The 2008 Annual Town Meeting concluded its business last Monday night, approving the rest of the articles with the exception of Item B of Article 32.

Town meetings are about making decisions, appropriating funds, setting priorities, approving or rejecting everything from "A"mendments to "Z"oning changes, and occasionally to make things more interesting, a non-binding resolution or a procedural motion which requires a teller count. All that is necessary, but there is -- or should be -- much more to a New England Town Meeting. It is a great opportunity for the town leaders, our elected and appointed officials, to inform the voters/taxpayers on a wide range of issues and for the voters/taxpayers to return the favor. Even when it is obvious that almost everyone has their mind made up, further questions, discussion and comments can be valuable. Quite often discussion on subjects that we did not think interest us that expands our understanding and involvement. Town meeting should be interesting because it is informative.

By this measure, the 2008 Annual Town Meeting ranks somewhere below Empty. The lack of information in the Warrant -- not just financial --- prompted several voters to move to adjourn the meeting until at least the basic information was available (the motions lost). At the beginning of the meeting Allen Nitschelm told voters that we need a better budget process, one that would make the role of the FinCom clear and provide some checks and balances for the proposed appropriations. For the rest of the meeting the FinCom demonstrated the validity of Allen's proposal, contributing very little and capping it with a "No Recommendation" on Article 34. It is the FinCom's purpose -- by state law -- to make recommendations to town meeting. They can recommend in favor of a motion or against it for whatever reasons they wish, but "No Recommendation" is not a valid choice (very much like voting "Present").

Item E of Article 32, the proposal to give $231,948.00 from the Community Preservation Fund to the owner of Exchange Hall generated considerable debate, as expected. It is a pretty good example of an article that should have been fully explained in the Warrant. The needed information was available to the CPC and the FinCom when they decided to recommend this gift. Anyone who did not attend the CPC meetings (which includes me) learned the financial details only during the discussion of this article, and only after many questions from the voters. We learned that the $231,948.00 is to pay for a small part of a renovation estimated to cost just under $2 million (we never found out how they got the CPF amount to the nearest dollar). We were told that the owner does not plan to even try to get a loan for this renovation until and unless he secures a long term lease for the building which he can "take to the bank". Did anybody do some simple math ? A long-term lease for a building such as this one would probably be no more than 10 years. To pay off the $2 million loan in 10 years, the yearly debt and interest payment would have to be $300,000. What kind of a business could possibly want to lease the 10,000 square foot (total) Exchange Hall for $300,000 / year plus maintenance, taxes, utilities, some profit to the owner, contingency funds, etc ? Does anybody really think that this is going to happen ? Many people spoke in favor of the motion because they want to see Exchange Hall preserved even if they had some qualms about using tax money to subsidize a private, for-profit property. I understand their priority, but I have some bad news : this vote did not help to preserve Exchange Hall, it will very likely turn out to do just the opposite by raising a false hope and delaying the search for a realistic solution. Better information may have produced a better result.

On to the 2009 Annual Town Meeting, we have a year to make some changes.

------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------

Response to Article

Response #1
     By Carol Rodman, April 24, 2008

Response #2
     By Richard Calandrella, April 29, 2008

Response #3
     By Roswitha Retzlaff-Pinto , April 30, 2008

Response #4
     By Jack Mahoney, April 17, 2008

Response #5
     By Barry Rosen, April 16, 2008

Response #6
     By Clint Seward, May 4, 2008

Response #7
     By Clint Seward, May 5, 2008