Board of Selectmen January 27, 2014 My Comments

Board of Selectmen January 27, 2014

Now that we have a consultant reviewing the Selectmen’s Office, it is time for the consultant to observe the need for a professional Town Manager. All the consultants in the past have recommended that Simsbury should institute a Town Manager for our government. With the stock market losing over 600 points last week, we need professional guidance and long term planning. A Town Manager has the temperament and intellectual capacity to guide the town with decreased revenues, reduced Grand List and wasting taxpayer money on political lobbying groups.   Would anyone go to a general practitioner for a heart transplant? Probably they would try to get to the best physician with experience to deliver the best results. Would the person want to have a pseudo surgeon for the heart transplant? Probably not. So why should the taxpayers be satisfied with a high maintenance pseudo Town Manager to  deliver our services?  I would urge this board to place the Town Manager issue on the agenda for discussion and vote.

It appears that we will be bottom fishing for a Financial Director since the town did not use the free Government Finance Officers of Connecticut (GFOA) website, which all professionals use for employment. Although First Selectman Mary Glassman sent me an email to debunk my allegations, there appears to be no listings for the Town of Simsbury on the GFOA website. Why the oversight?

I am very pleased that the Board of Finance chose Peter Askham as the Chairman of the Board of Finance in a unanimous vote. 

The Board of Finance suggested that the budgets forwarded to them should reflect a minus 1 decrease, 0 increase, or plus 1 increase in order to become more competitive with the surrounding towns.  I would suggest that the budgets should also reflect with an asterisk placed on money taken out of the General Fund or Grants used to fund the operating budget. The budgets should be transparent and easy to understand.

It appears from my review of the Town’s website there a many deficiencies. The website has a picture of the past Board of Selectmen members, the name of the past  Executive Secretary to the First Selectman and the tax department’s  webpage  has  a bulletin stating that, “ There is a problem with this website’s security certificate. The security certificate presented by this website has expired or is not valid. Security certificate problems may indicate an attempt to fool you or intercept any data you send to the server. We recommend that you close this webpage and do not continue to this website.” Are we having a Target moment?  How secure is this website? Has anyone’s computer been attacked? I would like to have an explanation for this oversight on the security of the website.

I recently reviewed the 2011 990 Tax Return for The Community Farm of Simsbury and noticed that they documented the buildings and equipment on the property with a book value of $238,863. Since they don’t own the buildings should this be reflected in their tax return?

Reflected in the Comprehensive Annual Report for 2013 there are several notations where money was appropriated and not used. On page 42, Construction Commitments for town projects,  Emergency Management Generators were allocated $74,000 and only $77 was used. $77,600 was appropriated for town security and no money was used. Under the Board of Education projects,  there was a surplus $6,877,977 from the Simsbury High School Addition and Alteration that was completed. The school security measures show an authorization for $177,000 and nothing was spent.  There were many expenditures in both budgets that had overruns or surpluses.  What happens to the money in these accounts when the projects are completed?

It appears that the Special Revenue Fund for Simsbury Farms has a $234,950 (p.37) deficit and money was transferred from the General Fund to this fund that was set up to be self sufficient. Why should the taxpayers subsidize the Simsbury Golf Course?  The taxpayers can no longer support an appropriation of $50,000 to a non-governmental agency, the Main Street Partnership.

I am concerned about the huge increases in salary that have been approved by this board. Many of our employees are outstanding in their accomplishments. This board should be mindful that this is the taxpayers money and huge salary increases are not reflective of the increases in the private market. We have a Public Works Director that was employed by the town in 2008 with a salary of $98,500. He received a bonus of $2,000 for outstanding efforts during the storm. His salary was increased in 2012 to $102,000, in 2013 to $106,600, and then again in 2014 to $116,000 as an incentive not to find other employment. However, by increasing the Public Works Director’s salary you increase the salaries to the employees above him and we end up with an untenable spiral in salaries with taxpayers money. Both First Selectman Mary Glassman and Tom Cooke’s salary as Director of Administrative Services, acting as pseudo Town Manager are below the salary of $116,000.    How many of the Simsbury taxpayers have received these increases in their salaries over the years? This board should be mindful of the taxpayers who pay the bills when approving these costly increases.

Recently action was taken by this board to reduce the assessment with an $8,298 reduction in taxes for McLean Affiliates. Hoffman Enterprises Limited Partnership reduced their assessment to $143 per square foot for their buildings. Will this become the benchmark for all Simsbury buildings?   It appears that if taxpayers lawyer up and challenge their assessment they get their taxes reduced.  When taxes are reduced by one entity the taxpayers have to make up the difference.

Recently there was an article in the Hartford Courant addressing an opinion column by West Hartford’s teacher, Elizabeth Natale. Her concerns hive highlighted many of the concerns of Simsbury’s teachers in the Annual Report that I had received from an FOI request.  Having new initiatives thrown into the school system without appropriate training is doomed to failure for the teachers and the students.  Many schools have embraced the Pearson software for student assessment. It appears that this program is another cookie-cutter approach to teaching and assessing teachers. . Children are not robots and one size does not fit all. Before these programs are embraced,  I would suggest that our Board of Education evaluate these new initiatives and determine whether these initiatives  have positive or negative effects on our teachers and students.