Kerry O'Brien
News Staff Writer TEMPLETON — Voters again rejected Narragansett Regional School District’s budget at a Special Town Meeting, Friday, which was held solely to present the voters with the district’s requested fiscal year 2014 budget. “You can’t just keep asking, hoping for a yes,” said voter Terri Langlois. “The money just isn’t available.” Slightly more than 400 voters voted on the latest request in additional funding for the district, amounting to $561,371, with it failing by a 239-164 count, which would have been in addition to the $4.4 million that had been approved at the May 15 Annual Town Meeting. The school district originally submitted an assessment of $5.2 million for its budget, however, after voters rejected a $691,086 Proposition 2 1/2 override request at the polls on April 30, officials presented the town meeting with the budget not including the override amount. Friday’s meeting was the result of not presenting the town meeting with the district’s full requested budget, as it is state law to do so. As a result of the recent passing of the state’s budget, the school district was provided with more funding than had been originally anticipated and therefore, the district was able to lower its additional funding request for Templeton from $691,086 to $561,371. In discussions leading up to Friday’s meeting, town officials said if the town approved the budget, funding would have to come out of the town’s budget. The Board of Selectmen and Advisory Board each decided to recommend voting “no” on the school budget, because the expectation that it would result in drastic cuts to the town budget. However, Town Moderator David Bergeron read a motion that differed from the warrant for the meeting, stating that a “yes” vote would be contingent on a Proposition 2 1/2 override vote passing at the polls. Numerous voters voiced opposition to the motion. “You can’t change the warrant article just like that,” said Planning Board chairman Kirk Moschetti. “This isn’t open government.” School committee chairman Rae-Ann Trifilo then followed with a motion — which passed — to remove the Proposition 2 1/2 override element out of motion. When asked how the article had been changed, Mr. Bergeron stated that he “had no idea” where the different motion had come from. Since voters did not approve of the budget, under Massachusetts General Law CMR 603, both towns of the Narragansett Regional School District — Phillipston and Templeton — will have to schedule a joint town meeting to revote and finalize a budget for fiscal 2014. A date for the joint meeting has yet to be determined. |
Paul working for you.
Saturday, July 27, 2013
Gansett budget still up in air after Special Town Meeting Date for Joint Town Meeting yet to be scheduled
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteKirk you were totally out of line not going to the mic.Who do you think you are Gerry Skeleton?Good job anyway,we needed that.I say no to a combined town meeting and should send our school committee to Ashburnham for a lesson on listening to the voters. Show them how to cut the budget like they did without a combined town meeting.Next year show us whats needed and stop the pay raises and think about what the rest of the town minus "L+W" is going through. Take a 12.5% pay reduction and save some jobs for the kids sake. If teachers get a raise it will be on the backs of the kids that lose their sports.
ReplyDeleteThe addition of the override was COMPLETELY inappropriate! It is up to the VOTERS to decide how to fund the school budget if it passed! Maybe the voters would prefer a $100,000 or even a $50,000 cut from the town budget with a reduced override request. Point is, that is NOT for the town attorney to decide!
DeleteWhat's the problem? Any motion may be ammended, which this was.
DeleteHow is it responsible to vote money without any funding?
People had NO warning an override would be voted on that night. The motion MATERIALLY ALTERED the warrant article. The warrant article gave warning that a budget would be voted on, not the source of funding.
DeleteThe number 1 problem in this town is that no one trusts one another - the action of the town attorney deepened that problem. A riot nearly ensued that was completely unnecessary.
Further, the actions of your board, taking poll after pool outside of a posted meeting and holding vote after vote without the audience being able to hear your decision making is a clear violation of the open meeting law, just like the BOS attempting to drastically alter the motion without a public meeting was wrong.
That motion was presented by the BOS. If two BOS members are at the town meeting and one votes NO and one votes YES to reading an altered motion, the motion CANNOT legally be altered and presented ON BEHALF of the BOS.
If Mr. Bennett wanted to read an altered motion, he should have done it as a citizen and not on behalf of the BOS when no majority of any kind so authorized him.
As I stated, it's up to the TOWN to decide the source of funding, not the town attorney when not authorized by a majority of the BOS to do so.
Further, as you could tell from the reaction of the 300+ people in attendance at the meeting to Mr. Robinson's speech, they overwhelming agreed with him.
When the actions of both boards on that stage contravene both the LAW and the MAJORITY OF THE ATTENDEES you have lost all moral and legal authority to act.
THAT is the problem.
This is exactly what I was referring to in an earlier post. The town government says they are transparent in their dealings and then things like Friday evening occur. The gentleman who stood and shouted from the crowd may have not followed procedure but what he shouted had to be said. No one was going to listen otherwise. As you stated, it looked as though the new selectmen was even caught off guard and angered by what was happening up on the stage. What was being discussed on stage? I had hope that we were moving forward with this new BOS but it is the same old same old. I think it is time for the state to come in and look at all the town budgets. Everyone says they have nothing to hide, so let them come, maybe they can help straighten our messes out so that we can move forward.
DeleteSo, on one hand you are asking that rules should be followed. But on the other hand, if someone doesn't follow the rules but it "had to be said", then its okay not to follow the rules?
DeleteI,too would like the state to come in and review everything. There is a bill at the state house right now requesting an investigation into wrong doings in Templeton. It was voted for at town meeting last fall. Did either of you vote for it? I'm assuming you will support it now.
I was impressed by the number of older people who attended this meeting. I doubt that the younger people will understand how hard it is for some people to make ends meet, but everyone is entitled to their opinion. In the long run, the people who show up, run the show. Bev. .
ReplyDeleteHey. Here's a question. Has anyone questioned why the tax rate didnt go up the necessary 2 1/2% this year instead of actually going down? That would've helped.
ReplyDeleteWe did. The Fy 12 tax rate included the debt exclusion of the senior center $500,000 which was for on year. the fy 2013 tax rate did not have any additional deb exclusions or overrides because nothing was voted for. please look at the Fy 2013 full recap sheet - levy limit page. We always go up the 2 1/2 % -https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B49w70op4eDLUF9KNDI3QnFpRVE/edit
ReplyDeleteSo $500,000 is actually more than 2 1/2% ?
DeleteVery little new construction, so no new money. Unlike the boom days, when the overall tax base increased every year, it is now stagnant.
ReplyDeletethe $500,000.00 was a debt exclusion voted on town meeting to pay for work on the senior center and a debt exclusion is a question that has a dollar amount and a specific amount of time such as one year two years three years etc. The $500,000.00 was a one year debt exclusion meaning your tax rate went up for one year to pay that amount back and so when it was paid off your tax rate dropped by what ever amount your tax rate went up to pay the debt off. In addition to any debt exclusions and prop 2 1/2 your tax rate goes up the 2 1/2 % each year. Watch for information on this subject coming from the BOS very soon. I hope this clears that up.
ReplyDeleteYes because The $500000 was voted by the voters at the polls and at the 2011 May TM as a debt exclusion. Debt exclusions like overrides are votes that allow the towns to go over the 2 1/2 the difference is overrides stay on the taxrates debt exclusion are only for as many years as voted. Debt exclusions have to be for a specific reason not for budget expenses. Now for the issue of why the motion was presented as an override, the school did not show a source for the additional funding. The motion could have read, to transfer from the police/highways depts etc. Because all the available money that can be raised within the levy limit was already appropriated at the May TM, emt/firefighters, town delta budgets, smaller amount school budget, the additional amount certified by the school committee had to come from somewhere. Our only choices are to transfer/take it from somewhere else or vote an override. Wish you people would all understand this. You just can't pull $691000out of the air.
ReplyDeleteI am pretty sure we have to lay off the police prior to transferring any money from that payroll account otherwise you have bills and the money would be gone which equals more trouble!
DeleteRather than a little kid style tantrum, the question should have been asked of why the motion was read that way. Articles and motions should always be explained if even one person does not under stand it or the reason for it, it would save a lot of trouble and finger pointing after the fact. As I said at a selectmen meeting a week or so ago, the BOS has to do a better job of informing the public on how things work.
DeleteJeff,
DeleteIt is for the TOWN to decide the source of funding. As I have already stated, maybe people would have preferred a combination of cuts and an override. NOT for the town lawyer, or you individually to decide. You have NO authority to act outside of the consent of a majority of the BOS. While you were away, other BOS members have explained the process numerous times. For you to again say that people vote the way they do because they don't understand is patronizing.
Keep in mind, fighting for the removal of the override contingency HURT the chances of the budget passing! This wasn't about the budget, it was about the BOS article being materially altered.
Mrs. Farrell and yourself both seem to think it is so obvious that a source of funding needed to be voted on friday night. IF THAT IS TRUE, then not including it in the warrant article, while not illegal, is the definition of "shady" and grossly reckless given the lack of trust this town has for the BOS!
People UNDERSTAND that the motion and the article don't need to be the same, what they DON'T understand is why, if it is so obvious a source of funded was necessary, why was it not in the article in the interest of TRANSPARENCY!!
If the towns needs more money for its budget, it requests what is call a prop 2 1/2 override that increases your tax rate forever. By law the amount of money asked for and the amount of additional monies raised by a prop 2 1/2 override has to go to the specific reason for which it was asked. Now what has happened in the past is rather than continue to funnel that override money to the item for which it was originally raised, it was used for other things. For instance to continue saying "we have a balanced budget, no tax increase and no lay offs. Of course the result of that thinking is that eventually that catches up with you, thru inflation, the increase ( market increase) for electricity, heating oil, gasoline, diesel fuel office supplies etc. Prop 2 1/2 has extremely limited the ability of cities and towns to raise revenue to pay for expenses
ReplyDeleteWhat are the rules about voting an expenditure without a funding source at a town meeting?
ReplyDeleteThe money raised from the prior prop 2 1/2 overrides for the school has always gone to fund the school. It went to pay the increased assessments determined by the state.
ReplyDeleteTrouble is after 5-6 years that money - the override money- is not enough to cover the exponential increases in school salaries, and overhead expenses. There is no attempt at cost containment. Yes, there are a multitudes of unfunded Mandates in education. There have been for a very long time.
The town can only raise taxes 2 1/2 per cent without an override. The schools increase in budget is over 2 1/2 per cent. The hole gets deeper and deeper.
It is politically unpalatable for the school committee to make cuts to their assessments.
The town can't print money . An override or deep cuts to public safety is the only way Templeton can come up with $691,000. I do not support deep cuts that will jeopardize public safety for the entire town.
Mark,
ReplyDeleteAs I have explained to you previously on this blog, state law ALWAYS trumps conflicting town bylaws. If the DESE says a pure up and down vote is required but the bylaws say a source of funding must be identified, state law wins and we have a pure up and down vote.
FURTHER and more importantly, if it is so obvious to you that a source of funding was necessary why was it NOT included in the article? I know you aren't on the BOS, but as you are defending what happened I feel it's appropriate to mention.
Also, there is no bylaw that says a source of funding must be identified at the time of vote. That was a MODERATOR-created rule that applied to ATM only!
I am sure that the moderator had nothing to do with it. He must present the article as it was read. The BOS read the article and when they read it, they presented it with the override. Although I am not in favor of additional funding for the school, I was also not pleased with the change in the article. I believe all articles should be read as they were posted. Any amendments or substitute motions should be made on the floor of the town meeting.
DeleteApparently, Bob, the clear will of the voters is no additional funds for NRSD. It was a trick of the school board to try and sneak this through. More folks in town are upset about not taking no for an answer. Accepting defeat is important in this Republic.
ReplyDeleteYou have just argued my point for me. If the will of the people is no additional funds for the school, the BOS definitely shouldn't be adding override contingencies. Let the people have an up or down vote on the budget.
DeleteThe BOS adding that contingency made it more likely the voters would vote yes for the budget. That wasn't their place.
It is not a bylaw that says a source of funding has to be there its the Mass Dept of Rev/DLS. Only 2 way to get the funding override or vote to transfer from somewhere else. if the Dept of education come in an determines that the school needs the addition money they cannot raise out tax rates the money will have to come from town depts.
ReplyDeleteI will refer everyone to www.mass.gov/dls read up on municipal finance laws there are plenty of booklets and info explaining everything. An yes is is the DLS that approves the recap sheet and the tax rate. Look at the recap sheet and see the page that the town clerk certifies the town meeting votes
ReplyDeleteThanks for the info Pauly. Hope you are feeling better.
DeleteAfter reading explanations to questions that have been answered more than once, it seems to me, the best thing that Mr./Mrs. or Ms. Green could do would be to attend Advisory Board meetings, or ask to be placed on the Board in May. I was a member years ago, and it gave me a better understanding of what can be done and can't. Because we did not have a active, well run board, until Mr. Spring and the members, who are on now joined, our town is very fortunate that it is not under the state control right now. The people on the Advisory Board have put in hundreds of hours, going through budgets so the town can run as well as it can. I think you will find, no one can do just what they want, it does not matter if you are a selectmen or not. Think of the money the town got from the ice storm. It came to the town, from the Federal Government. Our previous Coordinator and Accountant did not handle it right, and the DOR made us fix the mistake, at the next ATM. Yes our small town answers to a higher power!! I think most people do not understand how hard people work for the town, for no money, but that is how people learn. Bev...
DeleteYou are correct Bev! But there are a few on the advisory board worth replacing. Also I know the poor moderator didn't deserve how he was treated at last town meeting. That being said he was pushed into running for the position and let's face it he can't control the room. No disrespect meant to him it's a tough job!
ReplyDeleteWho exactly are the "few" that should be replaced and what did they do wrong in order to be replaced?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBob - You don't have a point. I certainly am not arguing anything for you. Have a nice life.
ReplyDeleteI will second the motion, Mark, and I know the majority of people will agree! I have had ENOUGH!! Bev.
DeleteActually, Bev, the majority of the people seemed to agree pretty strongly that what the BOS tried to do on Friday was a disgrace. Did you NOT hear the thunderous applause after Mr. Robinson spoke against it? Did you NOT see the chariman of the planning board receiving applause despite speaking out of turn? And for your information, I have attended several advisory board meetings. This is the same patronizing attitude displaced by several on this blog. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they don't understand - it means they don't agree with you!
DeleteI would suggest that Mr. Barrieau attend a selectboard meeting or a school committee meeting, and remind him that this Town has elected him to nothing and he holds no mandate from anyone but the Advisory Board. The more clear it becomes that he and the rest of the Advisory Board believe they did not violate the OML with their vote after unposted vote on the stage to issue opinions to the voters makes it more clear an OML violation complaint will be necessary.
Mr. Greene, if you had sat on stage as part of the Advisory Board Friday night, what would you have done differently?
DeleteIt seems the majority of the disgruntled remarks are filled with accusations of wrongdoing. Yet, there is no alternative or solution presented. I don't think I can answer what I would have done differently than what occurred. The real question is, do you think the Advisory Board acted in any intentional way to hurt the town? Are they operating with only the best intentions and nothing else? I believe they are. The makeup of the Board is a wide range of resident demographics. They do not always agree. They make their decisions based on figures and what is the most fiscally responsible to the town. If anyone is upset with how the vote went, how come no one is complaining about the majority of voters that voted no? Isn't that the highest authority who made the final decision? Anyone that thinks that someone sitting on stage is responsible or has acted out of another reason besides trying to do the best job they can with the best intentions, please explain what that reason is and why you believe it to be true.
Templetonian, I would not have issued an advisory opinion on the amended motion. The law is the law and should be followed, even if the results are undesirable. It doesn't matter what the Advisory Board or BOS's intentions are. I am sure we are all aware of what the road to hell is paved with (if you will excuse the cliche). By appearing opaque instead of transparent, it HURTS the good intentions of the Advisory Board and BOS!
DeleteI do not/did not believe the Town could afford the school budget, and by the BOS modifying the warrant article EVEN IF LEGAL, at the last minute, it totally distracted from the school budget argument. Not a single person even spoke against the school budget because everyone was so shocked by what had just happened.
Just like if I sat on the BOS I wouldn't have even seconded Mr. Bennett's motion! I don't understand why Mr. Robinson seconded the motion in the first place. I am glad he spoke up, but why second it just to argue against it?!
Your comments further show that the BOS and Advisory Board are not grapsing the issue - people were not outraged because what happened hurt the school budget, they were outraged because yet again a motion was drastically changed at the last minute. The BOS said they weren't going to do this anymore! I watched the meeting where it was decided hand-outs of the motion would given! If Town Counsel believed a source of funding was necessary, why did he not raise this issue when he reviewed it over a month ago and avoid the outrage to begin with?
Adding the override contingency made it MORE likely the budget would pass, because it meant no cuts in public services. Why would the BOS do that? While the override has failed twice, the situation is a little different now - the BOS has acknowledged an override (albeit a reduced one) will be necessary.
And you are correct - the highest authority is the voters. So when they vote UNANIMOUSLY to remove the override contingency the BOS snuck in, LISTEN TO THEM!!
The Adivsory Board was asked for an opinion on the original motion (override version) from the floor. Is it not their duty to "advise" especially when directly asked for one at a town meeting? They took a vote in an open meeting. I do not think there is a violation of OML in this case. As far as a 48 hr notice to a vote, they did vote on the warning in an open meeting. Since the actual motion was presented at town meeting in which the funding was different, I would think that would come under the definition of "emergency" even if the fact that the vote already occurred at an open meeting.
DeleteYou did not answer my question whether or not anyone on stage was acting out of malice, illegally, or any other reason besides trying to do the best they could and by the rules. It does matter what their intentions are. The complaints against them portray wrongdoing and I would really like to understand what these wrongdoings exactly are. How are we all going to work together to find solutions to these tough issues if we do not clearly state what the errors are and then work to correct them moving forward? Mr. Robinson pretty much had to second the motion as if no action on motion was made, the meeting would have adjourned and the school would have gotten their money automatically. As a selectman, I'm assuming he knew he couldn't do that as it wouldn't have been fair to the whole town. It would have made the school budget supporters happy. But he is trying to be fair to all. Just like the other 3 selectmen.
I am not shocked at anything that occurred at that meeting. All sorts of crazy things have happened and do happen. Substitute motions are a key tool in participating in town meetings. I totally agree it was very confusing. I find all municipal government totally confusing. I"m trying to understand and follow it all just like everyone else. I can tell you that when I heard the original override article read, my first thought was that it possibly could be a way that the school budget would have hope of passing a third time at the polls if enough people who wanted it to pass went and voted. If the school budget passed Fri night, the town would have to hold another ballot override vote anyway in order to maintain essential town services. But, another town meeting would have needed to be held in order to send the override to the polls. By inserting the override aspect on Fri night, is it possible that it could have sped up the resolution? I don't know if I'm right or not. Maybe someone more intelligent than me can chime in. I just don't see that inserting the override by the BOS was done as bad form. If it was, I would be the first in line to complain. I just didn't see it. I also don't see what the Advisory Board did wrong either. I don't see how some can blame Mr. Ritter or Ms. Farrell for the no vote either. What is their proof? What would be their motive? In my opinion, I value Ms. Farrell's opinion on this issue as she is uniquely involved on both sides of the issue. She can voice a viewpoint as a municipal official who's duty is to protect the town as best as possible. On the other hand, she is a school employee (not at NRSD) in a district who is also going through a budget battle and possibly could be laid off due to cuts. There aren't many out there in the public eye that can speak from both vantage points like that. To me, it just seems like searching for a scapegoat when really the frustration should be on the majority of voters who voted down the override twice and voted down the budget a third time at Friday's meeting. Obviously, people's minds aren't being changed and I do not feel it is the Advisory Board or BOS's fault. I really can't afford an increase in taxes, but I do support a raise of them in an override. Our taxes are too low for sure! Isn't that the real problem here?
Some time in the future it may become clear an article and a motion are two different items. We are now going to have a meet and discussion that we as a town should have had a long time ago. My observation is with the number of students at NRHS is about 1000. Conservatively that should equal 500 parents and if parents are concerned with keeping a good school district running, why were there not at least 500 yes votes for the motion, either what was read or amended? As an observation it almost seems like the parents do not wish to increase their taxes. Just my puzzlement factor. My other puzzlement item is where people come up with $7,000.00 per month for legal when the expense paperwork show $52,000.00 was spent on town counsel from the town budget. Averaged out that is around $4300.00. Any land work done on Baldwinville Road was paid out of chapter 90 (road funds) and the sewer Reppuci law suit was paid out of sewer dept. funds. Either way there is a joint meeting of the NRHS school committee and the BOS on Wednesday, July 31, 2013, which I hope is the start of many to come.
ReplyDeleteFor the 10,000 time, people understand that the warrant and motion are different and do not have to be the same. It was stated at everyone of the last 3 ATMs/STMS and the BOS even held an agenda'ed discussion on the topic two months ago. What they don't get is why a BOS claiming to be transparent would not inform the voters fully when town counsel reviewed the article a month ago and must have known this would be added.
ReplyDeleteThe point is, why would the town pay him even $7.00 a month if his "advice" is inacurrate (start of 45 day period - led to both the BOS voting to break town bylaws and an OML complaint being filed against the BOS) or counter-productive (adding a contingency that was voted down almost 400-0, totally distracted the voters and caused us, the town, to lose what little trust we had for the BOS.
Is it true that the ACTUAL certified amount was never voted on? Thereby approveing it by default?
ReplyDeleteActually my point is some people are blogging that town counsel is paid $7000.00 a month and that is simply not true! As I look over a handout from the Narragansett regional school district concerning Templeton town meeting on July 26, 2013: Question: Why is the school district asking for a $691,086.00 override when the budget only increased the amount of $358,151.00? Seems as the school district itself was stating they were asking for an override and not simply a budget number at this meeting. It also has in one column OVERRIDE and underneath is has Templeton $691,086.00 and Phillipston $151.113.00. Now since Phillipston defeated its override but funded the increase from a transfer from free cash, why would someone hand out information for voters to have to base a decision on when, in my opinion, it is misleading? The joint meeting on Wednesday and the one to follow will (hopeful) fix this. My question to state rep Andrews today will be "when will the state legislature hold school assessments to the same standard as the towns"?
ReplyDeleteJeff, I tend to agree with you and respect your opinion but here I respectfully disagree. It was clear to everyone watching the meeting that the override was put in by the BOS or other party on stage. However, I’m not even sure the people on stage stood together on this one. The school committee chair tried to remove that piece of the article to have us vote just on the amount presented. Perhaps, I am misunderstanding your statement and you mean, as you stated before, that the money needs to come from somewhere so it would have benefitted them to present it this way? I just think that the BOS needs to move forward. If it was a mistake, then admit it. We’ve all cooled down and you’ve explained the reasoning behind the override addition, albeit unexpected to us, you felt it necessary. These things happen. You will far quicker gain respect back by admitting it than trying to backpedal and place blame on others.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCan you clearly spell out what was illegal? I'm not trying to be combative, I want to learn what errors were made so we all know how to handle them in the future. I'm curious why you wouldn't ask other town officials and instead of asking Gardner officials. Aren't there different rules for city and for town?
DeleteSo, what are your suggestions to bring the town back together? When will that conversation begin? I have several ideas. But I am afraid of sharing them as people are so emotionally charged right now, I may get laughed at. If residents choose to be divided then the town will remain divided. I do not think anyone is against the school or the kids. So is the divide in how to run the town? If so, please spell out what is wrong and how to fix it. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
I was hoping Julie was going to be at tonight's meeting to go over these things. I see interesting things happening on this blog Templetonian! Thank you for giving me the positive puzzle piece! :)
DeleteI believe you are correct Bob. Templetonian also encourages the ceasing of “put downs” in an earlier post and Mr. Bennett states “this blog has become almost counter- productive in that it has become less of a place for factual information and more like a cable op ed show...”. We use it as a place to vent our frustrations and less of a place to gather information as I believe was intended. Is this correct Pauly? Perhaps it is time for our selectmen and women to go back to the days of holding some sort of office hours. Maybe we need more one on one contact as people tend to control themselves more face to face. Please don’t jump on me for making this suggestion as I am not trying to make waves, it is an honest suggestion, I have posted here too. Reading some of these posts it seems that there is so much patronizing sarcasm that it borders on cyberbullying and none of us want to end up getting sued for libel. It is great to talk things out but as Templetonian suggests, maybe there are other ways to start to bring the town together?
ReplyDeleteI like the idea of office hours. I hope we can implement them.
ReplyDelete