Letter To The Editor: Liquor, Money, and Politics in Belmont

By 4 Comments

Photo: The September meeting between the Selectmen and Star Market and the Loading Dock.

To the editor:

Belmont was a “dry” town until about 2000. Over several years, we carefully authorized and licensed restaurants and retail stores. Elected officials spent hours developing rules to ensure that when we went from “dry” to “wet” we wouldn’t end up in the mud where liquor licenses are sold to the highest bidder.

But here we are.  On Oct. 6, the Board of Selectmen (by a vote of 2 to 1, with Chairman Mark Paolillo dissenting) authorized The Loading Dock to transfer its right as a retail all-alcohol licensee to Star Market for $400,000.   

This is not what Town Meeting intended when it voted to increase the number of all-alcohol retail licenses from one to two. The Selectmen’s decision on Oct. 6 is a threat to small retail stores in Belmont. Town Meeting needs to fix this.     

Let me explain.    

Until 2013, Town Meeting had authorized only one all-alcohol retail store. That license was held by The Spirted Gourmet in Cushing Square. At the annual Town Meeting in 2013, Town Meeting authorized a second all-liquor retail store. In 2014, the Selectmen gave that license to The Loading Dock. 

During the 2013 Town Meeting, Donald Mercier, Town Meeting Member from Precinct 8, suggested that the language of the article on all-alcohol retail licenses should be drafted more carefully.  He said, “I appreciate what this group of Selectmen are doing, but in 10 years from now, we may have different Selectmen with different ideas. So I think this license has to be tightened down, so you get what you want today, what you want to create today.” Mercier was right.  

What the Selectmen promised in 2013 was that they would approve a full liquor retail license to an establishment similar to the first recipient of that license – The Spirited Gourmet — a small specialty store. No Town Meeting Member recommended that the license should go to a supermarket chain with 2,200 stores nationwide. Instead, the vast majority of speakers insisted that the second license go only to a small, specialty store. A Town Meeting Member from Precinct 3 also asked for assurances that the license would not go to any vendor in Waverley Square near the Butler School.  The Selectmen said that they understood.  

I was a member of that Board, and we promised we would follow the intent of Town Meeting.    

But Mercier was right. We have different Selectmen now. On Oct. 6, the second of two all-alcohol retail licenses was transferred from The Loading Dock to Star Market for $400,000.    

Star Market was started in 1915 by the Mugar family in Watertown. According to its website, Star Market is now part of AB Acquisition LLC, which is owned by a consortium of private investors led by Cerebus Capital Management. Cerebus financed a merger to create the second-largest supermarket chain in the US. According to financial analysts, the intent was to create a huge chain that could compete with Kroger and WalMart.  

The Selectmen held two hearings on the transfer of this license. At the first meeting (on Sept. 19), the attorney for Star Market told the Board that it “must follow the letter of the 2014 home rule petition.”  The letter of the home rule petition only tells the Selectmen what they could do. It does not tell them what they should do. The Selectmen had the legal authority to determine public need and public good for Belmont.  

The Board’s determination should have been shaped by the values and expectations of Town Meeting Members as expressed during the Town Meeting of 2013. Former Selectmen Mahoney and Solomon attended the October hearing and explained to current Selectmen that the intent of the original rules on alcohol licenses in Belmont. The intent was to award these licenses to small, specialty stores, and to prohibit their transfer. According to Ms. Mahoney, this has been an ongoing covenant between Town Meeting, Belmont residents, and small businesses since 2000.  

As the son of a small retail store owner, I know what small businesses hope to get from government – consistency, predictability, and fair play … and maybe some parking.

The Selectmen’s decision on Oct. 6 was inconsistent with past precedent and a threat to small businesses. Elena Benoit of The Spirited Gourmet explained that she and Chris Benoit had worked hard and played by the rules for ten years. She was encouraged to open the Belmont store by than Selectman Angelo Firenze. But now, the Board had decided to change the rules. That, she argued, is not fair play. Jen Bonislawski, owner of the new Arts Specialties store on Trapelo Road testified that she “didn’t know how we’re going to survive.”

The Selectmen’s decision on Oct. 6 sends a message to small retail stores in Belmont.  Consistency and predictability are not important. The license originally awarded to a small specialty store for $4,000 can be transferred to a large supermarket for $400,000.      

Trust in elected officials is fragile. Once lost, it is not easily restored. To start the process of restoring Town Meeting’s long-standing commitment to small, local businesses, we must “tighten down” the authority to grant liquor licenses. We should not allow any Board to award licenses “at its discretion.” Town Meetings can specify who gets a license and ensure that licenses cannot be sold or transferred.   

Also, it seems prudent to create a new, appointed Alcohol Beverage Licensing Board in Belmont.  This Board should not be merely advisory.  It should have the exclusive authority to issue licenses.  An appointed Board would have sufficient institutional memory to have known that some of the “concessions” offered by Star Market on Oct. 6 merely brought it into compliance with Belmont’s existing regulations.            

The Board’s decision of Oct. 6, leaves us in a state of legal ambiguity.  We need to end this ambiguity in a manner that is consistent with Town Meeting’s intent.  

The attorney for Star Market informed us that the sale of liquor licenses is “routine” in Massachusetts. We know.  That is why Town Meetings and Selectmen spent a decade creating a unique environment in Belmont — where licenses would be issued consistent with Town Meeting’s intent, where licenses would not be transferred, and where promises to small retail businesses would not be broken. A future Town Meeting must re-establish this policy and ensure that it is enforced.  

Ralph Jones

Summit Road

Town Meeting Member, Precinct 3 and former selectman

Letter to the Editor: Vote No On The Charter Schools Ballot Question

By 3 Comments

Photo: credit Portside

To the editor:

In the spring of 2015, Belmont residents voted for an override to better fund our schools and town infrastructure. Faced with rising budgets and kids with varied needs, we voted to increase our taxes. Other communities across the state have done the same. Massachusetts public schools remain the best in the country because of our dedicated teachers, administrators, kids, parents and taxpayers.

Now schools across Massachusetts face a new challenge: Ballot Question 2. This is a state-wide ballot initiative funded substantially by out-of-state billionaires. The initiative proposes to approve 12 new charter schools per year forever, with no limit on location within the state. Charter schools are publicly funded schools that are privately run with no local oversight. As a result, charter schools aren’t truly “public”: they don’t enroll as many differently-abled students or English language learners, yet the majority of their funding comes from diverting money from local school districts that are already struggling to make ends meet.

So far, the amount of money diverted from Belmont to charter schools has been relatively low ($31,284 projected for the fiscal year 2017), but with the ballot question placing no limits on location, we have no control over how much might be diverted from our schools in the future.

Please join me in voting No on 2 this November.

Mary Lewis
Randolph Street

To the Globe: Paolillo Responds to Columnist Minuteman Op-Ed

By 1 Comment

Photo:

[Editor’s note: The article below is a letter to the editor in the Boston Sunday Globe, Sept. 18]

DANTE RAMOS missed the point of Belmont’s opposition to the Minuteman High School referendum (“Oh, Belmont! Local control fetish hurts vocational schools,” Opinion, Sept. 11).

The Minuteman district is broken. A substantial percentage of the approximately 600 students come from nonmember towns.

The funding mechanism severely disadvantages member towns. Belmont has tried for years to fix the problem, as recently as this summer. But nonmember towns are not joining.

In 2017, Belmont will pay $30,602 per student, as compared with $19,702 by nonmember towns, and it will only get worse with the new, $144 million Minuteman debt. This is an unfair financial burden on member towns.

Ramos praises Dover for its willingness to overlook the unfairness. But let’s put that in context. Belmont spent $13,029 in 2015 per pupil in our public schools, as compared with $24,263 in Dover. Additionally, Dover sent only two students to Minuteman; Belmont sends an average of 30. The disadvantage of Minuteman membership does not significantly affect Dover; that is not true of Belmont.

Belmont has legitimate concerns. Without fixing the unfairness of the district, we should not approve an oversized school that will make it worse.

Mark Paolillo

Chairman, Board of Selectmen

Belmont

Letter to the Editor: Let’s Stand by Our Word – Vote “Yes” on Minuteman

By Leave a Comment

Photo: The new Minuteman Tech High School

To the editor:

In the spring Belmont town meeting voted overwhelmingly to adopt the new Minuteman Regional Agreement and remain in the district. Now that it comes to paying our fair share for a new school building, the same people want to “chicken out” and reverse course to withdraw from the district. They call it “rent” instead of “buy,” which is a bit cheaper in the short term, but also means a lot less control and future access for our students.

Sure, we might save some money by leaving the district. Michael Libenson calculated that amount as anywhere between $200,000-$400,000 per year. This is money that would need to be picked up by the towns remainng in the district (most people would call this free-loading). But in my opinion, Michael’s savings calculation is flawed. It assumes that out-of-district towns will continue to pay lower operating fees and lower or no capital charges for a new building. The Massachusetts Department for Education (DESE) has already committed to charging out-of-district towns the capital fee (exactly how much is still open). In addition to lower operating fees non-member towns have to pay about $4,500 for each student on an IEP (roughly 50 percent of students at Minuteman) and about $1,000 per student for transportation.

Figuring these additional costs into the calculation makes the difference between in-district and out-of-district students shrink to a much smaller number than is widely presented. Common sense implies that over time the differences in fees will disappear or be based on some formula of what each town can afford. By staying in the district, we can work with the state and school towards this goal.

The Selectman and Warrant Committee also claim that we need a debt exclusion vote to be able to afford the extra costs for the new Minuteman school. I have a hard time believing this. Our annual school budget is about $50 million. The additional $200,000-$400,000 expenses that Libenson calculated to stay in the district and pay for the new school would represent less than 1 percent of our school budget. This is a relatively small number, and I believe we could pay this out of the operating budget until we have to do a debt override for a new high school or police station.

The downside of voting No and withdrawing from the district is big: we give up the guaranteed access for our children to a quality vocational education close to town, we give up oversight and control over Minuteman’s management and future direction, and we freeload on our neighboring towns. If this discussion was about Belmont High School, I believe no one would be voting against it to save a few dollars, but it is apparently different for a vocational school.

Martin Plass

Stanley Road, TMM Precinct 3

Letter to the Editor: Vote ‘No’ to Preserve the Override Funds

By 5 Comments

Photo: Supporter of the schools override.

To the editor:

How do we want to spend the 2015 override funds?

Next Tuesday, Belmont voters will decide whether to spend $335,000 to $500,000 per year (or more) to fund the $144 million new Minuteman debt.

I am a school advocate. I strongly support vocational education.

But this referendum is not a vote about education. If Belmont votes No, we can continue to give our students the same Minuteman education, for less money.

This is a vote about debt.

The debt could be funded through a 30-year tax increase, but I believe that it will not pass. Any tax increase is always a hard sell.

Without a tax increase, we would have to use override funds.

Override funds are currently being used to support our operating budget, as promised. But if we take on the Minuteman debt, without new taxes, it will hit our operating budget and prematurely drain the override funds.

If we vote “No” now, and only now, we have a chance to avoid the debt. Belmont is currently a member of the Minuteman district. If we vote “No”, Belmont Town Meeting will have the opportunity to vote to become a non-member.

Member towns pay much more than non-member towns. In 2017, Belmont will pay $30,602 per student, compared to $19,702 by non-member towns, and it will only get worse when you add debt payments for the new $144 million Minuteman.

Michael Libenson, chair of the Warrant Committee, presented his analysis on Monday night that shows Belmont will likely save $200,000 to $400,000 in tuition and capital charges by sending our students to Minuteman as a non-member. (The presentation is available at www.betterplanforbelmont.com.)

In other words, it will cost Belmont an additional $200,000 to $400,000 every year to remain a member. To pay that annual membership premium, we would likely have to tap our override funds.

What Belmont decides should not impact the new school. Most of the remaining nine towns have already lined up their funding. They will vote for it. The referendum is expected to pass. The school will then be built.

Belmont is left with few options. We tried to fix broken district, but the non-member towns won’t join. We tried to right-size the new school, but we were rebuffed.

Now, we need to get out. If Belmont signs on to the $144 million debt, it will squeeze our budget for the next 30 years.

An analogy I think is helpful: Why would we want to “own a new building” (and 30 years of debt payments), when we could “rent ~30 seats” at Minuteman for less money? Why would we choose to pay more, when we could pay less for the same services?

We worked hard to pass the 2015 override. Let’s not use it up more quickly than we have to.

Please join me in voting “No” next Tuesday.

Ellen Schreiber, Sandrick Road

Ellen Schreiber is a member of the Warrant Committee and Town Meeting Member.

Letter to the Editor: Understanding Minuteman Enrollment

By 4 Comments

Photo: 

To the editor:

Let’s talk about Minuteman enrollment.

Total enrollment at Minuteman today is at its second-lowest level in history, as reported by the Minuteman Superintendent on Monday night.

Member town enrollment in Minuteman has fallen from 1,214 in 1977 to 331 in 2015 (not including the six towns that are leaving the district). That is a 73 percent drop.

As a result, Minuteman has become dependent on students from non-member towns to bolster its budget. Nearly half of the students at Minuteman come from (current or soon-to-be) non-member towns.

There will be space for Belmont.

In addition, there are two more factors putting new downward pressure on Minuteman enrollment:

  • Minuteman is already the most expensive vocational/technical school in Massachusetts. New capital fees from the debt would make it even more expensive, giving non-members a financial incentive to leave Minuteman.
  • Changes in state regulations prevent many non-member freshmen from attending Minuteman. Fewer students are likely to transfer in their sophomore year, leaving their sports teams, friends, etc.

There has always been space at Minuteman for non-member towns like Watertown, Waltham and Cambridge. They are not worried that a new school will change that, and they continue to refuse to join.

Why are we worried?

This wouldn’t matter if non-member towns paid their fair share. But member towns pay much more than non-member towns. In 2017, Belmont will pay $30,602 per student, compared to $19,702 by non-member towns, and it will only get worse with the new, $144 million Minuteman debt.

Build it and they will come.

That’s what Minuteman would like us to believe, that 40-year enrollment trends will reverse themselves overnight. Minuteman’s financial projections are based on best-case scenarios that assume 40 percent enrollment growth from member towns in just three years.

They want us to be afraid that the new school will fill up.

To the contrary, based on both long-term and short-term trends, Minuteman will need many non-member students to fill the 300-plus extra seats in the new school. And we can feel confident that there will be space at Minuteman for Belmont students for the foreseeable future.

Please join us in voting “No” on the $144 million Minuteman debt.

Pat Brusch and Anne Marie Mahoney

Letter to the Editor: Support Minuteman on Sept. 20

By 5 Comments

Photo: Image of the interior of a proposed Minuteman school building.

To the editor:

I’m asking Belmont residents to join me in voting “yes” to support the financing of a new Minuteman school building on Sept. 20.

Some of our local leaders have raised issues about Minuteman. Some say that we can avoid financing the new school and continue to send our kids there. But we won’t be sending our kids to Minuteman if the vote on financing fails. Others say that we can send our kids to other vocational schools. But no specifics have been offered, and there is no plan, just wishful thinking. Some say that Minuteman represents a broken model because many attendees go to college. We want our kids to go to college if they can and to get good jobs if they can’t and this is the role of modern vocational education.

Why does Belmont need to help finance a new school? Minuteman’s current campus was constructed in the 1970’s and needs replacement or costly repairs. Masonry is cracking and buckling. The roof needs to be replaced. The building is not up to ADA compliance standards and is not suited for modern instructional approaches. In fact, the building is at risk of being condemned. If the building is not replaced, repairs are estimated to cost almost as much as the construction of a new building, but would fail to solve many of its problems.

Replacing Minuteman’s school building to meet current enrollment will cost $144 million, of which the state has pledged $44 million. Ten Minuteman district towns, including Belmont, will share the remainder. The state also is imposing a capital fee to ensure that any non-member towns sending kids to Minuteman will pay a fair share. Belmont’s cost is estimated to be $335,000, something that our town can easily afford. One member of our Warrant Committee has suggested that the annual cost to the average Belmont household would be equivalent to ordering a few take-out pizzas.

Some claim that the financing approach carries risk. For example, the other nine Minuteman district towns could all file for bankruptcy, leaving Belmont on the hook for the entire cost. This is as likely as space aliens zapping nine communities out of existence. More realistically, Belmont could face a slightly higher financing cost, perhaps as much as $500,000 a year, if the state does not set the capital fee for non-member towns high enough. We need to lobby the state to make sure this doesn’t happen.

Some argue that the new school will be too big and that it should be radically downsized to exclude non-member towns’ students. There’s just no good argument for this, and the state of Massachusetts will not contribute to a construction plan that does not build to current enrollment.

We need Minuteman to succeed. It’s a critical educational resource. We have to do something for our kids who are not going to college to help them succeed. In fact, the state mandates that we provide vocational education for those wanting it.  But Belmont High School just isn’t equipped to provide vocational training, and we cannot afford to provide these kinds of programs on our own.  Some kids need more and different kinds of attention and instructional approaches to doing well. Minuteman has a student to teacher ratio about half that of Belmont High School. Belmont High School just isn’t equipped to give that kind of attention to kids who need it.

Won’t you show your support for Minuteman on Sept. 20? Please join me in voting “yes.” Polls open at noon.

Michael F. Crowley

Belmont Town Meeting Member, Precinct 8

To the Editor: Plymouth Congregational ‘Still Very Much A Church’

By 3 Comments

Photo: Joe Zarro, pastor of Plymouth Congregational Church.

To our neighbors and friends in Belmont:

Over the past two years, the members of Plymouth Congregational Church have considered proposals from multiple carriers to install cell antennas in our church steeple. There are immediate benefits to the community from this installation:

  • improved reception in the town center and area neighborhoods,
  • improved access to emergency services from people without landlines in the home,
  • improved wireless for health and other devices, and
  • an interior installation that is not visible from the street and neighborhood.

We have one current lease agreement with Verizon, and Verizon has pursued approvals in accordance with town laws and regulatory processes. Our neighborhood discussions made clear that some people objected, mostly on health grounds. Town boards have made clear that health cannot be a reason to deny permits in this case. Multiple health professionals and scientists in our church and this community have assured us of the safety of these antennas. Experts have assured us that these antennas are safe and well within existing standards. Multiple residential and commercial buildings have these antennas in Belmont and surrounding towns, hospitals, educational and other institutions. It is not an experimental technology, but something that has been implemented worldwide for decades.

Plymouth leadership wrote abutters Danny Morris, Ron Creamer and Glenn Herosian, who claim leadership in a group opposed to our project, in January telling them we did not think Community Preservation Act funds were an appropriate or realistic source of funds for the church, but that we were happy to meet to share our research and decision-making. They would not meet with us unless we abandoned the project, a demand we considered unreasonable.

Their recent charge that because of this lease we are not a church, but a cell phone business, is simply wrong. We are being singled out because we are a house of worship. Belmont Savings Bank is still a bank with antennas at their main branch. 55 Hill Rd. is still an apartment building (far more densely populated) with its antennas. The Belmont Police Station in Belmont Center is still a police station with its antenna installation. We will still very much be a church. 

Plymouth will be far from the first church to enter into a lease with a telecommunications company: Trinitarian Congregational Church in Concord is a nearby example of a historic building, in a historic district, with a nursery school, which has antennas hidden away in a similar manner. 

Plymouth has been part of this community since 1899, and our commitment to mission and ministry here is much deeper than a couple hours of worship on Sunday morning. We support the Belmont Food Pantry, food assistance at the Farmer’s Market and the annual community-wide Belmont Serves. We run a soup ministry out of our kitchen for the homeless and for those in transient housing. I’m president of the Belmont Religious Council and work with other houses of worship to address important issues, such as assistance for refugees being resettled in Massachusetts. Support for these kinds of ministries was in our minds when we signed the lease with Verizon. Our 2016 church budget will give away more than $40,000 to our mission partners, more than we receive from this lease and more than enough to paint the church steeple, for which Creamer and Herosian propose we use CPA funds. We are not a dying congregation trying to keep the lights on; this has always been about doing more as a faith community.  

We regret that a small minority of our neighbors have resorted to tactics like questioning our integrity as a church simply because they disagree with the church’s decision to lease space to Verizon. Angry letters have been put on parishioners cars while they are in worship, and I was jeered at by two neighbors when leaving the May 3 Planning Board meeting.

I am saddened that a church like ours, filled with good-hearted people trying to do what is best, has not been afforded more respect during this process. We hope that peace can be restored to our neighborhood and that civility can prevail going forward.

Rev. Joe Zarro

Pastor, Plymouth Congregational Church

Letter To The Editor: Don’t Sacrifice Minuteman Because Of Other Concerns

By 1 Comment

Photo: The Garden Classroom at the Burbank.

To the editor:

In my capacity as Co-President of the Burbank Elementary Parent Teacher Association, I’ve had the pleasure of spending time with many students from Minuteman Career and Technical High School. Our gorgeous Garden Classroom would not have been possible without the hard work of students in the Minuteman Horticulture program under the guidance of their excellent teachers Sarah Ard and Peter Kelleher. They collaborated with the PTA to help us turn a sunken pit of weeds into an educationally valuable and beautiful part of the student experience at Burbank. This year, they are helping us turn a neglected patch on one of the school paths into a vibrant garden. Our school community owes a tremendous debt of gratitude to Minuteman.

The Board of Selectmen decided that it needed to send a message that the proposed new Minuteman High School would be “too big” for the students who attend. They felt that financial impact on the average Belmont tax bill was too much to spend on this “too big” school (estimates of the impact range from $33-$75 per household). This decision ignored the fact that Minuteman was following the MSBA’s guidelines regarding the size of the school (the MSBA will not contribute to a new school building designed for fewer than 600 students). It ignored the fact that this is the last chance for Minuteman to take advantage of a level of funding no longer available through MSBA. And it ignored the fact that the existing school is in need of $100 million of repairs. Guess who would shoulder that cost if a new school is not built? Taxpayers in member towns, and without the assistance of the MSBA.

The Board’s decision also ignored the impact a new school – one that serves the needs of vocational education in the 21st century – would have on enrollment at Minuteman. The Board of Selectmen does not seem to understand the role that vocational education can and should play in serving our community and in serving the towns that share Minuteman with Belmont. A state of the art facility that provides educational opportunities for fields in high demand in today’s economy – biotech, robotics, health care, fiber optics – along with the vocational stalwarts of plumbing, electricity, and automotive, will better attract the students that could most benefit from a hands-on, experience-based education. And a new facility is much more likely to attract new member towns. Staying with the status quo is more likely to lose students and member towns, further increasing the burden on the municipalities that stay.

I am sorry to say that the Warrant Committee also voted against the new Minuteman, but by a close margin. The other member towns have or are likely to support the plan because they know it is the best option. Town Meeting in Belmont overwhelmingly approved remaining in the Minuteman District, and our town has been part of the planning process every step of the way, do we want to be the town that votes against its future? I am well aware of our other capital obligations in town: Belmont High School, the Library, the Police Station, DPW. But we cannot sacrifice Minuteman High because we have these other concerns. They have been working a long time towards this desperately needed solution, and the students that benefit from it deserve much better than being snubbed by our town.

My sister attended a regional technical high school in Connecticut. It enabled her to begin working right away after high school, and she later went on to run her own business. While this model of technical education – one where graduates are employable from day one – is still a part of the vocational experience, many students at Minuteman continue their education in related fields: medicine, biochemistry, landscape architecture, programming, and much more. It’s a model that works, now more than ever, and our town should support it.

Jessie Bennett

Precinct 1

Letter to the Editor: In His Work On Override, Paolillo Deserves Our Vote

By 3 Comments

Correction: In my letter, I mistakenly attributed statements from supporters who are campaigning for Ruban to “the Ruban campaign.” Ms. Ruban did not make these claims. 

To the editor:

I care deeply about the Belmont schools. I rely on our town services. I feel strongly that we need to fix our crumbling infrastructure; roads, sidewalks, buildings, playgrounds, etc. 

The 2015 successful override advanced all of these priorities and provided greater financial security for our town.

We owe that to Mark Paolillo.

For me, it is a clear choice:

  • Choose a selectman with 22 years of experience on the Board of Selectmen, Warrant Committee, and Town Meeting.
  • Or choose a selectman in Alexandra Ruban whose only Belmont experience is voting in one town election.

This institutional knowledge that Paolillo brings to the Board of Selectmen is irreplaceable. 

Let’s take the override as an example of Mark’s knowledge and leadership. Most people only saw the seven-week campaign. We celebrated and congratulated each other for making it happen.

But I know, it wouldn’t have happened without Mark’s multi-year preparation, advocacy, and leadership.

How did the override come to be?

  • Mark did his homework. He determined that a key reason for the failure of the 2010 override was that we didn’t adequately show the voters why we were asking for more money.
  • He laid the groundwork. He and the selectmen upgraded the town’s administrative and financial staff so we could properly do the analysis.
  • He made the case. He created and led the financial task force which exhaustively evaluated all avenues to address the town’s financial challenges. 
  • He got it on the ballot. Many obstacles could have prevented putting the override on the April ballot, but Mark made it happen.
  • He advocated for the override. Mark made presentation after presentation explaining why the town needed an infusion of new revenue.
  • And in the last seven weeks, we – the community as a whole – launched a vigorous campaign. I don’t underestimate the importance of the campaign. But I won’t overestimate it either.

Passing an override is hard work. No one wants to pay more taxes. Residents will not pass an override without believing that everything else has been tried. And that requires hard work, experience, knowledge and leadership.

Experience means you know how to get things done. You know who has the skills to solve complex problems. You know what has been tried in the past, why it worked, or why it failed. You are ready to act. In other words, you don’t have to reinvent the wheel.

It is not enough for our leaders to vote for our priorities. They need the experience to do the hard work that makes the vote possible.

I have only had one meeting with Ruban. I believe that she is smart and well-intentioned. But I also believe that she needs experience in Belmont town government before she is qualified to serve as a selectman.

I began my learning curve five years ago. After two years on the Warrant Committee, five years on Town Meeting, three years on the Underwood Pool Building Committee, and numerous other Belmont leadership roles (YES for Belmont, Joey’s Park, Winn Brook PTA, Belmont KidSpace), I am still on a learning curve. I do not believe it is possible to be the kind of selectman that Belmont deserves without prior experience.

Belmont has important challenges ahead: the high school project, continued enrollment growth, budgetary pressures, and quality of life projects that require Mark’s collaborative approach to complete. 

The future of Belmont’s children and seniors and everyone in between will be better served by retaining Mark Paolillo’s institutional knowledge, leadership and experience on the Board of Selectmen.

It is a clear choice.

Please join me in voting for Mark Paolillo on April 5.

Ellen Schreiber

Sandrick Road