Craigie accuses board of 'closed-door' deal
Published on April 26th, 2006
STONEHAM, MA - A local resident intimated that the state Ethics' Commission will be asked to investigate the circumstances leading up to the Selectmen's 3-2 vote two-weeks-ago that restored an annual garbage fee.
Accusing the Selectmen of deliberating on the matter behind closed doors, Dunklee Avenue resident Jeanne Craigie charged that town officials had already decided to implement the rubbish cost before any public discourse on the issue.
According to the former School Committee member, the fact that Town Administrator Ron Florino had already prepared a new budget reflecting the revenues for a $160 trash fee - set $10 higher than the costs publicly discussed by the Selectmen up until that vote - blatantly supported her allegations.
"What I'm really upset about is that they increased the fee to $160 without any public discussion. They just never talked about a $10 increase before that," Craigie commented in a recent phone interview. "I think we're finding out very rapidly that this group is working behind closed doors."
"I'll let the Ethics Commission question that, but somebody had to order it," the Dunklee Avenue resident added, charging that Florino received marching orders prior to the vote to prepare the new budget figures.
Denying the allegations, Florino insisted that he took the initiative on his own to create the budget for a $160 trash fee.
Claiming that he anticipated that a vote may have been taken on the garbage costs at the Tri-Board meeting two-weeks ago, the Town Administrator responded that his job is to prepare for every possible financial scenario.
"I wanted to have something ready," said Florino, referring to the budget sheets that were passed out just after the Selectmen's 3-2 vote. "I knew the trash fee was going to be discussed, so I needed to have that information prepared."
"I had two scenarios planned," the Town Administrator added, explaining that he put together a separate budget breakdown for a $150 trash fee. "And if it was a $200 trash fee, I would have been able to tell the Selectmen exactly what that would generate."
According to Selectman John DePinto, who voted against the $160 charge along with newly elected Selectman Paul Rotondi, he was also extremely surprised that worksheets had already been prepared illustrating which services would be restored to the FY'07 budget.
However, the Rebecca Lane resident stopped short of suggesting that any of his counterparts directed Florino to draft a budget in anticipation of an affirmative vote on the rubbish fee.
"He was prepared with a budget at $160, which I was a little surprised at that night too," DePinto admitted. "I better not comment on what the other Selectmen did, but let me say that I certainly didn't give any direction."
According to former Selectman Charlie Smith, who blasted the board after they decided to implement the fee just seven days after citizens shot-down the proposal on the election ballot, there's no question that the decision was made behind closed doors.
Criticizing not only that decision, Smith also took aim at the school department's use of an alert system urging parents to participate in the election and later trash fee discussion.
"That system should be used for school emergencies only. I know if you look at it in a skewed way, this was a school emergency, but it shouldn't have been used," the former Selectmen argued.
Defending the decision to utilize the call-back system, both School Supt. Dr. Joseph Connelly and School Committee member Marie Christie countered that the device is routinely used to inform parents of upcoming events.
According to the Superintendent, although the device was initially obtained in the wake of the Central School tragedy nearly two-years-ago, it was never intended to just be an emergency alert system.
"It is a system that's used for routine notices that can also be used for emergency situations," Connelly said. "It's a public service telephone system. It is not a reverse 911 or emergency system and that is a common misconception."
While Craigie agrees that the call-back system should be used for purposes outside of emergency situations, she also feels that the school department's use of the tool was inappropriate.
Specifically, the former School Committee member claims that contacting parents to inform them of elections and Tri-Board meetings where educational budgetary issues are at stake borders on a political use, regardless of whether the message actually advocates for a specific outcome.
"They use it as an outreach to the community. But I think outreach should be limited to [messages that say], 'go to a softball game' or 'make sure your child shows up sober to the prom,'" Craigie argued.
"They're using it for more political reasons that for school-related reasons. And I do find that inappropriate. To me, that's getting involved in a political activity," the Dunklee Avenue resident added.
Disagreeing with that sentiment, Christie believes that when only 3400 citizens show up to a town election where so many important issues are decided, any encouragement for people to get involved is a must.
"If it gets 200 or 300 more people out to vote, that's fine. We should do anything we can to get more people to come out and vote. You're talking about 3300 people coming to the last election? That's awful."
Subscribe and get Home Delivery of The Independent
Save 36% off the newstand price — that's like 18 FREE issues!