Split Budget Votes

Should Not Be Binding

To the Editor:

On the question in November of whether or not to bifurcate [the budget]; I will vote No.

The bottom line for me is that while I like the idea of advisory questions, the binding condition makes it impossible for us to adjust both sides of the budget up until the time that both sides pass. Think of this: if we had this type of system in place for the last referendum and the municipal budget passed on the first round and the BOE budget didn’t, we would have put $1.4 million into our Rainy Day Account while still leaving $240,000 unassigned in Cap Nonrecurring Account in the municipal budget (left there since 2008 when we created a separate account for the Rainy Day Account) for a total of $1.64 million additional idle $$$ on the municipal side of the budget. And the Legislative Council would have reduced education by $1 million and then what? We would have needed increased taxation in order to put money back into the education budget. Increasing taxation while there’s a surplus on the other side of our wallet? 

It is the binding condition that makes all the difference here — we will be “Bound” to a decision that we make under a certain set of circumstances and when those circumstances change we are already locked in — and there’s just no valid reason to be locked in. The idea that to “do over” a vote on a part that already passed somehow tramples on a voter’s rights is an overstatement (putting it nicely) when the fact is that voter will have the chance to vote again with all the relevant and accurate information. Isn’t that what every voter wants?

Michele Assante

16 Wendover Road, Newtown                                  October 24, 2012