Somtimes

Odds and Ends about T.M.

The drop off in attendance for the afternoon appeared to be less than usual.  Roughly 27% less members in the P.M.  Pretty good actually.

The closest vote of the day was the watershed article (no. 35).  As noted yesterday, it failed to gain the 2/3 majority needed.  Fell 14 votes short.

Whatever support there is out there on the tourism issue, Town Meeting was pretty clear about what it supported.  

Town meeting as a whole ran pretty smoothly.  The recent procedures adopted for presentations and speaking seem to be working satisfactorily, and I would say better than just satisfactorily. 

I haven't heard one complaint from the rank and file.  

People were extremely happy with the new format for the run through the night of the precinct meeting also.  While it make take some getting use to before more questions start opening up, the concept of the run through being conducted for purpose of addressing meeting members questions is appreciated and welcome.  

The precinct meetings should not be a platform for use to advocate one side or the other.  It should be about address the legitimate questions of meeting members related to the articles.  In the past we would be there well over three hours and still not have run through a good portion of the warrant.

There were a slew of articles passed over or withdraw.  Had all articles in the two warrants been debated and acted on there most definitely would have been a second session, and possibly a third.  Been quite awhile since Town Meeting has had to extend the annual session.

And no, time per se is not a reason to rush through anything.  Just a fact. 

There were several excellent points raised during town meeting.  The first had to do with the minimum "usage" fee charged for water.  I had some approach me after the meeting relative to the same.  Ideally you should seek the answer from the BPW.  

The digest version, as I understand it though is as follows:  There are certain services that are provide to every user.  There are certain costs associated with providing every user with water.  The same occur and are needed whether you use 100 gallons or 100 gallons or 1,000,000 gallons (I know your bill is measured using a different unit).

Example:  If the administration costs for the water division are a total of $100,000 (using numbers as examples here, not actual costs), There are two ways to cover this cost.  Build it into the unit fee and simply charge every based on the total gallons use; or, divide the cost by the number of users and assess it accordingly.

Administration is one of those costs which for the very large part, is incurred no matter what the individual usage is. Same applies to other aspects running the department.  Whether you use 100 or 1,000,000 gallons, the fact is the some of the costs are the same for every user.

We need to have certain equipment and personnel to deal with an individual user's problems and service no matter the usage.  Meter readers, trucks, etc. must be there.

If you simply went to a per unit use charge, then believe it or out, the low end user would more often than not in fact be getting the better deal.   

Example:  Billing.  If it costs $100 to print out 10 bills for 1,000 gallons of water (the actual cost of printing the bill for any user should be consistent), if 9 users only used 10 gallons each and the remaining 1 user used the balance, if the cost of the bill were apportioned solely by usage, 9 people would be paying $1 for the bill, and the remaining user $10.  

Certainly, we should encourage conservation, but just as certainly not every low end user conserves, and not every high end user wastes.  Indeed the high end user is the one with the most incentive to conserve.  

I suppose it revolves around your philosophy of what is everyone's fair share.  Might there be a need to look at whether the minimum fee should be adjusted, certainly.  

Staying on water for a moment, I am mindful of the fact that many people are in favor of the expenditure of more funds for the preservation of land.  For what it is worth, I will be looking into what can be done to come to a solution on the issue.

The other point raised at town meeting concerned employment contracts for non-union personnel.  The reason these individuals' contracts were not addressed in the code provision passed at town meeting was as simple as the fact that since town meeting cannot vote the "approval" to specifically fund the same left significant questions as to the practical effect of attempting to enforce similar provisions.  

The concerns raised at town meeting are valid ones.  Indeed, there may in fact be a means to address the same, and some thought has gone into it.  I have seen a few communities online who actually post all contracts with employees, union and non-union on-line (Tyngsborough, Rockland, Abington are three). 

It should be addressed and hopefully within 1 or 2 two meetings maximum, it will able to be.  

There in fact are people out there listening.  People willing to work with you.  

What gets lost too often is the fact that both the speaker of the message the person it is delivered to are often coming from two divergent points of view.  When neither one are willing to yield any ground or at a minimum acknowledge the opposing view, that is where the trench warfare begins.

I understand that often matters of process and procedure are looked upon as only excuses not to do something.  

But the same exists for reasons.  The process and procedure can be cumbersome, difficult to understand and comprehend and intimidating,  but to truly accomplish something need to be followed.   

Sometimes it shouldn't be as hard as it is.  Sometimes it absolutely needs to be.