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

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

The meeting started at 8:02. Charles Gallagher played the national anthem. The invocation was given by Reverend John Marsh of the First Parish Unitarian Universalist church.

The moderator distributed copies of Town Meeting time. He talked about the slow pace of the meeting. An announcement unrelated to Town Meeting was made. Finance Chairman Allan Tosti announced that would ask to take up Articles 60 (Minuteman) and 53 (School budget) on Wednesday: the Minuteman Superintendent would be present for his budget, and the Arlington Superintendent would be out of town next week. The next meeting was set for May 21.

Article 2 – Reports.

• Anne LeRoyer and Leslie Mayer gave the report of the Open Space Committee. The 5-year open space review, mandated by the state, has been completed. [8:09].
• Pamela Meister and others gave the report of the 200th Celebration Committee. They presented a copy of the town’s enabling legislation to the town. [8:18] Selectman Greeley was a part of this presentation – I believe this was his first appearance at Town Meeting this year.
  
• Ron Spangler gave the report of the School Facilities Working Group. He reviewed the history and future plans of the group and the efforts to renovate the Stratton and Thompson schools. [8:31]

Article 54, Capital Budget, continued. The first speaker complained that the format of the vote had changed. It was answered that it had not changed. Chairman Tosti made a few comments on the budget, noting in particular that the vote did not make any decisions about the Crosby and Parmenter schools; any discussion of the disposition of those schools was for the future. Several speakers commented about the schools anyway. The budget was approved 153-3. A 2/3 vote is required for a sub-section of the vote because it is a bonding issue. When the town borrows money (bonds), it is requiring future town meetings to pay the debt. That is a 2/3 vote rather than a simple majority for regular spending.

Article 41, Increase In Accidental Death Benefits. Chairman of the Board of Selectmen Clarissa Rowe gave the recommendation of the Selectmen to retroactively extend the benefits. She said that it corrected an iniquity. She invited Retirement Administrator Richard Greco to speak, who explained the history and intent of the article. I debated whether to put this explanation in red text or black, and decided to use red just to be safe. The explanation: State law provides for more than one type of pension. Someone who works the required number of years and retires goes on what is referred to as “straight pension.” Someone who is disabled in the course of their job goes on what is called “disability pension.” The two pensions are treated very differently in state law. For a long time, veterans who went out on straight pension received an additional stipend depending on their length of service. After various lawsuits and changes to the law, in 2006 Town Meeting voted to grant the veteran’s stipend to people who were on disability pension. This particular article sought to extend the vote of 2006 to the surviving spouses of deceased veterans who had been on disability pension, at a cost of more than $100,000. Al Tosti gave the Finance Committee’s recommendation of no action. He said that it was bad precedent to extend benefits retroactively. The moderator accepted the Finance Committee’s recommendation as the main motion and the Selectmen’s as the substitute motion. Sometimes the determination of the main motion really matters. In this case, both sides were fairly prepared and the arguments had been circulated beforehand; I don’t think this ruling affected the outcome. Dean Carman spoke against the benefit and reported from his notes of 2006 that the representatives of the Retirement Board assured the Finance Committee that the 2006 action was the “last” and they would not seek additional benefits in this area. I thought Dean gave an excellent argument. He sorted through a lot of the confusing side issues and got down to some good points. Joe Roselli asked for additional minutes and was denied. He spoke in favor of the benefit. He recounted the history of the benefit and argued that it should be granted to those who died before it was available. [9:11] I spoke against the benefit. I noted that Town Meeting had considered this two years ago, and we’d adopted explicit language that excluded deceased veterans. There were questions about the state’s PERAC interpretation. The benefit failed by voice vote, with a result of no action.

Article 42 – Survivor Benefits. Both the Selectmen and Finance Committee endorsed this change. Mr. Greco explained the article. Everyone thought we passed this benefit in 2002, but the law we accepted in 2002 didn’t cover all of the retirees that we thought it did. This article brought us to where we thought we were. Passed. I heard a tiny little “no” from the back of the room. If you’re going to vote, do it with gusto!

Article 43 – 25-year Pension Adjustment. [9:21] Grants increases in pension to certain retirees if their pension has slipped below 50% of the current salary. Approved.

Article 44 – OPEB. Al Tosti spoke about Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB, aka retiree healthcare). He explained that the article transferred money from the old OPEB fund to the new trust fund, and further appropriated money from general tax and Medicare Part D payments into the trust fund. He amended the text related to the Medicare Part D payments. Gordon Jamieson offered a substitute motion. He would use the Medicare Part D funds to offset current health insurance costs and free up money for other programs. He would also appropriate retiree health care costs into the OPEB fund. Al Tosti, Town Manager Brian Sullivan, and Retirement Board Chair John Bilafer all spoke in favor of the FinComm motion. Debate was terminated. Jamieson rose to a point of order, asking if the FinComm vote was legal. The moderator asked Town Counsel John Maher if it was. Maher hedged a bit, then said that he thought it did not satisfy the law. I was very surprised to hear him say this. The Finance Committee had asked for his opinion on several aspects of the OPEB legislation. We’d heard him speak on several issues, some related, some not. He had plenty of opportunity to weigh in. I’ve racked my brain and read my notes, and I can’t find any hint of Maher’s disapproval of the proposed OPEB vote. Until the last possible minute, after debate was terminated, on the Town Meeting floor! This statement created consternation, and there were attempts to reopen debate that were ruled out of order. Jamieson’s substitute motion failed. I confess that I was so shocked with how this was going that my notes got really sketchy at this point. I don’t have a clear record of the vote on Jamieson’s motion. I think there was a general understanding that we’d have to reconsider this article, given how confused everyone was at the end. Tosti’s amendment passed. The main motion failed 56-59. Jamieson, Stephen Gilligan, and Michael Quinn all served notice of reconsideration. I’m going to include information in this comment from after the meeting; my notes are organized more by topic than by chronology. The following notes are mostly from after town meeting adjourned.

After the meeting several interested people gathered at the front of Town Hall, including Tosti, Maher, Bilafer, Carman, Jamieson, Finance Committee Vice-Chair Alan Jones, and others. [And a meta note – no women! I’ll have to save that discussion for another time.]

We reviewed the applicable legislation. The legislation was the result of a Home Rule petition, authored by John Bilafer, approved by Town Meeting and the state. The key problem was Section 3(b) that reads, in part, “. . . All payments for the purposes of the town’s costs of OPEB under this act shall be made from the OPEB Trust Fund.” OPEB, remember, is essentially retiree health care. The town’s portion of the cost of retiree health care is paid out of the insurance budget. The legislation says that this cannot continue; it must be paid out of OPEB.

After some discussion, and prompts from Carman and Bilafer, Maher modified his position that the proposed vote on Article 44 wasn’t legal. He agreed that the problem wasn’t in Article 44, but in the insurance budget. The money paid by the town to cover retirees’ health benefits was an OPEB cost, and it must be paid through the OPEB fund.

Various means of achieving that were discussed. One possibility that was considered was to split the insurance budget ($16,700,000) be split up. into roughly $10.5M for current employees, and $6M for retirees. The suggestion was to appropriate the $6M for retirees to the OPEB fund (rather than the insurance budget) and then have the insurance fund send bills to OPEB. The objection to this was that the division of the insurance budget would be tough to do accurately, and money appropriated to OPEB can never be recovered.

So far I’ve glossed over some details on the town’s health insurance for the sake of simplicity. Actually, the town does not have insurance in the traditional sense; the town self-insures. In practice the town has a health insurance fund. The town, its employees, and retirees all pay into this fund. They pay a premium that is set based on expected costs. Out of this fund the town pays the various health care companies who provide health care benefits. It’s not really insurance; the town pays exactly as much as it “experiences.” That means sometimes premiums are too high or too low, and are adjusted in the following cycle based on the previous cycle’s cost experience. This system has served the town well, but it does complicate the OPEB funding discussion because it mingles retirees with current employees.

Finally, it’s worth talking about what went wrong on this issue. What went wrong so that the Finance Committee and Town Counsel found out that they were in disagreement so late in the game? Part of the problem is in the way the issue was raised. Jamieson has had a longstanding beef with the usage of Medicare Part D funds (see here in 2006, 2007, and 2007); the committee had heard the argument and rejected it. What it did not hear during hearings, during debate, and not until after debate on the article was closed, was a legal question. Maher said after the meeting that he didn’t realize the problem until late in the process, while reviewing Jamieson’s motion. I wish he and Jamieson had sent up a flare on the legal issue at that point. And really, it would have been better to figure this out in 2005 when we were first working on the proposed legislation.

Article 45 – OPEB Transfer. Voted no action. My notes are still questionable at this point – things were moving fast and unexpectedly.

Article 46 – OPEB consultant. Tabled, based on the previous article’s confusion.

Article 47 – Pension Obligation Bonds. Stephen Gilligan moved to table, and it was approved.

Article 48 – Permissive Legislation. Voted no action.

Article 49 – Position Reclassification. Tosti explained that this was to cover positions that had changed over time. Passed.

Articles 50 and 51 – Collective Bargaining. Tabled while negotiations continue.

Article 52 – Revolving Funds. There was a call to revive the Uncle Sam committee. There was a question about the field fee receipts – the answer was roughly $65,000, but after the deadline. There was a question about the White Goods receipts, start, and balance. I put myself in the queue to speak, but passed. I had been intending to ask about the effectiveness of the White Good fund. In 2006, I argued that it was a slush fund with no metrics to judge success or failure. It’s been two years, and they only hired an employee a few months ago. I decided to let another year pass, this time with an employee, and then ask for an analysis of the success of the fund. Article approved.

Article 53 – Budgets. Each budget was announced, and interested parties shouted “hold” for the budgets of interest. There were questions about disposal of vehicles, the new IT department, leaf pickup schedules, energy costs, and salt. We made it all the way past budget 18 (DPW) and are ready for schools (budget 20). Meeting adjourned.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article 30 – Margaret Spengler Honor. Tabled.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The meeting adjourned, to resume debate on Monday.

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

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

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

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

Please vote “no action” on Article 27.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article 2 – Reports.

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

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

There was a break of about 15 minutes.

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

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

Article 22 – Alcoholic Beverages. Voted no action.

Article 23 – Entertainment Bylaw. Voted no action.

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

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

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

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

Bogus issues:

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

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

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

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

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

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

The meeting started a few minutes after 8. Charles Gallagher played the national anthem on the piano. Reverend Christine Elliot of Calvary Church, United Methodist gave the invocation.

Moderator Leone reminded that only town meeting members could be on the first floor (with exceptions). He described the voting procedure for the Assistant Town Moderator later that day.

Board of Selectmen Chairman Clarissa Rowe set the next meeting time for May 5. She also announced that the Amber Alert had been resolved and the baby found.

Gordon Jamieson gave a series of announcements about recycling and other environmental programs within the town.

Article 5 – Sign Permitting, part two. Dick Smith moved to reconsider Article 5. He said he had originally voted against it because he didn’t think there had been enough time and debate of proposed amendments. Town Counsel John Maher said that he believed the proposed bylaw was indeed legal, and had consulted with the attorney general’s office. Arlington Redevelopment Board (ARB) Member West explained several amendments that the ARB would propose if the article is reconsidered. He talked about the importance of “esthetically pleasing” signs in town. A speaker was against the original motion and advocated not reconsidering; another was just against reconsidering. A speaker advocated a revote given the questions on the eligibility of certain voters in the first vote. The question was moved. 105 people voted to reconsider the article, and 72 were against. Since reconsideration requires 2/3 vote in Arlington, the article was not reconsidered. The ARB sits on the right side of the hall (facing the front), and I generally sit in the right-hand seats. When standing votes are counted, someone counts the “front of the room” and other people count the sections of the seats. Based on what I saw/heard tonight, it looks like the ARB had been counted twice; Stephen Gilligan was counting them in the “right seats” and the front counter was counting them as “front seats.” If that was true on Monday (and I can’t confirm that), then the “yes” vote on Monday was inflated by duplicate counts of the ARB who all voted to support their motion.

Article 2 – Reports. The article was taken from the table. Charlie Foskett gave the report of the Capital Planning Committee (just in paper, with the verbal to come later). He also asked the Symmes Advisory Committee to be dissolved since the ARB is running the show now. The committee was dissolved.

Article 6 – Neon Signs. With Article 5 failed, Article 6 was voted no action.

Article 7 – Blade and Bracket Signs. With Article 5 failed, Article 7 was voted no action.

Article 13 – Sandwich Board Signs. ARB Member Roland Chaput explained that the article was not ready and would be back next year. Voted no action.

Article 14 – Truck Signs. ARB Member Roland Chaput attempted to explain the article. He said it was to prohibit trucks-as-signs, where the sign was their whole purpose of existence. It would not affect trucks-with-signs, like a regular advertisement on the side of a work vehicle, and the truck actually carried people and equipment or cargo. There was a question about whether it regulated political speech, and Counsel Maher again said that limiting such speech was a bad idea. Note to any reading ARB members: please make sure to write political speech exceptions into future signage articles. Zoning that limits political speech is wrong, it is not enforceable, and it makes it hard for people like me to vote for your articles. And this isn’t a newsflash, either – a quick check of my notes shows that the issue has been in 2004, 2005, and 2006 Town Meetings. There were questions that lead Kevin O’Brien to say that this bylaw only applied to vehicles parked on private property. Chaput later said that it applied to any vehicle that wasn’t moving – private or public property. I spoke to this and gave a series of questions to lead people through this conflict. Really, a very frustrating point. The ARB did not have their act together. They did not have a common understanding of the effect of their proposed bylaw change! Based on what I heard, I think Kevin O’Brien has it right. This zoning change would not affect the sign-trucks that drive through town, or even park on Mass Ave. The bylaw would only affect trucks parked in private lots. Think of someone who isn’t allowed to have a billboard on their property, but parks an 18-wheeler instead and paints it. That would be illegal under this proposal. Several speakers spoke against the article and asked questions about the effect of the bylaw. Several of the speakers said some pretty silly things. One person suggested this bylaw would violate the Interstate Commerce Act; he didn’t have the vaguest clue what he was talking about, and was just trying to scare people into voting against the article. Another suggested that if this article passed some truckers would be unemployed and end up in soup kitchens. Tommy Caccavaro said that “If you don’t like the way Arlington is now, you should move out of town.” Really? If I want to help make Arlington a better place, I should move out? Sorry, I’m sticking around. Gregory Flaherty of the Zoning Bylaw Review committee, and a proponent of the original article spoke. He said that he had thought the bylaw affected trucks on public road. Now that he understood that he didn’t, he thought the article was moot. The article failed. I voted against. The political speech problem, the confusion about what the effect was, and my basic aversion to regulation made this an easy vote.

Article 4 – Election of Assistant Town Moderator. Rich Carreiro and William Logan each spoke for a few minutes. After the break, Rich Carreiro was announced the winner 122-60. I may have the vote count wrong by a few votes.

Article 15 – Home Rule Legislation for Affordable Housing. Clarissa Rowe and Chris Loreti explained that this legislation would enable the town to make deed restrictions on affordable housing in the Symmes project be permanent, not temporary. Those restrictions would apply to families with income up to 120% of the median household income. I spoke against the article because I questioned wisdom of the public policy that provides housing pricing restriction for such a large fraction of the population. I did not want to make that policy permanent. I want to do that speech over again, but with more preparation! I had half of my argument researched, but hadn’t realized how threadbare the other half was. Here’s the short version of what I’m trying to say: It’s one thing to try to provide affordable housing to the small, poorest fraction of the public. It’s another to try to subsidize housing for 2/3 of the population. This proposal does the latter, and it makes the policy permanent. Brian Rehrig, speaking after I did, said that I was opposed to the affordable housing policy. He was both right and wrong. I wasn’t trying to fight the whole policy; I was trying to fight this expansion of the policy. In the final analysis he is correct. I think a better solution for affordable housing is to build more housing. Simply subsidizing some segments of our existing housing stock is an expensive dead-end. But that’s the big picture. In the very specific scope of this article, I was trying, very poorly, to fight an expansion and extension of the policy. I have a slew of other thoughts on this debate, and how I could have made a better case, but I’m running out of time tonight. Several speakers were in favor of the policy. They preferred that there be no “windfall” when the affordability expires. They wanted to preserve the “benefits of the Symmes agreement.” Alan Jones made an amendment to remove some of the more inflammatory language from the first article. Kevin Koch made an amendment to make all of the affordable housing restrictions permanent. Koch’s argument failed. Jones’s argument carried. The main motion carried, 155-3.

Article 16 – The Selectmen are still discussing this, and the article was tabled.

Article 17 – Town Meeting Warrant Opening/Closing. Clarissa Rowe and Town Meeting Procedures Committee Member John Worden explained that the Selectmen were at least partially addressing this through their own internal rule changes. The warrant will remain open until closer to Town Meeting. Voted no action.

Article 18 – Permit the Moderator to Limit Debate for Certain Issues. Worden explained some of the reasons for a it. A series of speakers were opposed to it. The reasons ranged from it being not needed, harming a core value of town meeting, violating the sense of free speech, and preventing debate on important issues. The article failed.

Article 19 – Creation of Affordable Housing Trust. Selectman and Affordable Housing Task Force (AHTF) Member Jack Hurd explained that the Board of Selectme’s recommendation of no action. The article has language problems, as also noted by the Finance Committee. He said that any incoming money would be collected and protected in a proper fund. A vote on a trust would come in the future. Patricia Worden proposed a substitute motion that would create a trust fund, and asked for an extra 4 minutes for her speech, which was granted. Over the next 14 minutes she accused the Board of Selectmen of neglecting their fiduciary responsibility, accused the Finance Committee of not responding to her questions about potential liability, denied that a trust would have any liability for the town, demanded that the AHTF be dissolved, claimed that she had information that a developer on the Brattle Street 40B development had an “inside track,” and claimed that the town would lose a million dollars or more over the next year if the trust was not created. She also said that the Community Preservation Act was not relevant to the discussion. She believes that the trust fund, controlled by trustees, was the appropriate governmental vehicle (along with the Arlington Housing Authority) to manage Arlington’s affordable housing work. Charlie Foskett spoke next and said that the trust would certainly carry liability for the town. He invited members to look at the authorizing legislation and make their own judgement. He suggested that the trust’s power to hire, fire, enter contracts, purchase property, and manage property were activities that inherently carried liability. He asked a question of Town Counsel, but the meeting adjourned before his answer. I will absolutely be voting no action. I’ve talked to several members of the AHTF, and they all believe that a special account will be enough. There will be no money lost. The trust is not needed. As far as I can tell, only the Wordens think this is a good idea.