To the editor:

The new income-based over-65 exemption is a dangerous threat to the financial and personal security of seniors, is insulting to them, is ham-handed, and out of touch with other communities.  It should be withdrawn.

For those who haven't seen the new application form, here is some of the itemized information that seniors would be required to disclose for the first time: Salary, Social Security income, annuities held, pension distributions, bank account income, rental income, income from investments, income from all others residing in the home, and all other income.

As if that were not enough overreaching, the town also would require each applicant to attach a copy of their complete federal income tax return. All of that for an exemption worth in the range of just $368!

Yet the application contains not a single word about how this mountain of information will be maintained securely, or for how long; nor whether it will be stored in hard copy format or electronically; nor how many people, and who exactly, will be permitted to view these intimate disclosures; etc.  

Why the silence on that topic? Because, as is apparent from the front-page article on Oct. 4, the town began to consult for the first time about those issues after the form was prepared and mailed, and as of Oct. 4 didn't have answers to any of those questions. If the "walls have ears" and there are "prying eyes", our small town gossip mill will feast like never before.

The threat that this ill-conceived program poses to those who are brave (or blissfully uninformed) enough to apply cannot be overstated. Barrington would become a hacker's paradise. Perhaps the town's answer is that it will be hiring Equifax to provide foolproof security? Or does the town have a hitherto unidentified cybersecurity expert on staff?  

This is not some fanciful concern: it seems like every week in the Barrington Times, the police report contains multiple instances of Barrington residents being victimized by identity theft. Privacy/security are among the biggest individual liberties issues of the day, but the town apparently is oblivious to it.  

I am fortunate that $368 less in taxes would not make a noticeable difference in my life, but what about all the folks who depend on the tax break to help make ends meet? The town is forcing the most financially vulnerable among us to choose between Scylla and Charybdis: either the risk of exposing their complete finances to every hacker who is motivated, or the loss of a crucial tax exemption. Particularly in a community as rich as Barrington, that compulsion is shameful.

How do other cities and towns in R.I. deal with this exemption? Very differently. Communities large (e.g., Warwick, Pawtucket) and small (e.g., Bristol, Cumberland), wealthy (e.g. Lincoln, North Kingstown) and not so wealthy (e.g., Glocester, East Providence) do what Barrington has done until now — extend modest exemptions without regard to income, in appreciation of their senior citizens.  

Even in those communities that have some sort of income test, it doesn't appear that any of them has mandated the draconian application form that Barrington now has adopted.

And the ultimate indignity is that Barrington, unlike every other community in RI, has not even stated ahead of time what the new eligibility/exemption amounts will be, thereby preventing an informed decision whether it is worth applying. So it is entirely possible that after making all these disclosures, some folks will be told "sorry, you're not eligible".

The town's lame explanation for this new process is that the total spent on senior exemptions needs to be "revenue neutral" (i.e., "level funded"). That is a bogus justification. 

Try to level fund the schools and all hell would break loose. And on the municipal side of the budget, when the town receives a billing increase for some item, does it decline to pay the bill until some other item can be cut in an equivalent amount? (didn't think so.) None of the other real estate tax exemptions in town (for veterans, disabled, etc.) are subject to "level funding," so why the seniors?  

The town has decided for some unknown reason to "level fund" people in this instance — people who have lived here for decades, have diligently paid their taxes for 30, 40 or 50 years, and contributed to the town in innumerable other ways. Those contributions are the reason why until now, Barrington has shared with other cities and towns the motivation to give some small recognition to their seniors, to encourage them to hang in there. After all, the entire program costs an infinitesimally small fraction of the town's entire budget (some $550,000 in a $72 million budget).  

It also is apparent from quotes in the Oct. 4 article that the town designed these onerous disclosures at least in part to deter up to 50 percent of those eligible from even applying for the exemption. Is the town proud of adopting a public policy that appears to extend a benefit with one hand but then does everything possible to take it away with the other?

On the practical level, there is another powerful reason to drop the new financial intrusions. The town would be assuming for the first time enormous potential financial liability for the consequences of a data breach affecting perhaps as many as 1,000 residents. A class action against the town for those damages would be a slam-dunk. Is the town 100 percent insured against such claims? The annual premium for such coverage can easily be $20,000 for just a $5 million policy. Has the town "level funded" that premium? And isn't it preferable to distribute that amount to folks in town who can really use it, rather than sending off a premium check to some huge out-of-state insurance company?

If, despite all of these legitimate concerns, the town is determined to impose an income test for eligibility for the senior exemption, there is a simple solution to protect the security of those residents who really need the exemption. First, set an income ceiling and then require all applicants to certify under oath that they comply. (After all, there are penalties for making a false statement on a government benefits application). Or is the town unwilling to accept a good faith certification from its seniors?

The town manager is quoted in the Oct. 4 article as characterizing the new application as a "good deed." If that were so, I would surely hate to see what a "bad deed" looks like.

I have lived in Barrington over 41 years. Until this past week I had always considered the Town's most bizarre action the one some years ago to apply for a grant to build a windmill at Brickyard Pond, before even trying to determine whether there was sufficient wind to power it. Post-application testing showed there was not enough wind, so all that effort was wasted. 

This current program tops that fiasco by a country mile. The town is tilting at windmills again with the senior exemption, and it should back off what is a seriously flawed proposal.

Matt Medeiros

Barrington