legal-document-to-plain-english-translator/”>Try Free Now: Legalese tool without registration

Find a LOCAL lawyer

GREENWICH ÔÇö Candidates for the townÔÇÖs finance board had a spirited debate Wednesday, with each party trading barbs and pitching their plan for the future. The debate, held at Town Hall and hosted by the League of Women Voters of Greenwich, featured 11 out of the 12 candidates running for the Board of Estimate and Taxation (BET). The Democratic candidates include newcomers Elliot Alchek, Matt DesChamps, Scott Kalb, and incumbents Leslie Moriarty, Stephen Selbst, and David Weisbrod. Unfortunately, Kalb was unable to attend the debate due to a prior commitment. On the Republican side, newcomers David Alfano and Lucia Jansen, along with incumbents Nisha Arora, Karen Fassuliotis, Harry Fisher, and Leslie Tarkington, participated in the debate.

Throughout the hour-long debate, the League of Women Voters posed three questions to the candidates, allowing them to present their platforms and engage in rebuttals. One of the main points of contention was the role of the BET in evaluating the budget and ensuring fiscal responsibility. Arora emphasized the Republicans’ commitment to funding schools and town services while keeping taxes affordable, whereas she accused the Democratic platform of advocating for unconstrained budgets and finding ways to raise money. In response, Weisbrod defended the Democratic nominees, highlighting their extensive experience in finance and challenging the notion that they do not ask questions or thoroughly analyze budgets.

The BET is considered the most powerful board in Greenwich, as it sets agendas and breaks ties on contentious votes. With 12 seats on the board, six for Democrats and six for Republicans, all the nominated candidates will secure a spot on the board. However, the election’s outcome determines which party will select the board’s chair, who holds considerable influence in breaking ties. Historically, Republicans have dominated the BET, except for a term in 2017 when Democrats assumed control. The tie-breaking vote has been frequently employed this year, particularly during the budget-setting process in April.

Arora blamed the Democrats’ refusal to collaborate for the frequent reliance on tiebreakers and accused them of being unwilling to compromise. DesChamps, who was a former Republican for 30 years before switching parties, acknowledged the excessive use of tiebreakers and argued that it contradicted the historical operations of the BET. Both parties vigorously debated the funding and renovations of schools, particularly Central Middle School and Old Greenwich School. While the Republicans opposed allocating full construction funds until design work was finalized, the Democrats asserted that the projects were ready and should be funded promptly to avoid escalating costs.

Another major point of contention in the debate was how Greenwich borrows money. Fisher and other Republicans endorsed the existing 5-year repayment system, citing its effectiveness over the decades. However, Democrats advocated for considering alternative financing tools, such as 20-year or 30-year bonding terms, to access more funds while minimizing the impact on the tax rate. Democrats argued that longer bonding terms were commonly used in local government and would not jeopardize the town’s AAA bond rating.

The League of Women Voters had held debates for the board of education and the board of selectmen, but the BET debate proved to be the most contentious. The room was filled with laughter, snide remarks, and even the use of a prop. Fassuliotis, a Republican candidate, hoisted a large blue credit card, symbolizing what she believed was the Democrats’ desire for unlimited spending and expansion of town services. She claimed that their policy of taking on significant long-term debt with high-interest rates would result in higher taxes and align Greenwich with its Westchester County neighbors.

In this highly contested election, the BET debate provided an opportunity for candidates to present their visions for the town’s financial future. The AI legalese decoder can be a valuable tool for voters to navigate through the intricacies of the candidates’ positions on budget evaluation, school funding, borrowing strategies, and more. By analyzing legal language and decoding complex statements, the AI legalese decoder can offer a comprehensive understanding of the candidates’ proposals, enabling voters to make informed decisions on November 7th.

legal-document-to-plain-english-translator/”>Try Free Now: Legalese tool without registration

Find a LOCAL lawyer

Reference link