ATV Ordinance Highlighted

SELECT BOARD

JANUARY 13, 2015

The meeting was called to order at 7:30pm by Jim Heald. Raymond Tarbell and Tim Martin were present. All stood and recited the Pledge of Allegiance. Jim welcomed everyone and requested that speakers raise their hand to be recognized, state their name and keep remarks civil and short. He also
reminded everyone that we are ALL part of the Town of Mount Holly and should work for what’s best for ALL of the town.
1. Additions/Deletions to the Agenda: There was one addition to the agenda, regarding the Town Report Books, which was addressed first.
2. Town Report Books: Marcy Tanger reported for the Auditors, that they have been considering not mailing the town books to everyone, but rather have the books available for pickup at the Town Office, or mailed by request. She noted that a number of towns have done this, which results in many
fewer books needed to be printed and mailed. The books cost $5.00 each last year to print; total mailing costs were about $450.00. It has been noted at the post offices that a fair number of books are pulled out of boxes and immediately thrown out. This is a question to be voted on by the town, so
it would not be this year. All town books will be mailed this year.
3. Minutes: The minutes of the regular meeting of December 16 and the special meeting of January 05 were sent out before the meeting for review. There were no corrections or additions. Upon motions made and seconded it was
VOTED: To approve the December 16 minutes. (3-0)
VOTED: To approve the January 05 minutes. (3-0)
4. Highways
 The Board reviewed and signed the Certificate of Highway Mileage to be returned to the State. The mileage is used to calculate the State highway aid payment.
 The Board reviewed the Road and Bridge restrictions, which will remain unchanged. Restricted are Bridge 61 on Cole Road and Bridge 66 on Station Road, which is closed until further notice. The restrictions will be updated for this year using the State’s online system.
 The Board reviewed a letter from Daniels Survey regarding two survey issues and the fact that she has not submitted a bill for her work on the garage/school subdivision. The Board agreed to
send a letter requesting her bill.
5. Report of Treasurer
 David Johnson presented an income and expense statement dated December 31, 2014 showing cash balances of $2,755,673. Outstanding property taxes are down to about $90,000. Solid Waste revenue (label sales) is at about half the budgeted amount. Solid Waste expense are about $2,000 over budget, due to increased costs for refrigerant removal, tires and loading of the scrap
metal pile. (The vendor no longer loads the metal themselves.) Under highway expenses, David noted that repairs are under budget. Winter road materials are down (only 9 hauls so far this year vs. 18 last year), but the large price increase for salt means it will require watching. The new
truck is expected to be delivered tomorrow.
 The Division of Property Valuation and Review results of the statewide survey showed the town with a Common Level of Appraisal of 114.41% (vs. 114.51% last year). The Coefficient of Dispersion is at 15.48% (vs. 18.06% last year). Therefore, the requirement for an appraisal is not expected.
 External Audit: The information from the Rescue Squad was delivered to him last week. He promises a draft at the end of this week, so the audit results will be in the town report.
6. Solar Update
Marcy Tanger and Roland Marx presented information on the Boardman Hill Community Solar Farm, which was commissioned on 12/31/14 by Green Mountain Power. The VT Natural Resource
Council and VT Law School have asked Marcy and Roland to make a presentation to them, as this project could be a prototype model for others to use. They also noted that there are 5 panels available and requested the town consider buying them. The panels would cost $4375 and are projected to return $9-10,000 in electric credits over 20 years. In addition there are annual maintenance costs which are expected to be small ($40-45 for the first year). The Board was reluctant to add more costs to the budget and asked if the panels could be held until the March town meeting, so it could be voted on by the town. Ron Unterman suggested someone might buy the panels and donate them to the town.
7. FY2016 Budget
David Johnson presented the budget created at the January 05 work session, which resulted in a large increase. He noted that one-half of the state appraisal payment must be added as an expense ($5,100). He then presented several opportunities to lower some items. Diesel fuel expenses are down this
year, in part due to less usage and in part to lower fuel costs. He suggested lowering the budget amount $8,000. Health Insurance could be lowered $2,000 and the remaining work on Packer Road could be limited to roughing out the road for this year, saving $10,000. There was a surplus for FY2014, however the costs for moving the fuel tank and replacing the fuel pump was not in the
budget, so some of the surplus must cover that.
As a result, the amount to be raised by property tax was lowered to $986,855. This is a 7% increase over FY 2015, 75% of which is for the first bond principal and interest payment ($48,700). The increase in regular expenses is 1.8%. Upon motion made and seconded, it was:
VOTED: To approve the FY2016 budget as presented and adjusted, with $986,855 to be raised by property tax.
The Board will have the opportunity to review the budget once more when they meet to review and sign the town warrant.
8. Date/Time to review the Town meeting warrant
The Board will meet on Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 6:30 pm for this purpose.
9. Transfer Station
Jeff noted that he has spoken with Jim O’Gorman at Rutland County Solid Waste District (RCSWD) to answer questions regarding the Act 148 changes and likely will not attend the VLCT workshop on January 28 on the topic. He also noted that the Town may need to tweak the Solid Waste Ordinance which was passed a number of years ago.
10. Star Lake Dam Reconstruction
Ron Unterman reported that the State has informally okayed the new design. FOSL is awaiting the
formal approval.

11. ATV Ordinance
 After last month’s meeting and vote, some attendees had asked for written documentation from Attorney Glover regarding the meeting with Jim Heald. A letter from Attorney Glover was read.

The letter reviewed the ordinance approval and petition process, noting that a successful vote to disapprove the ordinance would not necessarily be the same as asking the voters whether the Town should in-fact have an all-terrain vehicle ordinance. He further stated that the ordinance proposals he reviewed could ultimately be attacked as being invalid for its failure to name the
“location” for ATV operation (23 V.S.A. Section 3510) (no roads were specified). He further noted that the proposals established a somewhat perpetual ordinance adoption process, as each road added would be subject to the procedures of 24 V.S.A Sections 1972 and 1973. The ordinances also seemed to establish a fairly comprehensive administration process, requiring
someone, or the Selectboard itself, to administer. He also noted communications with VLCT’s attorney who agreed that the ordinance should establish an initial set of roads and that the ‘administrative process’ could be streamlined.

 The floor was opened for discussion: Can the ordinance be written so that it doesn’t have to go through the process every time? (That’s a question for an attorney.) Couldn’t roads be added once a year, say December to allow any petition vote at town meeting rather than incur costs of a special meeting? That still leaves an issue for the first year, as no roads specified. Perhaps
neither ordinance is the right one and the Board should consider rescinding last month’s vote and put an advisory question up to a vote at town meeting. Is there anything in the new budget forcosts due to the ordinance? (no)

 Jim Heald stated again that he had wanted this to be a vote at town meeting before voting on an ordinance. There was further discussion about rescinding the vote with a question about opening roads to be put on the town meeting warrant.

 Upon motion made and seconded, it was VOTED: To rescind last month’s approval of an ATV ordinance. (2-1 – T. Martin dissented.)

 Upon motion made and seconded, it was VOTED: To place an advisory question on the town meeting warrant regarding opening up some roads to ATVs, with a vote by paper ballot. (2-0-1 - T. Martin abstained.)

12. Planning Commission
 Tim Martin reported that the Planning Commission is working on a new Town Plan and that Bill McGrath is the new chair of the commission.
13. Other Business
 The Board reviewed and signed the Listers’ Certification for the April 2014 Grand List.
 The Board reviewed and signed the VAST Landowners Permission form to allow snowmobiles on town property. (At the meeting, it was not clear where this was, but Steve Howlett (Snodrifters) clarified that it is a piece of property off Route 155, Scampsville.)
 The State notified the Town of the availability of Aquatic Nuisance Control grants for this year.
14. The Board reviewed and signed the December orders for payment.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned by motion made, seconded and approved, at 9:18 pm.

Respectfully submitted,
Rhonda Rivers
Minutes are DRAFT until approved at a Select Board meeting. Approved on: __________________

Lynne Herbst

The Mount Holly Library has an HP Laser Jet 4000 printer in good working condition that we no longer need.  It was donated to us and we happy to give to someone who needs a printer.  Come by the library during open hours (Mon. & Wed. 3 to 7, Sat 9 to 1 and Sun. 2 to 4) or call 259-3707 if you are interested.  

As a Vermont Voter

Hello Dennis,

As a Vermont voter, I just wanted to write to lend my voice to the conversation regarding how our legislature will/should vote on the outcome of the recent gubernatorial race. Until I read the news 12-17-14, I had made my peace with the fact that Peter Shumlin would remain our governor. I did not vote for him, but he clearly won a plurality of the popular vote, and with a heavily democratic state government there was (and likely still is) little to no chance that he would not be confirmed by the general assembly. However, given the bombshell that was dropped on Vermonters this week, I feel compelled to speak up.

I don't care how the administration attempts to explain this away, I will never be convinced that, after four long years of research and planning, the exorbitant and insurmountable costs of single-payer healthcare and the taxes required to fund it were not know until a week ago. I am not that stupid and neither are the citizens of Vermont. I truly believe that the timing of this announcement was strategic deception to help mitigate any harm that might have been done to our governor's bid for re-election had this news been revealed before votes were cast. This is disgusting and manipulative political gamesmanship at its worst, and our state and it's citizens deserve better.

I did not vote for Scott Milne either (I supported Dan Feliciano), however I believe that Milne would have won a plurality, if not a majority, of the votes cast had the cost and subsequent abandonment of single-payer healthcare been disclosed before the election. Furthermore, Dan Feliciano's candidacy was primarily based on a steadfast opposition to single-payer healthcare. Had this issue been off the table, I would venture to guess that Dan would have likely rethought making a run for office without the nomination of the Vermont GOP. While one can only speculate as to how Feliciano supporters would have voted without Dan in the race, and it is likely his votes would have been split between Shumlin, Milne, and those who would have foregone casting a gubernatorial vote altogether (such as myself), historical trends in Libertarian voting habits suggest that far more of those votes would have gone to Milne than Shumlin.

Considering the apparent underhandedness of our presumed governor-elect, the likelihood that an honest disclosure of facts would have greatly impacted the outcome of the election, and the fact that a majority of Vermonters did not support our incumbent governor's bid for re-election, I would encourage you and your legislative peers to carefully consider voting for the candidate who carried a plurality in the majority of voting districts, won the majority of counties, and beat Shumlin in the popular vote for House districts, 53-51. As I have already said, I did not vote for Scott Milne (nor do I feel enthusiastic about him even today) and was resigned to Shumlin's impending re-election. But given recent events, I honestly believe that Scott Milne ought to be the recipient of support from our state's general assembly.

Thank you for taking the time to hear my concerns and opinions on this matter, and thank you for your continued service to our state.

Oh, and remember this?  http://vtdigger.org/2011/04/27/vt-senate-gives-final-nod-to-universal-health-care-bill-in-21-9-vote/

Best,

Joe McDonald

"Friendship, It Means Everything"

"Friendship, It Means Everything" Is a piece I began to write in the summer. It has a medium tempo and a repetitive melody. This piece also has a few dissonance spots. Some spots are meant to be more exaggerate than others. It is based on a friendship, it is calm in the beginning, and where it gets louder and more exaggerate, it is the part of the friendship where there are fights and arguments, but in the end, it calms down, and goes back to normal. Just like a true friendship is. Friends fight but if they are true friends then no fight will break them up forever, and no matter what, they are always there for each other.

Oct. Mountain Bike Ride through the Green Mtns of Mount Holly,VT.

House Oversight Committee Subpoenas Jonathan Gruber’s Documents and Work Products, including Vermonts's.

Vermonters for Health Care Freedom

Health Care Reform Newsletter #42

 

 

Vermonters for Health Care Freedom continues our newsletter series on Vermont’s health care reform efforts.  We dig deep through national and local media coverage, to bring honest reporting to our client businesses and newsletter recipients.  We focus on Vermont’s push for a “single payer” health care system, and the problems inherent in such a system.  We also report on the federal Obamacare law and Vermont’s health benefit exchange.  No other Vermont organization is dedicated solely to this work.

 

 

 

 

Breaking News:                 

     

     House Oversight Committee Subpoenas Jonathan Gruber’s Documents and Work Products, including Vermonts's.

 

In This Issue:

• Gruber’s  Health Care Modeling  Has Failed  For Colorado, Massachusetts,  Minnesota,  and the Feds
• VT Senator Tim Ashe Calls For Universal Health Care First, Single Payer Later
• Early Estimates on Single Payer Income Taxes 
  

Quotes of the Week:

“Congress will not recognize a state’s assertion of executive privilege.  It simply does not apply.  The state has no say in the matter.”  

Brady Toensing, Vermont-based attorney with expertise in executive privilege, who has represented clients in high profile Congressional investigations, including the Clinton White House pardon, commenting on Governor Shumlin’s attempts to keep single payer details under wraps

 

“They said the great thing about using the Gruber model instead of the standard econometric model is that we’re going to use a lot of survey data.  They basically set up a representative population and said this is how people behave based on surveys.  That kind of thing works really badly for a small state like Colorado. His models can’t be relied upon for policy.  They’re not ready for prime time.”

Linda Gorman, Director Health Care Policy Center at the Independence Institute on Colorado, commenting on the fact that Gruber’s economic modeling has cost her state an additional $800m.

 

“Changing from a premium system right now…..to a tax-financed system, has nothing to do with providing another person insurance.  It has nothing to do with saving money in the system.  It has nothing to do with global hospital budgets.  It has nothing to do with increasing the quality of care.  It has nothing to do with any of that.”

Senator Tim Ashe, Chair, Vermont Senate Finance Committee

 

Gruber Subpoenaed For Vermont Documents and Work Products

 

Things went from bad to worse for Jonathan Gruber last week.   After he refused to answer questions before the House Government Oversight Committee, Chairman Darrell Issa issued a subpoena demanding that Gruber produce all documents relating to his consulting work for the Feds and any state governments.  That means Gruber must produce all of the Vermont single payer documents that Governor Shumlin has so far refused to divulge, citing “executive privilege”.  

 

Vermont courts recently ruled that the single payer work product may be exempted from disclosure by executive privilege.   However, Congress will not recognize a state’s assertion of executive privilege, according to legal expert Brady Toensing.  “It simply does not apply.  The state has no say in the matter.  If Gruber does not comply, he will be risking criminal contempt”, Toensing says.  “Congress has a broad and inherent Constitutional prerogative to investigate anything that enables it to carry out its legislative function.”

 

The subpoena seeks all documents and communications referring to or related tofunding – for research or otherwise – from any federal, state or local government agency, including any contracts with federal state or local government agencies.  It also seeks work that Gruber created, as well as communications related to the ACA and federal and state exchanges. 

 

Gruber’s Health Care Micro simulation hasn’t worked

 

Jonathan Gruber’s stated belief that a “lack of transparency is a huge political advantage”, is coming home to roost.  Last week Gruber was taken out behind the woodshed by the House Government Oversight Committee, in a grueling 4-hour session.  As Gruber testified about the deception and lack of transparency used to push the Obamacare legislation through in 2010, both his integrity and his data modeling were called into question.  When he asserted, “No one has ever questioned my data modeling”, Committee Chairman Darrell Issa responded, “I’m questioning it”. 

 

The states of Colorado, Massachusetts and Minnesota are questioning it too.

 

Colorado:  VHCF has just learned that Gruber’s micro simulation modeling for Colorado was significantly understated, and is currently costing Colorado an additional $800m.  In 2011, Colorado decided to set up its own health care exchange and hired Gruber to forecast enrollment trends.  Using his predictive modeling tool (GMSIM), Gruber predicted that Medicaid enrollments would increase from 440,000 in 2011 to 710,000 in 2016.  By 2014, Colorado’s Medicaid enrollment had already grown to 1,100,000, and it is still growing.   At a taxpayer cost of $2,000 per enrollee, this miscalculation has left Colorado’s budget $800m in the hole so far. 

 

In addition, Gruber’s GMSIM model vastly overestimated enrollment numbers for Colorado’s exchange plans, Gruber’s simulations showed that by 2016, Colorado could expect 470,000 people enrolled in a subsidized plan and 150,000 in an unsubsidized plan.   Data for 2014 shows only 16% of the 470,000, or 75,067 enrollees in the subsidized plan - and 35% of the 150,000, or 52,165 in the unsubsidized plan. 

 

Massachusetts:    Then-Governor Mitt Romney also relied upon Gruber’s micro simulation model to implement the Massachusetts Health Connector, or Romneycare.   As with all of Gruber’s work, the modeling relies on assumptions.  Gruber’s assumptions underestimatedenrollment numbers for subsidized coverage.  As a result, Massachusetts has had to raise taxes, copays and premiums to cover the shortfall.

 

Minnesota:  VHCF has just learned that a Minnesota state lawmaker is asking the state’s attorney general for recovery of $330,000 paid to Gruber between 2011 and 2013.  As reported in TwinCitiesNews on November 24, 2014, Gruber was under contract in Minnesota to help the state generate enrollment and other predictions, so that the state could assess the impact of their state exchange, MNsure, on insurance coverage, prices and the state budget.   

 

According to Minnesota Rep. Greg Davids, Gruber’s contract called for him to deliver an updated report by October 2012 which was not delivered until February 2013.  Gruber’s enrollment and other predictions vary significantly from actual experience in the state’s first year of operation, and MNsure no longer relies on them.  Gruber was required to destroy all non-public data in his possession after the work was completed, but there has been no public confirmation that he has done so.

 

Rep. Davids cites a state law that allows the attorney general to recover payment in cases where the product rendered to the state is “so unsatisfactory, incomplete or inconsistent that payment would involve unjust enrichment”.

 

The Feds:  The Gruber Micro simulation Model also misled the federal government.    Before the Affordable Care Act became law, Gruber published a widely-quoted analysis using his GMSIM.  His model predicted that premiums would decrease once Obamacare became law.  Gruber predicted that by 2016, young people would save 13% on their insurance premiums, and older people 31%.    By 2012, however, Gruber had reversed course and began informing Wisconsin, Minnesota and Colorado that Obamacare would instead increaseindividual premiums by 19% to 30%. 

 

What Now?  After the release of the damaging Gruber videos, the Shumlin administration sought to distance itself from Gruber by asserting that he would only serve as a “calculator” for single payer financing.    That does not bode well for Vermonters.

 

UVM economist Art Woolf says that economic models have their limits.  They generally do not work for large scale modeling, and they break down when trying to predict behavior or rapid structural change, which is exactly what Gruber’s GMSIM purports to do. 

 

The discrepancies in Gruber‘s predictions for Colorado, Massachusetts and Minnesota cannot be ignored. Gruber’s modelling has failed significantly on many levels, from botched enrollment numbers to overinflated cost savings predictions.  Vermont has asked Gruber to do the same work in which these failures occurred.  He is charged with predicting single payer enrollment, including the wild card – the number of ERISA plan enrollees who do not have to participate.  Most critically, Gruber is charged with predicting the cost of single payer. Economist Woolf says, “Whatever numbers they come up with are subject to a very large margin of error”, and suggests that the margin could be as high as 20% to 30%.

 

Clearly a tiny state like Vermont cannot afford to rely on Gruber’s micro simulation model.   Even one costing or enrollment error can throw our entire state economy into an irreversible tailspin.   The state budget is already $100m in the hole for FY16, on top of the $48m in budget cuts so far in FY15.   

 

Vermont is exactly where these states were when they bought into the Gruber model.  We are uniquely positioned to avoid the same mistakes.   At a minimum, the House Health Care Committee must call the appropriate officials in Colorado, Massachusetts and Minnesota to testify about their adverse experiences with the Gruber micro simulation model.  It is time for Vermont’s “Plan B” for universal health care, as VHCF has said for over a year.

 

Senator Tim Ashe Calls for Universal Health Care First, Maybe Single Payer Later

 

A key Vermont Senator is concerned that the push for single payer might jeopardize the goal of universal health care for all Vermonters.   Senator Tim Ashe, chair of the Senate Finance Committee, told VPR News that the Legislature’s main focus should be making sure every Vermonter has health insurance first, before tackling a complete disruption of the health care system.  Senator Ashe is correctly focused on the less than 1% of Vermonters who currently do not have coverage, approximately 47,000.  He is also very concerned about the significant impact that a single payer payroll tax will have on small businesses.  “You might put small businesses out of business”, says Ashe.  

 

Ashe believes that the path to universal coverage should be free of the significant political hurdles that confront single payer.   He says that the Legislature ought to spend the upcoming session devising a means of achieving universal coverage, rather than slogging through the pros and cons of the single payer plan that Governor Shumlin is supposed to present at the end of this month.  Sen. Ashe has a point, based on the documented inaccuracies in Gruber’s calculations for other states.

 

Single Payer Income Tax Estimates

 

Vermont economist Art Woolf has reviewed the recently proposed 8% payroll tax for single payer.  Unfortunately, the payroll tax would be just enough to pay for half of single payer’s projected cost.  Raising the 8% payroll tax any higher would place an impossible burden on Vermont’s businesses and drive many out of the state.  So where will the other $1 billion come from?   Mr. Woolf has estimated the impact on Vermonter taxpayers if we have the pay the balance:

SinglePayerTaxChanges
Income	CurrentIncomeTax	HealthCareIncomeTax	TotalStateIncomeTaxes	EmployerPayrollTax
$30,000	$450	$692	$1,142	$2,400
$50,000	$1,150	$1,769	$2,919	$4,000
$80,000	$2,080	$3,200	$5,280	$6,400
$100,000	$3,000	$4,615	$7,615	$8,000
$150,000	$5,850	$9,000	$14,850	$12,000

 

Simply put, single payer would more than double Vermonters’ state income taxes, and cost Vermont businesses significant amounts based on their employees’ incomes.  Mr. Woolf says that in order to raise the other $1 billion for health care, the state would need to raise 150% of what it now raises in personal income taxes.  And that’s on top of the current income tax. 

 

Woolf points out that Vermonters earn about $13 billion in wages, but total income is about $17 billion.  An income tax could capture some of the additional $4 billion, but a payroll tax cannot.  A small number of upper income Vermonters, about 8,000, pay 40% of all the money the state collects.  They would likely be required to pay at least 40% of the new income taxes, and probably more, needed for single payer.    Right now, a high income Vermont taxpayer is capped at 8.95% in state taxes.  Mr. Woolf says that if his estimates are correct, or even close, high income Vermonters will be paying about 15% of their income to the state and face a marginal tax rate in the high teens.  No other state even comes close to this.

 

This legislative session promises to be a fast-paced and divisive one.  VHCF will, as always, keep our readers updated on the latest single payer news.  Check out our website at: www.vthealthcarefreedom.com.

A Message from Vermonters for Health Care Freedom (VHCF)

 

There is no doubt that the well-funded single payer groups and Governor Shumlin would like to see VHCF go away.  But we cannot -  and, with your help, we will not.

 

VHCF is the sole voice of public dissention -  in a sea of single payer government-run health care advocates.  We represent  folks like you, who have not “drunk the Kool-Aid”.   No other Vermont organization is dedicated solely to this work.  There are many well-funded groups on the other side, spending a lot of money to bring about single payer.  But VHCF receives no funding from the big-money groups.   We are a grass-roots organization that relies completely on supporter donations to remain in business. 

 

We are grateful for the support we have received, but without continuing support from grassroots Vermonters, we cannot continue to be effective at preventing Governor Shumlin and his like-minded friends from implementing a single payer health plan by 2017.

 

Thank you to those of you who have recently contributed and supported VHCF efforts.

 

If you haven't yet made a 2014 donation, please take a moment now to give generously, by clicking the link below, or sending a contribution to:   Vermonters for Health Care Freedom, PO Box 1515, Montpelier, VT 05601. 

 

Thank you.

 

Sincerely,

 

Darcie L. Johnston

Founder, VHCF

."Tootsie" Next FOLA Movie December 6 in Ludlow Town Hall Auditorium

 

Ralph Pace <rcpace@tds.net>		Add Note

"Tootsie" Next FOLA Movie December 6 in Ludlow Town Hall Auditorium

 

FOLA (Friends of Ludlow Auditorium) will present its next movie, "Tootsie", on Saturday, December 6 at 7 pm at Luldow town Hall Auditorium.

 

Tootsie is an American comedy-drama film that tells the story of a talented but volatile actor whose reputation for being difficult forces him to adopt a new identity as a woman to land a job. The movie stars Dustin Hoffman, with a supporting cast that includes Jessica Lange, Teri Garr, Dabney Coleman, Charles Durning, Geena Davis (in her acting debut), Bill Murray, Doris Belack and producer/director Sydney Pollack.

 

Michael Dorsey is an unemployed actor with an impossible reputation. In order to find work and fund his friend's play he dresses as a woman, Dorothy Michaels, and lands the part in a daytime drama. Dorsey loses himself in this woman role and essentially becomes Dorothy Michaels, captivating women all around the city and inspiring them to break free from the control of men and become more like Dorsey's initial identity. This newfound role, however, lands Dorsey in a hot spot between a female friend/'lover,' a female co-star he falls in love with, that co-star's father who falls in love with him, and a male co-star who yearns for his affection.

Jessica Lange won the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress for her performance as Julie Nichols. The movie earned a total of ten Academy Awards nominations and in 2000 the American Film Institute ranked Tootsie as the second funniest film of all time.

 

The movie is free; donations are appreciated.  Popcorn will be supplied by Berkshire Bank.  For information, call 228-7239.