Tuesday night is the Special Town Meeting here in Fairhaven. While the "stage" is in agreement on just about everything, there are two issues, right out of the gate where there may/will be at this point some disagreement.
The request for salary under the treasurer's department, has a different request than recommendation. I think this one will be a non-issue, but one never knows. The request is for $25,000.00 and the recommendation is for just under $23,000.00. The recommendation is based on the figure needed to meet the shortfall because of the "buy backs" owed to the former holder of the position.
When asked why the request was for more than was needed, two points have been offered for explanation. The first was to round off the figure. Why you round off a figure two thousand + dollars upward is a tad perplexing, but hey, $25K does sound a bit rounder than say $23K, right?
The seconded point was the extra money was potentially needed to deal with the possibility of having to increase the salary for the position for a new hire. If all it would take is an extra $2K to attract the best candidate means one of two things: a real glut of unemployed municipal finance directors; or, we were paying at the real high end to start with. Whichever it is, absent an actual end figure for what that salary need might be, it is simply another request that falls in the "what if" category.
The second matter, and this one probably will be debated, is a request to $6,000.00 from the Highway capital outlay category to purchase of services.
Before we deal with the request, let me first tip my hat to the numerous other departments in town that despite some unexpected expenses early in the year, have decided that perhaps they might be able to work through the remaining 7 months of the year and try to offset costs to the taxpayer, perhaps squeeze the nickle, and actually work within their budgets, before running to Town Meeting in December to dump more money in a spending category that as a whole is running about on pace, but has a line item running high.
Year in and year out there are always big ticket repairs needed somewhere, or unplanned and needed expenses. Year in and year out departments are reminded that significant "unexpected" expenses in a line item need to be attempted to be offset by potential savings in spending in other line items within a category to the extent practical. They are reminded that until the category itself is in danger of running out of money, funds should not be sought to add to spending.
The very first question that everyone should be asking about this request: If we weren't holding a Special Town Meeting, just what would happen? If the answer is nothing, someone best have a pretty solid reason other than the money isn't needed in "Category A" so we thought we would shift it to "Category B".
I have heard that this request should be looked at as proactive. I have all ready done a line or two on that. I will save the bulk of my "proactive" argument for Tuesday.
Enough on that ...
The Town election in April - #1 question for all candidates running for any office: What is your opinion/stance on whether the Town should follow the DOR recommendation and adopt a strong town administrator (manger) for of government? Second question for all selectmen and BPW candidates: Do you believe the BPW should be abolished as recommended in the DOR report?
It goes without saying there should be an explanation to the answers. An explanation with specifics, not just general feel good replies.
I am toying with the idea to address the recommendations in the DOR report on an individual basis over time. What will be interesting is the next regular selectmen's meeting and what if anything is implemented to get the ball rolling on dealing with the recommendations.
There are a lot of things though in the report that are long over due. Many procedural things that haven't been done and should be done no matter what form of government exist. Many have fallen by the wayside as a result of no central command, for lack of a better term.
We shall see just how those in power intend to deal with taking steps to better town government.
Enough for today. Take care and be safe.
I wonder if a “new” candidate, committed to running for a BPW seat would ever be in favor of “abolishing the BPW”.
ReplyDeleteI think the intent of the report was to severely reduce the extent of authority of the day to day duties of the BPW, not abolish it. Just my opinion.
What do you think about reducing the Finance Committee membership? Which candidates, running for an elected office, would that be an appropriate question for?
What did you think of the proposal to place the Department of Planning under the Planning Board, as it is in most towns, John?
I wonder if “new” candidates are the ones we should be asking to interpret current operations and provide major structural changes. Then, I wonder if “new” elected officers should use a business meeting to weekly offer changes to government. The result could be an agenda nightmare with unpredictable winds blowing through it, accomplishing nothing but ridiculous headlines.
I feel you already know all the answers to your questions. Why is a “government study committee” as historically assembled in Fairhaven not being offered to the full body?
A "new" candidate may not be in favor of "abolishing the BPW", but her or she, along with any incumbent should be able to articulate the reasoning why it shouldn't be abolished.
DeleteThe intent of the opinion is pretty clear. the recommendation is #4, and is entitled "Eliminate the Board of Public works and Personnel Board". Within the recommendation is specifically stated that "the town dissolve its elected board of public works and have the superintendent report directly to the newly formed position of town administrator."
Like I said the intent is pretty clear.
As to Fin Com, heck you can ask any of the candidates you want about reducing the committee's membership. I would think it is appropriate for any elected official who has to deal with the Fin Com.
Not sure I saw a proposal to place the Department of Planning under the Planning Board in the report. In general however, if we had a Department of Planning, that wasn't also the Department of Economic Development, I might be willing to consider it; however, if we go the town administrator route, there would be caveats to that.
"New" candidates AND incumbents are exactly the ones we should be asking, but I am guessing we will not see eye to eye on that. For me though, I do want to know exactly where people stand.
I think I get the jest of your "use of business meeting" comment, however that has been and will always be any issue.
As to knowing all the answers, I know what I would like to see, but am always interested in what others think.
By the way, a reading of the report will note that it also recommends the formation of a government study committee.