7:20 p.m.

During discussion of community block grants, the topic of subsidized youth employment came up, along with mention of a statistic that the number of working teens is down to historical lows. I agree with the benefits of work, for young Americans, and if there’s money to be had, it should be used.

That said, I’d make two suggestions: First, that having businesses in town would be a good first step to ensuring that kids who want to work can do so, and without public subsidy. Every time a mall or a grocery store or other such project is kept out of the town it affects such intentions.

My second point is less immediately within our control. Kids today are much more sedentary, with tremendous distractions and entertaining lures that keep them in the house.

7:42 p.m.

Interesting to note that the fellow who used the podium at a recent School Committee meeting to decry the town’s retirement villages as “a cancer on our community” has been taking the Town Council microphone repeatedly. With a tone bespeaking insinuation he’s been making references to “the community, by which I don’t mean gated communities.” Council Member Louise Durfee chuckled at that.

One suspects the speaker thinks he’s jabbing at TCC (“what these [unnamed] people are doing to our town”). I suspect he’s just conveying to the average viewer — who hasn’t already chosen a side — will think he’s a slightly nutty local character.

7:50 p.m.

During a public hearing on various inspection requirements and fees, it came to light that the state of Rhode Island is requiring towns to inspect temporary tents — not only the fire marshal, but for the structure of the tent itself. That’s another $60 to put a tent on your property in Tiverton.

It’s worth noting that the state is mandating the inspection, but it’s the town coming up with the $60 fee. Such is Rhode Island.

8:34 p.m.

The budget discussion is up. Administrator Jim Goncalo presented a revised budget, but Council Member Durfee raised the Budget Committee’s vote to cut the budget. The question is what happens next. Durfee: do we just go to the FTM and argue for our proposal.

Council Member Jay Lambert is suggesting that the Council hold off on discussion until after the Budget Committee’s vote on Thursday.

Apparently, it’s a possibility that the Budget Committee and Town Council will present different budgets to the FTM.

8:39 p.m.

Durfee just mentioned the possibility that the General Assembly will allow the town to raise another million plus via the vehicle tax. Notably, she didn’t even raise the question of whether that would be worth doing to the townsfolk.

Council President Don Bollin is suggesting that it might be worth seeking a postponement by the General Assembly of the FTM until late summer so that we all have the relevant numbers to debate. I’d agree with that, although it does make open contract negotiations problematic.

9:19 p.m.

We’re still here. Long meeting. Town Administrator Jim Goncalo just presented a memo of items that might be cut should his proposed budget not be approved.

Curious: Among the possibilities is closing the office in the fire department that offers building planning services. It came to light, though, that those services might in some degree be covered by the fees that the town charges for them. Of what possible use (other than propaganda) could this list be if it includes services that might pay for themselves?

9:27 p.m.

The “cancer” guy is at it again, taking to the microphone to express dislike for every town interaction with the retirement communities. He’s reminding me of the heckler in this scene; he even looks a lot like him:

10:03 p.m.

Town Solicitor Andy Teitz is introducing various language items that he’s put together for the council. Right now, they’re talking about a “standby motion” that would put the language to exceed the tax cap in the FTM docket. On the one hand, it makes sense to have the language in there for consideration. On the other hand, providing it beforehand gives the impression that it’s intended for use.

10:07 p.m.

Budget Committee Chairman Jeff Caron made the point that his committee seems likely to come in under the cap and that printing this language with town resources “greases the skids” to exceed the cap.

10:10 p.m.

Louise Durfee is railing against the cuts of the Budget Committee, suggesting that the townspeople are going to incite people to turn out and raise taxes above the cap.

10:29 p.m.

Putting the language for exceeding the cap in the docket has been tabled until the next regularly scheduled council meeting, in the hopes that other matters will resolve the necessity of it.

10:35 p.m.

Council President Don Bollin is going on and on about the problems of state laws and policies. We all get it. Can we move on. It’s nearly 11:00.

10:36 p.m.

And finally to the proposed policy for exceeding the cap. Teitz says he’s giving up trying to hone the policy into legal language and leaving it up to the council.

10:39 p.m.

Lambert has put together a different resolution.

I picked the wrong day to cut back on my coffee intake.

10:44 p.m.

We’re back to the debate about whether the law really means “also” when it says the council must vote and the town meeting must “also” do so. It’s really unbelievable. What good is the law if it doesn’t mean what it says.

10:52 p.m.

We’re right back to the council arguing that the FTM can do whatever it wants. Clearly false. This body is just bringing this up every two weeks until it manages to get the vote that certain members (and the solicitor) desire.

Just my opinion, of course, but it’s definitely a firm one.

11:15 p.m.

Durfee made a motion to table the policy. It passes, with Lambert and Bollin objecting. The temper appears to be that the whole thing should just go to court (with the Coulters’ lawsuit) and be resolved there.

By way of quick summary, the discussion has to do with state law 44-5-2. Subsections (a), (b), and (c) describe the calculations and review of the cap. Subsection (d) provides the circumstances under which a town may exceed the cap and gives general steps for clearing that action with the state. Subsection (e), giving instructions on how the town must approve the excess levy, is the source of most of the controversy:

Any levy pursuant to subsection (d) of this section in excess of the percentage increase specified in subsection (a) of this section shall be approved by the affirmative vote of at least four-fifths (4/5) of the full membership of the governing body of the city or town or in the case of a city or town having a financial town meeting, the majority of the electors present and voting at the town financial meeting shall also approve the excess levy.

You can read my liveblog from Monday’s Town Council meeting for a more detailed report (and I’ll have the video up as soon as possible), but a few of the points made there bear closer scrutiny. The first is Council Member Louise Durfee’s insistence that the people who wrote the law did not intend the phrase “shall also” to mean what it plainly means: that the governing body must approve the excess levy and the financial town meeting must do so separately. Durfee’s main evidence is a PowerPoint presentation that various state officials gave to representatives of the towns explaining the law that way.

That is simply irrelevant. The way a legislative body functions is by putting proposed laws through a process of debate and compromise among the various elected representatives, who then fashion a final law on which they can all agree. The unavoidable fact of this particular law is that the process at some point inserted the words “shall also,” and short of polling every representative involved in the debate and vote, we cannot know whether that was important to them or just appeared by a slip of the clerk’s typing fingers. If a handful of legislators and other folks in government could reset the law with PowerPoint presentations distorting its clear meaning, the legislative process would be a charade.

Council Member Joanne Arruda continued this line of thinking by insisting that “the simplest spirit of the law” was that the financial town meeting is meant to be the “governing body.” Again, by virtue of the words’ meanings, the “shall also” phrase suggests differently, because it presents the FTM as something distinct from the “governing body.” The only way Mrs. Arruda’s statement could be considered coherent is if the “spirit of the law” is determined essentially by her own personal preferences as a member of the council. But in order for our system of government to function, the law must be a neutral playing field from which we proceed based on the actual grammatical constructs therein.

As for what the “governing body” is, if it is not the FTM, I’d point to the only similar language in the Town Charter (PDF), which says in section 407 (1) that the Town Council will:

Serve as the policy making body of the Town.

Another important point raised at the meeting had to do with the different subsections of the law. Most of the council agreed that subsection (d) applied without question, so the FTM would require at least the waiver from the state. Former Council Member Brian Medeiros, however, argued that the council should not be able to tie the hands of the FTM in that way, and Solicitor Teitz essentially agreed. The problem with all such distinctions between (d) and (e) is that there’s no basis for applying one to the FTM and not the other. If the state can require the town to get a waiver before the FTM is authorized to exceed the cap, then it can certainly require the Town Council to take a 4/5 vote as a further step in that authorization.

If, as Medeiros and Teitz allege, the FTM can do whatever it wants, then no state laws ultimately apply. It is peculiar for Teitz, in particular, to take such a position, because at last year’s FTM he inappropriately advised that my proposed amendment reducing the school budget below the $1 increase that the state requires was against the law and therefore out of order. Looking at the tax cap law, if (e) does not apply, then (d) does not apply, and neither can anything else. The FTM could therefore reduce both school and municipal budgets to nothing — whatever state laws may say. I happen to think that the FTM is free to invite litigation, but we should at least be clear about what the law says and do so knowingly.

If the current council agrees with those who believe that it should not impose tax-cap limits on the FTM, then council members should procure the waiver and issue a statement that they are voting to approve the excess levy purely as a pro forma measure. In other words, they would explain that they do not believe it to be their role to constrain the FTM and are approving the excess levy as a procedural step regardless of their own opinions on the matter.

Of course, that approach leaves open the possibility that, if the Tiverton electorate does not agree with the council members, we would replace them all as their seats become available in order to achieve a different result next time around. Fear of that outcome is the only possible reason for Council Members’ reluctance to simply follow the law as it’s written.

• Bad (and spun): That regardless of what any other any other governing body has done, the financial town meeting has the authority to exceed the cap with a simple majority.
• Good (and accurate): That the town council must vote, by a four-fifths majority, to request the state’s necessary authorization of the increase and the financial town meeting must approve with a majority.

To the surprise of every TCC supporter in the room, Council Member Louise Durfee led the way in suggesting that the town adopt the second interpretation as policy. Here’s my liveblog from the meeting, and here’s the video:

The meeting ended with a request that Town Solicitor Andrew Teitz draft language for the policy and submit it for public viewing ten days before tonight’s town council meeting. Well, not only did Teitz miss that deadline by several days, but here’s the third component of the policy that he’s putting forward (PDF):

Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, nothing in this policy shall be deemed to impair the authority of the Financial Town Meeting to exceed the cap set forth in the Act, under Article XIII (Home Rule) of the Rhode Island Constitution, or Chapter 3 (Town Meetings) of Title 45 of the General Laws of Rhode Island.

In short, the policy requires the town council to vote by four-fifths if it wishes to exceed the cap, but whether it does so, or whether the state authorizes the increase, is entirely immaterial, because the financial town meeting needn’t heed the explicit instruction of the law. In terms of the two options above, the council faked “good,” and Teitz went “bad.”

As we all witnessed two years ago, at the financial town meeting, at least some of the people who run this town will do anything to ram through their preferred policies, generally making it easier for them to take and spend your money however they like. During the last election cycle, TCC managed to replace some of that cabal. The next step will be keeping their machinations from increasing taxes more than the 4.5% allowed by state law, as we did last year. And the step after that will be replacing the rest of the bad lot.

This is an important step forward for taxpayer rights and we encourage concerned citizens to attend the Town Council meeting 7PM, Monday, March 8^{th .}  to voice their continued support for a policy and ordinance which confirms the taxpayer protection provided by state law.  Breaking the tax cap is and should be an extraordinary event, and TCC supports following state law to require a supermajority vote by our town council before trying to do so.

Because the current budget proposals by the town council and school committee would require a tax increase of approximately 12% for the coming year, this issue could have immediate relevance to the upcoming financial town meeting.

Here is a link to the Tiverton Tax Cap Policy developed by the Town’s lawyer Andy Teitz : Tiverton Cap Policy Draft 03052010

One might suppose her words are directed towards National Education Association Tiverton leadership, for their role in slow rolling the current Teacher contract negotiations through numerous State Labor Board Complaints and petty squabbles over ‘ground rules’. Instead, it is the School Committee Ms Pallash seeks to caution from engaging in such behavior, and instead, “find rational middle ground”. While Ms Pallash is thoughtful and well intentioned, there is more we must be aware of.

According to NEA/Tiverton Union President Amy Mullen, NEA Assistant Director Patrick Crowley has filed complaints with the Rhode Island State Labor Relations Board regarding the posting of information about contract negotiations on the Tiverton Schools’ web site. This posting is mostly basic budget data describing Tiverton’s School Budget. It contains, among other things, over a half million dollars for pay raises and almost $300K for increases in health benefits. Yes, an INCREASE of over $800K over the previous contract. Instead of accepting this generous offer, despite desperate economic conditions, the NEA has taken to filing grievances. I do not believe ‘middle ground’ is what Mullen and Crowley are after. They want more, and they want it out of the public’s view. This sounds like the force, bullying and disrespect to which Ms Pallash refers; from the union towards the school committee, the town and ultimately the students of the Tiverton Schools.

Taxpayers have funded this generosity for too long. Taxpayers are angry at government that will not control spending, while allowing students to suffer with less. TCC supports the preservation of current student programming, holding the line on taxes and reduction of labor costs through contract reform. Any 2010 spending increases must be kept well below the Tax Cap.

Unbelievably, the tone deaf NEA feel big salary increases combined with generous health and retirement benefits are a right, not a privilege, and ignore the needs of our community. To pay next years’ $20 million in labor costs the School Committee is contemplating cutting funding for books, pencils and paper for heavens sake! Do you want your town officials to allow this?

Had enough? Create Change, become a candidate for Tiverton public office. Email us at info@tivertonCC.com.

Support Tiverton Citizens for Change. Please make a donation by clicking here.