Our “Profiles in Courage” Select Board waited until the last day permitted–7 June 2021–under Mass. Gen. Laws Ch. 39, Sec. 10, before posting the Warrant for this year’s 14 June 2021 Sterling Annual Town Meeting. Despite the fact that they are shameless, nevertheless I assume that they are somewhat embarrassed by it. They should be. It is chock full of ‘dogs.’ Obviously they did not want to provide Sterling voters much time to analyze it. Here it is–https://www.sterling-ma.gov/sites/g/files/vyhlif1266/f/uploads/2021_6_14_atm_sterling_warrant_0.pdf Please take the time to study it carefully. Be wary. Spot the ‘dogs’ yourself. I’ll be posting about some of the harmful Articles in coming days, so stay tuned!
ARTICLE 52 RESTORES STERLING TOWN MEETING HISTORICAL PRACTICE AND EMBODIES IT IN THE GENERAL TOWN BY-LAWS, CH. 180
Before the 2019 and 2020 Sterling Annual Town Meetings there were NEVER any so-called “Omnibus Budget” Warrant Articles consolidating the Sterling Municipal budget, the Wachusett Regional School District budget, and the Montachusett Regional Vocational School District budget in a single Article for an up or down vote. Such consolidation had the practical effect of limiting questions, discussion, objections, and debate, because each component’s special interest group factional voters present would combine in voting to ram through the entire package. The Select Board and the Finance Committee knew that, of course. Such consolidation is their quick and dirty way of hosing Sterling taxpayers. This year Sterling registered voters, by petition, got Article 52 on the Warrant. It prohibits such consolidation and requires that each such school district’s annual budget request be set forth in a separate, distinct Warrant Article. Likewise each annual Sterling Municipal budget request. Moreover, those requirements will now be set forth in the Town’s General By-Laws, Ch. 180. So come out to this year’s Annual Town Meeting and vote to protect your wallets by approving Article 52.
ARTICLE 53 RESTORES STERLING TOWN MEETING HISTORICAL PRACTICE AND EMBODIES IT IN THE GENERAL TOWN BY-LAWS, CH. 180
Until recent years there were NEVER any so-called “Capital Plan” or, for example, this year’s so-called “Capital Improvement Plan” Warrant Articles in which disparate, unrelated, significant capital spending items were lumped together to be rammed through by the disparate factions supporting the goody-grab-bag components listed. Check out Articles 16, 18, 19 in this year’s Warrant as prime examples of this taxpayer-abusing practice.
NOW, compare THOSE Articles to the capital spending requests set forth in the 2014 Sterling Annual Town Meeting Warrant when EACH capital item exceeding $19,000 in costs was set forth in a separate, distinct Article for an up or down vote– https://www.sterling-ma.gov/sites/g/files/vyhlif1266/f/file/file/2014_warrant_compiled.pdf
The Select Board, the Finance Committee, and the Capital Budget Committee know that consolidating disparate capital spending requests is the quick and dirty way of hosing Sterling taxpayers. This year Sterling registered voters, by petition, got Article 53 on the Warrant. It prohibits such consolidation and requires that each capital spending request be set forth in a separate, distinct Warrant Article. Moreover, that requirement will now be set forth in the Town’s General By-Laws, Ch. 180. So come out to this year’s Annual Town Meeting and vote to protect your wallets by approving Article 53 too.
See you there.
J.G.
STERLING, MASSACHUSETTS, OVERWATCH 
JIm, thanks for bringing this to the voters’ attention. Under previous moderators (😊) we would sometimes utilize a “consent agenda” or “consent calendar” in order to preserve time. The purpose of this was to pass routine and non capital expenses such as street light rental and other mundane annual expenses at one time so as to allow ample time for the many intelligent discussions which would be taking place that evening(s). There always had to be a motion and vote (with opportunity for discussion) in order to employ this process. It was never intended to group significant cost articles or modify (limit) the opportunity for critical discussions on each article to be considered. Articles 52 and 53 are good articles and should be approved by Sterling voters.
LikeLike