“It Takes a Team”
by: Jim Mollison
Billerica, Mass. – There has been much machinations within Billerica’s power elite dealing with our current town manager, his comments, and the varied on again off again decisions for continued employment. While not perfect by any means, I feel that Mr. Williams has done a relatively good job for the people of Billerica. However, given the nature of the political power cliques and the stranglehold of special interest groups that drive the corporate town of Billerica – just trying to do a good job can often be challenging and frustrating.
Of course there were a few missteps that signaled the deteriorating character of his future dealings in town. By taking on the job of town manager he stepped into a pit of special interest vipers blindly striking at any threat to their turf. It is a telling indicator of serious problems when a town cannot seem to keep a town manager for more than a few years running.
Our town manager inherited serious problems, years in the making, which are now exasperated by our deteriorating economy. Most of these problems stem from the unabashed growth in spending and tax increases that occurred during Montuori’s tenure as town manager. This spending and tax growth was fueled by the artificially high home values driven by the housing bubble that peaked in 2006 and eventually burst starting in late 2007.
I know that managing our town is hard enough in good economic times and guiding it through the worst economy in 50 years is going to take a special kind of person. Unfortunately, it will also require a team effort across the spectrum of town government. But regrettably, that kind of teamwork won’t happen. Perhaps, Mr. Williams understands all too well, the difficult challenges to come over the next few years and has decided that retirement is more to his liking. Given the personalities, motivations and egos of many individuals and groups that hold power in our town, I don’t much blame him for his decision to retire. I wish him and his family the very best.
Billerica has many challenges in its future and the selection of a new town manager to meet those challenges will now take center stage, as the same gaggle of faces select a new sacrificial victim to be served up to the idol of ego, power and greed.
Our state is but a month into the new fiscal year and already predicting lower than expected revenue. The Quinn Bill, which funds annual educational bonuses for police, was not funded by the state – leaving the town to pick up the full tab, equating to hundreds of thousands of dollars annually. This is just an example of many issues that we face.
Is our town ready to work together as a team? Will they work toward the best interests of the people of Billerica? Or, will it be business as usual with a new town manager?
They say, that “past trends are a good indication of future events.” So, here are a few to think about when considering the actions of our Corporate Town.
Why, was there so much excess revenue collected during the years 1999 and 2002? When combined with free cash the year to year growth was as high as 17 percent. One year the town collected nearly $7,000,000 in excess revenue (not one penny of the excess revenue was returned to the taxpayers)
- Why did the state mandate an out-of-cycle revaluation of our real-estate just as real-estate values peaked in 2006—locking in values prior to the start of the real-estate downturn.
- Why did the town rush to finalize real-estate revaluations for 2009?—completing them prior to the real-estate crash.
- Why the rush to finalized and approve the generous municipal contracts last fall?
- Why the rush to lock in yearly municipal contracts last spring?
Do these examples indicate to you a town and state government that is on your team and working in your best interest? Or, is it all about getting as much money out or your pocket and putting it into the pockets of government and municipal unions?
Unfortunately, the trends speak for themselves as a condemnation of what is wrong with our town. Hard decisions will have to be made and significant compromises are in order. The new town manager, selected by the usual suspects, will have to meet our problems head-on—starting the first day of the job.
Maybe, it is time to think about what we can do differently to meet the essential needs of the people of Billerica—by thinking out of the box. Maybe we can look to the past for examples on how towns met and overcame adversity. Maybe economic largess is not the answer. Perhaps, the old values of economic thrift and community volunteerism can be the solution that meets the essential needs of the people of Billerica.
”Ready for a Tea Party?”
by: Jim Mollison
How do you take your tea? Well in 1773, the colonist made it clear to King George that they could live without it. And so it goes, the Boston Tea Party was born and our country took its first steps towards independence. Buried in the events that led up to the Boston Tea Party were fundamental tenets that were later to be included in our Constitution.
Another interesting event occurred during the tax dispute leading up to the Boston Tea Party that has parallels to today. When the colonies refused to pay taxes imposed by the Parliament they claimed that they should not have to pay the taxes if they had no representation within Parliament. Parliament relented partially and eliminated some taxes and fees — However, they only reduced the tax on tea. This meant that if the colonist allowed the tax to be collected on the importation of the tea they would abandon their claim to no taxation without representation. We know that rather than accepting the benefit of lower taxes with the string attached of relinquishing their claim to representation the colonist chose to rebel and not drink the tea.
Today, we see a multitude of new taxes being proposed on an already overtaxed population. The underlying theme of most of these new taxes is that they supposedly promote good behavior and benefit the environment. Oh, and of course raise revenue. You have a gas tax the will be the highest in the nation, additional taxes on alcoholic beverages, taxes on sweets, a requirement for a 5 cent deposit on non-carbonated drinks (to include water), a meals tax and an increased in existing tolls and new tolls. Of course, this list is just the beginning; you will see an increase in fees, taxes and fines as the economic situation worsens. In all cases of taxes or fees, the consumer ultimately pays directly or indirectly for the added cost.
I will not go through the entire list with the pros and cons. However, I can say that I do not support any of these tax initiatives. However, I would like to address the Tolls and the gas tax. The purpose of Tolls is to pay for the bonds that were used to raise money for a specific infrastructure project. Once the bondholders have been fully paid, the Tolls should be removed. Our politicians have saw fit to combine the debt of the Big Dig with the turnpike authority. This transfers that debt responsibility to users of the turnpike, rather than only the users of the colossal mistake, called the Big Dig.
The purpose of Tolls is not to provide funds indefinitely. The gas tax is specifically in place to build and maintain roads and bridges. Massachusetts consistently uses the funds generated from the gas tax for other purposes than that of roads. This has resulted in a transportation infrastructure that is one of the worse I have every encountered.
Now we must pay the highest gas tax in the nation so the State can continue to do business as usual. The State now wants to transfer the cost of the Big Dig debacle to everybody that drives a car.
Will there be a Tea Party? You can bet on it! However, it probably won’t be the dumping of candy, bottled water, gasoline or whisky into Boston Harbor. I believe the people will ultimately choose not to drink the tea in Massachusetts. The law of unintended consequences will always take precedence when it comes to bad tax policy. Who will suffer as a result of these irresponsible new taxes? Not the State. It will be small businesses and the jobs they bring that will immediately feel the full brunt of bad tax policy. Eventually the State will see far less in additional revenue than they expect.
How can one justify agreeing to additional taxes to pay for the irresponsible mistakes, gross corruption, mismanagement and incompetence of our State Government and Legislature? Well, many of you will know exactly how you will respond to these new taxes. It does not take a rocket scientist to know you can buy your alcohol, gas, sweets and water in New Hampshire and avoid paying these taxes.
If you accept these new taxes and there is no “Tea Party”, you will only encourage them to continue business as usual and when the emergency wanes, you will not see any movement from the legislature to do away with these new taxes. Just as they have fought every attempt to bring the income tax rate back down to 5 percent after the last economic emergency was over — they will fight to keep these new taxes in place.
You have heard how these are good taxes that promote good behavior and that they are friendly to our environment. This is elitist dribble — these taxes are about revenue generation nothing more and nothing less. There are plenty of busybodies out there that would love to tell people how to live their lives. Of course, it is for your own good.
If these new taxes are imposed on us, I hope you will make the choice not drink the tea in Massachusetts. The only way you will see true reform in Massachusetts is to put it on a revenue diet.
“Tattered Threads of Town Meeting”
by: Jim Mollison
After reading Scott Winchell’s excellent guest commentary column “Fabric of Community”, I personally would like to thank him for enlightening the public about need for more participation in our political process. The lack of participation in our political process whether it be local, State or Federal ultimately results in its corruption and transformation. The transformation is complete when the political system perceives it is no longer answerable to the people — due to their inattention and lack of participation. The transformation is from a representative body that serves the needs of the average voter to one that serves the needs of special interest groups.
Does this problem exist in Billerica? Has Billerica transformed? One only has to look at the actions of Town Meeting and the Boards and Committees, to rapidly, come to the realization that it does. Just look at the headlines dealing with Billerica Town Government over the last few weeks — do they not leave you with the impression that something is wrong?
However, “Billerica is considered one of the most well-run communities in the commonwealth”. We have not had a two and a half override initiative like many other communities nor have we had initiatives for regionalization of services. While at face value this sounds good – let’s consider what this means. It could be that we have a very efficient and effective Town government. On the other hand, it could be representative of inattention and lack of participation of the voters. Thus, allowing the Corporate Town and special interest to run things pretty much as they want. Stability and ever-increasing sources of revenue nourish this monster. The only thing the monster fears is if, in the endeavor to capture more revenue it awakens the sleeping giant – the people.
So a balance must be maintained between the appetite for more revenue and the fear of awakening the voters. The overt must be masked by the covert or by deception. Look at the Town budget requests over the last decade. During those years, the budget grew from about $76 million to nearly $130 million. However, this is not the entire story. Not counted in the budget request amounts is about $32 million in extra revenue collected during that same period. This is called “Free Cash” because it is excess revenue collected from the Taxpayers that is over and above the amount requested to support the budget.
In 2002, we had about a 7 percent growth in the budget. We also had nearly $7 million in Free Cash collected that year. Would the average voter support about a 15 percent increase in Town revenue in one year? I do not think so. If the Town had openly requested a 15 percent increase in the budget, it would awaken the sleeping giant and deservedly felt the wrath of the voters.
How could this happen, year-end and year-out over the course of the last decade? Was it purposeful deception? I guess it is fortunate that Billerica was blessed with “Free Cash” amounts that are as much as ten times more than the average Massachusetts town of similar size and population. Of course, the Town Budget is what everyone sees. It is six months later when you hear about the “Free Cash” amounts. So, let’s go through process. Town Meeting passes a budget showing a generous but, acceptable year-to-year increase. However, Corporate Town underestimates the projected revenue and asks for a full tax increase (as much as the law will allow) support the budget. Six months later lo and behold the Town collected $3 to $7 million more than it needed to support the budget.
Did Town Meeting return any of the excess revenue to the Taxpayers? Was it put in our rainy day account to be used during economic hard times? Billerica only has a couple of million dollars in the rainy day account — hardly enough to make a difference in this economic environment. Of course, this begs the question — Was Town Meeting asleep? Was it unaware of what was happening? Perhaps, there were other motivations in play.
I appreciate Scott highlighting the issue of special interest groups within Town Meeting. However, the real issue is – are the average voter’s interests adequately represented in Town Meeting? The question posed is — we are all connected, so where do we draw the line on conflict of interest? The State Ethics commission draws the line very nicely and it is available for all to see on their website. The law exempts Town Meeting members from ethics standards. However, at one time this law was interpreted differently. As with many laws the original intent is now lost in the fog of legal maneuverings.
I agree with Scott about the dismal record of voter turnout and participation. Without this participation, you have little more than an oligarchy made up of the Corporate Town and its minions. Representative government is then relegated to little more than a spectacle providing the illusion of representative government. Are we there yet? Does Town Meeting represent little more than the tattered remnants of the fabric of our community?
“Three Amigos”
by: Jim Mollison
The Selectmen’s meeting of January 26 was marked by a heated exchange between the Three Amigos (Bob Correnti, Jimmy O’Donnell and Bob Accomando) who were on one side of the issue, Mark Lombardo, and Mike Rosa on the other. Just as in the movie “The Three Amigos”, our main characters (Bob, Jimmy and Bob) remain oblivious to the realities of events happening all around them as they are too wrapped up in their own self-interest to understand that the economic plight of the Town and the taxpayers.
Bob Corrente, through a series of personal barbs and attacks that were focused mainly on Mark Lombardo, ultimately degraded the meeting to its lowest point as he questioned Marks maturity. Of course, the last refuge of an indefensible position is to personally discredit and attack your opponent – Bob seems to have that down to an art form.
What was the issue? Most of you know it by now. It was filling the open Assistant Town Manager position with the current Town Assessor. However, the twist was that he would fill two positions. He would be a full time Town Assessor and a part-time Assistant Town Manager. He would retain his full pay as a Town Assessor and receive additional pay as a part-time Assistant Town Manager.
During the discussion, the Town Manager indicated that by filling the part-time position he would save the Town $50,000. This is how he got to that conclusion. The full-time position of Assistant Town manager if filled would require a salary of about $100,000. By subtracting the cost of the part-time Assistant Town Manager $25,000 and an additional cost of $25,000 for a consultant to help-out in the assessor’s office – due to the absence of the assessor while performing Assistant Town Manager work. Viola! You get a $50,000 savings. I liken this example to a man who after being told he was getting a reduction in pay, goes out and charges on his credit card a $2000 HDTV that is on sale for $1000. He then claims to his family that they are a $1000 ahead.
In Fall Town Meeting a full-Time Assistant Town manager position was approved in the budget. However, when the Town Manager was questioned about the need for filling a position that has for the greater part of five years has remained empty during a period of economy uncertainties — he seemed to indicate he would be prudent and consider the economic situation. There were many such discussions on budget items during the Fall Town Meeting. This resulted in Town Meeting demonstrating a trust in the Town Manager and deferring to him on the promise that if economic conditions worsen he would not spend the approved funding and request redirection of the funding during Spring Town Meeting towards needs that are more critical.
Well, I don’t know about you — but, I do believe economic conditions have worsened since Fall Town Meeting. The State is projecting at least a $700,000 reduction in State
Aid and funding to Billerica. Of course, Mike and Mark questioned the prudence of filling the position without knowing the full impact of the cuts in State funding. Will the reduction in State funding remain at $700,000? On the other hand, will there be more cuts? What will happen next fiscal year?
The Three Amigos see the Town Manger’s request as a savings, while Mike and Mark see it as a less that prudent action based on the certainties of a reduction in State funding this fiscal year.
Mike and Mark asked other questions. Such as — how do you work and get paid for a full-time position and a part-time position during the same work hours? Isn’t the Town required to advertise an open position to ensure the best-qualified candidate is selected? Have proper hiring procedures been adhered to?
I was also, quite disturbed by the comments of the Town Manager as he soundly scolded the Board of Selectmen — essentially telling them to stay out of his business. Why would the Town Manager bring it before the Board if they did not have a legitimate interest? After all, the rules state that the Board of Selectmen has 10 days to object (with just cause) to the Town Manager’s hiring action. I would think the selection and hiring of an assistant Town Manager would be very much within the purview of the Board – just as a CEO would get the final approval of the Board of Directors before filling a senior position within a corporation. The Board of Directors is responsible to the stockholders and in the case of our Corporate Town; the Selectmen are responsible to the Taxpayers.
The Three Amigos are a caricature of what is wrong with our town. However, unlike the characters in the movie who eventually came to a realization that there is something greater than themselves — our Three Amigos seem to have never come to that realization.
“Opportunities for Scoundrels”
by: Jim Mollison
It is said “There’s a sucker born every minute” and the American Taxpayer can amply fit the definition of this commonly used adage. We have some very interesting challenges that we must face in 2009 and there are plenty of scoundrels willing play on the fears and concerns of the taxpayers – to enrich themselves or further their own personal agendas.
Our soon to be new President Barack Obama, has unveiled an $850 billion economic stimulus package that may soon reach a trillion dollars. He plans to sign the economic stimulus package into law on his first day in office. The stimulus package focuses on job creation, renewable energy, renovation of public buildings, healthcare, education, tax relief and updating and repairing our transportation infrastructure. How does he plan to pay for this? He intends to borrow the funds.
Our elected representatives are acting like irresponsible credit card holders who have for years lived beyond their means and charged their cards to the limit. Realizing they can scarcely afford to pay the minimum payment, they have chosen to take credit cards out in their children and grandchildren’s names and continue to live their dream.
I took a component of the stimulus package that seems to have both our State and Federal Government attention – updating and repairing our transportation infrastructure. It is said that this is an investment to produce a stronger economy and create jobs. I see a couple of problems with these assumptions. What happens to the jobs when you finish these massive public works projects? How does this massive spending program using borrowed money create long-term growth and stability to our economy? How does it create a growing and reliable job market? I just do not see how creating short-term jobs building roads, bridges and such; can accomplish the stated goals and objectives.
Of course, looking in our own backyard we have such a great record of accomplishment on large transportation public works projects. Yes, we need to maintain and improve our transportation infrastructure. However, with so much funding available under the stimulus package, we will see government at its best, as billions are squandered on the latest “Big Dig” wannabes from around the country. How does this kind of activity change our economy from a consumer-based economy to a production-based economy? It does not!
Nearly all the so-called objectives of the stimulus package seem to benefit public employees and labor unions. The infrastructure investments do little to bring production and manufacturing jobs back to this country. The education component of the stimulus package will not inspire the needed changes to our educational system – but rather more of the same on a grander scale. The renewable energy component of the package will bring us more government picked winners — like ethanol. How do we pay for this?
It seems that both the State and the Federal government are looking at ways to increase the revenue from the sale of gasoline to help pay for the infrastructure improvements. Do you remember just a few months ago when the cost of gas was over $4 per gallon? The rapid rise in the cost of gas was devastating to many families and created a huge transfer of wealth. The natural outcome was a reduction in driving as people tried to adjust to this onslaught to their pocketbooks. The result was a reduction in gas tax revenue, which is now the impetus for raising our gas tax at both the Federal and State level.
Over the last few months gas in Massachusetts has gone from over $4 a gallon to as low as a $1.45. Yet, the State and Federal Government say they have not seen a significant rise in consumption and revenues are still down. Something does not compute. It took time for the impact of the $4 per gallon gas to ripple its way through the economy just as it will take time for the $1.45 per gallon to have an affect on consumer behavior. Why the big push at the State and Federal level? Timing is everything when it comes to raising taxes and this rapid fall in gas prices (lowest level in 5 years) is just the opportunity these scoundrels have been waiting for.
All of the sudden, the debt of “Big Dig” needs to be shared with the entire State through an increase in our gas tax. Our State Government wants to raise the gas tax from 23.5 cents per gallon to a recommended 32.5 cents per gallon (about 40 percent increase). The Federal Government wants to increase the gas tax from 18.4 cents per gallon to about 28.4 cents per gallon (about 54 percent increase). A historic look at long-term gas prices indicates that we may be looking at a price of between $3 and $3.50 per gallon once things settle down. With the proposed tax increases, $4 or more per gallon is foreseeable.
With nearly a trillion dollars coming to the feeding trough, the states and special interest groups are lining up to gorge on our children’s and grandchildren’s future servitude. We cannot keep kicking the can down the road and impoverish future generations so we can continue with an economic system that shows little difference from what Madoff was doing.
“FINCOM’s Folly and Business As Usual”
by: Jim Mollison
FINCOM wins by recommending to Town Meeting the defeat of all warrant articles submitted addressing issues relating to our rapidly deteriorating economy — but, was it at the expense of the people and taxpayers of Billerica?
Last week FINCOM’s advice to Town Meeting reflected either a blatant lack of understanding of the dire economic situation of our economy or a partisan attempt to ensure that Billerica continues — business as usual. Maybe a little of both.
In the interest of being fair and open, I want to let all the readers know that I sponsored two of the three warrant articles that the FINCOM did not recommend to Town Meeting. The two warrant articles I sponsored dealt with establishing a committee to plan for and address the impacts of our worsening economy and a public statement of Town Meeting’s support for cost control measures that the FINCOM and the Town Manager might want to use to control costs. If you want to see the exact wording, please visit the Town website and review the Special Town Meeting Warrant.
The reason I said both a lack of understanding of the economy and partisanship, is because of the kinds of questions asked during the FINCOM review of the warrant articles prior to Town Meeting. One question/comment, which particularly concerned me, asked how long ago I new the economy was heading for a recession. I replied to a time frame of late spring or early summer. What followed my reply was truly disconcerting — I was lectured by FINCOM that nobody could predict the recent economic calamity. It was then, that I realized that this band of self declared, best and brightest did not have a clue — or perhaps they were more concerned that another committee providing recommendations may upset their monopoly on Town Meeting misadvise and manipulation. Who really knows?
Therefore, I thought we could take a trip down FINCOM memory lane to see if we could discern anything from past recommendations. Perhaps we could detect a pattern of inspired and knowledgeable advice. Well, we do not have to go far to find interesting recommendations. Let’s see — now what was the advice of FINCOM on the use our stabilization funds a year or so ago? Oh, yes! This was the incident dealing the so called hardy few, the 60 or 70 Town Meeting Representatives that prevented a 2/3rds vote that would have nearly empty out our Stabilization account. The FINCOM and Town Manager predicted dire consequences if it was not approved. Funny, the needed funding was found without resorting to the total destruction of our stabilization account. I guess they were wrong — even with all their detailed knowledge and understanding of Billerica finances. (What is fascinating is that they now take credit for the fact that we have around $2 million in our stabilization account – when in fact, we would have less that $1M if we had followed the FINCOM and Town Manager’s recommendations).
Speaking of the Stabilization account and so called free cash that is used to build the account — let’s look at the excess revenue (free cash) that was collected from the taxpayers since 2000. It amounts to in excess of $32 million. This equates to an average of $3.5M per year of excess taxes collected. In 2002, the excess revenue collected was nearly $7 million. Therefore, the FINCOM budget recommendation included the normal 3 to 5 percent growth and a recommendation for a full 2.5 percent tax increase. However, this recommendation was based an (intentional?) underestimate of projected revenue. This resulted in a real budget increase that year of about 10 to 12 percent (by my rough calculations). Would any Town Meeting vote for a 10 to 12 percent increase in spending and still look the taxpayer in the face? None — I would say. Yet, it seems that this little scam occurs year after year. Budgeting an acceptable growth, then underestimating the revenue and asking for the full tax levy allowable under the law and ending up with a true (but hidden) budget growth that would outrage the average Taxpayer. The FINCOM is either very ignorant (which I doubt) or a willing accomplice in this deception. This process has been going on for years. What is frustrating is that it seems that many in Town Meeting are aware of this deception. Yet, they seem to ignore it.
Yes, we have a FINCOM with an immense sense of self worth and arrogance. We have a FINCOM that seems to have an agenda incompatible with their true role as advisors to Town Meeting. However, this kind of FINCOM could not exist without the willing participation of the many in Town Meeting. This situation can only be remedied if the voters stop voting into Town Meeting, town employees and others that have conflict of interest issues. I want to thank the individual that raised this issue in the Special Town Meeting. Unfortunately, the individual was promptly expelled from Town Meeting for doing so. The Taxpayers deserve a FINCOM and Town Meeting that represents and works for them — It is time for a change and not — business as usual.
