Local election choices

On June 10th Longmeadow voters will go to the polls to select three School Committee members and one Select Board member. School Committee member Bobby Barkett is the only candidate for the Select Board. He has been a dedicated and hard working member of the School Committee and I'm sure he will be just as diligent on the Select Board.

In the School Committee election we are lucky to have six candidates for three seats. All six candidates appear to be good candidates with useful backgrounds and thoughtful appeals. I am very pleased to see this much interest in serving in what is a very time consuming but very important role. I sincerely hope that the fourth place finisher is strongly considered for the opening that will occur immediately after the election due to the election of Barkett to the Select Board. Taking the time and making the effort to run a campaign should weigh very heavily in favor of anyone seeking appointment to fill a vacancy. When I was elected three years ago we appointed Paul Santaniello, the fourth place finisher, to the committee.

Though all six candidates would make fine members of the School Committee, voters only have three votes. My three votes will go to the three most progressive candidates; the candidates who are most appreciative of the need for ALL elected officials to exert political leadership on issues that many consider too big to tackle at the local level. Candidates who will take the time and exert the energy to speak out and to speak truth to power are the candidates who will get my support.

I suggest that anyone unfamiliar with the candidates try to get out to Longmeadow Days this weekend. All the candidates will undoubtedly be there passing out info and chatting with voters.

Good luck to all the candidates.

Jerold Duquette (soon to be former SC member)

Cup Stacking Sensation

If you haven't seen our local celebrity- Steven Purugganan who is a Longmeadow fifth-grader do his cup stacking, you have to watch the video clip below. Steven competed last month in the World Sport Stack Championships in Denver where he set two world records.



For additional information read this story from CBS-3.

No to the 5 year plan approach

Do you support the idea that the Town of Longmeadow should use longer range (3 - 5 year) fiscal planning even if that means reducing town/ school services today?

I would like to respond to this very sensible question. In brief, my answer is, “No!”
Our budgets are currently drawn up on a year-by-year basis. We currently are getting ready for Fiscal Year 2009. (Part of the problem at last night’s Town Meeting is that some folks were focused on 2010 and 2011, while other folks were focused on creating a sensible budget for 2009.)
We have known fiscal responsibilities for 2009 and within the range of human probability a pretty good idea of what our revenues will be and what our expenditures will be. Children will need schooling; police and fire will need training, maintenance of equipment and fuel for their vehicles. Our roads will need both repairs and snow plowing and the grass on the green will have to be mowed. Town employees will have to be paid for their services.
Within the realm of human calculation we can make estimates for what our heating and fuel bills will be. However, we have no control over the value of the dollar in the world monetary market, nor do we have any real control over the commodities market which may very well drive up the price of oil, along with gold, and corn and wheat.
We have a rough idea of what levels of state aid to expect for Chapter 90 and Chapter 70 allocations, but we have no real assurance that those levels will be adequate.
Predicting the future is much more difficult than explaining the past.
The further we try to look into the future the more dangerous our assumptions become. The more we try to make a 5-year plan, the more ideology plays a role in dictating the plan.
For example, why is it considered accepted “orthodoxy” that we cannot have an over ride in 2010?
We can try to avoid that development, but how can we count on an increase in state aid, if adequate state aid has not been available in the past? If we make a pledge, or a plan, or a promise to not have an over ride in 2010, what are we forced to look at?
Some might say the answer is easy. We just start cutting out programs and laying off people. If we refuse to raise our own taxes, and the state will not give us more aid, then we will have to cut programs and people. But, there is an alternative to budget cuts and that alternative is tax increases.
I think this idea of a long-range plan has a built in bias to it. It establishes an orthodoxy that says taxes should never be raised. It is the orthodoxy that says taxation is an evil. I disagree with both approaches.
I think it is intelligent to raise taxes when it is necessary and to lower them when it is necessary. I do not buy the dogma that all taxes are always evil.
Nor do I buy the notion that all taxes are equally unfair and undesirable. I believe that taxes should be just. They should reflect the ability of the taxpayer to pay the tax. This goes to the heart of democratic government! What is justice in government? What is the correct balance between private expenditure and public expenditure?
My basic principle is that wealthy people should pay more in taxes than poor people. The problem of course is to accurately and honestly draw the lines between the wealthy and the poor. This is the challenge of a graduated income tax.
The current property tax system is inherently unfair in that it does not reflect the ability of the property owner to pay the assessed tax.
Another problem with 5-year plans for taxes is that our political representatives do not have terms in office that corresponds to the time frames of the plans. An election may change the make up of three members of the School Committee and two members of the Select Board. Are the newly elected members to be bound by the 5-year plan of their predecessors? The voters may have removed the incumbents because they did not like their 5-year plans. In a democracy, they have every right to make new policies.
The main problem with a 5-year plan is that it places government in a “straight jacket” and makes no allowances for new ideas and new developments. Forcing a town to live by a miserly budget plan might have appeal to the misers in town, but it will not have much appeal to the general public.
I think we should focus on one-year budgets and do our best to provide our citizens with the level of services that they believe adequate. Let next year’s town meeting take care of their business, without artificial impediments to democratic procedures.
On the 5-year plan, I vote, “No!”

The Politics of Planning

Calls for "living within our means" and "long term financial planning" are popular because they are so clearly desirable. No individual or organization can ignore these sage prescriptions and hope to endure. And, no organization, be it a family, a corporation, or a community, can ignore the fact that such goals cannot be accomplished in a political vacuum.

While the politics of families and private organizations usually have the benefit of a clear bottom line as well as a solid consensus on goals, the politics of communities rarely do. In our homes and board rooms, the policy makers cannot escape the "bottom line," which provides them with irresistible and economically rational incentives regarding policy decisions - especially budgeting decisions. In short, families and companies are NOT democracies! Neither parents nor CEOs face regular elections with the kids or the workers as voters. Thank God! This narrow politics allows for significantly more efficient decision making, which facilitates more precise and productive strategic (long term) planning.

Unless we repeal democracy, American states and localities will continue to operate in a political environment that bears little resemblance to those discussed above. The people who make budget decisions in our town do not share a common vision of our mission, or our "bottom line." The members of our community (understandably) separate their personal financial picture from the town's. This individualistic tendency exists in all organizations, including the family, but in families and private organizations it is disciplined by a shared (or at least enforceable) understanding of "the bottom line."

In the public sector, the bottom line is always in dispute and the enforceability of any bottom line is very difficult. In communities there are a number of narrow interests that compete for resources in the short term. The interests of particular taxpayers and those of schools, and other public services are often at odds (or at least apparently so). For example, a childless couple might see a clear need to invest in town infrastructure and be satisfied with the condition of our schools because they continue to achieve high test scores, graduation rates, college bound seniors, etc... Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. On the other hand, a family of six may be upset that their kids have outdated textbooks, no enrichment programs, and enough fees to make you think it’s a private school, while not being too upset about a DPW building that is crumbling simply because from their perspective a DPW building is not an urgent need. Sounds equally reasonable to me.

Can we satisfy both perspectives? Sure, but it will be expensive, so instead we pit each perspective against each other in a competition for resources. Well, this can't be good, right? We are always told that pitting groups against each other is destructive and bad. But how can we avoid this competition without failing to properly manage our resources? Isn't the fact of government waste at all levels a by-product of conflict avoidance? That is, trying to be all things to all people. Elected officials simply do not want to make decisions that will alienate valued constituencies, which is perfectly understandable from their perspective.

Seems like we've got a bunch of reasonable perspectives that don't add up. The thing is, we have a way to choose – it’s called politics, and it’s not something voters should try to avoid. Indeed, voter avoidance of politics lies at the heart of our budgetary problems. Understanding the perspectives of others is useful, but it shouldn't short circuit our competition for resources. We simply must require elected officials at ALL levels to defend a distinct perspective against other candidates doing the same. Instead of obscuring their preferences in an effort to maximize political support, politicians must be made to take harder positions, and take them VERY publicly. The result would be much more competitive elections and much more accountable government, two things that cannot exist in isolation.

Longmeadow's present financial troubles should spur residents to get political, not just to get mad. We have an opportunity this spring and fall to elect local officials and a new state representative. If we force candidates to speak directly to our conflicting visions, and to actually take sides, we can make serious progress toward public policies that will move us forward. The winners may not see it your way, or my way, but they will have a clear mandate to pursue the vision that got them elected, and we the voters will get an opportunity to hold them accountable for promised results.

As for the upcoming town meeting, I strongly suggest that you come and vote your interests, and that you hold your local elected officials accountable. By this I mean, only support those officials (at the next election for them) who share your interests and the vision produced by those interests. By doing so you are helping to clarify the incentives of elected decision makers and forcing them to link their political interests to the REAL interests of their core constituencies.

At Longmeadow’s town meeting this Tuesday, we will be passing the annual budget. Unfortunately, the unelected committee on whom we rely for long term financial recommendations has failed to meet its obligation to inform the voters of their recommendations in a timely fashion. Instead of publishing their recommendations with the warrant, or otherwise even agreeing to such recommendations prior to the day of town meeting, the Finance Committee has damaged its own credibility. Such blatant disregard for the voter’s right to know, and know in time to absorb and evaluate, these recommendations should not be taken lightly. While the as yet unknown recommendations may be quite sound, the failure to arrive at them earlier should be publicly condemned. The town should think seriously about structural reforms that would disallow such practices in the future.

UPDATE (April 29th)

Last night the Finance Committee met to formalize its budget recommendations, which had been left unclear in their published report. I applaud the Finance Committee's effort to correct its earlier mistake, and agree with them that the time line which put them in this bind in the first place needs to be changed.

At last night's meeting, the Finance Committee voted to support an amended budget, not the one passed by the Select Board. The Finance Committee's amended budget recommendation calls for $90,000 to be cut from the non-school budget for FY09. Otherwise , the Finance Committee supports the Select Board budget, including it's $150,000 cut of the School budget.

The LONGMEADOW FINANCE COMMITTEE is looking forward….

As I highlighted in my last Buzz posting… in order to live within the town’s financial means there is a need to look at longer term fiscal planning.

Last week the LONGMEADOW FINANCE COMMITTEE issued their report to the Annual Town Meeting and recommended that the General Fund operating budget be reduced by $89,000 rather than using $89,000 from the Operating Stabilization Fund.

The committee recommended against supporting the General Operating Budget as proposed. “….we feel we need to reduce this proposed budget by $89,000 and save all we can for 2010.”

Their reasoning was based upon looking forward at next year’s (FY2010) difficult budget process wherein all town employees salary contracts (including teachers) will be renegotiated.

Last year’s BUDGET STRATEGIES COMMITTEE proposed a path forward through 2010 after recommending a Prop 2½ $2.15 million override. It was clear at that time that balancing the FY2010 budget without a Prop 2½ override was going to be a challenge.

Some excerpts from the latest LFC report…

The first responsibility of the Finance Committee is to present to Town Meeting and all the citizens of Longmeadow a budget that balances the interests of all citizens, regardless of what level they use our myriad of premium town services, and a budget that is sustainable over the long term. …. Integrated in our challenge to balance resources and uses for the next fiscal year we are charged to advise the town on the impact the proposed budget will have on long term fiscal planning. As a town our challenge is to live within the means of the allowed annual 2 ½% increase in the tax levy without frequent Proposition 2 ½ overrides to finance our shortfalls.

The FC report also recommends a series of “facilitated forums” starting in September 2008 to get resident input on how to meet the upcoming FY2010 budget challenges. This is certainly a step in the right direction but how about extending the path forward to FY2012 rather than reverting back to the one year at a time planning process. And while this planning process is underway the town should also consider integration of possible future major capital expenditures (new/ renovated high school, DPW facility, et al) into the budget process in a more comprehensive approach to town finances.

I would strongly recommend that town residents read both the ATM warrant and the Longmeadow Finance Committee report and attend Tuesday night’s Annual Town Meeting. (starts at 7 PM at Longmeadow HS).

What’s it going to cost for a new high school and DPW facility?

Our town leaders are currently having a difficult time trying to meet the budget request from the School Committee for “level services” in our schools as well as maintaining other town services. Front and center on the town’s longer term agenda are requests by the School Committee to build a new high school (estimated to cost $90-100 million) and after listening to this month’s town wide facilities review, a new DPW facility is likely to be needed in the very near future. As I have stated in an earlier blog note, next year could be a year for another Proposition 2½ override in order to meet the town’s budgetary needs if we do not spend our money wisely and use a financial plan with least a 3-5 year timeframe.

It’s no secret that the Select Board and the School Committee for many years have not budgeted maintenance at a level that is prudent to avoid infrastructure deterioration so there are likely to be other major unplanned infrastructure repairs. For example, at last week’s Select Board meeting, there was discussion of a major storm drainage problem at Woodside Drive/ Williams Street that may require the expenditure of $850,000 to fix it.

The Longmeadow Capital Planning committee led by Mark Gold does a great job prioritizing the town’s capital needs and making recommendations to the Select Board and Town Meeting as to which major items should be approved. However, because available monies for capital spending are limited, many needed expenditures are deferred.

Now we are told that we desperately need a new high school and DPW facility. How is the town going to handle this financial burden? I’ve heard the price tags on these facilities but I was interested in what it is going to cost my wife and I as taxpayers in this town…. so I took time to do some simple financial calculations and what I found was not unexpected.

Here are my simple calculations….

Let's assume the following

• Longmeadow decides to build a new high school (estimated cost ~$100 million) and a new DPW facility ($15 million). Also assuming 60% reimbursement from the state for the school project ---> total new debt --> $55M.
• Assume our good bond rating will result in an interest rate of 4.5% for 20 years for the $55M of new debt

Using a simple mortgage financial calculator ---> annual interest + principal payments --> ~ $4.2M / year. For this proposal to succeed the town would have to pass a Prop 2½ debt exclusion override.

Once the project was underway and the full monies were bonded and spent, Longmeadow property owners could see a step increase in their property taxes. For this example if one assumes that this happened in the coming fiscal year, this step increase would be by ~ 11.4% ($4.2M/$37.0M).

Note: $37.0M is the total property tax levy in proposed FY09 budget.

If one included the additional 2½% tax increase (.025 x $37.0M = $0.93M) the first year of the full impact could potentially see an increase of $4.2M + $0.93M (Prop 2½ limit) = $5.1M or 13.8%. For the average taxpayer paying $6000/ year, the increase would be ~ $830. Over 20 years of the bond this increase would amount to $16,600 for the average property owner.

The purpose of this blog note is not to say we shouldn’t go forward with these two projects but for the town to consider using a longer range financial roadmap wherein both our annual operating costs and our future capital expenditures are more fully considered together. Last year's Budget Strategies Committee was a good start, but much more is needed. We cannot continue to simply operate from year-to-year without such a vision.

School Committee Punts

At its April 14th meeting the Longmeadow School Committee rejected a resolution adopted by the Amherst School Committee as well as the Longmeadow District Learning Team, which called on the state legislature to make immediate changes to education funding and to “explore” additional spending increases and revenue raising measures in FY2010.

At the outset, the debate went well enough. The resolution was problematic for some members in its details (the revenue generating recommendations, to be specific). After some discussion (though I would have preferred more) the committee voted four to three against the resolution. While I was on the short end of the vote, I was pleased that the committee members were willing to take positions, defend them, and vote them. Having rejected the resolution I was content to bring the issue to the public and to keep the debate going with the hope that a wider public discussion of the resolution would be educational, and serve to activate voters.

Unfortunately, due to what I see as an irrational anxiety over conflict, a sanitized version of the resolution was offered (sans any mention of raising revenue to pay the tab) after the rejection of the initial version. The “conflict-free” version passed with the four previously opposed members voting for it. Two of the previous yays became nays, and I abstained. For the members who had rejected the work of our DLT and the Amherst School Committee, the second vote provides them with an opportunity to be supportive of the general thrust of the resolution, which was a call for the state to increase special education funding as well as chapter 70 funding. On the down side, it may also have cost us an opportunity to provide political leadership to the community on these very important and genuinely debatable details. Having passed a watered down resolution, the committee may have signaled an unwillingness to remain engaged in the larger argument.

If local elected officials shrink from debates such as this, political progress will be very difficult. School Committee members and candidates talk a good game about “lobbying our state legislators” and getting them to “do the right thing” but rarely understand the wholly vacuous nature of these standard lines. How exactly are requests for more money, without any instruction or guidance, or most importantly, without clear organized political support, supposed to be dealt with by state legislators? Do you suppose they have not been getting these same requests since their first day in office? Does anyone really think that someone has the magical persuasive skill to cause legislators to have an epiphany and realize that the answers were staring them in the face all along? Professional politicians, for better or worse, are moved by votes. Votes are generated by mobilizing interested parties to first see their interest, and then to organize around their interest, and then to act on that interest.

Very few state legislators (especially in states where the position is full-time) mobilize voters around issues. The reason to avoid this practice is simple. Organized, interested voters are powerful. No professional politician who has confidence in her agenda and wants to get re-elected has an interest in creating powerful voters whose power comes from anything other than their support for the legislator herself.

What does all this mean? What does it have to do with a politically gun shy School Committee? Acceptance of the claims above mean that there is a political leadership void that desperately needs to be filled if the needs of our cities and towns are ever going to get proper attention on Beacon Hill. We need local activists and elected officials to engage in the debates that our state legislators refuse to undertake. We need voters to be activated and mobilized around policy arguments.

If communities across the Commonwealth were seriously and regularly engaging these state budget questions at the local level, with local leaders representing sincere positions on taxing and spending policies, the state legislature would have little choice but to take notice. Local debates about state issues create pools of future state legislative candidates, which incumbents would ignore at their own peril. Just as importantly, local debates about state issues lead to the growth of strong grass roots regional and state coalitions, backed not only by ideas, but also by effective voter mobilization networks.

The bottom line for me is that the School Committee, while well intended, may have pushed aside an opportunity to exercise political leadership and set an important example for other elected officials. When we let politicians avoid tough votes and tough choices we make it easier for them to win re-election, but much harder for them to make a positive difference.

Politics aint pretty and it’s not always fun. It is a contact sport that like any contact sport requires players to be willing to get hurt and to play with pain. Volunteer local officials can hardly be blamed for not wanting to leave it all on the field. However, this understandable unwillingness does have serious unintended consequences.

Is Longmeadow Falling Apart?

This is the title of the front page story in the April 14 issue of The Reminder. After listening to the public forums on FY2009 budget and the Town-wide Facilities Study in recent weeks and last week’s discussion at the Select Board meeting regarding street drainage problems in the Woodside Drive/ Williams Street area, I believe that the answer to this question is YES!

For many years, Longmeadow has deferred maintenance on its town buildings (even the renovated Wolf Swamp Road and Blueberry Hill Elementary Schools have minimal maintenance other than janitorial services) and other infra-structure and has reduced other town services in order to help reduce the annual budget and avoid the annual need for a Proposition 2½ override. However, last year in order to balance the budget and avoid the significant loss of school and town services, the Longmeadow’s electorate narrowly passed a $2.1 million operational budget override (the first since FY2003).

The FY09 budget to be voted on at the upcoming April 29 Annual Town Meeting is a significant increase over the current fiscal year. According to the recently published Annual Town Meeting warrant, the recommended FY09 total budget is $51.3 million vs $48.4M for FY08)- an increase of $2.84 M or ~ 5.9%.

It is interesting to note that the Proposition 2½ limitation applies to property taxes only which for FY09 is ~ $36.9M- not the total budget ($51.3M). So with limited growth and property improvement, this primary source of increased funding for town spending is significantly less than +2½% per year (less than $1.0M increase in FY09). The town expects an increase in state aid for FY09 of ~ $182,000. So with a budget increase (FY08 --> FY09) of $2.84M other sources like our “free cash” account (aka savings account) are needed to balance the budget. In order to balance the budget over $1 million will be transferred from the free cash account and the operational stabilization fund.

Some urgent items on the town agenda in the next couple of years include….

• Town employee collective bargaining agreements (including schools)


• A new DPW facility


• Construction of new high school


• Town buildings infrastructure repairs


• Street/ storm sewer repairs


• Other ?

With limited annual increases in town funding sources and the “demand” by the Longmeadow School Committee for “level services” with rapidly increasing costs, the quality of life in Longmeadow is very much in jeopardy. It appears that unless significant cuts in town (and school) services occur, there will be a Proposition 2½ override in order to balance the FY2010 budget.

We clearly need to look at our fiscal problems not just for the upcoming budget year but forecasted into the future. Last year’s initiative by our Town Manager to structure a three year strategic plan (2007 – 2010) for town related services and facilities was a good start toward the long range planning that this town desperately needs but it didn’t address financial aspects. The Budget Strategies Committee tried to forecast the budget for FY07-FY10 and stated that if the Prop 2½ override was passed that there would be no override through FY10. Let’s hope that they were right!

In any event we need our town leaders (both town + schools) to help construct a 3-5 year strategic plan with a financial roadmap and not focus one year at a time.

Please take the time to vote in our poll on the subject of longer range fiscal planning. If you need assistance in signing in, please read our help page.

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.