This is the third in a three-post series on the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) requirement that Newton pose separate debt-exclusion ballot questions for two school renovation/replacement projects.
Perhaps most frustrating about the MSBA’s policy requiring separate ballot questions for the Angier and Cabot school projects is how the policy extends the impact of Proposition 2-1/2. Prop 2-1/2 isn’t going away anytime soon, despite its deleterious impact on Newton and other municipalities. But, in shaping its policies and how they are implemented, the MSBA could choose to minimize or maximize the role of Prop 2-1/2.
The animating force behind Prop 2-1/2 is a desire to make it more difficult for municipalities to raise taxes. On the narrow policy question — separate ballot questions or not — the MSBA has aligned with the pro-Prop 2-1/2 position: raise the hurdle on raising taxes. Alternatively, the MSBA could have — without undermining the basic limitations of Prop 2-1/2 — given municipalities more flexibility. The MSBA has embraced and extended Prop 2-1/2.
If you are fan of Prop 2-1/2, the separate ballot questions requirement is probably a feature, not a bug. But, to those of us who think artificial restraints on the taxing authority undermine representative democracy and hamper the ability of elected officials to address the needs of the city with sufficient flexibility, it’s all bug.
—
To wrap up the series, there are three major problems with the MSBA’s separate ballot question requirement. The requirement:
- Does nothing to meet the policy objectives of transparency and accountability, both of which are ably addressed by other MSBA policies and requirements
- Imposes an extra burden on larger municipalities
- Where the municipality has to seek an override to pay for projects, it adds to the already difficult Prop 2-1/2 hurdles
There is no question that, in response to the Newton North problems, the MSBA has imposed a justifiably more intensive process for municipalities looking for state funding. But, this particular requirement serves no valid policy purpose.
Let Newton decide how it wants to pose the override requests.
This is not an intelligent set of comments. It will lead to unbridled spending which is what Proposition 2 1/2 was formulated to prevent. The separate ballot issue means that, if MSBA says it will put money into a project, the project is desired by the taxpayers of the town and it will go as planned with dedicated funds and will have a completion date. This contrasts to normal operating budgets. If we don’t like MSBA, then we shouldn’t take their money. They’re not forcing us to take it. They just want it used as anticipated, they’d like it done in a spirit of financial responsibility, and they’d like to know that the town wants the project.
Barry– Whose money is it? The MSBA’s money? Where the heck did they get it? I think we both know a lot of that money came from Newton taxpayers like you and me. If residents of Newton go to the polls, and vote to raise our property taxes in order to pay for school construction, it’s the MSBA’s job to help [not hinder] us in the process.
Proposition 2 1/2 is the hurdle. The law prescribes an override as the method by which a community can raise additional property taxes. The law isn’t making this particular distinction between debt exclusion vs. general override. This is an additional hurdle being established by the MSBA. I don’t know about you, Barry, but I’ve got a real problem when a State board [created for the purpose of aiding communities with school construction projects], is allowed to stipulate their preferred form of democratic process, beyond what State Law calls for. The people of Newton should be able to structure an override vote anyway they want, within the parameters of existing law.
Barry,
You are making my point. If you think that Prop 2-1/2 is a good thing, which you do, then MSBA rules that add Prop 2-1/2-like hurdles to Prop 2-1/2 makes good sense. If, like Mike and I, you think Prop 2-1/2 is an unreasonable and inflexible distortion of representative democracy, then adding otherwise unrequired Prop 2-1/2-like hurdles to Prop 2-1/2 makes no sense.
The main point of my post was to point out that Treasurer Grossman is choosing to extend Prop 2-1/2 in a way that is not at all mandated by Prop 2-1/2. That is a significant policy decision that folks out to be aware of.
Sean, we’re not debating the same issues here. Proposition 2 1/2 is one thing. And it was, I think I recall, voted by us, by the rules of our “representative democracy”. Apparently the voters think this is a good thing. No-one seems to be advocating for its repeal.
Mike, saying that the MSBA money came “from Newton taxpayers like you and me” is not relevant. The entire state budget came from us, and from the rest of the taxpayers in the state. This is just a program meant to help towns pay for schools, by supplementing with funds collected by the state, and I’m sure that everyone in the state wants any city or town that uses this money to use it in a responsible way.
With or without MSBA money, a debt-exclusion over-ride is a preferred way to raise money for large capital projects with a limited term of need for the money, though it’s not always done this way.
Barry,
Prop 2-1/2 was established by a referendum — direct democracy — explicitly limiting the authority of municipal legislatures — representative democracy. Feel free to argue the merits of Prop 2-1/2, but it is simply inaccurate to frame it as an instrument of representative democracy.
Count me as one advocating for its repeal.
Okay, Sean, but the referendum is a tool of our “representative democracy”. In fact, as in the marriage amendment that you and Mike hated so much, our representatives saw to it that a referendum-type of vote was never allowed. Just semantics anyway. Bottom line is that the voters who don’t want unbridled spending, such as you and Mike seem to prefer, voted for it. And I for one am happy they did. Over-rides are a way to, again by agreement of the voters of the town affected, to circumvent Prop 2 1/2 when it is deemed to be too restrictive. What could be wrong with that?
While I would be happy to argue the merits of Prop 2-1/2 with you all day, I’m making a much narrower point in my post: on the issue of separate questions, the MSBA could have chosen to add to the Prop 2-1/2 burden or not. They chose to add to it. And, the current Treasurer is not only sticking to it, but defending it.
That’s a very Prop 2-1/2 friendly posture, which, I assume, delights Prop 2-1/2 fans like you. Those of us who aren’t so keen on Prop 2-1/2 are not so delighted.