Notes from a long night

Tonight's meeting produced enough material for about a gajillion blog posts, so I may actually manage a post a day this week. Here's a few bits to start you out:

• The board approved the remaining mayoral appointments, mostly unanimously. I'll post details tomorrow.
• The solar project is heading back to committee. Look for the full dish on that one in, probably, Wednesday's paper.
• The city and the union have a proposed agreement on the South Main Street pipe replacement, and it has been sent to committee.
• The Mendon Select Board wants to talk some more about the debris in Mendon Brook.
• Fines have been officially set for not paying the rooms, meals and entertainment tax while gym memberships have been officially exempted.

See you folks tomorrow.

Getting Googled

Whoever runs the unofficial @RutlandCity Twitter account appears to have spotted the Google Street View car driving around Rutland.

Certain portions of Rutland were already available on Google Street View, but still not on my street, as of just now. I'll have to check back tomorrow.

Since the newsroom was stumped, can anybody say where in the city this is?

Quote of the Night, Charter and Ordinance edition

"I'd like this committee to consider whether a single-serving dog biscuit is subject to the rooms, meals and entertainment tax."

-Alderman Sean Sargeant.

Apparently, the tax specifically only applies to products for human consumption. While you can eat a dog biscuit, you're really not supposed to.

More details on the committee's discussion of enforcing the RME tax will appear in an upcoming issue of the Herald.

No one can be told what the Matrix is

So, swallow the red pill, or just click on the link (which is blue, threatening to mess up the whole thing I'm doing here), and see for yourself the planning matrix Aldermen Christopher Robinson and David Wallstrom came up with to prioritize capital expenditures.

Robinson said the format may be fine-tuned in upcoming committee meetings.

Download Capital Planning Matrix

The deck on the down-low

The Board of Aldermen has now had two executive sessions on negotiations with the state over the parking deck. The first was at the end of last week's special meeting on the proposed methadone clinic, the second at the end of last night's regular board meeting. No action was taken after either.

Walking back from the meeting last night, I started wondering why the talk was in executive session. Everything up to now has been done openly, why the sudden need for secrecy?

"I don't think it's so much secrecy," Board President David Allaire told me just now. "We're entering into a possible contractual relationship with the state and that is covered by the executive session clause. I've conferred with the city attorney on this and I have his blessing."

Right, I told him, I wasn't questioning the legality of the session but wondering what was different from the various committee meetings during which the board was perfectly happy to hammer out its initial proposal to the state in open session.

Allaire said he did not have anything to add.

Silisky's Bridge

Alderman Christopher Siliski forwarded some photos of the bridge on Route 4 in Woodstock that he would like to serve as the aesthetic standard for the city's bridges:

He also writes the following:

I haven’t inquired yet, but the design doesn’t look like it would be that much more costly; however, it looks elegant. When people drive into Rutland, I want them to have the same reaction as one does through the Woodstock village. Wow, this place is beautiful.

...

I’m a strong believer in leveraging resources to stretch the dollar and make this City more attractive. Although I understand DPW has its technical priorities, e.g. broken pipes, core streets, etc., the City needs to target a certain percentage of its infrastructure portfolio toward the public-private investments already made. Hence, core, visible, attractive, pedestrian friendly infrastructure projects need to complement and build upon target structures such as the new CCV building, court house, bridge projects, Hickory Street development, etc. This will maximum the use of tax payer funds and ultimately make the City shine.

 

 

Something positive about the pension

Leaving the Pension Board meeting last night, I got chided for my negligent posting habits. So, let's get things going again with some good news: the funding status of the pension is a little better.

As of Jan. 1, 2011, the pension was 70.5 percent funded. According to the actuarial report reviewed last night, its level as of Jan. 1, 2012 was 72 percent.

Hey, I said "a little."

The actuarial accrued liability went up from $79,951,469 to $82,683,836, but the actuarial value of the pension's assets went up a little more, from $56,345,063 to $59,550,537.

Tonight, it's another meeting for me -- this time the Board of Aldermen hearing on the proposed drug treatment center. Look for that in tomorrow's paper.

Notte's note

Here, somewhat belatedly, is the full text of Alderman William Notte's argument as to why he should take the reins of the board:

I’m writing today to let you know that at the start of our next meeting, I will be nominated for the presidency of the Board of Aldermen.  I have already discussed this with David Allaire and he has informed me that he will be seeking an additional term as president as well, so I’m hoping you will allow me a few minutes of your time to state my case.  I’m sending the same email to each alderman individually to avoid treading on open meeting law, but I am certainly open to discussing my desire to serve as your president via email, phone, or in person with you one-on-one or with any number short of a quorum. To avoid a Moby Dick sized email I will touch on my main points below and look forward to following up and discussing the details with any of you that so wish.

Rutland City is fortunate at this time to have an amazing amount of positive energy pushing us forward on numerous fronts.  From Restoring Rutland, organized in a snap after Irene, to Sustainable Rutland, with their long-term strategies for improving the area, to many many volunteer-based efforts, there is no lack of love for Rutland and willingness to donate time and effort to make the city a better place to live.  I find it very disheartening, therefore, that for so many of our more active citizens City Hall is a place only to be thought of once a year when a ballot is handed to them. 

In my opinion, eight candidates running for five seats on the Board shows a distressing lack of interest in city government and is a problem that could easily prevent the Board of Aldermen from effectively functioning for the betterment of Rutland City in the not distant future.  In order to engage with more of our citizenry, in order to plant the seed of interest that could result in more involvement in city efforts and more interest in serving in local government both in the short term and for years to come we need to make the Board of Aldermen more open and transparent to our citizens by taking advantage of existing technology and social media in order to ensure that our actions are much less mysterious than many of our citizens currently perceive them to be.  With all of the available means of reaching out and insuring that city residents understand the rationales and importance of our actions, broadcasting our regular meeting on PEG-TV should not be the only difference in reaching out to the populace from Board meetings conducted twenty years ago.  We need to greatly increase the connection between the aldermen and the people we represent in order to increase people’s ownership and investment in City Hall.  This is not as critical in the short term as repairing our infrastructure or growing our grand list, but is vastly important in the long term and can be accomplished while tackling the city’s pressing issues by a Board president who understands the importance of fostering community buy-in from social outreach and I could be that president.

My second main issue is again focused on a long term concern and has to do with the number of connections on the state and local level that David has.  It may seem counterintuitive to raise this issue as it can obviously be seen as a source of strength for David and weakness for me, but I would argue that in the grand scheme of things it is currently a source of weakness for the Board of Aldermen as a whole.

There is no denying that David has a large number of connections that he can draw upon as Board president, but the concern I have falls into the placing all of your eggs in one basket category.  None of us, David included, will be serving on the board forever and when David does choose to move on I’d hate to see the result be a Board of Aldermen that struggles for full effectiveness due to a lack of connections and an inability to have a full understanding or have our voice effectively heard on a state level or in multiple municipality interactions.

There are only two effective ways to make these connections and that is by serving in state government or serving as board president and previous election results have made fairly clear that city residents prefer that their representatives not divide their time between state and local government.  Therefore, I believe it very much makes sense to have a new president in place while still having David serving with us.

Furthermore, I’d argue that for the long term health of the Board we would benefit from having multiple members with this knowledge base and connections firmly in place.  We currently have two former Board presidents serving with us, but Sharon’s time as president dates back several years and many of the contact points have changed, in some cases multiple times.  I can promise you right now that if I am fortunate enough to be chosen to serve as president you will not see me stepping forward for the position for more than two or three consecutive years.  We have several talented aldermen currently serving who I certainly hope will still be fighting the good fight in another few years time—it would make for a stronger Board of Aldermen, and therefore a healthier Rutland, to have our presidency change hands on a regular basis.  I fully believe I have the makings to be a strong president at this point in time who can recognize the need to let go of the reins when it is in Rutland’s long term best interest to do so.

I do want to stress at this time that I do fully believe I can be a strong, effective Board president.  As I’m sure many of you have noticed, I’ve missed some meetings lately.  My wife gave birth to our daughter last month via c-section and was unable to lift anything over ten pounds or move very effectively for a number of weeks and I was needed at home more often to pick up the slack.  I can assure you that Alison is back to full strength and our home life back to normal.  If I didn’t believe I would be able to make the number of committee meetings I did over the course of my first four years on the board then I wouldn’t have run for reelection, let alone seek the presidency.  I know how important our discussions in committee are and I will guarantee here and now that if I am your president my presence at 99% of these meetings is an absolute guarantee.

Additionally, I am fortunate to have a day job that does not tie me to my desk but affords me the ability to leave the office to attend regular workday meetings at City Hall, Chamber of Commerce events, or any other event where the presence of the Board president would serve as positive outreach and effective information gathering and I do believe that I am not only positioned to attend as many of these events as David could, I honestly believe I can attend more than he is able and thus better promote the board’s outreach to our business community, volunteer groups, and any other organization working for the benefit of our city.

In closing, you’ll note that while I have no qualms about stating that I believe at this point in time I am the better candidate for the presidency, I have made no negative statements about David here. While I thought it proper to not discuss this with all of you until after the election, I did contact David this past weekend to let him know of my intentions and of my plan to contact all of you this week. At that time I told David that I thought we had worked well together over the past few years and that I fully believe we can have a friendly competition and continue to work together just as well over the next year no matter which of us is chosen to sit in the big chair. David has been and will continue to be a valuable asset to the Board of Aldermen and I mean him no disrespect when I state that at this point in time, at the start of what I feel could be a period of great momentum for moving Rutland City forward, the Board of Aldermen could significantly benefit from allowing me the opportunity of serving as your president.

I’m sure David will be contacting all of you as well to state his case.  I would certainly encourage all of you to listen to what both of us have to say while making your decision.  For my part, I am more than willing to answer any questions you may have individually or in small groups at any time leading up to our next meeting.  Feel free to call me (number redacted) or email me with your thoughts or to plan a time to get together to discuss this in person.  I thank you for your time and your consideration and honestly look forward to working with all of you this year.

Reviewing the results

Well, I predicted the Aldermen wrong, or at least one of them. Mattison had signs up, Donahue didn't. Mattison had some name recognition and something of an organization behind him, Donahue didn't.

It turned out Donahue was campaigning a little bit harder than he initially let on. It still doesn't sound like he did much, by his description, but by the box score it looks like he did enough.

Tomorrow's Herald will have a story examining whether the aldermanic race could go to a recount. Spoiler alert: not according to the city clerk.

I'm not sure what to make of the budget results. The margin was much narrower than last year, but significantly wider than two years ago. It's going to be a while before we can reasonably say what a "typical" budget vote is. 

Covering debates

As I prepare to head out to tonight's aldermanic forum at the library, I want to peel back the curtain and give you good folks a glimpse at how the journalistic sausages are made. How’s that for a mixed metaphor?

Our deadline for the PEG-TV forum last Wednesday night was extended to 10 p.m. so that we could get something on the event into Thursday’s paper. That does not mean I had until 10 to write it. No, the story had to be ready to go to print by 10, and before that happened, two different people had to read it. They also had to read it slowly enough to have a reasonable chance at catching all the boneheaded mistakes I made rushing to write it.

So, I walked out of PEG-TV at around 9 p.m. knowing I had about 30 minutes to get back to the office and write the story, and praying that the train I was hearing wasn’t blocking off the front of Howe Center.

Because the entire paper was being held up for this story, the rest of page was designed with a convenient hole for the staff to plug my piece into once I finished it. This meant I had to write to a set size. The size in question, I was told beforehand, was 18 inches, about 500 words. With nine candidates, I would only be able to devote about 50 words to each of them. In the midst of writing, I was asked if I could bring in the story in the 330-420 word range. I complied, and you read the result last week.

You can see how I do with tonight's debate in, you know it, tomorrow's Rutland Herald.