Batting Order, Leading Off Is No. 9

We have less than one month until the Annual Town Meeting.  The warrant for the articles on the annual can be found by clicking on the appropriate page above.  Again, whether you are a Town Meeting Member or not, you should take a look at what will be before our town's legislative body on that day.

There are numerous articles of significance being proposed.  Not the least of which will be the "operation budget" dealt with under Article 4.  Balancing the budget has taken on new meaning this year.  There were, and I am sure remain, disagreements on what departments are to get what money.  Coupled with that fact, there have been some significant increases in "fixed" expenses, depleting an ever dwindling funding pool, decisions have not be easy. 

The result:  there is very little money available to do much else than open the doors.

While the economic problems we all face apparently have have bottomed out and are on an upward turn, albeit a very slow one according to the talking heads who are suppose to know these things, on the government level we will see a slower "recovery" .  The facts of life simply are that it takes anywhere from one to three years for government revenue/funds to rebound to the level of what I call the "real world".

The decisions on funding are ultimately in the hands of Town Meeting though.  Just keep in mind, assuming things (i.e. estimates and actual figures) do not change from this point on, there is really no wiggle room, no matter who's recommendations you choose to follow.  

Put another way, if you feel that an item of some significant money which has not been recommended should in fact be approved, you pretty much are going to be faced with having to cut something out of the budget.  

I could go on for pages with the "money" aspect.  I may in fact do that over the course of time, but not in one sitting.

Today, I want to point out to you Article 9.  This is a proposed amendment to the Town Code.  An addition actually.  Its purpose is to attempt to insure that appropriate information is provided for review prior to Town Meeting to insure time in which to make decisions relative to collective bargaining agreements, i.e. union contracts.  

Historically, most decisions at Town Meeting on these matters are made with little advance details.  Often, the same are approved on the actual morning before commencement of Town Meeting.   Recommendations are often made without the benefit of review of the actual document and at times prior to ratification.

Why you may ask?  There is a provision of the applicable law governing collective bargaining that requires an agreement to be submitted to the appropriating body (in our case Town Meeting) within thirty days.   Failure to do so, absent an agreement to the contrary by the parties, has in the past resulted in grievances.

Place holder articles are place on the warrant in the hope that the agreements will be reached prior to the meeting, thus allowing the matter to be acted upon if this happens.

To be honest, many times such agreements can in fact be dealt with as far as review and recommendations in short order.  The problem is at other times this is not the case, and approval can result in significant financial ramifications for the town, not necessarily immediately but in subsequent years.

The only potential valid argument I have heard against the article is the fact that failure to comply with the terms could result in the Town having to call a Special Town Meeting, or having to adjourn to another day, holding another session, each resulting in additional costs.  

You notice I used the word "potential".  

Paragraph F of the proposed article provides a fail safe mechanism.  Should the Town Meeting before which a proposed contract which is submitted (but not in compliance with the code section) decide it wishes to proceed with a vote on a non-conforming agreement, it would be able to do so.  Yes it would require a separate vote on whether to proceed, but it could in fact do so.

What this article does is put both management and personnel on notice that failure to work in a timely fashion to negotiate an agreement could result in such an agreement not being acted upon, or if submitted to close to a TM perhaps being defeated.  

You want the perfect foil for the argument against it.  Read above.  You want another. Read below.

Whether the article passes or not there is another simple foil (and I note this is a purely personal point of view).  Quite honestly any agreement reached which wouldn't comply with this code section if passed, shouldn't be delayed.  Town Meeting should waive the requirements and then simply vote against it.

I can't really understand any down side to the article.  The big plus is the fact that it does put an onus on those who want an agreement approved to make sure they work to a timely resolution.    Why wouldn't you want town Meeting to have the necessary information in advance of a vote?

In the interest of full disclosure, the article was submitted by the Finance Committee; and, as of the time this piece was written the standing vote of the Selectmen was to recommend indefinite postponement.

Article 9 of the Annual Town Meeting ladies and gentlemen.  Read it and decide on your own.