Meredith selectboard race analysis

Whatever the outcome of tomorrow's election the Board of Selectmen will remain divided on fiscal matters, with only who forms the majority in doubt.

There are three candidates for the two seats on the ballot. Incumbent Miller Lovett, who was elected to a special one-year term last year, is standing for re-election, alongside Richard Juve, who finished a distant third to Peter Miller in 2004, and Bob Flanders, who served two terms on the board but was narrowly denied a third a year ago. The two winners will join returning incumbents Frank Michel, Peter Brothers and Colette Worsman on the five-member board.

For the past year, a triumvirate of Miller, the chairman, Michel and Brothers has controlled the board, while Lovett has often found himself in a minority of one — especially on procedural matters — and was joined by Worsman in challenging the budget. With Miller bent on seeking re-election and Flanders set to challenge Lovett the odds on the majority adding to its number shortened while those on a realignment of the board lengthened. But, then Miller, faced with unexpected health problems, reluctantly withdrew from the race in February, ensuring that between them Lovett and Juve, both outspoken critics of his leadership of the majority, would capture at least one seat and possibly two, which, with support from Worsman, could reverse the balance of power on the board.

Lovett, a retired professor and minister, has been at loggerheads with Miller, Michel and Brothers ever since he took his seat on the board, when he began pressing his colleagues to change the way the way they conducted their business. In a "conversation paper," he urged the board to follow a formal process, by which items would be introduced by written briefs, then considered at work sessions before appearing on meeting agendas. When other members balked, he persisted and was sharply rebuked.

Lovett was especially upset when the board flatly rejected his proposal to set guidelines for the budget, by pegging the annual increase in appropriations to the revenue generated by new construction plus the rate of inflation. "I couldn't get it up on the table," he said last week. "I just don't understand why that didn't happen and couldn't happen."

Although Lovett offered no specific proposals to reduce expenditures in the course of preparing the budget, once the process was complete he presented another "conversation paper" calling for an across-the- board cuts totaling $100,000. At the public hearing on the budget, Lovett left his seat at the board table and joined the audience to deliver his critique from the floor.

Lovett's dissent won high praise from Juve, who wrote to the papers lauding Lovett and Worsman for "their strong back bone and efforts in safeguarding our tax dollars." "He may be my opponent, but he's a good man," Juve said. "I like Miller Lovett very much."

The feeling is mutual. "I welcome him," Lovett said of Juve. "I'm cheering him on. I haven't known him for long and I haven't asked for his support, but he has been very supportive of me."

Like Lovett, Juve is troubled by the growth in the municipal and school district budgets and "the escalation of taxes." A management consultant with a doctorate in economics, he insists the town "should get off the fast track" and "slow down, slow down!" Concerned for the future of the economy, he fears that the town has accumulated too much debt and too little savings and should amass "a nice big, fat bucket of money in reserve for bad times. Caution! Caution! Caution!" he said. "That's my position."

Juve also shares Lovett's disillusionment with Miller's leadership of the board. He has likened Miller to "George III" and called him a "poor quarterback" and "his lordship."

Despite their political affinities, Lovett and Juve are contrasting personalities. "Miller has another style," Juve said. "Maybe he's a little quiet in some situations. I think he was hurt and embarrassed when he was lambasted by the board." Lovett agreed "there are differences in personality. I think Mr. Juve would rattle things more than I would."

Neither has formally endorsed the other. "I'm not endorsing anybody," Lovett declared. "That's not my job. "I find it a little bit suspect that board members are doing that."

Both Miller and Michel have enthusiastically backed Flanders, their former colleague, without indicating a strong preference for either of the other two candidates. "It is what it is," was Michel's only comment on the election. Flanders has also garnered public support from other well-known residents, including former state senator Carl Johnson.

However, Miller, whose frustration with Lovett is legion, said "I was hoping that someone would wage a write-in campaign." Without naming anyone in particular, he said "I can think of many people who would be preferable to the two. People who have already served the town in less controversial capacities than being a selectman."

Miller said that he made no effort to encourage anyone to mount a write-in campaign.

At the same time, Miller, acknowledging that his differences with Lovett have been "front and center," said that "if the only change on the board is Flanders, you'll see more of the same. More papers, one after another. He can't let go of things, can't make compromises in the spirit of unity and finds himself on the outside . . . a very ineffective selectman." On the other hand, Miller remarked that "Mr. Juve is not a carbon copy of Miller Lovett." Noting that Juve has been "an outsider who would become an insider," he suggested that "there is a lot to learn about Richard Juve. He is difficult to predict."

Although Flanders withheld comment on his rivals, he stressed that "politics should be about issues, not about personalities. The board should agree or disagree and move on." He said that he tried to avoid attending or watching meetings of the board. "It's too painful," he explained.

Flanders also defended the performance of the board under Miller's chairmanship. He explained that for the past decade the town has pursued a coherent plan for undertaking capital projects required to keep pace with its growth, which was developed by the Capital Improvements Program (CIP) Committee. In particular, Flanders emphasized that projects have been "fitted to the financial picture so they could be completed without spikes in the tax rate." Likewise, he said that the board has followed an equally prudent strategy for managing the town's indebtedness. "Growth has put pressure on us," Flanders said, "and we have to respond to it."

However, Flanders said that he was open to changing the budget process by starting with what he called a "maintenance budget." He explained that rather than department heads submitting requests and the board making reductions, the process might begin with the prior year's budget, with allowances for increases in non-discretionary costs, and department heads asked to justify their requests. "Instead of starting at the top and working down, the process would start at the bottom and work up," he said. "That is a lot better place to be."

This past budget season, Town Manager Carol Granfield specifically asked the board for guidance as to how large an overall increase they were willing to consider but the board majority refused, saying they wanted to first know what the department heads felt their "needs" were.

Above all, Flanders looked forward to the board "getting back on track." He said that he could not recall more than "eight or nine times when the vote was not unanimous during my previous six years on the board." Acknowledging that whenever an issue arises there are initial differences of opinion among the selectmen, he insisted that "compromise is usually better than any of the starting points and Meredith is the winner."

With Lovett refusing to change course and Juve "absolutely tired of business as usual," voters will decide where to draw the line on a divided board.