It would appear that the technical difficulties have been fixed. Everything seems to be working correctly again on the site. Thanks for your patience.
Continue reading...Thursday, June 08, 2006
Technical difficulties
The Blogger hosting site has been a real mess today. It is loading soooo sloooowly, often with errors on the page, and the ability to read or leave comments has been almost entirely shut down since early afternoon. "They" are having hardware problems and are working to get them fixed.
I apologize for the inconvenience. Hey, the site is free -- what can I say?
Please try again later if it isn't working for you.
Enter the enterprise funds
In the “Good heavens – is this thing still going on?” department, TM is starting to resemble a public radio fund drive. You know that feeling when you turn on the radio and it's like – “Ugh, still?” That’s how this is feeling right about now.
Hmmm – maybe we should start pitching the folks watching on ACTV – “We still need to raise $4.7 million dollars by the end of this Town Meeting. Call now with your pledge of support and we’ll send you an autographed copy of the Finance Committee Report and a one-year membership for the Cherry Hill Golf Course!”
Maybe not.
We are called to order first for another Special Town Meeting, which this time we actually conduct, instead of immediately adjourning until later. First though, our interim moderator makes a few announcements and explains how he will run the meeting, the most significant difference from usual being that when recognizing people to speak, he won’t use any names. He says this is because he doesn’t know as many names as our regular moderator, and he doesn’t want to embarrass himself by forgetting the names he does know. Recognition will be by eye contact and pointing. And just in case you think he’s going to be some kind of pushover on rules – like when you had a substitute teacher in social studies – beware: he will bang the gavel when your time is up, and you’ll be expected to finish your sentence and be done.
The Special Town Meeting concerns the acquisition of a parcel of land in Pelham that is part of the watershed area for Hawley Reservoir, one of Amherst’s water supplies. The land is for sale and can be acquired by the town for $220,000, which would come from our Water Fund surplus. Various people speak in support of the motion from the Select Board, the Finance Committee and the Conservation Department. The land could be developed if we don’t buy it. It contains streams that drain directly into the reservoir, and that’s worth protecting. There’s potential for grants and donations to help offset the cost, but we do have this money available in the Water Fund reserves, and that is its purpose. The area would not be closed to the public, but recreation is not encouraged – no trails, etc. Timber production on the land can help bring in off-setting revenues. We make payments in lieu of taxes (PILOTs) to Pelham for other such parcels, and this one would be expected to cost $4000 per year in payments, which also comes from the Water Fund. The Kestrel Trust, an organization that preserves open space, is supporting the acquisition process. This is the last unprotected watershed parcel so such requests to TM won’t keep happening
A member opposes the acquisition primarily on the grounds that just because the Water Fund is an enterprise fund, doesn’t mean it isn’t real town money. If this proposed acquisition were considered under the same financial strictures as the rest of our budget items this year, he predicts it would be opposed, but because of the accounting technicality of the enterprise fund, we treat it differently.
Another member explains that the reason we treat enterprise fund money differently is because it is different – the funds come from user fees, which encompass not just property owners, but also those who are property tax exempt, i.e., UMass, who ends up paying about 50% of the town water fees. She emphasizes that major capital expenditures like this one are the purpose of the fund’s reserves.
The motion to appropriate $220,000 from the Water Fund surplus to acquire this property passes nearly unanimously. I vote in support.
The Special TM is dissolved, and we’re back to the regular TM, right where we left off – still muddling through the operating budget and the endless subsections of Article 26.
Indeed, the first subsection we deal with is – ta-da! – the Water Fund. This is to appropriate $3,722,592 for the Water Fund’s FY07 operating costs, with $3,529,777 to be from its own revenues, and $192,815 to come from its surplus.
The Finance Committee explains the revenue structure: we have a two-tiered system in which the largest consumers (again, UMass) pay the most. And because of effective conservation efforts (by, yet again, UMass,) less consumption means less revenue, so we need to increase the fees to raise the money needed to fund all the water operations, so rates per 100 cubic feet of water will go up 40 cents to $2.40 for tier 1 users and to $2.50 for tier 2 users. These are still lower than ¾ of the other towns in Massachusetts, and are significantly cheaper than in Northampton ($3.37) and Hadley ($3.72.) Costs involved in water treatment issues aren’t just personnel—chemicals and lab testing costs have increased, various filter materials need to be replaced, and the Village Park water tower needs repainting and is extra costly because of lead paint issues.
The Select Board is unanimously in favor of the recommendation, and has much praise for the water department.
The same member who opposed acquiring the watershed protection land symbolically opposes this article with a recommendation to reduce the appropriation by $1. He wants to make the point that the SB recently removed what had been a costlier third tier in the fee structure that had UMass paying more, and since the water fees are one of the few ways we can get money from UMass, it was unwise to reduce their fee.
A member of the town’s water study committee praises UMass’ conservation efforts and said that despite increased enrollment, their water consumption had decreased significantly.
The preliminary vote is on the higher number – the FC recommendation – and it passes nearly unanimously.
There is a little more discussion on the topic of the need for UMass to contribute more to the town, and explanation of how and why the third tier of water fees was removed. A SB member explained that SB representatives meet with the UMass Chancellor regularly, and the high rate had been an ongoing concern, and one that was hampering the university’s efforts to invest in conservation measures. They also increased their contribution to our fire and ambulance funds because of the water rate reduction.
We then have the appropriation vote, which again is nearly unanimous, and we’re on to the next enterprise fund.
Now if ever there were a budget proposal that should not be accompanied by a photo essay of how the system works, it would have to be the Sewer Fund.
And yet, with the rousing introduction of “I took pictures of what comes into the plant and what goes out!” that’s exactly what we got. If you really want the details, you can catch the ACTV replay. I’m just going to say that while the presentation was really not even relevant to the budget discussion, I found it informative and funny and delivered with such enthusiasm and careful language that it may end up as my highlight moment of Town Meeting.
The vote to appropriate $3,232,035 to the Sewer Fund, with $3,020,200 from revenues and $211,835 from the Fund’s surplus, passed nearly unanimously.
The Solid Waste Fund was next. Perhaps because we were now afraid of where exactly that discussion might lead us, we needed only the briefest explanation from the Finance Committee and we were ready to vote. We voted unanimously to appropriate $473,497 to the Solid Waste Fund, with $440,000 coming from revenues and $33497 from the Fund’s surplus.
Every session seems to have its dramatic hot button issue. Tonight it was the Transportation Fund.
The Finance Committee recommended spending $829,199 for this budget. The Select Board recommended $920,199. The FC recommended discontinuing a couple of low-ridership bus routes and instead using that money to fund the remainder of our PVTA assessment (which last year was funded by taxation, outside of the Transportation enterprise fund.) The SB recommended keeping the bus routes and making up the difference in paying for those as well as the PVTA assessment with increased parking fees.
As with most discussions so far regarding funding cuts, this one quickly departed from the economic rationality of the situation and devolved into moral tsk-tsking and tales of personal woe. (This is a depressingly effective tactic. Has it failed yet? I’ll have to think about that.) Some folks on both sides of the issue attempted to bring it back to fiscal stuff, but they couldn’t counter the fact that it had been redefined as a referendum on public transportation and you were either for it or against it.
There were a lot of interesting elements of this discussion and I might parse through my thoughts on it more in the next day or so, but I’m just not up for that now, so I shall conclude. We ended up with a preliminary tally vote on the larger SB measure, which passed 84 in favor, 70 opposed, and I was opposed. We then had the appropriation vote on that amount – $920,199 – and I voted for it, because there was no other option. Many voted “no” that time, but I think that was symbolic. I have no idea what would have happened if somehow the appropriation vote failed.
Random Bits
So whadya think – the Cherry Hill video retrospective or the sewage treatment plant photo montage?
All these years I thought I was among the childless tax payers helping to subsidize the school system without adding any strain. Turns out I’m actually repaying debt I incurred back in the day as one of these freeloading school kids from UMass family housing. Those were some pricy Cuisenaire rods . . . (Do they still use those?)
I’m really intrigued by the constant refrain of needing to get more money from UMass. It sounds good to me too. But I wonder – might a truly comprehensive analysis of all the financial plusses and minuses possibly come out with us owing them? Then what?
It must be a good sign that “nearly unanimously” and “near unanimous’ are becoming my most over-used phrases.
Kudos to Jim Pistrang for being willing to fill in for the moderator, and for doing that so ably.
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
Debt$, librarie$ and $chool$
Last night we actually made pretty good progress. Better than I had anticipated, anyway. Such is the upside of low expectations.
We started with Debt Service: Nice and easy. Making payments on money we have borrowed is not exactly discretionary spending. Hearkens again to last Friday’s Dilbert (and now I’ve linked to it, so you’ll actually know what I’m talking about . . . The exponent really makes it.) Not so fast. In a valiant but futile last-ditch effort to stymie the Plum Brook soccer fields, one member challenged the technicalities of funding this portion of the debt with Community Preservation Act funds. But it was pointed out that this project has long been recognized as allowable under CPAC monies, and so this effort was in vain. The amendment was defeated. Oddly, there was no further discussion on debt service and we were able to vote on the Finance Committee’s recommended appropriation of $1,797,573, which passed overwhelmingly. And I supported it.
Library Services: Definitely inspires more passions than debt service. This sought to approve the library budget as a whole, and the amount to be appropritated through taxation. The Library Board and Select Board were in agreement with the Finance Committee recommendation. (Once again, all the details of all these recommendation are available in the Finance Committee Report, Part 2, if you want them.) Of course, everyone loves the libraries, so a motion by a TM member to amend the appropriation upward by $10,000 got plenty of supportive discussion. Reading is important. Really important for kids. Especially if you want them to learn. That line of reasoning probably would have prevented us from closing the libraries and selling off all the books in order to balance the budget, but it was not sufficient to persuade the body to restore funding to prevent cutting hours at the branch locations to 5 half-days each week from 6. The motion for that extra money failed in a tally vote of 53 supporting, 104 opposed, and I voted to oppose. A tally vote with such a lopsided outcome? Yeah, it was just that kind of a night. The appropriation vote quickly followed, and nearly unanimously we approved the $2,033,196 budget, and appropriated $1,446,695 from taxation. I voted in support.
Onward to the schools. This had been shaping up to be the Battle Royal of the 247th annual Town Meeting, where everyone who’s angry about their property taxes would rant, and everyone with children would tell sob stories, and everyone who has ever been to school would compare their experience with school today. We would put our fingers all over the budget proposal – 2nd graders need more art! Caring communities start kids on physics in 3rd grade! Let’s charge desk rental fees! We would dredge up the public safety debate, the genetically engineered crops debate and the human services funding debate, all to make indignant points about too much spending or not enough.
But none of that happened.
Thanks to the united front presented by the Finance Committee, the School Committee and the majority of the Select Board, there wasn’t much to say. If they all agree, how could we disagree?
It wasn’t quite as simple as that, but nearly so. For the elementary schools budget, a couple of people spoke against the recommendation. One member parent who has a lot of issues with the school system and School Committee, and believes they prioritize bureaucracy over children’s needs, made an unsuccessful effort to get the recommendation referred back to the School Committee. Another member felt that other avenues for cost savings hadn’t been pursued. An ex-officio member who believes the student enrollment trends have not supported the increases in administration and staffing warned of worsening future budget situations. The director of the Hitchcock Center urged the school committee to reconsider cuts to its award-winning science program, the ECOBUS. Various people spoke to how terrible it is to eliminate teachers, or inquired about different costs and decisions about cuts.
The School Committee countered or explained all the concerns. And in another near-unanimous vote, we approved the Finance Committee’s recommendation of $19,264,119.
Discussion on the regional school district monies – approving its total budget, and appropriating Amherst’s share – was about the same. Well, except for when it wasn’t, but back to that shortly. Actual discussion about this issue was almost entirely limited to the recommendations by the FC, SB and SC, who again were in agreement. Everyone recognizes that this was a bad budget year and no one wanted to make the cuts that are being made, but that was how it had to go. We came to the vote quickly, and it was again nearly unanimous to approve the regional budget of $26,704,016, and to appropriate Amherst’s share of $11,904,067. I supported the FC recommendations for both of the school budget votes.
But back to where discussion on this topic went awry.
There is a small group seemingly bent on provoking the moderator. In every choice he makes of whom to recognize, they see favoritism, sexism, criticism and every other ism. They obsess over perceived procedural flaws. Some are in a perpetual state of high dudgeon, while others relish their role as “the gotcha gang.” They are aggravated and determined to aggravate. And so they did.
The meltdown was over allowing extra speaking time for the School Committee chair/vice-chair of the regional SC. Complaints of unfairness. The moderator blows his top. Various members blow their tops. Is it because we’re all tired and have had about enough after more than 20 hours of TM so far? Apparently not, because if that were the case we surely wouldn’t have prolonged things further by demanding a quorum count at such a late hour over a non-issue, right? But we did. (The nerve of so many people not showing up at all or leaving early such that a quorum would be in question may be fodder for a future post, but I digress.) Ultimately, we have a quorum, we give the speaker more time, and the result is near unanimous approval of the budget recommendation.
There. Happy?
We closed with the election of Jim Pistrang as temporary moderator to fill in during Harrison Gregg’s absence. In light of what had just transpired, his willingness to serve in that capacity could only be considered heroic. Or insane.
And so we adjourned until Wednesday.
Random Bits:
We learned that the library charges late fees for books only on the honor system, so as not to discourage borrowing and reading, but they will enforce dollar-a-day fees on videos and DVDs. Oddly, that makes late returns to Blockbuster a “better deal.”
Speaking of lending books and videos for free, isn’t that competing with various local businesses? Surely someone is mad about that. (Stop it Stephanie! Don’t encourage them!)
Reports of much knitting this time. The most surprising ancillary activity though was a crossword puzzle. Some people clearly have much better ability to walk and chew gum at the same time than I do.
This was the eighth session of Town Meeting, and the 5th Red Sox –Yankees game that has conflicted with TM so far. An explanation, perhaps, of why attendance has been so poor?
Suffice it to say, I move around a lot. With that, I officially end my increasingly uninteresting seating report. While I’m at it, no more about knitting and no more about baseball either. Tomorrow is a brand new day.
Saturday, June 03, 2006
Comics and economics
Comic life: Did you catch Dilbert in Friday's Gazette? Cracked me up. It made me me think of our sidewalk shoveling penalty article and the one for appropriating money to the County retirement system.
Bulletin must-read: Once again the Bulletin is full of TM-er mentions and letters. What an active/activist bunch we are! Truly illuminating though is a column by a non-TM-er, Gerald Friedman, writing about the real economics behind our current budget situation. Good stuff! Can we draft this guy to run for Town Meeting?
Blog tweak: This thing is getting quite long, so I have changed the settings that control how many posts are available on the main page. It is now set to show only the most recent 20 posts. If you want to read earlier posts, click on the archives of previous months, listed on the right side of the page, below the "Previous Posts" links. As always, let me know if you have suggestions for improving how the site works.
Friday, June 02, 2006
You asked, so here goes
I got an e-mail from a member of the Select Board, seeking my thoughts on the transportation fund budget recommendation. As I have inadvertently previously annoyed this SB member with my blog, I thought that was particularly charitable and open-minded of this person to solicit my views. And since this blog is all about sharing how and why I vote on the various TM topics, it seems appropriate to share my response here. Just to clarify, the part where I talk about the “policy making” SB isn’t because I’m taunting, but rather because the question asked of me was to specifically consider the recommendation in light of the fact that as an enterprise fund, its spending is at the discretion of the “elected, policy-making” Select Board, as “Keepers of the Public Way.” So without the opening and closing greetings and chit-chat, this is what I e-mailed in response.
. . .
But you wanted my thoughts on the transportation fund budget, so here goes:
Being new to Town Meeting, there are many things I am trying to learn and understand. On subjects where I don’t already have a strong opinion or particular knowledge, I have to seek other input and rely on those whose opinions I have respected or found myself persuaded by in the past. I am new to TM, but I am not new to Amherst and I’ve always paid attention to town issues and government.
So here, like many situations, I would expect to go along with the Finance Committee recommendation. Is that because I blindly follow their recommendation on everything? No. It is because they are the body that I believe to be the most circumspect, and to have the most big-picture, balance-all-the-competing-factors perspective on the town’s fiscal situation.
What are my alternatives? Well, I could offer my own opinion on the floor of TM. Maybe I have a great idea for how that $84K should be spent. That would be totally inconsistent with how I think general policy and budget creation should occur. (My recent blog post titled “In my humble opinion” explores that in great detail.) So ditto on accepting some else’s last-minute idea. That leaves the Select Board recommendation.
First I’ll assume that the Transportation Committee supports the SB recommendation. While I have the highest respect for the expertise of the various committees, the question here isn’t one of overall transportation policy, but of how these particular elements fit into the big fiscal picture. So for me, the Finance Committee’s expertise in fiscal policy trumps the Transportation Committee’s expertise here.
So then that leaves me with the Finance Committee vs. the “policy making” Select Board. It is my opinion that the Select Board misinterprets its “policy making” role. To me, policy is something that is made and shaped and guided on a large scale. Policies are broad statements of purpose, goals and tradition and they guide decision making. Policy is not something that is determined or changed on a case-by-case basis. It is bigger than that.
What I see from the Select Board under the guise of “policy making” is members offering up their own opinions on each topic and recommendation that comes before them, and then acting on those opinions. To me, that isn’t “policy making” -- that’s micromanaging and second-guessing. Policy is what you would consult or fall back on to avoid having personal whims and biases determine outcomes.
Town policy shouldn’t lurch and lean and change course depending on who sits on the Select Board at any given moment – never mind which members are present at each meeting. But those are exactly the consequences of decision-making based foremost on individual opinions. It is the very opposite of a process-driven, big-picture view.
So in the SB’s transportation recommendation I find a) opposition to the carefully considered FC recommendation; b) raising parking fees despite it frustrating businesses and consumers; c) the necessity of going outside of the enterprise fund monies and using tax monies in order to pay the rest of the PVTA assessment and fees; and d) all this for the “benefit” of maintaining sparsely-used bus routes.
Absent other compelling information or interpretation, I have to oppose the Select Board’s amendment.
Speaking of “carefully considered,” the Public Works committee’s recommendation against sidewalk maintenance money the other night did not highlight the SB’s diligence in decision making. I don’t mean to be excessively critical and perhaps that was an exceptional situation, but all of these kinds of things factor in to the credibility of the different recommendations.
So you probably wanted me to give you a “thumbs up” or a “thumbs down” and instead I’ve given you an essay, no doubt an aggravating one at that. Hey – you asked . . .
And I think it’s great that you did.
…………………..
Me again, back to the regular post. I welcome persuasive arguments or the pointing out of errors in my facts or logic. Do feel free to weigh in.
Wednesday, May 31, 2006
Still working our way through the budget
Back again. Same old thing.
Announcements. Clarifications. Complaints.
Good explanation from the Finance Committee about our current fiscal state, followed by their good and informative explanation of their recommendation for the Public Works budget.
The Select Board wants $20,000 more for Public Works to pay for sidewalk repairs, which the public works committee informs us can’t possibly be done this year.
A TM member recommends a third option – increasing the FC recommendation by $7000, and reallocating $30,000 more to fuel costs, funded by that extra $7K and cutting two summer positions.
Another member makes a “general” recommendation, which has nothing to do with Public Works, but involves the choice between getting the legislature to let us create a “meals tax” or revising the cost-of-living adjustments for those retiring from the town.
See? Same old thing. Anyway . . .
Preliminary vote. Larger number first. That’s the Select Board’s figure and it fails strongly. I voted to oppose.
Two recommendations remain – the FC’s and the “More fuel, fewer people” one.
Questions about figures. Explanations about figures.
Vote again. Larger number first. The member’s recommendation fails almost unanimously. I again voted to oppose. Fairly quickly we vote on the appropriation of the FC’s recommended amount of $1,737,044, which passes strongly, and which I supported.
On to Planning, Conservation and Inspections. More good explanations from the Finance Committee. Unanimous support from the Select Board. Yet another option from the member who apparently never met a budget recommendation that didn’t want for a little amending. This time he wants to reduce the amount by $183,000 through various means, including eliminating positions that don’t currently exist. And for good measure, still another member recommends reducing the FC recommendation by $20,000, well, just because.
More questions and clarifications of numbers and how the department works. Then we vote again. Larger amount first – which this time is the FC recommendation. It wins on the preliminary vote and the appropriation vote of $898,047, and I vote to support it both times.
On to the Community Services budget. Still more good explanations by the Finance Committee. Every area of this budget sector is touched on, but most people are focused on just one: the funding to local human service agencies.
Originally the FC recommendation was to cut those funds in half from last year, down to $70,000. When $20,000 became available through our appropriations for General Government last week, they recommended that that $20K go here, reducing the original cut from $70,000 to $50,000, which would provide $90,000 in funding for these agencies.
The Select Board recommended a cut of only $5000 to this area, for $135,000 in funding.
The Human Services Funding Committee recommended no cuts – fund it at the same level as last year, $140,000.
Discussion predictably revolved around how worthy and vital these agencies are, even though that was never in dispute. A few brave folks dared to question the wisdom of funding them when we are in a severely compromised budget situation that cuts core town services, but they were quite overwhelmed by the stories of drama, tragedy and disaster made in support of full-funding.
This is a complicated topic, one I could argue about with myself all day. Why does the town even give money to charities? Well, it’s part of what makes Amherst good. The funding is not part of the town’s core services, which are being cut, so how can we justify it? Yeah, but we’re really talking about a tiny amount of money – can’t we find it somewhere? Shouldn’t people choose their charitable donations on their own, not have them made involuntarily through taxes? Well, taxes fund all the state and federal money such agencies get also. Ok, but does that make local tax funding better or worse? But these places depend on this money – a big cut is too drastic. On and on and on, just trying to persuade myself one way or the other.
Ultimately, when it came time to vote on the larger amount (the Human Services Funding Committee recommendation) and it passed in a tally vote of 87 in support, 76 opposed, I voted to oppose it. First of all, it makes the most sense to me that such funding is a desirable thing to do after Amherst has met all its core town needs first, and that is not the situation we’re in this year. And despite our bad situation, we were looking only to reduce, not eliminate, the funding. Secondly, as the impassioned discussion on this topic showed, Amherst residents care strongly about our local agencies, and I am confident we would not have let them suffer. An article or two in the newspaper about the loss of this money would have resulted in a huge outpouring of generosity from residents to these agencies, which might well have surpassed the funding that would have been cut.
I don’t envy the Finance Committee having to tackle that issue. If they hadn’t recommended any cuts to that area while cutting core services, they would have looked irresponsible. Instead, they did recommend cuts, and to some that is still irresponsible, or at least hard-hearted. Was it the amount? Would it have been possible to recommend a cut that was responsible but not "mean?" I think they were doomed either way. It almost required that people react to their recommendation, whatever it was going to be.
Moving on.
As I mentioned, there are many elements to the Community Services budget – Public Health, the Senior Center, the Community Services subcategory (which includes the human service agency funding,) Veterans’ Services, LSSE, pools, town commemorations and the golf course. The only other one that got real attention was the golf course.
Funding for Cherry Hill golf course is a perpetual town argument and seems to fuel a personal obsession for one TM member. Over the years, the course has lost a lot of money. This year, the Finance Committee projects that its finances will be a wash – it is expected to take in enough money in course-generated revenue to pay for itself, so while the town appropriates the operating money up front, it is expected to get all that money back.
I don’t know the whole long history of the course or all the details of the ongoing argument. To me the compelling details are these: 1) Why not consider golf to be like our other town recreation offerings? We don’t require the various pools, parks, sports programs and LSSE classes to pay for themselves – why must golf? 2) Money lost in the past is water under the bridge. Going forward, the plan seems solid enough, and we can continue to reevaluate.
The Finance Committee recommendation was supported by the Select Board. The member who opposes the course recommended reducing its budget by about $57,000 dollars, which he felt would leave it with enough to operate this season and make it possible to receive proposals for an outside group to lease or manage it on the town’s behalf, which a later article will propose.
This recommendation was accompanied by our first multi-media presentation – a video portraying the expensive history of the golf course and its repeated appearance as a Town Meeting topic. It was followed by the usual disagreements about figures. Eventually we voted and the larger amount – the FC recommendation – won, and I voted in support of it.
We finished off the evening with the official bottom-line appropriation vote for the whole community services budget area of $1,831,363, which I supported, and we then adjourned to next Monday night, June 5th.
Random bits:
The evening’s big drama came from a light bulb exploding in the ceiling, and raining down what looked to be sparks and glass on the audience. Luckily, no one was injured.
I sat in the second row from the back, in the center section, about four seats in from the left. I think I like the back the best, because I can see everything – who is raising a hand to speak, who is leaving, etc.
Much to my surprise and embarrassment, tonight I realized that Jim Scott, whom I voted for in the TMCC election, is not who I thought he was. Interesting. I’m sure he is a fine fellow and will be good on the committee anyway. Somehow, I was just a little confused . . .
While TM spent its longest evening yet in a very hot auditorium, the Blue Jays were pounding the Red Sox. Always tough to win when the other team gets 5 home runs. Guess I’m glad I missed that one.
I can barely sleep after Town Meeting. There’s so much to think about that I just can’t shut my brain off. Does anybody else have that problem?
Sunday, May 28, 2006
In my humble opinion
So Town Meeting is wading through a budget that has been painstakingly crafted over many months and countless hours, countless meetings of every relevant department and committee, countless agonizing compromises and calculations, all to balance a $4.7 million deficit. Through the diligent work of the Town Manager (actual and interim,) the Finance Committee, the School Committee, the Library Board of Trustees and the Select Board, we have before us a balanced budget recommendation with near unanimous support, excepting a few very small differences recommended by the Select Board majority and minority.
Let me emphasize again how much time and effort and big-picture balancing, cooperation, compromise and painful cutting created this budget recommendation. Lots. Get it? A ton.
So at Town Meeting, our job should be simple. Learn as much as we can or care to about this resulting budget recommendation, ask good questions to further our understanding, appreciate the heck out of all the work that went into its creation, and then pass the damn thing.
Instead, we’re getting ad hoc policy and spending recommendations from the floor: I think we should do this. I don’t like this – why don’t we do this? Why do we do this anyway, when we should be doing this?
Umm, a little late, folks.
To me, the idea of 200-ish people weighing in on different ways to distribute our spending at this point in the process is frankly nuts. Could we as individuals or as a body have a better sense of all the contingent factors of each allotment than the Finance Committee? Do our personal opinions take into account all the future financial and community effects? Do we think that we have more information or better judgment than the Finance Committee?
Of course not.
Those who want to influence the town’s spending priorities in different ways need to make themselves part of the budget process very early on. Get all your information together (because an opinion is not the same as information.) Talk to the experts. Go to the meetings. Spend the spring making your case. That is how to effect change in the budget. If the change you are sure we need is important enough, then it is worth the time and effort that will take. The budget is not created in a cavalier seat-of-the-pants fashion, nor should it be altered that way.
This really gets to the heart of my philosophy about committee recommendations. Basically, I tend to trust them. I believe that the Finance Committee has the most expertise about the town’s finances. I believe the Planning Board to be the most expert entity in dealing with the town’s planning/zoning situation. I believe no one knows more about the realities and needs of our schools than the School Committee. And who better than the Shade Tree Committee . . . nah, I won’t go into that one again.
“We’re not just a rubber stamp of approval!” is the cry echoing from every corner.
To that I say: Why not?
Unless you doubt their facts, their competence, their process, their motives or their integrity, then why would you doubt their conclusions?
The point of all of these entities is the specialization enabled by division of labor. Their purview is complex, and they become the experts in their areas so that the rest of us don’t have to. And there is vast opportunity for each of us to weigh in with our personal questions, concerns and ideas as part of the long and deliberative process that precedes and informs the recommendations that are ultimately made to Town Meeting.
And as a Town Meeting member, if you really can’t agree with a recommendation, you can always vote to oppose it. That makes much more sense than trying to alter it in some complicated way that disrespects both the committee process in bringing the recommendation, and the Town Meeting members’ process of making diligent and informed voting decisions.
I am, of course, brand new at this. I may be too naïve or idealistic in my view of how “the system” works. Perhaps being heard and effecting change are less possible than I believe. Fair enough – I concede that point. However, as a new TM-er, trying my best to make good and educated voting choices, I can say without hesitation that I can not and will not vote for a complex and significant alteration of a recommendation that has only been presented mid-discussion, giving me no time to consider, study or prepare. If your recommendation can stand up to scrutiny, please give me plenty of time to scrutinize it – not minutes – days, better yet, weeks. It is not that I think that the committees are automatically right, but in my eyes, you as the “opposer” bear the burden of proof. And if you can do that, I welcome it, and in fact, I thank you.
Just my opinion, of course.
Friday, May 26, 2006
This and that
We're everywhere: There’s nearly a TM quorum in this week's Bulletin: a profile of Irvin Rhodes, Arnie Alper helping the Survival Center, Frank Gatti and Eleanor Manire-Gatti sending e-mail from Iran, Larry Kelley’s karate video, some weird blogger, a column by Paul Bobrowski, a column by “the triumvirate” -- Clare Bertrand, Andy Churchill and Baer Tierkel. That doesn’t even include the article about Monday’s TM session. Or the Police log. (Oh relax – it’s a joke.)
Thanks to Eva: Some helpful clarifications from Eva Schiffer on a couple of references in my post about Wednesday’s meeting. Quoted from her e-mail, with permission:
“Special Town Meeting -- adjourned till after Art. 34:
The Community Preservation Act Committee recommends projects (in separate articles this year) on a) open space, b) affordable housing, c) historical preservation, and d) recreation. Their recommendation on open space got left off the main warrant by mistake. This (as you guessed) was the only way to get it considered during this budget cycle.
"Assistant Town Manager position: eliminated during the budget crisis of the early '90s.
"Treasurer: John Musante's predecessor, Nancy Maglione, was Director of Administration and Finance; in addition, we had a treasurer/collector. Both retired in the same year. John was then appointed Finance Director/Treasurer; in addition, a new collector, Clare McGinnis, was appointed. These are all enormously complex and responsible jobs.”
Attendance update: Out of 244 TM members (the total before the last meeting) 104 have been to all six sessions and 12 haven’t been to any yet. Everyone else is between those two extremes.
Small structural changes: The red post titles are now linked to bring up that post, with its comments (if it has any) on a separate page. To get back to the main page, either hit your “back” button, or click the “Stephanie’s Town Meeting Experience” title at the top, or the little "<< home" thing at the bottom. Also, at the end of each post, I’ve tried to make it a little more obvious how to comment by making the comment link more prominent. Do let me know if there are other tweaks that you think might improve things.
Thursday, May 25, 2006
TMCC results
Results are up on the town web site -- and right here, saving you another click.
Otto Stein, 94 votes
Peggy Roberts, 93 votes
Yours truly, 65 votes
Phil Jackson, 60 votes
Jim Scott, 53 votes
Mary Wentworth, 47 votes
Frank Wells, 26 votes
All others, 1 vote
If I understand the plan correctly, the top four vote-getters are elected to 2 year terms, and the 5th highest vote-getter will be awarded the final year of Marcie Sclove's term when she leaves the committee in a few months.
Thanks to all who voted for me, and I look forward to working with all of these good folks on this committee.
And the budget saga continues
So now it’s Wednesday and we’re right back at this.
We began with a most arcane issue: the calling of a Special Town Meeting – full reading of the “O hear ye, hear ye” warrant and all – followed immediately by a motion to adjourn it until after Article 34. This has something to do with new money that is needed for land acquisition with Community Preservation Act funds, and by my interpretation, is essentially equal to adding a new article to the current warrant. Apparently you can’t do that, so you go through the technicalities of calling and adjourning a Special TM, which basically means we’ll deal with this issue a little later. Okie-dokie.
Next up: a massive and unnecessary mea culpa from the moderator for the stresses of Monday night’s meeting. From his explanations, I gather that he got angry feedback regarding his moderator skills, his integrity, his intelligence and the horse he rode in on. PLEASE! Monday was kind of confusing, kind of heated and even kind of messy. But if ever there were a situation where the intentions were good, but the execution didn’t quite work out so well, that was it. Anyone who bothered to get indignant over it being anything more than that should really step back and take a very deep breath. If Harrison Gregg weren’t usually so excellent, then our standards wouldn’t be so high. Cut the man some slack, for goodness sake! Hmmph. Well. So there.
Amidst the self-flagellation was some good and clarifying info about the rule for “voting the higher number first,” which didn’t happen Monday but will happen henceforth. (Talk about arcane!) Next a few more new members got sworn in, and then the best housekeeping detail yet: correcting an erroneous vote from Monday. It seems that the tally vote record showed that John Musante, who is interim Town Manager, voted in Monday’s dispatcher vote, while Select Board member Gerry Weiss, abstained. Big whoop, you say? Well, by tradition, the Town Manager does not vote, and the dispatcher thing was part of the Select Board recommendation, so why would Weiss abstain? Drama! Intrigue! Noooooo. Somehow Gerry Weiss happened to vote with one of John Musante’s tally vote cards. Amusing, and frankly surprising it doesn’t happen more often. These meetings generate a fair amount of paper. I’m personally expecting to screw up my own tally vote by using a card from a previous night. It’ll probably happen.
So we’re finally back to the budget. We’re still on the second half of the divided motion from Monday regarding Public Safety money. The Select Board amends the Finance Committee recommendation, moving to reduce it by about $30,000. Some attention is paid to this being equivalent to not filling a police officer vacancy (of which none exists,) but there is repeated emphasis that we vote to appropriate Public Safety money in general, and not on the specifics of how it gets spent. One person speaks to how vital police are to the community, and another points out for the first time that the key difference between the two budget recommendations is money for Public Safety versus money for human service agencies, and their importance to the community.
And then we get an entirely new proposal from a Town Meeting member. I was wondering if this would happen.
This one seeks to increase public safety spending by about $254,000, with the recommendation to fund that increase by taking $164,000 from Community Services (essentially wiping out the human services and human rights money) and about $90,000 from Planning, Conservation and Inspections (about 10% of that budget.) This would potentially fund five additional police officer positions which were in the earliest preliminary budget proposal from the Town Manager, but which disappeared quickly from all future recommendations once the extent of this year’s fiscal crisis became evident. Passionate talk about public safety, core of the town’s body, underappreciated, underfunded, etc.
It might have had some potential. Until the Police Chief shot it down.
He appreciated the sentiment, but thought such a recommendation should go through the proper channels of the Finance Committee, the Select Board, etc. Hallelujah.
After others questioned the figures that had been presented about past public safety support, and the need for such a proposal to be considered and vetted with time and care, and in the context of the budget as a whole, the amendment was quickly and decisively voted down. I was among those voting to oppose it.
Back to the Select Board’s smaller amount vs. the Finance Committee’s larger amount, and how everybody thinks public safety is vital, and they just made different choices on how to distribute the money. The Finance Committee’s larger amount wins in a tally vote of 102 in support, 75 opposed. I voted in support. That was still a preliminary vote though, with the potential for more discussion of other public safety areas, but there was no further discussion, and we came to a quick vote “to appropriate $8,029,047 for public safety . . .” and with that, we officially approved the original Finance Committee recommendation.
We move on to General Government – this is the guts of how Town Hall works and the business of the town gets done. It includes collecting taxes, paying bills, conducting elections, maintaining town buildings, all the work of the Town Manager’s office, the Town Clerk’s office, Information Technology, etc. Again, we have a Finance Committee recommendation, and a smaller Select Board recommendation ($20,000 less.)
And then it happens again.
Another member offers an entirely new recommendation for this whole area of the operating budget. This time though, the proposal is not to add, but to subtract. The motion is to reduce spending in General Government by $204,000. This would appeal to all those who think government is generally wasteful and has plenty of fluff in its budget. The recommendation would be to cut the Assistant Town Manager’s position, combine the Treasurer and the Collector, take various monies from other places, and a big chunk out of Information Technology.
And this too might have had some support. Until Mr. Musante pointed out that the Assistant Town Manager and Treasurer positions had already been eliminated several years ago. And no one wants to cut I.T.
So we vote on this, which again is a preliminary vote. Because of the whole “larger number first” thing, we have to vote on the Finance Committee proposal versus both of the two lower ones – the Select Board’s being $20,000 lower, and the new one being $204,000 lower. It is a tally vote, and the Finance Committee’s larger amount fails, with 74 supporting, and 98 opposing. I voted to support it.
Now we have just the two smaller numbers before us. More discussion of how very big the big cut is. We then quickly vote on the two remaining motions. This time the Select Board’s recommendation wins overwhelmingly, no tally vote necessary. We immediately have the official appropriating vote, and hence nearly unanimously vote to appropriate the Select Board’s figure of $5,304,392 for General Government. With the FC's figure now gone, I supported the SB’s figure for both of these votes.
After a procedural motion having to do with whether or not we’ll meet Thursday (we won’t,) we adjourned until next Tuesday.
Random bits
Today I sat in the center of the back row on the moderator’s right/audience’s left. I hear very different chatter depending on where I sit.
TMCC voting was tonight, but not everyone knew about it, so there was a bit of confusion. It lead us to adjourn a smidge earlier than usual so people could vote at the end. I, alas, voted before the meeting.
Town Meeting starts at 7:30, but you’d never know it. We don’t typically have a quorum (and hence are unable get started) until 10 or 15 minutes later than that. How about we all try to be prompt, folks? Like this whole thing doesn’t take long enough already?
Much calling the question tonight. Definitely cuts to the chase and keeps things moving. I like that.
Much picking at the budget and offering random cuts, alternatives, etc. I don’t like that at all. I feel strongly that TM is vastly too late in the budget process to be seeking to eliminate positions or change spending policy. I’ll pontificate on this subject in much greater detail soon.
Another day, another $13 million dollars appropriated.
Wednesday, May 24, 2006
TMCC candidates
So tonight may be the Town Meeting Coordinating Committee election. My notes from Monday say “next Wednesday,” but as we don’t meet next Wednesday, today is probably the day.
I have thought a lot about how I plan to vote, and this is what I’ve decided.
Myself. Shocking, I know.
Phil Jackson. I have been impressed with his questions during TM, I thought his dispatcher presentation was just fantastic – exactly the kind of thing I would like to see more of, and the fact that he had spent three days observing the communications center shows a real commitment to knowing what he’s talking about and voting on. Bringing that kind of philosophy and imparting that kind of message to others via TMCC would be hugely valuable.
Mary Wentworth. That might be surprising, considering we seem to be diametrically opposed on every issue that I can think of, but I don’t think that matters here. Mary is an active and devoted Town Meeting member and she seems to prepare her arguments and presentations carefully. I could not disagree more strongly with her conclusions, but I respect her efforts. And she gets a ton of bonus points from me for the bus tour, which I understand was her idea to resurrect. I thought that was a brilliant and important concept, and clearly aimed at improving TM by actively educating the members. I think that is what the TMCC is all about.
Jim Scott. I have never met him, but my main impression of him is that he calls the question often. Even before I was on TM, and I only watched from the gallery or on TV, he stood out for that reason. That says to me that he wants to speed things along and we certainly need more of that.
Tuesday, May 23, 2006
Budget dispatch
Cranky.
If I had to summarize in one word our first night of budget article consideration, that word would be cranky.
Things started ordinarily enough. I chose a seat in the back row of the center section, a couple to the right of the ACTV command table. The meeting got under way with the usual announcements: upcoming meeting dates; the order for the night’s articles – 24, 25, 5, 26; next week’s TM Coordinating Committee election; the introduction of new Town Manager Larry Shaffer, who was sitting in on the meeting last night before he officially comes on board July 1st; the swearing in of a couple new members, and so forth.
But in all that was an innocent throw-away line that only later proved to be a foreshadowing of things to come: Moderator Harrison Gregg said by way of welcome to Mr. Shaffer – “You ain’t seen nothing yet.” Indeed.
So we began with Article 24, essentially a housekeeping article distributing FY06 salary adjustments from the General Government catch-all human resources account to the relevant areas of Public Safety, Public Works, Planning, Conservation and Inspections, and Community Services. Except for a little bit of picky grammar discussion, this article passed unanimously and without issue.
Article 25 was another “simple” one – approving the amended Amherst-Pelham Regional School District Agreement, which alters the assessment formula for determining each town’s contribution. After various iterations through the years, the District has determined that a “per pupil” method is the most practical at this point, and to ease the fiscal burden of Amherst’s transition to the new formula, Leverett and Shutesbury have both kicked in one-time contributions of $62,000. After blessedly little discussion, this article passed unanimously. We’re rolling right along.
Now Article 5 – another easy one – it simply appropriates money to pay our annual obligation to the Hamsphire County Retirement System, funding the retirements of past, current and future town, library, and non-teaching school employees. Straightforward enough, but you knew there was a reason this article was removed from the consent calendar back at the first TM session. One member wants to analyze whether or not being a part of the County system is a good deal for Amherst. He wants the article referred back to the Finance Committee for full study and consideration. Various speakers refute the wisdom and practicality of this suggestion. The motion to refer is defeated and the article receives unanimous support.
Now Article 26 commences the real nitty-gritty of the budget. We have two recommendations before us for the Town’s operating budget, both of which evolved from the original Town Manager’s budget recommendation put forth early this year: one from the Finance Committee and one from the Select Board. Both are balanced budgets, but with some variation in the details. The Select Board’s budget differs from the Finance Committee’s primarily in the areas of Public Safety and Community Service. Where the Finance Committee recommends cutting $70,000 dollars from the town’s donations to local human service agencies, the Select Board recommends cutting $5000. Where the Finance Committee recommends adding two dispatchers to Public Safety (about $40,000 each, including benefits) – one funded by ambulance receipts, the other by taxation, the Select Board recommends adding one dispatcher – the one funded by ambulance receipts – and not filling a police officer vacancy (saving about $40,000.) The Select Board also recommends eliminating a part-time clerical worker in the Public Health Department (saving about $15,000,) and adding $20,500 to sidewalk repair and maintenance for Public Works.
So in effect, where the Finance Committee is spending roughly $135,000 on two dispatchers, a police officer and a part-time public health secretary, the Select Board is spending that sum on contributions to human service agencies ($65,000 on top of about $71,000 which both groups agree on,) one dispatcher, and sidewalk repair and maintenance, with about $8000 left over for categories outside of the Town’s operating budget (to be dealt with in other articles.)
We start with "opening statements" from the Finance Committee, the acting Town Manager, and the Select Board. We are to consider and vote on the five functional areas of the operating budget separately (general government, public safety, public works, planning, conservation and inspections and community services,) and then vote on the total bottom line number for operating budget. As this is the heart of where the Finance Committee and Select Board recommendations diverge, the Select Board moves to consider public safety before general government. So the FC makes its public safety recommendation and then the SB moves to amend the FC motion by reducing the appropriation figure with its recommendation. And hence begins the battle of the dispatchers.
The factor to keep in mind here is that TM appropriates money per functional area, but can’t actually dictate how it gets spent within that area. So while we might frame our discussion in terms of how many dispatchers we believe we should support, the fact is that we aren’t really funding dispatchers – we’re funding public safety, and the Town Manager will spend the public safety money however he sees fit. But the TM discussion does serve to advise the Town Manager (and others, depending on the budget area) how we desire the money to be spent, so the discussion is important.
So the moderator, ever conscious of TM’s desire to thoroughly and specifically express its advice on these topics, sought to structure the discussion in a way that allowed full comment on the two key elements of the proposed public safety budgets by separating the motion into two: first how many dispatchers, and then whether or not to eliminate a police officer.
The intentions of this were good, but it may have proved to be the undoing of the evening. It set us on a path of line-item consideration that will be tough to get away from, and it further clouds the notion that we aren’t really specifying how the money gets spent.
But this was our structure, and we embraced it with gusto.
Discussion in favor of two dispatchers centered around (and around and around): How vital are the dispatchers? Very. How awful are their working conditions? Very. How understaffed and overstressed is the department? Very. How much do they need two new dispatchers instead of one? Very.
Discussions favoring adding only one dispatcher focused on: People are expensive. Spending here means cuts in other areas. Adding one instead of two when other areas have had no additions and only cuts seems fair. UMass should help us more with this.
But it was the crankiness that really stood out. Crankiness about the structure of the discussion. Crankiness about not being recognized. Crankiness in response to a member’s – ummm – spirited (and in my opinion, very excellent) presentation in support of the dispatchers. Big-time crankiness between the Chief of Police and the Select Board. And much crankiness from the moderator in trying to explain the voting procedure to a cranky TM assembly.
Ultimately we had a tally vote on the Select Board’s motion to decrease the Finance Committee’s recommended public safety spending regarding the dispatchers. The motion to decrease failed in a vote of 61 in favor, 111 opposed. I voted to oppose.
And so we adjourned until Wednesday, when with luck, we will all return in better humor.
Random Tidbits:
Handicraft update: I have my first confirmed sighting of a woman knitting!
Kudos to Elaine Brighty, School Committee chair, for stating firmly and unequivocally that she will not set school funding up in opposition to public safety funding.
How about all these “ride-alongs” that various official folks apparently are (and are not) doing with the police? How cool is that?
In the "where have you been?" department – I noted several people who were there for their very first session of the year last night. (That’s not counting the folks who were newly sworn in.) So glad you could finally join us!
Couldn’t we arrange to not meet at least when the Red Sox play the Yankees? Red Sox won again last night, 9-5. Great game – or so I heard. Missing it made me cranky.
Yeah, yeah -- I'm working on it
The recap of last night's meeting still isn't up yet. What can I say? This is a hard one -- my first budget session! I'm working on it . . .
Continue reading...Sunday, May 21, 2006
Getting ready for Monday
It has been my habit to post my pre-TM analysis of the warrant articles, and how I expect to vote on them. I have decided that that really isn’t possible for the budget articles, particularly as this is my first time on the frontlines of this process. I don’t know what to expect as far as how these will be handled – how much alteration and argument will be attempted from the floor, how the various committees will explain and respond to areas in which they disagree. So while I have been working hard to understand the various budget documents and proposals, I will have to wait to detail the “whys” of my votes after the fact.
Let me offer praise and appreciation to the Finance Committee for their terrific Finance Committee Report, Part 2, which is incredibly detailed and well-written. It lets even a newbie like myself have some grasp of the complexities of Amherst's budget situation. Many thanks!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
