A Divided Norwich Selectboard Grapples with Budget Oversight Responsibilities

How closely should the Selectboard examine the budget proposed by the Town Manager? That question dominated a contentious 100-minute discussion at last week’s Norwich Selectboard meeting that ended in a split 3-2 vote to advance a $6.7 million budget to voters at March Town Meeting. The proposed spending plan, which would increase property taxes by 24%, exposed deep divisions about the board’s oversight responsibilities.

Selectboard members Arnold, Calloway and Layton voted in favor of the FY 26 budget while Smith and Vincent voted no.

At the time of writing, the JAM audio of the budget portion of the January 8 Selectboard meeting was not listenable. I obtained the Town’s copy of the video. It is posted on the Norwich Observer YouTube channel. View it here. References to the meeting transcript are to that link.

Two Competing Oversight Philosophies

Two fundamentally different approaches to budget oversight emerged. One view defers to the Town Manager on creating a budget. As articulated by Board member Marcia Calloway in a memo in the Selectboard packet (p67), the Town Manager and department heads “know — better than the selectboard or the people in town — what they need in order to provide the services Norwich expects to receive.” This perspective raises concerns, as it could be seen as prioritizing the judgment of unelected staff over that of elected representatives accountable to voters. While staff expertise is undoubtedly valuable, it’s the Selectboard’s responsibility to provide fiscal oversight on behalf of the taxpayers they serve.

Board member Roger Arnold also took a hands-off approach. He was prepared to defer to staff so long as budget did not increase overall spending by more than 6% over the prior budget and thought the increase of spending by 8% was justified. Meeting video transcript at ~20:16 to 21:44.

The opposing view, consistently expressed by Chair Pam Smith and member Priscilla Vincent, emphasizes the Board’s responsibility for detailed financial oversight, while respecting staff’s expertise. “It’s a system of checks and balances,” noted member Vincent. “We have to be mindful of what the taxpayer can afford and we can’t always have everything we want.” Meeting video transcript at ~46:30 – 47:29.

That approach was criticized as focused on minutiae. Later in the discussion, as it became more tense, member Arnold characterized the Chair Smith’s review of several line items as “grandstanding.” Meeting video transcript at ~46:21.

The Culvert Designated Fund Debate: A Case Study

This philosophical divide came into sharp focus during discussion of a proposed 300% increase in culvert designated fund from $50,000 to $200,000. While culverts are critical to combat flooding, some explanation for the increase of this magnitude seemed to be in order. The Town completely revised its capital plan last year, adding $150,000 to the culvert designated fund this year. For FY26, the new plan called for the addition of $50,000 to the designated fund.

The Town Manager did not suggest anything had changed since the adoption of the capital plan that necessitated such a substantial increase in the culvert fund. Instead, he generalized, saying: “Culverts are not sexy items …you don’t think of them until the road you live on washes out.” Meeting video transcript at ~54:06.

I completely agree with that sentiment, particularly as we develop resilience to climate change. However, that explanation fits any increase in that designated fund. Why not $300,000 or $100,000? Selectboard member Calloway chided those asking for an explanation. “I don’t think we [can ask] minutiae questions about what has already been decided by departments who are working with this day in and day out. I think that’s like having the plumber come to your house and [you] tell him that he’s not doing his job correctly.” Meeting video transcript at ~48:50.

While I understand the analogy, I believe it’s reasonable for the Selectboard to request some detail for such a significant increase, especially considering the Town Manager’s relatively limited experience in overseeing budgets of this size and complexity. That the Town Manager is relatively new is overlooked. In his prior position as Executive Director of the Rutland Redevelopment Authority, he did not oversee a large budget or organization. The budget was $500,000, according to the 2022 audit of the Authority. Moreover, last year, his first as TM of Norwich, an outside consultant aided in the creation of the budget.

A game plan that identifies likely problematic culverts and a rough cost and time frame seems like specifics the Town Manager should include as part of his presentation or have available on request. Otherwise, there is no way for proactive Board members to test whether the increase is a ‘want’ or a ‘need.’ Regrettably, tensions between individuals seemingly prevented a rational discussion of the topic. It was a reasonable inquiry by a Board member; the TM and other Board members need to put personalities aside. Budget season involves a lot of work by staff and SB members.

A motion to reduce, among others, the culvert allocation by a mere $10,000 failed by a 3-2 vote, according to the draft minuets. At that point it seemed obvious that the majority had no interest in any further cuts.

Missing From the Debate

Several items were not mentioned in the Selectboard discussion of the budget.

• Tax increase. Though the budget grows by 8%, the tax bill will increase by 24%. That is substantial and no explanation is provided.
• Actual expenditures. There was no comparison of the budget requests to the amount actually spent last year. If a department did not spend the amount budgeted last year, why budget the same amount? By my rough calculation, the non-payroll portion of the proposed budget increases by 28% over what was spent last year, for a business as usual budget. That is over $800,000. I recall prior Selectboards applying a three-year average to under-spent line items.
• Public comment. As mentioned in the draft minutes, residents attending the meeting were not invited to comment on the budget, after the motion was made, as is typical. A resident noted that nine members of the public were present in Tracy Hall and did not have an opportunity to speak. The Chair immediately apologized for this oversight. However, it is telling that no one on the Selectboard wanted to hear from the public albeit after the vote.
• Retired debt service. Towards the end of the meeting, Chair Smith noted that the Town is retiring around $92,000 in debt service this year and still the proposed budget is going up. By my math, the FY26 budget is increasing by 9.69%, not 8.07%, after adjusting for the retirement of that debt service.

****

Overall, while the expertise of the Town Manager and department heads is invaluable, it is crucial for the Selectboard to strike a balance between respecting staff recommendations and fulfilling their role as elected representatives. The budget is the most important policy document the Selectboard passes on. Deferring completely to staff does not seem like the right approach.

Thanks for reading.
Comments to this post are welcomed, below or by email. Contact me at norwichobserver[at]gmail.com