Town Meeting

"When, in some obscure country town, the farmers come together to a special town-meeting, to express their opinion on some subject which is vexing the land, that, I think, is the true Congress, and the most respectable one that is ever assembled in the United States."

                Henry David Thoreau, 1854

The Town Meeting form of government has been around since three-cornered hats and knee britches were in fashion and many still see it as the purest form of democracy. While it might not work too well in resolving complex national, or international issues, it can be very effective in making decisions about how a community deals with funding its schools and providing other essential town services.

Writing in the Globe South section of today's Boston Globe, Correspondent, Michelle Bolton, surveys 42 southern Mass communities that currently use the town meeting format. The article's title, Town Meeting No Longer a Big Draw, provides a not-so-subtle hint at its conclusions.  Thirty five communities use an open town meeting format which allows all citizens to participate, while the other seven use a representative form in which elected representatives carry on the business of town meeting.

The big problem seems to afflict the open format and it involves getting enough citizens to attend so as to satisfy local quorum requirements. Frantic last minute efforts are sometimes needed to gather the minimum number of voters. Are voters just too busy, or is our old nemesis, apathy, rearing its ugly head? The knee jerk reaction is a call for a different format, perhaps where a mayor and a city council to  make all the decisions. While a case might be made for such a change possibly providing increased efficiency, the loss of direct voter participation is unlikely to ever be regained.

Plymouth is one of the towns with a Representative Town meeting, where a body of elected representatives serves as the Town's legislative branch. In order to accommodate population growth, to a current total of 37,692 registered voters,  the voting precincts were recently re-drawn and an additional precinct added, bringing the total to fifteen. With nine Town Meeting Members representing each precinct, there are now 135 eligible voters at town meeting. It should be noted that any registered voter may also speak at TM.

While we would have liked to have had a more robust voter turnout, the May 12th election was spirited as it included, in addition to the Town Meeting Reps, two hotly-contested races for Selectman and Planning Board. In our precinct, there were fourteen candidates for nine seats. All nine of those elected are available to precinct voters through phone calls, emails and casual interaction. Experience has shown that many voters avail themselves of this access. In addition, informational caucuses are held prior to town meeting to provide in-depth analysis of warrant articles. It may not be a perfect system, but it provides direct contact and accountability between voters and the Town Meeting Reps with ample opportunity for two way discussion.

This November, we will be electing, among others, a new U.S. Congressman to represent our newly-re-cast district. It is generally estimated that congressional candidates must raise well over a 1$ million for this campaign. Moreover, once elected it will be extremely difficult to pick up the phone and engage the new congressman in a meaningful dialogue, and we doubt that you will run into him at the local market.

Is the Town meeting perfect? By no means. But before we throw in the towel, we need think long and hard about the alternatives and what we might be giving up in terms of direct accountability with our elected officials.

New Beginnings

Fortunately, for many of us, life is full of opportunities to restart an effort that might have gone a bit off track. Or to coin a phrase, we are allowed to hit the Reset button. Rationales for inaction and procrastination are legion and, frankly, not worth discussing. So, we begin anew.

Mitt Romney has all but nailed down the Republican nomination, and , friends, this is a very good thing. When the current White House resident was elected, we looked to an old saw for comfort: If the US could survive the Carter presidency, we could survive anything. How naive were we? Carter's ineptitude was, for the most part, quickly remedied. The damage that our current Chief Executive has wrought might not be so easy. Our fiscal house is not just in disorder, it is a shambles.

When asked a few months ago, who he would select as president, a friend stated that he wanted someone who owned a calculator and knew how to use it. Furthermore, he wanted someone who had run an organization, even if it was only a scout troop. Hyperbole? Perhaps, but given the mountain of debt accumulated in the past three years, not especially.

Mitt Romney has the skills and experience to bring order out of the chaos and put the country back on track to deal with its many challenges. Once this is done, we can begin dealing with some of the important social issues.

And, finally, a note to the MSM:  How important is the so-called issue of likability? First of all, Mitt is a very charming and likable guy, but just how important is this quality in and of itself?

Finally, on a local note: The Voters rejected the Meals tax increase in the January special election.

Meals Tax Redux

By now, it is widely known that the recent Plymouth Town Meeting passed, by a vote of 64 to 47, an increase in restaurant meals tax from 6.25% to 7%. Under Article's terms, the revenue from the increase would be returned to the Town and used exclusively for funding the Town's 400th Anniversary celebration and infrastructure improvements to Town Square, Burial Hill and Court Square.

Subsequently, a petition drive was successful in garnering the required number of signatures to bring the question to a popular vote. A special election is now scheduled for January 14, 2012 to allow the voters to decide the issue. Sound familiar? It should as we went down this same path two years ago, albeit lacking specific fund uses, and it was voted down by a four to one margin.

With the election a few months away, and the busy holidays upon us, it is probably too early to get into a full blown discussion of the issues. But be assured that both the Pro and Con camps are ramping up their campaigns. In the aftermath of the successful petition drive, there has been some finger-pointing and tongue clucking (hopefully not at the same time)concerning the cost of holding a special election.

In an October 18th letter from the Plymouth Area Chamber of Commerce to all Town Meeting members, the Chamber, on behalf of 70% of its members requested a No vote on the tax. In addition, the Board of Selectmen had voted unanimously against the proposal. In spite of these signals, and with the definitive vote of two years ago fresh in every one's mind,the proponents apparently thought that the specific uses for the money would change voters' minds even as anti-tax activists made it clear that they intended a petition challenge should the increase be passed by Town Meeting. It was and it was and now we are looking at a special election, which according to Town Clerk Larry Pizer, will cost the Town between $32 and $34 thousand.

But just as we would defend the Articles sponsor's right to re-introduce a previously rejected tax proposal, we also defend the voters' right to have the final say. There was ample previous notice of this reaction. So somewhere right after New Years, be prepared to be inundated with arguments pro and con. But remember, the issue is not one of procedure, but rather the merits of the proposal itself. Let the games begin.

Psuedo Wisdom Gone Viral?

Much has been made of late of remarks made by Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren at a recent Andover house party. In case you somehow missed it, click HERE for a link to her original comments. The comments have, so we've been told, are in the process of going viral which is meant to indicate popularity and, perhaps, great veracity. Frankly, the whole thing seems to smack of grasping at straws, but if I were a newbie candidate who decided that the U.S. Senate seat might be an appropriate goal for one's initial try at elective office, I might encourage that thinking too. Especially given that incumbent, Scott Brown, may well be unbeatable. At the same time, we realize anything is possible here in the land of the Moon Bat.

There's much truth in Ms. Warren's statement. But if government stuck to what it does fairly well—roads, police, fire and the courts; enforcing contracts that help businesses interact with their customers and other businesses—the federal government wouldn't need to spend over $3.5 trillion a year, as it now does. And of course it's state and local governments—and not Washington—that primarily fund police, fire and education, so it's a bit strange to ask the rich to pay their fair share of federal income taxes because they enjoy police protection.

He continues by citing a more basic reason for the widespread resistance to increased taxes:

Much government spending supports activities that are ineffective or even harmful to the economy, often helping the politically powerful at the expense of the rest of us. Wouldn't it be great for the federal government to stop federal export subsidies, propping up financial institutions, meddling in the education system, and trying to engineer the entire health system from the top down? If the feds stopped all that, Ms. Warren would have a stronger point. We could all feel some gratitude for government's role in helping us live better lives. All of us, rich and poor, would look at government differently.

Say what you want, but we are getting tired of this assault on "the rich", whoever they may be, and their refusal to pay their "fair share" of taxes, whatever that might be. Somehow, We don't think the high earners are refusing to support maintaining roads and paying the cops a fair wage.

Give Roberts' ARTICLE a read and let's try to put some balance back in this discussion.

Municipal Bond Boggle

Trying to understand the economic impact of the president's latest "Jobs Bill" is a thankless and confusing task, especially for the average voter. A hat tip to former American Express CEO, Harvey Golub, who highlights one bill provision that clearly reflects the ineptitude that passes for public policy in the current administration. Writing in today's WSJ, Mr. Golub concludes, in part:

From green jobs to "cash for clunkers," many of us have suspected that economic illiterates were setting the economic policy of this administration

The article, entitled "A Jobs Bill That Boggles the Mind." does just that. It is widely known that states and municipalities are able to issue bonds at much lower rates than, say corporations, because the interest they pay is tax-exempt to the bondholders. This means that the state or city saves big on its debt service. Investors buy the bonds, accepting lower interest rates than they might get elsewhere because they don't have to pay taxes on the interest. Don't worry about the math, that's what we have CPA's for.

So now, the "Jobs Bill", in an attempt to close "loopholes" and make all those millionaires and billionaires pony up their fair share, would remove the tax-free status of municipal bonds. The first thing that happens, is that the rates on municipal bonds increases which jacks up the cities and towns cost to borrow. As for the bond investors, they will simply reevaluate their investment choices on the basis of net (after tax) yield. Let's ignore for the moment what happens to the value of previously issued bonds if this change is made retroactively, as the "Jobs Bill" calls for. Answer: big decline in value. But if we sort through the rubble, we realize that the real loser here is the issuer of municipal bonds. And that, dear reader, is us.

But don't worry folks, help is on the way for the municipalities. Half of the $475 billion from the "Jobs Bill" would be sent back to the states to help with the increased operating budgets, now inflated by increased debt-service costs. Why does this elicit a vision of Yogi Berra sitting in a barber's chair telling us that cash is just as good as money? No offense Yogi.

One of the more poignant questions raised by this article is:

The interesting questions for me are: Did anyone on his economic staff, at Treasury, or at the Office of Management and Budget tell him about this? Did he even ask?

To which we might add: As long suspected, these policy-makers don't seem to know what they don't know. Always a dangerous state of affairs.

Meals Tax, Here We Go Again

Two years ago, the Plymouth Town Meeting passed an increase in the local Meals Tax from 6.25% to 7% by a three-vote margin. "It's a tiny amount" we were told, 38 cents on a $50 restaurant tab. "It will take some of the pressure off real estate taxes" we were told as the revenues from the increase would be added to the general fund, but without any way of tracking its effect. Days after the vote, signatures were being gathered and the question was subsequently put to the voters who voted four to one against the measure. Increasing taxes, never popular, seemed like a real bad idea in the face of a looming recession.

And now we have a new proposal to increase the local Meals Tax from 6.25% to 7%, which will come before upcoming Town Meeting on October 24th. Aside from the fact that the recession of two years ago is either still with us, or preparing an encore, what is different this time?

Sponsored by Advisory and Finance Committee member Michael Hanlon, the current proposal has two main differences; First of all, the revenues generated by the tax are to be earmarked exclusively to three specific uses. 25% of the money will go to funding the Plymouth 400th anniversary celebration in 2020, the 1820 Courthouse Renovation, and improvements to historical Burial Hill. The fourth 25% would be "up for grabs" among the three. The second major difference is a "sunset" provision that would end the tax in 2021 unless continued by Town Meeting. Okaaaay!

So let's get this straight. The voters overwhelmingly defeated the proposal that at least would have had the possibility of the money flowing to ongoing Town operations, like maintaining the streets, for example. And now, they are expected to approve the same measure for three vague uses. The 400th anniversary is at least eight years out and while it presently lacks a specific funding source, it also seems to lack specific programs and events. The 1820 Court House, unfortunately, is emerging as a massive money pit. This project could become a case study in the pitfalls of redeveloping an historic building by a well-meaning public sector, unequipped to deal with the high risks of real estate development. And here again, the plans for this project have yet to advance beyond the "concept" stage. And Burial Hill? When did this become a priority requiring multi-millions of dollars of public monies?

Yes, multi-millions. Appearing before his own committee last Wednesday, Hanlon estimated that the tax increase would generate $500,000 a year, which would imply nearly $5 million by the time the sunset provision kicks in. But according to today's Boston Globe, Plymouth Finance Director, Lynne Barrett, sees it generating nearly $1 million a year. Take your pick, but these amounts are a long way from the innocuous sounding 38cents. Especially for a Town that needs to mete out monies for basic services like road repairs and other DPW projects.

This tax is a bad idea for a host of reasons, but foremost is the fact that it provides an end run to the normal budgetary process which makes the hard decisions on how to spend the Town's limited funds. Projects like those being earmarked for the Meals Tax increase proceeds should be held to the same standards of evaluation that apply to most other budgetary items. Frankly, it comes as a surprise that a member of the very Committee that vets the Town's expenditures is the one calling for this end run.

Also appearing at the Committee meeting the other night was Chris Fava who lead the repeal process two years ago. Chris did an excellent job of delivering the message that those opposing this tax have not gone away and in all likelihood, would bring the question back to the people if passed by the Town meeting. Committee members bristling at an implied threat of the cost of a special election are missing the point. There is no appetite for raising the Meals tax.

Bad News, Good News

Shopping ranks so low on our least-liked activities, it needs it's own page. So, clearly, any possibility of a shopping errand is definitely bad news. Moreover, if the main goal of the expedition is home decorating-related, the classification falls even further into the little-known, but very real, abyss of despond, located just down the street and around the rotary from the slough of despond. Think root canal. all of which sets the stage for the soon-to-be-announced search for new wallpaper.

How, you may ask, could anything this oppressive have an element of good news? The good news is the reason we need to shop for wallpaper. Now that it appears that the Beltway wizards have struck a last minute deal avoiding a U.S. Treasury default, we will not be able to use our Treasury bonds to paper the walls. And while the View's investment account doesn't hold enough of this paper to cover much wall area, we felt we would have no problem snapping up enough bonds from other bondholders to get the job done. We could paper the entire house at a substantial savings over more traditional wall coverings.

Of course the deal is not entirely done and there is still a slight possibility that the agreement might fall apart, but we think the process has finally run its course. Look next for those claiming credit for averting financial chaos. The Pres, will of course, take center stage in this regard, even though his participation in crafting an acceptable plan seemed to be limited to telling us we have to eat peas, or some such nonsense. The View would point, instead, to John Boehner and his few stalwarts who actually made it happen. The only thing louder than those claiming credit, will be the critics. Those on the left will scream that taxes, or is it revenues, have not been increased enough. Those on the opposite side will match the outcry, arguing that spending has not been sufficiently cut. While we would like to see government spending rolled back to say, 1959 levels, it just ain't gonna happen.

There are two things, the old saying goes, that are totally unfit for public observation: making sausage and crafting legislation. Unfortunately, this deal that will at least allow us to stay solvent for the short term, has probably created the biggest wiener since Oscar Meyer.