Alt-ternative View

The latest contribution of the Altman's to Longmeadow's political discussion is about the salaries of various managerial staff working for the town. Mr. Altman is alarmed that these folks, like the Town Manager, the Finance Director, and the DPW Director, have received raises in recent years that exceed what he considers fair and prudent in these tough economic times.

The logic of his argument is clear enough. There is no question that our town should seek to hold down costs, including salaries, in tough economic times. However, there are some aspects of Mr. Altman's presentation that compel me to add some context to this issue. First, he does not seem mindful of the marketplace as it related to the professionals whose salaries he thinks exorbitant. Though the town is not a "for-profit" entity, it has no immunity from market forces. We have to pay what it costs for quality materials, services, and people.

Leaving aside any personal evaluations, the positions he referenced are held by people who can, and have every right to, keep an eye on the larger market for their services. They have marketable skills and experience that gives them leverage in salary negotiations. If the town refused to give such professionals more that the 2-3% Mr. Altman suggests is appropriate, we would be hiring new people for one or another of these crucial managerial jobs annually, which would be both costly and counter-productive. We would become a stepping stone for the least experienced and least qualified candidates for such jobs, who would use us to gain experience and increase their market value - so they could go elsewhere and earn more.

Though I don't always agree with the Altman's, their willingness to contribute their time and opinions to our community is very commendable. When I was running for School Committee they were just names in the paper, usually writing things with which I disagreed. Happily, I have since had the opportunity to sit down and chat with the Altman's on a number of occasions. Though we probably don't agree any more often now, we do have an improved understanding of each other. What Longmeadow needs is more people like the Altmans, willing to debate and argue about important community issues face to face, where it is harder to be rude and impossible to escape accountability for one's views.

LongmeadowBuzz adds value to our community's public square by providing a vehicle for residents to share their views responsibly and openly. It is my hope that this virtual public square will encourage more folks to participate in the political life of Longmeadow online and in elections, town meetings, and public forums.

I’ll take “Politics” for our future Alex

The Amherst-Pelham Regional School Committee recently passed a resolution that urges the state legislature to enact changes to the way the state funds special education and charter schools. Additionally, they have called on the state’s lawmakers to change the Chapter 70 formula by creating a $3,000 minimum per pupil across the state. They also call for increased funds to the School Building Authority and for changes to the chapter 70 formula that would make it easier for school districts to obtain “extended learning time” funds. On the revenue side, the Amherst-Pelham resolution calls for an increase in the state’s income tax of 0.5%.

The Longmeadow School Committee will consider the adoption of this resolution at our April 14th meeting. More philosophically diverse than our counterparts to the North, the School Committee in Longmeadow will likely engage in spirited discussion and debate over the specifics of the resolution. The debate, if allowed to occur and continue until all sides have made thoughtful arguments, will represent a very small, but very important step forward for educational politics in Massachusetts.

Political activism by Amherst public officials is nothing new, but an activated Longmeadow School Committee would, indeed, be a change. As a relatively wealthy suburban community, Longmeadow School Committees have been consumed in recent years by the never ending task of husbanding scarce resources in order to maintain the town’s historically high educational standards. Politics has long been seen as either an external activity over which local officials have little to no influence or a dangerous activity to be avoided by local officials who want to avoid bad press.

In the wake of a hard fought override campaign there has been a growing consensus on the Longmeadow School Committee that, futile or not, local officials should become more vocal about what’s happening on Beacon Hill. What makes this emerging notion promising is the fact that Longmeadow will be electing a new state representative in the fall. This should provide local officials with a venue for public debate and education about the role of our state representative, as well as the entire state legislature, in the lives of our cities and towns. The way we fund local services should be made the primary topic of this election for Longmeadow voters. Unlike the vast majority of our fellow cities and towns, we will actually have a competitive election for the state legislature. This is an opportunity that doesn’t come around often in the Bay State and we need to make the best of it. That means that local officials need to step up and exercise political leadership. Local elected officials should take the lead in challenging the state representative candidates to take clear positions and outline serious proposals on the issue of funding local services.

I strongly urge our local elected officials to accept this charge and not to fall prey to the same old song that candidates always sing, namely that they have what it takes to get us our piece of the pie. That’s a bunch of crap (sorry for the technical jargon). We need to spark serious debate about the recipe for the pie, not just another vacuous argument about who will get us a bigger slice. It’s counter intuitive for most, but what we have to do with this election is to make it a competition of ideas, not people. We must resist making this a campaign for the best man (or woman) for a job, rather we have to steer this campaign toward a competition for the best ideas on the most pressing issue we face in local government – How can we keep up with the rising costs of local services? The rest, as they say, is just noise.

When candidates give us their resumes, we need to press for their ideas. When they emphasize local interests, we have to steer them back to the larger question of local funding reform throughout the state. One very effective way candidates avoid hard questions and serious debate is by emphasizing local interests and their ability to go to Boston and “fight for us.” Let’s not accept this invitation to pit localities against each other. Let’s be the community that forces our candidates to deal with this crushing financial problem as if they were running for Governor, not state representative.

What do we have to lose? Regardless of who is elected, without a noisy and even messy challenge to the status quo, our new state representative will just become another “fighter” for the crumbs that drop from the plates of Eastern Mass legislators. Some will argue that any direct challenge to legislative business as usual will only result in the punishment of our district. This argument is as sad as it is toothless. If we send our representative to Beacon Hill with a clear issue-based mandate and ongoing, active public support, Beacon Hill insiders will have to “handle” him or her with care. Sometimes in politics a loose cannon is a more powerful weapon than one firmly lashed to the deck of the ship of state.

Town Facilities Study- Public Forum

In the summer of 2007, JCJ Architecture of Hartford, Connecticut, was retained by the Town of Longmeadow to produce a “Town Wide Facilities Study” to document the existing conditions at fifteen municipal and school buildings. These are not all of the buildings the Town owns, but represents those buildings for which information or plans of action did not exist. The study was conducted in the fall of 2007 and is intended to serve as an evaluation of conditions observed at that point in time. The reports (executive summary + individual building reports) are posted online.

The results of this town buildings facilities study were presented in a public forum on April 3 organized by Robin Crosbie, Town Manager. Below are videos from this public forum which were provided through the courtesy of Longmeadow Community TV.

Presentation by JCJ Architecture

[make sure to double click to start video]

Part II- Questions/ Answers + Additional Discussion


It is requested that additional feedback and questions about this facilities review should be posted in comments on this blog.

Past/ Present/ Future of the Longmeadow Websites

The original Longmeadow town website- www.Longmeadow.org/ started through a volunteer effort led by Jim Moran continues to grow and prosper at virtually no cost to the Town of Longmeadow. Our town website recently celebrated its 10th anniversary this past December.

www.LongmeadowBiz.com/ was also started by Jim Moran about 4½ years ago as a complementary website to www.Longmeadow.org/ in an effort to expand web services for Longmeadow residents and to connect to local businesses serving the Longmeadow community.

Longmeadow residents have benefited from LongmeadowBiz.com through the creation of free web based services some of which include a Town Calendar, Bulletin Board and FREE Classified Ads. Advertising revenue from local businesses for LongmeadowBiz.com provides financial support for both websites.

If you are interested in learning more about our town websites, please watch the video clip below. This video clip provided through the courtesy of Longmeadow Community Television is a segment from the regular broadcast program called “Our Town” with hostess Arlene Miller interviewing Jim Moran- webmaster. Past history as well as future plans for the town websites are discussed.

Casinos: Gamble or Gambit?

The rejection of Governor Patrick’s plan to bring casinos to the Bay State has me wondering. The Governor and the Speaker of the House, Sal Dimasi, have appeared to be in a personal struggle over the issue. Dimasi appears to have bested the Governor on this one, but appearances can be deceiving.

In the aftermath of the killing of the bill, the comments of both the Speaker and the Governor were revealing. The Governor’s argument for a proposal that many of his core supporters vigorously opposed was rhetorically forceful in public, but not necessarily as forceful behind the scenes in the legislature. While the governor indicated that a full and free debate in the House could have yielded workable compromises, Speaker Dimasi indicated that the Governor never sat down with him to specifically discuss the kinds of compromises that may have been made as a result of an open debate on the House floor. Dimasi also implied that the Governor never tried to sell the bill to him personally, which is code for – the Governor never came to the Speaker to talk turkey, or make a deal, something a strong advocate for a bill would likely do.Governor Patrick went through the motions on casinos and pushed the issue in a “legislative process 101” kind of way – urging a fair hearing, public debate, open legislative debate, etc. But there isn’t a lot of indication that he did the behind the scenes legwork that such a proposal would require. I’m sure most Beacon Hill insiders thought that this was a product of the stong opposition to casinos from his most committed supporters, the very folks whose tireless efforts got him elected. So, if the Governor was really gambling on casinos, as the press and his critics have claimed, he does not appear to have done as much to increase his odds as one might have expected.

Why not? Could the answer be in his post defeat comment about “the ball [being] in the Speaker’s court now?” In the 2006 Gubernatorial election Patrick was forced (no doubt against his better judgment) to avoid taking a position on tax policy that his Republican opponent could exploit. This meant that he could not directly or forcefully speak out against the voter approved reduction of the State income tax and even had to say that “when affordable” he would support bringing it down to the 5.0% rate approved by voters. The problem with this tactic of avoidance was that it tied the Governor’s hands quite a bit when it comes to increasing state revenue, something clearly necessary in a state where local governments are drowning in cost increases. The Governor, unable to advocate for sane or rational tax policy because of the domination of a “penny wise, pound foolishness” in the state’s electorate, had to fashion a budget that would meet the increasing needs of the Commonwealth without raising taxes - enter casinos.

The casino plan and its inclusion in the governor’s budget may have been a opening gambit intended to put the legislature in the hot seat. Having forcefully and even boastfully defeated the Governor in this apparently straight forward power struggle, the Speaker may now be exactly where the Governor wanted him – in the position of having to devise and support a way to raise state revenue, or bear the political burden of finding things to cut. In other words, the Governor has put his idea on the table and the Speaker and House have said no. Indeed, buy killing it the way they did, they have made further legislative consideration of casinos impossible until next year. Can the Speaker now turn to the Governor and demand another idea? I don’t think so. I think the ball is indeed in Dimasi’s court. The House now bears the burden of making the next move, a move that should provide some latitude or political cover for the Governor.

For the Speaker, the lesson may be to take caution when a political adversary seems too easily outmaneuvered. As for Governor Patrick, well , maybe his game is chess.

From: http://jeroldduquette.blogspot.com/

Come Out and Support the Elite Eight

The economic vitality of our town and region is enhanced by the ability of Springfield to attract events and attention to the MassMutual Center. Once again the Birthplace of Basketball is the site of the NCAA D2 Men's Basketball Elite Eight tournament beginning with quarterfinal action on Wednesday and culminating in the national championship game on Saturday, March 29th at 2:30pm.

Last year's tournament was very exciting with three games ending with last second shots to win. Though the schools involved are not household names, the quality of play is very good. Massachusetts' own Bentley College has made it to Springfield and will play its quarterfinal game on Wednesday night at 6:00pm against the University of North Alabama at the MassMutual Center. Tickets are inexpensive and the matchup promises to be a good one.

I am a volunteer host for the host committee. This year I will be hosting the Augusta State University Jaguars, whose quarterfinal game is Wednesday afternoon against the University of Central Oklahoma. Fourth grade classes around the region, have followed the teams through the tournament. Schools in each town focused on one of the eight regions. Longmeadow fourth graders followed the South Atlantic teams. The South Atlantic region champs, Augusta State, will be meeting with these fourth graders at the Hall of Fame on Monday night for a brief rally and a "meet and greet." If you have a fourth grader who wants to come to this event but does not have the information, email me at jeroldduquette@comcast.net for details.

The host committee does a great job of creating family friendly events all week. For example,the D2 FAN FEST, an interactive and exciting event aimed at youngsters will be happening on Saturday, March 29th at 10am before the final game. For information about other events open to the public contact the Hall of Fame. Let's show these teams and fans coming from as far away as Alaska that our region appreciates their efforts and their contribution to our local economy.

Game Schedule:

Quarterfinals- Wednesday, March 26th at 12:00pm, 2:30pm, 6:00pm, & 8:30pm
Semifinals- Thursday, March 27th at 6:00pm & 8:30pm
Championship Game- Saturday, March 29th at 2:30pm

More info @ http://d2sportstalk.blogspot.com

From: http://jeroldduquette.blogspot.com

Last Night's Budget Meeting

Last night’s Select board meeting, which drew a large crowd, did clear up some nagging questions.

First, the members of the board who voted to approve the override proposal (which passed the Select board by a vote of 3-2) confirmed that they did so with the understanding that it committed the Select board to level service budgets. Dr. Grady’s claims to the contrary were convincingly refuted. In addition, the Chair, Mr. Haberman, indicated that he recalled making this commitment clear to both the board and the Town Manager.

Second, the support of the Select board for fully finding the school’s level-service budget was made quite clear. Only Kathy Grady voted against the schools. Her rationale was quite revealing. She claimed that the failure of the school department to provide her with enough justification for a couple of expenditures made her incapable of supporting the schools. The implication; the schools are hiding something from Dr. Grady. The exhaustive and very transparent school budget process as well as the support of all four other Select board members did not appear to impact Dr. Grady’s view of the schools. Sadly, she also made very clear that she sees the town and schools as adversaries, not partners.

Third, The Town Manager interpreted the admittedly complex concept of “level service” budgeting very creatively. The town v. schools mentality was in full view as the Town Manager and Dr. Grady repeatedly referred to new SPED positions, implying that they were violations of the “level service” approach. Their indictment of our special education spending was part of their efforts to defend more than $200,000 in new non-education spending recommendations. All but one of those recommended spending increases was cut by the Select board last night.

So, the good news is that 4 out of 5 members of the Select board came to work last night with the interests of the whole town in mind. The very precarious financial position of Longmeadow (as well as most small towns in the state) makes it even more important that we reject the division of our town into school and town hall camps. Unfortunately, it appears that this counter-productive perspective found its way into the Town Manager’s recommended budget. Last night the Select board firmly rejected this approach and that is very good news for all of the town’s residents.

Jerold Duquette

Schools Cost Money!

Schools: Private and Public Costs

We often hear from critics of the public schools that their expenditures are out of control. We get unsolicited advice that school committees should rein in spending and learn to live with a budget.
Longmeadow public schools are in the process of preparing their budgets and the amounts of money requested are precipitating a major controversy. How much should the schools be allowed to spend? How much should the non-school portion of the local budget be allowed to spend?

These debates and arguments are not taking place in isolation. Almost all other budget making bodies in our area are experiencing the same things. Consider, if you will, the recent Republican story on local college expenditures and tuition increases. Here is an excerpt.
- - - - - - -
College tuitions head skyward

Saturday, March 15, 2008
By FRED CONTRADA
fcontrada@repub.com

NORTHAMPTON - It might not yet be in the same category with death and taxes, but it seems that college students can count on a tuition increase just about every year.

Smith College announced this week that its comprehensive fee, which combines tuition, a study activities fee and room and board, will go up 5.5 percent next year, from $45,606 to $48,108. The college's board of trustees approved the hike at its March meeting. It marked at least the 10th consecutive year that the price of an education at Smith has gone up, according to Laurie B. Fenlason, the director of Smith's Office of College Relations.

The average increase over that time has been 5 percent, Fenlason noted.

Tuition hikes are also in the works for next year at a number of area colleges, including Mount Holyoke College, American International College and the University of Massachusetts.

Fenlason said that colleges have many of the same problems that municipalities face, such as rising salaries, utility costs and the spiraling health care expenses. While cities and towns either cut services or raise taxes, colleges pass the costs on to students and their families.

Elms College has not yet formally announced any increases for the 2008-2009 school year, although its board of trustees has voted to raise both fees and tuition, according to Director of Admissions Joseph P. Wagner. A letter specifying the increases has been sent to students and the college community. The current tuition is $22,590. Room and board is $8,820.

Combined tuition, room and board next year at American International College in Springfield will go up 6.2 percent over this year. Peter J. Miller, vice president for admissions services for the college, said the increase will help defray costs of the new computerized student information system for grading, course selection, and the new telephone system, as well as pay for increased energy costs.

The Western New England College Board of Trustees has approved a 5.5 percent tuition increase for the next school year. The combined cost of tuition, fees, room and board will be $38,024. Approximately 90 percent of undergraduates receive some form of financial aid, including need-based and merit aid, according to college spokesman David Stawasz. Students with good grades can qualify for merit scholarships of between $9,000 and $14,500, Stawasz said.

The education package at Springfield College is also going up. Combined tuition, fees and room and board at Springfield College will rise 5.97 percent next year to $34,680. John L. Mailhot, vice president for administration and finance at the college, said a significant portion of the operating budget goes to direct financial aid to students.
- - - - - -
I think this news item is important because it reveals that the private sector and not just the public sector is having problems providing the same level of services for next year with this year’s level of a budget. The free market is responding to energy price increases, medical insurance price increases and wage increases for skilled labor.

My point is this. To guarantee level services to our students, the Longmeadow Public Schools will have to obtain more revenue. The colleges of the area are struggling with the same economic forces that we are.

A level services budget is not the same thing as a level funded budget. To provide level services to our students will require more money.

Colleges acting in a free market environment have had to make these cost increases. Is it not reasonable to assume that public schools must do the same thing? (See Chart for Colleges Below)
Chart:

Education Costs at Local Colleges:

School: Current Year: Next Year:

Smith $45, 606 $48, 108
A.I.C. $32, 250 $34, 250
Mt. Holyoke $46, 460 $48, 500
UMass - Amherst $17, 399 $18, 346
Springfield $32, 726 $34, 680
Western N.E. C. $36, 042 $38, 024

Source: The Republican, Saturday, 15 March 2008, page 1.

Oh Dear

I just read the Town Manager’s post and am afraid she has not done much to reduce the controversy. While I am confident that she is doing a tough job as best and as sincerely as she can, I do have a problem with some of her comments here.

Ms. Crosbie writes, “I never committed to a level service budget for FY09.” Well, it may be true that Robin Crosbie, public administrator, made no such personal promise. However, her superiors, you know the actual policymakers known as the Select board, did make such a commitment when they voted to support the Budget Strategies Committee proposal on the override. One wonders who’s really in charge at Town Hall.

Ms. Crosbie also made clear that she was not cutting special education by more than $350,000, but rather was merely cutting the recommended school department budget by that amount. She went on to say that many departments would not get their requested amount for FY09. For this attitude we may have the Charter’s mandated consolidation to blame. Ms. Crosbie seems to think that the School Department is just another department under her charge. This is a very counterproductive perspective. The school budget goes through a transparent and rigorous process and is voted on by the elected policymakers known as the School Committee. The number given to the Town Manager by the School Committee is not simply another request from a town department. It is the recommendation of elected policymakers, which this year was strictly governed by the agreement reached by all three town boards – an agreement now being breached by the Select board’s chief administrator. If the Select board chooses to allow Ms. Crosbie to lead them around by the nose, that is their prerogative. The School Committee, however, is not so inclined.

Ms. Crosbie’s inappropriate intent to meddle with school budgeting and administration was even more egregiously on display later in her post where she had the audacity to question the administration of our Pupil Services department. She says parents and residents have shared their concerns about SPED with her and even recommends that an “outside management study” be considered to evaluate the way we provide special education services. WOW! Our pupil services and schools in general are run extremely well. I assume this ridiculous assertion is an attempt to deflect some of the criticism being leveled at the non-school departments in town.

On the bright side, Ms. Crosbie does demonstrate an appreciation of the big picture when she writes:

“As for the FY09 budget - we need to quit thin-slicing the words "level service budget". Let's face it, the proposed FY09 School and town budgets are not level service budgets. We need to look at the big picture. The Long Range Plan (remember that Plan?) identifies a number of economic development opportunities. As I said at my forum, economic development in Longmeadow must be a deliberate and intentional activity. Economic development is a school issue - the schools will be the primary beneficiaries in terms of new revenues - and school officials need to get behind this.”

This is all true, however, it in no way justifies cutting the school budget one thin dime because it is the School Committee that has routinely taken the lead in Longmeadow when it comes to acknowledging revenue needs and pushing for more responsible tax policy! This is particularly frustrating this year because it was the School Committee that got out on the street and sold the override that has kept us all afloat and made such economic development opportunities possible. As she herself admitted, without that override, we’d be in much deeper trouble. The School Committee unanimously supported that override. The School Committee has produced a wonderful strategic plan. The School Committee and the Superintendent are doing a considerable more professional and effective job than is being done on the non-school side of town. I suggest Ms. Crosbie not bite the hand that feeds, or question the competence of the most well managed department in town. Without the leadership of the School Committee she would be up a creek without a paddle. Remember, the override proposal only passed the Select board by one vote. Imagine where we’d be if Dr. Grady and Mr. Santaniello had succeeded in killing the override proposal.

In conclusion, Ms. Crosbie should not force the School Committee to take back the money she cut on the Town Meeting floor. I think town hall and the Select board have been embarrassed enough recently and should not have to be taken to task once again in front of the whole town. As someone who trains town administrators in Connecticut, I can tell you that town managers are often not particularly well suited to oversee school departments. If the charter has given our town manager too much authority over the schools it may have unintentionally produced a “tail wagging the dog” scenario that is not in the town’s best interests. I think it’s time to take a closer look at the Charter and its results to date. Clearly, unintended consequences have already reared their ugly heads.

Jerold Duquette

Some corrections and comments about the FY09 Budget

All I can say today is, thank goodness the weekend is here. It has been a rough week for all those involved in this budget process. We should be grateful, because of the November override, that we aren't wresting with the terrible shortfalls and decisions facing Greenfield or Northampton. Instead Longmeadow is embroiled in a situation of harsh words.

As a public official, I have become used to being mis-quoted. However, even my harshest critic from the past will tell you, as he has others, that I always told the truth, even if it wasn't what he wanted to hear. So here are two truths that need to be said:

The first truth is that I never committed to a level service budget for FY09, despite written assertions to the contrary by others. In fact, I have been quite open about some unaddressed needs in the town and identified these in writing last summer.

The second truth is that I am not cutting special education. I only make a recommendation on the bottom-line number for the school budget. Any reductions in special education will be a choice made by the School Committee. I want parents of children with special needs to understand that.

Now that I am on the topic of special education, let me say that residents, including parents of special needs students, have expressed concerns to me about the effectiveness and costs of the special education program. No one doubts or disputes the intentions and commitment of the school department to serving these students and families. But it may be time for the town to fund an outside managment study of the organization and effectiveness of pupil services. System assessments, whether of human or capital infrastructure, can be very helpful in seeing the big picture, developing specific remedies and recommending long-term planning and funding. Such an assessment would be extremely helpful, as the recent water and sewer system studies have been.

As for the FY09 budget - we need to quit thin-slicing the words "level service budget". Let's face it, the proposed FY09 school and town budgets are not level service budgets. We need to look at the big picture. The Long Range Plan (remember that Plan?) identifies a number of economic development opportunities. As I said at my forum, economic development in Longmeadow must be a deliberate and intentional activity. Economic development is a school issue - the schools will be the primary beneficiaries in terms of new revenues - and school officials need to get behind this. We need the internal resources to pursure opportunities - I can tell you that there are developers who want to come to Longmeadow, but we lack the resources to undertake process of zoning change and community engagement necessary to accomplish real economic develoment. My budget includes that resource.

On to consolidation - the schools and the town, as a result of the Charter, are now joined at the hip. If one partner falters, the other stumbles. The town now processes payroll and benefits for more than 400 school employees; pays school bills; handles purchasing and procurement of school services, goods, building and capital projects; maintains school grounds and fields; maintains school buildings and parking lots; manages school capital projects from design to completion. Every aspect of the finance operation principally benefits the funding and operation of the school department. It is time to understand that we are part of a system, that we are interconnected.

Here are some other things I really need to get off my chest:

I want to thank the School Committee for adopting the MUNIS format for the school budget. It has been the most intelligible budget I ever received from the schools. Although I thanked her once, I'll do it again - thank you, Jahn, for your work on this.

Also, I am pleased to be serving on the group helping to move the LHS building project forward. This group includes Paul Santaniello, Bobbby Barkett, Chris Swanson, Jahn hart and Larry Berte. I appreciate the collegial dynamic and the fact that we all leave our muddy budget-boots outside the door when we meet.

I am happy we have Tom Mazza on board as the school Business Director. With his help we are sorting through myriad financial issues and making progress.

And I am so excited to see so many capital building projects rolling along! (Thanks, Capital Planning Committee, Mike Wrabel and Adrian Phaneuf!). Am I the only one who gets excited about this? Especially all the work on the school buildings - I am thankful for DPW Director Mike Wrabel's focus on school projects and his personal involvement in improving athletic field maintenance. Mike Deary has been great to have on the team and his support of improving field maintenance has been truly appreciated.

So, you see - even at the end of a rough week - there is a lot of good news to report!

Post Script:

I declare Bryan Long town employee of the week! Bryan has been with the town since forever and still looks like a young guy. Last week, he literally stumbled on the mystery of half the town's unaccounted-for water. His discovery will save the town $100,000 in water charges in FY09. Great detective work, Bryan!