It’s been a few weeks since I’ve written an article for the Westfield News. I hope everyone is having a great start to the New Year. As a skier, I’m loving all the snow we’ve had. As someone who lives on a corner lot with sidewalks – not so much.
This week, I’d like to discuss two things: the budget and Ward representation on City Council.
First, the budget. It’s that time of year again. The city is preparing budgets for the next fiscal year which starts in July. Again this year, it’s going to be very tight. The administration is going to defer more and more burden onto future taxpayers. Instead of paying for the full long-term operating costs for services rendered in this year, the city of going to write an IOU and say “don’t worry, the taxpayers will pay this in the future”. Yeah, I know, this is the way government works, and it does happen in other cities, states, and even at the federal level – but that doesn’t mean it makes any sense, or that it serves the best interests of the citizens. We can’t keep spending more, and deferring debts and obligations forever. We have to slow the rate of growth and start paying down some of the debt. If you look at the city’s net asset value, it’s plummeted under this administration. Our debts and obligations are snowballing.
The city is about to take on another $11 million in bonds. The proceeds will go to pay for new infrastructure at the airport, and rehabilitation and energy upgrade projects for several city buildings. All of the projects may be worthy (though I still question throwing so much money at City Hall). However, just because something is worthy, doesn’t mean we are able to do it. We don’t have a lot of money. Taxpayers are tired of never-ended tax increases. We don’t have a lot of wiggle room in the annual budgets. This bonding and associated maintenance costs for these projects will add about $1 million to the budget for the next few years. Add to that: the bonds approved last year, the new leases for DPW and fire trucks, the new employees for the dispatch center, the salary increases that were built into all the labor contacts, and increased health care expenses. This current year, the city had to take about $1 million out of savings, and the schools were $2 million short. Adding the shortages that will roll forward from this year’s budgets, and increases in costs, I come up with a need of about $6 million more in the new year – and we haven’t even gone through all the budgets or labor contracts yet nor accounted for the future bonds for other big projects. The problem is, I also calculate that we’ll only be able to raise income by about $3-$4 million and that’s assuming the city decides to raise taxes the maximum allowed under Prop 2 1/2, and we see decent new growth from new homes and businesses, and we see higher income from vehicle taxes and other fees. That means we’re looking at a shortage of about $3 million before we even start the budget discussions. How are we going to cover the budget next year, and the years after that? Are we going to have to make cuts to schools, fire, police, DPW or other critical services? Can we expect a bailout from the state or federal governments? I’ve asked for the administration to come before the council, and the citizens, and explain how we are going to pay for these debts and obligations. Hopefully we’ll get answers before we vote on the bonds and the budget.
Second, the Ward Two City Council seat. I took some time on Wednesday to go to the hearing in Superior Court in Springfield related to filling the Ward Two City Council seat (vacant due to Mr. Brown’s resignation). The attorney for Mr. Winters and his neighbors provided the court with lots of information, and the city lawyer agreed with almost everything including the definition of “SHALL”. The only seeming issue of contention was the definition of “candidate”. The City Charter does not define “candidate”. However, the common legal definition from Black’s Law Dictionary says: “One who seeks or offers himself, or is put forward by others, for an office, privilege, or honor.” The City Solicitors and state laws seem to agree with this definition. Our ballot instructions, as printed on the ballot, instruct “write the CANDIDATE’S name on the line” for write-ins. There should be no question whether or not Mr. Winters, as a write-in, should be considered a candidate. I don’t how anyone could have a different plausible interpretation of the word “candidate” that a reasonable person would say satisfies the clear intent of the laws. The state law clearly says that there is NO MINIMUM number of votes required to win a general election. Some are arguing that Mr. Winters didn’t run for anything or offer himself to the voters. That may be true, but that doesn’t disqualify him as a candidate. There is nothing in the law that requires a certain number of signatures or a certain number of votes to win. The law only requires that the candidate be qualified (registered voter, resident, etc…) and receive the most votes. The legal definition says “put forward by others”. That’s what happened here. Our own ballot instructions call write-ins “candidates”. Mr. Winters is the only “candidate” who is able and willing to serve. He should be awarded the seat. I agree that it seems silly to have a write-in who receives one vote win an election. Maybe in the next election more people will run for office or show up to vote. I don’t know much about Mr. Winters’ political views, or his background or experiences. But, it doesn’t matter. He got the most votes. That’s that law. Every vote should count, and just because some people don’t like the results, it doesn’t give the City Council or the Mayor the right to disregard the will of the voters – or voter in this case.
My read of this judge is that he agrees, and in the coming weeks, I’d expect the court to order the city to seat Mr. Winters. The judge agreed with the lawyers that this issue needs to be resolved quickly, and that Mr. Winters, his neighbors, and the city are suffering due to the lack of representation on the City Council. The judge advised the lawyers to prepare some new documents, collect a few pieces of evidence (such as the ballot instruction), and to work on a speedy schedule. He asked questions and made statements that suggested to me that the court is leaning towards “backing up the clock” and mandating that the City Council fulfill its obligations under the charter and seat Mr. Winters. If that happens, there will be other issues. What does “backing up the clock” really mean? Does the city have to pay retro-active pay? Is Mr. Winters entitled to damages and legal costs? Does the City Council have to re-vote on issues such as the tax burden and shift? Does City Council have to reconsider every issue, or only close vote issues? Money votes? Zoning votes? CPA votes? Special permits? Confirmations? As you can imagine, there could be major ramifications if the City Council is ordered to do any of this. This is a real mess that could have been avoided if the City Council followed the advice of the City Solicitor’s and the Secretary of State’s Office, or the Mayor had taken timely action as the City Charter intended. Hopefully this legal issue will be resolved expeditiously so the citizens of Ward Two will again have a dedicated representative on the City Council.
I’d like to end this week’s column on an upbeat note. I’d like to congratulate Liam Flaherty, Sean Kennedy, Christian Knapp, and Matt Perreault for earning their Eagle Scout ranks with Troop 109. These guys have been together in Boy Scouts since the first grade – a very rare feat considering that only about 3 percent of scouts ever earn the rank of Eagle. They are all fine young men who are “Prepared. For Life.” They have been on some amazing adventures, have demonstrated servant leadership, and have given hundreds of hours of service to our community. Congratulations!
Dave Flaherty,
Westfield City Councilor
[email protected]
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this column are those of the author and not the staff, editor, or publisher of the Westfield News.
