Dan Dunn’s Podium

I take notes during Town Meeting. They are not official in any way. As I listen to people speak, I scribble notes. I’m sure that, at times, I mishear or misunderstand the speaker, but my notes represent what I hear at the time. I then publish the notes every night after the meeting. I do go back and make a few edits as errors are pointed out to me.

I do not try to reproduce my entire notepad for this online version. Sometimes I relay a quote from a specific speaker. Most of the time I only summarize the discussion. At points I give a purely personal opinion; those are clearly labeled like this: Personal note.

The meeting started at 8:00 on the dot. Jane Howard played the national anthem. I failed to catch the name of the man who gave the invocation, but he was some flavor of Orthodox.

Moderator John Leone spoke for a minute or two about the meeting so far. He noted that 31 articles have been completed, at roughly 6 per night. The pace is slow. He also said that several members were abusing the Points of Order and Points of Personal Privilege. He reviewed the two terms.

• Points of Order: Generally given about whether someone is allowed to speak. Is the speaker unlawful, irrelevant, off course, engaging in personal attacks? Or is the article unlawful, irrelevant, off course, engaging in personal attacks?
• Points of Personal Privilege: Generally about the integrity of the meeting. Is there a problem that violates the integrity of the meeting? Is there a problem with audio, sight, or comfort that keeps the meeting from proceeding with integrity? Or, has someone been insulted or had their honor questioned?

The moderator asked people to refrain from abusing these points. He also noted that while most had followed the rule about providing motions in writing beforehand, a few had not. He encouraged everyone to follow the rule.

There was an announcement. I continue to be annoyed with announcements that have nothing to do with Town Meeting. These announcements are a waste of time. Town Meeting should not be held hostage, forced to listen to the date and time of some future event. So, I will not help these selfish announcers spread the word. Events announced at Town Meeting will not be mentioned on this blog. But if you leave an announcement on the chairs or at the back of the room, like the Police Department did, I’ll be happy to publicize events like the Public Safety Fair.

Chairman of the Board of Selectmen Clarissa Rowe set the next meeting for the 19th.

Article 2 - Reports, continued. Jane Howard reviewed the Vision 2020 report. She called attention to the satisfaction and importance ratings of various aspects of the town. I think there was some interesting stuff in the report, particularly related to what people think we should spend more money on. It relates to the debate about Arlington’s post-five-year-plan.

Article 35 - Home Rule Matthew Silva, continued. Several speakers were in favor of seeking the exception, including me. The speakers noted that people are live longer and healthier than they used to. I argued that we should remove the exception argument by creating a “permanent exception.” Several spoke against using age as a discriminating factor. Town Counsel said that we could not be successfully sued for this decision. Selectman Rowe offered a small amendment (changing “and” to “and/or.”) Several speakers were against the exception. They asked Town Meeting to listen to the chiefs’ opposition. They noted the pension repercussions. Joe Tully compared this decision to the hiring decision of the Superintendent and made completely irrelevant potshots at Paul Schlichtman.  It was bad enough that the moderator chastised him and told him to get off the personal.  Schlichtman made a point of personal privilege to defend himself. I thought the whole interchange was bad. Tully was out of line, and Schlichtman should not have bothered to respond. One speaker was concerned about a 44 year old applying for the job, and realized that he then had to be concerned about the 33-year-olds; he had no criteria to make a choice but the state law. One speaker said that Town Meeting was good at making decisions about town character, but bad at making exceptions. Several speakers argued that each of the 6 cases should be voted consistently. More than one speaker in favor of the motion deplored the tone and content of one or two of the speakers from Monday. The next out-of-line part of the meeting was Joe Daley. He was unhappy with the debate from Monday. At first he made passing references. He couldn’t leave it alone, and started getting more and more personal. The moderator told him to get back on track, and then he got in a big pissing match with the moderator. I do not understand why he has such a hard time sticking to the debate. It seems like half the time he speaks he’s just wasting time; he’s not making a point, he’s trying to score points with the moderator. Some speakers argued that the applicant had good character, while others said that town meeting is unable to judge character, and others said that judging should be left up to the hiring authority. Ed Starr moved to terminate debate, and that passed by voice vote. The selectmen’s change passed. Joe Tully’s amendment to extend to 2013 failed. The motion passed 85-76. [8:59] Last Monday I wrote that Town Meeting needed more grace in victory. Again, after this vote, there was loud clapping, cheering, and whooping from some of people on the prevailing side. Again, I say that it was inappropriate. It’s one of those times where you should put yourself in the other guy’s shoes. What if the vote had gone 76-85? What would you think if there was loud cheering at your vote’s defeat? You’d think they were jerks, or worse. Remember, this isn’t sour grapes on my part. I also voted on the prevailing side. I’m just asking for more politeness and decorum.

Article 36 - Thomas Wesley. Selectman Rowe introduced him, and he spoke briefly. Tully said that he was not offering his amendment (it clearly had failed before, and there was no need to consider it for each article). A speaker advocated consistency. Diane Mahon talked about hiring cycles, and said the town was hiring a bunch of public safety workers. There was a question about what the Finance Committee voted; they had not. Phelps moved to terminate debate and the article passed 84-70.

Article 37 -James Carnell. Ed Starr moved to end debate. Article passed 83-71.

Article 38 - Matthew Earley. Ed Starr moved to end debate. Passed 84-71.

Article 39 - Robert Griffin. Ed “Terminator” Starr moved to terminate debate. Passed 81-71.

Article 40 - Tara Diab. Mrs. Rowe spoke, talking about gender equality. Two other speakers echoed elements of the previous debate. Passed 90-70.

As had been announced on Monday, all articles up to 54 were tabled.

Article 54 - Capital Budget. Charlie Foskett, Chair of the Capital Committee, asked for 3 extra minutes. He spoke about the 5-year plan, the capital process, and some notable elements of this year’s report. He spoke for several minutes about the Thompson and Stratton improvement plans. Superintendent Levenson and School Committee member Ron Spengler also spoke about the plans. There were several questions about the improvements of the DPW building, copiers, LED lights in traffic signals, DPW trucks, the fire department deployment plans for the proposed quint, the location of the Highland fire station, the process for planning Thompson and Stratton improvements, what the process for selling old town schools might be, the proposed Thorndike field improvements, the bridge on Mill Lane, interest costs, and ARB building management.

There was a motion to adjourn. Many members wished to finish the article. The motion to adjourn carried, 62-45. I voted to stay, not to adjourn. It’s frustrating to spend an entire night and not finish a single major article. It’s particularly frustrating where some speakers are willing to just talk and talk, just to hear themselves speak. I am not complaining about all the questions; I think it’s appropriate for everyone to ask the questions they need to. Sometimes we argue for hours about a few bucks; it’s a good thing that we spend time talking about the big bucks. But I am complaining when the same speaker asks the same question seven times in a row. Just be quiet, and get your answer! Your are not judged by how many words you use; you are judged by the wisdom of your words.

I take notes during Town Meeting. They are not official in any way. As I listen to people speak, I scribble notes. I’m sure that, at times, I mishear or misunderstand the speaker, but my notes represent what I hear at the time. I then publish the notes every night after the meeting. I do go back and make a few edits as errors are pointed out to me.

I do not try to reproduce my entire notepad for this online version. Sometimes I relay a quote from a specific speaker. Most of the time I only summarize the discussion. At points I give a purely personal opinion; those are clearly labeled like this: Personal note.

The meeting started at 8. Charles Gallagher played the national anthem. There was no invocation. I thought the lack of invocation was a fine thing - let’s hope this is a trend! Town government being secular and all . . .

The moderator announced that the winning projects of the Arlington High School Math Fair were in the hall to be viewed during the break. I helped judge the projects on Thursday. There are some neat projects. They’re better when you get to hear the student speak; that’s when you really can tell who knows what they’re talking about, and the passion shines through.

Barbara Cutler said that the 300 copies of the report of the Commission on Disability were missing.

Allan Tosti announced he would ask that Article 54, the Capital Budget, be brought up on Wednesday night. Charlie Foskett (the chair of the capital committee) would be out of town for the following week.

Board of Selectmen Chairman Clarissa Rowe set the next meeting time for May 14.

Article 28 - Canine Control, continued. It looked to me like Town Meeting was a little empty tonight - lots of empty seats at the start. I think a number of members were staring down the barrel of a night of arguments about leash lengths and decided to take the night off. On the other hand, there was quite an audience. A few dozen people were there to watch the meeting. Andrew Fischer was in favor of the change, describing the difficulties he has with his dogs and the current law. He proposed an amendment to restrict the length of leashes on town land adjacent to schools. A speaker was opposed to the law. The moderator admonished the audience not to hold up signs. I had noticed a few signs in the audience saying “vote no on 28″ and “go with green dog.” I was surprised that the moderator told them not to do it. I don’t recall a rule prohibiting signs. Any reader out there have an opinion to share in the comment section below? Chad Gibson proposed an amendment to sunset Ruderman’s substitute motion after one year. Debate was terminated 98-48. The moderator started to explain voting procedure. Mr. Worden rose on a point of order asking when the “year” in Gibson’s motion started and ended. After some consultation, Moderator Leone ruled Gibson’s amendment out of order because without a specified date, the attorney general would reject the law. This was not the moderator’s finest moment. He might have noticed the flaw when the amendment was first made. Then, when the flaw was pointed out, I think there was room to simply specify a date; it would not have been a substantive change. All that said, the moderator was correct on a key point: Get it in writing, and get it in early. That’s the best way to avoid these flaws. Fischer’s amendment went down, 62-84. Smith’s amendment carried by voice vote. Ruderman’s substitute motion went down by voice vote. The moderator called for a vote on Gibson’s amendment, confusing everyone in the room. Memo to Mr. Leone: Once your rule something out of order, there is no vote; the motion is dead on arrival. No action carried. Mr. Worden gave notice of reconsideration.

Article 29 - Dogs in Menotomy Park. Chairman of the Board of Selectmen Clarissa Rowe asked again to let the Green Dog group do it’s work, and not act rashly, asking for a vote of no action. Mr. Quinn moved a postponement so that the proponents of the original article could present a resolution later. The postponement failed, and no action was voted by voice vote. At this point, most of the audience filed quietly out.

Article 27 - Meeting Notice Bylaw, continued. Jeanne Leary presented a substitute motion calling for 30 days notice by US Mail for all committees to all abutters and “interested person” where decisions of property values might be made. She explained the changes that the town and state had made to her neighborhood on Summer Street without enough notification including blasting, driveway changes, trees being taken down, lights being put up, and more. Several speakers (including me) were opposed to the substitute motion. The reasons given were that the scope was too broad, that it would cause conflicts with 14-day notification requirements for some committees, and that the terms were not well defined. Many speakers expressed sympathy with the troubles on summer street. Several speakers spoke in favor of better notifications. A speaker suggested that the best solution was personal activism. Several suggestions for future changes were made. Debate was terminated by voice vote. Harry McCabe made a point of order and was loudly gaveled out of order while he labored to make his point. Rich Carreiro made a point of order that the section of law in the substitute motion was incorrect, and it was corrected. The substitute motion failed by voice vote. The moderator then tried to add a sentence to the Selectmen’s original motion that they had forgotten to include, increasing the scope of the article. Brian Rehrig rose and objected to changing the substance of the article after debate was terminated; he argued that it was a real change, not a cosmetic one, and that was inappropriate after debate was over. I did not like the way this played out. The selectmen should have made their change right up front. Failing that, the moderator could have reasonably put a selectman at the microphone to make the change without waiting for them to get on the list; that would have been fine. What was not fine was to change the language and scope of the article after debate had been terminated. I was getting ready to make an objection when Rehrig made his; I’m glad he did. The meeting voted to not debate the selectmen’s changes, but it’s not clear that people really knew what the vote was about. The selectmen’s motion, without the last-minute change, was approved. Mr. McCabe moved to reconsider, and that vote failed.

Article 30 - Margaret Spengler Honor. Tabled.

Article 31 - Scholarship Fund Name Change. Not needed, and voted no action.

Article 32 - Community Development Block Grants (CDBG). Selectman Hurd spoke briefly about the requests and awards ($2.7M and $1.25M). Mrs. Worden asked for a correction in the affordable housing section. Passed. This was a bit of a surprise that it went so quickly. This spending is out of Town Meeting’s jurisdiction, but that doesn’t stop people from expressing their opinion on the spending choices. But this year - nothing.

Article 33 - Accepting Grants. There were two questions about the grants the town receives and the process for that. Passed.

Article 34 - Ballot Question to Restaurant Increase Liquor Licenses from 10 to 15. Selectman Rowe explained that this is in anticipation of increased demand since the town voted to permit restaurants of 50-99 seats to seek liquor licenses. There were several questions about parking, enforcement, license terms, license issuance and revocation, and how the size of the requested increase was determined. Several speakers were in favor, and a couple against. Funniest moment so far this year: “I’m a younger guy, and I can tell you, my friends and I don’t go to Arlington to get ripped. We go to Cambridge or Somerville. And high schoolers aren’t spending $12 on a cabernet at Tryst, I can tell you that.” Approved 121-9.

Article 35 - Home Rule Matthew Silva. Selectman Rowe explained that this was the first of several articles for individuals seeking waivers of the state’s maximum age limit for police and fire positions. Mr. Silva spoke briefly about his roots in the community. There was discussion of the alternative “wellness” legislation that would remove the age requirements and the problems with it. Several opponents spoke of the unfairness of an “exception” process. Two speakers talked about whether or not it was correct to evaluate the qualities of the specific individuals. Joe Tully proposed an amendment to extend the window to 2013. There were questions about the pension implications of hiring older employees. Town Manager Sullivan, when asked, said that he and the chiefs were opposed to exceptions and wanted to use the system. Fire Chief Jefferson echoed that saying “stick with the rules.” Chief Ryan said to “look at the organization” and not the individuals. This was interesting because I don’t recall the manager or cheifs taking a clear position on this in the past. I just reviewed my notes, and I can’t find a clear stand. In fact, the only clear note I have is of Chief Ryan being coy on the issue. I wonder how much of that is my notes being incomplete, a change in position, or a new willingness to be vocal. Several speakers were in favor of granting the exception. In response to questions, Silva described taking the test more than once, getting a perfect score most recently, but having missed the age cutoff by four months. I wonder if he realizes how little his perfect score will help him - once the patronage and preferences are applied. Of course, I’ll still support his wish to apply for the job. The meeting adjourned before taking a vote.

Finance Committee meets at 7:30 before every Town Meeting in case there is any last minute business to be done. I didn’t do notes for our meeting before TM #3 because we didn’t have any business - just chatter. The meeting #4 was canceled because there was no business. Today we had business.

Treasurer Stephen Gilligan wanted to talk about Article 47, which we’d had a hearing on in February.  FinComm had voted to recommend the request for special legislation, making POBs at least possible, but voted against actually permitting to borrow the money, and added a couple other restrictions including requiring explicit approval of FinComm and restricting the amount of money that could be borrowed.  The treasurer appeared to support borrowing money at this town meeting anyway, as indicated by the draft language circulated in March.

Tonight, the treasurer said that he was not seeking permission to borrow money at this time; he was only seeking the special legislation.  He did want to put the vote in a different form than the FinComm recommended vote.  FinComm codified the restrictions in the request for special legislation.  The treasurer wanted to make the restrictions part of the vote, but keep them out of the special legislation.

The treasurer said he would circulate new language.  He also said he would postpone discussion until 5/28 because Charlie Foskett would be traveling and unable to attend Town Meeting until then.  (Al Tosti has recused himself from the discussion of this issue because of a potential conflict of interest).

Personally, I’m likely to be happy with the language as the treasurer described it.  The devil is in the details, of course, and I look forward to reading the actual text.  Several other members of the board are more skeptical.  We’ve talked about this issue at least 4 times now, and we still don’t have recommended text.  If that text isn’t ready beforehand, several people will vote “no” just because they won’t have had time to study the text.  I’m inclined to agree.

The minutes for 4/30 and 5/5 were approved.

I take notes during Town Meeting. They are not official in any way. As I listen to people speak, I scribble notes. I’m sure that, at times, I mishear or misunderstand the speaker, but my notes represent what I hear at the time. I then publish the notes every night after the meeting. I do go back and make a few edits as errors are pointed out to me.

I do not try to reproduce my entire notepad for this online version. Sometimes I relay a quote from a specific speaker. Most of the time I only summarize the discussion. At points I give a purely personal opinion; those are clearly labeled like this: Personal note.

The meeting started at 8. The Arlington High’s Madrigal Singers performed the anthem and a couple of other songs. Mary Lou Burke of St. Eulalia’s gave the invocation. A new member was sworn in.

Moderator Leone reminded that only town meeting members could be on the first floor (with exceptions). Tonight in the audience I noted a number of men in suits. I’m guessing they were there to speak in articles 35-42. They left later in the evening when it became clear that our pace was pretty darn slow.

Board of Selectmen Chairman Clarissa Rowe set the next meeting time for May 12.

Several announcements were made. The start to this meeting was one of the frustrating ones. Slow start time, concert, and announcements - we didn’t start any business until 8:25. That’s 15% of our time gone before we even start. If I had my choice, we’d start closer to 8, cut out the concerts, and restrict announcements to ones that are directly related to the meeting. If you want to tell town meeting about your event, please leave a piece of paper on the seat. Town meeting time is precious. The 250+ residents and employees in the hall aren’t there to hear about the next fundraiser. They’re there to do the town’s business.

Article 25 - Leaf Blower Noise Bylaw, continued. Several speakers were against the article. They noted that the town had received no complaints, so it was not a significant problem. They talked about the cost and time increase for raking. Mr. Worden proposed an amendment to change the weekday permitted start time to 9AM rather than 7AM. Several speakers were in favor of the regulation, and advocated compromise. Vote was terminated by a vote of 127-34. The Board of Selectmen’s weekend time amendment was approved 77-76. Worden’s vote went down by voice vote. Carol Band’s amendment went down by voice vote. The main motion failed 72-97. [9:07] I voted against this - I’m not convinced it’s a problem that needs regulation. After the vote was declared, several loud cheers erupted. My advice to the cheering section: Tone it down. We won. Accept the win with grace. There’s no need to rub anyone’s face it it.

Article 26 - Sidewalk/Curb Snow Removal. Chairman of the Board of Selectmen Clarissa Rowe explained the recommended vote of no action. The board is concerned about the issue and thanked the original proponents for drawing attention to the problem. She said that actually doing what the proponents want would cost $500,000 in equipment. Maria Harrington moved a substitute motion, a non-binding resolution asking the DPW to focus on curbs and sidewalks for snow removal. Stephen Harrington gave a verbal presentation and a slide show of several examples of problematic snowbanks. (You can see the pictures he presented, and more, on his Flickr page.) He showed a snow-removal Bobcat that priced at $35,000, conflicting with the Selectmen’s estimate. Charlie Foskett gave FinComm’s no action recommendation, warning that the proponents would use this resolution to try to modify the budgets later in the meeting. Town Manager Sullivan and DPW Director Bean both said it would be too expensive. There were several speakers in favor, and they split into two groups: 1) This is a free resolution, so vote for it, and 2) We should spend the money on this public safety issues. The proponents said the problem was long-existing and demanded action, that it was particularly hard on the disabled and elderly, and that the current law needs better enforcement. A couple speakers were against, advocating that the Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) and the Snow and Ice Committee will work the problem out, and that throwing money at the problem is not the right solution. Jim Doherty tried to make an amendment; rather than a non-binding resolution, he wanted to pass a binding bylaw change. But he didn’t have the text of the bylaw! The moderator tried to work with him for a bit, but eventually gave up and told him that if he didn’t have a prepared amendment, he couldn’t provide one. Doherty barked for a while, and complained that other people got to make amendments. The moderator lectured him (and everyone) about needing to be prepared, especially since the warrant had been out for months. I’m totally with the moderator on this! Has Doherty read the bylaws? Has he read the other bylaw amendments we’ve seen? They’re detailed, carefully-worded regulations. You can’t just ad-lib one from the floor. The resolution passed by voice vote. I voted for the resolution. I still support the Finance Committee’s vote of no action on the original proposal; passing a bylaw at this point is a bad idea. That said, I think Harrington’s pictures tell a convincing story: we’re not doing a good enough job clearing curbcuts, particularly near schools. I think the resolution helps to steer the DPW towards fixing this. I absolutely will be voting against modifying the budget. This problem can be resolved with our current resources; this is a time to work smarter, not spend more money.

Article 27 - Meeting Notice Bylaw. Selectman Rowe gave the selectmen’s recommendation of no action. Jeanne Leary has a substitute motion, but asked for the article to be postponed to Monday. It was. I have a strong opinion on this one! Voting no action.

Article 28 - Canine Control. Selectman Rowe explained that there had been many hearings in the last year, but there was not yet a consensus. She asked for a vote of no action. Michael Ruderman proposed a substitute motion to change the maximum leash law from 6 to 20 feet and permit off-leash dogs for 4 hours per day. He talked about how long the process has taken. He said that it was time for the town and dog owners to trust each other long enough to try a change in the law. Leslie Meyer spoke against the substitute motion. She said that the hearings needed to continue, and the proposed amendment had serious flaws.

The meeting adjourned, to resume debate on Monday.

The Finance Committee had a hearing on this article in February (Read about it here; at the time it was called Article 15.)  The committee was strong opposed to it.

The problem is that this motion requires every committee to send notification via first-class mail to every person (not just abutter) who’s property might be affected for every meeting.  Dozens of committees, hundreds of meetings, and thousands of persons!  It’s just totally out of scope.

At the hearing, we asked the proponent what the specific problems were that prompted this article.  She related several problems she’d had finding out about meetings related to Symmes and Summer Street construction.  The finance committee gave several recommendations on how to resolve her difficulties, including ways to narrow the scope of the article to a more reasonable and realistic set of meetings and people.

I am disappointed to see this substitute motion before Town Meeting.  I thought we’d made real progress in February in solving her issues without this “nuclear option” bylaw.  Evidently, our thoughts and advice fell on deaf ears.

Please vote “no action” on Article 27.

Ran out of gas.  Will post notes from Town Meeting tomorrow.

I take notes during Town Meeting. They are not official in any way. As I listen to people speak, I scribble notes. I’m sure that, at times, I mishear or misunderstand the speaker, but my notes represent what I hear at the time. I then publish the notes every night after the meeting. I do go back and make a few edits as errors are pointed out to me.

I do not try to reproduce my entire notepad for this online version. Sometimes I relay a quote from a specific speaker. Most of the time I only summarize the discussion. At points I give a purely personal opinion; those are clearly labeled like this: Personal note.

The meeting started a few minutes after 8. Jane Howard played the national anthem on the piano. James O’Leary, pastor of St. Camillus Church gave the invocation. A new member was sworn in.

Moderator Leone reminded that only town meeting members could be on the first floor (with exceptions). I noticed there were at least seven people in the audience at the start of the night - a real crowd!

Board of Selectmen Chairman Clarissa Rowe set the next meeting time for May 7.

Jane Howard announced the Spy Pond trail work for Saturday 9-1PM.

Article 2 - Reports.

• Finance Committee: Al Tosti gave remarks about the FinComm report. He thanked the state government for setting local aid amounts early this year. He asked the town meeting to carefully review page D1, the 5-year plan. He also called attention to C1, the summary of revenues and expenses. He noted that that the Minuteman High budget was a nice surprise this year.
• Noise Abatement Committee: [8:25] Frank Ciano gave the report, and talked for several minutes about leaf blowers. He was twice admonished by the moderator to stick to the report, and save the article debate for the appropriate time.

Article 19 - Housing Trust, continued. [8:31] We resumed debate with Town Counsel responding to Charlie Foskett’s question about risks. Mr. Maher said that the trust did incur liability for the town. Mr. Foskett repeated his statement that the proposed trust was excessive bureaucracy with a lot of liability. Mrs. Worden rose on a point of personal privilege to argue about some of the points made. This was an abuse of personal privilege. The moderator should have shut it down right away. Allan Tosti spoke against the proposal. He noted the several groups that work on affordable housing already, and noted that at the Finance Committee hearing that the AHTF representatives had said that all they were really looking for was a bank account. Selectman Annie LaCourt and Treasurer Stephen Gilligan spoke against, both because of trust’s powers with borrowing. [8:45] Arlington Redevelopment Board (ARB) Member Chris Loreti spoke in favor. He favors the trust because he thinks the town needs a more effective means of handling affordable housing. He had several questions about who would control affordable housing money if there was no trust - the answer was the Board of Selectmen. The 40B development on Brattle and possible “excessive profits” from the development were discussed by several speakers. In answer to a question, Planning Director O’Brien stated that all money available to the trust is also available to the town without the trust. In response to a question, Selectman Jack Hurd and Patricia Worden disagreed about whether the Affordable Housing Task Force (AHTF) had voted specific language, or just a warrant request. Loreti and Worden were insisting that the AHTF had voted specifically in favor of the trust and the proposed bylaw language. My previous conversations with other AHTF members indicated otherwise; several members were opposed to a trust but didn’t want to generate more hard feelings. That drove a compromise to the warrant, but not the actual language of the bylaw. Mrs. Worden is the secretary and claims that the minutes reflect that the vote was for the language. I note that the minutes went up on the town website only last week (1/3 and 2/28). I further note that the 2/28 minutes do not include a vote to accept the minutes of 1/3. I’m inclined to think that the minutes were recently written and posted on the town website without the review of other members of the task force. Certainly there is no posted record of the minutes being approved. Update: I’ve since been informed that my concerns were unfounded; the January minutes were approved in April by a 6-1-1 vote, and the February minutes were approved unanimously at the same meeting. Several speakers spoke a second time. David Levy of the Arlington Housing Corporation asked the meeting to consider the question: Will this trust fund facilitate the creation of more affordable housing in Arlington? He argued that it would not. He gave examples of federal and state money that the town already receives without the trust. [9:24]. The question was called, and the vote to create the trust failed, resulting in a vote of no action.

There was a break of about 15 minutes.

Article 20 - Trench Safety. [9:41] John Maher explained that this is required by the state. There was a question about if it applied to private property, which it did. Ed Trembly gave a lengthy speech against the article. He argued that this applied to even small trenches, the means of protecting the trench (steel plates) were too expensive, and the cost of required permits were excessive. Several speakers agreed. Several speakers talked about protecting children from being buried. It was noted a trench permit would be in addition to a building permit. The new rule passed, 90-60.

Article 21 - School Principals on Permanent Building Committee. [10:24] Approved unanimously after a question.

Article 22 - Alcoholic Beverages. Voted no action.

Article 23 - Entertainment Bylaw. Voted no action.

Article 24 - Summer Street Noise. Selectman Clarissa Rowe explained that this had been referred to the Noise Abatement Subcommittee. Barbara Cutler asked that it be referred to the Disability Commission instead. I was unable to determine why she made this request.

Article 25 - Leaf Blower Noise Bylaw. Selectman Clarissa Rowe explained that the selectmen had modified their vote such that leaf blowing would be permitted noon-6PM on all weekends and holidays (as opposed to only Saturday in the original vote). She noted that this was a result of the work of the Noise Abatement committee. [10:36] Stephen Gilligan introduced Mr. McCarty of Crosby Street who asked for 13 minutes. He spoke for most of that time, arguing that the town should not permit the crankiest elements to dictate town-wide behaviors. He said that proponents of the restriction have small lawns, and shouldn’t make life hard for people with large lawns. Carol Band said the proposal does not go far enough and proposed an amendment to ban all gas-powered leaf blowers, permitting electric ones. Paul Schlictman spoke in favor. The meeting adjourned to continue discussion on Wednesday.

Josh, a colleague from work, pointed out this totally cool interactive display of Manny’s chase for 500 home runs.

A significant portion of my job is dredging pools of data for insights that we can use to change our business. After I dredge it, it’s equally important that I share it. It’s one of those no-brainer points: if I can’t tell other people what I know, my knowledge is useless. I find data visualization to be interesting and challenging.  How can I quickly and effectively show other people what I’ve learned from the data?

The Globe graphic is more advanced than anything I do - I never try for an interactive display. I admire it’s richness. The more time you spend with it, the more you learn from it.

Article 35 is one of several similar articles before Town Meeting this year and previous years.

To me, it shakes out this way: I don’t want to discriminate on the basis of age.  If you can do the job, then you should be eligible for the job.  My vote will go towards anyone who can do the job, regardless of age.

Bogus issues:

• Bogus 1: Town Meeting is not telling the chiefs who to hire.  We’re not telling the chiefs who to interview.  We’re just permitting people to enter the pool of applicants.  If you stand up and accuse town meeting of telling the chiefs what to do, you’re wasting my time.
• Bogus 2: If you didn’t apply before you’re 32, then you don’t want the job enough.  How many people out there have the same career goals as when they were 20?  25?  32?  If, and this is a big if, IF you can do the job, who cares when you realize when you wanted to do it?  I welcome any 33, 35, 40, or 50+ applicant who can do the job.  I leave it to the chiefs to solve the “if” and figure out who can do the job and who can’t.

Issues that I disagree with (but at least have a leg to stand on):

• Use the state physical standard law instead: A number of knowledgeable people have told me this is a bad idea.  The law is flawed. There is no money to fund the standards testing. The current physical standards are just as idiotic as age testing.  I haven’t yet seen a fact-based explanation of why this would be preferred.  If you think this is a better option, please be prepared to defend it.
• Exceptions: A number think we shouldn’t grant exceptions to some people while we deny them to others.  I agree.  My answer is to offer exceptions to anyone.  Until the state fixes the blatant age discrimination of this law, and offers a viable alternative, I’ll vote for any non-serial-killer who seeks the exception.  I’m not suggesting that Town Meeting is a good forum to evaluate fire and police candidates.  I’m saying that it’s a better forum than the birth certificate.  Another flaw in this argument: if this option is so obscure, then why do we have so many of them?

The state law is flawed.  Town Meeting can’t fix that law.  Until it is fixed, we should increase the applicant pool as much as we can.  Let our officials choose the best of the bunch, regardless of age.

The quarterly newsletter of the Office of Campaign Finance is often a good read. The stories themselves are boring, but the “Recent Rulings” section is often full of gems. That’s where you see which candidates lost track of the details and which ones are more likely to run afoul of the law. (I was particularly interested in this one because I had heard there were complaints about unreported sign purchases in the recent special election of the 23rd Middlesex House seat. Either the report didn’t happen, or the ruling isn’t out yet.)

This edition has a real howler:

Robert Travaglini, Boston. The committee held fundraisers in 2005, but did not present approximately $80,000 in contributions to the bank for cashing and deposit because these checks were lost or misplaced. OCPF determined that the checks were not cashed by the committee or any other entity.

Our dear former President of the Senate went through the effort of having a fundraiser, convinced 160-plus people to write checks (at the maximum of $500 a pop, presumably), and then. . . . lost them? I must say, that’s a new one - he reported $80,000 in donations, but didn’t have the money!

I hope he hires a business manager for his new lobbying firm.