Oak Bluffs concludes four-part meeting

By Steve Myrick
Published: April 17, 2008

Cantankerous, contentious, but ultimately compliant. That's one way to describe the mood of Oak Bluffs voters during a special town meeting and an annual town meeting that stretched over four evenings. Seasoned political observers said they could not remember a town meeting continued so long in Oak Bluffs, or any other Island town.

Voters approved a 7.5 percent increase in the town's operating budget, and approved two Prop. 2.5 override questions for school spending. The town meeting decisions require confirmatory votes in a special election, whose date has not yet been determined.

Voters demanded, and got, a line-by-line explanation of the town's proposed $22.5-million operating budget, which consumed more than three hours of debate. To some it was agonizing in its minutia, to others too short on both time and detail, and to several a healthy sign of grass roots democracy.

"It's going on and on and on and on," said selectman Duncan Ross, summing up his thoughts after the third night of the meeting. "I can tell people are frustrated. They are venting, as well they should, but when it comes to the votes, it's not close." Despite a determined minority of squeaky wheels that reached a tense and unruly cacophony at times, in the end, voters gave town officials all the money they asked for, and more.

Voter sentiment was perhaps best summed up by two nautical analogies made during the long and prickly debate.

"I feel like we're on a boat going through rocky waters, and someone yells out 'hey look, there's a rainbow,' and everybody runs to starboard," said David Wilson.

"This is a financial crisis in the country, in the state, and the town," responded Barbara Hoyle. "I would say to you there is a perfect storm on the horizon, and if you don't pay attention, we'll all go under."

Night 1 (3.5 hours)

A total of 335 voters streamed into the Martha's Vineyard Regional High School performing arts center to start the action. They rejected a Proposition 2.5 override question to pay for town employees' future retirement health benefits, dissected proposed salary increases for non-union town workers totaling more than $80,000, and batted around a proposal for new baseball fields for more than an hour.

Night 2, (3.75 hours)

Open rebellion seized the floor after one voter proposed folding the school funding overrides back into the budget and then cutting every department by 1.9 percent. After nearly two hours of debate, that measure was defeated, but voters singled out more than 80 budget line items to dispute. The 247 voters who attended completed work on only two articles.

Night 3 (4 hours)

Voters, 258 of them, finished the long examination of budget line items, and added $57,300 to restore funding for lifeguards, while approving override questions to fund large increases in school spending. Community Preservation Act (CPA) spending sparked a new row.

Night 4 (1.75 hours)

Voters wrapped up about 13 hours of debate by completing work on CPA appropriations. They voted down a zoning change that would have allowed a 60-foot tower, instead of a 50-foot tower, on the new Martha's Vineyard Hospital. A total of 95 voters attended.

Limits and levies

In a room packed with many teachers and school employees directly affected by Proposition 2.5 override questions, voters overwhelmingly approved two articles to fund large increases in spending for the Oak Bluffs School, and the town's share of educating students at the Martha's Vineyard Regional High School.

Proposition 2.5, the tax limiting law that restricts overall annual budget increases to a maximum of 2.5 percent, was the buzz around town in the months leading up to town meeting.

On the third night of town meeting, voters approved a $157,294 override question for the increase in costs assessed by the Martha's Vineyard Regional High School. Also approved was a $236,119 override for spending increases at the Oak Bluffs School. Both questions must go before town voters as a ballot question. A special election has not yet been scheduled, but is likely to take place in late May.

The financial advisory board and the board of selectmen settled on a strategy of splitting increases in school spending off to override questions, though budget proposals of many departments exceeded the 2.5 percent limit.

"They're putting us between a rock and a hard place," said voter Brian Hughes. "The rock is our children, and the hard place is our seniors. I think this is the wrong way to fund our schools. It should be in the budget."

Financial advisory board members said the school funding was split away from the operating budget because the school committee and school officials failed to provide enough information for them to make a reasoned judgment about the large increases.

"We attempted to gain information about class size," said advisory board member Peter Palches. "We couldn't get that from the high school. There has been considerable criticism of the high school for continuing to increase its budget in the face of declining enrollment."

On the first night of the session, voters rejected an article asking to set aside $250,000 to pay for the post-retirement health benefits of town workers. A recent actuarial study shows the town will not have nearly enough money to fund those benefits when its workers retire.

Town officials are now faced with two choices. They can opt not to fund the liability, or fund it out of the general operating budget by making cuts in other departments. If they choose not to fund the future health benefits, new accounting standards require the town to show the liability on its balance sheet, a factor that could damage its credit rating.

Rebellious line

The second night of the annual town meeting saw a grass roots revolt from the floor, triggered by an amendment offered by Mr. Hughes. He proposed eliminating the need for school override questions, by mandating that every department, including schools, cut its budget by 1.9 percent.

"The referee at this point," said moderator David Richardson, "signals for a two-minute commercial so he can think." After a 10-minute huddle with selectmen, financial advisory board members, and town counsel, he ruled the amendment in order. Town officials squirmed as the idea seemed to catch fire, causing an audible buzz through the crowd.

"I thought at this time to raise our taxes could be burdensome for the elderly," said Mr. Hughes. "I thought that we could share the pain equally. Each department would go about how they would reduce their budget. There are a number of budgets that have huge increases. They didn't put those on overrides, because you would never vote for them."

Each speaker, with each point made, seemed to sway the room one way or the other. Selectman Greg Coogan, may have carried the day with the last word, a quiet but forceful appeal.

"I'm thinking of decisions many of you may have made late at night, maybe after imbibing one or two, making decisions that you regretted in the morning," said Mr. Coogan. "Everything sounds good, but the process is subverted. The concept makes sense, but the process seems rushed and not carefully thought out. The process is set up to be done right, so that we don't wake up with a hangover, and we may be setting up a hangover. You're making a decision with a blindfold on. I think it's quick and foolhardy."

After the amendment was defeated on a voice vote, town meeting turned to the town's $22.5 million operating budget. Voters challenged more than 80 line items. Many decried the lack of detail in the budget, demanding explanations for many line items simply labeled "other charges and expenses," some of which approached half of the department's total budget.

Though there was much debate, every single line item was eventually approved. Some of the voters who squawked most loudly about the budget increases spearheaded an attempt to add money to the proposed spending plan. They successfully restored $57,300 to the Parks and Recreation department budget, to pay the salaries of summer lifeguards. The action will require an override question on the special election ballot, because it pushed the operating budget over the 2.5 percent limit.

A say in pay

Salary hikes for non-union town employees sparked heated debate on the second night. The town was asked to implement a plan to make employee salaries competitive with those of workers in similar towns, based on a recently completed compensation study. Implementation of the study meant raises totaling more than $80,000 for the coming budget year.

"Some employees are so hideously underpaid," said selectmen chair Kerry Scott, "that to bring them to the mean, it takes this kind of money."

"I really have a problem with this," said one voter. "I think I speak for many senior citizens, who are concerned about where their next meal is coming from, that have to pay their bills."

Acting up

Community Preservation Act (CPA) funding triggered long and passionate discussion on two fronts.

A $400,000 appropriation was requested for the Bradley Square affordable housing project. Many who lived in neighborhood, which has come to be known as the arts district, spoke forcefully in favor of the $5 million project which would create 10 affordable living spaces, including four designed for artist studios. But other neighbors objected to the scope of the project. It was finally approved by an overwhelming voice vote.

Voters were asked to rescind a $200,000 appropriation to build new baseball facilities at Veira Park, and allocate the same amount for facilities on the Leonardo property, purchased originally for future expansion of the wastewater facility.

Voters approved the action, but not before vehement opposition from among others who thought the town needed more lacrosse fields, who thought the land should be used for affordable housing, or for tourist shuttle parking.

Also approved were $200,000 to restore the Ocean Park bandstand, $100,000 for restoration of the Tabernacle cupola, $42,000 for rental assistance.

Tower trouble

On the final evening of town meeting, with most of the money articles behind them, voters found only one more item to stir debate. They were asked to change zoning bylaws that restrict the height of the new Martha's Vineyard Hospital to 50 feet. The architect's design includes a tower structure approaching 60 feet. The measure won a majority of votes, but failed to achieve the two-thirds majority needed to change a bylaw.