[Rich, 01:57]

• Mr. Greeley introduced Mr. Koenig who offered a resolution stating that the Town was against the Commonwealth reducing or abolishing the powers of municipalities to negotiate and contract with cable TV companies wishing to use public ways within their borders. It was approved.
• Article 54 - Budgets: Tabled.
• Article 59 removed from the table.
• Article 59 - Minuteman Appropriation:
  • Mr. DeCoursey introduced FinComm's amendment to change their recommended appropriation from $2,000,000 to $2,008,143. He said that with the flux at the state level, budget numbers have been all over the place. He said the assessment proposed by Minuteman dropped from near $2,400,000 to the $2,008,143 recommendation, largely because Minuteman has agreed to assess all member towns based on the Education Reform formula instead of an assessment by agreement. In the past two years, Arlington had elected out of the agreement approach and had demanded assessment under the Ed Reform formula.
  • Mr. Fitzgerald (Sup't of Minuteman) said that MM revenues were reduced by $800,000, mostly due to state cuts, and that all programs were cut, along with 11.5 positions. He said that the high per-pupil costs are in part due to a very large SPED population (one of the highest in the state) and that 49% of Arlington MM students are SPED. Mr. Fitzgerald said he appreciated FinComm's support of the $2,008,143 assessment.
  • Ms. Talanian asked if the per-pupil costs are the same from town-to-town. Mr. Fitzgerald said they are not because of the use of the Ed Reform formula. He said Arlington has one of the lowest per-pupil assessments in the district.
  • Mr. Taber asked about a $640,000 land sale. Mr. Fitzgerald said MM sold 2 acres (of 74) that the school owns, under pressure from member towns. He said a SPED collaborative will occupy the space and will provide some free services to the school. Mr. Taber questioned the wisdom of selling capital assets to fund operating costs. Mr. Fitzgerald acknowledged the concern.
  • Ms. XXXX (Oringer?) asked what asterisks on one page of the MM report meant. Mr. Fitzgerald said they marked member towns who are charged for students they send to non-MM vocational schools. She asked why the position cuts were concentrated in academics. Mr. Fitzgerald said trades education were already cut to the bone and further cuts would eliminate programds.
  • FinComm amendment approved unanimously.
  • FinComm recommendation as amended approved unanimously.
• Article 75 - Bylaw Amendments/Town Fees: BoS recommendation of no action approved.
• Article 76 - Local Option Taxes: Tabled in light of the possibility that such taxes may be available before the meeting dissolved.
• Article 77 - Appropriation/Tip Fee Stabilization Fund: FinComm recommendation of appropriating $2,121,460 from the Tip Fee Stablization fund approved unanimously.
• Article 78 - Transfer of Funds/Cemetary: FinComm recommendation of no action approved unanimously.
• Article 79 - Appropriation/Overlay Reserve: FinComm recommendation of appropriating $500,000 from Overlay Reserve Surplus Accounts approved unanimously.
• Article 80 - Use of Free Cash:
  • FinComm recommended appropriating $1,774,342 from Free Cash.
  • Ms. Harrington asked what would be left afterwards. Mr. Tosti said the appropriation is for half of the certified free cash (which was certified last fall) but that until the books close on 30 June and free cash is certified this fall, he does not know the precise amount. It will depend on how well the Town met the FY03 cuts in state aid.
  • FinComm recommendation approved.
• Article 81 - Patriot Act Resolution:
  • (My notes are not great as I was working on what I was going to say and because I was trying to write while standing in line for part of the debate.)
  • The Moderator announced that for this article and for the anti-spanking resolution (Article 82), he would try the two-microphone approach.
  • Mr. Greeley stated that the BoS was in favor of the resolution, feeling that the Patriot Act was a bit too far, and introduced two of the proponents, Ms. Boltz and Ms. Levin(?). They asked for 15 minutes to speak instead of the usual 10. There were objections so a vote was taken. The vote failed. Ms. Levin reviewed the flyer that AUJP distributed with the resolution. Ms. Boltz said that the resolution is properly before TM because under the new laws everyone can be a suspect. She said that police now have the power to check one's library records and execute "sneak and peek" warrants and that misinterpreted conversations can bring the authorities knocking. She said it is appropriate for TM because TM is traditional New England democracy and also said that even a number of conservative groups are against the Act.
  • Mr. Berkowitz said that he did not like the two-microphone system, in part because it tries to divide what is not easily divisible. He said he cherishes our freedoms and wants to keep them. He asked members to focus on and vote on the actual resolution, and not on the merits of AUJP, the Patriot Act, and so forth. He said it is good to be cautious on TM taking up resolutions on non-local affairs, but that this affects everyone.
  • Mr. Judd quoted Justice Robert Jackson's aphorism that the "constitution is not a suicide pact" and that in times of danger, some limits have to be tightened. Mentioning the proponents' invocation of the Bill of Rights, he said he doubted that anyone on the "yes" side believed in the 2nd Amendment. He pointed out that the proponents had invited Noam Chomsky to speak at a gathering and nothing happened to anyone. Mr. Judd objected to the resolution's stance against racial profiling, saying that it is sometimes justified. He closed by saying the resolution cannot claim to properly speak for the town and introduced Republican Town Committee Chair Edward Marullo. Mr. Marullo said the resolution would violate his 1st Amendment rights and those of Patriot Act supporters. He said that instead of using TM to claim to speak for the Town, the resolution should be put on a ballot for the Town to decide for itself.
  • Mr. Adams moved to limit speakers to "two minutes each and no repetition". Citing the by-law which gives speakers ten minutes, the Moderator ruled the motion out of order but pointed out that a motion to limit the total debate time on an article is allowable. Mr. Adams then moved the previous question. Citing the by-law governing that, the Moderator ruled that motion out of order as well. Mr. Adams, noting that he possessed a firearms ID card, said that reasonable people who love support liberty are against the Patriot Act and urged support for the resolution.
  • Mr. Fischer asked the proponents why they were not willing to present this as a petition for TMMs to sign. Ms. Boltz said she did not recall the conversation Mr. Fischer was referring to. Mr. Fischer heatedly said that resolutions like this are not appropriate for TM and urged members to leave the floor to deny a quorum, or at least to abstain.
  • Mr. Candelas said that anything to do with freedom was appropriate for TM discussion. He noted that three days after the war in Iraq was over there were massive protests and the US allowed them. He said we should not have to lose our freedoms here at home.
  • Mr. Ruderman moved the previous question. Carried 108-42, debate terminated.
  • Resolution approved 91-52, but thirty people rose to force a roll call vote.
  • On a tally of 98 yeas, 45 nays, 20 present, and 86 absences, the resolution was approved.
• Article 82 - Anti-Spanking Resolution:
  • Mr. Fuller introduced Ms. Wolf, who spoke about the negatives of corporeal punishment. She said that the proposed resolution would not impose any legal obligations or liabilities on the town, and was not about legalities or forcing people. She said that if such a policy encouraged people to come forward for help, that would be wonderful. She said it is a proper topic for TM because it is everyone's business and that if the resolution helps one child, it will be worth it.
  • Mr. Kohl said this was not an appropriate subject to be considered by TM and urged the resolution's defeat.
  • Mr. Adams moved the previous question - debate terminated.
  • Resolution was defeated on a voice vote.
• Article 53 removed from the table.
• Article 53 - Pay Plan:
  • Mr. O'Neill presented FinComm's substitute motion for Ms. Cove's original motion, which included a memo from Ms. Cove giving details that the original motion lacked. Mr. O'Neill also corrected some typos in the substitute motion.
  • Mr. Bloom wondered why item 1(D) (Data Input Operator) showed $0 but the comments page said there was a $17,212 salary difference. Ms. Cove said the comments page showed difference in maximum salaries in order to show the worst case. She said $0 is in the text of the motion because there is no need to appropriate money this year to pay for the reclassification.
  • Mr. Leonard asked why if a General Foreman position is being eliminated that it shows up in the budget. The DPW director said that the FinComm report is not always in sync with the current titles, but that no position is being funded that was not already being funded.
  • Ms. Harrington returned to Mr. Leonard's question. Ms. Galkowski said that there were three positions, there will be three positions, and pointed out the budget line items involved.
  • Motion to substitute approved.
  • Motion as substituted, approved.
• Article 35 removed from the table.
• Article 35 - CDBG Endorsement:
  • Mr. Greeley reminded everyone of the Mr. McClennan retirement celebration and lauded Mr. McClennan for his many years of good work.
  • Mr. McClennan, after receiving a standing ovation, said that he originally only intended to stay two years, and that in 29 years of Town Meetings, he has only missed one session. He said it has been a pleasure to serve with TM and that Arlington "does it right" with democracy. He noted this is also the 29th year of CDBG and that over the years every dollar spent on the planning department has brought in $15.50.
  • Mr. Cleinman asked what the two numbers on the BoS report meant. Mr. McClennan said the larger number was the amount of requests submitted and the smaller was the actual grant the Town is due to recieve.
  • Mr. Judd asked Mr. McClennan to stick around and "keep his finger in" the Symmes project. Mr. McClennan said he has offered to continue in a counseling capacity on the project.
  • Mr. Kohl asked if the 2000 census numbers had taken effect, and if not, what the impact would be when they do. Mr. McClennan said that Arlington would be out of the program since population has dropped below 50,000 except that legislation passed in the 1970s made Arlington one of only five communities nationwide to be given a permanent CDBG entitlement. Mr. McClennan said this legislation ironically increases our grant, since population decline is one of the factors increasing grant size. Mr. Kohl asked if the census data will affect projects by moving more tracts into higher income categories. Mr. McClennan said that will not be an issue until 2012.
  • Motion to endorse the CDBG plan approved unanimously.
• Article 8 removed from the table.
• Article 8 - Special Places:
  • Mr. Leone presented a substitute motion to enact a "Special Places" by-law. He said the Zoning Bylaw Review Committee had been working on it for two years and that TM had endorsed it last year. He pointed out that nothing was up for designation this year. After touching on the highlights of the proposal, he said it had been important to the committee that a nomination come up as a warrant article so that TM would have the chance to debate any proposed designation.
  • Mr. Greeley asked TM to stick to the BoS recommendation of no action. He asked what is the problem the proposal is trying to solve and stated it was unfair to abutters, since they would be forced to live under the provisions of a historic district even though they were not put into one.
  • Mr. Carreiro rose to oppose the substitute motion, saying that he did not like the vagueness of the "Special Places" definition, the survival of designations through subdivisions, lack of consequences for failures of timeliness, using lot lines instead of structure positions to define affected properties, and the lack of a variance mechanism. He offered an amendment to remove some of these flaws, and urged the meeting to approve the amendment and then vote the substitute motion down whether or not the amendment passed.
• Meeting adjourned to 20:00, Monday 16 June, 2003.