Thursday, a bit mundane.

Apparently, I have "flair".  All this time I just thought I was a rambling lunatic. 

Anyway, while I might a times use the dramatic approach on something, it is to cut to the chase on a valid point.  Truth be told on the salary article at the Special Town Meeting, I could have used a nice handy dandy power point slide.  Just not my style though.

It would have shown that if there were a need for "increased" salary for whatever new position or existing position may be needed, there will be plenty of "money" within the budget as is.  

You have to assume that by the time there is a job description written, an advertisement placed, interviews conducted and a decision made on who to hire at what as of yet undetermined position, we will be in the first week of March, if not later.  But assume someone is hired and starts working then, that means there are four months left in the fiscal year.  A period of time equal to the span between resignation of the prior finance director and the start of the new whatever.

Now there isn't a dollar for dollar savings in salary not being used because the employee who is temporarily handling the day to day duties is receiving additional compensation for doing the same, and rightfully so.

I haven't done the exact math, but assume a minimum savings of $200.00 per week (probably low but it will do) in salary pay out pending filling the appointment, 4.3 weeks per month, times 4 months rounded equals 17 weeks or roughly 1/3 a year.  $200 per week times 17 weeks equals $3,400.00.  Working that over the year equals $10,200.00 per year more you can offer a salary at.

As far as if that isn't enough, and not being able to wait until the next town meeting, well salaries for positions are offered subject to town meeting approval and appropriation in plenty of places.  While another $2,000.00 (effectively $6,000 a year) would leave you a whole lot of wiggle room, before we decide that we can increase a salary by a total of $16,000 plus a year, we ought to know what we would be paying for, shouldn't we? 

As I said a bit more mundane, these numbers, but nonetheless it is something that should have been brought out by the proponents of the article.  I mean it might have helped people to know that an extra $10 K plus wouldn't be enough to attract a candidate.

What else is going on ...

Quite the fire yesterday.  Tragic for the business and persons who suffered the loss though.  Missed the resulting traffic accident between a car and New Bedford firetruck at Adams and Rout 6 by minutes.   

On a more pleasant note, don't forget the Old Time Holiday event running this weekend in Fairhaven.  Food, crafts, singalongs and other fun stuff.  

Shifting gears, seems more people are at least perusing the DOR report.  Again, I encourage everyone to take a look at it.  Again you can find a copy by following the links from the Town web site homepage.  

I keep getting asked about abolishing the BPW.  First and foremost, if we don't accept the recommendation of a strong town administrator, I would quite frankly say no.  It is not that I don't understand the reasons for the recommendation.  It is that I do feel the recommendation to abolish the BPW is intricately tied into a strong town administrator.

Be that as it may, there will be some interesting debate as time progresses over the recommendations.  

Despite contentions to the contrary, I do believe whether to abolish the BPW is a valid question for candidates seeking a commissioners seat.  You might assume the obvious answer is no, however, the reasons for that no will go a long way helping people determine whether the candidate is a good one, and whether incumbents or challengers can articulate a real need for a separate board.  If people seeking the office can't come up with a real reason for having the office in the first place, one should wonder, shouldn't they?

Okay, that's it for today.  Be safe.