Comments

|

E-mail

|

Print

Item #14 on the RTM Call for Monday’s March meeting appears, thankfully, to be dead in the water. This was a follow up to the October 25 Sense of the Meeting Resolution (SOMR) that called upon town leadership to “develop a fiscal policy based on savings and restraint that will control the rate of spending for 2011-12 to lessen the tax burden on Town residents and businesses.” The RTM passed this SOMR by a vote of 135-41-12.

Today is Decision Day for the BET Budget Committee. The budget the 4-member Budget Committee votes on this week (today, or tomorrow if an additional day is needed) will go to the full BET for public hearing on March 29, and on March 31 the full BET will approve the Proposed Budget that goes to the RTM for a vote in May. The RTM may only may only make cuts to this budget, not add.

Proponents of the October SOMR, seeing where the 2012 budget that the BET approves is likely to end up, with a nearly 5% increase in spending and a 2.87% increase in the tax levy, proposed a new SOMR for RTM action next Monday. This new “1% SOMR” essentially calls for a 1% spending cap. It asks that the “total amount to be financed” as shown in the First Selectman’s Proposed Budget for 2011-2012 be increased by no more than 1% over the 2010-2011 final town budget of $340,827,798.

Many people – elected officials, volunteers, staff – have been involved for many months in crafting the budget that the BET Budget Committee will approve this week and the full BET will vote on later this month, after a final public hearing. For the RTM to now call for an impossible and unprecedented 1% spending cap (contractual increases on the town side alone are nearly 3%) is less than helpful.

It is also “out of order” in terms of the budget process. While every effort has been made over the years to make this an ever more transparent process with input from RTM members early on in the process, the prescribed role of the RTM, according to the Town Charter, comes at the end of the process.This is when the RTM votes on the detailed appropriations that the BET proposes as necessary to conduct the affairs of the town. At that time they may vote to cut, or eliminate altogether, any of the appropriations that the BET proposes.

In a memo to the RTM Moderator concerning Item #14 on the RTM’s March Call, the Town Attorney has indicated that the town’s Law Department “has consistently ruled that when the RTM acts on the annual ‘budget’ it acts on specific and separate proposed appropriations each identified by account number.” Citing Article 2, Sec. 23 of the Charter, he writes that “if the RTM is going to act at all on the annual appropriations it cannot do so in a wholesale fashion but must consider each appropriation individually and must make a judgment as to what amount it deems advisable for each particular account.”

In his memo to the Moderator, the Town Attorney writes: “It would be inappropriate and illegal to attempt to amend the Town Charter by virtue of this resolution.” He suggests that the resolution could be rephrased in language that would be in legal order.

Because it was deemed not in legal order, the 1% SOMR was withdrawn, and the Legislative and Rules Committee drafted a Substitute Resolution that it considered to be in legal order, but no Committee of the RTM, including Legislative and Rules, voted this week to put this Resolution forward. So, it appears dead in the water.

Those RTM members who want to reduce spending in the 2011-12 fiscal year to a 1% increase will have their chance at their budget meeting in May. They may propose specific spending cuts to reach this objective. But this is precisely what they have refused to do. One must conclude that they don’t want to take responsibility for drastic cuts in service that the public does not want.

Comments(1)

|

E-mail

|

Print

It would be a mistake for the First Selectman to engage in a trivial back and forth over minutia with the 4 individuals who defended the District 7 report at yesterday’s press conference. Likewise, he should not acquiesce to the request that his “historical analysis be re-released” to reflect their analysis. The First Selectman’s analysis should stand on its own merits.

The factual error regarding the RTM vote totals for last October’s Sense of the Meeting Resolution (SOMR) is not germane to the historical analysis. Neither is the technical question as to who actually authored and introduced the SOMR. It is a fact that Lucia Jansen was the author of the historical analysis that became the District 7 report that was the very foundation of the SOMR. Clearly this is what the author of the First Selectman’s analysis intended to convey to the reader. That the words used were technically incorrect is irrelevant to the analysis. And the quibbling over the use and meaning of the word “austere” is downright silly.

To “quibble,” according to the dictionary, is “to raise trivial distinctions and objections, esp. so as to evade an issue.” And this seems the best way to describe yesterday’s defense of the District 7 report. We need to move beyond this and look at a larger picture. The First Selectman’s report has moved the budget conversation forward by supplying the context that the District 7 report lacks. It has provided data that supports many of the contextual arguments made by critics of the District 7 report at the time the SOMR was under discussion, particularly with regard to the impact of legislative mandates.

It has also provided a detailed analysis of the town’s growth in headcount over the past 40 years. This is really the meat of the new report. And interestingly enough, Jansen finds no fault with these numbers:  ”Net-net, given the facts and complete true analysis, there is no material headcount difference between District 7′s report and the First Selectman’s. Period.”

While intended as a defense of her research, this statement regarding headcount at the same time can be construed as supporting an argument critical of her report. There is an implicit recognition here that headcount increase on the town side has not been excessive and that, as claimed in the First Selectman’s report, can be attributed in significant part to legislative mandates.

Jansen’s defense of her research turns the spotlight instead on headcount increase and budget growth on the Board of Education side. While the First Selectman’s analysis does not deal with the BOE side of the equation, the Schools have done their own historical analysis at the First Selectman’s request. The Superintendent of Schools provided some of this data as part of his 2012 budget presentation to the BET Budget Committee last week. The BOE analysis found that, adjusting for inflation, the BOE operating budget increased by $8,938 per pupil over the 40 year period between 1970 and 2010. Almost all (93.9%) of the increase is attributable to factors in 4 broad categories: new programs, mostly mandated (37.8%); increases in existing programs due to mandates or costs above inflation (22%); reductions in class size (4.8%); and contractual salary increases (29.4%). Various mandates such as special education, which didn’t exist in 1970, and contractual salary increases account for the bulk of the increase.

A definitive and comprehensive historical analysis of the town and BOE budgets over the past 40 years that includes all relevant comparative and contextual information needed to arrive at meaningful conclusions would require the services of a paid consultant. It is unlikely such a study will ever be done. But the First Selectman’s report and the BOE analysis have built upon the District 7 report in a meaningful way.

Rather than quibble over the word “austere” or the fact that as of the current 2011 fiscal year, The Nathaniel Witherell budget is in an enterprise fund and no longer part of the general fund, we should be engaging in a conversation that recognizes the fact that there are other variables beside population size and student enrollment that have had an impact on the town and school budgets over the past 40 years.

As for the SOMR, I have no doubt that the BET will present the RTM with a budget that demonstrates fiscal restraint, as it always does. But judging from comments at the BET Budget Committee hearing last week, this may not be enough for some members of District 7. The severe spending cuts they want do indeed seem to meet the definition of “austere.”

Comments

|

E-mail

|

Print

Computer problems prevented my December 26 column from making it onto the Greenwich Time website in the column section, so I am reproducing the column here on my blog:

Thinking back on the events of 2010, I am reminded of the prayer vigil I attended last August on the lawn in front of Stamford’s First Congregational Church.

Organized by the Interfaith Council of Southwestern Connecticut, the vigil, with more than 200 participants, was an expression of interfaith solidarity with Muslims in this part of the state who, like Muslims throughout the country, experienced increased hostility this past year.

An incident in Bridgeport was the primary impetus for the vigil. On August 6, a Friday, the Muslim holy day, before the start of Ramadan, members of “Operation Save America,” a Texas-based fundamentalist Christian group, stood outside the Majid An-Noor mosque and harassed the worshippers. One placard held by a 13-year old girl displayed these words: “Abortion is Murder. Homosexuality is a Sin. Islam is a Lie.”

The organization’s national director, the Reverend Flip Benham, wore a T-shirt saying “Jesus is the Standard.” Apparently, it is a hateful standard. His followers greeted Muslim worshippers with shouts of “Jesus hates Muslims,” calling children leaving the mosque “murderers.”

The Reverend Kate Heichler, president of the Interfaith Council and pastor at Stamford’s Episcopal Church of Christ the Healer, invoked a different Jesus as she addressed those assembled for the vigil. She said she was “simply standing with” her Muslim brothers and sisters. Heichler’s Jesus asks us to “love our neighbor as ourselves.”

Speakers representing different faiths touched on the theme of diverse peoples coming together with love and unity of purpose. The hour-long program featured readings and song from Muslim, Jewish and Christian sources and included participants from each of these religions.

The idea of isolation and otherness was prominent in the speeches, whether the way Muslims feel in the current Islamophobic climate, or the anti-Semitism Jews have experienced throughout history, or the segregation and discrimination visited upon African Americans.

“We must not fan the flames of hatred,” said Rabbi Joshua Hammerman of Stamford’s Temple Beth El. “Rather the flames of love.”

“I grew up with segregation,” said Patricia Billie Miller, an African American state representative from Stamford’s 145^th assembly district as she spoke about the feeling of otherness. “We are all God’s children,” she concluded.

When I met with the Reverend Heichler earlier this month, she said this vigil was the best example of why the Interfaith Council, and interfaith work, is needed. It “created such a holding place,” she said.

The Interfaith Council began in Stamford in 1938 as the Council of Churches and became the Council of Churches and Synagogues in 1971. In 2002 it changed its name to the Interfaith Council of Southwestern Connecticut to reflect the fact that it is inclusive of all religions.

Heichler, president of the Council since August 2009, was ordained 7 years ago and is a graduate of Yale Divinity School. She had little interfaith experience until recently, but is now deeply committed to this work.

The world is increasingly polarized, she says, and so much of this is around religion. It is important to hear one another, note the differences and foster a way of listening and learning that does honor to the people involved.

In face of the growing pull toward fundamentalism and extremism, Heichler hopes to increase the center. “We have ceded the center too much,” she says. “We need to help shape the conversation. Being quiet does not do anyone any good.”

Interfaith cooperation does not seek to reduce all religions to the lowest common denominator. In an op-ed article Heichler wrote last Christmas for the Stamford Advocate, she describes a religious tradition as meaningful to its adherents because of the beliefs, rituals and practices that distinguish it from other traditions. The goal is to honor each person’s faith as sacred for them. The gift of interfaith conversation is “to know and prize each other’s stories.”

Heichler says that her interfaith work has made her less defensive of her own religious tradition and more open to different ways of thinking and believing.

Calling itself “the place for interfaith action…the space for interfaith conversation,” the Council sponsors or participates in a variety of programs designed to promote better understanding and meet community needs.

Looking forward to the New Year, my hope is that the Council’s message of love and respect for diversity may prevail in a polarized world.

Comments(1)

|

E-mail

|

Print

Kudos to Police Chief Ridberg for standing by his decision not to station a police officer at the Lewis Street intersection on Greenwich Avenue. Indeed, the police officers at all the intersections should be replaced with traffic lights.

This past week I was at the East Elm Street intersection when the police officer directing traffic walked away in the middle of heavy traffic. It was 5 p.m. There was chaos for a few minutes after he departed, until everyone figured out that the stop signs had replaced him. Stop signs are not enough. We need lights.

Years ago everything on Greenwich Avenue was closed after 5 p.m., on Sundays and on holidays. Today, there is a thriving night life, and stores are open on Sundays and many holidays when there are no police officers directing traffic. It is ridiculous to think that all the reasons given for having them there evaporate at 5 p.m. and don’t materialize again until 9 a.m.

This is especially true of the argument that they are a deterrent to crime. Experience has shown that they are not. And aren’t the hours between 5 p.m. and 9 a.m. the more likely time frame for robberies?

If there is a crime in progress, the officers patrolling Greenwich Avenue and the adjacent streets will be dispatched, not the officers directing traffic. According to Chief Ridberg, this part of town is well covered. And this is not just Monday through Saturday from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. It is 24/7.

It is a costly waste to have police officers directing traffic on Greenwich Avenue. If they were deployed in a more appropriate manner, it could only improve public safety.

Terry Betteridge’s comments appear as arrogant. “I will spend money to make sure this happens,” he is quoted as saying in today’s Greenwich Time, referring to having a police officer restored to the Lewis Street intersection. “I will do anything it takes.”

Does he think he can buy influence? His money would be better spent improving security at his store.

Let’s hope town leadership doesn’t bend in the face of such pressure.

Comments

|

E-mail

|

Print

The BET held a public hearing tonight on the method of election to the BET. This is the first time in just over 6 years – since March 2004 – that the BET is taking up this topic. If the BET is to vote on changing the way in which its members are elected – and it is not yet certain that this vote will take place – the vote will be at the December meeting.

The purpose of tonight’s hearing was “to get information straight from the people who matter most – the voters,” said BET Chairman, Stephen Walko, as he opened the public hearing.

But there were only 5 speakers at the hearing which lasted 20 minutes. Judging from who was in the relatively small audience, I feel safe in saying that the ‘voters’ in attendance, most of whom did not speak, were almost all RTM members. Of the 5 people who did speak, all but Democratic Selectman Drew Marzullo were recognizable as active Republicans. In addition to Selectman Marzullo, First Selectman Peter Tesei also spoke. So, 2 of the 5 speakers were Selectmen and the remaining 3 speakers were members of the RTM.

Only 1 speaker had actually signed up to speak. That was Steve Warzoha, a member of the RTM from District 9 and vice chair of the Budget Overview Committee. Warzoha, in calling for “open and fair elections for all members of the BET,” linked a change in the method of election to the RTM’s recently passed Sense of the Meeting Resolution (SOMR) that called for belt tightening. Not only do residents want more say in the town’s budget, said Warzoha, but they also want more say in who represents them on the BET. Because of the heightened awareness of financial issues, now is the right time for the BET, BOS, RTM and residents to have this discussion, said Warzoha.

After Warzoha spoke, Walko asked if there were any others in the audience who would like to speak. Following a long pause, Ed Dadakis, RTM member from District 1 and a former Chairman of the Republican Town Committee, went to the podium. He referred to the number of times he has spoken on this subject in the past. He supports competitive elections with more candidates than seats and a Board that reflects a political majority-minority. While any effort to make such a change has failed in the past, Dadakis saw a “glimmer of hope” last spring when Democratic Selectman, Drew Marzullo, joined with the other members of the BOS in raising the issue of BET accountability to the electorate. Recognizing that there were two points of view, Dadakis said that all “should agree to disagree,” but that he hoped the BET would bring the issue to the electorate by “putting it on the ballot and letting the voters decide.”

Walko again asked if any others in the audience wished to speak.

The third speaker to come forward was Bob Brady, Chairman of the RTM Education Committee. He said he would be against the majority-minority Board supported by Dadakis, but suggested that the political parties could open up the process. He seemed to be suggesting that the BET adopt the Board of Education model, which maintains a bi-partisan Board while allowing the political parties to put up more candidates than there are positions, thereby giving the voters choice. He cautioned, however, that members of the BET “should tread very carefully” in making a change to a process and structure that “has served us well.” He said that under the current system “Greenwich ranks very high.” He said that the town has “very good financial controls, a balanced budget and moderate tax increases.”

No one else in the general audience wished to speak.

First Selectman Peter Tesei, an ex-officio member of the BET, was the 4th speaker. Tesei complained about the structural impediments in bringing this matter to the electorate because, by Charter, any change to the BET must be initiated by the BET itself and any Charter change initiative requires the affirmative vote of 7 BET members, which precludes the Chairman’s tie breaking vote. He referred to a failure of the state legislature to act on changes in these home rule provisions during the Bergstresser administration. Citing the critical role the BET plays in the town and its “awesome powers,” he decried the fact that its members are chosen by the political parties and said this was no substitute for competitive elections. He held out Fairfield’s 9-member Board as a possible model for Greenwich.

The final speaker was Democratic Selectman Drew Marzullo, also an ex-officio member of the BET, who said that he had never called for a change in the method of election to the BET in general elections, but rather had been talking about intra-party elections that would broaden party participation in deciding which BET candidates would represent the party in the general election. He said he just wanted to clarify his position. It would appear he was suggesting that BET candidates from each party be chosen through a primary process.

Marzullo was the final speaker. However, Paul Curtis, RTM member from District 9, appeared from out of the closet where he was working at producing the Channel 79 broadcast of the BET meeting and said that he wished to speak to the issue but couldn’t come to the podium because he had no one to relieve him of his broadcasting duties while he spoke. He asked if he could submit written comments. Walko answered in the affirmative and encouraged members of the public to contact the BET by email or other written communication.

There was a motion to close the public hearing at 6:53 p.m.

It would appear from tonight’s public hearing that changing the method of election to the BET is not exactly a burning issue.

Comments

|

E-mail

|

Print

A public hearing on the method of electing members to the Board of Estimate and Taxation (BET) is at the top of tonight’s (Monday November 15, 2010) BET agenda. While at the moment there is no specific proposal on the table, BET Chairman Stephen Walko thinks it is time to air this old subject once again.

Walko is reacting to statements made at a Board of Selectmen meeting last March. Members of the BOS were upset that the BET had reduced funding for the town’s coordinator of emergency services, Dan Warzoha. There was a suggestion that the BOS should have power to override the BET with regard to appropriations such as this when the BOS felt the town’s best interest was at stake. One rationale: members of the BOS are elected, while members of the BET are not.

Walko says he “cringes” when people say BET members are not elected. They are, of course, elected. However, at issue is the fact that, unless there is a third party slate, all candidates on the ballot are sure to be elected. Once nominated by his or her party, a candidate is assured of election.

According to the town charter, each party may nominate up to six candidates, while twelve are elected. The individual voter may choose up to six of the twelve candidates on the ballot. However, this voter choice doesn’t really affect the outcome except that the party with the most votes in the aggregate gets the chairmanship, vice chairmanship and a tie breaking vote. In anyone’s living memory, the chairmanship, vice chairmanship and tie breaking vote have gone to the Republican Party.

It has been more than six years since the BET last voted on a possible change in the the way it is elected. On March 15, 2004, a motion to change the method of election to the BET was defeated. Democrats favored retaining a bi-partisan Board; Republicans sought more competitive elections that would do away with a bipartisan board and allow for a majority-minority Board.

With tonight’s public hearing, Walko hopes to open up the floor once again and give citizens a forum to make the arguments for and against changing the method of election to the BET. He says he wants to “reach out to the public” to see what the thinking is.

“Why shouldn’t democracy rule the BET?” he asked me in a recent phone interview. Walko told the Greenwich Time last March, when the question of BET members not being elected came up at the meeting of the BOS, that “the Republican caucus of the BET has consistently requested that the BET elections be competitive” while the Democratic caucus has been opposed.

What Walko says is true, and his question is a good one. Why indeed ‘shouldn’t democracy rule?’ Why not more competitive elections? How can Democrats be against more voter choice?

For the arguments that have been made by the Democratic caucus, see my  March 29,2010 posting on this blog which reproduces the op-ed piece written by the Democratic caucus in 2004 giving the arguments for maintaining a bi-partisan board. At the time, I was the Democratic caucus leader.

Also, watch for my column this Sunday, November 21, which will discuss this subject further.

The hearing tonight is intended as a forum for the public. No vote will be taken. Walko expects the matter will come up for a vote, however, at the December meeting of the BET.

Because this is a charter change initiative, the tie breaking vote doesn’t come into play since the affirmative votes of seven members are required for such an initiative. Therefore, I suspect – and Walko wouldn’t be surprised if my suspicions turn out to be true – that the outcome of a December 2010 vote will be much as it was in March 2004. But, as was the case when Peter Tesei was chairman in 2004, Walko is giving a forum for discussion and showing that the BET is sensitive to assertions that its members are not really elected.

Members of both parties have the opportunity to respond seriously and sincerely to calls for voter choice. It is fitting that every so often we revisit this issue and consider the different perspectives.

Comments

|

E-mail

|

Print

On this crisp and sunny fall morning members of the Green Fingers Garden Club were busy planting daffodil bulbs in anticipation of spring. The planting of spring blooming bulbs at various locations in town is something the club, a member of the Garden Clubs of America, tries to do every year, according to club president Betsy Mulcare. However, this year’s effort, known as “TEAM 75,” is a special one because the club is celebrating its 75th anniversary. According to Barb Kaytes, the club’s Civic Improvement Chairman, members are working together in teams and have decided to plant in places where they have done work in the past.

The “TEAM 75″ planting began at 9 a.m. this morning at the William Street playground. The gardeners then moved on to the Ferry Boat Landing where they have also recently had an old and unsightly chain link fence replaced with an attractive new fence.I caught up with the group at 11 a.m. just as they began to plant 500 daffodil bulbs at Wilbur Peck Court, a Greenwich Housing Authority development where the garden club has done extensive work over the years.

Garden club members were joined in this project by a team of Wilbur Peck Court residents, mostly children who were off from school because it is Election Day. Helping the children with the planting were 3 staff members from Community Centers, Inc. of Greenwich: social workers Lauren Falconi and Pam Bell and program coordinator Ramon Lara. This community service agency, otherwise known as CCI, offers a variety of programs to persons of all ages, most of whom are residents of Housing Authority developments. CCI was instrumental in coordinating the team effort between residents and garden club members.

The children and the garden club members worked together for over an hour planting clusters of bulbs in the front areas of the housing complex and by the entrance sign where Mulcare said the daffodils would be “welcoming.”  CCI staff members Lara and Bell dug holes in which a group of children that included Amber, Alma, Jorge and Jada placed bulbs. They wanted to know how many bulbs should go in each hole.

“How many is too many?” The answer: “Eleven.” A further answer: ” Seven is nice.” The plan was to plant the bulbs in a haphazard fashion, not with exactly the same number in each cluster. “They naturalize and multiply,” a garden club member said.

Mulcare said that Wilbur Peck Court was a site where the club had done a lot of work in the past. In 2008, they planted a tree with the Greenwich Tree Conservancy and have done landscaping in the front and back of the buildings. The landscaping includes plants that came from members’ own gardens.

Just over ten years ago, in 1999 and 2000, the club undertook a major project that involved taking up all the asphalt in back of one of the buildings and replacing it with square pavers that allow grass to grow, while still keeping the area accessible to fire trucks as required. The new grassy space has become a recreational area that includes picnic tables and barbecue grills. Trish Stefani, a 20-year member of the club, was the driving force behind this renovation.

The club’s many projects reflect “our keen sense of civic pride and our commitment to the town,” according to Kaytes. The “Preview of Spring” party is the club’s main fundraiser that makes all these civic projects possible. The next “Preview of Spring,” a major flower show that takes place in late February and early March, will be in 2012.

Comments(1)

|

E-mail

|

Print

As predicted, the RTM approved the Sense of the Meeting Resolution on budgetary restraint by a wide margin last night ( Monday October 25). The vote was 135-41-12.

It was, after all, a vote for “motherhood and apple pie.” Who could be against a vaguely-worded resolution that has no legally binding authority and calls upon town leaders to exercise fiscal restraint in a difficult economic environment? Still, 41 RTM members did vote against “motherhood and apple pie,” and 12 abstained.

Some of these dissenting votes may reflect concern that the pie’s recipe contains the ingredients for detrimental cuts in services. As one RTM member who voted against the resolution expressed it for me: “Unfortunately, motherhood and apple pie are an enticement to re-engineer government to serve fewer with less.”

John Blankley of District 10 may have spoken for the minority from another perspective when he took exception to the “sensationalized numbers” in the District 7 Report prepared by Lucia Jansen. He pointed out  that the numbers are presented “without context” and do not take into account budgetary mandates and changing demographics and that using a 40-year time frame without further refinement distorts the picture. He also pointed out, as did Chris von Keyserling of District 8, that town spending as a percentage of the Grand List has actually decreased in the 40 years between 1970 and 2010.

Von Keyserling, saying that “everyone is looking at the same figures from a different point of view,” pointed out that in 1970, the budget vs. Grand List ratio was 2.4%, while in 2010 it is 1.1%. According to von Keyserling, the ratio for a “healthy town” could be as high as 5%. Greenwich has the lowest taxes, not only in Connecticut, but also in comparison to surrounding Westchester communities. “The sky is not falling,” von Keyserling said.

Of course, proponents of the resolution point out that the phenomenal growth in our Grand List has given cover to spending increases, allowing us to keep the annual mill rate increase below the actual spending increases. The expectation is that in the new economic environment the Grand List will decline and the town’s revenues will decrease while spending pressures continue to escalate.

But none of the issues raised by proponents of the resolution are new. With longstanding bi-partisan commitment to fiscal restraint, the BET constantly grapples with all these fiscal issues and is cognizant of economic trends. Based on preliminary budget projections, the BET prepares budget guidelines designed to keep tax increases to a minimum. These guidelines inform the budget process each year.

The First Selectman presents the BET with a consolidated town budget that reflects the needs of the community, but should fall within the BET’s budget guidelines. The BOE presents the BET with a budget that reflects educational needs, but should also fall within these budget guidelines. It is the BET’s responsibility to balance the demand for services and educational excellence with the exercise of fiscal restraint and present the RTM with a budget for final approval. The RTM has final power to cut, or eliminate, anything in the budget. The BET then sets the mill rate based on the final budget as approved by the RTM.

In spite of the fact that some proponents of the SOMR seem to believe it represents a “new philosophy” and is a departure from past practice, there is nothing in this resolution that calls for anything new. As amended, it calls upon the First Selectman, the BET, the BOE, the RTM and all appointing authorities (presumably the independent boards and commissions that present their departmental budgets to the First Selectman) to exercise fiscal restraint in the 2011-12 budget and going forward. How does this differ from what we already do?

BET Chairman, Stephen Walko, calling the discussion surrounding the resolution “a healthy debate,” said that the BET recognizes “the different and difficult economic environment” and pointed out that the RTM – as well as the First Selectman, BOE and BET – is responsible for the 2012 budget. Walko, BOE Chairman Steven Anderson and First Selectman Peter Tesei all encouraged members of the RTM to speak up at every opportunity as the budget process unfolds.

However, if the SOMR signifies that the RTM wants significant budget cutting beyond the BET guidelines, then members need to take greater responsibility during the early priority setting by indicating where these cuts should be made. This is something proponents of the SOMR have so far refused to do. But if RTM members don’t take responsibility early on in the process, their only alternative is to make what may be poorly considered cuts at the end of the process.

Either way, it’s about cost cutting. This, then, is what’s new about the SOMR. It tips the scale away from a traditional commitment to balancing services and cost containment. It reflects a new climate that favors a reduced commitment to community needs.