Separating fact from fiction in Templeton

Separating fact from fiction in Templeton

To The Editor:
Jeffrey Bennett
Templeton

To The Editor:

Templeton Water Department retains Tighe & Bond to complete a water rate study. Tighe & Bond publishes a Massachusetts water rate survey in 2012. It states: annual costs of $801 at $8.90/1000 gallons. No separate business or seasonal rate, no elderly, low income or early payment discounts.

I suggest John Driscoll and the commissioners research the work a firm has done and published before hiring them or commenting on their work. The water rate study available on website of Templeton Water shows high salary requirements and high debt, along with building rent of $34,965 paid to Templeton Light thru 2010.

Statement of bond scheduled payoff dates; $3.8 million by 2023, $2.3 million by 2027 and $332,000 by 2044 with no cash reserves. This may have been voted in at Town Meeting, but someone had to bring it forward, present it and sell it to taxpayers. Selectmen also have to vote to put articles on town meeting warrant.

Records show Gerald Skelton was in charge at Templeton Light during the merge of Light & Water that also saw salary increases, which is available in annual town reports. I support the undoing of the acts of 2000 so as to put water and sewer together, where in my opinion, it belongs. This would give sewer leverage to collect past due sewer bills. I do not support selectmen being in charge of water as history shows it a bad idea. If undoing one process to make another process happen means the selectmen take charge of water, I hope it is very limited and of short duration.


In the Jan. 6 Letter To The Editor, it states two longest serving selectmen should resign. It also writes of concern on citizen petitions, number written and signed and brought forward by friends but he had no problem signing two and speaking on them.

One was illegal as written with it being reworded by Town Counsel on town floor so it would be legal as read. The other contained false information (article 5) concerning $1.9 million dollar appropriation as voted and authorized at the 2006 Annual Town Meeting, article 64. The 2006 annual town report shows only 61 articles presented. That appropriation and vote on article 64 was on the warrant of the 2010 town meeting.

Records show Robert Columbus as clerk of the Board of Selectmen in 2006 and a member in 2010 with Gerald Skelton, chairman of the board. Both individuals spoke in favor of article 5 at Special Town Meeting on October 23, 2013. Did Mr. Columbus fact check the petition prior to signing or speaking on it? How can voters trust any further information concerning this matter after being presented with a lie?

Perhaps less concern with the number of petitions and who brings them forward and more concern with the content would be a better approach. If the same subject is brought forward by petition many times, perhaps it deserves discussion outside of Town Meeting.

The letter writes about the mentality that put Templeton in its present predicament, but fails explain his actions and perhaps those of his candidate versed in municipal finance that resulted using all of Templeton’s surplus funds to set the tax rate and keep said tax rate artificially low. Page 171, 2006 annual Town report, article 61; to see if the town will appropriate from available funds in the treasury, a sum of money to be used by the Board of Assessors in fixing the tax rate to meet appropriations for Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2007. Motion duly made and seconded, town voted to appropriate from free cash in the Treasury, sum of $784,151, used by the assessors to fix tax rate.

The town may have voted for this article, but all articles for town meeting are voted and placed on warrant by selectmen. Why did Mr. Columbus and his “candidate versed in finance” vote to put this article on and put it last? What happens if it failed? Why were similarly worded articles for other years always put last?

It appears Mr. Columbus had a part in artificially keeping the tax rate in Templeton low over the years yet now questions how and why Templeton is in its current predicament.

As for vendettas, the recall and the fiasco that followed — hiring & firing of law firm in the middle of a month, dismissal of Town Coordinator Jeffery Ritter and rehire of former coordinator Carol Skelton for a total cost to taxpayers of $20,000. Skelton left when the money ran out, Mr. Columbus was not reelected, Virginia Wilder resigned, Patrick Mullins left after his term was over, Julie Farrell was reelected and Mr. Ritter came back. Thank you to Robert Columbus for moving Templeton forward towards good transparent governance.

I would also like to thank Andres Caamano for his wonderful last parting piece in The Gardner News. Of all the things he could have written about, he chose to take a pot shot at Mr. Ritter and toss out yet another conspiracy theory.

I wish Mr. Caamano had written about the seven communities in the state that put an override to the voters this past fall, with only Templeton passing one. I wish he had written about the failed overrides which largely concerned education, specifically regional school funding.

Andres could have written on this most important topic, which seems to consistently pit voters and school committees against each other. This most important funding issue could have made for a great last column, but he chose to give us one more conspiracy theory and that is too bad.

Jeffrey Bennett
Templeton