Making Fiscal Sense II

I (Watt now) think Stan raises crucial questions that deserve honest debate even if I have some doubts about Stan's proposed solutions.

To my mind, Stan flags the biggest challenge we face regarding our public schools: Transparency.

Between the privacy restrictions that obscure teacher/administrator evaluation; collective bargaining labor negotiations; and special education spending, voters/citizens/parents are left to accept a great deal of school management on faith. Add to this the sprawling regulatory compliance requirements for public schools and the idea a volunteer school board can adequately manage this bureaucracy has become -- to my mind -- an open question. This struggle parallels our selectboard's challenges working with professional staff.

I believe we are witnessing the decline of citizen-based self-government in the face of inexorable bureaucratization of municipal governance. This bureaucratization is not some conspiracy or sinister plot, but the accretion of decades of honest efforts by administrative professionals to get their jobs done better and -- as should be expected of anyone -- to look after their interests in the process. To me, this goes to the heart of what our selectboard and school board members' roles should be, but that's a separate post (or book).

In the meantime, take a look at a Norwich Town Report from just a generation ago and you can see how much has changed - - not simply in budget numbers, but in the tone and aspirations expressed regarding town services and the future.

I'm not a fan of Tea Party magic wand of fiscal discipline and I'm not saying things were better when we spent less. I'm just saying the collective delusional thinking that has brought our economy to a standstill wasn't restricted to housing prices. It's easy to promise future defined benefit pension payments when everyone thinks we're going to be richer tomorrow than we are today. It's easy to accept higher property taxes, bond payments and educator salary step increases when we're all confident money grows on houses. Those days are now past and the economic dislocation is still reverberating through our lives.

And here, perhaps, the public/private sector distinction is important to recognize: In the private sector, the owners and creditors define acceptable expenses. In the public sector, taxpayers and the bond market ultimately decide. Taxpayers, by definition, are doing something else with their time/energy so they can pay their taxes. That attenuation of the taxpayer's ability to focus on the services funded by those taxes is supposedly remedied through the efforts of volunteer boards and, increasingly, professional administrators.

There is simply no way taxpayers or the bond market can keep close tabs on the management of public sector entities anywhere near the degree business owners and creditors do. We need to recognize that fact and consider practical measures to reduce the danger posed by public sector management mistakes. We've all seen enough private sector management disasters to know mistakes will occur.

Stan's post highlights several school-related risks and concludes they are leading towards fiscal disaster. Arguing about the public/private distinction doesn't help us assess the magnitude of these risks or consider what we can do to address them. From where I stand, I certainly don't think we can expect a new school superintendent to lead that debate. It's going to require concerned citizens/taxpayers/parents asking difficult questions of ourselves and our community.

I wish us luck.

Making Fiscal Sense I

I believe the entire public sector/private sector discussion referred to (on the Norwich ListServ 10/28/10) arises from Stan Williams' "new superintendent qualifications input" post from earlier this week.

I'm afraid the public/private sector distinction is unnecessarily/unhelpfully obscuring Stan's "three major concerns about the state of the Hanover/Norwich school system."

To press the points home, I've repeated Stan's post below [sanitized of the public/private distinction within bold italicized brackets] as I think his points are well worth pondering and discussion:

I have three major concerns about the state of the Hanover/Norwich school system.

1. Unfunded pension and health liabilities will crush our ability to provide a quality education at a reasonable cost unless we continue to attack these costs - the new superintendent must be able and willing to tackle this issue in the next round of contract negotiations. At a minimum, new teachers should not expect to receive a defined benefits pension - this perk has [become a major and intractable fiscal millstone for many states and municipalities].

2) Teacher Evaluation - as a board member for two years, I was never able to receive ANY data on the number of teachers rated excellent, good, poor (use any rating system you like.) I find it hard to believe that it is possible to effectively run a service sector, labor intensive operation without good data on employee performance, and I believe the board and taxpayers need more information, in aggregate - not individually, about teacher performance.

I know the board has addressed merit pay in the past and defining excellent performance is not easy and can be subjective, but [as individuals, we tackle difficult, subjective decisions every day] and [where evaluating the quality of our childrens' education is in question] imperfection is better than not trying at all.

3) Tenure - originally intended to protect academic freedom, this is another perk that really [begs the question whether we are guaranteeing employment at the expense of evaluating quality of teaching]. The administration needs the ability to more easily terminate teachers that don't make the grade (see above.)

To teachers who may think this sounds a bit harsh, I can only say that I do appreciate the individual excellent efforts of the vast majority of the teachers who have taught my children very well over the years. But I honestly believe these are key issues on which we must focus as a school system as well as a society - we can no longer afford to have education costs rise greater than GDP growth in perpetuity. (This goes as well for universities, where the issues above are all in play, or will soon be.)

Thanks for your efforts on the board.

Stan Williams

[paraphrased/rephrased by Watt Alexander]

Whither Sewer?

Three months ago, Stan Williams and I posted an "Open Letter" to the Selectboard and Planning Commission asking a series of questions we hoped would spur public discussion of the sewer extension implications of the King Arthur expansion project.

While we expressed our support for the sewer extension, we posed the questions in an effort to help everyone appreciate the difficult planning and permitting issues posed by sewer service regardless of King Arthur's specific plans.

Our Open Letter "respectfully request[ed] the Planning Commission and/or Selectboard to provide written public responses so all townspeople can participate in this discussion."

As yet there has been no public response of any kind to the questions posed in our Open Letter from either the Selectboard or Planning Commission.

I can imagine several possible explanations for the resounding silence in the interim:

They were all stupid questions?

No one has time to determine whether there might be some decent questions among the stupid ones?

There's been no time in busy SB or PC agendas to respond in any way?

It's unreasonable for individual citizens to expect volunteer boards to take the time to respond to every Open Letter they receive?

Public discussion of the planning issues might have delayed King Arthur's plans?

King Arthur may not need a sewer extension after all?

If we really wanted answers, we would have attended Selectboard and Planning Commission meeting to demand them?

No one else seemed to care about these questions, so why not ignore them?

No SB or PC members read the listserv?

This morning, Phil Dechert posted public notice on the DRB mailing list announcing the first public hearing on King Arthur's Conditional Use permit application. This public hearing is scheduled for 7:30pm the day after tomorrow, Thursday, September 16th.

So I have another question:

How should we have addressed these questions to prompt public discussion of what many have said over the years should be a planning priority for this town?

And some more:

This is how land use planning and permitting work in Norwich today.
Is this how planning and permitting should work in Norwich?
Do land use planning and permitting work in Norwich?

The questions are piling up.

When Common Sense Isn't Enough

I've set out my own views on gay marriage and equal rights for homosexuals in earlier posts here and here.

My argument has always been one of strategy, not results.

I still think establishing civil unions in all fifty states would be the quickest and most effective way to bring the right of marriage to all citizens regardless of sexual orientation, but the direct litigation campaign has taken precedence.

Today's federal district court decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger is the first fruit of the direct litigation route and has brought the constitutional arguments concerning gay marriage sharply into focus.

Gay marriage proponents could hardly ask for a more common sense and matter-of-fact exposition on how California's Proposition 8 fails to pass constitutional muster.

While I'm persuaded by the reasoning, and take a professional interest in the craftsmanship, I also recognize I'm sympathetic with the outcome.

The more rational me recognizes that Judge Walker's decision rests entirely on a legal house of cards -- a very generous articulation of "fundamental rights."

The history of this debate over "fundamental rights" is as long and contoured as the history of the nation itself.

The current composition of our Supreme Court manifests a certain chapter in that debate, but a chapter which is highly unlikely to establish same-sex marriage as fundamental.

This Court is dominated by a political desire to circumscribe the expansion of "fundamental rights;" counterbalanced at the margin (Justice Kennedy) by a libertarian distrust of the state's authority to punish or sanction certain behaviors.

The identification of same-sex marriage as a fundamental right is not simply unpersuasive in their eyes. It's an incitement. A blatant example of how unprincipled and unhinged our constitutional jurisprudence has become. Further evidence of how unelected judges oppress individual conscience by championing their own personal values as "fundamental rights."

Indeed, the current court may prove to be the high water mark of this tide against expanding fundamental rights. Perversely, a Supreme Court ruling in this case may prove to be a sign that tide has begun to ebb.

Let's assume Perry works its way through the Ninth Circuit this year and reaches the Supreme Court in their October 2011 term. We should see a decision in June 2012, almost certainly reversing the district court, very likely on a 5-4 vote.

The final word? Hardly.

November 2012 we vote once more for president.

Will Perry be a symbol of the Supreme Court restricting our individual freedom to choose a mate or will it be a symbol of the Supreme Court vindicating the sanctity of the institution of marriage? You want to know where the majority of voters stand nationally, just watch the Republican Party squirm these next two years.

As with the abortion debate, same-sex marriage is an argument they don't want to win because the on-going debate is so valuable to them as a recruitment and fund-raising tool. The aggrieved and oppressed retain a unity in their opposition which falls apart in their ascendance. Republicans do much better as victims in opposition.

It's going to be messy and it's going to get loud, but that's how this conversation plays.

In terms of constitutional jurisprudence, I think same-sex marriage is a matter of equal rights and not fundamental rights. The equal rights argument is irresistible. The fundamantal rights argument is implausible until the vast majority of Americans are persuaded this is a matter of equal rights. Once that occurs, equal rights are fundamental rights. That is simply a matter of time, but it's clear from today's decision in Perry, it will be a long and winding path.

Joint Letter from Stan Williams & Watt Alexander

Open Letter to Norwich Selectboard and Planning Commission

On several occasions over the past forty years, town committees have examined wastewater treatment options for Norwich. These studies have been prompted, in part, by concerns that commercial development in town is effectively capped by limited septic capacity. They have all concluded that construction of a new municipal system may be prohibitively expensive.

A variety of reports by town committees, commissions, and our zoning regulations have identified the Route 5 South corridor as the area in town best suited to handle further commercial development.

Most recently, the 2005 Sewer Committee Report concluded that an arrangement to extend Hartford’s sewer line to serve properties on Route 5 South would likely be the most cost-effective way to facilitate further commercial development in town.

That same committee report noted ruefully that a 1991 Town Plan implementation goal -- to explore how public wastewater treatment might “create a basis for concentrating growth in designated areas” -- remains unfulfilled.

King Arthur Flour is an exemplary company and fine corporate citizen in our town. King Arthur feels future growth at their Norwich location depends upon their ability to secure a sewer extension from the Town of Hartford. King Arthur may have the resources to construct an extension sufficient for their own needs, but is unlikely to have any incentive to design that extension at a scale suitable for commercial growth among other properties in the Route 5 South corridor.

It is time for us all to recognize that development pressure in the Route 5 South corridor has outstripped our town’s ability to plan for it.

Instead, we should to embrace the opportunity King Arthur has presented us, using their initiative to fashion a wastewater extension -- and concomitant zoning regulations -- “concentrating growth” where this community feels such growth would be most appropriate.

Creating a district to be served by this wastewater extension, and the attendant zoning regulations to govern development within that district, has the added benefit of requiring public votes at both the Planning Commission and Selectboard. These votes ensure those in our community who feel strongly about these changes have an opportunity to be heard and place ultimate responsibility for these changes with our elected officials where it belongs.

Don’t let perfect be the enemy of the good. If we can’t manage to make something more of this opportunity, then it’s time to ask what we’re planning for.

As a means to these ends, we pose the following specific questions and respectfully request the Planning Commission and/or Selectboard to provide written public responses so all townspeople can participate in this discussion:

1. How would you determine whether it is in the interest of the town to concentrate more intensive commercial development along the Route 5 South corridor? How long might that take?

2. How would you determine whether a municipal wastewater extension from Hartford would be the most cost-effective way to facilitate a concentration of commercial development on Route 5 South, if so desired?

3. What changes are needed to create zoning and subdivision regulations to govern commercial development served by municipal wastewater instead of on-site septic?

4. If King Arthur decides to build a sewer extension privately and applies to the town for permits to construct this extension, are you confident we have adequate regulations on the books to fairly balance community and developer interests? If not, how long do you think it will take the town to draft, review and adopt these regulations?

5. If King Arthur decides to build a sewer extension privately and then seeks regulatory approval for a significantly more intensive use on their Norwich site -- more classroom capacity, parking for buses, and a subdivided parcel to host a restaurant -- what changes to our septic-system-based zoning/subdivision regulations would you hope to have in place in time to properly review that application? How long do you think it will take the town to draft, review and adopt these regulations?

6. If the Town of Norwich needs to revise our zoning/subdivision regulations to keep abreast of the development applications King Arthur’s plans will pose, how much more time would it take to draft, review and adopt regulations that could be applied to multiple lots on the Route 5 South corridor?

7. Can/should the town ask King Arthur to design its system to make future municipal use easier? Or is there any mechanism we could put in place so the town or other users could later tap into King Arthur’s system at a pre-determined price?

8. How would you determine where that concentrated commercial district should start and stop?

9. What are we waiting for?

Go King Arthur!?

Two points in response to Stan's listserv post earlier today.

First, I'm taking issue with the state of planning and permitting in town.

Sewer extensions and waste water capacity have a direct bearing on development potential throughout the commercial and village districts. Sewer extensions and wastewater treatment have been debated in town for decades. The sticking points have always revolved around infrastructure cost and impact on future development. These are real issues reflecting intelligent, reasoned yet differing points of view.

For those who have followed the debates, a sewer extension request on Route 5 South (or across the Ledyard Bridge) was inevitable. And yet, knowing it would come, we are ill-prepared as a town government and a community to actually engage it.

Stan is 100% right that King Arthur shouldn't have to wait years for this town to come up with a plan for commercial development on Route 5 South. I'll go further and say King Arthur shouldn't have to bear the entire cost of design and infrastructure for a sewer extension it seems obvious will also benefit King Arthur's Route 5 South neighbors in years to come. Leaving the entire cost to King Arthur means they build to suit their own needs based on their own cost sensitivity. We end up with infrastructure built to serve an ad hoc need we will later tap into and quite possibly need to upgrade for other users. A poor use of King Arthur's time and treasure and a poor use of our own as well.

We also continue a pattern of ad hoc development decisions that make a mockery out of the planning and permitting process. No one plans for or designs sprawl -- it's the result of many incremental development decisions which eventually overburden infrastructure and alter the entire character of a landscape. Many of those decisions -- including here in Vermont -- are greased by developer offers to fund infrastructure improvements themselves and arguments that it's unfair to change the rules after a history of permitting ad hoc development on abutting properties. In this context, I think, Stan's "what's not to like?" approach may be both short-sighted and, uh, breezy.

As Stan points out, we are very fortunate to have our main development pressure in this instance being exerted by a very conscious and forward-thinking company that has demonstrated real sensitivity to its physical setting. So let's engage them and help each other create a plan for this stretch of town that can be a long-term home to King Arthur and businesses like them before we start facing less benevolent developers.

And yet, King Arthur first floated the idea of a sewer extension with town officials last autumn. To my knowledge, in the interim, there has been no effort to initiate a public discussion of the impacts and opportunities such an extension might pose. We've failed to plan adequately for this scale of development on Route 5 South. We've now let seven or eight months pass since this specific project hit the public radar and, to my knowledge, made no progress engaging the longer term implications of this sewer extension proposal. The answer is not "King Arthur are good people so what's there to talk about?"



My second point concerns rhetoric.

For a decade now, public discourse in this town has been marred by ridicule and dismissiveness towards opposing points of view. My tolerance for ridicule and dismissive comments may be lower than most, but it's not just a question of gentility and manners.

Example: I may not agree with a lot of what Stuart Richards says, but I think painting him as "anti-growth" glosses over the details of his concerns without much effort to understand them. Am I "anti-growth" because I think what I've expressed in the prior paragraphs? Am I the same "anti-growth" as Stuart Richards? What if Stuart thinks I'm "pro-growth?" Does this make Stan "pro-growth" without exception?

The tags are stupid because they are unexpressive. We are not just binary beings going through life defined as pro- or anti- this or that. Efforts to cast us in these roles are lazy attempts to make decisions feel black-and-white when, at least in my experience, they tend to the gray spectrum. Reducing someone's point of view to pro- or anti- anything is an act of indifference, or worse, contempt.

I'm a big fan of disagreement because it forces people to think -- about their own point of view and about others'.

I can't countenance dismissiveness.

King Arthur Qualified

I have nothing against King Arthur or their proposed sewer extension to support further business expansion. Nevertheless, I don't share the breezy lack of concern regarding unforeseen consequences expressed on the listserv these past few days.

From where I sit, this is yet another ad hoc development decision which begs the question: What's our plan?

If you follow the link above, you'll see I'm something of a broken record on this topic. If you attended the most recent public forum on the proposed town plan revisions, you'll know my concerns on this count have only deepened, but rather than beat a dead horse again, here's a positive agenda perhaps the Planning Commission, Selectboard, or (more appropriately?) an ad hoc committee could pursue:

Let's develop a smart growth plan for Route 5 South which balances commercial development, residential and recreational uses, and establishes clear rules for all these uses that are modestly aimed to guide future development in a transparent and responsible manner.

Here are some questions for that effort to grapple with - in no particular order:

1. Wouldn't a community-supported sewer access for a Route 5 South commercial district -- designed to support and facilitate what the community decides are appropriate commercial uses and densities -- be better than a privately funded and conceived sewer extension created to support a single parcel within that commercial district?

2. Shouldn't there be a conscious effort to plan for and design build-out scenarios for this commercial district that might help manage the increase in vehicular traffic that will surely result and avoid the sprawl/congestion that often occur when this type of development is pursued ad hoc by individual land owners?

3. If the town adopts a commercial district development plan, sewer access and the increased density/development value of those parcels zoned commercial in that district will be a windfall to current owners. Shouldn't the town tap this one time windfall to establish a transfer of development rights system that might be used to offset the loss of development capacity our town plan seeks to impose on rural land owners in the name of open space, conservation goals and scenic routes?

4. Wouldn't a deliberate effort to create a sensible commercial district in this specific location be a useful acid test for our existing land use regulations so we can wrestle with existing and potential uses against what those regulations actually permit? For example, would our farmer's market be permitted under our existing regulations if it wasn't already there?

5. Shouldn't the Upper Valley Events Center be rezoned commercial so they can drop the facade of being a grandfathered quasi-commercial/educational use in a zoned residential district and get on with the business of being a business?

6. Above all, isn't the entire point to balance individual land owner development interests with community development interests? That can only be done with a transparent and deliberate conversation about the competing interests involved.

King Arthur Flour -- for reasons they can best explain -- has pursued this development below the radar to the degree they have been allowed to do so. Considering the listserv references to "anti-growth" and "anti-business" townspeople living in the past, they may have felt it wise to do so. I think this is unfortunate.

First, I don't see how "anti-growth" and "anti-business" townspeople living in time warps ever come around without an opportunity to be heard and to hear out "pro-growth" "pro-business" and modern points of view. We're all taxpayers after all and many of us imagine ourselves living here for decades to come. Don't disenfranchise those with whom you disagree -- whatever satisfaction it may confer in the short term, it just doesn't work in the long run.

Second, if an ad hoc King Arthur sewer extension goes through against substantial opposition, it's the next ad hoc development on Route 5 South that will pay the price -- hardly good planning or smart growth.

Letter to Selectboard re: Point of Order

March 24, 2010

To the Selectboard -- Town of Norwich:

I was very troubled by the Moderator’s announcement -- made at Town Meeting this year -- that no discussion of pending litigation would be permitted that evening.

When we reached the warned article concerning “other business” I rose to question the legal authority that might prevent us from discussing pending litigation at Town Meeting.

In response, the Moderator read the following letter, received from the Secretary of State’s Office:

Unless there is a warned article on the warning, which I would doubt, the moderator should rule any attempt to discuss litigation as not germane and out of order.

If voters want to ask its selectboard about pending litigation, the proper request would be to the Chair of the board to place it on a board agenda.  Again, I would expect that the town attorney may advise the board that pending litigation cannot be discussed with the public.

Best Regards,

Kathleen  S. DeWolfe
Director of Elections & Campaign Finance
Office of the Secretary of State

After further correspondence with Kathleen DeWolfe and researching the relevant Vermont statutes, I believe her advice in this instance was a matter of misunderstanding on her part and incorrect as a matter of law.

I am writing today to clarify what I believe to be the governing law for our Town Meeting. I further ask the Selectboard to publicly disavow the substance and implication of the Moderator’s announcement at this year’s Town Meeting as an improper restraint on our right, as townspeople, to discuss the town’s business at our annual Town Meeting.

At the outset, three points:

First, this year’s Moderator, Terry Boone, is a friend and I am confident his ruling in this matter was a good faith response to the apparent authority of the communication from the Secretary of State’s Office. I am challenging the authority of the communication, not in any way denigrating the Moderator in this instance.

Second, I have no dog in the Bragg Hill assessment fight. I had no intention to address that litigation at Town Meeting or here today. I am only interested in defending the right of Norwich residents -- pro and con -- to discuss that and any other town business at our Town Meeting.

Third, as I stated at Town Meeting when questioning the Moderator, I believe it would be wise for Selectboard members and town officials party to any pending litigation to refrain from commenting during any Town Meeting discussion of pending litigation. I believe the Selectboard should state as much publicly if such a discussion occurs in the future. While it may be uncomfortable for these town officials to sit silently by while these discussions take place, it is the townspeoples’ business to consider town policy if they so choose. This is a fundamental democratic right integral to the entire concept of Town Meeting and I find it ominous there has been so little reaction to its curtailment.

At a Special Town Meeting on July 2, 1983, the townspeople of Norwich adopted voting by Australian ballot for all town and school warrant articles.  The article authorizing Australian balloting itself stated that Town Meeting would be held the night prior to voting "for discussion only of the various articles on the warning agenda."  

Since that time, our practice has been to hold Town Meeting on the Monday night before Tuesday voting. Our Town Meeting is presided over by a moderator who -- up until this year -- ends the Monday evening session by adjourning or recessing Town Meeting until the following morning when voting takes place. This is all consistent with existing Vermont law, specifically 17 VSA §2640(b) which states,

When a town so votes, it may thereafter start its annual meeting on any of the three days immediately preceding the first Tuesday in March at such time as it elects and may transact at that time any business not involving voting by Australian ballot or voting required by law to be by ballot and to be held on the first Tuesday in March. A meeting so started shall be adjourned until the first Tuesday in March.

and 17 VSA §2640(c) which further states,

Notwithstanding section 2508 of this title [limiting proximity of electioneering to polling places], public discussion of ballot issues and all other issues appearing in the warning, other than election of candidates, shall be permitted on that day at the annual meeting, regardless of the location of the polling place.

This is also consistent with 17 VSA §2680(g) which states,

Whenever a municipality has voted to adopt the Australian ballot system of voting on any public question or budget, except the budget revote as provided in subsection (c) of this section, the legislative body shall hold a public informational hearing on the question by posting warnings at least 10 days in advance of the hearing in at least two public places within the municipality and in the town clerk's office. The hearing shall be held within the 10 days preceding the meeting at which the Australian ballot system is to be used. The hearing under this subsection may be held in conjunction with the meeting held under subsection 2640(c), in which case the moderator shall preside.

Together, these statutes recognize that a town such as Norwich, after adopting Australian balloting, may combine the “public informational hearing” required under 2680(g) above with an extension of Town Meeting to any of the three days immediately preceding actual voting as per 2640(b) and (c), or in our case, to the night prior to voting.

Read together, the statutes clearly anticipate that our Monday evening Town Meeting “may transact at that time any business not involving voting; (§2640(b))” shall permit “public discussion of ballot issues and all other issues appearing in the warning, other than election of candidates;” (§2640(c)) and shall include “a public informational hearing on [any public question or budget]” entrusted to voting by Australian ballot (§2680(g)).

It might be argued that the more specific provisions of 2640(c), perhaps limiting discussion to “ballot issues and all other issues appearing in the warning” could be construed to limit the discussion of pending litigation such as was argued this year, on the grounds that there was no specific warned article questioning pending litigation. This argument fails for several reasons.

First, the preceding section, 2640(b), clearly anticipated that participants at Town Meeting held the night prior would have the authority to “transact at that time any business not involving voting.” Unless Subsection C explicitly limited the scope of the preceding subsection, that broader statement of authority should be given effect.

Moreover, 2640(c) is clearly intended to carve out an exception to the provisions of 2508 which would otherwise forbid political debate of these matters in the same place where voting by Australian ballot takes places. As such, it is simply not concerned with the broad statement of authority made in 2640(b) and thus cannot be intended to constrain it.

Lastly, this year, as in the past, we traditionally include a warned article -- Article 26 this year -- to “[t]ransact any other business that may legally come before the annual Norwich Town Meeting.” Therefore, even if we were somehow constrained to discussing only those “issues appearing in the warning,” we have the authority to discuss “any other business” under this warned article.

To conclude, I cannot find any legal basis to restrict our rights, as townspeople, to discuss pending litigation or any other town business at our Town Meeting.

The opinion stated by the Secretary of State’s Office addresses whether a matter not specifically warned is germane -- an important concept where articles are voted from the floor and adequate public notice of what is to be voted is a concern. We vote by Australian ballot. I discuss this further at http://norwichnavel.blogspot.com/2010/03/point-of-order.html and will spare you that repetition here.

Unless the Selectboard can offer specific legal authority to the contrary, I ask the Selectboard to publicly disavow the Moderator’s Town Meeting admonition regarding pending litigation and reaffirm our right, as voters, to discuss town business at Town Meeting, even where town officials may be constrained from participating in those discussions.

School Choice and Taxes

I can't help noting the irony of Eileen's post this AM: "Willow School K-3 Open House Sunday" juxtaposed upon much hand-wringing at Town Meeting over falling enrollment at Marion Cross School (and our similarly ironic relief that Norwich' proportionate share of Dresden taxes is lower due to fewer Norwich kids in Dresden schools).

Knowing Eileen and knowing the two excellent teachers behind the Willow School, I think it's important to recognize that MCS is not and cannot be the one-size-fits-all best option for all our residents' children. Parents have many choices, including home schooling. Before criticizing those families who choose private school alternatives to MCS, it's worth considering the odd injustice those families face paying private tuition on top of paying their property taxes supporting MCS.

Basing public education funding on local property taxes raises all kinds of strange inequities, particularly as a greater proportion of our school budgets are dictated by decisions made far beyond our own community. A less obvious, but ultimately more difficult, problem is how deeply invested we are in a model for public education that dates back a century ago and may be reaching its legal and fiscal limits.

On the legal front, the U.S. Supreme Court's 2002 decision in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris exposed the tenuous legal principles limiting school voucher programs. Voucher advocates for both religious and secular private schooling have been aggressively litigating to pry the door opened by Zelman wide open. A logical conclusion for this line of cases -- woven together with advocacy for school funding based more broadly than local property taxes -- is very likely a system based on vouchers for all children and our public schools being but one of any number of competitors for those voucher-supported students.

On the fiscal side here in Vermont, it's hard not to be discouraged at the local costs incurred by the principle of equal education opportunity enunciated in Brigham, codified in Act 60 and modified further in Act 68. The political pressure to limit local authority over spending appears to be growing as more voters question the statewide school funding formula. It's probably simply a matter of time before Montpelier and any number of other state capitols demand and get the authority to negotiate union contracts statewide on cost containment and insurance purchasing power grounds. At that point, our local school are no longer local schools in the current sense; they'll be state schools and local private schools may reflect local education values more accurately.

The bottom line is we're in a mess that is only partially due to our CLA, the current economy, and our own decisions. I was distressed to hear the accusations back and forth at Town Meeting implying bad faith on the part of volunteer committee and board members; suggesting that votes made on fiscal grounds expressed a lack of support for education; or that our budget issues could best be addressed by teachers taking voluntary pay cuts. The problems we face aren't that simple and the solutions certainly won't be that easy.

Point of Order

I have a question that I hope listserv readers might help me understand from this evening's information Town Meeting.

At the outset, we were admonished by the Moderator that there was to be no discussion of pending litigation. Any attempt to raise an issue of pending litigation would be ruled non-germane and cut off. I don't have any dogs in any litigation currently before the Selectboard so this didn't impact me personally, but it bothers me to be told the citizens of this town cannot raise concerns about pending litigation at an informational town meeting. When the traditional "other business" article was read, I rose to ask the Moderator what the legal basis for this gag order might be. He read a memo from the Secretary of State's office stating the issues of pending litigation not warned in an article is not germane, so must be raised at a Selectboard meeting where it can be placed on the Selectboard's agenda.

I think this is an incorrect statement of the law when applied to informational town meetings, but I'm interested to hear any defense of this rule.

"Germaneness" as a procedural concept for meetings run pursuant to Roberts Rules, applies to amendments to warned articles. The idea is to avoid having a warned article amended so drastically that it no longer expresses what the original article was meant to raise. A non-germane amendment risks depriving voters of having a reasonable opportunity to know what articles would be voted on at town meeting. An example would be a warned article asking whether to reduce the Town Manager's salary by 5% being amended at town meeting to ask whether the town should do away with a town manager form of government entirely. Voters have the right to know -- weeks in advance -- the scope of questions raised in the warned articles so they can decide how to they wish to vote and whether they even feel the need to show up.

We in Norwich did away with voting town meetings some time ago. Our town meeting is now strictly informational with no ability to vote, let alone amend, a warned article. The Secretary of State's opinion on pending litigation and the concept of germaneness don't make much sense in the context of a purely informational town meeting. While it may be foolish for a selectboard member to comment on pending litigation during an informational town meeting, it seems absurd to me to limit the townspeople's right to question the costs or benefits of pending litigation.

Academic and arcane, right?

Not really.

Later, during the school budget portion of the meeting, one resident spoke of the need for greater transparency in special education expenditures. There has been a struggle for several years now at the school board and SAU level over special education policy. To some, it appears the SAU has been particularly aggressive in litigating out-of-district placement issues (generally residential programs for young people who need services that exceed the capacities of our schools) -- referred to as "extraordinary special education expenditures" in the school budget. Litigation of these matters is particularly fraught as they invariably involve a young person in crisis, their family struggling to deal with the child's crisis, and the school district trying to balance budgets against the indeterminate potential for that child to harm his/her self or others. Real lives, real risks, real suffering in our schools, in our community, and sometimes a six-digit "extraordinary expense" figure in our school budget.

The SAU has employed a prominent special education attorney for several years now who has strenuously challenged many (most? all?) out-of-district placement requests made by parents of young people in our district. Is she doing a good job? Is she saving us money, curtailing illegitimate requests and making sure the districts' taxpayers' rights and interests are being protected? Or is she doing a poor job, milking the district for legal fees and simply prolonging the fiscal and emotional distress of the families involved when an out-of-district placement might have made more sense from the outset?

Now go ask the SAU or our school boards for our litigation expenses to contest out-of-district placements over the past year, five years, or past decade. Ask our school administrators and school board what our district policy is in determining whether to accept or challenge an out-of-district placement. You'll run into a wall of privacy concerns and find, as a result, that a significant portion of our school budget operates within a veritable black box. There aren't necessarily any villains here, just very difficult issues which no one seems at liberty to discuss in any significant way.

Yet, if I were a parent of a child needing services beyond what a traditional classroom allows, I would find the school budget discussions before voters at informational town meeting absolutely chilling. Special Education is an expense line. Extraordinary out-of-district placements are a fiscal setback. Can't I ask how much money our taxpayers are paying lawyers to litigate out-of-district special ed placements? Can't I ask how much money our school administrators and school boards feel they've saved us by defeating improper requests? What if I think our litigation posture is short-sighted and our attorneys may be milking the SAU or town for fees? Non-germane? How do we inform voters about our budgets without disclosing litigation expenses, policies that may predispose us to inordinate litigation, or allowing voters to express general opinions about whether they feel a matter in litigation makes sense for the town?

A year ago, those at informational town meeting heard individuals argue both sides of pending (still pending) property appraisal litigation. What's changed and when did speaking one's mind about town business and taxpayer expense become non-germane?