by Frank Schroth

The Board of Selectmen received an audit review of FY14 town financial statements from Richard Sullivan of Powers & Sullivan. The town accountant Amy Dexter was also present. Mr. Sullivan said that in the statements, “You [the town] present yourself well” and that the opinion is “clean. It doesn’t get any better.” With regard to the management letter, of 11 comments from previous year, 4 had been resolved.There were three new comments. The comments included but were not limited to the following:

• a comment that carried over from the previous year strongly recommended the town adopt a PO system that would provide a regular reconciliation of cash.
• the appointment of a CPO who would ensure that all bids for town services were done correctly
• addressing a minor anomaly in Treasurer’s accounts. There is an account that is being used to fund miscellaneous items such as postage that should be brought into the system.

“Overall I thought the audit went well,” Mr. Sullivan said. Another issue flagged by Mr. Sullivan that the town will need to pay attention to in the near future is GASB 68 which concerns unfunded pension liability.

Statement No. 68, which primarily relates to reporting by governments that provide pensions to their employees, is effective for fiscal years beginning after June 15, 2014. – from GASB vote places unfunded pension liabilities on government balance sheets, Journal of Accountancy

It is a significant accounting issue which all municipalities in Commonwealth need to deal with.

The Selectmen also met with a variety of town officials to discuss methods for improving Town Meeting. A number of comments had been received that expressed concerns with how the most recent town meeting went. Present to discuss were Town Moderator Brian Walsh, Rick Neely, Chair of the Government Study Committee, Alex Whiteside, Chair of the Planning Board, Town Clerk Sue Galvin, and Ted Hays and Paul Pasquerella, Chair and Secretary respectively of the Warrant Committee.

The group acknowledged that there was area for improvemen. One recommendation was to take advantage of technology to present Warrant Committee recommendations and changes to recommendations being made on the large screen used for presentations.

There was also discussion on the timing and proofing of the warrant. Chair Conlon mentioned the possibility of moving the date of town meeting back to allow for more time but she noted that it could then conflict with elections (in November). Whiteside said public hearings “usually didn’t produce very much.” He was referring to hearings on articles that will go before town meeting. The thought being that some sort of vetting of the article take place prior to town meeting to reduce some of the town meeting member comments that arise. Whiteside said it is “always on Town Meeting floor [that] objections rise up.”

Mr. Neely said that “too many articles are not ready.” He reiterated the value of displaying articles as they are being revised. It is “very difficult to tell what is going on,” he said. Ted Hays suggested mailing draft articles to town meeting members. Galvin noted that not all town meeting members have provided an email address to her office.

Selectman Hurley noted that “everything is so dynamic .  .  . [we] don’t want to miss an opportunity.” Regardless of that Neely said the approach should be “We are not going to rush this through. Let’s get it right.” Chair Conlon said that unfortunately it was occasionally the case that on occasion they did need to rush something in.

The Warrant for the annual Town Meeting closes January 6, 2015 at noon.

The selectmen also reviewed a couple of more department budgets for approval. There was a brief but vigorous discussion that erupted during a review of Central Services. The Warrant Committee has asked for three budgets of each department: level service, level dollar and a 2% cut. It was during Town Administrator Annmarie Fagan’s discussion of Central Service budget that Member Hurley voiced his displeasure with the exercise. He said with regard to the 2% cut that:

“if you can’t accomplish it – it shouldn’t be there .  .  . if it’s not doable – it’s not doable – [we] have to be realistic. I’m concerned about realistic budgets .  .  .if it’s just an exercise, I think it is stupid.”

Mr. Hays of hte Warrant Committee, who was still present, said the 2% was not arbitrary but based on what would be necessary given “the available revenue as we see it.”

Hurley said to be realistic budgets would need personnel cuts. Ms. Fagan said “I respectfully disagree.” She argued that she would cut paper, printing, pencils and pens before cutting hours for staff due to an overwhelming workload that current resources can barely meet.

Hurley concluded, “The town has to get control of it’s own budget. [It cannot] leave it to the Warrant Committee.”

They approved the budget.