CC Budget time, Trust Account zero budget

This blog entry is a duplication of a publication posted on Google's "Group Service" used by the Conservation Commission to publish and communicate electronic communications:

Greetings Commissioners,
Last night was the Conservation Commission's turn to defend its budget in front of the Board of Apportionment & Taxation. I believe this was my third year of having to attend this process. As one might imagine, it was a bit of a love fest as everyone is pleased with what the CC does. There was however one SNAFU - and that acronym definately applies.

It isn't within our CC budget's line items, but the Open Space Trust Account (OSTA) is something the Open Space Ordinance calls for us to report on, and is obviously important for us to monitor activity within. Similar to us catching developers not paying their required fee-in-lieu of payments into the account which resulted from subdivision applications, I have caught that the Mayor's proposed budget shows a zero allocation to the OSTA instead of the amount required by ordinance: $250,000.

I was neither given the courtesy of a heads-up for this by the Mayor despite having a chance encounter twice in the past 2 weeks at the local diner - one when Vice Chair Bill Dyer was dining with me, or at two planned meetings that occured during the past month for unrelated staff sessions in his office. The Mayor also did not attach an explanation for such a substantial change to his Proposed Budget as he is required to do by Charter (see p.28 of hyperlink for Sec.7.2 item a) "...and indicating any major changes from the current fiscal year, together with the reasons for such changes,..."). I found out about this when several different people started asking me about it (an Aldermen, and persons on BoA&T). This issue occurred pretty quickly and subsequent to our last CC mtg, so I had to act simply as Chairman administering this.

When I was finished answering the BoA&T's two or three questions for our standard budget items, I turned the tables in asking about why this OSTA budget item was zero instead of the required $250k. I assume nobody, other than those who contacted me as mentioned above, knew what I was talking about because nobody spoke up with an answer. I gave the budget line item number for the OSTA and pointed out this was a violation of existing ordinance. Everyone seemed unaware of the ordinance, as nobody said anything and were looking rather dumb-founded, thumbing thru pages of printouts to find the item I was talking about. Alderman Finn, Olin, Papa and Simonetti were present at this meeting (Anglace arrived after I was finished speaking) and nobody had an answer as to why the change.

I explained that there were known expenditures from contracts/agreements that would occur in fiscal year 08/09 toward Open Space purchases (Soundview Ave payment #2 and #3 motion by the BOA from 2008Feb14) and Development Rights (PDR of JFF Homestead Acres bonding payment) that could rightly and correctly come from the OSTA. Surely those 2 known expenditure items were budgeted somewhere else in the Mayor's proposal. Nobody had that answer either.

I suggested that the Ordinance be followed with money budgeted, appropriated within 45days of the fiscal year, and then expended from the OSTA toward either of the two items mentioned above which everyone knows will exceed $250k. This would not increase spending in anyway, merely adjust between budget line items as sourcing for which known expenditures are required to occur in the coming FY. It finally seemed to sink in, (especially when they realized I wasn't actually asking for any more money to be EXPENDED) and the BoA&T chairman asked me to send him the documentation.

During a bathroom break from the meeting, I spoke with 2 Aldermen who understood my explanation and saw no problem with taking that direction. I attempted to reach the Mayor in advance of this meeting with no success. I did reach him after the meeting via phone during which we had a "vigorous" 6 minute discussion of the subject. The merits of my explanation were not accepted and his rebuttal devolved into recounting his past expenditures and what he has done for open space previously. Before he terminated our conversation (rather abruptly), he indicated that we will now see a future item on the BOA agenda to modify the OSTA Ordinance.

I'm pretty upset about this. I wish I didn't have to publish "dirty laundry" in are usual public forum, but when the Ordinance says to do something, and the Charter says to do something, and the Mayor blatantly violates both - I unfortunately have to bring it to everyone's attention on the BoA&T for correction just as we did for the missing fee-in-lieu of payments with P&Z. As you can imagine, there was a reporter in the audience, and I expect this storyline will spin into a politicized mess. Given other questions I've been getting and having to respond to regarding the recent Soundview Ave purchase (I was asked to speak during the P&Z mtg this week when they gave the 8-24 referral - unanimously), my greater concern is in regard to the effect on the public's perception about Open Space preservation efforts, and possible setbacks towards future acquisitions we have been working toward and are all aware about on CC which I obviously won't reveal here.

My experience has been that a reporter's notes, and presentation of the facts is challenged to fully explain the subject when confined to a paper's collumns and word count (I did answer some reporter questions asked of me outside the auditorium). Trying to clarify the full story is one reason why I'm using a public venue besides what was obviously a public meeting already. I don't have the time to say the same responses to 3 different reporters asking questions for the same story. I instead offer this data source which they can refer to.

I worked for months, spending a tremendous amount of personal time with Alderman Anglace to prepare the OSTA Ordinance and remove ambiguity of what could be expected for the future. You will recall in the process that the motion was given a "non-approval" (veto) letter by the Mayor, and after modification was passed again (hyperlink has BOA segment of their meeting on 2006Sep14). The ordinance was followed in FY 06/07 ($50k, though appropriated late) and 07/08 ($250k). I did have to bird-dog the finance department for the proper timely allocation both years as nobody had told them what the ordinance was requiring.

I take great issue with the amount of time and work I put into such activities, and then seeing it negated by officials with deliberate ignorance under the guise that they meet the "intent". It is disheartening and causes me to question if I am best serving this avocation in my current position.

Note: By nature of a special email address, this message is simultaneously appearing in my Chairman's Media Blog in addition to being published in our Google Group.

Thomas Harbinson