Conference 7.286::maynard

    I'm a current member of the Fincom.
    
    Some of the articles on the warrant do not have a dollar amount
    associated with them and will not be voted on by the Fincom until
    the dollar amounts are finalized (right before T.M.).  How an article
    is acted upon (whether it is withdrawn or not) is up to the sponsoring
    board or committee.
    
    Explanations or comments on any articles are made by the sponsoring
    boards, usually at T.M. right at the beginning of the discussion
    of the article.  If people still have questions they need to be
    asked on the T.M. floor.
    
    Any other questions, just ask.
    
    Bill

    thanks for the information. my concern wasn't with the dollar amount (I
    understand that that's not always clear until right at TM). instead, I
    would like to see some information in the Comments section that each
    article has. It's usually empty, but is a great help when it's filled
    in.
    
    can you require the sponsoring boards to put in at least a sentence or
    two in that section? it would be really helpful to the average citizen
    to have at least some understanding of what a particular article is
    for. some of them are probably important, but not at all clear in their
    intent.

    					-- hs 

    Hal, the  "COMMENTS:" section in the warrant is for the FinCom.
    
    Frank

    well, someone should put some information in there. people *should* go
    to meetings to find out what all the articles mean, but it's not going
    to happen, and how many people can fit at a fincom meeting anyway?
    
    my point was that if we want to get people involved, we have to let
    them know what's going on. why not cablecast meetings so townspeople
    can watch them at home? why not put more information in the warrant so
    people can understand what's going on a little more? (there is more
    information in them than even 5 years ago, which is great, but there's
    still more that could be added.) why not have a column in the beacon
    listing what will be discussed (or was discussed) at regular board
    meetings so we can find out without having to attend each meeting? (I'm
    sure the beacon would go for it -- they tried having town-based columns
    last year, but they seemed to fail for lack of information. here's
    information begging to be disseminated.)

    there are lots of possibilities. people have to get involved, or the
    town will simply fall apart -- the cuts we're facing are pretty
    devastating, but it can get worse if no one cares. people aren't going
    to take much initiative on their own, so the information has to get out
    to them.

    					-- hs 

    Last Tuesday evening the Fincom held their open forum to discuss
    the Town Warrant and answer any questions around the recommended
    budget or the articles.  Approximately 20 people showed up, mostly
    people from other Boards or Committees, and this was an increase
    in attendance over last year when we had approximately 5 people.

    Hal, your concerns are valid and I've been waiting for others to 
    offer their opinions......
    
    Here are mine:
    
    From an historical perspective, understand that the document you 
    received last week is actually a combination of two legal requirements:  
    
    The town is required to "post" a Warrant of the town meeting articles.  
    This is the responsibility of the Constables.  See page one of the 
    Warrant:
    
    
                   COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
                          MIDDLESEX, SS.	
    
                        ANNUAL TOWN MEETING
    
    	To either of the Constables of the Town of Maynard, in said
    County,
    
                            GREETING:
    
    In the name of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts you are hereby 
    directed to notify and warn the voters of said Maynard, to 
    assemble in MAYNARD HIGH SCHOOL AUDITORIUM, off Great Road in
    Said Town, on Monday, May 21, 1990 next, at 7:30 P.M. then there
    to act on the following articles:............. 
    
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    In the old days, the Constables would post the Warrant in one or
    more public places in town (which, by the way, is still done).
    
    In parallel, the Finance Committee is required by law to provide 
    its' recommendations to the voters prior to town meeting.
    
    Through evolution, these two requirements have been combined into
    what you today receive prior to town meeting.
    
    Today's process includes a pre-town meeting forum to discuss to 
    Articles and the FinCom recommendations, but, as Bill Pratt has 
    pointed out, this is not working today.   This is obviously a weak 
    link in the process.  If it were publicized, and maybe cablecast,
    some of the mystery of the Warrant could be reduced.
    
    I will discuss your concerns with the Charter Commission.  I'm
    not at all sure if we can legally allow for comments from the
    party submitting an Article to be part of the Warrant/FinCom
    Report, but I agree that some Articles, such as Article 15, need
    some explanation:
    
    "To see if the Town will vote to accept the provisions of Section
    40 Chapter 653 of the Acts of 1989 regarding assessment date changes
    for new growth, or take any action related thereto."
    
    I happen to know what that means, but I'll bet most voters haven't
    got a clue.  Is Town Meeting the place to explain this?
    
    Again, your concerns are noted, and I'll address them at a future
    Charter Commission meeting to see if we can refine the process.
    
    By the way, the Charter Commission has been discussing holding a 
    series of "Town Government 101" seminars to help explain town
    government.   Any interest?
    
    Frank
    
                                                        

    We {the fincom} are working on inproving the warrent. It is difficult
    to write a comment for every article. We have in the pass written our
    reason for why we voted for or against the article. As far as
    a short comment we whould have to go to each dept. and askes them to do
    this. It is hard enough to get information on why they need these
    article. Another reason it cost the more pages the warrent is the more
    it cost the town to print it.
    
    
    The Fincom had an meeting last Tuesday to go over the warrent with
    the town peoples very very few showed up.
    
    In fact noone come to fincom meetings.
    
    We will try next year to but more comments with each article and also
    try to get comments for the depts on there articles.
    
    A Fincom Member.

    Some results:
    	
        	YES	NO
    Article 2:  775     142
    Article 3:  withdrawn
       "    4:  700     244 (School override)
       "    5:  683     147 (Reserve Fund)
       "    6:  withdrawn
       "    7:  withdrawn
       "    8:  withdrawn
       "    9:  withdrawn
       "   10:  unanimous yes
       "   11:  withdrawn
       "   12:  withdrawn
       "   13:  unanimous yes
       "   14:  673	120
       "   15:  majority yes
       "   16: withdrawn
       "   17: withdrawn
       "   18: withdrawn
       "   19: majority yes
       "   20: withdrawn
       "   21: majority yes
       "   22: majority yes
       "   23: majority yes
       "   24: I didn't stay for results of secret ballot
       "   25: 440 	305  (continuation of regionalization study)
       "   26: withdrawn
       "   27: I didn't stay for the results of this one either
    
    					Steve

>       "   24: I didn't stay for results of secret ballot

    it was 335 yes, 31 no -- the select board gets control of the roosevelt
    school.

>       "   27: I didn't stay for the results of this one either

    the sign by-law article was withdrawn after it turned out that signs
    for yard sales, scouting events and the community chest would be
    outlawed (although there would be a 5-year interim period).

    This was a good TM. There were well over 900 voters, and some good
    discussion. At least one article (27) was defeated (withdrawn actually)
    due to questions and comments by people in the audience. 
    
    There were good presentations by PRIDE and the Regionalization
    Committee. Both groups did their homework and presented their sides
    well. 
    
    I hope all the people who came for the first time will stay involved. 

    I'm a relatively new Maynardite (Aug. '88) and this was my first
    town meeting. It had the usual fits and starts, and some
    misccomunication between the main room and the gym, where I was.
    But overall, I think it was well run. When you see what's going
    on in China, Lithuania, etc. it seems more important that here were
    about 1,000 voting on how their local government will operate and
    spend money. Beneath the amateurishness (and most of the officers
    are amateurs who are volunteering) it's very impressive.
    
    I'm glad the school override passed, although all it does is keep
    the school system at its current, under-funded level.
    
    I was impressed by the answer that (X) Gianotis gave to the question
    about Blue Cross/ Blue Shield increases. He was well-informed, concise,
    and interesting. It was really like a short lecture on funding
    municipal employee health care. 
    
    I'll go again.

    Here are the results of the Special Town Meeting held tonight 
    (Tuesday).  Since many do not know what the Articles were, I'll
    try to summarize each as best I can.  Remember that the Special
    Town Meeting deals with this years expenses, not FY91.  The 
    intent of the Special Town is mainly to take money out of one 
    bucket to pay bills incurred in another bucket.  Since we approve
    our yearly budgets by line item at town meeting, a town meeting
    vote is required to move money from one approved line item to
    cover another expense.
    
    Article 1:  Voted- 125 yes, 9 no, to transfer $200,000. from Free
    Cash to the Blue Cross/Blue Shield budget.
    
    The Finance Committee explained that $203,000 was certified by the
    State as free cash.
    
    Article 2: Voted by a show of hands to transfer $2600. from the 
    Selectmen's FY90 Salary Account to cover Town Building expenses.
    
    The Town Building account has no money left to cover electric
    bills for the rest of the year.
    
    Article 3:  Vote 110 yes, 5 no, to pay an FY89 bill from free 
    cash to cover expenses incurred by Preservation Partnership.
    
    The explanantion was that the firm hired for the re-use of the
    Coolidge and Roosevelt had to re-do their plans when the Coolidge
    was shot down as a Police Dept. site.  This required a 9/10 vote
    since it was an unapproved expense from a previous year.
    
    Article 4: Voted by a show of hands (or maybe we stood up) to
    transfer $64,250 from 15 different departments to fund the Police
    Department salaries for the rest of this fiscal year.
    
    Chief Tibbetts explained that this would keep the Police Department
    in operation.
    
    Article 5:  Voted by a show of hands to transfer $7130.08 from 
    Article 18 of the 1988 Town meeting to the School Department Expense
    fund.
    
    The money was appropriated to build a handicap elevator in the Fowler
    School and the $7 K was left over after construction.  The money will
    be used for SPED expenses, etc.
    
    Article 6 was for a transfer of FY90 DPW Salary money to DPW expenses
    and was withdrawn.
    
    Articles 7, 10 and 11 were combined under a procedure called the
    "Consent Calendar" which allows like articles to be combined.  For
    reference see Chapter 1, section 13A of the Town By-Laws.
    
    These three articles all dealt with street lighting expenses which
    were underfunded in the present budget.  Money transferred were 
    from the FY90 DPW Salary Account ($20,000), the DPW Outlay Account
    ($9,954) and Article 25 of the 1988 Town meeting -DPW roof repairs
    completed under budget-(13,223.20).
    
    These all passed on a show of hands.
    
    Article 8 was withdrawn by the DPW.  It was to transfer money from
    the Summer Street Construction (Article 3, 1982 Town Meeting) to
    be used for sludge disposal costs.
    
    Article 9 was voted by a show of hands.  It transferred $20,000
    from Article 2 of the 1989 Special Town Meeting, intended for 
    redevelopment of Well #2 off Great Road, to be used for the 
    redevelopment of Well #3 off Old Marlboro Road. 
    
    The DPW explained that Well #3 is more critical to the Town and 
    has recently shown signs of failing.  
    
    Article 12 was voted by a show of hands.  The DPW requested a 
    transfer of funds approved in Article 3 of the 1982 Special Town
    Meeting for Summer Street construction to be used for Parker Street
    construction.
    
    This article produced a lot of questions about how long money could
    be retained without being spent.  For the record, Chapter 2, section
    9 of the Town By-Laws states:
    
    "Any unexpended balance of an appropriation made for a specific
    purpose, except proceeds from bonds or notes, shall be transferred 
    to surplus revenue at the expiration of two (2) years from the date
    of the availability of such appropriation, unless such balance is
    earlier transferred to surplus revenue upon receipt of a statement
    that the specific purpose has been accomplished and that no
    liabilities remain, or such balance is earlier transferred to 
    another use authorized by the Town Meeting vote, or a date otherwise
    specified in the original vote.  The provision shall be applicable
    to appropriations voted commencing with the Annual Town Meeting of 
    1976."
    
    The sum transferred was $45,543.
    
    Article 13 was withdrawn.  It asked that the town stop delivering 
    the Town Meeting Warrant to each household.
    
    Article 14: was voted by a show of hands.  It transferred $3000.
    from the FY90 Police and Fire Outlay Account to the Police and 
    Fire Station Expense Account.
    
    Chief Cassidy explained that money was to pay the electric and 
    phone bills for the rest of the fiscal year. 
    
    Articles 15 and 16 were both approved by a show of hands.  They
    authorized the town to dispatching service for the Town of Stow,
    and to allow the Town to create "offset expense" accounts.  
    
    The offset expense account is the acceptence of General Law which
    allows the Town to use fees and receipts to offset expenses.
    
    Article 17: was voted by a show of hands.  This requires sprinklers
    in new and/or substantially rehabilitated multiple dwelling units.
    
    There is more language to this than I care to type, but Chief Cassidy
    summed it up quite nicely that if we are to continue to provide fire
    fighting service with level or reduced funding, the Town must take
    steps to require fire avoidance or reduction protection.
    
    I'm sure I haven't done justice to some of the Articles or the 
    discussions, but I did my best.
    
    The meeting closed at about 9:00.
    
    Frank 

    The really interesting about last night's TM was how much money is
    squirreled away in old accounts. 
    
    The 1982 account that the DPW has is a good example of what could
    happen (I'm not making any accusations here): a department could have a
    little extra money and do $1 worth of work each year for quite awhile
    until they have a need for the remainder. in the meantime, we're
    cutting teachers, cops and firefighters. 

    it's certainly legal, but it's weird at best.

    At lease they knew they had this money the school didn't know until the
    Fincom told them that they had the $7000 that they can use at the
    special.  Ask any school committee member if she or he sign the warrent
    each week. I bet you get a NO for a answer. They don't know where
    "half" the money goes to.

    Regarding .12:  Hal, the same uneasy thought struck me as I 
    witnessed departments pull money out of old cigar boxes last
    night to fund new projects.  I, too, wonder just how many more
    accounts are sitting there idle, that could be used??
    
    The problem as I see it relates directly to the autonomous "fiefdoms"
    currently existing in town government.  The Charter Commission will
    make recommendations to knock down these walls.  The voters will
    decide next May if our recommendations will be implemented......
    
    Frank

    Re: .13:  Art, you have touched on a subject near and dear to my 
    heart.  The fact that the School Committee didn't know that they had 
    $7k in the Fowler Elevator Account is but one example of the 
    disconnect among the various town agencies and officials.
    
    If you were to design a process that would eliminate this confusion,
    what would it look like?  As you know, the Charter Commission can
    write a process into the new Town Charter which would eliminate 
    the present "I know something you don't know" mentality that results
    in "gotchas" during Budget preparations and Town Meetings.  
    
    
    Frank
    

    re: .15:
>    The fact that the School Committee didn't know that they had 
>    $7k in the Fowler Elevator Account is but one example of the 
>    disconnect among the various town agencies and officials.
    
    No, I'm afraid I have to agree with Art Filz on this one.  The school's
    $7K in the Fowler Elevator Account is not the responsibility of
    anyone other than the members of the School Committee.  It's their
    job to manage this money.  I don't see it as "disconnect among the
    various town agencies".  Which other town agency would that be?
    
>    If you were to design a process that would eliminate this confusion,
>    what would it look like?  
    
    Once a month each committee gets a page from the town accountant which
    details all this.  It's called the "Monthly Balance Statement".  Every
    month.  The process is there, Frank, it's just a matter of what the
    individual board or committee is interested in doing.
    
    -Steve

Now that the Town Meeting is over for this year, I was wondering if anyone can
make a quess as to how the final budget, etc. will translate into a tax rate?

.14>    Regarding .12:  Hal, the same uneasy thought struck me as I 

    the other thing that bothered me (I forgot to include this in the
    previous note) is that the DPW came in for money to pay the lighting
    bill for the rest of the year. I asked, and they said that they *knew*
    they'd run into a deficit because of level funding, so they just
    requested less than they knew they'd need.

    now, what's the point of that? they're obeying the letter of the law,
    by submitting a level-funded budget and completely ignoring the spirit
    of it by *knowing* that they're going to overspend. taken all together,
    they didn't really submit a level budget request, they asked for (and
    got!) extra money.

    I'm not saying that the roads should be dark, and I'm not specifically
    picking on the DPW. I just think that that process stinks. I don't know
    what the solution to all this is, but there certainly are lots of
    problems!

    					-- hs 

    >.17
    	Quick guess it will go up approx. $1.25/$1000. Value of homes will
    stay the same as this year.

    Regarding .16:
    
    Steve, NEVER be afraid to agree with Arthur Filz!!! 
    
    Are you saying that every month each town department gets a current
    status of all the balances in all the encumbered funds from Town
    Meeting articles??  If so, then you are correct in that the School
    Department should have known that they had $7K left in an account
    from Article 18 of the May 16, 1988 Town Meeting.  It should then
    be easy to get a report on all other unspent money in approriated
    accounts within the town.  I'd like to see this.    
    
    If you're talking about the hand written ledger sheet that the Town 
    Accountant sends out each month detailing actuals to budget for the 
    CURRENT year, I certainly agree that each department MUST manage to
    it's budget, much like I do with the cost centers that I manage in
    Digital every day of my life.
    
    My point about the disconnect was based on the sad scene at a Town
    Forum, when the School Committee stated that they did not have the
    money to keep the Coolidge Building open for the rest of the year.
    The Finance Committee reminded them that they had the $7K in the
    Elevator fund that could be transferred.  Again, if the Town Accountant
    report tells the School Committee each month that the money is there,
    which is what I think you are saying, then shame on the School 
    Committee.  If there is no status report on these old appropriations,
    then there IS a disconnect and a report should be written.  
    
    Regardless of the condition of Parker Street and the need to have
    it resurfaced, I am astonished that $45K was left sitting around
    for EIGHT years in the Summer Street Construction account, while
    public safety and education and the rest of town government spent
    hours and hours trying to balance the budget.  I am scared to think
    of what other money is tied up in similar accounts.....
    
    Frank
    
    
    

    At the T.M. it was stated that an article stays open if a) it is
    still active (is being spent against) and b) if the department requests
    that it remain open.  The DPW Summer St. article was still "active".
    
    In FY'89 there was a balance of $51,240.92 and they spent $1,542.92
    for the year.  In FY'90 the beginning balance was $49,698.00 and
    they spent $4,151.97 for the year (my figures are through March).
    The last time this account was spent against was October ($3.990.00).
    
    The School article of $7K IS listed on the monthly sheet the Town
    Accountant sends out and it was listed as "Art 18 Handicap Access".
    I need to check into this a little further as to when the dollars
    were spent.

    Bill, don't go to the bother of digging out more info for my sake.  
    
    As long as the accounts are being tracked, and your note tells me
    that they are, and that somebody knows how much money is each bucket,
    I'm satisfied.  My only fear was that if each Department had to track
    the status of each article without a central focus, and there was a 
    turnover in some Departments, there's a chance that after a few years
    the knowledge of a balance could fall through the proverbial cracks.  
    Your note tells me that there is a central tracking system, which is 
    what I had hoped someone would say.  Thanks!
    
    By the way, I understood that the DPW had been keeping the Summer 
    Street Account open by keeping it active.  Walter Sokolowski made
    that clear.  When two years go by with no activity, however, a 
    department cannot request that the account be kept open.  The 
    unexpended funds go to the Surplus Account with no option.  The 
    central tracking system should be fair enough warning to any  
    department on the status of their appropriations.  
    
    I think I've got this straight now.
    
    Frank