Cents and sensibility

One of the comments to the last blog, done on Friday, noted that opinion that as long as we keep allocating money for Special Town Meeting we will end up with request larger than the allocations. There is some truth to that.

The conundrum with allocating money for special town meeting, or rather if you didn't,  is if you don't you might not be able to pay for truly special things. 

The absolutely most irritating part of the process known STM is how it is at times used for supplementing or supplanting a department's budget omissions and mistakes.  While this fortunately is a decreasing trend, it should become near non-existent.

When you get the warrant for the STM take a look at the articles.

The by-laws/ordinances, one can understand why the same are on a STM.  Not totally in agreement on how some of these get there, and the rationale as to why for some. For the most part though, especially those for some articles of this nature that require public hearings to be time within certain periods to town meeting, well it is understandable.

The funding articles.  The same to me should have to meet certain criteria.  The first question to ask is whether the money is needed to meet a present year need.  Through in the bills from prior year stuff with this too.  None of those at this STM, well technically none of those, since we took care of them at the February STM. 

"We have to do it" takes priority over anything else. One we do what we have to do, spending beyond that STM allocation best have a clearly compelling reason.

All other spending, no matter what the source, should be looked at very carefully.

Next criteria, why is this one on the special.  This becomes especially true for any matter that could have been put into an operational budget.  If it could, why wasn't it?  

Allowing the STM to be used to cover oversights for non-essentials just continues the the "tried and true" process of poor budgeting practice, and perpetuates the growing belief some matters are delayed intentionally.

If it is so urgent, why wasn't it thought of? If it could properly be part of an operating budget, than put it there.  Amend your request in the annual.  Why not, everyone else does.

If the bright idea came up after the deadline for the annual articles, or a deadline to apply after notice for applications for funding from a special source, why is your request now so important that it shouldn't be considered with other request, say next year?

Every dollar you spend at the special, no matter what the source, is a dollar less in the pool for the following year.  I am quite frankly baffled at how willing we all are, myself at times included, to allow little requests to slide because they are little.  

What makes something so darn special that if it didn't have to go through the same process as many of the other articles or proposals, it should be able to avoid the closure scrutiny the other articles and proposals had to go through?

Because someone has a EUREKA moment should never be a reason to spend anything.  I know of a couple of items for which that occurred this year and the person/group with the light bulb decided to wait to next year.  Not because the idea is any less deserving than the clutter on the STM warrant, but because of the "supposed" standard and process. 

You will see one or two for this year on the warrant though from the definite "me first" brigade. 

If you have money left over after the annual budget, or money that could be used, but might be wiser to hold back, what urgency exists to spend it?  

Oops, I forgot to put it in my budget might be a reason to have to hold your budget when we read the line items under article 4, make you get up and explain why you absolutely have to have the money when we discuss your article 4. It should be a reason for you to submit an article for the STM.

Some may argue well if you would probably spend it under article 4 why not do it at the special anyway? I can acknowledge that point.  I would ask you to consider though how in fact over the years too many of these oops things somehow materialize after a budget is submitted.  That by allowing the oops moments to go on and on we perpetuate a very poor budget planning process.  

We actually penalize those who take the steps and do the work and analysis and consider the constraints they are asked to follow and consider, and fore go extras, after thoughts and "what the heck it is worth a shot" attempts.

We set aside money for STM because one needs to reasonably plan for the need to deal with current year problems of a "special nature".  We do so because there actually might be somethings that pop up between a deadline for the annual that the calling for the special that could not reasonably be foreseen or planned for. 

We build the amount into the budget for the annual. Weighing requests based on a spending amount, rejecting some requests because of that spending decision, and essentially penalizing those who somehow can manage to do the right thing budget wise to throw money at those who ignore the process, or feel they are above the process.

Yes giving it under article 4 would in fact still increase the "spending", if it were voted.  Making them have to hold, argue and explain the budget change is also one way to perhaps get them to think twice when putting together a budget. 

Additionally, making something compete from the same pool of resources as everything else, rather than arguing it is coming from the loose change pool does seem to make the consideration of those voting a bit more pointed.

One point everyone should consider, whatever disagreement exist relative to spending plans, projections, resources; there is a same page concept about what will remain in the pool, just perhaps not what end to segregate it in.  It isn't in anyone's plan to spend money in the special because of simple "Oops" or "Eureka" discoveries.

Bottom line is you can't keep any article that gets the 100 signature for placement on a STM warrant off.  Which means however you can keep those that don't get 100 signatures off.  The concept of as a "courtesy" needs to disappear and be replaced with as a "necessity".

The necessity should be related to a necessity for the town, not the group or individual.  How is the town affected by not doing something?

All this is affecting me at the moment.  Time to wrap it up.  Whether this makes and sense or not, who knows? 

Be safe.