Selectman Jeff Bennett's letter to the Gardner News

Third Grade math lesson for TGN  

After the BOS meeting on Monday, September 12, 2011 and an article in TGN on Monday, August 29, 2011, I believe it is time for the taxpayers of Templeton to consider some math questions. Page one and page 3 of Aug. 29 issue of TGN talks about legal costs for Templeton. Selectman Robert Columbus talks about a disservice to the taxpayers by changing town counsel. Consider that Templeton spent $34,814.96 on legal in fiscal year 2004. In FY 2005, town spent $89,810.89, 2006: $76,448.73, 2007: $74,306.47, 2008: $82,453.65, 2009: $86,504.95, and 2010: $82,308.88. In 2011, town spent $47,387.01 and encumbered $25,067.99 for anticipated additional legal expenses, which would bring 2011 spending to $72,455.00 if these anticipated legal costs play out. Since this money was budgeted for, could one assume the BOS anticipated spending this amount Now I may have had third grade math at little ole Templeton Center school, but I believe the numbers add up.

In these economic times, I believe we needed to try something new to see if legal costs could be stabilized which is why I voted to go in the direction of a new  firm with flat fees. Only time will tell if it was a smart move. To keep doing the same thing and hoping for different results is in my opinion, a foolish approach. Consider the town spent $8,988.04 in May 2011, $5,524.26 in June and $6,820.54 in July. $21,332.84 spent in 3 months with Kopelman & Paige. With new town counsel at $5,000.00 per month flat fee, that would have been $15,000.00. How was a disservice done to the taxpayers by looking at the numbers and voting to try a new approach? Remember too, that even if the town stays with Blatman, Bobrowski and Mead next year, we can always revert back to an hourly rate.  Mr. Columbus accomplished a disservice to the taxpayers back on May 23, 2011 when, as chairman of Board, he contacted K & P to check on amended agenda item and open meeting law and developments within 48 hour period. My first question is why K & P billed 2 separate items for the same day? Did Mr. Columbus consider asking the two questions on the same phone call or was he just trying to come up with an excuse to not do what I was asking for, a reorganization vote of the BOS. Did it really take half an hour for an experienced lawyer to look at the open meeting law to see that the law allows amended agenda items? More importantly, did the Chairman actually need a lawyer for that issue? It clearly states on page 5 of open meeting law guide that not only is it allowed, it is encouraging to public bodies to make available a revised list of topics that may have come up within the 48 hour rule. Remember that there is a form on file at the town clerk’s office, which Mr. Columbus signed, that states Mr. Columbus not only has a copy of the guide, but he understands it and swears to follow it during his tenure on the board. So, either Mr. Columbus does not understand it or he was looking for a way to not follow it. Perhaps Mr. Columbus has an explanation for that, either way, $66.00 of taxpayer money was spent on something that was available free of charge. One can always call the attorney general’s office to get answers to these questions without additional charges to the taxpayers. This nickel and dime approach to the taxpayers is another reason why I voted the way I did. Time to put the wine and cheese away, the change has been made, deal with it and move on. End of the year numbers will tell the tale if we did right or not. I am sure that when taxpayers have the information, they can make up their own minds if I tried to insult their intelligence by voting to change town counsel.

Regards;

Jeffrey Bennett

77 Partridgeville Road

Templeton, MA

978-360-4634