I have taken a few more days off. No, I have lost my "resolution", so the the few e-mail inquiries on that line, I will say that even on the weekend, there isn't always enough time to juggle everything.
I spent the better part of the morning hours Saturday and Sunday reviewing documents, researching other documents, comparing the documents, pulling my hair out, writing, editing, reviewing and for about 98% of that part of it, deleting.
All I can tell you is if this is in fact as good as it gets, we are in a whole lot of trouble.
Enough of that rambling...
The deadline for submitting articles for the special town meeting was Friday. At last verbal reporting we were looking at requests totaling just a "tad" higher than what was "budgeted" for a special town meeting.
Some people are getting, some have always understood, that a special town meeting is not suppose to be used as a mechanism for funding matters that do not fall under that special title of "special".
Do we put certain things on the special that more appropriately belong on the annual, for legitimate reasons. Yes we do. But such matters are known and quantifiable when the whole mess we call budget season begins.
Every single time an event happens in this town that provides a sound bite for funding, someone rushes in with an article for the special that leapfrogs a request to the top of the line. We create emergencies based on past events and what if it happens again. We develop arguments and justifications in the name of being proactive rather than looking at the reasons we are reacting.
Enough ...
At some point, we will get to more pointed statements. At this point however not knowing some things, not understanding some things, waiting for explanations of many things, to sharpen those points could do more harm than good.
I am going to end today with a statement made previously, well a bit more pointed than made previously. The vehicle that while town government is in fact operating the problems are worsening. The present vehicle will in fact break down, completely.
This year has shown, to me at least, that we simply cannot afford to continue to operate it for much longer. Damage control is slowly, steadily becoming more time consuming and expensive than replacement cost. Buying the wrong replacement however will be an even bigger mistake.
Let's hope we see the right model suggested.
Be safe.
Those in the private sector know you're speaking the truth. We're living it. The public sector had best prepare themselves for what's coming. There's not going to be a lot of debate. Cuts have to be made, no doubt about it.
ReplyDeleteEvery year we start out with that same principal. Usually because in the first instance request exceed ability. The next reason being we have to provide for the future need of this or that.
DeleteWe absolutely have to start putting the brakes on. The issue is whether we need to slam the brake pedal on now or are we paying enough attention to the road to start applying those brakes in sufficient time to come to a proper stop.
There is a need at this point to perhaps start applying more pressure than we should have to because of past inattention.
First and foremost,we need to assess the weight of the load we are carrying. Cutting big budgets because those budgets are the biggest part of the load is the easy solution, not necessarily the best solution.
We need to look at what we are carrying, what we consider essential, desirable and what is a perk. We also have to truthfully and honestly look at what extra load we will have no choice in carrying.
But you can't make a reasonable and intelligent decision based simply on we know we have no choice to add on more to deal with certain necessities. If that is a foregone conclusion and there is no plan or adequate way to assess that future must, then doesn't it make more since to start jettisoning the load by eliminating the perks first, the preferred options next and the necessities we know of now last?
We absolutely should not be adding anything but necessities on the rest of this journey.
If you are entrenched in the belief that there is no other option but to start eliminating, I for one would suggest that elimination commence not in a rationale manner. If there is no other plan, no foreseeable hope, for carrying the entire load, why would you choose to continue to carry what you don't need in place of what you do?
Unfortunately that is the true crux of both the internal and external debate. Determining needs, preferences and perks is not a decision for any one individual or one group.
I listen to the proposed rationale for some of the cuts and I simply don't get it. It is one thing to argue something is not needed. It is entirely different to invent a rationale that completely disregards past decisions, policies and standards.
I agree with you. I guess my point was that we all need to be prepared for changes around here. Some of them are going to be difficult to accept, but necessary none the less.
ReplyDeleteNo escaping that statement.
Delete180,000 for the Quin bill is not putting on the brakes.
ReplyDeleteLarge amount yes. Using the cumulative application yes.180,000 due to the solely to the Quinn Bill no.
DeleteWell! it seems like we have been hearing about the town problems since about 2008,at least the glaring ones.Unfunded liabilities,health care,liability buildings have been taking a ever increasing share of the budget.Utilities are holding there own because of investment in solar,wind,an digesters.The services we have are the result of past policies and practices ,some are justified an some need to be changed.We cant keep going the way we are,the bottom of the barrel is showing an will soon be breached.Although some people still dont see this,they always think of the cup as always being half full.The recent water an sewer rate increase are just more things to come...
ReplyDeleteThought we were told there was no Quinn Bill,why the discussion,why even budget for the same..
ReplyDelete