Author Archives: dunster

Barack-Paper-Scissors

I just got back from snowboarding at Mt. Wachussett. I bought a season pass this year, and I think I just passed the break-even point with 8 visits. It’s a nice break from a cardio machine in the gym. Conditions today weren’t the best, a bit too icy. But maybe the snow tomorrow will turn it all around?

Mike Doughty put out a new album today. But it. Buy his last one. I guarantee you will like it.

There was a FinComm meeting last night. Have you seen the notes yet? NO. Haven’t written them yet. I don’t have time right now because I have a FinComm meeting at 8AM with the Deputy Town Manager about insurance, and then the Assessor at 9:30. I need my beauty rest. Sleep now, post the notes this weekend!

I will complete tonight’s stream-of-consciousness post by closing the circle with the title. Have you seen the Encyclopedia Baracktannia? Keep clicking, there are a bunch of good ones.

House to Bush: Get a Warrant!

I’m delighted that the House found the backbone that was so mysteriously missing in the Senate.The “Protect America Act” has been a continuing source of horror and amazement to me.  I mentioned this last month. To review:

  1. The government wants information that it isn’t legally entitled to demand.
  2. The government asks the telephone companies to provide that information.
  3. The telephone companies break the law and breach the privacy of their customers.
  4. The Senate thinks this is a fine thing.
  5. The Senate votes to prevent lawsuits against the telephone companies.
  6. The House refuses to go along and does not approve the bill.

I think the Senate is horribly wrong.  I want those companies to stand up and say “No, we won’t break the law.”  When the government overreaches, when the government tries to violate the law, I want every citizen and corporation to reject the request.  I want the citizens and corporations who break the law brought to justice.  Last month when the Senate voted to delay and consider amendments, I was greatly encouraged.  My hope proved false as senators on both side of the aisle failed their constituents, not to mention their oaths to the Constitution.

The other part of this bill, of course, is that it would extend the permission to engage in warrantless wiretaps on Americans.  The Senate also approved the extension of this unconstitutional law.  The Senate caved to Bush’s bullying: “If you don’t approve this, FISA will expire.”  The House correctly identified this as crap; more importantly, it was willing to bet that the American public will also identify it as crap.  FISA did not expire.  Warrantless wiretaps on Americans expired.  And a get-out-of-jail-free card was not granted to telcoms that should have know better than to break the law.

It’s also worth noting that the House offered a 21-day extension of the current law.  This was rejected by the White House.  If this law is as important as Bush thinks it is, why would he reject an extension?  The obvious answer is that he’s trying to pressure and hurry Congress into a rash decision.  The Senate fell to this tactic, but the House did not.

The Ides of February have passed.  The PAA was not extended.  The government continues to investigate terrorists.  And when it wants to wiretap and spy on Americans?  They should do exactly what the Constitution instructs them and the FISA law permits them to:  get a warrant.

Finance Committee – POBs and more

Black text is mostly objective, red text is mostly subjective in nature. These are notes from 2/11.  I missed 2/6 meeting because of a work dinner.

Charlie Foskett chaired in Al Tosti’s absence.

The hearing for the assessor’s article is canceled – he won’t need the article.  Minutes were approved.

Article 74 – The committee heard and voted this article on 2/6.  It is related to reporting from the retirement board.  We voted to amend the recommendation made on 2/6.  I don’t have the full text, but I gather the result is a request, not a requirement, with some other language softened.

Next up was Treasurer Stephen Gilligan talking about bonding our pension requirement (POBs).  He brought Peter Frazier from First southwest. Gilligan is proposing that we request special legislation that would permit (not require, permit) the town to to borrow money and use it to pay down the pension obligation.  (Note, the pension obligtion is NOT the OPEB obligation – one is pension, the other is health care).  The crux of the argument is that the retirement board plans on a 7.75% return on its investments, and we can borrow money at maybe 5.3%.  That percentage difference would free up $6.8m (present dollar value) over the next decade or so that could be used on OPEB or other town obligations.

There was more than an hour of discussion.  The investment would be managed by PRIT.  If POBs are actually sold, it reduces flexibility for the town.  It is an increased financial risk. 10 towns in Massachusetts have the permission, but only Worcester and Brockton have done it.  Gilligan recommended against doing this for OPEB, only for pension.  This was an interesting presentation and discussion.  The Treasurer tends towards longwindedness and is not afraid of repeating himself to make his points.  Still, the presentation was an idea that was new to me.  I’ve been thinking about it and talking about it ever since.  At lunch the next day I told a co-worker what I’d heard the night before: “The treasurer wants to borrow $50 million and invest it in the stock market.”  That’s a gross oversimplification, but it got a laugh! 

I haven’t decided what I think about it.  I lean towards thinking its a good idea.  I know we don’t have enough information to decide if POBs are right for Arlington, let alone right for Arlington and right now.  The “right now” decision will be handed to the treasurer and selectmen – a big responsibility.  But I can certainly see the logic of the arguments.  How do we decide whether the increased risk is worth the saved money we keep in return?  I’ve heard the knee jerk-reactions that “market timing is dumb” and “the stock market is always a good bet in the long run.”  I reject them.  This is a very complex question that requires a careful response.

Afterwards, we turned to budgets.  $10,778 was recommended for the FinComm budget, approved unanimously.

The zoning budget was approved at $23,111 total.

The cemetary was approved on a 15-0-1 vote.  There was consideration that the outsourcing might not come back at a good price.

We decided to have a hearing on Article 7 about affordable housing trust.

Finance Committee – Retirement Board and more

Black text is mostly objective, red text is mostly subjective in nature. These are notes from 2/4.

The minutes were approved. It was noted that we’re approximately $125,000 over budget for snow and ice removal.

John Bilafer, Joe Roselli, and Larry Greco came to discuss a series of articles related to retirement.

Article 39 – This article is to give cost of living increases (COLAs) to children of deceased retirees who had accidental death benefits. The town has been doing this for a number of years but was notified last year that it did not have the legal authority to do so. The total cost is approximately $1900. This was easy to support. It was very small money, a reasonable request, and basically administrative. The article was recommended unanimously.

Article 40 – This article would increase benefits to the estates of veterans who were disabled while working for the town who died before 2005. Joe Roselli spoke at length in favor of this article. He explained that he and others had worked for a long time to make this benefit available to all veterans (disabled pensioners had been excluded before 2005). There were many questions as the committee tried to unravel the proposal. Greco had an estimated cost of $100,000, but his numbers only included extending the benefit to living widow(er)s. The text of the article appeared to include all estates, not just living beneficiaries. This was a painful presentation. It was very disjointed. Roselli insisted on retelling parts of the story over and over, and they didn’t appear to relate to the issue at hand. Bilafer and Greco appeared to be uncomfortable with some of the claims Roselli was making and Greco corrected him more than once. None of them could answer what the scope of the article was – it wasn’t clear how many people this would apply to. Not least, Roselli was unable to make a convincing argument why this pension benefit should be made retroactive. I’m firmly opposed to the text as it stands. If the scope is corrected I’ll take another look, but I’m skeptical that the benefit should be applied rectroactivel. The committee unanimously voted a recommendation of no action.

Article 41 – Increase in benefits to 25-year retirees. It’s approved annually. This year is approximately $24,000. It was approved unanimously.

Article 42 – OPEB. This article would transfer the money saved thus far for the OPEB obligation to the account created by special legislation. The funds would be under the retirement board. There was question and discussion about whether it could be the treasurer instead. Bilafer believe that would require more special legislation. Alan Jones asked if the retirement board would agree to annual reporting to Town Meeting, and Bilafer said it would. Dean Carman noted that the teachers’ have money in OPEB, but no seat on the retirement board. Bilafer noted that employees will have to contribute to OPEB in some way, and that the state pension board, PRIT, doesn’t have the authority to invest OPEB funds. I believe I have been out-maneuvered! If I had my choice, this money would not be managed by the retirement board. I disagree with their strategies, policies, and investment choices. But this particular battle was won when the special legislation was written – and I didnt’ see it coming. Well, the OPEB issue is far from resolved. There will be other opportunities to direct the investments. The article was tabled, as was article 43.

Article 15 – Notification for Abutters. Jeanne Leary was there to explain why she wanted to increase the abutter notifications of town actions. She talked about the challenges she’s had learning about Symmes construction, Summer St. construction, and dog parks. The committee was strongly opposed to this. The text would require all sorts of notifications that would be very difficult to administer. I think the questions started a bit harshly, but by the end I think she was getting good, constructive criticism that she can use to modify the proposal. The article was tabled.

There was a discussion about data display using a projector.

Finance Committee – ’09 Budget Review Kickoff

The ’09 budget year started in earnest for the Finance Committee on 1/28. Why are these notes three weeks late? I’m either lazy, or busy, or both! Non-Arlington readers will need to remind themselves where the delete button is. I have high hopes that I’ll keep up non-Arlington content, so I hope you don’t unsubscribe. As usual, F

We started by welcoming our new Executive Secretary, Gloria Turkall and our new member, Erin Phelps. You might know Gloria from the Town Manager’s office. Most of the committee knows Erin from her previous stint on Fincomm, but she’s new to me!

Al Tosti made a few comments about the proposed budget. It uses the Governor’s numbers, which means it includes the casino money. The Governor’s inclusion of the gambling money in his budget is a serious power-play. The General Court has to approve casinos, come up with other funding sources, or explain to the towns why their budgets have to be cut. I don’t know how it will all play out. I think this is a pivotal moment for the governor. Can he flex his muscles and get what he wants? Will he lose the battle, but win the public relations war? Or will the General Court carry the day? I can’t call it from here. The budget includes bigger increases for the school side – the town manager gave more room for the schools to grow. This was a new development.

We then reviewed the Town Warrant to consider which articles we thought we should have a hearing on. (You can read the current warrant version on the town website). We will hear discussion on the obvious articles, like budgets. We also agreed to hear about holding the warrant open until 60 days before town meeting; plowing the sidewalks; abutter notification requirements; special legislation for funding pond maitenance; Transportation Advisory Committee request; OPEB (other post retirement benefit obligation, specifically health care for retirees), POBs (pension obligation bonds), and retirement funding; and revaluation. The rest of the warrant was determined to be not finance-related.

The Minuteman High budget was discussed.

The Capitol Committee’s review was set for 3/3. The school budget schedule was discussed. A Symmes update was heard.

The committee’s “vacation” will be 4/2-4/9.

Harder Bodies Faster Stronger

I’m way behind in my blog posting. I have two FinComm notes meetings to post, a Finneran bashing, the latest in junk mail technology, and volumes of politics. But I’ve been so busy! Campaign work, real work, fraternity stuff, etc. has kept me hopping.

What do I do with a spare 3.5 minutes? Marvel and rejoice at how weird the internet can be. Safe for work, speakers required.

Fearmonger in Chief

A co-worker pointed me to this colorful description of the “Protect America Act.”  I don’t endorse his partisan rhetoric, but it is nonetheless a good exposition of the foolishness of the PAA and the deplorable tactics employed by the current administration.

While we’re on the topic: Why on earth is the Senate granting immunity to companies that broke the law and handed private information to the government?  Where I come from, when you break the law, you go to jail.

Why I’m Not Voting for Hillary Clinton

I don’t think I’ve ever voted in a meaningful presidential primary. I’ve assumed that my primary vote wouldn’t matter unless I moved back to New Hampshire. But here I am, 10 days away from the primary, and the outcome is in question for both parties. I’m a registered Democrat these days (I know that’s news to some of you, but I changed parties a while ago). So who am I voting for? I can tell you I’m not voting for Hillary Clinton.

I strongly believe that politics today and the culture of Washington is broken. I believe that both parties are guilty of playing positions for the sake of victory. They’re not fighting for what is best. They are fighting for a victory. They tell their supporters that “best for the country” and “victory” are the same thing, but this is not the case. The world is not divided into simple black-and-white, us-versus-them issues. No party has a monopoly on good ideas. No party is right on every issue. Anyone who claims they have all the answers is not to be believed.

I think Hillary Clinton represents the ugly side of partisan politics. I recognize that she has been demonized by the ugly side of the conservative movement, but that does not absolve her of blame. But she hasn’t just stooped to their level. She has embraced the “politics of destruction” as her own.

Furthermore, I am unconvinced that her positions are her own. I’ve listened to her talk and read her statements for years. I’m left with the impression that she only speaks after consulting her pollsters. If it won’t get her elected, she won’t say it.

I recognize that these statements are subjective and hard to prove. Let me offer a few examples.

First up is her attacks on Obama for talking about Ronald Reagan. Clinton claimed that Obama “said that he thought the Republicans had better ideas than Democrats the last ten to fifteen years.” Her husband went farther, saying “[Obama] said President Reagan was the engine of innovation and did more, had a more lasting impact on America than I did. And then the next day [Obama] said, ‘In the ’90s the good ideas came out from the Republicans.'” And then there is the radio ad Clinton ran in South Carolina that accuses Obama of endorsing ” . . . ideas like special tax breaks for Wall Street. Running up a $9 trillion debt. Refusing to raise the minimum wage or deal with the housing crisis.”

These attacks are distortions. You can hear Obama’s statements, in his own words, here and here. He was not endorsing the policies of Reagan. He was speaking, in a historical sense, of Reagan’s legacy. He did not endorse the policies that the Clintons vilified. Clinton apparently did not think that her ideas were enough to win over voters. She felt that she needed to distort her opponent’s position in order to win votes. And, she thought that the distortion was justified. The ends justified the means.

We should be choosing our next president on the basis of their ability to govern well. I’m deeply suspicious of a candidate that thinks the best way to demonstrate leadership is to distort the statements of her opponent.

My second example is Clinton’s use of terrorism and fear of terrorism to scare voters. I believe that President Bush has repeatedly used this tactic to push his policies. I want voters to make a rational choice at the ballot box. They shouldn’t make their choice out of fear. Clinton said “And look what happened in Great Britain. Tony Blair leaves, Gordon Brown comes in, the very next day, there are terrorist attacks. Thankfully, they were unsuccessful, from London to Scotland. So, you’ve got to be prepared on day one with everything ready to go.”

Obama correctly recognized this as the scare tactic that it is: “When Senator Clinton uses the specter of a terrorist attack with a new prime minister during a campaign, I think that is part and parcel with what we’ve seen the use of the fear of terrorism in scoring political points.”

My third example is older, but serves to support my claim that she is a slave to her pollsters. March of last year, then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Peter Pace said “I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that [the U.S. military] should not condone immoral acts.” Clinton was already a candidate for president. Her first answer was very weak: “Asked on ABC News on Wednesday if she agreed with General Pace’s view that homosexuality was immoral, Mrs. Clinton said, “Well, I’m going to leave that to others to conclude.””

The next day she had a new take on the issue. I can only assume this was after consulting with her presidential advisors. It would be hard for her to win the Democratic nomination without support from gay and lesbian voters: “‘I disagree with what he said and do not share his view, plain and simple,’ she said. ‘It is inappropriate to inject such personal views into this public policy matter, especially at a time in which there are young men and women in such grave circumstances in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and in other dangerous places around the world.'”

I ask, if it was so plain and simple, why didn’t she say so herself? Why did she need a spokesman to say it?

I’m not sure who I want to be our next president. I’m sure I don’t want it to be Hillary Clinton.

Minuteman High’s FY09 Budget Hearing

So far, Arlington’s five-year plan has been executed fairly closely. Health care costs have, on average, exceed the 7% ceiling, but the plan anticipated this by restricting the growth of salaries and expenses. The state aid hasn’t exactly lived up to expectations. But the biggest deviation from the plan has been the Minuteman Regional High. There have been several double-digit percentage increases, and I’ve been increasingly vocal about them at Finance Committee and Town Meeting. I decided to attend Minuteman’s public hearing on their budget and, if appropriate, tell them what I think.

The event was on Tuesday (1/22) at Minuteman. A written packet was provided. The Minuteman School Committee discussed the budget for a few minutes, then opened up the public hearing. The superintendent gave a presentation, and then the chairman solicited questions and comments.

I quickly flipped to the back of the book to check out the assessments. The good news is that Arlington’s preliminary assessment went up only $23,533, or 0.7%. The overall budget was up 4.0%, but the assessment formula and enrollment figures held Arlington’s increase to a lower number.

Finance Committee Chairman Al Tosti was present. He delivered a simple message: Arlington cannot sustain the budget increases that have been coming from Minuteman. (It would appear that the upcoming year will be a relief from that pace, but that information wasn’t clear at the time). He explained the budget restrictions imposed by the five-year plan, and how Minuteman was stressing that plan.

Several parents spoke about specific programs or personnel issues that they cared about. They would refer to specific lineitems in the expenses budget and ask why they were cut – often questioning items as small as $400.

I thought the budget package wasn’t very clear. I spoke at the hearing and asked for more information on the budget. The problem: The budget is roughly $17 million dollars. 21 pages of the budget document were devoted to a line-by-line description of expenses, roughly $6.5 million. But the lion’s share of the budget, the $10.5 million in salaries, gets only 5 lines in the whole packet! There is no way to see how many people are hired and fired, what departments they are in, what services they provide, etc. This budget presentation is, I think, what drove the questions from the parents. If they could see the bigger picture, they’d be able to ask more constructive questions and not waste time quibbling about $400.

I also repeated Al Tosti’s point about the rate of increases going forward. I think the message was understood by most (not all) of the committee. The superintendent clearly understood what we were saying.

One of the most interesting comments came from the superintendent. He noted that only 50% of the students who are accepted at Minuteman actually attend. He talked about the steps they were taking to increase that number. This sounds like a great idea to me, an idea that could significantly improve the enrollment numbers.

I look forward to more progress at Minuteman.