Let’s Hear It for Underrides!

CLT UPDATE
Wednesday, February 10, 2016

Let’s Hear It for Underrides!
An After-Action Report by Chip Faulkner

There I was yesterday appearing before the Joint Committee on Revenue at the Statehouse for the second time in three weeks.  I had been dropped off at the South Attleboro T station that morning to take commuter rail into Boston.  To my amazement the train was right on time delivering me to South Station at 12:25 ― just like the schedule said!  All this after a snowstorm the day before!

The reason for my appearance at the 1:00 hearing was to testify in favor of a CLT-filed bill, Senate 1552 which would limit Prop 2½ override elections and allow an underride in all communities.

There were few bills heard before ours; I was called to testify around 2:30.  The Joint Committee on Revenue has 16 members ― 10 from the House and 6 from the Senate.  However the entire time I was there only five members of the committee showed up for the hearing.  I guess the rest were in New Hampshire stumping for their favorite presidential candidate ― ya think?

I pointed out to committee members that our bill allows a Proposition 2½ underride election to be held if activists collected the signatures of 5% of a city or town’s registered voters.  Under the present law either an override or underride can be put on the local ballot only by a vote of the selectman or city council.  However while thousands of overrides to increase taxes have appeared on the ballot since 1981, very few underrides have.  In fact since 1988 only about a dozen have passed out of the 351 communities in the state according to the state Division of Local Services.  The reason, of course, is because very few boards of selectmen or city councils will vote to possibly decrease taxes by having an underride election in their community.  CLT’s bill corrects this unfair playing field and allows taxpayers a fighting chance to lower taxes.


The other part of our bill allows Prop 2½ overrides to be on the ballot only at a biennial state election.  It also states that the local appropriating authority may direct that not more than three override questions be on the ballot.  The reason for this change was because many times when overrides were defeated, proponents kept putting them right back on the ballot until they were successful.  Some communities would have two or even three override elections in a year!  It consumes a lot of time and energy for activists on both sides of any question ― and communities have to shoulder the needless cost of multiple elections.  Having this type of election once every two years would solve this problem.  This ”biennial” language was actually in the original text of the 1980 Proposition 2½ ballot question.

After finishing my testimony which took 3-4 minutes, I noticed only one or two more people testified on a couple of other bills on the committee's calendar.

I was able to take the 3:30 train out of South Station – secure in the knowledge that the MBTA would deliver me safely to South Attleboro.

    


Chip Faulkner
Director of Communications


Citizens for Limited Taxation  ▪  PO Box 1147  ▪  Marblehead, MA 01945  ▪  508-915-3665