Read all the news on the Patch here:

Scharfman Picks Up Selectman Nomination Papers – Belmont, MA Patch.

Vote for Will for State Senate!

But let me summarize: I’ve known Will for almost six years now. If you’re at all involved in town politics, its hard not to get to know him. Will comes to almost every event or committee meeting of substance – no matter the hour. I really believe that Will has done an amazing job representing the town and, most important of all, getting things done in a political landscape (Beacon Hill) that has no shortage of twists, turns and dead ends. All throughout, Will has comported himself as you’d expect: as someone with a strong understanding of the law (he’s a Harvard Law grad) and a firm moral compass.

This is a crowded field with four candidates. Looked at through the simplistic lens of “liberal” versus “conservative,” many of these candidates seem to clump together. But I don’t think its any surprise that, of the four, Will garnered the endorsement of both the Boston Globe and the Boston Herald – quite a feat, as the two are hardly kindred spirits editorially. Still, both papers focused on what I’ve found to be Will’s strongest trait as well: his pragmatism, strong ethical rudder and his refusal to adhere to political orthodoxy merely to win votes. As both the Herald pointed out in its endorsement, and the Globe in its, he’ exhibited a cool head amid the crisis of the financial collapse in 2008 and 2009, quietly working behind the scenes to prevent a financial calamity in Belmont. He’s listened to the concerns of residents and worked tirelessly to find alternatives to the development in the Uplands. And, throughout, he’s been a champion of more government transparency in a political culture that is rife with cronyism and back door dealing.

I first interviewed Will way back in 2008 and its been a pleasure to work with him ever since – whether on the Wellington override, the OneBelmont campaign, or as a member of School Committee and Town Meeting. He’s been a great advocate for Belmont in the House and he’s the natural choice for the Senate! I encourage you to visit Will’s Web page if you want to learn more, and to vote for Will tomorrow. You won’t be sorry.

Paul Roberts, Editor
Bloggingbelmont.com

After watching a video presentation from Superintendent Entwistle’s budget presentation last week.  Janice Darias reviewed the key points of the Administration’s budget and said, in essence, what our Superintendent has been saying for weeks now: the available funds suggested by the Warrant Committee won’t cover the operations cost of the Belmont Public Schools and will necessitate deep cuts: teacher layoffs at the elementary and middle school level, the loss of music and art education,  the loss of curriculum director positions, the elimination of language instruction at the middle school and language electives at Belmont High. The cuts will be deep enough that, as long threatened, BPS will have to revise (read “dumb down”) graduation requirements to accommodate the cuts.

That was followed by some comments from Selectman Ralph Jones (who is running for re-election this year), and that’s where things got interesting.

Let me say, that I like Ralph Jones a lot and think his heart is truly in the right place. He’s been a moderate, fiscally conservative member of BOS. It was Ralph who asked me to research the parking meter question and I think he’s got his brain fully engaged – he’s detail oriented and he’s honestly interested in putting the Town’s accounts in balance. But Ralph’s now running for re-election and he didn’t distinguish himself  last night – addressing an audience of parents who were just told that their kids would be losing music, art and – for the most part -physical education next year by charging, in essence, that the School Administration and School Committee were lying to them, hiding money, and favoring grown ups (i.e school employees) over kids. Nasty!

Let’s unpack this a bit. Ralph’s argument, if I understand it, is that the Administration hasn’t truly presented a level service budget to the Warrant Committee, because the budget they did present didn’t assume that the various unions it must negotiate with would agree to a salary and step freeze for FY2012.

Instead, the administration budgeted for a contractual step increase as part of its Level Services budget – basically budgeting for contractual pay increases, rather than a pay freeze for FY2012. My understanding is that the total of those increases may be between $700,000 and $800,000. Now, its possible that the School Committee will succeed in winning a step and cost of living freeze for next year and be able to reduce its FY 2012 budget by that amount – I’ve heard encouraging chatter to this effect. But its not a foregone conclusion that the teachers will agree to such a freeze, and the schools aren’t banking on it at this point.

That’s, of course, prudent. And the School Department might have broken out “with step” versus “no step” in its Level Service numbers. Banking on a raise is a point worth taking up, for sure, and if I were the School Department or a teacher, I wouldn’t.

But that’s not what Ralph was saying. And what he was saying didn’t win him votes in the room, that’s for sure. How so?

• By playing parents against teachers and (wrongly) accusing the School Committee and Administration of playing games.
• By suggesting that the School Committee did not honor the will of Town Meeting in allocating a free cash distribution to keep the elementary school libraries open. The Committee and Administration did better than that – using the money to hire a full time elementary librarian to serve the town’s four elementary schools: the first time the town had had such a position in years. Alas, that position was terminated with the FY 2011 cuts.
• By saying that the parents in the room had been urged by teaching staff to come – they hadn’t. E-mail was sent out by the school PTOs, not teachers. If an e-mail did go out to a BPS listserv, it was inadvertent, certainly not a coordinated campaign. In any case, portraying worried parents as dupes of the teachers’ union isn’t cool.
• Finally, he was wrong by claiming that there was money in the budget to cover an almost $3 million gap in school funding, but that the school administration was not being forthcoming or transparent about it. No such thing is true and he knows it. As I said – it may be the case that wage concessions will trim the budget gap facing the schools by as much as $800,000. That will be awesome. It will also leave us with a $2 million gap and nobody is suggesting that there’s that much fat in the budget. It was misleading to suggest there was (and I called Ralph on it).

My take away: we’re going to have to fight like hell to even get an override vote on the ballot, let alone pass it. In doing so, don’t expect too much in the way of help or cover from either the Warrant Committee or the Board of Selectmen. Both showed last night that they’re convinced that the Administration is hiding money – their mantra for much of the last decade, despite the real evidence of cuts and pain on the schools side – and nobody has any swift ideas for bridging the gap or generating new revenue. Except, of course, parking meters, which I’ll be talking to Ralph and the BOS about on Monday. No kidding.

But now the bill’s come due: a local election looms with lots of open TM slots to fill. A good way to send a message that Belmont likes Town Meeting the way it is, and is ready to do what it takes to keep this venerable New England institution going strong is to stand for election.

Town Meeting Wants You!

I’m up for re-election in Precinct 8 for my second, three year term this year. I can honestly say that Town Meeting is a great way to get engaged in town politics and make a difference. For working folks or parents with young children, its also a VERY manageable time commitment. A couple evenings a year – that’s about it.  Now the League of Women Voters is sponsoring an orientation session where you can learn more about Town Meeting and what you need to do to run.

Here’s the information:

Are You Concerned about

Belmont’s Roads, Schools, Taxes?

Then run for Town Meeting!

Learn about Town Government and How You Can Become a Town Meeting Member

Thursday, January 14, 2010, 7:30 pm.

All Saints’ Church (Brewster Hall)

17 Clark St., Belmont, MA

A Panel of Current Town Meeting Members will Discuss the Importance of Town Meeting, what it Means to Be a Town Meeting Member, and Provide Tips on Running.

Town Clerk Delores Keefe will provide election information.

For more information on Elections and Local Government go to:

http://belmont.ma.lwvnet.org/elections.html

Sponsored by the Belmont League of Women Voters

Education Fund

Our President, Barack Hussein Obama

Let’s start with the blame due the Obama White House. I guess they might be blamed for not anticipating the attack from far right wing talk show hosts over a plan to speak directly to school children. After all, critics who blithely throw around terms like “Nazi,” “holocaust” and baby “death panels” (thank you Sarah Palin) when describing a plan to make health insurance universal in this country could hardly be expected to miss the opportunity to mine a 1:1 with impressionable children for all the nefarious and dark implications imagineable.

Then there was the self-inflicted wound caused by Obama’s Dept. of Education, which published on its Web site some suggested ideas for lessons or in-class activities to accompany the speech. One was to have children write a letter to themselves about ways they could “help the President.” That’s an unartful phrase, for sure, but we all kind of see what they’re shooting for — well except for Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Michelle Malkin who took the phrase, put it in President Obama’s mouth and ran with it for all it was worth. The “help the President” line turned out to be perfect, allowing Mr. Obama’s vocal opponents to press their two most effective lines of attack: that he’s a shallow celebrity and that he’s a crypto Communist interested in indoctrinating all those unwilling or unable to see the Black Helicopters hovering just above his head. Let’s face it: Beck, Limbaugh and crew aren’t  ”pundits” so much as provocateurs — their role since January has not been to color the news, but to get people angry, make dark and portentious sounding predictions about the coming revolution (Socialist, that is). If it takes lying and distortions to do it, so be it.

The debate on the airwaves has permeated local communities across the country. In Colorado, a good friend of mine  had to opt his second grader “in” to the Obama speech after parents, scared by what they were hearing on Fox and conservative radio, pressured the local school administration. Even here in Massachusetts, the issue has prompted racorous debate. I’m on a listserv for State School Committees, where there’s been a heated debate, replete with charged references to the Third Reich and accusations of racism that invoke Boston’s shameful history of segregation and race riots. The rancor doesn’t reflect well on either side, frankly. And, as is so often is the case in brush ups like this, the needs or opinions of the school children in question have been pushed to the side — the better to clear space for the grown ups to fight.

As is so often is the case in brush ups like this, the needs or opinions of the school children in question have been pushed to the side — the better to clear space for the grown ups to fight.

Here in Belmont, a community listserv has had an active, though much more level headed debate, with many supporting the address, but some residents expressing reservations about the notion of speech to children that could, in theory, contain political arguments. Its worth noting that Democrats have made similar arguments when the issue was a Republican president (Reagan, the first President Bush) addressing school age children.

Fortunately, our Superintendent has taken what I think is an entirely prudent and thoughtful approach to tomorrow’s speech. In a notice published on Thursday, Superintendent Entwistle indicated that he has spoken with the principals of our public schools, encouraged them to make the speech available, both live and recorded. Beyond that, principals and teachers will make the call about whether the speech and accompanying lesson plans work for their class and their students. That sounds just about right to me.

Being charitable: I think there’s just something about the notion of the words of politicians being piped into classrooms that just smacks many folks in this country as authoritarian and un-American. That’s OK — except when it makes us clam our ears shut to a message that we really might benefit from hearing. It’s also worth noting that the United States has, in the past, required and tolerated much more overt expressions of leader worship. My wife, who grew up in Sudbury in the 1970s, recalls being given a picture of President Gerald Ford to keep in her desk at school (or, perhaps, hang on her wall at home). I can’t even imagine the blowback should the White House suggest that students be given pictures of President Obama to keep, but I’d imagine the persons of Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Hugo Chavez would feature prominently in the overheated rhetoric.

It’s worth noting that the United States has, in the past, required and tolerated much more overt expressions of leader worship. My wife, who grew up in Sudbury in the 1970s, recalls being given a picture of President Gerald Ford to keep in her desk at school.

Hopefully the release of the text of President Obama’s speech (and former First Lady Laura Bush’s endorsement of it) will put the debate to rest. Far from enlisting school kids to help him fight with legislators on Capitol Hill, Mr. Obama uses his own personal story of struggle, hard knocks and stellar achievement to deliver a message that I’d like to think even today’s polarized politicians can rally around: the need for school children to  have hope for their futures, to reject the illusory world of shallow celebrity and easy money, to work hard, study and never give up, despite odds that may be stacked against them. Here are a few excerpts:

“I know that sometimes, you get the sense from TV that you can be rich and successful without any hard work — that your ticket to success is through rapping or basketball or being a reality TV star,” Obama will tell children.
Chances are, you’re not going to be any of those things…the truth is, being successful is hard. You won’t love every subject you study. You won’t click with every teacher. Not every homework assignment will seem completely relevant to your life right this minute. And you won’t necessarily succeed at everything the first time you try.

“That’s OK.  Some of the most successful people in the world are the ones who’ve had the most failures…you can’t let your failures define you – you have to let them teach you. You have to let them show you what to do differently next time. If you get in trouble, that doesn’t mean you’re a troublemaker, it means you need to try harder to behave. If you get a bad grade, that doesn’t mean you’re stupid, it just means you need to spend more time studying.

“No one’s born being good at things, you become good at things through hard work. You’re not a varsity athlete the first time you play a new sport. You don’t hit every note the first time you sing a song. You’ve got to practice. It’s the same with your schoolwork. You might have to do a math problem a few times before you get it right, or read something a few times before you understand it, or do a few drafts of a paper before it’s good enough to hand in.”

In short, President Obama’s message isn’t Socialism – its humanism. More than that, and in the great tradition of American thought, its an optimistic message: a story of hope and redemption and second chances. That should be a message we can all agree with.

The BCH article, by Tony Schinella, takes issue with that, noting that the meetings were never posted publicly and “members of the group also openly refused to allow the public or press to attend meetings, with the exception of one meeting in February where the Citizen-Herald was allowed to sit down with the group for about 30-minutes to discuss the group’s work.”

I’ll add that, upon learning of the group, I suggested that attendance at Officers Group meetings be broadened to include more members of School Committee. That idea was rejected, as well.

Giorgio goes on to note that the Warrant Committee has a number of subcommittees at work on issues that do not meet publicly, as has been the case for a long while, but that the WC will now begin complying with Open Meeting and posting the day, time and location of all those subcommittee meetings. Gee….Thanks!

At some level we shouldn’t be surprised by this opinion…nor should the Officers Group members take too much comfort in it. This is not an opinion rendered neutrally, rather it’s a response to an ongoing investigation by counsel for the defendents. Had the town asked Kopelman and Paige their opinion up front on the legality of such a group, they may well have been advised to steer clear of the closed door meetings and, instead, to have the officers group do their business in strict adherence to OML. The fact that the officers and WC are now anxious to abide by those laws suggests that they know they crossed the line. That said, its up to the Middlesex DA to decide whether or not any actual OML violation occured. We’ll be waiting for that opinion in the coming weeks.

By 5:00pm, I started thinking about what I’d write here about the loss. My leading candidate for a blog heading: “Dumb and Bummer,” was going to lament a decision that just didn’t make a darned bit of sense. (That entry is now being saved for a melancholy occasion to be named later.) More import: I was thinking about what a loss on the Wellington would say about the direction in which our Town of Homes was heading. What other priorities might fail to win the approval of voters who couldn’t see clear to OK’ing an elementary school that would save them $80,000 a year in maintenance costs, even with a $12.4m sweetener from the State on the table? Was it realistic to even hope for an Prop 2 1/2 override in the Spring to address the town’s structural deficit? As I watched my daughter try out the viola and cello at an information session on Belmont’s elementary instrumental music program, I wondered if these, too, were programs that could be saved in a town unwilling to make even a basic investment like replacing a decaying school building.

As it turned out, there was no need to worry. Belmont voters turned out in solid numbers to pass a Proposition 2 1/2 override to pay for construction of a new Wellington School: with 5,871 voters going to  the polls, 65% of them voting in favor of the debt exclusion, with a surge of voters late in the day putting the YES vote (way) over the top. While the  numbers weren’t huge (around 35% turnout), the outcome was — with the close defeat of the last Prop 2 1/2 effort (for road reconstruction) still fresh in everyone’s mind, 65% in favor sent a clear message that Belmontonians value education, take the town’s reputation and tradition of supporting its schools seriously, and can imagine a future more than a year or two distant. As someone put it so eloquently at the victory party last evening, the outcome proved, above all else, that we’re not dumb. Voters in town did the math and knew a good deal when they saw it. The margin of victory suggests it was more than just moms and dads out voting on Monday – folks across the political and demographic spectrum voted for Wellington. In the end, Monday’s election was a matter of stepping through the door that had opened up for us, and step we did.

I won’t be the first to note that this is a project that has been a long time coming here in town — put on the back burner as more urgent capital projects took precedence, then mothballed as the State reworked its process for funding school construction. Its success at the polls today, in the face of a stiff headwind of a bad economy, is the culmination of years of planning by Pat Brusch, Joel Mooney, Mark Haley and all the folks on the Wellington Building Committee, as well as the tireless efforts of my fellow School Committee member Karen Parmett to keep the Wellington on the radar and, of course, the whole Together for Wellington crew, led by Anne Helgen and Laurie Slap, but encompassing the work of so many other outstanding volunteers.

Many in town have been looking on with dismay as deficits have grown, infrastructure has worsened and the social fabric in town has come to resemble the bottom of Underwood Pool: old timers versus newcomers, seniors vs. young families, and so on. The prevailing political wisdom is that Belmontonians wanted things this way — that we’d rather have disintegrating roads and school buildings and a patchy pool than pay higher taxes. The decisive vote in favor of a New Wellington yesterday doesn’t disprove such theories, but it does make them look a bit more like theories than irrefutable laws.

In the short term, the vote puts an end to a years-long game of three dimensional chess that those desirous of any change have had to play — an end to the constant worry about whether pushing for _x_ will “sink the Wellington?!” With the Wellington vote a matter of record, expect a more full-throated debate about what kind of town Belmont can and should be. If nothing else, the Wellington may remind us all that investing in our public schools and investing in the future of Belmont are things that are just…good, and enrich us all far beyond the meager costs we pay (around $1 a day, on average, for the new Wellington school). I wasn’t out looking, but I’d be surprised if local realtors weren’t talking up the vote to prospective home buyers today, as they will in the months and years ahead. That’s good news for all of us in what is still a tough housing market.

Even better: the Wellington is good news for the beleaguered Wellington students, who have put up for years with the quirks and failings of an aging building. If all goes according to plan, in a matter of months, those students and the rest of us will get to step through another d00r: the front door of a brand new, state of the art elementary school that provide students with an outstanding learning environment, save us money, and serve Belmont faithfully for generations. YES!

I’ve already heard from constitutents that the Burke case should make us all mindful of the good and important work that special education funding pays for. I agree, and think its especially important to keep it in mind in a budget environment in which parents of regular education students look at SPED funding (which is set to increase in Belmont and cannot be curtailed, by law) enviously. 

But this story touches on a bigger issue: the degree to which lawmakers on Beacon Hill are willing to balance the budget on the backs of those who can least afford it: needy families, the infirm and school children. Hey, I like a glass of wine or a beer with dinner as much as the next guy, but given the choice between paying an extra dollar or two in liquor taxes for my Sam Adams or Chianti and seeing neighbors like the Burkes driven into financial ruin, or just despondency for lack of resources, I don’t think the choice is too tough, do you?  The same could be said for an income tax on top earners or a carbon tax on gas — all options on the table in the current budget debate, but steps that are meeting with a lot of resistance.

BloggingBelmont says "thanks, Barack!"

Still, the decision for hold off on the override vote saves town voters from a ballot in June asking for approval of property tax increases for the budget as well as construction of the new Wellington Elementary — a scenario that few in town thought boded well for either effort.

Details should be emerging in the weeks ahead on exactly where cuts will come from on both the School and Town side of the ledger, but as a strong supporter of the effort to build a new Wellington, a June vote focused on that issue and no other is very appealing.  I’m sure I’m not alone in the desire to step back and say “Thanks, Barack!”