NO SURPRISE...Taxes as Usual in Hamilton

The group Enough Is Enough (EiE) recently presented the Hamilton Board of Selectmen (BoS)with an article the group sought to have placed on the warrant for the fall Special Town Meeting. Calling it a "Local Stimulus Package", EiE was seeking a non-binding advisory question be placed on the ballot for the next election which read:

"Shall the town of Hamilton place a cap of 0% increase on the total taxes assessed for residential property in the town for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2010?"

The question applied only to residential property taxes, not commercial (which only represents about 3% of Hamilton's tax base) and was intended to apply to only the one year. It was to be non-binding, so in essence it would serve simply as a poll for how the voters felt about paying the same taxes next year as they paid this year...with no increase. Naturally, a 0% property tax increase could possibly require cuts in services or adjustment for service personnel (pay cuts). EiE's stated intent was to use this non-binding question as a springboard to discussions, both pro and con, that such an initiative would undoubtedly create.

This week, the BoS voted to deny placement of the article on the fall Special Town Meeting warrant.

It comes as no surprise that the BoS chose to deny EiE's request of a question asking if the taxpayers in our town would like some relief from the burden they currently bare for living in the town with the highest property tax rate on the North Shore.

I say "no surprise" because the Hamilton BoS has consistently supported every single override for at least the past 12 years. Collectively, the overrides since 1998 have cost the taxpayers of Hamilton more than $39 million.

With such a record of endorsement for higher taxes, why should we be surprised that they would choose not to allow an opposing viewpoint to be openly discussed and voted upon by the residents of our town.

As I said, I am not surprised. But I am disappointed...disappointed because they have chosen NOT, as is so often espoused by override proponents, to LET THE VOTERS DECIDE.

The BoS has stated that they are aware of how tough times are in our current economy. But I am not certain they are quite as aware as they could be about how this economy is affecting the residents of Hamilton. Most of our citizens have slid down the economic ladder. Those that used to go out to eat are now serving meatloaf at home. Lawn maintenance contracts have not been renewed and homeowners are weeding their own gardens and mowing their own yards. Needed repairs to homes are being put off. Vacations, if taken at all, are spent at home or at nearby campgrounds. Pay freezes, pay cuts and job losses are much more common in our town than I believe the BoS realize. And foreclosures and short sales are becoming a way of life...even here in cherished Hamilton. And yet when a chance presents itself for voters to inform them of their plight, the BoS chose to deny them that opportunity.

The BoS stated that among their reasons not to support the request to let the voters decide is that the issue is too complicated and that the voters will not understand what they may need to give up in terms of services. It was suggested that capping the residential tax levy would mean cutting up to $500k from our budget.

But that's simply not correct. It's "fuzzy math".

You see, EiE was not suggesting cutting the taxes collected by 2.5% - they were recommending "level funding" based on the previous tax year's budget. The BoS was wrong to suggest that not raising taxes by 2.5% = cutting the budget by 2.5% (which is where they came up with the $500k). It does not. And EiE was remiss in not pointing that fact out. In fact, the only cuts that consistently are made every single year when the 2.5% formula is applied is a cut to the taxpayers' paychecks. Every tax is a cut in pay.

Most importantly, however, the BoS chose to ignore a rare opportunity to be innovative leaders during this dramatic economic decline...an opportunity to embrace a concept that is far removed from the "business as usual" budgets that rely on 2.5% MORE in taxes every year, year in and year out, regardless of the economy, and overrides to make up any anticipated shortfalls. They may have lost an opportunity for town-wide dialogue and discussion of an issue of critical importance to those they represent. And by the way, no one asked them to ENDORSE or RECOMMEND the question...just simply allow it to be placed on the warrant so that they can actually HEAR what residents are saying and thinking and FEEL what they are going through.

For so many residents, things are far worse than the BoS realizes. But unlike their willingness to support proposals that INCREASE our tax burden, they now are showing an unwillingness to support a question designed to suggest a LESSENING of our tax burden.

No surprise...

************************
On a positve note...At the same meeting the BoS voted to place an article on the warrant that would allow for secret (or private) balloting at Town Meetings when 25% of the registered voters present seek such a motion. The article also calls for private balloting for override motions requiring the appropriation of more than $250,000

Below are some other Massachusetts towns that have made similar changes to their bylaws regarding Town Meetings.

Any percentage is the number of registered voters needed to allow for a secret ballot at Town Meeting. Some towns just use a number of voters and some towns require automatic Secret Balloting on motions requiring large expenditures.

Essex = 20%

Andover = 25%

North Andover = 25%

Middleton = 25%

Wakefield = 25%

North Reading = 25 voters

Easton = 29 voters

Mendon = 10 voters

Stoneham = 25 voters

Wrentham = Automatic Secret Ballot on all issues of capital projects over $2 million

Berkley = Automatic Secret Ballot on all issues over $500k

Manchester = Automatic Secret Ballot on all issues over $250k



*****************

Reminder...Town Meeting in Hamilton is Saturday, October 17th

******************

Secret Balloting in Hamilton?

The following article appeared recently in the Salem News:

Group wants ability to vote in secret at Town Meeting

By Steve LandwehrSTAFF WRITER
August 12, 2009 09:15 am—

HAMILTON — At their best, they are freewheeling wrangles over the public will, where the high and mighty and the low and powerless each have just one vote. At their worst, town meetings dissolve into name-calling, booing and other displays of boorishness before moderators restore order.

What if some people fear the latter more than they welcome the former, and claim to be uncomfortable expressing an opinion in such a forum, unwilling even to raise their hands or voices "yay" or "nay"?

They should be able to vote in secret, a group of Hamilton activists is proposing.

Members of Enough is Enough, a grass-roots group that has been lobbying for "fiscal responsibility" since 2007, have asked selectmen to place a question on the Special Town Meeting warrant this fall that would set a threshold for a secret ballot at future meetings.
Presently, town bylaws don't address secret ballots, meaning they are Moderator Bruce Ramsey's call. Ramsey said he asks that anyone who wants a secret ballot to say so before discussion of an article begins. After that, he lets a simple majority of those present make the decision.

Instead, proponents of the citizens' initiative want 20 percent of the voters at the meeting to make the call.

Ramsey can recall only one time when a secret ballot was employed in Hamilton. That was for a single-issue meeting called to decide the fate of new and renovated middle and high schools, when several thousand voters were expected. School operating budgets have been contentious in town for years. When a Proposition 2 1/2 override is called for to boost the budget, battle lines form quickly.

Opponents of the overrides have long claimed they are intimidated about appearing to be voting "against the children" if they speak up during a meeting. "I was actively booed at a town meeting," resident Betty Gray told the selectmen during their Monday night meeting. Others in the crowded room clamored in agreement.

While state law mandates some of the conduct at town meetings, individual towns decide whether secret ballots are allowed and how they can be called. Until two years ago, Middleton allowed a secret ballot if just five voters stood for it. Now, 25 percent of those present must favor it, and Town Administrator Ira Singer said the change seems to have dissuaded those who were routinely calling for it.

Undemocratic?

In Middleton, as in Hamilton, proponents of secret ballots claimed voters were intimidated by a public vote. But opponents say open discussion — and voting — is the very essence of democracy in this most basic of forms. "It's the nature of the system," Singer said. "There's nothing necessarily wrong with people having different opinions."

Hamilton Selectman Bill Bowler was vehement in his opposition to the citizens' initiative, on a number of levels. First, he's heard the arguments about reluctant participation, he said, but thinks they're overstated. Second, "Town Meeting is the legislative branch of town government," Bowler said. "Legislators vote in public." Finally, permitting 20 percent of the meeting to direct the actions of the other 80 percent would violate the very basis of Town Meeting, he said. "It's undemocratic," Bowler said, drawing rebuttal from Enough is Enough members.

"People are intimidated to vote on certain issues," Betty Gray said.

Selectman David Carey is of two minds about the proposal. He said that he wouldn't oppose "occasional" secret votes, because some people do feel intimidated. On the other hand, the point of the meeting is to gauge the community's support or opposition for the various items on the agenda. "Secret ballots don't do that," Carey said.

Ramsey's biggest concern is a rash of secret ballots that could bog down meetings and discourage attendance. If voters are so reluctant to speak and vote their minds, why not elect people to do it for them and adopt representative town government? In Hamilton, where the subject of merging with neighboring Wenham has consumed volumes of time over the years, dumping open Town Meeting would be a nonstarter, Bowler said.

"I think we'd merge the towns before we'd go to representative Town Meeting."

For an unquestionably fine and thoughtful

response to this Salem News article, go to:

http://unquestionablyquestionable.blogspot.com/2009/08/why-not-secret-ballot_15.html

Hamilton/Wenham Officials Close Doors to Public Input

The following is a Letter to the Editors of the Salem News and Hamilton/Wenham Chronicle:

Closed-door meetings, even if not secret, send the wrong message...

In an era when trust is a factor most of our citizens feel is lacking in town governance and the School Department, along comes a group of elected officials that still don't seem to get it.

Last week, members of the Budget Process Committee (BPC) decided to have a meeting that included one Hamilton selectman, one Wenham selectman, one School Committee member, one Hamilton FinCom member and the school superintendent. When three citizen members of Enough is Enough tried to attend, they were dismissed and told by the Hamilton selectman that "the meeting was not posted, and it was optional for those attending to allow the public to attend. I polled those who were attending, and the majority wanted it to be a working meeting without the public."

He went on to say, "As for why we felt it better to meet this way, it is not to hide things; but sometimes to advance all of our agendas and do the work, we need to be able to let our hair down. We all spoke bluntly and pointedly."

I don't know about you, but I want representatives who speak "bluntly and pointedly" and honestly at PUBLIC meetings, rather than in closed meetings where the public is not allowed or permitted to even listen. Additionally, the entire point of the BPC was to improve transparency and allow for citizen input.

Come on folks, a "working meeting without the public" is just another way of saying "closed-door meeting" or "secret meeting," both of which are completely unacceptable given the public's already justified lack of trust in the budget process. This is exactly the WRONG way of conducting town business and only serves to enhance taxpayer distrust.

What the heck happened to the "openness and transparency" we were promised after the spring town meetings?

Speaking of which, did you know that as part of their efforts at "openness and transparency," the School Department is now requiring citizens to file Freedom of Information forms and pay a fee for any request for information such as where, exactly, roughly $600,000 a year in maintenance line-item costs have actually been spent for each of the past three years?

It's true. And thus far, even that has not prevented the School Department from denying EiE's request for that simple information. We have been told twice now that what they will provide "will not be a specific detailed breakdown of the Maintenance Expense"; and, "Please be advised that the information that you have requested is not a matter of public record and, therefore, I cannot honor your specific request."

Not a matter of public record?! Are they serious? If they can't even tell us where they have spent nearly $2 million of our taxes earmarked for maintenance, it's no wonder they keep asking for more. The last we heard they were called PUBLIC schools, operating on taxes the PUBLIC pays. Don't we deserve some straight answers to simple questions? Why do you suppose they won't give us the answers we seek?

In both instances mentioned above, the message seems clear: "Sorry, we don't want you to know how we spend your tax dollars."

I'd probably be angry if I were not so astonished.

Jay Burnham, Moderator
Enough is Enough Steering Committee

http://www.enoughisenoughHW.org