Town having bumpy override
Published on February 18th, 2004
STONEHAM, MA - The town's Board of Selectmen will revisit last Wednesday's endorsement of a combined $2.7 million proposition 2 1/2 override and debt exclusion after Town Counsel Bill Solomon identified two legal complications with the vote.
Under the budget plan, the town would plug the remaining $3.9 million out of a total $5 million deficit with a three-pronged approach -- utilizing a $1,023,673 debt exclusion, a $1,676,327 operating expense override, and implementing $1,208,048 in cuts.
Yet, according to Solomon, the Selectmen's 3-2 decision to support a debt exclusion to offset the FY05 deficit fell short of the state's requirement for a two-thirds or 4-1 vote by the Selectmen.
Even more importantly according to Solomon, several legal semantics with the process outlined by the Selectmen will also render the decision null and void.
Specifically, because the Board of Selectmen intended on going to Town Meeting with the budget before placing the debt exclusion on the ballot in June, a process designated as a contingent appropriation, there must be a clear relationship between the purpose of the debt exclusion and the manner in which those funds will be used.
However, Solomon doesn't believe that the debt exclusion purpose and contingent appropriation properly relate to one another, as the debt exclusion purpose would be to free up $1 million in funds to use elsewhere in the budget while the appropriation would be used to pay off a dozen town debts.
"I thought there was a problem legally with having a debt exclusion that was subsequent to a contingent appropriation. That's not do-able because the relevant statute requires that there needs to be a clear relationship between the contingent appropriation and the ballot question," explained Solomon, whose legal opinion was backed by a representative of the Massachusetts Department of Revenue.
At the same time, Solomon repeatedly stated that the two obstacles to the vote were not blatant or deliberate attempts to violate override procedure, but rather a legal technicality that prevented the Selectmen from moving forward with a creative solution to the deficit.
"They attempted to do something that would lessen the financial impacts to the citizens by voting for a debt exclusion. So while it makes a lot of logical and financial sense, the language prohibits them from doing it," Solomon remarked.
Commenting on the recently identified roadblocks, Selectman Tony Kennedy, who motioned for the debt exclusion and operating expense override combination, will propose another motion at next Tuesday's Board of Selectmen meeting for a $2.7 million operating expense override.
"The idea is to combine the override into just one number instead of splitting them up. The important concept is we're looking for an override to add to the tax levy that's not to exceed $2.7 million," said Kennedy.
"When the board gets through authorizing additional budget cuts, that's a number that could change. I just didn't want the override figure to go over $2.7 million," the Selectman Vice-Chair added.
Last Wednesday's majority vote in favor of an override figure marked a three-week turnaround for two Selectmen who had previously argued against supporting an override before instituting what they termed "bare-bones cuts."
While Kennedy fortified his stance that the board should nail down an override figure as soon as possible to be fair to town employees whose jobs are in limbo, both Selectmen Bob Sweeney and Mary Pecoraro resisted the notion for the two weeks prior to last Wednesday's vote.
In fact, during last Tuesday's Selectmen meeting, which took place nearly 24 hours before the two Selectmen would vote in favor of the override, Sweeney voiced his reservations with voting on an override figure after just receiving Town Administrator David Berry's version of the budget.
After Kennedy argued that the vote would rekindle the morale of employees anguishing about the future of their positions, Pecoraro responded by saying there first needed to be more cuts and suggested it could take as long as two months to hammer out the FY05 budget and subsequent override figures.
"I agree that there's some type of anguish factor. But we have to make cuts, bare bones cuts. I know what you're saying with the anguish, but this has been the talk all winter long," Pecoraro remarked last Tuesday.
Although Pecoraro and Sweeney swung their votes, Selectman Charlie Smith debated the sense of determining a firm figure for an override before cutting department budgets.
"This is a good idea, but the line you want to draw in the sand is your line. I think we can cut more," said Smith who voted down the override motion with Selectman Cosmo Ciccarello.
Smith also challenged the sense of holding a Special Election for the ballot in June, claiming that the town experienced enough difficulties convincing people to go to the polls in April.
"If we're going to vote for an override, let's get it on the April ballot. We have problems enough getting people out in April -- let's not try to get them out twice in three months," said Smith.
However, Pecoraro and Kennedy disagreed, saying that it made the most sense to allow citizens to debate an override at May Town Meeting.
"I think people deserve to have a public forum to know the positives and negatives of an override and have them take a vote on it. Then some time after Town Meeting, say in June, have a special election and vote on what we come up with," Kennedy remarked.
Agreeing with Smith, Stoneham Superintendent Joseph Connelly warned the Selectmen that Massachusetts law forces the school system to send out layoff notices to teachers prior to May 1.
"We have done that [sent out pink slips] in the past and it's not great for morale. If we did give the pink slips before May and have to wait until June for an override, it's quite probable that some of our high quality people will be looking elsewhere for a job," cautioned Connelly.
Characterizing the $10,000 price tag for a June Special Election as fiscally irresponsible, Stoneham resident John DeGeorge questions the motives of Kennedy and Pecoraro, who will be up for reelection come April.
Claiming that last Wednesday's vote is essentially meaningless since the Selectmen can change the override figure at any time prior to Town Meeting, DeGeorge considers last Wednesday's vote "a dog-and-pony show".
"They made it look they did what they told people they were going to do by voting for an override last Wednesday. But they set the stage for something we can't hold them to. Since they've already decided to go with the override in June, there was no reason for them to say this is the figure for the budget in May," vented DeGeorge.
"Is it possible that because they're incumbents up for re-election that they said, 'I don't want too many people who don't normally go to elections voting against me because there's an override? Secondly, is it possible that they did this because thousands of people show up for an override vote, so they said, 'forget this, we'll call it in June when a lot of people are out of town?' There was just no legitimate reason for them to put it on the ballot other than for those selfish reasons,'" DeGeorge charged.
While Ciccarello didn't levy the same accusations against the incumbents, he did take issue with the $10,000 Special Election price tag and maintained that if Pecoraro and Kennedy really believed an override would pass, they would have no problem putting it on the April ballot.
"Honestly, I think we should have gone to the polls first in April," said Ciccarello. "They must have the feeling that an override is going to go down the drain because if people wanted it and passed it, they'd vote for the candidate who had the courage to put it on there," the longest-sitting Selectman added.
Responding to the criticisms and taking aim at those who would accuse him of lobbying for a June Special Election to keep the override ballot distant from his reelection campaign, Kennedy asserted that he fought for a timeline that would serve the best interests of the people.
"I really didn't consider the elections. If people want an override, they're going to vote for it whether it's in April or in June. I didn't even think of it in the context of an election. My position is that I'm more interested in doing things that are in the best interests of the town," said Kennedy.
"My own feeling is that I think it's better to give people an opportunity to debate it on town floor because otherwise, you go rushing into a ballot question before people have an opportunity to debate it," the Selectmen Vice-Chair added.
Kennedy also questions the logic of accusations that he fought for a June Special Election to avoid being associated with an override when he has been the only Selectman to consistently voice his support for the measure.
"What I was trying to do is look out for the whole town. You have to take a position and stick with it. And that's exactly what I did. I made my position very clear and I stuck my neck out."
Subscribe and get Home Delivery of The Independent
Save 36% off the newstand price — that's like 18 FREE issues!