Tuesday I spent the afternoon, well an hour of it, stilling through a selectmen "mandated" meeting. The most informative part of the meeting was the affirmation of the fact that very little is being done right in this town on the policy and procedure front, and even less has been done in the past than I thought.
Proactive government makes sure things are in place before a problem arises. Proactive government does not simply make reactive corrections to deal with a problem when it arises. Proactive government takes a hard look at what is wrong, acknowledges its miscues and shortcomings, comes up with a rationale plan for moving forward that it not only can explain, but does.
If you want to add good government into the mix, well quite frankly I am not sure anymore how you can do that anymore.
Good government acknowledges the fact that it exists to serve the people. It understands that in the end, it falls to the people to determine what is and isn't either through who is elected or what gets done by town meeting vote.
Good government doesn't wait for a DOR report to deal with nagging little problems like lack of policies and procedures, or outdated or nonexistent job descriptions. Good government does operate in a vacuum with one branch pontificating to equally empowered branches.
Good government doesn't allow years of neglect to accumulate, to ignore inadequacies, to plot hidden policies and agendas.
And to that end, each and every one of us bears a portion of the blame. Some of use more than others, and I include myself in that category.
It is never enough to try and minimize the damage.
It is never enough to ignore the how and why and simply look toward needed change.
It is never acceptable to accept knee jerk reactions.
If we are indeed at a point where we must accept a dose of extreme medicine to cure the ills, let us be darn sure it is in fact a cure, and not just a masking agent.
Shifting gears ...
Normally, I enjoy the editorial rants that appear in the various newspapers. Truth be told, there is always some validity to editorials. The problem is an editorial usually is geared solely toward supporting the position of the editor or editorial board.
This week in The Fairhaven Neighborhood News the editor's letter is a prime example of that. The main points are indeed valid.
Town Meeting did in fact vote for a Fairhaven only Rec Center (a concept that disappeared awhile ago by the way). The rec center is in fact a nice perk.
Where it goes wrong is that it isn't just sometimes it is about the service, it is all the time it is about the service. Government is in fact a business, despite any opinion to the contrary. It exist to provide needed services to people.
It is also always about the money. Saying it isn't doesn't make it so.
Providing services is not done by waiving a magic wand.
When you have a finite source of money projected to be insufficient, subsidizing one perk by necessity means using money that could go to other perks, or taking it from necessities.
In the end, Town Meeting makes the final determination of what a necessity is. At some point Town Meeting is in fact going to have to decide whether a "perk" has become a necessity.
Year in and year out fin com gets severely criticized in some corners for the time and effort put into the oft described "nickel and dime" issues. Those nickels and dimes add up. Those nickel and dimes, and the dollars and thousands of dollars and the tens of thousands of dollars slashed from what most people consider essential services are what continue to allow the subsidy of perks.
I understand the rant in the paper. However, the logic is unfortunately faulty.
It is always about the money. There is absolutely no escaping that fact. The only variable in any year is how you divide the money.
Do you want an adequately staffed police department or are you willing to do with one or two officers less for your perks? Sure you can get rid of a dispatcher, but someone still has to handle the phone and radio. Who is that, why the officer pulled off the road.
What about a firefighter or two going? Forget about the town meeting vote a few years ago indicting the desire to maintain five per shift. Are we now willing to go without that staffing?
Schools, let's cut them to the net school spending figure. We can. It is proposed year in and year out, and year in and year out Town Meeting supports an amount over and above that.
How about Highway and roadwork? There are still a few bucks there you can eliminate if you prefer your perks to snow plowing and admittedly inadequate maintenance funding.
Indeed road work has been the biggest casualty to maintain perks in this town. The requests are the first cuts looked at, and will be again this year. Not out of a decision the work isn't warranted, but out of a decision to try and maintain the "perks". Out of a necessity that you can't meet the funding request for roads and do everything else.
Ask the person living on an unpaved road whether they would rather the town spend the money subsidizing a perk. If they use the perk they may want it. If they don't, you might get an earful of what I get year in and year out about why their road goes unpaved while we pay for all these perks.
Don't want to pay for the use of the rec. facility. No biggie, just tell me what budget gets slashed to replace the $85,000.00 of retained earnings generated by fees and being used this year. If we through in the revolving account for program fees, well hey whats another amount of up to $90,000.00.
I want a lot of things. I want a town golf course. I want a free shellfish license (and why does my relative from out of state have to buy a license. I mean they will only be here three days). I want my road repaved. I want properly maintained parks. I want a police officer to show up on demand if I need one. I want instant response from the fire department and ambulance if needed. I want the best possible educational system for not only my child, but every child in Town, not only now but going forward. I want no potholes, as many bike trails as there is room for, showers and changing rooms at the town beach, a concession stand there (and oh yeah, more lifeguards too; and don't forget free parking in the lot). What I don't want is to have to pay for any of it. No fees, no permit cost and no tax increase.
Those are just some of the "I wants" that I hear, over and over again, and the "I don't wants" I hear twice as often as the "I wants".
What I really want is people to realize there is a finite pie to cut up into pieces for 63 items under the operational Article 4; and, there are the other numerous spending articles. What I want is people to realize there is not enough money to meet all the requests.
Making your piece bigger at the expense of some other piece may seem simple enough, except now you have to deal with the argument of why the thin piece should be restored to its original size at the expense of another piece. Get the drift.
Don't want to be taxed, charged a fee, pay for your perks, all any one person has to do is give a figure for maximum spending. Then tell us all how in the name of any practical solution do we spend that, no more, not less, and do everything every single person wants.
The simple as the fact is that it does always come down to the money.
Government is a business. It is a service related business. As with any business, it can only provide the services it can pay for.
Where the editor's rant really did hit the nail on the head though is
So just how much do we take in so that a minority of people can exercise and stay fit, at low cost and it seems preferably at no cost? Let's face it, it is a small minority. So small in fact you have more people who vote in town elections than use the rec center.
If you go to town meeting, how many members will tell you to subsidize the rec center at the expense of their perk, or a police office, or firefighter, or school teacher?
Let's face it, when the rec center was passed the town was pretty flush with money.
Do you think it would be built today?
By the way, never, ever forget the fact that while the center was built after a town meeting vote, the proposal never would have happened but for a political blunder of the too often kind that happens in this town.
The only reason the town even got the opportunity to vote for the whole thing was the huge miscalculation by some that the town would in fact see the YMCA as the "better" proposal. The "Y" proponents completely and utterly failed to realize the "townie" attitude is not easily overcome, and the proponents grossly overestimated their political sway.
Does anyone actually think there would have been a proposal for a one million dollar building for a town run center, but for a different plan on the table?
But we have it, we have our million dollar baby, and we subsidize it.
When the cost of that subsidy has to go up, when it comes time to make cuts, explain to me why this one is to remain a sacred cow?
A perk is a perk. A need is a need. Neither one is free.
If you have a sharper knife and a better argument to make over how to cut up that pie, let me know. I am willing to listen.
Heck you can have my knife.
Between the self-inflicted wounds and sustained back stabbing, I am not sure how many more "cuts" this body can deal with.
I would love to be able to go through a whole host of areas, establishing staffing levels, salaries, procedures and and weeding out perceived inefficiencies and excessive everything.
In my ideal world everything I want would happen.
I would have all my perks taken care of, for free too.
And that would make it all right because after all, every resident of the town wants exactly what I want don't they?
Normally, I enjoy the editorial rants that appear in the various newspapers. Truth be told, there is always some validity to editorials. The problem is an editorial usually is geared solely toward supporting the position of the editor or editorial board.
This week in The Fairhaven Neighborhood News the editor's letter is a prime example of that. The main points are indeed valid.
Town Meeting did in fact vote for a Fairhaven only Rec Center (a concept that disappeared awhile ago by the way). The rec center is in fact a nice perk.
Where it goes wrong is that it isn't just sometimes it is about the service, it is all the time it is about the service. Government is in fact a business, despite any opinion to the contrary. It exist to provide needed services to people.
It is also always about the money. Saying it isn't doesn't make it so.
Providing services is not done by waiving a magic wand.
When you have a finite source of money projected to be insufficient, subsidizing one perk by necessity means using money that could go to other perks, or taking it from necessities.
In the end, Town Meeting makes the final determination of what a necessity is. At some point Town Meeting is in fact going to have to decide whether a "perk" has become a necessity.
Year in and year out fin com gets severely criticized in some corners for the time and effort put into the oft described "nickel and dime" issues. Those nickels and dimes add up. Those nickel and dimes, and the dollars and thousands of dollars and the tens of thousands of dollars slashed from what most people consider essential services are what continue to allow the subsidy of perks.
I understand the rant in the paper. However, the logic is unfortunately faulty.
It is always about the money. There is absolutely no escaping that fact. The only variable in any year is how you divide the money.
Do you want an adequately staffed police department or are you willing to do with one or two officers less for your perks? Sure you can get rid of a dispatcher, but someone still has to handle the phone and radio. Who is that, why the officer pulled off the road.
What about a firefighter or two going? Forget about the town meeting vote a few years ago indicting the desire to maintain five per shift. Are we now willing to go without that staffing?
Schools, let's cut them to the net school spending figure. We can. It is proposed year in and year out, and year in and year out Town Meeting supports an amount over and above that.
How about Highway and roadwork? There are still a few bucks there you can eliminate if you prefer your perks to snow plowing and admittedly inadequate maintenance funding.
Indeed road work has been the biggest casualty to maintain perks in this town. The requests are the first cuts looked at, and will be again this year. Not out of a decision the work isn't warranted, but out of a decision to try and maintain the "perks". Out of a necessity that you can't meet the funding request for roads and do everything else.
Ask the person living on an unpaved road whether they would rather the town spend the money subsidizing a perk. If they use the perk they may want it. If they don't, you might get an earful of what I get year in and year out about why their road goes unpaved while we pay for all these perks.
Don't want to pay for the use of the rec. facility. No biggie, just tell me what budget gets slashed to replace the $85,000.00 of retained earnings generated by fees and being used this year. If we through in the revolving account for program fees, well hey whats another amount of up to $90,000.00.
I want a lot of things. I want a town golf course. I want a free shellfish license (and why does my relative from out of state have to buy a license. I mean they will only be here three days). I want my road repaved. I want properly maintained parks. I want a police officer to show up on demand if I need one. I want instant response from the fire department and ambulance if needed. I want the best possible educational system for not only my child, but every child in Town, not only now but going forward. I want no potholes, as many bike trails as there is room for, showers and changing rooms at the town beach, a concession stand there (and oh yeah, more lifeguards too; and don't forget free parking in the lot). What I don't want is to have to pay for any of it. No fees, no permit cost and no tax increase.
Those are just some of the "I wants" that I hear, over and over again, and the "I don't wants" I hear twice as often as the "I wants".
What I really want is people to realize there is a finite pie to cut up into pieces for 63 items under the operational Article 4; and, there are the other numerous spending articles. What I want is people to realize there is not enough money to meet all the requests.
Making your piece bigger at the expense of some other piece may seem simple enough, except now you have to deal with the argument of why the thin piece should be restored to its original size at the expense of another piece. Get the drift.
Don't want to be taxed, charged a fee, pay for your perks, all any one person has to do is give a figure for maximum spending. Then tell us all how in the name of any practical solution do we spend that, no more, not less, and do everything every single person wants.
The simple as the fact is that it does always come down to the money.
Government is a business. It is a service related business. As with any business, it can only provide the services it can pay for.
Where the editor's rant really did hit the nail on the head though is
Government should be taking in only exactly what it needs to provide the services we tell it to provide, no more, no less.You are taking a tax increase because I can tell you right now. No one is going to be able to do everything we do right now and eliminate fees without overriding prop. 2 1/2.
So just how much do we take in so that a minority of people can exercise and stay fit, at low cost and it seems preferably at no cost? Let's face it, it is a small minority. So small in fact you have more people who vote in town elections than use the rec center.
If you go to town meeting, how many members will tell you to subsidize the rec center at the expense of their perk, or a police office, or firefighter, or school teacher?
Let's face it, when the rec center was passed the town was pretty flush with money.
Do you think it would be built today?
By the way, never, ever forget the fact that while the center was built after a town meeting vote, the proposal never would have happened but for a political blunder of the too often kind that happens in this town.
The only reason the town even got the opportunity to vote for the whole thing was the huge miscalculation by some that the town would in fact see the YMCA as the "better" proposal. The "Y" proponents completely and utterly failed to realize the "townie" attitude is not easily overcome, and the proponents grossly overestimated their political sway.
Does anyone actually think there would have been a proposal for a one million dollar building for a town run center, but for a different plan on the table?
But we have it, we have our million dollar baby, and we subsidize it.
When the cost of that subsidy has to go up, when it comes time to make cuts, explain to me why this one is to remain a sacred cow?
A perk is a perk. A need is a need. Neither one is free.
If you have a sharper knife and a better argument to make over how to cut up that pie, let me know. I am willing to listen.
Heck you can have my knife.
Between the self-inflicted wounds and sustained back stabbing, I am not sure how many more "cuts" this body can deal with.
I would love to be able to go through a whole host of areas, establishing staffing levels, salaries, procedures and and weeding out perceived inefficiencies and excessive everything.
In my ideal world everything I want would happen.
I would have all my perks taken care of, for free too.
And that would make it all right because after all, every resident of the town wants exactly what I want don't they?
I don't think anything's wrong with someone stating what they support. As far as the rec center, I'm sure others are as enthusiastic. But, unfortunately, sooner or later, something's got to give. As you said, there's only so much pie.
ReplyDeleteIt would be interesting to ask department heads, up front, exactly 'where' in the town's budget they would suggest a cut in order to get their requested increases and/or items. Where do they think the money ought to come from?
Everyone who runs a business can't simply raise prices to accomodate desired salary increases and other expenses. Sooner or later, they'll reach a limit when customers are not going to purchase the product or service. What's more important, staying in business and making a little less profit, or closing the shop. In these economic times, that's the reality.
There's definately going to be some tough decisions to be made, and not everyone's going to be completely happy. That's life.
Well, I more than anyone else in this town, had hoped that Tuesdays "mandatory Meeting" was going to address the lack of policy.. To to say it was disheartening is putting it mildly. No one has apologized to the targeted resident or to me.
DeleteAs one knows I chose to report a racial slur 6 months ago. No action has been taken, no file removed, no enforcement responsibilities shifted...No apology, no update. I have been targeted with terrible rumors and threats. I believe the gentleman stated at our trainings that retalliation after one files a complaint increases...
As we learned NO policies have been created. Our town has an unsigned, undated "sexual harrasment" policy which town council sent to me a month after I filed my complaint with the state. It says to confront the person harrassing you, report it to your superior (I did report to my board chair) or the Personnel Board which we don't have.
Interestingly enough, our Executive Secretery stated that the responsibilities of Personnel fell under the Finance Director! Yes, a position that was vacant at the time of the incident... Not that I know where it is written.
We can only hope that as we attempt to implement DOR reccomendations, this will be included.
Being a representative of our town is an honor not a right.