Troy Clarkson, a Precinct 5 town meeting representative and former selectman, has a blog entitled "Entering Falmouth" where he comments on various Falmouth-related issues. Like the League of Woman Voters, Troy asked the candidates for selectman a few questions.
Here are the questions, and my answers...
1. What is your vision for the next three years fiscally, operationally, and socially in Falmouth?
Falmouth has a diversity seen in few communities of this size. We have multi-generational natives and wash-ashores; blue-collar tradesmen and PhD's; young families and retirees; a tourist trade and academic institutions. We need leaders who can relate to, and unite, all of Falmouth's demographic groups; leaders who work for the common interest rather than special interests.
This morning I was in Woods Hole and a local businessman asked about my thoughts on the proposal to widen Water Street and eliminate street parking. I hadn't yet formed an opinion – I really didn't know that much about it – but as I listened to his concerns, I found myself thinking that this situation was very much like one East Falmouth faced not too long ago.
For many years, Route 28 in East Falmouth did not get repaved because the state wanted to widen the road dramatically. The residents of East Falmouth resisted because the entire character of the village would change if this happened, turning what is now a main road into a de-facto highway.
These may be different villages and different roads, but there are common values and a common interest here; something that can unite us as a town.
Socially, I envision a Falmouth where we seek out these common values and interests and support our neighbors instead of focusing on our divisions and squabbling amongst ourselves.
Fiscally, Falmouth may have a great bond rating, but that has more to do with paying our bills than having a good, sound budget. I see a budget that is balanced not by passing overrides year after year, but by exercising good, fiscal common sense.
Rather than repeat myself, I'll refer you to question #2 for details and examples.
The United States of America is the most productive nation in the world by a wide margin. Such efficiency is not an accident; it often requires an up-front investment of some sort that reaps rewards later on. With this in mind, I was disappointed when the selectmen chose not to support the DPW reorganization. Sure, there's an initial cost to this, but it's an investment that promises increased efficiency and productivity.
Operationally, we should be seizing these opportunities, not shelving them. Over the next three years, I see an aggressive attempt to rethink every facet of town government; to leave no stone unturned in an effort to maximize the taxpayer's dollar.
Moreover, this is one of those common interests that everyone could support. Improved efficiency means doing as much, if not more, with the same budget; we could both save and spend money without increasing taxes. It's the best of all possible worlds.
2. Do you feel, as has been stated at Selectmen's meetings, that a debt/capital exclusion is now "a way of life" for our local government? Why or why not?
The use of overrides for anything other than major capital projects reveals a failure to reduce expenses or increase revenues – or both – in order to balance the budget.
By separating essentials – such as new fire department equipment or road maintenance – from the budget, the town management has successfully avoided trimming the fat. Few people will vote against a new ambulance, and anyone who drives won't tolerate potholes very long. These are needed, so the taxpayers will fund them.
However, things that aren't needed – and which taxpayers won't fund – are still in the budget. For example, the town manager's office has $9,100 in this year's budget for out-of-state travel, i.e., conventions. Do we really need this for the town to function? I certainly don't think so.
Even worse, town management has made a habit of unnecessary overrides. In 2006, they tried to disguise an override as a water tower that was already bought and paid for. That failed, but last year they succeeded in getting an override to pay for sludge removal – an operational expense that should have been covered by increasing the water/sewer rates and the fees paid by septic haulers.
This practice endangers future projects because the taxpayers will eventually cry 'uncle' under the parade of overrides and start rejecting these tax increases. What if it's sewering that they reject? What then for Oyster Pond, Waquoit Bay or West Falmouth Harbor?
That said; there may be times when more money truly is needed.
One option is to increase the tax rate via an override, or an increase in assessed fees (for things like dump stickers). This is an inherently unpopular way of raising revenue.
The other option is to broaden the tax base, which in turn will increase revenues. Unless we get creative and come up with new fees and taxes (also unpopular), broadening the tax base usually means encouraging business.
However, we need to diversify our economy; we need businesses that operate year-round which pay wages high enough to raise our standard of living. Aside from tax revenue generated directly by these businesses, the jobs created would make it easier for residents to afford things – like boats and cars – which generate excise taxes.
Finally, there's the question of being up front and open about the fiscal needs of the town. If there's truly a need to raise the tax rate permanently, then town management should make that case instead of stringing the people along year after year with one “temporary” increase after another.
3. The Town of Braintree just changed its Selectmen/Town Meeting form of government in favor of a Mayor/Town Council. How do you feel about this as it relates to Falmouth?
I've heard from folks on both sides of this issue, and while there are pros and cons on both sides, the issue of accountability stands out.
With respect to town meeting, one Falmouth resident noted in a local paper that there is “very little basis for judging any candidate's past performance because there is no record of how he/she voted, no accountability.” As far as I know, I'm the only town meeting representative to publicly post my town meeting votes; getting all 243 town meeting members to do this could be a challenge. In a smaller body, such as a town council, the votes are much easier to record and publicize.
The problem of accountability also exists at the executive level, albeit in a different way. Day-to-day operation of the town is done by the town manager, but he is not directly accountable to the people. He need only satisfy three of the five selectmen to keep his job, whereas a mayor must satisfy the people.
There's much to be said for tradition, and Falmouth's representative town meeting is the oldest in the state. However, as the size and complexity of our community grows, there is a greater need to hold our leaders responsible for their decisions. This can be accomplished either by electing those who inherently believe in being held accountable, or by changing our form of government so it is easier to hold our leaders accountable.
No comments:
Post a Comment