Town Election 2015 in Belmont: Updated Through the Day

By 1 Comment

Photo: Tom Martin voting for the first time. 

7:45 p.m.: Precinct 8, the Winn Brook precinct: 1.200 ballots cast. 60 percent participation with many younger voters – 7 at booths when I was there – coming in.

7:30 p.m.: The heavy rains held off and people have been coming in steady to the eight polling stations in Belmont. Not many signs around town although Dawn MacKerron and Bill Trabilcy were in Cushing Square with a big “No” sign, receiving a long horn blast from a late-90s Cadillac with State tags.

2:20 p.m.: The election is just past mid-way and the numbers at the eight precincts indicate a good deal of interest in the contested Selectman’s race and the Prop 2 1/2 ballot question. 

Precinct wardens said the voters “have been really out there,” (Precinct 6), polling stations are “busy constantly,” (Precinct 3), activity is “brisk,” (Precinct 7) with voters coming in at a “steady pace.” (precincts 1 and 8).

So here are the raw numbers between 1:30 p.m. and 2 p.m.:

  • Precinct 1: 665
  • Precinct 2: 604
  • Precinct 3: 473
  • Precinct 4: 358
  • Precinct 5: 479
  • Precinct 6: 617
  • Precinct 7: 438
  • Precinct 8: 638

According to Town Clerk Ellen Cushman, the election could reach 40 percent participation rate or about 7,500 to 8,000 voters coming out. 

1:50 p.m.: It was rough going for Tom Martin as he tried to vote at Precinct 2 in Town Hall. The Belmont High senior first attempted to leave the polling station with both the ballot and the folder in his hands when Precinct Warden Henry Kazarian steered Martin to the official voting scanner. There he attempted to insert the manilsa folder into the slot. At that point, Kazarian instructed Martin on the proper process of voting. 

Despite flubbing the process a bit, everyone in the polling station gave a Martin a round of applause as it was the first time the 18-year-old ever voted. 

“It was good, it was interesting,” said Martin, who received a handshake from Kazarian on his way out. 

In the second-floor lobby, Martin said he wanted to cast his ballot because of the override.

“At Belmont High School, there has been a lot of talk about this [override] vote among the students,” said Martin, a co-captain of this year’s boys’ basketball team and player on Rugby. “We know the election is important for the future of the high school.” 

“And now I’m 18, I should have my voice heard,” he said. 

Noon: It was suppose to be raining by now but … nada. 

10 a.m.: So where are the sign holders? At the Beech Street Center, of course, where precincts 3 and 5 are located. And we found Selectman candidate Jim Williams with his campaign manager shaking hands and talking to Precinct 5 Town Meeting incumbent Frank Lombardo and former town employee  Austin ‘Butchie’ Bennett holding the fort for Andy Rojas.

“I have my coat so I’ll be here even if it rains,” said Butchie.

IMG_4003

8:45 a.m.: A lonely figure at Precinct 2: Jim Gammell, a member of the leadership team for the Nos, poll watching. Will have to take a look around town to see if anyone else is out and about looking over lists of voters. Standing outside the Center’s parking lot, 

8:15 a.m.: Here are the first data dump of the day; the total number of absentee ballots received as of yesterday (there’s one more rush of ballots around 5 p.m.) and by precinct:

Total received/sent:

604/702

  • Precinct 1: 123
  • Precinct 2: 91
  • Precinct 3: 61
  • Precinct 4: 42
  • Precinct 5: 64
  • Precinct 6: 104
  • Precinct 7: 40
  • Precinct 8: 79

7:30 a.m.: Belmont’s Town Election 2015 gets underway under a gray overcast and cool conditions with some good voter participation at Precincts 1 (at the Belmont Public Library) and 8 (Winn Brook School) with a dozen voters waiting to enter Precinct 1 and more than 20 residents voting in the first 10 minutes at 8. At Town Hall, the level is described as “brisk.” 

IMG_3995

One thing missing? Sign holders at the three precincts visited. Just one at 1 and 8, both with “Yes for Belmont” signs.

Town Election Day in Belmont: What You Need to Know to Vote Today

By Leave a Comment

Today, Tuesday, April 7, Belmont voters will have the opportunity to cast ballots in the annual Town Election to elect members of Town Meeting, town-wide office and one ballot question.

Times

Polling places are open from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m.

Who can vote

Those who are legally registered to vote and are residents of Belmont.

You may be asked for ID

Did you fill out your town census form mailed earlier in the year? If you did not, then you are known as an “inactive” voter. Luckily, an “inactive” voter may still vote but first must provide adequate identification proving the voter’s identity and current place of residence. Usually a Massachusetts Driver’s License or State issued ID are sufficient.

Whom and what’s on the ballot

Find out here with the Belmont League of Women Voters’ election guide.

Transportation to the polls

The League of Women Voters of Belmont is offering rides to the polls from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. Call 617-771-8500 to schedule transportation.

Questions about or during voting

Most questions – including who is eligible to vote in Belmont – that arise during voting can be answered by the precinct warden at the polling station. Other questions should be addressed to the Town Clerk’s Office at 617-993-2600.

Where do I vote?

Don’t know where to vote? Call the Town Clerk at 617-993-2600, or read/download the handy map included on this web page that includes a street directory.

Polling Places:

  • Precinct 1; Belmont Memorial Library, Assembly Room, 336 Concord Ave.
  • Precinct 2: Belmont Town Hall, Selectmen’s Meeting Room, 455 Concord Ave.
  • Precinct 3: Beech Street Center (Senior Center), 266 Beech St.
  • Precinct 4: Daniel Butler School, 90 White St.
  • Precinct 5: Beech Street Center (Senior Center), 266 Beech St.
  • Precinct 6: Belmont Fire Headquarters, 299 Trapelo Rd.
  • Precinct 7: Burbank School Gym, 266 School St.
  • Precinct 8: Winn Brook School Gym, 97 Waterhouse Rd (Enter at Cross St)

Editorial: Cast Aside Politics and Fear, Vote Yes for the Override

By 11 Comments

Photo: The Yes campaigners. 

The Belmontonian endorses a “yes” vote on Question 1, the Proposition 2 1/2 override measure on the ballot to be decided on Tuesday, April 7. 

This question allows residents the opportunity to follow “the better angels of our nature,” when we can set aside manufactured tension and fear and replace it with good, positive, constructive acts.

The proposed override was born after a year-long gestation by the Financial Task Force of sober, careful analysis and facts of the financial constraints facing the community. The task force – including Selectman Mark Paolillo, Town Treasurer Floyd Carman, Town Administrator David Kale, School Committee Chair Laurie Slap, Capital Budget Chair Anne Marie Mahoney and Charles Laverty III of the Board of Assessors, all respected for their dedication and work for Belmont – held dozens of open and public meetings and forums, requested information and data and worked cooperatively with all.

The task force’s final report recommended the Belmont Board of Selectmen call for a $4.5 million multi-year override to both stems the rapidly growing funding deficit due to skyrocketing enrollment and rapidly increasing expenses in our schools. In a vote called a “brave decision,” the Selectmen unanimously approved the recommendation in February.

But just as vital as supplying funding, the override secures up to three, but likely many more years of stability for Belmont schools. While not ideal or even desired, assured level-funding will provide educators over the long-term, Town Meeting and our state legislators the time to commit to fundamental improvements and other necessary changes to retain the outstanding reputation of the schools, our community’s greatest resource.

The override will exact a burden onto Belmont property owners, about $650 on the medium valued house assessed at $847,000. No one should say it’s “only” $162 on the quarterly bill; that is a hardship to some.

But it is time Belmont residents face the fact the community has been attempting to run a modern, urban municipality on the cheap. Belmont has one of the lowest average tax bills in the state and an extremely low cost-per-pupil expenditures (coupled with one of the highest student-to-teacher ratios). It’s little wonder the town is a laughing stock for it’s disgraceful roads, but that happens when you won’t pay an adequate amount for their upkeep. The band Midnight Oil spoke to what Belmont needs to realize: “The time has come/To say fair’s fair/to pay the rent/to pay our share.”

There are worthy opponents to the override. Former Selectman Anne Marie Mahoney, a task force member, is opposing the ballot question as she takes the lonely role of sponsoring the large ticket capital projects – a new High School, police station, Department of Public Works complex to name a few. Her cause requires Town officials and Town Meeting to be acknowledged and brought fully into the fold of long-term planning.

The same can not be said for the “Vote No on Ballot Question 1 Committee,” a tiny renegade group from the Warrant Committee, made up of members past and present, supporting its campaign with little more than empty phrases and promises.

The No committee claims its complaint with the override supporters is fiscal, the Financial Task Force’s careful analysis on revenue assumptions by well-respected town members is wrong, the recommendation producing a “mega” override. All that is needed is to fill the announced $1.7 million deficit the schools will encounter in the next fiscal year.

The Nos has no completing reports to back its claim the money is out there; they counter with “trust us.”

What should take every resident aback is the solution being proposed from the Nos if the override is defeated; this group of non-elected residents will come before the elected Board of Selectmen with their “list” of residents and town members they hope to see on an unelected “budget committee” which will solve the fiscal issues facing the town, all within “three to six” weeks.

The questions that arise with this “solution” are numerous and unnerving:

  • Will the “budget committee” be open to all or closed to a few?
  • Who will lead it?
  • Will it have any authority?
  • Shouldn’t it be approved by Town Meeting before it starts?
  • Will the committee be subject to the open meeting laws?
  • What if the solution from the “budget committee” differs from the renegade Warrant Committee members?

The No committee is making it up as it goes. Its solution is not based on democracy, but power.

And, to misquote Hamlet, therein lies the rub: The No Committee’s mission is political, not financial. The amount could have been $4 million, $3 million or $2 million, the Nos would have pegged the override with the puerile label “mega.”

But the prime target for the Nos is the schools and the “hardcore” union representing Belmont teachers. It wouldn’t surprise anyone that the Nos have circulated lists of teachers pay prompting one supporter wondering at candidates’ night paying a kindergarten teacher $90,000. Several times, one member of the group have suggested that the union must be made to heal to lead the town into a financial nirvana. In addition, by providing annual funding rather than a long-term approach, the school district will be beholden to the “budget committee.”

If the Nos had declared its agenda up front, they would be seen as honest brokers, rather than a very small fraternity of political operatives.

With only seven contributors and a campaign paid by a single source, the Nos remain a powerful opponent, playing to a substantial number of residents who view Belmont as the same small town of several generations past, those who believe providing a “good enough” education – in a world that punishes those who are only “good enough” – is what is required, while nervously viewing their own finances as economic forces beyond everyone’s reach ever change.

We, Belmont, must reject the fear and mistrust being pushed by the No committee.

We, Belmont, must be for something, rather than be opposed to stability and taking responsibility for the true cost of running the town.

We, Belmont, must grab the opportunity to move forward with facts and realism rather than be led back with half truths and the empty “trust us.”

Vote for the override.

This Week: Book Clubs Young and Old, Lemonade and Cookies, Town Business

By Leave a Comment

On the government side of This Week:

  • The Zoning Board of Appeals is meeting on Monday, April 6, at 7 p.m. on the third floor of the Homer Building (in the Town Hall complex off Moore Street). It will hear several requests for special permits for additions and such on residential property.  
  • The Community Preservation Committee is meeting at 5 p.m. on Wednesday, April 8, at Town Hall to discuss its fiscal year 2016 budget and an update on the projects it funded in the past two years. 
  • The Board of Selectmen will meet on Wednesday, April 8, at 7 p.m. at Town Hall to reorganize (include selecting a new chair), sign the contract for the Belmont Center Reconstruction project, get an update on the commuter rail track repairs and sign the official warrant for Town Meeting. 
  • The Planning Board is meeting on Wednesday, April 8, at 7 p.m. at Town Hall where it will discuss the upcoming Zoning Forum and related issues before Town Meeting next month.
  • The Capital Budget Committee meets on Thursday, April 8, at 5 p.m. in Town Hall to have a talk with reps from the facilities, schools and police departments as well as discuss its fiscal ’16 budget, in general terms.

• If you love music, come over to the Belmont High School auditorium, Monday, April 6, at 7 p.m. for Jazz Night featuring the Chenery Jazz Ensemble and the Belmont High School Jazz Collective with guest artist Trent Austin. And it’s free!

• The 7th-8th Grade Book Group from the Chenery Middle School meets Monday, April 6, at 7 p.m.  to discuss My Most Excellent Year by Steve Kluger, choose May’s book, and enjoy some snacks.

• Tuesday is Town Election in Belmont. Get out and vote!

• Mat Yoga, a new six-week exercise class taught by Susan Harris, begins this Tuesday, April 7, from 4 p.m. to 5 p.m. at the Beech Street Center, 266 Beech St. The level of difficulty of the new class is somewhere between the well-received Wednesday afternoon chair yoga class with Carol Wilson and Harris’ Tuesday evening yoga class. Cost: $48.

Tuesday is story time at both of Belmont libraries. 
• Pre-School Story Time at the Benton Library, Belmont’s independent and volunteer run library, at 10:30 a.m. Stories and crafts for children age 3 to 5. Parents or caregivers must attend. Siblings may attend with adults. Registration is not required. The Benton Library is located at the intersection of Oakley and Old Middlesex. 
• The Belmont Public Library on Concord Avenue will be holding two sessions of Story Time for 2’s and 3’s, at 9:30 a.m. and 10:30 a.m. 

• On early release Wednesday, April 8, from 1:30 p.m. to 3 p.m., Chenery Middle School student can stop by the Belmont Public Library’s Assembly Room, work on your homework, enjoy some lemonade and cookies, and try out an activity.  This is for middleschoolers only, so high school students can do something else. The activity is funded by the Friends of the Belmont Public Library. Just drop in, no registration required.

• The Book discussion group for elementary school students in the 3rd and 4th grades will be held Thursday, April 9 from 3:15 p.m. to 4 p.m. in the Belmont Public Library’s Flett Room.

• The Belmont Vision 21 Implementation Committee will be meeting Thursday, April 9 from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. in the Belmont Public Library’s Flett Room. 

• The Senior Book Discussion Group will meet Friday, April 10 at 11 a.m. at the Beech Street Center to discuss Leo Tolstoy’s masterpiece, War and Peace  (Part 1 through Part 7).  On Friday, May 8, the group will continue the discussion of War and Peace, starting at Part 8 through the end of the book.

Letter to the Editor: Williams Will Not Kick the Can on Town’s Obligations

By Leave a Comment

Photo: A family of Jim William campaigners,

To the editor: 

Belmont has a clear choice this year for the Board of Selectmen.  The best choice is Jim Williams.

Belmont made a commitment this year both to town employees and to school employees (both teachers and non-teachers). It’s a promise the town has little chance of keeping.  The promise is to pay benefits called “OPEB,” Other Post-Employment Benefits, referring to post-retirement health care benefits. OPEB is in addition to any pension that employees may earn.

Every two years, the Town prepares a study of how much it will cost to pay all of its OPEB commitments. The most recent analysis found that Belmont owes roughly $196 million in OPEB benefits.

Under Belmont Selectman and candidate Andy Rojas, Belmont appropriated roughly $265,000 toward its OPEB obligation for fiscal year 2015. While Rojas claims that this contribution would put a small dent in the unfunded OPEB obligation, that’s not at all true. In 2013, the annual interest alone on the unfunded OPEB obligation was $2.175 million. The town’s payment, in other words, was just over 10 percent of the interest alone on our unfunded OPEB liability.  

All of the unpaid balance, and 90 percent of the unpaid interest, in other words, went into an amount to be paid sometime in the future. The annual interest, alone, on the unfunded OPEB amount balance has more than tripled in recent years, from just under $700,000 to $2.17 million.

Belmont’s current treatment of OPEB is, in its essence, a form of deficit spending. The town delivers services today, and residents use those services without completely paying for them. When OPEB obligations are deferred to the future, the effect is to push onto our children and grandchildren the costs of providing today’s services.  

Accordingly, herein lies the choice. 

Rojas proposes to kick the can down the road in the hopes that “the state” will bail us out at some point in the future. In the meantime, while the interest and principal continues to accumulate, future OPEB payments will seriously impede Belmont’s future ability to deliver basic municipal services. Since an ever-increasing proportion of Belmont’s future budgets will be needed to pay the OPEB obligations, less and less of those budgets will be left-over to pay for things like paving streets and hiring teachers.  

Williams proposes real solutions. While those solutions not only may, but will surely evolve as they work their way through the political process, unlike Rojas who merely proclaims his leadership, Williams is exhibiting leadership by actually grappling with the problem.  

Belmont faces a real choice this year. Williams is my choice.  

Roger Colton 

Warwick Road

One-Woman Show: Financial Report Shows Allison Self-Financing ‘No’ Effort

By 6 Comments

Photo: Elizabeth Allison.

Move over, Koch brothers and Tom Steyer; you may think you have a big influence on politics, but you guys have nothing on Elizabeth Allison.

According to a campaign finance report filed March 30 with the Belmont Town Clerk, the Chair of the “Vote No on Ballot Question 1” committee has all but self-financed the effort to defeat the Proposition 2 1/2 override before voters on April 7.

The report which is filed eight days before the election with the Town Clerk shows Allison contributing $5,000 of the $5,640 given to the committee – about 91 cents of every dollar taken in – which saw a grand total of six residents donate to the “No” committee since mid-March.

Of the committee’s leadership, both Campaign Treasurer Raffi Manjikian or Robert Sarno failed to contribute to the fund (although Sarno’s wife, Judith, put in $100) while Jim Gammill pony upped $10.

In addition, Allison made two “in-kind” contributions totaling $1,642.62, raising her total tally to $6,642.62.

On the other side of the ballot question, the “Yes for Belmont” Committee shows a far greater depth in the number of contributors and total money raised. Nearly 80 residents gave less than $50 and 66 more than $50 for a total of $17,385 raised from more than 145 residents since Jan. 1. On top of an opening balance of approximately $6,500, the “Yes” side had a little more than $23,900 on hand.

Nearly all the money raised on both sides have gone to print firms to create yard signs and other promotional material.

Going into the critical final week of the race, the “No” committee was running on empty with less than $200 in reserves while the “Yes” had $13,268.

Over in the Selectman’s race, the incumbent Andy Rojas flexed his money-raising muscles by taking an impressive $21,000 from about 80 contributors, which added to a running balance in his war chest of $11,300, gave the current chair of the Board just about $32,300 to use in his race with challenger Jim Williams. Contributors included members of the Planning Board, former colleagues Ralph Jones and Liz Allison, the School Committee’s Lisa Fiore and former Boston Herald business writer Cosmo Macero.

Interestingly, while not contributing to the “No” committees coffers, Manjikian ($150) and Gammill ($200) ante upped for Rojas.

In the final eight day, Rojas was sitting on just over $19,000 for any last minute push.

First-time candidate Williams found about a quarter of the number of residents – and some out-of-towners – contributing as the Glenn Road resident raised $6,055 since mid-January. Unlike the “No” campaign, Williams has been able to spend very little over that time and can use his remaining $5,359 to impress voters in the final week of the campaign.

[Updated] Return of Belmont Robo Call with Harvard Prof as Voice of ‘No’ Group

By 4 Comments

Photo: Professor Graham Allison.

It’s the return of the robo call to the Belmont political scene.

But unlike an infamous automated call from an unknown group/individual sent to resident in 2010,  this time the sponsor and speaker are out front with their identities and agenda. The group seeking to defeat the Proposition 2 1/2 override on the April 7 Town Election ballot sent the call around 6:30 p.m. on Thursday, April 2, voiced by a prominent resident and national political insider.

“I’m Graham Allison, professor of government at the Kennedy School at Harvard, and a Belmont resident for 47 years,” said the call by Graham, the husband of the chair of the “Vote NO on Ballot Question 1 Committee,” fellow Harvard academic and economist Elizabeth Allison. 

And Graham doesn’t mince words how he and the committee feels about the override and residents who are running the “Yes for Belmont” campaign to pass the $4.5 million multi-year override. 

“I’ve never seen a campaign in Belmont in which advocates resorted to such crude scare tactics against fellow Belmont parents and citizens. I’m a student of government crises, and know the difference between a manufactured crisis and a genuine one. This is a manufactured crisis, a phony crisis. Belmont’s excellence in education does not require a $4.5 million dollar mega override. I’m Graham Allison and I hope you’ll join me in keeping Belmont affordable for all our citizens by voting no on question 1. Approved and paid for by the Vote No on Question 1 committee.”

Asked to respond to the message, “Yes for Belmont” co-chair Ellen Schreiber said “the YES campaign has consistently communicated the facts, and just the facts,” which include:

  • The fact that enrollment is skyrocketing.
  • The fact that 40 school positions will be cut or reduced if we don’t pass this override.
  • The fact that the Financial Task Force unanimously proposed this multi-year override as part of a long-term strategic plan.
  • The fact that the override is supported by the vast majority of Belmont’s selectmen, school committee and warrant committee members.

“The ‘No’ campaign may not like the facts. And yes, I agree that the facts are scary. But that is not a ‘scare tactic’,” she noted.

“The YES campaign has sincerely and respectfully worked for the best interests of our Belmont neighbors, and I assumed this was true of the ‘No’ campaign. We were shocked to hear words like ‘scare tactic’ and ‘phony’ and ‘manufactured’ in the ‘No’ campaign’s robocall,” she said.

“The Town Clerk wrote in her election communication yesterday, ‘Let’s start displaying that respect right now.’ We think that sounds like good advice,” said Schreiber.

The recent history of robo calls on town-wide ballot issues is one that continues to rankle many residents who recall a series of automated political calls and “push polls” – which attempts to influence voters under the guise of conducting a poll – a week before a June 2010 special election in which residents voted on a $2 million Prop 2 1/2 override for schools and roads. 

The content of the 2010 calls inaccurately stated the override funds would pay for school teachers salaries and would not be spent in the designated town services. The calls were seen as motivating residents on the fence to vote “no” and defeating the override measure, 3,431 to 3,043, on June 14.

Belmont Town Clerk Ellen Cushman filed a formal complaint with the state Office of Campaign & Political Finance to investigate the calls as a violation of reporting political activity costing more than $250. The state would end its investigation in August with no findings.

Letter to the Editor: An Insider’s Reason for Vote ‘Yes’ on the Override

By 1 Comment

Photo: Yes campaigners.
To the editor:
We all have been inundated with reasons for and against the override vote on April 7.  I’ve see the needs as a resident and an insider, as a parent and a decision maker.
I have lived in Belmont for 19 years, and on either side of Belmont for another nine.  My six years on Belmont’s School Committee (which included, as the School Committee rep, two years on Warrant Committee and two on Capital Budget Committee) have given an enlightening view into many parts of town government. I’ve been lucky enough to work with professionals in Town Hall, School Administration Building, and each of the schools, I and am sometimes awed by what they can produce for us with limited resources.
Here are the key points that make me an enthusiastic supporter of the proposed override:
Big Picture on School Spending
I’m a fan of allocating a reasonable amount of resources for a given function, then letting the professionals manage within that limit.  Clearly, Belmont Public Schools’ per-pupil spending shows that we get a lot of value for our money. It is about 12 percent below state average and far less than nearby towns such as Newton, Lexington, and Watertown. The state Dept of Ed breaks that spending into major categories, where we can see that our per-pupil spending on teachers is 11 percent below state average and administration is a whopping 30 percent below. Yes, 30. To me this negates squawking from the “no” side about some individual teacher salaries being high.  Yes, some are indeed high. But some are low for what we get. Most are within reason for the professional tasks they do – just like at my own company, and probably yours.
Financial Task Force Cred
One of Belmont’s faults over the past few decades is its lack of planning and reluctance to look ahead, whether for finance or infrastructure. The Financial Task Force, appointed in 2013, is a serious effort address exactly that. Members should be applauded, and their findings taken seriously. This override is a reasonable step to address Belmont’s needs. Names like Paolillo, Carmen and Mahoney are hardly associated with irresponsible spending or caving to special interests.  The additional money won’t fix everything – it is necessary, but not sufficient – and there is still a ton of work to do across Town and Schools for the long-term well-being of our entire community, kids and adults, infrastructure and people.
The “No” Side
I should know better than to be surprised by the ideological intransigence of the “No” side, but I still am.  From my six years on School Committee, and observations the years after, this summarizes the patterns I see from some individuals who are or were on the Warrant Committee:
The disregard of the FTF’s findings is very disappointing, and even disrespectful. It seems they’ve chosen to simply ignore the facts, even in their rhetoric. But then they are trying to position themselves as the eventual saviors, sharpening pencils and tightening belts, or whatever trite phrasing you want. It is as if the professionals who work for the town have not tried and do not know their jobs better than those Warrant Committee members. Every committee has wanted the thorough, factual look that the FTF has produced, and I assume the No side did too.  But I think they did not get the answer they wanted, and are now ignoring and talking over the findings.
The Warrant Committee is often called the “fiscal watchdog,” but too often some want to micromanage departments’ internal spending, and even intrusively try to manage policy. For schools, I have seen them question curriculum offerings, like whether to offer art at all (since it’s not required by the state), advanced language classes, and even support for college counselors. 
Please join me in voting Yes on April 7.
John Bowe
Elizabeth Rd

Heated Election Emotions Spurs Plea for Civility from Town Clerk, Top Cop

By 2 Comments

Photo: Ellen Cushman.

For the past few weeks, Belmont’s Town Clerk Ellen Cushman has been receiving an increasing number of calls, emails and personal visits from residents on the same topic, the Proposition 2 1/2 override on the Town Election ballot set for April 7.

But the residents were not seeking information about the Question 1. Rather, they showed Cushman examples of vitriol from neighbors or strangers on what side they took on Question 1: angry personal attacks in email and notes left on their property, political signs taken or destroyed, biting comments on social media.

“They’re upset that people are attacking their character for a political position,” Cushman told the Belmontonian Thursday afternoon, April 2.

“It’s been very bad tempered and personal,” she added.

After hearing from Belmont Police Chief Richard McLaughlin that his department has received similar messages, Cushman decided it was time to act by sending an extraordinary email to Town Meeting Members, elected officials, and town department heads to call for a return to civility in the election season.

Under the subject line, “The Community of Belmont – We All Share Responsibility,” (see the email below) Cushman spoke of “rising tide of negative emotion and malicious deeds and speech” against residents on the override question. Declaring she “abhor(s)” the actions taking place, Cushman is calling for those receiving the email to ask anyone they see participating in such acts to stop them and have the people return to “respectful discourse.”

The note is the first time the long-time Belmont resident can recall a town official requesting residents to remain civil during an election. Heated campaigning is not new to Belmont, infamous for the poison pen letters sent days before elections impugning the character of residents seeking town office.

(The Belmontonian has recently deleted Facebook and website comments for phrases and words that questioned poster’s characters.)

After speaking to McLaughlin, Cushman felt the underlying current of ugliness that “people were afraid to have conversations” about the election.

“It reached s a point where someone needed to notify residents of what’s happening,” said Cushman, hoping that residents realize they will still be neighbors on April 8.

While most of her focus is on the day of elections, Cushman said her mandate also is to make sure residents have the right to participate in the election process.

“Honestly, all I’m attempting to say is just be respectful,” she said.

The email from Belmont Town Clerk Ellen Cushman:
As the chief election official of the Town of Belmont, and in consultation with the Richard McLaughlin  our Chief of Police, I must call your attention to a rising tide of negative emotion and malicious deeds and speech regarding the Override, April 7th .   I have the utmost respect for the many volunteers who are active and willing to help educate our voters on this important issue, but I also realize that people cast their secret ballots for a myriad of reasons that I must also respect. Belmont needs the help of all of our elected and appointed officials to get back on track.  Some of the more outrageous examples of this problematic behavior:
  • Vicious emails have been sent to individual residents, stating that other residents “hate” the person who has announced an intention to vote a certain way
  • Political signs on private property, both Yes and No, have been removed
  • Handwritten notes containing aggressive, distressing language have been attached to political signs on private property
  • Facebook posts, online commentary and blogs that question the integrity of an individual volunteer rather than examine the person’s political stance
As a lifelong resident of Belmont, I’m not proud of those behaviors, I abhor them. They do not send a positive message to our children and neighbors; they send a message of personal attack, harassment and disdain.
Belmont is just over four square miles in area containing 25,000 residents. On April 8th, that won’t change. What I ask of you as one of Belmont’s elected and appointed officials is simple:
 
When you hear or see someone denigrating or criticizing our Belmont neighbors, stop them! Ask them instead to participate in a respectful discourse, not a campaign of hate but one of cooperation. Whatever the outcome on Tuesday night, Belmont will continue to rely on our many volunteers to keep our town strong and a wonderful place to live.  Let’s start displaying that respect right now.

Final Pitch by Override Campaigners Provide More Answers and Questions

By Leave a Comment

Photo: Residents attending the final Precinct Meeting before the Town Election on April 7.

The community room at the Beech Street Center was filled Monday, March 30 with more than 200 residents who came to attend the final Precinct Meeting hosted by the Belmont Board of Selectmen and the Financial Task Force.

But it wasn’t so much the opportunity to hear, once again, the details of the town’s fiscal 2016 budget and the Proposition 2 1/2 override on the April 7 Town Election ballot; there have been more than a dozen presentations to the public and groups in March.

Rather, it was a last-minute addition to the agenda that brought the crowd to the center: the opportunity to hear presentations and have public questions answered from representatives of the two sides of the override question facing voters.

And while the position of those seeking the passage of the $4.5 million, multiyear override has been articulated to the public for several weeks – approving the override is necessary to prevent large cuts to school personnel and programs – Monday would be the first time those calling for a “no” vote would detail its opposition and the course of action if it is successful in defeating the ballot question.

For Adam Dash, who has become the voice of the “Yes for Belmont” committee in the past week, the argument for backing the override – which will add approximately $650 in taxes annually to the “average” Belmont house valued at $847,000 – is simple enough: the time has come to pay the rent.

IMG_3528

With 49 line-item cuts in the school department’s fiscal ’16 budget, “it’s mind–numbing it’s so long,” he said.

“It’s … a time to stand up and do what we need to do to accomplish the goals of the town,” said Dash, standing behind a slide with an orange “Yes” behind him.

He also questioned the “No” side’s assurances that the a $4.5 million override is not needed as additional revenues can be found to fund the schools this year “are just assumptions, and assumptions can be wrong.”

Dash compared those pushing the ballot question with complaints of teacher salaries and contract negotiations to Shakespeare’s King Lear bellowing into the tempest, (“Spit, fire; spout, rain”) as they rage against what is out of their reach.

“When the house is on fire, we have to … act now and then do other things later,” Dash said.

“In the big picture, it’s what do you value?” said Dash, saying good education and educators costs money.

“Yes is the action moving forward … and looking at long-range planning while no is just the same old system where we just kicked the can down the road,” he said, telling the audience the easiest way to remember that the override ballot is on the back of the ballot is to recall the phrase, “back the override.”

Holding court for the Vote No on Ballot Question 1 Committee was current Planning Board member and former Warrant Committee Chair Elizabeth Allison, who started by praising “this wonderful town” with many great qualities including a “terrific” school system that, if it was its “small country,” Belmont students would quantitatively be “the best in the world.”

IMG_3531

The No committee’s starting point is the same as those supporting the override; funding a level service budget for the schools in fiscal ’16, knowing it will need $1.7 million in additional revenue to bridge the deficit gap.

“The school bus is in the ditch, and we need to pull it out,” said Allison.

But what the no committee doesn’t accept is the path override supporter are mapping. While saying she has admiration for the work of the Financial Task Force, but its financial projections for the town’s revenue growth is “too pessimistic,” running below the ten-year average.

While the no committee bulwarked its argument with data and numbers, its also sought to make political points with voters by attacking labor and unions. While much as been made of the skyrocketing enrollment forecast of nearly 800 more students in the next ten years and accelerating costs in special education and English language instruction, Allison pointed to teachers pay and other compensation as being the greatest cost driver impacting the school budget.

A victory on election day for the ‘Yes’ position “will ratify the hard-liners in the teacher’s union who say, ‘Just keep on going … push through five percent, five-and-a-half percent pay increases a year,” said Allison.

With higher taxes on households, another expensive collective bargaining settlement and higher overall municipal expenses, Allison said voters would not be in the position to support the much needed new Belmont High School with a temporary debt exclusion that will top $1,000 over several years.

Allison outlined the No committee’s alternative course of action, “a road better taken,” to that of the override; calling on the Board of Selectmen to form a “work group” – to include the “new school committee member with an MBA from a school out west” – to produce a “new spin-on-the-ball revenue forecast” since it does not believe the current low estimate.

In addition, the new group would look at cost solutions and seek reallocation of funds “from one department to another” to fill the gap the schools face.

If at the end of that process there remains a deficit, the Board of Selectmen can then call a special election to vote on a “reasonable and justified override on the ballot.”

The No approach provides transparency, keeps taxes down and prepare for the fiscal 2017. Allison suggested one way to cut future costs was for the Superintendent of Schools John Phelan to seek a waiver of the state unfunded mandate on teaching children requiring English learning.

(After the meeting, Phelan said no district has been granted such a waiver and those systems that have not followed the state requirements “to the letter” have been taken to court.)

Selectman Mark Paolillo, a member of the Financial Task Force, defended the revenue projections noting he felt “comfortable enough” with the task force’s assumptions.

During the one-hour long question and answer segment of the meeting, the majority of questions were directed to the No committee, seeking clarification to its blueprint.

Allison said many concerns from Yes supporters will be resolved when the added revenue “baked in” the budget estimates is uncovered. And even if the no side’s estimates “fell short,” most residents will vote for a new, modest override, “perhaps not happily but its so much better for the schools than the alternatives.”

“In the end, people will not damage the schools,” Allison said.

“This approach is a one-year Band-Aid; you’re going to right back where you were. It doesn’t solve anything,” said Dash. “We can build a beautiful high school but if you have a deficient program, what’s the point?”

When asked if the No committee could guarantee that the schools will be adequately funded next year if the overrides doesn’t pass, Allison said there is “a high probability” that nearly the entire $1.7 million needed with more realistic revenue projections.

In addition, Allison said if the $4.5 million override passes, the town is not required to use the entire amount where proponents hoped it would go.

“You have no guarantee that the large designated slice of the pie will go to the schools,” suggested Allison, adding that if there in no cost containment on teacher salaries, it will be very difficult to sustain the schools.”

Asked by a Belmont High School freshman the effects of losing “20 teachers” if the override fails, Robert Sarno, one of the leaders of the “No” committee as well as the chairman of the Warrant Committee’s subgroup that analyzes the school budget, said even in the worse case scenario, only about six or seven full-time equivalent teaching positions will be lost.

“You’re not going to lose that many teachers,” said Sarno.

In the most illustrative moment, Phelan demonstrated Belmont’s student to teacher ratio in relation to all districts in Massachusetts. Holding up six pages from a state-issued report, Phelan took out the fifth page to show that Belmont’s 17.1 ratio is far from the state average of 13.6.

“We’re not that far from the sixth page, and that has only four entries,” he said.

The final question came from a resident concerned that High School students are not meeting the hours of instruction the state requires each pupil to obtain.

Phelan said many upperclassmen at the high school are barely meeting that minimum and “I believe our hours will be at risk” if the override fails.

“I encourage that if [the override] doesn’t win, that those people who supported it, call the state,” referring to an intervention by the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.