Mayor McGlynn's budget veto is against Medford taxpayers

An open letter to Medford voters and taxpayers and Mayor McGlynn

I was not originally going to address Mayor McGlynn's budget veto letter of June30th to the city council. However, after reviewing its contents and hearing the tone in the mayor's letter along with citizen complaints about the mayor's veto, I have respectfully changed my mind.

For the first time in Mike McGlynn's 27 years being mayor, this city council deleted the largest amount ever appropriated in any of Mayor McGlynn's annual budgets. When the council voted on June 24th to delete $600,128.00 dollars from the ordinary expenses within the public works budget portion as specifically identified in the separate MWRA water and sewer portions by line item, account number and dollar amount, this was done according to Department of Revenue guidelines as written in 2004, state statute MGL C 44 s 32 and our City charter.

Unfortunately Mr. Mayor, you thought you had four councillors not supporting the $600,128 deletion. I am sure you were shocked when those tables were turned and four members, a majority, did choose to vote with good conscience…allowing the water and sewer ratepayers a lesser increase, at minimum, than had have been planned for.

For the past many years water and sewer ratepayers have been overpaying their bills allowing the city to amass almost a seven million dollar surplus. With city council approval and by special state legislation that you had filed a few years ago, you raided the Water and Sewer Retained Earnings Account by some $1,200,000 to balance your then, proposed, city budget that would have been deficient at that time.

Now, to have the ratepayers not be afforded a reduction in this years proposed, 10% water rate adjustment increase from their almost seven million dollar surplus money that the City has accumulated is just not fair to them.  I do note that you, Mr. Mayor, offered a mere $250,000 reduction as an outside of the budget offering after you got wind that the council was entertaining the $600,128 deletion.

According to the second alternative that you reference in your June 30 th letter, it states that the vote taken by the council did effectuate a reduction to the water and sewer accounts.

Further, the content, spirit and intent of the councils’ vote as evidenced by reviewing the council meeting of 6-24-2014, as recorded, demonstrates the clear content, spirit, intent and debate of the vote.

Additionally, in your letter you further write that you are not going to seek the $600,128 from the Water and Sewer Retained Earnings Account to offset the line items deletion amounts identified from the council’s budget vote as amended.

Mr. Mayor, the taxpayers of our City deserve better than your unwillingness to return their hard-earned money from their almost seven million dollar surplus Water and Sewer Retained Earnings Account. MGL c44 S 53F1/2 supports this premise by allowing for income in excess of appropriation  … “ to reduce user charges if authorized by the appropriate entity responsible for operations of the enterprise.”

Likewise, I firmly state that council resolution 14-549 was in order pursuant to our Medford City Charter s 55, MCL c44 s 32, Department of Revenue guidelines as written in 2004, MGL c44 s53F1/2 and further that your veto of council resolution 14-549 is subjective in response, without one scintilla of legal proof or case law decided upon as you have written.

As such, I stand by the council’s budget vote as amended and as pre-empted by discussion, resolution, amendment, order, incorporated by reference or any other way or term you want to call or interpret it. The council’s action and intent (as so often is the determining guideline on decisions of appeal on matters such as this) was properly presented and voted on. Mr. Mayor, you may take the council’s action to any court of law if you feel so strongly that what we did was not valid as you claim.

Mr. Mayor... your political might and thinking is not always right.

Councillors’ Carviello, Lungo-Koehn, Marks and Penta’s vote is neither a shortsighted or reckless position that infringes upon the short or long term financial stability of Medford.

Mr. Mayor, you should be complimenting Councillors’ Carviello, Lungo-Koehn, Marks and Penta for their reasonableness in understanding that Medford taxpayers deserve a break … for Medford taxpayers work hard for their earned money.

A respectful rebuttal to the Mayor's budget veto,

Robert M. Penta

Medford City Councillor