Sunday, April 6

THE WAY I SEE IT

          I was reading Charlie Flynn’s article in the Berkshire Record titled under “My Turn”. It’s funny how two people can look at the same event and see totally different things. It’s almost like Charlie lives in a different world than I do. Well at least mine is documented. Charlie believes he should have another three years as selectman; yet all of the reasons he gave as to why he is running are the very reasons many believe he should be replaced.
          Charlie sees that through careful management of the town’s finances we have an excellent credit rating. This allows us to secure bonding at the best rates. I see that because we pay our bills on time the banks will lend money at a good rate. That’s just common sense. My question to Charlie is, How much money does the town need to borrow and for what purpose? I know you want to replace all of the pipes on the water system; and many pipes do need to be replaced. However, we don’t need a 2.5 million dollar bond to do it. We can systematically go through sections of pipe as needed. Perhaps you want to borrow against the CPA fund, and then you can lock the CPA in for as long as the bond is for.
          Charlie sees a free cash surplus of over $300’000 and thinks that this is a feather in his cap. I see that 300 thousand of so called free cash and realize that the citizens have been overtaxed by 100k for each of Charlie’s three years as selectmen. Everyone knows that free cash is not free; it is the result of budgeted monies not being spent. Charlie boasts that he has worked hard to keep tax increases as low as possible but they’re tax increases nonetheless. I see that Charlie is saying that we can expect more tax increases if he is reelected. Well how about a tax cut Charlie? Perhaps some of that free money can be given back to the taxpayers in the form of tax relief. And now you want another slush fund under the guise of preserving the community?
          Charlie sees refinancing the water company debt as saving the taxpayers 325 thousand dollars. I see that the debt was never supposed to burden the taxpayers; we were all assured that it would always be the water user’s debt. This refinancing move actually cost taxpayers 40k more per year in water company subsidies. And now you’re asking the town to take on the entire debt of the water company. Shame on you. I guess this is why Charlie sees tax increases as far as the eye can see. Be assured Charlie will work to keep these tax increases as low as possible.
Charlie sees spearheading the committee to look into the water dept as his crowning achievement. If it were such a raging success why didn’t this committee find that the water company was not billing 12 times a year. I see the case as being solved when one of the water commissioners finally blew the whistle on the administrator. This is the same water commissioner that was on the committee that you claim to have spearheaded. I have to wonder why your committee didn’t uncover this fact during the three month investigation. It’s not like that water commissioner didn’t know at the time that the bills weren’t being sent out. In fact, he told me that it had been going on for years.
Charlie sees removing a finance committee member for making public information public; and the police dept debacle as accepting the challenge to make things right. I see it for the clusterfluff that it was. I also see a man who has anger issues. These issues became apparent when his decisions ill affected several people’s lives and opened the town to multiple law suits. Is this what Charlie sees as right? I guess Charlie and I see things differently.
I have no doubt that Charlie loves this town; as do I. We both believe that we have the leadership capabilities to foster a vibrant and growing community. We just see things differently; and as such will do things differently. I see a town government that can tighten its belt and reduce the tax burden on its citizens. When I see a free cash surplus of over 300k I see that many of these departments can reduce their budget. Charlie sees a town government that increases the tax burden on the citizens in order to preserve the community. I hope for our town’s sake that the people of Egremont see it as I do.

JUST SAY NO TO THE CPA TAX

AND THEN SAY

7 comments:

  1. KZ: Get real. You think getting an AA+ bond rating is simple as paying your bills on time? Lot more goes into it than that, like a stable, well run town that lenders have confidence in. I have doubts about your qualification to be selectman if this is the level of your thinking, knowledge on financial issues.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Still anonymous? I guess you missed the point.

      Delete
  2. Right on Kevin! Sorry Charlie but I can't support you. The aquarium is full of do do and needs a thorough cleaning.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I agree with whoever wrote that first comment. Town expenses are vetted by the Finance Committee, led by Laura Allen who does a fine job (along with her committee). Laura is not exactly a "tax and spend" liberal. And the Town approves the budget at the annal meeting.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Truth be told it was Laura who actually got the ball rolling on this water company issue when she informed the DOR that the town was not placing the subsidy on the warrant as a special article. After that point the town had to debate this issue at every town meeting. This is why certain people, including this BoS, want the town to take over the water company debt; so they won't have to argue this article every year. The problem I see with this is that by burying this issue we will forget our mistake and open ourselves to more mistakes like the CPA tax. I think it's healthy to have to debate this issue every year. Lest we forget.

      Delete
  4. Hey KZ: You were removed from Finance for misuse of a Town office, not for rvealing public info.. Stop cheering for Town problems to advance your vendetta.
    BTW, doo doo is spelled doo doo!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Apparently you didn't fact check your comment. Fortunately for me I have all my facts on the record. The fact is that at the April 1st hearing several things were brought out. The chairman withdrew two of the charges, one of which was the misuse of the office. He said that there was not enough evidence to pursue that allegation. You can rant all you want about this but the record is clear and on my side. Perhaps you should go back and look at the EVIDENCE before you go on the record. I guess I can understand why you have to write anonymously. The fact that you can spell doo doo does not make you a genius. And please, remain anonymous; You don't need to embarrass yourself.

      Delete