Is our Town Meeting form of government broken?

This year's Annual Town Meeting (ATM) was held on May 7 in the gymnasium of the new Longmeadow High School.  Having attended many town meetings during the past 33 years that I have lived in town I was amazed to see a new dynamic in play at this last meeting.  It seems that the pro-school coalition- a well organized group with an ability to fill any town meeting venue using social media and with direct ties to the School Committee (SC) was determined to increase school department spending in direct opposition to the Select Board (SB) and Finance Committee (FC) recommendations.

A large contingent of town voters came to this town meeting for one vote only- Article 6, to increase the School Department's FY2014 budget by $353,000. (If you doubt that this was the case, watch the end of the video clip below to see 40-50% of the meeting attendees leave after this vote.)

Background Information
Prior to the town meeting there had been many discussions between the SB and the SC regarding the level of FY2014 funding for the Longmeadow School Department.  The FY2014 budget guideline established by the SB for all town departments including the School Department was for a 0% increase vs. the current FY2013 budget.

All town departments except the School Department submitted budgets with 0% increases.  The SC approved an increase of $706K citing significant effects on Longmeadow education if they were forced to accept a 0% increase.  A compromise budget increase of $353K developed by a joint SC/SB committee failed to gain approval by the full SB.

SC members + a large contingent of pro-school advocates rallied their forces and showed up at the May 7 ATM in order to move forward an amendment to increase the SB recommended FY14 School Dept. budget.

Article #6 involved the FY2014 budget and was an important article on the 2013 ATM warrant.  In the video clip below showing key portions of the ATM (courtesy of LCTV) you will see three different amendments proposed for Article #6.

1. Addition of $353K as recommended by the joint SB/SC compromise committee and supported by the SC (proposed by Michael Clark, chairman of the Longmeadow School Committee)
2. Addition of $706K to the FY14 school dept budget (proposed by Jessica Hutchins, town meeting member)
3. Addition of $2.5 million to the FY14 school dept budget (proposed by David Gustafson, town meeting member)

Mr. Gustafson's secondary amendment to Article #6 was obviously done to highlight the potential jeopardy of the process for town meeting members to make proposals without due diligence.  SB Vice-Chair Mark Gold also pointed out that approval of amendment #2 (increase by $706K) would be an irresponsible action by the Town Meeting without having identified funding sources first and could lead to some dire consequences with other portions of the town budget.

I believe that if SC Chair Michael Clark had not pushed back on the need for the $706K amendment, town meeting members would have approved it.

In the end, the School Dept budget for FY14 was increased by $353K.

Bottom line:

Now that this pro-school special interest group has been successful, it may be emboldened to do more.  Don't be surprised to see another attempt to increase school funding at a future town meeting- particularly a fall town meeting when fewer people are in attendance.

Voters looking to see that there is balanced spending of their tax dollars between schools and everything else better paid heed to what is happening at town meetings. Better still, they should attend them rather than watching the meetings on LCTV.

A Poor Case for a Mayor

            Winston Churchill once said, "democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."  And so it may be said of our direct democracy, the Town Meeting form of government rooted in the very founding of this town.

            In a May 19 interview on LCTV, Select Board member Mark Barowsky put forth a different idea, a mayoral form of government in order to put an end to Town Meeting.  He further stated he wanted to put the School Committee under the mayor.  By changing our form of government, this idea would concentrate power in the hands of a single individual, with the Select Board essentially becoming like a city council.  The town manager would be gone.  The mayor, armed with a bare majority on the Select Board, could re-make the town every few years, with the voters having no direct say over anything.

            This call for an elected mayor comes on the heels of the voters' overwhelming rejection of the Select Board's annual budget at Town Meeting.  This call for a subservient school committee comes at a time when it is clear that the elected representatives of the School Committee have minds of their own, and that they are prepared to make their case to the voters, and not just to three members of the Select Board.

            Barowsky's idea does address the momentary political problem of the voters exercising autonomous will and not following the policies favored by Barowsky.  Putting the School Committee to heel under a mayor would also solve the problem of that pesky board trying to stop cuts that would increase class sizes and diminish the quality of education in Longmeadow's schools.  These benefits are, at best, dubious.  The costs of that kind of change to our town charter, on that other hand, are fundamental.

            In 1774, the tradition of town meetings was considered so sacred that Parliament's act of forbidding them within Massachusetts (part of the "Intolerable Acts") helped lead to the American Revolution.  That act is even referenced in the Declaration of Independence as one of the grievances that justified separation from England.

            To be sure, times and circumstances change, and Town Meeting democracy has been abolished in large cities in New England.  And it never took hold in the same way in the South and the West the way it did here in New England.  But a tradition as longlasting as our form of town government does deserve respect, having proven its worth in different eras and in crises more grave than any problem currently facing Longmeadow.

            More problematic is the notion that we must take power away from the people because the people cannot be trusted to make decisions on matters of the town budget and taxation.  It is certainly true that voters do sometimes make bad decisions, but there is no greater discipline than having to live with one’s own decisions.  Town Meeting has its faults, but there are ways to make its deliberations most robust and more meaningful.  Democracy is, and ever will be, an imperfection. 

              The alternative form of government, one with a strong mayor, is not better, as it depends on the strengths and frailties of a single human being, rather than the checks and balances contained in our town charter.  A mayor, as Holyoke learned, can reverse course on an important issue like casinos, and suddenly, a casino is on the table.  And who exactly would be this mayor?  Is there any town politician in recent memory whose wisdom and judgment was so esteemed that he or she would be worthy of such a powerful office?  If none comes to mind, then this mayor idea should give town residents pause.

            The experience of our larger neighbors in western Massachusetts proves that mayors can be a hit-or-miss proposition.  A recent mayor of Agawam made more headlines for extra-matrimonial scuffles than for forward-thinking policies.  A single bad Select Board member can do little lasting damage. 

            A strong mayor with a school committee in his or her back pocket is an extreme solution for extreme problems, like when Chicago turned to Richard Daley as its savior.  Taking such an exceptional step, and in the process, overturning centuries of political experience, is hardly warranted for losing a vote on a town budget. 

Alex J. Grant is a lawyer living in Longmeadow.  His email address is alex.grant68@yahoo.com.

The True Cost of Quality Education in Longmeadow

At the Annual Town Meeting earlier this month there was significant debate about the Select Board approved cuts of $726K from the School Dept FY2014 proposed budget. School Superintendent Marie Doyle armed with charts and other information described how the budget as approved by the Select Board was going to have a significant effect on the quality of education in Longmeadow.  Article #6- the FY14 budget was then amended by the Town Meeting members to provide for an additional $353K of funding.  I spoke during the debate on this amendment so I thought that it would be worthwhile to share my comments with other town residents who may not have attended this meeting.  Below is a video excerpt of my remarks (courtesy of LCTV) with the cited tables inserted.

 

As mentioned in the above video, there are significant school related line items in the overall budget that are not usually considered when the School Dept budget is being reviewed.  These items include School Dept Employee + Retiree Benefits (including Health Care, Insurance, etc.) and Debt Service (Interest + Principal repayment on school project bonds).  As you can see from Table I below the cost of these items is not trivial.

Table I- The Total Cost of Delivering a Quality Education
-click to enlarge table-

During the past two years, the total cost of delivering a quality education in Longmeadow has increased by $4.8 million or 13.2%- a large portion of this increase is the debt service for our new high school.  Given that the School Maintenance is not listed here but is included within the Town Govt budget, the true cost of delivering a quality education in Longmeadow is even higher than that shown in Table I.

I get a little annoyed when I hear a town resident or a member of the School Committee claim that the town and many of its residents do not support its schools.  Our property taxes which can be seen in the chart below have increased significantly over the past two years primarily because of the new high school construction and increases in the cost of education. (Read an earlier Longmeadow Buzz blog post for additional information on property taxes.)

Table II- Longmeadow Property Taxes
-click to enlarge chart-

Over the next ten years, this recent increase in total education costs will translate to almost $50 million in taxpayer money.

With all of the pressing infrastructure needs of our town ranging from streets/sidewalks to a new DPW facility and middle school renovation/new building, our school department needs to find a way to reduce the cost of delivering their services.

Yes, Mr. Grant there is a capital plan!

At the recent Town Meeting Alex Grant criticized the Select Board for not having a "capital plan" for improvement of the town's infrastructure.  Furthermore, he stated that without a capital plan the town was wasting money including projects like the Maple Road water and sewer repairs.

Paul Santaniello, current chairman of the Longmeadow Select Board responded to this criticism by Alex Grant at the Select Board meeting earlier this week.  He stated that the Town of Longmeadow does have a capital plan for infrastructure improvements including both town and school department needs.  It is a "rolling" 5 year plan which is updated annually.  The Maple Road project was on the list but because of funding considerations, the long overdue improvements were not initiated until last fall. 

Stephen Crane, the new Town Manager for Longmeadow took the opportunity during the Town Meeting to state that the interim town manager (Mr. Barry Del Castilho) was incorrect when he stated that there was no capital fund.  It is true that the town lacks a capital funding plan.

For those people who are reading this blog post and are interested in seeing the details of the Capital Plan, here are the links:

Executive Summary
Detailed Spreadsheet Summary

Mr. Grant.... it is time to move on to other issues.

Budgeting Vision and Opportunities

The following article was submitted by Mark Gold,
current member of the Longmeadow Select Board to the Longmeadow Buzz blog and Longmeadow News for publication this week.
 

___________________________________________________

The development of the 2014 town budget demonstrated the limitations imposed on a fully “built-out” town like Longmeadow.  With property tax increases limited to 2-1/2% year over year, most cities and towns in the Commonwealth turn to new growth, the development of previously vacant properties, to provide the funds needed to sustain their government’s budget.  In the 1980’s Longmeadow garnered additional tax revenue from the development of Williamsburg Drive, in the 1990’s it was from Jonquil Lane and in the 2000’s Pendleton Lane.  With no new housing tracts available for development, for the past seven years Longmeadow has found itself in the dilemma of revenue increases being limited by proposition 2-1/2.  But this perceived reliance on real estate tax revenues need not restrict our ability to fund capital needs, wage and salary increase, and new service initiatives within Longmeadow.

Since being elected to the Select Board in 2009, I have focused on both reducing costs and identifying new sources of income (to offset the loss of new growth income).  On the income side, I initiated the town’s adoption the optional state meals tax that will provide as much as $80,000 a year in new revenue to the town.  On the expense side, I negotiated a lower rate on the trash pick-up program, worked with the town CFO to secure low cost electrical rates for town buildings, saved over $100,000 on the purchase of replacement water meters, and secured a grant from WMECo that installed energy efficient lighting throughout town buildings, a project that will save the town tens of thousands of dollars each year.  Our budget dollars are going further than ever – one of the main reasons why the Town is now seven years into the 2007 Proposition 2-1/2 over-ride that was designed to provide revenue for a balanced budget for three years.

There are ideas for increased revenue and cost savings items that have yet to be pursued.  The Select Board is examining opportunities for purchasing the street lights which are all currently leased, and following that purchase with the installation of high efficiency lighting to lower operating costs.  Opportunities exist for providing town residents with added services, such as wireless internet, which can provide income to the town while saving residents in their monthly payments for high speed internet and smart phone data plans.  Although our first attempt at placing a solar energy facility on our town landfill was deferred due to its marginal economics, changing solar economics may yet provide benefit the town from the installation of a passive renewable energy system on the roof of a town building or elsewhere.  It’s not farfetched to imagine that one day a community based solar facility will provide low cost electricity to power the homes and vehicles of town residents.

Our ability to provide the services all our citizens want at a tax rate that all our citizens can afford is an achievable goal.  With vision and follow-through we can affordably provide the funds the town needs and the services town residents want.  For the past four years, working with the Select Board for the citizens of Longmeadow, I have shown that vision and follow-through.  Much progress has been achieved but there is much more that is possible.

I ask for your vote on June 11th so that I can continue to work for the residents of this town to address the issues that will retain the character and community that drew each of us to Longmeadow. 

Mark Gold

Select Board Candidates at Long Meddowe Days

Longmeadow Community TV provided a LIVE opportunity during last weekend's Long Meddowe Days for the 3 candidates for Select Board (Mark Gold, Mark Barowsky and Alex Grant) to address the voters of Longmeadow.  Below are the taped interviews for each of the three candidates courtesy of LCTV.

Annual Town Election Day is Tuesday, June 11

PRESS RELEASE: ALEX GRANT ANNOUNCES RUN FOR LONGMEADOW SELECT BOARD

ALEX GRANT, after writing a bi-weekly column for the Longmeadow News on town issues since 2007, announces that he is running for one of the two open seats on the Longmeadow Select Board.  The election is June 11.

            The announcement comes a few days after the annual Longmeadow Town Meeting, in which the Select Board’s proposed annual budget was defeated.  GRANT spoke at Town Meeting in favor of a compromise budget that restored some of the cuts to the School Department.  The cuts advanced by the Select Board would have decimated the renowned Longmeadow music department, led to layoffs of teachers, and increased class sizes.

            GRANT stated at Town Meeting, “I wish we could send the Select Board back to the drawing board” on the budget.  He noted that the Select Board budget’s across-the-board cuts in services also hurt seniors in town.

            GRANT criticized the Select Board’s policy of taking money from needed town services to put the funds into capital spending at a time when there is no capital plan.  Despite the claims of the Select Board and the Town Manager to the contrary, GRANT quoted the interim town manager at the March 6, 2013 budget forum as saying, “There is no capital plan, there should be, there needs to be, it would be better if the capital recommendations for FY 14 were in the context of a capital plan.”  GRANT asked that anyone doubting his recitation of the facts to view the DVD recording of the budget forum, read the news story in The Reminder, or to go to his website www.AlexGrantLongmeadow.org to see for themselves the statements from the budget forum.

The compromise budget supported by GRANT, the School Committee, and two members of the Select Board passed overwhelmingly.  GRANT said that the Town Meeting result shows that the Select Board is out of step with the voters and that change is needed.

            GRANT, who works as a federal prosecutor, also coaches youth soccer, basketball, and track in Longmeadow.  GRANT is a graduate of Stanford University and Cornell Law School.

            In making the announcement, GRANT said, “I am running to open up our town government by writing about it, by telling residents what really goes on at the Select Board, and by listening to residents more than the Select Board does now.  In recent years, town politics has been a conversation involving a fairly small number of people, and that needs to change.  We need to engage a larger number of voters if Longmeadow is going to move forward and be a great place to live for people of all ages.”

            GRANT reminded residents that the passage of the compromise budget was a limited victory that merely mitigated the cuts to services contemplated by the Select Board budget.  The budget passed was still closer to the 0% Select Board approach than to maintaining level services.  GRANT does not want to see the quality of life in Longmeadow diminished.

GRANT said, “If you want to have a shot at avoiding these same kinds of cuts to services next year, you need to vote on June 11 to change the lineup on the Select Board. Otherwise, we will be having the same conversation next year. The choice between the two incumbents and me for the two open seats is clear.”

            Voters will have a chance to visit GRANT’s booth and meet the candidate in person at Longmeaddowe Days on May 18 and 19.

Funding Capital Needs

 

The following article was submitted by Mark Gold,
current member of the Longmeadow Select Board to the Longmeadow Buzz blog and Longmeadow News for publication this week.

___________________________________________________

Longmeadow’s Town meeting was held last week – and the proceedings of that meeting are reported elsewhere in this newspaper.   From the front of the room, the vista was amazingly positive; hundreds of town residents had come out of their homes on a beautiful spring evening to perform the duties of the legislative branch of town government.  At the meeting, as part of the continued discussion on renewing the infrastructure of the town, citizens approved over $5,000,000 in funding for capital expenditures, authorizing the use of funds from the operating budget, stabilization funds, and the issuance of bonds to begin work on the backlog of over $140 million in capital projects that have been identified for our roads, sidewalks, storm water outfalls, drinking water, and sewage systems.   $2,200,000 of these expended funds is derived from water and sewer fees or designated state aid, but $2.8 million is primarily paid through property taxes.  If we are to continue to maintain the town’s infrastructure, as we must, and continue to support the operations of the town’s general government services and schools as we want, we must find a way to fund capital improvements that provides the necessary millions of dollars in needed financing while continuing to provide funds for general government and school operations.   I believe that this balanced approach to funding both capital and operating expenses can be met.

Beginning when I was chair, the capital planning committee has recommended each year that that capital funds be increased above their current level of 2% of property tax revenue.  For the past two years, the Finance Committee has echoed that request.  By ramping up Longmeadow’s commitment to capital from 2% to 2.5% over five years, and dedicating those increases to capital improvement bonds, Longmeadow can make available approximately $4.5 million of additionally needed funds to address the most pressing of our capital needs (see chart below).   This gradual increase in the capital allocation would require only $50,000 of each year’s allowable increase under the Proposition 2 ½ levy limit, leaving over $1.1 million in increased revenue to support the growth of the overall town budget and, equally as important, not impact the funds available to purchase plows, equipment and other non- infrastructure capital needs.  Our infrastructure was built over many decades and this balanced approach provides the added funds to begin to address these needs without having to make unacceptable cuts to the town’s operating budget.

click chart to enlarge

This proposed approach to funding our infrastructure needs mirrors the structure adopted by the Town for funding new fire trucks.  Prior to the creation of our fire truck replacement fund, the purchase of a fire truck was a major expenditure that required offsetting cuts elsewhere in either the operating budget (to pay for a bond) or the capital budget (precluding the purchase of other capital items).   In place since I recommended it during my tenure as chair of the capital planning committee, an annual payment into the fire truck fund has been integrated into Longmeadow’s capital plan, and has provided funds to pay for two new fire vehicles with minimal impact on either operating budgets or other capital expenditures.

Longmeadow’s capital infrastructure needs must be addressed.  By gradually increasing, and allocating that increased portion of our capital budget to infrastructure repairs, the Town of Longmeadow can adopt a balanced approach to funding the capital AND operating needs of the town.  This proposal is but one of the ways in which I hope to continue to bring to the voters of Longmeadow a balanced approach to town government. 

For more information about how we can address the financial needs of the town, visit my website www.GoldForSelectboard.com.

Mark Gold

We Deserved a Vote

At the May 7 Town Meeting, there was a warrant article that should have been on the docket, that should have been voted on, and that deserved passage.  It was an article that had been part of an earlier draft of the warrant, and then it was removed through an improvident 3-2 vote by the Select Board.  It was an article that could have made a difference to hundreds of youth and adults.  The article was the Community Preservation Committee's (CPC) proposal to repair and improve the Wolf Swamp fields.

The absence of the Wolf Swamp fields project on the Town Meeting warrant was a missed opportunity that reflects a lack of regard for the work done by the CPC and the Parks Board, which had carefully considered the proposal.  Its absence on the warrant also reflects, shall we say, an overabundance of confidence that the three Select Board members held in their own judgment and wisdom.  That confidence propelled the Select Board majority to substitute its opinion for the assessments of a greater number of folks who had spent more time studying the subject.

The Wolf Swamp fields badly need repair, and their use needs to be re-oriented to sports like Lacrosse and Soccer, where interest is intense, and so part of the proposal was to fill in two ball diamonds in favor of more field space.  To accomplish this, the project required $96,000, and the money was to have been derived from Community Preservation Act (CPA) funds, which allows the town to receive a 26% match from the state, which is about the best deal in municipal finance.

So how can a project with unquestioned merit and which makes fiscal sense go down to defeat?  Or more precisely, how can such a project be kept from the voters at Town Meeting?  The CPC voted unanimously, 9-0, to approve this project.  Other CPA projects were rejected, tabled, or failed to pass so overwhelmingly.  The CPC included people with histories of long service to the town, such as Gerald Nolet, Arlene Miller, and James Goodhines.  This group was not apt to venture out on poorly designed schemes.  It was certainly a group that would not agree on every town issue, but it could agree on this.

The Select Board has many other things to do besides second-guessing the layout of sports fields and the angles at which lacrosse balls may be flung.  The objections raised by the members who voted to kill the warrant article showed no deference to the review done by the many people who have given a lot of thought on how best to use the town's resources for recreation and sport.

One Select Board member suggested that still more review should be done by the Planning Board and by the Town safety committee.  After input by the Parks Board, a vote by nine members of the CPC, review by the Select Board, and a vote by residents at Town Meeting, this process hardly cried out for more bureaucracy.  As Mr. Goodhines noted, the need had been identified for several years, and the project was advanced after receiving feedback from the community.

The shame in all of this is that the voters were denied a chance to have their voices heard.  Was this idea so dangerous that the people could not be trusted to vote on it?  While it was within the power of the Select Board to eliminate this article, surely that power must be tempered by a decent respect for the opinions of the constituents who conferred that power by electing the members of the Select Board.  Was it not possible that the voters, had they approved the article, were right, and the three members of the Select Board wrong?

At worst, the Wolf Swamp fields project was a matter on which reasonable minds could differ.  Then why not allow our direct democracy to work?  Why not allow the clash of ideas, the questions and answers, and the discussion on the floor of Town Meeting to illuminate the best path forward?  Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. once said that "the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market."  That competition was overridden in this instance, but in our system, the debate never ceases, and this question will arise again, and the expression of the views of the electorate cannot be silenced forever.

Alex J. Grant is a lawyer living in Longmeadow.  His email address is alex.grant68@yahoo.com.

There is Another Important Vote on June 11

I was inspired to see the support last night for the compromise budget, but we should remember that this was a limited victory and merely mitigated the cuts to services contemplated by the Select Board budget. All told, the budget passed still was closer to the 0% SB approach than to maintaining level services. If you want to have a shot at avoiding these same kinds of cuts to services next year, you need to vote on June 11 to change the lineup on the Select Board. Otherwise, we'll be having the same conversation next year. The choice between me, and the two incumbents, Mark Gold and Mark Barowsky, for the two open seats is clear.