|
Three Local Officials Who Get It July 31, 2008 “It’s not our fault.” That’s been the standard talking point for Connecticut’s local politicians, Democrat and Republican alike, for years. State mandates, disgruntled taxpayers are lectured, drive municipal spending -- if legislators would appropriate enough state “aid,” property-tax burdens wouldn’t be so heavy. “Don’t be mad at us,” town officials plead. “See, we really have no control over this process. Since Hartford calls the shots, it’s your duty to vote ‘yes’ at referendum time.” It’s a fable that has worked well in the past, but a growing number of local officials aren’t interested in telling it. This year, a town councilor, selectman, and board of finance member deserve acclaim for eschewing the “blame the state” mantra and publicly working against their colleagues’ attempts to browbeat voters into casting “yes” ballots. Howard “Russ” Beetham, a town councilor and member of the Independence for Montville Party, organized a petition drive to overturn his municipality’s budget. On July 1, voters responded with a strong “no” vote, prompting elected officials to retain Montville’s mill rate from last year. The budget hike was cut from 3.4 percent to 2.8 percent -- hardly a revolution, but nonetheless a win for taxpayers who had not had the chance to vote on town expenditures for over a decade. Stonington has rejected four spending proposals this year, and selectman William Brown’s backing of “no” voters has surely been a factor. The town’s first budget of $55.6 million has been whittled to $53.9 million. That’s still an increase over last year, but at least some relief for taxpayers, who have seen the proposed mill rate drop by about 4 percent. But in 2008’s contest for the “yellow jersey” in municipal-official bravery, John “Jack” Mannette outpaced all others. For the last several months, he has led a one-man campaign for spending restraint and against East Windsor officials’ weaselly effort to circumvent the town’s longstanding referendum process. Mannette, a board of finance member, went to work in May, informing the community in a letter to the editor that over the last eight years, the average annual expenditure growth for town-employee salaries was 6.0 percent, and the average yearly growth of benefit-related costs was a staggering 19.8 percent. “Sacrificing our town’s growth for the sake of growing salaries and benefits,” he warned, “is fiscal cannibalism.” Rather than the 7.8 percent expenditure boost and 6.9 percent tax increase recommended by majorities of the boards of finance and selectmen, Mannette recommended a 4 percent spending cap and 1.4 percent tax hike, achieved primarily by controlling the school district’s budget. His proposal went nowhere, leaving it up to voters for the final say. And they spoke very clearly, voting “no” in referenda on May 29, June 10, and June 24. In the past, East Windsor officials have reduced proposed budgets until winning support from voters. As recently as 2005, it took four referenda to approve a spending plan. Not this year. After the June 24 vote, First Selectwoman Denise E. Menard and Acting Board of Finance Chairwoman Marie E. DeSousa requested an opinion from the town’s attorney regarding further referenda. Citing ambiguous language in the town charter, he opined that ignoring the will of the voters was legitimate. And so on June 30, the town’s boards of finance and selectmen approved a budget hike of nearly 5 percent -- and told townspeople there wouldn’t be any more votes That kind of arrogance didn’t sit well with Mannette, who in a July 16 meeting pressed the town attorney into admitting that his opinion was bogus -- East Windsor’s charter did indeed permit another option, the setting of an interim tax rate while the referendum process continued. By then, of course, the damage had been done, and voters’ only option now is to file what would probably be an expensive, protracted legal battle against their own town. Predictably, for their refusal to toe the “vote yes or it’s Armageddon” line, Beetham, Brown, and Mannette were pilloried by the forces of the municipal-spending status quo. Opponents accused them of endorsing “hard cuts in services and people” and being unwilling to “move forward” to meet the “needs” of their towns. (A hysterical member of East Windsor’s board of finance claimed snowplow crews would work every other storm this winter if more was “cut” from the budget.) But as Connecticut suffers the twin scourges of economic stagnation and political careerists who refuse to reduce public employees’ outrageous privileges, it’s likely that more local officials will encourage voters’ rebellion against fiscal insanity. D. Dowd Muska is a writer, commentator and public-policy researcher. His website is www.dowdmuska.com. # # # # # |
