http://eagletimes.villagesoup.com/p/selectboard-oks-social-service-appropriations-policy/1426899
Selectboard OKs social service appropriations policy
By ALLAN STEIN | Oct 13, 2015
SPRINGFIELD — Social service agencies making funding requests at town meeting next year may not have to submit a signed petition under a revised policy the Springfield Selectboard approved Monday.
The board voted 3-1 to approve the social service appropriation policy on a one-year trial.
Selectman George T. McNaughton cast the opposing vote after a motion he made to put the matter to a town-wide ballot vote failed without a second.
Town Clerk Barbara A. Courchesne said the amended policy will make it easier to request social service agency appropriations at town meeting by not having to obtain 300 signatures in a signed petition.
However, this policy applies only to those agencies that are seeking amounts equal to or less than the previous year, Courchesne said.
"Those social service agencies that have had an appropriation request approved at the most recent annual town meeting are not required to submit a petition for an article requesting an appropriation if the amount requested is the same or less than the amount approved by voters in the previous year," the policy states.
Social service agencies that make larger requests, or seek a first-time appropriation, will be required to present a signed petition with 300 signatures. The names on the petition would then be verified by the town clerk.
McNaughton said the issue should be left to the voters as it affects the town budget process.
"This particular decision goes directly to the taxation process. It means that an agency can completely avoid the selectboard," said McNaughton.
Selectman Stephanie N. Thompson said she did not believe the matter needed to be put to a referendum vote.
"To say that the board is wiped out of it completely is inaccurate on this issue," she said.
The policy applies to appropriation requests for social service agencies and programs subject to state law.
Such programs include, but are not limited to, transportation, nutrition, child care, medical care and other rehabilitative services.
I have to agree with George on this one. I believe it is up to the taxpayers NOT the board. So my questiin is this...George what optuon as taxpayers do we have to get this issue changed or overturned
ReplyDeleteWould it not be easier if the town just bought a money making machine from the feds. The 100 dollar presses cost just a bit more that the 50's.
ReplyDeleteThe Town of Springfield Municipal Offices only have one kind of rubber stamp when it comes to dole outs: "APPROVED".
ReplyDeleteThe "social agencies" just got another FREE LUNCH from the town without having to work for it.
The taxpayers just got screwed again. Or, as is usually the case in Springfield: SNAFU!
The taxpayers have the decision, before and now. No one has taken anything away from the Selectboard. When was the last time the Selectboard tried to deny a legitimately endorsed petition. If you don't like it, don't vote for it. But, of course, many of you don't bother to vote.
ReplyDeleteTony, Springfield has reached a critical mass of parasites that selfishly vote in each and every article that remotely benefits them. The ONLY gate valve is to require increasing petition signatures. If the article is truly worthy, citizenry will eagerly endorse it.
DeleteThe Selectboard, School Board, Spfld on the Dole, and SRDC all need to stop the fruitless cheer leading and collectively admit, Springfield is an over taxed, dilapidated, low income haven for parasites. No successful, hard-working, professional young family would consider relocating here, nor can any retail or technology enterprise flourish because of such demographic.
Bottom line is, Springfield sucks and it's only getting worse with this revised policy.
Very well put and I totally agree.
DeleteSpringfield has terminal cancer at this point in its life and a cure is not to tax it to death. New leadership with family values is needed and a love of community as their core value.
i think it's time the taxpayers start voting the budget down,every year the town gets what it wants,i think they could a lot better on the budget,but if it keeps getting passed,why try to save money
ReplyDeleteSpecial Appropriations are just that Special Appropriations, they are not included in the Budget. If you vote down the budget, it has no impact on the Special Appropriations -- the Selectboard does not have control over the Special Appropriations that is the whole point of this argument.
DeleteIt is up to every citizen to carefully scrutinize exactly what each special appropriation is actually paying for. Neither the Selectboard nor the Schoolboard have any control over what these special appropriations are being used for. There is no oversight by any elected board as to what these Organizations are doing. We have high taxes in Springfield and both the elected boards have to prioritize and juggle to try and get programs and projects done, and they are the ones blamed for the high tax rate, yet around a quarter million goes out in a process they have little control over. Some of which goes for things associated with problematic housing they may oppose. It is true that the Selectboard has no control over the petition process either, but we do not need to strip away even that little step and effort.
ReplyDeleteAnd many of you who are complaining are the ones that use these services that are provided. So where does the monies come from if not those who can help? Are the agencies that provide the services supposed to just disappear and then the burden is on who? Who will take care of the ones who really need the help? I am not talking about the shiftless and chronic abusers but what about the women who get abused and have to leave and find a place to live and get some help until they can get on their feet? Or the person who loses their job through no fault of their own and needs a bit of assistance? Or those who can only get work at the only places hiring right now, McD's or DD and minimum wage with only 15 hours a week and they have a child/children to support? What do you say we do for them? Kick them to the curb and let them fend for themselves? Wow is this town so full of compassion for those in need! Makes me "proud" to live here!
ReplyDeleteI say, Great Job Springfield Shows you care about those in this town needing some help and supporting the agencies that step up and give that help! I for one say Thank you!
Springfield has a very strong safety net, so strong that it is actually acting as a magnet to the area by those who are dependent upon the safety net. The question here is whether we provide not for profits which are not subject to any form of local oversight by the Town Government taxing power for their budgets. Some of these agencies are already receiving State and Federal Aid, and most of the individuals being referred to are already covered by various aid programs. Again, the citizens need to very seriously question what these appropriations are going to be used for in the community.
DeleteGeorge, please investigate RSVP; for two years in a row, they have taken the appropriation money and immediately closed the office!
DeleteRE: "We have high taxes in Springfield..........we do not need to strip away even that little step and effort." and, "acting as a magnet to the area by those who are dependent upon the safety net."
DeleteGeorge, I can not express how refreshing it is that someone on the Board actually gets "it." Further, that you would engage your historically silent constituents on this forum. Constituents that have watched this town turn into a human cesspool of addicts, unwed welfare mothers, drop outs, disability scammers, welfare bums, and parole housing for for a legion of pedophiles, drug dealers, felons, and other associated sociopaths. All with their hand out for more of my family's already diminishing take-home pay.
What the hell is so wrong with demanding these parasites use voluntary fund raising if their cause is indeed so worthy?
8:27, there is a flaw in your argument, in the "So where does the monies come from if not those who can help?". A voted in appropriation is tacked onto the property tax - which is not selective about 'who can help'. To be selective, the donations must be individually voluntary.
Delete8:27 offers us the usual hyperbole, which is based on anything but the facts. It's more of the "woe is me" emotional tripe that always magnifies the alleged problem with the intent of eliciting feelings of guilt from those whose pockets will get picked yet again for completely illegitimate reasons by a taxing authority run amok.
ReplyDeleteThere are already a plentiful amount of governmental and charitable agencies to turn to for assistance without these little purveyors of "boutique" social care sticking their hands in the till and grabbing public funds without any sort of accountability.
8:27 needs to grow up, get a job, and start paying some taxes before they weigh in with their sob story two cents.
8:27 has a job and is very grown up! 64 years old in fact and very well educated. Has never gone on any assistance and has had a job and paid taxes since 17 years old! So you want all the charitable agencies to go away and we just use the governmental ones? I happen to know that most of the local "charitable" agencies asking for funds are under regulations and auditing on a regular basis. from the state to federal level. Only someone who is not informed or educated would think otherwise. Check YOUR facts 12:03! There is all kinds of accountability.
ReplyDeleteGeorge, don't you need a quorum to discuss select board topics?
ReplyDeleteNo.
DeleteOK, I agree with your stance on the issue.
DeleteThere should be an defined amount in which anything over requires a vote. Giving out $50.00 is different that $5000.00.
Delete$5000.00 (or whatever) should require a vote from the people.
These approriations DO require a vote. The change allows the agencies to get ON THE BALLOT without the 300 signatures, but it's still ON THE BALLOT. Don't like it? Vote no.
DeleteAnonymous 8:29. I don't think you understand the issue. The issue before the Selectboard was whether we should exempt social service agencies from gathering signatures on the petition. The citizens still have to vote on the special appropriation at Town Meeting. But special appropriations are normally voted in favorably by the citizens, its kind of a tradition to vote for them. You really have to work at messing up your reputation to be voted down. We have one big example of that in Springfield. But normally they get voted in without any in depth scrutiny as to what they are doing and how they are doing it and whether we are paying for things that they are already paid to do by the State and Federal Governments.
Deletelets do this,take the special appropriations out of the budget,let all the bleeding hearts make a donation to the groups of their choice,then everybody will be happy,well except the groups that want the big bucks
ReplyDeleteOkay, will say this one more time. Special Approriations are not part of the budget. That is partly what this fight is about. Special Approriations for social service agencies are special appropriations which means they are outside the budget, and not part of the monies which the Selectboard supervises. They go directly to the social service agencies without any oversight and are not subject to Selectboard approval. The only way they are regulated is if the citizens vote them down at Town meeting, and special appropriations to social service agencies are not commonly voted down.
DeleteEvery agency should have the right to ASK for appropriations without having to spend their time collecting signatures and taking verbal abuse from random people who are upset about things. Getting on the ballot does not mean the money is awarded.
ReplyDeleteThe voters can always vote against giving them money. Everyone can vote their conscience. I just hope that when you, or a loved one may need services, they are available. There are many worthy organizations who request money. It is up to the system who qualifies for the services. The chronic abusers should be eliminated at this level.