Town Meeting 5/22/2008
Town Meeting Video (Opens in a separate window & requires Windows Media Player) 75 minutes
Links To Relevant Information
BOF Discussion RE: $250K for Reval Video
Town Budget Documents (External Link-Word)
BOE Budget Documents (PDF)
Dave's Statement to the BOF (PDF)
Handout- Dave's Talking Points (PDF)
Town Attorney's March 5, 2008 Opinion (PDF)
See Quick Links at Right for Other Prior Relevant Video
Thank you to Admin, or the appropriate individual(s) for capturing all of the budget information in one spot, although some credit goes to the town as well for the information on the town website.
Thank you. Maybe just me, but I found the budget a little hard to find on the Town website...maybe I was just tired at 2am...
Thank you for helping to keep us up to date and better informed. Kudos to Admin and to Mr. Richardson for their continuing battle for truth.
I was convinced that Dave's findings were accurate by his own analysis and mine being supported by DeCrescenzo's statements from March 5, 2008. However, either I read wrong or DeCrescenzo contradicts himself when in ending he states, " At the request of the Town Treasurer, we reviewed the proposed calculations for the Prop 46 maimum alowable budget for the 2007 and 2008 fiscal year combined annual budgets prior to the submission to the annual town meeting. For both years, we found the calculations to be consistent with the language and intent of Proposition 46 and consistent with prior interpretations of the ordinance. After reviewingthe documents and materials forwarded to our office for this letter, we reaffirm our previous conclusions." Is Dave Richardson's argument muted by this statement?
I think it's important to remember who DeCrescenzo's client is. It appears to me that the opinion contains some fuzziness in certain areas by design. Dave has also stated that DeCrescenzo has agreed with his assertions in discussions subsequent to the opinion.
Perplexed,
You are correct, he contradicts himself, or at least appears to, in several places and confuses the issue in a few more. He also failed to address the most significant issue that was presented, that being the issue of the obvious errors where the BOE budgets and Prop 46 Worksheets don’t match.
When I confronted him on these issues in telephone conversations on February 6th and April 16th he was less evasive and volunteered that town officials needed to understand that monies resulting from exemptions and monies from increases in the grand list were not the same and that non-recurring expenses could not be rolled over even going so far as to be specific about the Bennett farm and the revaluation costs. He also agreed, reluctantly, that issues like state mandated programs while being recurring can experience increases and decreases and that in the case of decreases those monies can’t simply be treated as general revenue and agreed he had to look into this issue further. I expected that following these conversations there would be a follow-up letter further detailing his opinion, and hopefully clarifying as well. I have not seen or heard of any.
On the issue of approving numbers, during the April 8th BOF meeting it was announced that the town attorney has “approved” the numbers on the Prop 46 Worksheet. When I asked him about this during our April 16th call he said that he had only reviewed a list of possible exemptions that were being considered and approved some and rejected others going on to say he had tried to make it clear to town officials that things like “going over on a budget line item” are not emergencies – whatever that meant. When asked about the $8978 in emergency expenses that were being rolled over, he said he had no idea what this was or that it was in there. My conclusion is that if he approved previous Prop 46 Worksheets, all he approved was basically the format and general process and has no clue as to what is actually in, or behind, the numbers – something I’m guessing he already is regretting.
When confronted on the issue of the errors, he simply said, “they are my clients and I can’t say anything”. You can draw your own conclusions.
This is about all I can add.
Dave
"They are my clients"??? Who the hell pays his fees? The Taxpayers of course! So who's looking out for us? I guess Bill O'Reilly is right...no one. My conclusion is that for this to really get settled it will take more than just one legal opinion. It'll take a court. Thank you for following through with this. Couple of old timers remarked at the meeting that they were glad for people like you. Sadly people have made this an issue that divides when in fact it is an issue that should unite all taxpayers, whether you support Prop 46 or not, in order to bring clarity to the budget process. Christine Swenson's appeal only served to emotionalize the issue and negated the real concern which is the need for transparency and ethical fiscal practice...because in this case it isn't convenient. Personally I do not want to see the school(K-8) receive any further blows. It will only hurt the kids. Besides, hard to justify further cuts to K-8 when the Academy is expanding. But Preston Shultz brought up some real important spending issues related to the town side spending. The silence on behalf of our elected officials was quite disturbing. It was so obvious to me that they were caught with their pants down. Glad to see Wholean and husband had the integrity to push the issue by asking for initiative by the BOS and BOF to address these concerns. Of course, some will call this a political move too, but whether or not it was, it was the right thing to do.
Dave,
In looking at the Prop 46 worksheet it appears that the non-recurring expenditure of the Town hall roof replacement was subtracted. Per Decrescenzo's statement then this budget is consistent with the language and intent of Prop 46. While we can and should have a debate about carrying over recurring expenses that vary from year to year, it seems clear that using this as an issue to avoid supporting this year's budget carries no legal weight. What say you?
If you check last year's sheet you'll find that there was $73,978 in "emergency expenses", the roof repair being $65,000 of that. The remaining $8978 was rolled over. By definition, emergency expenses are not recurring as if they were they would not be emergency expenses since they would or could have been anticipated -- by the way I pointed this out to DeCrenscenzo and he agreed.
Also, there were $15,455 in "legal expenses" resulting from appealed assessments - those were also rolled over. This doesn't even get into the $195,000 in emergency expenses from the years 2004/05-2006/07 that are still being rolled over nor the $1.25 million from the errors, or the issue of the debt service or past legal judgments that are still rolling over.
Decrenscenzo has yet to address these issues since our discussions on March 6th and April 16th and I suspect he will not as these issues create a giant hole he is having trouble digging out of. You will also note that Barbara Rich was very careful in stating that she removed the roof expense because it was a capital expense not because it was an emergency expense as DeCrenscenzo had noted in his opinion. She is being extremely careful not to appear to be removing anything else so as not to jeopardize her contention that there is no basis in Prop 46 for ever removing anything. This is another of those contradictions in the opinion letter.
But be patient, as I said at the annual meeting I intend to pursue these issues fully and they will be addressed.
Careful folks, the attorney did not say the Prop 46 calculations were approved. What he did say was that this year's calculation was consistent with prior years. Our Town Attorney is being very, very careful. So I would not hang my hat on this paragraph, lots and lots of wiggle room.
Enron Accounting is alive and well in Woodstock
Asking a question at a Town Meeting does not mean that the answer you get will hold water. Consider the question asked about the Fuel Depot. The question was- why the forecast usage for the Fuel Depot for 2009 already less than the fuel used year to date of 2008? The answer came from Barbara Rich sitting in the compound at the Town Meeting. You know, the group of huddled people with their husbands and wives that hide in plain sight in (always) the front right hand side of the meeting. You got it, OUR ELECTED OFFICALS.
They huddle there like antelope in the open plains of the West. The wolves (those people that ask questions) surround them. Never will you see OUR ELECTED OFFICALS SITTING IN FRONT OF US AT THE TABLE THAT REMAINED VACANT FOR THE WHOLE MEETING to defend budget and explain the budget. Naw not here. The Woodstock way is to wait the suckers out, do not answer a question and just hunker down, it will all blow over.
Oh, the answer to the question was- "it is just a pass through account”. So it just being a pass through account means that it does not have to be correct? When you look at the Highway Department they have used $51,000.00 + of fuel along with Fire Dept who is budgeted for $7000.00. That means that the Fuel Depot cannot even get the consumption figure correct since they show some $30,000.00 used year to date.
I even tried to count the school fuel usage and can't because you can't find the number in the school budget. You really have to wonder. If you can't get the fuel gallons to dollars correct how can you do anything else right? If you put the number in the budget, should you expect the number to wrong or insignificant? Well, if it is either of those it should not be in the budget.
You have begin to think this is just sloppiness in preparing the budget or is it just plain old ignorance or just incompetence. I think you as a Town have elected the incompetent, but in this last election what was the alternative? The problem remains that only 80 people come out to see those wolves huddle the antelope.
As I said on the "other" website:
At what point do we bring logic into the conversation about prop. 46. Instead of talking endlessly about what this word means, what the intent of this term was, or why an attorney voices a particular opinion in support of his client, let’s talk logically. Why would anyone think that ONE-TIME expenses from one year should be carried into the base for establishing a budget limit for the next year. This just does not make sense! Come on, just be logical.