This is a printer-friendly version of an article from Zip06.com.

More of the Same

Voters were forewarned that the proposed $7.1 million bonding package sent to referendum in May 2017 would give officials too much latitude in how those funds would actually be spent (“Too Much Latitude”, April 20 letter by Kirk Carr). It barely passed by a margin of 92.

Now, Director of Public Works Peter Neff proposes to siphon some of these funds for a purpose never envisioned nor enumerated in the resolution presented to voters. It is $230,000 to remove abandoned underground fuel tanks whose removal is mandated by the State Department of Energy & Environmental Protection.

Voters should never approve all-in-one bonding packages that don’t specify spending by purpose and that fail to provide voters the discretion to approve some and reject others. Holding popular spending hostage to unpopular spending leaves taxpayers no real choice. It also leaves way too much latitude to siphon these funds for almost any purpose.

This kind of abuse is not new. It transcends previous elected administrations. Each time voters change leadership, they expect change, but get more of the same. Why?

The common denominator is the director of Public Works, who will celebrate 10 years in this role next year.

The newly elected Board of Selectmen, with only one surviving incumbent, in its first month is already being tested with this proposal.

What alternative does Clinton have? First, pump but otherwise don’t touch the old Morgan tank. Second, transfer up to $200,000 from the Education Operating Budget to the Education Capital Budget and use those funds to pull fuel tanks at Pierson and Joel Schools. Third, use the contingency budget-line to fund removing the library fuel tank.

Clinton should never illegitimately siphon bond funds nor tap undesignated funds except for genuine emergencies.

Kirk Carr

Clinton