Wednesday, right?

Tidbit no. one fore the day.  The bit in The Standard Times about Dartmouth looking into electronic voting.

One thing I am adamantly  against, and type of system or voting that allows a representative own meeting to cast ballots in secret.  That being said, there are such system on the market that do in fact allow for such voting and display of tabulation and individual voting.

Want to see a pretty good discussion on this topic, and what is an excellent and detailed report by a town committee, you can look at the report done for the Town of Arlington.  

The only real issues on the topic in my mind are display of votes, and costs.  Personally, I would look at the lease option.  But we are way ahead of the game. Dartmouth is looking at a two year review process.  We should pretty much add close to that amount of time to just get the ball rolling for a review.

Well the STM for within the annual has been called. Deadline for articles to be submitted if memory serves me is March 14th.  There will be several clean up articles, i.e. articles to handle matters to deal with FY 2014 matters.  

A number of non-general fund spending requests.  A number of requests to deal with matters that have to be dealt with relative to spending from surplus revenue.  A number of requests to supplement the FY 2014 operating budgets from surplus revenue.  

The last type mentioned is always the most disturbing and perplexing.  Budgets are suppose to be budgets.  If departments are not required to live within budgets, we could avoid a whole lot of hoopla, angst and debate every year.  We could simply adopt the mantra of "close enough for government work" as the official policy.

Don't get me wrong, I understand emergencies.  I understand truly unexpected. I understand shortfalls created as a result of several other things.  What I don't understand is the near automatic assumption that running short is acceptable, with little or no attempt to deal with the shortage, or little or no regard for your budget as the year progresses.

The majority of communities across the country expect departments to run on what is appropriated at the beginning of the year. When problems arise that create difficulties, the first assumption should not be its okay, I can go back to the well for more money.  

We absolutely fall prey to the common scare tactics and common "priceless" arguments. 

The words/phrases "can't do it" and "don't want to do it" are not interchangeable.

What you can't do is argue a policy to reduce reliance on surplus revenue and allow surplus revenue to continue to be relied upon.  You perhaps can't operate at an ideal level 24/7.  You certainly can operate within the constraints of a budget.

We all know the SOP.

We have to really except the concept of needs vs. wants.  We all want 100% effectiveness 100% of the time. That is never going top be possible, even if you had bags of money to throw at a problem.  Hume beings being human beings will prevent that perfect ratio.

In a sad but true world, certainly policies and decisions have to be made to deall with the never ending battle of needs vs. wants.

Really enough on this, because I think deep down everyone realizes this concept, the application of it will always be disputed by some as to their specific scenario though.

Besides, I am digressing.  Back to STM.

Budget allocation for the second of two STM this year $100,000.00 (for each by the way).  I always have a problem with that concept.  Seriously.

We should be pre-determining what we can spend for a special town meeting.  An article for funding from the general fund surplus revenue for this annual special within the annual should be known in advance.  Well in advance.  

The concept of what a special town meeting is for has somehow evolved from calling one because an actual necessity exists (and one "legally" did for the most recent one, making the need for a "true" special), to what I want is special to me so let me have it.

First and foremost, I will acknowledge that you cannot prevent an individual from placing an article on a STM warrant if he or she goes out and collects the necessary signatures.  I get that.  It takes 100 signatures for a warrant article for the special and indeed two signatures can get you your very own special town meeting.  The annual requires just 10 signatures.

So you can't stop articles. But you can stop the essentially automatic placement of articles on a special.

But I am digressing, again. SOP I guess.

You pre-determine any amount, you usually come darn close to spending it all or more. Pure and simple, STM shouldn't be about what you are willing to spend, it should be about what you need to spend.  Is any actual "need" that exceeds a threshold going to not be recommend because we only have $100,000?

STMs need to get back to necessary.  While we have been developing a laxer policy for other source funding articles and for some "procedural articles, that practice should end to.  The excuse that there isn't enough time to get the wording for articles finished in time for the annual deadline is just that, an excuse.  

The annual is the annual.  The deadline is consistent.  Most procedural changes and like matters should be able to be done for the annual with no problem assuming one starts the work early rather then later.  

This is all about shifting the planning calendar, well that and actually having a plan.

Moving on ...

Next Wednesday, i.e. one week from today is I believe the Government Access Candidates Night.  A softball event to kick off the "candidates night" season.  

I have a number of early bets on this sleeper election year.  Had to give some hefty odds too. No predictions yet.  Still too early.  In an anything can happen world, and when anything often does happen, like last year's Wednesday night massacre during the NFIA candidates night, too soon to tell.

I have to tell you, that one completely changed the dynamics of the whole election. It took a neck and neck race for selectmen, and completely altered it.  It took a cruise control BOH election and made it neck and neck, resulting in the longest election season this town has ever seen.

Going to miss the NFIA format.  Whether the "new" one will provide the same potential oomph will remain to be seen.  West Island was and will remain I think the best one to attend.  The problem is it is held way too close to election day, so while those in attendance get an eye and earful, most people simply won't see the "tape" before the election.  Does it have an impact, sure.  Never underestimate word of mouth.

Let's face it though, absent another bombshell being dropped like last year, if you are a prognosticator you pretty much got to have your picks set up.

From a strictly handicapping perspective, you have to be giving long odds to generate anything less than one sided action at this point.  but there is a reason we actually hold the elections, and that odds can swing dramatically on any given day.

Okay, enough for today.

Be safe!