Lots Of Rhetoric, Little Facts In Post-TM Articles

A Letter to the Editor from Select Board member Anthony Wilson:

(The opinions expressed are my own. I am not speaking for the Select Board.)

It was disappointing when a negative article or two came out after town meeting from the losing side of the trash fee campaign. Then another and another with the same baseless accusations. I was not planning to respond, but there is clearly an organized campaign to discredit town meeting voters that demands a response with real facts.

A review of these articles shows they focus on political rhetoric while being light on facts. The political tactics used were predictable. 1. Identify a villian, 2. Create a conspiracy and 3. Use insults to demean. These tactics are typical of our current negative national political discourse and do not belong in Stoneham. I will ignore all the personal insults, except my favorite. I was accused of being a cheap suit politician. While I take offence to being called a politician (since I have no ambition for higher office like some), I will own to being cheap. Anyone who does not believe me can ask my wife. Or my mother-in-law, who once said she “had never seen someone so tight with a dollar in her life”.

Once you cut away the insults, there are only a few remotely substantive statements in the letters. Unfortunately even these are selective and misleading. Let’s explore.

Southborough’s Stabilization policy is only 5% of the general fund, why does Stoneham need 10%?

Just a little digging shows this article was inaccurate. The article states Southborough’s town administrator visited Stoneham to “train and introduce cash practices to Stoneham officials.” Firstly, it was Northborough’s Town Administrator who came to Stoneham. He was invited because Northborough has repeatedly received a Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) award for distinguished budget presentations. Their award-winning budget book notes the town’s goal to “develop a budget that is in conformance with the Town’s comprehensive financial policies and does not rely on one-time gimmicks or unsustainable practices.” A gimmick such as spending our cash on trash as Article 22 proposed.

What is Northborough’s reserve policy? “The Town will endeavor to continue its policy of maintaining reserves at 10% of General Fund Expenditures.” This is the same as Stoneham’s policy and what I quoted at town meeting. Because Northborough’s reserves were at 8%, (twice Stoneham’s) for the past two years they’ve moved money from Free Cash into Stabilization to push that higher. The use of Northborough as a sample does not support the author’s argument. If Stoneham followed their policies, our town meeting vote to save our cash was the right one. Good job, Stoneham!

“When the Commonwealth's bond rating dropped just last year, it had $1.4 billion in its rainy-day fund or 3.4%.”

I was shocked when the sponsor of Article 22 supported my own point with in her article. The argument appears to be that “Stoneham is in much better shape than the Commonwealth!” Why should we not want to do better? But more importantly, the state’s bond rating was lowered because of poor reserves. This supports my argument for building Stoneham’s reserves. As the Boston Globe wrote in June 2017, “S&P Global Ratings said Friday it is lowering the state’s rating one notch,” noting that the cause was “leaders have failed to replenish the state’s rainy day fund as promised.” Furthermore, Governor Baker said the downgrade was “a wake-up call.”

Thankfully Town Meeting voted against supporting Article 22 and avoided risking the same downgrading. Remember, Moody’s letter to the town made it clear that lowering our reserve would result in a lowered bond rating. The Town Accountant asked our bond company for an estimated cost of a lower rating when borrowing for a high school. A lower rating would cost us taxpayers an additional $3.5 million or more on a new high school. It works in the other direction as well. Due to its solid planning and fiscal restraint, Northborough’s bond rating was recently upgraded. During the review Moody’s cited the Town’s “manageable debt levels” and “strong reserves” This will save taxpayer money on their Lincoln School project. So again, an article that was intended to argue for spending our cash on trash just supported the argument against. Thank you!

How could we spend $1.5m on capital expenditures after voting down Article 22?

Every guideline I have found from our town, other towns or the State clearly say that Free Cash should be spent on capital items or put in reserves.

This is simple but seems to confuse some. The general budget covers costs we expect to have each year, such as public safety, street maintenance and schools. Because such costs recur yearly, we need to fund them with revenue sources that we can reasonably expect to have each year. Capital items such as roofs or HVAC repairs do not recur every year. We can reasonably expect capital items to last at least 5 to 35 years or more. Because such expenses aren’t recurring, we can use a funding source that is less predictable, such as Free Cash. I was very proud that the town supported saving $1.7 million for a rainy day while also investing in our streets, sidewalks, schools and other infrastructure by voting to approve the capital budget this year. This is a path to a strong future for Stoneham.

I implore people to stop the personal attacks and look at the facts. Negativity and false accusations do not make for a better town. Nor do they change the reality of our budget. Stoneham needs strong financial practices. Stoneham needs a little “cheap”. Thanks for keeping the money for a rainy day instead of spending it.