Mr. Richardson’s interpretation of Prop 46 is different than that of the BOF. This BOF is interpreting Prop 46 the same way as all the Boards have interpreted Prop 46 for the past 30 years. All town attorneys, both past and present, have been consistent year after year in their interpretation and calculation. Now Mr. Richardson wants this BOF to adopt HIS interpretation of Prop 46 which is INCONSISTENT with that of the Boards for the past 30 years. The net effect on the budget calculations with his interpretation would be the same as amending Prop 46. The voters, at several recent referenda, have expressed their desire to keep Prop 46 as it is. For this Board to adopt Mr. Richardson’s interpretation, it would be altering Prop 46 without the voters having their say.
I would suggest to Mr. Richardson that he draft an amendment to Prop 46 reflecting his interpretation of Prop 46, submit it to referendum and let the voters decide rather than coerce the BOF with threats of legal action.
Chairman, Woodstock Board of Finance