I take notes during Town Meeting. They are not official in any way. As I listen to people speak, I type 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 notes 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.

8:01 meeting called to order. Attendance definitely looked sparse, but we had quorum. Jane Howard played the national anthem on the piano.

Town Moderator John Leone remarked that tonight might be the end of Town Meeting for ’10. He asked the people in the back of the room to return their chairs to the main body of the meeting, or they will not be counted.

Announcements:

• Harry McCabe – Those who would like the report of the Margaret Spengler Committee in writing should ask him for a copy.
• Janice Brodman – remarked on her first town meeting and thanked everyone for the professionalism of members, committees, and officials.
• Hugh McCrory – also said thank you. Asked committee members to not terminate debate too quickly. I understand his point, but on the 10th night of town meeting, it’s easy to understand why people choose to terminate debate. If we don’t cut things off, we’d be going back to work next week, too. In some ways, we need more concise speakers, not delayed termination.  I can think of a couple speakers who need lessons in brevity!
• Al Tosti announced vacancies on FinComm for Precincts 6, 11, and 17.
• Josh Lobel said that the Vision2020 survey data will be up soon.
• Gordon Jamieson gave recylcing “party favors” on the chairs. Bags, maps, and stickers.
• Jack Hurd – 12th Annual Feast of the East will be on June 19 1-5PM.

Article 49 – Committees and Commissions. $17,000. Approved.

Article 50 – Celebrations. $10,667. Approved unanimously.

Article 61 – Miscellaneous. $16,337. Approved.

Article 62 – Scholarship Fund Expenses. No action.

Article 63 – Appropriation/Pension Adjustment. $0 Approved.

Article 64 – Dallin School Area Sidewalks. Al Tosti made an amendment to change the language, but not the intent. There was a question about how much land you can get for $1500 – the answer is only the tiny bits that are needed. John Worden was concerned that the language was not clear enough and further language was added. There were questions about possible lawsuits. The roads in question are public ways. There was concern about whether or not the owners of the new sidewalks would know whether or not to shovel their walks. Approved 140-0. There was a bit of petty drama here as there was not a clear “no” heard when the moderator asked for nos. Finally there was a louder no, which forced a standing vote.  The moderator then noted that Brian Lavalle was not in a seat, and therefore there were zero no votes.  See the earlier announcement about seats – this was a test to see what the moderator would do about the people who are moving chairs around the back of the room.

Article 65 – Harry Barber Service Program. No action.

Article 66 – Minuteman Senior Services No action.

Article 67 - Social Worker II – $18,179. Unanimous.

Article 68 – Traffic Supervisors. Jim Robilard Precinct 3 made a substitute motion to spend $250,000 and move the traffic supervisors to be a police unit. He asked Rose Casazza to speak; she’s the president of the local representing the traffic supervisors. She wants the budget to be transferred to the police department, but does not want to impact the current police budget. She wants $250,000 to be taken from another budget. She threatened a more expensive lawsuit if this is not done. She talked about irresponsible drivers and unsupervised children. She complained that the school administration does not give supervisors the management and respect that they deserved. She said it is a public safety issue. She talked about possible sources of the funds – various stability funds. She ran out of time and the moderator asked her to stop. Mike Healey supports the substitute motion. Al Tosti reported that the Finance Committee voted no. He said that we don’t have the money – he noted that most of the reserve funds Rose Casazza had cited were already being used this year.  He noted that the reason this budget was moved to the school budget was because when it was under the police before, they collected unemployment, which makes it even more expensive.  He said that if this passes, he will ask to reconsider the budgets and take this out of the school budget. If that fails, he’ll ask to take it out of unencumbered fund, which will make next year’s budget even harder. The schools budget had $220,000 for this originally – why is the request for $250,000? He noted that in the meetings and surveys the school committee did about spending priorities, the traffic supervisors were lower priorities. He said that the responsibility for getting children to schools belongs to the parents, not the town. On that, the crowd started booing – people opposed to parental responsibility, I guess. Traffic supervisors have the power to stop traffic. Paul Schlictman argued that it’s a public safety issue, not a educational issue. He said he wasn’t skilled in public safety, but he is in education. I don’t think that’s a great point – it’s not his skills that matter, it’s the Superintendent’s. The Superintendent must be a manager of many skills, from education to physical plant to weather prediction to hall monitors to school security.  Traffic supervisors is just one of many. He started conflating the issue with people who park illegally. Dean Carman asked a couple questions: Does the town meeting have the power to tell the Manager to hire these supervisors?  The answer is no, town meeting can appropriate money, but the manager chooses what it’s for. Can the union decline unemployment? No, they can’t legally. Carman said that Town Meeting is a horrible place to resolve employee grievances. The union and the School Department have a history, and we aren’t good at resolving that history. Carman noted the finance committee asked the school superintendent and CFO if they wanted this transfer, and they were indifferent – but they wanted to keep the money.  Carman said this is a budget issue, and if parents feel really strongly about this, they’ll get the elected school committee to act. Clarissa Rowe is in favor of the substitute motion – she thinks its a public safety issue. Maher said that this is not a feel-good decision – what we decide to fund here, we need to cut somewhere else. Gordon Jamieson – we’re forced to live within the choices of our leaders, for instance not doing things like PAYT. Wagner: “if we cut traffic supervisors, we’ll have smaller class sizes when someone gets hit by a car.” Vote to terminate debate failed by a vote of 67-85. Town Manager Brian Sullivan supports retention of most of the traffic supervisors. He said that this is a budget decision of the schools. He is opposed to doing it within the police department – it would cost more there.  There was a complaint that the Dunkin Donuts hasn’t paid it’s bill yet to support the traffic supervisors. Diane Mahon said that this change isn’t in line with the 5-year plan – the schools aren’t keeping up.

12 minute break.

Janice Weber accused the school department of misusing money, and says we should take the money from them to pay for crossing guards.  Thouis Jones Pct 6 moved an amendment to change it to $120,000. Questions about town liability.  Several speakers were in favor of the substitute motion for safety reasons.  Statements about there being a pro-car bias. School Committee Chair Joe Curro explained that the budget process started last fall, and public presentation in November. They had budget simulations at that meeting. There were hearings at several schools, too, with hundreds of visitors. They also surveyed the community – 1500 responses; supervisors were lowest priority.  In the most recent decision, they funded a transition counselor in the high school instead of traffic supervisors – that’s someone who helps students coming back from hospitalization, suicide attempts, etc. John Deyst says the way to get traffic supervisors is through Bridge the Gap, not this motion. Another speaker on public safety. Leo Doherty voted to terminated debate. There were many post-debate questions about what we’re voting on.  Jones’s amendment to $120,000 fails on voice vote. 64-89 the substitue motion failed.  No action passed on voice vote.

Article 69 – Water Bodies. Affirmative.

Article 70 – Uncle Sam. Lawrence McKinney spent 7 minutes talking about Uncle Sam and his skills as a marketer. He moved a substitute motion for $500. Al Tosti reported the Finance Committee recommended no action because the effort is fragmented; it should be a part of the selectmen’s tourism committee. There were several speakers about the history of the town.  Debate terminated by Lewiton.  75-45, McKinney’s $500 was approved. I voted no.  This is an item that begs for a private solution, not a government solution.  We shouldn’t be paying money for speculative gee-gaws – if there’s a market there, the market will find it.

Article 71 – Restoration of Trees. No action.

Article 72 – Local Option Taxes.  No action unanimous.

Article 73 – Other Post Employee Benefits. $345,000. Question on a study – waiting for GIC before we do the study.  Approved.

Article 74 - Stabilization Fund. $688,000. Someone voted no, and there was groaning because it had to be a standing vote. I don’t know who it was, but I support their position to vote no. I’ve been the lonely no vote before. And sometimes, you end up being right after all. Approved 130-1.

Article 75 – Transfer of Cemetery Funds. Approved.

Article 76 – Overlay Reserves. $500,000. Unanimous.

Article 77 – Stabilization fund. $1,580,000. Wagner asked how much money we lost in the stock market in this fund and where the money is now. Treasurer Stephen Gilligan reported that they are not invested now, but they are in deposit, as requested by Town Meeting. He said that $457,000 was realized as a loss. It was much more lost from high point to sell point. Schlictman terminates debate. Approved 127-1.

Article 78 – Use of Free Cash. $582,051. Approved.

Article 28 – Pension legislation. No action.

Article 3 taken from the table.

The meeting was dissolved.  It was 10:59 or something like that – just finished before 11.

I take notes during Town Meeting. They are not official in any way. As I listen to people speak, I type 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 notes 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.

8:01 the meeting was called to order. The Arlington Madrigal Singers sang the national anthem and continued singing until 8:12. I’m happy that this was the first performance of this town meeting – that’s 11 minutes saved on each of the previous 8 meetings – that’s half of a night of town meeting saved!

Moderator John Leone noted that there isn’t that much left on the agenda. He suggested that if we were concise, we might finish tonight. I was betting on Wednesday, and unfortunately my bet is looking more likely. We sure didn’t finish tonight; I just hope we don’t go until next week.

Bill Hayner Pct. 2 voiced his support of an energy bill from Senator Kerry.
Up to $220,000 for Bridge the Gap. Two weeks left.
Dick Smith again sought signatures for a non-binding question for the 23rd Middlesex.

Article 3 was taken from the table.

• Symmes Neighborhood Advisory Committee. Michelle Barry detailed the uncovered dirt piles and poor site security on the Symmes neighborhood, and asked for future remediation.
• Harry McCabe gave the report of the Margaret Spengler Memorial Committee. He went into great detail about the planning, preparation, execution of the memorial, and the disposition of the remaining funds.

Article 3 was tabled. 8:35pm at this point – the hopes of an early finish dwindling rapidly.

Article 11 – Illuminated signs. Brian Rehrig moved to reconsider Article 11. It was reconsidered on voice vote. Brian Rehrig explained that the word “exposed” should read “non-exposed.” The newly-revised bylaw was approved 159-2. This move had been mentioned by the moderator, and very few people were interested in debating illumination again.

Article 27 – GIC. Tabled. Tosti did this so we can get to Minuteman tonight for sure – they’re here tonight.

Article 55 – Sewer. Approved unanimously.

Artilce 56 – Water mains. Approved unanimously.

Article 57 – Minuteman Regular Budget. Dr. Ed Bouquillon, Superintendent of Minuteman School District spoke for a few minutes.  He noted that the district’s budget is down 7.2% from last year – that’s 10% cut from level-service budget. He went through the cuts of 22 people. He’s raised tuitions for non-member towns.  Budget approved on unanimous vote.

Article 58 – Minuteman Feasibility Study. Al Tosti moved the substitute motion the Finance Committee approved last week, and made two small changes to the text. Tosti walked through the decision process. The Finance Committee voted “no action” at first because we were concerned that it was too much money for a school that we weren’t sure was viable. Later meetings and negotiations and the intercession of the Mass School Building Authority helped narrow the scope of the plan. The plan now starts with an enrollment study and a report of a Regional Task Force on changes to the regional agreement. The Superintendent has agreed that the full program won’t go forward unless Arlington (and other towns) sign off on the enrollment study and task force report. That convinced the finance committee to approve this feasability study. I’m proud of how this worked.  I think FinComm discussed this at 8 or 10 different meeting this year, some of them for a long time.  We ended up in a place that is good for Arlington and supports the educational mission of Minuteman. The Superintendent talked about the needs of the physical plant. He reviewed the MSBA building process and where the district is in the process. He talked about how much the feasibility study would cost and what would be in it. A speaker in favor commended the progress the district has made. Paul Schlictman called for a change in the regional agreement, which was echoed by later speakers. He endorsed the motion. There were questions about the five biggest towns. There were questions about school sizing, enrollment, and waiting lists at other vocational districts. Debate terminated. The motion was substituted, and approved unanimously.  I was delighted and surprised – so much debate, so much discussion, and a unanimous result.  I never would have expected it.

Break at 9:24. Returned at 9:36.

Article 27 – GIC. The moderator recognized the motion of the Finance Committee as the main motion.  Al Tosti spoke to the motion, but spoke more to the alternative resolution proposed by the Town Manager.  He reported that Finance Committee had endorsed the resolution.  He repeatedly noted that the debate should be about the resolution, not the GIC.  Town Manager Brian Sullivan explained that the recent progress towards negotiation moved him from the original home rule legislation, which if enacted would force the unions into the GIC.  Instead he was recommending the resolution, which only encouraged progress towards the GIC.  He gave a history of the town’s negotiations and explained how the plan would benefit the town employees.  He described outlined how the legislation would guarantee equal or better benefits for town employees, as determined by an independent actuary.  Ken Hughes, town meeting member and member of the Public Employee Committee spoke.  He proposed an amendment to strike out the deadline from the manager’s resolution, and remove the call for a future Special Town Meeting if a deal isn’t reached.  He urged that the meetings happen with no preconditions, negotiate in good faith. He said: “We’ll never walk away from the table.” Shawn Sullivan of Arlington’s firefighter’s union spoke and echoed the same points, saying, “We’ve never left the table.” Ron Colosi of the Arlington Education Association “echoed the statements.” The problem with this line of statements was that it was completely untrue. Really, I was surprised at the audacity of these statements.  Every town meeting member had received a copy of the letter signed by Ron Colosi, on AEA letterhead, where he wrote statements like “. . . to discuss potential health care options other than the GIC” (emphasis in orginal) and  “The AEA is currently not prepared to have any discussions regarding the GIC. . . ”  This is a union that refused to discuss the GIC, and is simultaneously claiming that it never left the table.  I’m glad we had the letter in hand, and we could appreciate the truth in the statements for ourselves. Selectmen voted 3-1 in favor of the resolution.  Selectman Diane Mahon voted against it. She said that the deadline is unfair and premature. She doesn’t think the deal can get done in June, July, August, and the three weeks in September, and advocated longer time. Chris Loreti complained that the Board of Selectmen did not report on this in a timely fashion. Harry McCabe is opposed because he does not think it is fair.  John Maher very eloquently made the point that the manager’s home rule petition, were it to ever go forward, would not decrease the coverage for employees – it only decreases the costs, as determined by a mutually chosen actuary. He rebutted the notion that this vote could be an unfair labor practice. Mike Healey doesn’t like the manager’s words because it implies that Town Meeting would do something in the future. His statement understated what the resolution was.  It’s an explicit deadline, with a threatened action if the deadline is not met.  There’s no “implied” there at all. Grant Cook noted there’s a deadline here whether we vote for it or not, because of the pending budget issues. A vote to terminate debate failed 94-66.  I gave a speech. I was fairly pleased with how my speech went.  My points weren’t new to the debate, but I think I ordered and emphasized them differently, and I think that the meeting appreciated the insight that provided. Gordon Jamieson talked about “Getting to Yes.” Janice Weber read a letter from a resident in Precinct 13.   Andrew Fischer supports the Huges amendment. There was a question about health insurance reimbursement accounts. Annie LaCourt supported the manager’s main motion.  She talked about her support of unions and why we had to get the deal done. Kevin Koch has never seen a unanimous vote of the unions, and suggested to leave the deadline in the motion in order to keep things moving along.   Judith Phelps notes that Arlington has been forbidden from, and has agreed not to, propose articles to town meeting that would diminish benefits without previous union agreement, and is opposed to the article.  I think her point is moot – the proposal would increase benefits, so there is no conflict with that past decision. Charlie Foskett moves to terminate debate, approved by voice vote. The Hughes amendment (to remove the deadline) fails on voice vote. The manager’s resolution was substituted by a vote of 126-37.  The resolution was then approved on voice vote.

The meeting was adjourned.  Al Tosti gave notice of reconsideration on articles 55-58.

I take notes during Town Meeting. They are not official in any way. As I listen to people speak, I type 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 notes 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 Finance Committee met at 7:30 as usual. We read the letter from the Minuteman Superintendent.  We agreed that it met the required points we’d voted on Monday. We approved a couple minor wording changes.  During discussion, it came out that this vote might actually be meaningful, even though Belmont voted against the original motion.  Minuteman is going to consult with Belmont and perhaps re-vote the motion, with the Arlington changes, at a future time.  We also approved the Town Manager’s resolution on the GIC.

The meeting started punctually at 8PM.

Jane Howard played the national anthem.

• Juli Brazile reported on the progress of the Fund the Gap and encouraged people to visit the website.
• Al Tosti – reported on the Minuteman vote I noted above, and said that the Superintendent’s letter was available.
• Dick Smith announced a petition for a ballot question about single payer healthcare for voters in the 23rd Middlesex district.
• There was a long round of applause for Josh Lobel’s excellent work in projecting details about the articles for everyone to follow along with.

Article 3 is taken from the table.
John Belskis – GIS Committee. He noted that that the Housing Authority, Assessors, and Redevelopment Board had failed to appoint members.  He talked about the inequities of the current system and how they hurt Arlington.
Lawrence McKinney – Uncle Sam Committee.
Article 3 is tabled.

Article 52 – Budgets (continued from yesterday).

Budget 18 – Public Safety. Gordon Jamieson wants a revolving fund to pay for a firefighter, but I didn’t understand what fund he was referring to. Gordon’s method of getting his point across involves asking 20 questions of some town official, in this case the Town Manager.  Sometimes I think Gordon watches too much Law and Order.

Budget 20 – Education. School Committee Chair Joe Curro asked for 20 minutes and introduced Superintendent Bodie. Some people were shouting for her address, but she’s not required to give her address – she’s a town employee, she just has to give her title.  Non-member town residents must give an address. Bodie talked about community and its importance. She noted the schools’ accomplishments. She noted that the school’s budget is driven by town money and grants and state aid – grants and state aid are down. She reviewed the budget deficit. She explained the principles they used when identifying cuts. She described the growth of special education costs. She talked about the constructive and destructive cycles of special education. She talked about the increase in enrollment, now and in the future. She got her speech done in 18 minutes or so. The first question off the bat was about the school legal budget. The school Chief Financial Officer (CFO) Diane Johnson answered that the legal costs of $300,000 were budgeted, and $200,000 for potential settlements for this year.  The amount spent on the Bouris/Coughlin lawsuit was discussed – several hundred thousand dollars over the last few years.  There was concern about the effect of the lawsuit on the schools. It was noted that only the School Committee has the power to decide where the Bridge the Gap money is spent. Diane Mahon noted that the Selectmen had approved a 1-day permit for a Bridge the Gap fundraiser. School volunteerism was discussed. Diane Mahon talked about the legal fees. She asked about foreign visa student tuition and about LABB credits. She asked about sport fees and complained that they weren’t set yet. Annie Thompson spoke about the connection between school quality and housing prices – she’s concerned that if we screw up the schools that our housing prices will drop. She talked about how the Finance Committee’s votes on the school budget were far from unanimous.  She’s quite right on this point.  There wasn’t support for her full request of $550,000 being spent from reserves – I don’t think anyone actually voted for it.  A different proposal to move $142,000 to the schools failed 10-8.  That money ended up being allocated to the expected jump in unemployment costs, snow and ice, and a couple other places. John Deyst said that he was “disappointed” that the teacher’s union didn’t go into the GIC, and many people in the viewing galleries booed him. It baffles me that people think that booing is going to get them anywhere.  The GIC is going to be discussed.  If they’re going to boo the use of the word “disappointed” I wonder what they’re going to do when the stronger language is used. Joe Tully complained that the School Committee report (which I note has 78 pages) was too condensed.  Joe Tully asked again about whether or not athletic fees were funding the lawsuit. CFO Diane Johnson explained that the athletic budget is much larger than the collected fees, and the school budget pays the difference to support athletics, and the fees are never large enough to permit distribution to the other budgets. She said that to her knowledge that athletic fees had never gone to the legal fees. The Comptroller said a similar statement, and confirmed that the audit hadn’t found inappropriate transfers. Diane Mahon tried to contradict that statement, but she wasn’t on the list to speak and was ruled out of order. I have no idea why she thinks that this happened. The athletics program is much larger than the fees – it doesn’t make sense to me that there could be a transfer out of the athletic budget when it would have to be covered by the general budget anyway. I don’t buy it.  If you think those athletic fees are being misused, show me the proof.

13 minute break.

Special education was discussed – some residential special education tuition is $350,000 per year. Al Tosti spoke about schools employment. He noted the $4million in reserves already being spent. He asked the Superintendant what the plan was for the traffic supervisors. Superintendent Bodie gave a wandering answer that finally said parental volunteers. Gordon Jamieson took 8 minutes to make his third motion of town meeting concerning PAYT. There were questions about special education mandates, costs, plans, and demographics. Other revenues, including advertising, were discussed. It was noted that special education spending is squeezing out spending on regular education. Superintendent Bodie gave an 8-minute answer about the special education rates in the town compared to the state. Earlier Al Tosti made a joke that the Minutman Superintendent had “used more words than I would – but Superintendents do that.” His words proved prophetic. There was a question on Metco students. Paul Schlictmman gave a speech about the relative spending between town-side and school-side and the importance of working together. Janice Weber asked questions about a $15,000 stipend for someone to testify – the Superintendent is not aware of it.

Budget 21 – Libraries. Question on technical specialist.

Budget 23 – Retirement. Treasurer Stephen Gilligan said that if the state legislation is not passed, he will still have to pay the larger amount to the retirement fund.

Budget 25 – Reserve Fund. Gordon Jameison moved to increase the reserve fund from $600,000 to $850,000.  The moderator ruled the amendment (and the previous one about the schools) as out of order.

Enterprise Fund – Youth Services. Marvin Lewiton asked about all the cuts in it. Town Manager Sullivan explained that the group’s deficit had been growing over the years. He said that this is a transition year to develop a new model. The line item numbers might change within the constant bottom line. Question about fund balances.

That was the end of discussion on the budget, so we moved to votes.

• First vote was Adam Auster’s amendment to lower other expenses in DPW by $108,000. Defeated by voice vote.  I had been assuming that someone would make a motion to raise the school budget by $108,000, because I don’t think that was explicit in the original motion.  If my understanding is correct, and this budget had passed, the $108,000 simply wouldn’t have been appropriated – it wouldn’t have been spent at all.  I don’t think that was understood at the time.  Since the amendment failed the point is moot.
• Auster’s second amendment, to reduce snow and ice by $62,000 defeated by voice vote, but it was closer than the previous.
• Treasurer Gilligan’s amendment lost on voice vote.

The budget was approved on voice vote.  That was the longest budget discussion I’ve seen in town meeting.  In general, I think it was time well spent.  $100 million in spending warrants 5+ hours of debate.

Al Tosti gave notice of reconsideration on Article 52, as did Diane Mahon. Meeting was adjourned.

With the budgets done and the GIC compromise on the horizon, there is a chance that Town Meeting will complete on Monday.  I think I’ll put my money on Wednesday, though.

I take notes during Town Meeting. They are not official in any way. As I listen to people speak, I type 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 notes 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.

There were an unusually large number of protesters outside Town Hall.  My quick scan was that they were composed mostly of school traffic supervisors who were demanding their jobs be restored to the budget and union members who were opposed to the special legislation about the GIC.

The Finance Committee met at 7:30 and discussed a new vote for Article 58 for Minuteman Feasibility Study.  A short history: Minuteman’s infrastructure needs a major renovation, and that requires bonding the money. Ordinary operating budgets require only 2/3 of the 16 member towns approve the budget, but a bond requires unanimous consent of all towns.  That gives Arlington leverage that it doesn’t usually have.  This year, Minuteman is seeking to bond $700,000 for a feasibility study.  The Finance Committee reviewed the proposal and the early estimates of what a full renovation would cost, considered what it knew about the state of Minuteman’s enrollment numbers, and recommended a vote of no action.  Since then the Minuteman Superintendent and Town Manager Brian Sullivan have met with the head of the Mass School Building Authority (MSBA) and the proposal has changed.  In the current version, Minuteman agrees to do an enrollment study and have a task force study the regional agreement that defines the school.  Tonight, after several nights of debate, the Finance Committee unanimously agreed to endorse the feasibility study provided the Superintendent formally commits to the enrollment study, the task force, and several other conditions. The spending will be limited to $125,000 or so until those conditions are met.  The Superintendent has indicated that he will do so in writing.  The vote that we now intend to recommend to Town Meeting is here, and was passed out to all Town Meeting Members tonight.

The Meeting opened at 8:01. Very punctual! Good work Mr. Moderator!

Charlie Gallagher played the The Star-Spangled Banner on the piano.

Moderator John Leone was congratulated and applauded on his wedding this past weekend.

Al Tosti announced that Finance Committee had taken a new vote on the Minuteman request for capital spending for a feasibility study (as I described above).

Article 3 was taken off the table.
Jane Howard gave the Vision 2020 report. She reviewed the activities and output of the committee. Josh Lobel gave a brief tour of the way the data can be viewed online.
Article 3 is tabled.

Article 27 – GIC Home Rule Legislation. Selectman Diane Mahon said that the Selectmen had heard the issue again today, and asked for a postponement to May 19. John Maher is opposed to postponement; he noted that the article has been on the warrant since January and there has been plenty of time for the Selectmen to get it ready. Al Tosti says that the discussion will be faster if we have an actual report from the board, and that we should postpone because it will be faster in the long run. On questions from other speakers, Diane Mahon indicated that there were discussions and some progress might be made by May 19.  I’m very dubious of this statement.  There’s no dialog going on that I know of; the issue will be unchanged on Wednesday, we just might have a Selectmen vote by then. Charlie Foskett noted that with the 48 hours written notice rule, we wouldn’t be able to consider a Selectmen motion on the 19th, because they don’t have a decision yet. By a vote of 119-49 it was postponed.

Article 28 – Tabled. again. This was an error, I think.  We’d already re-tabled this on Wednesday, and nothing had taken it off the table.

Article 52 – Budgets. Alan Tosti noted a couple of typos in the report.  He said that the budget is balanced, but contingent on a several pieces of legislation, including the pension reform bill and the actual state budget.

School Committee Chair Joe Curro introduced the school’s budget. He described it as a budget of tradeoffs, and talked about the affects it will have.  Superintendent Bodie had a presentation ready as well, but the moderator asked her to wait until the actual school budget is discussed.

The moderator then read through each budget number, and if someone had a question the budget was “held” for discussion. Many budgets were held. One of the interesting budgets that sailed through was the Assessors’ budget.  The budget includes a reduction in pay for the Assessors from $5200 to $4900.  That is significant because it gets them under $5000, and they therefore do not qualify for retirement benefits under Gov. Patrick’s pension reform.  The Assessors should be commended on making that change.

Budget 1 – Finance Committee Ed Trembley asked how much the town pays for consultants. Town Manager Sullivan says $50,000 or so, plus ones in the capital budget. Superintendent Bodie says special ed has many, and other than that a few thousand.  I think that both the Town Manager and the Superintendent reported lower numbers off the top of their heads than would come out in deeper investigation.  On the manager’s side, I think information technology, youth services, and planning combine for a higher number.  That said, I think it’s generally done wisely.  There are certain tasks and questions that require specialized knowledge, and when those come up infrequently, it makes more sense to contract the work than to maintain a staff member.

Budget 2 – Town Manager. Janice Weber asked questions on the web manager (a part time job) and management analyst (currently a college intern).

Budget 5 – Information Technology. Janice Brodman of Precinct 15 asked several questions about the town’s spending on GIS (geographic information systems) and whether it was a smart budget priority.   IT Director David Good – definitely. Town Manager Sullivan – agreed. All departments touch maps. He explained that it will increase productivity in the long run – that’s the key point. Selectman  Annie LaCourt explains how everything touches the map, and this is the path to efficiency and communication. It was noted that the maps could be used for 40B calculation and for town website. I followed up afterwards during the break to talk more about this.  The town already has several GIS systems, and we need to coordinate and integrate them for efficiency.  I think this is an important and smart budget priority. Another question about why is web content manager not under IT? Answer: it’s about communication, not technology.  Does the town use open source software? Yes, some, but not much.

Budget 7 – Treasurer. Treasurer Stephen Gilligan moved an amendment to his budget.   He wanted to change wages from $544,316 to $554,316 and expenses from $101,454 to $98,954, for a net increase of about $7500. He said that without the change his office will not have the resources to deal with peak volumes or emergencies. He said that it might lead to missing the tax deadline and force short-term borrowing.  Dean Carman spoke for the Finance Committee and explained the reasoning for the committee’s recommendation.  He talked about the changes in the treasurer’s office, like the addition of a lockbox service, and how that should lead to a need for less overtime.  Several speakers asked questions about online bill pay, including Alan Jones. He noted that the town still doesn’t support payment by credit card, and that even payment by e-check was currently unavailable.  There were questions about the town’s Integrated Collection System (ICS) and how much it cost.  This is where things go a little bit muddled – it wasn’t clear on some of the questions and answers if they were referring to the full ICS system or just the online bill portion of ICS. Gilligan said that the use of the  lockbox doesn’t affect overtime expenditures.  A speaker in favor of online bill pay got a laugh by saying “I would be in favor of bill pay for DOS – just let me do it.”  Speakers noted that it was a lot of discussion for a $7500 difference.  Town Manager Sullivan maintained his distance from the online bill pay system, noting that it was run entirely by the treasurer.  He said that if it was in his department, it would have been done by now. Debate was terminated.

I think it was obvious to everyone in town meeting that this was a political argument, a spat between the Finance Committee and the Treasurer.

In general, I avoid fights like this because they don’t move the town forward.  It’s generally better to reach a quiet compromise and revisit whatever issue it is at a future date.  In this case the Treasurer has chosen to make several public statements on town meeting floor that are inaccurate.  I believe that the town is better served in this case by correcting those statements.  The resulting conflict is regrettable.

The Finance Committee doesn’t manage departments or dictate how departments should work, but we do give advice to departments, and at times we lean on them to take certain actions when we think the case for those actions is particularly compelling.  For years, the Finance Committee has been leaning on the Treasurer’s office to take advantage of technology and operate more efficiently.  One of the points we made in the past was that the office need not process all of the tax payments by hand, but it could use a lockbox instead.  That way, the town could reduce overtime expenditures.  Eventually, the treasurer instituted the lockbox and reduced the number of pieces of mail handled by his office at tax time by tens of thousands each year.  But, his budget requests didn’t go down – they continued to go up.  That is the root of the debate that spilled out onto the Town Meeting floor tonight.

There are a number of points that I offer as fact:

1. The treasurer refused to meet with the Finance Committee this year.
2. Every non-school budget authority (Selectmen, Town Clerk, Treasurer, Assessors) was asked by the Town Manager to come up with some cuts to handle this year’s deficit.  The Treasurer did not.  When we proposed cuts, he did not offer other options or suggestions.  The cuts we proposed are the ones indicated in the Finance Committee’s report.
3. Despite years of development, it is still impossible to pay your tax bill online using a credit card.  The website has credit card logos on it, but if you fill out the information, you get an error message.  If you remember your license plate, you can see the bill pay page here.
4. The long saga of online bill pay development has included such gaffes as putting up a website that asked for bank account numbers but did not use HTTPS (encrypted web pages) for the page content and using an architecture that permitted Google and other search engines to index payment histories.  During the implementation the Treasurer repeatedly rejected the advice of the Information Technology Advisory Committee (that I’m also a member of).
5. During Town Meeting, the Treasurer said that supporting ICS cost $10,000 per year.  It’s not clear whether he meant the full ICS system or the online bill pay.  Regardless, the town spends well in excess of that to support the full ICS system, and has paid consultants more than $100,000 in the development of the online bill pay system.

There are a number of statements that aren’t facts, but follow quite closely:

1. It’s frustrating to me that the Treasurer feels the need to take his budget debate to the Town Meeting floor without trying to resolve it with the Finance Committee first. It’s his perogative as an elected official, but it’s frustrating that he’s uninterested in working within the process.  If he had chosen to meet beforehand and discuss his budget priorities, this entire debate would have been avoided.
2. I continue to believe that the treasurer’s office could run more efficiently with the adoption of new technology.  Capital funds are available for changes that result in more efficient town operations.
3. There are things he said on the floor of town meeting tonight in regard to the lockbox to the website that are in direct conflict with statements he has made in my presence in the past.  They directly conflict with other statements he’s made in public about the efficiencies derived from the lockbox.

In the end, this is all about a very small fraction of the budget, and Town Meeting will vote the budget as it sees fit.

We took a break, but I didn’t time it tonight.

Budget 10 – Legal. Joe Tully asked questions about the pending lawsuit against the town.  It was answered that if the town lost a judgement it would likely pay out of reserves and/or pay the amount over a couple of years.  Mr. Ciano through questions found out that some of the lawsuit was capped by law at $100,000, but other parts were not.

Budget 13 – Parking. Paul Schlictman argued that we’re not getting enough in parking revenues. He compared Arlington’s $425,000 to Brookline’s $4-plus million dollars in parking revenues.  Police Chief Fred Ryan in answer to a question said that we’re getting what we pay for, we don’t staff enough for stronger enforcement. Several speakers suggested that the FinCom report should include a breakout of revenues and expenses for parking. I agree – I’ll work to get that in next year’s report as an appendix. There was further discussion both in favor of and against a more aggressive parking revenue strategy. There were discussion on the nuances of cost of enforcement, safety issues, supporting local businesses, and short-term parking turnover versus long term parking.

Budget 14 – Planning and Community Development. There was a question about a state assessment. Question about lower salaries/higher expenses that was answered.

Budget 17 – Department of Public Works (DPW). Ed Trembley asked how many tons of salt did we dump on the streets last year? The answer was 8000 tons of salt for $600,000. Trembley says we should use less salt and it would be OK have more snow on the flatter roads; this was echoed by later speakers.  There was  discussion about whether people would be willing to tolerate more snow pack on the roads and spend less in salt.  PAYT was discussed. It was asked why raise the snow and ice budget this year? The answer was that it’s painful to fight the deficit spending each year – it’s easier to manage when the deficit is smaller.  Adam Auster asked why are we funding this rather more money for the schools.  He moved an amendment to change “other expenses” from $538,655 change to $430,000 and change snow and ice from $471,830 to  $410,000.  He argued this should be a lower priority than schools.   Dean Carmen explained that there was less money for managing the deficit than there was last year.  Dean’s point was a bit nuanced, and I’m not sure how much it came through.  When there is an open position in the DPW (or any other town-side position), the manager is likely to hold that position open rather than hire immediately.  One of the side effects of this is that there is unspent salary money.  That money is then used against accounts in deficit – like snow and ice.  As the town’s budget shrinks, there is less of that money available to cover things like snow and ice deficits.  Al Tosti noted that we’ve been working to fix this snow and ice budget year after year – it’s not new.  Town Manager Sullivan notes that “other expenses” budget was increased because DPW director said he needed it, and reduced the number of employees to fund it. I rose and spoke to this point, saying two things (and forgetting a third).  First, the other expenses line is not about snow and ice.  The other expenses went up because the DPW director said that he had too many people and not enough supplies to fix the roads – he cut people and increased supplies.  If we cut the supplies, then we’re being wasteful in our salaries.  I repeated the statement that we have to pay for snow and ice no matter what.  Reducing that budget just means that we have to pay the overrun from somewhere else.  The third point, that I forgot at the podium was this: if we really want to reduce snow and ice expenditures, we need to follow a path similar to the one Mr. Trembley opened with.  We need to ask the board of selectmen and the manager and the DPW director to spend less on salt, live with icier roads, and then remember that we made that request when it comes election time. Debate was terminated.

We adjourned for the night, with budgets waiting for us on Wednesday.

I take notes during Town Meeting. They are not official in any way. As I listen to people speak, I type 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 notes 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.

I missed the beginning of the meeting and the playing of the national anthem tonight. The Finance Committee meets every town meeting night at 7:30 to consider any last-minute items that may come up. This year, we’ve been considering an appeal from the Minuteman school district to reconsider our recommendation of no action on their request for capital funds. Our discussion ran overtime tonight, and the FinComm members got into town meeting a few minutes late. (We haven’t reached a conclusion on Minuteman; we’re going to reconsider on Monday and see what conditions/caveats might make us change our minds).

As I walked in, John Maher was making an announcement that I missed.
Roly Chaput announced an unveiling at the Dallin Museum this weekend.

Article 24 – Donation Program. Harry McCabe says the Council on Aging does not have a substitute motion. Voted no action.

Article 28 – Pension Liability Funding. Tabled. (We had tabled this already, but took it off the table on Monday; now it’s back on.)

Article 29 and 30 – Crosby and Parmenter Disposition. The moderator announced we were debating the two articles (the two schools) together. Selectman Annie LaCourt explained the Selectmen’s motion was to have the Selectmen administer the buildings, keep leasing the buildings to the current private schools, and study the issues further. The board is leaning to keep the buildings in the long term and keep renting them, but that is not an official conclusion. Matthew Dolan of Marshfield, the Executive Director of the Arlington Children’s Center in the Parmenter School spoke. He noted the school has 159 children, 129 from Arlington; they operate the Brackett afterschool program; they have 60 employees, 23 residents of Arlington. Dolan endorsed the recommended vote and praised the process that had lead to the vote. Town Manager Sullivan spoke in favor of the Selectmen’s motion. Sullivan noted that the current vote does not permit the Selectmen to sell the property. John Worden moved an amendment to the vote. His amendment would extend the lease on a 10-year basis. It would put the properties under ARB, rather than the Selectmen. Patricia Worden spoke at length, claiming the Selectmen have insufficient experience managing property and the ARB has extensive experience. She spoke for longer than 10 minutes, but the moderator had forgotten to reset his timer. Chris Loreti endorsed the Worden amendment and went into detail about rents and market rates. He finished with this statement: “If the Board of Selectmen understood Mr. Worden’s amendment, they’d be thanking him.” Loreti finished at 8:52. The previous three speakers had combined for almost 30 minutes of speaking! It’s safe to say that none of them were concise. Richard Correder of Vision2020 and Precinct 2 spoke next. On a question, he found out that the Selectmen cannot sell the property without town meeting permission. He also heard Juliana Rice say that an ARB can get extra managementpowers, but only when it is a urban renewal program. Brian Rehrig supported the Selectmen’s position. He noted that the Worden amendment would not permit a longer lease than 10 years, as desired by at least one tenant. He also noted that the actual building managers are in the planning department, and that department behaves the same regardless of who is in control of the property, the BoS or the ARB. Selectman Diane Mahon defended the choice of the BoS with some detailed rebuttals of previous argument, specifically concerning whether or not the property was an urban renewal process. Al Tosti argued in favor of the BoS motion. He notes that this is a policy question – the first time in more than 25 years that we’ve had such a policy issue. That policy issue should be considered, have hearings, etc. It is not an administrative question. He would like that policy decision to be made by an elected body, not an appointed board. Other speakers repeated these points. Stuart Cleinman stood up and complained about discussion of selling the property, when the article was about transfer, not disposition. Cleinman was absolutely right.  Much of the debate was long winded, and it was full of people saying the same refrain that “we like the current schools and we like their revenue.” That wasn’t a point at debate, though!  The only difference in the two competing versions was about WHO should administer the building, and only a few of the speakers spoke to that difference. Most of them wandered through adjacent topics, but made no progress because the topic wasn’t framed in the motions.

We had an 11 minute break.

On request of Joe Tully, former town counsel John Maher answered that he deferred to the current town counsel’s opinion that the ARB could not enter into long-term leases unless it was an urban renewal property. Annie LaCourt noted that the Worden amendment limits any deal to 10 years, and more money may be available with a longer lease. She asked for more time to consider the question. Horowitz moves to terminate debate. Amendment failed on voice, The main BoS motion passed 155-6.  The summary here is that the Board of Selectmen now “control” the property and will consider what to do with it, from sale, to lease, to other.  They have no deadlines.  If they want to sell it, they must get Town Meeting approval.

Article 30 – Parmenter version. Amendment failed on voice, BoS motion passed 153-4.

Article 31 – Crosby Disposition. Selectman Diane Mahon endorsed the Selectmen’s resolution and moved an amendment to change the words “gross receipts” to “net receipts” with the intent that net proceeds from the buildings go to school rebuilding, not the gross. Harry McCabe proposed an amendment to remove the word “sell” from the resolution, with the intent that town not ever sell the schools. Chris Loreti reviewed the costs and revenues and potential revenues from the properties and supported the no-sale language.  Loreti claimed that we can keep the buildings for $10,000 per year in capital expense. He based his numbers on a 8-year analysis. I find that number to be completely unbelievable. In those 8 years, were there any renovations done – plumbing, electrical, roof, boiler, etc.? I don’t care how well the building was built a hundred years ago – it wasn’t built with sufficient electrical or data capacity, just to start, and the roof was not made to last until kingdom come.  The long-term capital expenses of these buildings greatly exceeds the $10,000 he claimed. I rose, as did others, opposed to McCabe’s amendment; we’ve only had two weeks since the school committee made their decision, and we should not rush the decision. I wasn’t quite finished writing my speech, and it suffered.  Not my best speaking.  Wish I could do that one again. Terminate debate failed. Town Manager Sullivan explained that he wanted “net” proceeds not “gross” proceeds so that the buildings do not affect regular revenue and cut into basic budget needs. School Committee Chair Joe Curro rose to defend the gross rather than net. It was noted that this is a resolution, not a binding vote.  Debate was terminated.  We changed gross to net by vote of 123-38. McCabe’s amendment to remove the word sale failed on voice vote. The original resolution, as amended, was approved. The summary here is that we advised the board to look at the best solution, and to dedicate the money to future school capital expenditures.

Article 32 – Parmenter Disposition. The exact same votes were taken by voice vote, and the original resolution, as amended, was approved.

Article 33 – Town Reorganization Committee. Annie LaCourt explained the article. This is a recommendation of the reorganization committee created last year. First thing to do is accept the state legislation so that we can consolidate some town and school functions in the future, if we so choose. It was noted that the School Committee has to agree to any future changes, and this article only permits future changes, it does not actually make any changes. The article was approved.

Article 34 – Consolidation. Al Tosti explained that this doesn’t actually change anything, but has the meeting direct certain town bodies to consider future changes. He ran through the four areas under consideration: Human resources, town counsel, overhead budgeting, and public accouning financial report. Vision2020 endorse. I, of course, am a huge proponent of the overhead budgeting.  You can read more in my previous post on budgeting. Phelps moves the question. Approved on voice vote.

Article 36 – Canine Control. We picked up where we left off 10 days ago.  Andrew Fischer moved Sue Doctrow’s motion of May 5th. He moved also to change the number of dogs permitted from three to two. The debate moved to discussing the length of time for a dog bowel movement. Speakers were in favor of the article, and found it to be reasonable and well defined. Other speakers were against, and found it to be unreasonable and poorly defined. I know this is description is a little glib, but that’s really what it boils down to. There have been years of debates on the nuances of schools, parks, hours, enforcement, definition of terms, good dog owners, children, bad dog owners, enforcement costs, fences, dog poop, bags, bites, charges, barks, noises, etc., and in the end it comes down to what you think is a reasonable way to share the town’s public spaces. I voted in favor of Doctrow’s motion. I believe that dog walking is a good usage of town public spaces. I think that dogs and people can live together. I think that Parks and Recrecation Committee is in a good position to monitor and revise where and when this bylaw is effective. A motion to adjourn was defeated, and a couple more speakers went.  Horowitz moved the question. My hero! So glad to get this vote done with. Doctrow’s original motion of April 28th went down by voice vote.  We changed 3 dogs to 2 on voice vote.  Doctrow’s May 5th motion was substituted (approved) 80-74. There was cheering at that point, and I don’t think it was appropriate.  I agree with the outcome, but I know what it’s like to lose a close vote.  Cheering is adding insult to injury, and makes for hard feelings. We then had to approve the motion as substituted, and did so 78-70. There was considerable confusion on that last vote because some people thought we were adjourning, but I don’t think it affected the outcome.

Brian Rehrig gave notice of reconsideration on 36; Michael Quinn on 36; Al Tosti on 33 and 34.

We adjourned.

I take notes during Town Meeting. They are not official in any way. As I listen to people speak, I type 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 notes 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.

8:05 start.

Town Meeting Member Charlie Gallager played the national anthem on the piano.

• The Town Moderator announced that you can now find archives of the town meeting member list on the town website. The placement of that link on the site was prompted by a letter to the Arlington Advocate that suggested that secrets were being passed on the email list. I bet they’re pretty disappointed with how boring the list is.  But so useful!
• Joe Curro introduced Juli Brazile on Bridge the Gap. She reported on the progress so far and encouraged town meeting members to talk about the campaign with our constituents.

Article 3 was taken off the table.

• Treasurer Gilligan gave the treasurer report.
• John Cole gave the report of the Permanent Town Building Committee.

Charlie Foskett moved that Articles 5 through 52 be laid upon the table. He did this so that we can consider all the capital articles in a row, from special town meeting to regular town meeting.

We opened the Special Town Meeting. We passed the rules of the meeting. If we don’t finish, we’ll reconvene on the 12th.

• Chris Loreti delivered the ARB report to the special town meeting.
• Al Tosti delivered the FinCom report to the special town meeting.

Article 1 is tabled.

Article 2 – FEMA Floodmap Adoption. Loreti said the change is required. Town Counsel Juliana Rice explained that for residents to buy flood insurance from FEMA, we have to adopt their maps and restrict usage of flood plain. We are doing this in a special town meeting because we are required to adopt this by June 4th. Mike Rademacher town engineer reviewed the public meetings that have happened on the topic since 2007. A single speaker in favor, then we voted. Passed unanimously.

Article 3 – Town Budget Transfers. Voted no action.

Article 4 – Capital Budget – Fire Station. Charlie Foskett presented.  We’re doing this in the Special Town Meeting because some emergency repairs are necessary. Also it permits us to get building earlier in the season. Stratton is lumping together multiple year’s $150,000 for a larger spend. He noted that the capital budget is within 5% of the total budget, and does not include any override or other revenue enhancements. He moved a substitute motion with lower numbers – bids came in lower. Gordon Jamieson noted that the fire stations are not optimally placed and is voting no. There were other speakers on the topic. The motion was substituted and approved unanimously.

Article 5 – Capital Budget – Community Safety. Again, Charlie Foskett moved the substitute motion with lower numbers. Some of the money for the remediation is coming from AHA. There was a question about the source of the money that the AHA gave and whether or not CDBG funds can and should be used. Noted that some of the parking at the community safety lot is there for Cook’s Hollow recreation. Substituted and approved unanimously.

The special town meeting was dissolved.

Article 53 – Capital Budget. There were questions about photocopiers. There was discussion of new trucks and cars. There were several other detailed questions about graves and text books and antenna fund and Wellington tennis courts.

We had a break at 9:27 Back at 9:40.

There are more questions on vehicles. Thompson school was discussed – the town and the MSBA are looking at possible future renovation in a feasibility study. The school rebuild program was reviewed. Debate was terminated. 155-1 approved.

Article 54 – Rescind Borrowing Authority. Unanimous.

Articles 5-53 taken from the table.

Article 20 – Pay As You Throw. Selectman Mahon gave the  selectmen’s vote was to accept the report and consider implementing it with a future override discussion. The Town Manager went through the Pay as You Throw report. He showed the benefits that could accrue to the town and supported the Selectmen’s motion to put it up for consideration.  Gordon Jamieson moved a substitute motion that was a stronger endorsement of immediate adoption.  Charlie Foskett and other speakers provided a competing analysis that said that the town didn’t actually save money – the money went to trash bags and administrative costs. There were speakers in favor of doing it for cost and for environmental reasons. Annie LaCourt noted that this is a tax, even though it isn’t technically covered by Proposition 2.5; she wants town meeting to endorse the main motion so that it can be considered as a part of the override plan. There were worries about dumping and animals. Al Tosti spoke against moving too quickly – this needs to include the voters.  There was a motion to adjourn by Bill Logan that was voted down.  Why adjourn, but not move the question?  I was baffled by this. Speakers ranged from opposed to the whole idea, opposed to doing it right away, to in favor of doing it right away. I like the idea, in general, because it will make some of the current abusers of the system change their behavior.  I’m concerned that once we start, though, that there will be no price control, and it could be abused as a dodge of proposition 2.5.  That’s why I like putting it on the ballot with an override: let the voters decide.  Substitute motion failed on voice vote. Selectmen’s motion carried 98-50.

Meeting adjourned at 11:10.

I take notes during Town Meeting. They are not official in any way. As I listen to people speak, I type 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 notes 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

8:05 start time.

Town Meeting Member Jane Howard played the national anthem.

Town Moderator John Leone lectured everyone and specifically the Board of Selectmen for not having votes ready for town meeting, forcing lots of postponements. Selectman Greeley was clearly displeased and spoke in the Board’s defense.

We’ll return on May 10 for our next session.

Article 3 taken from the table (belatedly – we almost forgot to take it off the table).

• Al Tosti – make sure you look at the Town Manager’s Financial Plan for 2011 online.
• Carol Kowalski – May 13 7:30-9 in Town Hall auditorium there will be a hearing on the feasability of reconstruction of Cook’s Hollow Conservation Area.
• Diane Mahon thanked town and school employees for helping the town get through the water crisis.
• Bob Tosi – US Postal Service food drive on Saturday, leave out non-perishables.
• Charlie Foskett – Capital Planning Committee report is delivered. He also asked that the meeting act on the capital plan (Articles 53 and 54) on the same day as the Special Town Meeting. The Special Town Meeting has two capital articles, and it makes sense to do the regular capital articles and the special capital articles together.  This is a key announcement – if you’re a Town Meeting Member, I hope you heard it.  Be ready to discuss the capital budget!

Article 13 – Symmes. Selectman Mahon reports that the Selectmen had endorsed Paul Schlictman’s subsitute motion. Schlictman reviewed the history of the Symmes transaction, specifically that the town had embarked on the purchase of the Symmes site partially to keep a medical facility available at the site. Here we are nine years later, and there is no viable plan that gets us medical offices up there. He urged that we focus on financial imperatives and give up on the medical requirement. Chris Loreti asked for and did not get five minutes extra time. He reviewed more history, that in 2007 the plan for the site went from condo to rental, and the development was sold. In 2008 the new owners couldn’t get loans and stopped making payments. The Special Permit to build is still valid – the permit is unrelated to the medical site. ARB is coming back to seek advice and consent on what alternative uses should be permitted. Loreti proceeded to complain that Schlictman’s motion was flawed because it referred to 2001, and ignored all of the changes made in 2004, 2007, 2008, and so on. This speech by Loreti was incredibly frustrating to many of us. Schlictman provided his motion in writing last week. The Finance Committee endorsed it on Monday. The selectmen endorsed it today. And Loreti waited until today, on the floor, to explain why it is flawed! It would have been far more productive if he had talked to other interested people and sought an improved amendment.  This was unnecessarily dramatic and painful – it could have been much smoother with better communication. Al Tosti moved to table the article for a few minutes while the problem was worked out.  Tabled on voice vote.

Articl 18 – Bylaw amendment – Junk Dealers and Collectors. Mark Streitfeld gave his amendment to the proposed bylaws. His intent is to make it so that non-criminal activity is not tracked by the government – only when it’s linked to a crime would the information be turned over. After a question, it was noted that it does apply to used clothing. The chief’s opinion of the amendment is negative – it would make it much harder to track criminals. Several rose both in favor and opposed to the amendment, weighing civil liberties versus the pursuit of criminal activity. I rose to ask that debate be terminated, and it was terminated. Amendment failed 76-100. The main motion (unamended) was approved on voice vote. This was the first time I’ve spoken this year at town meeting.  When I got on the list I planned on speaking in favor of the amendment, but by the time I was called the points had been mostly covered.  So I moved the question.

Article 37 – Compensation of Selectmen. No action.

Article 38 – Electronic Pest Control Devices. Selectman Diane Mahon explained that the BoS had been convinced that this problem was not being solved by neighbor negotiations. Louise Poplin, the proponent, spoke about her inability to sleep because of the loud zapping 20 feet from her bedroom.  Several speakers were opposed because bylaws should not be used to settle personal disputes. Gordon Jamieson moved an amendment to change it to 8AM on weekdays. Selectman Annie LaCourt explained that the Selectmen thought this was a reasonable extension of the noise abatement bylaw. Several speakers were concerned about the enforceability of “audible at property line.” Debate was terminated. Amendment failed on voice vote. 102-78 the bylaw change was approved. I was in favor of this.  I have been opposed to other, similar bylaws like the one about lights at night.  But on this one, I think it’s a reasonable extension of the noise bylaw.  I don’t want to hear a chainsaw at 3am, and I don’t want to hear a bug zapper either.

15 minute break.

Article 13 – Symmes, again. We took the article from the table. Mr. Tosti made a new version after consultation with ARB and Selectmen. It uses the language from the original Board of Selectmen motion, but it does what Schlictman wanted to do – it removes the medical requirement from the Symmes redevelopment. There were questions about the land and possible uses of it. Andrew Fischer moved to postpone to the 12th, and it was defeated. Schlictman’s substitute motion went down (it was largely moot at this point). Tosti’s amendment passed. Selectmen’s vote as amended passed on voice vote.

Article 39 – Restrictions on Local Option Votes – John Leonard asked for an explanation. Selectman Mahon explained that the BoS was going to do the requested notifications, but not in a bylaw. Voted no action.

Article 40 – Field Lighting Timing. No action unanimously.

Article 41 – Sound Amplification System. No action unanimously.

Article 42 - Field Closing times. No action unanimously. There was an email on the Town Meeting list requesting a postponement of this article, but there was no attached substitute motion.  I don’t think anyone wanted to postpone when there was no real counter-proposal being pushed forward.

Artcile 43 – Field Light Configuration. No action unanimously.

Article 44 – Limit Night Baseball Games. No action unanimously.

Article 45 – Revolving funds. Gordon Jameison went through a long series of questions. His point was that some of the money in revolving funds should be applied to the general town funds, and it’s being sequestered in these revolving funds. Question about library vending machines. There was a question about the Gibbs energy costs – this was so we can get the tenants to pay energy bills without the town fronting the money. Approved.

Article 46 – Community Development Block Grants. Selectman Jack Hurd reported that the plan is now supported by a 5-0 vote. Questions about the spending on planners. Questions about if we can fund the economic coordinator through the CDBG. Complaints about ADA-compliant curbcuts on Broadway. Schlictman terminates debate, approved. Approved.

Article 47 – Collective Bargaining. Town Manager Sullivan – one group from fiscal ’09 (police ranking officers) is here tonight to be approved (the agreement also covers FY10). 2.5% increase in ’09, 0% in ’10. For FY10 there is another 0% settlement with patrolmen. Other groups are in negotiation, with a target of wage freeze. Diane Mahon as a town meeting member commended the manager and the unions for coming to a 0% agreement. Question about if there is any merit increases – no, the raises are across the board regardless.  Approved by voice vote.

Article 48 – Funding Future Collective Bargaining. Voted no action. This makes the Town Manager’s negotiations on wages easier – he can point to this vote and say that there is no money in the budget for raises.

Article 49 – Salary Adjustment Elected Officials. Voted no action.

Article 50 – Position Reclassification. Approved.

Article 51 – Amend Personnel Bylaw for Vacation Time. Selectman Mahon explained that the board was satisfied that this does not have conflict with collective bargaining. Approved.

Article 52 – Town Budgets. At this point, 9 minutes before 11, we adjourned.  We weren’t going to get the budgets done that quickly.

I gave notice of reconsideration on Article 49.  I didn’t hear any other notices.

90% taken on the laptop, and 10% on paper, tonight.  I take notes during Town Meeting. They are not official in any way. As I listen to people speak, I jot 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 notes 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

8:07 start.

Charlie Gallagher played the piano and lead the meeting in the national anthem.

The next meeting was set for May 5th.

• ARB member Chris Loreti announced that the Redevelopment Board’s Special Town Meeting report is on everyone’s seats, and will be officially reported at next week’s Special Town Meeting.
• The Spy Pond Trails Day was announced by Jane Howard.
• John Worden made a resolution honoring the passing of former town meeting member Margaret Peggy Nichol.
• After the Moderator’s announcement, there was a round of applause for Josh Lobel’s work on adding visual presentation.  He’s hung a couple projectors to make it easier to incorporate presentations and updates into the meetings.
• Moderator says that future controversial resolutions need to be in the warrant so they can be debated – we were too hasty with the first night’s stand against racism motion.  I think he’s correct.  The non-debateable resolutions should be restricted to items that are relatively free of controversy.  I’m glad he’s making that change.

Article 3 – Reports. Al Tosti moves to take Article 3 from the table.  Town Governance Interim Report is recieved from Mr. Tosti.  The article is tabled again.

Article 13 – Symmes.  Clariss Rowe moved a postponment to the 5th.  She did this because Paul Schlictman had provided a substitute motion, and they were waiting for 48 hours to elapse.  It’s worth noting that earlier in the evening the Finance Committee endorsed Schlictman’s motion by a 10-1 vote.

Article 22 – Additional 2 Alcohol Licenses. Moderator Leone reports that he did represent one of the liquor stores 2 years ago, but has not represented them since and has not spoken about this article with them at all.  Good for him – this is conflict of interest disclosure working exactly as it should. Selectman Greeley explained that he would like to have two more licenses available, and he had promised to bring the question up at last year’s town meeting.  He wants a liquor store in the heights.  Selectman Mahon voted against because of concerns of density and concerns about supply and demand and want to hear about what the vote result is on all-alcohol.  Over the course of the debate the timeline was reviewed: on November’s ballot will be a binding question on whether the town should permit all-alcohol liqour licenses.  Today’s question, for two additional licenses, would likely appear on the ballot in April.  The two questions are independent of each other.   Maria Meg Moloney Pct 1 noted that  Menotomy beer and wine supports Arlington schools.  Neal Duggan of Menotomy Beer and Wine (Arlington resident) spoke.  Raised $12,000 for charities.  Paid back $20,000 of $200,000 that they owe in startup costs.  Competition would make him lay off employees. He’s explicitly asking for market protection. I like his store and I appreciate the work he does for the community, but that is not justification for government protection of his business. Annie LaCourt and Diane Mahon disagreed about whether there was data to back up the statement about how many liquor stores are supported on average in neighboring towns.  Town Counsel Julianna Rice explained Nov 09 TM approved the home rule to put all-alcohol on the ballot, and the state just approved it.  If that ballot question passes, the BoS will be authorized but not required to convert up to 3 of the existing licenses into all-alcohol.   Greeley corrects Mahon that 5 people requested alcohol licenses, not 3.  LaCourt contradicts Mahon’s statement that the license must be put out.  Town Counsel Rice supports LaCourt – yes, if the BoS denies a license, we might get sued, but a well-reasoned decision that explains why the public need is not met by the license will prevail. This question was a recurring theme in later questioning, and I think that Mahon’s statements were not accurate and not helpful.  She repeatedly said that “if the applicant meets our requirements then we have to approve the license.”  Town Counsel Julianna Rice contradicted this and said that one of the things that Selectmen can consider is whether or not the license “meets a public need.”   Mahon kept talking about “meeting requirements” and made no mention of the legal standard that Rice did.  I was on the list to speak, and I wanted to clarify the argument, but I didn’t get a chance to speak.  If you read the case law, the ultimate decision goes both ways, but the legal standard is clearly public need – not “meeting requirements.”  Here’s an example. LaCourt explains that she wants this as a future option – new licenses can be used to support a future development.  We can’t possibly have these new licenses for another 18 months anyway – Mr. Duggan will get the protection he’s looking for.  A speaker was opposed to booze in general.  A couple wanted to go slower.  The debate itself was questioned – why is alcohol so special?  We don’t debate sushi or Indian food or pizza places or nail salons.  “If you think this town meeting is the right body to debate how many stores we can support, you’re deluding yourself.”  Several speakers opposed protectionism and wanted to let the market speak.  The motion failed on voice vote.  I voted in favor of this.  I also would have spoken, but it didn’t come to me before debate was terminated.

Article 23 – Home Rule Legislation Noelan Corbett. Diane Mahon explains that this doesn’t give him a job, it just gives him the option to apply for the job, despite the fact that he’s 33.  A speaker says it’s a “young person’s job.”  I disagree – it’s a job for a healthy fit person.  The age of the person shouldn’t matter. Failed on voice vote.

Article 24 – Council on Aging Donation. Harry McCabe asked for postponement to the 12th.  He said he’d have a substitute motion.  The moderator told him to provide the paper 48 hours in advance, on the 10th.  He didn’t actually say he’ll have paperwork, so this will be an issue, I’m sure.  Also, this was the second postponed article of the night.  As you’ll read below, this was a recurring theme – people just not ready for Town Meeting.  The Finance Committee heard the Council on Aging on this article on February 24th – more than 60 days ago!  I do not understand why, more than 60 days later, they don’t have a substitute motion ready.

Article 25 – Texting While Driving. Voted no action.  Paul Schlictman wanted to ask a question, which is really pretty pointless because there is no action to be done here; people rudely shouted while he was speaking.  In my opinion, all parties should have held their tongues.

10 minute break.  And it really was 10 minutes!  Great work by the moderator.

Article 26 – Double Pole Regulation –  Voted no action.

Article 27 – GIC home rule petition. Postponed to 5/17. This is where the postponements started getting silly.  The facts of this issue have been available for months.  The teacher’s union refuses to negotiate with the town about the GIC.  The only way for us to get to the GIC, therefore, is through this home rule petition.  There is no reason that the Board of Selectmen had to wait this long to put out their recommendation.

Article 28 – Pension Liability. Al Tosti explained that the state legislature was moving very slowly on this bill, and until it’s done, this article might be needed.  He wishes to lay it on the table where it can age while the Senate considers it.  The meeting need not consider it at all, hopefully.  Tabled.

Article 29-32 – Parmenter and Crosby Schools. Postpone 5/12.  This one you can blame on the School Committee.  They only voted on this article last week, after Town Meeting had already started.  The Board of Selectmen took a vote promptly at their next meeting. Selectmen will provide a recommendation in paper on Weds; vote next week.

Article 33, 34 – Combining School and Town Functions. Moved to postpone to 5/12 by Stephen Gilligan.  Postponed by 109-36.  This vote was in the Selectmen’s packet, so I don’t understand why Mr. Gilligan wanted it postponed.  At this point the meeting was getting annoyed with all of the postponements.  It was a fascinating vote where the front (establishment types) and the back of the room (anti-establishment types) voted against the middle of the room – but the middle is bigger.

Article 35 – Conflict of Interest. Voted no action.

Article 36 – Canine Control. Sue Doctorow asks for a tabling because the selectmen had just had a re-hearing and had run out of time.  92-63 vote to table failed (required 2/3).  She moved a substitute motion dated April 28th.  This is a moment where the 48-hour policy inhibited debate.  There was a clear intent to provide a substitute motion. The version dated 5/3 was cleaner and more clear, but was functionally identical to the 4/28 version.  In this case the policy meant that we were forced to debate an inferior motion.  An exception would have been a better choice. She talked about an 8 year debate, 3 at Town Meeting.  Green Dog was rejected by 5 votes last year, and it was deemed too complex.  This motion is much more simpler.  This motion complements the work of the dog park fences committee.  She noted that “Owner control” is a very powerful phrase.  Parks and Rec Commission gets to make decisions in the end.  It’s also cheap.  Parks and Recreaction approved this language.  Several speakers talked about decisions based on fear, dogs and children, and people attacked by dogs.  Leslie Mayer explained that Parks and Rec agreed that there was demand for dog recreation, and the town was not meeting that need, and that was why they supported this.  There were discussions about responsible and irresponsible dog owners.  After more than an hour of debate, Mr. Fuller moved to postpone to 5/12.  That was debated.  65-79 adjournment vote fails.  Finally the postponement question was moved, and by 80-67 the article was postponed.  The good news about the postponement is that we get to consider the better motion.  The bad news is that we didn’t get the job done.  I voted against postponement; I was prepared to vote the current language, as-is.

The meeting was adjourned.

I did something different tonight and took the notes on my laptop, rather than raw paper notes that I then rewrite.  I hope it saves me time, but I’m wondering how it will change the notes.  Feedback is welcome.

I take notes during Town Meeting. They are not official in any way. As I listen to people speak, I jot 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 notes 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.

8:08 the meeting was called to order by Moderator John Leone.

Town Meeting Member Jane Howard played the piano and led the meeting in the national anthem.

The moderator announced there are still vacancies in town meeting – Precinct 5 has one vacancy and Precinct 6 has 3 vacancies. He noted that tonight is organization meeting for precincts 1-7 where they elect chairs and clerks. He announced that the 2nd floor has the kindergarten through 8th grade art work installation.

He swore in a few new members – either newly appointed or missed it on Monday.

The meeting will reconvene on May 3.

Gordon Jamieson announced the upcoming town Ecofest.

We put Article 3 on the table. It was already on the table, but it can’t hurt to keep putting it there.

Article 5 – Assistant Moderator Election. We heard from the two candidates. Bill Logan went first and mentioned his experience on the Zoning Bylaw Review Committee and 1995 town meeting. He has a law practice in Arlington. Good relationship with the existing moderator.  Jim O’Conor next talked about his work as a tax consultant. 1998 town meeting. Warden for precinct 20. Would conduct meeting in same manner as Leone if Leone wasn’t there.  The election was held later in the meeting, and by 109-60, O’Conor won.

Article 13 – Symmes. Clarissa Rowe reported the Board of Selectmen’s recommendation, which was just made available, was to modify the permitted medical uses on Symmes property.  As of this writing, I can’t find the report online, though it was given on paper tonight. Paul Schlictman rose and called it disrespectful to have such a substantive (and long) motion be made available with such short notice and moves it be postponed to Monday 3rd.  It was postponed.

Article 14 – Stretch Energy Code. Selectman Diane Mahon reported that the Board of Selectmen endorsed it. Planning Director Carol Kowalski requested 30 minutes for the presentation, which was denied. She requested 20 minutes and that was granted. That was pretty unusual, both to get such a long request and to have it denied.  I think 20 minutes was about right, and it could have been done in 15. She explained that the town was trying to qualify for a state green designation. $10 mill annually awarded to towns that are designated as green communities. $7m is available this year if we qualify. We could qualify for up to $1m and use it for things like energy efficient street lights, programmable thermometers, better boilers, etc. Michal Byrne Director of Inspectional Services introduced Ian Finlayson – Mass’s manager of buildings and climate programs. He said that building codes are changing in the state. 18 towns have adopted the stretch code. The residential stretch code is based on Energy Star. He showed details on how the code was written, is monitored, is tested, and what it is applied to. The 3rd party performance-based testing involved in the code will enable a buyer to be sure about the quality of the house’s energy efficiency. Over a 30-year mortgage, the home owner will save money.

Peter Howard asked for Sustainable Arlington member Sally Molton – 164 Scituate St. Her speech was largely repetitive of the points already made, including reading from a document that we all had in our hands. Martha Scott asked for Maria Romano to speak. The moderator is asking for the meeting’s consent for town residents to speaker – but if you’re a resident, there doesn’t have to be a vote, at least as I recall it.  But I also can’t recall where that policy is written! Maria Romano thinks we should slow down – the code is too new.   John Belskis notes that 40B developments don’t have to follow the stretch energy code, although later speakers refuted that. Andrew Fisher asked when the stretch code would become law that wasn’t optional. Inspector Byrne said in 2012 we will have to meet the stretch code anyway. He noted the low cost effect on remodeling, and only 11 or 10 new homes were built per year in the last couple years. Andrew Fischer to vote yes. O’Conor noted that the state money isn’t guaranteed but worth trying for. Gordon Jamieson is in favor. Annie LaCourt asked what the town spends on energy. $3M per year on energy costs says the Town Manager, and he’d spend grant money on street lights. He thinks we might save 25% of the town’s energy costs. Gary Horowitz says 40B is not exempt from stretch code. Ed Trembley notes that it costs $750-1500 to have the house rated, and half of that is paid for by Energy Star. Energy Star is paid for by your power bill and by the regional cap-and-trade carbon auctions. Another question about whether it would cost the town money, and the answer was no. Clarissa Rowe urged support. Cayer Pct 12 moved the question. It was approved on voice vote.

Article 15 – Nuisance Fire Alarms. Town Manager Sullivan said this is aimed mostly at institutions, not homeowners. He outlined when the fines kick in. Ed Trembley was concerned about fines for places that were having difficulty with their fire system. The Germaine Lawrence School comes up, and it’s clearly a target of this law – 156 false alarms last year. The time frame is number of infractions in a calendar year. Fines are in line with other communities.

15 minute break.  It ran long because of ballot counting.

It was noted that cutting down on false alarms saves lives of pedestrians, motorists, and fire alarms. A comment is made that Germaine Lawrence won’t really be able to solve the problem. Chad Gibson Pct 4 moves the question. Approved by voice vote.

Article 16 – Public Consumption of Marijuana. Town Counsel Juliana Rice explained that last year’s bylaw was partially disallowed by the state, and this proposed change would permit the non-criminal prosecution of marijuana. Lawrence McKinney offered a change to also make it legal if it was prescribed by a legal doctor. Moderator John Leone ruled his amendment as out of order because it changed the definition of marijuana. Leone was absolutely wrong to rule that motion out of order. The Town Warrant reads “To seek if the town will vote to amend Section 2 of Article 7. . . or take any action related thereto.” McKinney was offering a modification of the appropriate article.  The motion should have been allowed.  I was tempted to stand up and argue, but decided it wasn’t worth the wasted time. It was pointed out that the penalty for smoking pot is the same as pulling 6 fire alarms. Bylaw change passed.

Article 17 – Solicitors. Voted no action.

Article 18 – Junk Dealers and Collectors. Chief Ryan explained that detectives are sharing stolen property information electronically rather than monthly via paper. This proposed change gets Arlington on the electronic transmission path. Mark Streitfeld proposed an amendment provided in paper. Leone ruled it out of order for insufficient notice (notice not provided within 48 hours before the vote). Leone gave quite the harangue on the topic.  My first reaction was that he was overly harsh, but on second thought, I can see why he wanted to make an example to drive future behavior. Streitfeld moved to postpone to May 5th which was initially ruled to have failed by voice vote. I stood to request a standing vote, as did others. By standing vote we postponed 103-60.

Article 19 – Paint Removal. Christine Connally explained that this changes the lead paint bylaws to comply with state and local laws. Sandrelli Pct 16 – questioned and answered that houses after 1978 don’t need the EPA requirements. Complaints voiced by Andrew Fischer that the current bylaw is not well enforced. Voted affirmatively.

Article 20 – Pay-As-You-Throw trash collection.  Selectman Mahon explained that Ms. Rowe was ready to go forward with PAYT, and that is why Rowe voted against the Selectmen’s main motion which was more advisory and linked PAYT to an override. Mahon asked that the vote by postponed to 5/10 to permit the recycling committee to prepare a substitute motion (one that presumably includes a PAYT proposal). Article was postponed.

Article 21 – Senior Citizen Safety Zones. Chief Ryan explained that there were too many accidents involving senior citizens. He listed a few areas he might apply this traffic zone to including the Senior Center and Drake Village. But it was noted that many senior residences in town are on “numbered routes,” so the point is moot in many areas – the law would not permit safety zones on numbered routes. A speaker asking how many of the accidents were senior-on-senior accidents, and if the problem was actually poor drivers. Questions about how it would be signed were made, and the answer is as designated by the Board of Selectmen. John Worden notes that his house would qualify based on the language in the law. There was a discussion of what a “functionally arterial” road would be. One speaker wanted to make it enforceable on Mass Ave. Gordon Jamieson asked if we could use yellow warning signs instead. I think this zone would be a really bad idea if it was applied to Mass Ave and Summer St and other big roads.  Roads are a balance between pedestrians and bikes and cars, and I value being able to get across town in a reasonable amount of time.  However, I’m fine with this law because it only applies on a few side streets. Passed 143-14.

I was opposed to adjourning early, but we did at 10:50.  Start late, long break, end early leads to town meeting lasting until June!

LaCourt gave notice of reconsideration on 14. Marian King 15. Gordon Jamieson 16. John Deyst on 15.