[Rich, 19:21]
The Advocate was (good for them!) up in arms about TM attendance today, with both this article (with some quotes from yours truly) and a strong editorial condemning the no-show-ers.

[Rich, 23:19]
Want to know how much your TMMs showed up and when? See my spreadsheet. It is in Excel 2000. The data came from the copies of the attendance sheets for all 14 sessions which arrived in the mail from the Town Clerk today.

Considering the situation the Town is in and will be in, consider talking to and perhaps running against any of your high-absentee TMMs who don't have good reasons for missing many sessions.

[Rich, 15:17]
As you may have heard, $270,000 of the "found" $1,000,000 has evaporated. The House-Senate Conference Committee adopted the House's lower local aid numbers in the state compromise budget unveiled yesterday. Referring to Mr. Lyon's expressed certainty during the debate on Article 54 that the higher Senate numbers would "irrefutably" prevail, one of my friends jokingly suggested that an article be inserted into the warrant of the next TM, to read:
To see if the Town will graciously accept Selectman Lyon's generous offer of his house.
I also like
To appropriate no more than $104 to purchase a MegaMillions QuickPick(tm) whenever the jackpot is over $100,000,000.

Joking aside, this probably will require a Special TM at some point, as judging from what Mr. Tosti said during the budget debate, the allowable fudge factors would be very unlikely to be able to cover a $270,000 gap and so the budgets will probably have to be formally amended.

[Rich, 01:20]
Mr. Dunn's report on the final session is available.

[Rich, 01:17]

• Called to order at 20:00.
• It was announced that Mr. Greeley's father-in-law, Mr. Tierney, had passed away and condolences were offered to the Greeleys and Tierneys.
• Ms. Mahon announced that there would be a Saturday showing of Rugrats Go Wild at the Woburn Showcase for children with disabilities. Price is $5.50.
• Article 48 - CBA/Patrolmen: Tabled.
• Article 16 removed from the table.
• Article 16 - Refuse Contract:
  • Mr. Tosti said that FinComm had just just come from a meeting with NESWC lawyers and others and had most of its questions answered. By an 8-7 vote, FinComm now favors the BoS recommendation, and the other 7 supported Mr. Deyst's amendment.
  • Ms. Galkowski said that with respect to price level, Mr. Marquis had set up back-up deal with BFI. Were we to spurn WNA and go with that deal, it would be in the low $80s/ton. Other information points to $70s/ton, so the offer from WNA is significantly better on price. She also said that she believed the negotiated indemnification language was the best that could be obtained from WNA and is better than what would receive as a new customer with WNA or a competitor.
  • Mr. Hale again explained the flip-up procedure. WM pays off bonds coming due, instead of the member towns doing so. WM then takes the money that the towns had desposited to pay off those bonds, and then issues new tax-exempt bonds via MassDevelopment, a quasi-public agency whose purpose is to be a conduit for tax-exempt bond issuances. Mr. Hale said the Internal Revenue Code allows for such transactions and that MassDevelopment has done similar deals for WM and other companies elsewhere in MA.
  • Mr. Deyst said that whatever TM does it is ultimately only advisory to the Town Manager. He said that the FinComm subcommittee of Mr. DeCoursey, Ms. Harrington, and himself will continue to liase with the Manager and therefore there was no longer a need for his amendment. He asked to withdraw it, which was done by unanimous consent.
  • Ms. Harrington asked to withdraw her amendment, which was done by unanimous consent. She next offered a substitute motion which essentially said that as TM is concerned about flip-up and indemnification issues, is unable to either support or reject the proposed contract, and urges the Town Manager to seek to have these issues further negotiated and to worth with and get the support of FinComm and the BoS, but that the vote is not to be construed as a rejection. She said the substitute offered a way to say "maybe" and pointed out that a no vote may well lead to significantly higher costs than an acceptance. She pointed out that only today some NESWC concerns were addressed by WNA, so it is not to late to keep negotiating.
  • Mr. Carreiro asked if NESWC will continue on as a body. Ms. Galkowski said NESWC ceases to exist in September, 2005. Mr. Carreiro asked if the proposed contract is only between the Town and WNA or a NESWC-wide contract the Town is considering joining. Ms. Galkowski said it is only between the Town and WNA.
  • Mr. Decoursey said he was one of the 7 FinComm no votes. He said that if it were 30 June, he would vote for it, but he would like to see continued review, but that if nothing changed he would vote to have the Manager sign it.
  • Mr. Quinn asked if other towns had approved it. Mr. Wooster said Andover, North Andover, Burlington, North Reading, and Watertown had, and that he had no indication any town other than Acton would not be accepting it.
  • Ms. LaCourt asked if anything in the contract would prevent the Town from totally privatizing (i.e. having residents directly contract with collectors/disposers) trash service. Mr. Hale said that if the Town gave no disposer any business, that would be allowed, but the Town would not be allowed to give business to another disposer.
  • Ms. DiBona said she would hold her nose and vote yes. Pointing out the many incinerators in the Merrimack Valley area and the amount of air and water contamination in the region, she asked that people try to recycle more and that the Recycling Committee continue to assist in that.
  • Mr. McCable asked why the Town had not gone out to competitive bid well in advance. Ms. Galkowski said the current contract forbids the Town from issuing an RFP until the Town has negotiated in good faith with WNA and the negotiation fail. Mr. McCabe asked what reasons other than the contract prevent the Town from issuing an RFP. Mr. Maher said doing so would be a material breach of the contract. He said the Town could and has sought out information, but is barred from issuing a formal RFP.
  • Mr. Curro pointed out that both the BoS recommendation and Ms. Harrington's substitute motion have no legal effect. He said he liked Ms. Harrington's motion better, since it more accurately reflected how TM feels. He said would like to see WNA apply the flip-up savings to the North Andover plant and not elsewhere.
  • Mr. Foskett admitted that to his regret he voted to approve the current contract 18 years ago. He said that just because the existing contract is horrible does not mean the new one must be. He said that contrary to assertions by others, flip-ups are not shady. Also, the Town would benefit by about $111,000 per flip-up and the new bonds would be WNA/WM obligations. He said the FinComm subcommittee will continue to advise the Manager until final action takes place and that if we do not sign the contract, we will pay higher costs.
  • Mr. Norton moved the previous question - debate terminated.
  • Harrington substitute motion substituted, 82-81.
  • BoS recommendation as substituted approved.
• All articles except Article 2 removed from the table.
• Article 48 - CBA/Patrolmen:
  • Somewhat unusually, there were three separate motions on this article, only two related to each other. The first was to spend $20,000 to give police officers a 1% stipend to be trained to use defibrillators. This had FinComm approval. Then there was a motion from Ms. Galkowski to approve the arbitrator's award of a FY03 3% payraise, and FinComm's recommendation of no action on the raise, which would reject the award and send both sides back to the table.
  • Mr. Tosti said the defibrillators were given to the Town and the extra $20,000 for training was not a significant enough cost to disapprove.
  • Ms. Galkowski said Armstrong Ambulance donated six machines and another seven will be obtained through grants. She said the policemen agreed to take training and have them placed in patrol cars before getting the stipend and urged support.
  • Defibrillator recommendation approved.
  • Ms. Galkowski made her substitute motion, saying that the arbitrator threw out the demands of both sides and awarded only the 3% raise.
  • Mr. Maher said he was required by law to support it and that compared to comparable communities, Arlington's police pay is very low. He said that the union did not put forth any of its own proposals but only opposed the Town's demand for health givebacks. Since both sides had agreed on the 3% raise, the only question was whether or not the abitrator would mandate givebacks, which did not happen.
  • Mr. Tosti said the there had been misinformation the previous night. He said there was no agreement, as the proposal is an abitrator's award and the negotiators are required by law to support it. He said that if the unions were as concerned about the Town's health insurance situation as they claim they are, they would have agreed to givebacks. He asked how, if the Town could not get a health giveback when offering a 3% raise, could the Town get givebacks in the future with no raises to offer. He said not taking a stand on this would do nothing to solve the health insurance budget buster and would jeopardize and override next year.
  • Mr. Foskett said the Town faces continued stress from rising expenses as well as flat revenues and that over the past few years increases in state aid were completely eaten up by insurance cost increases. He said that until recently there had been no progress on that front, but that the Librarians, NAGE, Local 680, and non-union workers have all agreed to givebacks. He said the unions forced the Town into binding arbitration and asked if TM really thought the Manager and Town Counsel would be supporting the agreement if they were not statutorially bound to do so. He said the agreement is not good for the town and provides no incentive for either management or labor to work to contain health insurance costs. He turned TM to show its will and send both sides back to the table.
  • Ms. Munsey said she disagreed with Mr. Tosti and asked if the Town had ever voted down an arbitrator's award. Mr. Maher said the Town had never (until Monday night) had one before it. Ms. Munsey said the patrolmen are not greedy or selfish and that they do care about the Town. She said we must honor the arbitrator's award.
  • Mr. Gee said he felt in a tough spot, as he felt the patrolmen deserved a raise but could not support giving them one. He asked how the Town could let fixed costs increase by more than 2.5%, especially when revenue growth is less than that. He said it is true that monies are in place to fund the agreement, that this is not a level service budget, that there have been cuts, that the patrolmen deserve a raise and work hard, but that it is wrong to be giving employees raises while laying others off.
  • Mr. Carreiro asked if the Town voluntarily entered into binding arbitration or was forced into it, drawing a distinction with regard to the ethics of honoring the award or not. Mr. Feeley (outside counsel due to Mr. Maher's being conflicted out) said that once there was an impasse, by statute a 3rd party takes over and calls the process shots. The 3rd party chose binding arbitration, forcing both sides' hands. Citing apparently conflicting claims from prior speakers about health insurance givebacks by other unions, Mr. Carreiro asked whether or not the Librarians, Local 680, and NAGE had made FY03 concessions. Mr. Maher they had agreed to givebacks, but they cannot go into effect at the earliest until 1 January 2004, and not at all unless all the bargaining units agree to them, due to plan provider administative rules.
  • Mr. Fischer said that the award should be honored. He noted that patrolmen are not allowed to strike and asked what their recent raise history was. Ms. Cove said they received a 3% raise in 1998, 3% in 1999, 2% in 2000, two 2% raises in 2001, and a 2% raise in 2002.
  • Mr. French reminded everyone that the contract is for FY03, not FY04 and that the firefighters asked the meeting to support the patrolment.
  • Mr. Jefferson asked Mr. Tosti what "misinformation" he referred to. Mr. Tosti said calling the proposal an "agreement" when it was not and the unions claiming they were "concerned" about the Town's insurance situation when they were not, as evidenced by their refusal to offer concessions. Mr. Jefferson said the latter is a matter of opinion and that FinComm was not privy to what was said in negotiations. Mr. Jefferson asked if the Town objected to arbitration. Mr. Maher said the matter was irrelevant, since the Town had no choice but to go to arbitration. Mr. Jefferson said the patrolmen are at the bottom of the salary heap and want a fair salary and urged support of the substitute motion.
  • Mr. Berkowitz moved the previous question - debate terminated.
  • Galkowski motion substituted, 111-54.
  • FinComm recommendation as substituted approved.
• Article 49 - CBA/Ranking Officers: FinComm recommended a vote to approve a side-letter agreement to spend $11,000 to have ranking officers receive a stipend for defibrillator training and placement. Approved unanimously.
• Article 50 - Non-Union Employees:
  • Ms. Harrington asked if the M-schedule health concessions still existed. Ms. Galkowski said the contribution increases still do, and will take effect 1 January 2004, but that the co-pay increases will not unless everyone agrees (Blue Cross rules).
  • Ms. Mahon asked if there was any dicussion of M-schedule raises and whether it was inequitable to grant them in light of FinComm's position on the fire and police unions. Mr. Foskett said that unlike those unions, the M-schedule employees had made health concessions, and that their increases in costs would in fact exceed salary increases. Ms. Mahon said there was a lot more that could be done to cut costs and that only one of her twenty-seven suggestions had been adopted. Mr. Foskett said all of them were diligently discussed and that the BoS had been two months late in forwarding budgets to FinComm.
  • Mr. Deyst pointed out the huge increase in health insurance costs over the past four years and said that despite being a strong supporter of the unions, something has to be done about the costs.
  • Mr. Roselli wanted to speak about health insurance costs but was ruled out of order by the Moderator since the article is about M-schedule pay raises.
  • Ms. Weaver asked if contributions increase as workers receive raises. Ms. Galkowski said the contribution percentage is based on 1 January salaries.
  • Mr. Taber asked that agreements be reached sooner so that TM can vote prospectively instead of retroactively.
  • Mr. Carreiro moved the previous question - debate terminated.
  • FinComm recommendation approved.
• Article 51 - Elected Officials: FinComm recommended a vote to give the Clerk and Treasurer 3% raises. Approved.
• Article 52 - Funding Future CBAs: FinComm recommended a vote to appropriate $252,000 to fund future CBAs. FinComm amended its vote to only appropriate $45,000 in light of CBAs just approved. Approved unanimously.
• Article 55 - Deferred Compensation: FinComm recommended a vote to appropriate $50,000 to augment the fund to cover deferred compensation and sick leave buybacks to departing employees. Approved.
• Article 72 - Hardy School: FinComm recommended no action as negotiations with the contractor remain ongoing. Approved.
• Article 76 - Local Option Taxes: FinComm recommended no action as there are no local option taxes available for approval. Approved unanimously.
• Mr. Lobel moved to reconsider Article 28 (changes in Town Manager job requirements), in order to remove the residency requirement from the BoS recommended vote. He said residency is important but should not be mandatory.
• Mr. Fitzmaurice said he supported reconsideration. He noted that TM had approved removing the requirement for experience as a town manager to help untie the selectmen's hands and that while residency is great, the selectmen's hands should be similarly untied. He said the residency rule would be an unintended barrier to working women, and that the BoS should consider residency desireability individually for candidates and not be subject to an arbitrary barrier.
• Mr. Gilligan opposed reconsideration. He said keeping the residency requirement would force a level of committment from applicants and prevent them from using the Town as a springboard. He said a manager can afford to live in the Town and wants any manager to "have skin in the game."
• Mr. Kohl moved the previous question - debate terminated.
• Motion to reconsider defeated.
• Mr. Tosti congratulated Ms. Galkowski for doing a great job in the face of a very challenging situation, prompting a standing ovation for Ms. Galkowski.
• Mr. Tosti moved Article 2 be taken from the table - approved.
• There being nothing further under Article 2 and with all other articles disposed of, Mr. Tosti moved the meeting be dissolved.
• Motion to dissolve approved.
• The 2003 Annual Town Meeting is dissolved.

[Rich, 10:41]
Thanks to Mr. Sprague, the Town Clerk's office, and Ms. Lucarelli, we can know how bad things can get. How about this?

A record was established when 27 sessions of Town Meeting were held [in 1979]. The annual Town Meeting and two special Town Meetings were held between March 19 and June 18, 1979, with a total of 152 warrant articles. There were 70 standing votes, seven roll-call votes, 52 substitute motins, 46 articles postponed, and notices of intention to move for reconsideration on 49 articles.

There is no way to tell exactly how many sessions were annual and how many were special due to the fact that they didn't have the book we type up today.

27 sessions, with seven roll-call votes. I wonder what was so contentious and controversial that year? Does anyone remember? I'll have to add checking out the transcripts of that year to my (long) list of random things to do.

[Rich, 01:47]
Mr. Dunn's notes are up.

[Rich, 01:45]
Thoughts...

• Still not done...yeesh!
• I did not appreciate Mr. Gilligan's misrepresentation of my timeliness clauses as "letting town officials get by without doing their jobs." That's patently untrue. The provisions simply imposed a result in favor of the property owner if the relevant commission failed to do its job. All the things Mr. Gilligan claimed my language would cause/allow (lack of information to TM, etc.) is just as much caused by/allowed under the language he supported. I would have called him on this had I gotten a chance to speak again.

  I remain unimpressed by the illogic of Mr. Leone's defense of the "taint-follows-subdivision" rule. If the proponents believe that being more than 100' away means a "Special Place" isn't harmed, why does it matter how a lot that's more than 100' away came into existence? Even in private conversations, I have failed to get a good answer to that.

  In the efforts of the opponents to dismiss the timeliness items, I noticed that while they were quick to dismiss the first two items (relating to the Commission reporting to TM), they avoided talking about the timeliness item that really mattered -- the one that OKed the permit if the Commission dragged its feet. Curious.

  I'm still waiting for a definition of a "Special Place."

  Talk about weird results -- separate 1-vote margins, but by different totals.

• I give Mr. Maher credit for standing up and acknowledging "shame" and "humility" over giving a positive recommendation on the original NESWC agreement (of course, if he hadn't, I'd lay odds at least one of the speakers would have done it for him).

  I hope the Town never gets into something as complicated as NESWC ever again. And it seems every year I learn something new about how atrocious the current contract is. I wonder if Mr. Wooster was serious when he said it has become a case study in how not to negotiate such a contract.

• We'll have at least 14 sessions for this meeting. I wonder how that ranks all-time. I'd imagine it's not the longest. I wonder if it's in the top 10.

[Rich, 01:40]

• Called to order at 20:00.
• Article 8 - Special Places:
  • Mr. Ruderman said the Historical Commission endorsed the substitute motion and was opposed to the proposed amendment and the no action recommendation. He said the Historical Commission holds frequent meetings and does not feel it will be overburdened with new properties it would have to supervise. He said there is no need for a waiver because the Commission does not have to follow hard and fast rules. In response to Mr. Greeley's question about what is the problem that needs to be fixed, he mentioned a proposed 50-unit development at the Time Olds/Osco site and the condos at Cutter Mill.
  • Mr. Kohl said he was in favor of the amendment and the no action recommendation and against the substitute motion. He felt that the ARB's power of environmental design review already covers the problems Mr. Ruderman discussed. Mr. Kohl said he considered the substitute motion "patently unfair" to abutters and reiterated the unfairness of the "taint" following through subdivisions.
  • Mr. Leone said regulation needs to be proactive. He said if we want to protect special places we need to pass this bylaw now. He said that the Historical Commission tries to work with owners, and that the 100' number was reasonable over would not burden the Historical Commission. He said the Town has not tried to capitalize on its historic and cultural resources and needs to prevent them from being degraded.
  • Mr. Gilligan said he was against the amendment as he said it would allow appointed officials to fail to do their jobs. He said the Town was at a nexus about what it should look like and that the ABC study called for protecting and leveraging historic and cultural resources. He asked that the amendment be voted down and the substitute motion be approved.
  • Mr. Cleinman moved the previous question - debate terminated.
  • Carreiro amendment defeated.
  • Motion to substitute Mr. Leone's motion for the no action recommendation of the BoS approved 73-72.
  • BoS recommendation as substituted approved 79-78.
• Article 16 - Refuse Contract:
  • BoS recommended a vote that the Town endorse the agreement with Wheelabrator for trash disposal service from 2005 to 2010.
  • Ms. Galkowski said the current NESWC contract with Wheelabrator (hereafter WNA) requires the Town to negotiate in good faith with WNA and not issue RFPs until after such negotiations fail. On top of that, WNA has a 90-day right of first refusal over any bids the Town receives. She said the service agreement for 2005-2010 is simple -- there is a fixed price per ton (which increases from $64/ton in 2005 to $73/ton in 2010), no guaranteed annual tonnage, and no provisions to hold the Town liable for costs caused by change of law. She said the non-service-related terms were more objectionable, particularly a scheme called "flip up refinancing". She said the member towns deposit money into a fund which each July is used for that year's payments on the towns' debt service liability to WNA. In a flip-up, WNA's parent Waste Management (hereafter WM) would issue bonds to pay off WNA's debt and in return take the towns' funds. NESWC would be paid $940,000 by WM each time this was done. The advantage to WM is that it would be able to issue the bonds on a tax-exempt basis and thus have lower borrowing costs. Such a transaction would in no way extend the Town's indebtedness to WNA or WM, but could conceivably expose the Town to suit from the new bondholders. Ms. Galkowski said that one NESWC lawyer said the contract was good and significantly simpler than the current one. She said another NESWC lawyer said the proposed tip fees are favorable and are on the lower end of market rates. She said the Town decided to hire its own lawyer (a Mr. Shortsleeve) to review the contract who then also consulted with a NYC law firm. He said he felt the prices were $5-$7/ton too high by comparison with Brookline, but the NYC firm said the rates were fair and that a comparison to Brookline was not proper since Brookline owns its own transfer station. Mr. Shortsleeve was also worried about indemnification language relative to the flip-up financing and to environmental issues. Ms. Galkowski said the NESWC lawyers say the indemnification language is pretty good and that a flip-up will not cause liability to the Town. She urged favorable action.
  • Mr. Tosti said FinComm recommended no action 15-1 due to a lack of information on key terms, especially given the bad experiences the Town has had with WNA in the past.
  • Mr. DeCoursey (a member of the FinComm subcommittee who looked into the contract) said that Mr. Shortsleeve was worried that while there is language in the agreement saying there is the intent to indemnify the towns from flip-up liability, there is no actual indemnification language. Mr. DeCoursey reported NESWC lawyers said no such language would be drafted until a proposed flip-up was put in progress, due to the cost around such a transaction. Mr. DeCoursey said FinComm found the tip fees to be acceptable. He said that while NESWC lawyers say the environmental indemnification is better than that currently exists, FinComm wonders if better language would be given if the Town was an "off-the-street" customer or went to a WNA competitor.
  • Mr. Bernardin, noting how high the tip fees are in the remainder of the current contract, asked if there was a way to renegotiate them. Mr. Wooster (NESWC executive director) said there was not, as all 23 communities would have to agree to do so and few or none of the desire to do so at this point. Mr. Wooster also pointed out that the "vast majority" of the tip fees go to bondholders, so there is little room to reduce rates.
  • Mr. Cleinman said he would follow what FinComm recommends. He said the Town has had horrible experiences with WNA and cannot believe everything is "all right". Referring to the figures in the BoS report, he asked if the Town would pay yes if it generated less trash. Mr. Wooster said it would. He asked why WNA has a right of first refusal. Mr. Wooster said the existing contract mandates that, but pointed out that the proposed contract does not have such a requirement. Mr. Cleinman urged the meeting to vote down the BoS recommendation.
  • Mr. Taber asked for more information on the flip-up transaction. Mr. Hale (attorney at Palmer & Dodge, representing NESWC) said that it is a way to WM to get financing at tax-exempt interest rates. He said WM can flip-up if the member towns are indemnified and have any ancillary costs the process imposes on them paid for. He said the towns' indebtedness ends in 2005, flip-up or not. Mr. Taber asked why the flip-up provision is in the contact. Mr. Hale said that WM considers it an item in what it views as a package negotiation. Mr. Taber said he was not impressed by the provision and that he was upset with timing that brought something of this importance before TM on possible the last evening of the meeting. Ms. Galkowski said the contract had actually been negotiated back in February, but that the Town has been trying to gather more information and evaluate it better since then.
  • Mr. Chaput said he could not support the contract. He wondered how many more years the plant had left, and what costs would be imposed on the Town if it had to be rebuilt. Mr. Wooster said that the plant has another 20 or so years left and that NESWC was not looking for a contract longer than 5 years in order to avoid "change of law" language. He said the contract does not expose the Town to any repair costs.
  • Ms. Harrington asked for a total of 15 minutes, which was approved on a voice vote after there were objections to her request. She said the whole thing is very confusing and that she has many concerns. She asked if a flip-up could happen without Arlington TM approval. Mr. Hale said a flip-up would require the approval of only a majority of NESWC communities and so could happen without TM approval. Ms. Harrington asked if the tip fee numbers were tied to a flip-up. Mr. Wooster said the tip fee numbers stay the same even if NESWC refused to allow a proposed flip-up. Ms. Harrington said she liked the flip-up provision even less, since the Town could be forced to participate even if it felt it was not properly affected. She said she worried that a plain "no action" vote would provide no information to WNA about what TM did not like. She asked how the indemnification language compares to would the Town would receive as an "off-the-street" customer. Mr. Tucker (attorney for Piper and XXXX, another firm representing NESWC) said that the language in the current contract is horribly one-sided in favor of WNA and that the proposed language is much better. He said liability would turn on whether it arose from a WNA action or from something the Town sent. WNA would have two years to inform the Town of an unacceptable shipment. If WNA failed to do so, the Town would be off the hook for that shipment. He said he felt that terms offered to an "off-the-street" customer would be less favorable than the proposed terms. Ms. Harrington offered an amendment which would condition TM endorsement of the contract on WNA abandoning the flip-up provision and offering environmental indemnification language that addressed the concerns of Mr. Shortsleeve and Town Counsel.
  • Mr. Norton asked what happens if TM votes no action. Mr. Maher said the Town Manager can sign the contract regardless, but quite probably would not do so absent TM endorsement. If there is no endorsement, the Town would have to go out to bid. Mr. Maher expressed concern that we would receive no bids, or bids more expensive than what has been offered. After expressing "shame" and "humility" over favorably recommending the original contract 18 years ago, Mr. Maher said turning down this one would be an action that TM "would regret." Mr. Norton asked if there was a to extend the 30 June deadline. Mr. Wooster said there was not.
  • Mr. Deyst offered an amendment to condition the endorsement on "...the Board of Selectmen and the Finance Committee voting to support provisions relating to flip-up refinancing and indemnification".
  • Mr. Tosti said FinComm voted no action due to lack of information, not that the contract is necessarily bad. He said Ms. Harrington would be invited to any meeting FinComm had on the issue.
  • Ms. Weaver asked how NESWC members had approved the contract. Mr. Wooster said he knew of none, though some may have.
  • Mr. Holman said the article should be dealt with on Wednesday and that he does not like seeing WM/WNA receive the benefits of tax-exempt financing.
  • Ms. LaCourt asked if there were separate contracts for trash pickup and disposal and was told there were. She asked why a 5-year contract was negotiated. Ms. Galkowski said a 5 year-option gave the best rates.
  • Mr. Kohl asked exactly what the right of first refusal meant. Mr. Hale said it means that WNA would have to honor the exact terms of the contract the Town negotiated with the other provider should WNA choose to exercise its right. Mr. Kohl asked what happens if the plant closes or cannot take the Town's waste. Mr. Hale said the proposed contract says that if the plant closes due to force majeure, WNA is obliged to take trash, at the contracted tip fee (with a minimal incremental cost to the Town to cover additional transport), for 220 days. If the closing is not due to force majeure, WNA must accept trash at the contracted tip fee for the remainder of the contract. Mr. Kohl asked for more flipup details. Mr. Hale said the flip-up bonds would actually be issued through a state agency and that there would be no obligations on the Town other than to follow the terms of the contract. Mr. Kohl stated he was against the "shell game" of flip-up.
  • Mr. Gilligan said he was concerned about taking the vote this evening, that a prohibition on RFPs does not prevent the Town from contacting disposal providers for information, and wondered where the evidence of the supposed due diligence was.
  • Mr. Norton moved to table -- tabled.
• Article 37 - Early Retirement: BoS recommended a vote of no action which was approved.
• Article 38 - Education Reform: BoS recommended a vote of no action which was approved unanimously.
• Article 39 - Education Reformt: BoS recommended a vote of no action which was approved unanimously.
• Article 54 - Budgets:
  • The Moderator asked FinComm if they had anything more to discuss. Hearing a negative answer, he declared the article disposed of and closed.
  • Mr. Rehrig asked if FinComm was planning to amend earlier actions so that the "found" $1,000,000 would go 75% to the schools instead of 56%. Mr. Tosti said no.
  • Article declared closed.
• Article 44 - CBA/Local 680:
  • FinComm unanimously recommended approving a FY03 contract to give Local 680 a 3% raise, to be funded in part from prior year's articles for this purpose and from $210,000 of this year's budget.
  • Mr. Taber said that the Town cannot keep giving 3% raises in light of Prop 2.5's limitations on Town revenues.
  • Ms. LaCourt asked if the money was in prior years' budgets. Mr. Galkowski said some was and some was not. She said the money from this year's appropriation was already factored into the budget.
  • Mr. Tosti said this was for a FY03 contract and that raises would be doubtful for any FY04 contracts. He said the Town needs to get health insurance givebacks and that some smaller ones have begun to trickle in.
  • Mr. Harrington said we could not really vote no since we had giving a similar FY03 contract to two other CBA entities at least year's ATM, but that the size of raises must be considered in the future.
  • Mr. Gee said Ms. Harrington's points were well-taken and that future raises should not be over 2.5%.
  • FinComm recommendation approved.
• Article 45 - CBA/NAGE: FinComm recommended no action since no FY04 agreement has been reached with NAGE. No action approved unanimously.
• Article 46 - CBA/Library: FinComm recommended no action since no FY04 agreement has been reached with the library union. No action approved unanimously.
• Article 47 - CBA/Local 1297 Firefighters:
  • FinComm recommended no action.
  • Ms. Galkowski presented a substitute motion to approve an arbitrator's decision on the FY03 contract to award the union a 3% raise.
  • Mr. Maher said that this article was different than others since it came from an arbitrator's award, not a mutually reached outcome. He said the only thing awarded was the 3% raise and that both sides lost on issues they had brought up. He said that due to the law's requirement that he, as bargaining agent for the town, advocate for the award, he felt he could not ethically answer legal questions on this article and hired in outside counsel to answer legal questions TM might have.
  • Mr. Tosti said FinComm was unanimous on no action. He said FinComm is treating this article differently because the other unions allowed co-payment increases but this one did not. He said the Town has been giving out "extras" over the past few years and that expecting health insurance givebacks was reasonable. He said that if TM approved this contract no union would agree to givebacks.
  • Ms. Munsey said that since the Town had agreed to stick to what the arbitrator awarded, the Town must live up to its agreement.
  • Mr. Jefferson said he was a member of the Fire Department and was on the negotiating team. He said the unions who have made health insurance concessions did so on FY04 contracts, not on FY03 ones. He said the union is willing to make concessions, but on an FY04 contract. He also said the teachers got a 4% raise and did not have to make any concessions. He urged support of the increase for both fire and police.
  • Mr. Hughes moved the previous question - debate terminated.
  • Motion to substitute Ms. Galkowski's motion for that of FinComm's approved 124-44.
  • FinComm motion as substituted approved.
• Mr. Norton moved to adjourn.
• Meeting adjourned at 22:57 to Wednesday, 18 June, at 20:00.

[Rich, 10:53]
I certainly hope the experience of the Patriot Act debate sinks any thoughts of using a two (or three) microphone system again anytime soon. Just about everything I thought was bad about it came true. There was a rush to the lines (good luck to any older person or person from the back rows who wanted to talk), there was Mr. Ruderman standing in the "No" line (because it was shorter) for the tactical reason of killing debate, even though as the roll-call vote showed, his true opinion was "Yes", there was confusion about whether the people who were standing in line when the motion on the previous question carried were doubting the vote or not, and so forth. It was a good idea to have used this approach on non-business like a resolution and not on something substantive. Now we know not to use it for anything substantive.

I've been a TMM since Spring, 1996. The Patriot Act vote was the 3rd roll-call vote I can remember. Unfortunately, while I know I've been in two other roll-call votes, I can't remember what they were. Someone said he believed one of the was a few years ago on a vote to reconsider a decision not in favor of a retired policeman. That may be so. I am very sure the other one (which I think was in my first or second year) had something to do with land use or zoning (maybe even something to do with Symmes) but cannot remember the details. Anyone know? Thinking about rare events also brought to mind the time the counted vote tied and the Moderator had to vote to break the tie (as Town Meeting Time recommends, the Moderator, even if a TMM, only votes to either break a tie, or, if the side he is against leads by a vote, he can vote to create a tie and thus defeat the motion). Again, I can't remember what the vote was actually about.

[Rich, 10:47]
It's Override Voting Day. In the event that it's too close to call even after the ballots are counted, you may find the state's Recount Guide of interest.

[Rich, 09:41]
I have received some questions in private e-mail as to why I voted "present" on Article 81 while stating I would have supported Article 81 on a ballot or in an Open Town Meeting. Here's an excerpt from what I would have said if I had a chance to speak before debate was terminated:

There is also the question of TM speaking for the Town. If this were an Open TM there would be no question about that. But this is an Representative TM. And while our constitutents rightly expect us to be informed and aware of local issues, and thus be legitimately able to speak for them on those issues, I'm not sure how much that delegation of authority carries over to discussions concerning a 342-page federal law and no doubt thousands of pages of implementing regulations. I would feel better if this resolution purported to speak for TM instead of the Town as a whole.

I also had ancillary issues with resenting being put in the position of being used for the political and PR benefit of a group (AUJP) whose statements and beliefs I often find objectionable, and of questioning some of the representations made in the materials handed out with the resolution. However, as Mr. Berkowitz said, the resolution at hand and not the merits of AUJP were what was up for a vote.

[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.

[Rich, 01:48]

• Article 2 - Reports: Removed from table to accept the report of the Arlington Transportation Advisory Committee and that of the Cyrus E. Dallin Museum. The Museum's formal report can be found in the Arlington 2003 Annual Report.
• Article 54 - Budgets:
  • Sub-Budget 17(d) - Community Safety/Support Services:
    • Mr. Judd noted that two signal maintainer positions are being eliminated and that the employees had 30 and 25 years experience and were not offered another job. He said this was an indecent way to treat employees. He also wondered how the Town will be maintaining its fire apparatus due to the elimination of the fire apparatus maintainer. Ms. Galkowski said that the Town cannot afford to keep their positions. She said the switch to LED signals has reduced repair costs and that contracting out maintenance will save more funds. She said that the DPW and the Fire Department will collaborate on fire apparatus repairs. Mr. Judd asked if there would be any union ramifications. Ms. Galkowski said she expected the issue would come up in impact bargaining.
    • Mr. Hollman asked about the street light savings, since the budget line does not show any reductions. Ms. Galkowski said the savings are numerous, due to the about-to-happen switch to more efficient, longer-lasting high-pressure sodium lights from the current mercury vapor lights. She said that this year that line item will actually be turning back unspent money and that she anticipates the same for FY04 but wanted to be conservative.
    • Mr. Rehrig asked why the pay plan reinstitutes a cut position. Ms. Cove said that when the pay plan was being put together she was hoping for the best and also that the incumbent did not want his position in the plan. Mr. Rehrig asked why not. Ms. Cove said that TM was not the place to get into that situation.
    • Mr. Gilligan moved the previous question - debate terminated 121-42.
    • Approved 135-21.
  • Sub-Budget 18(a) - Inspectional Services/Building Inspection: Approved.
  • Sub-Budget 18(b) - Inspectional Services/Street Lighting:
    • Mr. Taber asked about the five lights still out on the Concord Turnpike a year after he first mentioned them. Mr. Byrne said that their underground wiring is in "horrible" shape and a bid to fix it should be going out in a month or so.
    • Mr. Lavalle said he has one of the new lights near his room. He said the light is "terrible" and worries that in trying to save money the town is buying an inferior product. Ms. Galkowski said the new lights are yellower but the Town got "very positive" results on the survey. Mr. Lavalle disagreed with that view and also asked who has the maintenance contract and how much it costs. Mr. Byrne said Reading's Lighting department has been doing it for $50,000/yr, but they will be getting out of the business and the contract will have to be rebid.
    • Mr. Chaput said that mercury vapor bulbs actually fade over time while high-pressure sodium ones do not. He asked if the replacement program had started. Ms. Galkowski said bulbs have been replaced with the newer ones as they burn out, but this summer the 18-month replacement will begin. She said she wanted to make sure there was support for the change before the money was spent, since she did not want to end the project half-way through due to public opposition.
    • Mr. Mark McCabe moved the previous question -- debate terminated.
    • Approved on a voice vote.
  • Sub-Budget 19 - Education:
    • Mr. Tosti moved to amend the FinComm recommendation to add $560,000 to the "instructional programs" line item.
    • Ms. Owayda said that neither the current budget nor the if-override-passes budget provides level service and that 101 pink slips will go out tomorrow. She said the budget was reluctantly approved by the committee, following three priorities: meet all legal and contractual obligations, maintain a reasonable class size, and protect the integrity of the curriculum. She recounted the hard work that went into this year's budget process and complained about the ongoing and new unfunded mandates imposed by the federal and state governments. She said that 83% of the just-graduated AHS class is going to a 4-year college and 10% to a 2-year college and that students were accepted to 96 different colleges.
    • Ms. Donovan said that no one liked the budget but that it was the best that could be done and that it cuts $4 million and 65 people from a level-service budget. She said that every program that has been added in the past nine years would disappear if the override failed and that no cut is politically motivated. She said that other communities are moving quickly to hire the layoffs, often at higher salaries than the Town was paying. She said that the $560,000 of new funds would restore 1.5 nurses, 11 teachers, and 1 principal. She also said the BoS tonight voted to only spend $3,000,000 of the authorized $4,000,000 if the override passes.
    • Ms. Talanian asked why the Senate Chapter 70 numbers were being used instead of the House's. Ms. Donovan replied that based on Mr. Lyons's information, the Senate estimate is being followed since it is believed that number will prevail in conference.
    • Mr. Jefferson said he supported the FinComm recommendation. He asked why various speakers had talked about a $4,000,000 cut, a $1,000,000 cut and a $2,000,000 cut. Ms. Donovan said that when the budget was printed up, the cut stood at around $4,500,000. The $560,000 of new funds reduced that to around $4,000,000. The schools getting 75% of a $4,000,000 override would reduce that to $1,000,000. However, since the BoS voted to only seek to spend $3,000,000 if the override passes, 75% of that would be $2,250,000 instead of $3,000,000, which increases the cuts back to $1,750,000. Mr. Greeley then said all parties agree that the Town-wide deficit relative to level-service is now $7,000,000, not $8,000,000 and therefore the BoS has made a policy statement to recommend that TM only spend $3,000,000 of the allowable $4,000,000 should the override pass. Mr. Jefferson asked why Ms. Owayda said there would be 101 pink slips but Ms. Donovan said 65 people would lose jobs. Ms. Donovan replied that positions have to pink-slipped, not people, due to bumping rights. She said that once a teacher is in the Town's system for three years and a day they achieve "professional status" and that a laid off "professional" can bump an equivalently-certified "non-professional." Mr. Jefferson asked if the job loss is really 65 considering attrition. Ms. Donovan said the 65 is after taking attrition into account.
    • Mr. Lavalle asked why AHS is being converted from oil to gas when gas is more expensive. Ms. Donovan said the goal was to be dual-fuelled, but the condition of the oil tank and some air quality issues are pushing the Town toward a conversion now. The hope is that the gas company will pick up much of the costs and that in the longer term the school will be dual-fuelled.
    • Mr. Judd pointed out the steep rise in out-of-district tuition and transportation costs and asked why. Ms. Donovan said that the Town must pay for special needs students who attend schools out of district, including private schools. She said the state sets the rates but that the Town has joined some collaboratives to try to help keep some costs down. She said the numbers of outside placements are not higher but that medical needs are more severe and more costly and that the Town is mandated to pay for any medical care for conditions which interfere with education. She said there are some reimbursements from higher levels of government, but not what is promised. Mr. Judd reiterated his opposition to unfunded mandates and wondered what would happen to the quality of education for non-SPED students if the SPED budget continues to grow at its current rate.
    • Ms. Harrington said that if the override fails, 65 jobs would be lost. She asked how many would be kept if it passes. Ms. Donovan said 62. Ms. Harrington asked about labor negotiations. Ms. Donovan said that such discussions are kept private until settlement but that she had made it clear there is no money for raises aside from contractually-obligated step increases. Ms. Harrington asked if we could join any more collaboratives. Ms. Donovan said collaboratives are mostly set by geography due to travel restrictions, but that the Town does try to get non-members of the collaborative to send in students because the Town can then charge tuition to those towns.
    • After receiving confirmation that we were discussing the printed school budget plus a $560,000 increment, Ms. Colwell asked what the $560,000 was going to. Ms. Donovan said it was going to instruction but that she could not be more specific about what kinds of teachers would be restored since the override outcome could greatly affect that. Ms. Colwell asked how the loss of the eight reading teachers would be made up. Ms. Donovan said they probably could not be, though the staff would try its best. She said they would be some of the first to be restored if the override passes.
    • Mr. Kohl moved the previous question -- failed 92-64 (needs 2/3rds).
    • Ms. Rowe asked if Ms. Donovan or SchoolComm knew about or were consulted on the BoS policy vote on the override. Both replied negatively. The Moderator ruled out of order Ms. Rowe's identical question to the pro-override forces.
    • Ms. LaCourt asked what happens if the $270,000 in extra Chapter 70 funds does not show up. Mr. Tosti said he believed there would be enough flexibility in revenue estimates to cover that, but if there were not, a Special TM would be needed to reduce the budget. Mr. Lyons said the Senate Chapter 17 numbers have been enacted for 12 consecutive years.
    • Mr. Rehrig expressed his concern that if the BoS recommendation is followed by TM, the schools would effectively only get 56% of the first million and then 75% of $3,000,000 instead of 75% of $4,000,000.
    • Mr. Spangler said that TM must make sure that if the override passes the schools get the full $3,000,000.
    • Ms. Friedman asked for and received confirmation that the 1.5 nurses, 11 teachers, and one principal were being restored regardless of the fate of the override.
    • Mr. Gallagher pointed out that the text in one line of the school budget said that an assistant principal was being cut, but the numbers showed that none were being cut. Ms. Donoban said none were being cut.
    • Mr. Greeley moved the previous question -- debate terminated.
    • FinComm amendment to add $560,000 approved.
    • FinComm recommendation as amendent approved.
  • Sub-Budget 20 - Libraries:
    • Mr. Tosti moved to amend the FinComm recommendation to add back $63,772 to restore 2 part-time librarians and 2 part-time library assistants.
    • Mr. Tremblay asked what late fines were and when they were last changed. Ms. Loud said they were $0.10/day for adults' books and $0.05/day for children's books and had not been changed in years. Mr. Tremblay suggested fines be raised. Ms. Loud said the Board of Library Trustees was planning to consider it.
    • Mr. Berkowitz said he was grateful for the restorations but that the libraries were still taking a very big hit. He said libraries are important places for fostering community.
    • Mr. Ruderman asked what it costs to keep the Fox Library open. Ms. Loud said it costs $21,000 per day per year. Mr. Ruderman said that he loves the Fox library but questions keeping it open this year at the cost of reducing Robbins's hours. He pointed out that the libraries are less than a mile apart and there is very good public transportation between them. He asked why the decision to close the library was reversed. Ms. Galkowski said there was significant pressure from library users. She said parking fees were increased and used to fund being open for two days per week and that private groups were trying to raise funds to open it for a third day.
    • Ms. Fiore said the Fox is safer to go to than Robbins, due to the dangers of street crossing in the Center. She said it is also used for community meetings and that it is a badly needed facility that should be kept open.
    • Ms. Carlisle reiterated Ms. Fiore's points before being interrupted by the Moderator who pointed out that there was no proposal before the meeting to close the Fox library.
    • Ms. Deal moved the previous question -- debate terminated.
    • FinComm amendment approved.
    • FinComm recommendation as amended, approved.
  • Sub-Budget 21 - Human Services:
    • Mr. Tosti moved to amend the FinComm recommendation to add back $21,802 for a part-time social worker and nurse for the Council on Aging.
    • Amendment approved.
    • Ms. Gormely questioned the wisdom of eliminating two full-time clerical positions and replacing them with a single part-time position. Ms. Kraemer said that the jobs the clerical staff has done has changed dramatically with computerization. She said the properties of the part-time position will be to pay bills and make payroll and to do reception. She said a number of the tasks that the eliminated positions entailed will be cut, since there is not money to maintain the same service level.
    • Ms. Thomas also expressed concerned with the cuts. Ms. Kraemer said that more volunteers will be recruited to help bolster reception tasks. Ms. Deal asked if the cuts would disqualify the Town from being a training site for student nurses, which effectively brings the Town more nurses for free. Ms. Kraemer said that there will still be enough paid nursing hours for the Town to continue to qualify.
    • Mr. Gilligan moved the previous question -- debate terminated.
    • FinComm recommendated as amended, approved.
  • Sub-Budget 22 - Non-Contributory Pensions: Unanimously approved.
  • Sub-Budget 23 - Contributory Pensions: Unanimously approved.
  • Sub-Budget 24 - Insurance:
    • Mr. Tosti moved to amend the FinComm recommendation to reduce group health expenditures by $410,000.
    • FinComm amendment approved.
    • FinComm recommendation as amended unanimously approved.
  • Sub-Budget 25 - Reserve Fund: Unanimously approved.
  • Enterprise Fund A - Water and Sewer: Unanimously approved.
  • Enterprise Fund B - Recreation:
    • Mr. Tosti moved to amend the FinComm recommendation to eliminate the $200,000 of field user fees.
    • FinComm amendment approved.
    • FinComm recommendation as amended, approved.
  • Enterprise Fund C - Veterans Rink: Unanimously approved.
  • Enterprise Fund D - COA Transporation: Unanimously approved.
  • Enterprise Fund E - Youth Services:
    • Mr. Tosti moved to amend the FinComm recommendation to add $20,000 for a social worker.
    • FinComm amendment approved.
    • FinComm recommendation as amended, unanimously approved.
• Mr. Tosti, Ms. Harrington, Mr. Gillian, and Mr. Deyst served notices of reconsideration on all items acted on. Mr. Fiore and Mr. McCabe served notice of reconsideration on Sub-Budget 21.
• Mr. Greeley moved to reconsider the original motion that when the meeting adjourn it adjourn to Monday, 16 June, since there are still a number of items that can be taken care of before the override vote that TM could take up on Wednesday, 11 June.
• Ms. Fiore asked that the original motion stand, since there is a meeting Wednesday night about CSO issues in Cambridge.
• Motion to reconsider approved.
• Mr. Greeley moved to adjourn to 20:00, Wednesday, 11 June 2003, approved.
• Meeting adjourned to 20:00, Wednesday, 11 June 2003.

[Rich, 02:39]

• Mr. Greeley read a proclamation honoring the Robbins Farm volunteers who organized the playground work and fundraising, saving the town around $100,000 by their efforts.
• Article 54 removed from the table.
• Article 54 - Budgets:
  • Mr. Greeley said that $1,000,000 has been "found" over the past week, consisting of an estimated $270,000 increase in state aid, Minuteman assessment coming in $200,000 less than anticipated, NESWC lowering our tip fees by $120,000, and reduced health insurance costs of $410,000 due to recalculation of unemployment requirements, and that the restored items being paid for from this money carry the majority support of the BoS and FinComm. He said that since the override wording says "...up to $4mil", the BoS will meet next Monday to vote on a policy statement about how much to recommend taxes be raised in light of these funds. He said that various boards plus interested citizens will be forming a group to work on ways to deal with future financial issues, and admitted "We could have done this better."
  • Mr. Tosti said that one of the tough parts for FinComm are constantly changing numbers, especially from the state.
  • Ms. Galkowski said she was thankful for the $440,000 but that it can be a chore to add it back, since one must consider all the sorts of things that are considered when cutting it in the first place.
  • Sub-Budget 1 - Finance Committee: Approved unanimously.
  • Sub-Budget 2 - Selectmen:
    • Mr. Daly asked about laid-off employees. The Moderator said that should be discussed under the relevant budgets. Mr. Daly said that if the Town is finding money, layoffs should be revisited.
    • Mr. Dohan asked if SchoolComm supported the allocation of the new money. The Moderator said that it should be asked during the school budget discussion.
    • Mr. Bloom asked why the BoS did not recommend cutting its own salaries and asked what the new "clerks" line item under "Elections and TM" was. Mr. Greeley said that topic had never come up, but that if he thought the combined $15,000 in BoS salaries would have meaningfully helped, he would have recommended they be cut. He said the in this year's budget the Election and TM line item was further split out to show more detail.
    • Approved.
  • Sub-Budget 3 - Town Manager: Approved.
  • Sub-Budget 4 - Personnel/Payroll: Approved.
  • Sub-Budget 5 - Comptroller: Approved.
  • Sub-Budget 6 - Treasurer/Collector: Approved.
  • Sub-Budget 7 - Postage:
    • Mr. Cleinman noted the budget was cut 21% and asked if there would be enough funds. Mr. Bilafer said he felt the Town could stay within the number and would cut back on "discretionary" mailings.
    • Mr. Dunn asked what a discretionary mailing was. Mr. Bilafer said it could be things like having students take home a notice instead of mailing them home.
    • Ms. Carlisle asked about the mailings TMM received about the meeting tonight and asked if the departments are looking into more email use. The Moderator said the mailing was required by law and that the clerk used to fill out postcards after each session ended. Mr. Bilafer said that the Town's systems are not "sophisticated" enough to handle what Ms. Carlisle was asking about.
    • Approved.
  • Sub-Budget 8 - Board of Assessors:
    • Mr. Burke asked why the Assessors' budget was not cut and asked what they do since the Town hires outside help. Mr. Tosti said the outside consultant was for the total revaluation, and that the rest of the time the BoA does things itself. He said that a separate warrant article is annually used to appropriate another slot of money for the BoA but that this year it is being recommended that it be zerod, so the BoA will be taking a significant cut.
    • Mr. McCabe asked where the Overlay Reserve was. The Moderator said it was in Article 79.
    • Mr. O'Connor asked what the final unlabled line was. Mr. Tosti said it was Longevity.
    • Approved
  • Sub-Budget 9 - Legal:
    • Ms. Harrington asked why some positions showed raises of over 3%. Mr. Tosti said it was because of step increases.
    • Ms. Scott asked why the workers' compensation expense was cut $100,000. Ms. Galkowski said that $100,000 was simply cut from the item. Ms. Scott asked what happened if we used it up. Ms. Galkowski said the overage would come out of reserves. The Workers' Comp Agent (WCA) said that the amount varies each year and that the town has been able to reduce it due to statutory fee decreases, attrition, great years, and town employees working hard to work safe.
    • Mr. Curro noted that many towns have no in-house counsel but that Arlington has both a Town Counsel and a benefits attorney. Mr. Maher said that Arlington is one of the only towns to self-insure on workers' comp and that this saves the town far more than the cost of having a benefits attorney/WCA.
    • Mr. Roselli asked if the Town has to follow the same rules even though it is self-insured. Mr. Maher said it does. Mr. Roselli asked why the Town has two layers. Mr. Maher said it would overburden him and pointed out that when a company "handles" workers' comp it is merely forwarding paperwork to the insurance company, which does most of the real administration and legal work that the town must do itself because it is self-insured.
    • Mr. Judd asked if SchoolComm has its own legal counsel. Mr. Maher said SchoolComm has the option of hiring outside counsel for labor relations and that it does. Mr. Maher said that places like Waltham, Newton, and Somerville have five or more in-house lawyers and none of them handle their own worker's comp. Mr. Judd asked if there is any duplication of legal effort between Town and school that could be consolidated. Ms. Owayda said SchoolComm uses outside counsel only for labor relations and uses Town Counsel for "many" issues.
    • Ms. Galkowski said she is "amazed" at the work in-house counsel does and that it would cost very much more to hire the work out.
    • Mr. Hollman asked if there were any numbers on actual workers' comp expenditures. The WCA said this year's projection is $228,000, or about $100,000 less than appropriated (which will be turned over to the general fund). Mr. Hollman asked why Legal Expenses has doubled over the past few years. Mr. Maher said it was due to the increases in court costs and because with some of the more important cases the Town has been involved in (East Arlington, Pierce field, etc.) the Town has had to hire out for specialized legal assistance.
    • Mr. Howard moved the previous question - debate terminated.
    • Approved.
  • Sub-Budget 10 - Town Clerk: Approved.
  • Sub-Budget 11 - Board of Registrars:
    • Mr. Adams asked what the parenthesized numbers were next to titles. Mr. Tosti said it represents number of people with that title.
    • Approved.
  • Sub-Budget 12 - Parking: Approved.
  • Sub-Budget 13 - Planning:
    • Mr. Bloom asked what the Central School $19,000 credit was. Mr. McClennan said that the clerk who handles short-term leases works half-time for the Planning Department and half-time for the ARB and so each one gets credit for half of the money she brings in.
    • Ms. DiBona asked why the proposed salary for planner remains the same even though Mr. McClennan will be retiring and presumably his replacement will not have 25-30 years of experience. Mr. Tosti said that with all the important projects coming up, we will want to hire a very good planner and it will likely cost at least as much as Mr. McClennan's current salary.
    • Mr. Curro asked how long the search would take and if the resultant temporary vacancy would lower the budgeted amount. Ms. Galkowski said that the retirement date has not been set and that Mr. McClennan will be receiving some deferred compensation when he leaves that would at least partially offset any savings due to temporary vacancy.
    • Approved.
  • Sub-Budget 14 - ARB:
    • Mr. Ford asked for personnel details. Mr. McClennan said there was only one person, a "building craftsman".
    • Mr. Judd asked what "purchases of services" was. Mr. McClennan said it was the costs for running the Crosby, the Centra, the Parmenter, etc.
    • Mr. Bernardin asked why the craftsman was getting 15% more. Ms. Galkowski said it was due to projected overtime.
    • Ms. Harrington asked why if the costs shown were "actual" as Mr. McClennan said earlier, that they have been identical for three years. Mr. McClennan said it was because FinComm had level-funded that item, and he had spent the item down to nothing each year.
    • Approved.
  • Sub-Budget 15 - ZBA: Approved.
  • Sub-Budget 16 - Public Works:
    • FinComm recommends amending their budget by adding back six grounds maintenance workers and some seasonal laborers for a total additional expense of $174,426, partially offset by the $120,000 tip fee reduction. Mr. Tosti said this would eliminate field fees for this year but that FinComm continues to recommend the issue be considered in the future. He said the $120,000 tip fee reduction was due to NESWC reducing the fee from $145/ton to $140/ton.
    • Mr. Olsen said the original vote was due to lack of equity in fee coverage. He said that hockey and basketball players cover their programs' entire cost to the town while field users do not. He said that FinComm will be analyzing equity and cost recovery issues over the coming year and will be making an "in-depth" report next year.
    • Mr. Hallee pointed out an error in the subtotals which was corrected.
    • Mr. Carabollo, Park and Rec chair said that the commission found out in January that there might be user fees. Since they were concerned that current maintenance level might be lost, the commission reluctantly adopted user fees and are grateful they can be rescinded. He said that if there are to be fees in the future, they must be equitable.
    • Mr. Judd asked why we did not know more in advance about the tip fee cut since we are a NESWC member. Ms. Galkowski said that NESWC projects out its disposal costs, energy revenue, and debt service, and allocates that over the estimated tonnage and that this year it came out to $140/ton. Mr. Judd asked when the collection contract runs out. Ms. Galkowski said in June 2004.
    • Mr. Gilligan moved the previous question -- debate terminated.
    • Approved as amended by FinComm.
  • Sub-Budget 17(a) - Community Safety/Administration: Approved.
  • Sub-Budget 17(b) - Community Safety/Police:
    • FinComm recommended amending their budget by adding $90,000 of overtime (this was the same as Mr. Greeley's amendment in the previous session).
    • Ms. LaCourt said we need the overtime even if the override passes because it takes over a year to hire a patrolman. She asked Police Chief Ryan what takes so long. Mr. Ryan said that the background checks take 4 months, then 6 months at the academy, and 3 months of local field training. Ms. LaCourt asked if we could hire laid-off policement from other towns, saving the 6 months of academy. Mr. Ryan said we must hire from whatever list the state give us.
    • Mr. Roselli said the Town is facing "very severe" safety issues and moved to increase the Patrolmen line item to $2,367,360 (FY02's appropriation).
    • Ms. Harrington said she was not thrilled with OT and tired officers and asked if the extra money could be used for new hiring or if it was locked into overtime. Mr. Tosti said TM only appropriates the bottom line for personnel and department heads can move the money around within personnel as needed.
    • Mr. Tosti said that crime stats have dropped sharply over the past 20 years and even over the past 5. He said Arlington has some of the highest officers per square mile and officers per 100 crimes numbers of any MA municipalities its size and urged the Roselli amendment be voted down.
    • Mr. Norton asked if minimum manning related to Homeland Security at all. Mr. Ryan said it did not. He said there were 23,000 calls for service last year, but that many of them (motor vehicle incidents, some domestic violence and juvenile incidents) do not count in crime stats.
    • Mr. Hughes said he agreed with Mr. Roselli's points about manning but that now was not the time for that kind of increase.
    • Mr. Daly moved the previous question -- debate terminated.
    • Roselli amendment defeated.
    • FinComm amendment approved.
    • FinComm recommendation as amended approved.
  • Sub-Budget 17(c) - Community Safety/Fire:
    • FinComm recommended amending their budget by adding $70,000 of overtime (this was the same as the handout Mr. Greeley gave at the last session, though he never got to formally present the amendment).
    • Mr. Roselli moved to increase the Firefighters line item to $2,480,166 (FY02's appropriation). He reiterated his earlier point about safety issues, said that Engine 1 and Ladder 2 are out of service and said that to get mutual aid you have to give mutual aid.
    • Mr. Tosti said he believes FinComm and the BoS have tried to maintain public safety. He said that police and fire were only cut 5% and 7% compared to much higher percentage cuts elsewhere in town. He said that fire runs are down signficantly and that 80-90% of runs are accompanying ambulances. Mr. Tosti said that the Town assists other communities two to three times more often than they assist us. He said he does not think the Town needs 12 captains and chief officers and perhaps there should be fewer of them and more firefighters. He said the Town needs to look at more regional cooperation.
    • Mr. Bloom asked how we can hire in a hiring freeze. Mr. Greeley said Ms. Galkowski can come before the BoS and ask for an exception. Mr. Bloom asked what will happen now that Lexington will be closing its eastern fire station. Fire Chief Maimone said that we will stick to our aid agreement but will not supplement Lexington. Mr. Bloom asked if the OT money would get us the necessary people. Mr. Maimone said it would ensure that 15 men would be on duty at all times. Mr. Bloom asked if the fire department has as long a lead time to hire as the police. Mr. Maimone said that the lead time is only about 4 months (3 months for background checks, 1 month of training).
    • Mr. Bernardin asked what the numbers per position were over the years. Mr. Tosti pointed out his memo from last time which corrected the missing numbers in the main report. He said that the current proposal funded 49 firefighter positions.
    • Ms. LaCourt asked how many shifts were below minimum manning, how many calls there were, and how many were fires. Mr. Maimone said that there were 4,000 calls, the majority of which were medical. He said that 34% of overnight shifts and 20% of day shifts last year were below minimum manning.
    • Mr. Jefferson said that 15 men are needed to deal with structure fires and that medical incidents and vehicle extractions can be very labor-intensive. He said that adding back positions would provide flexibility. He thanked Mr. Roselli but said that at this time he would support FinComm's recommendation.
    • Mr. Daly moved the previous question -- debate terminated.
    • Roselli amendment defeated.
    • FinComm amendment approved.
    • FinComm recommendation as amended approved.
  • Mr. Tosti, Ms. Harrington, Mr. Judd, and Mr. Gilligan served notices of reconsideration on all the items acted on.
  • Meeting adjourned to 20:00 on Monday, 9 June, 2003.