Town Meeting 2011, First Night of Finances

Apart from the hour and 12 minute discussion on elected officials' salaries, the first batch of finance articles went OK at Town Meeting Monday night. The original article on salaries, as proposed, had the town Clerk's salary at $72,500, a big jump over this year, but $10k less than the previous clerk would have made. That's behind all other department heads in Town Hall. An entire hour was spent on discussion of an amendment proposed by the Warrant Committee to put the town clerk's salary at $62,400, a 4% bump. It kind of amused me to see the conservatives vote to spend more money ($10k), many bogged down by their personal opinion of the clerk. Tommi Olson and Gerard Natoli were quite vocal about it. If the clerk were an "outsider", like from Cambridge or NJ, rather than Ellen, I'd bet they would call for her to volunteer her time.  See the  on this.

But there were a few valid and interesting questions raised:

• how to handle salaries of elected vs hired staff
• how pay ranges are determined
• should an elected official get evaluated like a hired official (not really, evaluation at the ballot box is the ultimate way)
• comparisons to union step increases

Bob McLaughlin, one of my favorite town government guys, stressed that TM was absolutely the wrong forum to discuss this. Most of us applauded, even the selectmen. The most sane comment of that discussion.

I was kind of torn. The clerk knew the salary before the 2010 election, so live with it. (And that's a few frappuccinos per week higher than the assistant town clerk.) The Town Clerk and assistant, who are salaried, often work extra hours without extra comp. Some department managers in DPW get overtime. All these salaries are public record, and I know most of the dept heads and managers. (gotta be gentle here...) I'd pay some more than others, and the Town Clerk would not be at the bottom. Neither the Town Clerk nor Treasurer (the other full-time elected official) take benefits by choice. I'm sure most department head do, which is in the neighborhood of $12k-20k per year. 

So, I voted against the amendment (to keep the higher salary), partly because I think salaries for directors and managers should be treated sort-of the same; the Selectmen, not the Warrant Committee (who I think micromanages too many aspects of town government) should own this issue; and it seems more equitable. Did I mention many people voted against that amendment just to vote against the Warrant Committee? (that, in itself, is a problem!)

For other articles, there was the usual handful of good questions (like, by me, on why the quality of newly paved roads is bad) and not so good, like concern about wording of articles that have been the same for several decades (as if people will suddenly be confused by an article that returns unused funds from capital projects for use by other other projects?). Hey, was Joe White missing? There was no one to ask about the milage on soon-to-be-retired verhicles.

Bill Green, the co-chair of the Ad Hoc Committee on TM Communications did a good job outlining the their recommendations to better improve (you guessed it) communications. Having some well-defined ways to communicate and do business will help everyone, not just TM members. As usual, Rep Will Brownsberger clearly outlined state finances and how they relate to Belmont.

The final night, Wednesday, has two budget articles, which I expect to be "the usual", unless we get bogged down by someone wanting to raid cash reserves. The schools will once again be a bit under level service (like most years of the past 10), Minuteman did a better job constraining costs (perhaps we'll be spared the usual speeches about "how Minuteman saved my kid" - but for $29k per year per student, it better), Chief McLaughlin will be short a couple officers, and the general government won't lose much at all (if I heard correctly from Warrant briefings). Then there's the "stretch energy" bylaw proposal, which will drag on for a longer than I'll want. Then, off to Conley's.