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. When I remember to note the time, it looks like [8:05].

The meeting was called to order promptly at 8:00. Town Meeting member Charles Gallagher played the national anthem. A man from St. Paul’s Lutheran Church gave the invocation.

The moderator reported on the student Town Meeting.

The moderator noted that of 76 articles, 49 were finished.

Article 2 – Reports

John Belskis reported that the GIS/40B Study Committee hadn’t met since it was formed last year. Note: When you create a committee, be sure to choose which member is in charge of calling the first meeting.

Article 52 – School Building, continued. Mr. Healey made an amendment that would fund most of the planning through an increase in the tax rate. [8:14] Town Meeting does not have the power to set the tax rate. The amendment was revised to spend money out of general funds, but it did not specify an offsetting cut to balance the budget. The intent of the amendment appears to be to remove the funding through borrowing. That, of course, makes it a majority vote rather than 2/3. I think I have myself to blame for pointing this out in my notes last week. There were several speakers who were in favor of rebuilding Thompson, but thought this plan was too risky. I moved to terminate debate. Healey’s amendment lost, then Shea’s substitute motion failed, and then the Finance Committee/Spangler version was approved unanimously.

Article 4 – Assistant Moderator election. Moderator Worden announced that he was accepting the nomination and Rich Carreiro was declining. I read a short statement from Rich Carreiro who explained that he will run in the future. Worden won unanimously.

Article 53 – Sewer Financing. Passed unanimously. [8:50]

Article 54 – Water Financing. Passed unanimously.

Article 55 – Liberty Ride Committee. Passed. [8:52] Despite the fact that the vote was taken, the moderator permitted speakers. A speaker complained that historical committees were not created with enough rigor. The motion passed (again).

Article 56 – Pension Adjustment. $0 approved.

Article 57 – OPEB funding. Finance Committee chair Allan Tosti explained that the sources of the funds (past savings, annual contribution, increase in retiree premiums, and Medicare Part D) and why they were being placed into this particular reserve fund (arcane details of accounting practices and poorly-written home-rule legislation). Kaj Telenar proposed an amendment that would move town funds to the state retirement system when it became possible. Town Counsel explained why he thought the motion wasn’t legal. Maher also said that he had originally said the amendment held water. I would be pretty annoyed if I’d made the amendment and then watched counsel do a 180. Mr. Fisher proposed a resolution about a state funding mechanism. Gordon Jamieson made a long and confusing statement with questions about health care funding. He threatened to make an amendment, but did not. John Bilafer defended the retirement board. The resolution was approved. The amendment failed. The main motion was approved, 130-1.

Article 58 – Local Option taxes. No action.

Article 59 – 200th Anniversary. [10:01]. Pam Meister outlined the Arlington 200 celebration for next week. Lawrence McKinney complained about the committee. I thought Mr. McKinney’s comments were in very poor taste. He went through the list of volunteers on the committee one by one and disparaged them. Volunteers should be thanked, not chastised. The appropriation was approved.

Article 60 – Animal Commission. No action, unanimously.

Article 61 – Revise Budgets. No action, unanimously.

Article 62 – Barber Progam. Approved unanimously.

Article 63 – Minuteman Senior Services. Approved unanimously.

Article 64 – Revaluation. There were several questions about valuation methods and the 9-year valuation cycle. Voted unanimously.

Article 65 – Tip Fee Stabilization Fund. Voted unanimously.

Article 66 – Cemetery Fund Transfer. Voted unaimously.

Article 67 – Overlay Reserve Fund Transfer. After a question, voted unanimously.

Article 68 – Override Stabilization Fund. $100,000 was put in to support the 5-year plan.

Article 69 – Unencumbered Funds. Passed.

Article 70 – John Maher explained that the bylaw was to permit committee members to vote in certain circumstances even if they had missed part of the meeting. After a question about the historic commission the changed was approved.

Article 71 – Ian Miller explained the goal of the endorsement of the Arlington Sustainability Action Plan (ASAP). Chris Loreti noted that the article asked us to endorse a plan that had not been distributed to members. He moved to weaken the language in the motion. A couple speakers defended the article, and others were opposed. Two notes. 1) At this point, 7 of the previous 9 speakers had last names that started with J, specifically Judd or Jameison. See previous notes about meeting karma. 2) I voted against this. The ASAP plan has some good stuff, but it goes too far. I think the science is shaky and the policy even moreso. I supect that if they’d actually passed out the ASAP plan that they would have had a harder time getting this through. The amendment failed and the main motion passed.

Article 23 – Daniel Wesinger. Like Article 22, this was to get around the state’s age requirements. Allan Tosti proposed a time limit of 2012. Passed 120-2.

Article 72 – Health Insurance Funding. Voted no action.

Article 73 – Belmont Development Resolution. [11:06] A speaker complained about the effect it would have on Arlington. Voted unanimously.

Article 74 – Troop Support. Kaj Telenar proposed a substitute motion that supported the troops but removed the references to the war on terror. There was debate in favor and against both versions. The substitute motion was used by a vote of 70-42, and the motion then passed.

Article 75 – Spanking. After some directionless discussion the vote of no action was approved.

A presentation was made to John Worden for 19 years of service as moderator.

The meeting was dissolved.

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. When I remember to note the time, it looks like [8:05].

The meeting was called to order promptly at 8:00. Town Meeting member Jane Howard played the national anthem. The invocation was delivered by Dr. Ronald Ramsey.

• The moderator announced that plan to vote for an Assistant Moderator tonight or Monday so it can be completed.
• Chris Loreti reminded members that they can review the town planning presentation in the lobby.

Article 2 – Reports

• School Committee member Ron Spangler introduced Superintendent Levenson who gave the report of the School Facilities Working group. He explained the process that produced the recommendations that would be debated later.
• John Cole gave the report of the Permanent Town Building Committee. He reported on the status of schools and the Park Circle fire station.

Article 47 – Minuteman Vocational High School. [8:27] Finance Committee member Stephen DeCourcey requested and was granted 30 minutes for the presenation. He introduced Laura Morrissette, Arlington’s representative to the Minuteman board. She spoke about the role of Minutman in Arlington’s education system and the benefits and programs that it offers to Arlington. She noted that Superintendent Callahan is retiring this year. [8:39] Superintendent Callahan spoke next. He talked about the overall budget increase of 3.8%. He talked about changes in salaries, transportation costs, and academic program costs. It was clear that he was wandering off the presentation and off the script. When he was done, there were only three minutes left for the detailed budget numbers. More problematically, there was no written version of the budget. There was a slide presentation, but no paper. This clearly ticked off a number of members who expect written reports. I agree; if we’re going to spend $3.28 million dollars, we should get more backup documentation than a slideshow. He brought up Assistant Superintendent Tom Markham who ran through a few slides before he ran out of time. Diane Mahon asked about the number of special education students at Minuteman. Clarissa Rowe asked several questions about Minuteman’s upcoming capital needs, how they were being determined, prioritized, and funded. I was the third speaker. I noted that much of Minuteman’s activity wasn’t as a traditional high school, and that the non-traditional activities mask the high per-pupil cost at Minuteman. I said that that we couldn’t actually change that tonight because the Minuteman budget is a forgone conclusion. I encouraged people to join me in voting “no” so as to send a message that Minuteman’s curriculum review should consider the sending towns’ willingness to pay such high prices. My first draft of these notes included a detailed explanation of my analysis of the Minuteman budget. It was too long and confusing. I’m going to try to write a blog post about only that topic, maybe this weekend, and try for clarity. I’ll restrict myself to a few comments right now.

1. In my speech, I said that Minuteman had 930 FTE (Full Time Equivalent students), but only 445 FTE as regular 9-12 students. The Superintendent pointed out that there are 200+ out-of-district students, so my statement that only half are regular students wasn’t correct. His correction is valid, but my main point still stands. Only half of Minuteman is doing what we expect it to do, which is provide a vocational education to in-district students. Also, those out-of-district students are only paying $13-15,500 in tuition, less than the cost, and less than Arlington.
   
2. I said in my speech that Minuteman costs perhaps $24k per regular 9-12 pupil. Superintendent Callahan’s correction of the out-of-district students doesn’t change the math. When I write my blog post you’ll get to see the data and draw your own conclusions. I think I can convince almost anyone that Minuteman’s figure of $18,900 is too low. I can convince most people that $21,500 is a more accurate number. The state says it is $25,562. I can show a way of looking at it where a reasonable person would say that the cost for the regular pupil is $27,150.
   
3. After my speech, a town meeting member said to me in private that the way I segregated special education costs as different from regular education costs was insulting. I apologized to him and I apologize to anyone else who was insulted. I did not intend to belittle or denigrate special education. My intent was to talk about different pools of money within the budget process, without any intent to make a judgment about who was being educated.

Paul Schlichtman suggested that one way to resolve the under enrollment problem is to modify the governance structure and recruit other larger sending towns. The new structure would give less power to sending towns with very few students. He also suggested that Minuteman provide additional services such as busing or medicaid reimbursement or other supprot service. It could do this through a non-profit collaborative. There was a question about Minuteman’s recruitment in Arlington. A speaker suggested that the town should compete with Minuteman by providing its own vocational programs. There was a question about whether Minuteman was changing fast enough to offer careers in newer technology like biotech. Charlie Foskett spoke for the Finance Committee and said that voting the article down would create an adversarial relationship that would make it harder to produce change in the future. The budget was approved. There were many “no” votes, but no one felt strongly enough to ask for standing count. I wonder how many people agreed with me, and how many people were just ticked that there was no written budget.

Article 4 – Assistant Moderator election, taken from the table. No one objected to a secret ballot. Joe Daley nominated the current (former?) moderator, John Worden. Annie LaCourt nominated Rich Carreiro. Worden was clearly caught off guard by this. He was trying to think quickly about whether or not it was a good idea for him to take the job. I can see reasons why he’d be a good and a bad choice. Logistically, I don’t see who would chair the debate. My regular readers will be unsurprised that I’ll vote for Rich Carreiro when it comes up on Monday.

Article 31 – Parmenter and Crosby. The selectmen recommended what the school committee requested, that the properties be turned over to the redevelopment board again. Patricia Worden gave a long speech about how the recommendation wasn’t for long enough period and how it would result in the loss of tenants. She avoided her usual level of venomous speech by making her villains anonymous rather than naming them. She seems convinced that someone is out to destroy the town by turning all the schools into condos – the details of the plot escape me. I was amused that at the same time she defended private education she demanded that the town “discontinue studies” of the property issue. I guess she doesn’t subscribe to the “knowledge is power” line of reasoning. Other speakers talked about the reasons to keep the schools and study their disposition. Approved 113-2.

Article 52. Finance Committee Vice Chair Charlie Foskett presented the amended recommendation of the Finance Committee. Bill Shea presented a substitute motion. He thinks that the Thompson will not be on the state list in 2-3 year timeframe and that 8-10 years is more likely. He thinks the town should engage the state and start building without the state list, and collect the funding whenever (if) it is ultimately approved. His motion calls for $700,000 this year to create detailed building plans. Several speakers spoke against the substitute motion arguing that the proposed funding mechanism violates the promise to the voters in the school building override by spending money without state reimbursement. They argued further that the state has made it clear that it wants to design future buildings, and the town risks reimbursement by going out on a limb by itself. Bill Shea’s argument included the phrases “I firmly believe” and “I swear to you . . .” He’s asking the town to take a flyer – first a $700,000 and then a $15,000,000 flyer – that he can work with the state closely enough that they will reimburse us in a few years. Even if he wins his gamble, his financing requires the town to pay millions out of the operating budget. It’s a bad idea and I’m voting against it. Shea needs 2/3 vote to approve the bonding that he recommends. I don’t see that he can get that many votes.

Several notices of reconsideration were made.

The moderator reported that he hadn’t decided whether or not to accept the nomination.

UPDATE: 5/17/07 12:30PM – I corrected my summary of Paul Schlichtman’s suggestions about Minuteman; the original note was not accurate and this one is (I hope) better.

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. When I remember to note the time, it looks like [8:05].

The meeting was called to order promptly at 8:00. Town Meeting member Charles Gallagher played the national anthem. Reverend Snyder of the Countryside Bible Chapel gave the blessing.

Ron Spangler [8:06] announced that a not-yet-but-soon-to-be-approved report of the school facility working group was available in the back of the room.

Article 2 – Reports

• Selectman Annie LaCourt submitted the Annual Report.
• Nancy Galkowski submitted the Fire Station Building Committee report.
• Jane Howard [8:09] gave remarks on the Vision 2020 report [8:17].
• John Bilafer gave the report of the Retirement Board. He spoke forcefully against the governor’s proposed legislation to take over the town’s retirement funds and blasted the supporters of the governor’s legislation. He touted the Arlington performance overall. He complained that it wasn’t appropriate to predict future performance based on past performance. I agreed with some of what he said, but there were inconsistencies that he glossed over. He spent a while defending Arlington’s performance by citing comparisons against the state and other towns, but at the same time doesn’t want those returns to be used as a future predictor. He also said the comparisons with the state weren’t fair because the state can make investments that the town cannot, even though he was content to make those comparisons when the town looked better than the state. Furthermore, the expanded opportunities the state enjoys sound to me like a reason to change to the state’s system, not a reason to ignore the state’s returns. He claimed that Arlington acts more conservatively because it fits Arlington’s needs, hence lower returns. That is inconsistent with the huge losses the town racked up when the internet bubble burst; a conservative strategy wouldn’t have been so affected. All in all, I’m not thrilled with the retirement board. I want to learn more, but I think the governor probably has this one right.

Article 12 – Graffiti Bylaw. John Maher made a couple of amendments to fix some language. They were approved immediately. Selectman Jack Hurd explained that this was in reaction to the increase of graffiti reported last year, particularly at Thompson school. I think there were three threads in this 2-hours-plus discussion. I’m writing these notes by thread, not by chronology. It sort of spoils the fun, but I figure you’re reading these for brevity rather than watching three hours of local access cable reruns. If you want the blow by blow, watch the video.

The first discussion thread was about the requirements that merchants segregate and watch graffiti implements – markers, spray paint, etc. The next amendment, the first substantive one, was proposed by the first speaker, Brian Rehrig. He suggested that the restrictions on merchants were too stringent and moved that they be removed. Many speakers endorsed this notion citing several local stores. The effectiveness of the section was doubted especially with other towns close by and the items’ ready availability in the home. When the meeting had it’s traditional 9:30 break the board of selectmen met and endorsed the amendment; they saw the writing on the wall and wanted to save the main parts of the bylaw.

The second thread was started by Selectman Diane Mahon and ended up being about her. She spoke early on, rising as a town meeting member, not a selectman. She rambled for almost two minutes apologizing and saying that she had a question without actually saying what her question was. She said that she hadn’t seen the “second supplemental report.” When she got to a specific point, she had questions about signage at merchants and how they would know about the new law and asked about how it would be enforced. She repeatedly thanked her “colleagues in Town Meeting.” While she was talking, there was a continuous stir at the front of the room. Selectmen and employees were, I believe, trying to figure out what the heck Mahon was up to. She had voted in favor of the article at every step (that I know of). There was, I imagine, much consternation that she was talking about her colleagues in Town Meeting, but not her colleagues on the Board of Selectmen. Paul Schlictman asked what the vote of the Board of Selectmen was and was told it was unanimous, with Greeley absent. He said he was confused by that answer and Mahon’s comments, and the moderator said “Don’t you know a parliamentary maneuver when you see one?” to which Schlictman retorted that it was a confusing one. The front-table conferring continued. After the break, it was made more clear that she hadn’t heard/voted on the the amendment that was proposed by John Maher at the very beginning, and the board voted to support those changes during the break. This really was pretty odd. It came across like she was trying to derail the article, or at the least score some points on flaws in the article. I like to think that I’m somewhat savvy about these things, and I couldn’t figure out what it was all about. If you know, please comment below.

The third topic was about the main element of the article: whether the town should require property owners to remove graffiti. There was discussion about the research and experience in other towns that removing graffiti quickly was the most effective way to prevent future graffiti. An amendment to change “days” to “business days” was made. There was complaint that this was punishing the victim, not the criminal. There was discussion about the penalties for the perpetrator. There was discussion about the property owner and how they might or might not be fined. The discretionary role of the police department was touched repeatedly. There were several complaints that the article was not ready. Mr. Burke made a motion to postpone. Several speakers talked about how they had tried and failed to get graffiti cleaned up in their neighborhoods because of businesses and neighbors that did not cooperate. Speakers variously called for the article to be both shorter and more comprehensive. As the discussion stretched on, the comments ran far afield. Someone asked if a mural was a defacement – seems like an obvious answer to me. Another person decried globalization. There were suggestions to post a bounty for graffiti taggers at town hall. At one point Lyman Judd interrupted the meeting and demanded to speak because he thought he’d been left off the list. He was gavelled down. This is another town meeting member who has used up his “meeting karma.” You can only talk so many times, and at so much length, before people dread hearing his name called to speak.

The question was finally called. The motion to postpone lost, 50-96. The “business days” amendment passed. The Rehrig amendment stripping out the merchant requirements was approved. The main motion was approved.

Article 18 – IT Department. Selectman LaCourt explained that this would move IT from the comptroller to the town manager and also merged with the school IT and explained why the selectmen endorsed it. Alan Jones gave the FinComm reason for supporting it. I spoke and talked about how the change would help the town’s employees be more productive and help the town maintain services within Proposition 2.5. After a couple more speakers and a question about the schools and title, the article was approved. I am delighted and excited. This is a big step forward for the town and will permit the town to reap benefits from technology. I was concerned that this might not go smoothly. I’ve been working on this for years, but spent many hours on this the last few weeks trying to make sure it went through. I’m grateful to everyone who helped.

Article 46 – Rescind Borrowing – voted no action.

Article 47 – Minuteman, postponed to Wednesday.

Article 48 – Celebrations. Approved unanimously.

Article 49 – Commissions. Approved.

Article 50 – Miscellaneous. Approved.

Article 51 – George St. Sidewalk. A motion to postpone so that the vice-chair of the Transportation Advisory Committee could be present failed. It was explained that the town was seeking the land on this private way by grant and would build the sidewalk on the the road using regular DPW funds. No special appropriation (or eminent domain) was necessary. Approved. I can’t figure out why TAC thought it needed a big presentation and postponement. I think once they say “Free land. Current budget. $11-$18,000, depending.” it becomes a non-issue and sails right through.

Several notices of reconsideration were given and the meeting was adjourned.

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. When I remember to note the time, it looks like [8:05].

The meeting was called to order promptly at 8:00 Third time in a row, maybe 4! Town Meeting member Jane Howard played the national anthem. The invocation was delivered by Town Meeting Member Richard Phelps. [8:05]

The moderator said that precincts 7, 17, 11, and 20 needed to meet.

Announcements:

• Selectman Annie LaCourt noted the math expo projects around the hall.
• This weekend is the SAVE yard sale.
• Judith Phelps presented a resolution that Town Meeting endorse legislation to give the town recourse when utilities fail to repair roads. The resolution was approved.
• Lyman Judd announced the Lion’s Eyemobile again.

Article 2 – Reports.

• Roland Chaput gave the report of the Arlington 200th Commitee.
• Annie LaCourt gave the supplemental report of the selectmen.
• Joseph Curro gave the report of the Symmes Neighborhood (SNAC)

Article 38 – Community Development Block Grants. [8:22] Planning Director O’Brien explained that because of funding cuts and restrictions that they were unable to spend as much as they’d like on public services. A series of speakers talked about the Disability Commission’s complaints that there wasn’t enough spent on curb cuts. Annie LaCourt noted that the funding was doubled this year and planned on meeting with the groups so that next year would have more agreement. Town Manager Sullivan noted that there was additional spending on curb cuts beyond what was in CDBG funding. Passed.

Article 44 – Budgets.

• 21 – Schools. Paul Schlictman stood up to make a motion to move the traffic supervisors (crossing guards) from the school budget to the police budget. It was ruled out of order because the traffic supervisors are creating a union to the working conditions are frozen. There was also a question about whether that level of modification was permissible in the school budget. [8:41] Superintendent Levenson presented the budget (in under 10 minutes). The budget is somewhat modified since it was presented to FinComm. He explained the budget started with an $850,000 deficit if it were to fund the same people and activities as FY07 given raises, energy costs, etc. He explained that special education costs were growing too quickly to manage easily. He talked about the strategies and compromises that were made. There was lots of good stuff in the speech, but more than I want to recount here. Read it online. Several speakers asked about the traffic supervisors and expressed opinions about how it should have been handled and how it should be handled in the future. There was a long discussion about how activity fees were set. There was a discussion about how the full-time kindergarten fee was determined. There was discussion of the 5-year plan and how it differs from the O’Neill formula. There was a discussion about the viability of bringing special ed in house. There was question about potential revenue from having a cell phone tower at Pierce. The superintendent supported METCO to applause. The lack of librarians was discussed by more than one speaker. There was confusion about where the cuts in non-core teaching positions at Ottoson were. The budget was approved. This was a long debate, but a pretty good one. The budget was about $40,000,000 which defines it as a substantial issue. I’m happy to spend time debating a budget of that magnitude. I think that some of the debate about traffic supervisors was unnecessary, but not unreasonable.
• 19. Mr. McCabe proposed a resolution that town meeting was in favor of moving the traffic supervisors from the school department to the police department. Allan Tosti said that that might result in higher costs because the town would have to pay unemployment in the summer. He advised that the meeting let the union, superintendent, and town manager work out what is best. Mr. McCabe spoke again and said that it was a safety issue and not a money issue and described seeing a girl get hit by a car. Mr. Tosti pointed out that if money is spent prudently that there can be more crossing guards. This was a brazen “won’t someone think about the children” plea. Mr. McCabe didn’t explain how his motion would increase child safety, but he sure implied that anyone who opposed him was one step away from a child killer. I agree with Mr. Tosti. The motion is premature. At this point, let the negotiations take their course. The resolution was defeated. After a question about leash law enforcement, the public safety budget was approved.

Article 45 – Capital Budget. Charlie Foskett presented the capital budget. He reviewed the components of the budget, how it is managed, and the town’s debt. He noted that the Veteran’s Rink is a risk, as is the renovation of the community safety building. There were a series of questions about past and future expenditures in the budget. The budget was approved unanimously in five separate parts [11:11]. I was very happy that the moderator and members let the meeting run late. It was a would have been a pain to start that budget up again next week. It was worth the 11 minutes to get the job done.

Several notices of reconsideration 44 and 45 were noted. Meeting adjourned.