Night Three was quite productive. We started with the news that the AG's office had already approved the results of the special town meeting we concluded last Wednesday. The new leaf blower regulations will go into effect before May 15. We also had a visit from students from our Japanese sister city. (I was glad they left before the bigoted "no speak English" comment by one of the members during the discussion on gas stations.)
We started with Article 13, bringing the town's dog regulations into line with the new state laws. We passed them without too much discussion. We also voted to maintain the existing self-serve gas regulation. I had voted to accept a substitute motion that would have required stations offering self-serve to also offer full-serve when requested, but that was defeated. I felt it would be better to have a reasonable fall-back position should the main motion pass. In the end, it failed, which maintains the status quo.
Articles 15 and 17 were resolutions where Town Meeting asks the Selectmen to take a certain position. We cannot make them do it; we just ask really nicely. The first was in regards to the replacement of light poles in town. The Selectmen had voted down a proposed resolution requiring them to pressure the utility companies to make all the poles in town safe by eliminating the double poles. There was a lot of discussion about what the BoS can really do, but in the end, we approved a substitute motion to have them try. The second one was a request to change the fee structure for on-street overnight parking permits. These are researched and granted to houses having no on-site parking options, like the row of houses on Highland. The current fee is $200 per year, which exceeds the amount needed to administer the program. The resolution that we passed requested that the first year fee be $150 with subsequent years being $25. This better reflects the actual costs borne by the town. I voted for the substitute motion and the final resolution, because this effects a fair number of constituents in this district.
Articles 16, 18, 19, 20, 22, and 26 all were recommended for no action, and without substitute motions, all were approved without action. I abstained on Article 21 which sought an exception for someone older than the application age to be on the interview list for a police position. I did not believe it to be my place to judge this individual's request; that should be the responsibility of the BoS and Police Department. His application was approved by the meeting.
The article seeking to create a fund to receive funds for public art created some interesting discussion. There was a call to reject the article because at some future date Town Meeting might vote to put money in that fund. Glad we don't trust ourselves. We did vote to create the fund. The Meeting also voted to approve a 50% raise for the Retirement Board. It was intended to compensate the board members for additional duties related to confirming they have no conflicts and other safeguards. I didn't see the need for such an increase, so I voted against it. It ended passing by 7 votes.
We finished the night with the first of the financial articles. We approved the Community Development Block Grant allocation and the continuation of the town's revolving funds. We also signed off on collective bargaining and position reclassification. The next article was to be the budget, but being almost 11:00, we voted to adjourn. We'll take that up on Wednesday.
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
Thursday, April 25, 2013
2013 Town Meeting - Night Two
As Dana Carvey said, "Hmmm... isn't that special." Tonight was the Special Town Meeting in the middle of the Annual Town Meeting. We undertake this maneuver because the decisions of Town Meeting can only go into effect after the Attorney General's office has reviewed and accepted the results. The Annual won't be complete for a few more weeks, and there will be a lot to review. Having a Special early allows us to quickly send those results to the AG's office for approval, which means that they can go into effect much sooner.
We started the evening with the AHS Madrigal Singers presenting the national anthem. They were fantastic, and they entertained us with several other songs as well. If you are unfamiliar with the caliber of musical performance at the high school, you really owe it to yourself to check it out.
First up tonight was everyone's favorite topic ... leaf blowers! It appears that the compromise committee that was put into effect after last fall's special meeting was sharply divided between the landscaping representatives and the restriction proponents. My opinion from reading the proposal and listening to the presentations was that the "compromise" was very heavily weighted towards the opponents of the restrictions. As one member pointed out, going from 150 days without blowers to only 15 isn't meeting in the middle.
I rose to ask a few questions. The moderator clarified that the committee wasn't going to be presenting a report, only the recommended vote. I felt a real report would have been more helpful in understanding how the committee came to the recommendations it made. The chair of the compromise committee indicated that the final votes were 7-3 on all proposed sections with three members not present for the final votes. My main questions were how the article would be applied to the residents and how it was going to be enforced. The way it was written, there is ban on blower use from mid-June to mid-October, with exceptions for Monday through Saturday (i.e. - only Sundays in the summer and early fall are banned). In addition, only one blower can be used on small lots, breaks must be observed, debris cannot leave the yard, minimal power settings should be used, and starting next summer, the maximum sound level for commercial blowers must be lower than 74 dB. However, the final section states that "The restrictions set forth herein shall not apply to homeowners..." My question for Town Council was, since only the hours, lot size, and breaks are referred to as "restrictions", are they the only items that don't apply to residents, or do the others not apply as well. Her opinion was that nothing applies to residents. I was assured that the debris issue was included elsewhere in the bylaws, so that would still be in effect. However, residents will still be allowed to use the maximum power settings into the late evening. I don't agree with that interpretation, but such it is. I was also advised that the Board of Health and the Police Department were responsible for enforcement. Complaints should first be brought to the attention of the blower, but the next call might need to be to the police.
There was a proposed amendment and a substitute motion. The substitute was to postpone enactment for a year and constitute a new committee without commercial interest being an integral part of the makeup of the committee. While this was tempting, I voted against it because it would not allow the existing summer restrictions to come into effect. My constituents who have contacted me over the previous two years have almost all requested the summer restrictions remain in place. The substitute motion was not adopted. The amendment was to replace "gasoline-powered leaf blowers" with "leaf blowers with internal combustion engines". This was proposed because there are other fuels that can be used, specifically propane. I after hearing the discussion, I chose to vote against the change, because it sounds like the propane would actually be better than the gasoline. However, this amendment passed.
The final vote, despite my opposition, was to adopt the amended "compromise" language. I encourage all residents to be on their best behavior as this goes into effect, be civil when dealing with disagreements, and really look to the police as a last resort. If anyone wants to volunteer to be the test case for residents using the maximum power setting, be my guest.
The next article was a proposed appropriation of $25K to build a "semi-permanent" structure near the Uncle Sam statue to be used as a visitor center. Most speakers liked the notion, but some were concerned about the siting, the maintenance, the possibility that another town department would procure the building and more it elsewhere, and the possibility of "tagging". My opinion has always been that the only way to deal with a bad person with a spray can was to have a good person with a spray can. This, however, was not recommended. (Neither was a good person with a leaf blower...) In the end, I voted with the majority in approving the funds. I hope it can lead to increased tourism and more revenue for our businesses.
The last article of the evening was a proposed ban on small PET water bottle sales. The Board of Selectmen had rejected the original proposal by the Arlington SAVE club at their hearing on the article. An amended version of the proposal was presented before Town Meeting as a substitute motion. (A possible second substitute was not presented.) The revised language included a provision allowing for the sale of bottled water at special events with prior approval from the BoS. This was something I had requested at the Selectman's hearing on behalf of the Friends of Robbins Farm Park. (I am the events coordinator, and it is really important the we have water available for our public events.) The proponents had a great presentation, the manager of Stop n' Shop spoke in opposition to the proposal, and all the speakers following also spoke in opposition. In the end, I voted against the substitute motion, because I don't believe it's implementation would have accomplished the reduction in PET bottles that was the intent of the article. The motion was not substituted, and the Selectman's recommendation of no action was accepted. We quickly adjourned.
We started the evening with the AHS Madrigal Singers presenting the national anthem. They were fantastic, and they entertained us with several other songs as well. If you are unfamiliar with the caliber of musical performance at the high school, you really owe it to yourself to check it out.
First up tonight was everyone's favorite topic ... leaf blowers! It appears that the compromise committee that was put into effect after last fall's special meeting was sharply divided between the landscaping representatives and the restriction proponents. My opinion from reading the proposal and listening to the presentations was that the "compromise" was very heavily weighted towards the opponents of the restrictions. As one member pointed out, going from 150 days without blowers to only 15 isn't meeting in the middle.
I rose to ask a few questions. The moderator clarified that the committee wasn't going to be presenting a report, only the recommended vote. I felt a real report would have been more helpful in understanding how the committee came to the recommendations it made. The chair of the compromise committee indicated that the final votes were 7-3 on all proposed sections with three members not present for the final votes. My main questions were how the article would be applied to the residents and how it was going to be enforced. The way it was written, there is ban on blower use from mid-June to mid-October, with exceptions for Monday through Saturday (i.e. - only Sundays in the summer and early fall are banned). In addition, only one blower can be used on small lots, breaks must be observed, debris cannot leave the yard, minimal power settings should be used, and starting next summer, the maximum sound level for commercial blowers must be lower than 74 dB. However, the final section states that "The restrictions set forth herein shall not apply to homeowners..." My question for Town Council was, since only the hours, lot size, and breaks are referred to as "restrictions", are they the only items that don't apply to residents, or do the others not apply as well. Her opinion was that nothing applies to residents. I was assured that the debris issue was included elsewhere in the bylaws, so that would still be in effect. However, residents will still be allowed to use the maximum power settings into the late evening. I don't agree with that interpretation, but such it is. I was also advised that the Board of Health and the Police Department were responsible for enforcement. Complaints should first be brought to the attention of the blower, but the next call might need to be to the police.
There was a proposed amendment and a substitute motion. The substitute was to postpone enactment for a year and constitute a new committee without commercial interest being an integral part of the makeup of the committee. While this was tempting, I voted against it because it would not allow the existing summer restrictions to come into effect. My constituents who have contacted me over the previous two years have almost all requested the summer restrictions remain in place. The substitute motion was not adopted. The amendment was to replace "gasoline-powered leaf blowers" with "leaf blowers with internal combustion engines". This was proposed because there are other fuels that can be used, specifically propane. I after hearing the discussion, I chose to vote against the change, because it sounds like the propane would actually be better than the gasoline. However, this amendment passed.
The final vote, despite my opposition, was to adopt the amended "compromise" language. I encourage all residents to be on their best behavior as this goes into effect, be civil when dealing with disagreements, and really look to the police as a last resort. If anyone wants to volunteer to be the test case for residents using the maximum power setting, be my guest.
The next article was a proposed appropriation of $25K to build a "semi-permanent" structure near the Uncle Sam statue to be used as a visitor center. Most speakers liked the notion, but some were concerned about the siting, the maintenance, the possibility that another town department would procure the building and more it elsewhere, and the possibility of "tagging". My opinion has always been that the only way to deal with a bad person with a spray can was to have a good person with a spray can. This, however, was not recommended. (Neither was a good person with a leaf blower...) In the end, I voted with the majority in approving the funds. I hope it can lead to increased tourism and more revenue for our businesses.
The last article of the evening was a proposed ban on small PET water bottle sales. The Board of Selectmen had rejected the original proposal by the Arlington SAVE club at their hearing on the article. An amended version of the proposal was presented before Town Meeting as a substitute motion. (A possible second substitute was not presented.) The revised language included a provision allowing for the sale of bottled water at special events with prior approval from the BoS. This was something I had requested at the Selectman's hearing on behalf of the Friends of Robbins Farm Park. (I am the events coordinator, and it is really important the we have water available for our public events.) The proponents had a great presentation, the manager of Stop n' Shop spoke in opposition to the proposal, and all the speakers following also spoke in opposition. In the end, I voted against the substitute motion, because I don't believe it's implementation would have accomplished the reduction in PET bottles that was the intent of the article. The motion was not substituted, and the Selectman's recommendation of no action was accepted. We quickly adjourned.
Tuesday, April 23, 2013
2013 Town Meeting - Night One
Arlington's Annual Town Meeting started up tonight. We made reasonable progress. It was nice to have most of the expected reports submitted on the first night for a change. I hope that will keep things moving right along.
We started with the easy moves of reelecting Elsie Fiore as the Measurer of Wood and Bark and James O'Connor as the Assistant Moderator.
The zoning bylaw changes were next. There were only three, because the town is preparing a new master plan, and that will likely propose changes to the zoning. In the meantime, we are only making smaller changes. The recommended vote on accessory apartments was for no action, so we passed on it. We had a long discussion regarding marijuana dispensaries. In the end, I voted with the minority for the proposed bylaw (the article failed) and with the majority for the one-year moratorium. We will need to come back next year and put zoning restrictions into place.
Next was a vote to approve an easement from the town to allow Verizon to move a few poles so the Thompson School could have a better drop-off area. That passed easily. We also voted to change "junk" dealers to "second-hand" dealers; the older language is from the State, but new store owners found it offensive. We then passed on Article 11 regarding changing the restrictions on certain town properties - the no action recommendation was confirmed.
The most debated article of the night was regarding the adoption of electronic voting during town meeting. There was an excellent presentation and a lively debate. In the end, we voted for open accountability, and passed both the authorizing language in the bylaw and a sum of money to be used next year to fund a pilot program. We then adjourned for the night.
If you have any questions about my votes or what happened at the meeting, please send me a note.
We started with the easy moves of reelecting Elsie Fiore as the Measurer of Wood and Bark and James O'Connor as the Assistant Moderator.
The zoning bylaw changes were next. There were only three, because the town is preparing a new master plan, and that will likely propose changes to the zoning. In the meantime, we are only making smaller changes. The recommended vote on accessory apartments was for no action, so we passed on it. We had a long discussion regarding marijuana dispensaries. In the end, I voted with the minority for the proposed bylaw (the article failed) and with the majority for the one-year moratorium. We will need to come back next year and put zoning restrictions into place.
Next was a vote to approve an easement from the town to allow Verizon to move a few poles so the Thompson School could have a better drop-off area. That passed easily. We also voted to change "junk" dealers to "second-hand" dealers; the older language is from the State, but new store owners found it offensive. We then passed on Article 11 regarding changing the restrictions on certain town properties - the no action recommendation was confirmed.
The most debated article of the night was regarding the adoption of electronic voting during town meeting. There was an excellent presentation and a lively debate. In the end, we voted for open accountability, and passed both the authorizing language in the bylaw and a sum of money to be used next year to fund a pilot program. We then adjourned for the night.
If you have any questions about my votes or what happened at the meeting, please send me a note.
Monday, May 21, 2012
2012 Town Meeting - Withdrawal
Tonight is the first night off from Town meeting, but in many ways, it still feels like it is continuing. There are a few decisions that seem to have drawn the ire some residents, and there are a lot of words going back and forth on the Arlington List and other local media. Although the meeting is over, I will take a few lines to explain my votes on these items.
Leaf Blowers: I voted for having a summer moratorium on gas powered leaf blowers. There were several reasons put forward regarding noise, exhaust, blown toxins, and the lack of the above in opposition. I was very turned off by the "this is my town - do it my way" arguments made by a couple of speakers. In the end, I was drawn to the proposal where the blowers are allowed during the peak leaf and lawn clearing seasons, but not allowed during the summer months, where they are mostly used to clear mowing debris off hard surfaces. This is also the time of year when windows are likely to be open, exacerbating issues with noise and blown dust. Using a broom 20 times over the summer in exchange for a more peaceful environment is a fair trade to me.
Football Helmets: I voted against having the town (as opposed to the schools) pay for football helmets. The school department had already agreed to pay almost the full amount requested in the initial warrant article. The substitute motion would have doubled the appropriation with all the money going to one school sport. On principle, I opposed the article, because I think it is bad policy to start funding specific school costs from the general town budget. In future, we could be asked to fund lab equipment, art supplies, or any other cost that parents feel is not being appropriately funded by the school department. I agree with the proponent that this is a serious matter in need of immediate action. I just don't think this is a matter for the town; it should remain with the schools.
Mass Ave Corridor: I opposed both articles intended to slow or stop the Mass Ave project. I thought revoking the eminent domain granted last year was a poor way to try and derail the road project, as it has no direct was of doing that. All it would do is lead to poorly constructed sidewalks without curb cuts for the elderly and disabled. I was also taken aback by the assertions that I didn't know what I was doing then, so I should vote differently now. I knew the facts then, and I know them now, and I will not change that vote. I was also opposed to putting a non-binding question on the ballot. As was stated on the floor, if the article passed, the vote would not come up until next spring, and the project could very well be underway by then, rendering such a vote moot at best and disruptive at the worst. The wording used for these questions need to be carefully and evenly stated. The proponent's language about trading the historic character by reducing to 3 lanes could easily have read changing the archaic character by increasing the width to a modern five lanes. Both statements are factually correct depending on your point of view. However, I hope we can agree that the outcome could be quite different depending on which question you put before the voters.
If anything else was controversial, I have likely blocked it from my mind. I'm just glad to be home, paying my bills, catching up on life, and looking forward to getting back some sleep.
Leaf Blowers: I voted for having a summer moratorium on gas powered leaf blowers. There were several reasons put forward regarding noise, exhaust, blown toxins, and the lack of the above in opposition. I was very turned off by the "this is my town - do it my way" arguments made by a couple of speakers. In the end, I was drawn to the proposal where the blowers are allowed during the peak leaf and lawn clearing seasons, but not allowed during the summer months, where they are mostly used to clear mowing debris off hard surfaces. This is also the time of year when windows are likely to be open, exacerbating issues with noise and blown dust. Using a broom 20 times over the summer in exchange for a more peaceful environment is a fair trade to me.
Football Helmets: I voted against having the town (as opposed to the schools) pay for football helmets. The school department had already agreed to pay almost the full amount requested in the initial warrant article. The substitute motion would have doubled the appropriation with all the money going to one school sport. On principle, I opposed the article, because I think it is bad policy to start funding specific school costs from the general town budget. In future, we could be asked to fund lab equipment, art supplies, or any other cost that parents feel is not being appropriately funded by the school department. I agree with the proponent that this is a serious matter in need of immediate action. I just don't think this is a matter for the town; it should remain with the schools.
Mass Ave Corridor: I opposed both articles intended to slow or stop the Mass Ave project. I thought revoking the eminent domain granted last year was a poor way to try and derail the road project, as it has no direct was of doing that. All it would do is lead to poorly constructed sidewalks without curb cuts for the elderly and disabled. I was also taken aback by the assertions that I didn't know what I was doing then, so I should vote differently now. I knew the facts then, and I know them now, and I will not change that vote. I was also opposed to putting a non-binding question on the ballot. As was stated on the floor, if the article passed, the vote would not come up until next spring, and the project could very well be underway by then, rendering such a vote moot at best and disruptive at the worst. The wording used for these questions need to be carefully and evenly stated. The proponent's language about trading the historic character by reducing to 3 lanes could easily have read changing the archaic character by increasing the width to a modern five lanes. Both statements are factually correct depending on your point of view. However, I hope we can agree that the outcome could be quite different depending on which question you put before the voters.
If anything else was controversial, I have likely blocked it from my mind. I'm just glad to be home, paying my bills, catching up on life, and looking forward to getting back some sleep.
Thursday, May 17, 2012
2012 Town Meeting - Night Eight
We're Done! I really didn't see how we would get there, but we finished all the articles and dissolved a little before 11:30. I'd like to express my appreciation for all the good work done by the members, the town officials, and especially, the moderator. But I'm getting ahead of myself.
We started with a rousing singing of "God Bless America" and "The Star Spangled Banner", led by Mr Greeley and some group of singers - I didn't catch the name. (It seemed to be mostly made up of town officials.) We started with a vote to keep the Gibbs School under the management of the Town Manager until 2017. Next was a positive vote to place extra money from the special education budget into a reserve account against a future year where there may be a deficit.
After discussing the best way to encourage coordination between various town committees and non-profits to promote Arlington's historic legacy, we voted to approve funds to start a signage campaign. We also approved a separate amount for the Uncle Sam committee. We approved appropriations for the Harry Barber community service program, pension adjustments, post employment benefits, the overlay reserve, the long term stabilization fund, and the tip fee stabilization fund. We approved a transfer to the cemetery commission and use free cash to offset the tax rate.
There was a very good presentation about the need to replace football helmets with safer, newer models. The issue was whether the town should separately appropriate $25K after the school department had appropriated $22K for the same purpose. There was a lot of confusion over why a substitute motion was filed to essentially double the amount of the initial request. We voted down the additional request substitute motion and adopted the recommended no action position. I felt this was a matter for the school department anyway. We also voted no action on senior center furniture funding, a flood study (Selectmen are working on it), and a GIS study of affordable housing.
We also had two votes related to the Mass Ave corridor project. The first was an attempt to institute a substitute motion to rescind the eminent domain approved last year to replace sidewalks in East Arlington in conjunction with the project. The two presentations by the supporters claimed that we were misled last year into making an incorrect decision, and we need to stop the Mass Ave project until changes are made. Having served last year, I knew exactly what I voted for, and judging by the 132-40 vote against adopting the substitute motion, many others felt the same way. The second substitute motion was to put a non-binding question on the ballot asking whether Mass Ave should be reduced to three lanes. I felt the presentation in favor didn't make a strong case. We were repeatedly told that the town was divided 15-1 against this project, but again, the meeting voted strongly against the substitute motion. In both cases, the votes reverted to no-action, and were dismissed.
We had a vote to adjourn defeated, since there were only four articles left. We had no action votes on an over-age officer candidate and use of outside council. We had single pro-con presentations on a resolution in opposition to the Citizens United case. The final vote was 190-42 in favor of the resolution. We then went back to approve putting funding in place for future collective bargain agreements; the agreements have to be approved by town meeting anyway. We then dissolved the meeting and headed home.
We started with a rousing singing of "God Bless America" and "The Star Spangled Banner", led by Mr Greeley and some group of singers - I didn't catch the name. (It seemed to be mostly made up of town officials.) We started with a vote to keep the Gibbs School under the management of the Town Manager until 2017. Next was a positive vote to place extra money from the special education budget into a reserve account against a future year where there may be a deficit.
After discussing the best way to encourage coordination between various town committees and non-profits to promote Arlington's historic legacy, we voted to approve funds to start a signage campaign. We also approved a separate amount for the Uncle Sam committee. We approved appropriations for the Harry Barber community service program, pension adjustments, post employment benefits, the overlay reserve, the long term stabilization fund, and the tip fee stabilization fund. We approved a transfer to the cemetery commission and use free cash to offset the tax rate.
There was a very good presentation about the need to replace football helmets with safer, newer models. The issue was whether the town should separately appropriate $25K after the school department had appropriated $22K for the same purpose. There was a lot of confusion over why a substitute motion was filed to essentially double the amount of the initial request. We voted down the additional request substitute motion and adopted the recommended no action position. I felt this was a matter for the school department anyway. We also voted no action on senior center furniture funding, a flood study (Selectmen are working on it), and a GIS study of affordable housing.
We also had two votes related to the Mass Ave corridor project. The first was an attempt to institute a substitute motion to rescind the eminent domain approved last year to replace sidewalks in East Arlington in conjunction with the project. The two presentations by the supporters claimed that we were misled last year into making an incorrect decision, and we need to stop the Mass Ave project until changes are made. Having served last year, I knew exactly what I voted for, and judging by the 132-40 vote against adopting the substitute motion, many others felt the same way. The second substitute motion was to put a non-binding question on the ballot asking whether Mass Ave should be reduced to three lanes. I felt the presentation in favor didn't make a strong case. We were repeatedly told that the town was divided 15-1 against this project, but again, the meeting voted strongly against the substitute motion. In both cases, the votes reverted to no-action, and were dismissed.
We had a vote to adjourn defeated, since there were only four articles left. We had no action votes on an over-age officer candidate and use of outside council. We had single pro-con presentations on a resolution in opposition to the Citizens United case. The final vote was 190-42 in favor of the resolution. We then went back to approve putting funding in place for future collective bargain agreements; the agreements have to be approved by town meeting anyway. We then dissolved the meeting and headed home.
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
2012 Town Meeting - Night Seven
I was a few minutes late to tonight's meeting; I was taking the kids to karate. I arrived during the continuation of the debate on leaf blowers. Although I missed the presentation of a second substitute motion, I agreed with its intent to limit leaf blower use the spring and fall when the need is greatest. I voted for this substitute motion and for the final motion. I think many of us were surprised when it passed 95-85 with only 71% voting.
We then moved on to article 40, the town budgets. There was a significant amount of discussion regarding the school budget. I asked about the street light budget, and the 20%+ savings projected for next year in both energy use and maintenance are due to the town's adoption of LED street lights and traffic signals. In the end, the budgets were approved unanimously. We adjourned with high hopes of finishing on Wednesday.
We then moved on to article 40, the town budgets. There was a significant amount of discussion regarding the school budget. I asked about the street light budget, and the 20%+ savings projected for next year in both energy use and maintenance are due to the town's adoption of LED street lights and traffic signals. In the end, the budgets were approved unanimously. We adjourned with high hopes of finishing on Wednesday.
Thursday, May 10, 2012
2012 Town Meeting - Night Six
Welcome to the end of week three. We picked up with our discussion regarding rubbish collection. The proposal was to require leftover garbage on the curb be removed before 9:00pm that day. There were two amendments intended to extend that period in case trash pickup was delayed or skipped. In the end we went with the more succinct language extending the period to 9:00pm the day after normal pickup. This was the final action of the special town meeting, which was then adjourned.
The next item was an attempt to reconsider article 32 regarding merging town departments. The proponent felt that by agreeing to accept the report, we were starting down the consolidation path, and he wanted to prohibit further research on this topic until it could be acted upon by Town Meeting next year. The vote did not meet the threshold, and the article remained closed.
The next three articles dealt with Minuteman Tech. The first was a request to the Minuteman retirement board to allow the town to repay the court judgement against it over a period of ten years rather than all at once. The is related to pension obligations based on the Minuteman pensions being overseen for a period of ten years in the 70's and early 80's. The superintendent stated his intention to support this request with the board. We then discussed whether to approve the school's operating budget. There was significant discussion about the inequalities inherent in the way Minuteman is administered; we have 30% of the students and costs, but only 6% of the voting power. It was proposed to cut the amount of money requested in protest, but since the other communities approved the budget, we were obligated to pay the full amount no matter what. We voted down the substitute motion and approved the allocation. The third item received no action.
The final topic of the night was gas-powered leaf blowers. The proposal is to ban them outright in town due to the noise levels and their tendency to blow whatever happens to be on the lawn onto adjacent properties. We'll pick this up next time
The next item was an attempt to reconsider article 32 regarding merging town departments. The proponent felt that by agreeing to accept the report, we were starting down the consolidation path, and he wanted to prohibit further research on this topic until it could be acted upon by Town Meeting next year. The vote did not meet the threshold, and the article remained closed.
The next three articles dealt with Minuteman Tech. The first was a request to the Minuteman retirement board to allow the town to repay the court judgement against it over a period of ten years rather than all at once. The is related to pension obligations based on the Minuteman pensions being overseen for a period of ten years in the 70's and early 80's. The superintendent stated his intention to support this request with the board. We then discussed whether to approve the school's operating budget. There was significant discussion about the inequalities inherent in the way Minuteman is administered; we have 30% of the students and costs, but only 6% of the voting power. It was proposed to cut the amount of money requested in protest, but since the other communities approved the budget, we were obligated to pay the full amount no matter what. We voted down the substitute motion and approved the allocation. The third item received no action.
The final topic of the night was gas-powered leaf blowers. The proposal is to ban them outright in town due to the noise levels and their tendency to blow whatever happens to be on the lawn onto adjacent properties. We'll pick this up next time
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)