Departing Light Advisory Chair Slams Light Board, Solar Advocates; ‘Pay to Play Politics’

By 23 Comments

Photo: Ashley Brown, former chair of the Municipal Light Advisory Board. (Youtube.com image)

In an incendiary farewell address, Ashley Brown, the departing chair of the Municipal Light Advisory Board, blasted members of the Light Board – made up of the Board of Selectmen – and advocates of a progressive solar power policy in Belmont for trading political contributions and influence to advance an energy plan which would force Belmont Light consumers to pay an unjustified subsidy to a small number of “solar zealots.”

In a 20 minutes statement at his final meeting as chair of the advisory board, Brown targeted his wrath on the Light Board’s Sami Baghdady and its newest board member, Jim Williams, who “pay attention to the Light Board only when politics and campaign contributions are involved, and pay little or no attention to matters of much greater financial stakes and risks,” said Brown.

“Their actions clearly demonstrate that their primary concern is self-interested politics not the best interests of Belmont and its citizens,” said Brown, who along with fellow veteran, Robert Forrester, were informed last week by the Light Board, made up of Baghdady, Williams and Mark Paolillo, they would not be reappointed.

When asked after the meeting about the harshness of his comments, Brown said “it’s the truth. I stand by every word.”

Read Brown’s full statement at the end of the article.

Brown and Forrester, who have served on the advisory board for more than a decade, were strong advocates for a modest payment to solar power household – which number less than 20 in a town of nearly 9,000 consumers – for energy recaptured by Belmont Light while asking for payments for infrastructure and maintenance. 

Solar advocates have said Belmont is an outlier to other neighboring communities who have long held robust payments (or tariffs) to solar users – representing “pennies” to consumers while supporting alternative clean energy – which attracts solar installers to those towns. They point to hundreds of homes in Arlington, Lexington and Concord who are taking advantage of their town’s policies. 

For Brown, the debate over solar policy has been hijacked by money and politics to a degree that it will impact the running of Belmont Light, which is considered a “well-run” utility by nine of ten consumers, only four years after a managerial scandal that threatened the utility’s existence. 

Brown weighed in on Baghdady and Williams, saying “they have zero interest” on the operations of Belmont Light, noting that Paolillo has taken the time to understand electrical rate structures and the need for strong management. 

Brown claimed Williams “cut a Faustian bargain to get himself elected” in April’s town election with the support of “the solar lobby” to advocate policy that in a round about way violated a central tenant of his run for selectman, supporting an unfunded mandate to solar advocates.

Brown said Williams has been promoting “a solar tariff that was surreptitiously written by the founder of a solar company with the objective of maximizing the author’s profits by unnecessarily raising the rates of consumers in Belmont and elsewhere, and, indeed, the costs of installing solar itself.”

Since Williams’ campaign treasurer – while unnamed by Brown, public records identify as Claus Becker of Poplar Road – who was also the leading campaign contributor is a member of the solar lobby and would benefit from a progressive tariff, Brown claimed that involvement is a clear violation of “conflict of interest” laws.

The exiting chair said Baghdady has shown an “astonishing lack of decisiveness, backbone, and policy direction” as board chair, his position on solar power dictated by reading the “political tea leaves.”

Brown specifically pointed to an April meeting with the Light Board and the staff of Belmont Light, coming a month after the Light Board voted to indefinitely delay the start of a new rate schedule – known as the Residential Rate APV –which was approved by the board in December. 

Brown said Baghdady “resorted to  unconscionably berating and humiliating in public, a dedicated young women staff member at Belmont Light” (later identified as Lauri Mancinelli, Belmont Light’s energy resources manager), for “thoughtfully [trying] to implement the very policies on which [Baghdady] had himself signed off before becoming the head of the Board.”

“At no point, in this dramatic reversal of position did, did he ever offer a rationale that was based on policy, economics, or anything else of substance. It was raw, money and influence-driven politics,” Brown claimed. 

Brown was equally scathing in his view of  “a tiny fraction of customers who have been heavily subsidized by their neighbors because of a flaw in the tariffs, hold[ing] the town hostage to their demands for continued subsidies from their neighbors.”

“They have propagandized, spread misinformation, made innumerable and completely fabricated, ad hominum attacks,” in their efforts to secure a solar policy that could provide upwards of $20,000 to each solar household over a decade, financed by Belmont Light consumers. 

Brown claimed the solar advocates “turned to the traditional, and ethically suspect, methods of special interests, namely pouring even more cash into a political campaign to buy themselves a seat on the Light Board,” referring to Williams. 

The result of the politicizing of the town’s electrical utility is when “Belmont consumers receive their electric bills they may well be paying not only for electricity, but also involuntarily contributing to a funds that Light Board members use to reward campaign contributors,” said Brown.

Belmont Light will not and cannot survive such a regime, he said, advocating that the Light Board be transformed into an independent body whose charge “is held accountable for quality of service, productivity, and sensible policy.”

The town’s government structure review committee drafted legislation in Dec. 2012 an outline in which the Advisory Board would be a separately-elected commission. While it was received with a great amount of support from the Board of Selectmen at the time, the proposal was never advanced to Town Meeting.  

“Politics, especially of the cash and carry type is neither tolerable nor sustainable in running a municipal electric system,” said Brown.

Ralph Jones, a former Light Board member and soon to be a new member of the Advisory Board, agreed with Brown that solar advocates have dominated the agenda – “swallowing up all the oxygen in the room” – so that ambitious and creative carbon reduction programs, such as a climate action plan being developed by the town’s Energy Committee “can not get traction.”

In his final statement, Forrester said the Belmont Light “brand is sound” with its finances “is much improved” since he came on board.

“We have come a long way since the time when respected citizens of Belmont were advocating the sale of the department,” he said.

But he joined Brown in criticizing “the divisive and petty issue of small time politics” in which he unfortunately found himself at the end of his tenure. 

For the handful of surprised solar advocates attending the meeting, the Brown’s “rant” was “largely unsubstantiated,” said a solar proponent who wished to speak off the record. 

In fact, Becker, who was singled out by Brown, told the Advisory Board that he hoped that each side “could see each other as opponents and not as enemies, and I do note that when we talk one-on-one, it centers on what would be good for Belmont.”

Statement by Ashley Brown, former chair, Municipal Light Advisory Board. 

The governance structure for Belmont Light is dysfunctional.  We now have two boards, the Light Board made up of the Board of Selectmen, and the Municipal Light Advisory Board composed of appointees who are well versed in business, energy policy, and in the electricity market. One board holds all the power and virtually no expertise, while the other has vast experience and knowledge but no authority. 

When MLAB was established, the members of the Light Board realized that the electricity market had become increasingly complicated and that the town needed a governance structure that included industry- and business-specific expertise. The Selectmen concluded that a board of laymen was simply inadequate to protect Belmont ratepayers and the town’s investment in the system. It created MLAB to serve that purpose, with the expectation that eventually it, rather than the Light Board, would become the governing body.

While that never happened, the members of both Light Board and MLAB collaborated very closely.  While there may have been disagreements from time to time, members of both bodies shared a common objective of acting in the best interests of the town in overseeing a commercial enterprise entirely owned by our citizens. It was a shared sense of serving the public interest, not narrow political objectives, that forged an effective oversight arrangement.

That shared dedication to the public interest has now evaporated into a highly politicized, and frankly, ethical , morass, that threatens the viability of Belmont Light. What is particularly troublesome about this development is that it has developed at a time that Belmont Light is doing extraordinarily well. A very recent customer survey indicated a 91 percent satisfaction rating by customers, the record of service quality and reliability is absolutely superb, the energy portfolio is above the state’s standards for renewable energy, even though it is not legally obligated to be in compliance, and it is managing the biggest capital project in the Town’s history on an on schedule, on budget basis.

The management team, led by [General Manager] Jim Palmer, that has been assembled is highly competent and highly motivated. Moreover, because of management’s commitment and because of the frequent public meetings of MLAB and Light Board, the operations and finances of Belmont Light are more transparent than they have ever been.  Finally, Belmont Light has developed, in collaboration with the Energy Committee and very effective demand side management/energy efficiency program, as well as in the process of deploying smart meters and a new billing system that will enable customers to use energy even more efficiently and with less adverse environmental consequences. It is a record to take pride in.

Rather than taking pride in these accomplishments, we have seen a tiny fraction of customers who have been heavily subsidized by their neighbors because of a flaw in the tariffs, hold the town hostage to their demands for continued subsidies from their neighbors. They have propagandized, spread misinformation, made innumerable and completely fabricated, ad hominum attacks, … and argued, almost literally, that the planet would not survive if their Belmont did not continue to provide them with substantial cross subsidies from their neighbors, to help them pay for their investment in highly inefficient rooftop solar panels and to unjustly enrich the vendors who sold or leased them. 

They demand these subsidies even though they were already heavliy subsidized through tax credits and renewable energy credit programs, and despite the fact that  Elon Musk, the founder of the nation’s biggest solar vendor, Solar City, told the Edison Electric Institute last week that solar no longer required subsidies to compete once carbon was internalized into electricity prices, as all of new England has done. 

The debate over whether non-solar Belmont ratepayers should provide cash to solar customers (in some cases as high as $820 per year) has raged for four years. Despite the intensity, the governance system for Belmont Light remained intact and functional. In 2011, and then through implementing action last December, the Light Board made a decision that, would, over time, have phased out the local cross subsidies, while at the same time affording a seven year pay back for Belmont customers who chose to invest in solar.

In short, it would have lowered rates for non-solar customers while maintaining an attractive payback for solar hosts. At the urging of one member of Light Board, now the chair, there were also cash gifts bestowed on existing solar customers, compliments of the other ratepayers of Belmont.  Not coincidentally, several of those receiving the cash handouts, for which no economic justification was ever provided, were either contributors to his campaign or were relatives of contributors.

In a public meeting he said he was giving out the cash because the recipients were “pioneers.” That contrasted to his private statements, only minutes before, that those very same people were “bullies.”

The solar lobby, not content with getting a partial loaf, then turned to the traditional, and ethically suspect, methods of special interests, namely pouring even more cash into a political campaign to buy themselves a seat on the Light Board. 

They funded a very substantial part of the campaign of a candidate for the Board, who dogmatically supported the solar lobby’s party line in public, even though they were in direct conflict with his oft repeated opposition to unfunded liabilities and to local subsidies, and contrary to statements he made in private to members of MLAB. In effect, to get campaign contributions, that candidate cut a Faustian bargain to get himself elected.

Once elected, he tried, to have the Board adopt a solar tariff that was surreptitiously written by the founder of a solar company with the objective of maximizing the author’s profits by unnecessarily raising the rates of consumers in Belmont and elsewhere, and, indeed, the costs of installing solar itself. 

The Light Board member has also been trying to repeal a provision of the 2011 solar tariff that requires that solar generators eventually be compensated at market value rather than artificially high rates, paid for by imposing higher prices on non-solar customers. He quite explicitly advocated that non-solar Belmont customers should pay higher rates than they would otherwise be compelled to pay in order to heavily cross subsidize his campaign contributors. He has been doing so at the behest of his campaign treasurer, and biggest non-familial contributor to his campaign also a contributor to the campaign of the current chair of Light Board, who had the gall to state in an Light Board meeting, that solar pricing was a purely political matter, devoid of technical issues, in a public meeting of Light Board. That made transparently clear that his campaign contributions were intended to buy himself a subsidy, which in his case, amounted to approximately $820 per year for  the life of his solar panels, thus, probably amounting to  more than $20,000 paid entirely by his neighbors in town.

Curiously, the Light Board member pursuing the contributor’s agenda, never fully disclosed the identity of the person who provided the “tariff he provided. He also failed to disclose the fact that the “tariff” he was pushing, was written by a man whose business stood to be enriched by the measure being pushed. What is particularly striking about the Light Board member’s heavier is that he ran a campaign based on opposition to unfunded liabilities, but his first action as an Light Board member was to create even bigger unfunded liabilities by not allowing Belmont Light to recover all of its fixed costs from several of his campaign contributors.

Given the conflict of interest and the failure to disclose – that fact was also not disclosed by another contributor to the same campaign in his transmittal of the proposal to the other Light Board members in which he describes the author as a “resident” of the town, and failed to identify the fellow’s business interests, an act typical of the dishonesty of the subsidy seeking  lobby in town – that member of the Light Board should be prohibited from voting on any measure having to do with solar pricing in Belmont. His conflict of interest is patently clear, as is his links to the “pay to play” tactics of those who seek to put their hands in the pockets of everyone else in our town.

Intimidated by the outpouring of money and a false reading of the political tea leaves, as well as an astonishing lack of decisiveness, backbone, and  policy direction, the new chair of the Light Board, decided, without giving any explanation of his rationale, to retract the December decision. 

While he was unable to publicly articulate any policy reason for doing so, in private, he fulminated about the political consequences for himself if Belmont did not reinstate heavy cross subsidies for solar hosts and their vendors.

To disguise his inability to articulate any reason his complete reversal of position, he resorted to  unconscionably  berating and humiliating  in public a dedicated young women staff member at BL, later telling her “it was just politics.”

The deed for which he berated her was that she had thoughtfully tried to implement  the very policies on which the chair had  himself signed off before becoming the head of the board. The young woman, as a result, felt compelled to resign her position, a critical loss for Belmont Light, because she was [its] central person in establishing and coordinating energy efficiency and carbon reduction programs. 

What made the [chair’s] posture so bizarre was that he took her to task for, among other things, limiting the town’s liability for flaws in privately owned solar units, for requiring performance in exchange for payment, and for documenting the size and scale of the solar units, a matter made necessary by the nature of the cash gift the [chair’s] has bestowed on solar hosts. In effect, he not only wanted to subsidize the solar hosts, but also to relieve them of any liability for unsafe operation and to pay them regardless of whether they performed. 

At no point, in this dramatic reversal of position did, did he ever offer a rationale that was based on policy, economics or anything else of substance. It was raw, money and influence driven politics. Moreover, he refused to follow a prearranged schedule of joint Light Board/MLAB meetings to discuss these matters. He made it clear that he, who by his own admission, knows virtually nothing about electricity was going to work his political agenda and would not tolerate any input from experts either MLAB or staff.  Simply stated he did not want his political objectives interfered with by anyone who knew something about the subject. In short, he was insisting on governance by the uninformed, and subject to being heavily influenced by those who opened their checkbooks to clueless politicians willing to commit themselves to the self-serving agenda of those writing the checks.

Largely at the urging of some prominent people in town, including the third member of the Light Board, the chair, looking for political cover in a storm caused by his move to rescind the December, 2014 decision, announced [at] Town Meeting that a special expert committee would be appointed to come up with a compromise between net metering and the December tariff approved by the Light Board. In effect, the chair was telling an as yet unknown committee of experts what conclusion they should reach. Subsequently, the Committee was appointed.

Obviously, its recommendations remain to be seen, and the final actions of the Light Board are not yet known. Given past performance by the two members of the Light Board, it seems highly unlikely, regardless of what the committee recommends,  there is little reason to be confident that the Light Board will do anything  other than what is politically expedient.

For that reason, Belmont residents who do not wish to pay cross subsidize the campaign contributors to members of the Light Board, who object to the toxic effects of money and politics, should make their positions clear. For two member of Light Board, politics is all that matters when it comes to electricity tariffs., and so far the only people who are lobbying are those seeking to dip into their neighbors’ pockets.

What makes all of this even a more terrible omen for the future of Belmont Light, is that neither of the two Light Board members discussed have ever asked more than cursory questions about the large substation project, never uttered a single question about gaining pool status for the new transmission line, a multi-million dollar issue for the town, nor have they ever made any inquiry into Belmont Light’s energy purchasing or hedging strategies, one of, if not the biggest procurement activity conducted by the town. They have never even asked about pricing policy and the basis on which our customers, their constituents, are billed. Neither has any experience in or knowledge of energy markets, and neither has ever expressed any interest in learning about them, and unlike their predecessors, make no pretense of exercising due diligence in the way that corporate directors are required to do. Their oversight is strictly limited to issues they find to be of political value. 

Watching their meetings, one would have to presume that the only issue of consequence is solar pricing and that that is a purely political matter devoid of substance. Simply stated, these two members of the Light Board pay attention to the Light Board only when politics and campaign  contributions are involved, and pay little or no attention to matters of much greater financial stakes and risks. Their actions clearly demonstrate that their primary concern is self interested politics not the best interests of Belmont and its citizens.

Belmont Light has been able to serve the town because it has been run on a business like, non political basis, with a sharp focus on community service. The current majority of the Light Board, are now attempting to use Belmont Light as a vehicle for political patronage and favoritism. Amazingly, they do so without regard to, or even acknowledgement of, public policy or equity considerations.

While the pricing of solar energy is a public policy issue, neither of the two Light Board members being discussed have ever shown any interest in or even articulation of a policy or economic perspective. They simply pursue a course that they think is in their political interest and which rewards their campaign contributors. 

So when Belmont consumers receive their electric bills they may well be paying not only for electricity, but also involuntarily contributing to a funds that Light Board members use to reward campaign contributors. Belmont Light will not and cannot survive such a regime. 

The governance of the system must be reformed to assure competent, informed, and apolitical oversight. There needs to be a Board put in place that is run on a fully commercial basis and is held accountable for quality of service, productivity, and sensible policy. Politics, especially of the cash and carry type is neither tolerable nor sustainable in running a municipal electric system. 

Cheese, Olive Oil, and Now Beer and Wine at Art’s Specialities

By Leave a Comment

Photo: Art’s Specialities on Trapelo Road.

In the past year-and-a-half, those seeking a beer and wine license could expect coming before the Board of Selectmen multiple times, spending a great deal of time discussing business plans and legal matters.

So it was something of a nice surprise when the owners of Art’s Specialities, the food market on Trapelo Road whose focus is cheese and olive oil, spent just under 10 minutes before the Selectmen before walking out with the coveted license.

In fact, the entire process was fairly painless. 

“We are elated,” said co-owner Jen Bonislawski, who is married to her business partner, Artur Nergaryan. “It could not have gone better than it did.” 

The Watertown couple’s store, at 369 Trapelo Rd. near the corner of Beech Street, appeared to be the prototype of what the selectmen were looking for in an applicant for the limited number of beer and wine licenses the town has to dole out.

With its open and bright retail space, the store sells a variety of specialty foods reflecting an upscale market, which its shelves filled with a wide array of cheeses, olive oils, balsamic vinegars, herbs, meats as well as loose seeds, tea and nuts. The operation also won over the board by informing them they do not, nor will sell, lottery tickets or tobacco products.  

Once the couple presented their plan to use the license to complement its food operation using less than a fifth of its space to sell selected wines and craft beer as well as overwhelming neighborhood support, the selectmen saw little reason not to issue the license.

“I’m so happy,” said Nergaryan after their presentation. “We got so much support from our customers. They took time from their work and they said such good things about our store.” 

Town Green Supporters Ponder Special TM After Raucous Selectmen Standoff

By 2 Comments

Photo: Belmont Center Reconstruction project. 

[Correction: The latest date for a Town Meeting to take place if 200 signatures were submitted to the Town Clerk’s office on Friday, June 26, would be Aug. 10.]

It’s been some time since the Belmont Police has been called to a public meeting. But a man in blue stood outside Town Hall’s Board of Selectmen’s Room – more amused than austere – as a large contingency of supporters of a town green adjacent to the Belmont Savings Bank and traffic calming measures as part of the Belmont Center Reconstruction project to present their complaints in the form of a petition – with more than 500 signatures in support – that would reverse last-minute changes to the projects blueprint approved by the Selectmen in late May.

Supporters of the original plan said they will make plans in the next few days on rounding up 200 signatures from registered voters to call a Special Town Meeting to resolve the issue.

“According to Town Clerk Ellen Cushman, if the petition with the required signatures where received by her office by Friday, June 26, the latest a Special Town Meeting could take place would be Aug. 10.”

At Monday’s meeting, shouts of “shame” accompanied by derisive catcalls and moans were heard as the chance for cooperation on the issue quickly struck the political shallows as neither side wished to surrender what they preserved as being the high ground.

After an initial statement calling for a return to what is being called design “Plan A,” the petition’s standard-bearer Paul Roberts asked that the board “hear those who wish to speak for and against” the proposed return to the original project plan.

Chair Sami Baghdady countered by saying what Robert’s statement “sums up pretty well” those who support the petition’s language. Providing additional comments, Selectman Jim Williams objected to Robert’s statement as being disrespectful to the board, charging that the selectmen did respect Town Meeting support for the project even as they voted to alter the project in May.

The town’s legislative body approved the project’s funding in November at a Special Town Meeting.  

View the first 20 minute of the Selectmen’s June 22 meeting soon at the Belmont Media Center. 

The board also noted that the green space adjacent to the bank would be 43 percent larger under the Board of Selectmen supported Plan B than in the original plan. Shortly after the Selectmen’s response, the board ended the comment section without acting on the complaint 0r whether it would acknowledge those who opposed the changes.

When Roberts questioned ending the comment period, he was told he was out of order, resulting in a verbal brouhaha with a police officer showing up in the background. 

Speaking after the meeting, Roberts said he would be contacting supporters on gathering the required signatures to call for a Special Town Meeting to resolve the issue once and for all. 

The changes were prompted by a petition with 200 signatures from 96-year-old Lydia Ogilby, a voter and Town Meeting Member from Precinct 1. Her minimal request – “Petition to reconsider the reconstruction of the green space in the upcoming Belmont Centre project. Please save the trees in the delta and across Concord Avenue. Also save the pass through in front of the bank” – resulted in the reintroduction of parking and the side street connecting Moore Street and Concord Avenue.

Yet Roberts said what’s at issue isn’t how large of a green space will ultimately be placed along Leonard Street. For him and others, the critical question is process.

“If this precedence stands, then what Town Meeting is saying is that the Selectmen can, at any point in every capital project up to the ribbon cutting, has the authority to redraw the project to their liking,” said Roberts.

“It could be based on personal preference, on a petition from a friend or who they talked to over the weekend at a barbecue over the weekend,” he said.

“It’s a complete undermining of a ground up, grass root transparent process in which people can comment on things, have them implemented and the final result is what the community wants,” he said.

Arrivals, Departures and ‘Great Urgency’ to Solar Power Debate

By Leave a Comment

Photo: Solar power in Belmont.

Last Tuesday’s meeting of the Municipal Light Board resembled Terminal A at Logan Airport: a place for arrivals and departures all in the same place.

Landing into the contentious debate to create a long-term solar power policy for the town-owned utility Belmont Light, the Light Board (which consists of the members of the Board of Selectmen) announced the formation of a new committee at their meeting held at the Chenery Middle School, on June 15.

Christened with the somewhat unyielding moniker of the “Temporary Net Metering Working Advisory Group” – or TNMWAG for short – the charge of the new three-person body will provide the Board that will be “somewhat independent view” on developing a policy which will “promote solar” in a “responsible” way, according to Light Board chairman Sami Baghdady.

The group, which include three voting members and two alternates “is a balanced group” to accomplish the board’s goals, said Baghdady

While the new group’s arrival was expected – it was negotiated on the floor of Town Meeting earlier in the month – the Light Board’s next move was a sudden, seismic change to the influential Municipal Light Advisory Board as Baghdady announced the board would not reappoint the current chair and vice chair of the influential group when their terms expire at the end of the month.

Chair Ashley Brown and Vice Chair Robert Forrester have each served for more than a decade on the committee. They also have been the leaders of those seeking to limit the size of the tariff that would benefit solar power users, contending that Belmont Light customers

After the meeting, Brown sternly addressed Baghdady after the meeting in a somewhat heated –albeit quiet – conversation centering on why the Light Board had requested both Brown and Forrester submit applications for re-appointment just last month. Brown contended their removal was political in nature, rather than a need to put “new blood” in the MLAB system.

The MLAB departures were in start contrast with the arrival of the appointed group. The body, which will take six-to-eight weeks to review and analyze a new net metering policy, was need as past attempts to structure a framework had created “this massive mistrust” among all factions in the solar power debate in town, Baghdady said.

The three voting members – with two non-voting associates – have heavyweight credentials, starting off with Henry “Jake” Jacoby, the William F. Pounds Professor of Management, Emeritus at MIT Sloan School, a leading expert on national climate policies and the structure of the international climate regime who Baghdady called “a big policy person and someone with a big-picture view” on the subject.

Joining Jacoby in the group will be Stephen Klionsky, an attorney with Northeast Utilities, and an alternate member of the Municipal Light Board Advisory Committee. Klionsky has a law degree from New York University and a Masters in Planning and Public Policy from Harvard.

The final appointed voting member is Roy Epstein, a long-serving member of the town’s Warrant Committee who is an economic consultant (PhD from Yale) and an adjunct professor of Finance at Boston College’s Carroll School of Management .

Attending the meetings as associate members will be Tony Barnes and Robert Gallant.

The appointment of the new members drew a wary eye from the dozen or so solar power proponents sitting in attendance. One solar power supporter questioned the political nature of the selections, pointing to Epstein’s public statements opposing a robust subsidy being advocated by proponents of great solar use in Belmont.

The supporter pondered if Epstein ever took money from oil companies in his employment as an expert witness, unaware Epstein was sitting behind him. The long-time Warrant Committee member took considerable umbrage to the accusation of being a “hired gun” for the petroleum industry.

For the proponents, the new committee will only stall an already delayed policy which, on its face, will affect a small number of users and costing the town – which they contend is overwhelmingly supportive of solar power usage – “pennies.”

“Why such Sturm und Drang” on supporting solar power, asked Claus Becker of Poplar Road.

Light Board member Jim Williams said solar proponents has crafted their proposal evaluated by a research firm for its fairness to non-solar ratepayers. Further delays will only promote uncertainty among solar panel installers that have written off Belmont as a viable community for their work.

“Just do it now,” said Williams, urging his fellow board members to support the solar proponents proposal that focuses on a series of charges, buybacks and tariffs that would subsidize residents use of solar power.

While his two colleagues were willing to make small changes to the existing policy, they did not appear ready to abandon the TNMWAG they just created.

 

Letter to the Editor: Fact Checking the Belmont Center ‘Bait and Switch’

By 12 Comments

To the editor:

A lot of ink, digital and otherwise, has recently been spent asserting that the Belmont Center Reconstruction project has been usurped by a small “faction” of influential residents, pulling a “bait and switch” on Town Meeting, and undermining the democratic process in town. The only recourse, it is claimed, is to force the Selectmen to recant and reinstitute the original plan, which was perfect as it was and universally agreed to.

Moved by this tale of overreach, corruption, and eleventh-hour backroom “politicking,” many Belmontians have signed a petition demanding an end to this blot on democracy.

It is a morally uplifting tale. But is any of it true?

Unfortunately, a look at the actual content of November’s Special Town Meeting and the process since then will make clear that the current story of the derailment of the democratic process is unfounded. The outraged narrative has “truthiness” to be sure, but it is false at its core.

First a distinction. Well-intentioned citizens may disagree about the merits of “Plan A” versus “Plan B,” but this is not what is fueling the recent petition and uproar, or in any case what is being discussed here. Rather, the fact that people have been told that an anti-democratic coup has occurred, and that they feel justifiably upset about this and have pledged themselves to see the right restored, is the issue here.

Fortunately for the town, what they have been told is simply untrue. Unfortunately, you would not know that from what is still being shouted from the rooftops.

Let’s take it piece by piece.

First of all, it has been asserted that that there was a complete plan (“Plan A”) in place at the time of Town Meeting. This is not true, a point raised as an issue on Town Meeting floor by several members at the time, including the very first comment on the main motion:

MR. MCGAW: We’re authorizing some money to be issued, but it says appropriated for the Belmont Center Reconstruction Project, and my only question is what is defined to be the Belmont Center Reconstruction Project? Is it the pictures we’ve seen tonight? Is it provided somewhere because already tonight we’ve heard some tweaks to things on the screen. So what is “the project”? … I notice people are discussing “the project,” but we don’t have a reference to “the project.”

Right from the outset, then, there was unclarity about what the project consisted of. But it wasn’t merely that some Town Meeting members had not yet seen the final plan. As Glenn Clancy, Director of the Office of Community Development, noted:

MR. CLANCY: … We have construction drawings [on the website] that are about probably 90 percent complete. I would tell you that the Belmont Center Reconstruction Project is — you know, ultimately will be the set of construction drawings that will represent this project. I don’t know how to answer it better than that.

In other words, there was no “final plan” yet; at the time of voting, the plan was incomplete. Other Town Meeting members also expressed their concerns about this.

Regarding whether feedback was still welcome, the interchange between Belmont Selectman Sami Baghdady and Town Meeting member Joe White, who was suggesting that the vote should be put off because the plan was incomplete, is illuminating on this point:

MR. BAGHDADY: Joe, with all due respect, okay, the plans are at 90 percent completion phase. If you have a design comment … I think you can come to Glenn after this Town Meeting, raise your point. It will be looked into, and if it’s valid, it will be incorporated. The purpose of this Town Meeting is appropriation — … We are here to appropriate funds for a project. If there’s fine tuning that’s needed … it can take place after.

Thus the notion that the plan was set in stone at the time, that everyone agreed on what it consisted of, and that it was not subject to further revisions, is simply false.

As to the merits of retaining the access road, this was discussed at length by a variety of Town Meeting members. Most notable was the concern of losing ease of access for elderly patrons:

MR. SEMUELS: Is there any possibility that the travel lane next to the Belmont Savings Bank can be saved rather than the amount of green space. I’m in favor of green space. I, for the most part, approve of this, but these are the concerns that I’ve heard from a lot of people who are seniors and are disabled people who may be driving, still driving.

Another member drove the same point home, noting in passing that the proposed new configuration required drivers to get enmeshed in the overall traffic.

The point here is not whether the access road should be retained, but that there was general recognition on Town Meeting floor that the access road component was a complex issue that merited further discussion. And while it is true that the removal of the road was part of the conceptual plans shown on slides at Town Meeting, the response of town representatives and elected officials to feedback about this feature was not to assert that the plan is inviolable, but rather to explicitly say that, as stewards of the interests of the town as a whole, of course they were open to feedback:

MR. CLANCY: Now, that doesn’t mean that I want a parade of residents coming through my office and changing every little aspect of this project, and several thousands of dollars in design goes out the window, and members of the Traffic Advisory Committee that are sitting here in front of me, all their hard work goes out the window, but I do feel we have an obligation to respond where we think it’s appropriate.

Thus, while infinite tinkering was reasonably discouraged, it was the general sense that there would be an opportunity to opine on this difficult issue of the design, an opportunity where citizens could meet and discuss the options in an open public forum. The Town Meeting vote was about funding, not about the final design.

When several months passed and work was begun in the Center, but no public forum had yet been scheduled to address the design issues raised in Town Meeting, numerous concerned citizens brought this to the attention of the town.

Finally, the opportunity for this feedback came in the spring. The Town Clerk duly informed Town Meeting of a meeting at the Beech Street Center, and a large number of citizens attended. The positive and negative elements of the options were civilly discussed, and the Board of Selectmen took all this feedback, and no doubt much other feedback from the months preceding, and made a difficult decision that they believed balanced the various needs of the town.

The town leaders were acting on their best footing as stewards of the public good: they responded to citizen concerns, they offered revised proposals, and they provided an opening for input in a fully open publicly announced forum.

Of course, it is understandable that some townsfolk were disappointed by the results of the recent meeting. They may legitimately encourage the Selectmen to reverse their decision.

But it is a completely separate issue, indeed a wonder, that so many citizens have been misled into believing and supporting the false notion that the town leaders have committed a massive perversion of justice by these actions. That an open meeting addressing citizen’s concerns could be so thoroughly misconstrued is rather astounding.

The merits of Plan A and Plan B are worth discussing even now, but the accusation that town leaders sidestepped democracy in this case, and indeed colluded with a “faction” of select influence peddlers, is completely unfounded.

Certainly it must be morally satisfying to be outraged at this fictitious slight, but it doesn’t make it any more true.

If citizens wish to re-open the case of Plan A versus Plan B, that is understandable, but they should not do so under the false pretense that an offense against democracy was committed. It wasn’t.

Kevin Cunningham

Town Meeting Member, Precinct 4

Trapelo Road Cheese Shop Seeking Beer/Wine License

By Leave a Comment

Photo: Co-owners Jen Bonislawski and Artur Nergaryan of Art’s Specialities on Trapelo Road.

Artur Nergaryan said his customers – from first-timers to his regulars – keep asking him the same question.

“People will go around and pick up a salami, some cheese and bread and then ask, ‘Where’s your wine?'” said Nergaryan, the co-owner with his wife, Jen Bonislawski, of Art’s Specialities at 369 Trapelo Rd.

That consumer demand has prompted the couple come before the Belmont Board of Selectmen on Monday, June 22, seeking a license to sell beer and wine from their new speciality food store, located across the street from the Studio Cinema near the corner of Beech Street.

But the application does not mean the couple is seeking to change the tenor of the store’s character or focus.

“[Beer and wine] is not our main business; it will be complementary to what we are already selling,” said Bonislawski. The couple hopes to carve out a small section of the store near the checkout counter to sell a select number of moderately-priced wines and popular craft beers.

“It will provide that extra something that [customers] said they want,” said Nergaryan.

The Watertown couple opened the speciality store three months ago in the former location of Diver’s Jim. The 1,700 sq.-ft. store front sells an large array of regional cheeses, olive oils and balsamic vinegars, herbs, charcuteries (prepare meats including bacon, ham, sausage, pâtés and confit) as well as loose seeds, tea and nuts. It has begun stocking some prepared foods and is the only store in Belmont where you can buy your pickles – five varieties – straight from the barrel.

IMG_9308

But the couple will be coming before a board that has not awarded a retail beer and wine license in years. In the past 18 months, the board has rejected applications by three Trapelo Road stores – each within a few blocks of Art’s – and from Jimmy’s Food Mart at the corner of Belmont and School streets which was denied a license in March. The business has since closed after a fire destroyed the location. 

The former board that rejected the earlier bids criticized the nature of the businesses – quick-visit variety or convenient stores – which sold lottery tickets and tobacco products, fearing they would quickly evolve into package stores.

But unlike the previous applicants, Bonislawski contends Art’s Specialties – which does not hold a lottery license or sells cigarettes – will remain true to its current business plan.

“Sometimes when a store receives a liquor license, they begin pushing the alcohol. That’s not the case here,” said Bonislawski.

For the working couple – Nergaryan is a bank manager in Belmont and Bonislawski a librarian in Cambridge – Art’s is an opportunity to break into retail trade with what Nergaryan is familiar with (he grew up making cheese after coming to the US from Armenia).

“We love being here, and we’ve received a good reception from other businesses and residents,” she said. “They said how much we’re helping change the neighborhood.”

This Week: Meetings Before Summer, Final Day of School, Housing Lottery

By Leave a Comment

On the government side of “This Week”: 

  • The Belmont School Committee will meet at 6:15 p.m., Monday, June 22, at the Chenery Middle School. A crowd is expected. 
  • The Belmont Light Board will meet at Belmont Town Hall on Monday, June 22, at 6:30 p.m. to discuss net metering and the a buyback tariff. 
  • The scheduled meeting of the Board of Selectmen takes place at 7 p.m., Monday, June 22, in Town Hall. While the schedule includes an application for a beer and wine license and other routine items. it’s expected a petition with nearly 500 signatures will be presented concerning recent design changes made to the Belmont Center Reconstruction project that was approved by the board earlier this month. 
  • Municipal Light Advisory Board  will meet Tuesday, June 23, from 7:15 p.m. to 9:15 p.m., at Town Hall.
  • The Community Path Implementation Advisory Committee will meet to discuss going on a walking tour of potential paths while identifying future challenges. The meeting takes place at Town Hall on Wednesday, June 23, at 6 p.m.

The Belmont Public Library will be closed Monday, June 22, as new floor tiles will be installed. The building will reopen Tuesday, June 23, at 9 a.m.

Pre-School Story Time at the Benton Library, Belmont’s independent and volunteer run library, this morning, June 23, 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. 

Tuesday, June 23 is the final day of the 2014-15 School Year. Summer recess begins before noon. Several schools will have “moving on” ceremonies; for 4th graders heading off to Middle School and eighth graders going to Belmont High in the fall. 

Join Clarence Richardson for a presentation to find out what estate planning documents you need and why on Tuesday, June 23, 2015, at 1:15 P.M. at the Beech Street Center. Participants will leave the presentation with a better understanding of documents you may have heard of like Wills, Trusts, Powers of Attorney, and Health Care Proxies. Richardson will discuss why he thinks everyone should have some of these documents, but not necessarily all of them.

Yoga for everyone at the Beech Street Center on Tuesday, June 23 from 5:30 p.m. to 6:45 p.m.: join Susan Harris, a registered yoga teacher and associate professor of Nutrition at Tufts University for this Iyengar-inspired class which practices yoga postures slowly and with attention to alignment and safety, adapted to the abilities and needs of individual students. Practice is done with bare feet; mats and props are provided. Cost: $15/class. Non-seniors, beginners and experienced are welcome. This is a non-Council on Aging class held at the Beech Street Center. For more information, call Susan at 617-407-0816.

The Belmont Housing Trust will be holding its Homebuyer Assistance Program GAP Lottery on Tuesday, June 23, from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. in the Flett Room of the Belmont Public Library. The random selection of the three households of the eligible applicants will give them the opportunity to search, select, and buy homes in Belmont with financial assistance from the program, funding by the Community Preservation Committee Fund.

Belmont Stormwater Working Group meets in the Flett Room of the Belmont Public Library on Thursday, June 25, beginning at 7 p.m.

Protest Raises Awareness of METCO Cuts Impacting Belmont Schools

By Leave a Comment

Photo: The protest outside Belmont High School on Wednesday, June 17.

For 12 years, since first coming to the Wellington Elementary School as a first grader, Rashunda Webb has been a young woman on the move.

As a METCO student, she traveled from Dorchester to Belmont initially on a bus for her early years before switching to public transportation. While she attended Belmont High School, it took Webb a good 90 minutes on MBTA buses and subways to get to school and then back home.

Yet she said without benefits of graduating from one of the best open enrollment high schools in the country, “I don’t think I would have had the chance of attending the college I’ve been hoping to,”  said Webb, who is matriculating at New York University this fall as a nursing student.

And while she succeeded in using the opportunity METCO gave her, Webb wants to see others from her neighborhood take the same route she did.

IMG_8889

Rashunda Webb of Dorchester and Belmont High School.

“There are many, many kids who want to come here,” Webb told the Belmontonian. 

But the program Webb took advantage of is battling to maintain it funding level to where it can remain a viable option for other students from Boston.

“The budget cuts are closing the doors to the same opportunity I was privileged enough to experience,” said Webb at an informational protest rally at the entry to Belmont High School at Underwood Street and Concord Avenue on Wednesday, June 17. 

“That is why we are here today, that METCO will no longer open those doors of opportunity if we don’t speak up,” said Webb.

Holding bed sheets with “Protect METCO” and “The fight for equality is your responsibility,” written on them, a small but dedicated group of recent graduates and current students – each taking time away from finals preparation – sought to raise the issue that they believe has not received the attention or coverage it deserves. 

While many cars and students gave curious looks at the group, other beeped their horns and gave a supportive wave. 

“We’re looking to gain support in Belmont with this protest,” said Joe Fitzgerald, a 2014 Belmont High grad who coordinated the protest. Currently, 119 students from Boston attend Belmont schools in the first through twelfth grades. 

METCO – which stands for Metropolitan Council for Educational Opportunities – is a voluntary integration program founded in 1966, provides a suburban public school education for African-American, Hispanic, and Asian students from Boston.

The program is currently in a tug of war between Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker’s budget which attempts to close a $768 million deficit. His budget cuts the METCO line item by $1.2 million to $17.9 million in fiscal 2016 while over in the House of Representatives, they propose to restore METCO funding to $20.14 million, a million dollars greater than last fiscal year’s amount. 

If the cuts are approved and passed, Belmont could see a resulting reduction in METCO of $54,000, a sizable hit for the program, Fitzgerald said. It could result in a drop in the over number of students attending Belmont schools and could result in siblings of current METCO students not provided an easier avenue to follow their brothers or sisters to the same schools. 

“We want to gain the democratic voice we need to bring more people into the debate, so it’s not just a debate between two or three higher ups but of the community which wants this program continue at adequate levels,” said Fitzgerald. 

Due to Scheduling Kerfuffle, Belmont Center Petition Delivered Through the E-Mail

By 1 Comment

Photo: Parking in front of the Belmont Savings Bank is at issue in the petition delivered to the Board of Selectmen Monday.

Paul Roberts is not just frustrated with what he perceives as the Board of Selectmen overreaching its authority in altering the design plans for the $2.8 million Belmont Center Reconstruction Project even as construction had begun, he also had to deal with faulty dates on the town’s web page.

“They have inaccurate, outdated info on the Board of Selectmen’s web page,” said Roberts, who was prepared on Monday, June 15, to submit his petition asking the board to restore the Project’s original design which features a “town lawn” in front of the main branch of Belmont Savings Bank on Leonard Street.

The only problem was that the Board of Selectmen were not holding office hours at 6 p.m. as its page stated on the Belmont-ma.gov site.

“It’s too damn hard to figure out what[’s] happening and when in this town,” said Roberts, a Cross Street resident and a Town Meeting Member from Precinct 8.

So rather than presenting his Petition with 430 signatures from Belmont residents and business owners calling for the restoration of the original design, Roberts put the package into a PDF file and zipped it over to the three selectmen via e-mail.

You can see the petitions at the end of the article.

Roberts promises he’ll hand deliver a printed copy to the board at the Selectmen’s scheduled Monday, June 22 meeting.

As for the Selectmen, while one acknowledged receiving the package, its contents were yet to be read.

“[Roberts] did e-mail us something, but I have not seen the petition. I just got it,” said Selectman Chair Sami Baghdady at another public meeting Monday night. 

What is facing the selectmen is a growing number of residents angered by the board’s vote to approve two major changes to the approved Reconstruction Project’s design – now known as Plan A – proposed by a small faction of residents led by long-time homeowner Lydia Ogilby.

The revised design, Plan B, restores the current layout of parking in front of the bank as well as continue a cut through between Moore Street and Concord Avenue. Those changes would effectively end the hope of many of establishing a town green (or lawn) into Belmont Center as a central gathering area.

Roberts and those who signed the petition are asking for the board “to respectfully reverse a decision you made at a special hearing in May that installed a new, heretofore unseen and untested plan created at the last minute by your office in the place of Plan A.”

Roberts has joined others who believe the original designed was vetted and approved by a Special Town Meeting in November 2014 which approved the $2.8 million project’s financing.

“Reinstating Plan A will respect the work of the Traffic Advisory Committee, the wishes of Town Meeting and – as this petition suggests – the wishes of the voting public,” says Roberts letter.

The petition’s signatories represent “the full spectrum of Belmont politics” including Town Meeting members, the Warrant Committee, and the Traffic Advisory Committee which created the program. It also includes some pointed quotes from neighbors.

“Plan A” was the approved plan. It was an excellent plan. The last-minute substitution of another plan, which bypassed a multi-year town-wide process, by a small group to effectively undo the good works done by many people over many years is a shameful act and should not be allowed to happen.” said resident Andrew Bennett.

Roberts hopes the Board of Selectmen will conclude that since any further changes to the project’s blueprint could actually delay the reconstruction schedule. the board will open discussion on his petition at 7 p.m. at Monday’s meeting “so that we may resolve this issue as soon as possible.”

Town Center Green Space Signatures – NonResidents

Town Center Green Space Signatures – Residents

Petition to Restore Original Belmont Center Plan Coming to Selectmen

By Leave a Comment

Photo: The original plan for the Belmont Center Reconstruction project.

Residents and Town Meeting members are expected to present a Petition with 400 signatures to the Belmont Board of Selectmen Monday afternoon, June 15, requesting the board reject a series of controversial last-minute changes it approved last month to the $2.8 million Belmont Center Reconstruction Project.

“We plan on presenting our petition during the … Selectmen’s Office Hours at 6 p.m. [on Monday],” said Paul Roberts, a Cross Street resident and Precinct 8 Town Meeting member, being joined by Town Meeting colleagues and members of the Traffic Advisory Committee which developed the project over four years.

If the board ignores their concerns, Roberts said he will begin collecting 200 signatures that will allow him to ask the Town Clerk to call a special Town Meeting where it will debate the project’s changes before the 300-member legislative body.

Roberts petition comes after an unanimous vote by the selectmen on May 28 to change the project’s original design – known as Plan A – after 96-year-old Lydia Ogilby approached the board with 200 signatures in an effort to alter the project’s blueprint despite the knowledge that major work had commenced.

The changes – dubbed Plan B – restored a small number of parking spaces in front of the main branch of Belmont Savings Bank and preserving a “cut through” connecting Moore Street with Concord Avenue, allowing drivers to avoid Leonard Street when seeking parking.

The result of the new changes meant the elimination of a new “town green” located in front of the bank. Under the alternative design, the green space would remain an island surrounded by vehicle traffic and parked cars.

Since the May 28 vote, an increasing number of residents have expressed their dismay at the board’s action in comments to articles and on-line. The main complaint is as much procedural as esthetic, as the Plan A design was accepted by a majority of Town Meeting members eight months earlier.

“This was the only plan that was presented to [the Special Town Meeting] in November, with the understanding that it was a plan that would be put out to bid and completed,” Roberts said.

Also, Roberts said he and many Town Meeting members “voted for that plan specifically because of the Town Lawn feature and were shocked when the board simply removed it and submitted new plans.”

“We are hopeful the [Selectmen] will recognize this and restore it to the original plan” by the board’s June 22 meeting, said Roberts.

If the Selectmen refuse to reinstate Plan A, said Roberts, it could use its authority to call a Town Meeting into an emergency session, and allow the legislative body to choose between the competing plans.

“I would support that, as well, and think that this would have been the proper response to the May 26 hearing, especially since Town Meeting was in session at the time,” he said.

If the board refuses to pursue either of the options, Roberts and his supporters can collect and submit the 200 signatures and call Town Meeting into session to clarify that the vote to fund the reconstruction was a vote to fund Plan A and not any other plan.

Roberts is confident that he could raise the number of signatures to bring Town Meeting back into session.

“I don’t believe you can simply repurpose signatures; you have to use a special form. But, again, with [more than] 400 signatures, getting 200 to request a special Town Meeting to resolve this dispute shouldn’t be a problem,” he said.