Author: S.D. Plissken

By S.D. Plissken | February 24, 2019

Meet the Candidates Night is to take place tonight, February 24, at 6:00 PM, at the Emma Ramsey Center.

There are actually few choices to be made on this year’s ballot. Most of the candidates are running unopposed.

Running Unopposed

Thomas McDougall and Humphrey Williams are the two candidates running for two seats on the Budget Committee. There is a third seat with no candidate at all.

James M. “Mike” Beaulieu and Sean Skillings are the two candidates running for two seats on the Zoning Board of Adjustment.

Bruce W. Woodruff is the sole candidate for the Cemetery Trustee seat. Miranda Myhre is the sole candidate for Library Trustee. Joseph A. Michaud is the sole candidate for a Planning Board seat. Mackenzie Campbell is the sole candidate for Treasurer. Brittney Leach is the sole candidate for Trustee of the Trust Funds. Michelle Beauchamp is the sole candidate for Town Clerk / Tax Collector.

Barring some upset write-in candidate, these people will hold these seats. Votes by themselves, their spouses, their parents, and their children would be enough to put them in office. That is nothing against them, who have stepped up to do a task, but just don’t take it as much of a “mandate.”

The only contested elections are for a single seat on the Board of Selectmen and a single three-year seat as Fire Chief.

Fire Chief – Three Year Position = Vote for not more than One

Incumbent Nicholas Marique and challenger Stephen D. Duchesneau are vying to be Fire Chief. I am not aware of any published statements issued by either candidate, except perhaps that Mr. Duchesneau’s campaign signs are frequently accompanied by similarly colored ones urging us to “Stop the Spending.”

Board of Selectmen – Three Year Position – Vote for not more than One

The five candidates for the single seat on the Board of Selectmen are Andrew “Andy” Rawson, Adam G. Sturtevant, Billy Walden, James M. “Mike” Beaulieu, and Lawrence D. “Larry” Brown.

You may recognize the names of Andrew Rawson and James M. “Mike” Beaulieu as being two of the three selectmen of the year before last: the 2017-18 year. The third of that year was the current board chairman, Ryan Thibeault.

This is the group that authorized and oversaw the massively flawed valuation of that year. James M. Beaulieu left office early, so did not take a part in the aftermath. Neither then Chairman Andrew Rawson nor then Selectman Thibeault have ever explained what caused the problem – apart from blaming the assessing contractor – or any details of its size and scope, or their role in the problem – either in its making or in offering any proposed solutions.

The current board, which includes then Selectman Thibeault as its current chairman, claimed the unauthorized overages and used the money to blur their own spending increases. Candidate Lawrence D. “Larry” Brown noted approvingly that the law permits this.

Even without the assessment problem, the trio of Rawson, Beaulieu, and Thibeault were right in line with past boards in completely failing to rein in greater-than-inflation budget increases. They were the component parts of yet another failed board – voting unanimously to spend more than we have.

So, Andrew “Andy” Rawson, James M. “Mike” Beaulieu, and, to a lesser extent, Lawrence D. “Larry” Brown, who has held nearly every office except selectman, have all quite a bit of overdue explaining to do. Of all the five candidates, these three most of all would need to demonstrate firm commitments to change – I know, the likely worth of politicians’ promises – before they are again trusted with the keys.

The Question

In terms of this Meet the Candidates Night, there is one fundamental question to be asked.

That question is not “how long have you lived in Milton,” nor is it “by how much will you cut the tax rate,” nor “by how much will you cut the rate of budget increase,” nor whether or not Milton needs “more businesses” to fuel its overspending, nor how might such cuts affect services, nor even “muh community.”  It is much too late for all those standard circumlocutions.

The only meaningful question for these candidates is: By how much will you cut the Town budget?

If, as has been reliably calculated, our current Town budget is half again what it should be, only budget cuts can restore sanity. Not fiddling of a combination of valuation and tax rate, nor level-funding a bloated budget, but cutting the overall budget.

Anyone who cannot answer this simple question in a clear and satisfactory manner can not be trusted with the keys. In effect, they will be telling you – by not answering – that they will be the reliable third vote on future budget and tax increases.

Kick start the change now. Ask the question. Vote only for candidates that can answer it.

References:

Town of Milton. (2019, February). Meet the Candidates. Retrieved from www.miltonnh-us.com/sites/miltonnh/files/agendas/2.24.19_candidates_night_.pdf

By S.D. Plissken | February 10. 2019

We have “on offer” five candidates for the single open seat on the Milton Board of Selectmen. Now, things are arranged currently such that three three-year terms are overlapped or “staggered.” It would take years to completely replace the Board of Selectmen.

We are told that this is to ensure “continuity.” We are assured that someone – usually, two someones – will know always what was done before and why. Institutional memory must preserved.

One might well question that premise. It might make some sort of sense if the memory being preserved were a memory of success, but what if it is a memory of failure that is to be preserved? Well, obviously, one would want to clean house instead.

Sadly, we lack that cleaner option. The most we can hope for is to change out one failure this year and another next year. That could bring about a change for the better, over two years, or we might have to endure these people even longer before relief can occur. Because “continuity.”

At past Candidate nights, a lot of vague twaddle about “community” has been featured. Of course, that sounds good, superficially, but it means less than nothing in practice. There has been made an increasingly false equivalence between the Milton Town government apparatus and the taxpayers it supposedly “represents.” Too often, the “community” actually represented has been that Town government alone. Do not be taken in by vague generalities regarding “community.”

But how then to choose? One might hope that the candidates would distance themselves distinctly from past budget failures. The current selectmen might even see the light. Those that hope to “manage” things should make it crystal clear that they can recognize failure when they see it, and that they intend to make a clean break with the thinking and methods that produced them. To head in the opposite direction.

The philosopher William James once observed that “A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices.”

Now, the burden of clearly breaking with past failures falls most heavily on those that actually participated in past failures. Three of the candidates need to show that they have seen the light,  and will not repeat their past failures. No vague, “going along to get along” talk from them will suffice, no blather about “community.” No simple rearrangement of their prejudices can get the job done.

Last year’s Federal Chained-CPI inflation has been calculated to have been 1.8%. One-sixth of Milton’s retired taxpayers might – I say might – get something approaching that in their Social Security pensions. Any selectman who is not working actively, right from Day One, to keep Town budget increases below that amount of increase, will be working actively against the interests of that elder segment of our “community.”

You are entitled to hear a clear and ringing rejection of any increases above that amount. If a candidate can not so commit themselves, you should pass them over. Better to vote for nobody than to vote for more “continuity” with past failures. Because, at that point, “nobody” represents you.

This pernicious management must end some day, either through electoral change or budgetary collapse. The economist Herbert Stein once observed a simple truth that is often overlooked: “If something cannot go on forever, it will stop.”

So, this will stop at some point. Taxes will come down. Count on it. We might hope that “somebody” – some two of our selectmen – will work for a soft landing instead of a crash. But, either way, it will stop, because it can not continue.

And when the last big spender is gone, when our long Town nightmare ends finally, we may feel then as English poet Walter S. Landor did when the last of the Hanoverian monarchs shuffled off the stage:

George the First was always reckoned
Vile, but viler George the Second;
And what mortal ever heard
Any good of George the Third?
When from Earth the Fourth descended
God be praised! The Georges ended!

Do not vote for one more George.

By S.D. Plissken | February 3, 2019

Mr. Humphrey Williams has thrown his hat into the Budget Committee ring.

I am Humphrey Williams of Micah Terrace, Milton, NH and I am announcing my candidacy for the Milton Budget Committee.

Hello, Mr. Williams.

Williams: The current budgeting “process” in Milton is seriously flawed regarding both the time-frame for developing and finalizing the annual budget, as well as the actual budgeting process itself. Since 2012, with an approved town operating budget of $3,099,684.00, to the proposed 2019 town operating budget of $4,704,012.74, the budget has increased 51.8% for a total of $1,604,328.74. That is an average of 7.4% increase per year. During the same time frame the Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) has only grown 10%, a 1.4% annual average. So, the town operating budget has increased at a rate of 529% above the COLA. If something isn’t done to change the budgeting process and curb these budget increase rates, the residents of Milton and Milton Mills could surely be driven out of our homes. 

Hail, fellow, well met! I mean, yes, precisely. A cumulative increase over years of 51.8% over COLA, i.e., 51.8% over our ability to pay, is over half again what should ever have been allowed.

Let us see, 3/2 x 2/3 = 1. Our Town budget would need to be cut by fully 1/3 to reach normalcy.

And your base figure was from 2012. The problem goes back a decade before that and, consequently, is actually much larger. But you are at least intending to move in the right direction.

The numbers know the way. Listen to their song.

Williams: I retired from Portsmouth Naval Shipyard (PNSY), as the Production Training Superintendent, after 36 years of federal service between the United States Coast Guard and the shipyard itself. During my time at the shipyard, I witnessed first-hand, the change in philosophies from poorly planned budgets and foolishly spending money on problems to sound financial planning and resolving problems to save time and money. It wasn’t easy but, every year our Production Department was tasked with finding ways to reduce costs by as much as 10% or more. We had to find innovative solutions, improve our processes and increase our productivity, while eliminating waste and reducing our overall operating costs. We changed our philosophies, modified our processes and we found ways to improve time and again and that is why PNSY not only survived the base closure in 2005, we became the gold standard for cost-effective, high quality, on-time submarine overhaul and repair and still are today.

Yes, Milton’s situation does have much in common with a base closure. It will not remain open much longer at this rate.

Williams: This is not pointing fingers at individuals, it’s all about improving the process. The budgeting process in Milton can be changed and must be changed. If elected, I plan to work diligently with the various town Department Heads and workers to come up with creative solutions and ways to improve efficiency, while working to reduce operating costs in ways like I did at the shipyard. I also intend to work with the Budget Committee, Board of Selectmen and Department Heads to streamline the budgeting process. It starts by establishing sound fiscal goals that provide for what is needed, while looking at ways of reducing costs. Next, eliminating redundant duplicate budget presentations to separate boards and committees will save time and effort and provide for a more effective and efficient budgeting process. This will enable the budgets to be completed months ahead of the current budgeting process, freeing up valuable time for Department Heads to find even more cost effective and cost saving measures.

Begin with last year’s Chained-CPI, from which Social Security COLA is calculated. (Milton has many retirees). The US Bureau of Labor Statistics put last year’s price inflation, which Milton might take as its red-line, all lights flashing, maximal upper limit Town budget increase, at 1.8%.

Of course, that assumes a “normal” increase of 1.8% (less would be better) from a normal starting point. And you have said already that we are half again over where we should be. So, you need not worry much about any rate of increase on an already unsustainable situation. An increase of even 1.8% over the next year just perpetuates the problem.

“Level funding” has the same sad issues. We cannot live with a “level” cancer. Milton needs to get well again: only cuts, deep ones, rather than any increase of any size, will bring it back towards normalcy. We just have more government than we can afford.

Williams: I ask for your vote in the upcoming election. If you agree with my proposals and want to see changes in the budgeting process and determined effort in reducing operating costs for Milton and Milton Mills, please share this with others and let’s make things better for all of us. Thank you!

Good luck, Mr. Williams. I should warn you. Few there know how to “swim.” And when you try to save someone from drowning, they will frantically grasp on to you. Just to keep the game afloat, just another year. Their crazed notions might drag you down too. Keep your head above water.

References:

Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2019). Table 5. Chained Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (C-CPI-U) and the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U): U.S. City Average, All Items Index. Retrieved from www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.t05.htm

By S.D. Plissken | January 21, 2019

In a prior episode of Let’s Make a Deal, Selectman Lucier objected categorically to this CIP Warrant Article obfuscation:

This sum to come from the fund balance and no amount to be raised from taxation.

His objection arose out of an apparently sudden realization that the fund balance is also taxation. It is just last year’s taxation! The standard phrase endeavored to obscure that reality. It might not be an outright lie, but it is certainly a very close cousin to one.

Selectman Lucier refused to approve any one of the CIP warrant articles that had concluded with the offending phrase, that close cousin to a lie.

Chairman Thibeault: So, the concern when we talked about these last was the way it was worded, and that’s been changed.

Selectman Lucier: That helps.

Thibeault: Are you satisfied with that? [general laughter].

Selectman Lucier: It’s better.

Town Administrator Thibodeau: We had a long talk with [Town attorney] Walter about that and he was just like … I don’t know … he never got what I said … one of our selectmen was very concerned about the wording and he said, ‘Well, can I change it to this?’ and I said, ‘Well, I’m going to give you Andy’s phone number.”

Thibeault: So the new wording is:

‘This appropriation will be funded by the transfer from the fund balance and no additional amount will be raised by taxation.’

Last time, Selectman Lucier sent this order back to the kitchen. He wanted just a soupçon of truth in his word salad. The Town lawyer did insert the synonym “additional,” instead of “new,” as well as introducing some passive-form verbs. But he left out Selectman Lucier’s particular preference: the fig-leafy word “new” in front of the “taxation.”

Thibeault: That’s the new wording, versus I don’t have the old wording …

(Nor does he care, either way. He’s a “process” man). All the kids then looked to Selectman Mikey (who hates everything). Will he tuck into this new word salad?

Lucier: Raised by new taxation?

Well, yes that was the word you had requested last time, but, no, that was not what the Town lawyer has given you.

Thibodeau: He said, “by taxation.” I tried. We kept going back and forth.

Lucier: I was in agreement that it would be no new taxation.

Thibeault: So, if we add the word “new” in there, are we still …

Lucier: Yeah, put it in there.

Thibodeau: If he [the Town lawyer,] tells us, “no,” can I …?

Lucier: Yeah, I’d love to talk to him.

Thibodeau: We’ll add the word “new” in all this.

So, in the end, the BOS agreed to add Selectman Lucier’s “new” verbiage, which proved sufficient to allay his concerns – sufficient to cover his embarrassment, so to speak.

And the BOS went merrily on to approve the pile of CIP warrant articles, with the new “new” wording. Let us see: $197,395.85 in budget increases, $435,500.00 in CIP warrant articles, plus the $500,000.00 needed to paper over the budget increases. That comes to $1,132,895.85. That must be a fairly hefty fund balance. Wherever did the BOS get so much money?

Selectman Lucier once said that he considered himself to be “The Taxpayers’ Friend.” He may have even believed it.

Might a taxpayer ask, as a friend, why there even was a fund balance of over $1 million with which to begin? That would be easily 25% over what was needed to cover last year’s budget. That is a lot of leftovers.

The amounts being bandied about certainly suggest that the Town over-taxed the average property by at least $420 in order to create its “fund balance.” ($1,132,895.85 / 2700 = $419.59). All of us might wish we had that money back in our pockets instead of in the Town’s “fund balance.”

We might then “encourage” local businesses with our custom, or otherwise invest or participate more fully in the free market, rather than in this coercive “command” economy. (Or we might just use it to keep body and soul together).

And it would be a pretty safe bet that the Town government has still more taxpayer money “squirreled away” in its fund balance, amounts above and beyond the $1,132,895.85 currently on the table.

All of that is just money taken out of pocket. There is also the inevitable reduction in everyone’s capital value to consider.

These fund tricks are certainly not “new” and there really are no words to make them less reprehensible, or even to make them less … embarrassing.

References:

Town of Milton. (2019, January 7). BOS Meeting, January 7, 2019. Retrieved from youtu.be/qx6Nfzafn98?t=4537

Wikipedia. (2018, November 5). Fig Leaf. Retrieved from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fig_leaf

YouTube. (1908). Fig Leaf Rag. Retrieved from www.youtube.com/watch?v=HocJMGlR3xY

YouTube. (1972). Life Cereal: Mikey Likes It. Retrieved from www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLQ0LZSnJFE

By S.D. Plissken | January 18, 2019

Milton’s Town Administrator is leaving us. Let us wish her Godspeed and all the best in her new endeavors.

That leaves Milton with no Town Administrator. Is that really such a bad thing?

One might bet any amount of money – even as much as a Town Budget increase – that there was a time when Milton had no Town Administrator (and that time was within living memory). And you would win that bet. Having a Town Administrator is a relatively recent “innovation.” How is that working out for us?

Mr. Elder informs us that we have had eight Town Administrators in the last ten years. And that there have been gaps of a month or more between them. That works out, roughly, to an average tenure of 14 months per Town Administrator, of which he further informs us that 6 months of that time is spent learning the ropes. Therefore, by his own accounting, we have paid (in just over a decade) for 4 years of getting up to speed and less than 6 years of town administration. (And 8 months of gaps between them).

Obviously, we have not received value for tax money in this whole Town Administrator venture. In the real world, we might now just cancel our subscription and take our business elsewhere. Or just give it up as being a “bad business.” But this is government.

Failed government innovations and interventions are rarely, if ever, “backed out” like the buggy software that they are. Government always doubles down: it “fixes” its failures with more tax money and increased regulations. (They are mired in the Calculation Problem). Cast your mind back, if you will, to Daylight Savings Time, farm subsidies, government cheese, Fannie Mae, the food pyramid (related to the farm subsidies), Dot-com bubbles, housing bubbles, student loan guarantee bubbles, health care market interventions, etc. etc.. The list is lengthy. It has always been thus.

In that same doubling-down spirit, some have suggested that Milton “solve” its perceived administration problems by “upgrading” to a Town Manager instead of a Town Administrator.

No, thanks. That would have us paying double – likely more – for even less satisfactory results. Selectmen are bad enough. (If they had to do their own administration, as they formerly did, they might have less time for mischief).

The Milton Town government’s ever-increasing budget problems are beyond level funding. They need cutting badly. (It’s a very deep hole with very steep sides). This current vacancy, in a non-constitutional position, presents a perfect opportunity to reduce staff through simple attrition. Do not fill the position, just eliminate it.

Lather, rinse, repeat. And never create any new positions. That would violate the Law of Holes: If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

References:

McEvoy, Eleanor. (1996). Trapped Inside. Retrieved from www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiK-I-cRqfg

Wikipedia. (2018, November 15). Law of Holes. Retrieved from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_holes

By S.D. Plissken | January 4, 2019

Selectman Lucier dug in his heels again over a fine point of wording at the Board of Selectman’s (BOS) Meeting of December 17, 2018. (This is a bit dated at this point, but it has still some points of interest).

Selectman Lucier objected strongly to the boilerplate that concludes many warrant articles, notably the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) variety. The conventional obfuscation states that

This sum to come from the fund balance and no amount to be raised from taxation.

And well might he object. Note that there aren’t any actual verbs in this word salad. They have omitted the verb “is.” And there is no actor spending or taking the money from the fund balance, it just “comes” of its own accord. They call this the “passive voice.” A prominent politician formerly favored the passive voice: it is the evasive difference between “mistakes were made”and “I made a mistake.” It is meant to obscure the truth. These are well-crafted “weasel words.”

But the part that stuck in Selectman Lucier’s craw was his sudden realization that the fund balance is tax money too. It is just last year’s tax money. “No amount to be raised from taxation” because it was already raised from prior taxation, not spent, and never returned to its rightful owners. (“Soylent Green is made out of people!”).

Selectman Lucier: Before we start the CIP [warrant articles], can I make a statement?

Chairman Thibeault: Yep.

Lucier: Just about every one of these has one line in it, and if this line stays in it, I will not vote for any of these CIPs. And that line is “This sum is to come from the fund balance and no amount to be raised from taxation.” And I want that line … I totally disagree with it, that’s one of the reasons I ran for Selectman. It is taxation, the money is the taxpayers’ money. So, it is being raised from taxation.  I will not approve any of the CIP Warrant Articles with that line in it. So, either it’s … that line is removed from all of the Warrant Articles …

Thibeault. Well, the intent is to say …

Lucier: I know what the intent is, but it’s still … it comes … it still comes from taxation. The taxation … the taxpayers paid for that money. That money came from the taxpayers. It’s not coming directly out of taxation, I get that part. The bottom line is that it came from taxation. People paid their taxes, that’s where that money came from.

Thibeault: I don’t disagree.

Lucier: I will not support … if you want to go down through them and … I will not support one article with that wording in it.

Thibeault: So, that kind of defeats … that’s the whole intent …

Lucier: Well, you don’t have to put that line in there.

---

At this point, an audience member – not me and not known to me – whispered sotto voce an actual out-of-the-box solution:

Audience Member: Just stop lying.

Few even heard it. I found it as difficult to suppress a guffaw, as he had evidently found it impossible to muzzle the truth. He stated an a priori truth: local government should have less lying in preference to more lying. (Discuss).

Selectman Lucier was on fire with this one. Even a blind squirrel occasionally finds a nut.

The blather that followed was tedious at best. Just the same old same old. The out-of-the-box thinkers on the board boldly questioned whether it would be quite legal to proceed further with this novel idea of just-not-lying.

They thought it might be wise to consult the Town lawyer in this whole matter of just-not-lying, as well as soliciting the insights of other out-of-the-box advisors. Sort of like asking your barber if you need a haircut. Should we recognize the Chief of Police? And our Department of Revenue Administration (DRA) masters might have something to say about this whole just-not-lying thing. We could consult the oracle RSAs. Maybe ask other towns if they are still lying.

Or, they could just stop lying. Too funny. Rest assured: some degree of lying will feature in this year’s warrant articles.

---

Some of you may recall the BOS meeting of November 5. A tag team of Chairman Thibeault and this very same Selectman Lucier announced, with evident pleasure, that $500,000 would be taken from this very same fund balance in order to reduce this year’s tax rate. (Just the rate, mind you, the budget amount would increase, per usual).

Selectman Lucier: I’m going to make a motion that we take $500,000 from the fund balance towards the tax rate … and you want to set the new taxes.

Chairman Thibeault: And that will bring the tax rate to $25.48.

Obviously, Selectman Lucier did not see then the great big nut over which he would stumble in December.

And it is a tough nut. That fund balance – from which the BOS took $500,000 – is the very same fund balance that would trigger his December language qualms. The BOS arranged for a marginally decreased tax rate (41¢) to cover a vastly increased budget – presto! – through the mechanism of shoveling other taxpayer funds into the deficit. Yes, the $500,000 came from last year’s taxation. You know, the year with the stupefying revaluation. Not exactly a loaves and fishes miracle was it?

Unfortunately, Selectman Lucier did not feel his just-stop-lying urge prior to uttering November’s big $500,000 lie. He had his revelation – his road to Damascus moment – while poring over similarly lying boilerplate in CIP warrant articles in December.

---

Let us see if we can help him find some other tasty nuts. Why was there such a huge fund balance in the first place? The Town overcharged each taxpayer an average of at least $185 last year. Some more and some less. (Do the math: $500,000 / 2700 = $185.19). Just stop lying.

Might this perennial over-taxation be intentional, a sort of rolling overage, so as to have always a fund balance from which to “top off” CIP funds? If so, then the CIP program demonstrably does not prevent tax hikes and spikes, it guarantees them. (At the end of the last administration, the Town revealed that it had at least twenty-nine bank accounts). Just stop lying.

The BOS spoke openly of leaving $1 in one or more of those voter-approved accounts. The accounts’ purposes have been fulfilled, and the accounts should be closed, but the presence of a solitary $1 allows them to be kept on life support indefinitely. Through this trick, the BOS need not seek voter authorization again in the future. (Pledge allegiance at the start of each meeting, but subvert democracy immediately thereafter).  Just stop lying.

Proposed budget increases on the ballot are engineered to look smaller than default budgets. Heads they win, tails you lose. More sleight of hand. Just stop lying.

One could go on and on. Keep looking, Selectman Lucier, you might find another nut or two. They’re all around you.

References:

O’Brien, Mollie. (2014). Looking for Trouble. [2nd Verse: The first time you shade the truth]. Retrieved from www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGXK0doxsp8

Town of Milton. (2018, November 5). BOS Meeting, November 5, 2018. Retrieved from youtu.be/cUrFKYBXC4c?t=418

Town of Milton. (2018, December 17). BOS Meeting, December 17, 2018. Retrieved from youtu.be/SLBEx1a45pQ?t=7924

By S.D. Plissken | January 1, 2019

Many have written on authority and its nature: what it is, how it is asserted, acknowledged, or granted, and how it may be ignored, withdrawn, lost, or refused.

Auctoritas

The English word authority is derived from the Latin auctoritas. The Romans took that to refer to someone having a certain amount of prestige. Such a one would have the ability to rally others to support his (or her) endeavors. While it did have a political aspect, its use was not limited to politics. It would be possible to exert this quality in religious, judicial, commercial, familial, personal and other spheres.

It was partly a respect granted to those who were deemed wise, successful, or otherwise blessed. They had influence. Their endorsement or recommendation had weight.

For the Romans, it had roots also in ownership. The auctor was the author, creator, or founder. He (or she) was the maker, the homesteader, the originator, the inventor, the owner, or the one who augmented, enlarged, or expanded an existing property or enterprise.

The Romans made a political distinction between auctoritas (authority) and potestas (power). The Roman orator Cicero said, “Cum potestas in populo auctoritas in senatu sit,” which may be translated, “While power resides in the people, authority rests with the Senate.” The Classicist Theodor Momsen defined auctoritas as being “more than advice, but less than a command.”

Note that, as described, the components of auctoritas may be lost or withdrawn. The prestige of those whose advice, endeavors, or endorsements fail might be shaken. A succession of poor outcomes might cause one’s authority to diminish markedly or even evaporate entirely.

The Mandate of Heaven

The Chinese had a similar concept, which they expressed as the Mandate of Heaven. Its manifestation or evaluation seems to have been retrospective. Its expression might even be termed post hoc (or after the fact).

Heaven embodied the natural order and will of the universe. It bestowed its mandate on a just ruler. Heaven did not say so out loud or at the outset. The just and successful ruler was assumed to be enjoying the Mandate (or approval) of Heaven. The poor or unjust ruler, who experienced a succession of calamities, be they natural, military, or political, or who was overthrown or defeated, was presumed to have experienced Heaven’s disapproval: they lost the Mandate of Heaven.

Intrinsic to the concept of the Mandate of Heaven was the right of rebellion against an unjust ruler (Wikipedia, 2018)

A successful rebellion was taken as a sign that Heaven had withdrawn its approval from an unjust ruler and shifted it to the rebel leader. By virtue of his success, the new ruler now held the Mandate of Heaven.

The New England author, Miss Sedgwick expressed a similar line of thought, in which talent and worth deserve distinction, and of which the Almighty signifies his approval:

Talent and worth are the only eternal grounds of distinction. To these the Almighty has affixed His everlasting patent of nobility.

Voluntary Servitude

The sixteenth century Frenchman Étienne de la Boétie penned his seminal essay, the Discourse on Voluntary Servitude in or around 1576. (A fascinating read). In this essay, he introduced the concept of voluntary servitude, or political acquiescence, so to speak. Even the tyrant will have always his active supporters, his beneficiaries and hangers-on, his toadies, if you will. Those who benefit directly from his rule.

But neither these active supporters, nor the several layers of similar beneficiaries and partial beneficiaries beneath them, are enough to keep the ruler in his seat. It requires also that the bulk of the ruled at least acquiesce in their own enslavement. The tyrant remains in place only because the ruled permit it, albeit passively, and perhaps even contribute to it.

De la Boétie advised them:

Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break in pieces.

Many writers, across a wide variety of academic disciplines, have acknowledged and echoed De la Boétie’s fundamental insight. Tyrants rule only because those ruled acquiesce in it. If the subjects withdraw their support, continued misrule becomes impossible.

The Lack Thereof

I have intended to write on this topic for some time. A recent social media post caught my interest and draws me out now. (Perhaps half-cocked). It pointed out that Milton’s various Boards and Committees have trouble finding members to serve upon them. Their meetings are sparsely attended. Voter apathy is at an all-time high. (A substantial majority of the registered voters do not bother to vote). These have not been my words. Its author is well intentioned, but is mistaken in thinking exhortations alone can change anything at this point.

Confucius said that the beginning of wisdom is to call things by their proper names. Milton is a failed state. A succession of unjust rulers, running from near the turn of the current century, have all imposed the impossible: tax increases that were more than the rate of inflation. The current administration is only the most recent iteration of this pernicious run of failures.

Less than a year ago, one-sixth of the voters chose to dissolve the Town government entirely. Talk about withdrawing support. Bravo! I challenge the selectmen to put that measure back on the ballot themselves. Have the Town lawyer spruce it up, give it some real teeth. Do it as a sort of vote of confidence. You do imagine you enjoy the voters’ support, don’t you? The numbers of disincorporaters could not possibly increase.

From the social media description, it seems that Milton’s voters – those bearing the burden of its unconscionable tax increases – have already taken De la Boétie’s advice: few vote, fewer attend, and fewest of all fill seats on the boards and committees. The electorate need not put its hands upon the Town government, but only cease to support it.

And the effects may be seen in the Roman sense too. A succession of failures have reduced the Town government’s auctoritas. Its most recent budget failure has certainly diminished its authority, as it well it should have. No one wants to be a part of that.

The next administration must reverse course immediately, right from the outset, or they will fail too. One hopes that the change is not already too late. Budget cuts, large ones, with concomitant tax cuts, large ones, are the only path to restoring any kind of authority. Otherwise, it is just another exercise in potestas. And support ebbs even faster in the face of that.

Milton has not yet lost the Mandate of Heaven, although that must inevitably come. Nobody can say exactly when the tipping point will come. It is only after the Mandate is irretrievably lost that it is acknowledged to have been lost.

References:

De la Boétie, Étienne. (1576). The Politics of Obedience: The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude. Retrieved from mises.org/library/politics-obedience-discourse-voluntary-servitude

Wikipedia. (2018, November 11). Auctoritas. Retrieved from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auctoritas

Wikipedia. (2018, December 4). Catherine Sedgewick. Retrieved from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catharine_Sedgwick

Wikipedia. (2018, November 21). Discourse on Voluntary Servitude. Retrieved from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourse_on_Voluntary_Servitude

Wikipedia. (2018, December 24). Mandate of Heaven. Retrieved from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandate_of_Heaven

By S.D. Plissken | December 19, 2018

Chairman Thibeault is fond of saying that “we,” meaning the Board of Selectmen (BOS), and Milton in general, “need to think ‘outside the box.'”

The catchphrase regarding thinking “outside the box” originates with management consultants of the 1970s and 1980s. It is the pop psychology of yesteryear. You should be concerned whenever you hear it.

The sad fact is that he, the BOS, and Milton governance in general, for well over a decade, represent the ne plus ultra of conventional thinking. Everything they do is very much within “the box.”

They cannot help themselves, poor things. Their approach is inherent in the nature of government. It is impossible to rationally allocate resources. If ten of something seems desirable, wouldn’t twenty be even better? It is impossible to say, because government lacks a price mechanism with which to measure its decisions. It relies to a very great extent – some have even said that it relies entirely – upon “magical thinking.” That is why government should never be engaged for any task or service that might be provided by the free market.

While it is always instructive, and sometimes amusing, to examine their more absurd premises more thoroughly, – and I have tried – let us confine ourselves this time to the most recent BOS meeting. Issues are rarely explained in these meetings, as such, but it is sometimes possible to extract some sense – some rumor – of what is happening from the little tidbits that are dropped along the way.

In our last episode, the Town Clerk had objected – through intermediaries – to being the Central Repository for all Town monetary transactions. Her objection is not fundamental or constitutional, although objections could certainly be made along those lines. She was willing to undertake the increased tasks. Her problem arises only from the principle that increased tasks should be accompanied by increased personnel hours. Well, that makes sense. (The BOS should consider deeply how this same principle might be applied in their own dealings with the State government).

Past meetings have informed us that the State government forbids the Town government to keep more than $1,500 in the house at any one time. Are you with me so far? The larger in-the-box thinkers have given the smaller in-the-box thinkers a directive. This unfunded imposition comes with costs. Was any out-of-the-box thinking employed? No, we have been given an order and are rushing to fulfil it. The taxpayers can pay the freight. All very much within “the-box.”

Now the Town government’s new bank wants to change the way that they take in their deposits. This is just a bank “policy.” It is something that works well for them. (Note that, on the market, the customer is always right, and there are other banks in the world).

The Town’s bank “recommended” that we establish a central repository for all the Town’s exactions, excuse me, deposits. The Town Treasurer agreed, the Auditors were insistent, the Town Counsel approved it, the Town department heads loved it, the Town Administrator said that all the cool Towns are doing it. We take orders from banks too. All very much within “the box.”

Whenever they cite this “all the other Towns” reasoning, as they do frequently, I hear my mother’s voice: “If all the other kids were jumping off a bridge, would you jump too?” Her point being that it’s not that you can’t do what the others are doing, if they are acting wisely, but that it is folly to be a lemming just to be like the other lemmings.

By itself, citing “all the other Towns” is really the same as having no reason at all. It is a confession of having no reason. Completely ridiculous, but very much within “the box.”

Anyway, the Town Treasurer restructured Town monetary procedures such that the various departments off-loaded portions of their deposit accounting to the Town Clerk. Just like all the other Towns. The various departments all spend less time on those fiddly bookkeeping details. And the money is all in one place. Less is more. They love it. Win-win, right?

Well, no. None of these apparatchiks gave up any personnel hours to the Town Clerk when they piled on their extra tasks. It was more like a zero-sum game: she got their tasks, while they retained the hours with which they formerly did those tasks. She reportedly tried to juggle these increased tasks, for a time, but finds it is not working for her.

Will all those that are surprised please raise their hands?

I see, the BOS have their hands up. (They raise their hands for everything). They seem to be baffled. To their minds, it apparently makes perfect sense that the Town Clerk should do more so that others might do less. It adds up somehow?

So, the BOS dug in their heels regarding full-time status for her administrative assistant. Nor did they arrange for any extra assistance from the departments that were relieved from the tasks with which she now struggles. The BOS provided no solutions. Instead, they told all of the children to sort it out for themselves. They have until the end of January to do so. Don’t make me come in there.

It is impossible to accept yet another Town personnel expansion. (The Town needs to move in the opposite direction). One might hope that some interdepartmental reallocation or redistribution of budget money or personnel hours is made instead. Cutting elsewhere to pay for this latest shiny initiative would work quite well.

But the Town Clerk is to be much admired. Her spirited defense of her department showed true grit. She demonstrated exactly the qualities that the BOS has so sadly lacked in defending the taxpayers’ interests.

One might well imagine that we will see these issues emerge again in some form.

References:

Town of Milton. (2018, December 17). BOS Meeting, December 17, 2018. Retrieved from youtu.be/SLBEx1a45pQ?t=5245

Wikipedia. (2018, December 18). Thinking Outside the Box. Retrieved from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking_outside_the_box

 

 

By S.D. Plissken | December 6, 2018

At the most recent Milton BOS meeting, the “Financial Policy Regarding Town Deposits” agenda item turned out to be much more involved than simply raising the ceiling on amounts of cash that may be held in town hall.

To set the scene, the Town Clerk had earlier in the year sought to expand the hours of her assistant. This came up during the departmental budget reviews. The BOS seemed about to wave this expansion through, as they usually do with nearly all additional expenses, but stopped at the brink. They appeared to realize finally that they had already spent like drunken sailors. They drew back from downing this last tankard.

At this meeting, the Town Administrator explained that the Town Clerk had notified the BOS, and the Town Treasurer that, due to budgetary constraints, she found herself unable to continue to be the agent and central repository for all of the Town’s financial transactions. She had “involved” the Town Treasurer, who was called to explain the issue.

Chairman Thibeault: Next up, Financial Policy Regarding Town Deposits. Heather?

Administrator Thibodeau: I believe the board got an e-mail about the Town Clerk wished to change the plan of several deposits, and she involved MacKenzie [Campbell], our Treasurer, who is here tonight, and she really wanted him to handle this discussion with the board. So, he’s here to talk about it a little bit more. I’ve also given you and I guess you’ve already gotten that and made copies of the plan that’s in place in our current financial policy. We really need to have a plan as to where go from here. Both MacKenzie and I have looked into this, extensively. We need the board’s directive as to what we need to do. And, so, I would ask that MacKenzie come forward and help us with this discussion. Basically, we have the policy in place is one central depository for the Town now. All departments bring all deposits and that is the Town [process]. And then the Treasurer handles … has handled the deposits from there …  how they get to the bank. Our auditor, our attorney, and everybody is in agreement with what needs to happen, but MacKenzie …

Treasurer Campbell: Essentially, the way it is set up right now is that most of the Town monies flow through, in and out, of the Town Clerk’s office. They come into the office through our department heads and our departments. So, monies – deposits – coming in have to go through the Town Clerk, where they are recorded, and set up for transfer, which I check. At that point I transfer that money from an escrow opportunity, from a holding escrow, to a distributary escrow. Some of these escrows you may have heard of, or know off the top of your head, you know, Rec. Revolving, etc. The Town Clerk has since requested to not to perform these duties, saying that it’s beyond her budgetary constraints. Personally, it’s something that I disagree with – moving a depository location. That’s going to yield unnecessary risk, time, money, constraints to the Town. I’ve confirmed this through our financial partners, TD Bank. They’ve suggested as well looking at other Towns. Pretty much every other Town in the State has this flowing through their Clerk’s office.

Thibodeau: Our financial advisor …

Campbell: Our financial advisor is concerned about this move as well. She’d prefer [our not moving this] out of the Clerk’s office, especially where we just have it set it up this year. It’s really full that way, ultimately. Everything is properly recorded the way it is now. And it’s a change I would not suggest moving forward with. The previous policy was enacted by a previous board. So, I don’t know what power we have to change it.

Thibeault: Alright, so, I guess …

Campbell: The power is with them …

Thibeault: I guess I have a question then … if the other board members are alright with that. So, I get our policy … I guess I’m confused between the e-mail I’ve received, from the Town Clerk, and the policy. So, the e-mail – if I understand this correctly, correct me if I’m wrong – we have two issues here. One issue is the actual delegation of the deposits, …

Campbell: Correct.

Thibeault: Which is bringing the money to the bank, …

Campbell: Correct.

Thibeault: And then where the money is going to be deposited  and how …

Campbell: We don’t have a problem with taking up more of that … depository … bringing it to the bank. There’s never been an issue there. Simply contact myself and I delegate the authority. Make sure that happens. Today, for example, our deputy took it.

Thibeault: So, in the email, the way I’m reading this, it’s basically say that the Town Clerk no longer wants to do the deposits. It doesn’t say anything about actually taking the money in the office. But, I … obviously, conversations you guys have had with the Town Clerk that’s …

Campbell: She hasn’t identified to me particularly … anything other than actually bringing the money to the bank, which there is an issue.

Selectman Lucier: My interpretation was that was the issue, it wasn’t, it …. so, what … give me the Reader’s Digest version.

Thibodeau: She has indicated that she doesn’t have the staffing or the time to do … to be the central depository for the town and I believe she’s ….

Campbell: Which would encompass both. Both duties.

Thibodeau: Right, both duties. And to do that … and there’s a lot of paperwork involved with that. So, that is what she has indicated to both me and to others, I believe …

Thibeault: So, part of it, essentially, is already resolved – the part of actually bringing the deposits to the bank. That could be … you can resolve that without … fairly quickly without …

Campbell: Yes. And anytime anyone is working that long, we come up with a solution …

Thibeault: And that also isn’t a concern with Town Counsel or anybody else you guys have spoken with.

Thibodeau: We can make sure that person is bonded. His deputy … and somebody he has … it has to be in writing …

Campbell: It has to be a bonded employee.

Thibodeau: It has to be a bonded person, … and it has to be somebody he has delegated to in writing, and we have to have that on file. And eventually that has happened.

Campbell: And we have multiple safeguards in place to make sure that the money will reach the bank, even that night. So, there’s no rush to specifically have it done during the day, as long as we’re following the RSA, which is to deposit the monies once it hits $1,500.

Thibodeau: And we’re following the policies and making sure those things happen.

Thibeault: And that’s in line with our current Town policy, as well.

Campbell: Yes, the one enacted by a previous board.

Thibeault: It follows the RSA.

Thibodeau: Here’s the issue with it as of January 1st. We need make sure we have a place that Town deposits can be deposited to. If it …

Thibeault: Well, I guess I would request that the board … we need to meet with the Town Clerk.

Thibodeau: I can do it. [inaudible]. I need you to request her presence.

Campbell: It needs to be ironed out. Anything that the Town can help towards her department, as a team. We should look at, other things, you know, until the budgetary constraint is resolved. We need to be able to make sure that the money is flowing in and out of that office.

Thibeault: Okay. I’ll make the motion that we, the BOS, request that the Town Clerk be present at the next BOS meeting, so that we can discuss the Town deposits.

Vice-Chairwoman Hutchings: Seconded.

Thibeault: All in favor?

Whole BOS: Aye.

Thibeault: Obviously, I’ll ask MacKenzie to be here …

Campbell: Yes. What’s the next?

Thibodeau: The 17th.

Campbell: Excellent.

As you may see, the BOS is a bit slow to grasp what is happening. Some might say that they are almost gormless.

For those of you that have had some union experience, you will recognize immediately that the Town Clerk is engaging in a Work-to-Rule slowdown: she proposes to perform her job, according to its exact requirements, but to do nothing that might lie outside her job description, such as being the Town’s central depository.

Why might she do this? Aah, the extra “lot of paperwork,” “the staffing,” and her “budget constraints.” Think back. You would not give her the extra hours for her assistant when you reviewed her budget. Now, she feels that those “budget constraints” make it difficult, for she and her part-time assistant to do all the extras that you have “just set up this year.”

It sounds as if you “just set up” a great big new stack of Quid for the Town Clerk, but did not provide her with any Quo. Now, if her assistant had those extra hours … Well, you get the picture. Then it might be an entirely different story.

All the BOS needs to do is expand the Town Clerk’s budget, to include those hours, maybe add another insurance policy too, and expand taxes, yet again. And they will. They set this in motion when they “just set up” the extra duties. It is almost as if they cannot help themselves. It is almost as if they were feckless.

Maybe they should review what Ms. McDougall told them about cross-training.

References:

Town of Milton. (2018, December 3). BOS Meeting, December 3, 2018. Retrieved from www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0_0zA8v7go&feature=youtu.be&t=533

Wikipedia. (2018, October 11). Work-to-Rule. Retrieved from //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work-to-rule