Town Meeting voters strip Selectmen of 3K stipends
Published on May 3rd, 2006
STONEHAM,MA - In a somewhat surprising move at Monday Night's Town Meeting and certainly a response gesture to the Selectmen's approval of an FY07 trash fee, Town Meeting voters roundly approved stripping the Board of Selectmen of their $3000 stipends.
The Town Meeting voters approved the $200 stipend for the Town Meeting Moderator, the $1200 stipends for the Board of Assessors and the $56,773 salary for Town Clerk John Hanright.
Dunklee Road resident Jeanne Craigie made the motion to remove the collective $15,000 from the Selectmen's wallets and reinvest it back into the town budget - a move that was made with the recently elected Board of Selectmen Chairman Bob Sweeney in attendance for Town Meeting.
"I rise before you to ask you to change what is before you," said Dunklee Road resident Jeanne Craigie. "The Board of Selectmen...I ask you to make the total $0 and save the town $15,000 for the Selectmen totals. This is our time to make decisions.
"I think it's time the Selectmen set an example for this town and quite frankly I'm a little disappointed there was no discussion of their salaries during budget sessions," added Craigie, who has been outspoken concerning the actions of the Selectmen during recent weeks. "I don't think any of them really need the $3000, and we don't even have the Board of Selectmen Chairman [Bob Sweeney] here attending during the most important meeting of the year. I apologize for that."
Selectman Tony Kennedy hoped that, given the late notice of such an amendment, that the board members would be allowed to expense much of the incurred costs from their Selectmen duties.
"When the time comes to spend money on behalf of the town as a Selectmen, I felt like if the town were going to come that our stipends would be taken because of again voting in the trash fee that it would be reasonable to ask for reimbursements of funds spent parking, going downtown to lobby for state funds and attending municipal events," said Selectmen Tony Kennedy. "I'm fairly certain that I spend more than $250 a month on these expenses."
Calthea Street resident and Finance and Advisory Board member Matt Whooley felt that the Selectmen should step in line with the School Committee and other town boards that aren't paid for their time or expenses.
"I just want to remind Mr. Kennedy that there are other boards that go into town to lobby for state money and don't get reimbursed," said Calthea Street resident Matt Whooley. "And if it is because of the trash, you took away the voice of the people so now the people are taking the money," added Whooley.
Selectman George Seibold agreed with Craigie's assertions, but wanted to make sure that the Board of Selectmen had control over where the $15,000 was used in the town budget.
"I understand with the way town government has gone over the last twenty years and the way taxes have gone up, but I'd also like the Selectmen to have a say in how the money is used," said Seibold.
Oak Street resident Carol Feke voiced a desire to grand-father in the current Selectmen's salaries, rendering the amendment ineffective until new boardmembers take office - primarily under the idea that many Selectmen used the $3000 on their election campaigns and expected to be reimbursed for the funds - but Town Counsel ruled that the amendment was out of order in concert with the yearly budget process. Feke further added that she wished the Selectmen be taken off the town retirement and healthcare plans to help lessen the town's burdensome expenses.
Articles 5 and 6
The Town Meeting voters approved a pair of zoning/land articles, the first of which allowed the town to rent and lease town buildings for a number of different uses - including in this instance leasing out to a private commercial entity the second floor of the Senior Center on Elm Street. Articles 12 and 13 were also connected to the leasing of the second floor of the Senior Center - the former home of the Board of Health.
"The Planning Board voted favorable, and the article exactly means what it says and says what it means," said Planning Board Gus Niewnhous.
According to Town Administrator Ron Florino, there is no one currently leasing the area and a volunteer doctor utilizes the space several days a month while administering free medical services to Stoneham seniors.
The second article gave the Board of Selectmen approval to take custody of a 2,600 square foot piece of seized Fallon Road land and give permission for the Selectmen to sell the property to the MarJam Company. According to Attorney Charles Houghton, the property would be added to the Marjam/Servomation commercial property adjacent to the Fells for stories and supplies usage. A pair of amendments insuring a bidding process and a minimum requirement for the "true market value" of the land were both approved as well. Article Seven concerning the sale of Emerald Court was indefinitely postponed.
Article 8
Article Eight concerned abolishing the Stoneham Retirement Board and turning the administration of the retirement to the state for fiscal reasons, and the Town Meeting voters voted against dissolving the local retirement board.
"We feel like the state can better and more affordably manage our retirement system than the local retirement board," said John DePinto. "As constituted, there would have to be at least a 50 percent savings of what it costs to administer the retirement system. As far as I'm concerned, it's strictly a dollars and cents issue."
If the savings was found, the abolition would then only happen if the Board of Selectmen voted favorably to dissolve the Stoneham Retirement Board and hand the reigns over to the state
"This a giant step that we're not taking lightly here, and we feel like $130,000 in savings is well-worth doing," said DePinto.
"We've compared our costs for running our retirement board to other towns isn't in line with the surrounding towns," added DePinto, of a board that incurs $261,000 in costs on a yearly basis and is on average 130 percent higher than other cities and towns. "The board is autonomous and whatever they say needs to be spent is spent. This is a way we can take more control of the costs."
The Finance and Advisory gave a favorable recommendation to the article, and labeled it "strictly a cost-cutting maneuver."
"None of the actual retirements payments or schedules would be affected by this article, it would simply change how the administration is undertaken," said Finance and Advisory Board Chairman Richard Gregorio.
Doherty felt that the Selectmen were looking at cutting costs during difficult fiscal times, and thought that 50 percent savings was worth looking at.
"What's going to help town is not continually raising taxes and the retirement situation has a huge impact," said Dan Doherty. "We can't continue to offer all of the services we do if we don't cut costs. I feel like the Selectmen are just looking at ways to cut costs, and that's something we should take a hard look at it."
Jan Houghton voiced some frustration with the article, and felt that there was a smear campaign "about a lousy job done by the Retirement Board." Houghton also said that the survey of local retirement boards didn't accurately scrutinize all expenses for those towns, giving a skewed view of the Stoneham Retirement Board's administrative expenses.
"The $4.1 million you're paying this year is for the retirement benefits accrued by past town workers and current town employees," said Houghton. "Has the Town Retirement Board done a good job of controlling expenses? Yes, they have. What you should be looking at is the actual cost - actual checks and all money going out -- for the retirement board, and we are well within the surrounding towns and communities."
"I walk out of Town Hall with my head held high, knowing that I do what's in the best interest of the retirees with every decision," added Houghton.
Several town employees, both retired and active, voiced the desire to keep the retirement board in house and allow Stoneham residents to control
"They want to hand it over to the same state beaurocracy that started the MWRA, that has short-changed Stoneham on Chap. 70 money and that has put a cap on lottery funds...please! This is a foolish, foolish article," said former Stoneham Fire Chief Bill Abbot.
Subscribe and get Home Delivery of The Independent
Save 36% off the newstand price — that's like 18 FREE issues!