Look For the 2012 Hamilton-Wenham Free Press

The 2012 Hamilton-Wenham Free Press will be delivered shortly to all residences in both towns. The Free Press is a complimentary newspaper provided by Citizens For Fiscal Responsibility, aka Enough Is Enough.  The paper includes timely information regarding upcoming issues for the Annual Town Meetings, political commentary, local community projects, property tax charts and data for the North Shore and more.  There's even a tasty chili recipe!

This year the paper has expanded from eight pages to twelve as more and more citizens have written articles of interest about the goings on and important issues in our towns.

Contributors this year include:

Terrill Jennings, Julianna Kallas, William Dery, Edwin Howard, Jack Lawrence, Kerry Mackin, Bruce Wadleigh, Robert Sica, Leigh Keyser, James Kent, Betty Gray, Lee Fremont, David Thompson, Joseph Palermino, Bob Gray, Rick Mitchell, Jay Burnham and Ron Powell.

Be sure to look for this year's Free Press in your mailbox and read what your friends and neighbors and thoughtful citizens have to say about the two great towns we are so very fortunate to live in.

Enjoy!

New Policy Regarding Comments Section of SalemNews.com

Want to comment on stories and articles at salemnews.com?

Beginning Feb. 25, commenters will be required to use their real names when posting on salemnews.com.

In this blog post I will address the reasoning and some of the benefits behind this new policy.

As many of you know, when you write a letter-to-the-editor of most newspapers, you are required to include your name, address and contact information.  I have found that most of the newspapers will then call to verify that you are the author of the letter.

This is a good policy.

Why?...Because to it establishes a level of responsibility and accountability.  Anonymity, on the other hand, allows blowhard commenters to hide behind their pseudonyms and spew all kinds of nasty, angry, and senseless rhetoric...with no accountability for hatespeech.

They are known on blog sites as "trolls".

Allow me to share just a few quotes from an anonymous commenter who has used several pseudonyms to hide his identity.  Most of his comments were directed at me personally or against Enough Is Enough (EiE), a fiscal watchdog group I belong to that spearheaded the popular operational audit of the Hamilton/Wenham Regional School District and successfully ended a decade of Proposition 2.5 overrides in Hamilton and Wenham.

QUOTE:

• "You are the only one on this (comment/message) board that is using you own name. That speaks volumes to your stupidity."
•  "I knew that as soon as I mentioned the village idiot, you would respond."
• "I think that the School Committee and the citizens of Hamilton don't trust you and your group of fools."
• "Most people are sensible enough to not form one of these foolish groups.  But, then there are the exceptional groups like EIE who continue to act as fools."
• "When a vigilante group like this forms, they usually don't last for long.  Maybe they should go back to harrassing the children from Gordon Conwell."
• "The village idiots are at it again."
• "I love when people with no clue and a bad cause come together with collective ignorance."
• "If you wore the Jester's hat when speaking for EIE it would be easier for me to understand."
•  "I have always thought of you as a dim wit but I didn't think that you were this stupid."

How's that for "constructive" commenting?  Would this person spew such nonesense if he were made to provide his real name?  Maybe...maybe not.  But if he did, at least he would be held accountable for what he says.  He would have to take responsibility for his words.  Having seen this individual change pseudonyms in the past, I doubt that he will be willing to stand behind his diatribe if he has to tell the world who he is.  To do so would be an embarrassment to him and he prefers to try to embarrass others, not realizing his words have an opposite effect.

Fortunately, most reasonable and rational people recognize the difference between diatribe and substance and are unwilling to accept the former as the latter.

So I say "BRAVO" to the decision makers at the Salem News and their new policy.  As one reader stated in the comment section of the article announcing the Salem News policy decision:

• "THANK YOU Salem News for taking a step sorely needed a LONG time ago. Resident trolls will hate it, as will those with axes to grind but don't seem to have the guts to be upfront about who they actually are.  No progress can be ever made amongst hardliners and haters. Looking forward to seeing the effect of honesty."

By the way...he used his real name.

Want to read more? . . .
Online Blogging or Online Flogging?: http://tinyurl.com/4fpgrmn
Using Real Names Can Elevate The Discussion: http://tinyurl.com/4hyo8rj

Citizens Win Operational Audit of Schools at Town Meeting

The following is the text of the presentation made by Enough Is Enough at the Hamilton Town Meeting on Saturday, May 8th. After minor debate the motion was passed by a margin of more than 5 to 1.

* * *

Presented by Jay Burnham

Thank you Mr. Moderator… and greetings fellow residents of Hamilton. Last week I had the privilege of speaking to this same motion at the Wenham Annual Town Meeting. Because we are a Regional School District, the motion needs to pass in both towns. It passed by an overwhelming majority in Wenham and it had the unanimous support of both the Wenham Board of Selectmen and the Wenham Finance and Advisory Committee. In fact, it was reported in the Salem News the following day:

“Any lingering doubts that a proposal for an operational audit of the Hamilton-Wenham Regional District enjoys broad-based community support were buried under a blizzard of white voter cards at Wenham’s Annual Town Meeting on Saturday afternoon.”

I understand that the Hamilton Board of Selectmen and the Hamilton Finance and Advisory Committee also support this motion and you will hear from them shortly. It should also be noted that all the current candidates for election to the BoS and the School Committee that spoke recently at the League of Women Voters Candidate’s night stated support for this motion as well.

A little more than a year ago Enough Is Enough was sufficiently concerned with the costs associated with our schools that we suggested that an operational, or efficiency audit, of the school district would be advisable. Shortly after that the Blue Ribbon Committee (BRC) was formed and began investigating school costs. When they reported their findings last June, we discovered that our school operating costs were much higher than comparable school districts. Unfortunately, nothing was ever done about it.

Then in February of this year, Dave Reid and other members of the BRC received new, current and updated information, working directly with the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE). That updated information showed that our costs were now even HIGHER than they were in last year’s study. It was reported that we spend between $2 to $4 million more a year than comparable or cohort school districts…or nearly $2,000 more per student…without the benefit of a better education as measured by scholastic test scoring.

Once again, nothing was done about it. The School District set about denying the results, defending the spending and delaying a solution. It was clear that something had to be done and the district was not going to be the one to initiate the process.

As a result Enough Is Enough prepared and began circulating a Citizen’s Petition requesting an amendment to the Regional School Agreement calling for an Operational Audit. An amendment of the Regional School Agreement is the ONLY recourse that citizens have when it comes to the school district, which is otherwise autonomous.

The motion before you is different than what was originally proposed. Despite claims of support for an operational audit, the School District placed numerous roadblocks in the path of the Citizens Petition. In an effort to find common ground and compromise, EiE voluntarily modified the original motion as follows:

1. We have removed the obligation of the Superintendent or School Committee to adopt the recommendations of the Operational Audit.


2. We have removed the obligations of the Superintendent or School Committee to present a plan for such adoption.


3. We now only require the Superintendent or School Committee to report to the Selectmen, at an advertised Public Hearing, their response to the recommendations made in the Operational Audit.


4. We have removed, as a result of agreement by the towns to fund the costs and expenses of the audit, the requirement that the School District pay for the Operational Audit.


5. We have added the requirement that the costs and expenses of the Operational audit shall not exceed $90k and that the Towns of Hamilton and Wenham will fund the costs according to the current fiscal year rolling average assessment percentage…which is roughly 1/3 Wenham, 2/3 Hamilton.


6. We removed the requirement that an Operational Audit be conducted every five (5) years.

What we have NOT changed and WILL NOT modify is the SCOPE of the Operational Audit or the MECHANISIM for assuring that the audit is performed.

The mechanism for that assurance is the Regional School District Agreement and the motion before you calls for amending that agreement so as to require the Operational Audit. The Regional Agreement is the CONTRACT between the District and our two communities. Bound only by the terms of that CONTRACT, the District is, as I mentioned before, otherwise autonomous. The School committee has suggested that the article should not be in the Regional Agreement because it is now a one time event and that we therefore somehow risk approval of the amendment by the Commissioner of DESE. We say that if the Commissioner considers denying this amendment, an amendment designed to improve the schools…at no cost to the schools…an amendment supported by the BoS and Finance Committees of both towns, an amendment that resulted from a citizens petition signed by 879 registered voters…and approved (at least so far…in Wenham) by more than 80% of the voters at Town Meeting…well then, ladies and gentlemen, our problems and far worse than we think. We’re willing and insist upon taking that alleged risk.

And lastly, we come to the SCOPE of the audit. The District wants to limit the focus to only a study of Instructional Services and SPED. That would be like asking the voters in this room to approve the Town Budget with only 2 line items presented. To the contrary, what is needed is a full and complete operational audit by an unbiased, professional auditing firm with expertise in exactly this kind of school operational study and review.

I have a copy of a full operational audit report. It is 331 pages in length…It’s a report of a school district with 3900 students, or a little less than twice our size. It is a study and complete review of an entire school system including:

• District Administration


• Financial Management


• Purchasing


• Education Service Delivery Costs


• Special Education


• Human Resources


• Facility Use & Management


• Transportation


• Technology Management


• Nutrition Services

The report is full of commendations, (yes…recognition of what the district is doing well and right) as well as “best practice” recommendations and fiscal recommendations for savings…in the case of that school district, $16 million over 5 years.

Being half the size, just imagine if we could save half that amount. Perhaps we could eliminate some User Fees…or make repairs to this auditorium…or fix up the high school lockers…or maybe all of those things.

The primary goal of the operational audit is to insure that non-instructional functions are running efficiently so that as much of school district funding as possible goes directly to the classroom and to identify savings that can be gained through best practices.

Making a positive difference…making our schools better…lies today with you and your vote.

I urge you to vote YES to the motion before you for an operational audit. We need it, it’s the fiscally responsible thing to do, and it’s the right time to do it.

And in closing, I’d like to offer one other quote from the Salem News, this one by Steve Landwehr the day before Wenham’s supportive Town Meeting vote.

He wrote:

“On its face, it’s a straightforward proposal for an independent examination of the finances and operations of the Hamilton/Wenham Regional School District. What’s at stake, however, is trust.”

You know, there just may be more truth in that statement than any one of us in this room would like to admit.

Let’s begin building trust back up within our community. It can begin if we all agree to a full and complete operational audit that will surely provide the transparency we all desire and deserve.

And along with that transparency… I believe we can find that missing trust.

Please vote YES… and make a positive difference.

Thank you for your consideration.

Wenham voters mull independent review of schools

Wenham voters mull independent review of schools

From the Salem News, April 30, 2010

by Steve Landwehr

Posted using ShareThis

Aspiring to Excellence in Our Schools

The Annual Town Meetings for Hamilton and Wenham are scheduled for May 8th and May 1st respectively. With a winter coat of white still on the ground and more in the forecast, it may seem as though May is a long way away.

Not really, when you consider the time and effort that goes into preparing articles for the warrant, the budgets from the various departments and, of course, the school district budget which is currently in it's preliminary stage. To spice things up, there is also a new teacher contract that is currently being negotiated.

And let's not forget any citizen's petitions that may be working their way onto the warrant for a vote at the Annual Town Meetings.

Which brings me to the topic of this blog...

The citizen's tax-watchdog group Enough Is Enough (EiE) has prepared and is currently obtaining signatures for a petition requesting an amendment to the the Regional School District Agreement. According to that agreement, any such change request must be signed by at least 10% of the registered voters in EITHER of the member towns (not both). At this time that means 571 registered voter signatures in Hamilton... or 270 in Wenham.

The petition is requesting an amendment to the district agreement that would allow for an operational audit to be conducted within 6 months of approval and within every 5 years following that initial audit.

This is an initiative that is long overdue. Here is a link to a recent Salem News report about how the HWRSD significantly outspends comparable school systems: [Click Here]


FEATURES and BENEFITS of an Operational Audit:

• An operational audit is not to be confused with a financial audit. An operational audit's purpose is to appraise the effectiveness and efficiency of an entire organization...in this case the Hamilton/Wenham Regional School District (HWRSD). The entire HWRSD operations would be analyzed, including appraisal of structure, controls, procedures and processes. Recommendations to improve performance and save costs would result from such an audit.
  
• An Operational Audit should provide at least three deliverables:
  

1. Value-driven recommendations that would enhance the HWRSD's efficiency and ability to achieve specific and long range objectives and cut costs.
   
2. A clear road map of how to manage the change process during the implementation of those recommendations.
   
3. The ability to recognize the need for change in the future, coupled with the ability to do it right the first time.

Some of you will recall that last September I posted a poll asking how many readers supported the concept of an operational audit of the HWRSD and I announced the results here.

89% of all respondents voted YES to such an audit and since that time even more residents have embraced the idea, including parents, teachers, town employees and even some selectmen. Even the Blue Ribbon Committee (BRC) recommended a somewhat limited operational audit (SPED only). And now, with updated information from select members of the BRC about to be made public, it is the right time to consider and vote on this amendment at Town Meeting.

Over the next few weeks you are likely to encounter volunteers asking for your support, and signature, to place this request on the town meeting warrants so that voters can decide collectively at town meeting whether to approve the audit...or not. You are welcome to place comments here on this blog if you wish.

Your signature on the citizen's petition is not a "yea" or "nay" vote on the initiative...It simply guarantees that the article will make it to Town Meeting where open discussion can take place and the outcome decided by the majority of registered voters present.

To view a copy of the requested amendment: [CLICK HERE]

IN OTHER NEWS...
Many leaders seem to be
abandoning the Hamilton/Wenham School District

School superintendent Marinel McGrath has accepted the job of superintendent of schools for Andover, MA.

Assistant superintendent Paul Syzmanski has accepted the position of school business manager in Billerica.

Philip Conrad, associate principal at Miles River Middle School and Hamilton-Wenham Regional High School is leaving to go to Rockport.


And there are currently only two candidates for the three positions available on the School Committee.

Can you say "Abandon Ship!"?

Also... The SOS group is promoting what they refer to as the "Fair Share" initiative for the schools, demanding that the towns give the schools a minimum of 2.5 % increase (plus .05% from new growth) every year.

One might argue that giving the schools more than $40 million in cumulative override funding over the past 11 years was a "Fair Share".

What would you call the increase in school funding of 9.8% two years ago, if not a "Fair Share"? (Maybe taxpayers should demand a refund?)

Wouldn't you call the average increase in school funding of 5.6% a year over the past 10 years a "Fair Share"?

For more details about this issue [click here]

How about a "Fair Shake" for taxpayers for a change?

Lastly, the Education Fund group recently sponsored a "feasability" study on rebuilding the auditorium at the high school. The architectural firm Dore & Whittier presented two options before a meeting of the School Committee.

Option #1: $6.7 million

Option #2: $8.8 million

I'm not sure, but I get the sense that neither option is particularly palatable to the taxpayers, or even the School Committee for that matter, during this fragile economic period. But thanks should be extended to the Ed Fund folks for paying for the study and for giving us something nice to dream about. Too bad we could not have purchased the North Shore Music Theatre, which was just sold on February 3rd for only $3.6 million. That probably would have been more "feasible", even if you threw in the cost of bussing students there for rehearsals.

Questionable Arrogance

Unlike Barbara Anderson’s well-known Citizens For Limited Taxation (CLT), that has been in existence for 30 years, the Hamilton/Wenham fiscal watchdog group Enough Is Enough (EiE) has been around for just under two years. But during that short period of time the group has been enormously successful in achieving its agenda of fiscal responsibility in the two towns. Membership has swelled to 400+ and supporters come from diverse backgrounds, age and income levels and family size.

Just before the two most recent town meetings in Hamilton the organization published and distributed what is known as the EiE Yellow Sheet, a voting guide with the group's recommendations for voting on key issues on the town warrants. Eleven recommendations on the two published Yellow Sheets resulted in ten wins for the group, an astonishing accomplishment for such a young organization.*

The reason?

Well surely there are many, but perhaps the group’s name serves as the best explanation: Enough Is Enough. Taxpayers in Hamilton and Wenham finally reached the tipping point after the 10 years of “budgeting by override” that has earned the towns a place in the Taxpayers’ Book of World Records. Those overrides cost the taxpayers over $39 million and counting since override costs are not one time events. They are added to the tax levy and you pay the override amount again every single year - year after year after year – forever...or for as long as you live in town.

In the past, the School Committee had displayed no small measure of arrogance regarding their requests for overrides (Remember their "only a cup of coffee" justification?). In a sense, they can almost be forgiven their arrogance and sense of entitlement. After all, if a bully takes advantage of another person, and year after year the weaker person allows that to happen, can you really blame the bully for his arrogance? Or sense of entitlement? On the other hand, if the weaker person finally and firmly says ENOUGH is ENOUGH and makes it perfectly clear that they will no longer be bullied, you’d expect the arrogance to dissolve, wouldn’t you?

Well, apparently not if you are the School Committee for the HWRSD. This group of elected individuals seems to believe that they are autonomous and unencumbered by the will of the people they represent. Here’s what their chairman has said about EiE and its members and supporters:

“We’re going to be contending with this group of people in the future and this is their tactic…They don’t care what the truth is.”

Actually, EiE does care what the truth is. The truth is that the residents of Hamilton and Wenham were promised more openness and transparency and that promise has not been kept. The truth is, EiE’s efforts to determine exactly what budgeted maintenance funding was spent on over the past three years have been stonewalled by a clever game of semantics and deliberate refusals of repeated requests for the information. The truth is that by publicly making statements like the above, the School Committee is declaring that their arrogance remains intact.

Recently, when EiE offered the School Committee suggestions and recommendations regarding the current negotiations with the teacher’s union over the contract that expires next year, the chairman had this to say:

“We will not be directed or distracted by a community group that seeks to undermine the process. We know what we are doing in this area.”

Well, we certainly hope they do since they are going up against one of the strongest unions in the state with what appears to be, by comparison, extremely limited strength in the area of contract negotiation.

Just a thought…Do you think the School Committee would consider hiring an expert contract negotiator with a proven track record of success representing other towns in similar negotiations? What if EiE was willing to pay the expert’s fee? Or would that be considered an attempt by EiE, as also stated by the chairman, to “compromise what we intend to be a successful negotiation process”?

These statements and others represent the kind of ARROGANCE that most would agree the committee is no longer entitled to.


* The one loss was the motion to permit secret or private balloting on articles requiring large expenditures or appropriations, such as overrides and capital debt exclusions, over $250k.

Surprise Endorsement From Enough Is Enough

Enough Is Enough surprised a packed Hamilton Special Town Meeting today when they endorsed the motion made on behalf of the School Committee and Administration for a capital debt exclusion override for replacement of the Cutler School boilers and HVAC.

At their last meeting (10/15/09) members of the School Committee specifically asked members of EiE in attendance what the group's recommendation would be. They were told simply that the recommendation would be made at Town Meeting, not before.

Strategically, it was a very good move by Enough Is Enough and probably resulted in greater attendance at the meeting by voters. By not knowing the position EiE would take on the motion, it's likely that many more made the effort to attend so as to support their choice, whichever way they were voting. And that was good for the democratic town meeting process in Hamilton. I will have some more observations about the meeting in the next few days.

The following is the statement that was read in SUPPORT of the motion by EiE:

Enough Is Enough regrets that we find ourselves in the position where the School Department has come before us to ask, once again, for additional funding above and beyond the $27 million approved at the ATM, $592,000 of which was approved as a line item for maintenance in this year’s budget. EiE believes that if the maintenance funding approved each year was properly managed and not directed away from maintenance to other sources, we might not have to be addressing this issue today. Soon perhaps, but not today.

Today we are told we have a crisis that needs immediate attention and funding. Rest assured that no other group or entity, save the School Committee and Administration, has spent more time meeting, researching, discussing and debating this issue than Enough Is Enough.

We have broken the question of whether to approve or not approve the motion into 2 major parts. There are other issues to be considered, to be sure, but we think these are the underlying ones.

First, the condition of the existing boilers. It is clear to us that the boilers at the Cutler School appear to have met their life expectancy and should be replaced.

Second, the reimbursement funding from the MSBA. Jack OKeefe has made the case that if we do not move forward with the motion before us, the window of opportunity with respect to MSBA’s reimbursement will close. We believe this to be true.

As previously mentioned, we now find ourselves in crisis mode. The residents and taxpayers of Hamilton deserve to see better long range school budget planning in an effort to avoid this kind of crisis management in the future.

That said, and given the condition of the current heating system, the availability of guaranteed reimbursement of 42.58% by the MSBA - resulting in reducing the impact and burden of the additional tax we would each have to pay - EiE supports the motion before us.

The motion was then approved by about 500 voters in attendance. The only thing lost in the approval of this article was Enough Is Enough's reputation (held by a select few) as a "knee-jerk, anti-school group". Sadly, a statement made about Enough Is Enough by the Chairman of the School Committee at their 10/15/09 meeting was, "We're going to be contending with this group of people in the future and this is their tactic: They don't care what the truth is."

Ouch.

I wonder how they will choose to brand Enough Is Enough now. We can only hope that they learned something positive from the group today.

To read the Salem News coverage of the vote and several comments, go to: http://www.salemnews.com/punews/local_story_290163855.html

To read the Hamilton/Wenham Chronicle coverage of the vote, go to: http://tinyurl.com/yjwacom

FUZZY MATH at Hamilton/Wenham School Department

The following is a letter from Enough Is Enough to the taxpayer-residents of Hamilton and Wenham:

It’s been a year since Enough is Enough (EIE), a citizens group promoting fiscal responsibility, asked for an operational audit of our schools. Our thinking was that this was an idea that all sides could agree upon, a way to get an expert, independent, outside look at how we could improve school operational efficiencies. We were dismayed when the idea was repeatedly ignored, confused and ultimately rejected by the school committee, the “Blue Ribbon Committee,” and even selectmen who claim they have no authority to ask the schools to entertain such an audit.

Last spring, EIE awakened citizens and defeated a capital debt exclusion override at Hamilton town meeting. The school district had been ignoring long-standing maintenance issues with our school buildings (a requirement under the two towns’ regional school agreement). A few school committee members publicly apologized for not making sure that the maintenance money budgeted was actually spent on maintenance issues. The school committee pressed forward with a capital debt exclusion override that addressed maintenance items that should have been completed with budgeted money and added many additional “wish list” items that went far beyond maintenance issues. EIE attempted to make a compromise that it could support: i.e. - limiting the town meeting article to health and safety items only, but this approach was rejected. As a result, the capital debt exclusion override went down to defeat.

The Hamilton-Wenham Regional School Committee and school support groups promised a more open process to explain to voters why a large capital debt exclusion override was needed, despite the fact that the schools had ten operational real estate tax overrides in past years and had not spent the money budgeted in their maintenance expense line item. EIE looked forward to the promise of more openness, but this never happened. Instead, EIE had to make many requests under the Massachusetts Public Records Law (MPRL) (M. G. L. Chapter 66, Section 10), which is very similar to the Federal Freedom of Information Act in an attempt to find out what was going on with maintenance in the schools. Request after request was met with partial non-specific responses. Instead of telling us what the schools did and did not spend money on, they gave EIE numbers that conflicted with school published reports to the community, along with vague expenditures on maintenance and “special projects”. Overall maintenance expenditures provided were far below those budgeted. When challenged, we were told that the schools do not maintain “budget versus actual reports”. We were appalled that either school accounting is not being done in accordance to acceptable practices or we were not being told the truth. “Fuzzy math” and obscuring the facts about maintenance, as well as other school expenditures, must come to an end.

The following are the results of our analysis of maintenance expense data obtained from the HWRSD:

A publication called " HWRSD Annual Report 2007- 2008 provided by HWRSD via mail to all citizens indicated that $461,103 was spent for maintenance during FY2007 and $459,067 was spent for maintenance during FY2008.

It should also be noted that the HWRSD budgeted dollars for maintenance for FY2007 was $650,559; and likewise, the budgeted dollars for maintenance for FY2008 was $676,377. This budget information was also provided by the HWRSD via the MPRL request made by EiE.

When EIE received the Massachusetts Public Records Law info from the HWRSD Administration the FY2007 actual maintenance dollars spent were $402,504 and included $49,136 for special projects, undefined. This leaves $58,599 unspent for the period from one set of data to the other set of data and a big question mark as to the purpose of the special projects.

Likewise, the FY2008 actual maintenance dollars spent were $380,726 and included $71,391 for special projects, again undefined. This leaves $78,341 unspent for the FY2008 period from one set of data to the other set of data and a big question mark as to the purpose of the special projects.

Clearly, there is a significant difference between the data provided in the HWRSD Annual Report versus the data provided to EiE by HWRSD Administration per the MPRL request. What data (of any data provided) is correct?

The largest variance of all is the FY2007 maintenance expense budget of $650,559 versus the maintenance actual 0f $402,504 which equals a variance of $248,055 less than the approved budget number of $650,559. Also the FY2008 maintenance budget of $676,377 versus the maintenance actual of $380,726, which equals a variance of $295,651 less than the approved budget number of $676,377.

A similar situation exists within the MPRL data received from HWRSD for FY2009 maintenance budget versus actual. The budget was $583,786 and total actual dollars spent were $469,353 which included $81,853 for special projects, undefined. The total variance between budget versus actual spent was $114,433.

For the three years discussed above (FY2007, FY2008 and FY2009) the total approved maintenance budget dollars were $1,910,722 and of that total, $658,139 were not spent for maintenance; and of the $1,252,583 dollars spent $202,380 were spent for special projects, undefined.

Where was the $658,139 spent if not spent on much needed maintenance?

Whatever the truth, EIE cautions the public to think hard when deciding if you trust the schools with another attempt at a very large capital debt exclusion override. Without the kind of openness that the taxpayers deserve, along with public discussion and debate, the numbers are nearly meaningless. The schools, because of regional school laws, and unlike our towns, do not have to spend money allocated in their yearly budget to the line item approved. It is clear from what we have learned that funds budgeted for maintenance were never spent and/or spent in ways that may not have been related to maintenance of school buildings.

It is in everyone’s interest to have safe and healthy schools. It is also in everyone’s interest to have a school committee that demands that citizens’ questions are answered in an open and forthright manner. The Hamilton-Wenham Regional School is a public school, funded by the public, and citizens have the right to know that their money is being spent in a fiscally responsible manner in the best interests of our children. We call once again for an independent outside operating audit that focuses on all aspects of school operations. Without this independent oversight, citizens should not be giving more money to the school system. We cannot rely on hope that they will use the money as appropriated, when this clearly has not been the case up until now.

(Please let us know your opinion by voting in the poll that is posted at the top left corner of this blog.)

Sincerely,

Enough is Enough

Robert Sica
James Kent
Elizabeth Dunbar
Edwin Howard
Warren Gray
Bruce Wadleigh
George LaMontagne
Jay Burnham

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