Chip Ford's CLT Commentary
A Proposition 2½ override was
apparently defeated yesterday in Georgetown, by 17 votes. A
recount is likely, but better to win by 17 votes than to lose by that
margin.
What's most intriguing about
that election is what Steve Epstein discovered and brought to the
attention of the towns selectmen. Steve is the attorney who
represented CLT during the 1997-98 challenge of our first tax rollback
petition, when the state teachers union, the Massachusetts Teachers
Association, challenged our signatures. He's also advised us on
challenging fees and fee increases. Steve is a longtime taxpayer
activist and was a member of CLT for years.
He discovered that the wording
of the override question on the then-upcoming Georgetown ballot was
invalid, that it did not conform to
Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 59, Section 21C, the law which
strictly stipulates how the question "shall be worded" on any municipal
override ballot.
What chaos and panic must have reigned throughout
town hall in Georgetown late last week!
The Georgetown Record reported last Thursday:
"According to [Town Administrator Stephen Delaney], he does not yet know
where the breakdown in checking over the ballot occurred. 'We’re
not sure where the error is yet; that will be part of the review of what
happened. I’ll probably know by the first part of the week...."
We wonder -- how many otherwise successful municipal
overrides have been won using illegal or inappropriate language on the
ballot?
We also wonder about the cost of "incompetence of
some fairly high-paid people," as Steve termed it. Prop 2½
override elections cost money -- even if run correctly. Then
there's the comeback second-bite-of-the-apple in some communities, where
the losers bring it right back in yet another special election.
CLT has refiled for this session
its bill for "An Act Limiting Proposition 2½ Override Elections, and
Allowing an Underride in All Communities" --
S1702 -- sponsored for us by Sens. Scott Brown, Robert Hedlund and
Michael Knapik, and Rep. Jeffrey Perry.
Regardless of how many years we
keep this, or any, issue moving, we've learned that perseverance often
pays off. The strategy may seen dogged, plodding, and long-range,
but if you stick with them consistently, frequently, and long enough
they often produce fruit in the end.
One example is the income tax
hike that in 1989 was promised to be only "temporary." Look how
long that took us before it became recognized that in fact it was
"promised to be only temporary." In 2000 we managed to get it
rolled back from 5.75 to 5.3 percent (where it was subsequently "frozen"
by the Legislature in 2002). "Keep The Promise" was our campaign
slogan during that ballot campaign, and it worked with 59 percent of the
voters.
Another is our concerted effort
to identify the so-called
Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation. For years, for far too
long, MTF was always identified as "highly-respected" and "nonpartisan"
-- like it floated above in the heavens raining down impartial wisdom.
CLT, dogged and plodding, consistently, frequently, and long enough has
been chipping away at its armor. Now it's lucky to be labeled
simply "business-backed" in news reports; most now know who and what MTF
represents -- and that isn't average taxpayers or fiscal health.
Burgeoning public employee
benefits is another, and only in the past year or so has this begun to
be recognized and reported -- extensively these days. These
benefits are the cause for most of the budget problems in government --
be it state or municipal. For the longest time either too few
considered it, or dared bring it up. Now it's finally recognized
for the problem it has created over the long term.
We've just added a new and
ongoing section to the CLT website documenting this abuse. See "The
Ticking Time Bomb -- Public Employee Benefits." Needless to
say, the Eagle-Tribune's contribution will soon be added!
 |
|
Chip Ford |
The Eagle-Tribune
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Georgetown voters reject tax hike, incumbents
By Courtney Nguyen
Georgetown - Voters yesterday ousted two incumbents and rejected a $1.06
million Proposition 2½ tax override by 17 votes.
The close vote on the override -- 1,267 "yes" to 1,284 "no" -- caused
tempers to flare and tears to flow among some who gathered at Town Hall
to see the results tallied. Many override supporters who gathered around
the unofficial numbers, not wanting to believe they had lost by so
little, expressed concern over what happens next.
"This vote strangles the future of Georgetown," said Elisabeth Tollman,
chairwoman of the Believe in Georgetown group that campaigned heavily in
favor of the override. "We worked hard and had strong participation.
This is a loss for the whole town, not just for the people who voted
yes."
Tollman said there would be a request for a recount: "If we do lose in
the end, we'll have to re-evaluate and decide what to do next."
Without the money, the town faces cuts to the school department,
including losing teachers and the raising of athletic fees. Municipal
employees will not receive raises, and there will be cuts to fire and
police equipment budgets. Additionally, the school's warning status
conferred by the New England Association of Schools and Colleges could
be downgraded to probation if more money cannot be secured by the school
department.
School Committee Chairman George Moker had no comment, and residents
were overheard saying perhaps a Special Town Meeting and election should
be on the plate for the summer.
In another close race, newcomer Philip Trapani ousted Selectman Richard
"Richie" Clough by 57 votes, with an unofficial tally of 1,274 to 1,217.
It is a three-year term.
"I was glad to see a close race. Richie ran a great campaign and had
good support in town," Trapani said. "But it's a bittersweet victory
since the override lost. It will make my job as a selectman more
difficult moving forward."
Trapani, 38, wants to see more businesses come to Georgetown to create
more revenue.
Also, longtime Highway Surveyor Jack Moultrie was bested by opponent
Peter Durkee by a vote of 1,323 to 1,177. Neither was available for
comment at press time.
The Georgetown Record
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Ballot mistake could void override
By M. Renee Seymour
Georgetown selectmen held an emergency meeting Thursday, May 10 to alter
language on the Proposition 2½ override ballot question after resident
Steven Epstein, 55 West St., notified the board that the language
was not worded properly according to law.
According to a press release from Town Administrator Stephen Delaney
dated May 10, “The language has been corrected and new ballots have been
ordered and are expected to be available for the town election on
Monday, May 14, 2007.”
The original ballot question simply repeated the language of the
original annual Town Meeting warrant article, which was approved during
Town Meeting last Monday night.
But the correct language is to be written according to Mass General Law
Chapter 59, Section 21C.
The new language on the ballot question 1 reads:
“Shall the Town of Georgetown be allowed to assess an additional
$1,061,822 in real estate and personal property taxes for the purposes
of funding the general operating budget for the fiscal year beginning
July 1, 2007, which will include: $767,676 for the school department;
and $294,146 for general government purposes, which include, but are not
limited to funding raises for town employees, new Highway Department
laborer and additional clerical hours, new Fire Department equipment,
additional hours for Planning Department, additional hours in Town
Clerk’s office, additional money for Highway Department for drain
expenses, and funding various repairs, maintenance, expenses, equipment,
leases and purchases.”
According to Epstein, who is an attorney, if the ballot question passes
with incorrect language, it will not be legally binding.
Asked how he came across the error, Epstein said someone brought it to
his attention and he investigated.
Upon inquiring with the state Department of Revenue, Division of Local
Services, he was told by a representative of that office that the
language “is problematic,” he said Thursday.
Asked what he would do if the incorrect language remains on the ballot —
say, if the new ballots do not reach the town in time for Monday’s
election — and the question passes, Epstein said he would not commit
himself one way or another as to how he would proceed.
“I will say, once again we have another example of the incompetence of
some fairly high-paid people by the town of Georgetown.
“We shouldn’t reward incompetence,” he added.
According to Delaney, he does not yet know where the breakdown in
checking over the ballot occurred.
“We’re not sure where the error is yet; that will be part of the review
of what happened. I’ll probably know by the first part of the week. One
of the selectman said, ‘Let’s just fix it now,’” said Delaney Thursday.
Delaney said he would be issuing a report on the error to the Board of
Selectmen next week.
He said the reprint is slated for arrival either Friday or Saturday, but
did not yet know the cost of having the ballots reprinted.
The Georgetown Record
Friday, May 11, 2007
Ballots reprinted, questions still exist
By M. Renee Seymour
Georgetown - As of Friday morning the corrected ballots had arrived and
were in-hand for Monday’s town election, meaning the issue of incorrect
language on the Proposition 2½ override ballot question has been solved,
in part.
But the town is not entirely out of the woods on this issue yet.
Although the ballots to be used Monday are now appropriately worded
according to Massachusetts law, the ballots used for absentee voters
still contain the first and incorrect Proposition 2½ override ballot
question.
According to Selectman Matt Vincent, the ballot is still susceptible to
challenge should someone want to try to overturn the vote due to those
absentee ballots.
“If the override were to pass or fail, but not by a margin greater than
the number of absentee ballots, then we will have to consider the impact
of the wording for the override question being different on the absentee
ballots than the poll ballots,” Vincent said Friday.
Vincent added, “I would expect that a judge hearing this case would be
hard-pressed to overturn the vote of the people, and would also hope
that anyone in town for whom the vote did not go the way they wanted
would not attempt to take the final result away from rest of the
voters.”
The controversy surrounds the wording of the Proposition 2½ override
ballot question. Georgetown selectmen had to hold an emergency meeting
Thursday, May 10 to alter its language after resident Steven Epstein, 55
West St., notified the board that the language was not worded properly
according to law.
According to a press release from Town Administrator Stephen Delaney
issued that day, the ballots were corrected. The new ballots are now in
town and ready for use Monday.
The original ballot question simply repeated the language of the
original annual Town Meeting warrant article, which was approved during
Town Meeting last Monday night.
But the correct language is to be written according to Mass General Law
Chapter 59, Section 21C.
The new language on the ballot question 1 reads:
“Shall the Town of Georgetown be allowed to assess an additional
$1,061,822 in real estate and personal property taxes for the purposes
of funding the general operating budget for the fiscal year beginning
July 1, 2007, which will include: $767,676 for the school department;
and $294,146 for general government purposes, which include, but are not
limited to funding raises for town employees, new Highway Department
laborer and additional clerical hours, new Fire Department equipment,
additional hours for Planning Department, additional hours in Town
Clerk’s office, additional money for Highway Department for drain
expenses, and funding various repairs, maintenance, expenses, equipment,
leases and purchases.”
According to Epstein, who is an attorney, if the ballot question had
passed with incorrect language, it would not have been legally binding.
Asked how he came across the error, Epstein said someone brought it to
his attention and he investigated.
Upon inquiring with the state Department of Revenue, Division of Local
Services, he was told by a representative of that office that the
language “is problematic,” he said Thursday.
“Once again we have another example of the incompetence of some fairly
high-paid people by the town of Georgetown.
“We shouldn’t reward incompetence,” he added.
But Vincent noted that while the Department of Revenue representative
with whom both Epstein and he spoke — Kathleen Colleary — said the
ballot wording was problematic, that comment was in regard to whether
there would be grounds for a lawsuit, not whether the agency would take
action on it.
He added, “In my conversation with Kathleen Colleary, she told me that
she thought any judge hearing this case would be hard-pressed to
overturn the vote of the people.”
Asked how this error was not caught, Town Administrator Delaney said he
does not yet know where the breakdown in checking over the ballot
occurred.
“We’re not sure where the error is yet; that will be part of the review
of what happened. I’ll probably know by the first part of the week. One
of the selectman said, ‘Let’s just fix it now,’” said Delaney Thursday.
At that point, Delaney said he did not know how much the town would have
to pay to have the ballots reprinted.
Delaney said he would be issuing a report on the error to the Board of
Selectmen next week.
The Eagle-Tribune
Sunday, May 13, 2007
An Eagle-Tribune editorial
Employee costs are breaking municipal budgets
Haverhill is considering closing the Burnham Elementary School to save
money. North Andover voters at Town Meeting tomorrow will be asked to
approve a $1.65 million Proposition 2½ override to fund the town's
operating budget. Andover's School Committee voted to boost lunch fees
and is considering higher bus fees. The mayor of Gloucester this week
announced the closing of a school in that Cape Ann community next fall,
and the likely closing of two fire stations.
Go to any city or town North of Boston and you'll find services
declining and fees and property taxes escalating. Why? Because the
present level of municipal employee salaries and benefits is simply
unsustainable.
The budget Gloucester Mayor John Bell presented his City Council with
this week calls for a 3.6 percent increase in spending for the fiscal
year that begins July 1. But the cost of employee health insurance and
pensions is expected to increase 15 percent, and combined with
negotiated salary increases, these personnel costs will take up just
about every penny in additional revenue the city takes in next year.
This is not the exception, but rather par for the course in communities
throughout Massachusetts, where officials at the state and local levels
continue to pander to the relatively small number of their constituents
belonging to public employee unions at the expense of the majority who
must pay for their largess.
North Andover officials want residents to pass a Proposition 2½ override
-- that is, to vote themselves a permanent tax increase. Yet the town
still pays 87 percent of the cost of employee health insurance. That's
far more generous than most communities, many of which have gone to a
75/25 split.
Haverhill plans to boost pensions for its older retirees to 50 percent
of what their former jobs pay today. The cost starts at $142,860 and is
expected to grow 4.5 percent annually. That is not a lot of money in the
grand scheme of things, but that money could have been used to hire a
couple of cops or teachers.
On Beacon Hill, legislators are considering new measures that would make
it easier for police officers and firefighters to become eligible for a
more generous disability pension upon retirement.
"What this bill does is protect the protectors," Robert McCarthy,
president of the state firefighters association, told the Statehouse
News Service.
What it would also do is put taxpayers on the hook for even more money
that will go to public employees who will retire earlier than they could
ever dream of, and with benefits far more generous than any they might
hope to receive.
Voters need to keep this in mind the next time they're asked to vote for
a Proposition 2½ override or support an increase in statewide taxes.
Most of that extra money is going straight from your pocket into that of
your friendly public servant.
The Eagle-Tribune
Sunday, May 13, 2007
Soft sell might work better on overrides
By Taylor Armerding
It's override season in Massachusetts. They're bustin' out all over,
from Rockport to Newburyport, Beverly to North Andover.
And while it goes against my instincts, I'm here to offer some advice to
override lovers -- think more carefully about your sales pitch.
Some have already been decided -- Rockport voters shot theirs down this
past week, while Rowley said yes to one that will boost the Triton
Regional School District budget -- with more to come, but the pitches
from supporters are all pretty much the same -- a combination of playing
the victim and laying on guilt trips:
We've already cut to the bone, they say. These are "fixed costs" over
which we have no control (conveniently failing to mention that they have
the opportunity for all kinds of control over them at the union contract
bargaining table). We have to have this override "just to maintain
services." If you want services, you have to pay for them. If the
override fails, "the children will lose." This will only amount to the
cost of a cup coffee a day. Do you love coffee more than you love your
children?
You alert readers have probably guessed that the annual repetition of
these arguments has made me cynical. I'm amused by all of them. I'm
guessing that the same is true of voters.
If the money is "for the children," why is all of it going into the
pockets of adults? If it's OK to guilt taxpayers into higher taxes by
telling them to give up a cup of coffee a day, why shouldn't the
teachers, or the firefighters, or the cops or the DPW workers give up
some coffee, too?
I'm particularly amused by the "you have to pay for services" line,
implying that, without an override, taxpayers would suddenly be getting
free services. It's as if the $25 million, or $65 million, or $150
million they are already paying each year doesn't exist.
Still, at the risk of undermining my carefully cultivated, curmudgeonly
reputation, my advice to lovers of overrides is, don't overplay your
hand. And don't insult voters. If you keep telling voters that the local
schools won't be worth attending unless they vote for constant budget
increases of two or three times the rate of inflation, they'll start
believing you.
It's become almost automatic for override proponents to forecast
something on the order of the apocalypse if voters aren't obedient. The
favorite word is "devastating" -- devastating cuts in services,
devastating job losses. A year ago, when the Triton district was looking
for overrides from its three member communities to feed a proposed 14
percent budget hike that would have increased assessments to member
communities by more than 19 percent, there was a parade of weeping
students, angry parents and administrators who said that without it,
Triton would become a second-rate system.
The overrides lost. And over the past year, while administrators and
School Committee members attacked anybody who suggested that Triton is
not a quality system as being "negative," district families have voted
with their feet, using the school choice program to go elsewhere. Surely
there is a variety of reasons for that, but surely one of those reasons
is that people figure it's not in their interests to attend a
"devastated" school system. After all, it was school leaders and
advocates who told them so.
They should learn from the recent example set by the board of directors
of the Sawyer Free Library in Gloucester. They campaigned aggressively
for a $7 million override that would have made a $15 million renovation
and expansion possible. But they never suggested that anyone who opposed
them was stupid, or didn't care about children.
And when the override lost, while the library director quit in a huff,
the board members expressed their respect for voters, and resolved to do
their best for the library with the assets at their disposal -- the same
thing families in the private sector have to do all the time when their
expenses outstrip their assets.
I have a feeling that if they try again, they will get a more
sympathetic hearing. They might even get more votes.
Too many override advocates make their pitch with vinegar. They ought to
try honey.
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes
only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
