Photos
Salem Board of Selectmen and Budget Committee candidates were grilled Thursday night on a variety of topics from curbside waste pickup to union contracts during the annual Greater Salem Chamber of Commerce Candidates Night.
Selectmen candidate Ronald Belanger stood apart from his three other fellow
candidates on the issue of the Sanbornization of union contracts, with which he disagrees.
“I don’t think that one board should obligate another board during bad economic times,” said Belanger.
The premise behind Sanbornization is that residents are approving on a multi-year contract with one vote before the first year.
Other attending candidates James Keller, Everett McBride and Anthony McKeon (Carl Swiderski did not respond to the request to appear) all approve of the contracts. McBride said that he is convinced that there will be significant savings on health care should they pass.
A total savings of $238,560 will be incurred for the nine remaining months of 2012 following the election by changing the health insurance provider to Cigna.
Five contracts will be on the ballot that the voters will be asked to approve on, each multiple years in length.
All four candidates for the Budget Committee who appeared (candidate Richard Baillargeon was unable to attend) support the contracts, although incumbent Paul Huard said that he dislikes the term “Sanbornization,” but added that the idea of multi-year contracts is a good one.
Fellow candidate Robert Bryant agreed, saying that it helps to know what next year is going to bring.
“I believe it gives you an opportunity to look out in the future (and) see exactly what your expenses are,” said Bryant.
Also running for the Budget Committee is Paul Welch, who used to work on a fire department in Massachusetts. He said that he “wasn’t totally opposed” to the concept, adding that he used to have multi-year contracts when he was a firefighter.
“It lets you know what you are getting into,” said Welch.
Belanger also split off from his fellow selectmen candidates on the issue of background checks, and whether they should take place for Planning Board and Zoning Board of Adjustment candidates.
He disagreed with them, saying that nobody gets a background check right now from any of the boards in town.
He said that a simple Internet search could suffice for those vetting candidates.
“If they just Google somebody’s name they can probably figure out everything that they want to know without putting someone through a criminal record check,” said Belanger.
Keller brought up the subject as something that he would encourage should voters decide to have candidates for both boards appointed.
The four selectmen candidates were against the curbside waste pickup warrant on the ballot, each presenting varying arguments.
Candidate Everett McBride argued curbside pickup would cost more money, saying that there would be a total increase from $86 to $119 a ton.
“I think we’ve got the data that proved that we should stick with the transfer station,” said McBride.
Belanger added that trash buckets will be all over the place in the winter, especially on the narrow roads.
“I don’t want Salem to look like that,” said Belanger.
Both the Selectmen and Budget Committee candidates also united in support of Article 12, which would make Salem an SB2 town.
Also posed to the budget committee as part of the SB2 question was whether the committee would still be needed should that article pass.
Huard said that the committee would still be needed.
“I will oppose any attempt of it and I don’t see anything in SB2 that says the budget committee is not necessary,” said Huard.
Also issuing statements at the event were school board candidates Michael Carney Jr. and Pamela Berry, ZBA candidates Gary Azarian and Bernard W. Campbell and Planning Board candidates Edward DeClercq, John J. Manning, Phyllis O’Grady and Paul Pelletier.
Russ Richardson
1:32 pm on Friday, February 24, 2012
Because of his stand on SB2, I told Everett McBride, he would get my vote.
Well that all changed here when I read that he supports, " Sanbornization ".
Simply what that means, is with a yes vote on the contracts you will be funding a three year COLA which totals out to be about 7%.
Municipal and School District operating budgets are year to year bottom line budgets. Salem historically has dealt with COLA on a year to year bases at the Town&School Meetings, and I see no reason for that to change.
I would say Vote NO on all union contracts, Town and School District.
In the future, Unions should start at a point by disclosing what they have versus what they want. Open up the process to the voters
WHILESALEMSLEEPS
9:54 pm on Friday, February 24, 2012
Mister Richardson and Mister Linehan, you are pathetic in your condemning the “Sanbornization” of the town labor agreements!!!! The contracts save us taxpayer’s money and try to create a win/win situation with employees. Employees and their families are going to a cheaper plan given economic realities. “Sanbornization”, as a result of past labor court case law. It requires that all the facts and cost are provided upfront to the voter in the first year when they vote on the contract at the ballot box. They are voting on the whole cost at that time, for the term of the contract. This is similar to a fixed rate mortgage where you know what your first and last payment will be for the length of the note. I believe that if the employees are making a significant concession in a quest to deliver service 2nd to none for our community they should be able to plan for the next 3 years. It makes me believe that no matter what agreement that the town comes to with its employees you two will find something wrong with it!!!!!!
Anthony Arnold
6:33 am on Sunday, February 26, 2012
Does anyone see the big picture or do you all focus on one thing? The town should save money with all 3 unions it has eliminated positions and entire departments so naturally the town will save some money. Town budgets should be based on a yearly budget not have includes that span out 3 years. Sanbornizing just another financial way to spin numbers so they look good. The town will never see a dime of savings overall because the savings will be squandered elsewhere, it may look good on paper and sound great but so did outsourcing the IT Dept with a boasted savings of approx $130,000.00 to the tax payers, no one ever mentioned that the town had to pay $200,000.00 to the vender in 2011. I wonder if Mr. McBride would still be such a supporter if the Town Manager Mr. Hickey explained that while the PD and the FD were being nickel and dimed for life saving funds that he was spending Two Hundred Thousand tax payer dollars with a company that was supposed to save 130K. The Board of Selectmen hired a great TM he works just like wall street, everything looks great until you peel back all the deception and then we pay for the mistakes with taxes. Can you also imagine that not one of the current BOS or budget committee members say a peep about it, my guess is they did not know about it?
James Gill
8:02 am on Thursday, March 1, 2012
Russ i agree with you 100%
Around Town
2:53 pm on Friday, February 24, 2012
Mr Richardson I applaude you on your observation of Mr McBrides support of Sanbornization in fact he is a loyal supportor of town employee's and i believe as a person who voted against his appointment to the Budget Committee because he truly does not understand that the taypayers ability to pay does not equal the fortunate town employee's who will continue to benefit from these generous contracts which as kieth hickeys concede's works in the union's; favor. Please everyone dont take away the selectmen's bargaining opportunities by giving them the union employee's everything thet want while the rest of us taxpayers worry on March 13, 2012 vote down all sanborized contract's and bring them back to the bargaining table for real concession's to be offered.
Wendy James
6:27 pm on Friday, February 24, 2012
Patrick, I love how you throw the only guy who would second any of your motions for discussion during the budget meetings under the bus!!! Such loyalty!
Fortunate town employees, unions getting everything they want, what planet are you living on ? Our town employees have gone 4 or 5 years without a pay increase and the unions gave back lots of concessions to the town which resulted in $$$$ for the town.
You really need to stop attacking our town employees who are just working day in and day out to make Salem a better place for us all. This "us against them" mentality that you and some others have is sickening to me!
Sanborizing is a word that means nothing and all of you that are out there throwing it around have no idea what you are talking about. How many contracts have you negotiated ? Did you negotiate your current contract, how long does it go for, what benefits did you go without to finalize that contract ? Really, all you do is say no to everything but you have nothing to back it up.
My family is going to go to Vermont to ski for school vacation week. We've saved and planned for this for a while. I am sure there are some families that are not traveling this vacation. With your way of thinking I should probably just stay home because it's not something everyone can afford to do!
Tick toc, tick toc, tick toc, that's my clock counting down the time you have left before we replace you with someone who can see the big picture!
James Gill
8:03 am on Thursday, March 1, 2012
Patrick, i agree with you 100%
Tom Linehan
5:16 pm on Friday, February 24, 2012
I agree we should vote down all Sanbornized contracts on principle. But I would not rule not Everett just on that issue. Ron is a true conservative who is also pro growth unabashedly. The question I have is are either of the other two any closer to my views than Everett? It is not a clear choice this year.
Russ Richardson
6:56 pm on Friday, February 24, 2012
Well Tom, that is the dilemma that voters face today. If anyone of these Selectmen candidates were open about their position, maybe candid is a better word, I would agree with you. When they state their support for the contracts, it would be good for them to state the facts as to why. If you read the proposed budget, http://townofsalem.org/reports-documents.html , I see very few people in need of a COLA or step increase. The only employees that get hurt here are in the $30000 category, up to say $38000 with no overtime. Extend to them a COLA and you get my vote.
Jeff Hatch
9:37 pm on Friday, February 24, 2012
Sometimes the devil you know is better than the devil you don't know. There's no doubt in my mind Tom. out of the other 2 Everett is the closes to your views. Plus I'm not sure how pro growth Keller is after watching the Planing Board's disrespectful and rude behavior towards applicants. On top of that he's boasting abouting their leagalized exstortion techniques (Lowes and Tuscan...).
WHILESALEMSLEEPS
9:54 pm on Friday, February 24, 2012
Mister Richardson and Mister Linehan, you are pathetic in your condemning the “Sanbornization” of the town labor agreements!!!! The contracts save us taxpayer’s money and try to create a win/win situation with employees. Employees and their families are going to a cheaper plan given economic realities. “Sanbornization”, as a result of past labor court case law. It requires that all the facts and cost are provided upfront to the voter in the first year when they vote on the contract at the ballot box. They are voting on the whole cost at that time, for the term of the contract. This is similar to a fixed rate mortgage where you know what your first and last payment will be for the length of the note. I believe that if the employees are making a significant concession in a quest to deliver service 2nd to none for our community they should be able to plan for the next 3 years. It makes me believe that no matter what agreement that the town comes to with its employees you two will find something wrong with it!!!!!!
James Gill
8:11 am on Thursday, March 1, 2012
Tom Look at Mc Brides record
.We all know how he jacked our tax up and the Water Meters in the operating budget
.We dont need another Lyons ,Mc Bride set up int his town .We had enough of 3 to 2 votes on the board of Selecten .
it was not long ago Mc Bride was sitting in with Roth , Covey ,and lyons, holding hands . least we for get .This time we have to pick canidates that will not form a 3 way pack as we just had
Travis the Chimp
6:29 pm on Friday, February 24, 2012
You will not get any of the concessions you want without sanbornizing the contracts. That is a fact. If you vote them down we the people of Salem will not save any money. If all the contracts pass we can save around 900K over the three year period. That is just due to the switch of health care carriers.
If you vote it down the employees keep their current health care. In turn we will pay more and more in the next three years. The unions are also going to pay more cost sharing on health care.
Everyone wants to stick it to the town employees when in reality, we will stick it to ourselves if we don't pass the contracts.
Don Duston
10:07 pm on Friday, February 24, 2012
Union givebacks? Please. The unions give nothing back. Whatever savings there is in changing health insurance will get lost somewhere else. The unions ain't gonna allow anything that results in a true financial giveback and a true savings to the Town. There is a catch here somewhere. The Town employees will still make out very well with this deal and the taxpayer will get stuck with the bill in the end.
Russ Richardson
12:16 am on Saturday, February 25, 2012
@whilesalemsleeps, I'll let the numbers do the talking for anyone who cares to read them: http://townofsalem.org/reports-documents.html
http://townofsalem.org/images/stories/Finance/2012_Warrant_Article_Narrative_final.pdf
Patriot
6:30 pm on Saturday, February 25, 2012
Travis the Chimp, How is it possible for; "If all the contracts pass we can save around 900K over the three year period." That just makes no sense for employees to claim they are getting a 7% pay increase over the three years and the town claims to make $900,000.00.
Dr. NO
8:36 pm on Saturday, February 25, 2012
Doesn't matter, blah, blah, blah, blah. The bottom line is that our taxes went up much, much to much last year and the vote in March is the day of reckoning. VOTING NO on every spending item sends the message loud and clear! And yes on SB2.
James Gill
8:20 am on Thursday, March 1, 2012
DR NO .
Remember this the Budget commitee with there rubber stamp of 7 to 1 voteing said the budget was good and very well though out .that was the voice of the budget chair telling us that in fact a 16 % tax hike is good ,I will never ever vote for the existing budget commitee members except pat mc douggle hes the 1 vote in the 7 no votes allways this town does not need another lop sided vote count like we have with the board of selectmen .Time to clean house ( notice how the board chair Russ is running for a 1 year slot ,So he will not run against others that will beat him in the election process .I cast a no vote for him
Patriot
11:24 am on Sunday, February 26, 2012
Dr. NO, can't say I want a day of "Reckoning" because my taxes went up. And even if there was such a thing for budgets, some people need a reason. I happen to be one that would like a reason. >$900k on one side should be <$900k on the other side.
Jeff Hatch
8:16 am on Thursday, March 1, 2012
I'll agree with Wendy on this one.