{"id":772,"date":"2010-05-13T01:55:17","date_gmt":"2010-05-13T05:55:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/dandunn.org\/blog\/?p=772"},"modified":"2010-05-13T07:41:48","modified_gmt":"2010-05-13T11:41:48","slug":"town-meeting-10-session-6","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dandunn.org\/blog\/2010\/05\/town-meeting-10-session-6\/","title":{"rendered":"Town Meeting \u00e2\u20ac\u02dc10 Session 6"},"content":{"rendered":"

I take notes during Town Meeting. They are not official in any way. As I listen to people speak, I type notes. I\u00e2\u20ac\u2122m 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.<\/em><\/p>\n

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<\/span>.<\/em><\/p>\n

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).<\/p>\n

As I walked in, John Maher was making an announcement that I missed.
\nRoly Chaput announced an unveiling at the Dallin Museum this weekend<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Article 24 – Donation Program<\/strong>. Harry McCabe says the Council on Aging does not have a substitute motion. Voted no action.<\/p>\n

Article 28 – Pension Liability Funding.<\/strong> Tabled. (We had tabled this already<\/a>, but took it off the table on Monday; now it’s back on.)<\/p>\n

Article 29 and 30 – Crosby and Parmenter Disposition.<\/strong> 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\u00c2\u00a0Arlington; 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.<\/span> 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. <\/span> 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. \u00c2\u00a0Much 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! \u00c2\u00a0The 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.<\/span><\/p>\n

We had an 11 minute break.<\/p>\n

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. \u00c2\u00a0The 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. \u00c2\u00a0They have no deadlines. \u00c2\u00a0If they want to sell it, they must get Town Meeting approval.<\/span><\/p>\n

Article 30 – Parmenter version<\/strong>. Amendment failed on voice, BoS motion passed 153-4.<\/p>\n

Article 31 – Crosby Disposition.<\/strong> Selectman Diane Mahon endorsed the Selectmen’s resolution and moved an amendment to change the words “gross\u00c2\u00a0receipts” to “net receipts” with the intent that net <\/strong>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. \u00c2\u00a0Loreti claimed that we can keep the buildings for $10,000 per year in capital expense<\/a>. 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. \u00c2\u00a0The long-term capital expenses of these buildings greatly exceeds the $10,000 he claimed.<\/span> 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\u00c2\u00a0decision. I wasn’t quite finished writing my speech, and it suffered. \u00c2\u00a0Not my best speaking. \u00c2\u00a0Wish I could do that one again. <\/span> 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. \u00c2\u00a0Debate was terminated. \u00c2\u00a0We 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.<\/span><\/p>\n

Article 32 – Parmenter Disposition.<\/strong> The exact same votes were taken by voice vote, and the original resolution, as amended, was approved.<\/p>\n

Article 33 – Town Reorganization Committee. <\/strong> 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.<\/p>\n

Article 34 – Consolidation.<\/strong> 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. \u00c2\u00a0You can read more in my previous post on <\/span>budgeting<\/span><\/a>.<\/span> Phelps moves the question. Approved on voice vote.<\/p>\n

Article 36 – Canine Control. <\/strong> We picked up where we left off<\/a> 10 days ago. \u00c2\u00a0Andrew Fischer moved Sue Doctrow’s motion of May 5th<\/a>. 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\u00c2\u00a0public\u00c2\u00a0spaces. 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. <\/span>A motion to adjourn was defeated, and a couple more speakers went. \u00c2\u00a0Horowitz moved the question. My hero! So glad to get this vote done with.<\/span> Doctrow’s original motion of April 28th went down by voice vote. \u00c2\u00a0We changed 3 dogs to 2 on voice vote. \u00c2\u00a0Doctrow’s May 5th motion was substituted (approved) 80-74. There was cheering at that point, and I don’t think it was appropriate. \u00c2\u00a0I agree with the outcome, but I know what it’s like to lose a close vote. \u00c2\u00a0Cheering is adding insult to injury, and makes for hard feelings.<\/span> 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.<\/p>\n

Brian Rehrig gave notice of reconsideration on 36; Michael Quinn on 36; Al Tosti on\u00c2\u00a033 and 34.<\/p>\n

We adjourned.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

I take notes during Town Meeting. They are not official in any way. As I listen to people speak, I type notes. I\u00e2\u20ac\u2122m 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 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2,33],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-772","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-arlington","category-town-meeting-10"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/dandunn.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/772","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/dandunn.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/dandunn.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dandunn.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dandunn.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=772"}],"version-history":[{"count":9,"href":"https:\/\/dandunn.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/772\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":780,"href":"https:\/\/dandunn.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/772\/revisions\/780"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/dandunn.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=772"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dandunn.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=772"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dandunn.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=772"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}