December 8 - January 26 Post-Meeting Lists
I'm not doing too well at maintaining my meeting summaries, but I haven't given up hope yet. One thing that will almost certainly never happen is catching up on past meetings. Each meeting brings with it such a cycle of preparation and follow-up that I have no opportunity to fill in old gaps.
What I can do, which might provide a little interest and insight, is put up my "post-meeting lists." The day after every meeting (since the beginning of December) I send a list to the incomparable Kate Seaman in the office, and to the Select Board and Larry, summarizing my understanding of what we did the night before. This was originally intended as a way to let Kate know what happened as it relates to her work: whether we approved license applications, any requests we made for document postings, any meeting arrangements we need, etc. But I think it has become even more useful as a quick-check way of making sure all the Select Board members are on the same page. If we have different understandings of what we think we agreed to or planned as next-steps, then we need to know that as soon as possible, so that we can bring the issue back for further discussion and clarification at the next meeting. And I find it to be an easy reference for lots of information.
So my copious inAmherst recaps are no more, my attempts at ever-briefer summaries and minutes are more than I can do, and yet, my obsessive chronicling of Select Board meetings continues.
Below are the lists from all the meetings since the last summary. To jump to a specific meeting list, click on the date in the "table of contents" section above.
Approved:
• The three tax classification recommendations as per the draft motions supplied by the Board of Assessors: adopting an equal tax rate for all property classes for FY09, and not granting an open space discount; not adopting a residential exemption for FY09; not adopting a a small commercial exemption for FY09 (all votes: 4-0, 1 absent)
• Renewal of the annual licenses, per the motion sheet, corrected for 2009 dates (vote: 4-0, 1 absent)
• The Live Entertainment license for Michael's Billiards, as per the motion sheet (vote: 4-0, 1 absent)
• SME Policy revision, as per the revisions detailed on the document from our 12/8 meeting packets (vote: 4-0, 1 absent)
• The minutes of the December 1st Select Board meeting, as amended (vote: 4-0, 1 absent)
• The Special Wine and Malt license for UMass, per motion sheet (vote: 3-1, 1 absent)
• The Special Wine and Malt license for
• The Special Wine and Malt license for
Requested
• That the information describing the tax rate impact by tax levy allocation be posted on the web site with the other assessment information: it was agreed that this should happen after the tax rate is finalized
• That there be some mechanism or procedure to ensure that meters are bagged and parking machines are marked appropriately to reflect the SB's approval of holiday parking policy, both for the remainder of this holiday season and in the future (reflecting Alisa's observation that no such markings and notifications were in place for Greeting Card day, 12/6)
Agreed, without votes:
• That Diana, assuming she's available, will bring to the Personnel Board the Select Board's concerns that the employee grievance procedure may need attention, at the PB's 12/15 meeting (per Gerry's e-mail, from our packets)
• With the Town Manager's informal recommendation that the Town web site's request/complaint tracking system be removed until it can better direct and track input
• That Aaron would try to further distill the Select Board budget ideas into policy statements in preparation for the 12/15 meeting, and that he would e-mail them to the SB if they aren't ready in time for the packet deadline, with hard copies to be made available on our desks
• That Stephanie would write and send a letter to
Stan Rosenberg, providing
• That it would be OK for 3 or more SB
members to attend the Master Plan forum, based on info from Cynthia Pepyne as
cited by Alisa
Voted:
• unanimously, per the motion provided, to support the new Common Victualler's license for College Pizza
• unanimously, per the motion provided, to support the license renewal for Stacker's
• unanimously, per the motion provided, to not
exercise right of first refusal (and thus not purchase) the
• 3 in favor, 1 opposed (Weiss,) 1 absent (Brewer,) to table the dog hearing issue until the January 5th meeting, when Larry will provide expanded compliance conditions, to include training specifics and progress reports
• 4 -0, 1 absent (Brewer,) per the motion provided, to approve the appointment of Briony Angus as the Conservation Commission rep to the Community Preservation Act Committee
• 4 -0, 1 absent (Brewer,) per the motion provided, to approve the appointment of Bob Ackermann to the Committee on Homelessness
Agreed, without votes:
• That Stephanie and Diana would be the representatives to the JCPC
• That beginning in January, meeting materials (not general mail) from the packet would be posted on the web site prior to meetings, and that materials acquired at the meetings would be added to the posted materials
• That we would like to reduce the volume of unnecessary paper received where possible (duplicate materials from one packet to the next; info for which electronic copies are more desirable than hard copies, etc.)
• That Stephanie would synthesize the discussion and notes from the discussion on Town Manager goals and expectations into a composite document for the January 5th meeting, in time for inclusion in the packets
• On Select Board budget policy statements for the Town Manager, with wording and punctuation to be cleaned up and submitted to him Tuesday, December 16th
• That we would each provide details about the
meeting schedules of committees to which we are liaison and send them to Judith
to incorporate into a liaison assignment document for the 1/5 discussion, and
that Stephanie will send out a reminder about this
Requested:
• That the Public Works Committee be provided with copies of the Lord Jeff's Spring St. plans
• That details of how and when the PVTA bus schedule changes at the end of the semester (pre-exams? post-exams?) be provided to the Select Board
The following items will be added to the
1/5/09 agenda:
• The WMECO pole hearing (postponed from 12/15 by WMECO request)
• The Road Project Planning presentation
(postponed from 12/15, due to
• Consideration of the 12/1 and 12/8 minutes (postponed due to the late hour)
• Updated recommendation from Larry regarding the compliance conditions for the Eddings' dog
• Additional consideration of goals and expectations for the Town Manager for FY09
The following items will be added to a future agenda, not necessarily for
1/5/09:
• Consideration of whether a letter from the Select Board is the best way to encourage committees to post minutes and agendas on the web
• Consideration of next steps for a recently-discovered draft of a Select Board procedures manual
Packet materials that need to be brought back to the next meeting:
• The 12/1 minutes and suggested edits (some of which we received at the meeting)
• The 12/8 minutes and suggested edits (some of which we received at the meeting)
• The dog hearing information (stapled packet from Larry)
• The Road Project Plan materials (memo from
• The WMECO pole hearing packet (new abutter notices will be sent.)
• The 2008/2009 calendar sheet (even though we'll only need the 2009 one by then)
• The goals/expectation pages might be
handy reference, but there will also be a new compiled doc in the 1/5 packet
Voted:
• Unanimously to approve the new WMECO pole, per the motion sheet
• Unanimously to endorse the DPW Superintendent's recommendation in the12/11/08 memo regarding road repair projects, and to instruct the Town Manager to develop a financing plan and schedule for implementation of those projects, and to report back to the Select Board by March 9th.
• Unanimously to accept the stipulations of the January 5th Hepburn memo regarding the Eddings' dog,with formal motion language and documentation to be provided at the next Select Board meeting
• Unanimously to approve the Special Liquor License for R & P liquors, per the motion sheet
Agreed, without votes:
• That Diana would bring the Town of
• That Alisa and Larry would create a formal motion on the dog recommendation, and a complete packet of all related documents, for the next meeting
• That Stephanie would work with Kate to add significant scheduled upcoming agenda items to Select Board page of Town web site
• That Stephanie would send copies of the 12/22 Municipal Relief request letter to the Regional School Committee, the Hadley Select Board, the MMA, Ellen Story, Martha Nelson-Patrick, Chancellor Robert Holub, President Tony Marx and President Ralph Hexter; that the letter would be added to the Town web site (on the SB page and/or the FY10 budget page:) and that Stephanie would report back on the status of Stan's Special Municipal Relief Commission's work/timeline
• That Gerry would see if the 2005 draft of the SB procedures manual exists in electronic form
Requested:
• That Officer Hepburn notify the SB of the dates of the dog training sessions and progress evaluations
• That Larry call St. Brigid's about winter sidewalk maintenance
• That ACTV be notified of the 1/21 meeting in the first floor meeting room; which is same time as CDBG hearing - don't know if ACTV covers those
The following items will be added to the 1/12 meeting:
• Approval of formal dog motion language and receipt of full documentation
• Follow-up report on municipal relief letter and commission status
• Liaison assignments (postponed from 1/5, due to time)
• Budget discussion: FCCC report (postponed from 1/5, due to time)
• MMA meeting discussion (postponed from 1/5, due to time)
• Approval of minutes (postponed from 1/5, due to time)
• Liaison and Representative reports (postponed from 1/5, due to time)
Issues needing additional follow-up, not necessarily at the next meeting:
• The pool situation
• The Town's sidewalk plowing policy
•
Packet materials that need to be brought back to the next meeting:
• Committee liaison list and committee meeting times (some from packet, some were on our desks)
• Minutes and suggested edits from 12/1, 12/8 and 12/15
Voted:
• unanimously to approve changing the start date of the 2009 Annual Town Meeting to Monday, May 4
• unanimously to approve the new taxi business license and taxi driver's license, per the motion sheet
• unanimously to authorize the Chair to vote in favor of the MMA's proposed policy changes and resolutions at the MMA's Annual Meeting
• unanimously to approve the formal motion on the Eddings' dog, changing "relative to three dog complaints of bites" to "relative to three complaints of dog bites"
• unanimously to request that Town officials from
• unanimously to approve the minutes of December 1, 8, 15; and January 5, with all submitted edits incorporated
• unanimously that the draft goals document (dated 1/12/09, with cover memo dated 1/9/09) would provide guidance for the next iteration of such a document, to be drafted by Gerry (perhaps with assistance from Aaron,) for the 1/26 meeting packet
• unanimously to approve the appointment of Lewis Rudolph to the Community Development Committee, per the motion provided, but amended to correct his name
Agreed, without votes:
• that the current format of the minutes is acceptable
• that SB members would think about and submit questions on the subject of the Town's emergency preparedness for a future continuation of the discussion/presentation
• that discussion of the FCCC report would continue, focusing on separate elements of the report and issues to be pursued by the Select Board
• that Larry would offer his thoughts on the draft goals by e-mail to the Select Board very soon, and that his comments would inform the draft document that Gerry will prepare for the 1/26 meeting
• that Aaron would be liaison to the Design Review Board, the Personnel Board, the Public Works Committee and TMCC
• that SB members would send corrections and updates on the committee liaison list to Judith
• that reimbursement for SB members to attend he MMA Annual Meeting would be provided if sought, and that a policy and perhaps a budget would be developed for next year regarding Select Board conference attendance
• that parking concerns and suggestions submitted to the Select Board would be directed to the Parking Task Force for consideration and recommendations
Requested:
• information about how LSSE programs will be altered or impacted by the expected re-opening of the Middle School pool
To be added to the 1/26 agenda:
• continuation of discussion on goals for the Town Manager
To be scheduled on a future agenda, not necessarily for the next meeting:
• further discussion of emergency preparedness, with questions from the Select Board provided ahead of time
• further discussion of the FCCC report, with one focus being whether and how the Select Board might take a larger role in lobbying the State
• consideration of whether the Parking Task Force is the best entity to deal with parking issues, or if more access and transparency (posted meetings, minutes) is needed
Materials from this meeting to be saved and brought back for future meeting
discussions:
• the 12/31/08 memo from Larry, subject: Emergency Management Preparedness (from our 1/12 meeting packet)
• the document provided by Chief Zlogar, titled "Emergency Management - Phases of an Emergency" (distributed at the 1/12 meeting)
Agreed, without a vote:
• To meet at 6:30, Wednesday, 2/25 (preferably in the First Floor meeting room) to discuss and ask more questions about the FY10 budget.
Requested:
• That further consideration be given to the
possibility of applying for CDBG funds for Not Bread Alone; Larry said he would
ask
• More explanation of the overtime situation, to include cost comparison between overtime vs. new hires; and to include the impacts on shift staffing, updating the chart Chief Hoyle provided at our Saturday Dept. Heads meeting.
• More info regarding the letter from the
Springfield Materials Recycling Facility Advisory Board (in our packets,) and
any impacts to the Town; Larry said he would find out from
Voted:
• Unanimously to approve the taxi driver's license for Ilene Tibbets, per the motion sheet
• Unanimously to approve the Common Victualler's license for Mango Mango, per the motion sheet
• Unanimously to approve the Town Manager's appointment of James Scott to the Conservation Commission, per the motion sheet
• Unanimously to approve the Town Manager's appointment of Stephen Schreiber to the Planning Board, per the motion sheet
• Unanimously to appoint William Hutchinson the the Kanegasaki Sister City Committee, per the motion sheet
• Unanimously to approve the Special Liquor
License for
• Unanimously to adopt in its entirety the January 14, 2009 version of the Annual Town Meeting and Election Calendar, and to approve its timely posting in all the legal and traditional locations
• To approve the January 12th meeting minutes, with all submitted edits, 4 in favor, 1 abstention (Alisa)
• Unanimously to close both
Agreed, without votes:
• That the Select Board appreciates that the 4th of July Parade Committee's 2009 permit will be granted promptly for the requested 3:00 time slot; that discussions to seek mutually-acceptable accommodations of other views will continue: that the granting of the permit is not dependent on the resolution of those discussions; that in keeping with the SB's June 2008 vote on the issue, Town equipment would not be utilized for the parade unless such mutually-acceptable accommodations are agreed to, and that using Town money or resources for an alternate parade is not supported by the Select Board at this time
• That Stephanie and Larry would finalize the FY09 Town Manager goals language, and bring it to the Select Board for approval, no date specified (but it will be ASAP)
• That additional efforts will be made for improving the goal setting and evaluation process, instrument and timeline for FY10 and beyond: including Stephanie and Larry drafting a timeline; using relevant documents acquired at the MMA conference for reference; and contacting MMA, MSA and other communities for more examples of good model documents and procedures
• That Larry will check with Town Counsel about the need for a warrant article to update the Town's human rights language; that if a warrant article is needed, the Select Board will sponsor it; and that Gerry will be the point person to shepherd the article through the process and keep the Select Board informed
• To schedule Select Board meetings prior to all the Town Meeting sessions listed on the January 14, 2009 version of the Annual Town Meeting and Election Calendar, with the sense that it is easier to schedule them all now and then cancel any meetings we don't need
• That the intention of the vote to approve the Annual Town Meeting and Election Calendar was to express that the deadlines it lists are firm
• That given our other priorities and commitments, and given how much there would be to learn about the subject, the SB is not currently prepared to take a position on or to lobby legislators regarding a possible gasoline tax increase, and that the issue could be raised again if a Select Board member chooses to pursue it further and present a proposal to the full body, or if the Public Works Committee chooses to bring more detailed information and recommendations to us
• That Stephanie would inform the Public Works Committee of this decision
Requested:
• A summary of the Town's current litigation situation: who is suing the Town for what, and how much each case is costing to date
• That John's quarterly budget update memo get posted on the budget section of the Town web site
• That the published Town Meeting dates include noting the day of each date, to make people aware of the multiple Thursday dates
• That Larry contact the appropriate School administration people to have a conversation about the possibility of reserving the ARMS auditorium for Town Meeting sessions on May and June Mondays and Wednesdays for the foreseeable future, beginning in 2010
To be added to the 2/2 agenda:
• Follow-up from Larry re: details of season length for swimming lessons and LSSE aquatics programs, per the late opening of the middle school pool (info wasn't available for this meeting)
• Approval of the 1/21 meeting minutes (postponed because some had not read them)
• How and when the Select Board will lobby legislators regarding the Governor's Municipal Partnership Act proposals
To be scheduled for a future agenda, not necessarily for the next meeting:
• Discussion of encouraging committees to post minutes on the Town web site (postponed due to the late hour)
• Discussion of how to enter the FCCC process in MMA's Innovative Practices contest
Materials from this meeting to be saved and brought back for future meeting
discussions:
• The draft minutes of the 1/21 meeting, which were on our desks
Wow. You run meetings like I run meetings. Discuss, Decide, Delegate, Document. Then everyone knows what got done, what needs to get done, and who's gonna get it done.
This is a comment. I don't expect a response: Is it TM Shaffer's prerogative to allocate new sources of revenue to purposes he deems appropriate? His 2% + 1.2% -1.2% (from new revenues) budget is not what he was charged to deliver. It continues to make me wonder if he has a clear understanding of his role as TM. The cut in local aid changes the picture again, so maybe he'll get another chance to revise and do so according to clear instruction.
It's petty for the town manager to approve the parade permit and at the same time, prohibit the police and firemen from riding in town firetruck and police vehicles. It is also unjustifiable because he is not articulating a reasonable standard for approving or disapproving of the use of these vehicles in parades.
Is the standard, what Shaffer thinks is fair and reasonable based on Shaffer's political beliefs? Isn't the same problem in play, that town government cannot choose between "good" and "bad" political free speech?
Does the SB back Mr Shaffer's policy on the vehicles, which might fairly be described as petty and what is the underlying operating principle?
I guarantee it is doing nothing for morale in the police and fire departments.
When Shaffer doesn't get his way he tries to exact some price that reveals just how petty and just how willing he is to use his authority to stick it to the people he is hired to serve.
The Bulletin got its facts wrong. It said our police and firemen would not be able to wear their uniforms.
Sorry to burden you with this.
Hi Neil --
Per your first point about the 2% vs. 3.2% budget increase: we talked about this at the SB's 1/21 meeting. (Choose that meeting from ACTV"s Meetings on Demand page. Preliminary explanation is at 23:15; significant discussion occurs starting at 40:43.) On the one hand, I think that we don't seem to be communicating clearly with each other on this point: those of us with questions about this aren't quite managing to make ourselves understood to Larry and John; and they aren't explaining their reasoning to us in a way that satisfies our questions. On the other hand, I think that is largely academic at this point. The fact is, the proposed budget is a first draft, and discussions of how to reconcile the reductions in State Aid are just beginning. Those discussions aren't constrained by percentage guidelines.
Per your second point, regarding parade stuff: You are correct that the Bulletin was mistaken about uniforms. Larry has consistently said that Town personnel could wear their uniforms, and the Select Board supported that in the June discussion and reaffirmed support last week. In both of those discussions, the SB has also backed the equipment policy. I can't speak for Larry or the Select Board, but I certainly don't see the policy as related to anyone's political beliefs. The Town Manager and the Select Board are charged with serving the whole community. Part of our responsibility, I believe, is to find balance among competing interests, regardless of our personal feelings. I have always been a big fan of the parade, but I think it would make me a lousy SB member if I were blind to the fact not everyone in town shares that view. I think seeking a mutually-acceptable compromise is not only reasonable but responsible. The Town (capital T) wants a compromise; if the Town's needs can't be met, then I think the only legitimate way of dealing with that is to withhold Town equipment. Preventing the parade was not legitimate; everyone has a right to hold a parade. No one has a right to have Town equipment in their parade -- that is discretionary on the part of the Town. It is leverage in the negotiation. That is perfectly reasonable to me. There have been some bumps in the road of this parade thing, but I think the resolution to date -- the Parade Committee will get to hold its parade, on the date and time it wants, with Select Board support, -- is a pretty dramatic turnaround from where the issue was last spring. Maybe there is still room to accommodate the Town's needs, and also have the Town equipment in the parade; maybe there isn't. Compromise means no one is fully satisfied with the result, but everyone gets some of what they wanted. I think that's what we have here, and I'm proud of that.
People are quick to ascribe motives to and pronounce judgments on anyone with whom they disagree. (I mean this generally, and not specifically in response to your comments, Neil.) What if instead, we all tried giving each other the benefit of the doubt? We're all doing the best we can, and those of us serving the Town are doing so in an environment where every person we deal with thinks his or her issue is the most vital, and that his or her viewpoint is "right." Guess what? For every person with an issue and a viewpoint, there is someone else with the exact opposite issue and viewpoint. We are trying to serve all of those people.
As I've said before, if I were the Queen, decisions would be easy, because I could just do everything my way. That's not how our system works. If it's hard for a Select Board member to try to find and keep to "the middle path," imagine how hard it is for the Town Manager.
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I think Amherst is fortunate to have you in its service. Also, please feel free to choose to not respond. I just appreciate the opportunity to make an argument and have it heard. Your consideration of it is sufficient.
I'm for compromise but I'm also a realist who is willing to embrace formidable reasons like the Constitutional right of association, which is why parade organizers can organize a parade that doesn't include protesters. When governing laws exist, we don't have to rely on our own best judgment or reasoned principles, we just need to apply them appropriately.
Withholding the use of fire trucks for the 7/4 parade doesn't serve anyone's interests: It is a legacy of a negotiation that is resolved. It doesn't serve the Parade Committee or parade goers and it doesn't serve the "free speech including protest" advocates or the town manager. (My reference to politics refers to the town managers self-alignment with "free speech including protest" advocates. I think it’s inappropriate. His role is not political, that is the Select Board’s prerogative, his role is functionary.)
From where we stand today, it is simply a spiteful withholding, an act by the Town Manager allegedly on behalf of "free speech including protest" advocates and it is a petty act. It is a direct result of protest advocates desire for inclusion, which has been acknowledge, given full consideration and rejected for Constitutional reasons. I don’t know why the Select Board should allow withholding to stand.
Where is the initiative creating a suitable forum for a "free speech including protest” event on July 4? Ideally that would come from the interest group with the right kind of support from the town but if they are lacking good ideas perhaps the town manager could help them conceive of some. Here is mine. A rally and family event at the end of the parade route including speeches, sack races, swimming, dunk the clown or whatever. It would be appropriate to give them the draw of the Amherst crowd already assembled, and maybe some of its bands or whatever. By all means, support such an effort. But do not allow the punitive, petty withholding of police and fire vehicles. It’s small minded and unbecoming of good government. Finally, I question the town manager's authority to weigh in on what is essentially a political matter. As I’ve said before, he is not elected he is hired and we have not granted him majority consent to act on our behalf. Respectfully submitted for your consideration.
Happy Groundhog Day.
Neil,
I'm curious whether your views here about the compromise process might differ if the scenario were reversed. What if the long standing, existing 4th of July parade were a protest oriented, rather than patriotic event? What if the patriotic folks, after years of witnessing a one-sided "celebration" of our right to free speech and assembly, decided that there was a missing perspective? What if they wanted to interject their own voices and viewpoints into the mix? And what if the protest parade folks denied them that right because their perspective was too "off message"? What if the patriotic folks brought their dilemma to the Town Manager and Select Board for possible resolution? And what if after lots of effort at compromise and negotiation the private parade committee would not relent and agree to a more inclusive parade? What if a similar town-generated compromise position was struck to the one we are now faced with? The existing parade committee could (as is their constitutional right) structure their parade the way that they liked, but that town "assets" would not be available to them. Would this opinion of yours, with the word patriotic substituted for protest, still prevail?
--From where we stand today, it is simply a spiteful withholding, an act by the Town Manager allegedly on behalf of "free speech including patriotic" advocates and it is a petty act. It is a direct result of patriotic advocates desire for inclusion, which has been acknowledged, given full consideration and rejected for Constitutional reasons. I don’t know why the Select Board should allow withholding to stand.--
From where I sit, I think that the compromise is a good one considering the current parade committee's refusal to budge on certain principles. Their's are not the only principles that town officials are charged with considering, upholding and attempting to accommodate. Looking at a possible reverse scenario helps me to resist the impulse to assign particular political motives to the decision and to see it simply as an attempt to mandate compromise, where it otherwise could not be found.
If the situation were reversed, then I would make exactly the same argument. There should be no penalty for exercising ones Constitutional rights, especially a punitive and petty withholding of police and fire vehicles that serves no one.
Neil,
I absolutely agree with the Town Manager that Town service vehicles not participate in the PRIVATE parade. I am sure there are lots of tax payers who agree with me and lots who agree with you. In the end, however, its my belief that the best practice is to go with not using tax payer's money (because that, in essence, is the argument). Can't you let it go and move on to more important things. I actually might look forward to a parade that wasn't full of loud, stinky, big vehicles. The parade looked to my family more like it was honoring those more than folks. We did like the dancing horses...
Abbie, I will consider your argument and not ask you to stop making it, if you will do the same for me.
For six years the town of Amherst allowed our police and firemen to ride in the town-owned vehicles (they work in everyday) in a parade to celebrate Independence Day in Amherst. It is a holiday and a family day, the tradition of which the Parade Committee revived six years ago on their own initiative.
It is the main event for Amherst 7/4 day time activites and the prelude to fireworks. It is a family event. Everyone seems to like it. Some would like to be included in a way the organizers choose to not include.
The reason the TM decided to withhold the use of these vehicles, was to provide an incentive for the organizers to include protesters in the parade. It was a negotiation tool, an incentive.
I think everyone understands now that there is a Constitutional right that guarantees the Parade Committee's right to choose whether they want to include protest speech and if so, what kind of protest speech. They choose no kind of protest and it is their right under the Constitution.
I would like to see the League of Women Voters take the initiative to organize an event that meets their needs with regard to protest and political speech on Independence Day in Amherst. Perhaps that event could follow directly after the parade so that the crowd assembled for the parade would feed the other event. There could be speeches by leaders and residents not involved in government, and activities for kids like sack races or bobbing for apples, or candied apples, whatever. It could be on Community Field like it was in the 70's.
That said, for the Town Manager to continue to withhold the use of these vehicles is punitive and petty. The law, the Constitution no less, gives us a clear answer to this question. With that clarity in mind, the decision to withold the use of the vehicles beyond the negotiation as as incentive in negotiation, it is merely a penalty, a penalty that town government punitively applies to a volunteer group that has sponsored the 7/4 parade seven years now.
What 'good will' have they earned by their initiative and by their track ercord of delivering the vent, seven years in a row now.
If they did not have the rights to make the choice, I would agree with the decision to withhold the vehicles but they do have the rights.
(The vehicles will be be parked in their garages. The savings less than $300. If its the money you're worried about, why not ask for reimbursement from the parade committee instead of enforcing a punitive and petty prohibition that ignores the good will that they've earned over the last seven years?)
Ask yourself why the vehicles were used in the parade for the last six years. The answer is, the parade serves the town of Amherst.
I think it is lost on many that the Parade Committee is contributing time to organize this event for Amherst (and at very little cost to the taxpaying public.) Amherst appreciates having the parade. It's great to go with your family and see friends. Why then must it be marred by such a petty and punitive withholding by town government if we are truly pleased that we have it?
If you write to respond, please allow me to do the same. Thank you, Abbey.
Amherst board finds funds to cover state aid cuts
Gazette by S Merzbach
AMHERST - Reimbursement from a school roof replacement project and a portion of surplus money in the health trust will be used to overcome the mid-year budget cuts enacted recently by Gov. Deval Patrick.
When you can find large chucks of cash mid-year to cover a revenue shortfall, you're not being forthcoming with tax payers about THEIR money.
I am really sick of the town manager. He is cagey and he does not follow instruction from the SB. He thinks the money is his to hide and use. It is our money and he has a fiduciary responsibility to be forthcoming about how much we have and to take instruction from the SB on our spending priorities.
Neil,
I agree one hundred per cent that the parade committee has the constitutional right to structure their event any way they see fit. I don't see, however, how that constitutional right extends to the use of town assets. I agree with the Town Manager's decision to put parameters in place that help define the private parade as just that -- private.
ARHS Grad --
I'm not really following your reasoning here, but I am sorry that you are so skeptical of Town government. Your comments indicate that we aren't doing a good enough job of keeping people informed, and that is part of our responsibility.
The word "finds" in the headline doesn't quite speak to the reality of the situation. Nobody "found" anything. The grant reimbursement from the Wildwood roof project was certainly known internally. It was discussed at a Budget Coordinating Group meeting a few weeks ago, and John Musante talked about it at the 1/26 SB meeting. This money would have gone into reserves at the end of the year; instead, we are fortunate to have the option to use it to help us close the gap created by the mid-year State aid cuts. That was the recommendation made to the Select Board and we supported that. Its use in this way does not decrease our current reserve total (though it does prevent the total from growing by that amount) and that is consistent with the SB's budget recommendations for FY10 (our recommendations didn't address an FY09 cut.) And the health trust "holiday" is an option thanks to significant cost reductions through plan design changes (estimated at having saved the town $2 million over the last couple years) and the conservative and diligent rebuilding of that fund balance from a deficit to a surplus.
Cagey? Hidden? I'd say it's more like we are benefiting from very prudent fiscal management. These are tough times, but we are in better shape to bear them than many other communities. But I appreciate the lesson of your comment: that we need to do a better job making people aware of all that.
Thanks to all for commenting.
Context is everything. Why "no" now after six years of "yes" as an answer to the question: Can town police and firemen participate in the work vehicles? After all, it is a parade and it's common to have floats, bands, and fire trucks. "No" now is punitive because there is no longer a negotiation; punitive is petty and spiteful.
Nonetheless, I respect your reasoning that leads you to agree with Mr. Shaffer on the matter. That becuase the Parade Committee has no Constitutional right to use town vehicles, the town manager's decision to withhold the use of them is permissible. I don't agree that it is good government.
Furthermore, I think Shaffer may be tying his hands in the future when he wants to say "yes" but is bound by having said "no" to this private group. I don't think Mr Shaffer thinks far ahead.
The parade is private in that they set the rules for participation, it is public in the sense that all of Amherst is invited. Are you going?
I really overreacted. Thank you for explaining the detail here.
Stephanie O'Keeffe said:
"People are quick to ascribe motives to and pronounce judgments on anyone with whom they disagree. (I mean this generally, and not specifically in response to your comments, Neil.) What if instead, we all tried giving each other the benefit of the doubt? We're all doing the best we can, and those of us serving the Town are doing so in an environment where every person we deal with thinks his or her issue is the most vital, and that his or her viewpoint is "right." Guess what? For every person with an issue and a viewpoint, there is someone else with the exact opposite issue and viewpoint. We are trying to serve all of those people.
"As I've said before, if I were the Queen, decisions would be easy, because I could just do everything my way. That's not how our system works. If it's hard for a Select Board member to try to find and keep to "the middle path," imagine how hard it is for the Town Manager."
Oh, how the tables have turned... ;-)
But keep up the good work anyway!
Stephanie O'Keeffe also said:
"And the health trust "holiday" is an option thanks to significant cost reductions through plan design changes (estimated at having saved the town $2 million over the last couple years) and the conservative and diligent rebuilding of that fund balance from a deficit to a surplus."
P.S. You're welcome! ;-)
I know that it goes against the grain of cynicism that we hear from the blogosphere, but I still say that Amherst is a better managed community from a fiscal standpoint than any other in the Valley.
And just to give the carpers their due, the constant criticism is probably part of what makes that happen.
Rich Morse
Yes Mr. prosecutor, it's the thought of spending time in jail that keeps some nitwits from breaking the law.
And as one of the "carpers" (since W-A-Y before you moved to this town) may I just say: you're freaken welcome.
Great article in the Bulletin explaining about the funds used to over shortfall. Thank you.