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.

Selectman Candidates’ Question of the Week: Making Belmont Business Friendly

By 1 Comment

Photo: Jim Williams

Every Wednesday leading up the Town Election on Tuesday, April 7, the Belmontonian will be asking a “Question of the Week” to the candidates running for a seat on the Board of Selectmen: incumbent Andy Rojas and Glenn Road resident Jim Williams.

This weekly feature will allow the candidates seeking a three-year term on the board to answer topical questions concerning Belmont and help demonstrate their ability to lead the town.

This week’s question:

The long-standing perception – going back generations – held by many business owners is that existing town bylaws and how they are interpreted by town departments creates a negative environment for retail and commercial ventures in Belmont. As Selectman, how would you make Belmont more “business friendly” for small retail and mid-size commercial companies?

Jim Williams

I am running for Selectman because I know that Belmont is a great town that needs more in the way of support for our residents and businesses.

Having worked with small and large companies my entire career, I am of the belief that local business helps round out the community – from contributions to tax revenue to the donations they make to our neighbors. The specific ways Belmont can support its local business community is outlined in the Vision 21 Business and Economic Development Committee’s recommendations from 2005.

We should immediately implement this town-appointed committee’s recommendations, as we should with other thoughtful recommendations that have come from similar committees. One specific example of what I would recommend is the finalization of the Community Path, because research shows that community paths in other towns improve business vitality. The same should be true in Belmont.

As I have repeated, initiatives that support our whole community are my first priority which is why you should consider me for Selectman.

Andy Rojas

Streamlining the various approvals and permit processes within Town departments is critical to attracting new businesses – large and small. Many new business owners are:

  1. confused by the many requirements for permits which vary by use and must be obtained from departments with jurisdiction over specific permits and approvals, including the Building and Health Departments; and
  2. overwhelmed by the length of time, number of hearings and professional fees needed to obtain approvals from the Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA).

Streamlined Communications & Checklists

The Planning Board and the ZBA are implementing streamlined applicant communications to reduce project review and approval time. My appointees to the Planning Board and ZBA have in-depth professional process experience that allows practical goals to be developed and requirements to be communicated clearly.

  • A well-defined checklist for each required regulatory process — Planning Board, Zoning Board of Appeals, Building Permit, Health Department, etc. — should be created so applicants can tailor approval efforts.

Electronic Processes

I have begun the work needed to produce efficient, transparent approvals and permitting processes. Many cities and towns have fully electronic building permit processes that let applicants track, monitor and pay for permit request processing without contacting departments or plan reviewers. Electronic transparency also allows department heads to monitor and evaluate reviewers to determine whether each application is being processed efficiently. While Belmont’s computer software permits this level of electronic building permit processing, further implementation is needed.

  • I will partner with the Community Development Department so a fully transparent electronic building permit application and review process can be implemented within the next year.
Andy Rojas - IMG_0799

Andy Rojas

 

Business — Specific Districts

The Cushing Square Overlay District (CSOD) should be updated to incorporate these efficiency measures. Revisions should be such that requirements are communicated to business applicants effectively and approval criteria are efficient and transparent.

New overlay district by-laws should be considered for Waverley Square and South Pleasant Street which will likely see development. They should be written to protect residents and, so they include clear goals and approvals processes; all business should know what to expect from day 1.

  • I am committed to leading this effort and to using my expertise and Belmont know-how to make it work.

Current Progress

Business district retail and commercial ventures such as Alchemy 925, Savinos, Il Casale, Spirited Gourmet, and Foodies (coming soon) have increased as issuing more restaurant and alcohol licenses has made Belmont more attractive to businesses. The Belmont Center and Trapelo Road Reconstruction Projects, Macy’s redevelopment and Cushing Village construction will provide even greater commercial and retail growth and improve the prospects for existing small and midsize retail and commercial firms.

Providing businesses with clear, easy-to-navigate building and permit processes will expand Belmont’s commercial tax base, something vital to our long term financial stability, help mitigate the impact of residential taxes that currently comprise approximately 94 percent of Belmont’s revenue and result in a business-friendly vibrant shopping and dining environment.

I respectfully request your vote for Selectman on Tuesday, April 7, 2015. Thank you.

Town Clerk: The FYI on the Annual Town Election

By 1 Comment

Photo: Election day in Belmont.

The annual Belmont Town Election will take place in one week, Tuesday, April 7, 2015, according to Town Clerk Ellen Cushman.

And below is information that will make the process of casting your ballot all the easier.

Voting Places

For voting purposes, Belmont is divided into eight voting precincts, located as follows: 

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

Please adhere to the posted parking restrictions and use caution to ensure safety of pedestrians around the voting precincts.

Election Day Campaigning

The Town Clerk and the Board of Registrars of Voters reminds all residents that no campaign signs, stickers, buttons or materials may be displayed within 150 feet of each polling place. This prohibition, per Massachusetts General Laws, Ch. 54, §65, even extends to a candidate whose name is on the ballot, when the candidate is not actively voting.  The maps that display the 150 foot radius are posted on the Town Clerk’s website under Campaigning: Running for Elected Office and Town Meeting.

Are You Registered to Vote in Belmont and Eligible to Vote April 7? 

If you are wondering if you are a registered voter and/or your voting precinct, please go to the

Town Clerk’s webpage

or phone the Town Clerk’s office at 617-993-2600. 

The deadline to register to vote and make changes to voter registration such as address was March 18 at 8 p.m. Any forms received after that date or not postmarked by that date will be process AFTER the April 7 election.

Election Results – How Do I Find Out the Results?

Election results for each precinct are announced by the Warden of each precinct after the close of the polls. The Unofficial Townwide Results will be announced at Town Hall and posted on the home page of the Town website as soon as they are available Tuesday evening or phone the  Town Clerk’s office at 617-993-2600 on Wednesday morning.  Campaign representatives are welcome to wait at Town Hall for the printed results.

Opinion: Belmont’s ‘No’ Nothings; The Override Offers Voters a Choice: Financial Planning, or Finger Pointing?

By 1 Comment

Photo: Torn textbook.
By Paul Roberts
 
We didn’t need Warrant Committee member Adam Dash to hold up a student’s tattered, 20 year old text book, as he did at last week’s Candidate’s Night debate, to grasp the depths to which our Town of Homes has fallen. Nor did we need him to heft the softball sized piece of pavement dislodged from a pothole outside his home to appreciate the truth of what he was saying: Belmont has woefully neglected in its infrastructure, schools and town services for too long.

We understand the truth of what Adam said viscerally. As parents, we have seen our own children’s classes swell even as course offerings shrivel and fees jump. We crouch in decrepit carols at the crowded Belmont Public Library and skate around the bird droppings at the Viglirolo ice rink. Our cars drop into cavernous potholes.

If these are problems for you, as they are for me, then you expect and deserve to be told how your vote – “YES” or “NO” –on the proposed $4.5 million Proposition 2 ½ override will help to address those problems.

Our town’s leadership has a clear answer and a plan based on research and study by the Financial Task Force. It was the Task Force that recommended passage of the $4.5million override as a first step to putting Belmont back on track. In brief: revenue from the override will fund a yearly increase in investments in road and sidewalk repair. It will hire and retain teachers to keep course offerings in place and allow Belmont to add classes to respond to a sharp increase in student enrollment. Money will be set aside to create a budget stabilization fund to address future needs. This is the plan and vision that the YES for Belmont campaign is working to realize.

In contrast, the “No Override” campaign that has emerged in recent weeks has no plan for addressing those issues. Not only does the group not have a plan, they don’t even have an explanation for the problems that face our Town of Homes.

What the No campaign does offer is a lot of folksy sayings. Campaign Treasurer, Mr. Raffi Manjikian, speaking opposite Mr. Dash at Candidates Night, said that after Belmont voters rejected the override, the town would “go back to the drawing board” and “sharpen our pencils.” What would be on that drawing board? What specific problems would those pencils be pressed into solving? He couldn’t say.

Asked by attendees at Candidates’ Night how the town and schools should cope with immediate issues created by the failure of the override, such as a projected $1.7 million school budget deficit, Mr. Manjikian offered no concrete ideas.

Asked how the town should respond if the planned cuts at Belmont High School in the wake of a “No” vote put the town afoul of the state mandatory minimum of 990 instructional hours, Mr. Manjikian had no thoughts.

Asked to explain how it was that our neighbor Lexington – which also gets 86% percent of its annual revenue from local property taxes – saw fit to pass $5.3 million in overrides to Belmont’s $0.00 in the last decade to support schools, roads and public safety, Manjikian brushed the question off, seemingly incurious about the goings on next door.

 
Paul Roberts a Town Meeting Member from Precinct 8 and the editor of Blogging Belmont.

Is Your Street Going to be Paved this Year? Here is the List of the Lucky 13

By 1 Comment

Photo: Concord Avenue.

The Belmont Board of Selectmen made residents along 13 streets very happy by approving a $107,800 contract to town’s pavement management consultant which lists those roadways to be reconstructed during the 2015 construction season.

According to town engineer and Community Development Director Glenn Clancy, the roads include:

  • Charles Street (from Slade to Orchard)
  • Edward Street (from Orchard to Waverley)
  • Holt Street (from Lexington to 25 feet east of Knowles)
  • Orchard Street (from Common to Beech)
  • Richmond Road (from Prospect to Lawrence) 
  • Somerset Street (from Pleasant to Shady Brook)
  • Warwick Road (from Common to Carleton)
  • Wellington Lane (from Concord to Somerset)
  • Winthrop Road (from Common to Charles)
  • Garden Street (from Washington to Long)
  • Concord Avenue (eastbound from Common to Cottage, and westbound from Cottage to Common)
  • Hastings Road (from Common to Brettwood)
  • Elm Street (from School to Payson)

‘Yes’, ‘No’ Sides Push Their Positions – Financial and Political – at Candidates’ Night

By 7 Comments

Photo: Adam Dash (left) and Raffi Manjikian at the Candidates’ Night.

It’s alway smart to have a prop on hand to make your point.

To demonstrate the necessity of the $4.5 million override to be decided by Belmont voters at Town Election on April 7, Yes for Belmont’s Adam Dash brought a threadbare textbook without its cover and a slab of asphalt to the lectern at Candidates’ Night on Thursday, March 26.

“Let’s be clear what voting no means,” said Dash, holding up “an actual level service quality text book” along with a piece from “my street,” before more than 100 residents attending the Belmont League of Women Voters’ sponsored event at the Chenery Middle School.

“We will see more and more of this,” said Dash, a member of the Warrant Committee for the past six years.

“We are not going to fix his by nibbling around the edges. I’m sorry, but this will cost money, it just does,” Dash told the audience, which were favorable deposed to his argument as noted by dozens who stood in a steady rain holding orange “Yes for Belmont” signs.

Yet Raffi Manjikian, the treasurer of the resident’s committee opposing the override, spurning the request for additional taxes to pay for skyrocketing enrollment and added expenses is not an anti-school vote, pointing out he has four children attending Belmont schools.

Rather, a no vote would be a rejection of “bad assumptions” – such as being “too conservative” in estimates of revenue and expenses – made in a year-long analysis of town finances by the Financial Task Force, which recommended “this mega override.”

“We voters have been given an unfair choice of a $4.5 million override. It’s not all or nothing; there are alternatives and the time to get the job done,” he said in his opening statement.

A “no” vote would give “an unambiguous message to our leadership to get back to the table, sharpen their pencils and manage our public finances wisely,” said Manjikian.

Yet to Dash and the “yes” supporters, a “no” vote transmits “is a bad sign to the people and a bad sign to the kids that we are not willing to do step one” for them.

The night of answering questions – it was hardly a debate in the truest sense – allowed each side to push their positions to residents. While the Yes campaign has been active in Belmont for nearly a month with rallies, meetings, and mailings, Thursday’s meeting was the “nos” first opportunity to explain its argument disputing claims that $4.5 million is the right amount.

It didn’t take long for the most telling comment to be uttered, coming at the very start during Manjikian’s highlighted the main reasons the “No” committee opposes the ballot question, suggesting the “No” committee’s motivation is as much political and procedural as it is fiscal.

“This year the town leadership choose to leap frog over the usual budget process calling for an override before we deliberated on the budget,” said Manjikian, referring to the Warrant Committee’s oversight mission. Several members of the “No” group are current or former members of the committee which serves as the Town Meeting’s financial watchdog.

In fact, the “No” Committee is not opposed to the concept of an override; it would seek to work towards a “right sized” measure that would meet department and schools needs, but only after a “budget committee,” whose work would come under Warrant Committee scrutiny, narrowed the $1.7 million funding gap facing the schools in the 2016 fiscal year.

During the question and answer portion, when residents addressed the representatives, Dash defended the override as the only sensible way of closing a deficit that could see more than 22 full-time equivalent positions cut from the schools, the ending of advanced art courses, the increase in class sizes and providing the bare minimum of classes to 11th and 12th grade students.

Pointing to neighboring towns such as Lexington, Concord and Acton, which has passed numerous overrides since Belmont’s last in 2002, Dash said, “they understand that sometimes things cost more … than 2 1/2 percent a year.”
Manjikian countered “money doesn’t solve the problems,” saying Belmont’s “achievement oriented” parents, students and teachers will continue to make it a successful system.

Rather than revenue, cutting expenses is required, specifically educators pay which is the “biggest driver of the school system,” he said.

When asked by a resident to name the specific cuts to the schools, Dash said the reductions have been clearly spelled out by Belmont School Superintendent John Phelan from major cuts to staff, extra free time and two of three classrooms above recommended enrollment numbers.
“It’s getting ridicules,” said Dash. “If we vote yes, you can have everything that you have now … or you can vote no and all these cuts are going to happen,” said Dash.

Manjikian said if the “no” vote prevails, “it would be in the best interest of the community to bring all the leaders back to the table much like we do in the budget process to look where additional revenue and addition expenses that get realigned and maintain the needs of the schools.”

While Manjikian discussed creating a multi-year plan to finance capital projects such as a new High School as well as annual educational needs, Dash said $4.5 million override is seen by the Financial Task Force and supporters as a long-range financing measure for the schools and the community.

In their closing remarks, Manjikian said a no vote would allow the town to explore “alternatives” to an override that will double from an average $854 per household in a decade.

Dash said Belmont has said “no” for far too long on infrastructure and now the schools.

“The great English philosopher John Lennon once said, ‘Yes is the Answer.'” said Dash.