FTR PLAN SHOULD BE CALLED "LEAVE NO LAWYER BEHIND"

Imagine waking up the day after the Tiverton’s special election to find that the library bond was approved by voters. A week later, two members of the Town Council decide to subvert the will of the voters and veto the bond’s approval.

Sounds crazy, right? But a similar scenario will be possible if the FTR proposal (Question 2) is approved: two Councilors could veto the results of the budget referendum and overrule voters’decisions on the budget and tax-levy. Giving politicians the right to overrule voters is the key element of the FTR, and just one of many reasons to reject it on Tuesday.

FTR proponents now admit that this plan would give broad new powers to the Town Council, not just to veto the tax-levy, but to “reduce budgets” or raid the General Fund. In their view, it’s good for politicians to overrule voters. They now brag on yardsigns that the FTR is designed to “control taxes”, although the FTR is so poorly written there’s no way to know what will result. The one certainty is that it will result in a flood of lawsuits. The FTR should be called “Leave No Lawyer Behind”.

FTR proponents claim “struggling seniors” are their concern. The fact is that the TCC-majority Town Council could help struggling seniors and families at any time by expanding tax-abatements for low-income taxpayers. They won’t do it because then they would have to pay a bit more to make up the difference. They use struggling seniors as human shields to hide their real purpose: lower their own taxes at all costs.

Just this week we’ve learned that OMF, the state agency charged with approving town’s budgets and tax-levies, has made clear that it will review only the one, official town budget on the ballot. Any alternative budget that is approved will not be in compliance with state law. The FTR Committee and Town Council never even bothered to run this FTR plan by the state.

I’ve been the primary advocate for replacing the outdated Financial Town Meeting (FTM) for years. But this FTR proposal will be far worse. Tiverton deserves a fair, workable system, and any reasonable analysis makes clear that this isn’t it. It makes no sense to jump from an old, slowly-leaking boat, only to wind up on the Titanic.

Had the FTR been in place in 2008 & 2010, two Councilors could have overruled voters and forced $3.5 million in cuts in services. Instead of a town with intact services and a budget surplus this year, Tiverton would have been a crumbling basket-case.

If you agree that Tiverton deserves better, and that the will of voters should be respected, please vote to reject question 2 (the FTR).

Brian Medeiros
Tiverton, RI