Some thoughts / comments from a couple of Templeton elected officials, selectmen and school committee.

Article in the Gardner News, Friday, August 19, 2016, by John Vincent (Templeton resident)

The way to voice an opinion is through remote participation, that is why selectmen voted to adopt it a few years back. 

 facts are not necessary, sort of like the letter to the editor by Robert Markel  a while back.

speaking of facts, how much is it going to increase the tax rate in Templeton again, to pay for the school? $1.75 per thousand? In fantasy land perhaps.

Diane Haley Brooks

August 18 at 7:02pm · Templeton, MA · 

In less than 24 hours I'll be sitting poolside and doing nothing, nada, zippo, zilch... Alright, that's a bit of a white lie-I have one offer, one listing and maybe another listing and another offer and some work for the building committee and prep for BOS meeting that I won't be at but wish to voice my opinion.... Seriously, I am leaving to go away for many days

Hank Mason Not to worry, its an opinion column, facts aren't necessary

21 hrs · Templeton, MA · 

Jason Buckley please save me today's paper! I see Templeton made the news again and it's such a great article I want to put it on my wall

Diane Haley Brooks 

21 hrs · 

Wow. That's a lovely article. It's too bad not all the facts are there.

So where are the facts to be found exactly? In the 2017 budget? The end of the year budget versus actual for fy 2016?  If there has ever been a compelling case to recall selectmen, I think this might be it.

posted by Jeff Bennett

2016 end of year budget versus actual report from the Templeton accountant.

On the revenue section, under motor vehicle excise tax, it shows a figure of $975,000.00 taken in. When you look at the fy 2016 budget revenue projections, it shows a figure of $980,000.00. First glance seems to indicate a revenue shortfall of 5 thousand dollars.  Probably not a reason to walk to the bridge just yet, but something to keep in mind as those ever elusive audits come into play and what they will reveal. Again, as things keep adding up, it could be time to step back and pause, then put the brakes on all borrowing until we know exactly where we are.

As stated in an article in the Gardner News, if Templeton had known the numbers, would they have voted for a police station and new school? That may be the most compelling reason to immediately begin a recall of a few selectmen. It is certainly the time to demand answers from those selectmen. It is time for the selectmen to feel the heat. explain to us how a $1.74 per thousand is going to pay for that school?


posted by Jeff Bennett

Reading an article in the Gardner News concerning the school;

It was stated that about three million dollars has been spent but last I knew, only 1 million fifty thousand dollars had actually been appropriated so where did the rest of the funds come from?

I believe there has been short term borrowing  combined the MSBA pro-pay system.  On one of the Templeton budget versus actual documents, there is an amount spent under short term interest. It is time NOW for an accurate and up to date accounting of what has been spent, what it was spent on and where did the funds come from. This explanation is owed to Templeton residents before we go any further on this project and this fiscal year.  Before Templeton goes any farther into debt or spends any more, a complete accounting is required and deserved.


posted by Jeff Bennett

Some interesting items from the newly approved Municipal Modernization Act
Some may be good and others may be "good" for elected personnel but not so good for taxpayers.

Year-End Transfers (Sections 75-76)
Amends MGL c. 44 sec. 33B to eliminate the limits on types and amounts of appropriation transfers that can be made by the select board with finance committee approval at end of year. This allows end-of-fiscal-year transfers from health insurance, debt service or other unclassified/non-departmental line item appropriations and eliminates a cap of 3% on the amount that may be transferred from any department (school and light department line items remain exempt from this procedure). Eliminating the cap on transfers will provide for greater flexibility in avoiding deficits and precludes the need for additional town meetings by July 15 for minor transfers.



Joint/Cooperative Assessing, Classification and Valuation of Property (Section 54)
Amends Section 30B of chapter 41, which governs intermunicipal agreements regarding assessing services or functions by letting select boards establish these agreements rather than town meeting.


(might be time for a town charter process to begin)



Approval of Bills/Warrants (Sections 57-58)
Allows any multi-member boards, committees, and commissions heading departments, including select boards, to designate one of its members to review and approve bills or payment warrants, with a report provided at the next meeting. Currently, a board or committee heading a department may delegate authority to approve payrolls to a member, and a regional school committee may designate a subcommittee to approve bills and payrolls with a report to the next meeting of the full committee. Absent a charter or special act, boards and committees currently have to approve bills or payment warrants by majority vote at a meeting subject to the Open Meeting Law.


Schedule A Compliance (Section 110)
Improves compliance for municipal reporting by changing from October 1 to November 30 the annual deadline for cities and towns to submit the prior year's annual financial report. This also modifies the law to provide the intended consequence for noncompliance and withhold all future payments (regardless of fiscal year) until such time as the Schedule A is submitted and accepted.

Grant Anticipation Notes (Section 62)
Amends MGL c. 44 sec. 6, sec. 6A to allow municipalities to borrow in advance of any state or federal grant (advance or reimbursable).  (remember the play ground?)

Ten-Year BANs (Section 65)
Amends MGL c. 44, sec. 17 by increasing the maximum term for Bond Anticipation Notes from 5 years to 10 with the same required principal paydown as current law to provide treasurers greater flexibility in structuring debt, particularly for smaller purchases or projects.


posted by Jeff Bennett