Sturbridge Political Watch - Selectman Tom Creamer

"...no more fitting place..."

2012-05-28T14:38:00.000-04:00

This morning, I was privileged to offer the opening comments for the dedication of the newly reclaimed and restored Veterans' Honor Roll. It was an honor that shall forever remain a cherished memory for me and I hope equally so for the 300 plus attendees who were witness to this historic event in recognition of our communities heroes. The text of my comments - given in tribute to those who serve - are offered here for those unable to attend:

Good Morning,

It is an honor for me to be asked to speak here today and I extend my sincere thanks to Bob Briere and the members of the Veterans’ Honor Roll Committee for the privilege of doing so. There are many who have made this day possible and I will leave it - rightfully so - to others better equipped than I to honor them with recognition. I instead, shall confine my remarks to the sanctity of what this event commemorates. Thus, On behalf of the Town of Sturbridge, I would like to thank you all for attending and extend a warm welcome to you on this very special day not only in our Town’s history, but in a much larger sense that of our nation and those who have stood guard on the wall that separates freedom from oppression, democracy from dictatorship, and hope from despair.

Senator Stephen Brewer addresses those in attendance

Today, and throughout this weekend, Americans around the globe have paused, even if only briefly, to give thought and thanks to those who have sacrificed so much in defense of our nation and the principles upon which it was founded. Here today in Sturbridge, this day memorializes those men and women whether combat deployed or otherwise who have stood guard on that wall, ever vigilant in their duty to ensure our way of life.

Some have questioned – rightfully so, as this is America, a country that honors dissent and challenge to its government - the reclamation and restoration of this Honor Roll in front of our newly restored Town Hall. When I reflect upon such, I am reminded of President John Kennedy’s inaugural speech wherein he said that “in the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the roll of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger, I do not shrink from that roll, I welcome it”, So too, the names of those engraved upon these plaques and many of the bricks upon which we now stand, welcomed their role and responsibility to defend freedom in its hour of maximum danger. The individuals whose service is reflected by way of their names upon this honor roll whether overseas deployed or stateside have stood as a force in readiness ever reminding the world of our commitment to liberty.

In recognition of their incredibly selfless service to our nation, one has to wonder just what type of government might have taken up residence within our newly restored Town Hall, were it not for those willing to defend freedom from those who would wish us ill.

Project Architect Mike Loin addresses the attendees

Some have questioned – and rightfully so for this is America, a country that honors dissent and challenge to its government - the necessity for an outdoor monument, suggesting perhaps that the walls of Veterans’ Memorial Hall are a more fitting place. When I reflect upon such, I am reminded of the absolute horrors of war, the physical, emotional, spiritual, and psychological toll it takes on all who experience it. So too, I reflect upon the sacrifice and suffering exacted from the families of our service men and women and the long unending road to recovery that many experience. For them, the luxury of remembering the sacrifices of our soldiers comes not in the celebration of an extended weekend that affords additional time away from work or school, but rather the reality of a life where sadly, every day is Memorial Day, and for them there is so very little to celebrate. In recognition of such, I believe there to be no more fitting a location to honor these men and women than in the most visible of places, so that we dare not forget the often unending hardships they and their families experience on our behalf.

President Kennedy would also remind the world during his inaugural address that "...we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of liberty".

Some of the 300 plus in attendance

Sadly, and all too frequently, despite our defeat of Fascism, Imperialism, and Communism on the battlefield, we live in a world where liberty remains under assault from the likes of Totalitarian Regimes, Ethnic Purists, Hard line Theocracies committed to the acquisition of nuclear weapons, and Militant Islamist Jihadists. Unlike however, the sacrifices made by all Americans during World Wars 1&2, most of us here today are fortunate enough to go about our daily lives often lost to the tragic reality that somewhere in the world at this very minute, and often in places you will never hear about, men and women are on patrol in hostile environments, as they endeavor to assure as President Kennedy articulated “the survival and the success of liberty”. Some of these courageous and selfless individuals will never return home and all too many of those that do, return physically or emotionally scarred for life.

Sturbridge Veterans' Honor Roll

Yes indeed, there is no more fitting place to remind us of the enormous debt we owe these men and women than right here, at a place of prominence, where each of us might daily be prompted to offer a silent prayer of thanks as we pass by. To all of you who have served so that I might enjoy the great freedom I enjoy, I extend my heartfelt thanks for what you have given me.

Thomas R. Creamer, BOS Chairman & privileged American.

Who among us can carry A Message to Garcia?

2012-05-22T20:42:00.003-04:00

Several years ago I posted this document - authored by Elbert Hubbard in 1899. The truths in this document are as relevant today - perhaps more so - than when I first posted it in 2008. The indisputable fact about truth is that though times may change, truth remains the same forever. It is presented here again for residents to associate as they may, void of any reference by me. And so it begins with A Message to Garcia...

In all this Cuban business there is one man stands out on the horizon of my memory like Mars at perihelion.

When war broke out between Spain and the United States, it was very necessary to communicate
quickly with the leader of the Insurgents. Garcia was somewhere in the mountain fastnesses of Cuba - no one knew where. No mail or telegraph could reach him. The President must secure his co-operation, and quickly.

What to do!

Someone said to the President, “There’s a fellow by the name of Rowan will find Garcia for you, if anybody can.”

Rowan was sent for and given a letter to be delivered to Garcia. How “the fellow by name of Rowan” took the letter, sealed it up in an oil-skin pouch, strapped it over his heart, in four days landed by night off the coast of Cuba from an open boat, disappeared into the jungle, and in three weeks came out on the other side of the island, having traversed a hostile country on foot, and having delivered his letter to Garcia, are things I have no special desire now to tell in detail. The point I wish to make is this: McKinley gave Rowan a letter to be delivered to Garcia; Rowan took the letter and did not ask, “Where is he at?”

By the Eternal! There is a man whose form should be cast in deathless bronze and the statue placed in every college in the land. It is not book-learning young men need, nor instruction about this or that, but a stiffening of the vertebrae which will cause them to be loyal to a trust, to act promptly, concentrate their energies; do the thing - “carry a message to Garcia!”

General Garcia is dead now, but there are other Garcias. No man, who has endeavored to carry out an enterprise where many hands were needed, but has been well-nigh appalled at times by the imbecility of the average man - the inability or unwillingness to concentrate on a thing and do it.

Slipshod assistance, foolish inattention, dowdy indifference, and half-hearted work seem the rule; and no man succeeds, unless by hook or crook, or threat, he forces or bribes other men to assist him; or mayhap, God in His goodness performs a miracle, and sends him an Angel of Light for an assistant.

You, reader, put this matter to a test: You are sitting now in your office—six clerks are within your call. Summon any one and make this request: “Please look in the encyclopedia and make a brief memorandum for me concerning the life of Corregio.”

Will the clerk quietly say, “Yes, sir,” and go do the task?

On your life, he will not. He will look at you out of a fishy eye, and ask one or more of
the following questions:

Who was he?
Which encyclopedia?
Where is the encyclopedia?
Was I hired for that?
Don’t you mean Bismarck?
What’s the matter with Charlie doing it?
Is he dead?
Is there any hurry?
Shan’t I bring you the book and let you look it up yourself?
What do you want to know for?

And I will lay you ten to one that after you have answered the questions, and explained how to find the information, and why you want it, the clerk will go off and get one of the 2 other clerks to help him find Garcia - and then come back and tell you there is no such man.

Of course I may lose my bet, but according to the Law of Average, I will not. Now if you are wise you will not bother to explain to your “assistant” that Corregio is indexed under the C’s, not in the K’s, but you will smile sweetly and say, “Never mind,” and go look it up yourself. And this incapacity for independent action, this moral stupidity, this infirmity of the will, this unwillingness to cheerfully catch hold and lift, are the things that put pure socialism so far into the future. If men will not act for themselves, what will they do when the benefit of their effort is for all?

A first mate with knotted club seems necessary; and the dread of getting “the bounce” Saturday night holds many a worker in his place.

Advertise for a stenographer, and nine times out of ten who apply can neither spell nor punctuate - and do not think it necessary to.

Can such a one write a letter to Garcia?

“You see that bookkeeper,” said the foreman to me in a large factory.

“Yes, what about him?”

“Well, he’s a fine accountant, but if I’d send him to town on an errand, he might accomplish the errand all right, and, on the other hand, might stop at four saloons on the way, and when he got to Main Street, would forget what he had been sent for.”

Can such a man be entrusted to carry a message to Garcia?

We have recently been hearing much maudlin sympathy expressed for the “down-trodden denizen of the sweat shop” and the “homeless wanderer searching for honest employment,” and with it all often go many hard words for the men in power.

Nothing is said about the employer who grows old before his time in a vain attempt to get frowsy ne’er-do-wells to do intelligent work; and his long patient striving with “help” that does nothing but loaf when his back is turned. In every store and factory there is a constant weeding-out process going on. The employer is constantly sending away “help” that have shown their incapacity to further the interests of the business, and others are being taken on.

No matter how good times are, this sorting continues, only if times are hard and work is scarce, this sorting is done finer - but out and forever out, the incompetent and unworthy go.

It is the survival of the fittest. self-interest prompts every employer to keep the best-those who
can carry a message to Garcia.

I know one man of really brilliant parts who has not the ability to manage a business of his own, and yet who is absolutely worthless to anyone else, because he carries with him constantly the insane suspicion that his employer is oppressing, or intending to oppress, him.

He can not give orders, and he will not receive them. Should a message be given him to take to Garcia, his answer would probably be, “Take it yourself.”

Tonight this man walks the streets looking for work, the wind whistling through his threadbare coat. No one who knows him dare employ him, for he is a regular firebrand of discontent. He is impervious to reason, and the only thing that can impress him is the toe of a thick-soled No. 9 boot.

Of course I know that one so morally deformed is no less to be pitied than a physical cripple; but in your pitying, let us drop a tear, too, for the men who are striving to carry on a great enterprise, whose working hours are not limited by the whistle, and whose hair is fast turning white through the struggle to hold the line in dowdy indifference, slipshod imbecility, and the heartless ingratitude which, but for their enterprise, would be both hungry and homeless.

Have I put the matter too strongly? Possibly I have; but when all the world has gone a-slumming I wish to speak a word of sympathy for the man who succeeds - the man who, against great odds, has directed the efforts of others, and, having succeeded, finds there’s nothing in it: nothing but bare board and clothes. I have carried a dinner-pail and worked for a day’s wages, and I have also been an employer of labor, and I know there is something to be said on both sides. There is no excellence, per se, in poverty; rags are no recommendation; and all employers are not rapacious and high-handed, any more than all poor men are virtuous.

My heart goes out to the man who does his work when the “boss” is away, as well as when he is home. And the man who, when given a letter for Garcia, quietly takes the missive, without asking any idiotic questions, and with no lurking intention of chucking it into the nearest sewer, or of doing aught else but deliver it, never gets “laid off,” nor has to go on strike for higher wages. Civilization is one long anxious search for just such individuals. Anything such a man asks will be granted; his kind is so rare that no employer can afford to let him go. He is wanted in every city, town, and village - in every office, shop, store and factory. The world
cries out for such; he is needed, and needed badly—the man who can Carry a message to Garcia.

"Nightmare Budget", Doomsday Scenarios, or a Reasoned, Rational Approach

2012-05-15T00:30:00.000-04:00

Greetings

I write to you this evening to share some thoughts with respect to the FY13 budget and the controversy surrounding such in light of a citizens' petition to maintain level-funding for same at FY12 figures. To be clear, I offer this correspondence solely as an individual member of the Board - speaking only for myself. Equally, I wish to point out that it is not the intent of this correspondence to speak against the "level-funded" citizens' petition, though I do not support such an approach I fully respect, applaud, and welcome the discussion it is generating. It is instead, my intent to address a number of concerns that have been expressed to me with respect to any "budget nightmares" or "doomsday scenarios" that are currently, or may be presented to each of you as residents.

It is unfortunate, though not entirely surprising - given the emotional nature of human beings - that a range of items have been offered as "sacrificial lambs" with respect to the approach local government may consider in order to arrive at a level-funded budget, should such pass. Those "sacrificial lambs" include - though are not limited to - some the following, which can be found in the FY13 Finance Committee Report: (NOTE: I have called out by way of underline, highlighting, and bold print those items that I personally believe at this point lack merit)

Reduce or eliminate the clerical assistance in most Town departments
Eliminate the merit based incentive
Eliminate matching grant funds
Eliminate funding for the Sturbridge Co-Op Nursery School and 8 Brookfield Road
Eliminate the school resource officer position from the Police Department
Reduce the Building Inspector’s hours
Reduce the Burgess Elementary budget increase request by 46%
Eliminate the additional position in the Department of Public Works
Reduce the Town Road Maintenance program by 80%
Eliminate the Community Healthcare budget
Eliminate the Council on Aging budget
Reduce the Joshua Hyde Library Operations Salaries/Wages by 20%
Eliminate the Recreation budget
Reduce the Reserve Fund by 37%

Undoubtedly, some of these proposed cuts or reductions may or would be necessary (evidenced by the lack of emphasis I have added to them), equally however, some (those with emphasis added by me) appear to amount to nothing more than what one might characterize as "fear-baiting".

Let us then consider a few items from above and I will begin with a very brief comment on full-day Kindergarten. Many have questioned me as to whether the level-funded proposal - if passed - would eliminate full-day Kindergarten. It is important to note that any decision for such would rest with the Sturbridge School Committee, not the BOS or the Finance Committee (FinCom) and quite frankly I have every confidence that Kate Alexander, Chairman of the School Committee and a woman of great integrity whom I am fortunate to call my friend, as well as those members I personally know and respect (Megan Panek, Mary Bellezza, and Kristen Tuohey) will carefully, considerately, and pragmatically address any potential cuts that may be necessary in a manner appropriate to the dictates of the situation. Whatever decision they arrive at will be based upon necessity as opposed to fear-baiting. In terms of the FinCom Report suggesting a reduction of 46% of the Burgess Elementary Budget increase request, I question the legitimacy of those numbers when in fact the Burgess School Committee represents 37% of the total budget. One would request the process behind the percentage figures offered by the FinCom be provided so that an informed appraisal can be made.

Beyond the school budget, the "nightmare budget" presented in the Finance Committee Report suggests the possibility of eliminating the Council on Aging budget. This budget component pays the salaries of those who direct and administer senior services in our community, as well as the programs run daily at the Senior Center. When one considers the array of NEEDED services provided to those in their senior years who built this great community, the mere suggestion of eliminating the Council on Aging budget is not only an ill-conceived and inappropriate approach, but one that serves only to create fear among a vulnerable component of our population - our seniors and their families. Not unlike the baseless and distorted extremes we witness daily at the state and national levels, we are now engaging in that same objectionable approach here at the local level. Might it be necessary for some reduced programming? Perhaps so, but elimination of the entire Council on Aging budget will simply not happen, nor is it even open to discussion. The residents of this community would never allow such a careless and destructive approach, nor would those whom you ELECT to develop such policy recommendations for your consideration.

Similarly, the "nightmare budget" that suggests we may eliminate the Recreation Budget, thereby decimating an entire department that offers hundreds of recreational opportunities for our children demonstrates an equally ill-conceived and inappropriate approach, serving only to create fear within our community. Might it be necessary for some reduced programming? Here again, perhaps so, but elimination of the entire recreation budget will simply not happen and it is - in my opinion - simply irresponsible to even suggest such. In addition, it is important to recognize that the elimination of the Sturbridge Co-Op Nursery School and 8 Brookfield Road, which in total amounts to approximately $2,000 (two-thousand dollars) plays only to induce - inappropriately so - fear among parents within our community.

There are other "nightmare budget" reductions or eliminations listed above (bold highlighted print and underlined) that I question and challenge the legitimacy of such as elimination of the Community Health Care Budget, (approximately $4,000 for access to the Massachusetts Virtual Epidemiologic Reporting System) which frankly is not on the table for discussion - in terms of complete elimination thereof - despite assertions in any report to the contrary. So too are statements in terms of eliminating matching grant funds, which we are required to fund if we have accepted partnered grants from the State or elsewhere. Certainly, we may have to eliminate requests for future grants, but we cannot eliminate or dishonor legal agreements we are currently engaged in. Other items listed above in bold are questionable and clearly there are others that may be necessary. That said, it would appear - in my humble view - that some components have been packaged as part of a "nightmare budget" to create a level of fear and anxiety among the young and old, thereby forcing support for a budget increase of approximately $1.1 million dollars in FY13. Interestingly, some of the very same individuals responsible for presenting this "nightmare budget" are the ones who will recommend an increase in hours or personnel for nearly every Town department, while simultaneously recommending a 2% wage increase for all non-union employees and 2% merit bonuses for year end accomplishment of Department Head goals.

I have personally voted against all personnel increases (with the exception of the SRO) as well as having voted against any increase in personnel hours in Town departments. Equally, I have voted against all merit increases for FY13 and any wage increases for non-union personnel. During a time of economic uncertainty for most residents, as well as a time when many residents in the private sector are dealing with wage and benefit reductions, loss of jobs and/or job security, along with the threat of being taxed out of this community, it defies logic - in my humble opinion - that we would even recommend increased wages, personnel, and hours in our Town departments. I firmly believe our employees are well compensated and cared for with respect to their 35 hour work-week, while enjoying the benefit of closing their offices for a 1-hour lunch. Though it would clearly be desirable to provide additional benefits to these employees and their families, it is not lost on me that to do so comes entirely on the backs of our residents who must foot the bill by way of tax increases and increased fees for services. While considering the economic period we are facing, I am simply unable to support any such increases.

Though I do not support the level-funded budget as I believe it will be detrimental to our level of services, I do not support the presentation of "nightmare budgets" that serve only to create unnecessary and inappropriate fear within our community. I do generally support the Board of Selectmen's budget recommendations - with the exception of the 2% non-union wage increase, Department Head merit increases, and a few other items of less significance and I encourage residents to join me in supporting the BOS recommendations, while challenging any increases beyond what is absolutely necessary. Having said that, I can assure residents that should the level-funded citizens' petition budget pass, I will endeavor to ensure that the necessary reductions are done in a manner that is based upon pragmatism and appropriateness, as opposed to "fear-baiting" and vindictiveness. I work for you and will serve you in a manner reflective of the great honor you have bestowed upon me.

With Deep Gratitude

2012-04-12T08:55:00.000-04:00

I wish to extend my deep gratitude to those Sturbridge residents who demonstrated their continuing support by extending me the honor of being able to serve another term on your behalf. I am extremely privileged and humbled by your faith and trust in me; evidenced by the fact that so many – despite this being an uncontested election – still deemed it important to check the circle next to my name. You can be sure that I will continue to advocate on your behalf, consistent with the Town Charter and the Bylaws of our community, in an open, honest, objective, and respectful manner.

I will continue to recognize – as I have at all times – that the role of selectman is not one of personal philosophies, ideologies, or particular constituencies, but rather an obligation to serve all residents of our community “faithfully, impartially and to the best of my ability, so help me God”. Though my decisions may not always find favor with all residents, you can be certain that I will approach every issue in a manner that is void of any personal proclivities or affiliations, but grounded rather in the dictates of our Town’s Constitution and those documents adopted by our Legislative Branch – the voters at Town Meeting and the ballot box.

I am privileged to have your trust and your support and I will continue to do everything in my power to maintain the faith and honor you have extended me by way of your overwhelming support at the polls.

Respectfully and with great humility

Time to move forward TOGETHER

2012-04-10T12:23:00.001-04:00

The past few months have been a time of passion, heightened awareness, deep concern, frustration, and an opportunity for all who have been active in bringing platforms and/or issues of concern to the forefront for consideration by the voters of our community. The results are in, the voters have spoken, and the time has come for all to move forward together in a unified effort to make our community the very best it can be.

Just as some - deservedly so - are experiencing a sense of great relief and exuberance in terms of their individual or collective campaign successes, we must not forget that others - equally committed to their candidates and/or causes are experiencing a sense of loss, disappointment, frustration, and in some cases perhaps even anger. This of course, is all part of the election process and one recognizes that regardless of the positions taken there are significant issues that these campaigns/initiatives have called attention to and we are all the wiser for taking a deliberate and reasonable approach in considering the viewpoints of all.

To that end, we must recognize that the ballot initiative to revoke the CPA has served a very valuable and important service in highlighting the real concerns residents have about spending and debt in general. Equally, it provided a great opportunity for residents to become better informed about this highly vetted, extremely valuable and important program. It is important to note however that it would be imprudent for any to presume that the very successful effort to keep the CPA in Sturbridge signals a green light to spending; to do so would represent a fundamental failure to recognize the very real concerns of the 42% who voted against the CPA.

There is little doubt that those who spearheaded the efforts to save the CPA understand the importance of a fiscally sound approach with respect to CPA funds. Such is evident in their overall approach to project submission for consideration by voters. Clearly as taxpayers, they too recognize that concerns exist, which is a significant reason that no substantive projects have been submitted for action by voters over the last two years. That is evident again this year based upon the draft Annual Town Meeting Warrant.

It is critical as well however, that those elected and appointed officials (BOS & FinCom) who make recommendations at Town Meeting for voter consideration recognize that there is little appetite for spending and additional debt within the community. Thus, it is imperative that our approach to the budget and the future use of tax dollars be carefully scrutinized, fiscally conservative, and "return on investment" centered. Any other approach would be an affront to those who voted in opposition to the CPA as well as the 58% majority that voted to maintain the CPA, as both supporters and non-supporters of the CPA are relatively uniform in their concerns about spending and debt, regardless of from where it manifests.

Considering that we are all neighbors in one form or another and that all of us want a community that provides character, charm, a great quality of life, and a level of affordability that allows us to enjoy this remarkable place we call home, I am hopeful that we can all now put the election behind us and move forward TOGETHER.

Budget Update

2012-03-29T12:58:00.002-04:00

Being pre-occupied with other demands, I realize that I have neglected to update the community on recent budget discussions and actions undertaken by the Board of Selectmen. To that end, I have the following to report with respect to the proposed FY13 Budget. I have included in this report information previously provided in a report issued on 20 March 2012.

Personnel Increase in DPW: Motion (Selectman Ellison) to NOT support the proposed personnel/hours increase in the DPW; 2nd - Selectman Gimas

VOTE: 3 in Favor, 1 Opposed (Selectman Dowling), 1 Abstained (Selectman Blanchard) citing a lack of definitive and timely information with which to make a decision). Motion carries 3-1-1 to NOT support the requested increase of staffing/hours in the DPW.

Personnel Increase in the Assessor’s Office: Motion (Selectman Blanchard) to support the proposed increase in the Assessor’s Office; 2nd - Selectman Dowling

VOTE: 3 in Favor, 2 Opposed (Selectmen Gimas, Creamer), Motion 3-2 carries to support the requested increase in staffing/hours in the Assessor’s Office.

Tax Rate Relief: Motion (Selectman Blanchard) To Place and Support an Article to the Annual Town Meeting that will authorize the Board of Assessors to use the amount of TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND AND 00/100 ($200,000) from free cash in determining the tax rate for fiscal year beginning on July 1, 2012; or take any action in relation thereto; 2nd Selectman Gimas

VOTE: 5 in favor, 0 Opposed, Motion carries 5 - 0 to support Tax Rate Relief. (Note: this article will have the impact of lowering the annual Tax Bill on a home assessed at $200,000 by FORTY FIVE DOLLARS AND EIGHTY SIX/100 ($45.86). SEE TAX RATE RELIEF CHART IN RIGHT SIDEBAR.

Tantasqua Regional School Budget: Motion (Selectman Blanchard) To Support the Tantasqua Regional School Budget as proposed; 2nd - Selectman Dowling,

Vote: 4-1 (Selectman Creamer voting NO due solely to non-union wage increases and his desire to remain consistent with respect to his position of not supporting non-union wage increases for general government employees). Motion carries 4-1 to support the Tantasqua Regional School Budget.

2% Non-Union Wage Increase for Town Employees: Motion: (Selectman Blanchard) To Support the proposed 2% Non-union wage increases for all non-union employees; 2nd - Selectman Dowling,

VOTE: 3 in favor, 2 opposed (Selectman Creamer, Selectman Gimas). Motion carries 3 – 2 to support the proposed wage increase

Personnel Increase in the Conservation Office: Motion (Selectman Blanchard) To NOT support the proposed staffing or hours increase in the Conservation Office; 2nd - Selectman Gimas),

VOTE: 4-0-1 (Selectman Dowling abstained citing lack of definitive information with which to vote for or against). Motion carries 4-0-1 to NOT support the proposed increase in staffing/hours.

Increased hours in the Building Department: Motion (Selectman Blanchard) To NOT support the proposed increase in hours for the Building Inspector; 2nd - Selectman Gimas,

VOTE: 4-0-1 (Selectman Dowling abstained citing lack of definitive information with which to vote for or against). Motion carries 4-0-1 to NOT support the proposed increase in hours

Burgess School Budget: Motion (Selectman Blanchard) To Support the Burgess School Budget as proposed; 2nd - Selectman Dowling,

VOTE: 4-1 (Selectman Creamer voting NO due solely to non-union wage increases and his desire to remain consistent with respect to his position of not supporting non-union wage increases for general government employees). Motion carries 4-1 to support the Burgess School Budget.

NOTE: The Board of Selectmen, though in disagreement on some items listed above, based their determinations upon what I would characterize as a fairly acute understanding of the day to day operations within Town government and the desire to have a more comprehensive level of data with which to make decisions, as opposed to a "laundry list" of items conveyed with little to no substantive supporting documentation. For the record, the Finance Committee (FinCom) has thus far approved all proposed requests for additional staffing and/or hours listed above. In addition, the FinCom has recently approved an increase in hours in the Planning Department that was not part of the Town Administrator's proposed budget, nor brought to the Board of Selectmen for review/consideration.

Allegations of Misconduct

2012-03-26T19:30:00.000-04:00

Over the past several days, a number of substantial allegations have been leveled against the Board of Selectmen by a co-sponsor of a ballot petition seeking revocation of the Community Preservation Act. This citizens’ initiative will appear as Question 4 on the Ballot. Local blogs are replete with allegations of misconduct being leveled against the Sturbridge Board of Selectmen.

As an individual member of the Board, not presuming to represent any formal position of the Board, I am compelled to provide a response. In so doing, it is important to note that I personally maintain a great deal of respect and admiration for those willing to challenge government in an effort to obtain the highest in legal, ethical, and moral practices from same. To that end, I am grateful for this resident’s efforts to demand the absolute best from us.

That said, I believe it equally important for those who expect the highest in standards from government, demonstrate same in pursuit of those principles. Thus, one would hope that any allegations or charges brought against government officials would be grounded in fact, law, or substantive actions or inactions as it relates to their responsibilities. In recognition of this reasonable threshold, it is somewhat disquieting that the allegations thus far made, have been so done void of a practical basis for same.

It has been alleged that “our local government has usurped the power of the people” by not “allowing Town Counsel to write the ballot question” for the petitioners “while also setting a precedent for other petitioners who want to bring ballot questions to Town Elections”. In fact, one has been unable to identify any law that requires the taxpayers of a community to bear the burden of writing petitioned ballot questions for individual residents, nor is there any language in the Sturbridge Town Charter or General Bylaws that provisions for individual resident access to Town Counsel. Surely, were Town Counsel to become the legal service for each and every resident with respect to individual ballot initiatives or petitions, the cost would be well beyond our current allowance, as provided by the Legislative Branch.

To that point however, if residents in this community believe it appropriate to provide legal services for individual citizens’ petitions, the appropriate course would be a Warrant Article submitted before the voters at Town Meeting seeking their approval, as well as a dollar amount specific to same. Should such be the will of the voters at Town Meeting, then clearly the Board of Selectmen would be legally required to allow taxpayer funds to be exercised by individual residents for individual petitioned articles. As it relates to assertions of a precedent being set, clearly that “precedent” has been set by the State well before many of us became politically active by way of the absence of laws dictating such. Equally, our Town Charter and the General Bylaws have already established a “precedent” by way of their silence on this matter.

The allegations go on to state that “they denied allowing Town Counsel to write the ballot question, saying it would cost money” and that it was “recommended that we find our own attorney”. It is true that we denied the petitioners access to Town Counsel as we are not legally able to do so, void any Charter change or General Bylaw that would allow such. We clearly stated that we did not have the authority to allow individual resident access to Town Counsel. We also directed the Town Administrator to provide some guidance in terms of avenues of information to the petitioners, which he did the following day by way of an email copied to the Board.

Additional assertions state that “they’ve spent the money on Town Counsel they said they didn’t want to spend when we asked them to write the ballot question; they rewrote our NEUTRAL ballot question without our knowledge; and the rewrite includes that “Rescission…sentence, which we view as an absolute outright lie”. To be clear the Board of Selectmen have no authority over election ballots as they are under the purview of the Chief Elections Officer of the Town, in this case the Town Clerk; thus, we (the BOS) did not spend money we “didn’t want to spend” as it was not within our decision, authority, or responsibility. More importantly, Massachusetts General Law Chapter 54, Section 58A states that whenever a special act is submitted for acceptance to the voters of a city or town “a fair, concise summary written by the city solicitor or town counsel must appear on the ballot”. Thus, the petition itself was not a special act or legal question to be put before the voters until it was signed by the required number of registered voters and certified by the Town Clerk. To that end, Town Counsel does not become part of the process of a citizens’ initiative until a certified question has been presented to them for placement on the ballot. As required by law, the Town Clerk then forwarded the certified question to Town Counsel to construct a “fair, concise summary” in compliance with the law.

The allegations go on to state that “the town didn’t tell anyone about this – we just found out by accident”. It is important to note here that the “Town” followed the letter of the law and as such there was nothing to “tell anyone”, nor to my knowledge did anyone on the BOS have any reason or cause to inspect the ballot once it returned as it is not under our jurisdiction. In terms of the Town Clerk, I would not personally expect that she would have had any reason to personally “tell anyone about this” either, as she followed the law and accepted what Town Counsel provided her consistent with the General Laws of Massachusetts. Equally, the Ballot was properly posted as required by law and was also on the Town’s website for inspection and review. Thus, it is fair and quite reasonable to in fact suggest that the Town Clerk actually told everyone.

The individual leveling these allegations then states that “Most importantly, we followed the law and requested that Selectmen hire Town Counsel to write our CPA ballot question as required by the State Elections Division at the Secretary of State’s office. Selectmen denied us that right, they denied our right to due process, and they used sabotage and subterfuge to turn our NEUTRAL ballot question into a confusing, illusory piece of legalese”. In terms of the law, I have previously stated one can identify no law in existence at either the State or the local level requiring the Town to provide legal services to individuals petitioning for action within a community. Thus, no one was denied their “rights or their right to due process”, nor did the Selectmen use “sabotage and subterfuge to turn our NEUTRAL ballot question into a confusing, illusory piece of legalese”, as we did not have any input with respect to the wording, nor for that matter, did the Town Clerk.

Suggesting otherwise would mean that members of the Board of Selectmen engaged in discussion or action on this matter outside of a duly called public meeting, which if true, would be a violation of the Open Meeting Law. I can state categorically this never happened, nor am I aware of any Board members who had any input with Town Counsel on this matter with respect to their legally bound duty to write the summary. That said, if this resident believes otherwise, I would sincerely and respectfully encourage her to file an open meeting law complaint with the Attorney General’s Office or the Massachusetts Elections Division to ensure that this matter is addressed swiftly and definitively.

One final bit of evidence offered by this resident is a correspondence she provides on various blogs from Kathleen Colleary, Chief of the Bureau of Municipal Finance Law for the Massachusetts Department of Revenue, which provides guidance on what happens with revocation of the CPA. It appears, in terms of my assessment, to be presented by this individual as a direct rebuttal by Ms. Colleary against the summary as drafted by Town Counsel. To be clear however, such is not the case as Attorney Colleary has reviewed the ballot question and its summary as drafted by Town Counsel and provided the Town of Sturbridge by way of Town Counsel the following opinion on Friday, 23 March 2012:

Dear Ms. Goldberg:

I reviewed your analysis and believe that the proposed ballot summary is "fair and concise."

We agree that a fair and concise summary does not have to include a detail analysis of all consequences of revocation. The sample acceptance summary provided by the Elections Division of the Secretary of State is instructive in that regard. It explains that (1) the statutes being accepted establish a dedicated Community Preservation fund for various open space, historic and affordable housing purposes; (2) the funding source for that fund will be a local surcharge and state matching distribution; (3) the local surcharge rate and exemptions that will be in effect; and (4) the general process for making spending recommendations from the fund. It does not go into detail about the operation of the fund, other sources of monies for the fund, the authority to commit fund monies to debt service for allowable projects, the manner by which the surcharge rate and exemptions may be amended or acceptance revoked.

Your proposed summary is similar to that model and includes the specific surcharge package that was adopted by the town. It then goes on to state the consequences of revocation, i.e., that the town will no longer assess the surcharge (and receive matching fund)s, except to the extent the law so provides in order to meet the obligations of the fund. It seems to us that is the key consequence of revocation, just as the imposition of the separate CPA surcharge (a tax) to raise funds for particular purposes was the key consequence of acceptance. We also agree that the requirement of a "fair and concise" summary is not intended to provide voters with all information about the referendum. In this election, as in others, the voters will have access to various sources of information - the arguments of proponents and opponents and other materials - to assist them in forming their opinion.

Very truly yours,

Kathleen Colleary, Chief

Bureau of Municipal Finance Law

Division of Local Services

Department of Revenue

It is clear in reading this correspondence, that the Department of Revenue sees no issue with the Ballot as prepared by Town Counsel and in fact supports the language as written. To be sure, my service to this community has demonstrated that I have never been reluctant to challenge opinions offered by Town Counsel in any situation where I have been able to identify statutes, precedent, or language within our Town Charter or General Bylaws that suggested an opinion offered by them had inherent weaknesses. That same standard was applied here, in that once the issue was raised, I undertook intense research to identify any weaknesses in the opinion offered by Counsel. I submitted a number of questions and challenges to our attorney and others at the State level and each challenge came back clearly in support of the approach undertaken by Town Counsel.

As I have spent the last 5 days actively and thoroughly examining, researching, and critically reviewing this matter, and in light of the numerous conversations I have had with the principals involved - as it relates to government officials and representatives at the State level - I am completely confident that this matter has been properly, objectively, truthfully, and factually vetted and that the allegations made as it relates to the Board of Selectmen and/or the Town of Sturbridge by one of the co-sponsors of the citizens’ ballot initiative - have absolutely NO merit or basis in fact. As such, the issue is completely closed as it relates to my position as an individual member of the Board.

Once again, I thank the individual who has raised these concerns as I believe that it is important to address any irregularities or the perception thereof in a most direct and immediate manner. To that end, we are all better served when these issues are publicly discussed and openly vetted, as our democracy is dependent upon such. With that in mind, all residents can be assured that regardless of the individual or collective positions Board members may have on this or any issue, the results of the vote will be quickly implemented and supported as they will then represent the manifest will of the voters. Let us hope that all sides of this issue will similarly assert themselves.

Celebrate Earth Day: Volunteer at a trail near you!

2012-03-23T17:11:00.001-04:00

April: Celebrate Earth Day: Volunteer at a trail near you!

April traditionally brings on the first of several trail volunteer opportunities and this year is no different. Celebrate Earth Day, April 21st, by volunteering at one of several area trail projects. Donations and support for this volunteer trail day in the form of drinking water and food for lunch are welcome. Youth groups, families, service organizations are all welcome to participate. Pre registration is requested to allow for proper planning of projects, logistical support and to maximize the work organization. The various contact names and emails are listed below.

The Sturbridge Trail Committee: Trail locator sign post installation at Heins Farm. Trail locator posts need to be installed that will be marked with a special number, much like a street address, that can be referenced if there is an emergency on the trail. The public safety office will have these locator numbers with specific direction so dispatchers can quickly direct the appropriate response.

Arbutus Park Trail Improvements on Leadmine Mt property. Tractors and rakes needed to spread fine gravel and clear trail of winter debris. Additional help needed to demolish and remove 2 old unneeded trail bridges.

The Holland Trail Committee: Preparing the Holland / Brimfield Connector trail for final surfacing. Activities will include grading, raking, shoveling, brush cutting, culvert clearing, and litter removal.

The Brimfield Trail Committee: 5K trail race cleanup volunteers will inspect and help clean up and mark the 5K trail race set for the following Saturday.

“Curtis Island” Loop trail improvements and wildlife habitat creation. Help Brimfield Boy Scout Eric Costa work on his Eagle Scout project. Projects include trail maintenance and improvement as well as clearing and stacking bush from the winter storm into piles, and a general cleanup of a rough mowed field for wildlife habitat.

The Southbridge Trail Committee: Shoulder stabilization and trail tread improvements to a section of the Westville Community trail.

U S Army Corps of Engineers: Lake Shoreline & River trail Cleanup: Much tornado debris was deposited in the waters of the East Brimfield Lake and the area’s first nationally designated Recreation Water trail, the Quinebaug River. Boats and canoes are needed to patrol the shoreline and river trail to pick up any remaining debris.

Reforestation& stream bank stabilization: A combined total of over 500 acres of project upland and river side trees were totally destroyed by the tornado. Forest recovery and logging operations have started, and there is need to replant these areas with new tree seedlings. Help needed to plant 600 tree seedlings and spread 100 cubic yards of wood chips.

Meeting locations and contact information to register:

Sturbridge Trail Committee: Heins Farm Parking lot, 197 Leadmine Rd and

The OSV Access Rd trail head parking lot, 10 Old Sturbridge Village Rd
To register: email: Randy Redetzke at rredet@charter.net or call 508-347-6340

Brimfield Trail Committee: 207 Five Bridge Rd., Trail Head parking lot

To register: email: Tony Bys at: tbys9297@charter.net or call: 413-563-3564

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: 24 Riverview Ave, Fiskdale Ma.

To register: email: Thomas.a.chamberland@usace.army.mil call: 508-347-3705

Holland Trail Committee: Quinebaug River Trail Head parking lot, Pond Bridge Rd.

To register: email Dick Haller at hallerr@cox.net or call: 413 245-7745

Southbridge Trail Committee: Westville Lake Project Office, 200 Marjorie Lane,

To register: email Scott Benoit at, earthhouse@hotmail.com
or email: Thomas.a.chamberland@usace.army.mil or call: 508-347-3705

A GREAT Opportunity to Support Two GREAT Individuals

2012-03-22T21:15:00.000-04:00

I am honored to write in support of Maryann Thorpe for reelection to the Sturbridge Zoning Board of Appeals. Maryann is an individual of impeccable integrity and one who has served our community with honor and dignity during her two-year tenure. I was privileged to support her two years ago during her campaign for election for a vacated 2-year seat. She has proven to be a tremendous asset to the ZBA bringing a great sense of balance, objectivity, thoughtfulness, and judicial clarity.

As a member of a quasi-judicial body (ZBA), Maryann has demonstrated an acute ability to ensure that decision-making is based upon the merits of the issue before her - consistent with the laws of our community and the State of Massachusetts - while ensuring that her personal feelings specific to any matter are left completely out of the issue. The ZBA is tasked with powers that at times resemble those of a court or judge and obligated to issue findings that are consistent with the law, not one’s personal proclivities. Maryann has been the model of judicial objectivity and serves as a power of example to all on the proper execution of her responsibilities and oath of office. I humbly and respectfully request your support for Maryann Thorpe on April 9, by voting to reelect her to this critically important position.

In line with my unwavering support for Maryann, I am thrilled that her opponent of two years ago, Don Fairbrother, has decided to wage a write-in campaign for the remaining open seat on the ZBA. Don is a dedicated resident who has proven his objectivity, honesty, and resourcefulness as a member of our Cable Advisory Committee. His commitment to the residents of Sturbridge has been instrumental in moving our community forward in terms of public access and he continues daily to seek new and innovative ways to improve resident access to all public information. So too, he has proven to be an extremely balanced, thoughtful, and respectful individual who recognizes the obligation he has to our community.

As I wrote two years ago in my endorsement of Maryann Thorpe, Don Fairbrother is a man of character and one that I respect and admire; unfortunately however, I could support only one candidate and I proudly supported Maryann. This year, I am privileged and honored to be able to support both of these fine human-beings and I hope that all residents will enthusiastically join me in voting for Maryann Thorpe for the ZBA while simultaneously writing in Donald Fairbrother on the line below Maryann’s name. This is a great opportunity to elect two great candidates for our Zoning Board of Appeals.

TRC

Write-in Campaign for Zoning Board of Appeals

2012-03-22T18:38:00.002-04:00

My name is Donald Fairbrother and I am initiating a write-in campaign for Zoning Board of Appeals for the Sturbridge town election on April 9th. My desire to fill the position stems from my desire to contribute to the future of the community that has drawn us as residents. Based on my corporate experience, I feel that I can be fair and objective in the decision–making process of the Zoning Board of Appeals.

We moved into Sturbridge over 5 years ago after I retired from a 31 year career with an aerospace firm as a middle manager. I have been married to my wife, Linda, for over 45 years. We have three children and 7 grandchildren. Over the five years that we’ve lived in Sturbridge, I have felt a need to contribute to the town we chose to reside in. These contributions have been demonstrated by my volunteer efforts, which include Personnel Committee (4 years), Cable Advisory Committee (3 years) and MA Broadband 123 town representative (2 years). I now ask the residents of Sturbridge to please consider writing my name in for the position of Zoning Board of Appeals on April 9^th.

Donald Fairbrother

Sturbridge

______________________________

NOTE: Don is an incredibly dedicated resident who has served with distinction an honor as a member of the Cable Advisory Committee during the last 3 years. I enthusiastically endorse and support his write-in campaign.

TRC

Budget Discussions: 03-19-12

2012-03-20T15:10:00.000-04:00

Last night, the Board of Selectmen voted the following with respect to aspects of the FY13 Budget proposal.

Motion: (Selectman Blanchard) To Support 2% Non-union wage increases for all non-union employees (2nd Selectman Dowling),

Vote: 3 in favor, 2 opposed (Selectman Creamer, Selectman Gimas). Motion carries 3-2

__________

Motion: (Selectman Blanchard) To NOT support staffing or hours increase in the Conservation Office (2nd Selectman Gimas),

Vote: 4-0-1 (Selectman Dowling abstained citing lack of definitive information with which to vote for or against). Motion carries 4-0-1 to NOT support increase.

__________

Motion: (Selectman Blanchard) To NOT support increase in hours for the Building Inspector (2nd Selectman Gimas),

Vote: 4-0-1 (Selectman Dowling abstained citing lack of definitive information with which to vote for or against). Motion carries 4-0-1 to NOT support increase.

__________

Motion: (Selectman Blanchard) To Support the Burgess School Budget as proposed; (2nd Selectman Dowling),

Vote: 4-1 (Selectman Creamer voting NO due solely to non-union wage increases and his desire to remain consistent with respect to his position of not supporting non-union wage increases for general government employees). Motion carries 4-1 to support the Burgess School Budget.

315 for 310

2012-03-17T10:44:00.006-04:00

This past Monday, the Board of Selectmen was presented with a Citizen’s Petition signed by 19 Sturbridge registered voters “To see if the Town will vote to transfer from Free Cash the sum of THREE HUNDRED FIFTEEN THOUSAND AND 00/100 DOLLARS ($315,00.00) to purchase property and buildings located at 310 Main Street in Sturbridge, or take any action in relation thereto”. That article has been placed on the Town Meeting Warrant for your consideration, as required by law.

The building in question is adjacent to Town Hall (directly to the left) and has been an item of discussion for a number of years, particularly during the 2-3 year period surrounding the proposed renovations of the then Town Hall and Center School. As that particular period predates my service as an elected official, I cannot speak with any authority relative to the thought process shared by those involved in terms of the level of consideration tendered to the purchase of that particular property. As a current member of the Board, I can say that this issue has been raised by several residents and that such has been the topic of discussion/consideration for the past 18 months (approximate).

A number of “reasons” have been provided in support of the “need” to purchase this building now while the “opportunity” exists. Those reasons include, but are not limited to, a) the need for future space as we will someday out-grow Town Hall and the Center Office Building, b) the inconvenience of staff and residents having to navigate a street-crossing in order to do business between the two buildings, c) the lack of parking at the Center Office Building, which contributes to additional inconvenience for staff and residents, d) the reality of a market that is “perfect” for purchasing a building that is within 25’ of Town Hall, thus being ideally suited as an annex building, and e) the absurdity of not purchasing the property when we first renovated Town Hall coupled with the fact that 100 years from now we’ll regret having not purchased it. I assign no level of priority or legitimacy to these arguments, but merely share them as the rationale thus far offered in support of purchasing 310 Main Street.

In terms of the property itself – listed on the Assessor’s property cards as having been built in 1850 – the current value (assessed by the Town for tax purposes) is $204,600, with a current tax bill of $3,607. Considering such, the removal of this property from the tax roles at a purchase price of $315,000 would mean that in approximately 87 years we would break even with the seller. That of course does not account for the age of the building and any potential renovations necessary to convert it into a useable municipal building. Realizing the magnitude of accessibility issues that would need to be addressed (e.g. elevator, ramps for those with mobility issues, wheelchair access throughout, etc.), in addition to the structural requirements of municipal buildings in terms of load bearing and emergency egress, as well as the electrical, plumbing, and HVAC requirements associated with same, one could easily be looking at an additional $200,000 on the low end (an overly conservative dollar amount), and perhaps as much as…well…God only knows, on the high end.

To cover those costs, some have suggested that we could sell the Center Office Building (COB) and use the money from that sale to purchase and renovate 310 Main Street. This in itself presents a significant challenge as the current assessed value of the COB is $376,700 and we invested an estimated $1.7 million in its renovation. Though certainly the COB is worth more than its assessed value, one has to question the likelihood of selling it for more than, or even close to, what we have committed in renovation costs. Equally, one has to recognize that this project generated its share of controversy for a number of years due to the estimated costs and discussion at that time did raise the prospect of “annexing” 310 Main Street. Ultimately, the project as completed was overwhelmingly passed by voters both at Town Meeting and at the ballot box, thus, the issue of COB ownership, has in my view been settled as that ship has sailed.

Oddly, at a time when residents are experiencing significant tax increases due to our transition to a single tax rate, in addition to the costs associated with the Town Hall/COB renovations (approximately $5 million), as well as the Burgess School project (approximately $17 million), not to mention the 68% increase in water and sewer rates associated with the new wastewater treatment facility (approximately $17.5 million) and a new well and water lines, we are being asked to purchase a deteriorating building for $315,000 that will undoubtedly cost as much as, if not more, to renovate it. In light of my overall position with respect to the FY13 budget proposal, I can attest without reservation that I – as one individual member of the Board – will not support the expenditure of tax dollars for a building that we “might regret not having purchased 100 years from now”. People in this community are suffering today, losing their jobs, witnessing wage and benefit decreases, and in more cases than we dare admit are losing their homes today. I personally cannot spend too much time focusing on what we might need a century from now, in the face of what I do see we need today as manifest by way of my door-to-door journey, and that is relief from additional spending or debt.

"Clarifying Misinformation"

2012-03-12T09:33:00.001-04:00

In response to a letter submitted to the editors of local newspapers by two Sturbridge residents “clarifying misinformation” surrounding the CPA while specifically calling out 3 of my colleagues, I am compelled to share some thoughts. First, I sincerely applaud these two residents for their activism and efforts on behalf of our community; it’s evident that they take great interest in its well-being. All too often, one may identify issues within the community but simply will not have the time nor the ability to address them; to that end, these two residents have demonstrated their conviction and commitment.

With that commitment however comes a responsibility to recognize that individuals with different viewpoints or values are no less accurate in the information they offer than those they differ with. In fact, to lay sole claim to the mantle of “clarifying misinformation” as it relates to the comments made by these elected officials, may itself necessitate clarification. For example, the reference to Selectman Mary Dowling’s statement that revocation of the CPA would “paralyze the town from spending on future projects” was void of an important component of that statement, in that she subsequently said “without the benefit of matching funds from the state”. To suggest as the writers did that she was indicating that revocation of the CPA would prevent us from future spending is inaccurate.

Additionally, the writers call out Selectman Dowling for referring to the State’s match as a “grant” rather than specifically qualifying those funds as coming from taxpayers. Are the writers suggesting that Selectman Dowling was attempting to mislead residents? One would hope not as it was surely not the case. Clearly, every dime we receive from State government comes from either taxes, fees, or some other type of assessment on residents. Thus whether one refers to the State’s portion of the CPA as “matching funds”, “grants”, or the “State’s share”, one is fairly certain that residents are astute enough to realize its origin. To that end, Selectman Dowling’s comments were in no way misleading, nor inaccurate.

The writers then suggest that Selectman Mary Blanchard was inaccurate when she stated that some residents are under the impression that their taxes will go down immediately if the CPA is revoked. Selectman Blanchard’s comments were quite accurate as I too have heard this from residents and stated as much that evening. Oddly, there was no reference whatsoever my comments or my position. For the writers to emphatically state as they did that “residents are well aware that the 3 percent surcharge on their tax bills will remain until 2030” is inconsistent with the number of questions I’ve received specific to same. Thus, Selectman Blanchard’s comments were very accurate.

In terms of the writers’ contention that revoking the CPA “will help to control spending”, one would have to inquire as to how they’ve arrived at that assessment. Spending is controlled solely by the voters at Town Meeting. No board or committee has any authority to spend locally raised revenues and therefore, with or without the CPA, projects will still come forward and if approved - as has been the case over the years – it will simply mean that the entire burden will now fall upon the taxpayers as opposed to a small share of it. If residents want to “control spending”, the manner by which to do so is through attendance at Town Meeting and voting NO on projects. The CPA isn’t responsible for the $50 million dollars we’ve spent over the past 5 years; it represents only 8% of that debt. Nor is the CPA responsible for our educational budget representing nearly 60% or our total tax burden. Revoking the CPA to “control spending” is akin to placing a band-aid on a hemorrhaging wound, it just redirects the flow.

The writers then call into question comments made by Selectman Priscilla Gimas as she referenced information she received directly from the Town of Northampton. Selectman Gimas shared and restated information as it had been provided to her from local officials. She then followed with additional information at our very next meeting, which further defined the fact that the CPA component is ONE aspect of an overall rating, as are many other factors as it involves money. She stressed that the CPA revocation COULD have a negative impact, not WOULD, as again, it’s one component. To that end, she did “explain what ramifications” could manifest when coupled with other influencing factors. Additionally the writers challenge Selectman Gimas’ statement that residents pay "$50 a year" for the CPA surcharge - so as to suggest that her comment was definitive for all. It clearly was not, as she was using an example. Perhaps some residents may – as the writers state – “pay as much as $300 a year”, but that’s based upon a tax bill for a home assessed at $700,000, just as some residents pay $16 annually based upon their home’s tax assessment. Click HERE for examples of what a specific home on a specific street is paying based upon their specific assessment, or see chart to the right.

It’s understandable that we don’t always hear the complete context of what an individual says, nor for that matter, do human beings always fully say everything they intended to say. To suggest however that any of these three selectmen were providing misinformation is simply inaccurate and misleading. To that end, I felt obligated to clarify some misconceptions, knowing that the individuals who penned the letter in question – both honorable and committed residents – most likely did not fully understand all that was said that evening. This can be an emotional subject, and emotions can often serve as an unintended filter.

Thomas R. Creamer,
Chairman, Sturbridge Board of Selectmen

Save the CPA - Vote NO on Question 4

2012-03-10T20:24:00.000-05:00

We write today to offer a link to a website that offers information on the Community Preservation Act. The CPA is a fantastic program that has allowed Sturbridge to obtain state funding for our local projects and it is critical to our municipal fiscal health.

A ballot question at our Annual Town Election will ask you if you are in favor of revoking the CPA. We urge you to learn about the CPA because we are confident that an educated voter will vote NO on Question 4.

Thank you for your consideration.

Committee to support the CPA
____________________________________

NOTE: I strongly urge all residents to vote NO on revoking the Community Preservation Act (CPA). The CPA has provided our community with significant financial resources enabling us to undertake important and valuable projects at significant savings. Since its inception in 2001, total CPA spending, accounts for less than 8% of the overall $50 plus million that our community has spent just over the last five years. The revocation of the CPA will do nothing to save taxpayers a single dime over the next 20 - 30 years, but could well result in higher taxes, as projects approved in the future (recreation fields, historic renovations, trail development on our open space parcels, Senior Center restoration, specific projects within the Commercial Tourist District, etc.) will be solely dependent upon local tax revenues. If projects of this nature come forward and are approved without the CPA, they will most likely necessitate full taxpayer funding, which generally results in tax increases.

The best and most prudent approach to flattening our tax rate is not by revoking the CPA, but by being more conservative in our approach to spending period. That means our general government budget as well as our education budget. I ask you to work with me in solving the challenges we face due to higher taxes, rising fees, and increased water and sewer rates. That begins with a global approach to our overall spending and by maintaining the CPA as a valuable tool for the future. PLEASE vote NO on revoking the CPA. Please visit the Sturbridge CPA website HERE for valuable information about the CPA.

Thomas R. Creamer

My Endorsement Letter for Dr. Susan Waters

2012-03-09T20:40:00.000-05:00

To the Editor

It is with enormous pride that I write in support of Dr. Susan Waters for the Tantasqua Regional School Committee. Susan is an individual of impeccable character whose commitment to service is based not upon ideology or self-serving aspiration, but upon a genuine desire to serve her community with honor.

During one of the most challenging times in our town’s history, Dr. Waters was contacted by me – based upon her expertise and experience – to accept a volunteer position as our Town’s Volunteer Resource Coordinator. Despite the demands of a professional career, Dr. Waters immediately committed to giving every free minute of her time to help reclaim and recover our community. Each morning Dr. Waters initiated daily operations at the Volunteer Resource Center, coordinating staffing and volunteer assignments while maintaining ongoing communications throughout the day; this, in addition to fully addressing the demands of her profession. As each work day ended, Susan met with me and would spend the next 5 – 6 hours, reviewing the day’s progress, while identifying needs, addressing logistics and scheduling resources for the following day’s work. Weekends would regularly witness consecutive 12-hour days as Dr. Waters was on the ground coordinating volunteers and assets in support of recovery operations.

On the heels of the tornado, Susan’s commitment continued during the challenges of Hurricane Irene as once again the Volunteer Resource Center became an instrumental component of our recovery operations. Throughout these two disasters, Dr. Waters worked a minimum of 40 volunteer hours per week, over the course of that 3-month period, all while tending to the demands of her full-time profession. Having worked with her closely throughout this period I have come to know Dr. Waters as the very definition of the word - selfless.

Her tireless dedication to our community, along with her reasoned approach to challenges, her open-mindedness, and her commitment to integrity and transparency were the guiding factors in my vote as a member of the Board of Selectmen to appoint her to fill a vacant seat on the Tantasqua Regional School Committee. She has served with honor and distinction during her 8 month appointed tenure.

Dr. Waters understands her obligations to the residents of Sturbridge and recognizes that she serves as our voice on the School Committee. She has proven her commitment to transparency by asking probing questions, challenging the status quo, and working for more a more inclusive approach to decision-making that involves greater participation by residents. She is an advocate for all students, all parents, and most importantly – all Sturbridge residents.

At a time when the Regional School Committee has become tainted by the extremist political ideology associated with two members, Dr. Susan Waters brings an open, inclusive approach and has proven herself to be a courageous champion of the people. Working closely with the many honorable individuals on the School Committee, Dr. Waters will ensure that your voice is part of the decision-making process. I respectfully seek your vote for Susan Waters on Monday, April 9, for Tantasqua Regional School Committee.

Thomas R. Creamer

The "Fairness Doctrine"

2012-03-03T21:10:00.001-05:00

Over the past week, several Town officials have referenced a desire/need to be "fair" with our employees by way supporting the Town Administrator's proposed 2% wage increase for all non-union employees. The Town Administrator himself classified his proposal as "fair and affordable". One member of the Board of Selectmen as well as a member of the Finance Committee have indicated the need for us to be "fair" in terms of compensating our non-union employees in a manner similar to that of collective bargaining employees. One Town official, while advocating an increase for a specific employee, questioned the fairness of this non-union Town employee receiving a salary that was not on parity with others in similar positions.

Clearly, fairness is an important element in addressing a multitude of issues within one's community, as well perhaps as one's life and it is generally desirable to find equity where appropriate. That said, and I mean no disrespect whatsoever, but the fact is that not everything in life is fair, nor can everything in life be fair, or for that matter, should be fair. Life is full of challenges and not all challenges are equal to all individuals.

Many in life are afflicted with the devastation of cancer and/or other debilitating illnesses or diseases; many are not. Many people lose loved ones who are far too young; many do not. Many suffer in silence because of abusive relationships, dysfunctional families, and/or mental illness; many do not. Are any of these challenges or sufferings fair? Is it fair that a mother and father sit in anguish while watching their child take his last breath? If life is truly about a "fairness doctrine" where all decisions are based upon what is "fair" or unfair, what benchmark then do we apply?

As I reflect upon the approach of some Town officials and employees in their quest for "fairness", I must - with all due respect intended - ask the following additional questions more specific to their desire for "fairness".

Is it "fair" that more and more families and couples are being taxed out of our community?
Is it "fair" that all too many of our residents are unemployed, under-employed, or faced with wage decreases and benefit reductions in order to keep their jobs?
Is it "fair" that many of those who built this community - our seniors - now see themselves in a situation warranting their departure from it, in order to survive due to the increased taxes and fees?
Is it "fair" that many seniors have had only 1 (very marginal) cost of living increase in the last 4 years, yet medicine, food, gas, and energy prices continue to increase dramatically?
Is it "fair" that water and sewer rates increased nearly 68% last year in tandem with a significant tax increase?
Is it "fair" that all voters determine upgrades/increases to water and sewer infrastructure along with fee increases, yet only approximately half of the community (those on Town water and sewer) pay for what everyone else - user & non-user alike vote on? I am one of the approximately 48% of town residents who do not have town water and sewer, yet my vote as part of the Legislative Branch at Town Meeting for a larger wastewater treatment plant, along with increased fees to pay for same impacts me NOT ONE BIT. How "fair" is that to those who bear the burden of my vote?
Is if "fair" that some Town employees get "comp time", while others do not?
Is it "fair" that we even allow "comp time" as a benefit when many residents have had to make so many concessions just to keep their jobs?
Is the allowance or awarding of comp time "fair" to residents who are paying - by way of their taxes - the salaries of these "comped" employees?

Clearly, there is no limit to the illustrative nature of "fairness" - or lack thereof - in our everyday lives and we all are faced with challenges that others are not. Too often though, human nature is such that we tend to isolate our "fairness" barometer in a manner that is void of a more global consideration as to just how others are faced with challenges a whole lot less "fair" than ours. As I journey throughout our community and speak with residents, I am struck by just how unfair life has been, continues to be for many of them as they bear the burden of our debt.

For those who are concerned about the level of "fairness" in terms of wage increases and/or additional staff hours for Town employees, or whether their pay is on par with others performing similar tasks, I respectfully invite you to join me as I travel door-to-door and witness the unfairness of life for many of our residents. I took an oath 3 years ago where I"...solemnly swore to perform my duties faithfully, impartially, and to the best of my ability, so help me God". That oath bound me in service to the residents of this community, and to that end I serve them, not, with all due respect, those whom we as a town employ.

Please note that it is truly not my intention to disrespect any who have been referenced in this correspondence; as I recognize and value the importance of disparate positions. I am however firmly convinced that arguing fairness as it relates to wage increases, additional hours, etc. by local officials, during a time of great unfairness for all too many in our community is somewhat uninformed and rather insensitive.

A Proposal for a Government Services Study Committee

2012-03-02T17:55:00.000-05:00

As I continue to contemplate the budget proposals submitted by the Town Administrator in terms of increased staff and/or hours, I have determined it both appropriate and necessary to initiate an independent study of general government staffing. As previously indicated and publicly noted, the Town Administrator was tasked by the Board of Selectmen in November of 2010 to “evaluate the efficiency of Town Hall services and effectiveness of the current staffing in providing these services”. This evaluation was determined necessary in addressing future staffing needs and/or service increases or reductions. To date, this review has not been done and certainly events of the last year have impacted its undertaking to some measurable degree.

That said, further consideration has led me to believe that the assignment of this task to the Town Administrator is counterproductive for the following reasons:

1) I have arrived at a point where I believe the assignment of this task to the Town Administrator is onerous to the point of paralysis, in that it directs too much his attention to an extremely comprehensive issue that requires an equally comprehensive level of detailed analysis. This – in my view - would serve only to the detriment of other pressing matters facing the Town Administrator on a daily basis – both short and long-term, while diminishing his effectiveness in discharging his duties consistent with the Town Charter.

2) I believe that it would place the Town Administrator in the unnecessarily challenging position of having to effectively and efficiently manage the day-to-day affairs of the Town while simultaneously pressuring him to scrutinize - to the level of micro-managing – each and every department under his direct supervision, ultimately to the detriment of our community. In my view this approach would diminish his overall productivity and efficiency as well as that of those he directly supervises, while contributing to the development of a very divisive and confrontational atmosphere within local government.

True enough, one could argue that any review of town departments will by its very nature lend to the possibility of divisiveness or alienation within and among various departments. That said, one has to wonder if it is absolutely necessary to place the Town Administrator in the center of such a potential “storm” when there are significant short-term and long-term challenges that need to be collectively addressed with the support and engagement of the personnel he supervises.

3) Based upon the Town Administrator’s proposed budget and his request for additional personnel/hours in a number of departments, void of what I consider to be - with all due respect - any measurable objective validation, I am led to believe that the very nature of his position may tend to place him too close to the issue to provide the objective detachment required. This is not a criticism of the Town Administrator, but rather a criticism of the approach we have taken as a Board in directing him to undertake this task. Consider this, when faced with a finite number of resources nearly every single “battlefield commander” will request more “troops” to get the job done. When one is in the “trenches” more people, more equipment, and more resources can always seem to be the right solution in terms of achieving the “objective”. Recognizing such, we do well to remember that with a finite number of resources (taxpayer dollars) juxtaposed against the competing demands of numerous “battlefield commanders”, decisions as to the allotment of resources is most often made made by those not in the “trenches”, but rather by others well to the rear of the "hot zone" so as to provide the most objective review of the situation. To that end, an independent body with a more macro-view can provide the detached objectivity necessary to a comprehensive and appropriately critical review.

In consideration of the challenges I believe to be inherent in directing the Town Administrator to “evaluate the efficiency of Town Hall services and effectiveness of the current staffing in providing these services”, I will be proposing to the Board of Selectmen at our next meeting, the establishment of a Government Services Study Committee (GSSC) comprised of 3 members, 1 from the Board of Selectmen, 1 from the Finance Committee, and 1 resident at large, tasked with undertaking a comprehensive review of government services. This review will include but not be limited to the following:

Overall Government Services offered

Staffing review associated with those services
Hours associated with those services
Personnel associated with those services
Cost/benefit to overall community

A review of each town department to include

Department responsibility
Services provided
Manning/Staffing levels
Total personnel/work hours
Compensation (e.g. salary, hourly pay, etc.)
Department overtime and policies associated with use of
Existence and use of compensation time
Sick days expended
Vacation days allotted
Impact of sick days/vacation days on overtime where applicable
Overtime costs associated with each department – where applicable
Compensation time accrued/expended where existent
Effectiveness of fulfilling overall department responsibilities
Department needs
Cost/benefit of services provided and recommendations attendant to same
Current in-place collective bargaining agreement review (where applicable)

Cost/benefit of current collective bargaining agreement
Recommendations/considerations for future collective bargaining approaches

Recommendations consistent with a best-practice return on investment approach for services provided.

This would include recommended increases, decreases, consolidation of services/departments/personnel, or status quo staffing, as well as recommendations for outsourcing or in-sourcing where applicable.

Recommendations consistent with a best-practice return on investment approach for town department staffing levels.

This would include recommended increases, decreases, consolidation of services/departments/personnel, or status quo staffing, as well as recommendations for outsourcing or in-sourcing where applicable.

The Government Services Study Committee (GSSC) would be charged with providing quarterly updates to the Board of Selectmen and would be issued a schedule defining benchmarks as well as a timeline for initiation/completion of each department’s staffing/service levels. Upon completion, the reports would be publicly reviewed by the Board of Selectmen and if adopted, would form the basis for any future requests and or initiatives specific to town departments. In addition it would provide a tool for the Board and the community when assessing resources/needs/wants as well serving as a potential guide for the Board in developing collective bargaining strategies within the community. In terms of identifying the scheduling of each department's individual review, such would be determined by the Board of Selectmen upon adoption of the GSSC proposal, should the Board be inclined to do so. Equally, this committee would be granted the authority necessary to retrieve, review, and retain those records appropriate to the needs of their charge.

Clearly, there may well be a number of considerations I have overlooked and the value of discussing this proposal publicly will help identify and address shortcomings associated with it. Equally, this proposal - or any subsequent variation thereof - will require the support of a majority of Board members by way of an affirmative vote. That said, it is increasingly clear to this member of the Board that our current and past approach to staffing requirements and service needs/wants, is, and has been, based not upon comprehensive work flow reviews or a detailed analysis associated with each department, but rather, what appears to be arguments based upon a “laundry list” of demands/challenges associated with a specific department’s ability to articulate the most convincing or affable argument possible. I have come to a point where I firmly believe that the continued reliance upon this method of “vetting” departmental requests is of significant disservice to our community.

Some might suggest use of the currently established Personnel Classification Committee as a means to achieve the desired outcome. In consideration of such, it is important to recognize that the charge of the Personnel Classification Committee is to "make personnel policy recommendations for regular Town employees in such matters as fringe benefits, working conditions, etc. and to update the Town Employee’s Personnel Handbook. The Personnel Committee prepares job descriptions and recommends position classification and pay plans to the Town Administrator". In recognition of the responsibilities already attendant to this body, I see value to increasing its work load, which would perhaps serve only to the detriment of its primary function.

Equally, some may consider that outsourcing this role to a 3rd party consulting firm would truly provide what one could characterize as an "independent and objective" evaluation. There is little I could offer to dispute such, other than the reliance upon additional tax-payer funding at a time when residents feel they are shouldering too much already.

As this proposal is still in the formative stages, I invite your input, guidance, and/or response via email so that I can be sure I have availed myself to the greatest degree of consideration possible. You may contact me directly at trcreamer@gmail.com.

My Approach to the FY13 Budget Proposal

2012-02-29T20:11:00.000-05:00

During our recent budget discussions with the Finance Committee, Town Administrator Shaun Suhoski introduced his proposed FY 2013 budget. In his budget message, Mr. Suhoski states that “where the FY12 budget was built upon “level services” and “fiscal austerity,” the $26.65 million FY13 budget proposed outlines a plan for renewal throughout the community”.

The Town Administrator's budget message goes on to say that “the proposal will: (1) renew investment in deteriorating infrastructure by supplementing the road maintenance and construction budgets, (2) renew our commitment to public safety through the addition of a patrol officer/school resource officer, (3) renew protection of our natural environment through additional conservation staff, (4) renew our better management practices at the landfill and wastewater plants while cutting costs, and (5) renew and re-double efforts to find savings and economies of scale to reduce costs including improved efficiencies in assessing and GIS mapping”.

Clearly, the theme of renewal strikes a positive note in light of the devastating year our community has faced. That said, one recognizes the value of a cautious, almost skeptical approach when faced with a metaphorical theme being presented to justify a proposed 4.2% budget increase. Inclusive in the Town Administrator’s budget is what is classified as “a fair and affordable 2 per cent wage hike for all non-union employees”. Fair and affordable are of course relative terms, particularly when juxtaposed against the significant financial burden many residents are shouldering under the weight of increased taxes as well as a 68% increase (approximate) in water and sewer rates - all of which have descended upon us at once.

Additional elements of the 4.2 proposed include increased staffing or hours in the following:

Police: 6.8% or $131,238 for increased staffing/department requests
Public Works: 4.3% or $33,650 for increased staffing
Assessing Department: 28.1% or $37,640 for increased staffing, wages, software
Conservation Department: 23.1% or $15,861 for increased staffing
Building Department: 23.4% or $12,532 towards increased staff hours
“Economic Growth”: $120,000 for development of a Commercial Tourist District Engineering Plan

Other aspects of the budget increase stem from collective bargaining components previously approved at Town Meeting, as well as increased Health Insurance costs and debt payments that are presently “non-negotiable” in terms of our ability to avoid in the proposed budget. In light of these “fixed” or obligated costs, it becomes all the more critical to insure that discretionary spending is carefully scrutinized and prioritized to a point of absolute necessity.

Undoubtedly, one could argue that these proposed increases are modest when viewed against the totality of a $26.6 million dollar budget and that we “need to invest” in our community if we are to thrive. Perhaps so, but then again, one could equally argue that the $50 plus million dollars in new debt we have incurred over the past five years, clearly and unequivocally demonstrates a significant investment in our community and that now the time has come to initiate some real restraint. For those who watched our most recent budget hearings, there is no question that I have chosen the later over the former, as has some other members of the Board.

As such, I have made it clear that I will not support any additional hours in the Conservation Department, beyond the dedicated 20 hours per week of staff support currently serving the Conservation Agent, nor will I support any additional hours in the Building Department. With no reservation whatsoever, I am firmly convinced there has been no justification for these increases, beyond passionate pleas replete with a “laundry list” of “demands” facing these departments. To be clear, were we to base our decisions in terms of increased hours on the passion of those presenting a “laundry list” of “demands”, there is little doubt that every department could construct such a catalog of “needs”. Despite repeated calls from the Board of Selectmen for a comprehensive review of staffing levels within Town Government; this has yet to be done. As such, one must exercise restraint and extreme caution when contemplating any decisions regarding staffing levels that appear to be based solely upon subjective advocacy

Equally, I am unable to support the proposed spending specific to a Commercial Tourist District engineering plan, as such would be - in my view, irresponsible at this time. True enough this engineering plan will provide a blueprint for future improvement in the Commercial Tourist District and no one has been a stronger advocate for such than I. That said, I am reminded daily as I journey door-to-door throughout our community that far too many residents are struggling in silence under the weight of our current financial burden and this is simply not the time to be spending money on discretionary items.

Additionally, despite the great respect I have for our valued and hard-working town employees, I cannot support the Town Administrators proposed “fair and affordable 2 per cent wage hike for all non-union employees”. While all too many residents are unemployed, underemployed, or facing wage and benefit reductions in order to maintain their jobs, there is no amount of justification that would enable me to support a 2% wage hike on the backs of struggling taxpayers. Though some may argue that union employees have seen modest wage hikes this year and therefore it is only “fair” for non-union employees to receive same, it must be remembered that collective bargaining by its very nature presents significant challenges to municipalities in terms of cost containment.

Federal mandates, arbitration, and mediation dictate the approach in terms of addressing collective bargaining agreements. This, in and of itself can present significant challenges in terms of cost containment. That said, the majority of current Board members have taken a very conservative approach to negotiation and have exercised great restraint on behalf of our community.

Beyond these items, there are some remaining proposals that for me at least, the “jury remains out" on as we have been provided with preliminary information suggesting that two of these may in fact pay for themselves by virtue of bringing them “in house”, in that they are currently contracted out. That remains to be seen and those two items include the request for an additional position in the DPW as well as one in the Assessor’s office. As more details are provided, my position will become more definitive. Currently however, in the absence of this critical data I stand opposed to these specific increases, yet remain open to discussions.

Additionally, as a strong proponent for the School Resource Officer for a variety of reasons, I am open to discussions in terms of this particular position. That said, I will be seeking justification as to why this position cannot be assigned to a current member of the Sturbridge Police Department. Additionally, I would need to know why our current staffing levels are inadequate – if in fact they are – thus preventing this position from being assigned to a current officer. Equally, we should consider why this position should be funded solely by the Town of Sturbridge as opposed to a cost-sharing approach with the entire district and what exactly will the responsibilities and work load this position entail.

As I work directly for you - the residents of this community - I welcome your feedback via email in terms of my overall approach to the budget as ultimately, these items may come to Town Meeting for your review and approval (in your role as the Legislative Branch) if they are placed by the Board as is, or in any variation thereof.

Sturbridge BOS votes unanimously to support CPA

2012-02-28T21:36:00.000-05:00

The following article (portion thereof) is courtesy of the Telegram & Gazette.

STURBRIDGE — The Board of Selectmen last night expressed opposition to a citizens petition asking voters to revoke the Community Preservation Act and unanimously recommended the town maintain the CPA.

Selectman Mary Dowling said maintaining the CPA in town is in “the best interest of the community and its residents, both in terms of economic considerations and quality of life.”

“From an economic standpoint, I don’t want to paralyze the town from either a small project or voting on a larger project down the road,” Ms. Dowling said. “We don’t know what’s going to come up.”

Petitioners said they are motivated “to stop further debt buildup and to stop spending on new projects that deter funds away from our (the town’s) current debt.” According to the petition, the CPA portion of the town’s overall $49 million debt is $4.3 million. The CPA was adopted in Sturbridge 11 years ago. Sturbridge receives 42.5 percent in CPA matching funds, as well as a 3 percent surcharge.

Board of Selectmen Chairman Thomas R. Creamer, who said he’s “going to champion against any spending, period,” said the board took a very “conservative” approach toward spending at the budget meeting Saturday and selectmen are not going to support any “unnecessary spending” in the community.

“There is a spending problem, if you want to refer to it that way, in Sturbridge but it’s certainly not something that is inherent or specific to the CPA because the CPA has no money of its own to spend nor does any committee or board in this community,” Mr. Creamer said. “I think it would be a big mistake to get rid of a program that has been of significant value to the community.”

The remainder of this article can be read HERE

School Committee Budget Meetings

2012-02-28T20:46:00.000-05:00

This week, two significant discussions will take place specific to the school budget. The significance of these discussions is that 60% (this includes health benefits) of our total town budget is vested in our school system. Considering such, it is critical that residents scrutinize the school budget as meticulously as I encourage them to scrutinize the general government side of the budget.

Not surprisingly, the Sturbridge School Committee (SSC) - chaired by Kate Alexander, has reached out to the community seeking more involvement from residents in the public process attendant to the local school budget. To that end, beyond the standard public meeting posting, Ms. Alexander authorized the following correspondence sent on behalf of the SSC yesterday to over 700 residents that routinely receive Public Service Announcements from me. That correspondence read as follows:

"On behalf of the Sturbridge School Committee, Kate Alexander - Committee Chair, would like to extend an invitation to Sturbridge residents to attend the School Committee's Public Hearing on the PROPOSED FY 2012-2013 SCHOOL BUDGET.

The PUBLIC HEARING will be held Thursday, March 1, 2012 at 7:00 P.M. in the Burgess Elementary School Library. Your attendance is welcomed."

On a personal note, as a resident with no children in the school system, I wish to extend my sincere thanks to the Sturbridge School Committee for their continuing efforts to regularly promote increased participation in their process for all residents.

In addition to the Sturbridge School Committee meeting, the Town calendar lists the following

TANTASQUA REGIONAL SCHOOL COMMITTEE

Meeting of Wednesday, February 29, 2012

TANTASQUA REGIONAL JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL LIBRARY

7:00 P.M.

Agenda

Approval of Minutes

January 17, 2012 – Regular Session Request for Vote

Financial Report

FY 13 Budget Vote
FY 13 Public Hearing Time

Committee Reports

Students
Budget
Technical
Curriculum
By-Law and Policy
Personnel

ETC.

Tantasqua Regional School Committee Candidate Debates

2012-02-26T18:52:00.001-05:00

Two of the three candidates for the Tantasqua Regional School Committee have agreed to debates for the regional school committee seats. The two consenting candidates - Michelle Fitzgerald and Dr. Susan Waters, have both agreed to a live-televised debate on March 14, 2012 at 7:00PM, consisting of questions submitted to the Town Moderator, as well as live questions from the audience and phone-in questions from television viewers. The third candidate yet to respond but only a few days have passed since the request and one certainly anticipates a favorable response - schedule permitting.

A second debate is tentatively scheduled for April 4, 2012. Due to limited scheduling availability at Town Hall in light of public meetings, public presentations, etc., the debates will proceed as long as at least 1 - 2 candidates are available.

These live-televised debates will allow for meaningful dialog on all issues of concern and importance to residents - specific to our regional school system, while providing an opportunity to better evaluate those individuals seeking your consideration. Please join the candidates on March 14, 6:30 PM at Town Hall.

Further information will be provided as appropriate.

Sturbridge-based National Grid Seminar - March 13

2012-02-26T16:57:00.001-05:00

As previously indicated in a correspondence sent out on 7 February 2012, I have been working with executive level staff at National Grid to conduct a live-broadcast public information meeting here in Sturbridge. In that Feb. 7 correspondence, I summarized a meeting we had held with National Grid – outlining some key points of focus by all, while referencing a public information meeting we were planning.

To that end, please note that on Tuesday, March 13, 2012 at 6:30 PM, executive level staff from National Grid will conduct a televised information seminar joined by Town Administrator Shaun Suhoski, Chief Thomas Ford, Selectman Priscilla Gimas (liaison to the Police Department) and myself. Pending schedule confirmations, other Board members may be in attendance. After the presentation, questions will be taken from attendees both on-site at Town Hall and by way of phone (508-347-2500). I invite you to forward any advance questions so that we can ensure the seminar will have as much specificity as possible during the development phase prior to going live.

As previously indicated, we are undertaking three distinct paths in terms of increasing and improving our community’s leverage with respect to National Grid, 1) our strong position taken during the Department of Public Utilities public hearings that Town Administrator Suhoski and I testified at. In support of that testimony were official letters for entry into the public record attendant to the Attorney General’s investigation, one of which was authored by Mr. Suhoski, the other by Selectman Gimas and myself, 2) establishment & sustainment of a proactive, cooperative, and collaborative relationship with National Grid – of which this seminar is ascribed, and 3) a study specific to the pros/cons/possibilities of a municipally-based power company owned by the Town of Sturbridge. This of course is long-term process and not one that will be easily or expeditiously attained, but one nonetheless worthy of serious review.

Please consider joining us on Tuesday March 13, 6:30 PM at Town Hall (live, by way of call-ins, or by review of the rebroadcasted video) as we work cooperatively with National Grid to better ensure our community’s welfare during a power outage.

Advance questions can be emailed to trcreamer@gmail.com.

Citizen Emergency Response Team Training

2012-02-24T20:32:00.001-05:00

BECOME A TRAINED AND CREDENTIALED VOLUNTEER FOR YOUR COMMUNITY

Tri-EPIC REPC will be hosting CERT (Citizen Emergency Response Team) Training for any resident of Charlton, Dudley, Southbridge, or Sturbridge who would like to help their Community.

This Training is FREE!

Classes will be held at the Southbridge Community Center (Former Armory), at 153 Chestnut Street, Southbridge - Thursday evenings from 6 to 9 P.M. for approximately 12 weeks beginning on March 15th, 2012.

You must be at least 18 years of age and a Criminal Records Check is required.

Please contact your local CERT coordinator for further Information and application by March 5th:

Charlton: Lt. Carl Ekman, Charlton Police, 508-248-2056
Dudley: Captain Paul Konieczny, Dudley Fire, 508-949-8040
Southbridge: F.F. Paul Nault, Southbridge Fire, 508-764-5430 (Packet available At Fire Station)
Sturbridge: Sergeant Kevin Mercier, Sturbridge PD, 508-347-2525 X117

Revoking the Community Preservation Act

2012-02-22T12:40:00.004-05:00

Recently, a series of letters to the editor, news reports, and efforts in terms of a town-wide ballot petition have addressed a desire to revoke the Community Preservation Act (CPA). This initiative is designed to "reduce" the financial burden on residents and "prevent any further spending" or debt burdening by way of the CPA.

There is little doubt that many, if not most residents face financial challenges due to a devastating national economy combined with increased prices on nearly everything and reduced incomes for all too many. Discretionary income is non-existent for most and despite some news reports of an improved economy, the vast majority of Americans and Sturbridge residents are still financially challenged and find themselves unable to bear any more financial burdens. In the face of such, revocation of the CPA appears to be not only prudent, but necessary.

That is of course until you look deeper into this issue and find that it is not a CPA spending crisis that is facing the Town of Sturbridge, but rather a town-wide borrowing crisis brought on by all too many projects being approved at Town Meeting by the Legislative Branch of government - those residents (approximately 4.5%) who vote Town Meeting - of which I am one. The Community Preservation Committee (CPC), just like the Board of Selectmen and every other board/committee in town has absolutely no authority to spend or borrow against locally raised revenues on behalf of the Town of Sturbridge; that authority rests solely and unequivocally with the voters who serve as the Legislative Branch at Town Meeting. To be clear, this post is not presented to highlight any pros or cons one might ascribe to the CPA, nor is it designed to address its many contributions to our community - and there have been many. It is instead, presented to address what I view as the central issue in terms of the financial burden many residents are shouldering and what I believe to be the most pragmatic and appropriate approach.

Considering such, there is a critical element in terms of any discussion relative to the CPA that must be understood. We are burdened with the debt we currently have, not because of the CPA or any other program we maintain in Sturbridge, but because of our collective decisions at Town Meeting, which have resulted in the financial challenges that many residents are now faced with. To that end, revocation of the CPA will not lessen that tax burden nor lighten our load in any way, as the debt we have incurred still needs to be paid. Therefore with or without the CPA, any tax burden we have associated solely with the CPA will remain for the next 20 plus years. There is absolutely no way around that fact.

Some will argue that if we revoke the CPA we will prevent any further debt. This position is fundamentally flawed as it does not prevent projects from coming forward for consideration at Town Meeting, it only prevents us from obtaining any state contributions to those projects that fit within the realm of CPA funding. That list of projects fitting within the realm of the CPA, is quite extensive by the way. Projects will still come forward and if approved as has generally been the practice, we will continue to increase the burden on tax payers and more at a more significant rate, as without the CPA there will be no state contribution of funds for some of those projects.

More to the point however, revoking the CPA in an effort to fix our spending problem is akin to providing dramamine therapy for a concussion. One might feel better for a few minutes (extremely doubtful), but the fact remains that the concussion still exists and the treatment for the injury is much more detailed. Similarly, one might feel better by thinking that revoking the CPA will relieve their pain - as in the tax burden, but the fact remains that the tax burden will not lessen, as the current debt does not simply disappear, nor does it prevent any further spending or borrowing by revoking it. Again, it merely eliminates a source of potential funding from the state.

There is however a very simple and very effective way to reduce or flatten our future tax burden (future being the optimum word here as we own the debt we currently have from all expenditures - CPA and otherwise) and that comes by way of attending Town Meetings (generally 1 or 2 per year) and voting NO on spending or borrowing projects. That's it in a nut shell - JUST SAY NO.

When you consider some of the projects we have borrowed for over the last 5 years (i.e. new Wastewater Treatment Facility, Town Hall/Center Office Building renovations, Burgess elementary school, new town wells, water/sewer lines on Route 131, land purchases, etc.), all of which total in excess of $50 million dollars, one is hard-pressed to identify the CPA as the root of our current financial burden. In fact, of this $50 plus million dollars in debt approved by the Legislative Branch - voters at Town Meeting, approximately $4.4 million dollars or 8% of it involves a CPA component. Thus, 92% of the financial burden we bear is competely unrelated to the CPA. In my view, the real issue in Sturbridge isn't the CPA, but rather our inability to say NO to spending.

If we really want to address the financial challenges we face as a community, the solution rests not with throwing the baby out with the bath water - as revocation of the CPA would do, but rather by truly changing the way we do business both before and more importantly at Town Meeting. It has been said that insanity can be defined as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Well, if we continue to go to Town Meeting and approve spending projects at the rate we have over the past 5 years - the overwhelming majority of which do not involve the CPA in any way, how can we ever expect to flatten or reduce our financial burdens?

Courtesy of the Telegram & Gazette

2012-02-22T08:33:00.001-05:00

Sturbridge

No race this year for Board of Selectmen

STURBRIDGE —An incumbent selectman has decided against running for another term, making two selectmen’s seats uncontested.

Angeline Ellison did not return papers by the deadline yesterday for the April 9 annual town election. Last year, Ms. Ellison defeated Alphonso Esposito, 776-556, for the one-year selectman’s seat, which had been vacated by Edward P. Goodwin.

Because Ms. Ellison has decided not to run, two candidates are running for the two three-year selectmen’s seats on the ballot: incumbent Thomas R. Creamer and Mary Redetzke, who is on the Finance Committee.

In 2009, Mr. Creamer was the highest vote-getter, with 953 votes in the race for selectman, followed by Mr. Goodwin with 837 votes.

There is a three-way contest for two three-year Tantasqua Regional School Committee seats, with incumbent Susan Waters, Michele Fitzgerald and Jennifer A. Harwich-Vaughan vying for the seats.

On July 11, selectmen named Ms. Waters to fill a vacancy on the school committee, even though the committee on July 7 had voted not to accept any unilateral appointments. The vacancy was created when member Francis G. Simanski, 63, of Sturbridge died May 11 after a brief illness.

On June 13, during a joint session with the Board of Selectmen, the Sturbridge representatives of the school committee would not vote for Ms. Waters, then the sole candidate. The officials instead voted 7-4 to re-advertise, with Mary Blanchard the sole selectman siding with the committee. A week later, selectmen suspended the joint appointment process after receiving town counsel’s opinion and a copy of the Tantasqua agreement. It says selectmen are the ones responsible for filling a school committee vacancy. On Aug. 31, the Tantasqua Regional School Committee rescinded its decision not to seat any people unilaterally appointed by any boards of selectmen in the five-town district.

The only other race on the ballot is for a single three-year term as constable. Three people vying for the post: Ronald F. Anthony, Cheryl G. Economos and Alan R. Jeskey.