Letter: The Convenient Fiction of the “Level Service” Budget

The Town of Norwell is no stranger to the perennial phrase “a level service budget.” It reappears each spring with remarkable consistency—much like the dandelions that dot our lawns. No one invites them, no one claims responsibility for them, yet there they are, year after year, stubbornly resilient and always spreading.

So too is the claim that a rising municipal budget somehow represents “level service.”

It sounds responsible. Reassuring. Almost frugal. And it is repeated often enough that it begins to feel normal—even inevitable.

But familiarity does not make it accurate.

A budget that increases spending is, by definition, not level. It may not introduce new programs or visibly expand services, but it unquestionably expands costs. And those costs are very real to residents who are asked to absorb higher taxes and long-term obligations.

Calling an increasing budget “level service” is not a neutral description. It is a rhetorical device that minimizes growth, deflects accountability, and discourages scrutiny. At best, it is imprecise language. At worst, it is a deliberate framing choice designed to make growth sound harmless and unavoidable.

Municipal leaders often justify this label by pointing to contractual obligations, benefit costs, pension assessments, or inflation. These expenses are presented as automatic—acts of nature rather than the result of prior decisions. But contracts do not materialize on their own. Staffing levels, benefit structures, debt schedules, and compensation models are choices made by governing bodies over time.

When those choices drive budget growth, that growth should be acknowledged and examined—not dismissed as “level service.”

The consequences of this framing are not academic.

First, it undermines transparency. Residents deserve a clear explanation of why the municipal budget is larger than it was last year. When officials insist nothing has changed despite higher spending, they obscure the true drivers of cost growth and deny the public a meaningful understanding of where their money is going.

Second, it suppresses legitimate debate. Labeling a budget “level service” implies there are no alternatives—that any attempt to restrain growth would necessarily reduce services. This framing shuts down discussion about efficiency, staffing models, shared services, scheduling, procurement practices, and long-term cost containment. A budget should invite scrutiny, not preempt it.

Third, it weakens accountability. If every increase is portrayed as maintenance rather than growth, then no one is ever responsible for rising costs. Each year’s higher budget is blamed on inflation, the market, or past decisions, while current decision-makers avoid ownership of the cumulative effect.

Most importantly, taxpayers do not experience “level service.” They experience bills.

A homeowner whose tax levy increases does not feel reassured by the claim that services are unchanged. To them, the change is concrete and unavoidable. When officials insist otherwise, it creates a credibility gap that fuels cynicism and erodes trust in local government.

There is a more honest path forward.

Municipal budgets should clearly distinguish between the cost of maintaining existing operations, increases driven by prior contractual or debt commitments, and discretionary choices made in the current year.

Calling a budget what it actually is—a status-quo services budget with inflationary growth or a cost-increase budget without service expansion—may not be comforting, but it would be truthful.

Local government functions best when residents believe they are being leveled with. The persistent misuse of the term “level service” does the opposite. It prioritizes narrative over clarity and reassurance over responsibility.

Budgets are moral documents. They reveal priorities, tradeoffs, and values. If we want informed citizens and sustainable municipal finances in Norwell, we should stop pretending these dandelions aren’t spreading—and start talking honestly about what growth really means.

Anything less is not level service. It’s a disservice.

Donald A. Mauch
Norwell, MA