Town Meeting: In it for the long haul

I breezed into last night’s town meeting at 7:00 on the dot, figuring that by the time everyone got signed in and seated we’d be ready to start in on the 62 articles up for resolution. I didn’t plan on attending the Special Town Meeting at 6:30 since it essentially was just to clean up any loose ends from the current fiscal year and appropriate whatever leftover funds we had to necessary accounts. Nothing to it, really.

Or, maybe not. It took us 2 hours and 55 minutes to get through what I thought would be 15 rubber-stamp decisions. The Regular Town Meeting did not begin until 9:25, and we only got through nine of the articles before adjourning at 11:10. So we’re back again tonight for the remaining 53 items.

What took so long? For one, the town debated the question of whether or not to give merit pay increases for the last six months of 2008. The increases would only have been for those workers who received favorable reviews from their superiors. The merit raise would have been 3%, and the town meeting was being asked to appropriate the $25,000 necessary to pay for the raises. After well over an hour of discussion, the motion was defeated by a relatively close vote.

I was stunned. To me, it seemed like this was an easy thing to do. Take $25,000 of money that is left over from FY08 revenues and use it to fund merit pay increases for town workers who have earned it.

But the Board of Selectmen and the Finance Committee did not do a very good job explaining the article. Instead of framing it in small terms (for instance, a DPW worker making $14.00 would get an increase to $14.42 per hour, or less than $17 per week), the article was described as a 3% increase which was payable over the last six months of the fiscal year so it was really only a 1.5% increase as far as the town was concerned since they were only paying it out over the last half of FY08. That begged the question from many townspeople of whether the increase was really 6% since there is an automatic 3% step increase at the start of FY09. The response from Finance was that it was really just a 4.5% increase during calendar year ’08 since it was just 1.5% in January and 3% in July. But since people get paid weekly and not by the fiscal year, isn’t it really 3% now and 3% later so town workers are really getting a 6% raise…and around and around for over an hour.

Understandably, many in the audience were confused. Perhaps someone could have stood up and made the point that we were looking to spend a very small sum of money—about the cost of a family car—so that the guys who dig ditches and keep our water flowing and electricity running could get paid another $17 per week (and I do not exempt myself from that criticism. I could have made the point and did not). But instead, we squabbled over whether or not the increase was 1.5% or 3% or 4.5% or 6%.

The evening was further lengthened by about a half hour when we got to the final article of the Special Town Meeting and organizers realized that the paper ballots required for this particular question had not been distributed when we signed in, so the gymnasium was cleared and all 175 or so of us had to line up and sign in once again to get our ballots.

The most interesting dynamic to part one of the miniseries that has become Town Meeting was the significant level of distrust many townspeople and the personnel board have toward the Board of Selectmen. For reasons I don’t understand, the personnel board opposed both the merit pay raise and the creation of a part-time Human Resources position, which was defeated around 11:05 last night. It seems to me that the personnel board would be working on behalf of workers who would benefit from both merit pay increases and a professional dedicated to HR issues, but the personnel board opposed both. Further, there was a general thread among many of those who spoke that “something else is going on” with the Selectmen and that they were somehow “trying to sneak one in” with the changes they hoped to make in the personnel area.

I haven’t seen it, but I guess I’ll get another four or more hours of evidence tonight.

Tags: Sterling Massachusetts Town Meeting

Town Meeting: How far should we extend the "Right to Farm?"

Town meeting is tonight. Responsible citizens like me (pat, pat) will head on down to the school at 7:00 and spend four or so hours on the hard bleachers slogging through 62 articles. How a town with an otherwise sleepy political landscape can manage to put 62 articles on the warrant is beyond me (fellow sleepy political town Lancaster had only 20 articles when they met last week, for instance). As I combed through the pile of appropriations for this project or that, one article stands out.

The most interesting is the proposal that Sterling become a “Right to Farm” community. Right to Farm towns generally make it easier for local farmers by making it harder for abutters to sue them if they don’t like the odor, dust, loud machines, and other aesthetic byproducts of farming. Sterling has had a long history of family farming and still hosts a number of orchards, stables, and other farms.

In theory, I think this is a good idea, although not everybody agrees. But there is one section of the bylaw that I strongly object to. The law provides that all new home buyers receive a written notification of the Right to Farm provisions and that all landowners also receive the notice yearly. The notification states (emphasis mine):

It is the policy of this community to conserve, protect and encourage the maintenance and improvement of agricultural land for the production of food, and other agricultural products, and also for its natural and ecological value. This disclosure notification is to inform buyers or occupants that the property they are about to acquire or occupy lies within a town where farming activities occur. Such farming activities may include, but are not limited to, activities that cause noise, dust and odors. Buyers or occupants are also informed that the location of property within the Town may be impacted by commercial agricultural operations including the ability to access water services for such property under certain circumstances.

In other words, good luck if your well is fouled with manure or fertilizers, or runs dry because a farm in the aquifer uses more water than the aquifer can replenish. Considering the recent discussions Sterling has been having in town about water rights, and the widespread opposition to Clinton’s Wekepeke proposal at least in part on the basis of its potential to affect other wells in the aquifer, this clause needs to be struck from the proposed bylaw in order for me to support it. The ability to access clean water is just as important when the threat is from a farm as it is if the threat is from a big retail corporation. To leave this clause in the bylaw would be hypocritcal.

While the water clause is in the sample bylaw provided by the state Department of Agricultural resources, many towns have omitted it from their bylaws. Sterling should do the same.

The other issue I have with the notification is that the annual notice to residents “shall be provided by the Town to landowners each fiscal year by mail.” Printing and mailing 5,000 or so notices seems to me to be an unnecessary expense. Sterling should provide the notice in a publication that is already printed--such as the Annual Report--and on its Web site, saving the extra cost.

Tags: Right to Farm Sterling Massachusetts Town Meeting