[Rich, 01:31]
Session 7 -- and you thought TM was boring!

• Annual meeting called to order at 20:06.
• Arlington Madrigal Singers performed the National Anthem plus a four-song mini-concert.
• Voted that when the ATM adjourn, it adjourn to 17 May at 20:00.
• Mr. Hurd announced the World Series trophy will be on display at the Veterans' Memorial Rink from 14:00-16:00 on 18 May.
• Mr. Tosti moved to table articles 17, 29-41. Tabled.
• Article 42 - Budgets
  • The Moderator declared the meeting in recess so that no presenter or questioner would be counted as having spoken under the article.
  • The vast majority of the presentation was paraphrasing or directly reading a report the Town Manager's office had created and put in our seats and pages II-3 and II-4 of the School Department budget. Noting what presenters said would essentially be reproducing those reports. So for the presentations I only noted who spoke (and for what) and jotted down something here or there that was not in the reports and caught me interest.
  • Mr. Sullivan presented the opening of his report, the main point of which is that there is a $2,000,000 structural deficit. He feels that is caused by a revenue problem and not an expenditures problem.
  • Ms. Loud presented the libraries slide. She also noted that being decertified could cost the libraries an additional $31,000 in lost grants and $52,000 in lost state funds.
  • Ms. Kraemer presented the Department of Human Services slides.
  • Mr. Sanchez presented the DPW slides.
  • Chief McEwen presented the AFD slides. He noted that if the override did not pass, an engine company would periodically have to to be shut down.
  • Chief Ryan presented the APD slides. He noted there are only 5 patrol officers on duty at one time on average.
  • Mr. Sullivan presented the slides for general administration.
  • Ms. Donovan went over pages II-3 and II-4 of the School Committee budget report, which listed what would be cut if the override did not pass.
  • Mr. Roselli said the Town should get rid of staff cars and asked if car expenses had been looked at. Mr. Sullivan said it has been examined at that steps have been taken to reduce it. He said the cost of employees driving their cars home is minimal compared to on-the-job use. Mr. Roselli attempted to continue, but the Moderator shut him down to give other questioners a chance.
  • Mr. Abbott said he thought the Town was responsible for school building maintenance and asked what the delination was. Ms. Donovan said all the custodians are in the School Department budget, but that when they work on a Town-side building, the School Department bills the Town so each side pays its fair share.
  • Mr. Dunn noted that 57% of the dollar amount of the budget is for teacher pay but that 74% of the headcount reduction falls on teachers. Ms. Donovan replied that seniority requires the newest (and thus cheapest) teachers to be laid off first, so a given dollar cut in teacher pay will result in a higher number of teachers positions being cut than a given dollar cut in administrator pay would result in administrative position cuts. She also said the last round of cuts fell heavily on the administrative side.
  • Ms. Weaver asked how the assistant DPW director position and its SUV could be justified. Mr. Sullivan said that the DPW director is planning to move his office to the DPW yard which would eliminate the need for the position and that the recommendation is that the position would be eliminated. He said the SUV is necessary for the DPW director's job. Ms. Weaver asked about the position upgrade in the Recreation Department. Mr. Sullivan said the rec enterprise fund is self-supporting and that the upgrade does not affect operating budgets. He said the upgrade was, among other things, to do more grant-writing and that it had worked out well.
  • Mr. Berkowitz, saying that people in favor of the override were "preaching to the choir" at TM and asked TMMs to push the override. He said he worried override proponents were not doing a good enough job of making their case and asked how TMMs could better make a pro-override case. Mr. Sullivan said that as a Town employee he cannot promote an override but said he could make people and material available to state the facts. Ms. LaCourt agreed that it was not proper for Town employees to promote an override and told override supporters to talk to members of the pro-override campaign.
  • Ms. Friedman asked about a cut of a HS academic position and its relation to a cut of five secondary teaching positions. Ms. Donovan said the former was targeted in relation to student interests but that the latter could end up falling anywhere.
  • Mr. Smith asked how the comparable communities shown in the tables in the Town Manager's reports were chosen. Mr. Sullivan said he picked the 20 municipalities in eastern MA he felt were most similar by a number of demographics.
  • Ms. Stetson asked what elementary school "basic library services" were and how they would be offered with no school librarians. Ms. Donovan said if the override failed the professional librarians would be cut and volunteers and teachers' assistants would be used to man the elementary school libraries. Ms. Stetson asked how the Town library could pick up the slack. Ms. Loud said it could not and that even now co-ordination between Town and school libraries has suffered.
  • Ms. Carlyle noted a line on page II-3 of the School Department report that said there was "no current interest" in the business program at the high school and asked if that program would be eliminated even if the override passed. Ms. Donovan said it would.
  • Mr. Curro asked why the list of comparable municipalities in the APD slides were so different than those in all the other slides. Chief Ryan said they were drawn from a urban/suburban/rural mix that mirrors comparables used in collective bargaining.
  • Mr. Jamieson said the reason SPED expenditures are left untouched while in-district expenditures are cut is due to state law. He also asked if the library system would fail all three certification criteria if the override failed. Ms. Loud said that it would and that a spending cut would be looked at disfavorably by the waiver-granting authority.
  • Ms. Crowley asked if the cuts would accelerate redistricing and if redistricting would help class size. Ms. Donovan said it could help in a few instances.
  • Mr. Spangler asked if it would still be necessary to raise senior tax exemptions if the override failed. Mr. Tosti said the BoS recommended the change both to cushion the blow of an override but also because of taxes in general.
  • Ms. Kirby asked if there is a longer-term analysis of a failed override. Mr. Tosti said there was one in the back of the FinComm report. Ms. Kirby asked if it was at the budget level. Mr. Tosti said it was not. Mr. Sullivan said that even though the deficit is $4,000,000 this year, a $6,000,000 override was asked for to help build some cushion for following years.
  • The Moderator declared the ATM back in session.
• Mr. Tosti moved to postpone articles 42 and 47 to 13 June. Approved.
• Mr. Tosti moved to take articles 17, 29-41 from the table. Approved.
• The Moderator declared the ATM in recess.
• STM called to order.
• Voted that when STM is adjourned, it adjourn to 18 May at 20:00.
• Article 6 - Resolution/Naming
  • BoS recommended a vote of no action.
  • Mr. Carreiro offered a resolution requesting Town boards, committees, and employees to follow the Public Memorials Commission by-law.
  • Ms. Lovelace said SchoolComm had "permanently" changed its policy to refer namings to the PMC.
  • Mr. Jamieson moved the previous question, which passed unanimously. Debate terminated.
  • Carreiro resolution approved unanimously.
• Mr. Tosti moved Article 1 be removed from the table. Approved.
• Mr. Tosti moved the STM be dissolved. Approved unanimously.
• Back into the Annual Town Meeting.
• Article 17 - Bylaw/Lighting
  • BoS had recommended a vote of no action.
  • Mr. Gilligan replaced his previous substitute motion with a newer one that no longer banned specific lighting uses and that placed enforcement on the Building Inspector. He introduced Cindy Tollman, the main proponent.
  • Ms. Tollman said the motion had been revised with input from many people and thanked Mr. Maher for his drafting help.
  • Mr. Berkowitz said it was a reasonable balance between public welfare and individual rights and that he supported it.
  • Mr. Fitzmaurice said he sympathized with the proponent but would not vote for it because it appeared to outlaw porch lights.
  • Ms. Kirby said she was in support of it, because among other things it would protect the value of an astronomer friend's investment in his home.
  • Mr. Burke said he thought it was ridiculous and that one should just pull down the shade if light is in one's window. He said not many stars can be seen in Arlington and that all outdoor lights in town would be affected due to high housing density. He said the motion had no merit and Town Meeting had more important things to discuss.
  • Mr. Daly said he was concerned and worried about safety. He also said it infringed on individual rights and would ruin the value of lighting systems people have placed on their property. He said it would add workload to the Building Inspector. He said the intentions were good but that he opposed it.
  • Mr. Trembly asked if there was a specific problem. Ms. Tollman said she has had problems with neighbors deliberately shining lights at her and has heard of similar problems from other people. She said similar lighting restrictions were already in place on commercial properties. Mr. Trembly said it was not appropriate to regulate 45,000 people because of problems faced by a view and urged a vote against the motion.
  • Mr. Dunn asked why light shining on streets should be banned. Ms. Tollman said some lights are too bright and are a public safety issue. Mr. Dunn said specific, problematic lights should be dealt with instead of banning lights shining on streets everywhere and said he opposed the motion.
  • Mr. Foskett said that light is important for personal safety (such as climbing stairs) and in his view the motion would ban all useful-to-personal-safety lights.
  • Mr. Gilligan said the proposal would only swing into action if someone complained and that no reasonable Building Inspector would issue a citation over a porch light. He said this provides equity and a means of recourse and that it is not about "the light police".
  • Mr. Hayward worried that it could affect the Town's ability to light playing fields at night and was opposed to it.
  • Mr. Abbott said recourse is needed and that it is silly to have something covering commercial properties but not residential. He said the Building Inspector would ignore something like a porch light and urged support.
  • Mr. Bernardin moved the previous question. Debate terminated.
  • Gilligan motion to substitute approved 80-74.
  • BoS recommendation as substituted approved 80-73.
• Article 29 - Home Rule Petition/Civil Service
  • BoS recommended a vote to send in a home rule petition to remove School Department clerical workers from civil service, per the workers' request.
  • Mr. Roselli moved to adjourn. Defeated.
  • Mr. Roselli said he had more information coming and moved to postpone to 25 May.
  • Ms. Donovan said the clerical workers asked for this.
  • Mr. Daly said there were merits to both sides and that debate should be postponed until the information came.
  • Mr. Bernardin moved the previous question on the motion to postpone. Debate terminated on the motion to postpone.
  • Roselli motion to postpone defeated 65-68.
  • The Moderator asked if there were any substitute motions. Mr. Roselli said he had had one but the Moderator had ruled it outside the scope of the article. The Moderator asked if Mr. Roselli had another motion, which he did not.
  • Ms. Donovan said all the members of the bargaining unit (except for three who were absent) had signed a letter saying they wanted to be dropped from civil service and that Mr. Roselli was mistaken when he said they did not know what they were doing. Ms. Donovan read the letter.
  • Mr. Jamieson moved the previous question on all matters under the article. Defeated 84-56 (requires 2/3rds) and debate not terminated.
• Motion to adjourn approved.
• Adjourned at 23:07 to 18 May at 20:00.