Weekend Update: OPM Creativity

I took the day off yesterday from blogging not out of being lazy, but after having written a rather lengthy rant, I thought it best to delete it.  I went on the tear after reading the "Our View" piece in the S-T about the governor's"creative budget".  

A creative budget would be one that manages to accomplish some major things within the actual confines of the existing revenue stream.  There is absolutely nothing creative about putting together a budget proposal that relies on extra money you do not have, aren't sure you are going to have, and works only by taking money from other people.  

It may be a creative snow job on how to try and pass off a tax increase, but it isn't a creative budget, not by a long shot.

When did raising taxes become creative?  What serious thought has to go into any spending plan that relies on an increase in the flow of money for new programs?

Once again we have another example of the answer being found in simply more money, and people buying into that hook, line and sinker.  

You can plant as many new trees in a diseased orchard that you want.  Unless you eradicate the problems affecting the existing trees, the fruit from the new trees will be just as poor as that from the old.

I can solve the local education issue in one fell swoop, along with many of the other problems that ail communities.  The answer should be there for anyone who wants to do just a little research on the matter, and some actual thinking, before jumping on the bandwagon about how new taxes and programs will create a whole new and brighter world.

How about pumping back into the local aid package the money that has been siphoned off from local communities to pay for other things over the last decade.  For Fairhaven the net effect of that is nearly $1 million dollars.

What good does creating new programs with new money do when the existing structure needs it?

When the governor releases his actual budget, let us all see just how creative it is.  Any cut to the local aid, in any segment is going to show me just how "creative" he can be.

I am all for tightening the belt.  Locally, we are at the point there is nothing left to wrap the leather around as far as further reductions in state aid.  

So after that, imagine the tone of the piece I didn't publish.

I have had several people discuss with me the mini-issue over the Cushman Park easement.  I won't get into the details of the discussion. I will say, as I believe I have all ready, there is a simple enough way to resolve the matter.  

Send it back to Town Meeting.  

Put an article on the Special Town Meeting Warrant for May, asking Town Meeting if it is the will of the body to grant the easement and pay the costs associated with the same. Ask it if it in fact wants to comply with the conditions put on the Special Legislation.  That will put an end to it.

In case you are wondering why it is a mini-issue, well it should be a non-issue actually.  Because first of all, the problem was not the Town's fault, never was and never will be.  Secondly, after bending over backwards to help a resident out, it seems the town now is expected to fold itself in two, when it absolutely doesn't have to.  Third, it shouldn't even be a matter for discussion, because the very first thing that should have happened after the special legislation was enacted, should have been a determination asto when to resubmit the matter to Town Meeting to see if it wanted to comply with the add-on conditions.

The issue shouldn't be whether the selectmen should roll over and play dead.  

There is actually a third reason, but I am going to see if anyone can figure it out.  Follow the Special Legislation link.  Read it.  Tell me if you want to take a stab at it what the third reason is.

Other news:  a little piece in the S-T today noting the Windwise group has decided against appealing the judge's decision on the lot numbering issue.  The article notes the group has next steps planned, but those steps weren't disclosed.

On Wednesday, the S-T on page 4 printed a rather large correction to an op-ed piece that appeared on January 4, 2013.  The original piece contained incorrect information relative to the authorship to the Green Communities Act (incorrectly called "Green Energy Act" in the piece).  The careless disregard for simple facts, whether intentional or not, should cause one to wonder about the remaining "factual" statements in any piece.

Just as expressing opinions as found in reports as facts should.

Another piece in today's S-T discusses the status of the upcoming town election.  Just two contested elections at this point (selectman and the seats on the school committee).  From a blogging perspective, I hope it picks up.  Still, one must work with what they got, right?

What else?  Apparently the selectmen voted Wednesday night to support a change to a "strong" town manager, elimination of the elected BPW, combining the treasurer with the tax collector position and to change the make-up and method of appointment of the finance committee.  The exact how and when, we will have to wait for.

As to the one that affects me personally, most, I am willing to wait to see the proposal for the finance committee.  What I hope gets considered is that when they look at what other communities do, they in fact look at what other communities do. Not totally holding my breath for that though.

Combining the treasure/tax collector position shouldn't pose much of a problem or result in too much opposition.  In many ways it makes perfect sense.  Should be done whether you do town manager or not.  The only issue is whether they intend to do something about who is director of finance. The one no-no in the combination of the those positions would be to do so and make the position director of finance.  We shall see.

While the town manger thing will have its detractors, the concept seems to have widespread support among the common folk in concept.  Obviously the details may affect that.  The biggest problem I see to getting this accomplished is going to come from the turf protectors.  I can the opposition lining up on the sidelines.  The little questions like well what about this and that.  

Simple reality: the system will result in change.  The status quo for everyone will be altered to some degree.  No one position, division, department, board or committee is so important as to scuttle the concept.  

Each component exists as part of the town, the town does not exist for your convenience.  

Enough for today.  Stay warm. Be safe.