The Brookline Override Scam — An On Brookline Exclusive.
By Jim Conley • May 2nd, 2008 • Email This Post to a Friend •
Print This Post
• Email this author
Folks, you’ve been conned.
Click here to see the campaign finance reports filed with the Town Clerk’s Office from the “Yes for Brookline” pro-override campaign. Where’s the outrage?
There ought to be some over the amount of money raised by town officials — over $35 thousand — to impose an additional tax burden on those living on the margin. Or over the $4 thousand paid to a polling company so that the Brookline Selectmen could craft questions with the best chance of passing. Or the use of a “local fiscal conservative” as an op-ed contributor to the TAB (and reprinting the piece in a mailer) but not disclosing that same said local conservative is one of the largest single donors to the campaign. Some conversion, that one.
Update: I guess the money goes to a PR campaign resulting in editorials like this one in the Globe. Gee, the last time I heard from that page they were telling us to go ahead with the St. Aidan’s project. But I don’t remember seeing them express concern over the potential for lead and asbestos flying around the neighborhood.
Plus, I’m sure the folks at the New York Times Company might offer a view on whether we should take our “investment” or financial advice from the folks on Morrissey Boulevard. Not a pretty picture, that.
Update (2): Look, the big donors to this campaign are the people who have screwed up the Town’s finances. The selectmen, past and former, are in big. So are members of the town’s advisory committee and school committee.
They don’t know how else to manage the town’s finances other than to put an override on the ballot. And judging from the amount they’re in for, it’s hard to see how they might worry about an elderly couple who can’t afford the extra $700 per year in taxes.
Update (3): If you’re an attorney who knows the legality of using funds raised by a political committee to draft a referendum ballot, I can use your help. Contact me by clicking here.
Jim Conley is publisher of On Brookline.
Email this author | All posts by Jim Conley
The Boston Globe editorial closes with:
“Passing an override now would give Brookline time to make the long-term cuts that will secure its future.”
Can we expect our Town’s Representative Town Meeting form of governance, long antiquated with 5 part-time Selectmen (Executive Branch) and 240 unpaid (”worth every penny”) TMMs (Legislative Branch) required to meet but once annually, to accomplish the necessary “long-term cuts that will secure [Brookline's] future” based upon what they have done in the past? Some might say of our Executive Branch that “5 heads are better than 1.” That may be the case for Fenway Park and Gillette Stadium but Brookline needs one big flush to provide accountability.
What have they been doing for the past 14 years?