Entering Falmouth

Falmouth Selectmen Candidates Answer Questions

Unedited Answers to Queries on Capital/Debt Exclusions and Falmouth's Future

Recently, I sent a set of questions to the three candidates for Falmouth's top board, incumbents Ahmed Mustafa and Catherine Bumpus and challenger Brent Putnam.  Each dealt with pressing issues facing the town, including finances, operations, and community character. Each candidate provided answers within the alloted time.  Their unedited responses follow.  Commentary on these responses will be provided before the May 20 election.

Question 1. What is your vision for the next three years fiscally, operationally, and socially in Falmouth?

Catherine Bumpus: My vision for Falmouth is for continued high level of service and a more responsive and open relationship between the citizens and the town government.  The next three years will be tough times financially and a lot will depend on whether the debt exclusions pass.  I believe if the current capital exclusions pass we can continue to barely maintain the town's infrastructure. If they do not we may be faced with operational cuts to offset some of the smaller capital needs.  Socially I hope we see an easing of the divisiveness in town and renewed focus on the character we all think is terrific in this town.

Ahmed Mustafa: The current economic situation in our country is an indication that Falmouth is also in for some hard times ahead. To continue to function in this environment in a manner acceptable to us and to bring things around for our town will require careful planning and even stronger cooperation. More effective communication among the various departments, leaders and authorities of the town is vital. Operationally, we must continue to think outside the box, adapting into a more creative survival mode that implements new methods of supplementing the budget while using our land resources and natural surroundings thoughtfully to our benefit. We must continue to be socially responsible, staying in constant contact with our citizens to maintain an awareness and understanding of their needs, hardships and interests.

Brent Putnam: Falmouth has a diversity seen in few communities of this size. We have multi-generational natives and wash-ashores; blue-collar tradesmen and PhD's; young families and retirees; a tourist trade and academic institutions. We need leaders who can relate to, and unite, all of Falmouth's demographic groups; leaders who work for the common interest rather than special interests.

This morning I was in Woods Hole and a local businessman asked about my thoughts on the proposal to widen Water Street and eliminate street parking. I hadn't yet formed an opinion - I really didn't know that much about it - but as I listened to his concerns, I found myself thinking that this situation was very much like one East Falmouth faced not too long ago.

For many years, Route 28 in East Falmouth did not get repaved because the state wanted to widen the road dramatically. The residents of East Falmouth resisted because the entire character of the village would change if this happened, turning what is now a main road into a de-facto highway.

These may be different villages and different roads, but there are common values and a common interest here; something that can unite us as a town.

Socially, I envision a Falmouth where we seek out these common values and interests and support our neighbors instead of focusing on our divisions and squabbling amongst ourselves.

Fiscally, Falmouth may have a great bond rating, but that has more to do with paying our bills than having a good, sound budget. I see a budget that is balanced not by passing overrides year after year, but by exercising good, fiscal common sense.

Rather than repeat myself, I'll refer you to question #2 for details and examples.The United States of America is the most productive nation in the world by a wide margin. Such efficiency is not an accident; it often requires an up-front investment of some sort that reaps rewards later on. With this in mind, I was disappointed when the selectmen chose not to support the DPW reorganization. Sure, there's an initial cost to this, but it's an investment that promises increased efficiency and productivity.

Operationally, we should be seizing these opportunities, not shelving them. Over the next three years, I see an aggressive attempt to rethink every facet of town government; to leave no stone unturned in an effort to maximize the taxpayer's dollar.

Moreover, this is one of those common interests that everyone could support. Improved efficiency means doing as much, if not more, with the same budget; we could both save and spend money without increasing taxes. It's the best of all possible worlds.

---------------------------------
Question 2:  Do you feel, as has been stated at Selectmen's meetings, that a debt/capital exclusion is now "a way of life" for our local government? Why or why not?

Catherine Bumpus:   The financial constraints on the town are real.  The town government, like all its citizens, is facing increased costs largely associated with fuel, energy, and health care.  On the revenue side the fees that the town charges have been increased about as much as they can be, and new growth is slow, even stagnant.  As you know from your time in town government the town is up against the Prop 2 ½ cap.  The community as a whole has some tough choices to make: we can dramatically cut services, we can continue to fund projects through debt and capital exclusions, or we can let our infrastructure go which will cost us more later on. 

Cutting services may sound painless to some, but both the citizen and visitors have come to expect a certain level of service. Taking those services away could cause hardship to many and might well be detrimental to our tourist-driven economy, putting the town in a worse position financially.

New debt and capital exclusions will be the only way to fund much needed infrastructure repairs and upgrades.  Some things can be let go but the cost of the repairs will have to be paid at some point, and those costs will only be bigger later.  A number widely considered appropriate for the repair costs is between .1 and 1% of the value of the infrastructure yearly.  Falmouth is spending nowhere near that amount.  At some point that structural funding deficit will catch up with the town.  That being said, there's only so much that the taxpayers can bear. Even the most important maintenance may have to be put off at some point, and the ballot questions give the electorate that opportunity for ongoing input.

Ahmed Mustafa: No, I am hopeful that we are not going into that hole. There may be times when we might need to use this concept and put it to use effectively, but to depend on financial exceptions as a way to take care of expenditures on a regular basis is not in the best interest of the town. We must learn to take care of expenses in a timely, prioritized fashion and work through a maintenance fund to keep our facilities in good repair thus avoiding the "debt/capital exclusions".

Brent Putnam: The use of overrides for anything other than major capital projects reveals a failure to reduce expenses or increase revenues - or both - in order to balance the budget.

By separating essentials - such as new fire department equipment or road maintenance - from the budget, the town management has successfully avoided trimming the fat. Few people will vote against a new ambulance, and anyone who drives won't tolerate potholes very long. These are needed, so the taxpayers will fund them.

However, things that aren't needed - and which taxpayers won't fund - are still in the budget. For example, the town manager's office has $9,100 in this year's budget for out-of-state travel, i.e., conventions. Do we really need this for the town to function? I certainly don't think so.

Even worse, town management has made a habit of unnecessary overrides. In 2006, they tried to disguise an override as a water tower that was already bought and paid for. That failed, but last year they succeeded in getting an override to pay for sludge removal - an operational expense that should have been covered by increasing the water/sewer rates and the fees paid by septic haulers.

This practice endangers future projects because the taxpayers will eventually cry 'uncle' under the parade of overrides and start rejecting these tax increases. What if it's sewering that they reject? What then for Oyster Pond, Waquoit Bay or West Falmouth Harbor?

That said; there may be times when more money truly is needed.

One option is to increase the tax rate via an override, or an increase in assessed fees (for things like dump stickers). This is an inherently unpopular way of raising revenue.

 The other option is to broaden the tax base, which in turn will increase revenues. Unless we get creative and come up with new fees and taxes (also unpopular), broadening the tax base usually means encouraging business.

However, we need to diversify our economy; we need businesses that operate year-round which pay wages high enough to raise our standard of living. Aside from tax revenue generated directly by these businesses, the jobs created would make it easier for residents to afford things - like boats and cars - which generate excise taxes.

Finally, there's the question of being up front and open about the fiscal needs of the town. If there's truly a need to raise the tax rate permanently, then town management should make that case instead of stringing the people along year after year with one "temporary" increase after another.

 ---------------------------------
Question 3: The Town of Braintree just changed its Selectmen/Town Meeting form of government in favor of a Mayor/Town Council. How do you feel about this as it relates to Falmouth?

Catherine Bumpus: I hope what Braintree did works for them.  I do not think it would work for Falmouth.  I think Town Meeting is beloved by the people of Falmouth.  People coming into Town Meeting as observers or newcomers have said to me that they are impressed by how knowledgeable the entire body is on a vast array of issues from zoning to nutrient loading.  The last Town Meeting was a great example, three days of largely thoughtful well reasoned debate on very significant issues in the town.  I do not believe Falmouth is ready to give that up as it would have to with a mayor/town council system.  I also think that the Board of Selectmen provides a good balance of opinion that a strong mayor system does not allow for.  Certainly the current Board of Selectmen has a wide diversity of opinion and experiences and we all have to work for what we believe will be the best for the town.  I think the five of us do a better job than any individual would, but I'm sure there are some people who would see the advantage of expediency in the mayoral system.  I do not see any operational advantage to a weak mayor/strong town council system over that of the Board of Selectmen.

Ahmed Mustafa: In April 2006 the voters in Braintree after repeated tries opted for the Mayor/Town Council form of government. Although the population of Braintree is about the same as that of Falmouth, our distance from Boston will likely put this type of government off for a few more years. Many towns are feeling the pulse of growth and the need for what some think is a more streamlined form of government. In my opinion nothing is better than being able to sit down with the Selectmen to get a "pothole" filled without the long and arduous task of paperwork and delays. A simple phone call usually had the hole filled within two hours. Our form of government will be dictated by time and the pace at which the town grows.

Brent Putnam: I've heard from folks on both sides of this issue, and while there are pros and cons on both sides, the issue of accountability stands out.

With respect to town meeting, one Falmouth resident noted in a local paper that there is "very little basis for judging any candidate's past performance because there is no record of how he/she voted, no accountability." As far as I know, I'm the only town meeting representative to publicly post my town meeting votes; getting all 243 town meeting members to do this could be a challenge. In a smaller body, such as a town council, the votes are much easier to record and publicize.

The problem of accountability also exists at the executive level, albeit in a different way. Day-to-day operation of the town is done by the town manager, but he is not directly accountable to the people. He need only satisfy three of the five selectmen to keep his job, whereas a mayor must satisfy the people.

 There's much to be said for tradition, and Falmouth's representative town meeting is the oldest in the state. However, as the size and complexity of our community grows, there is a greater need to hold our leaders responsible for their decisions. This can be accomplished either by electing those who inherently believe in being held accountable, or by changing our form of government so it is easier to hold our leaders accountable.