Disturbed - "The Sound Of Silence" Live on Conan O'Brien 3/28/2016 

This may not be up your alley, but i made it through it. There just may be something to it; silence can turn into something bad and spread like a cancer and where cancer goes, it is all bad news from there. You may be able to beat it, but perhaps if you are proactive, you can avoid it altogether.

Be proactive, take part, speak up, read, ask questions, attend meetings and vote damn it!

When no one or hardly anyone shows up to vote, that just might be taken as a message that we or they do not care so we can continue doing what we have been doing or we can do what we wish because they do not care. They said this by not showing up, as in you spoke without saying anything.

In my opinion, silence is deadly to democracy, it is the same as saying you agree with what is happening or what is being done along with the way it is being done. The best way to speak in democracy is to vote. Speak by showing up to Town meeting, a board of selectmen meeting, Advisory Committee meeting, something, somewhere. 

Do not let this song become the Templeton's theme song.

posted by Jeff Bennett

the U tube was sent to me by someone.

June 2, 2016

A new set of local government reporting requirements relative to liabilities for “other post-employment benefits” (OPEB), issued by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board, are taking effect for fiscal 2018.
 
Statement 75, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Post-employment Benefits Other Than Pensions, will replace statements 45 and 57, effective June 15, 2017, and Statement 74, Financial Reporting for Post-employment Benefit Plans Other Than Pension Plans, will replace Statement 43.
 
The changes have three main purposes, according to GASB.
 
• The changes are intended to better align OPEB reporting with pension reporting, and are nearly identical to GASB statements 67 and 68 for pensions.
 
• Statement 75 is intended to “establish standards for recognizing and measuring liabilities, deferred outflows of resources, and expense/expenditures.” Municipal OPEB liability will now be up front on the balance sheet, to make it more transparent and to improve understanding of the scope of the liability.
 
• The statements address funding from the perspective of accounting for money set aside for OPEB. Statement 74 provides guidelines for OPEB trust funds, including how contributions are made and the legal protections surrounding the plans. The statements discuss parameters for an OPEB trust, for communities that are setting aside money for their liability, but do not address whether public employers should pre-fund.
 
Both statements are effective for fiscal 2018.

posted by Jeff Bennett

Annual Town Meeting, May 23, 2012:


Article 50.
To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate, transfer from available funds or otherwise provide the sum of Thirty Thousand Dollars ($30,000.00) for the first year of a multiple year lease/purchase for a new front-end loader for the Highway Department, provided, however, that the appropriation hereunder shall be expressly contingent upon the approval by the voters of a Proposition 2 ½ , so called, Capital Expenditure Exclusion ballot question, pursuant to the provisions of G.L. c. 59 §21c(i1/2), or to take any other action relative thereto. Submitted by the Highway Superintendent and the Capital Planning Committee On a motion duly made and seconded the town voted to raise and appropriate the sum of Thirty Thousand Dollars ($30,000.00) for the first year of a multiple year lease/purchase for a new front-end loader for the Highway Department, provided, however, that the appropriation hereunder shall be expressly contingent upon the approval by the voters of a Proposition 2 ½ so called, Capital Expenditure Exclusion ballot question, pursuant to the provisions of G.L. c.59 §21c(i1/2).
 Passed/May 23rd @ 7:42

TOWN OF TEMPLETON 

WARRANT FOR SPECIAL TOWN ELECTION

 JUNE 28, 2012

 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS  

  3. Shall the Town of Templeton be allowed to assess an additional $30,000.00 in real estate and personal property taxes for the purposes of funding the first year payment of a multiple year lease/purchase of a new front-end loader for the Highway Department for the fiscal year beginning July first, two thousand and twelve? 

                                                  YES__________ NO____________

Precinct                            A                         B                 C                      Total 

YES                               120                      152                93                       365 

NO                                 232                      186              172                       590 

BLANKS                           1                          3                  2                           6 

TOTALS                        353                      341              267                        961 

Annual Town elections, May 4, 2015

Question 1: “Shall the Town of Templeton be allowed to exempt from the provisions of Proposition two and onehalf, so called, the amount of $300,000.00 required to pay for the purchase of an excavator for the Highway Department.”
                                                           
                                                        YES____________ NO________




QUES. 1
$300,000.00 EXCAVATOR FOR HIGHWAY                                       TOTAL

precinct                                                             A       B       C
 Yes                                                                  91      96      83                  270
 No                                                                 146    132     121                 399
Blanks                                                              24      33       19                   76
TOTAL                                                           261    261     223                 745




ARTICLE 3 DEBT EXCLUSION FOR HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT EXCAVATOR

 To see if the Town will raise and appropriate, transfer from available funds or borrow pursuant to any applicable statute a sum of money to be spent by the Highway Department for the purchase of an excavator; or take any other action relative thereto.
 Submitted by the Board of Selectmen

NO MOTION

Since it had already been defeated at the election, as in NO, there was no point in asking town meeting. So the people did say NO. In my opinion, that means NO, do not do it, but the selectmen did it anyways.

posted by Jeff Bennett

Key provisions of S. 2311
 
Mandated “by-right” multi-family housing districts: S. 2311 would mandate every city and town to establish “by-right” zoning districts for multi-family housing, removing any special permit or local approval process except normal site plan review, with no provisions that these housing units meet the affordability needs of the community, and prohibiting communities from setting density provisions less than eight units per acre in rural communities and 15 units per acre in all other communities. The MMA is concerned that this provision will actually increase the cost of housing in cities and towns and make it harder to meet affordable housing targets because developers will pursue high-end developments that yield the highest profits.
 
Mandated “by-right” accessory apartments: S. 2311 would require every city and town to approve accessory apartments in all residential districts, granting homeowners “by-right” ability to add additions, separate buildings or property renovations as long as the accessory apartment is no larger than half of the entire structure, or 900 square feet, and meets building code standards, although cities and towns could cap accessory apartments to no more than 5 percent of the total non-seasonal housing units in the community.
 
Mandated “open space residential developments”: Every city and town would be required to approve “by-right” residential development projects with greater density if those projects are designed to preserve open space in or adjacent to the development. These are “compact” or “cluster” developments that are designed to allow for a portion of the land to remain undeveloped.
 
Inclusionary zoning: The MMA has been a champion of legislation to clearly authorize cities and towns to adopt inclusionary zoning bylaws and ordinances to require developers to include affordable housing as an important component of large projects. This would enable cities and towns to ensure that new developments help to expand the stock of affordable housing. S. 2311 does contain an inclusionary zoning provision, but would only allow inclusionary zoning in exchange for municipal concessions, such as allowing greater density, even if those concessions are not economically necessary for the project to advance. Communities that have already implemented inclusionary zoning ordinances would be forced to weaken their local policies to conform with S. 2311. Under the Senate bill, inclusionary zoning could not be applied to any developments that are submitted under the “by-right,” multi-family districts mandated in the bill. The MMA will be asking senators to remove any conditions or concessions on inclusionary zoning.
 
posted by Jeff Bennett

June 2, 2016

Senate leaders today released major legislation that would make sweeping changes in the state’s housing and zoning laws, a proposal that would significantly impact development and zoning in every city and town.
 
Senate leaders have taken previous proposed legislation to update the state’s zoning and planning laws and greatly expanded it by adding provisions that would override local authority in several areas, primarily on housing matters. For example, the bill would require municipalities to adopt “by-right” multi-family housing districts and allow accessory apartments “by-right” in residential districts.
 
The bill (S. 2311) is scheduled for a vote by the full Senate next Thursday, June 9.
 
“The MMA supports efforts to give cities and towns real tools to improve local planning and development, and real authority to meet local affordable housing needs and goals,” said MMA Executive Director Geoff Beckwith. “But the for-profit development industry has been pushing hard to preempt local decision-making authority, calling for provisions to override local zoning by mandating ‘as-of-right’ authority for developers, even though this proposed preemption of local zoning would not address the cost of housing or be linked to the development of more affordable housing.”

posted by Jeff Bennett

Jeff Bennett has started this blog because I feel not all things are being done correctly in Templeton, MA. This will be an editorial type blog and will include information on the goings on in Templeton Government.

Ultimatums, demands and blackmail

I do not go to the corner nor do I go to time out, I have other options and I will use them. I think I will borrow a phrase from a good friend, "I am speaking"

Above are a couple of the first things I posted on this blog. So this is my sand box and I play the way I wish to.

 I have not really kept track as to what I have put on here with regards to what is straight fact or what is my opinion, as in how I see things. We all have em and we all see things differently, in some way or fashion. One thing you can be sure of here is this, what is posted is posted by me and only me. It is not all original content because a good bit is Massachusetts General Law, already written policies, information from places such as Massachusetts Municipal Association. The material is not posted by "Templeton Watch", it is posted by a real living person. Kind of hard for Paul H. Cosentino sr. to post anything since the man has been dead for a while. Someone has to be posting things on Pauly's Templeton watch blog, so why dosen't anyone wish to take credit for all the material put on that blog. Maybe it is run under the premise of citizens united ruling where super pacs can take in large sums of money and yet there are no names attached to them. Seems to me there is a lack of conviction there, they demand to know who comments on that blog but know one seems to take credit for the original posts, how nice. Kind of reminds me of a Massachusetts state representative who sponsored a bill to increase tax on liquor then got caught in New Hampshire with a trunk full of liquor. Demand that you pay the tax but he goes to a tax free place. Same thing, in my opinion, we have to know who you are but we don't have to fess up who we are.

posted by Jeff Bennett

Yesterday, at the intersection of Partridgeville Road, Pail factory Road and South Main Street, members of Templeton highway department were doing some tree work. As I approached that intersection, which is a 4-way intersection, I did not see any warning signs nor a police officer (s). While a police detail may not be required, I think from a public safety point, there should be signs warning drivers that there is work in progress in the roadway ahead. Since the highway superintendent just received a raise of several thousand dollars to perform the duties of tree warden, one would think he would ensure public safety.


posted by Jeff Bennett

Massachusetts General Law, chapter 84:


Section 22. If a town neglects to repair any way which it is obliged to keep in repair, or neglects to make the same reasonably safe and convenient when encumbered with snow, it shall pay such fine as the court may impose.

posted by Jeff Bennett

Massachusetts General Law, chapter 84:

Section 1. Highways and town ways, including railroad crossings at grade with such highways and town ways, shall be kept in repair at the expense of the town in which they are situated, so that they may be reasonably safe and convenient for travelers, with their horses, teams, vehicles and carriages at all seasons. A city or town shall submit a letter of request for such repair and for approval by the state department of highways. Upon receipt of such approval, the city or town shall be reimbursed by the commonwealth from monies which may be appropriated therefor by the commonwealth and the federal government to defray expenses of such repairs for safety programming. Such reimbursement will not create liability, of any kind, either civil or criminal on the part of the commonwealth or the federal government.


posted by Jeff Bennett

Low turn out at Town meeting and low turn out at elections.

Here in New England, especially in towns, there is the long standing tradition of of basic democracy that is Town meeting. This is where the people are the legislative branch of government. The only requirements are to be a resident and registered voter. Generally speaking, the people get to make decisions on budget, their local laws and rules and generally what direction they want their town to go in. There are a few exceptions, school budgets for one, especially if the town is part of a regional school district. Recent experience in Templeton, in my opinion, is why it is so important to participate and with that comes knowing the rules and keeping up with them, which I will tell you is a challenge, as it is time consuming to try and keep up with all the changes that can and do happen with the rules and laws.

Another item that is a little more basic and easy, that is the use of chapter 90 funds, commonly thought of as road money. This started out as most things do with good intentions, then it morphed into something different. Again, in Templeton, this is where it happens and this is where people get turned off from participating, in my opinion. Selectmen put a question before the people whether or not to buy a loader or an excavator. The people vote no, so the selectmen then vote to buy the loader or excavator with chapter 90 funds anyways. They do exactly what the people see concerning the vote (s) on the school budget, they (selectmen) take a no vote and turn it into a yes vote. Some may put it this way, the people voted against an increase in their taxes rather than the loader or excavator.

My opinion is this, the people voted no, no loader, no excavator, but they (selectmen) voted to buy it anyways and then tell the residents that there is only this much money to do any road repair work.
To top it off, when ever there is discussion on a capital expense plan, that is a process to plan for the replacement and funding for big items, such as equipment for a highway department, there is always the lack of funding. But if you participate and attend, you would see, in recent years, as in the last two years, that when ever there has been any funds unallocated,  you did not hear selectmen say or mention savings, all you would have seen is spend to expand government or to keep the size intact.
If you were at the most recent Town meeting, you would have heard the selectmen state, "no motion" concerning article 14, transfer an amount to stabilization. No money for savings, no rainy day fund, even as they claimed by word from the Town Administrator that the selectmen budget showed a 50 thousand dollar surplus or unallocated funds left in it. If their budget is good and it is balanced, why not move 25 thousand to stabilization? At least show intent of trying to build up a rainy day fund.

The new elementary school and associated debt aside, the above mentioned subjects of loader and excavator will continue to be part of the reasons people do not bother to attend and will continue to be part of the reason people do not support further increases in taxes, even temporary with regards to debt exclusions, a specific amount of money for a specific period of time.

So the why does it seem people are no longer interested in participating in their government? Could it be they are tired of being asked a question and when they answer, the people whom they elect do not seem to listen?

posted by Jeff Bennett