Egremont Water Company Plan

People of Egremont

          This letter is to inform you of the Water Commissioners business plan for Egremont’s Water Enterprise fund (EWEF), otherwise known as the water company. I must preface this letter by saying that I do not speak for the members of OneEgremont, the finance committee or in any other capacity than a private citizen. I must also state that I do have a bias against the plan of the (EWEF). I do not believe that the town should formally take on the bond debt of the (EWEF) since we are already responsible for any budget shortfall. To formally take on that debt guarantees Egremont taxpayers will be subsidizing the (EWEF) in the amount of $117,000.00 per year for the next ten years. It will also mean that this $117,000.00 will not be considered in the (EWEF) annual budget and make it appear as though the (EWEF) is profitable which it has never been.

As you know the (EWEF) was set up to purchase and operate the water company for the town of Egremont. It is a private entity which serves just over 200 households including about 20 Great Barrington residents. This enterprise was set up to run independently of the town by three elected commissioners; yet the town of Egremont is responsible for any budget shortfall. This means that all monies that are not raised by (EWEF) through grants or fees must be subsidized by our taxpayers, 80% of which cannot benefit from the water company services. Since the town is already liable for any (EWEF) debt it seems unnecessary to transfer it to the annual town budget.

When the town decided to purchase the water company they were assured by all the committees that studied the issue that this endeavor would not cost the taxpayers “ONE THIN DIME”. Since that time it has cost the Egremont taxpayers close to a million dollars in subsidies to the (EWEF). If we vote to transfer the debt to the town, we guarantee that we will subsidize the (EWEF) to the tune of $1,170,000.00 over the next ten years. To add insult to injury, any monies raised by the (EWEF), so called profits, through grants and fees in excess of the budget will not go back to the town. According to the charter, the way the (EWEF) is legally set up, any “Profit”, by law, has to go into capital improvements for the (EWEF) or back to the users.

This water company issue will likely be put on the warrant for the next town meeting. The voters, or more accurately those who show up for the annual town meeting, will decide if they want to burden the entire town with the (EWEF) debt. Ironically, the voters have already unwittingly burdened the town with the (EWEF) debt when they voted to buy the water company in the mid 90s. Back then they did so with the understanding that it would be financed through grants and user fees, not the taxpayers. However, if they vote to take over the debt they will do so with the full understanding that it will cost the taxpayers 1.2 million and all monies spent will be irretrievable by the town.

I say all this to inform the voters that if they want to defeat this measure they will have to pack the town meeting with people who vote no on this issue. You see, in a town hall form of government the voters choose how much money the town can spend and where it will be spent. You must also motivate your friends and neighbors to come out to the annual town meeting and vote their conscience. The bottom line is that we the people have to direct our elected officials to spend our tax dollars in a fair and equitable manner. We have already been saddled with this water company boondoggle once; we do not have to throw good money after bad by burdening ourselves with even more debt for a water company that cannot sustain itself without taxpayer subsidies.

If you want to find out more information on this issue, or want to tell people where to get this information, all are welcome to come to the OneEgremont meetings and hear a full disclosure of the facts and figures. If you have any questions or want to share your view with your elected officials there is supposed to be a public meeting sometime in Feb. This meeting will be a joint meeting between the Board of Select, the Finance committee and the water commissioners. As this is a very important issue affecting the town I hope that this meeting will be well attended by the citizens. As soon as any meeting is scheduled I intend to send out an email as to the date, time and place.

 

Thank you for your time

KevinZurrin

Clear Choice For Selectman

My name is Kevin Zurrin. I am a long time seasonal resident and a new full time resident of Egremont. While I am a newly appointed member of the finance committee I speak now as a common citizen. I have asked the Selectboard candidates a series of questions. These questions are what I see as most important to the town. These questions speak to the way the next selectman will act in regard to the finances and taxation of the town. I have asked both candidates the same questions. However, because Laura Allen is not a town employee she did not answer question 2 about conflict of interest. In the interest of fairness I have posted the questions and answers without adding to or taking away from that which was written by each candidate. These are the candidates own words, unaltered. You the reader can judge which candidate would make the better selectman based on how each candidate answered the questions.

My email was as follows:

On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 7:48 AM, <kevinzurrin@aol.com> wrote:

Laura/Mary
I am looking at the options for the upcoming election. As a new resident I am at a disadvantage as I am not familiar with all of the issues. In order to make it easy I am asking you and Mary questions that are foremost in my mind. If you would just give a brief answer to my questions I would appreciate it. The most important issue to me is the water company. I would ask what you see as the major problems with the water department and what you would recommend the town do about these issues as a board of select member.

The Candidates Preamble

Laura Allen had no preamble except to say “Hi Kevin” instead she went right into answering the questions.

Mary Brazie began with this:Firstly the “major problem” with the Water Department is the perception that it is not a town department and the taxpayers would not and should not pay for it. Massachusetts Statute clearly says otherwise. And the other “major problem” is that we have a very small user base and at this time we do not have ability to enlarge that base.

That is not to say that there shouldn’t be an effort to control costs if and when able to and to look out for the best interests of the users and the taxpayers. I have always supported the taxpayers paying for the debt on the plant as it is an asset to the whole town even if, at this time, it only services a small portion of the Town, as does our school, which many residents don’t use and never have.

Now to the questions:

1. Obviously the water company is leaking like a sieve, both literally and figuratively. What do you believe is the best way to solve the problems associated with the WC?

Laura: I think you know my position on the water dep't. It's been mismanaged and its costs are out of control. The first step is to get commissioners who will be serious about dealing with its problems and suggest serious solutions. On the revenue side, the whole rate structure should be looked at to see if its fair and effective. Nothing should be off the table.

Mary: Department employees are very vigilant in looking for leaks and repairing them as quickly as possible. Misinformation to the taxpayers is a real problem but I have seen some improvement in over the past few years. The Board of Selectmen’s move to reduce the term and interest on the current debt is a step in the right direction of trying to control costs. Another area we can look at to control costs will come when Jack Muskrat retires or semi-retires next year. At that time the Town, will the help of the DEP, can look at its administrative needs and possibly cut wages and benefits. Chuck Ogden’s suggestion to have two part-time employees instead of a full-time employee was a good one.

2. In regard to conflicts of interest. The accusation is that as a member of the BOS and office administrator you seem to have a plethora of conflicts that may hinder your ability to fulfill the responsibility as selectman. Please explain your position in regard to this matter.

Laura: Laura did not respond because she had no conflict of interest.

Mary: Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 268A, Section 20d allows full-time paid Town employees to hold paid elected positions in Towns with populations less than 5000. I am required to file a disclosure, approved by the other members of the Selectboard, with the Town Clerk’s office. The only conflicts that I will have are that I cannot participate in any activity regarding my full-time job with the Town and the benefits that go along with that. In the past when I served 2 three-year terms on the Board this was not an issue and there were no conflicts, I simply recused myself from all of those discussions and decisions involving my position. I am unable to sign the payroll warrant and as it requires only two signatures that was never a problem and should not be during this term. As a back up in case there is an instance that I am conflict and the other members cannot agree the Town Clerk is called in to break a tie. We never had to do this.

3. In regard to the upcoming special election which will deal with a bond issue for repairing the water system, what will your recommendation be and how will you support your argument?

Laura: As of now I see no justification for a massive replacement project, whether or not funded by a bond issue. All we know so far (and we don't know nearly enough - see point 1 above) is that leaks exist and are being dealt with one by one. I don't see why that shouldn't continue - maybe we'll find a leak or two that can be fixed and cure the problem, at least as much as it should be cured. To talk about replacing a huge portion of the system seems to be using a sledgehammer to kill what may be one or two flies.

Mary: There may be a Special Town Meeting but not a Special Election, during which there may be a proposal to issue a bond to replace the remaining water lines. It makes sense that the Town repair all the lines to deliver the best service to our residents that we can. It also makes sense that we need all new lines if we are going to be able to extend serving elsewhere, or take on new customers, in the future. It may save some money and employee time that is taken up in the search for and repair of leaks, but not nearly enough to offset the costs of the repairs. I would put it before the taxpayers with the clear understanding this would be paid for by all taxpayers, not just the users, and let them vote. Before any final decisions can be made to move forward this more detailed cost estimates need to be received.

4. If this bond is passed, how much will it cost the town and how much will it save in how much time?

Laura: That's a good question. I suspect the answers are not nearly enough savings and not much time.

Mary: Based on verbal estimates, my conclusion is that we would be looking at similar costs to the refinancing of the current warrant loans with the Police Facility with a taxpayer effect of about $147 in the first year based on today’s values and rate. Obvious savings would be the amount raised each year for water line repairs, but remember we have an aging facility to maintain. There would be time savings by personnel in detecting leaks. And it does not guarantee no more leaks as the lines from the road to the home are the homeowners’ responsibility - a lot of leaks have been found in these lines recently.

5. In regard to the town services, what services would you consider unnecessary and therefore move to eliminate. Also, what services do you feel the town is lacking and what would you do to add these services.

Laura: With over 150 governmental positions in town, I think we have plenty of government. I don't think there is a demonstrated need for a sustainability coordinator. I think the health department budget is too high and that its services can be provided more efficiently and less expensively. Our police budget is very high, and we should look at whether we really need 24 hour coverage. In general, I think we shouldn't be afraid to look at all our programs and departments to see what we could do less expensively.

Mary: There are no unnecessary Town services being offered in Egremont, and Egremont has never been a wasteful community. I see no services that can be, or should be, eliminated. Having worked here for 30 years I know that not only have the Selectmen been cognizant of the true needs of Egremont and its people and have been careful to keep the costs affordable, but so have the Finance Committees. The real lack of a service at this time is high speed internet to all, and this technically isn’t a Town funded service. It behooves us all to do what we can to help bring this service to our residents as it has become a life staple as such, and it may open the door for more home based business people moving to our area. The need for cell service, which we now have in most of Egremont, and the need for high speed internet are the two items we get asked about most at Town Hall. Egremont has already proven its support to bring these services and the Selectboard must now keep on top of it to bring them to town in the most cost effective way. I will support all efforts to bring these services to Egremonters.

The candidates closed with this:

Laura: Laura ended her response exactly as she started, abrupt and straight to the point “Laura”

Mary:My goals for Egremont are to continue the teamwork that we have seen over the last year, with thoughtful decisions being made that are in the best interest of all of Egremont. While doing this we must continue to keep our services top notch without letting our tax bills get out of control. Kevin please do not hesitate to call me at home, 528-****, if you have any further questions or need any further clarification. I need your vote and hope this helps me to obtain it. Thank you.

The above article is based on the actual email correspondence between me and the two candidates. I did not alter the response in any other way than to place the questions and responses in the order that they appear. All the responses are cut and pasted as received and can be authenticated. I waited until the end to add my own comments and opinions as to not influence the tone of the article. People can read the facts and form their own opinion.

I would like to thank both Mary and Laura for answering my questions with such candor. Both should be applauded for not trying to skirt any of the issues. The answers were clear and concise. It is refreshing to find candidates who will tell people where they stand on any given issue.

When I first sent out these questions I felt that there was little difference between the candidates. Boy was I wrong. Now I can see the difference clearly. Based on the candidate’s answers I have to swing my vote over to Laura, the more conservative candidate. I’m sorry to say Mary, but your responses have not helped you to obtain my vote. When you said, and I quote, “I have always supported the taxpayers paying for the debt on the plant” it surprised me. Don’t you remember that when the town voted for the bond issue in the mid 90’s they were told that the taxpayers would not have to pay one thin dime for the water company? This is why we have the perception that the taxpayers should not have to pay for the water department.

Another concern I have with your platform is that you feel the town should not only pay for a water company that was presented as “no cost to the taxpayer”, but we should double down and pay another 1.5 million to fix the pipes. I’m sorry, I have to disagree. As you said, the Department employees are very vigilant in looking for leaks and repairing them as quickly as possible. Even if the town does spend 1.5 million dollars on the pipes this vigilance will continue. As long as we have a water company we will be looking for and fixing the leaks. When you add up the cost of leak detection, fixing the pipes, and treating the water that is lost it would take over 40 years to start saving any of the 1.5 million dollars spent. By then we will need all new pipes again. This figure is based on the fact that we spend between 10 and 30 thousand a year on repairs and maintenance of the water system.

I could go into more detail about other issues but in the interest o brevity I will stop here. These issues and more will be discussed ad nauseam at the special meeting in the summer. Suffice it to say, the town of Egremont has a choice to make and using the words of the candidates will help the people make an informed choice. Good luck and game on.

 

Speech before the House of Representatives

by David (Davy) Crockett (Not Yours to Give)

One day in the House of Representatives, a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Mr. Crockett arose:
"Mr. Speaker --- I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the suffering of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this house, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him.
"Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and, if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks.
"He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and of course, was lost.
"Later, when asked by a friend why he had opposed the appropriation, Crockett gave this explanation:
"Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. In spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made homeless, and, besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them. The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done.
"The next summer, when it began to be time to think about the election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up. When riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up, I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly.
"I began: 'Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and--'
" 'Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again.'
"This was a sockdolager... I begged him to tell me what was the matter.
" 'Well, Colonel, it is hardly worth-while to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intended by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest....But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is.'
"I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any Constitutional question.
" 'No, Colonel, there's no mistake. Though I live here in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings in Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some suffers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?'
"Well, my friend, I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did.'
" 'It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be intrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any thing and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this county as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the suffers by contributing each one week's pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life. The congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditable; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution. So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch it's power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you..'
"I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go to talking, he would set others to talking, and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, for the fact is, I was so fully convinced that he was right, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him: Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I did not have sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it fully. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot.
"He laughingly replied: 'Yes Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You say that you are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around this district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied that it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and perhaps, I may exert a little influence in that way.'
"If I don't [said I] I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am earnest in what I say I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of the people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it.
" 'No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we have plenty of provisions to contribute to a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. This is Thursday; I will see to getting up on Saturday week.. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you.'
"Well, I will be here. but one thing more before I say good-bye. I must know your name.
" 'My name is Bunce.'
"Not Horatio Bunce?
" 'Yes.'
"Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before though you say you have seen me, but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend.
"It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence and incorruptible integrity, and for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.
"At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and a confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before. Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and, under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept up until midnight, talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before. I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him --- no, that is not the word --- I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times a year; and I will tell you sir, if everyone who professes to be a Christian, lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.
"But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbecue, and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted --- at least, they all knew me. In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered up around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying:
"Fellow-citizens --- I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice, or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only.
"I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:
"And now, fellow-citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that the most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.
"It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the credit for it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so.
"He came upon the stand and said: " 'Fellow-citizens --- It affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today.'
"He went down, and there went up from that crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before.
"I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the reputation I have ever made, or shall ever make, as a member of Congress.
"Now, sir," concluded Crockett, "you know why I made that speech yesterday. There is one thing now to which I wish to call to your attention. You remember that I proposed to give a week's pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men --- men who think nothing of spending a week's pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased --- a debt which could not be paid by money --- and the insignificance and worthlessness of money, particularly so insignificance a sum as $10,000, when weighed against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it." David Crockett was born August 17, 1786 at Limestone (Greene County), Tennessee. He died March 06, 1836 as one of the brave Southerners defending the Alamo.
Crockett had settled in Franklin County, Tennessee in 1811. He served in the Creek War under Andrew Jackson. In 1821 and 1823 he was elected to the Tennessee legislature. In 1826 and 1828 he was elected to Congress. He was defeated in 1830 for his outspoken opposition to President Jackson's Indian Bill - but was elected again in 1832.
In Washington, although his eccentricities of dress and manner excited comment, he was always popular on account of his shrewd common sense and homely wit; although generally favoring Jackson's policy, he was entirely independent and refused to vote to please any party leader.
At the end of the congressional term, he joined the Texans in the war against Mexico, and in 1836 was one of the roughly 180 men who died defending the Alamo. Tradition has it that Crockett was one of only six survivors after the Mexicans took the fort, and that he and the others were taken out and executed by firing squad.

THREE LITTLE WORDS

     There is tremendous power in words. Words can elicit feelings of adoration, or incite vicious acts of hatred. Personally, I believe that people should say what they mean and stand behind what they say. I hold people accountable for what they say. It’s not complicated, their words mean what they mean. A lot of people will not like what I have to say, and that is their prerogative. However, I would ask that if they take issue with what I say that they first ask themselves if what I say is true. Many will say that I am dredging up the past, and I am. They think I should keep these things buried. Well, I have to wonder about their motivation for keeping silent about these issues. No one likes to have their mistakes exposed, but how else can we learn from history? With this in mind I am going to dredge up a bit of Egremont’s history with a mind to learn from our past.

     I will get to the three little words in a moment, but first let me lay a foundation. There is a small group of people in this town who have their own agenda. Their agenda is not in the best interest of the town as a whole, but benefit’s a few at the expense of the many. These people are advancing their agenda at the literal expense of the entire town. We as taxpayers have to pay for their agenda if we allow them to advance it. I hear whispers of dissent coming from people who disagree with what is being done, yet feel powerless to do anything about it. For those people I have three little words, which I will get to in a moment.

     A little more than a decade ago the selectmen, and the finance committee, convinced the town to vote for a water department. They told the voters that if they voted in favor of this agenda item that it would provide clean water to the recipients at an affordable price. They also assured the townspeople that it would not cost the taxpayers anything, for it would be paid for by the people who actually use the water. Now I don’t want to say that the selectmen and finance committee lied to the people, but someone lied to someone and we are paying the price. At the very least the town leaders misinformed the people.

     Before the town voted on this water issue the taxpayers paid a substantial sum of money for a committee to study this issue. This expensive committee then looked at all the facts and came to the conclusion that the water company was a good idea. Based on their study they told the town that there would be no cost to the taxpayers. What did this committee overlook? Based on this study they told the people who were going to receive the water that it would be affordable. What did this committee miss? Again, I don’t want to accuse anyone of lying, but we were grossly misinformed. I bring this up not to beat a dead horse, but to illustrate that this situation can be avoided in the future with three little words, which I will now get to.

     I hope you’re wondering what these three little words are because these three little words are the most powerful words in the world. These three little words formed a nation. These three little words are the first three words in our Constitution, "WE THE PEOPLE". You see my friends, we the people have the power in the town of Egremont. This is a town meeting form of government. We the people have a vote on every issue, and shame on you if you are too lazy or too busy to get involved.

     We do not simply vote for representatives to represent our interests as in a representative form of government we vote for advisors to advise us on the issues that we will be voting on, then to enact the will of the people. The selectmen do not represent us, they are an advisory board. It is the responsibility of this board to study and advise the voters on these issues, but we have the final vote. The finance committee does not represent us, they advise us on the financial aspects of each agenda item that we will be voting on, but "we the people" have to vote.

     These advisors have led us astray in the past. They have misinformed us in regard to the issues that we were voting on. However, we have only ourselves to blame. The fact is, most of "We the people", decided to not even show up to vote on the issues. "We the people" allowed a small group of people with their own agenda to advance this agenda. Now "we the people" have to pay the price for allowing this small group of people to co-opt our towns agenda. This is now in the past and we shall see if we the people will learn from this bit of history.

     From this point forward, I plan to hold our selectmen liable for the words they use to advise us, and I hope you do as well. When the finance committee recommends a vote on any particular issue I plan to hold their feet to the fire, and I hope you do as well. However, when the town meeting barely has enough people to form a quorum, the problem is not the town officials, the problem is not a small group of people with their own agenda, the problem is "WE THE PEOPLE".

KevinZurrin

Guilt By Association

As I learn more about the town meeting behind the town meeting the more frustrated I get. It has come to my attention that while the people who were discussing the water issue in regard to whether the town should vote to either take the money out of free cash or raise and appropriate the money from new taxes, there was another choice that would have resolved the issue without spending any of the taxpayers money.
Frankly I am outraged that during the debate over article 3 none of the selectmen or the finance committee informed the voters that if they were to vote down the entire article there was another article that would have raised the monies from the people who actually use the water. This seems deceptive. I wonder how people would have voted if the issue were presented in total honesty. What ever happened to truth in advertising?
Honestly, I don’t know who we can trust when the people that we elect to advise us on these issues obfuscate such important aspects of the issues. Now I can’t say that they didn’t post the information, but when you consider that you have to vote on article 3 before you can discuss article 4, it seems like a slight of hand to me. They moved on to article 5 by saying that article 4 was moot because article 3 passed. Lets look at this technique that was used to deceive the town and tell me if you aren‘t as offended as I am.
The elected officials, for fear of losing votes, don’t want to tell the water users that they have to pay the full cost of the water they use. They write the article that raises and appropriates the funds from the taxpayers. Then they write the article that raises the funds from the water dept. revenues as a backup plan in case the townspeople figure out that they’re getting hosed. I’m sure they were overjoyed at the fact that the argument became whether to use free cash or raise and appropriate from taxation.
The honest way to have presented it would have been to write one article and offer two options. Option one, raise solely from water dept. revenues. Option two, use free cash or raise and appropriate a 35% portion from new taxes. Now, if these were the choices which one do you think the voters would have passed? So next time this happens, and it will come up next year, lets argue the proper issues. Don’t be fooled by the straw man argument.
This is my opinion, and you can disagree if you like, but there isn’t a person who was on that stage that isn’t guilty of deceiving the voters and anyone up there who kept silent is just as guilty by association.