Letter to the Editor: Mike Crowley for Town Meeting, Precinct 8

By Leave a Comment

Photo: Vote on April 5.
To the editor: 
I’m asking for your support for Town Meeting member for Precinct 8 on April 5. My family is relatively new to Belmont, but we love our community and want to see it improve.
We need to continue investing in our schools and attending to critical infrastructure needs, including a new high school building and the repair of streets and sidewalks. We should support and expand green commuting options and recreation by constructing the Belmont Community Path. We need to attend to our long-term liabilities like pensions and retiree benefits without resorting to risky, quick-fix solutions like pension obligation bonds that have injured the financial health of so many communities. We can be more attentive to business development in our commercial districts, and more creative about improving town revenues through ideas like fee-based overnight parking on neighborhood streets. Finally, we need a community preservation focus to ensure the continuity and livability of our neighborhoods; therefore, I would support a temporary moratorium on teardowns and new home construction in Precinct 8 until we can institute a review process to ensure construction appropriate for our community.
I enjoyed a career in Washington, DC that included almost 25 years with the White House Office of Management and Budget. I bring a unique view to town governance, including a focus on the budget, revenue, and government efficiency from my time in government. Since 2013, I also have been consulting and serving on the boards of organizations focused on improving criminal justice policy and our society’s responses to violence. 
Please consider me on April 5 and be sure to vote!
Mike Crowley
Farnham Street

Letter to the Editor: Common, Inclusive Solutions Needed In Belmont

By 3 Comments

Photo: Belmont Town Hall.

To the editor:

Good day, Belmont.

It is another town election cycle and this time, I am hearing some strange things that people believe is truth. Because I am on the campaign for Alexandra Ruban, I hope to share some of who I have learned Alexandra is.

Alexandra is a wife, mother and consultant who moved to Belmont for its great schools and active community. When she attended Town Day in 2013, she, like others, heard that part of the due diligence was that the town was seeking Request for Proposals from other trash and recycling vendors, having had the same vendor for 15 years without assessing the market. Three years later, we have not requested any bids, just bids like you would get if you were seeking a roofer, painter, driveway paver – and we have locked ourselves into another two-year contract with a 12 percent increase. 

The reason I joined Alexandra in her bid for Selectman is because I, too, have been frustrated with policy and decision making in town: from global insights being used as a way to stall the adoption of solar energy, to really talented, committed experts in their fields being passed over for those who have successfully implemented moratoriums without any further policies and guidelines to help us when the moratorium lifts. There is unbelievable work happening in our town committees that takes herculean efforts (to gather data needed to be informed and make recommendations, years of complaints by few overshadowing the solutions presented that could accommodate all involved).

I gladly serve on the Economic Development Advisory Council under Tomi Olson, who has been a champion of mine as we bring forth proposals to help our home and business owners with real economic relief. Without a forward-thinking ally like Tomi, whether Alexandra has her vote or not, new, common-sense ideas would not be possible to consider at the Selectmen level. I, like Alexandra, am a business owner and present to and represent the highest level of senior executives often, yet I am afraid of how our Board of Selectmen will react to our proposal because I have experienced public and private backlash a few times already. Is this the way you want it to be?

Common, inclusive solutions, from establishing frameworks to allow us to preserve the tangible and intangible assets in Belmont are needed. Policy-making has to begin and end with an inclusive agenda to help our home and business owners thrive. For those who argue about the smallest number of transient residents who bring their families for a short period and leave, how about we figure out how to woo them to stay instead of blaming them, incorrectly, I may add, for taxing our public services.  

Finally, become informed. That is the purpose of our campaign. Whether you have decided on one candidate or the other, get informed on what each of them has and can accomplish. And determine whose values, vision, and ability to make progress while preserving our town of homes match yours. 

Erin Lubien

Unity Avenue

Letter to the Editor: Prestwich Professional Experience Value to School Committee

By Leave a Comment

Photo: Andrea Prestwich

To the editor:

I met Andrea Prestwich and her husband Steve Saar ten years ago. Our kids have sung in the choir and attended Sunday School together, and more recently participated in Chenery Middle School’s extraordinary instrumental music program together. We have become good friends as our kids have aged from 2 to 12.  

That’s why I was delighted when Andrea told me she was running for Belmont School Committee.  She has a fascinating career in astronomy, and in her time at the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory Andrea has taken and active role in STEM education. She has been involved in science outreach, writing articles and giving presentations to the general public on all aspects of astronomy, making complex concepts understandable for people untrained in the discipline.   

She was instrumental in starting a highly successful Research Experience for Undergraduates  program at the Smithsonian-funded by the National  Science Foundation. She has supervised graduate students and postdoctoral researchers, and for several years, she was director of the NASA Einstein Post-Doctoral Fellowship Program.  

Andrea has a “top down” view of STEM education that would be very valuable on the School Committee. She has an analytical mind and professional experience that make her uniquely qualified to serve on curriculum and policy subcommittees. I urge you to vote for Andrea on April 5.

Kate Searle

Beech Street

Letter to the Editor: Bicer’s Financial Expertise An Asset to Committee

By Leave a Comment

Photo: Murat Bicer
To the editor:
 
I would like to encourage the residents of Belmont to vote for Murat Bicer for School Committee on April 5. He has a strong understanding of the problems that face our town’s schools and a clear sense of how to help solve them.
 
My family moved to Belmont several years ago. Like many, we were drawn to the community because of its excellent schools. As our eldest daughter entered the brand new Wellington School, we were impressed by the excellent teachers and staff, as well as by the highly engaged, welcoming group of parents and children. However, as evidenced by the recent override, our school system faces tremendous pressure on resources. We face ballooning enrollment and state mandated, but unfunded, programs. On top of these pressures, we need to continue to innovate the way we educate and engage our children.
 
As we face the challenges ahead, it is my firm belief that Murat Bicer’s extensive professional experience in financial management and strategic planning makes him an excellent candidate for the school committee. He has served on the boards of both non-profit and for-profit companies. Most importantly, Murat is the father to two young children, who will be entering the public school system in the next few years. He and his wife, Katherine, are very strong proponents of public schools and the role they play in our communities. The challenges ahead are daunting but I believe Murat Bicer offers the kind of leadership necessary to overcome them.
 
Sara Townsend
Clark Street

Letter to the Editor: Prestwich Will Bring Balance to School Committee

By Leave a Comment

Photo: Andrea Prestwich.

To the editor:

I express my support for Dr. Andrea Prestwich, candidate for School Committee. Andrea has two children who currently attend Chenery Middle School. She leads small ministry groups at the First Church, Belmont, and is an avid member of the choir. At work, Andrea is an internationally respected astrophysicist who oversees projects and manages a multi-million dollar budget for the Chandra X-ray Observatory.

As a parent and former reporter covering the School Committee, I have attended countless School Committee meetings. I can attest that Prestwich has the requisite background and experience to lead our schools. She understands the budgeting process and can make difficult decisions. She appreciates the district’s recent focus on social and emotional learning and its impact on students’ development. Most importantly, she is a critical thinker who has the skills to negotiate and work through complex policy implications.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the National Education Association have called for later middle and high school start times (8:30 a.m. or later) so that students can get adequate amounts of sleep. Andrea formed the Belmont chapter of the national nonprofit, Start Schools Later, and has held local talks on the issue. Andrea is committed to reviewing the district’s policies around school start times to determine what is appropriate for Belmont.

Yes, financial leadership is a key issue for all of our town committees. But we also need to have a balance of diverse members on our committees. I admire Andrea’s dedication and passion to serve our children and community. I urge you all to join me in voting for Andrea Prestwich for School Committee on April 5.

Melissa Irion

Town Meeting Member Precinct 8

Letter to the Editor: The Facts Eclipse Allegations on Town’s Trash Contract

By 22 Comments

Photo: Trash collection in Belmont.

To the editor:

“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.” This bit of wisdom from Daniel Patrick Moynihan is important, particularly during town elections. Paul Roberts submitted a letter to the editor to The Belmontonian that is all opinion. No facts. Belmont residents deserve to know the facts.    

According to Paul, his candidate (Alexandra Ruban) was drawn into politics by the “… sneaking suspicion that something was amiss in the town’s relationship with its recycling contractor.”  Alexandra “ … discovered that Belmont this year simply renewed its contract without soliciting bids from competing firms and that the Town had been doing this for more than a decade!”  In other words, she suspects that Belmont has been wasting money because of malfeasance by town officials.

The head of the Department of Public Works negotiates all contracts. Therefore, this fabricated allegation is a slur on the reputation of two distinguished town employees: [current DPW chief] Jay Marcotte and his predecessor, Peter Castanino. 

I will not remain silent when the work of these good men is subject to baseless allegations. Castanino devoted two decades of honorable service to the citizens of Belmont. He is one of the finest civil servants ever to serve our town.    

Even in political campaigns, there is no room for this type of attack. I am reminded of a time when a Boston attorney challenged a politician with these words: “Have you no decency, sir?”

Let’s review the facts about this year’s contract extension. 

  • FACT:  the two-year bridge contract did not exist when Roberts wrote his letter to the editor. It was considered by the Selectmen on Monday evening, March 7, and Alexandra (who opposed it) did not attend the meeting.  
  • FACT: when looking for cost savings for our taxpayers, it often is easier to get those savings from an existing contractor.
  • FACT: the cost increase in this new contract was driven by a wage increase required by the State’s prevailing wage statute. The two-year extension is a good deal as a bridge to a new five-year contract. Doug Koplow, chair of the former Solid Waste/Recycling Committee testified on Monday night and concurred in this assessment.   

Let’s review the previous decade. We achieved substantial savings. Belmont has done an excellent job of controlling costs. There have been two five-year contracts. 

  • FACT: the cost of solid waste and recycling has increased by 1.6 percent per year from FY ’05 through FY ’15.  That is less than the annual increase in the town budget. That is good management for Belmont taxpayers.   
  • FACT: all contracts have been reviewed in public by the Warrant Committee and the Board of Selectmen.

Finally, citizens should understand that Alexandra knew most of these facts. Marcotte explained the history of solid waste and recycling contracts to her in a telephone conversation earlier this year. It appears that Alexandra ignored facts that did not fit her narrative. Governing requires an ability to listen and learn.

In an election year, facts matter. Civility matters. Character matters.

I urge you to re-elect Mark Paolillo as Selectman on April 5. 

Ralph Jones

Town Meeting Member, Precinct 3, former Chair of the School Committee, Warrant Committee, and Board of Selectmen

Letter to the Editor: Don’t Change Center Plan for Residents Like Me

By Leave a Comment

To the editor:

I moved to Belmont two years ago when I was in my late 60s. I chose a location where I could easily walk or drive into town. Coming to town frequently, and staying for a while, is one of the things I plan to do to stay connected as I grow older.     

Thus far, spending time in town has meant either walking along the sidewalks or ducking into one of the stores. When I first walked around town, I was drawn to the green space in front of the bank.  However, I rarely saw anyone sitting there and quickly understood why. The green space beckoned, but I wasn’t inclined to cross a busy street to get to the small patch of green only to sit and watch cars whizzing by on all sides.  

That’s why I was delighted when I saw the original reconstruction plan for Belmont Center. The plan created a green space that was actually usable. I thought it would be a wonderful spot for people of all ages to gather, and a perfect focal point for special town events. I envisioned taking my young grandsons to get ice-cream cones and, instead of hanging out on the crammed sidewalk in front of the store, walking over to the green to enjoy them; or buying a sandwich and meeting a friend for lunch on the green; or just sitting there reading a book. I pictured special occasions with everyone in town, from the youngest child to the oldest elder, gathered on the green enjoying the newly created space. 

I feel compelled to write this – my first ever letter to an editor – because I’ve read that the reconstruction plan as modified by the selectmen, with its cut-through and parallel parking spaces in front of the bank, was adopted in deference to the elderly. Although I appreciate the concern expressed for seniors, I question whether the cut-through plan is what the majority of the elderly in town would actually choose. I, for one, am deeply disappointed that a safe and inviting gathering place has been abandoned in favor of a few parking spaces of questionable convenience relative to the original plan. Moreover, even if I thought those spaces would serve the purpose intended, I would not want the entire town to lose its carefully planned green to make them available to me.   

Joanne Birge

Common Street 

Letter to the Editor: Questioning Net Metering Working Group’s Bias

By Leave a Comment

To the editor:

The last two weeks saw a flurry of activity as the Light Board moved ever closer to embracing solar. Last week, 450 signatures of residents demanding simple retail net metering was submitted to the Light Board and, in my opinion, the Light Board started changing the Municipal Light Advisory Board (MLAB) membership to be more responsive to resident sentiment.

The need for a membership change was made apparent at Tuesday’s [June 23] MLAB meeting when the outgoing chair launched into an ideological and unsubstantiated diatribe attacking residents and elected officials alike. As much as he is ideologically opposed to rooftop solar, residents clearly want more solar not less as manifested in three packed  public hearings, 130 letters, and two petitions. Residents simply want the same Net Metering policy that is practiced successfully in 98 percent of Massachusetts towns. The town doesn’t need such divisiveness, close-mindedness and unprofessionalism from an appointed official.

Jim Williams, the new Light Board liaison to Belmont Light, asked residents for a proposal and residents provided it to the Light Board. The Light Board didn’t deliberate or vote on the residents’ compromise proposal but it agreed to Williams’ suggestion to strike language from the 2011 policy in order to jump start solar installations this summer while a newly-appointed Temporary Net Metering Working Advisory Group decides on the residents’ proposal.

The Light Board’s method to create the Working Group was problematic, however. There was no prior public request for resumes, no written mandate and the deliberation didn’t include many names of qualified people who applied.

The Light Board decided that the Working Advisory Group has three voting and two non-voting members. The Light Board may have thought it was forming an unbiased Working Advisory Group but I found that two voting members opposed Town Meeting’s Article 9 (tinyurl.com/NBRTMArt9a). One voting member is as ideological as the MLAB chair and has written publicly in opposition to retail Net Metering. Another voting member criticized residents’ 35-page comment letter to MLAB (tinyurl.com/ResRep0815) in writing last year. He favors utility scale solar not residential solar. Obviously, utility scale solar is not an option in Belmont. Thus, the biased creation and make-up of the group undermines the credibility of whatever the Working Advisory Group ultimately recommends. Once the Working Advisory Group delivers its recommendation, there is no reason to believe that it puts an end to the discussion.

It’s not too late for the Light Board to change the voting status of the Working Advisory Group members or add ordinary residents to the group to counterbalance the Working Advisory Group’s anti-residential solar bias in a majority of the voting members.

Vera Iskandarian

Waverley Street

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

Letter to the Editor: Lessons on Democracy from Kids in Starbucks

By 3 Comments

To the editor: 

Yesterday [Sunday, April 5] after our Easter brunch was over and my uncle had gone, the kids had tired of playing both indoors and out, so we made our way to the town-center Starbucks for a change of scenery.

Grouped around a table were five teenagers studying AP biology.  My six-year-old pointed out to me that one of them had a “Yes for Belmont” sticker on her laptop. She seemed pleased that he had noticed and we began to talk. She was a junior, 17, too young to vote. I asked about her parents: they wished they could vote in favor but are not U.S. citizens; she was hoping that people like me could vote for it. It turned out that some of the other kids at the table were in the same situation. I found myself wondering if these bright, articulate, hard-working kids perhaps had benefited when they were younger from the ELL classes that the “No” campaign wants to (illegally) do away with. 

This chance encounter came as a reminder: Citizenship is a privilege that we don’t all have. We owe it to those who can’t vote – our children, other people’s children, and the immigrant population of Belmont that helps make this town what it is – to exercise our right on Tuesday. 

This is going to be a close election. If ever there were a case of “every vote counts,” this is it! If you have voted absentee already, thank you. If you haven’t, please remember to vote Tuesday, April 7. And please budget enough time. The polls are open 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. but there may be lines. Please don’t walk away if the line is long; you will be relinquishing a vote that those kids in Starbucks (and their parents) wish they had. 

And if you’re in the same situation as those kids’ parents, ask your friends who are citizens to vote. Democracy only works if we make it work. 

Mary Lewis

Randolph Street