Jones will serve if elected after all

One week after abruptly announcing he would end his campaign for Selectmen, conservative Russell Jones suggested this weekend that he will still run a low-key campaign to see if he can earn a spot on the Board anyway.

Jones said he inadvertently missed the deadline last week to take his name off the ballot. That means many of his supporters might still vote for him, and if he wins Jones said he won’t protest. “I will serve if I’m elected,” Jones said.

“That being said, you will probably not see a sign campaign,” Jones said.

He has not said whether he will participate in the League of Women Voter’s candidate forum in May or sit down for interviews with The Walpole Times, if invited, as the other candidates are doing.

Jones originally withdrew his campaign because the State Ethics Commission informed him that his contract snow-plow work for the town every winter might put him in violation of the state’s conflict-of-interest law if he was elected. After reviewing his business’ financial information, Jones now says snowplowing only takes up a tiny portion of his company’s revenue, and he believes a workaround to that potential conflict-of-interest may be possible.

Based on my non-lawyer interpretation of the state ethics law, I believe I understand the basis for the Ethics Commission ruling declaring Jones to be ineligible to serve, however I still find it highly questionable in light of the number of other town officials who directly benefit from town spending.

New budget documents available

There are some new documents available on the SamObar.com Walpole Spending webpage – the most complete source in Walpole for town financial documents and information about where your money is going.

Now available for public review is a complete list of the entire Walpole school district payroll for FY 2013 including stipends, overtime, and just about everything else.

Also available is information about the school district’s employee health benefit spending.

The 2011 town of Walpole employee payroll, downloadable in Excel format and listed from highest salary to lowest will be available later on that page.

Full list of 2012 town election candidates

The deadline to finalize and print the ballot has passed, and we now have a firm list of who will be running for every town office on the ballot from Moderator to Town Meeting Reps. See below for the list of all candidates, in the order they will appear on the ballot. There will also be one ballot question for a Proposition 2.5 $3 million override.

Just a note: Despite bowing out, Russell Jones did not manage to get his name off the ballot in time, as he missed the deadline. Because of that, he is reportedly now reconsidering his decision to back out of the race.

Disclaimer: Please note that any typos below may be my own and are not necessarily typos on the ballot. The below list was typed out manually by me based on documents provided by Town Clerk so I may have made mistakes.

MODERATOR (for one year) (vote for one):

Jon W. Rockwood, Sr. (candidate for re-election) – 15 Pelican Drive

BOARD OF SELECTMEN (for three years) (vote for two):

Nancy S. Mackenzie (candidate for re-election) – 96 Pine Street

Christopher G. Timson (candidate for re-election) – 18 West Pine Drive

Christopher R. Donovan – 25 Oak Hill Drive

William T. Hamilton – 45 Eldor Drive

Russell E. Jones – 735 Washington Street

Robert G. Luce, Jr. – 201 Fisher Street

ASSESSOR (for three years) (vote for one):

Edward F. O’Neil (candidate for re-election) – 7 Tremont Street

ASSESSOR (for one year) (vote for one):

John M. O’Connor – 2 Adrienne Road

SEWER & WATER (for three years) (vote for two):

Patrick J. Fasanello (candidate for re-election) – 23 Neal Street

Kenneth G. Fettig (candidate for re-election) – 234 Baker Street

Thomas J. Brown – 48 Granite Street

SCHOOL COMMITTEE (for three years) (vote for two):

Christine M. Coury – 175 Clear Pond Drive

Jennifer N. Geosits – 140 Endean Drive

Patrick D. Shield – 949 West Street

SCHOOL COMMITTEE (for one year) (vote for one):

Mark J. Breen – 14 Woodland Road

John C. Sheehan – 8 Oriole Lane

LIBRARY TRUSTEE (for three years) (vote for two):

E. Hunt Bergen (candidate for re-election) – 11 Metacomet Street

Helen A. Connor – 8 Cornfield Lane

Robert B. Damish – 36A Pemberton Street

PLANNING BOARD (for three years) (vote for one):

Edward C. Forsberg (candidate for re-election) – 360 High Street

HOUSING AUTHORITY (for two years) (vote for one):

Peter A. Betro, Jr. – 15 Washington Green

Richard E. Henri, Sr. – 407 Main Street

TOWN MEETING RACES:

PRECINCT 1 (for three years) (vote for 18):

Lee Ann Bruno (candidate for re-election) – 33 Short Street

Robert J. Cavicchi (candidate for re-election) – 24 Riverwalk Lane

Susan C. Cavicchi (candidate for re-election) – 24 Riverwalk Lane

Darren W. Hasenjaeger (candidate for re-election) – 27 Pinnacle Drive

John T. Hasenjaeger (candidate for re-election) – 23 Pinnacle Drive

Marilyn A. Kelland (candidate for re-election) – 57 Pleasant Street

David F. Lehto (candidate for re-election) – 15 Congress Street

Jillian D. Morley (candidate for re-election) – 31 Hoover Road

Sean O’Reilly (candidate for re-election) – 38 Hemlock Street

Laura B. Parsons (candidate for re-election) – 12 Davis Street

Lawrence J. Pitman (candidate for re-election) – 44 Rhoades Avenue

David P. Smolinsky (candidate for re-election) – 72 Endean Drive

Donna DiCenso – 60 Rhoades Avenue

PRECINCT 2 (for three years) (vote for 19):

Ronald P. Ardine (candidate for re-election) – 12 Tanglewood Road

James A. Cappelletti (candidate for re-election) – 7 Edward Drive

Thomas F. Coyne, III (candidate for re-election) – 3 Edward Drive

Susan Flynn Curtis (candidate for re-election) – 16 Lavender Lane

Alice Susan Lawson (candidate for re-election) – 35 Emerson Road

Jeffrey M. Padell (candidate for re-election) – 6 Sandra Road

Paul E. Peckham (candidate for re-election) – 311 Moosehill Road

Julie P. Sewell (candidate for re-election) – 48 Plimpton Street

Judith A. Stanton (candidate for re-election) – 5 Park Lane

Jennifer J. Tashjian (candidate for re-election) – 31 Daylily Lane

Ann E. Walsh (candidate for re-election) – 35 Sawmill Road

Mark J. Breen – 14 Woodland Road

PRECINCT 3 (for three years) (vote for 19):

Catherine Turco Abate (candidate for re-election) – 21 Diamond Street

Edward P. Damish (candidate for re-election) – 224 School Street

Joanne F. Damish (candidate for re-election) – 224 School Street

Janet M. Fasanello (candidate for re-election) – 23 Neal Street

Patrick J. Fasanello (candidate for re-election) – 23 Neal Street

Ellen M. Goetz (candidate for re-election) – 1 Norton Avenue

Patrick J. Hinton (candidate for re-election) – 4 Country Club Drive

Betsy Mullen (candidate for re-election) – 21 Neal Street

Susanne Murphy (candidate for re-election) – 4 Wisteria Drive

John M. O’Leary (candidate for re-election) – 776 Washington Street

Clifton K. Snuffer III (candidate for re-election) – 134 Common Street

David M. Sullivan (candidate for re-election) – 14 Hanson Avenue

P. Gregg Teixeira (candidate for re-election) – 422 Stone Street

Philip A. Wild (candidate for re-election) – 38 Peach Street

Amy L. Anglin – 22 Field Drive

Michael Viano – 2 Norton Avenue

PRECINCT 4 (for three years) (vote for 19):

Richard W. Brown (candidate for re-election) – 40 Lewis Avenue

Susan H. Brown (candidate for re-election) – 40 Lewis Avenue

Josette M. Burke (candidate for re-election) – 94 South Street

Mary E. Campbell (candidate for re-election) – 1088 Main Street

William M. Carroll (candidate for re-election) – 10 Prospect Street

Joseph M. Denneen (candidate for re-election) – 10 Brown Drive

Elizabeth A. Gaffey (candidate for re-election) – 64 Morningside Drive

Fiona Murphy (candidate for re-election) – 11 Brush Hill Way

Mary H. Murphy (candidate for re-election) – 29 Irving Drive

William P. Ryan (candidate for re-election) – 3 Spring Valley Drive

Mark E. Trudell (candidate for re-election) – 15 Old Farm Road

John F. Robinson Jr. – 17 Cascade Terrace

David A. Salvatore – 66 Oak Street

PRECINCT 5 (for three years) (vote for 18):

Dorothy Medeiros Bergen (candidate for re-election) – 11 Beethoven Avenue

Deborah C. Burke (candidate for re-election) – 3 Beechwood Drive

Barbara J. Coates (candidate for re-election) – 82 Winter Street

Roland F. Cunniff Jr. (candidate for re-election) – 935 South Street

Craig C. Dalton (candidate for re-election) – 477 Summer Street

Doris M. Foley (candidate for re-election) – 130 Summer Street

Dawn A. Freiberger (candidate for re-election) – 20 Concord Drive

Kathleen M. Garvin (candidate for re-election) – 6 Warwick Road

Bernard J. Goba (candidate for re-election) – 1871 Washington Street

William T. Hamilton (candidate for re-election) – 45 Eldor Drive

Joanne C. Mulligan (candidate for re-election) – 23 Butch Songin Circle

John J. Murtagh (candidate for re-election) – 7 Nottingham Way

Joanne Muti (candidate for re-election) – 7 Notch Road

Kevin G. Muti (candidate for re-election) – 7 Notch Road

Bruce H. Norwell IV (candidate for re-election) – 19 Concord Drive

Christopher G. Timson (candidate for re-election) – 18 West Pine Drive

Paul Stasiukevicius – 6 West Pine Drive

PRECINCT 6 (for three years) (vote for 19):

William F. Abbott (candidate for re-election) – 694 West Street

Thomas J. Bowen, Jr. (candidate for re-election) – 8 Granite Street

Daniel F. Bruce (candidate for re-election) – 3 Birch Street

B.J. Burke (candidate for re-election) – 21 Conifer Drive

William F. Finucane Jr. (candidate for re-election) – 7 Chandler Avenue

Jean L. Hogan (candidate for re-election) – 705 West Street

Sally W. Rose (candidate for re-election) – 78 Granite Street

Peter M. Scott (candidate for re-election) – 75 Audobon Drive

Clifton K. Snuffer (candidate for re-election) – 23 Oak Street

John M. Spillane (candidate for re-election) – 833 West Street

James P. Taylor (candidate for re-election) – 25 Broad Street

Kenneth E. Guyette – 35 Hitching Post Drive

Marcia W. Handler – 55 Granite Street

Matthew P. Landry – 162 Clear Pond Drive

John C. Sheehan – 8 Oriole Lane

John F. Sheppard – 14 Huntington Avenue

PRECINCT 7 (for three years) (vote for 19):

Anthony J. Abril Jr. (candidate for re-election) – 16 Ridge Road

Jane C. Bergen (candidate for re-election) – 11 Metacomet Street

Gerald F. Blair (candidate for re-election) – 46 Heritage Drive

Robert J. Buckley (candidate for re-election) – 11 Cobb Terrace

William F. Buckley Jr. (candidate for re-election) – 11 Cobb Terrace

Cheryl A. Caron (candidate for re-election) – 15 Dover Drive

David A. Clark (candidate for re-election) – 14 Fern Drive

Diane M. Culhane (candidate for re-election) – 6 John Turco Drive

Philip F. Czachorowski (candidate for re-election) – 90 Pemberton Street

Robert B. Damish (candidate for re-election) – 36A Pemberton Street

Philip R. Dubois (candidate for re-election) – 18 Mill Pond Road

Edward C. Forsberg (candidate for re-election) – 360 High Street

Louis E. Hoegler (candidate for re-election) – 330 High Street

Eric A. Kraus (candidate for re-election) – 19 Jorie Lane

Anne L. Krekis (candidate for re-election) – 16 Dutton Park Drive

Patricia A. Macconnell (candidate for re-election) – 9 Rose Marie Lane

Michele A. Markatos (candidate for re-election) – 28 Heritage Drive

Richard A. Nottebart (candidate for re-election) – 187 Gould Street

Martha M. Ryan (candidate for re-election) – 80 Millbrook Avenue

Roger F. Turner Jr. (candidate for re-election) – 4 Mill Pond Road

PRECINCT 8 (for three years) (vote for 19):

Emidio Divirgilio Jr. (candidate for re-election) – 42 Woodruff Road

Mark E. Gallivan (candidate for re-election) – 11 Bridle Path

Nancy B. Gallivan (candidate for re-election) – 11 Bridle Path

Mary Ellen Gioioso (candidate for re-election) – 7 Filetto Way

Richard P. Giusti (candidate for re-election) – 66 Gould Street

James F. Kelliher (candidate for re-election) – 7 Bittersweet Lane

Ralph E. Knobel (candidate for re-election) – 16 Appletree Lane

Carol A. Lane (candidate for re-election) – 98 Bullard Street

Susan S. Maynard (candidate for re-election) – 8 Tetreault Drive

David Melish (candidate for re-election) – 295 Bullard Street

Joseph C. Moraski (candidate for re-election) – 3 Buckboard Drive

James E. O’Neil (candidate for re-election) – 3 Foxhunt Trail

Nancy J. O’Neil (candidate for re-election) – 3 Foxhunt Trail

Stephen Stone (candidate for re-election) – 7 Village Drive

High school students mocked for speaking out

Two local students are under assault by an egotistical talk show host and a group of cowardly grown-ups this week. Their crime: daring to show civic engagement.

Walpole High School sophomores Matthew Brownsword and Ashley Waldron wrote a letter to the editor in The Walpole Times last week urging voters to support the proposed mammoth $3 million override on the June 2 town election ballot.

“As students of Walpole High School, we feel the effects of the deteriorating school system – a school system that could get even worse without an override,” the letter begins.

It was a simple enough letter – a written plea in the local newspaper that is becoming more frequent these days as the override battle heats up and the pro-override PAC Walpole Pride continues its aggressive letter-writing campaign in the Times to rally support for the tax hike.

But the students’ letter included a line that seems innocuous at first, but has generated intense backlash and open derision.

“The proposed athletic fee increase (without an override) could prohibit athletes from playing their favorite sport. The Declaration of Independence states that mankind is given the right of ‘the pursuit of happiness,’ which undoubtedly is being infringed upon if students are indeed barred from athletics because of financial reasons,” the letter read.

The students obviously fudged the reference to the Declaration of Independence. Someone’s right to “the pursuit of happiness” does not mean they should get to play sports at their school for free.

Even Brownsword admitted later that the “pursuit of happiness” part may have been a mistake, but it shouldn’t take away from the message.

“It may have been a flawed line but other than that the letter was respectable,” Brownsword said on his Twitter page earlier this week.

Indeed, the rest of the letter was well-argued even if one doesn’t agree with the point of it.

It is refreshing to hear an argument against high class sizes, for example, directly from the students who would be affected by it – not from helicopter parents who know nothing about the state of the modern education system.

“[In a class of 37 students] teachers will have a hard time grading kids on participation when there is only so much time in class for each and every student to participate,” Brownsword and Waldron pointed out.

Unfortunately, the cowards at the infamous online forum WalpoleWords – where grown adults under a cloak of anonymity regularly disparage and slam others who put their name on their opinions about the town – honed in on the botched reference to the Declaration of Independence and mocked the students who wrote it.

“Here is a hint, geniuses, raises in athletic fees do not stop your ‘pursuit of happiness’ anymore than you taking $300 a year out of my pocket so you can pursue your happiness,” one coward posted on WalpoleWords on Sunday.

Another coward wrote: “Walpole deserves an F for teaching history in its public school system.” Yet another said: “This is [...] part of the widespread dumbness going on in our society.”

Egotistical WTKK talk show host Michael Graham, who has targeted and openly mocked Walpole High students in the past, took the liberty of continuing the open derision of the students on his radio show and blog on Monday.

Graham posted the letter verbatim on his blog under the headline “Attention, Walpole: Generation Cupcake Wants Your Money. NOW.” On his radio show, he laughed it up, ridiculing the students for suggesting that the “pursuit of happiness” entitles them to “a free bus ride” to school and free access to school athletics. He also jeered at another line in the letter where the duo wrote that people should be “repulsed by a 37-kid class.”

As a younger person myself, I take it personally whenever grown adults – particularly with pseudonyms on sites like WalpoleWords – trash young people who have strong opinions about the community (even if I disagree with those opinions, as in this case). Brownsword and Waldron should be commended for taking the time to write a letter in the Times expressing their view on a divisive issue. High school students should know that there is nothing wrong with speaking out.

I wonder whether either Graham or the WalpoleWords cowards would mock Brownsword or Waldron to their faces. Would a grown adult really be cruel enough to laugh it up in a high school student’s face and call them “dumb” and “part of the widespread dumbness going on in our society” for a botched line to a historical document? Gee, I hope not.

The reference to the Declaration of Independence was a flawed line, but who cares? The letter was reasonable and was intended to make a point from the perspective of students who would be directly affected by the override.

Jones departs race for Selectman

Edited 4/29/12 9:16 a.m.

Selectmen Chris Timson and Nancy Mackenzie might be able to rest easier at night now that their strongest competitor has dropped out of the race to defeat them in this year’s election.

Conservative Russell Jones announced yesterday he plans to drop out of the Selectmen’s race and will ask the Town Clerk to have his name taken off the ballot before next week’s ballot finalizing deadline.

Jones said the State Ethics Commission advised him recently that if he was elected to the Board he might have a conflict of interest because his business, Jones Contracting, Inc., currently does contract snow-plow work for the town during the winter.

“If elected I would be in conflict,” a disappointed Jones said. “I hate to give in,” he said.

Jones’ candidacy offered conservatives the best chance of getting one of their own elected to the Board of Selectmen. He ran last year as a first-time candidate with only nominal name recognition for the town’s top board and came in a surprisingly strong second place for one open seat. He vowed to run again, and his campaign created such a stir that Moderator Jon Rockwood considered appointing him to a spot on the Finance Committee last summer.

When he entered this year’s race just before the deadline to obtain nomination papers, it was after strong encouragement from many supporters across town.

The remaining conservative candidates in the race have almost no name recognition or prominence in town, which will present difficulties as they seek to oust the politically-strong incumbents. First-time candidate, Oak Hill Drive resident, and small business owner Christopher Donovan is currently running a campaign similar to Jones’. Retired MBTA inspector Robert Luce, also a first-time candidate, has yet to release any public statements outlining his positions on the issues, except brief quotes in The Walpole Times that appear to show him against the proposed override. Former Selectman and perennial candidate Bill Hamilton, who has been against revenue increases in the past, is running for the board for the third time in four years and isn’t expected to win.

Though Jones may have been the biggest menace to the incumbents, his exit from the race may also boost the candidacies of Donovan and Luce. Many political observers believed that with Jones and so many other conservatives in the race, the conservative vote would be split, to the advantage of the incumbents. Now conservatives can focus on coalescing around two candidates rather than three. What remains up in the air is whether Donovan and Luce, who are said to be more passionate than Jones is about their brands of conservatism, can attract the same moderate and right-of-center voters that they will need to win and that were drawn to Jones’ candidacy. If they can take Jones’ votes, and if they continue to pound the pavement and get wider name recognition, they could actually benefit from Jones’ withdrawal.

To Russell Jones: Thank you for fighting for conservative causes and for your desire to serve. See you around town.

BREAKING: Jones will drop out of race

180 has learned that conservative Russell Jones will drop out of the Walpole Selectmen’s race.

Details to come.

Stay tuned to 180 for continued updates on the Walpole Selectmen’s race.

A response to Mrs. Gallivan

In the April 12 edition of The Walpole Times, Walpole School Committee Vice Chair Nancy Gallivan wrote a letter responding to a previous column I wrote headlined “Alternative override plan is to kick out incumbents.”

I have a good working relationship with Mrs. Gallivan and she and I met with the School Superintendent several times this winter to go over the budget numbers and the override situation. She is not an evil person. I think her letter deserves a response since she put her name on it and put it in the local newspaper rather than hiding behind a computer screen and slamming me anonymously on an internet forum, for example.

I was put off by her pointing out my age – in a tone that I found slightly condescending – near the beginning of the letter. “Sam is only 19 years old,” she wrote, also calling my ideas “overly simplistic and wishful” as if to suggest that my age somehow disqualifies me from having a grasp of complex issues like the budget and underfunded mandates.

Mrs. Gallivan currently serves on the School Committee with one of the youngest elected board members in Walpole history, Bill Buckley. When Buckley first won a race for town office as a Town Meeting Representative, he was only slightly older than I currently am.

I don’t recall ever hearing Mrs. Gallivan publicly point out Buckley’s age and calling his ideas “overly simplistic and wishful” to imply that he doesn’t understand the intricacies of the legislative or budgeting processes because of his youth. I wonder whether there’s a double standard being employed.

In her rush to discredit my argument by using my age against me, Mrs. Gallivan left some holes in her arguments rebuffing my column.

There are two core reasons for this year’s town budget crisis: underfunded mandates and rising personnel costs. These two problems will not be fixed by raising taxes and throwing more money into the fire, because we tried that before – at least four times in the last decade, in fact – and we are now back to square one.

Like most taxpayers, I am in favor of a sustainable approach. The way I see it is this can only be accomplished by addressing the core causes. Spending cuts are easy to find in the municipal budget. Underfunded mandates are more difficult to address, but my column suggested that one solution was voting out some of our incumbent legislators to start us down that path.

Our town officials on the other hand continually resort to the same tired argument about how the underfunded mandates and personnel costs are out of their hands and that raising taxes is the only option. This type of defeatist attitude does not solve the problems, it just kicks the can down the road. School officials admit that this override might not be sustainable after five years. That’s why it makes sense to address this in a logical manner by fixing the problems that cause the crisis.

In her letter, Gallivan suggested that I advocated completely eliminating special education mandates, suggesting my idea was “inhumane” and that I would hurt “vulnerable children.” I proposed nothing of the sort. Actually, I proposed funding these mandates, not eliminating them.

Just this past Monday, all four of our state representatives had a chance to match their actions with their rhetoric on underfunded mandates when they voted on an amendment to the proposed FY 2013 House Ways and Means budget that would have increased funding to the circuit breaker special education program and given more money to our cities and towns for special education costs. The circuit breaker program has been significantly underfunded in the last few years with the recession.

Not surprisingly, all three of Walpole’s Democratic legislators voted against the amendment to increase funding for this program, while only Republican Dan Winslow voted in favor of it. It was voted down mostly along party lines.

Yet Mrs. Gallivan insisted in her letter that “we currently need [the] skill and experience [of our legislators]” moving forward. I strongly disagree. It is the same old song and we should not be fooled again. We re-elect our legislators again and again when they tell us how passionate they are about supporting cities and towns and now we are still in the same old rut. After 20 years in the state legislature, Reps. Rogers and Kafka can not point to a single bill that they supported or sponsored that has enacted meaningful mandate relief for Walpole to avert property tax hikes. It is time to vote them out and start anew.

Monday’s vote on the amendment was not the first time and it will not be the last time that Walpole legislators vote against the interests of local communities. Bringing pork to Walpole in the form of prison mitigation money does not count as mandate relief and does not serve as recurring revenue that actually benefits our schools.

Mrs. Gallivan only listed two minimal accomplishments of our legislators when it comes to mandate relief, and then spent most of the rest of the letter rehashing the same talking points about why we need an override.

Considering she called my ideas “overly simplistic and wishful,” I would respond that the only “overly simplistic” claim in this entire override debate is Town Hall’s claim that raising taxes are going to solve our fiscal problems. This town needs serious structural reform. We have mandate problems and we have spending problems. Insisting otherwise is avoiding the reality of the situation. Let’s solve the problems and not kick the can down the road. I look forward to working with Mrs. Gallivan and any other officials on meaningful reforms to improve Walpole’s fiscal situation.

Article 12 is exactly the “unsustainable” problem

Article 12 of Spring Town Meeting, starting on May 7, will be a vote to approve a new collective bargaining contract (.pdf) with the town’s clerical union to expire in 2014. Town officials are talking this up as a great cost-savings to the town because they’ve reduced health care costs. Unfortunately, these savings are only the tip of the iceberg.

The contract that is up for approval includes longevity bonuses and annual raises. Here is one provision that should be thrown out of the contract:

Article XVI: Longevity Pay Plan
Longevity pay will be made to employees for continuous full time employment in accordance with the following schedule:
After five (5) years of service: $350
After ten (10) years of service: $450
After fifteen (15) years of service: $550
After twenty (20) years of service: $650
After twenty five (25) years of service: $750

To put it in layman’s terms, the above requires that the town pay out bonuses to clerical employees after they have served for five years, ten years, and so on until they have worked for 25 years. These bonuses are not tied to performance – it just requires the employee stick around to cash in. After 25 years, an employee is not necessarily doing their job better than they were in their tenth year on the job. One would assume that if they have managed to stay for 25 years they must be doing their job correctly because they haven’t been terminated but that does not warrant a bonus.

These types of bonuses are unheard of in the private sector.

This is exactly the type of compensation plan that is “unsustainable.” About five years from now, or even before that, the town is going to be in a fiscal crisis again (unless we right our ship now), and everyone is going to wonder why. Answer: Because we approved these contracts back in 2012 and this contract sets in stone that personnel costs must go up every year no matter how much state aid we get or which way the economy goes. This is unacceptable.

This is exactly why personnel costs keep going up year-after-year and our town officials thrown up their hands and say there is nothing they can do. Actually, there is something they can do: say no to the longevity bonuses. Another step is to take these bonuses out of the town’s personnel bylaws.

The proposed contract also includes 2 percent annual raises. Again, these raises are not tied to performance. Because the clerical union makes up such a small part of the total town payroll, these raises will cost only about $10,000 per year – but every dime adds up during a $3 million fiscal crisis.

Article 12 should be thrown out. Time to go back to the negotiating table.

Capital Budget rife with more questionable spending

In a joint resolution (pdf) signed by the chairmen of the Walpole Board of Selectmen, School Committee, and Finance Committee, and posted on the town website, town officials put in writing their plea for residents to support a mammoth $3 million property tax hike at the June 2 town election.

“Another budget year with increased class sizes, cuts in academic programs, limited curriculum and professional development, reduction in town services and compromised public safety will result in further damage to the fabric of our community,” the resolution reads.

They’re right.

Unfortunately, officials are pleading with the wrong people.

This resolution should have been directed toward town officials themselves instead of residents. The very same “cuts in academic programs” and “reduction in town services” that they warn against will actually result not because of the taxpayers but because of Town Hall’s own irresponsible fiscal policies.

The proposed FY 2013 Capital Budget, praised and unanimously endorsed by just about every single top town board member and official, makes it crystal-clear that town officials would prefer to spend money on waste and non-necessity than spend it on our children and on maintaining essential services. (to add insult to injury, see last year’s rundown of the FY 2012 Capital Budget waste)

Out of all of the wasteful spending that town officials propose in this year’s Capital Budget, police station renovations – at a cost of $16,000 – are particularly vexing. And then there are the new cars. Oh, the cars. Too many cars!

This is now the second year in a row that the town of Walpole will pour thousands of dollars into remodeling, painting, and furniture purchases for the town’s aging police facility. Between last year and this year, the town will spend almost $50,000 on renovating the police station, apparently to make it suitable for day-to-day use.

I’m having trouble buying the notion that this extreme amount of money is going to fix what isn’t a suitable building in the first place. The building needs to be replaced – not renovated at an obscene cost. In fact, it likely will indeed be replaced within the next five years once a municipal facilities study is completed and the town gets its act together on facilities use.

It’s not as if this $50,000 is a long-term investment that will make this building suitable for police use in the long run. This $50,000 will all go down the drain once a new facility is constructed in a few years.

We know the current police facility is rotten. It doesn’t seem unreasonable to ask that our police officers hold out for just a few more years in their cramped and decrepit quarters so that the town can keep a full-time teacher employed this year. Keeping a teacher is arguably a higher priority than pouring money into a building that will soon be vacated.

Perhaps some of the police officers who earn over $100,000 per year – more than half of the force – in part from working construction details could give up some of that cash and put it toward station renovations if they really feel strongly about this cause.

Also worth mention is that the town is in a fiscal crisis – a reality that Town Hall still doesn’t seem to be fully grasping. Our politicians point blank do not have the money to spend on office renovations if they are truly serious about keeping teachers employed.

The Capital Budget also includes provisions for numerous new town vehicle purchases.

The Walpole Fire Department is slated to get a new take-home car for its Deputy Chief. The Department of Public Works will get a new pickup truck. The town will plunder its snow budget surplus to buy a new dump truck. A new police car has been snuck into the police department budget.

The only thing missing, it seems, is Herb Chambers himself. The town’s vehicle fleet will soon look more like that of a car dealership than that of a cash-strapped town hoping to save every dollar for its kids.

The Deputy Fire Chief is one of a sizable number of town employees who does not live in Walpole and yet supposedly is “on-call 24/7” and for this reason has a take-home car at taxpayer expense. His new SUV will replace a 2005 Ford Explorer that, according to Capital Budget Committee member Bill Abbott, is on its second motor and has a little over 90,000 miles on it.

During the economic recession that has rocked many private sector corporations, CEOs all the way down to low-level employees have seen their company cars and even transportation reimbursements revoked. Public sector administrators have also been watching their vehicle expenses, as in area communities like Foxborough and Franklin. The Attleboro Sun Chronicle recently reported that its own Fire Chief utilized a 1995 Chevrolet Impala for over a decade until it was replaced just this past year.

Many families and businesses can not afford to buy cars every seven years. If a business had a $1.5 million budget shortfall as the town does, they would not buy a new truck. In this economy, people will drive their cars until they either no longer run or they are more valuable as junk metal.

At Walpole Town Hall, the prevailing wisdom appears to be that if a taxpayer-owned vehicle seems like it’s too old, it’s time to replace it. A better criteria might be to ask whether the taxpayer-owned vehicle in question is still running and if we need the vehicle in the first place.

In this case, the answer to the first question is obvious. Of course the Deputy Fire Chief’s SUV is still fully operational. And why would it not be? According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, the average lifespan of a vehicle in the U.S. today is 12 years or 128,500 miles. Consumer Reports and almost every other independent source say that a well-maintained car should remain reliable for at least 10 years and 100,000 miles. R. L. Polk & Co. reports that the median age of a car in the USA today is a little over 9 years and is steadily rising.

According to all evidence, there is no reason why a 2005 Ford Explorer with 90,000 miles on it should be in need of replacement this year. The wear and tear on its engine and tires might be more due to the fact that the Deputy Chief who drives it doesn’t even live in town – commuting many miles daily from a nearby community. Rather than jumping to buy him a new car, town officials might do well to advise he live closer to the fire station or else stop driving it to avoid wearing it down so much. An emergency worker who is on call 24/7 should be living in town anyway.

The new police car, which isn’t actually included as part of the proposed Capital Budget but is instead nestled within the police department’s operational budget proposal, is another highly questionable purchase that should be cut.

According to the police department’s 2011 annual report, the town currently owns one police car for every two sworn officers on the force. Most of the cruisers were purchased within the last few years. With a $1.3 million structural deficit in the school department budget, town officials have been caught napping on this one. There is no legitimate reason why the town of Walpole needs to purchase a new cruiser when they have so many already. Even if one car literally stops working tomorrow, there are still plenty of other cars in the station parking lot to compensate. With one car for every two officers and with each officer working rotating shifts meaning not all are on duty at every moment, it’s difficult to imagine a scenario where the police department would actually be caught short of a cruiser.

The proposed new $28,000 DPW pickup truck to replace a 2002 GMC with 116,000 miles on it is just as concerning as the Deputy’s new wheels. If the to-be-replaced pickup truck still runs, it’s good enough to continue in everyday use. Teachers are on the hook and will be laid off come July 1, meaning the town doesn’t have money to throw around on new pickup trucks that aren’t absolutely necessary.

The proposed purchase of a new dump truck using $155,000 from this year’s $400,000 snow surplus is just as distressing. Town officials insist that the truck is going to be used primarily for plowing and was slated for replacement last year anyway, but that’s not a good enough reason to replace what isn’t in need of replacing. The old truck – a 1998 Ford L-8000 Sterling– is still running and is regularly used by DPW employees. (see previous story)

Most disappointing about the proposed purchase of the dump truck is that Selectman Chris Timson, who had previously spoken in favor of resisting the use of the surplus on town expenses, voted in favor of recommending the purchase to Town Meeting. Selectman Eric Kraus, another Selectman who had previously spoken against spending the surplus so foolishly, was absent at the meeting when the vote took place.

Any member of the Capital Budget Committee and Finance Committee should require the following test be conducted to determine if a vehicle is really in need of replacement: Take one car away from the vehicle fleet (the vehicle slated for replacement) and see how town employees function without it for a week. If they get along just fine and town operations are not interrupted in a way that affects residents, the car in question should not be replaced for any reason and might actually be better off sold to a used car dealership.

Amid all the waste, there is one bright spot in this year’s proposed Capital Budget: yet another reminder of why I can’t in good conscience support a property tax increase.

The biggest losers in this year’s Capital Budget are the local students whose priorities are being put behind wasteful spending by reckless politicians. What a shame.

Total Capital Budget Waste:

$16,000 PD Renovations

$32,500 FD Take-Home Car

$155,000 Dump Truck

$28,000 DPW Pickup Truck

$20,000 Police Car

= $251,500

Average Teacher’s Salary = $63,186

This translates to four full-time teachers being paid an average teachers’ salary. Think of it: we can preserve the entire middle school foreign language program by cutting these questionable expenditures. Town Hall is putting waste ahead of our students! Now we know where all the money is going!

I will run for RTM as write-in

I had decided several months ago that I would not run for Town Meeting Representative. I did not feel ready to run and to serve at this point in my life.

However, only 13 people turned in papers to run for 19 seats for RTM in my home precinct 4.

It concerns me tremendously that my precinct may be underrepresented and that apathy seems to prevail.

I have strong opinions on the issues and I have always been willing to serve in elected office but I was afraid of the commitment, among other reasons. However in this unique situation, I will make an attempt at running write-in for one of the remaining six slots available for RTM. There are six slots open, so I may as well give it a shot.

I am asking anybody who lives in Precinct 4 to consider writing in my name on the ballot. If I don’t get enough votes to win, I don’t care since I didn’t want to run originally anyway. I am not going to devote any time to campaigning. I would appreciate your vote but I’m not going to push anybody.

Chances are I will be voting “No” quite often at Town Meeting. Hopefully my positions on the issues aren’t mysteries – if anyone has any questions they can email me.