Town Meeting
When I read that Town Meeting approved a lease for the Elliott School property, I had to remind myself that just because the “rubber stamp” worked, it may not be the will of the majority of people who live in Natick, and actually could have been denied if everyone who was elected to Town Meeting had actually cared enough to show up. Little more than half of those on the roster were there.
People elected who don’t show up insures the Town Meeting system will remain a rubber stamp.
Town Meeting didn’t approve a lease. All that was approved was giving the selectmen permission to ask the General Court for permission to have a lease longer than 50 years. This doesn’t mean the town is going to actually lease the school, and if they do, then Town Meeting will vote on the lease itself at a future Town Meeting session. The Town still has the option to sell the property, and I gather from the debate that took place last night that an article requesting the option to sell the property will be introduced at the special Town Meeting next month. This will be a perfect way to do whatever we want without the majority approval.
Comment by Andrea | April 18, 2008
That’s nice. By the time the actual intent of the article is decided, nobody will know what actually did or didn’t happen. We can all agree that little over half the members were actually there to listen, and vote. Which was the point I was trying to make.
Residents who think they’re being represented by those who they vote for, seem to be mistaken.
Comment by dave | April 18, 2008
Dave you are correct. I noticed that maybe a dozen people actually participate in debate and it’s the same dozen. You reinforce my belief that maybe it’s time to change to a city form of government. Did you also notice that the insignificant stuff is beat to death but the important budget items get approved with little debate?
Comment by ccutaia | April 19, 2008
That’s for sure. I remember one year they talked for nearly an hour about why or why not one street should be allowed to get hooked up to the sewer.
There should be lots of discussion about things like the side loading trash truck, for example. A great payroll saving item got tossed aside based on misinformation. The special interests have perfected the art of using the system and patiently fooling the public.
Maybe if Town Meeting members were asked to attend board meetings where the various details are discussed, they could learn in advance of the night the item is voted on. Imagine how tough to get them out at night for a Fin Com meeting when they don’t even go to the meeting they’re elected for!
Comment by Dave | April 19, 2008
Some of us had this same conversation before one of last week’s meetings. I think the smaller things receive more attention and debate because they’re easier to relate to. For example, we all know what streetlights look like, so when there’s an article asking for money to buy more of the fancy downtown ones, we have a better idea of where the money is going and can question it. But for big items like the school budget, unless you’re an accountant it can be hard to follow all the money.
I’m not an expert on trash trucks, so I had to go with what was brought up in debate at the meeting.
In the end, if people aren’t happy with what their Town Meeting reps are doing, they’re more than welcome to run for office themselves. I’m certainly not happy with the whole “political thing” and would welcome a change. I just vote the way it seems everyone else does.
Comment by Andrea | April 19, 2008
Andrea I had to wait until the next election. I received incumbent papers which I should not have. But I will run again.
Dave I wonder how many town meeting members are either on another elected board or are employed by the town. I still don’t understand why this is not a conflict of interest.
Comment by ccutaia | April 19, 2008
I was wrong. Prior to the town election and the vote on the override I believed that Town Meeting would be more intent on trying to hold the line on the budget. If nothing else, I thought that there would be a serious effort to put in the time and be more focused. I truly believed that there would be an increased level of questioning, if nothing else.
I was wrong.
Wrong to the point that I am considering resigning my seat at Town Meeting. It becomes more apparent with each failure to convince my fellow Town Meeting members of my position that I am only wasting my time and the time of everyone else.
Particularly distressing to me was the reaction of a few of my fellow town meeting members when I put forth a motion to use funds from completed capital projects to supplement an appropriation from Free Cash (versus bonding for five years) the feasibility study that needs to be done for the State in order to qualify for a reimbursement to build a new high school. I was attacked for NOT bringing this motion to the Administration BEFORE making it at Town Meeting.
I tried to explain that I do not have a time machine and therefore, since I did not come up with the motion until we began the discussion re: the feasibility study article it would have been impossible to do so. It only occurred to me that there might still be some money in some of the long-completed school projects and I asked a fellow Town Meeting member for her Annual Town Report to find out if I was correct.
A few years ago I made an issue of the Town Administration’s lack of diligence re: the close out of capital projects. When asked who was responsible for re-appropriating monies that were left after a project was complete, the Town Administrator replied: “It is Town Meeting’s job.”
While he is/was technically correct, it is not really Town Meeting’s job to know the details of the Town’s budget at that level. It is more the responsibility of the Town Administration to put this information before the Finance Committee and Town Meeting. In fact, in many towns, the status of all capital projects is reported regularly to the BoS, the Finance Committee and to Town Meeting.
Also weighing on my decision is the failure of my words to convince Town Meeting that the Administration handles the water/sewer enterprise fund as though there are no limits to what the ratepayers can afford. Most TM members believe that the Finance Committee has diligently reviewed the details of the enterprise funds and therefore they do not have to concern themselves with it. Sadly, that is not the case.
The Administration successfully passed articles through Town Meeting that will force the BoS to raise rates by close to 20% UNLESS FY08 closes out with a significant retained earnings balance AND a decision is made to USE that balance to fund the FY09 enterprise fund budget. Since the BoS raised rates by 10% (Dec. 07) when there was no need to do so there is a good chance that the retained earnings balance will be in the $1M to $2M range. Even with that though there will still be a need to raise rates by 5 to 10%.
Adding insult to injury: the Administration was also successful in convincing Town Meeting to vote for an inflow and infiltration program that will be paid (partially) by sewer connection fees charged for new construction. There should be a significant amount of money brought in in this category due to the 1,000 or so new apartments/condos that will be built/have been built recently. Previously, the connection fees were one of the revenue sources for the enterprise fund. The Town Administrator claimed at TM that the funds will now be classified as “Receipts Reserved for Appropriation” and as such, be segregated from the enterprise fund revenue and dedicated to I and I projects.
Though I pointed out that NO FUNDS could be classified in such a way unless there was a specific Mass General Law allowing for it, Town Meeting ignored my point and voted for the article.
Additionally, the business manager of the DPW told TM that work on I/I would reduce the Town’s MWRA assessment and therefore, there would be a benefit to the Enterprise Fund.
Except he has no way of substantiating that claim. In fact, there will be no decrease in the MWRA assessment due to I/I work because:
1. The MWRA assessment consists of two components:
1. 75% is based on population and the number of sewer hook-ups
2. 25% is based on flow and the content of the flow
2. All MWRA communities are under that same DEP orders to reduce I/I. If all communities comply and reduce flow by proportionate amounts there will be no possible way for MWRA to reduce the assessments since there is a set cost for the MWRA that is in no way effected by a reduction in the flow they process.
But who cares about facts?
Comment by Jeffrey M. Phillips | April 20, 2008
Jeff, I do…and if you were to no longer be involved with TM, the clowns would run the place.
Please reconsider, you are a great voice in this town.
Thanks for all you’ve done!
Comment by Ed | April 22, 2008
Jeff,
It is unfortunate that with all your experience and knowledge that you are reduced to a lone voice in TM.
I see the frustration on your face. i do hope you run for selectman again. maybe the Charter committee will consider making the Town Manager an elected position and you could run for that. With your experience you would be good at it.
Comment by ccutaia | April 22, 2008
“Andrea” says she votes the same way it seems everyone else does. Since I don’t see anyone on the list of town meeting members named Andrea, I wonder if the real name might be “Jeanne”?
Comment by dave | April 26, 2008