OK – let me start by saying that I didn’t stay for the whole School Committee meeting on Monday evening in which the contentious issue of freshmen sports was discussed. My wife was working late and our babysitter could only stay until 8:00 so I was only there in person for the first hour or so. I did watch the rest, live, on Belmont cable with my three daughters, who sat there glued to the televised meeting with about the same level of interest and engagement as they show for Wizards of Waverly Place or Sunny with a Chance, thereby proving my “its not the content, stupid” theory about television. I should just lock out everything but channel 28 and enjoy the most locally engaged elementary schoolers in town.
What can I say? I showed up to this meeting an ardent supporter of the SC stance on funding for freshmen athletics, left early on tasting a bit of the frustration with a Committee that seemed officious and tone deaf about the message from voters, and wound up the (late night) meeting at home feeling about as divided as the Committee (and our Town) about what the right course is.
Parents packed the School Committee meeting to speak in favor of Freshmen athletics
If you weren’t among the 100 or so folks who were in the room or didn’t catch it on cable, this was one of those occasions where everyone was in agreement on what they wanted to see, but bitterly divided about how to get there. Everyone at the School Committee table and in the administration and in the audience wants to see freshmen sports, middle school track and a vibrant athletics program for Belmont public school students. The difference is really about whether you focus on the forest, or the trees.
The administration and the School Committee see the forest: a school system facing $2 million in cuts from the needs-based budget, many of which are critical and affect every student, district wide.
The folks in the audience are seeing the trees: the $40,000 or $60,000 that’s needed to fund some subset of eight freshmen sports that students have enjoyed for a long time now and that they desperately want to continue.
What I heard was two things: our Superintendent and school leadership council saying: we have bigger fish to fry. Freshmen sports are important, but they’re not a priority. Textbooks are a priority. Elective courses are a priority. Professional development is a priority, building maintenance is a priority, but money for those things is gone — lost with the override. And those changes have already happened: the teachers were fired, the librarian was fired, the library aids and curriculum directors were fired. We’re sorry you’re not happy about the sports piece, but its done.
“There’s something that’s happen to every student’s experience by not having curriculum directors in every critical area,” Superintendent Entwistle said, focusing on just one aspect of the cuts that were made after the failed override vote. “We don’t have a curriculum director in science, in social studies, in foreign language. It won’t be as obvious as not seeing the Freshmen field hockey team on the field, but there’s something that’s happening to every single kid’s opportunity by not having those curriculum directors in place. But we don’t. They were part of the override budget and those things were decommissioned, as was freshmen sports. So were elementary librarians. They’re gone.”
What else is gone? Library and academic support at Belmont High, MCAS support – both gone. Guidance: cut from critically understaffed to what is basically token staffing. The list keeps going…
“If you gave me $45,000 would it go for Freshmen sports? No,” Entwistle said.
What parents were saying is: our bodies in this room and the folks who have pledged their money to this show you that this program matters a lot to us. This isn’t the way we’d like to fund it, but its better than not offering the sports at all.
There were also some territorial and policy issues. Supporters point out that the school department accepts private donations for lots of things, whether that is from the Foundation for Belmont Education, the PTAs or POMs (Parents of Music Students). What’s the big deal with accepting more private funds for Freshmen sports? More than one School Committee member voiced concern about having the year long deliberative process that produced the school department budget upset by a small group of community members who – in essence – wanted to force their hand by directing earmarked funds to restore a beloved program. There was concern about the burden on school administrators like Athletics Director Jim Davis who must now coordinate with a private fundraising effort and managing the flow of donated funds and track those dollars once they’re in the system. There were concerns about the ability of organizers to raise the private funds both in the short term and going forward, once the light and heat over this cut dies down. There were questions about the equity of relying even more on fees when many families in town can’t afford to pay the (sky high) fees that are already in place.
Community members seemed both perplexed by the technicalities of the School Department’s budget, which totals $39 million and involves sundry revolving accounts and earmarks. Perplexed, also, by the reluctance of the Committee to accept private donations, and downright angry about the fact that the burden would be felt by rank and file students who want to play sports, but don’t have the skills to make the Varsity or Junior Varsity teams. Incoming freshmen spoke in favor of freshmen sports – spoke about the difficulty of making JV or Varsity teams. Older students talked about the importance of freshmen athletics to getting them interested in playing at a higher level.
It went back and forth like that for…well…hours, with a number of tersely worded motions put forward (all by SC member Dan Scharfman) and failing to pass an evenly divided Committee who, while supporting the idea of private support for school athletics, were nervous about the targeted and slap dash nature of the specific proposal at hand and in favor of a broader proposal that opened the door to private fundraising, in general for athletics. Town Meeting member and local institution Joe White spoke passionately about the need to give average kids a chance to play sports – going so far as to promise a blank check to fund the Freshmen athletics program for the fall.
In the end, the Committee voted unanimously for a vaguely worded motion that opened the door to allow private fundraising for sports, but fell short of earmarking the funds for Freshmen sports. Athletic Director Jim Davis will ultimately be the Decider, as G.W. Bush famously said. This all with provisos about the need to have cash in hand by August 1st to give Mr. Davis and at set dates thereafter (November 1 for Winter session and February 1 for Spring session). The burden now will shift to Freshmen sports’ backers to make good on their promises. No doubt the money will be in hand for the fall, but the burden of drumming up tens of thousands of dollars in private funding three times a year will, I expect, be daunting – but we’ll see. There’s already a tremendous amount of direct, private funding of Belmont’s education system, whether it is through the PTA or POMS or FBE. The Freshmen sports people will have to move about a crowded landscape with those groups – or find a way to piggy back on them. I wish them luck.
As for myself, I stand with Mrs. Amanda Greene, a town member and mother of an incoming freshmen and current BHS Junior who said, in essence, that “this is no way to run a School District.” Belmont is falling into a dangerous pattern of behavior in which disengaged voters get irritated by the outcome of issues they haven’t paid attention to, then use their clout to pressure officials to make it right – somehow, anyhow. Athletics are important, but so are music, art and theater. If they’re important, then they’re worth the public paying for and making available to everybody.
I thought that the main difference between privately funded freshmen sports, and other semi-earmarked monetary support for the schools, was that this will go towards hiring people, which ends up involving both the union, and timing issues that we don't even get right in town government (voting budgets quite late — I've young teachers without seniority accept positions in other schools when it wasn't clear whether the money would be there). Fundraising for the 2011-2012 freshman sports support would need to begin in just a few months, to ensure that the money is in place in time to let the coaches know that they will have a job (won't it?)
I heard last night (different meeting) that there are school systems in Massachusetts (Hamilton-Wenham, e,g.) where ALL sports are fee-based, with a cost that varies by sport (football $1000, hockey $900, much less for track, and so on). I think that's where we're headed. We probably ought to find out more about how their program works — are the coaches teachers working overtime, or are they hired through the schools, or are they hired through some other route?
This sounds vague at best. What does 'allow for private funding' really mean? Is there a definitive plan and are there genuine donors out there? It just seems that the committee is evading the issue by throwing up smoke and mirrors.
Clay Boggess
http://www.BigEventFundraising.com
I agree with you that fully fee-based athletics are where this is going, barring a change in voter sentiment (and a more organized pro-override effort next time around). Actually, the plan appears to be to take things on a season by season basis: Aug 1 is the deadline to raise funds to support fall athletics, Nov. 1 is the deadline for Winter sports and Feb 1 is the deadline for Spring. Its possible that they'll raise the full nut before those deadlines are reached, but we don't know yet what the number is. Presumably Mr. Davis will be producing those numbers shortly.
More like throwing up their hands, rather than smoke and mirrors, Clay.
We were watching live stream online (no cable in our household). Huge thanks to BMC for the live stream!
Being new to Belmont, how come there is an even number of SC members? Has this always been this way?
We were quite happy to see the first motion voted down (well, tied) and somewhat irritated by the last vote for the unspecified compromise. Looked like everybody just wanted to be down with the discussion and go home. No wonder at 1130pm.
I also found the position of some of the supporters quite strange. “You don't take our money now and I never again vote for an override”. Where is logic in there?
Yury,
It's as logical as saying “We need them to feel the pain so we can get a bigger override passed next year”. If that's the campaign slogan for next Spring then get ready for history to repeat itself.
As Dr. Entwistle and Jim Davis pointed out, Freshmen sports were not the only cuts to the athletic dept. budget. Cuts there totaled $100,000 and encompass everything from coaches to budgets for equipment purchases, travel, tournament fees and pay for umpires and refs — these even on sports like JV and Varsity that were not eliminated or reduced. So the (false) notion that this was a ploy to scare voters is just totally outrageous, PJ. Please take some time out of your schedule and talk to Super. Entwistle about all the positions that were eliminated after the override failed. Do you really think they'd make those cuts just to spite you and the NO crowd? In other words, your pre-vote “theory” that there's money hidden or that the School Dept. is playing games has already been proven false – there have already been painful cuts made that are evidence that there's no fat left to trim. What more proof are you looking for?
Paul,
If you want to learn why the override failed you need to listen to those who voted against it and find out why? Implying that they are uneducated and didn't understand the facts is ridiculous. Entwistle cut what he felt he needed to cut and I don't have a problem with it. I do question why he needed to cut? If the SC did a better job negotiating compensation for the multiple replacements for retiring administrators maybe he would have saved 2 or 3 positions? If the Teachers made a sacrifice in this deep economic recession maybe he wouldn't need to cut any teachers? If the Town and Schools acted as a single entity and funded the needs first and then divided up whatever was left over he wouldn't need to cut Teachers/Guidance Counselors/Curriculum Directors? If we had consolidated office space in buildings, and sold the empty non ADA compliant Benton building, and consolidated services between the Town and School would he need to cut?
In what is arguably the broadest recession our generation has ever experienced… with unemployment rising close to 10% and fears of a double dip materializing… quite frankly you need to earn an Override. Belmont didn't. It wasn't the message of One Belmont not being heard.
It was the taxpayer sick of action less words and of being told to pony up more when the Town was not operating to maximum efficiency.
We had this conversation years ago when you pushed FDK on the system. Time to pay the piper. Why are you so opposed to finding savings and funding what the Town needs even if it is at the expense of what they want. If enough want something they can find a way to make it happen like the generous folks who will fund Freshmen sports.
>>Implying that they are uneducated and didn't understand the facts is ridiculous.<<
I don't think I ever implied that NO voters are uneducated, PJ. That's baggage that you're carrying, not me.
I do believe that, while there are savings to be gained and efficiencies realized, that the bare reality is that government will cost more in 10 years than it does today and that taxpayers will have to pay for the services they want. You mention “two or three” administrative positions to close the gap – PJ: we have a >>> $2 million<<< hole in our school budget. Do you really think firing some administrators will close that? You can pipe dream about throwing out the unions and getting Michael Dell in to run our public schools, but its not going to happen. Let me ask you: what does “Satisfaction” look like to you? What objective measures will you use to determine when the town really has realized the efficiencies that it needs to and DESERVEs more money? Can we measure that by the potholed roads or peeling paint in our public buildings? By overflowing garbage cans in our shopping districts or unkempt parks? By kids in classes with 40 students? Will we know when our test scores and standing are on par with Waltham or Melrose rather than Weston and Wellesley? When our Library – packed with residents pretty much every operating hour – is padlocked (I know that's a favorite idea of yours) and our public buildings are emptied and reduced to a handful of hours a week? I would have liked to see the union forgo step increases, also. But the union has made major and important concessions in recent years: paying a greater share of healthcare costs, is just one example that saved the town millions. We self insure, participate in collaboratives, invest in energy efficiency and require our retirees to switch from private coverage to Medicare at age 65 – a requirement that other towns do not make and that saves us tens of millions over time. Belmont hasn't been clueless in the way that its managed its entitlements, by any stretch. I also believe there are efficiencies to be gained through the adoption of technology, the investment in less manual processes and consolidation of overlapping areas of responsibility (HR, maintenance). But we're talking savings of perhaps hundreds of thousands of dollars, not the millions we need, PJ. Saying that you're not going to pass an override till you see that is kind of like threatening to hold your breath — you're the only one who gets hurt.
Reading Comprehension:
Did I ever say “fire” 2 Admins? No.
Did I ever say throw out the Unions? No.
I gave you friendly advice which is if you want a future Override to pass you need to listen to why people voted No. You can blame One Belmont for needing more organization (and how should I have interpreted that Paul?) and you can blame the date for only bringing out 40% of registered voters (but not the voters that matter (Coakley/Obama) again implying?).
What you don't understand is Moderates like myself will support Overrides and Debt Exclusions (like the Wellington) if they are earned or justified. I listed plenty of actions that could have happened to void the need for an Override this year. If the Town chooses your path of tax and spend without significant implementation of costs savings I won't support an Override next year and I would bet the way this economy is going the NO margin will grow. As I told you several years ago at some point you need to step to the plate and decide between what you need and what you want. We should have started that process 2 years ago and because we didn't the Town is laying off Teachers. I could say I told you so but we all suffer for failing to act and the longer you hold out the more we will suffer.
Be productive and focus on the new HS Science Wing DE and support my many cost saving ideas and maybe we can end up with a simple Town with exceptional Schools
I'm speechless. Really.
Really, though, PJ – I'll ask my question again: “What does “Satisfaction” look like to you? What objective measures will you use to determine when the town really has realized the efficiencies that it needs to and DESERVEs more money? You're good at expressing outrage, but not so much at proposing solutions that add up – in dollars and cents – to the figures we're talking about: $2million this year for the school in savings, $3.5m for the community as a whole- and more than that next year by some percentage that's greater than 2.5%, in all likelihood.
In other words: what are you PROPOSING, actually? and what will SATISFY YOU that the town has done what it can to reduce costs and now is within rights to ask for a property tax increase? If you can't answer those questions and suggest changes that are of the magnitude to get us the savings you say we need, then I (and others) am at a loss as to how to respond.
PJ – is it OK for Angelo to say he's voting “no” because “people won't change unless they feel enough pain”? Here, “change” means re-organize/restructure depts in a way that he intuitively thinks is more “efficient” (whatever that means), though I've heard him admit, at WC meetings, that some of those changes probably would not save any money at all. He's been saying that since he was first BOS chair. (Of course he lives in a 3500 sq ft, $1.3M house, so no pain there.)
Paul – I stayed for the entire meeting. I was disappointed in the behavior of quite a few in the room, talking back to SC chair., etc. (John Stadler, one of the 3 organizers of the funding proposal, and Ann Reynolds showed particular disrespect. Joe White was not a surprise.)
Also, I tought this brought out the worst in many. One group of supporters seemed to be gloating that they voted no. So, they're willing to cough up a couple hundred dollars for their own kid but not the same amount to benefit 4,000 kids. Self-serving and hypocritical.
John… never heard Angelo say it that way but I do know that Belmont Town Government is loaded with what in sales we call “blockers”. They come up with every reason imaginable why something can't be done even though common sense says otherwise. We have a unique opportunity now with a new School Admin Team in place and BOS/WC. What happens in the next 6-8 months is critical. I missed the Sports meeting due to a work conflict but will eventually watch it. Sports is an emotional issue for some and that is why it is best to give Parents the option to save the program with private funds. Realistically we are heading toward a 100% fee funded Extra-Curricular program anyways so this is testing the waters and removes the SC from having to be the bad guys if eventually the funds don't materialize.
Paul… I knew you couldn't stay Speechless for too long
Satisfaction is when the Town and Schools are no longer competing entities but one combined entity that adequately funds it's mandated needs. To me that simply means we ask Mr. Entwistle what is a reasonable class size (varies by grade obviously) and we hire the Teachers needed to maintain that level. We do the same for Police/Fire/Public Safety and Highway. After that the remaining funds “if any” can be used for Town pools, Skating Rinks, Public Libraries, Senior Centers etc. Those entities will need to be self sustaining through fee's, private fund raising, or regionalization and like Freshmen Sports if they can't swing it on their own then they will end. It's a reality of our generation having to pay the debts of the Boomers and the Recession just expedited the payment date. (Congress is already talking about raising SS to 70 and having a litmus test to get it so we can pay for the Bush Wars and the Obama Stimulus and Healthcare handouts)
We can save about $1m annually from consolidating, restructuring and implementing other cost saving measures in Town/School Government. We can save several million dollars through Regionalization of services (will take a few years for full implementation) and could include Fire, Health, COA, Senior Center, and your coveted paper book storage Public Library. We can sell the empty Benton Building (proceeds $600k to Capital budget for building maintenance) and consolidate office space around Town and generate in excess of $100,000 in savings from Heating etc..
The two biggest areas for savings or revenue generation are the most contentious and that would be Employee Benefits and Compensation that Mr. Jones and Mr. Entwistle are both leading the charge on and Commercial Development for which this Town gets an F. The potential for several million in savings/generation is in play.
Hope that sheds some light on the opportunities ahead and how Belmont can be a safe and simple Town with exceptional schools or it can degrade across the board as we have been witnessing these last few years. Could I be wrong and all of a sudden the intense negative impact of globalization on private sector compensation will change and folks will be able to pay higher taxes…. maybe but the smart money is on a decade of decline and that means the Town needs to decide what it wants to be and soon.
Why I stress the HS Science wing to you is the power people want a new Library first and that will kill any HS renovation for a decade or more. There is some money freeing up from expiring DE's and it is why the Library / HS Wing is even a consideration for passing. Wants vs. Need…. did the message get across?
PJ, I think you need to supply more numbers. First, the libraries are in some sense already regionalized, since we are in the MLN. If we fail to meet their standards, we lose out on that.
Available funds library budget is 1.8 million.
Available funds recreation budget is .65 million.
Available funds council on aging is .35 million.
Zero them all out, that is “only” $3 million. Sounds like a lot, but our budget grows at a steady pace.
Couldn't find “etc” in the town budget, perhaps you could supply a figure for that.
I don't see that you can blame town government AT ALL for failure of commercial development; the meetings I've been to (Cushing, Waverley) the town and the planning board are as gung-ho as they seem to think they can get away with, and the opposition comes entirely, totally, from town residents.
One-time cuts will not get rid of the need for more overrides; for each $1million, we delay the next one by maybe a year (more or less). We can only sell the Benton branch once.
And I note that you seem to take for granted that most people will agree with you about what services are “necessary” and what services are “optional”. I grew up in a much poorer state (Florida) in a much poorer time (60s), and we had well-funded schools (elementary school librarians with degrees in library science, that sort of thing), and I even remember some special-needs kids (Mark K, dyslexia, Dale J., hole in heart) getting services of a sort. We didn't have especially wonderful roads (shell, often) or fire department (volunteer, not even covering as far as our home) or animal control (.22 or a shotgun). We could, for instance, decide that every moderately traveled flat road would be replaced with gravel or shell as it decayed, and save a little money there (perhaps enough to fund the council on aging?) and also would reduce some of our runoff problems (the Winn Brook neighborhood should approve of this).
I don't agree with your analysis of the federal situation, either. We're a wealthy country, even in recession (compare inflation-adjusted GDP per capita to the 60s, just for grins). We've simply cut taxes too much, and all that is necessary is to allow them to rise to sensible levels, especially at higher incomes (we tried the trickle down tax-cuts-for-wealthy experiment in the Bush years, I didn't think much of the results). And the health care bill should reduce costs, provided that we can hold our senators' and representatives' feet to the fire — health care is cheaper and better in most of the rest of the OECD, including nations (Germany, Switzerland) that have similar health care systems. Bush, I've got no problems blaming him, every analysis I've seen says his choices were the cause of the bulk of our long-term debt.
Hey, PJ. I'd love to see where the $1M comes from. It won't be from consolidation from within the town. Eg, consolidating buildings and grounds of town and school under DPW – all the “underlings” are pretty much completely busy. (OK, someone slacks off now and then in any organization.) Overall, I'd guess you could save half a director FTE and have a lower-pay manager. Still a good thing. On HR consolidation, the Town HR staff cannot some close to covering the 400+ school staff without more help. Angelo and some on WC think “oh, just eliminate the school HR director and Diane can cover all that.” It's complete nonsense. The various depts cooperate quite a bit when one is particulary busy.
I think regionalization is place where long-term savings are. Let go of the 18th century ways. I grew up in central NJ. My “township” was 6 or so towns glued together 100-150 years ago to form a municipal govt for about 90,000 (now) people. I think of it as a blue collar Newton, which has its distinct “villages”, 82k people, one govt. And the county (Mercer) did many functions competently, rec and roads, and voc-tech high school. Of course most MA couty govts were abolished because of dysfunction and corruption. Small groups of towns would balance local control with scalability and be not as suseptable to the faceless large govt dysfunction.
On regionalizing: Watertown just built a new police HQ, ours is horrible. Would have been great if the just merged police depts. “But the police would not know their town as well.” Baloney. Belmont+Watertown is stil only just a bit over size of Arlington, and is that town underserved because of size?
The state has been pushing this more, though slowly. See http://www.mass.gov/governor/regional. Why don't we all push more on this? I think most liberals and conservatives could get behind of lot of that. I've found that townies (sorry, no offense meant here) are against working more closely with “those people” in the neighboring towns.
Hamilton & Wenham were looking at merging all functions, but I don't know if that ever completed. 100+ pages of analysis – http://www.mass.gov/Ador/docs/dls/mdmstuf/Techn…
My proposal:
1. Form a regional school district with Belmont+Arlington+Watertown. 10,500 students, ~$140M budget (FY09, combined), one administration, one set of contracts. By comparison, Newton has 11,600 students, $190M budget. Kids would mostly go the same schools they do now (all the buildings still needed), though some of Belmont's are bursting and Arl has some unused of space.
Politically, 3 works better than 2, since one town would not so easily dominate. I pick Nashoba as a 3-town regional model, though that's much smaller than we'd be. (I asked some Lexington SC people about this a while ago, and they kind of laughed – Belmont would never raise its funding level to near Lex's, and they would never subsidize us.) I mentioned just combining Belmont+Arl on-camera when I was on SC, and I got a few nasty notes – all from longtime residents – about how I was irresponsible, a heretic, etc.
2. Regionalize public safety among those 3towns. All of it, fire, police, dispatching. I would not feel less safe. One command structure, same cops on the street, fewer facilities. (Note: I really like our chief, Rich McLaughlin.)
3. Wait and see on other areas once some proven success above.
John, what did I do to have you say something so slanderous about me at that meeting! I never said one word, do you have me confused with someone? how dare you use my name like this, I would really like an explanation as to why you would say something like this. I would like you to contact me directly as to this blatant insult as soon as possible.
John… I would be open to regionalizing the School systems with Arlington and Watertown in a manner that starts with integrating the admin and operation functions. The sharing of schools to balance class sizes would need to be done gradually by first looking for volunteers and then adding incentives to re-assign. This regionalization may even allow the Town to get creative with the influx of kids expected from the new Uplands development. I suspect many who raise opposition do so fearing a 1970's style busing crisis. Either way it's good to see you looking for solutions beyond relying on tax increases.
David… your solution to raise taxes was rejected soundly by the taxpayer. I would classify your dismissal of $1m in savings as typical Blocker behavior. The WC has had multiple meetings discussing programmatic review and the $1m number was tossed around. We know there are opportunities for several million in savings from regionalization. We don't need to make the budget sustainable for a lifetime… just for the next couple years at which time an operating override may be feasible or further work must be done. It would not be out of the question to get a $1m override approved this Spring if it was met with $1m in savings or substantial progress towards it. As for the Benton Building it is inexcusable for the Town to cry poor and neglect capital maintenance like Roads and Buildings while sitting on an empty building for years that could bring in @ $600k in one time revenue to use toward maintenance and another $8-$10k a year in property tax into the General fund. If that neighborhood coalition wants to use the building for their own special purposes then they should raise the funds to buy it. What precedent does this set that the Town is catering to an affluent neighborhood over the best interest of the Town? What Town owned building do you have in your neighborhood that serves the wants of your neighborhood specifically? There are none in mine.
PJ – yes, admin and operations first, leaving much of the rest as-is. Principals “own” more than they had before Ed Reform (1993), so I'm sure change there could be largely unnoticed within buildings. I think people more often identify more closely with their neighborhood elementary schools. Eventually, the different high schools could provide stronger programs in different areas where alone they would not have a critical mass to make them worthwhile. Accommodating growth at the Uplands was one thing I had in mind too, along with the various other small development. (Wellington has had lots of growth the past 2-4 years, much from McLean. It increased by about 10 from there in the middle of the year, in 2008-9.) An interesting side-effect would be to remove the micromanaging tendency of the finance committees of the various towns. They would not have as much say over a regional district. Right – Minuteman's track record will not make this look attractive. Re-drawing elementary territory lines would make these other discussion look quite tame.
Akreynolds – You were among those I saw and heard yelling back at SC members during the meeting. Mr Stadler was by far the worse. I've been to probably 140 SC meetings in that room and had never seen anyone yell back like he did. Sorry, didn't know other names, and was not fair to single you out because I knew your name; apologies for that.
John, I never yelled out not even once, never went to the microphone. And from what I ascertained after looking into this you were a good 35 people away from where I sat. Just because you knew my name should not make me a target for you. What does this post say to me and other people who want to get involved and want to make a point and really believe in, whatever they believe in and the elected process in our town? It says if you show up, you can get slammed in a blog! The passion for the sports programs and our high school and our town was great in that room and I was glad to be there.”