular group or groups. He will represent us and not special interests.
Post a Comment