Paul working for you.

Tuesday, May 9, 2017

Bait and Switch AGAIN!

Bait and Switch  AGAIN!

Here is a copy of the warrant for the Annual Town Meeting May 13, 2017. 

Search for the articles that have appeared before other town meetings...Below is an image of the Table of Contents:

 Some Comments:

Bob MMay 8, 2017 at 9:51 AM
OK, this might not be the place for this comment, but I'm sick and tired of the lies perpetrated by our administration.

I was reading through the ATM Warrant and noticed something that was out of line with what I heard at the Audit presentation. I looked it up and , well, here are the results.

Article III of the Warrant states at the bottom:

"Submitted by the board of selectman for the board of assessors as recommended by the town auditors"
Article III set to establish a $5,000 exemption from personal property tax.

Now the Auditors Management letter says: "We recommend blah,blah,blah that ATM ask to exempt up to $10,000."

This appears to be purposely deceiving the ATM voters and I'm sick of this shit! The auditors did not recommend exempting $5,000. This type of bullshit should be criminal! We have Town administrators out and out lying to the citizens.

As I have time I'm going to review all the articles and look for contradictions by our administration. This type of thing would be a firing offense. It states right on the management letter that the "board" picked the $5,000 number because they thought it was "politically feasible" to get past the voters at town meeting, really?

We hire professionals, pay them thousands and our "board" just says.......nah, we need to be in charge.............


Bob MMay 8, 2017 at 10:28 AM
Another observation:

I find it pathetic that we are now writing in sloppiness into our town bylaws.

Article XlII seems to make it the job of the Capital Planning Committee to jump if our town departments don't do their job efficiently.
Our BOS like the head of any dysfunctional family is trying to take away the responsibility of our town departments to do their job correctly. If they dont follow the by-laws its now put upon the CPC to jump, have a meeting and review the slop.

Why have rules if we make new one to bypass them or make them mute?


mikeMay 8, 2017 at 12:05 PM
I don't know why a group of residents can not file a lawsuit against the selectmen for not following the rules I think that is what it's going to take for people to follow the dam rules


Bob MMay 8, 2017 at 1:57 PM
OK, so here is another example of us not doing basic stuff.

Wenesday at 9AM there is a meeting under the heading "Economic". When you click the link you find out its the "Economic development Committee". They appear to being attempting to do big things so I looked on the Templeton Website to check out the committee. You know, see who is on the committee, what the committees mission statement is? You know, basic voter information regarding the towns government.
Surprise, Surprise, Surprise......No listing can be found for a committee entitled "Economic Development Committee". No members are listed and they meet during the day while most people are working? Who are these people?

OK, so I jest about some of this, but it is asinine that we cannot even denote our town representatives correctly on boards/committee.

The Capital Planning Committee of which only one listed person is actually a participant or member.

We really think the folks who are running the town now are capable of running a project with a value 10 times that of the towns annual budget which we screw up continually.

C'mon, time for some truth, painful, factual truth. Accountability is required and should be demanded. We cannot keep floundering along fixing one screw up after another as we continue to create more..............arghhhh

" We cannot keep floundering along fixing one screw up after another as we continue to create more..............arghhhh" 

Hate to tell you, but yes, we can continue to flounder around bouncing from one screw up to the next. Especially if you, as a voter and attendee at town meeting, will not be able to speak to the issues on the warrant. It's a Brave New World!



  1. In the Nov 9,2015 Advisory Board recommendation that I believe was passed out at the town meeting it states the following information designed to help the taxpayer decide which way to vote. Here is the relevant lines.

    This article would authorize the borrowing of Nine Hundred Seventy Five Thousand Dollars
    ($975,000) to pay costs of designing, constructing and equipping a 4,000 square foot addition to
    and remodeling of the Templeton Police Station. The proposed debt exclusion would add an
    estimated $0.93 to the tax rate, and the debt would be discharged in two years."

    The idea that our Administration is presenting this as a "Ratification of a previously authorized Police Station Bond" is just not true, or am I wrong?

    We will not be financing the police station with a 2 year loan. The criteria for the funding has changed. Is this a legal article? The way I read it if the town approves article 16 we would be approving a 2 year loan as that is what the previous vote approved!

    Why does this entire process feel like a scam? It feels like our administration is trying to slide one past the voters. Shyster comes to mind.

    I wonder if any of the voters are going to be made aware of the type of funding challenges will take place if they don't rescind the school. If we fail to get our finances straight we are not guaranteed the entire financing for the school as it will be financed in pieces until the end. Any loan fails and so does the town. My opinion as always!

  2. I decided to read this morning. What a mistake.

    Last item I was reading was reading was interesting. It seems TMLP is nice enough to give us a PILOT that amounts to 1.1% of revenues. If 1% wasn't insult enough, then our glorious leaders allow them to determine how it can be spent. Check out "budget book 1-3" on website. The items and votes are listed.

    So I vote my taxes go to

    1. I did not vote to support the article to ratify the police station vote. This article is not thee same article we voted for originally. This in my opinion is a new agreement, because of the way it is set up to be paid. Not the two years the people voted for. I think that fact is what makes it null and void, but that is my opinion. Bev.

    2. I dont see how that one passes the smell test.

  3. I'm sure we can ask the town lawyer at the meeting about it Bob.
    Owe that's right they voted last night to "not" have the town lawyer there this meeting.
    But he did say they should allow the vote for the school thing to go before the people.
    So why was it not legal last time and is this time?
    I Would think that question would be asked of the town lawyer if he were there.

    1. David,

      I think they might be concerned that a few citizens were pissed off after last year and having the lawyers there this year could just lead to our BOS constantly being bypassed since they went to him for everything.
      Look at our legal bills. How many of them are due to our TA's lack of cajones/knowledge.

      David, with the new amendment the by-law can you tell me is the TA trying to weaken or strengthen the entire concept of the Capital Improvement Committee? If the departments, for whatever reason, can force a meeting in the last week before town meeting and technically meet the by-law, well, why rush? If I wait till the 51st week it makes them mute which truly we are just a suggestion because as far as I know we either recommend or not, but nobody has to listen which makes for small town politics.