Perhaps the most startling aspect of the high school override is the lack of a plan 'B'.
They tell us that there is a plan 'B' and that plan is to try to make the old half of the school work with the new half. But this is not a plan. It is a scare tactic.
We need to finish the high school, but there are a few things that need to be done - or at least started - before we approve an override.
1) Do an audit and a review of the project so we know what's been spent and where, and - as new building committee member Callahan stated - we know who is responsible for what. I've previously posted about this;
2) Make more changes to the building committee; the two new members have already noted that it is a dysfunctional group.
3) Put the project out to bid and get an honest estimate of what it will cost to complete it;
4) Hold a special town meeting to requisition the money needed;
5) Hire a reputable contractor to finish the job.
As I see it, this is Plan 'B', although it should've been plan 'A'.
Now there may be some hiccups in this idea. The other day I was told that we cannot simply dismiss a contractor without cause, but my understanding is that the contract has expired. TLT could pack up and walk away. If I'm wrong, someone please correct me.
The other issue is that of a special town meeting. I know some folks don't like doing this, but this is a serious situation that demands serious action.
In fact, the town could have pursued this new process long ago. Instead, they have dragged their feet and wasted time on superficial changes to the old process. I first asked the selectmen to open the books on March 31. It's been 45 days and counting...
Unfortunately, we continue to hear that Plan 'B' is, more or less, accepting failure if the override fails. The leaders of our town are backing themselves into a corner by putting all of their eggs in one basket.
Showing posts with label Town Meeting Spring 2008. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Town Meeting Spring 2008. Show all posts
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
The petition the selectmen never answered
Recently, some have suggested that I have waffled on the high school override that is Question 1. The truth is that my message - indeed, the message sent by 35 town meeting representatives - has been very consistent.
The high school needs to be finished, but we need to shed light on this. The books need to be opened and the people need to know what is happening here. Indeed, the Tuesday, May 13 edition of the Falmouth Enterprise, opined...
"Best hope for passage of the ballot question on additional funding for the high school is to answer as many questions as possible in the coming week and for everyone involved to be open and candid.
It doesn’t help when public school officials make a tour private. They should have opened the doors wide for everyone to see. Everyone, regardless how they plan to vote next week, wants a clear accounting of the project. Openness can only help."
The high school needs to be finished, but the people deserve answers.
For example, we've been told that the project is 2/3rds completed and all the surprises (such as asbestos) have been found, so the rest of the project should move along smoothly.
But if this is the case, why are we replenishing the contingency fund to the original $8 million? Wouldn't $2-3 million be enough if only 1/3rd of the project remains?
This is the full text of the petition reported in the Falmouth Bulletin, now signed by 35 town meeting representatives and presented to the selectmen in writing on April 16. The Board of Selectmen never acknowledged - via phone, email or postal service - that they had received or even considered this petition.
We, the undersigned Town Meeting Representatives, respectfully request that the Falmouth Board of Selectmen,
1) Conduct an independent audit of Phase I of our – the taxpayer's – high school renovation project, including review and comment by an independent cost estimator. This should be completed prior to the May 20 election to assure Falmouth's taxpayers that all funds spent to date have been spent responsibly. This will also provide the selectmen and building committee with a clear picture of what of the original $67.5 million is available.
2) Conduct a comprehensive review of the renovation project. This should, at a minimum, include the Phase I interim audit, the state-required audit, all litigation information (obviously this won't be available until all cases are settled), and a cause and effect analysis.
We do not want a witch-hunt, or to stall or prevent completion of our school's renovation. These requests are intended to provide answers about the project's finances, explain how it got out of control, and how the issues have been and will be resolved.
These requests are not unreasonable. During the joint meeting of the Board of Selectmen and High School Building Committee on Monday, March 31, Selectman Mustafa noted that, "People want the facts," and Chairman Murphy said the people need "transparency" from town government.
Taxpayers are being asked for an additional $18.8 million to complete this project. Property tax bills will bear an additional sum for 20 years if the override succeeds. If Falmouth's taxpayers are to approve this request, Falmouth's leaders must first show that our taxes have been spent responsibly, that the questions will be answered, and that the lessons learned will be applied to future public projects.
Brent Putnam, Precinct 9
Carol Murphy, Precinct 9
William Peck, Precinct 9
Scott Thrasher, Precinct 4
Chester Krajewski, Precinct 3
John Weir, Precinct 3
Stanley Bazycki, Precinct 2
Cynthia Botelho, Precinct 4
Deborah Aguiar, Precinct 9
Charlotte Tashiro, Precinct 4
Douglas Brown, Precinct 3
Margo Finnell, Precinct 8
Bruce Barrow, Precinct 8
Leslie Lichtenstein, Precinct 8
Ron Smolowitz, Precinct 8
Ed Schmitt, Precinct 8
Rebecca Putnam, Precinct 9
Michael Mueller, Precinct 9
Linda Davis, Precinct 4
John Farrell, Precinct 9
Grace O'Gorman, Precinct 4
Louise Houle, Precinct 8
Diane Thompson, Precinct 2
Maureen Northern, Precinct 2
James Nidositko, Precinct 6
Joe Martinho, Precinct 9
Diane Poole, Precinct 9
Robert Young, Precinct 5
Michael Freeman, Precinct 8
Margaret Freeman, Precinct 8
Veronica Zylinski, Precinct 9
Randall Peat, Precinct 8
Rebecca Putnam, Precinct 9
Dan Shearer, Precinct 6
Michael Netto, Precinct 9
Readers will note that nowhere in the petition does it say that the high school should not be finished. Rather, it very clearly states that "We do not want...to stall or prevent completion of our school's renovation" but rather, "These requests are intended to provide answers about the project's finances, explain how it got out of control, and how the issues have been and will be resolved."
Is that too much to ask?
The high school needs to be finished, but we need to shed light on this. The books need to be opened and the people need to know what is happening here. Indeed, the Tuesday, May 13 edition of the Falmouth Enterprise, opined...
"Best hope for passage of the ballot question on additional funding for the high school is to answer as many questions as possible in the coming week and for everyone involved to be open and candid.
It doesn’t help when public school officials make a tour private. They should have opened the doors wide for everyone to see. Everyone, regardless how they plan to vote next week, wants a clear accounting of the project. Openness can only help."
The high school needs to be finished, but the people deserve answers.
For example, we've been told that the project is 2/3rds completed and all the surprises (such as asbestos) have been found, so the rest of the project should move along smoothly.
But if this is the case, why are we replenishing the contingency fund to the original $8 million? Wouldn't $2-3 million be enough if only 1/3rd of the project remains?
This is the full text of the petition reported in the Falmouth Bulletin, now signed by 35 town meeting representatives and presented to the selectmen in writing on April 16. The Board of Selectmen never acknowledged - via phone, email or postal service - that they had received or even considered this petition.
We, the undersigned Town Meeting Representatives, respectfully request that the Falmouth Board of Selectmen,
1) Conduct an independent audit of Phase I of our – the taxpayer's – high school renovation project, including review and comment by an independent cost estimator. This should be completed prior to the May 20 election to assure Falmouth's taxpayers that all funds spent to date have been spent responsibly. This will also provide the selectmen and building committee with a clear picture of what of the original $67.5 million is available.
2) Conduct a comprehensive review of the renovation project. This should, at a minimum, include the Phase I interim audit, the state-required audit, all litigation information (obviously this won't be available until all cases are settled), and a cause and effect analysis.
We do not want a witch-hunt, or to stall or prevent completion of our school's renovation. These requests are intended to provide answers about the project's finances, explain how it got out of control, and how the issues have been and will be resolved.
These requests are not unreasonable. During the joint meeting of the Board of Selectmen and High School Building Committee on Monday, March 31, Selectman Mustafa noted that, "People want the facts," and Chairman Murphy said the people need "transparency" from town government.
Taxpayers are being asked for an additional $18.8 million to complete this project. Property tax bills will bear an additional sum for 20 years if the override succeeds. If Falmouth's taxpayers are to approve this request, Falmouth's leaders must first show that our taxes have been spent responsibly, that the questions will be answered, and that the lessons learned will be applied to future public projects.
Brent Putnam, Precinct 9
Carol Murphy, Precinct 9
William Peck, Precinct 9
Scott Thrasher, Precinct 4
Chester Krajewski, Precinct 3
John Weir, Precinct 3
Stanley Bazycki, Precinct 2
Cynthia Botelho, Precinct 4
Deborah Aguiar, Precinct 9
Charlotte Tashiro, Precinct 4
Douglas Brown, Precinct 3
Margo Finnell, Precinct 8
Bruce Barrow, Precinct 8
Leslie Lichtenstein, Precinct 8
Ron Smolowitz, Precinct 8
Ed Schmitt, Precinct 8
Rebecca Putnam, Precinct 9
Michael Mueller, Precinct 9
Linda Davis, Precinct 4
John Farrell, Precinct 9
Grace O'Gorman, Precinct 4
Louise Houle, Precinct 8
Diane Thompson, Precinct 2
Maureen Northern, Precinct 2
James Nidositko, Precinct 6
Joe Martinho, Precinct 9
Diane Poole, Precinct 9
Robert Young, Precinct 5
Michael Freeman, Precinct 8
Margaret Freeman, Precinct 8
Veronica Zylinski, Precinct 9
Randall Peat, Precinct 8
Rebecca Putnam, Precinct 9
Dan Shearer, Precinct 6
Michael Netto, Precinct 9
Readers will note that nowhere in the petition does it say that the high school should not be finished. Rather, it very clearly states that "We do not want...to stall or prevent completion of our school's renovation" but rather, "These requests are intended to provide answers about the project's finances, explain how it got out of control, and how the issues have been and will be resolved."
Is that too much to ask?
Saturday, May 10, 2008
"Who's on first?"
I was at Stop & Shop lights (i.e., the Davis Straits/Teaticket Highway/Jones Road/Worcester Court intersection) the other day when a constituent of mine stopped by and asked how much the overrides would us cost per year.
This was a simple request, and I wouldn't be writing this particular blog post if I'd been able to give him those numbers. However, when I sat down with my notes from town meeting, I discovered that the numbers didn't add up.
For a house assessed at $500,000, the figures I had were:
* $15 a year for three years for the DPW road work, but the question on the ballot appears to refer to the DPW reorganization, which was shelved - or so I thought.
* $11 for the first year (decreasing over 10 years), for the fire equipment
* $46 for the first year (decreasing over 20 years), for the high school, but I also had $76 for the first year (also decreasing over 20 years).
However, a recent blurb in the Cape Cod Times noted that the total would be $131/yr, which doesn't add up no matter how you juggle those numbers.
So I called town manager's office, but the staff there didn't have the figures, so they suggested calling the assessor's office (and graciously transferred me) and school department (and provided the phone number). I also called the DPW director, Raymond Jack, about that override.
However, when the town assessor's office got back to me, they didn't have the bond numbers, and so couldn't give me the annual tax payment. I was told to call the finance committee.
But the finance committee didn't have the bond numbers either, and so they suggested calling the town manager.
So, I called the town manager's office again. Mr. Whritenour called me back and said he could provide a package of documentation detailing the costs of each. He did, and for a house assessed at $500,000, the figures are:
* $46/yr, for 3 years, for the DPW road work & maintenance
* $9 for the first year (decreasing over 10 years), for the fire equipment
* $76 for the first year (decreasing over 20 years), for the high school
Which comes to the $131 as reported in the Cape Cod Times.
Ray Jack also called back and explained that the paper got it wrong - the override will be for maintenance, not the reorganization.
Although I did, eventually, get the answers, I was reminded of the Abbot and Costello routine "Who's on first?"
Any one of the individuals I spoke with should have had those figures within reach. The fact that they didn't - that I had to go to the town manager directly - is troubling. Some might call it a mild case of red tape; I see it as a failure on the part of the town manager to share information.
This was a simple request, and I wouldn't be writing this particular blog post if I'd been able to give him those numbers. However, when I sat down with my notes from town meeting, I discovered that the numbers didn't add up.
For a house assessed at $500,000, the figures I had were:
* $15 a year for three years for the DPW road work, but the question on the ballot appears to refer to the DPW reorganization, which was shelved - or so I thought.
* $11 for the first year (decreasing over 10 years), for the fire equipment
* $46 for the first year (decreasing over 20 years), for the high school, but I also had $76 for the first year (also decreasing over 20 years).
However, a recent blurb in the Cape Cod Times noted that the total would be $131/yr, which doesn't add up no matter how you juggle those numbers.
So I called town manager's office, but the staff there didn't have the figures, so they suggested calling the assessor's office (and graciously transferred me) and school department (and provided the phone number). I also called the DPW director, Raymond Jack, about that override.
However, when the town assessor's office got back to me, they didn't have the bond numbers, and so couldn't give me the annual tax payment. I was told to call the finance committee.
But the finance committee didn't have the bond numbers either, and so they suggested calling the town manager.
So, I called the town manager's office again. Mr. Whritenour called me back and said he could provide a package of documentation detailing the costs of each. He did, and for a house assessed at $500,000, the figures are:
* $46/yr, for 3 years, for the DPW road work & maintenance
* $9 for the first year (decreasing over 10 years), for the fire equipment
* $76 for the first year (decreasing over 20 years), for the high school
Which comes to the $131 as reported in the Cape Cod Times.
Ray Jack also called back and explained that the paper got it wrong - the override will be for maintenance, not the reorganization.
Although I did, eventually, get the answers, I was reminded of the Abbot and Costello routine "Who's on first?"
Any one of the individuals I spoke with should have had those figures within reach. The fact that they didn't - that I had to go to the town manager directly - is troubling. Some might call it a mild case of red tape; I see it as a failure on the part of the town manager to share information.
Monday, April 14, 2008
BREAKING NEWS - Selectmen put high school override* on the ballot
I like to give credit where credit is due, and tonight the selectmen deserve some praise.
After the 3-1-1 split vote on the high school debt exclusion* two weeks ago, and the harrowing reports that it may not go to the ballot on May 20 after all, they voted - unanimously - to give us a chance to exercise our opinion about it.
Also worthy of praise is former selectman and Precinct 5 representative Troy Clarkson, who spoke in favor of putting this on the ballot. He not only writes well, but speaks eloquently about our government of, by and for the people. Frankly, I wish he was still sitting behind the big table.
*For the record, an override is a permanent increase in the tax rate, a debt exclusion is a temporary multi-year increase, and a capital exclusion is a one time (i.e., one year) temporary increase.
While debt and capital exclusions are temporary, they are still tax increases. Most folks are more acquainted with the term override, and so you'll find me interchanging these terms with the latter.
After the 3-1-1 split vote on the high school debt exclusion* two weeks ago, and the harrowing reports that it may not go to the ballot on May 20 after all, they voted - unanimously - to give us a chance to exercise our opinion about it.
Also worthy of praise is former selectman and Precinct 5 representative Troy Clarkson, who spoke in favor of putting this on the ballot. He not only writes well, but speaks eloquently about our government of, by and for the people. Frankly, I wish he was still sitting behind the big table.
*For the record, an override is a permanent increase in the tax rate, a debt exclusion is a temporary multi-year increase, and a capital exclusion is a one time (i.e., one year) temporary increase.
While debt and capital exclusions are temporary, they are still tax increases. Most folks are more acquainted with the term override, and so you'll find me interchanging these terms with the latter.
Sunday, April 13, 2008
An unnecessary uncertainty
Earlier today, I called Selectman Mary Pat Flynn and asked her to vote to put the high school renovation override on the May 20 ballot so the taxpayers can have a say.
Readers may recall that after town meeting voted to put this on the ballot it was revealed that a supermajority - 4 of the 5 selectmen - were needed to put it on the ballot; the original 3-1-1 vote was not enough.
When I asked if I could pin her down on how she'd vote tomorrow, she willingly shared her thoughts about how she'll vote and the logic behind her decision.
I wish I could tell you how she'll vote, but in all honestly, I don't know; I simply do not have enough confidence in what I heard to tell you.
I can tell you this: If I were a selectman, things would be different.
And there would be no doubt about how I would vote in this situation.
Readers may recall that after town meeting voted to put this on the ballot it was revealed that a supermajority - 4 of the 5 selectmen - were needed to put it on the ballot; the original 3-1-1 vote was not enough.
When I asked if I could pin her down on how she'd vote tomorrow, she willingly shared her thoughts about how she'll vote and the logic behind her decision.
I wish I could tell you how she'll vote, but in all honestly, I don't know; I simply do not have enough confidence in what I heard to tell you.
I can tell you this: If I were a selectman, things would be different.
And there would be no doubt about how I would vote in this situation.
Petition to the Selectmen
We wish to explain the request we presented to the Board of Selectmen on Monday, March 31.
We asked the selectmen for an independent audit of Phase I of our – the taxpayer's – high school renovation project, including review and comment by an independent cost estimator. This should be completed prior to the May 20 election to assure Falmouth's taxpayers that all funds spent to date have been spent responsibly. This will also provide the selectmen and building committee with a clear picture of what of the original $67.5 million is available.
We also requested a comprehensive review of the renovation project. This should, at a minimum, include the Phase I interim audit, the state-required audit, all litigation information (obviously this won't be available until all cases are settled), and a cause and effect analysis.
We do not want a witch-hunt, or to stall or prevent completion of our school's renovation. These requests are intended to provide answers about the project's finances, explain how it got out of control, and how the issues have been and will be resolved.
These requests are not unreasonable. During the same meeting, Selectman Mustafa noted that, "People want the facts," and Chairman Murphy said the people need "transparency" from town government.
Taxpayers are being asked for an additional $18.8 million to complete this project. Property tax bills will bear an additional sum for 20 years if the override succeeds. If Falmouth's taxpayers are to approve this request, Falmouth's leaders must first show that our taxes have been spent responsibly, that the questions will be answered, and that the lessons learned will be applied to future public projects.
(This post also appeared as a letter, signed by myself and Precinct 9 representative Carol Murphy, in the Thursday, April 10 edition of the Falmouth Bulletin. It was titled (by them), "The reasoning behind high school audit request")
We asked the selectmen for an independent audit of Phase I of our – the taxpayer's – high school renovation project, including review and comment by an independent cost estimator. This should be completed prior to the May 20 election to assure Falmouth's taxpayers that all funds spent to date have been spent responsibly. This will also provide the selectmen and building committee with a clear picture of what of the original $67.5 million is available.
We also requested a comprehensive review of the renovation project. This should, at a minimum, include the Phase I interim audit, the state-required audit, all litigation information (obviously this won't be available until all cases are settled), and a cause and effect analysis.
We do not want a witch-hunt, or to stall or prevent completion of our school's renovation. These requests are intended to provide answers about the project's finances, explain how it got out of control, and how the issues have been and will be resolved.
These requests are not unreasonable. During the same meeting, Selectman Mustafa noted that, "People want the facts," and Chairman Murphy said the people need "transparency" from town government.
Taxpayers are being asked for an additional $18.8 million to complete this project. Property tax bills will bear an additional sum for 20 years if the override succeeds. If Falmouth's taxpayers are to approve this request, Falmouth's leaders must first show that our taxes have been spent responsibly, that the questions will be answered, and that the lessons learned will be applied to future public projects.
(This post also appeared as a letter, signed by myself and Precinct 9 representative Carol Murphy, in the Thursday, April 10 edition of the Falmouth Bulletin. It was titled (by them), "The reasoning behind high school audit request")
Friday, April 11, 2008
BREAKING NEWS - $18.8 million override may not go to voters
Today's edition of the Falmouth Enterprise is reporting that the selectmen's vote on March 31 may not have been enough to put the $18.8 million high school override on the May 20 ballot.
According to the article, four of the five selectmen must vote to put the question on the ballot. As we previously reported, three of the selectmen (Murphy, Murphy & Mustafa) voted in favor of the move, one (Bumpus) voted no, and one (Flynn) abstained.
The timing of this news is troubling, since many town meeting representatives - myself included - voted in favor of the article on the assumption that it would be on the May 20 ballot. Moreover, Precinct 8 representative Michael Freeman specifically asked about the ramifications of voting for or against the override just before discussion began on Article 29. Mr. Freeman received no definitive answer to his question.
According to the article, four of the five selectmen must vote to put the question on the ballot. As we previously reported, three of the selectmen (Murphy, Murphy & Mustafa) voted in favor of the move, one (Bumpus) voted no, and one (Flynn) abstained.
The timing of this news is troubling, since many town meeting representatives - myself included - voted in favor of the article on the assumption that it would be on the May 20 ballot. Moreover, Precinct 8 representative Michael Freeman specifically asked about the ramifications of voting for or against the override just before discussion began on Article 29. Mr. Freeman received no definitive answer to his question.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Two nights, three overrides - High School
Article 29, "Fund - Falmouth High School Completion": Chief Brodeur's presentation was the last on Tuesday; the override request for the high school renovation project - Article 29 - was the first on Wednesday.
Dr. Robert Antonucci began the presentation for the building committee in the same way that Mr. Jack and Chief Brodeur did - with a realistic view of the situation. As with the other two presentations, it was a marked contrast from prior years when overrides were sold based on the cost to the taxpayer instead of the benefits of the override.
Included also was a more tempered presentation by Superintendent Dennis Richards about the accreditation. Contrary to the previously made alarmist statements, Superintendent Richards stated that failing to finish the high school would not cost us our accreditation, but likely just put us on probation. Indeed, only the facilities (the building) failed to pass with flying colors during our last accreditation in 1999.
It was a good start, but it didn't end the same way. Unlike the first two presentations, this one devolved into the typical we're-only-going-to-give-you-as-much-information-as-we-think-you-need-to-know.
Robert Young, a representative from Precinct 5, offered an amendment to cut about $5.1 million from the requested override. Instead of $18.8 million, it would be about $13.7 million. This immediately brought on charges of micromanagement from Dr. Antonucci and, near the end of the debate, a tirade by Chairman Kevin Murphy (he turned red) against the $5.1 million cut, which he painted as arbitrary.
If Chairman Murphy had been listening, he would've heard Mr. Young say that the legal expenses ($1 million) and the furniture, equipment and technology ($4.1 million) aren't related to finishing the actual building, but are extra costs that could - and should - be reviewed later.
Mr. Young's logic was solid. If the object here is to finish the high school, let's get what we need to finish it and address the wants later - a point made also by Precinct 8 representative Leslie Lichtenstein.
I stood up to support the amendment. I'd previously planned on offering my own amendment to cut $2.1 million from the Furniture, Equipment and Technology line item and bring the overall request down to $16.7 million. However, Mr. Young beat me to it, and rather than confuse the situation with amendments to the amendment, I shared my rationale for cutting this back.
Many weeks ago, I had asked for a list of furniture, equipment and technology, but was told that it didn't exist. However, immediately after presenting my justification for the cut, Dr. Antonucci was ready with a rebuttal and, apparently, a list; albeit a vague one.
[an aside]
Good politics is about talking to people. It's about giving them the information they need to address their concerns and making them a part of the process.
Bad politics is about hiding things as long as possible. It's about keeping someone at arm's length and then hitting them when they have no opportunity to respond.
I've spent many weeks approaching the building committee and school department with questions and requests. I made it clear to several key individuals that I think that additional money is truly needed, and that I would support the override if need be, but I wanted answers first.
In contrast, they've been tight-lipped and reluctant to share information. When they do share it, we get only what they want to share and not what we want to know. Rather than reach out, openly share this information and address my concerns, they ignored me.
[and now we return to our regularly scheduled post]
An incomplete list presented at the last minute on town meeting floor is bad politics. When I pressed for an inventory of what is good and what needs to be replaced, we again heard cries of "micromanagement."
If they are going to reuse something, at some point they have to do an inventory. It is best to do this before asking for money so you know exactly how much you need. And there is no excuse for hiding this information from the public.
Precinct 9 representative Mike Netto asked some pointed questions about the project management, pointing out, among other things, the conspicuous absence of Gilbane, to whom we are paying more than $1 million.
There was also talk of additional reimbursement from the state. However, if what I heard is correct, this is not based on the additional costs, but on square footage that may not have been counted the first time around. Basically, don't count on it.
In the end, I voted "Aye" for the amendment; it failed.
Immediately thereafter, Town Meeting Moderator David Vieira called for the vote on the article. I voted, "Aye" - to give the taxpayers a voice in the process - and it passed.
However, no controversy is ever truly finished, and during the break, several individuals approached me. They had wanted to speak, but on the article, not the amendment. They were denied the opportunity. Precinct 8 representative Michael Freeman requested reconsideration. I voted "Aye" but it failed.
[addendum]
The micromanagement accusations levied by the building committee and their supporters belie a larger issue here that these folks just don't seem to grasp. This is about trust. When there is no trust, more information is requested because people want to verify - for themselves - the statements that are being made.
The school department and building committee have already dug themselves into a hole by making inflammatory statements - for example, the status of accreditation. They must now rebuild trust with the community by openly sharing everything - no matter what it is that is requested.
Wednesday's presentation started that way, but quickly degenerated into business as usual. That is no way to rescue the high school, and they've only a few weeks to convince 51 percent of Falmouth they are sincere about regaining the public trust.
Dr. Robert Antonucci began the presentation for the building committee in the same way that Mr. Jack and Chief Brodeur did - with a realistic view of the situation. As with the other two presentations, it was a marked contrast from prior years when overrides were sold based on the cost to the taxpayer instead of the benefits of the override.
Included also was a more tempered presentation by Superintendent Dennis Richards about the accreditation. Contrary to the previously made alarmist statements, Superintendent Richards stated that failing to finish the high school would not cost us our accreditation, but likely just put us on probation. Indeed, only the facilities (the building) failed to pass with flying colors during our last accreditation in 1999.
It was a good start, but it didn't end the same way. Unlike the first two presentations, this one devolved into the typical we're-only-going-to-give-you-as-much-information-as-we-think-you-need-to-know.
Robert Young, a representative from Precinct 5, offered an amendment to cut about $5.1 million from the requested override. Instead of $18.8 million, it would be about $13.7 million. This immediately brought on charges of micromanagement from Dr. Antonucci and, near the end of the debate, a tirade by Chairman Kevin Murphy (he turned red) against the $5.1 million cut, which he painted as arbitrary.
If Chairman Murphy had been listening, he would've heard Mr. Young say that the legal expenses ($1 million) and the furniture, equipment and technology ($4.1 million) aren't related to finishing the actual building, but are extra costs that could - and should - be reviewed later.
Mr. Young's logic was solid. If the object here is to finish the high school, let's get what we need to finish it and address the wants later - a point made also by Precinct 8 representative Leslie Lichtenstein.
I stood up to support the amendment. I'd previously planned on offering my own amendment to cut $2.1 million from the Furniture, Equipment and Technology line item and bring the overall request down to $16.7 million. However, Mr. Young beat me to it, and rather than confuse the situation with amendments to the amendment, I shared my rationale for cutting this back.
Many weeks ago, I had asked for a list of furniture, equipment and technology, but was told that it didn't exist. However, immediately after presenting my justification for the cut, Dr. Antonucci was ready with a rebuttal and, apparently, a list; albeit a vague one.
[an aside]
Good politics is about talking to people. It's about giving them the information they need to address their concerns and making them a part of the process.
Bad politics is about hiding things as long as possible. It's about keeping someone at arm's length and then hitting them when they have no opportunity to respond.
I've spent many weeks approaching the building committee and school department with questions and requests. I made it clear to several key individuals that I think that additional money is truly needed, and that I would support the override if need be, but I wanted answers first.
In contrast, they've been tight-lipped and reluctant to share information. When they do share it, we get only what they want to share and not what we want to know. Rather than reach out, openly share this information and address my concerns, they ignored me.
[and now we return to our regularly scheduled post]
An incomplete list presented at the last minute on town meeting floor is bad politics. When I pressed for an inventory of what is good and what needs to be replaced, we again heard cries of "micromanagement."
If they are going to reuse something, at some point they have to do an inventory. It is best to do this before asking for money so you know exactly how much you need. And there is no excuse for hiding this information from the public.
Precinct 9 representative Mike Netto asked some pointed questions about the project management, pointing out, among other things, the conspicuous absence of Gilbane, to whom we are paying more than $1 million.
There was also talk of additional reimbursement from the state. However, if what I heard is correct, this is not based on the additional costs, but on square footage that may not have been counted the first time around. Basically, don't count on it.
In the end, I voted "Aye" for the amendment; it failed.
Immediately thereafter, Town Meeting Moderator David Vieira called for the vote on the article. I voted, "Aye" - to give the taxpayers a voice in the process - and it passed.
However, no controversy is ever truly finished, and during the break, several individuals approached me. They had wanted to speak, but on the article, not the amendment. They were denied the opportunity. Precinct 8 representative Michael Freeman requested reconsideration. I voted "Aye" but it failed.
[addendum]
The micromanagement accusations levied by the building committee and their supporters belie a larger issue here that these folks just don't seem to grasp. This is about trust. When there is no trust, more information is requested because people want to verify - for themselves - the statements that are being made.
The school department and building committee have already dug themselves into a hole by making inflammatory statements - for example, the status of accreditation. They must now rebuild trust with the community by openly sharing everything - no matter what it is that is requested.
Wednesday's presentation started that way, but quickly degenerated into business as usual. That is no way to rescue the high school, and they've only a few weeks to convince 51 percent of Falmouth they are sincere about regaining the public trust.
Two nights, three overrides - Tuesday
Every town meeting has some controversial article or two, and this time around the spot light was focused on the three proposed overrides - and the associated tax implications - for the Department of Public Works (DPW), the Fire & Rescue Department (FFRD) and the high school. With emphasis on the latter.
The three articles were numbered 26, 27 & 29, respectively, and we heard the first two on Tuesday evening, after the Spring Special Town Meeting ended.
Article 26, "Fund - Department of Public Works Capital Improvement Plan": DPW superintendent Ray Jack is a straight shooter. He's quick to the point and doesn't mince his words. I know some folks who don't like Ray, but I much prefer his management style to that of Town Manager Robert Whritenhour.
Mr. Jack presented a request for $3.2 million, to be distributed over three years, in order to do road & sidewalk maintenance and construction, bikeway maintenance and construction, bridge maintenance, replace some vehicles and improve the waste management facilities. The Finance Committee the DPW return to the ballot box every year for three years with three, $1.1 million capital exclusions (essentially one year debt exclusions). However, the selectmen supported Mr. Jack's request for a three-year plan.
As with some of the other presentations we heard, there was some eye-opening information presented:
-- Falmouth has 270 miles of town-owned roads and 130 miles of private roads; if stretched out, they would reach from here to Delaware;
-- It costs $90,000/year to paint the stripes on the roads;
-- There is $237 million in town equipment in the DPW;
-- 1.6 billion gallons of water were pumped last year, 300 million gallons of which were unbilled, i.e., "lost." Mr. Jack explained that this was "lost" because of uncalibrated water meters. The estimated lost revenue was $500,000;
-- The reorganization study cost $30,000 and is 220 pages long;
-- Four of the eight frozen positions are in the DPW.
Aside from these facts, Mr. Jack presented a sober summary of the state of our roads and the work required to keep them in good condition. For example, he communicated that a road should last 25 years with regular maintenance, but will need to be completely repaved in 16 years if no maintenance is done. The concept of putting maintenance off for "just one year" can snowball and cost us more in the long run.
Perhaps the best part of the presentation was the volume of information he provided. He explained every need, the cost thereof and the logic behind them. He listed the vehicles to be replaced, their ages and expected life - and added that we've already extended the life of many a vehicle beyond its expected lifetime.
Mr. Jack's presentation was convincing, and even town meeting representatives who have been critical of him and/or the override request voted aye for the amendment (it passed) and the override (it, too, passed). I voted "Aye" for both.
That said; at least some of Ray Jack's tone was probably influenced by earlier decisions by the Board of Selectmen, the Finance Committee and Town Meeting not to support a Proposition 2-1/2 override for the DPW reorganization plan. There were times when his tone was clearly one of annoyance, and on occasion he would remind us that, "you didn't want to fund it," when talking about various projects and maintenance that have been postponed.
Article 27, "Fund - Fire Rescue Department Capital Improvement Plan": Unlike Ray Jack's somber tone, Chief Paul Brodeur's presentation was animated with (literally) bells and whistles and an occasional joke. Where as town meeting representatives were shaking their heads in disbelief over the state of Falmouth's roads, Chief Brodeur had us laughing.
During his explanation of the need for new monitor defibrillators, he shared a slide that showed an animated sinus rhythm (a normal heartbeat) and stated, "if you've got a straight line, you've got a problem."
The FFRD requested a $1.8 million, 10-year debt exclusion to purchase two Class A fire engines, a brush breaker, new monitor defibrillators, an electronic ambulance reporting system and a new ambulance.
The latter two requests are actually revenue-generating items for the town. Ambulance runs are billed - often to Medicare - and Falmouth gets $1.3 million in revenue from them. In 2007, 77 percent of the FFRD's work was in ambulance runs (4299 runs to be exact, with 1284 fire runs). Interestingly enough, 33 percent of all ambulance runs are from East Falmouth.
There are two fire engines to be replaced, 21 and 22 years old respectively, and the brush breaker to be replaced is 37 years old.
As with Ray Jack, Chief Brodeur's presentation was enough to convince even the skeptics. I voted "Aye" and it passed handily.
The three articles were numbered 26, 27 & 29, respectively, and we heard the first two on Tuesday evening, after the Spring Special Town Meeting ended.
Article 26, "Fund - Department of Public Works Capital Improvement Plan": DPW superintendent Ray Jack is a straight shooter. He's quick to the point and doesn't mince his words. I know some folks who don't like Ray, but I much prefer his management style to that of Town Manager Robert Whritenhour.
Mr. Jack presented a request for $3.2 million, to be distributed over three years, in order to do road & sidewalk maintenance and construction, bikeway maintenance and construction, bridge maintenance, replace some vehicles and improve the waste management facilities. The Finance Committee the DPW return to the ballot box every year for three years with three, $1.1 million capital exclusions (essentially one year debt exclusions). However, the selectmen supported Mr. Jack's request for a three-year plan.
As with some of the other presentations we heard, there was some eye-opening information presented:
-- Falmouth has 270 miles of town-owned roads and 130 miles of private roads; if stretched out, they would reach from here to Delaware;
-- It costs $90,000/year to paint the stripes on the roads;
-- There is $237 million in town equipment in the DPW;
-- 1.6 billion gallons of water were pumped last year, 300 million gallons of which were unbilled, i.e., "lost." Mr. Jack explained that this was "lost" because of uncalibrated water meters. The estimated lost revenue was $500,000;
-- The reorganization study cost $30,000 and is 220 pages long;
-- Four of the eight frozen positions are in the DPW.
Aside from these facts, Mr. Jack presented a sober summary of the state of our roads and the work required to keep them in good condition. For example, he communicated that a road should last 25 years with regular maintenance, but will need to be completely repaved in 16 years if no maintenance is done. The concept of putting maintenance off for "just one year" can snowball and cost us more in the long run.
Perhaps the best part of the presentation was the volume of information he provided. He explained every need, the cost thereof and the logic behind them. He listed the vehicles to be replaced, their ages and expected life - and added that we've already extended the life of many a vehicle beyond its expected lifetime.
Mr. Jack's presentation was convincing, and even town meeting representatives who have been critical of him and/or the override request voted aye for the amendment (it passed) and the override (it, too, passed). I voted "Aye" for both.
That said; at least some of Ray Jack's tone was probably influenced by earlier decisions by the Board of Selectmen, the Finance Committee and Town Meeting not to support a Proposition 2-1/2 override for the DPW reorganization plan. There were times when his tone was clearly one of annoyance, and on occasion he would remind us that, "you didn't want to fund it," when talking about various projects and maintenance that have been postponed.
Article 27, "Fund - Fire Rescue Department Capital Improvement Plan": Unlike Ray Jack's somber tone, Chief Paul Brodeur's presentation was animated with (literally) bells and whistles and an occasional joke. Where as town meeting representatives were shaking their heads in disbelief over the state of Falmouth's roads, Chief Brodeur had us laughing.
During his explanation of the need for new monitor defibrillators, he shared a slide that showed an animated sinus rhythm (a normal heartbeat) and stated, "if you've got a straight line, you've got a problem."
The FFRD requested a $1.8 million, 10-year debt exclusion to purchase two Class A fire engines, a brush breaker, new monitor defibrillators, an electronic ambulance reporting system and a new ambulance.
The latter two requests are actually revenue-generating items for the town. Ambulance runs are billed - often to Medicare - and Falmouth gets $1.3 million in revenue from them. In 2007, 77 percent of the FFRD's work was in ambulance runs (4299 runs to be exact, with 1284 fire runs). Interestingly enough, 33 percent of all ambulance runs are from East Falmouth.
There are two fire engines to be replaced, 21 and 22 years old respectively, and the brush breaker to be replaced is 37 years old.
As with Ray Jack, Chief Brodeur's presentation was enough to convince even the skeptics. I voted "Aye" and it passed handily.
Clarifying the record
As I was sifting through my notes from the last three nights of town meeting, I was reminded of the survey about precinct meetings.
Early on Monday, as Town Meeting Moderator David Vieira was going over the announcements and routine business, he mentioned the survey and how he, Town Clerk Mike Palmer, Selectman Carey Murphy and Deborah Siegal of the League of Women Voters worked to get the precincts better organized with more regular meetings. The survey was intended to gather information about how things were working.
Now these are good, civic-minded folks, and I hold Mike Palmer and David Vieira in very high esteem, but aside from getting the first set of officers elected (several years ago now), they haven't been involved in any Precinct 9 meeting other than as a spectator. Indeed, Selectman Murphy has been critical of Precinct Nine's efforts to take our organization to the next level, and I don't think Ms. Siegal has ever been to a Precinct 9 meeting - certainly not in recent memory.
That said; stay tuned as I continue to organize my notes and gather my thoughts. I'll be posting my votes and sharing some thoughts about the three overrides in the coming days.
Early on Monday, as Town Meeting Moderator David Vieira was going over the announcements and routine business, he mentioned the survey and how he, Town Clerk Mike Palmer, Selectman Carey Murphy and Deborah Siegal of the League of Women Voters worked to get the precincts better organized with more regular meetings. The survey was intended to gather information about how things were working.
Now these are good, civic-minded folks, and I hold Mike Palmer and David Vieira in very high esteem, but aside from getting the first set of officers elected (several years ago now), they haven't been involved in any Precinct 9 meeting other than as a spectator. Indeed, Selectman Murphy has been critical of Precinct Nine's efforts to take our organization to the next level, and I don't think Ms. Siegal has ever been to a Precinct 9 meeting - certainly not in recent memory.
That said; stay tuned as I continue to organize my notes and gather my thoughts. I'll be posting my votes and sharing some thoughts about the three overrides in the coming days.
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
I wrote the check
Article 13 during the Special Town Meeting on Tuesday evening asked Falmouth to give $5,000 to “Operation In From The Streets,” an outreach program for the homeless.
Now, $5,000 doesn't sound like much, but every expense the town absorbs becomes part of the budget and it almost never goes away. Ed Schmitt, who put the article on the floor, estimated that this would cost taxpayers just "a couple of dimes" per person, but this is the reason why our expenses are out pacing our revenues; we're nickel-and-dime'ing ourselves into debt.
Some who spoke in favor of this article suggested that those helped by this program could be our relatives. But this got me thinking...
[stepping on soapbox]
Is this really what we think of our relatives? If it were my brother, sister, father or – God rest her soul – my mother, I would be out there helping them get off the street, not expecting someone else to do this for me. Yet some, apparently, would leave it to someone else.
What does this say about us that we would burden others - and society at large - with the care of our loved ones?
Rather than use taxpayer money, I suggested an alternative and offered to write a check. However, when given the opportunity to actually give of ourselves – right there, on camera, before the whole town to see – the vast majority of town meeting representatives voted instead to give away $5,000 of taxpayer money.
I'm far better acquainted with homelessness than most people realize, so I know that this is a worthy cause. However, with more than 200 people present, with everyone giving what they can – be it $5 or $500 – we could have raised the money without spending a penny of tax dollars.
Selectman Carey Murphy said, "we're a caring community" – and he's right, we are. However, I was dismayed at the response to this article. Not only did it pass, but not one other person stood up and offered to give.
It would seem as though we're a caring community only when it's other people's money.
I'll get off my soapbox now.
[stepping off soapbox]
All that said; I give credit to Ed Schmitt and Scoba Rhodes (who asked that the director of Operation In From The Streets be allowed to speak) - it's hard to stand up and ask for something when the answer may be "no." This is especially true when there are those - such as myself - arguing against you.
And for the record, I wrote a check.
Now, $5,000 doesn't sound like much, but every expense the town absorbs becomes part of the budget and it almost never goes away. Ed Schmitt, who put the article on the floor, estimated that this would cost taxpayers just "a couple of dimes" per person, but this is the reason why our expenses are out pacing our revenues; we're nickel-and-dime'ing ourselves into debt.
Some who spoke in favor of this article suggested that those helped by this program could be our relatives. But this got me thinking...
[stepping on soapbox]
Is this really what we think of our relatives? If it were my brother, sister, father or – God rest her soul – my mother, I would be out there helping them get off the street, not expecting someone else to do this for me. Yet some, apparently, would leave it to someone else.
What does this say about us that we would burden others - and society at large - with the care of our loved ones?
Rather than use taxpayer money, I suggested an alternative and offered to write a check. However, when given the opportunity to actually give of ourselves – right there, on camera, before the whole town to see – the vast majority of town meeting representatives voted instead to give away $5,000 of taxpayer money.
I'm far better acquainted with homelessness than most people realize, so I know that this is a worthy cause. However, with more than 200 people present, with everyone giving what they can – be it $5 or $500 – we could have raised the money without spending a penny of tax dollars.
Selectman Carey Murphy said, "we're a caring community" – and he's right, we are. However, I was dismayed at the response to this article. Not only did it pass, but not one other person stood up and offered to give.
It would seem as though we're a caring community only when it's other people's money.
I'll get off my soapbox now.
[stepping off soapbox]
All that said; I give credit to Ed Schmitt and Scoba Rhodes (who asked that the director of Operation In From The Streets be allowed to speak) - it's hard to stand up and ask for something when the answer may be "no." This is especially true when there are those - such as myself - arguing against you.
And for the record, I wrote a check.
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
The buck stops here
"The buck stops here" was popularized by President Harry Truman, who had a sign (a gift of a friend) with this phrase on his desk.
It is the corollary of today's quote of the Day, "Democracy is a process by which people are free to choose the man who will get the blame."
Last night, Falmouth's Board of Selectmen, Town Meeting Moderator and the High School Building Committee entered into an agreement that would increase public participation in the management of the project by giving the selectmen - the elected executive board of our town - a visible role in the process that has, thus far, pretty much excluded them.
I have mixed feelings about the arrangement. There are checks and balances in government, and the selectmen's role in school affairs is limited for that reason.
However, there is merit in having the selectmen involved, not the least of which is direct accountability to the public. The Building Committee is appointed by the Town Moderator, who himself is elected by the people, but "appointed" is the operative word here.
Accountability is a good thing, but it is but one piece of the puzzle.
Aside from accountability, we need answers. However, in spite of various attempts to get answers, we still don't have much. Most of the town meeting representatives I've discussed this with understand that some answers won't be had until after the litigation with the former architect is settled, but the selectmen could at least assure us that those answers will be forthcoming.
Finally, we need assurances - beyond words - that the money requested is exactly what is needed, and not a penny more. However, again, we've been brushed off.
As I've recently opined, I do believe they need additional funds to complete the high school. However, I don't believe they're going to get it without these additional assurances.
It is the corollary of today's quote of the Day, "Democracy is a process by which people are free to choose the man who will get the blame."
Last night, Falmouth's Board of Selectmen, Town Meeting Moderator and the High School Building Committee entered into an agreement that would increase public participation in the management of the project by giving the selectmen - the elected executive board of our town - a visible role in the process that has, thus far, pretty much excluded them.
I have mixed feelings about the arrangement. There are checks and balances in government, and the selectmen's role in school affairs is limited for that reason.
However, there is merit in having the selectmen involved, not the least of which is direct accountability to the public. The Building Committee is appointed by the Town Moderator, who himself is elected by the people, but "appointed" is the operative word here.
Accountability is a good thing, but it is but one piece of the puzzle.
Aside from accountability, we need answers. However, in spite of various attempts to get answers, we still don't have much. Most of the town meeting representatives I've discussed this with understand that some answers won't be had until after the litigation with the former architect is settled, but the selectmen could at least assure us that those answers will be forthcoming.
Finally, we need assurances - beyond words - that the money requested is exactly what is needed, and not a penny more. However, again, we've been brushed off.
As I've recently opined, I do believe they need additional funds to complete the high school. However, I don't believe they're going to get it without these additional assurances.
Monday, March 31, 2008
Falmouth High School Renovation - Part II
Earlier this evening I attended the joint meeting of the Board of Selectmen and the High School Building Committee.
The meeting was pretty much consumed with wrangling over the Memorandum of Understanding, which would make the selectmen a larger part of the process going forward. While this can be a rather dry topic (as my 9-year old daughter observed, "They're just talking about the same thing over and over."), there were some interesting bits...
-- After being told that Peter Clark resigned on his own - that he made the decision and wasn't influenced by others - we heard Town Meeting Moderator David Vieira say that someone "could've made some phone calls" earlier. This suggests that Dr. Clark was asked to resign.
-- Moderator Vieira also expressed his displeasure over the process. The Selectmen and Building Committee have already met several times, but they didn't include Mr. Vieira until today. Moreover, he was concerned that the two vacancies on the Building Committee won't be filled before town meeting. He warned that town meeting representatives might be upset over the fact that they're being asked to approve more money for a project without knowing who's in charge.
He's right. I'm certainly not comfortable with it.
Looking for answers
Eventually they opened things up to public comment, and they reluctantly agreed to let me share an initiative that Carol Murphy (Precinct 9) and I have been working on.
Last week, we started a petition for an audit of the high school renovation project. Since then, this has expanded to request a "soup to nuts" review or assessment of the project which would include an independent cost estimator, and a thorough explanation of what happened and why.
The selectmen danced around the request. Chairman Murphy said that I should take this up with the Building Committee, but I pointed out that it is the selectmen who have the authority to do this under the town charter.
Selectman Bumpus then tried to brush me off, stating, "We don't have money in the budget for this."
Deer in the headlights
I responded by pointing out that we have 30+ town meeting representatives' support for this initative and town meeting approves all financial transactions.
There was a rather pregnant pause here as the Board of Selectmen looked like a bunch of deer caught in the headlights. Except Selectman Mustafa. He was grinning.
Again, they tried to brush me off. I wasn't going to argue the point ad infinitum, so I closed my statements, stating that their memorandum with the Building Committee is just one part of the big picture; that they need to address the rumors and answer the questions lest we risk losing the public's trust.
An expanding budget
I then took issue with one part of the $18.8 million override. The line item for furniture, technology and equipment was originally $2.3 million, and $300,000 has already been spent. The other $2 million had to be used elsewhere in the project, and one would assume that this would need to be replaced.
However, the override calls for $4.1 million for this line item - a $2.1 million increase. The Memorandum of Understanding between the Selectmen and Building Committee explicitly states, "In no event will the project scope of work be increased beyond the intent of the original contract documents."
I noted this, and requested that we simply return to the original $2.3 million figure. I explained that the $4.1 million figure was simply a state guideline based on $15/square foot; that it had increased only recently and without explanation.
Again, they tried to brush me off. Selectman Murphy suggested inflation, but I pointed out that technology gets cheaper, not more expensive. Selectman Bumpus claimed that we were not increasing the scope of the project "because the state would've required a public vote and it didn't."
However, saying that the scope hasn't increased doesn't make it so. Several town meeting members - myself included - have asked for an itemized list of what the $4.1 million would buy, and we've not received it. In my case, they told me that there was no list.
All that said; I'm disappointed. Our selectmen ignored a request for a complete review of this project - something that the public has demanded. The Building Committee was silent about cutting the $2.1 million increase in the technology budget.
These were reasonable requests that - as I repeatedly noted - have the support of 30+ town meeting members and are intended to address the concerns that have been raised and help move the high school project forward. Failure to fulfill these requests threatens the override.
The meeting was pretty much consumed with wrangling over the Memorandum of Understanding, which would make the selectmen a larger part of the process going forward. While this can be a rather dry topic (as my 9-year old daughter observed, "They're just talking about the same thing over and over."), there were some interesting bits...
-- After being told that Peter Clark resigned on his own - that he made the decision and wasn't influenced by others - we heard Town Meeting Moderator David Vieira say that someone "could've made some phone calls" earlier. This suggests that Dr. Clark was asked to resign.
-- Moderator Vieira also expressed his displeasure over the process. The Selectmen and Building Committee have already met several times, but they didn't include Mr. Vieira until today. Moreover, he was concerned that the two vacancies on the Building Committee won't be filled before town meeting. He warned that town meeting representatives might be upset over the fact that they're being asked to approve more money for a project without knowing who's in charge.
He's right. I'm certainly not comfortable with it.
Looking for answers
Eventually they opened things up to public comment, and they reluctantly agreed to let me share an initiative that Carol Murphy (Precinct 9) and I have been working on.
Last week, we started a petition for an audit of the high school renovation project. Since then, this has expanded to request a "soup to nuts" review or assessment of the project which would include an independent cost estimator, and a thorough explanation of what happened and why.
The selectmen danced around the request. Chairman Murphy said that I should take this up with the Building Committee, but I pointed out that it is the selectmen who have the authority to do this under the town charter.
Selectman Bumpus then tried to brush me off, stating, "We don't have money in the budget for this."
Deer in the headlights
I responded by pointing out that we have 30+ town meeting representatives' support for this initative and town meeting approves all financial transactions.
There was a rather pregnant pause here as the Board of Selectmen looked like a bunch of deer caught in the headlights. Except Selectman Mustafa. He was grinning.
Again, they tried to brush me off. I wasn't going to argue the point ad infinitum, so I closed my statements, stating that their memorandum with the Building Committee is just one part of the big picture; that they need to address the rumors and answer the questions lest we risk losing the public's trust.
An expanding budget
I then took issue with one part of the $18.8 million override. The line item for furniture, technology and equipment was originally $2.3 million, and $300,000 has already been spent. The other $2 million had to be used elsewhere in the project, and one would assume that this would need to be replaced.
However, the override calls for $4.1 million for this line item - a $2.1 million increase. The Memorandum of Understanding between the Selectmen and Building Committee explicitly states, "In no event will the project scope of work be increased beyond the intent of the original contract documents."
I noted this, and requested that we simply return to the original $2.3 million figure. I explained that the $4.1 million figure was simply a state guideline based on $15/square foot; that it had increased only recently and without explanation.
Again, they tried to brush me off. Selectman Murphy suggested inflation, but I pointed out that technology gets cheaper, not more expensive. Selectman Bumpus claimed that we were not increasing the scope of the project "because the state would've required a public vote and it didn't."
However, saying that the scope hasn't increased doesn't make it so. Several town meeting members - myself included - have asked for an itemized list of what the $4.1 million would buy, and we've not received it. In my case, they told me that there was no list.
All that said; I'm disappointed. Our selectmen ignored a request for a complete review of this project - something that the public has demanded. The Building Committee was silent about cutting the $2.1 million increase in the technology budget.
These were reasonable requests that - as I repeatedly noted - have the support of 30+ town meeting members and are intended to address the concerns that have been raised and help move the high school project forward. Failure to fulfill these requests threatens the override.
Falmouth High School Renovation - Part I
We're damned if we do and damned if we don't.
Like most folks, when I first heard that another $19 million would be needed to finish the high school, I was angry. This was exacerbated by the fact that nobody seemed to have any answers, and the information we did get was vague, contradictory and barely trickling in here and there.
In an attempt to get answers, I started digging. I've previously posted about these efforts, and the difficulty I was having getting some of the things I requested.
Over the past several weeks, I've received the summaries for the 54 change orders, toured the high school and spoken with many people - town meeting representatives and voters alike - about the details of the high school renovation. The result of all this has been something of an epiphany for me.
While I was initially against the request for the additional funds, I now believe some additional money is needed to finish the high school.
So far, only $15.8 million of the $33.5 million state reimbursement has been received. If we fail to finish the project that the state approved, we risk loosing $17.7 million.
Put another way...if we decide to halt the project, patch things together and make do, it could cost taxpayers far more than $19 million.
That said; I've a lot to share about the things I've been reading and hearing, as well as my own efforts to bring this issue to a reasonable conclusion.
Stay tuned...
(I had originally included this line..."So much has been made of the fact that this is a $67.5 million project, but that figure doesn't include the state's contribution of $33.5 million. In fact, this is a $101 million project," but since learned that my math was off. The $67.5 million includes the state reimbursement, so this is still a $67.5 million project if/until the $18.8 million is approved, at which time it becomes an $86.3 million project.)
Like most folks, when I first heard that another $19 million would be needed to finish the high school, I was angry. This was exacerbated by the fact that nobody seemed to have any answers, and the information we did get was vague, contradictory and barely trickling in here and there.
In an attempt to get answers, I started digging. I've previously posted about these efforts, and the difficulty I was having getting some of the things I requested.
Over the past several weeks, I've received the summaries for the 54 change orders, toured the high school and spoken with many people - town meeting representatives and voters alike - about the details of the high school renovation. The result of all this has been something of an epiphany for me.
While I was initially against the request for the additional funds, I now believe some additional money is needed to finish the high school.
So far, only $15.8 million of the $33.5 million state reimbursement has been received. If we fail to finish the project that the state approved, we risk loosing $17.7 million.
Put another way...if we decide to halt the project, patch things together and make do, it could cost taxpayers far more than $19 million.
That said; I've a lot to share about the things I've been reading and hearing, as well as my own efforts to bring this issue to a reasonable conclusion.
Stay tuned...
(I had originally included this line..."So much has been made of the fact that this is a $67.5 million project, but that figure doesn't include the state's contribution of $33.5 million. In fact, this is a $101 million project," but since learned that my math was off. The $67.5 million includes the state reimbursement, so this is still a $67.5 million project if/until the $18.8 million is approved, at which time it becomes an $86.3 million project.)
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Voting records
The Cape Cod Times ran an article today, "Political candidates have spotty voting records." which stated, "Brent Putnam voted 21 times since 1996, missing a host of elections including the state and presidential primaries in 2004."
I've asked Mr. Brennan for this information so I can review and comment on it.
That said; it's worth noting that I'm the ONLY member of town meeting to voluntarily post my voting record. I started this practice with the spring 2007 town meeting, continued it with fall 2007 town meeting and I'll be posting my votes for this spring's town meeting too.
I've asked Mr. Brennan for this information so I can review and comment on it.
That said; it's worth noting that I'm the ONLY member of town meeting to voluntarily post my voting record. I started this practice with the spring 2007 town meeting, continued it with fall 2007 town meeting and I'll be posting my votes for this spring's town meeting too.
Friday, March 14, 2008
Precinct 8 & 9 Meetings
The High School Building Committee will be offering a tour of Phase 1 of the project to Precincts 8 & 9 on Wednesday, March 26 at 5pm (at the high school, obviously).
Precincts 8 & 9 will be holding a joint meeting to review the warrant on Thursday, March 27 at 7pm at the Barnstable County Fairgrounds.
Precincts 8 & 9 will be holding a joint meeting to review the warrant on Thursday, March 27 at 7pm at the Barnstable County Fairgrounds.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)