Prop 46 Coming to Center Stage Once Again
“Resolved, the town shall limit the increase in the town’s combined annual budget to revenue generated by growth in the Grand List, in State and Federal assistance, and in other income, except for increases, voted upon by town meeting, necessary to cover debt service on legal obligations, court judgments against the town, State mandated programs and emergency expenditures.
In the event of property revaluation, the actual dollar increase in the combined town budget shall be limited to the dollar amount of increase in the preceeding year's budget or the average amount of increase over the preceeding three years, which ever is lower."
Read Updike, Kelly & Spellacy's 2006 interpretation -HERE-
________________________________________________
Upon first reading the ordinance appears to be fairly straight forward, a look at the history and debate surrounding it tells you that it is not.
That debate is about to intensify once again. At the last town meeting a citizen stepped forward to point out that it is his opinion the ordinance has been applied incorrectly, possibly resulting in overcharges to the taxpayers of over seven figures. See the video of this presentation -HERE- (requires Media Player)
The following article appeared in the Worcester Telegram recently on the same subject-
Resident cites possible $1M overtaxation
WOODSTOCK— Residents may have been overtaxed during the past few years, according to one resident who outlined his findings to the Board of Selectmen yesterday afternoon.
David Richardson, known for his detailed analyses of the town budget at town meetings, told the board he has gone through documents pertaining to spending over the last three or four years and found discrepancies in the way the town’s spending cap, Proposition 46, has been interpreted, resulting in a $1 million overtaxing.
What’s more, he said, major errors in calculations may have led to another $1.3 million going into town coffers. He said the two issues are separate from one another.
Mr. Richardson offered no details of his examination, but referred selectmen to the documents available in the town auditor’s office from which he gathered his material. He also said the town budget is some $470,000 over the Proposition 46 limit.
Selectmen were not totally surprised by Mr. Richardson’s summary of the situation, having received an e-mail offering more details of his examination. The board agreed to investigate the issue with the town auditor.
So, here we go again with yet another new twist. I wonder how far this inquiry will go and what the outcome may be. I think it will also be interesting to see how the politicians dance to avoid the "third rail".
By way of reference this will encompass my answer to a question by 'Monsieur DeFarge' posted in another thread- I personally would like to see Prop 46 repealed, however, the voters have spoken repeatedly and that MUST be respected. As part of that opinion bear in mind this further discussion on a related subject-
My other observation is that I wonder if the BOE who pursued the the repeal of Prop 46 through legal means had thought through the level of accountability and scrutiny that they would bring upon themselves? Which I believe would be an immediate by-product of repeal.
Before going on, let me ask a question regarding the education budget which I have spent some time with (I promise I will soon get to the Town budget as well). In the current enviroment does anyone think that the format and substance of this budget would be viewed positively if it had to stand on its own with the voters without the presence of 46?
My contention is that I think not.
Let me ask another. Is the school board prepared to back their assertions of being "starved for funds" with complete and utter transaparency, prepared to educate the electorate as to why this is the case and withstand the resulting scrutiny? Again, I think not.
Why do I say this? Pretty simple really. If it were the case and the school board was as desperate as they would like everyone to think or even wanted to expand and improve well defined programs, wouldn't the proper course of action have been to present these needs for more funds to be 'voted upon by town meeting' as written in the ordinance?
Wouldn't that have been a better, cheaper and more logical choice than the legal means pursued to repeal 46, meeting with the SDOE with attorneys in reference to MER & MBR levels which they had to know were clearly being met, the 9th Grade hostage crisis or the targeting of the Academy?
Surely citizens and parents would come out of the woodwork in favor of the children. Even the curmudgeons would have a difficult time arguing in the negative for a positive, well reasoned appeal. Please inform me if and where I am wrong.
Instead, we are where we are with a BOE with damaged credibility and little support.
It is impossible for me to believe that the obviously intelligent people involved in this would choose the path they did rather than the alternative unless there is another problem. Repeal of 46 is no magic bullet.
Cocktail parties at the Inn are not going to fix this.
In the event of property revaluation, the actual dollar increase in the combined town budget shall be limited to the dollar amount of increase in the preceeding year's budget or the average amount of increase over the preceeding three years, which ever is lower."
Read Updike, Kelly & Spellacy's 2006 interpretation -HERE-
________________________________________________
Upon first reading the ordinance appears to be fairly straight forward, a look at the history and debate surrounding it tells you that it is not.
That debate is about to intensify once again. At the last town meeting a citizen stepped forward to point out that it is his opinion the ordinance has been applied incorrectly, possibly resulting in overcharges to the taxpayers of over seven figures. See the video of this presentation -HERE- (requires Media Player)
The following article appeared in the Worcester Telegram recently on the same subject-
Resident cites possible $1M overtaxation
WOODSTOCK— Residents may have been overtaxed during the past few years, according to one resident who outlined his findings to the Board of Selectmen yesterday afternoon.
David Richardson, known for his detailed analyses of the town budget at town meetings, told the board he has gone through documents pertaining to spending over the last three or four years and found discrepancies in the way the town’s spending cap, Proposition 46, has been interpreted, resulting in a $1 million overtaxing.
What’s more, he said, major errors in calculations may have led to another $1.3 million going into town coffers. He said the two issues are separate from one another.
Mr. Richardson offered no details of his examination, but referred selectmen to the documents available in the town auditor’s office from which he gathered his material. He also said the town budget is some $470,000 over the Proposition 46 limit.
Selectmen were not totally surprised by Mr. Richardson’s summary of the situation, having received an e-mail offering more details of his examination. The board agreed to investigate the issue with the town auditor.
So, here we go again with yet another new twist. I wonder how far this inquiry will go and what the outcome may be. I think it will also be interesting to see how the politicians dance to avoid the "third rail".
By way of reference this will encompass my answer to a question by 'Monsieur DeFarge' posted in another thread- I personally would like to see Prop 46 repealed, however, the voters have spoken repeatedly and that MUST be respected. As part of that opinion bear in mind this further discussion on a related subject-
My other observation is that I wonder if the BOE who pursued the the repeal of Prop 46 through legal means had thought through the level of accountability and scrutiny that they would bring upon themselves? Which I believe would be an immediate by-product of repeal.
Before going on, let me ask a question regarding the education budget which I have spent some time with (I promise I will soon get to the Town budget as well). In the current enviroment does anyone think that the format and substance of this budget would be viewed positively if it had to stand on its own with the voters without the presence of 46?
My contention is that I think not.
Let me ask another. Is the school board prepared to back their assertions of being "starved for funds" with complete and utter transaparency, prepared to educate the electorate as to why this is the case and withstand the resulting scrutiny? Again, I think not.
Why do I say this? Pretty simple really. If it were the case and the school board was as desperate as they would like everyone to think or even wanted to expand and improve well defined programs, wouldn't the proper course of action have been to present these needs for more funds to be 'voted upon by town meeting' as written in the ordinance?
Wouldn't that have been a better, cheaper and more logical choice than the legal means pursued to repeal 46, meeting with the SDOE with attorneys in reference to MER & MBR levels which they had to know were clearly being met, the 9th Grade hostage crisis or the targeting of the Academy?
Surely citizens and parents would come out of the woodwork in favor of the children. Even the curmudgeons would have a difficult time arguing in the negative for a positive, well reasoned appeal. Please inform me if and where I am wrong.
Instead, we are where we are with a BOE with damaged credibility and little support.
It is impossible for me to believe that the obviously intelligent people involved in this would choose the path they did rather than the alternative unless there is another problem. Repeal of 46 is no magic bullet.
Cocktail parties at the Inn are not going to fix this.
One of the MFATF recommendations seeks clarification of emergency expenditures under Prop 46. Why they carry over year to year is the question.
What about the BOE and it's latest attempt with state mandates? They want the BOF to exempt the academy's tuition under Prop 46.
Looking at the MFATF recommendations, I noticed that they also seek clarification on state mandates in regards to Prop 46 exemptions. Prop 46 will eventually implode on itself or via a law suit. This may ultimately be a good thing as it will promote a higher level scrutinization of the budget.
I just read the minutes of the last Board of Education meeting. Does anyone know why Special Education is in Safe Harbor for the last two years or what the problem is???