Great Barrington — This is how far the climate for public discourse has declined in our sometimes cranky small town bubble: At the March 24 Finance Committee hearing on the fiscal year 2016 budget, one of the more penetrating observations came from David Magadini, resident preacher of process, a stickler for the minutiae of democracy, and perennial candidate for Moderator: “If everyone who needs to be here is here, why do we have the [TV] camera?”
Magadini’s statement had nothing to do with the proposed fiscal year 2016 budget, itself. It had everything to do with the fact that so few town residents turned out to speak up about how their money is to be spent, and by the end of the lengthy — and at times acrimonious — session his question still hung in the air of the Town Hall meeting room.
Where was everybody, indeed? For all the kvetching this past year over the expense of town services, taxes, criticism of the town’s fiscal management, as well as snarky hints that the whole thing is bloated and mismanaged — an extension of fat federal and state governments — there has been little or no concrete evidence or advice about how, specifically, town expenses could be reduced — other than vague talk of privatization of services and other shoulds.
My late father-in-law had a schoolteacher who used to sing, to the tune of Handel’s Hallelujah chorus, “Be specific! Be specific!” Now we have Selectboard member Ed Abrahams wearing us out with the same chant. “Tell me where you would make cuts [to the budget]. Be specific! Be specific!”
Okay, okay already.
But real questions need to be asked about town spending, by people at the mike, as Magadini insisted. Yet last night’s Finance Committee hearing was packed mostly with town workers, officials and volunteers who uttered not a peep but were present to explain their department budgets, if called on.
Resident Charles Williamson came to say he hoped people would come to Town Meeting to vote down the school budget because of this year’s 7 percent increase and school choice issues. “That’s my only complaint about this [town] budget.”
But he was too late for that; the school budget hearing was held last month.
Apart from Williamson, a handful of residents came to speak about their concerns or questions, which often came off as vague, veiled criticism, insinuations, even within what might otherwise be regarded as valid suggestions.
Selectboard candidate Karen Christensen asked whether the town’s budget reports provide “us with sufficient management tools” for people to understand them, because “a high percentage of the town’s expenses are not allocated according to department and function, and that steps are being taken to do that.”
Here she was echoing Finance Committee Chair Sharon Gregory’s requests of Town Manager Jennifer Tabakin. Gregory said that Tabakin had, indeed, made steps towards adding the attendant expenses for departments with a special report handed out at the first budget meeting, but that it “didn’t include health care costs, retirement plans and such.” Gregory said she wanted a “better allocation by type of service,” noting that “three-quarters of the expenses are not allocated from a management perspective. In the books, they are.” Gregory is worried that true costs of, say, hiring a new employee within a department, will be understated without attaching health care costs, for instance.
Buttons have grown tender from so much pushing.
“I do have a problem with anyone questioning the validity and accuracy of our numbers,” Tabakin observed, in an uncharacteristic retort. “We are meticulous, we have the highest credit rating that is enviable to any town. I strongly object to any incorrect implication about the accuracy of the numbers.
“I will take any policy direction from any board, any directions in terms of staffing and priorities, however…we’re following what we’re required to do from the Department of Revenue, which is not a private sector business, and we are also offering open books, full transparency to be able to roll up numbers in any way you wish to sort the data.
“We’ve put a tremendous amount of work into it…I believe very strongly in transparent government and accurate numbers…work which is reflected in the very, very, very solid position of Great Barrington.”
Finally, she noted, “I feel like I have a right to object to any implications that anything here is not allocated or that there’s missing data. Absolutely not. We have the top standards here.”
There was no suggestion of “impropriety or mismanagement,” Gregory said, but she wanted reports to “reflect the costs of services.” Gregory then went on to explain to Christensen at length the allocation method and what she sees as missing.
“I wouldn’t say we are unable to determine what the true costs are,” interjected Finance Committee member Michael Wise. “Numbers will answer questions when you ask the right questions.” He said Tabakin’s report was a “good first step” but he would have “preferred to see the allocated capital costs more correctly.” He said the way it was done was probably enough to get “close enough” given the small size of the town.
“More data is always better in a sense,” Wise added. “But I don’t share the view that somehow we don’t have it and that we don’t have access to what we need.”
“I run a business and every time we pay a bill it gets allocated,” Christensen said. “It’s incomprehensible to me.”
That’s because the Department of Revenue requires municipalities to report differently than private businesses. Wise has said that “we maybe should think like a business sometimes,” though he has also said the standard reporting procedure the town uses is “accurate enough to make the kinds of decisions we have to make.”
Finance Committee member Leigh Davis, however, jumped in and addressed Christensen, wanting to know, “specifically…is there a specific department that you’re looking into?”
Christensen responded that her questions were “general.”
“This seems almost like a private conversation,” Davis said of the discussion between Gregory and Christensen, and further questioned Christensen’s motives, “because I haven’t seen you at budget meetings up until this point.”
Resident Dana Dapolito, in a demeanor indicating that she was not impressed by the town’s handling of her tax dollars, or much else, was specific, asking what the town was doing about the mothballed Housatonic School, for which the town will be issuing an RFP this spring, and aggressively marketing, according to Tabakin.
“Aren’t we paying rent for some offices somewhere?” Dapolito said.
That would be the Castle Street Fire House, where the Building and Health Department offices currently reside, Tabakin said. Town equipment will likely be out in the fall.
Dapolito didn’t think the town should be paying rent anywhere while it owns an empty building. Tabakin agreed, and explained that the issue was in flux since the Fire House owner has hinted that he may want the town completely out of the building come fall. Town employees, she said, will not be heading for the school, however.
Resident Anthony Dapolito was specific, too. He wanted to know if a capital improvement fund had been considered to “level out” those costs. Tabakin said she thought it was a “great idea.”
On another subject, Dapolito said he didn’t “understand this principle of rolling forward the free cash. Why not face the reality of each year’s taxes?”
Tabakin explained that billing in excess for the following year avoids borrowing costs and is looked on favorably by credit agencies, giving the town a high rating and lower interest rates, and noting that it has been the policy of both boards for years. “This has worked very well,” she said. Finance Committee member Thomas Blauvelt agreed.
Of raising this excess cash, Dapolito said, “if I were a credit agency I’d give you a high rating, too.” He further said this was a way of “leveling” or “adjusting” the tax rate. “I’d like to know what the real tax rate is every year.”
Town Accountant Lauren Sartori said that free cash is a way to avoid the expense of borrowing, and gives the town a higher bond rating. The method is recommended by Standard & Poor.
“If I were Standard and Poor, I would have you manipulate the tax rate the same way,” Dapolito said, raising a question mark as to whether the town should trust Standard & Poor.
Wise said this issue has been examined by the committee, and that the current method of handling free cash “works pretty well.”
Resident Patrick Fennell wondered why the town didn’t change attorneys. “The fingerprints of this budget, a lot of mistakes have cost us money through town counsel.” Which mistakes, he did not specify.
Resident Vivian Orlowski said how much she appreciated all the hard work that went into this budget, and that it should be recognized. Did we hear praise? The clock even stopped. “I just wanted to thank everyone for putting [this budget] together,” she said. “You’re doing a good job.”
But then she qualified her compliment: “But let’s look for ways we can do it even better in the future.”
