The Board of Finance passed the town budget Wednesday for vote at referendum, despite lingering questions about the Engineer II position, Bob Burns, and the fund balance.

The budget is currently set at $81.4 million - $37.9 million for town side, and $43.5 for education. It was passed 5-2 with board members Timothy Doheny and Richard Monico dissenting. The referendum will be May 19, following a town meeting to debate the budget on May 11.

In defense of Bob Burns

Once again, a major point of contention was the elimination of the Engineer II position, which had been filled by Bob Burns.

Doheny questioned whether the town was eliminating a necessary position, or even if it was targeting a specific person. He also worried that unionized town workers would not be able to perform the Engineer II duties, a non-union position.

“Evidence is overwhelming that we need this position,” Doheny said. “The Director of Public Works cannot do public work. The three town engineers cannot do the work of Engineer II.”

Board chairman Dean Volain said that he “did not have a position one way or the other” on the matter, but was concerned that the board would overstep its authority in reinstating Burns.

“I’m concerned that the Board of Finance is hiring and firing people,” Volain said. “We cannot usurp the authority of department heads: they are the people who are supposed to determine the staffing. I’m not sure how the Board of Finance gets into this discussion. We don’t have the authority to hire someone for any department. That’s why we rely on department heads.”

“We’re not here to hire or fire people,” echoed board member Martin Piccirillo. “Our job is money.”

Doheny countered that it was the board’s purpose to “allocate money,” and that they could put back the funds to cover the position. First Selectman Janet McCarty said that she was certain that Director of Public Works Lynn Sadosky did not need to fill the position.

“She has a team of seven people on staff who are capable of handling the projects in town when she or I need them,” McCarty said. “This is not personal. I was elected to make town government efficient and that is what I am doing. The department head said that she does not need the position. I am making the budget leaner, and this is not the only position that eventually I believe will be eliminated.”

Pointing to the largest crowd he had ever seen, many there to support Burns, Doheny motioned to return the position of Engineer II to the budget, inquiring the opinions of the other board members.

“I’m also neutral,” said vice chairman Michael Hallahan. “On one hand, it is unjust and painful. On the other, I defer to managers, supervisors, and department heads. I will not overrule any department head or the CEO of the town.”

Volain pointed out that the board could put back the position of Engineer II into the budget, “but it doesn’t have to be filled.” If the department head truly did not want the position, the chairman said, she could leave it vacant even if it is added to payroll, meaning the town would raise taxes for no reason.

“We can allocate the funds, but the department heads ultimately make the decision of how to fill their department,” Volain added. “If we usurp the authority of department heads, I’m not sure where that ends.”

Doheny suggested the board could in fact make sweeping staffing decisions by demanding departments layoff workers. “We would not be usurping if the board thought we needed to cut personnel across the board,” Doheny said. “We’re talking about a small thing.”

Volain reiterated that the board had no authority to act as the town’s human resources, and was not qualified to do so in the first place.

“The department head should tell me where this position should be,” Volain said. “You don’t want me to make the choice, because I would make the wrong choice.”

Before the board could vote on the motion, the burgeoning crowd made its presence known once more: the fire marshal announced that the location, conference room #1 in Town Hall, had exceeded its legal limit for occupants. The meeting was forced to move across the street to the basement of the library.

After setting up in new quarters, the board voted and the motion failed 5-2, with Doheny and Monico in favor. The public was allowed comment after the budget’s vote, and many came to Burns’ aid.

“This still perplexes me,” Burns said of his position’s cut. He restated his belief that the Director of Public Works had not been asked for input before her department was cut, and that the decision was McCarty’s alone.

“I discussed it with the Director of Public Works before the decision,” McCarty said.

“I hope you can attest to that in a court of law,” Burns replied.

Police Chief James DiCarlo spoke of Burns being months from earning a town pension.

“Burns is short of being vested in this position,” DiCarlo said. “If this position is eliminated, he will not get a pension – nothing at all. I still don’t think that it’s too late to reconsider it.”

“I agree with the budget, but would vote it down if it meant Burns losing his job,” said North Haven citizen Tom White. “My wife and I have used [Burn’s] services numerous times – they’re invaluable.”

White suggested bringing the matter before the unions to see if they would make concessions to keep Burns’ job. White also suggested the addition of a question regarding Burns’ reinstatement on the May 19 referendum, which quickly became a popular sentiment.

Initially, McCarty said that the question “won’t go to referendum,” as she did not know if it could be done. As more speakers stood in favor of the question being placed on the referendum, McCarty warned that putting such a specific question – as opposed to questions which affect the majority of voters - to vote would open the door to every group in town demanding room on the referendum.

Finally, after a wave of support for Burns’ case to be put on the referendum, McCarty said that she would “ask the town attorney” about the matter.

Several citizens suggested that the board had “balanced the budget with Burns,” and that his salary could have been accounted for elsewhere in the millions of dollars encompassed by the budget.

Volain refuted this argument, pleading once again that he and the board were not part of the decision. “In designing the budget, this position had virtually had no impact,” Volain said. “We did not balance the budget with it. The decision was made on the department head and selectmen level. Beyond that, the Board of Finance has nothing to do with it.”

Speakers began to call for comment from Engineer I or the Public Works Director, neither of whom were present. Sadosky had no comment when reached, as she believed that Burns had hired a lawyer and was preparing for a lawsuit.

White asked McCarty to clarify her earlier comment of eliminating other positions. “I’ve been looking at others,” the First Selectman said, “but I haven’t identified any others at this point.”

Using the fund balance

Volain announced that money recovered from North Haven’s break with the Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority will go toward the fund balance. The town will continue to draw $2.5 million from the fund balance and “special revenue funds” to balance the budget, Volain said, but with the influx of $4 million of money gained back from the CRRA, the fund balance will only drop to approximately seven percent. Before the CRRA money, the proposed budget would have left the fund balance at five percent.

Despite the additional funds, Monico still worried that the town was leaning too heavily on the fund balance, especially with the possibility of facing an even steeper town deficit in 2009 and ahead. Volain said that he was not necessarily happy to be taking from the fund balance, but that doing so was the lesser of several difficult decisions.

“If you don’t want to use the fund balance, then where are you going to make cuts?” Volain said. “Decrease the Board of Ed? The police or fire department? Raise taxes?”

“This is not unique to this year,” Volain added. “We never have enough money to run the town the way it should be. It’s the nature of the world we live in. We constantly have to balance this with the needs of the public.”

Volain repeated his belief of keeping taxes in check when possible. “I think people today are better served by not increasing the taxes instead of saving the fund balance,” he said. “If people can hold onto their money longer, it’s a good thing.”

Wary of public dissatisfactions with the budget, Monico questioned the town’s fate if it fails the referendum.

“If the budget goes down, it’s bad for everybody,” Volain said. “If we cut any further, something’s got to give.”

“The cuts we have made - with respect to Mr. Burns – have no effect on services,” Volain added. “Someone in town is going to lose something important to them if something gets cut.”

Volain also hoped that the budget’s dissenters would offer suggestions rather than speaking or voting against it.

“If the town votes down a budget with a tax decrease, I want to know why,” Volain said, adding that the town would be statutorily forced to make additional cuts from the budget if it is failed.

Doheny and Hallahan spoke in favor of the present use of the fund balance, as did several citizens.

“I agree with Volain on the fund balance,” said Tom White. “In these tough economic times, it is necessary to avoid raising taxes for tax payers.”

“The 11 percent fund balance is the result of overtaxing the public,” North Haven citizen Mike Mele said of the balance’s previous condition. “We don’t need to put any more money back.”

A previously established concern was whether lowering the fund balance would be hurtful the town’s bond rating. Mele believed this would not be so. “We’ve already re-bonded the schools, and that is set in stone,” he said. “This won’t hurt our bond rating.” Doheny, who has a background in banking, confirmed Mele’s statement.

One speaker argued that citizens were not overtaxed to bump the fund balance up to it’s former level of 11 percent, as the higher number allowed the town to make several recent emergency purchases, including new utility vehicles.

BOE budget cuts will not affect services

Volain commented on the education budget, saying that he had spoken with Superintendent Sara-Jane R. Querfeld. The chairman said that while Querfeld would “naturally like her budget to be better,” she assured him that “there would be no change in services” with the current budget.

“There may be slightly larger classes,” Volain said, “but it won’t prevent [Querfeld] from providing the same quality of education.”

Citizens had grown concerned after the Board of Finance instructed the Board of Education to cut $450,000 from their proposed budget.

“The Board of Education budget is still larger than last year’s,” Volain said, adding that much of the increase has to be used for contractual salary increases. After the $450,000 decrease, the Board of Ed’s proposed 2009 budget is $43.5 million, an increase from $42.1 in 2008.