Author Archives: dunster

None Of The Above

I’ve often written about the effects of single-party politics in Massachusetts.

There’s a bill on Beacon Hill that would help remedy the problem. The idea is that when faced with a ballot with no good choices, you’d have the option of voting for “none of the above. If enough people choose it, a new election is held. It’s certainly an option that I would have taken in November (I even used the “none of the above” phrase!)

I think some people are hung up about what to do if “NOTA” wins the race. I think it’s a bit of a red herring. “None of the above” won’t be at the top of the ballot, but it will be a message. Candidates with high NOTA numbers will be more vulnerable in future elections and opposition campaigns will be able to demonstrate support before they even run. NOTA will make primaries more competitive, and maybe even encourage a few entrants from other parties for the general election.

While I like the idea, I predict that it won’t make it into law. The representatives in office now were elected by the current system. That succeed in the system. They have built their political machines and, history tells us, those machines will keep them in office as long as they want. These aren’t people interested in change. They’re interested in the status quo.

This reform, like so many others, is destined for defeat.

The Perilous Product Launch (Or, How Your Employees Might Sabotage the Launch)

Fenway Park’s concession stands were sporting a new technological gadget when they opened this year. Every cash register was fitted with a MasterCard PayPass reader. It’s like the Mobil Speedpass. Just wave your credit card (or key chain fob) near the reader, and the transaction is done. For transactions under $25 (like buying a pretzel and a couple beers) there is no signature required. It looked like a great idea to me; I don’t want to wait in line at Fenway, I want to watch the game. A faster transaction should mean a shorter line.
paypass.JPG

A couple weeks ago I was at a game and I noticed that the readers were hidden behind the cash register, face down. I asked the guy pouring the beers if the system was down.

“No, we just hate the things. We get screwed on tips when people use them.”

MasterCard presumably spent a lot of money studying the market and deciding where to launch it. If you look at the list of participating banks, it’s very focused on ballparks. MasterCard is going to look at the data from Fenway Park, and they’re going to be disappointed. There will be fewer users. They may even decide to kill the product because people didn’t use it.

The unresolved question, though, will be whether the problem is apathetic consumers or poor design. MasterCard has to know that it needs the vendors on its side, or at least not as an active enemy. By failing to make tips easy, MasterCard earned the enmity of the vendors while simultaneously shrinking the average transaction size. But do they even know it? Do they see the sales data, kill the project, and call it a day? Or do they have the savvy to survey vendors anonymously?

As a part of my job I collect and analyze data about what new products are working and which ones aren’t. Things like this make me break out in hives.

Bringing Competition to Auto Insurance in Massachusetts

When I was running for state rep in ’04, one of my “stump speech” issues was auto insurance. I talked about how the law permitted the insurance commissioner to annually make a formal declaration that competition for insurance in Massachusetts was impossible, and then fulfill the prophecy by imposing price controls. I talked about how it resulted in higher insurance prices for most car owners. I also talked about how the state was forcing good drivers to subsidize bad ones, how people making riskier choices were being subsidized by people making safer choices.

I am, of course, delighted that Governor Deval Patrick’s appointee, Nonnie Burnes, has decided to open the door to competition (well, at least crack the door open).

The usual set of naysayers are starting up their chorus. Check out this Globe editorial, and then do some of the math with me. The Globe cites a MassPIRG statistic that one million drivers will be left without choices in the new system. It notes that there are four million autos in Massachusetts. By my math, that’s claiming that 25% of drivers will be in this high-price, no-choice deadend. The editorial also relays Burnes’s statement that 80% of Massachusetts drivers subsidize the 20% riskiest drivers. Which means that . . . there are some people who are currently subsidizing other drivers, paying above market rates, that won’t find an insurer in the new system? That doesn’t pass the smell test. Everyone who gets to stop subsidizing bad drivers will enjoy rates that fall even faster than they are now.

MassPIRG, and by association the Globe, is engaged in some classic fearmongering. I notice that most of the people who will see higher rates live in cities. I also note that MassPIRG is a strong advocate of using public transportation. Do you think MassPIRG has considered that if the cost of driving a car in the city goes up, that more people will use public transportation?

One last thought: When Mitt Romney was governor, he got to appoint his own insurance commissioner. I’d really like to hear him try to explain why he couldn’t have made this change. And then I’d look at the list of his contributors for people in the insurance industry.

Here’s hoping that the changes stick. Let’s put the costs where they belong.

Another Finneran On The Horizon

Author’s note: It’s been harder than I expected getting back in the habit of writing, post-Town Meeting. Is this post where I turn the corner, or the last post for 6 weeks? We’ll all find out together.

House Majority Leader John Rogers spent $196,000 of his campaign funds and he won’t say he won’t say what he spent it on.

Rogers watched the former speaker John Finneran legally spend hundreds of thousands of campaign dollars without detailed reporting. Rogers watched Finneran buy favors from friends and colleagues. Rogers watched Finneran use the campaign funds to support his lifestyle (car, cellphone, etc.). I think Rogers saw a winning strategy, and is making it his own.

Is anyone going to demand an accounting?

I’m not holding my breath for Rogers’s colleagues in the house to step up to the plate here. They don’t have a track record of demanding accountability. Finneran and Rogers represent the leadership culture, and the followers don’t show any signs of seeking a new way.

I think it comes down to the voters Norwood and Walpole. Who do they want representing them?

Finance Committee Approves Reserve Fund Transfers

(Black text is mostly objective, red text is mostly subjective in nature.)

Finance Committee met tonight to review several transfers out of the reserve fund. Every year Town Meeting appropriates a few hundred thousand dollars into a reserve fund. The finance committee approves transfers out of the fund into regular budgets as requested by various departments. Some transfers were made earlier in the year, but most transfers happen at the end of the year as budgets reach a close.

First up was Treasurer Stephen Gilligan. He wanted $10,000 to complete a system that will permit the town to accept payments online. He spoke for several minutes about the system and answered several questions about the project and how much it had cost. I think that his has been a poorly planned and managed project. Regular readers of my blog know that I’ve been critical of the high cost and poor accountability of the town’s IT expenditures; this project is a poster child of IT dysfunction. As an example, I point something that the treasurer said in his transfer request that “training is not contemplated” and “bug fixes are not contemplated.” Of course there will be bugs! It’s nuts not to plan for them. I’m sure we’ll end up paying more for this before we’re done, but I think we’re finally reaching the end of it. The change we made this spring to put IT under the Town Manager will help. I’m not interested in fighting this particular budget battle. I’m much more interested in preventing this type of purchase from happening like this in the future..) I proposed that we approve the transfer, include a comment that we think the purchase could have been done better and more cheaply, and require that future expenditures of this type go through the Capital Committee (and therefore, by referral, the ITAC committee). During discussion more than one member argued that the transfer be disapproved until the current spending has been further reviewed. My motion was approved 14-1.

The second request was from the Town Manager. Deputy Town Manager Nancy Galkowski walked through the $500,000 defiicit, the $280,000 in budget transfers, and the $230,000 in reserve fund transfers that were requested to cover it. The larger items included paying out vacation and sick time for several senior retirees in the police department, overruns in the fire department’s overtime department, and last year’s retirement of the director of human services. The DPW budget made up $200,000 of the transfer and Comptroller made up $80,000. Here is the handout with some more detail. There was lengthy discussion about how the town should account and budget for vacation and sick time liabilities. There was a lengthy discussion about how to more accurately budget the overtime budget in the fire department. I agreed with something that Charlie Foskett said. This is yet another reason to move from the current budget method towards a budget that shows “fully loaded” salary, health care, and retirement costs. In the current budget, town departments’ budgets show only salary costs. The health care and retirement costs are in separate buckets. That means that a department can find $50,000 for salary and hire someone, but the town pays more than twice that because of non-salary costs. A “fully loaded” budget would mean that departments would have to find the full cost of hiring in their budget, not just a fraction. The transfer was approved unanimously.

The committee gave the chair permission to transfer funds up to a certain amount, and up to $25,000 if the vice-chairs agree, during the summer in the event of an emergency.

Town Meeting, 5/22, Session Nine (Final Session)

I take notes during Town Meeting. They are not official in any way. As I listen to people speak, I scribble notes. I’m sure that, at times, I mishear or misunderstand the speaker, but my notes represent what I hear at the time. I then publish the notes every night after the meeting. I do go back and make a few edits as errors are pointed out to me.

I do not try to reproduce my entire notepad for this online version. Sometimes I relay a quote from a specific speaker. Most of the time I only summarize the discussion. At points I give a purely personal opinion; those are clearly labeled like this: Personal note. When I remember to note the time, it looks like [8:05].

The meeting was called to order promptly at 8:00. Town Meeting member Charles Gallagher played the national anthem. A man from St. Paul’s Lutheran Church gave the invocation.

The moderator reported on the student Town Meeting.

The moderator noted that of 76 articles, 49 were finished.

Article 2 – Reports

John Belskis reported that the GIS/40B Study Committee hadn’t met since it was formed last year. Note: When you create a committee, be sure to choose which member is in charge of calling the first meeting.

Article 52 – School Building, continued. Mr. Healey made an amendment that would fund most of the planning through an increase in the tax rate. [8:14] Town Meeting does not have the power to set the tax rate. The amendment was revised to spend money out of general funds, but it did not specify an offsetting cut to balance the budget. The intent of the amendment appears to be to remove the funding through borrowing. That, of course, makes it a majority vote rather than 2/3. I think I have myself to blame for pointing this out in my notes last week. There were several speakers who were in favor of rebuilding Thompson, but thought this plan was too risky. I moved to terminate debate. Healey’s amendment lost, then Shea’s substitute motion failed, and then the Finance Committee/Spangler version was approved unanimously.

Article 4 – Assistant Moderator election. Moderator Worden announced that he was accepting the nomination and Rich Carreiro was declining. I read a short statement from Rich Carreiro who explained that he will run in the future. Worden won unanimously.

Article 53 – Sewer Financing. Passed unanimously. [8:50]

Article 54 – Water Financing. Passed unanimously.

Article 55 – Liberty Ride Committee. Passed. [8:52] Despite the fact that the vote was taken, the moderator permitted speakers. A speaker complained that historical committees were not created with enough rigor. The motion passed (again).

Article 56 – Pension Adjustment. $0 approved.

Article 57 – OPEB funding. Finance Committee chair Allan Tosti explained that the sources of the funds (past savings, annual contribution, increase in retiree premiums, and Medicare Part D) and why they were being placed into this particular reserve fund (arcane details of accounting practices and poorly-written home-rule legislation). Kaj Telenar proposed an amendment that would move town funds to the state retirement system when it became possible. Town Counsel explained why he thought the motion wasn’t legal. Maher also said that he had originally said the amendment held water. I would be pretty annoyed if I’d made the amendment and then watched counsel do a 180. Mr. Fisher proposed a resolution about a state funding mechanism. Gordon Jamieson made a long and confusing statement with questions about health care funding. He threatened to make an amendment, but did not. John Bilafer defended the retirement board. The resolution was approved. The amendment failed. The main motion was approved, 130-1.

Article 58 – Local Option taxes. No action.

Article 59 – 200th Anniversary. [10:01]. Pam Meister outlined the Arlington 200 celebration for next week. Lawrence McKinney complained about the committee. I thought Mr. McKinney’s comments were in very poor taste. He went through the list of volunteers on the committee one by one and disparaged them. Volunteers should be thanked, not chastised. The appropriation was approved.

Article 60 – Animal Commission. No action, unanimously.

Article 61 – Revise Budgets. No action, unanimously.

Article 62 – Barber Progam. Approved unanimously.

Article 63 – Minuteman Senior Services. Approved unanimously.

Article 64 – Revaluation. There were several questions about valuation methods and the 9-year valuation cycle. Voted unanimously.

Article 65 – Tip Fee Stabilization Fund. Voted unanimously.

Article 66 – Cemetery Fund Transfer. Voted unaimously.

Article 67 – Overlay Reserve Fund Transfer. After a question, voted unanimously.

Article 68 – Override Stabilization Fund. $100,000 was put in to support the 5-year plan.

Article 69 – Unencumbered Funds. Passed.

Article 70 – John Maher explained that the bylaw was to permit committee members to vote in certain circumstances even if they had missed part of the meeting. After a question about the historic commission the changed was approved.

Article 71 – Ian Miller explained the goal of the endorsement of the Arlington Sustainability Action Plan (ASAP). Chris Loreti noted that the article asked us to endorse a plan that had not been distributed to members. He moved to weaken the language in the motion. A couple speakers defended the article, and others were opposed. Two notes. 1) At this point, 7 of the previous 9 speakers had last names that started with J, specifically Judd or Jameison. See previous notes about meeting karma. 2) I voted against this. The ASAP plan has some good stuff, but it goes too far. I think the science is shaky and the policy even moreso. I supect that if they’d actually passed out the ASAP plan that they would have had a harder time getting this through. The amendment failed and the main motion passed.

Article 23 – Daniel Wesinger. Like Article 22, this was to get around the state’s age requirements. Allan Tosti proposed a time limit of 2012. Passed 120-2.

Article 72 – Health Insurance Funding. Voted no action.

Article 73 – Belmont Development Resolution. [11:06] A speaker complained about the effect it would have on Arlington. Voted unanimously.

Article 74 – Troop Support. Kaj Telenar proposed a substitute motion that supported the troops but removed the references to the war on terror. There was debate in favor and against both versions. The substitute motion was used by a vote of 70-42, and the motion then passed.

Article 75 – Spanking. After some directionless discussion the vote of no action was approved.

A presentation was made to John Worden for 19 years of service as moderator.

The meeting was dissolved.