Well Town Meeting certainly threw my theory that we run a marathon rather than a sprint right out the window. Les than an hour.
Truth be told I was expecting 8:30 P.M. as the finish time, with 9:00 P.M. as the outside max. Go figure.
Actually if you go and figure, the pot issue went pretty much as it should have. The zoning article was not an endorsement of marijuana use, it wasn't a cave in to the "state". It was/is an attempt to regulate to the extent possible, under the law.
Sorry, but there was no stand to take on this by-law. Don't pass it, well you could fight for the moratorium which was up at bat next, and that I am guessing would not have obtained a two thirds vote. Just a guess. A personal opinion. If that too however failed to pass, than no restricted district.
The limited discussion was in large part due to the extended discussion throughout town.
The police contract seems to have a few people rankled. Restoration of the educational incentive that the state left every community in the Commonwealth holding the bag for was an event that absolutely was going to happen, either through direct contract negotiations or binding arbitration.
Yes Town Meeting still has the final say on binding arbitration. The simple fact is if you disapprove a binding arbitration award, you do no more than delay that award and in the long run it usually costs you even more.
We can argue the reasons why forever and a day, however the Town's track record with binding arbitration is not good.
Personally, I would have preferred a five year phase in. Didn't happen. You have to play the cards dealt at the table. There will be opposing views on the matter, as there are on most, indeed all matters. For me, better to deal with this issue at a time when the adverse financial ramifications can be dealt with incrementally, rather than wait two or three years from when an arbitration award would come down with a ton of bricks.
Okay, well to try and ignore this week's addition of the Fairhaven Neighborhood News would be like trying to bury one's head in the frozen tundra out your backdoor. Well actually it is possible. Probably would have myself, but for the tizzy someone seemed to have got themselves into yesterday.
Anyway ... paging through it, there are three pots I can count doing a hard boil based on the content, and my pot isn't one of them. As I said yesterday mine may or may not boil over today. If it does, you actually won't need me to tell you.
That's all I have for today, which is more than I had planned on doing, however sometimes the littlest things tend to get you motivated. Go figure.
Be safe!
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteOkay, as an FYI the two people who have attempted to comment, I am not dodging the issues raised in your comments, just dodging certain statement that would clearly be construed as factual, and as far as I can discover aren't established fact. Truth may be a defense but you have to be able to prove it is true, or so they tell me
ReplyDeleteOkay, we can't believe everything we read. But certainly there are, in this town, abuses of power.
ReplyDeleteOutside of govt. they're called abuses of power. Inside they're called perks.
ReplyDeleteSwitching gears, I have some questions and comments about last night's Town Meeting, particularly in regards to the “Quinn Bill” and how it factors into the Town's and Police Department's budget.
ReplyDeleteI understand that at some point, the Town obviously accepted the state statute to offer incentives for higher education. On its face, it is a great premise – well educated officers could certainly benefit their department and the community. However, faced with State budget shortfalls, how sustainable is this program for the future?
For those officers who have already expended their own funds to further their education, I'm not sure it's quite fair to pull the plug on their incentives and pay differentials. I think we should honor the Town's share of the burden. However, off hand I can't name another public sector department that pays people for specifically for education advancement. It seems like an outdated premise to the layperson.
Is there a way to revoke the town's acceptance of the statute, or condition it? Is it possible to not offer this for new hires? What else is the legislature doing to assist municipalities with this issue?
Without the State honoring their agreement (because of clear and obvious budget concerns), how are municipalities supposed to take up all the slack? It sounds like the PD may have to make tough internal decisions (layoffs?) to keep this program alive, which almost seems counter-intuitive to me. Also, as a taxpayer, I'm not sure I enjoy a Union to have the Town by the short hairs, especially when the State reneged on their end.
Thanks for any input. I'd like to know more about this if anyone has any info...
I can't imagine how it's going to work out. Either way we may have fewer officers. They will leave for higher pay somewhere else, or they will be let go because we can't afford to pay them.
ReplyDeleteOr if we do decide to keep them, where's the money going to come from to retain them?
I guess hindsight is 20/20 vision.
Some private sector companies pay tuition reimbursement so employees can better themselves. Knowing that a company will do that is a reason to stay with the company.
ReplyDeleteI don't know how many issue raises based on their employees earning a new degree. Maybe business owners are smarter that our govt. leaders.
I'm not sure I understand (or agree with) the math used in part to justify this decision. I heard a selectman state that one of the reasons they supported paying the state's share was to avoid paying the high costs of recruiting officers that quickly leave the department for greener pastures. I heard recruiting costs $80K and we lost 5 officers in the last 10 years. I'm not certain all 5 left specifically for other towns that were paying the full Quinn bill benefits. How many of those departures went to towns that were paying the state's share? The state withdrew its share only a few years ago. Let's say for the sake of argument that all 5 left for Quinn bill benefits elsewhere. Average their lost recruitment expense over the span (5 X 80K = $400K / 10 years = $40K per year). This Quinn bill replacement will cost $180K per year, when fully phased in, forever, and that number only goes higher each year going forward because the Quinn-related pay raises are on top of normally scheduled raises and as more officers take advantage of the benefit. To avoid a $40K annual risk, we will now pay $180K+ every year. Am I missing something? Look, we all value our law enforcement personnel and nobody wants to get up and argue against compensating employees who risk their very lives protecting us. But we can't ignore the bottom line either. What's to stop every other department or union from asking for the same benefit? I worry about the cost justification and the precedent set.
ReplyDeleteArticle in today's S-T about plowing the bike path. How many people ride their bikes in all kinds of weather? They have plans to start the bike bus to the schools in March. Should the path be plowed for that reason? I can't see it. When they get to the top of the path, they're going to have to ride in the street on Sconticutneck Rd. Bikes aren't supposed to ride on the sidewalks even if those businesses and residents have cleared theirs. There are other available ways to get to school until the snow melts.
ReplyDeleteI know for a fact that at least two officers left the force in the last 10 +/- years in order to join the Massachusetts State Police. As far as the others, and their reasons for leaving, I have no idea. AS my memory serves me, they may have left prior to the State not funding the Quinn Bill.
ReplyDeleteIt also occurs to me that paying officers a premium for an associates or a bachelor's is not money well spent. In my personal opinion, I think establishing (if legal) minimum entrance requirements where a Bachelors degree would be required by a candidate would be a far better option.
As you mentioned Phil, I can't imagine anyone in our community not wanting educated, well-trained, and sufficiently compensated officers. I just am having a problem grasping how continuation of the Quinn Bill is a financially-responsible and stable choice, when the State already gave up their commitment. Covering our obligation is one thing, picking up the tab for the State (who consequently feels the need to neglect welfare reform, provides tuition benefits for illegals, etc.) is another altogether.
But to be truthful, I am positive there are things I am not grasping about the reality of the Quinn Bill.
I can't grasp the sense of this.
ReplyDeleteIf you work in the private sector, you work in a position and you can attend school to earn degrees. After you earn a degree, you still have to wait until a higher level position opens up and apply for it before you get a raise.
What's the sense of awarding degree raises in addition to other raises for the same position?
Lets not forget every time a raise is awarded it is tacked on to compensation,and possibly its also part of the retirement package.The buck doesnt just stop at the initial Quinn bill stipend award..
ReplyDelete