Update: As discussed at the BOS meeting on 2/7/08, this issue has been escalated to the town attorney, we are very encouraged by this development. Admin 

As we enter “budgeting time” here in Woodstock, once again Prop 46 will be at the center of the process.  While Prop 46 has been reaffirmed at least three times during the last few years by margins of 2:1 or better – one might even consider the most recent municipal elections as a further confirmation – there are still those who would like to wish it away.

Following up on last year’s last minute corrections to bring the budget supposedly in line with Prop 46, a review of the past three years budgets was done.  In those three years, the spending limit, and budget, was set using the Cap calculated under Prop 46.   What the review showed is that errors similar to those found and “corrected” last year occurred in each of the three preceding years.  Not only that, but emergency expenses and other “one time” expenses exempted under Prop 46 had been improperly accounted for and allowed to “roll-over” from one year to the next.  In other words, those one-time expenses approved by town meeting as one-time expenses were not one-time but in fact turned into annual annuities compounding as they went.    Bottom line, every one of the budgets for the last four years has been in violation of Prop 46.  What did this cost you, the taxpayer? $1.3 million for the errors and roughly $200,000 more for the emergency expenses you got to pay for over and over again after the one time they were approved for. 

All of this can be verified through public documents available through the treasurer’s office and the school superintendent’s office – for the BOE budgets.  In addition, and still under investigation, is the fact that some of those emergency expenses you got to pay for were reimbursed through state grants and therefore never necessary to cover in the first place.

For all of you who came out to support Prop 46 through three referenda and thought that Prop 46 was somehow protecting you against unreasonable tax increases, time to think again.  

These issues have been reviewed with the Board of Finance, repeatedly.  Supporting documents have been provided and none of the claims have been refuted.

What is the Board of Finance’s response?  Well, on Tuesday January 22nd the board voted to ignore the past errors and to use the current year’s budget as the basis for calculating the limit for next year’s budget even though this year’s budget is some $750,000+ over the legal limit under Prop 46.  

Initially this was going to be reviewed with the town attorney for further guidance, but now even the agreement for that review has been rescinded.  It seems that the board would prefer to have a taxpayer lawsuit rather than a legal review with the town attorney.

To further add to this mess, a review of legal opinions obtained under an FOI request revealed that the town has been in possession of a legal opinion dated back to May of 1993 that clearly stated the need for all budgets to be consistent with Prop 46, thereby raising serious questions about the legal validity of the budgets for the last four years.  That legal opinion went on to suggest a process for calculating the spending limit under Prop 46 that had it been followed would have prevented all of these issues from occurring in the first place. 

If you haven’t followed the budgeting process in the past, this would be a good time to start as this is your money, at least for now.

David Richardson
North Woodstock
______________________________________________________________________

I would like to thank Mr. Richardson for submitting this to us as well as his supporting documents that are discussed in detail below. Now, get out your calculators and get to work!

This set of documents contains the Prop 46 calculation sheets for the years 2000 to date. See them -HERE-

-HERE- you will find the summary pages from the final BOE budgets that were presented at the town meetings for approval.

If you check the numbers in the BOE budgets for transportation and special education against those used in the Prop 46 calculation sheets, you will see they don’t match – by a considerable amount in some years.

For the budget years 2000-2001 through 2003-2004, Prop 46 was not triggered and so the errors are of little consequence.  However, for the years 2004-2005 through 2007-2008 the Prop 46 calculation sheet was used to set the spending limit, meaning that any errors in those numbers resulted in an error in calculating the budget for that year.
 
You can also see from the calculation sheets that rather than treating the exempted expense items – debt, legal judgments, emergency expense and state mandated programs – separate from the income items as was suggested by the legal counsel in the opinion dated from May 4, 1993, See it -HERE- these expense items were kept as part of the Cap calculation and so were allowed to “roll-over” from one year to the next and compound as they went. 

This rolling over or compounding, not only allowed the errors noted above to accumulate to over $1.3 million dollars, but also resulted in what should have been one-time expenses to also roll over from one year to the next.  This means that those emergency expenses that were approved for funding as “one-time” expenses suddenly become annual annuities as long as Prop 46 continues to be used to set the budget.  It even affected the “Reval” year as what the board did was use the average increase in the budget for the three previous years as the increase for the “Reval” year.  

Incidentally, this is not the procedure that was outlined to the BOF by the town’s current legal counsel in an opinion dated April 11, 2006, See it -HERE-
 
The spreadsheets -HERE- are a breakout of these errors and costs.  They show the impact in each year and the effect of the roll over and how it accumulated.

Mr. Richardson went on to say that he informed the BOS of these issues by email on December 26th, 2007. See it -HERE-

Moreover, in an email on January 23, 2008 from Dave Hosmer of the BOF, Mr. Hosmer agreed to escalate the issue to the town attorney. See it -HERE- Since that time Mr. Hosmer appears to have changed his mind and is rescinding the decision to seek advice.

This issue was also described at the last Town meeting on video. See it -HERE-

Angry? I think you would be if $1.3M+ was missing from your checkbook. Now, get writing to your town officials and voice your dissatisfaction at meetings.

Better yet, perhaps inquiries to the Attorney General's office- (860)808-5318 or attorney.general@po.state.ct.us 

Whether they agree with this law or not these officials are sworn to uphold it, not circumvent it. There must be something in the water around here other than salt.