Now, you can call me many things, but one thing you really can’t call me (with a straight face) is an “inactive voter.” Indeed, I’ve voted in almost ever local, state and federal election since I moved to Belmont. I blame my grandfather for that, who really considered voting a moral responsibility and made sure that his grandchildren saw it that way too. But I digress.

So I’m staring at this poll worker, who really was kindly and also an unpaid volunteer, and saying “huh?” This must be a mistake, of course, as I voted in the very last election. But no – I’m “inactive” as far as Belmont is concerned and need to go fill out a form to “reactivate myself” before I can cast a ballot.
So what gives? Well, it seems I’ve run afoul of State Law. In particular, MGL 51 Sect. 4, which requires towns to put any voter who doesn’t respond to the town census on an “inactive voter” list. What’s that? Well, it is what it sounds like – you’re a deadbeat voter who hasn’t dragged his (or her) butt to the polls for years. Or, you’re a besieged suburbanite who recycled both your Town Census (mailed in January) and the bold type warning/reminder card (mailed in October). I’m guilty as charged, as are about 25% of Belmont’s registered voters, according to the Town Clerk’s office. You heard it – 1 in 4, or about 4,000 of 16,000 registered voters in Town have been placed on the Inactive Voter list. Welcome to the club.

What can you expect with your membership? Well…once you’re on the list, in addition to getting the stink eye from poll workers, you have two State-wide elections to get reactivated, or you’re off the voter rolls altogether and have to re-register. Call it a fast track to disenfranchisement.

Don’t get angry. As I said, this isn’t some new law. As it turns out, this requirement has been on the books for years now, according to a spokesman from Secretary Galvin’s office, but it seems that towns haven’t been enforcing it. In recent months, the Secretary of State has been sending out reminders to Town Clerks about the need to enforce the law. Belmont, it seems, had been lax in enforcing the law since who-knows-when, so there was a huge spike in offending voters when they finally went through the list and figured out who was naughty and nice on this year’s Census. Other towns, which have kept up with the state requirement, might not see any spike on their “inactive voter” lists.

We’re not alone. This article from the Newburyport News (from October) says that a quarter of that Town’s voters, also, were going to be listed as “inactive.”
One problem with enforcing this statute is that it has the potential to cause gridlock at the polls, especially if, say, one in four voters is forced to divert from picking up their ballot to a separate table, fill out a (really confusing) “I’m an active voter” form and then return to the back of the line to go through again. It won’t matter much today in a single race election for a State Senate seat in the middle of December, no less. But you might expect some chaos come Nov. 2012 with both a Senate and Presidential race in the balance.

The other problem is that this law has the potential to disenfranchise a lot of active, responsible voters. I’ve been living in town for the better part of a decade now, and I think our home has been pretty good about filling out the Town Census when it arrives. (Though, obviously, not perfect.) While I understand the need to keep voter rolls accurate and try to capture voters who have moved out of town or changed addresses (and precincts), a smarter approach would be to have a “both-and” approach to declaring voters “inactive” rather than the current “either-or” approach. In other words: if you didn’t return your Town Census (also known as the Street List) AND you hadn’t voted in the last two state-wide elections, then your names goes on the Inactive Voter list. But if you had done one, but not the other, you stayed active. Thoughts?

Paul Solomon is telling us about what the Community Preservation Committee (CPC) would do. This is a requirement of the Community Preservation Act (CPA), so we’ve got to vote for this in order to be compliant with CPA (and get State funds). Dr. Solomon is telling us about the purview of the CPC, which makes it a good time to talk about Articles 24 and 25 and why its really puzzling that this has been resubmitted to Town Meeting. First of all, its rare for articles that get voted down to be resubmitted so quickly. Second: these articles, which were the last to be considered on Monday evening, failed because 1) they needed a 2/3 majority of TM to pass – a high bar, 2) the BOS and Angelo did a really, really bad job explaining the need for a sale now while raising significant questions about the wisdom of a sale with development happening in that area, which connects Trapelo Road to Pleasant Street. The BOS was, in fact, not 100% sure that the town owned the land in question, while Sammy Baghdady of the Planning Board suggested that his Board was looking at development in the area in which the parcels might potentially play a part. There were no pictures of the parcels in question, while the map provided was not clear about which parcels TM was even considering for sale. The consensus was “try again,” and that appears to be what Angelo the Board of Selectmen are doing. I’m game, but the decision by the BOS to distribute a circa 1875 town map to make their point (and what point is that?) is puzzling. The real question is why now? why all the heat and light to get this done so speedily?

OK – we’re now considering an amendment to Article 21 proposed by the Warrant Committee. Basically, the WC wants to add a phrase that will require the CPC to provide an estimate of “initial and ongoing capital costs, a five year projection of operating costs, and estimate of administrative costs and an estimate of foregone Town tax revenue along with a description of additional costs required of any Town department” to a section of Article 21 requiring the CPC to present to Town Meeting an estimate of the “anticipated costs” of any project under the CPA. Paul Solomon, Angelo and now Fred Paulson are speaking in opposition to the amendment saying that, in essence, that no other town requires this and that its not necessary – all those items would be in any cost estimate, without tying the hands of the CPC.

We’re debating this Warrant Committee cost amendment now. We’re hearing pros and cons. Folks like the idea of having clear and ongoing cost estimates to capital projects. I like that idea too, but attaching that kind of rider to CPA projects and no others seems more about ideology than policy. I just got up and spoke and said this – and that I felt like the Warrant Committee was abdicating its responsibility and that, after all, scores of towns across the State had passed and implemented the CPA without driving their fiscal car into the ditch. Ralph Jones gets up and says, in some ways, the same thing: that its the Warrant Committee’s job to look into these issues, so we don’t need to require that type of work of the CPC.

Don Mercier is now speaking. If you’re in Town Meeting, you know what that means. He raises the (totally valid) point that the Senior Center was built without adequate consideration of the (considerable) capital costs. However, the BOS adopted a rule after that debacle requiring said estimates for any future capital project, making this amendment mostly redundant.

Liz Allison – chair of WC – is clarifying that the CPC will do the ground work on cost estimates.

Adam Dash of WC – and former CPA Study Committee member – is speaking against the amendment. Too much micromanaging of an independent committee and too much detail. Besides there’s no enforcement mechanism if the CPC blows off the requirement. And why not consider global warming impact, parking, etc. He gets a big round of applause.

More TM members speaking against – WC, Capital Budget Committee are the proper bodies to consider these questions. CPC is, in the end, not a financial committee.

We vote – and the amendment fails. Woot!!

We’re now considering an amendment to Article 21 to add a member of the Recreation Committee to the CPC. This will not be a controversial amendment, I expect…

It passes, as does Article 21 in short order. Congratulations, Paul Solomon! Can’t wait for the CPA projects to get rolling in town.

UPDATE: Now for Articles 24 and 25 – Joe White explains that he submitted Articles 24 and 25 for reconsideration. Joe feels like a call for a standing vote on both articles was ignored by Moderator Widmer. Steve Rosales is now speaking in support of Joe – saying that we need to reconsider for “the integrity of the process.”

David Palmer (Precinct 7) asking about the vote tonight – given that its a different (and smaller) group of TM members. Good question.

“The mind can only absorb what the butt can endure.” – Steve Rosales – classic.

We approve the motion to reconsider.

On to Articles 24 and 25 – Angelo is addressing TM. He apologizes for a lack of information on the plots in question, the amount of tax revenue in question, etc. etc. He has good imagery now – showing the patchwork of town and private land around this extension on either side of the train tracks. Says he started looking at this almost four years ago. Angelo is reading a legal document saying its not clear how Belmont obtained title to the parcels on either side of the track. “Essentially, the title search has thrown the ownership of the property into question.” We have an easement put there in 1874, not used since. Northern portion discontinued as a public way.

As to value: Belmont Assessors: North piece is valued at $46,000. The tax rate would be around $2,000 on the North and on the South would be around $1,500 if we sold them. He asks us to reconsider our vote from Monday night.

OK – we’re not debating the proposal. Two speakers against the proposal. Folks are concerned about the impact on planning and development within Waverly Square. There’s a bigger picture…

At stake is a more than $2 million gap between what the Town’s Warrant Committee has identified as “available revenue” for the schools and what the School Department has identified as its “mission critical” budget – in other words: a budget that represents the barest needs of the district if its to fulfill its stated educational mission.

As often happens in Belmont, the anger or misunderstanding about the School Department’s first try at a level service budget (which it now calls its “mission critical” budget) has put a bee in the bonnet of the town’s political class and become the focus of attention, rather than what matters: the really severe cuts to services that we all use and the likely increase in use and family fees that will accompany a failure to address Belmont’s budget gap.

As at last week’s meeting, the members of the Board of Selectmen this evening are likely to push back – asking whether the town and schools have done all they could to realize savings and questioning whether an override this years is the right thing for the town. They did so last week, with all three raising questions about the size and timing of an override.

What’s confusing to me is that, in the case of two Selectmen: Ralph Jones and Mark Paolillo, their position on the override is 180 degrees of what it was just last June when both (to their credit) stood up and took forceful political stands in favor of an override.

To underscore that, I’m posting links to some video testimonials that both made at the Belmont Town day last June ahead of the June 14 special vote for an override. I think both men speak eloquently for the need for an override. In his testimonial, Mark talks about the dire cuts to school and town services and on the urgent need for increased revenue, as well as an increased focus on cost savings.

“The revenues we expect without the override are insufficient to provide the services that we think the citizens of Belmont want…The basic question is ‘what level of services do the citizens of Belmont want and need, and how do we pay for those services,” Ralph says.

Mark similarly notes his belief that periodic overrides and other revenue infusions are unavoidable. The $3.5 million operating deficit “will result in significant cuts in town and school services. The (then) $2 million override is vital to avoid those cuts and for “long overdue capital projects,” as well as structural reforms that are meaningful and long term.

The question for those of you who are planning to attend tonight’s meeting, of course,will be “what has changed?”  If anything, between last spring and this fall the town’s operating deficit has only expanded, while federal stimulus funds that have floated us for the last two fiscal years are all but depleted. Given that, why is Belmont suddenly unworthy of an override whereas it was deserving, in the minds of both Ralph and Mark, in June? What money has the town wasted or what fat has been injected into our town and school operations that wasn’t there 9 months ago?

In fact, the only thing that has changed between now and then (besides the increasing volume of red ink) is that  the override campaign by One Belmont (of which I was a part) fell short by a couple hundred votes. Surely no “mandate,” and the throngs of folks who attended last week’s BOS meeting and have been e-mailing suggest that there’s considerable debate over Ralph’s question of whether Belmont really does want to be a town that settles for less a leaner, but also meaner version of what we have now.

And, if the reasoning is ‘I’m not for the override now because the last campaign for an override failed,’ then what they’re saying is that  their’s is merely a political stand with the “no” crowd versus a considered position that looks at the needs and interests of the whole town. In the meeting last week, both seemed concerned about the failure of the June “OneBelmont” effort. Mark noted that

“Last year’s override – and I supported it, I proposed it –  was a balanced approach to tax revenues – unfortunately it failed. It was $1 million for the schools, $600k for capital, and $400k for the town. But it failed. It was balanced, but it failed. It’s tricky. It’s tactically tricky, and getting the support. Many of us here are willing to pay more, I am, but there are many in town who cannot. We’re still in recovery mode. We have to take that into account – there are residents in this town who simply cannot afford a tax increase. There are families who we all know where one or both spouses are out of work and struggling to make ends meet but they want to stay in town. So we’re taking all of that into consideration.”

That’s well and good – but its not like the conditions in town have deteriorated any since last June. It’s not like we’re a mill town and the mill just closed. I don’t know what the unemployment rate is in Belmont or if its higher or lower than six months ago, but I’m willing to bet that its not appreciably different, and may even be better, given that the Massachusetts economy is faring better.

Ralph, also, said that “My reservation, is tactically, can we pass $3million. That’s all.”

I appreciate both Mark and Ralph’s support last year for OneBelmont, and hope to find them pushing for an override next year, but as I see it right now, both are being politicians, not leaders when it comes to the override question: dangling the possibility of “found money” which – even if it exists – will just be another one year band aid that will bring back the same divisions and arguments next year, and pushing to delay the question for a special election at the end of the year – at additional cost to the town.

As they said last June: the time is now – Belmont needs an override and it needs it now.

Oh yeah…and No Freeloader says “Paul Roberts has never seen a Tax he didn’t want to raise to fund his progressive agenda. More money for the teachers’ union naturally, but if he’d go back to Watertown, whence he came, Belmont Taxpayers would save MORE than his parking meter proposal in per pupil costs.”

God, what an ass.

Stay tuned.

Elementary Schools – Art, Music, Phys Ed whacked, Two teachers laid off.

At the elementary school level, the School Department said on Tuesday that the available funds budget would require the elimination of both art and music instruction as well as the elimination of two full time teachers. Physical education instruction would be cut by 50% and there would be reduced levels of service for areas like reading, nursing, tutoring, clerical support, as well as supplies, textbooks and equipment. The elmentary library program – eliminated in the FY2011 budget – would not be restored.

Middle School: Foreign language instruction and three teacher positions gone

At the Middle School level, the biggest cuts proposed to meet the available funds target would be a reduction of three full time teaching positions and the elimination of foreign language instruction for grades 5 and 6. Middle school intramural sports, including cross country, will be eliminated. Beyond that, there will be a slew of service reductions: fine arts electives, tutoring and instructional support as well as supplies like text books and materials needed by teachers.

High School: Reduced graduation requirements, elimination of foreign language and social studies electives

Planned changes at the High School include the elimination of foreign language electives and social studies electives as well as the elimination of library aide and instructional aide positions, reduced supplies including textbooks and equipment. Freshmen sports will not be restored, though its unclear whether there will be other cuts to athletic programs.

District: curriculum director positions, instructional support positions and clerical positions eliminated

At the district level, the cuts will require the elimination of curriculum director positions – these are folks who help make sure that, say, math or foreign language is taught consistently across the district and who work on improving instruction and insuring quality instruction in the classroom. Curriculum director positions for foreign language, science and social studies are on the chopping block here. The central office staff will be further reduced (the public schools already jettisoned the critical Human Resources position last year).

I don’t think its overstating things to say that this “available funds” budget is the final leg in the stool that’s supporting what has been considered one of the finest and top performing school districts in the state – and even the country. The cuts to elementary music are an especially bitter pill to swallow. Belmont’s elementary music education program has been the jewel in the crown for the town for much of the past thirty years and our students regularly return from state- and national tournaments with awards and accolades – the product of superior music education that starts at an early age (third grade). This budget effectively ends that proud tradition, eliminating funding for elementary music education – which is already supported, in part, by fees – altogether.

The available funds budget is a disgrace and underscores, only more deeply, the need for the Belmont Board of Selectmen to put a Proposition 2 1/2 Override Question on the Town-wide ballot in April. Anything less than that would be an utter betrayal of working families in this town that rely on the public schools and the programs they provide, and who can hardly afford to reach into their pockets for yet more parental “use taxes” in the form of activities fees. Enough!

Fortunately, the Warrant Committee meeting at which this budget was to be presented was postponed due to the blizzard on Wednesday. I will let you know when that is rescheduled. We’ll need a big turnout of school supporters to make it clear to the powers that be that the “available funds” math doesn’t add up for families in this town.

Here’s the e-mail, as I received it. I’ve removed any personally identifiable information, but suffice it to say that this person is a professor at  Harvard University with a professional spouse who works full time. They have a four year old and an infant and currently rent in Cambridge. Their short list for towns to move to includes Belmont, Lexington and Newton. Belmont is their first choice, because of its convenience. But, as you can see, they have “reservations.”

Dear Paul,

K——- gave me your email address. We’re in the process of shopping for a house, and we’re very interested in Belmont but have heard some worrying things about the schools. Most of the people I know in Belmont have grown children, so I haven’t been able to get any up-to-date info on this. Would you be willing to have a quick phone chat with me about schools, and living in Belmont generally, sometime?

You can call my cell anytime (617-###-####), or let me know if there’s a convenient time for me to call you.

Thanks in advance!

A—–

I spoke with this person today and will share my thoughts in a subsequent post. But first – to the B2 readership – what would your “elevator pitch” be to this parent who’s looking to make a long term commitment to a town and wants 1) quality schools, 2) a safe community, 3) diversity and 4) location/convenience? (That’s the order I put them in, but I’d bet A’s order would be close to that.

Interested to hear your thoughts.

Hey all. Apologies for a long hiatus on posting to B2. I wanted to write this evening to inform the B2 readership about two important events to put on your calendars. The first is a very important opportunity to discuss (and help shape) the future of our public schools at a community dialog hosted by the Belmont Public Schools on October 27 at the Field House at Belmont High School. The entire community is invited to participate in this: parents, school administration and staff, civic and business leaders and elected officials. There’s a great presentation from Superintendent Entwistle  available on the BPS Web site that explains the program. In short: participants will take part in both some directed “big topic” discussions on issues important to the future of our public schools, and then in short (50 minute) self-directed dialogs on educational and organizational topics suggested by participants themselves. This isn’t some empty “team building” exercise — the output of these sessions will be operationalized by the BPS leadership team and will help inform an 18 month improvement plan adopted by the School Department.

Take part in a Community Dialog on the future of the Public Schools

The dialog runs from 4:30 to 8:30 pm on the 27th, with a short break for dinner at around 5:00pm. The first Session begins at 5:35 pm.  and the second at 6:30 pm.  You must RSVP for the Dialog to attend. Call 617-993-5401 or by sending an e-mail to Cathy Grant - CGrant (at) belmont.k12.ma.us!!

The second event is an opportunity to speak with Massachusetts House Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Murphy. He’ll be dropping in to Belmont on October 13 for a conversation with residents at 7:00pm in the Selectmen’s room in Belmont Town Hall. Murphy will be accompanied by State Representative Will Brownsberger. The Belmont Citizen Herald and Brownsberger are co-sponsoring the discussion, which is sure to hit on the State’s precarious finances and the impact that will likely have on local aide to Belmont and other towns.

One area of discussion and concern with preliminary plans for the new school is around the impact of the new building on parking and drop-off/pick up space. Some Wellington neighbors have voiced concerns about traffic on adjoining streets, and fire and public safety officials want to make sure that the new school will be easily accessible by emergency vehicles in the event of …well…an emergency. Needless to say, there are also State mandates and codes that the building must conform to. While the Wellington Building Committee is responsible for many of the design decisions affecting the construction of the new school, many of the traffic issues fall outside of the group’s realm of responsibility.

Now an important meeting has been called to help address the concerns of neighbors and get all the responsible parties in the room to discuss the issues at hand. The meeting will take place on Wednesday, September 16 at 7:30 PM in the Board of Selectmen’s room at Town Hall. The meeting was called by Pat Brusch, Vice Chair of the WBC and Chair of the Permanent Building Committee and will involve members from the Planning Board, the Traffic Advisory Committee, the Board of Selectmen, the School Committee, Wellington PTO, the WBC and the Fire Chief, Police Chief, and Building Inspector.

There has been a lot of inaccurate or incomplete information floating around about the Wellington project. Some of that is due to the slow trickle of information from the WBC that’s been released to the public. Some of it is due to concerns from those involved in planning the new school that  information that’s released before it is in its absolutely final form just leads to confusion, misplaced concerns and other distractions.

One thing’s clear: more and more open lines of communications between all of the many parties involved will help clear the air and alleviate tension. So if you’re a neighbor, Wellington Parent or simply a concerned citizen and want to have your voice heard on this important issue, make a note of the meeting date and time. We’ll see you there!

Kennedy's service to the public should be an inspiration to us today.

The Kennedy legacy is animated by this very idea: that government can and should help those who, for whatever reason, lack the means or the clout or the ability to help themselves. If you try to make that argument now you’re called a Nazi or a Socialist — accused of despising capitalism and, by extension, America. Fortunately,  the Kennedys weren’t worried about who said what about them. And they weren’t preoccupied with protecting anyone’s business model, either (which seems to be the main focus of the current healthcare debate). John, Bobby and Ted gave their lives to improving the lives of the people in this country, without worrying the details too much about whose “good thing” they upset while doing it. We need a bit of that mojo today.

The other legacy of the Kennedys is their singular focus on service to the public. I’m no starry eyed Camelot worshiper, but its clear that John, Bobby and Ted could all have chosen successful, private lives in law or finance. They all chose the hardscrabble world of politics and gave their lives to the task of serving their constituents. The many testimonials that have come out in the past few days show that Sen. Kennedy was never above the small gesture: a personal letter or phone call to a constituent in need — or some maneuvering behind the scenes to help shepherd an important project through Congress. In this, the age of the “uncontested ballot,” we would all do well to recall the importance they placed on public service and the sense of duty to serve the public that they all carried. Senator Kennedy may have been the last of his kind, but it doesn’t need to be so…and I hope it isn’t.