A Just Quincy Open Letters

A Just Quincy’s response to Mr. Mason’s answers to our questions:

This exchange highlights why Quincy urgently needs a more open, public conversation about its finances. At A Just Quincy, we asked clear, good-faith questions — about deficits, debt, and taxes — the same issues residents are talking about at their kitchen tables. These weren’t “gotcha” questions or rhetorical traps. We were looking for transparency and solutions. We are grateful to Mr. Mason for his time and care in answering our questions.  While we felt that his answers were more focused on technicalities than overall plans for the city, we still appreciate his engagement. We hope this is the beginning of a dialog that focuses not so much on accounting methods, but financial plans.

We prepared some impressions on Mr. Mason’s answers. For each we gave a one-line summary of the city’s answers followed by a short reply.

1. Is Quincy Running a Deficit?

What we asked: Is the City budgeting to spend more than it brings in?

Response: The budget is “balanced” because Massachusetts law requires it.

Our take:

This answer leans on a legal requirement but misses the underlying concern — that Quincy continues to spend more than it earns in actual practice. A budget can be balanced on paper but still lead to deficits if projections don’t match reality. We are hoping for a discussion about the real-world pattern — not just the legal definition.

--Balanced on paper doesn’t mean we’re not overspending in practice.

2. On Net Position and Long-Term Solvency

What we asked: Quincy’s net position has gone negative and declined every year since 2013 — what’s the long-term plan?

Response: The decline is mostly due to accounting rule changes and doesn’t reflect the City’s day-to-day fiscal health.

Our take:

There’s a valid point here — some of the accounting changes, like GASB 75, do bring long-term obligations onto the books. But that doesn’t fully explain or excuse a decade-long downward trend in the City’s net position. The core question remains: What’s being done to reverse this? That wasn’t addressed.

--Accounting changes may explain the numbers, but they don’t provide a turnaround plan.

3. On Borrowing and Debt Service

What we asked: Quincy’s debt service now exceeds $57 million — over 13% of the total budget. How do we plan to reduce that burden?

Response: Our borrowing is for capital projects, not operating costs. Our debt is healthy and credit-rated.

Our take:

We’re glad to hear the City isn’t borrowing for operations. But even responsible debt carries real costs — and the fact that it’s “for capital” doesn’t mean it doesn’t constrain our ability to fund everyday services. The size of the debt burden deserves a clearer long-term strategy, not just reassurance.

--We weren’t questioning legality — we’re asking about sustainability.

4. On Pensions

What we asked: Why is Quincy behind on funding pensions, and how do we plan to catch up?

Response: This is a common issue across municipalities. Quincy refinanced its liability through a bond.

Our take:

This is a fair explanation — the pension bond did restructure debt and lower interest costs. Still, it stops short of offering a forward-looking plan. We’re left wondering: What’s next? How will we ensure we don’t fall behind again?

--Acknowledging the past is good. A plan for the future would be better.

5. On Raising Revenue or Hiking Taxes

What we asked: Are we exploring new revenue options, or will we keep raising property taxes?

Response: New revenue streams are being looked at, and reserves have been used to ease tax increases.

Our take:

This was the most encouraging answer — it shows awareness of the tax burden and some effort to cushion it. But without specifics, “we’re looking into it” doesn’t tell residents much. And relying on reserves to balance the levy is a short-term fix, not a long-term solution.

--It’s time to move from “we’re looking into it” to “here’s what we’re doing.”

Final Note:

We appreciate that Mr. Mason took time to respond. These are difficult financial issues, and we don’t pretend they have simple answers. But residents deserve a real and frank conversation, not just compliance language. As I said earlier, we hope this is the start of such a discussion — because this isn’t about playing politics. It’s about making sure the city’s finances work for everyone.

Here, you can read A Just Quincy’s open letters to the Office of the Inspector General and the State Ethics Commission, urging them to investigate the purchase of religious statues for the new Public Safety HQ. We encourage residents to add their signatures to one or both letters using the link at the bottom of the page. Alternatively, you may share anonymous feedback through the same link.
For easier reading, click the “Open PDF in a new tab” button above the embedded letter previews below.