Ah, if I only had a brain, but no I was not attempting to create a straw man argument in my last post. Rather, I am describing, from my point of view, the less than shocking intertwining of the city's partisan political system and power infrastructure with its public school system, also known as the status quo in this town and maybe many others. In this way my argument is not really an argument at all but rather a description of the condition of the city. Is it shocking?-no, I didn’t say that. Is it true?-yes, and this infrastructure as I’ve described has brought us a projected $6 million deficit. Does Northampton's political infrastructure have other influential branches besides the school system?-certainly it does.

What is mystifying to me is that many parents of school children provide Higgins with some of her most stalwart political support, yet it is the school system she starves while whipping the same parents into a frenzy over the threat of closings and high class sizes.

If I am to make an argument at all it is that Higgins' discretionary spending decisions have taken money from the school system, a system where school supporters are commonly known to be more passionate than say, supporters of the fire, police or public works departments respectively. For instance, there is no Northampton Public Safety Action Team that is lobbying for an override to my knowledge. In fact, I believe only about 20% of Northampton households actually have children in the school system, yet almost everyone uses the road system and, as you indicate Andrew, about 60% of the general budget is devoted to the schools.

In any event it is not enough to simply blame others while continuing business as usual and that is precisely what Higgins does in my view. As far as she and her followers are concerned, there is no part of the city's current fiscal dilemma that her decisions have caused. The assembled all-star team of local politicos must think everyone not encapsulated in its groupthink mentality has no brain and apparently its members do not care much about the perceptions they give off. It does seem to work like a machine. Of course people work at cross purposes in all walks of life for many different and benevolent reasons, but it becomes clear who has the dominant voices in town when issues stir controversy. Moreover, at times some of Northampton's volunteer board members seem to make decisions based on personal beliefs and relationships and knee-jerk reactions to opposition rather than on objective analysis, and that is not good, but alas that is politics.

Since you might ask for some spending examples here are a few:

• The mayor decided a couple of years ago to allocate $50 thousand to the Academy of Music for utilities citing the original deed’s requirement for city support. At the time that was to be a one-time expenditure. The expenditure was repeated again the next year, but there was an understanding that if/when the Academy started generating a profit the allocation would no longer be necessary. Heck, the Academy under the old business model could probably have survived if someone was picking up the tab for its utilities, but that wasn’t done until after the mayor and other trustees fired Academy employees under the guise of reorganization. Well, the mayor included the new $50 thousand allocation in the BID memorandum of understanding, and now, whether the Academy generates a profit or not, it will get $50 thousand annually from the city. Basically Higgins and the council permanently removed a teacher from the system with this decision.
• The new police station proposal. The city has already spent about $1 million on it and bonded the money, which means we are paying interest plus the principal. In fact the city is sitting on more than a million dollars in a capital stabilization fund that was placed there from free cash, which could have been spent on the schools. Instead it is earmarked for making payments on the police station's future municipal bond issues, bonds which the mayor has no long range fiscal plan to pay back, other than using said free cash. The mayor calls the possibility that the police station might not go forward a tragedy. I think the tragedy is in her gambling on the city's fiscal future. In my view bringing the police station proposal before the voters as a debt-exclusion override would be more straightforward than constructing a building on credit with no idea how it will be paid back.
  
• The same can be said for the Senior Center project which now requires the use of a combination of CDBG and general funds to pay the interest and principal obligations on those bonds.
• The Hilton Garden Inn. The city sold the property for a dollar and then, due to a faulty planning process, paid a $55 thousand settlement to an abutter, which costs the city a teacher for a year. This figure was included in the $260 thousand in legal services fees for 2008. Without the settlement the city still spent $205 in legal services last year, which equates to several teachers. The point here is, if the mayor continues to make decisions that spur lawsuits against the city, perhaps we need a better way to make decisions.
• The aforementioned BID, the most recent example of the mayor pushing through a proposal which allocates $35 thousand annually to a private nonprofit enterprise, plus in-kind contributions, which together probably cost the city most of another employee each year. But as Higgins said at a recent council meeting, “it’s only one employee.” This was spoken by someone who does not have kids in the schools.
• The pay increases the mayor negotiated (which probably includes teachers ironically) totaling more than $1 million according to media reports, even though there have been cutbacks at the state and federal level for most of the past decade. How does one negotiate pay increases for anyone without the funds in hand while the country is active in two wars? Higgins is perfectly aware of the cutbacks at the state and federal levels, yet seems to think we can spend as if we are a nation at peace, which we are not and have not been for awhile.
• Environmental conservation which removes land from the tax rolls in many cases. The mayor’s planning department has spearheaded these efforts through the use of CPA funds and other sources of money. While I generally support the mayor in this regard and even made a modest donation to the Turkey Hill Road initiative, it would also be nice to present the public with the figures concerning how much money the city has lost in property taxes in the aggregate due to land conservation. Critics have argued that since development has come to a halt now due to market pressures, why spend city dollars and take more land off of the tax rolls when it’s not likely to be developed. It is difficult to have this conversation however, without hard numbers to look at.
• The roundabout in front of Look Park. I believe the costs of a roundabout far exceed the costs of a traditional traffic light. I don’t know the specifics of the funding sources for that project, but if a roundabout costs three times as much as a traffic light, that would indicate we could have installed three traffic lights at intersections that meet the warrants instead of the one roundabout at Look Park.
• The millions of dollars spent on the Phase Five landfill expansion proposal, before it has even been approved. There will be more bonds and borrowing costs for that too and there is no guarantee the solid waste stabilization fund will continue to pay the city its host community fee of $468 thousand annually. That plus it might end up poisoning the water in an aquifer.
• The PILOT agreement Higgins negotiated with Smith College. Instead of negotiating a PILOT agreement for the new $75-$100 million Ford Hall, she negotiated a PILOT agreement for four multi-family homes that Smith demolished. Have you ever heard of a PILOT based on homes that no longer exist? Here Higgins negotiated not to lose rather than to win. I estimate the loss to city taxpayers at more than $800 thousand-$1.15 million, annually.
• The Hospital Hill project. If the project was generating a profit for the city tax-wise you can be certain it would make headlines in the local press and on the radio in this regard. To date there have been about sixty housing units completed, and one commercial building. There are about sixty more mostly speculative housing units under construction currently. Could it be the project is costing the city money thus far? That would be my guess but I cannot say so definitively. Of course once Kollmorgen opens its new facility there will be ribbon cuttings and photo opportunities galore.
  
• Finally but not inclusively, some folks believe the city's spiffy new phone system, complete with hotlines, is a bit excessive during these tight economic times. Even if the money is eventually reimbursed over the years, the city must still front the expense initially.

The issues outlined above are simply fresh on my mind. Who knows what a forensic accountant could determine. I mean, let’s see the receipts because I watched the mayor’s address to the finance committee, the same one she is apparently delivering on her tour, and there’s not much there other than a macro view of the city’s finances with little detail. Perfect storm?-I don’t think so. What a terrible analogy.

In short, it seems the mayor and council keep spending and the money has to come from somewhere as revenues are not growing. Further, the mayor only seems to make ward visits when she wants more money for the general fund, but not when she is spending money without voter approval on specific projects that cater to special interests. Thus she consistently switches back and forth between her preferences for direct democracy and representative democracy depending on the nature of the issue.

Moreover, I still have not figured out exactly what Higgins’ strategy for the community is. Other than affordable housing, what is her vision? Who knows? Should we just give her more money and maybe she’ll figure it out. No thanks. And councilor Narkewicz says she’s doing a great job as he heads for the exit.

In my view Higgins’ strategy is staying in office. Her behavior constitutes an example of textbook pluralism where she gives in to the special interests in return for their political cover. This is how the city, state and federal governments run. She counts on special interests and their organizing prowess to get reelected and to manipulate the voters. If an override passes she will have the dominant discretion over how the funds are to be allocated and the favors from the special interests will be returned.

Is it not time for new and innovative thinking as exhibited in some of the recent letters to the editor or guest editorials published in the Gazette? These writings reflect some interesting ideas on how to address our educational issues, ideas other than sticking with the status quo.

As well, people who write published editorials, letters to the editor, or offer their opinions on the radio, television and throughout the blogosphere often utilize second hand information, though usually they do not cite the information as such, as did I. I reported this so people could take it for what it’s worth. Nonetheless you have a valid point that extrapolating second hand information to all of the mayor's budget briefings is not appropriate and that is where I admittedly erred. Nor, however, is it appropriate to extrapolate your attendance at one meeting to representing the others.

That said, the purpose of Redoubt is for me to espouse my opinion, for better or worse, and generate discussion, both on the blog and in the greater community. I appreciate people leaving their comments or contacting me in agreement, disagreement or in clarification. As an outside observer, my opinions are formed from having attended or viewed scores of Northampton's municipal meetings, from studying documents, minutes and agendas, and from interviewing people concerned for the community. Are my opinions infallible?-hardly. But you have me thinking, Andrew, that perhaps there should be a new rule: people cannot write or broadcast about things unless they can do so as first hand personal witnesses. That would quiet down quite a few folks, including this one.

Best Regards,

Daryl