The making of an anti-tax activist
Waging tax wars in Winthrop

Except for the piercing rumble of aircraft taking off and landing at nearby Logan Airport, the town of Winthrop is a picturesque bedroom community. Overall it’s a pleasant place to live as many real estate agents will tell you. Situated on a peninsula that extends into the Boston Harbor, the scenic town is attractive to renters and homeowners alike for its proximity to downtown Boston and access to the water. Its residents enjoy a public golf course and three yacht clubs and a wonderful walkway around Deer Island where the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority operates a state-of-the- art treatment plant.

But the roar local officials have been hearing lately isn’t the deafening sound of jet engines, it’s the sound of a citizen revolt against an onslaught of Proposition 2 1/2 overrides. Less than halfway through the calendar year, the Board of Selectmen have pushed for two overrides at the ballot box. Last February, facing a $1.6 million deficit, the town fathers sought a $6 million override. The proposal went down in flames in one of the most lopsided elections in town history. As if they didn’t hear that message, the Selectman came back with a more slender $2.1 million. The voters shot back by defeating the measure by a 3 to 1 margin. Along the way, they took out their frustrations on two incumbents, one from the board of selectmen, the other from the school committee.

Winthrop voters have occasionally passed an override but more often they have turned back requests for more spending. What’s different about this year’s revolt against Town Hall is the emergence of an articulate, well-organized taxpayers group that is on its way to changing the political climate in this ocean-side town. Citizens for Fair and Balanced Government (CFBG) is doing more than ruffling the feathers of spendthrifts at Town Hall. CFBG is fomenting a groundswell of reform that goes beyond taxes.

Alex Mavrakos, a retired construction worker and businessman was not a political creature. That is until last year when he started asking questions about a proposed pay-as-you-throw trash fee program. Since then, the self-styled organizer and founder of CFBG has jumped into the frying pan of local politics – make that hardball politics. The education of Alex Mavrakos extends through a steady diet of fear promoted by override supporters (who claimed lower revenues would close schools and public facilities.) It meant going up against the star power of U.S. Olympian hockey star Mike Eurzione (who supported the override ostensibly to save school sports.) It also meant facing an indifferent media. Mavrakos fought for fair coverage in the local media and was largely ignored when it came to column-inches in the Boston Globe (where taxpayers are ignored and sob stories hold forth.) The education of Mavrakos wouldn’t be complete without melodrama. On Election Day in February, Mavrakos’s civil rights were violated when he assaulted by a zealot whose associates. The flare up was solved amicably out of court when the override supporter publicly apologized in the local newspaper. The story by the way was ignored by the mainstream media.

Throughout the battles, the 59-year-old Mavrakos has operated mostly on instinct and it has been paying off for Winthrop taxpayers. Recently, Mavrakos sat down at his computer in an online interview with Newslink to discuss the politics and economics of Proposition 2 1/2 overrides. The interview took place during the latest override campaign.

NL: How did you first get involved in opposing Proposition 2 1/2 overrides Winthrop?

AM: I actually got involved in August 2003 when I attended a meeting related to a pay-as-you-throw trash (PAYT) program that a group had decided to implement. PAYT is an incentive program offered by the Commonwealth to communities interested in reducing solid waste trash. From the surface this looked like a feasible plan benefiting the environment and taxpayers who would see a tax savings. After listening to what the committee had to say its plan didn’t make economic sense. It came across as an environmental issue with proponents arguing that it’s good for the town to recycle. I favor recycling but the numbers didn’t make any sense. The committee and selectmen were planning to charge a fee to every household. We were currently paying a million dollars for trash and with the committee’s proposal the pay-as-you-throw system was about to add a half-million dollars to our trash-tax burden. I told the committee chairwoman -- who happened to be the wife of one of the selectman -- that it wasn’t $1.5 million. If you add a half-million for trash removal, it’s $1.5 million. When we got into this discussion about money, she couldn’t fathom the fact that the half million was extra. But what was happening was they were going to add that half million on the top, slide it off the bottom and put it someplace else. My argument was that $1.5 million is $1.5 million It’s a tax; they called it a fee. So we went nose-to-nose with them. The main thing that pushed me over the top, the thing that really got me aggravated was when the chairwoman told me that the public does not have a right to vote. As soon as she said that I really took offense and decided to look into the issues with the trash removal program. Several of us went to the press.

In October 2003 the committee tried to get approval from the local advisory board to put pay-as-you-throw on the ballot. We had started letter writing to oppose pay-as-you-throw. We caused such a ruckus in the community that the Pay-as-You-Throw Committee decided not to put the question on the ballot because they knew it wasn’t going to pass. Their excuse for taking it off of the ballot was really interesting. The chairwoman of the study committee said, “The reason we’re taking it off the ballot is that the people don’t understand.” My response to her was that: “We do understand, but we do not agree.” End of conversation.

They put us in a situation where they pushed and shoved this issue. Finally that ended. Then shortly after that they decided they wanted a Proposition 2 1/2 override. We were anticipating a $3 million override, but the selectman came out and said they actually wanted to start out at $5.5 million. Then one of the selectman decided to round it off to $6 million making it sound like a half-million was chump change. We totally disagreed with that, particularly when we did the research. There was no justification for that $6 million and they couldn’t tell us where the money was going. Last November, we asked the Selectmen for a line-item breakdown from and we are still waiting.

NL: Was this your first time involved in public affairs and local policy?

AM: Absolutely.

NL: Now that you look back having turned down two override attempts, what have you learned from this experience?

In a community this size, I find that the “good old boys” and “good old girls” control the movement of the community. That’s one of the things we are now fighting. That’s one of the major things that I learned with Winthrop. There are four to five people pulling the strings behind the scenes that are controlling this town. We are going after this mentality.

NL: How did you organize the first-ever anti-override, pro-taxpayer group in Winthrop, a community that, given its political culture, might not seem so fertile a place for your ideas?

The letter writing campaign got us started. I was the first one to write to the local paper. And there others who began writing letters: Al Evans, a federal retiree; Lee Dzedulionis, a 25-year town meeting member and elderly activist; and David Osborne another federal retiree and a resident with a young child in the system. We started submitting letters on a constant basis. With each letter I included my telephone number. And sure enough the telephone started ringing and I started bringing people into the Committee for Fair and Balanced Government by telephone and I asked those people to write letters. And the more letters that went in the larger we grew. At that point I chose four people who would form our inner circle. I set up some rules and one of the key things was that we were a closed organization. Anything that we discussed would stay within the four members even though we had 25 to 40 people doing specific jobs for us. We kept things close to the vest. And it paid off because our opposition -- even until today -- has no idea where we are going to or where we are coming from. We are a reactionary-type group. If our opposition comes up with something we analyze it and pick it apart and then we go after it.

NL: But aren’t you always playing defense?

AM: Well, we started off as a defensive organization. And that’s not negative at all. Our reaction to our opposition gives us an opportunity to read where they are coming from and where they are potentially going and what they are saying. This is particularly true when our opposition, usually town government and the school department have all the numbers. We are constantly trying to level the playing field in order to intelligently evaluate their numbers and programs. You need to take into consideration that we are ordinary citizens going up against professionals.

NL: What was the reaction of override proponents as well as the political establishment?

AM: We were getting slammed in the local media in the newspaper and on local cable television. They called us radicals, they called us “black-hats” and “anti-Winthrop” people. They treated us as a thorn in their sides. What they were trying to do was to belittle us by condemning what we were doing and saying. But the key thing is that we stayed on message and that message was aimed at the majority of the people in Winthrop. It was factual and most people believed what we had to say.

NL: Did you tap a so-called ‘silent majority’ in Winthrop?

AM: That’s a term you hear a lot lately as result of our efforts. Winthrop is losing people. Its population is down from 18,500 to 17,000. Forty percent are seniors and that’s a high percentage. Seniors were afraid to come out and speak up because of the reaction of the selectmen. Based on Winthrop’s turnout and percentage of the vote, we figured that about 20% of the votes came from people sympathetic to the schools’ argument. Two of the three selectmen are very autocratic. They point fingers. They control the agenda. That puts a lot of pressure on the senior population who were quiet during this override but who came out to quietly force their opinions. Well as far as we were concerned, our organization was not intimidated by their threats or innuendo. We just went right after them.

NL: How instrumental do you think your group was in defeating an override proponent and longtime incumbent selectman Ron Vecchia in the May 3 town election?

AM: The May 3 override started off similar to the February override with a lively bantering between the Selectmen, our letters, and our opposition on local access TV, but there was an obvious absence of the schools and their supporters. I became concerned because I heard the citizens were tired and may not come out to vote for this smaller override. We quickly put together a direct anti-Selectman letter writing campaign reminding citizens of their threats then identified the confusion of the Selectmen’s 18-page warrant that asked Town Meeting to vote for $3.4 million debt exclusion totaling almost $6 million and then found $148,000 of old past unpaid debt located within the new override, which if passed by the taxpayers, would repay every year forever. We did two literature drops consisting of 30,000 fliers explaining our position. It rained on Election Day and we expected a poor turnout. However, when more than 5500 voters turned out we were pleasantly surprised. The results were staggering. Two incumbents were voted out by a 2-1 margin. Other proposals favored by the incumbents also went down to defeat. And while I lost my bid for a seat on the Charter Commission by a mere 22 votes, five of our members were elected as Town Meeting members.

NL: One of the first issues to come up during a debate about overriding Proposition 2 1/2 is education. Were schools the major issue in Winthrop?

AM:The school issue was a major issue. We heard how children are being deprived. Sports became a very, very powerful issue with the schools and it actually superceded the schools as far as the budget was concerned. The teachers and the school committee were constantly at us. We were anti-children as far as they were concerned. That’s not it at all. We are anti-establishment and anti-Board of Selectmen. We asked the selectmen for budget numbers up front in the form of a line-item; that’s what citizens are now asking for. In return the citizens got more threats of closures and cutbacks that would ultimately affect their lives but voters hung in there with us and the rest is history.

NL: Do you think this battle was one between those who believed in limited government and those who believed in expansive government? Was this a clash of philosophies? Do you really want to “turn back the New Deal” as one of your critics charged?

AM. That’s a real simplification. The issue itself came down to the schools and the teachers being deprived of earning a “good living” and the citizens having to pay six million that was six million for life. Teachers were looking to re-implement every program that was lost over the past ten years. We said that’s not acceptable; it’s impossible to do. We were criticized when override supporters found out that I was a member of Citizens for Limited Taxation; they treated it as if I were a member of a communist organization. We thought this was hysterical, but typical. This is the mindset of the establishment and its leaders that needs to be changed. Just because I have a different opinion and I am willing to say what I believe in I’m a threat to town government. There were interesting battles in the community. There was a lot of finger-pointing by? at? elected officials. After the vote, we were commended by many for conducting ourselves in a gentlemanly manner from the first day through the completion of this override vote. We are here to stay. Since August we’ve generated enough interest to bring out the largest vote in Winthrop’s history. Every single precinct voted “No” which is another first. The May 3 turnout was almost as large.

NL: Why did people, particularly people who tend to vote liberal in the past, really vote to oppose the override?

Change. People were fed up. They had an organization that was willing to lead them and they were willing to participate. Money is always an issue. A lot of people are on fixed incomes. The major issue however is that people were fed up with the lack of leadership. Now they had an organization to funnel that anger. Disappointment and energy. In the past, they weren’t able to do this on their own.

NL: Isn’t it ironic that populist revolts in the past once called for more spending, more government and more participation. Your case implies that people want not only lower taxes but also a voice. Is this a fair description of your goals?

I find that people want town government out of our pockets. Also people --- including many seniors -- want elected officials to be creative. They want to see this town take a new direction because it’s been mismanaged by the good old boys for so long. They are willing to latch onto our group because they see changes already starting to take place.

NL: Proponents of overrides everywhere are very good at feeding the public a “diet of fear.” Was it any different in Winthrop?

The selectmen had come out and said -- and this is where I took offense -- with how not what, they said. They said that the senior center will close. The library will close. Sports will be lost. Recreation programs will close. Not may but will. In Winthrop the selectmen do not have the right to close anything. They can make suggestions but they can’t close them down. I came out in the newspaper and I was very explicit to the selectmen. I said there will be schools and there will be sports. The senior center will not close; the library won’t close and we won’t lose the recreation department. I was called a liar. Let’s take a look at those programs today. Not a single service or program has been closed or attempted to be reorganized. Even Senate President Robert Travaglini, speaking before the local chamber of commerce, was puzzled at the Selectmen’s decision to seek such a large $6 million override to cover a $1.6 million budget deficit. Everything we said we’ve been able to justify. Our credibility is at 100 percent. The school committee and the selectmen have lost credibility as a result of raising fears and threatening the community. “All of these things have to close.” “Kids are going to move out of schools. And there will be no more sports in Winthrop.” The superintendent came out and said if this override doesn’t pass there will be no schools. They had no right threatening voters that way.

NL: In essence, when he announced his resignation after the vote, Superintendent of Schools Thomas Giancristiano said majority of people who turned back the override in Winthrop were shortsighted and selfish. What’s your response?

AM: That’s a typical comment from override supporters and the town selectmen. That’s absolutely not true. Winthrop people are generous. But they see the mismanagement that’s going on within the town. They see there’s money available for certain things. There are no cutbacks there are no layoffs. Supposedly, we don’t have any money but the town government wants to go out and spend $110,000 for a street sweeper that we don’t need. They want to spend $650,000 for a fire engine that we don’t need. These are some of the issues. As far as we are concerned, the statements they make are totally erroneous.

NL: Do you find that current attempts on Beacon Hill to siphon off senior voters by granting them exemptions to any overrides will work? If seniors can be convinced that they can vote for an override without paying the full cost of that override wouldn’t that hurt groups such as Citizens for Fair and Balanced Government?

AM: I really don’t think that measure is going to pass because of common sense. If seniors don’t have to pay increases resulting from an override, the burden has to fall back onto the average homeowner. The average homeowner isn’t going to bear that burden of a larger increase. Secondly, the measure doesn’t call for a full dollar-for-dollar exemption in taxes. Sure they’ll save some money but not the huge amount they may anticipate. I’ve talked to seniors about this measure. They are saying the same thing: “We are going to save a couple of hundred dollars per year but the costs are going to be shifted to everyone else.” At least people we are dealing with are cognizant that it’s not a very good plan.

NL: After the vote, supporters of the override were particularly bitter toward renters. How do you explain their opposition to the override particularly when renters weren’t directly impacted?

AM: The indirect cost to the renter is going to be significant. If the February override, calling for $6 million in new taxes, passed, that would have increased taxes by about $1500 per household. I have a two-family house. That would mean that I would have to bear about $750 and the rest would be borne by my tenant. We had a direct campaign to renters. We mailed over 1200 “Vote No” fliers and told them: “If you are registered to vote get out and vote no because you are going to pay more in rent.” We have renters that are part of our organization. They knew the override would trickle down into a rent increase. The other problem, post-911, is that Winthrop used to be a terrific rental market for airport employees. That’s dropped off substantially and now there’s a glut of apartments. If this override went through it would mean that landlords would have to raise rents in a down market. It would be a bad situation.

NL: Have you learned anything about this campaign? Has your political philosophy changed?

AM: We are in a constant learning process on a day-to-day basis. We’ve made our share of mistakes. We could never get the full complement of budget numbers from the town at any one time so it’s sometimes difficult to make an intelligent decision based on partial figures. We learned to ask for items A, B and C in order to make a full decision. We learned the hard way. The town gave us what we asked for as opposed for our asking for the full picture of the town’s finances.

NL: Do you think your organization is going to make profound changes in Winthrop or will it be more or a reactive or watchdog group?

AM:Our organization has already made a difference. First of all the selectmen have tempered their attitude. There are fewer and fewer articles showing up opposing our view since we’ve pretty much proven our point. We have used the media effectively. As far as the future is concerned, a charter commission to reform town government has been established with nine members. If we can get close to a quorum it’s going to make it a lot easier to change town government and get it away from the “good old boys” network.

NL: How were you received by the media?

AM:Not very well. The Winthrop Sun-Transcript was not publishing many of the letters from our side. I did an analysis during a three-week period where our opponents were getting 85% of the coverage and all our letters were placed in a circular file. I called the editor and said, “We’re not looking for anything less than 50%. That’s all we are looking for.” We had a discussion and that was corrected. The newspaper obviously wasn’t in favor of what we were saying.

NL:Why were they critical?

AM: I think the media looked at us as a ragtag group of one or two people interfering with their comfort zone of being attached to the hips of the selectmen and Schools. We were a new grassroots organization where the selectmen, schools and media didn’t think they had to worry about us. Remember what I said earlier, we kept quiet about our operations for the longest time while the news media thought there were a lot of letters coming from a large number of disgruntle citizens when in essence they were from our supporters, under our direction, while I would place one letter per week in the news under (CFBG). When the telephone survey came out nobody believed we could have carried that off. By then we had a groundswell of letter writers, contributors and supporters.

NL: Isn’t this kind of secrecy a long-term liability?

AM: Secrecy may be more of a harsh word than is necessary. We want to keep pertinent information to ourselves as far as goals and tactics. The element of surprise has been where we have been successful. We are constantly on the move - researching our opposition and crafting a message to rebut the claims of the opposition. It’s not a liability once we make our move then our position is obviously known.

We are constantly getting phone calls. We’ve also set up a political action committee. People are supporting us. We believe in what we do. Of course you are always going to get people who don’t and that’s OK. That’s what makes America beautiful. We can sit down and debate issues and walk away in a civil manner.

NL: Since 1980, Proposition 2 1/2 has been one of the few restraints on local government. For more than 23 years, state officials at the behest of some municipal leaders across the Commonwealth have tried to change Proposition 2 1/2. In addition the recent Hancock ruling mandating greater public education funding for poorer districts is also putting pressure on the tax limit law. Do you think the legacy of Proposition 2 1/2 can be preserved given such pressure?

With federal and state governments cutting back aid, more pressure is placed on cities and towns to cut back on services through layoffs and to become more efficient. In Winthrop's case the Selectmen attempted to do the easier thing by raising taxes. Growing bigger government is good for the politician but expensive and unnecessary for the persons having to pay higher taxes. As long as groups like ours keep focused and remain vigilant town government will be forced to take a hard look at becoming lean and cost effective running it like a business, the citizens’ business.

I