When faced with the question of a $396,388 override, 456 voters said No. What does that really tell us about "the will of the people"? Dunstable is about to make some pretty significant cuts in town services. Is that really what these voters were expecting when they voted No?
This is a democracy in which the majority wins, even if the margin is only 1 vote, let alone 6. We are expected to accept the majority vote as "the will of the people." I can go along with that in most cases, but not for this election.
I can easily accept that 456 voters don't want a tax increase. However, I'm having a really hard time believing that 100% of those 456 voters are willing to give up the basic municipal services that we are going to lose as a result of their vote. If that is really the dominant view in this community, then this town has taken a turn for the worse.
The problem with a Yes/No vote on the question of "Do you want a tax increase?" is that the answer only tells you how people feel about a tax increase. Nobody wants a tax increase. So, the most natural answer to the question is No. It tells you nothing about how those people feel about losing basic municipal services and what they might be willing to do to preserve them. The most telling piece of information in this election is that 450 people were willing to approve this tax increase. I think its safe to assume that most of those folks value the services we have and are willing (and able) to pay what it takes to preserve them.
Did the people who voted No understand the consequences of their vote? Whenever there are questions on a state or federal election ballot, we usually get something in the mail that tells us what a Yes or No vote would mean. There was no such document distributed to all voters in this election. Granted, the Selectmen and FinCom [0] went out of their way to make a video that explained the consequences of a No vote and I sincerely appreciate their doing so. Approximately 160 people watched that video on Dunstable Commons and some may have seen it on the cable channel We also know that 180 people heard the need for the override explained at the annual town meeting. Some of those folks talked to their friends and neighbors about it. Those efforts to educate voters probably explain why 450 people voted Yes.
We have no way of knowing what the voters who said No did or didn't understand about the consequences of their vote. I am sure that many of them knew exactly what they were doing. However, I would bet $1,000 (the cost of another ballot vote) that many (or at least 7) of those who voted No had no clue that their vote would result in losing some of our most basic municipal services. Many of them would be shocked to call 911 some day and find that we don't have a police officer locally available to answer their call. I also know for a fact that, among the better informed No-voters, there are some who would support a smaller override, if it only covered the amount needed to preserve our existing municipal services. After hearing that the override amount included the one-time expenses, relating to the purchase of some items and some new services, some refused to approve an increase to the the annual tax levy to support those one-time expenses. FinCom had made it clear that the town only needed $198,000 to preserve existing services. So, they were against raising taxes by twice that amount.
I have sat in several meetings recently, watching FinCom and other boards try to squeeze water out of a stone. They are finding it very difficult (if not impossible) to cut almost $200,000 out of an already lean budget without cutting some of the most basic services the town offers. Various departments are identifying cuts of $10,000 here and $5,000 there that they will accept if it will help preserve as much of our police department as they can. Raises for town employees were off the table the day the override failed. FinCom has given up on getting the library the funding it needs, based on the assumption that we can get a waiver that will get us by for a year, but no one knows how we'll come up with that funding next year. We are starting to make cuts that cannot be sustained on an annual basis; its not like we'll have any more money next year.
Town officials are apparently still working on this budget, looking for any non-essential expenses that can be reduced here and there, and they will probably continue to do so over the weekend. But as of Thursday night, it appeared that they would need to find reductions on the order of $100,000 to keep our the police department staffed sufficiently to provide 24x7 coverage. If they can do that realistically, great! I could live with that budget. But if they can't balance the budget with our police department funded to a level that adequately ensures our public safety, I think our Selectmen and FinCom would be doing a huge disservice to the community not to ask the voters for that funding. I will not support a budget that does not ensure the public safety of our residents in a reasonable and sustainable way.
So far, our town officials have rejected the idea of asking for a smaller override to get the revenue that the needs to preserve our existing services. on the grounds that "the people have spoken." I would suggest that all we really know about the "will of the people" is that they won't support a $396,388 tax increase.
To ask for a smaller override for the minimal amount needed to preserve the basic services that residents have a right to expect from their community is a very different question than the one that voters recently said No to. It would be for a much smaller amount and much more specific in its purpose. It would take roughly 35 days and cost about $1,000 to give the voters the opportunity to vote on a smaller override. Given that our public safety is potentially at risk, would it really be so undemocratic to ask for a smaller amount?
Related News Story
Chief strives to save officers (Lowell Sun) [1]