I was actually planning on taking the week off. There was a comment to a recent post made however that raised a point that some in town find disturbing.
It was raised during decisions to establish the position of TA. It was raised during discussion for the hiring. It will continue to be raised every instance someone has a complaint about their taxes and how the taxes get spent.
The argument goes: Our new TA is not a town resident. He doesn't own real estate. He only rents. He doesn't pay taxes in Town.
So what? Think your answer through by the way. Please. I am really not in the mood to banter back and forth this week.
First you very well could have a TA who is a Town resident, who doesn't own real estate but only rents. So where is the difference in those two scenarios. Sure, as a resident if he owned a car there would be excise taxes, but if he as a resident rented, no real estate taxes.
Owning a house in town is going to accomplish what by the way? I have seen too many people make to many decisions based on how it effects them. I understand that. I do. I understand sometimes the real and extreme need to pinch those pennies.
I also understand that sometime hard decisions must be made. If you represent a town, you have to decide based on the Town.
Granted the its only a "cup of coffee" argument can be completely infuriating to hear, especially if you presently cannot afford that cup of coffee. But put it another way, unless and until the actual policy makers decide to give you a break, we are talking about the same battle we have be fighting for a long time.
It isn't about how much will be raised. The paid payroll has always fought for the full 2 1/2 plus new growth. It is the spending of the full load.
By the way, renters do in fact pay taxes, indirectly, but they do pay taxes. Well the ones not in government housing. We get some PILOT money for that however we aren't getting ... never mind, for another day on that.
Suffice it to say, you rent you do pay taxes, through your landlord. If that isn't a direct enough connection for you, so be it.
In the line of a town resident who pays taxes being better for the job than a nonresident TA, based on what exactly?
Trust me when I tell you, the spending philosophy of the past has been raise every single possible dollar you can on the tax levy. Indeed, all rants and raves in the past to the contrary, it has been a long, long time since any administration budget was developed with an intent to provide the tax payer a break.
The odd year or two in the past 15 years or so where the limit was not maxed out was a result of a miscalculation not any real intent to provide relief. Hell, we had one occasion a number of years ago where the town raised over $200k more than authorized by T.M. through a technical, but absolutely legal procedure, because it discovered we were under the limit.
Now that particular little exercise in "tax them til it hurts" did have a silver lining going forward. It brought to light the power of the pencil and the past procedures and role of the overlay account. But before I digress ...
My point being here, there has been no effort by any town residents employed to cut budgets for a tax savings. Divert the money to something else yes, but not to put it back in your pocket.
Which is why, in the past we had the budget turmoil we did. The battles would rage not on saving the tax payer money but in where it was going to go. But I digress again.
Simply put a town resident vs. a non-town resident gets you nothing financially as far as spending. You may feel otherwise however it is an opinion not based on past experience, not in this town.
Having had the opportunity to have had a chit chat with our new TA, knowing what I have been able to discover about applicants, non-applicants, including residents, there is no doubt in my mind that your new TA, based on the available pool, and potential residents available, was the best choice.
Might others have been capable? Possibly. The unknown will remain unknown however. Also, never, ever underestimate the validity of the "Peter Principle".
Time will tell how good Mr. Rees actually is. At the time of his selection however there were none known better suited.
Another point that needs to be made clear here.
It is an absolutely necessary clarity.
The TA position, as presented, as related to the BPW and as failed to be totally implemented in what was a failed, and shortsighted strategy of "consolidation", does not have control of the day to day operations of the BPW.
Whatever perceived authority and oversight may have existed has disappeared.
Water. sewer, road, parks issues, complain to Arsne Street. Unless that is you want to be seen and heard, then you try to get on camera for the BOS.
Understand what is prior to being critical as to what has happened or may happen.
There are changes coming folks. Many subtle. Many procedural. All long overdue.
But we did not appoint a mayor. We did not give away they keys to the hope chest. We did not cede direction.
Policies and procedures, our goals as a town are things that remain with us.
What we have done, is to understand the need to take politics out of day to day operations to the extent possible. What we have done is the necessary step to insure that day to day decisions are made based on what's proper and not on who is asking.
Politics will never completely disappear from any situation. Human nature. It really is that simple. But you can take steps to neutralize the effects of the political games on the operational side. That we have done.
Some say we have gone to far, I say we did not go far enough. So be it. We deal with what we have.
But, in truth, an "outsider" is a very good thing to have right now. A very experienced outsider is even better.
You want to insert a residency requirement. Well go to it and try and change it. A big mistake in my opinion. Said that way back when.
You shrink the pool for available talent tremendously when you do that. You end up with the political inbreeding so many of you lament and complain about concerning the make-up of town meeting.
I prefer a much broader horizon and like the bigger pool.
Until next time.
The comment about the snow plow and the new TA was an inquiry on if he was going to be looking at how money is spent in this town and question some decisions and budgets. If all he is going to do is manage the budget process and allow the 2 1/2% increases to continue going forward every year without even the discussion of heaven forbid level or even reduced budgets, I'd say that newly created position is already a failure.
ReplyDeleteKnow of anyone who hasn't had to tighten their belts over the last few years? The town's budget and town employes' pay raises I guess. Then again if I was a town meeting member voting on my own budgets and pay raises I'd probably be doing a lot better right now too. Sure you can say, well then become a town meeting member and vote, but logic would dictate town employees should not even be allowed to be members because of conflicts of interest.
Maybe I'd be more receptive to constant tax increases if I was assuring my salary was also rising to meet these costs. So I state again, there is an argument that the TA have a more vested interest in the budgets if he'd feel it in his own checkbook when the tax increases come. Although at his salary he probably won't feel the increase anyway, but a lot of town residents will feel it. I guess also at his age he's not in it for the long hall away. Maybe when he retires in 5 years he'll buy a house in Fairhaven to retire in, maybe then he'll notice his tax bills going up every year. But let's face the truth that he probably has more interest keeping that status quo rater than rocking the boat. Heck keep everyone sort of happy for 5 years, pass go 5 times, collect your salary 5 times, ride off into the sunset to retire in not Fairhaven. No ties to the town, close to retirement age, what would you do?
A bit of a rant, maybe, a bit of truth, maybe. Tax payers not on the town payroll tired of the way this town is run, YES! New TA being able to make any difference what so ever? Verdict is obviously still out on this one, but if I was a betting man, which I am not, because my taxes leave me with no discretionary disposable income, wonder where I'd place my bet?
Unfortunately I think the expectations and perception of many about what this position should be are much "loftier" than reality. You have changed the name of the prior position from executive secretary to town administrator. You have given the new position some expanded powers to deal with day to day decision making. You HAVE NOT however created a financial czar with authority to determine policy and the level of taxation is a policy decision.
DeleteI do not know how many times I have said it before. Cutting an operational budget to spend the money on something else does not provide tax relief. It is a reduction in services.
It is not the function of the TA to determine your taxation level.
Nor was it the function of your prior executive secretary nor prior financial directors.
Honestly, the idea of a mangament employee basing a decision on how to mange based on how it affects his taxes is pretty damn scary when you consider just how some people view some things.
You last town resident defacto budget czar never passed up a tax dollar he could eke out. So from that perspective your argument is lost.
We could debate the success or failure concept and potential, but I have neither the time nor at the moment the inclination to do so.
You perhaps see no differences as of late. I however have seen a positive change in attitude from some elected officials and definitely from discussions with our new TA about establishing and following financial policies and procedures. things we supposedly always had but for whatever reason weren't ever written down until the the last few years.
There is a difference between oversight and control. I think as time progresses however you are going to see a whole lot more of the inquiries you want to see.
My point about your point however is the decision about snow plowing is not his to make. Budget recommendations would be. Perhaps more at a later time. But with the holiday this week, it is garbage day, and I am running late.
Well John, 'some' elected officials and town employees' attitudes changing in the wake of a new sheriff in town, or maybe not sheriff, too much power, ummm, mini mayor, no, too much power, hummm, I guess lets just called it what it is, a rebadged Executive Secretary.
ReplyDeleteSo what exactly how is this new 'title', because it's obviously not a new role in the town actually going to benefit Fairhaven? Outside blood? Let's face it, you know as well as I do the only way anything gets done in this town is by the back room deals. How many businesses and building projects have been stonewalled by petty BS, egos, and lets face it self interest and personal gain of elected officials and employees of this town.
I'm going to comment no more on the new TA because in all reality he's going to accomplish nothing to curb the ridiculous spending in this town. How I'd love to list the unnecessary projects, vehicles, boats, buildings, salaries, perks, etc. But what's the point?
Maybe, just maybe, I along with other town folk were under the false impression that this new magical TA position was going to rein in all this. All you keep saying is this is not what the position was created for. So if it's the same position as the Executive Secretary with a new title and higher salary, I see no point. State recommended form of government? How much did we spend (of our tax dollars again) on this world wide search for the perfect candidate?
I guess there is no hope. Lets just assume the 2 1/2 percent increase every year, and let some departments even push that more. The unnecessary spending I see in this town is disgusting. Do all towns and cities and the US government do this? Yes, I think so, should we? Well I guess the logic is everyone else does it, why shouldn't we.
John, I hope some change will come out of all this, but in reality I'm putting my cup of coffee a day money in a jar on top of my fridge for when my tax bill increases next fiscal year. Maybe that cup of coffee makes me irritable anyway, maybe if I cut it out I'll have a smile on my face when I write that check in May. And at least I can sleep well knowing the new TA assured every i was dotted and every t was crossed in the budgeting process, results the same but procedure and protocol was followed to the letter.
Normally I don't do this much back and forth, but what the heck. In a nutshell, and the final points on this, for all I think: 1. I assume you have read both the DOR report and the Special Act. Under that assumption, you should be aware of what this position is and isn't. 2. No one ever promised this was going to "save" the town money, not in the way you seem to expect. The pipe dream of the TGSC that we were going to get away on the cheap side as far as paying the professional they touted I suppose was something some may have believed. Simple fact was and is that all important title thingy comes at a price tag and the price goes up based on community size/complexity/services to be dealt with along with level of experience. You don't agree with it or see its worth it seems. I do, but it is a longer term value rather than an immediate short term gain. 3. Despite opinions of those charged to come up with the recommendations, my opinion, information and sources are indicating a fairly broad consensus building and being stated more and more that we in fact do not have the "strong" TA act recommended. A point I argued way back when. 4. The hope is really toward the future, i.e. we have the actual wisdom and ability to make the necessary adjustments and corrections. By "we" I mean whoever is out there pulling the oars to keep the rowboat from being swallowed up in the eddy. As for myself, whether I was part of the problem or part of any minimal solution, except for tapping at the keys here my days of rowing are over. 5. But even with what we have, the changes while not reaching far enough are significant from what we have, especially in the realm of day to day oversight. Again, knowing what was and knowing what is there is the potential for significant and positive change in operations. 6. You should in fact list your grievances of wasteful spending and make them known to your selectmen, to town meeting, to the press. We have a limited audience here. The choice is yours. The unfortunate reality though is the only way to a tax break is for you and like minded people to unify and deal with the service side. Sure you can fight against this piece of equipment or that. It happens every year, if not on the TM floor during the process. The overall savings on many of those items won't amount to that cup of coffee we talk about. Absolutely not a reason to allow waste if the consensus is in fact it is waste. Just a reality. But, cumulatively, if enough people start seeing and viewing things in the same way things can be dealt with. It takes time. It takes effort. It make seem painstakingly painful to deal with, but it can happen. Where you start with the big and long term savings is when you address the salaries and perks because those actually have a significant carry over effect. the great debate becomes and always has been the opinion what is needed and what isn't. Time and space are gone for this morning. Perhaps worth a revisit when the proposed FY 2017 budget comes out. How about until then for this one?
ReplyDelete