C'mon, Dunstable - it's 'We the People' time!

by Lisa Dingle

28 June 2007

Today, I read a column by Lowell Sun Columnist Dan Phelps. When I searched for info on Dan Phelps, I learned that he has worked for the Lowell Sun for twenty years. I don't know what Mr. Phelps has done at the Lowell Sun for 20 years, but I'd like to think that 20 years with the same news organization would produce someone interested in facts. But that's just me. And Mr. Phelps may not have ever been a reporter. He may be a paid "stirrer" - someone paid to stir the pot to elicit emotion in an attempt to boost circulation. I think circulation might be down. It is with a lot of newspapers. Lots of layoffs, jobs uncertain. Readers not trusting that news is accurate. Dan Rather didn't help matters, but then again neither is Mr. Phelps.

In addition to claiming that there are many people in Dunstable who could write a $79,494 check (the amount of the override on the ballot we'll cast on July 30) but "they" don't think the town really needs it, he also states that the $79,494 override is for the police department. I'm pretty sure Dan doesn't have a notebook of names to back up this claim, but hey it's the media today - he doesn't have to.

It's perfect isn't it? In an attempt at bolstering his opinion piece, he has glossed over reality, not quite getting it all wrong, but not working hard enough - or purposefully not intending - to get it quite right. And the sad thing is, more than one person will take Dan's opinions as facts. And they'll vote based on those opinions, and not the facts. Sure, it happens all the time. But it doesn't mean it's right.

Dan wrote, "Greater Lowell Communities are learning a hard lesson this year. Folks would like to hold on to a little of their hard-earned money, not put more toward unnecessary items and public salaries." (Dan couldn't have been talking about Dunstable, where we are whipping out checks for eighty grand without blinking, but let's give him the benefit of the doubt for argument's sake).

I like my own money too, and if you asked me the question, "Hey, do you want to fork over a whole bunch of your money for taxes?" I would most likely say, "No thanks." But given a solid explanation why I, and my fellow townspeople, should think about raising taxes, I'll consider it. And if I think it's worth it, and it's responsible, I'll probably support it. If I don't , I won't. And I wouldn't depend on someone like Dan Phelps to tell me how to vote, I'd read the budget, and maybe head to a meeting.

And if you said I didn't have to give more than the equivalent of my share of a 2 ½ percent increase (plus new growth, of course) per year, I'd say, "Great! I'll save money versus larger tax increases!". But if you then said "Oh, but you can't have solid Police, Fire, and Schools with only a 2 ½ percent increase every year because sometimes costs will rise more than that, or you might want to add a baseball field." I would not feel so great about the 2 ½ percent rule and I might ask what we do in those cases where 2 ½ percent isn't enough. I would not say, "Hey, the law says I don't have to spend any more of my money, and so I won't. It is not my responsibility."

Because it is my responsibility. It's every voter's responsibility. Who, if not me? Who, if not you?

What happened to us?

I grew up in world where you paid your mortgage and estimated your taxes (which, when my parents bought their home were much higher than 2 ½ percent increases some years) and THEN you figured out what else you could afford (before you jump in, I'm assuming fiscal responsibility was in play, at least in our town government back then). People didn't feel entitled to two (or more) cars under five years old, or overspend for our houses, in lieu of contributing our fair share of taxes. And my mother was always reading her town report. She knew where her money went and she'd go to a meeting or write a letter if she was concerned. And she voted. And she was informed.

This past weekend, I had a guy from Dunstable tell me that he didn't vote for the original ($396K) municipal and $238K school overrides because "That money is going to my boat!". Then he said (no kidding) "You must have it even worse. Your house is bigger than mine!". I swear to God. This guy is living in a community where the town seal actually reads "The Profit of the Field is for All." The irony is almost painful.

I am, it may surprise some, a fiscal conservative. I have not supported every override that has come down the pike. I believe in educational reform, small government, and I'm a hugely patriotic supporter of the constitution (and could bore you to tears with my passion for that particular document). But I also live in reality, and not denial. I can see what is happening in our town and I'm worried. I can afford to move but I don't want to. Many of my friends cannot afford to move, or also choose not to. A lot of them are seniors, but some have just started out. Some paid a higher price for their home than it is worth today, and others wrestle with the idea of pulling their kids out of school and away from the friends they have known since kindergarten. Here is what has happened this year:

Here's what happened after the school override failed in May: We cut 11 positions from the classroom staff (six teachers, five aides), we cut the equivalent of five other positions (yes, including some at the district office) - that's 16 positions total. In addition, we eliminated the 3 teachers and 2 guidance counselors we were going to hire in order to maintain current class sizes and try to address the guidance shortage at the high school. So, to summarize, we eliminated 22 positions that we needed in order to keep what we had. Did you think it was a threat, when the consequences of a "no" vote were outlined before the vote? A scare tactic? That they'd 'find the money'? Well, it wasn't.

More proof of realities (vs. "claimed" scare tactics)...

After the $396,388 municipal override failed, the Selectmen and FinCom came back to the town meeting with a budget that cut services back to the point where:

• 24/7 police coverage was no longer possible, investigations of crimes were no longer possible, and overtime planned for things like searching for missing children was cut out.
• We could no longer pay our fire chief (a modest salary at best as proposed).
• We could not afford things like brush cutting, line painting, or sign maintenance (not an issue until you can't see around brush before you pull out into a road, can't see the lines on the roads at night, or can't tell whether a sign applies to you or not because it's been bent or vandalized).
• Our library budget fell below the level needed to maintain its state certification
• We had to cut the number of air packs we would buy to replace some of 30-year-old units that our volunteer fire fighters are currently using to breath when they have to go into smoke-filled burning buildings.
• We took away our town employees' cost of living raises (yes, all of them, including the Police).
• We cut the subsidy for our transfer station, raising fees from $50 to (up to) $200 in January.
• We cut our Town Council's retainer (it was already a totally under budgeted item)
• We cut our legal expense by more than two thirds.
• We cut our field maintenance fees to a level that now depends on local sports organizations (who already donated $50,000 to create Larter Field) for subsidies.
• Our selectmen gave up their (granted, measly) $600 compensation.
• We cut our subsidy for the Memorial Day Parade and Summer Concert Series.
• We can't even fund our existing porta-potties.

All of this, just to balance the budget.

But, hey, money to save these extra luxurious items would have cost that guy his boat.

I don't know what boat he has that only costs $300 a year, but I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.

So which ones of the above items do you, personally, not feel you have a responsibility to share in the payment for? I sort of consider all of them ‘basic town services' whether I use them or not. But which ones for you?

Is it the new air packs to replace the 30-year-old breathing apparatus for our VOLUNTEER fire department - the department that operates at a cost of approximately $54 per household (if the override passes on July 30, less if it doesn't) and runs into buildings that we are running out of?

Is it the Library's membership in the Merrimack Valley Library Consortium? Is it a luxury for the citizens of Dunstable to be able to go to our library and request materials that our own library doesn't have (it's a reciprocal borrowing thing). Are you saying, ‘Hey, if our library becomes decertified, then all us Dunstable citizens can just head to Groton or Lowell libraries?" Oops, you didn't do your research again. If we lose our library certification, Dunstable citizens will be prohibited - by law - from borrowing from any state library. And recertification is expensive and takes up to three years. Yep, to hold all of us accountable for financially supporting our local libraries - and not sucking off of other towns' taxpayers who support theirs - that darned Massachusetts made this rule.

Do you think that 24/7 police coverage is an extravagance? Some people actually do. Some people think two police officers for 3,200 people is enough. Never mind that it is Massachusetts Law to have two officers report to domestic violence calls, nor that Dunstable is the key corridor between Lowell and Fitchburg for drug traffic (have you looked at Fitchburg's crime rate lately? I did.). Nope, these ostriches would rather play the odds that their house isn't the one broken into in the dead of night when the thieves actually know (because folks like Dan from the Lowell Sun report it) that we don't have officers on duty.

Would you prefer that we don't work slowly and responsibly toward a fully functional and equipped fire department? You might want to read the Fire Needs Assessment completed in 2005, after the McCarthy's house burned down on Thorndike Street and another house on Groton Street was badly damaged. It scared the crud out of me, and a lot of other people in town too.

Dan Phelps wrote, " "Taxpayers should not have to pay the price for poor fiscal planning". I totally agree...sort of. Is Dan saying that if I don't agree with how we got here, I should not deal with where we are? I should just take my ball and go home?

Sorry, Dan. No can do. Again, I am a member of my town. I am responsible. I can't fix what happened, but that doesn't mean I am exempt from helping to shape what will happen from here on out.

There are many in town that have the hard and fast belief that we in Dunstable have been operating our municipal budget within 2 ½ percent very well for years. We haven't. We have utilized free cash and deferred spending to avoid override requests over the past five years, specifically. And I would argue that there was no way we could have done better. We are a fast growing town with virtually no other revenue than our property taxes. We don't have vast numbers of town employees or luxurious services. When the cost of living goes up more than 2 ½ percent, materials for road paving go up 66 percent, and we have to repair our fire truck, we pretty much screw the pooch in terms of prop 2 ½. All it takes is a little reading of a very simple town budget to see where the money is going. It ain't for luxuries folks. Attempting to operate within 2-½ percent growth in a town like ours, every single year, is not possible (unless you are willing to give up the town as we know it). To do that means breaking down what we have built so far. What a shame. We've paid a lot for it. When it boils down to public health and safety, as well as maintaining assets and services we've put a lot of time, energy, and votes into (e.g., the library and Larter Field)...I just can't see these things as luxuries.

Dan Phelps also wrote, " How many times have towns cried that they are going to have tumbleweeds blowing down Main Street if voters don't override Proposition 2 ½....and what do you know, the world doesn't end after all."

Dan, if the world takes a while to spin down, does that count? Oh, and can you re-start the world and remove the tumbleweeds later on? I think not. Dan specifically called out Tyngsboro with the comment about tumbleweeds. My Dad-in-Law was born and raised in Tyngsboro. He calls Dunstable "Tyngsboro 40 years ago". He does nothing but shake his head when he remembers what his native town was, and bemoans what it has become.

Tumbleweeds? No.
Changed forever? Yup.

The Dunstable voters who attended the second part of this year's annual town meeting overwhelmingly voted in favor of a smaller override request, which is on the ballot for the July 30^th Special Election. The Board of Selectmen and Fincom are endorsing an override ($79, 494) that will equate to five dollars per month, on average, in order to maintain 24-hour police coverage, repairs to our fire truck, a modest salary for our new fire chief, and to keep our library certified, as well as other extravagances such as "brush cutting" so we can see around corners when we drive our cars into the streets. No one is getting a raise (the library staff for the second year in a row), no one is getting secret bonuses, and the majority of our firefighters' air packs will still be 30 years old.

I'm not proud of this. I am not proud that our firefighters have to make do with out-dated equipment. I am not proud that we force our (not awesomely well paid to begin with) municipal employees to forgo raises. I am not proud that we are down to someone suggesting (at town meeting) that maybe we could cut each town employee's hours by one or two hours for each position so we can balance our budget. (We don't have an over-the-top employee payroll in Dunstable, and those who work for us are consistently putting in more time than their salary merits.) And I am not proud that some people in town choose to believe the assumptions and opinions of people like Dan Phelps of the Lowell Sun, when they can get hold of an extremely simple-to-understand town budget and realize that we are not extravagant, we are not luxury-driven with our services, and we have a terrific community and beautiful town and that it costs money to keep it this way.

Okay. Now here's the really cool thing that is happening. We are coming together. We really are. Folks who have been, in some cases, polar opposites on issues such as overrides and fiscal policy are talking and agreeing on our situation in Dunstable. People are talking about where we are and where we are going, not just today, but tomorrow, next year, and for years after. In Dunstable, each of our voices - and each of our efforts - is much more powerful because we are a small town. Each of us can make a difference. And together we can really make things happen.

Please visit www.citizensfordunstable.com and check it out. See who has already signed up to support this override. You might be surprised. The attempt is to inform, help people get involved, and help to eliminate the fact that people sometimes based their vote on some columnist-from-Lowell's opinion, or on misinformation, printed or otherwise, rather than the facts. We have to come together, if we are going to be able to keep our community safe, healthy, educated, and "recreated" (pardon my frivolity with the English language).

"The Profit of the Field is for All." That phrase meant so much to the founders of our town that they put it on the seal we still use today. We have to figure out what it means to us now. Somehow we got to be, by and large, a town full of individuals. Imagine what 3,200 individuals would feel like if we all rallied around our town.

That'd be pretty cool.

Editor's Note: Dan Phelps' column that this refers was printed in the Lowell SUN on June 28: Local towns just saying no to overrides.