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.