With apologies to the Bard

This session was much ado about nothing.

We started with a Special Town Meeting to again fix the Olympia Drive issue regarding which parcel is to be developed for affordable housing and which parcel is to be conservation land. We did this in the fall too, but because the State legislature has to approve it and ran out of time to do so in that session, we needed a new vote in order to submit it to them again. And to be on the safe side, we want to submit it as soon as possible, so that’s why this article was moved from the annual TM warrant to a Special TM warrant. Town Meeting votes don’t become official until the meeting dissolves, so the Olympia Drive decision would have had to languish for weeks as we wend our way through the warrant before it could be sent to the legislature. With the Special, that meeting is now dissolved, and it’s ready to go.

A little information, a couple of questions, and then a unanimous vote to support. Moving right along.

Article 34: Resident alien voting rights. Petitioner Vladimir Morales spoke to the article. He said it seeks to spread democracy in Amherst. Allows friends and neighbors to participate in local issues and local elections. These people are here legally, pay taxes, contribute to society. Town Meeting has approved this five times already. There’s no Constitutional barrier to prevent this from happening. The issue keeps dying in committee at the State legislature. If it fails to succeed in Boston this time, he will be back to try again.

Hwei-Ling Greeney spoke to the Select Board’s unanimous recommendation. She was once a resident alien, and now a citizen. Those holding green cards are making positive contributions in town and on boards and committees already. In the spirit of preventing taxation without representation, she urged support.

Jim Oldham said he was co-sponsoring the article with Morales. Wants a large majority to pass this, and said he would seek a tally vote. It isn’t an extreme or out-of-bounds action for Amherst to take, and has been allowed in the past in the US and is allowed in some states and cities, as well as many other countries. New social and economic realities have people living in places other than where they were born.

A member opposed the article, citing his path to citizenship and the psychological process involved in making that transition. Said the article denies or is naïve about that element. Said becoming a citizen isn’t too long or onerous.

Anne Awad spoke of Town Meeting’s past support of this. Said daughter-in-law has found process of obtaining citizenship to be quite long – seven years so far with two more predicted.

The vote is done by tally, and the results are in support, 154 Yes and 22 No.

This is the first time this has come to Town Meeting since I’ve been part of the body. I have long followed it in the newspaper, and rolled my eyes about it as “one of those things” Town Meeting likes to do. All symbolism, no effect. Makes everyone feel good about how progressive they are. Had it come up last year, when I was a newbie TMer with a pre-existing bias, I’m pretty sure I would have voted against it.

So this was my big chance. But I didn’t. Am I getting all soft in my old age?

Besides the symbolic thing, I have a problem with the logic of the concept. So the key argument is that these resident aliens (a simply awful term, but what can you do) face taxation without representation. They pay taxes here (local, State, Federal) own property, have kids in the schools, and are affected by the outcomes of local votes in which they can’t participate. Sounds reasonable. Who wouldn’t want to fix that?

But here’s my thing. People own businesses and other property in town but reside elsewhere. They too are affected by but can’t participate in Amherst voting. How about teachers and town employees who don’t live here? Definitely affected, definitely can’t participate. If you say, “Well, they can vote somewhere, so that’s good enough,” then that negates the guts of why the local voting for the resident aliens is supposed to be so important.

Examples abound of people being compelled by voting outcomes and taxation they have no say in – like residents of one state having to pay another state’s sales tax. The fact is, lines determining who can vote where have to be drawn somewhere, imperfect though they may be. Non-citizens seem like among the most reasonable places to draw a line.

Yet I supported the article. Why?

I don’t oppose the concept. It does occur in other places without apparent negative consequences. If this vote can lead to real action by the State legislature, then it isn’t just symbolic. My contrarian analysis doesn’t rise to the level of opposition, especially when my own logic may well be flawed. This issue is very important to a lot of people and of no real consequence to me. Hey, knock yourself out and good luck – that was my final verdict.

Article 35 – Accountability for WFCR. Petitioner Jeff Lee talked about the need for the station’s accountability to the public. The program changes in January left people feeling deprived, bewildered and dispossessed. WFCR should have a Community Advisory Board, as the Corporation for Public Broadcasting recommends for public licensees of public radio stations and requires for private licensees. The station gets Federal tax support through the CPB, State tax support by being housed at UMass, and Town tax support through benefiting from Town services. The program changes are an erosion of cultural diversity and have had negative economic impact on local musicians and venues. The station has a couple of advisory committees that aren’t about programming or community input. Other stations have Community Advisory Boards and WFCR should also.

Gerry Weiss spoke to the Select Board’s 4-1 recommendation. Their mission statement says they serve as an outlet for the community, and we’re part of the community and this is our chance to offer input. Only with a Community Advisory Board can they live up to their mission. Because it gets tax dollars, it is our business.

A member spoke about how upset she was by the program changes. No one was consulted; there was no way to make our concerns known. They should have a Community Advisory Board and that could lead to people being more generous in their support of the station.

A member moved to dismiss the article. Said the motion wasn’t a judgment of the article’s legitimacy or legality, but a question to the body about whether this is something we should be dealing with now. Said WFCR is a business and should we really be involved in their business decisions? Might TM legislate what can be sold at Hastings? Said the dismissal motion is a procedural question for the body.

Among the arguments for dismissal: the first amendment – a legislative body shouldn’t be able to pressure tax-payer funded institutions; so many other communities and even States are within the listening area – Amherst shouldn’t speak for them; article not what it purports to be – is about meddling with programming while claiming that it isn’t.

Among the arguments against dismissal: it’s been supported by Pelham and Shutesbury; the public airwaves belong to all of us; need transparency, accountability and public access; public broadcasting was supposed to be an alternative to commercial pressures.

There was a standing vote to dismiss: 82 Yes, 90 No. I voted Yes.

A non-member had the audacity to insult the body that just allowed him to address it, saying that he had never seen such a stunning display of ignorance as the vote to dismiss this article. Clearly, he doesn’t get out much. He then went on about who we are as a community and how that is represented on our airwaves, and how everything is nationally syndicated except the voices that introduce the music and those that do local reporting.

Another member said that listeners could vote with their contribution dollars and shouldn’t have TM do that for them, and said that if this really is a legal compliance issue, it should be dealt with by lawyers and courts. Another member had expected to oppose the article but changed his mind because of the necessity of diversity in broadcasting, and not wanting economics to be the only means of exerting influence.

The standing vote was 91 in favor of the motion and 77 opposed. I voted to oppose.

You may want to scroll down a bit to skip my personal rant on this.

How am I annoyed by this topic? Let me count the ways…

1) Town government seeking to impose its will on a wholly independent organization and using its tax support as justification… hmmmm, where have I heard that before? Oh yes, the Survival Center debacle!

2) This idea that one group’s loud dissatisfaction trumps the quiet satisfaction another. Another Survival Center refrain. Why must X conform to your standards?

3) The notion that a mission statement is some kind of official binding oath that can be used against an organization. Yet another Survival Center refrain. A mission statement describes a body’s work to people on the outside, and helps guide the work of people on the inside. External judgment of whether or not it is being adhered to has no relevance.

4) This assumption of moral authority any time the word “diversity” is invoked. Doesn’t matter what the subject is or details are – all is justified by the magical D word.

5) The whole evil money thing. How exactly do you think programming happens? And the station only has X-amount of air time. They need to have some threshold of listenership and support to rationalize one program over another. Some call that elitist; I call it practical.

6) Another moral authority thing: responsibility to the public. Do you mean a responsibility to people who like folk music? Or people who like African music? Why exactly is that a responsibility? And if it is, how far does it go? How about a responsibility to play Japanese music, harp music, disco, big band, French music, Portuguese music, Klezmer? Is it that WFCR has the responsibility to play exactly the shows that were cut, and that those shows just happened to represent an optimally diverse mix? Says who? And what about the people who prefer the new programming – does WFCR have a responsibility to them too?

Switching gears: what the heck is the matter with WFCR? First of all, shouldn’t a Community Advisory Board be a no-brainer? Why wouldn’t that be an ideal way to engage your support base and take the pulse of your listenership? As a member mentioned – wouldn’t a more engaged and satisfied support base lead to more generous contributions? But here’s the real biggie: Why did no one from the station come to speak on its behalf at Town Meeting?!? Let’s see, the issue is that some listeners feel you aren’t responsive to the community. How better to prove their point than to disregard a significant community discussion on the topic? Just because you aren’t obligated by the discussion or the outcome doesn’t mean it wouldn’t behoove you to participate. A little p.r. goes a long way.

And for goodness sake, how could you cut Afropop?? Bring back Georges Collinet!

Alas. Just like with the Survival Center, I support their right to be clueless.

OK, deep breath. Moving on.

Article 36: Seeking smoking restrictions at Village Park Apartments. Speaking for the Select Board, Hwei-Ling Greeney moved to refer this article to the Board of Health. Petitioner Marianne Jakus spoke of her inspirations in bringing this article and all her research on the related health and legal issues. She will pursue other avenues with the Board of Health and possibly report back on any progress in the fall or at a later meeting. The vote to refer was unanimous.

Article 37: Seeking to make it so that one absence from a public hearing wouldn’t preclude a member of an adjudicatory board from participating in the decision. Gerry Weiss said the article had been brought by the Conservation Commission, but that the Select Board feels that because the rule change would affect many boards, there should be more discussion first.

Andy Steinberg said the Finance Committee had supported the original proposal and had no position on the dismissal motion.

The vote to dismiss was overwhelmingly in support, with just one or two Nos.

Article 38 was dismissed because it was the Olympia Drive article that had been moved to the Special Town Meeting warrant we did at the beginning of the evening.

Article 39: Commemorative Flags. Petitioner Larry Kelley made – let’s face it – a stunningly thoughtful and moderate presentation about the first and nearly-final casualties of September 11th, and how they were both gay men, and how broad the diversity was of innocent lives lost on that day. He said that that is what the flag stands for – not militarism or the war in Iraq, but the people of the U.S. He noted the contrast of the Select Board’s unanimous vote to fly the rainbow flag for the anniversary of the gay marriage decision, and how they then unanimously voted to take no position on this proposal to fly the commemorative flags at half-staff every 9/11, and said that the two people he had previously referenced might have found that ironic.

Gerry Weiss said the Select Board would let Town Meeting decide. Anne Awad talked about being on the Board when 9/11 occurred, and all the various flag flying requests the board gets, and all the various tragedies that could be marked. She said that the main Town flag is lowered to half-staff on 9/11 and that it is a somber event. She said the commemorative flags seem more celebratory, and more suitable for Fourth of July. She urged members to oppose the article.

A couple of members spoke to the multitude of tragedies all over the world and throughout history, including those perpetuated by town namesake Lord Jeffery Amherst. One suggested voting against the article in favor of establishing a committee to more broadly honor all such events, and another just wanted it defeated.

A member speaking in support said the red flag stripes denote American blood shed for this country’s freedom. Another suggested that dates for commemorating other tragedies be brought forth as well. Another said that he regarded the article as a call for a day of reflection for a tragic event that affected all of us. Another said that we shouldn’t do what our government has done and link that event to the war.

A member made a motion to refer the article to the Human Rights Commission, not as a way of defeating it, she said, but as a way of reshaping the article in a way that would be less inclined to divide the meeting.

There was a standing vote on the motion to refer. It failed, and I apparently didn’t write down the totals. I voted against referral.

Someone asked what the six holidays are for which the commemorative flags are flown, and if any of those had them at half-staff. The answer to the latter was no, and to the former was: Patriots Day, Memorial Day, Flag Day, July 4th, Labor Day and Veterans Day.

There was a tally vote on the article – 41 Yes and 96 No. I voted Yes.

This was the third issue of the night that made my brain hurt, and all for different reasons.

First of all, I love the flag, and I have none of the compunctions about it that many do. My personal patriotism isn’t contingent on who occupies the White House or the state of our foreign policy. I recognize that many don’t feel that way.

You get an article like this, and no matter how thoughtfully it was presented, and how thoughtfully it was both supported and objected to, it becomes bigger than the specific issue at hand. It becomes an issue of all the various ways people feel about the flag and the country. It becomes a mutual provocation. It becomes a test. Its significance gets blown out of all proportion by those on both sides of the vote.

I didn’t really like the article. To me, it felt vaguely like using the 9/11 tragedy to provoke an expected reaction. So for a while, I thought I might oppose it. But I also think that people are terribly intolerant of more traditional and optimistic opinions of the flag, and I’m tired of that. How come being progressive and open-minded only applies to that with which you agree?

So I went back to logic similar to that which I used in supporting the resident alien voting article: it is important to some, and should be of little consequence to others. I don’t need to have commemorative flags at half-staff downtown to mark my 9/11 remembrance, but it doesn’t hurt. If you strip away all the overwrought Amherst stuff that becomes part and parcel of this article, it is really saying, “Should we fly flags downtown every year on 9/11?” And to that, I say – “Sure! Why not?” To me, answers to “why not” were not compelling, but of course, I was in the minority.

By this time, it was after 10:00, and we all expected those sweetest of words: “I move to adjourn until…” Instead, we got “I move to take up Article 40.”

GROAN!

Gerry Weiss explained that the Select Board would be moving to dismiss, so the body approved taking up the article.

Petitioner Larry Kelley said the goal of the article was to put some teeth into the Open Meeting Law by assessing fines for its violation. There were contradictory opinions from his lawyer and Town Counsel as to the legality of the proposal, and that pretty much sealed the deal. The Select Board spoke to its doubts and concerns and the Finance Committee did the same. The vote to dismiss was nearly unanimous, with a couple of requisite objections.

So that was Wednesday – dealt with a technicality, sought legislation that will die at the State House, made a recommendation that can freely be ignored, rejected an article that was doomed to fail from the outset, dismissed a couple of articles and referred one to another body. Fantastic.

Continue reading...

Does make you wonder

The theme of Thursday night’s session might have been “Things that are kind of screwy.”

Among the Moderator’s first announcements: the tally vote cards all have Monday’s date on them, and the timer at the lectern that keeps track of each speaker’s time was out for repair. Hmmmm.

After a few other announcements (TMCC election deadline, check your listing in the “They Represent You” guide, no meeting on Monday the 14th, Special TM on Wednesday the 16th ) and moving around a few more articles (11 after 31, 33 after 11) we got down to business.

Article 16 had been shaping up to be a little ugly. This is the article that accepts the Regional School District’s per pupil assessment formula for divvying up the costs among the four member towns. The agreement on this assessment method was the work of a multi-town task force a couple years ago, and was intended to simplify and make more equitable the determination of what each town’s contribution would be to funding the district. Paying an equal cost per pupil from each town was determined to be the most fair method and was certainly simpler than the convoluted State alternatives. The four towns agreed to this by approving it at their 2006 Town Meetings. All the towns have to approve it again. It should be a technicality, but …

Then there’s the matter of the regional school budget. That was to be decided by approval of at least three of the four towns’ Town Meetings. With Pelham, Leverett and Shutesbury having already approved the budget at a 3% increase over last year, it appeared that Amherst was stuck – and inconveniently so, as we just failed to pass the override that would have funded a 3% budget. Hand-wringing over a new override scenario, taking money from reserves, or funding the extra $238,000 though new budget cuts was already taking place. Until the idea was hatched to reject Article 16.

It seems that people found two different appeals to this scenario: A) Rejecting the regional assessment agreement would then force a default to the State formula, which is advantageous to Amherst but bad for the other towns, especially Pelham, which is why a new system was sought in the first place. Bottom line for Amherst is it would be cheaper – by about $200,000. B) Rejecting the assessment would force the other towns to reconsider the 3% budget. It would be a tactical move – they need our agreement on the assessment approval and we need them to approve a smaller budget.

So to heck with agreements made in good faith. Some were willing to jettison all the work of the regional agreement regardless of its affect on the other towns, or were willing engage in gamesmanship to ensure that Amherst gets its way. Penny wise and pound foolish on multiple levels, but there you go.

No wonder so many were saying that they didn’t trust Town Meeting and Town government to adhere to the three year plan. But I digress.

So Article 16 was going to be a shoot-out. Never mind that it wasn’t directly addressing the regional school budget – it was going to be the de facto budget debate.

However …

The School Superintendent announced that it had just been learned that the State law about Regional School budget approval for regions using an alternate assessment method (like ours) had been changed in January such that all the towns – not merely the majority – now need to approve the budget in order for it to take effect. Now Amherst would get to have its say directly with the Regional budget, and would not need to deploy what Gerry Weiss termed “the nuclear option” of rejecting the assessment. Surely this was good news!

But wait a minute. This law was changed in January. And you just found out about it Wednesday. Hmmmm.

So that was the new reality under which Article 16 was being considered. Whereas the assessment formula vote had been considered linked to the budget vote, that was no longer the case. As Andy Churchill illustrated – no thanks to a balky overhead projector – if the budget were a pie, the assessment formula only determines how that pie is divided; it has no effect on the pie’s size.

The Regional School Committee Chair and the Finance Committee Chair explained the assessment and its history in great detail. The Select Board majority recommended it.

A member moved to postpone the article until after the budget vote. He read a long list of reasons – new information, too many questions; too much “toxic propaganda” leading up to the discussion; can’t we all just get along?

The Select Board chair emphasized that this was now totally separate from the budget discussion which will come later.

Or now. A non-TM member said that by rejecting the override, voters said they wanted a 1% budget. The Superintendent made the point again – just the assessment formula – not the budget.

The question was called, and that voice vote was just too close to call for some, so a standing vote was requested. 132 yes, 28 no. So close. Whatever. The vote to postpone was then rejected. A member who opposed the override spoke in support of the assessment article and its inherent rationality, with an apt analogy of two couples splitting a dinner bill.

The vote to accept the assessment was overwhelmingly in support with just a handful of Nos. I voted yes.

Next up: Article 8. This was to change the zoning bylaw on farmstands to reflect recent changes in State law. It was about Class 1 farmstands requiring site plan review and Class 2 farmstands requiring a special permit, and how the two classes have different threshold requirements for the percentages of produce sold to be grown on-site or elsewhere in Massachusetts and frankly, it isn’t worth explaining it all (but you’re welcome to read the Planning Board’s report about it,) because it is arcane and because we don’t actually have any of either in Amherst currently.

Yes, apparently it is necessary to pre-regulate something that doesn’t exist, in the name of encouraging it for the future. Hmmmm.

All the relevant boards supported it and spoke to why it is positive: helps farms to directly market their products, supports local economic development, reflects state law.

Zoning bylaw changes require a 2/3 majority. This vote was unanimous.

Article 9 was also about farmstands, but this time it was creating regulation to allow them as accessory uses on a property. Because there were still details to work out, the Planning Board requested that this one be referred back to itself and the Agricultural Commission. And so we did, in unanimous fashion.

Article 10 was an amendment to the zoning bylaw regarding by-right uses in the Flood Prone Conservancy district. It was explained to be a minor amendment seeking to reduce the Town’s legal exposure because State law requires that landowners must have at least one available land use that doesn’t require a special permit. This vulnerability was identified by the former Town Counsel, and the current Town Counsel agreed that this needed to be addressed. The goal was to choose a use that could be made by-right but not expose the FPC’s to unregulated development. Water impoundments – dams and other water flow containment – was selected because that use has many layers of State and Federal regulation before it reaches the local jurisdiction, so it was considered to be a safe option.

So in order to provide a by-right use to a landowner that we don’t want him to have anyway, we do it by giving him one he is unlikely to be able to achieve. Hmmmm.

In response to a question, it was explained that the bylaw targets private landowners because public landowners – often the Town itself – are unlikely to be in the position of suing the Town for insufficient land use options, and entities like the University have broad abilities to do anything they want with the Town only dictating “how,” via site plan review.

One member said he didn’t trust the article because it is purporting to provide a by-right use that he said will effectively be precluded by the State and Federal regulation. He said the situation would be humorous if it weren’t so serious.

This vote also required a 2/3 majority. There were only a dozen or so No votes. I voted yes. If two Town Counsels believe this is a necessary step to keep the town from getting sued, that’s good enough for me.

There was a brief recess to re-set the tables up front by replacing the Planning Board with the Finance Committee.

When we resumed, it was with Article 7, allowing the Town to arrange easements for the Atkins Corner road redesign project.

The double roundabout redesign was explained and illustrated, and the affected property owners have all been contacted and non-monetary compensation – by trading chunks of property made available by moving the road – has been agreed to by nearly all. The DPW Superintendent Guilford Mooring explained that the permission for these easements was needed now in order to advance through Mass Highway’s permitting process.

The Select Board supported it because the easements didn’t require spending money, and the redesign would be safer and easier to use. The Public Transportation Committee deferred its position because they had not fully discussed the issues yet. The Finance Committee supported it because the redesign was conducive to appropriate new economic development activity in that area, and would improve public safety. The Historical Commission was not opposed, but had concerns about historic houses in the area. The Public Works Committee recommended the article but took no position on the details of the redesign and encouraged anyone with such concerns vote yes now and deal with the concerns later.

People spoke in favor of and in opposition to the utility of roundabouts. In response to questions, it was explained that approving the easements does not lock us into this redesign plan, and that Massachusetts law gives right of way to traffic inside the roundabout. We learned that the three criteria the redesign had to meet were: 1) not to take Mrs. Ives’ house; 2) not to impact Epsteins’s pond; and 3) to contain the commercial development to the area it’s already in. Mr. Mooring said that moving the road to the east increases the development potential on the west, where Atkins is.

Someone asked who is paying for this. Mr. Mooring said it was and still is supposed to be paid primarily by a Congressional set-aside which would have the Federal government paying most of it, with the State paying some. He said the Town would only have to pay if there were cost overruns.

Only.

A member told of how Bay Road and West Street have been moved as necessary throughout the Town’s history, so this would not be a new concept, and he suggested this would be confusing but people would learn, and it would improve a bad traffic area.

So the best way to straighten the road is to add two circles, and the best way to improve traffic flow is with an element for which people aren’t clear who has the right of way. Hmmmm.

The vote to approve the easements was nearly unanimous.

We now skipped over all the articles that have been scheduled for specific future dates and times, and jumped to Article 32. This was Vince O’Connor’s petition article to abolish the Amherst Redevelopment Authority. He said he is bothered by people getting elected by write-in vote, and hence lacking public scrutiny, to a body of considerable power. He said the board had met infrequently over the last 6-8 years and hadn’t met at all in 2-3 years, though they have now scheduled a meeting for Monday night. He said the board has overlapping authorities with other boards and committees, and that those other bodies could take them over. He said that if Town Meeting doesn’t vote to approve his article, there will at least be discussion about what the Redevelopment Authority is and what it does, and that because it has appeared to fall apart, it should be thoroughly examined if it is to continue. He also said he just learned recently that he had received write-in votes for the ARA, but would have declined the seat if he’d won.

So we are asked to abolish a committee that barely exists, because of fears that it is too powerful. Hmmmm.

The Select Board voted 2-1-1, with 1 absent, to have someone refer this article back to the ARA. Alisa Brewer said the “2” had concerns about the article because the ARA was not a regular board and not required to justify itself to the Select Board or Town Meeting, that Town Counsel had advised that Mass. General Laws state that Redevelopment Authorities dissolve by their own vote to do so, that the body may have potential utility to the Town, and that they wanted to have a report from the ARA itself before making a recommendation.

The Finance Committee moved to defer consideration of the article until after Article 33, and said that they couldn’t offer a recommendation before hearing a report from the ARA.

People had questions about whether the Governor’s appointment to the ARA is vacant (it’s not,) and if that person could individually have unchecked influence (she could not.) A member from the original ARA spoke of its history, remaining loose ends, and potential problems with its dissolution, and recommended knowing more before taking action to abolish it.

The vote to defer Article 32 until after Article 33 was overwhelmingly in support with a couple of scattered Nos. I voted in support.

The meeting adjourned at 9:55 p.m.

Continue reading...

Opening night

And so we begin.

Last night, the 248th Annual Town Meeting for Amherst got underway. Astonishingly, all Town Meeting seats are filled except one – a vacancy in Precinct 3. That is 239 regular TMers plus 14 ex-officio, for a total of 253. So our quorum is 127, which we reached easily, though I failed to note the time. What I did note though was how full the auditorium was. That was impressive.

Before we really began, we had to go through all the introductory stuff – the call of the warrant, swearing in new members, handicapped parking, listening devices, non-members sit in the back, how to be recognized, etc. One interesting part was remembering the current and former members who died during the past year. We stood as the Moderator read those names: Ken Mosakowski, William C. Atkins, Charles Jacque, Robert McClung, Leverne Thelen, Aaron Wilson. I hope I didn’t miss any.

After more procedural stuff – League publications, Special TM May 16th, how much time speakers get (5 minutes if you are making the motion, 3 minutes otherwise,) announcement of Town Meeting Coordinating Committee elections (nominations due to the Town Clerk’s office by close of business Friday,) and so forth, we finally got started.

With more procedural stuff.

The Moderator said there was no consent calendar, because nothing on the warrant was sufficiently non-controversial to assume it would pass easily. Indeed.

The Select Board Chair then moved some articles around. Article 16 – the Regional School Assessment – will now be considered early, as the first order of business on Thursday, just in case… In case of what? In case the SB wants to schedule another override to cover the fact that we’re stuck with a 3% budget for the region, as voted by the three other towns. Or in case we want to start fortifying our perimeter to ward off the angry marauders from Leverett, Pelham and Shutesbury should Amherst TM, in its infinite wisdom, opt to disregard the regional assessment agreement that was so long in the making.

I’m going to give us the benefit of the doubt and assume that we couldn’t possibly be short-sighted enough to do that. Hold a good thought.

Other stuff from the SB Chair: move the zoning articles 8 -11 to Thursday, right after 16. There was some discussion about whether 11 should or shouldn’t be part of this grouping. It was left in, with the plan to then postpone it to a later date. Someone moved to add Article 7 to Thursday as well. Articles 15 and 17-31 – the budget stuff – was scheduled for May 21st. With all that done, we were really ready to get started.

Article 1: To hear any reports that aren’t available in written form. This is standard procedure, and it passed unanimously, or nearly so. Then we heard those reports.

First up was a report from the Town Manager. This is his first Annual TM in Amherst (he ain’t seen nothing yet…) and he said he’s happy to be here, been a great 9 months so far. He took the opportunity to recognize volunteers and citizens who have performed extraordinarily on behalf of the Town. He cited Alan Root for the beautiful photography he has provided to the Town for publications and for the Master Plan process. A wonderful slide show of his images was playing before and during the meeting. Mr. Shaffer also cited Gail Weston for her great work since replacing Joyce Karpinski in the Town Manager’s office, and praised Health Director Epi Bodhi for acquiring a $300,000 Health Department grant for addressing social justice principles in public health. He said Amherst was one of four grant recipients. The others were our peer communities of New York City, Houston, and Louisville. Impressive!

In a report from the Select Board, Gerry Weiss said that steps were being taken to determine how to proceed with the budget in the wake of the override failure last week. He said the Budget Coordinating Group would meet on the 9th to plan a joint meeting of the Select Board, School Committee, Library Board and Finance Committee on the 14th. The joint meeting will be at 7:00 p.m. and the Select Board will meet at 5:30 to discuss its priorities.

Rob Kusner also announced the dedication of the UMass bike connector, which will be named in honor of a former member of Town Meeting and the Finance Committee, and former chair of the Public Transportation and Bicycle Committee, Art Swift. The dedication ceremony will be at 11:00 a.m. on Sunday, May 13th, and the northern end of the connector, where it meets Mass. Ave.

The next report was from the La Paz Centro Sister City Committee. Anne Stanek, the Committee Chair, talked about how humbling and enriching Amherst residents have found their cultural exchange visits to be, and how important support from the committee has been to that area. Scholarships have been established, houses and a community center have been built and more. She said the support is helping to grow a strong economic base there.

Helene Ver Eecke presented the report from the Public Transportation and Bicycle Committee. She talked about the committee’s work to improve service to East Amherst while saving money, by arranging a new route for the #45 Belchertown bus, which will replace the #36 Gatehouse Road bus on July 1st. She said that by paying $11,000 for a “detour” of the #45’s route, Amherst will improve its service to that area at 1/3 of the original route’s cost. She also talked about the new #32 bus, which goes from Puffer’s Pond to Atkins, and is intended to take people to the prime destinations in town on a convenient schedule. She said that route’s new Saturday schedule just started with the opening of the Farmers Market this past weekend, and that it is hoped that this route will help to attract new riders to the system.

That was the end of the reports. Back to the articles.

Article 2 was to transfer money to pay unpaid bills. This was quickly dismissed because we don’t have any unpaid bills.

Article 3 was to approve the maximum property tax exemption for eligible homeowners who are elderly, veterans or blind. The Select Board and Finance Committee both spoke to this being a valuable way of helping people to stay in their homes. It was noted that the program costs the Town about$114,000 in uncollected tax revenues, but that about $26,000 is reimbursed by the State. Responding to questions from the body, the Town Assessor said he wasn’t certain of the percentage of eligible people utilizing the program, but said that it is underused and that the Town does try to promote it with outreach via the Council on Aging, web site information, and by including details of the program with tax bill mailings. He also spoke of the assessor’s discretion to allow participation by active-duty military personnel overseas and of the increased State money for veterans.

The vote to approve the article was unanimous, or nearly so.

Article 4 was to allow the Finance Director to enter into banking relationships for the Town, whereby some benefit might be gained by maintaining certain minimum balances on deposit. It allows flexibility for moving Town money around. In response to a question, the Finance Director said that State law requires that reserve funds be held in savings vehicles with terms not to exceed a year, and that Amherst’s are in CDs of varying terms earning 5-5.5% interest.

The vote to approve this article was unanimous, or nearly so.

Article 5 was to allow the Town to enter into a lease agreement of up to 20 years for a proposed cell phone tower at the dump. (Hey, I’m old-fashioned – I can call it that.) Despite repeated assurances that this was a technical step to begin a long process that will include public hearings and various permitting hurdles, and was not the actual approval of a cell phone tower, that of course was what set people off. We didn’t know! It will wreck our view! Put it someplace else! What about the honeybees?

The DPW Superintendent explained that this was before Town Meeting because the Town Manager can enter into contracts lasting only up to three years without Town Meeting approval. Even if TM were to reject this, the process would go forward, but perhaps with only a three-year lease. The benefits to the Town, besides, presumably, better cell phone signals for some, is the lease fee paid to the Town for the tower itself and for fees from the antennas other companies would pay to locate on it. Maximum revenue projections for the tower would be about $60,000 per year.

There was talk about how many other towers are in town (a lot, but many are hidden and all but the Ruxton tower are on private property;) the ability for the Town to get out of the contract if desired (not so much, but the bigger concern is keeping the telecom company from getting out of it, not us;) and the bad science and good hype that generated the recent bee stories.

After a failed amendment attempt to change the language to shorten the allowable contract term, the article was ultimately approved, and I was among those voting to approve it.

Article 6 was also about cell phones, but it was about banning their hand-held use while driving. Vladimir Morales was the petitioner for this article which sought to recommend that the legislature enact such a ban at the State level. He said it was modeled after a resolution Northampton had passed. He said he had been rear-ended by someone talking on a cell phone, and that phones are dangerous because they distract the driver’s attention. He spoke of Connecticut, New Jersey, New York and California all having such bans.

The Select Board was unanimous in its recommendation of the article. The Finance Committee took no position. There was discussion about whether the language was specific enough to apply only to the person actually driving the car, as opposed to passengers who have the ability to drive, and changes were made to ensure that. Less successful was the argument that the new language could be interpreted as no one being allowed to use a hand-held phone while the car was being driven by somebody.

People spoke in opposition to the article, saying that it presumed all cell phone use was frivolous and that legitimate use shouldn’t be prevented, and that this was a slippery slope of over-regulation which could lead to bans on driving while pregnant or while on heart medication. Someone pointed out that it was only to prevent hand-held cell phone use and not hands-free use, and someone else said the distractions of both are equally dangerous and that the ban should be more broadly targeted.

A very wise gentleman emphasized that this was really about asking the legislature to look into the issue, and that they would hash out the nitty-gritty details if they were to pursue it.

The vote to approve the article, with the amended language about drivers, was successful. I was among those voting in support.

Article 12 was about a proposed bylaw from the Shade Tree Committee for preserving the Town’s tree canopy. Due to earlier discussions at the Select Board meeting, Mr. Weiss recommended that the article be referred back to the Shade Tree Committee, with that committee’s blessing.

The vote to approve referring it back to the committee was successful, perhaps unanimous.

Article 13 was to change the name of the Solid Waste Committee to the Recycling and Refuse Management Committee, which had to have Town Meeting approval because TM had originally created the committee. Pat Church, Committee Chair, gave a humorous explanation of why the committee seeks the name change, which is partially to better describe its work, but mostly because people find the name off-putting, and it may be hindering them from attracting committee members. And per chance the proposed name change was not a sufficient lure, Ms. Church tried to tempt potential members with the promise of snacks at meetings and gifts from the Take it or Leave it shed at the dump.

One TMer apparently didn’t get the whole off-putting thing, and amended the motion to instead change the name to the Waste Management Committee. About five people supported that when it came to a vote.

Ultimately, the vote to change the name to the Recycling and Refuse Management Committee was unanimous, except for the lone opposition vote from Wayne Huizenga on the far side of the auditorium.

Who would have thought that the Sister City article would be the longest one of the night?

Sure enough, Article 14 sought to establish a Sister City relationship with Nyeri, Kenya. Anne Awad began by stressing that such a relationship would require no tax support or other Town resources. She described the city and its beauty and vibrancy and how nice the people are and how warmly she was received on her visit. She said she has visited Africa multiple times because her daughter-in-law is from there, and through visiting her family, Ms. Awad has had the kinds of experiences tourists don’t usually have, and by doing cultural exchanges as a Sister City, others could do that as well. She said any participation would be voluntary, and that among the opportunities were pen pal exchanges and teaching exchanges via e-mail. She said it would be a unique and mutually beneficial opportunity for Nyeri and Amherst.

The Select Board support was unanimous and the Finance Committee took no position.

Someone asked about staff time being used for greeting visitors or making arrangements. Ms. Awad said her experience with other Sister City committees has been that staff time is very minimal – arranging a town meeting room, for example – and that the committee and other volunteers do most of the work.

Someone else spoke about the La Paz Centro committee and the necessity of committed volunteers. Someone else spoke about the colonizers of that area having committed genocide, and that a book about it is available at the library.

Then an amendment was proposed to add language specifying that no public funds would be expended and no staff time committed on behalf of the Sister City relationship, and that a Sister City committee would be appointed by the Select Board to undertake all the Sister City activities.

If this seemed like splitting hairs, it was just the beginning.

People quickly seized on the “no money or time” part, saying that it was worth a little of the Town Manager’s time to greet Sister City visitors, or for staff to engage in e-mail exchanges. One person suggested that because the Select Board gets a stipend, they would be precluded from appointing the committee because that would use Town money.

A member wanted to know if the language that established other Sister City relationships had this provision – not because she was pointing out that it has proven unnecessary, or that everything should be consistent, but rather, because this language was suggested for a Sister City in Africa, she thought it seemed racist. A groan rumbled through the auditorium.

The amendment was voted down, and I also voted against it.

Another amendment was proposed, identical except that it removed the offending absolutes of no this, all that.

The vote on that amendment was close – so close that a standing vote was required, though one member unsuccessfully sought the meeting’s first tally vote. I think the outcome was 89 in favor, 70 opposed, but the numbers in my notes don’t quite add up. This amendment was successful, and I voted to support it. While I didn’t think the original motion needed any amending, this one seemed like a compromise. The subsequent vote on the article to establish the Sister City relationship was overwhelmingly in support, with a handful of scattered Nos. I voted in support.

The meeting adjourned just after 10:15 p.m. The next session begins at 7:30 on Thursday, May 10th.


Random Bits

I was kind of rusty at the beginning. I’ve been taking copious notes at some other meetings lately where no participation is required. In the early part of this meeting, I kept forgetting to vote.

What is the deal with the person or persons who always vote against calling the previous question? Always. Do they really think there is more to say? Is it just to be contrary? Are they not actually paying attention, and getting lulled into the call and response of “All in favor say aye – AYE! All opposed say no – NO!” Perhaps they just vote for and against everything.

One of the odder elements of the meeting: the Hamden County reference in the cell phone tower article. How did that happen? How could it have gone this far without being corrected? Someone had noted that in a comment when I put up a link to the warrant on inAmherst.com about a month ago. Funny how you read stuff the way you expect it to be, not how it actually is. I do it all the time – such are the perils of lacking an editor. But you’d think someone would have caught that.

Continue reading...

Time flies

Here we are again.

I had hoped to freshen up the blog for a new year of Town Meeting, but that didn’t happen. Alas. Of course, we might well be meeting into July, so there’s still time.

One change though is that this front page will now only provide the beginning of the post, and you’ll have to click on the part that says “Continue reading…” in order to – you know – continue reading. Two benefits of this: the front page won’t be a mile long and should load quicker; and any comments will appear at the end of the post, instead of on a separate page.

OK, so let’s practice…

Very good! Technically, if you clicked on the title of each post before (and still,) you would bring it up on its own page, with the comments at the bottom, but I don’t know if anyone ever did that.

In order to get back to the main page, you can always click on the “Stephanie’s Town Meeting Experience” title at the top, or click on the word “Home” at the very bottom of the page.

Also, the posts now have labels at the bottom, like “Spring 2007.” If you click on that label, you will get all the posts from that TM season. But really, if you are going back and reading my posts about last year’s Town Meetings, you are probably in need of a good hobby.

Why haven’t I incorporated this blog into the inAmherst site? I don’t really have a good answer for that. For now, I’m keeping them separate. Might change. You never know. In the meantime, you are stuck trying to remember or find the singularly awful address I gave this blog way back before I realized anyone was actually going to read it. Sorry.

This year is 180-degrees different from last year. Back then, I knew nothing and no one. Now I probably know more than I want to, or at least enough to be dangerous, and the knowing people thing – well, it’s nice and all, unless you’re writing about them. Not knowing them makes that part easier. Can blog and blogger adapt to more information and less anonymity? Time will tell.

Thanks for coming back. The post on the first meeting will be up as early on Tuesday as I can manage.

Continue reading...

Prometheus bound

We would finish last night. The question was when. We got started at about 7:45.

Article 14 pertained to the Town acquiring an easement for land on Main Street where the parking garage encroaches on private property, but details are still being worked out with the land owner, and so the Select Board asked that this article be dismissed.

Article 15 – was to see if the Town would accept the report of the Fire Station Study Committee, and to ask that the Town Manager create long range plans for financing two of its recommendations – one for two stations, and the other for three. The Chair of the Fire Station Study Committee described the group’s work to date. Last time the committee came before TM was to request money to hire a consultant to study the current system, consider its future needs, and identify possible sites for a new station and the associated costs. TM appropriated $20,000 for that purpose. The committee issued an RFP and received 11 responses. They chose a company and developed a report, and the summary of that was presented last night. (The full 46-page report is available here.) The gist of the report is that there are challenges to providing fire protection and emergency services within adequate response times in a long skinny town. The current two station set-up provides inadequately for the southern part of town and needs to be rectified. The Committee’s report provides several options, and their recommendation that the three station option be pursued.

The Select Board unanimously supported the article. Robie Hubley commended the committee’s work and talked of visiting Vernon, Conn., when interviewing Larry Shaffer, and seeing the new fire station and emergency center built there under his tenure. Hubley said that made him confident that Shaffer knew his way around this kind of financing plan. Alice Carlozzi, Finance Committee chair, said they too were unanimous in their recommendation for support, and appreciated this step as a progress report and chance for TM to express opinions.

A member then moved to divide the motion – any member’s prerogative if the sense of the article lends itself to division. This one divided easily into A and B – receiving the report, and having the Town Manager create financing plans. We quickly vote on the first part, and the vote to receive the report is unanimous. On to the second part.

A member sought to amend the motion, eliminating the part that asks for a plan for a two station concept, leaving only the three station option on the table. He tells a story about a bad fire in his apartment building in South Amherst in 1987, and how it took the fire department more than 7 minutes to arrive because of traffic downtown, how much worse the fire was because of the delay, and how scary it was to imagine a loved one being trapped in the fire.

Several people spoke against the motion to amend, saying that presenting plans for both options would be instructive. After some procedural confusion about which order to vote on the motions (and did this meet the inscrutable requirements of “voting the higher number first?” – it did not,) we vote on the amendment. It fails in a voice vote. I didn’t vote (I was still taking notes at that moment, and somehow spaced on the voting) but I had intended to not support it. I do feel like the three station concept is almost a foregone conclusion – or should be – so I kind of liked cutting to the chase and sparing the Town Manager’s time by not going through the motions of creating a two station financing plan. But I was persuaded by the arguments that the comparison of the two will be instructive. When the contentious issue of funding this comes before TM, one expensive three station plan would be easy to ridicule. Comparing it to a less-expensive but less-optimal two station plan will provide perspective and help frame the argument in terms of X-dollars buying Y-additional coverage, and whether it is more worth saving or spending that difference.

A member then complained about the irresponsibility of any such plan when we’re already looking at another significant budget shortfall, and we have other capital needs. He then invoked that familiar TM refrain – “Make the colleges pay!” Just think of all we could do if they – read: UMass – paid their “fair share.”

A few questions about timing on the project (we’re in year 2 of a multi-year timeline – what happens when depends which option we pursue,) and which maps show which options, and why some options aren’t even being considered (some options were immediate no-gos because they defied national standards and practices or involved locations with traffic impracticalities) and then we voted. The Yes votes were overwhelming, with just a few scattered No votes. I voted Yes.

Article 16 sought to create an emergency access bylaw whereby new and renovated buildings – except single-family dwellings – with supervised alarm systems would be required to install lockboxes with necessary keys or access codes, enabling the Fire Department to gain entry. Currently they either have to wait for a key holder to show up, which wastes a ton of the Fire Department’s time, or they have to break down a door or window, which costs the building owner a lot of money to fix. Both the Select Board and Finance Committee were in unanimous support. There were a couple of questions from the body about whether the Police Department could access the boxes also (no) and whether the Fire Department rather than the building owner should initiate the annual inspections (apparently not – no one opted to respond to this suggestion) and we quickly voted unanimously to support this. So quickly did we vote in fact, that some people were confused and thought the vote was about calling the question, but that hadn’t happened, so it wasn’t.

On to Article 17 – making non-permitted, hence illegal, open burning a ticketable offense. This is intended as a deterrent against and punishment for student bonfires. The SB supports it. The FC supports it. A couple of members support it for its very obviousness. Then other members talk about Native American ceremonies, the role of fire in human history, and the pleasures of playing guitar around fires in the woods back in college, or toasting marshmallows with your kids, and suddenly it appears that in Amherst illegal burning is considered a civil right. So passionate are these bonfire devotees that we actually have a counted standing vote on calling the question, which requires 2/3 majority. It passes 90 Yes, 31 No. We then immediately have a standing vote on the main motion. It too passes 93 Yes, 30 No. I vote Yes to both.

Article 18 – the end is in sight! This is a technicality – granting an easement for wires and cables to connect to the cell phone tower being erected on Pulpit Hill Road. Everything about the cell phone tower and its contract are a done deal. This is just to grant the necessary but overlooked easement. SB and FC support it. Members are concerned that we got shafted in the deal with Verizon, and we ought to be soaking this rich company. "Too late" is the response. Giant ovation (thank goodness!) for DPW Superintendent Guilford Mooring, recently back from National Guard duty in Iraq, who explains that we get the money from Verizon, plus 50% of additional antenna rentals on the tower, which together may total up to $60,000 per year if fully-utilized. The Town also gets to use the tower for its own antennas, and gets a storage facility. We vote. It gets nearly unanimous support, with the requisite couple of Nos thrown in for good measure.

And then at about 9:15, the fall Town Meeting was dissolved.

Continue reading...

Updated attendance and voting results

The attendance and tally vote records have been updated to reflect the 11/8 session. They are sorted by name, by precinct, and by vote.

Continue reading...

A productive and drama-free evening

Back to the business of the Town, rather than the World.

To start the meeting, Anne Awad of the Select Board moved to put the remaining articles back in their numerical order, overriding the various rearrangements we made October 30th. The vote in support of the motion was unanimous.

Article 6: Saving the Kimball House on North East Street – this article sought to authorize the Select Board to enter into both a compensation agreement and a mitigation agreement with the State’s Department of Agricultural Resources to make amends for the highly-unusual effort to remove previously-designated Agricultural Preservation Restriction land from that status in order to compromise with the new owners of an historic property. They had wanted to demolish their 200-year-old house and replace it with a new one, but after much hew and cry have agreed to preserve the building’s exterior and some of the surrounding landscape, provided they could instead build elsewhere on the property. Because the spot they desire is APR-protected, the Town needs to get that development-preventing restriction removed, something the State does not take lightly. Hence, both compensation (to the tune of $211,000, based on the assessed value of the land being removed from APR for the new house) and $100,000 of mitigation (as penalty and disincentive to other communities that might consider removing an APR) are required. Of the $211K compensation, $50,000 has already been appropriated by TM from Community Preservation Act funds; the property owners have contributed another $25,000; and an 11-acre parcel that will be added to APR is valued at $8,000, leaving an outstanding balance of $128,000. This must be paid by the Town within five years, and the State has required that obligation be backed by the “full faith and credit” of the Town, meaning there is no way to avoid paying it – at the end of five years, it would be taxed back to us if unpaid. The $100K of mitigation also is due within 5 years, and while still required, lacks the “full faith and credit” vow, and can be cash, land, or a combination thereof.

Mr. Hubley introduced the article, reading a letter from the DAR about how they wouldn’t do this for just any town, but Amherst has been exemplary in creating APR land and has made a compelling case for why this house should be saved.

Jim Wald, vice chair of the Historical Commission spoke on that committee’s position, which amounts to “we must save this house.” This committee first got involved via the demolition request by the owners. There are less than a handful of brick houses from this era left in Amherst. It is special because it has never been modernized or repurposed as a business or student housing; the house and surrounding farm are a complete geographical and economic unit from the early 1800s; the big house shows that farmers were successful and well-esteemed. Much work by many has gotten us this far.

The Conservation Commission and Farm Committee both support this in the name of historic preservation. The Select Board supported it, 4-1. The Town Manager explained the whole complicated situation quite clearly, and emphasized that you only get one chance to save a house like this. The Finance Committee voted 3-1 not to recommend the article, though they were torn and an earlier vote had been to support. Their concerns were the high price and the debt obligation.

Much thoughtful discussion and questioning ensued. A member of the Community Preservation Act Committee explained that there is a mandated 10% minimum of CPA funds that must be put toward historic preservation every year, and we typically do more than that. He explained that with the CPA surcharge increase approved by voters this week, that 10% will be around $60,000 per year, which is higher than the $45,000 annual amount the debt would require if no gifts or land were part of the deal, assuring the body that the funding was comfortably within the means of CPA. Another person was concerned that this was a slippery slope and that we might be setting a precedent where we will be obligated to people who threaten to demolish historic homes. There were questions about if CPA didn’t want to fund this in future years (seems unlikely, says CPAC) and Finance Director John Musante explained that even if the town had to pay all of it from taxation, it would amount to an average of $7 per household per year for five years. The “minority report” from the dissenting Select Board member was that it was too much money for what the Town “gets;” if the house burned down we’d have spent the money for nothing. She also warned of unknown potential needs competing for CPA funds.

Eventually the vote was called. It was a counted standing vote – 102 Yes, 32 No.

This was an interesting issue and the vote definitely broke along very different lines than those that often divide the body. Standing votes give instant feedback about who is voting how, though except for watching video of the meeting, no permanent record of the vote exists.

I voted in support. This is one of those rare votes where you really do only get one chance. If TM did not approve this, the house would be demolished, and that’s it. It’s not like a defeated zoning proposal that could come back to Town Meeting in the future. One shot – keep it or lose it. I’m glad we kept it.

Article 10 sought to create an Agricultural Commission. All relevant boards and committees supported it. This amounts to a name change for the Farm Committee, and because it would be created by TM, only TM could dissolve it, as opposed to the Select Board now holding that power. The State is encouraging towns to have these, giving them more clout and more grant opportunities. The Ag Commission would be strictly advisory, just like the Farm Committee is now; it would have no binding authority. A few questioners wanted clarity on small details, and then we voted nearly unanimously in support.

Article 11 was about potential zoning changes in the Main and High Street area, but the final plan and recommendation are still in the works, so the Planning Board asked that it be referred back to them and it was.

Article 12 was another potential zoning change related to updating the farmland conservancy overlay district to bring it back into compliance with its original intents, but it too is still being worked on, and again the PB requested and received its referral back.

Article 13 was another zoning change, this one seeking to remove the Wetlands District designation from the zoning bylaw. The Planning Board argued that: it was obsolete in so far as the locations it designates don’t match up with current wetlands; and it is illegal because its criteria amount to a “floating” zone, one for whom hard lines can’t be drawn on a map, which violates the regulation that all zoning be approved by a 2/3 majority of TM. The PB said that wetlands laws and protection processes are very strong and binding and the existence of this designation or the lack thereof, neither strengthens nor weakens wetland protection – it just confuses the issues.

Those opposing the change argued that it is misunderstood and should be enforced, and that contrary to claims it hasn’t been used in all its time on the books, it actually appears on many maps. They argued that the designation is intended to “give teeth” to the conservation regulations and serve as a red flag that property owners should consult with the Conservation Commission.

These arguments were countered by those saying that just because the designation appears on maps, it doesn’t mean it is “used,” – they just keep being carried forward on maps, but they are not a determinant of the existence of wetlands. It was also argued that the suggested interpretation that the designation notifies owners to seek Conservation Commission consultation has that process backwards.

Ultimately, arguments from the Planning Board and Planning Department that this is not a useful or used designation, arguments from Town Counsel that the designation amounts to an illegal “floating zone,” and arguments from the Conservation Commission that this designation has no impact on their work, proved more persuasive than the arguments in opposition. With a motion to refer this back to the Planning Board defeated, a tally vote on the main motion which required 2/3 majority passed with 107 Yes votes and 23 No votes.

The meeting adjourned until Monday, November 13 at 7:30 p.m.

Continue reading...

Voting and attendance results

Here are the attendance records and tally vote results, sorted by name, by precinct, and by vote.

Update: These results detail only those votes that went to a tally. Tally votes are the only way people's individual votes are recorded. To summarize, every motion to dismiss was defeated and the main motion on every article passed, but only two of each had tally votes, and those are the results contained in these links.

Continue reading...

One for the ages

This time I’ll start at the end and circle back to the beginning.

Just before the meeting ended, I addressed the body for the first time ever. I would have done it sooner in the evening, but the fast and furious pace at which the previous questions were being moved was such that I could scarcely pause my rabid note-taking and put down my pen to raise my hand before we were voting again. So there I was, better late than never, but just barely.

I begin with this because what I said – or more accurately, what I was trying to say – sums up the conundrum of the entire evening for me, and explains why I voted the way I did.

This of course was the “Special Special,” where we were addressing four articles on “matters of universal import” – the genocide in Darfur, the war in Iraq, the potential for war in Iran, and impeaching Bush and Cheney.

While these sorts of “advisory articles” are a fixture of (or a cliché of, depending on your view point) Amherst Town Meeting, they still create much consternation. A significant number of people, members and non-members alike, think it is not appropriate for Town Meeting to deal with such topics. I am firmly in that camp. Among the reasons cited by people who feel as I do: they take up time that should be spent on town business, they lengthen an already-very lengthy process, the enormity of the time commitment keeps good people from serving on TM, we weren’t elected to enact foreign policy, we often lack the expertise to think or vote critically on the issues, passing such articles has no effect, etc. The list is long, and encompasses a wide range of often-divergent opinions on the subject.

So I object to such articles in concept, as noted above, and in practice. How am I supposed to vote on an article that I don’t believe even belongs before the body? If I think it is inappropriate for Town Meeting to be dealing with X, then what am I to do?

There are, as best I can tell, six options – move to dismiss, move to amend, vote yes, vote no, abstain from voting, or stay home.

Moving to dismiss is nearly perfect – and bless Peter Blier’s heart, he did exactly that, and eloquently so. More about that later. I say “nearly perfect” because if it fails (spoiler alert: it failed. Every time.) then you are still stuck needing to make another choice.

Moving to amend might work if the circumstances were such that you could somehow alter the article to make appropriate what had been inappropriate. I can’t even come up with a scenario where that could happen, so that’s not really an option.

Voting yes just rubs me entirely the wrong way. I can’t support that which I don’t even think should be here, regardless of how I, in a non-TM context, feel about the sentiments expressed by the article.

Voting no is the option I chose. I will elaborate more on that shortly.

Abstaining would seem like the best option, except that I really am a stickler for rules and procedures, and the fact is that the Town Meeting Handbook states: “Failure to vote implies acquiescence in the majority opinion.” So in this case, that would feel to me like a vote of support.

Staying home is just not an option I could choose – sorely tempted though I may be.

The problem common to these last four options is that they are all ambiguous and open to interpretation. It would be erroneous, for instance, to draw the conclusion that TM supports these advisory articles just because they all passed. It would also be erroneous to conclude that there are X-number of people on TM who think genocide in Darfur is just fine, since they voted to oppose that article. People who feel the same as I do about these articles not belonging at TM made every one of those four choices. In the absence of a clear option, each of us was left trying to determine how best to represent our sentiments and what our choice would mean.

So I chose to vote no, opting to hang the rationale for my vote not on the substance of the articles but on the procedural boilerplate preceding each one. It reads: “To see if the Town will adopt the following resolution:” Since I don’t want the town to adopt the resolution – nay, I don’t even want the town to be dealing with the resolution – a no vote felt good enough. But this is not an obvious or easy choice, and it might not even be a logical choice. I have heard persuasive arguments on all sides. To me it was the best of a bunch of bad options.

My point is that voting isn’t supposed to be like this, and yet, here we are.

Thus was the complicated and unsatisfying “reasoning” that guided my voting.

So let’s go back to the beginning of this meeting, ’cuz it was a doozy.

We got started at about 7:45. The usual procedural stuff and announcements. Reordering of tonight’s articles, to proceed as 1, 4, 3, 2. Much haggling about why we were doing this meeting now instead of the other meeting, why we’re in conflict with the final gubernatorial debate, etc. And the dullness of all that must have lulled me to sleep, because next thing I knew I was having the most bizarre dream that Select Board member Rob Kusner was wearing a t-shirt with a caricature of George Bush on it, in brazen violation of the “no electioneering/political influencing” rule that the moderator had made clear last meeting and just reiterated tonight. And then – this is where the dream got really nuts – the moderator asked to see the shirt, and Rob took it off while the moderator was ordering him not to, and then Rob, who conveniently just happened to be wearing another t-shirt underneath the Bush one, threw the offending shirt at the moderator, and pandemonium nearly ensued. Gavels were banging, Rob was being weirdly belligerent, the moderator nearly threw him out of the meeting, and it was as though they might come to blows. So then a recess is called and those two go behind the curtain and… No more spicy food for me before Town Meeting, no siree.

Actually, all that was true and it was disgraceful. I was shocked and disappointed that Rob would disrespect his office, the meeting, the moderator and the decorum of the body that way. I will assume that his interpretation of those events is not the same as mine, and if he wants to offer an explanation, I’m sure many of us would be very interested in what he has to say. But mostly, I think we would like an apology.

Moving on.

Article 1. Darfur. The petitioner speaks briefly to her motion and then brings in a gentleman who has lived in Amherst since 1994, after fleeing violence and torture in Sudan. He spoke about the horrors of the situation there and why sanctions and other non-military pressures are necessary, because militarization would harm the people and increase their suffering. Anne Awad spoke regarding the Select Board’s unanimous support for the article. Cited many problems the international community ignored in the past: this is oportunity to give our conscience some protection.

How courageous must you be, and how secure must you be in the reasoning of your argument to get up there after that poor man has described horrible suffering, and move to dismiss this article?

Pretty damned courageous and secure, I’d say.

That’s just what Peter Blier did, and that’s why I believe we should have a tickertape parade in his honor downtown, name a few streets after him and give him a free bus pass.

This was a gutsy move, and he did it with a thoughtfulness and respect that few could manage. Bravo Peter!

He described his strong belief in the sentiments of the articles, and how he agonized over making this motion, but feels strongly that such topics are not the business of Town Meeting. His reasons for dismissal: that our priority should be the town’s business, and that if we are to go beyond the warrant it should be to address local problems that linger and loom; that New England’s long history of addressing such things at TM is not analogous to now, because that used to be the way to express the town’s sentiment and relay information, but today there are many and better options; that the time commitment for TM is onerous enough and precludes participation for many; and that such actions make us feel good but have no real effect, so as individuals we should find ways that are effective instead of holding the false satisfaction of having “acted” here.

The petitioner responded. She disagrees. Thinks it is appropriate, important, effective. The line that spoke to many of us, though not as she intended it, was something like: “There are many people here who know as much about Darfur as they know about local issues.” Indeed. Someone calls the question. We have a tally vote on the motion to dismiss: 53 Yes, 83 No. Dismissal fails; back to the main motion. The question is immediately called again. Overwhelming yes vote, a couple of no votes.

Article 4 – withdrawal from Iraq. Introduced by one person, elaborated on by another. Lies and misrepresentations by the administration. So many deaths. So many casualties. So much suffering and long repercussions. Costs a ton of money. Gerry Weiss speaks to the Select Board’s 4-1 support. War is awful. Please vote to send this message.

This time Joe Bodin moved to dismiss this article, on the grounds that next week we’ll have a ballot question that is nearly identical and the results will be more representative because every voter can make their choice, not just us. The original speaker disagreed: to not vote would be to shirk our responsibility. Someone calls the question. The vote to dismiss is defeated. Mr. Bodin then moves to amend the article to ensure that the results contain a count of the vote. After some ditzing around, the question is called. The vote to amend to include the vote tally succeeds. (I voted yes to this just because. Was there a strategic or ideological way to vote here? I dunno.) Back to the now-amended main motion. Someone speaks in opposition to the article about how this vote would show weakness and that would embolden our enemy. Call the question. Tally vote on the article: 86 Yes, 20 No.

Article 3 – Iran. Two people address this jointly, a husband and wife who went to Iran in the spring as part of a peace delegation. War would be terrible for the people of the country. The people are just like us, kids just like ours. Need to establish diplomatic relations and create diplomatic solutions. Rob Kusner spoke regarding the Select Board’s unanimous vote in support of the article. War is bad. We need diplomacy. Go slowly. Learn the lessons of Iraq war and absence of diplomacy with North Korea.

Blier moved to dismiss again, saying the reasons were identical to the ones stated previously and he supports the spirit of the article but doesn’t believe this is the time or the place for it. The original speaker disagrees. The speaker who opposed withdrawal from Iraq opposes this article even more vehemently. The question gets called. The tally vote on the motion to dismiss fails, 53 Yes and 76 No. The question is called on the original motion. It passes overwhelmingly and without a tally vote.

Article 2 – Impeachment. The petitioner clarifies the less obvious points in the long “where as” list of the article, speaking to the nitty-gritty of why wire tapping laws were broken, why as commander-in-chief the President can be held responsible for torture, and how he has violated different separations of power. Anne Awad spoke for the Select Board’s unanimous vote, believing that such abuses do have local affect. Someone with an impressive background in high-level government law spoke in support. Blier moved to dismiss. It fails again. I offered my two cents about no good voting option for those like me. The question was called for the final time, and the final tally vote was 85 Yes and 29 No.

As a body, we either sent strong clear messages to the world and did our part to help effect change, or we accomplished zip. I sure think it’s the latter, but I’d love to be wrong.

Later this afternoon, (it’s almost 4 a.m. – uggh.) I’ll put up some attendance and tally vote info. Even though the muddiness of the voting leaves its interpretation highly suspect, I can’t resist looking at it.

Continue reading...

October gave a party, TMers by hundreds came

Fall Town Meeting began last night, getting underway at about 7:45.

Lots of announcements and introductions from the Moderator to start things off. Introduction of new town clerk Sandra Burgess, who read the “oh hear ye, hear ye” call of the warrant. Introduction of Doug Slaughter as a new Finance Committee member, and announcement of a FinCom vacancy – those who might be interested should contact the Moderator. Warning of “no electioneering” during Town Meeting – no buttons or t-shirts or whatever extolling pro-this or anti-that.

The Moderator then outlined his expectations for the meeting – he anticipates it running three nights – last night, Wednesday, November 1st and Wednesday November 8th. November 1st is the “Special Special” where the citizens of Amherst will finally restore peace and order to the universe – what took us so long? – though some curmudgeons scoff at such efforts. The Moderator reminded us that there are parliamentary means of opposing articles one considers inappropriate for the body, and that boycotting the meeting is not the best option.

Anne Awad of the Select Board explained that it is traditional at Fall TM to recognize those who have served the town through two or more terms on a board or committee. She read the names of 16 such people, and presented certificates and town pins to those of whom were in attendance: Mark Power, Farm Committee; Robert Grose, Comprehensive Planning Committee; Barbara Mitchell, Conservation Commission; David Henion, Design Review Board; Michael Mascis, Finance Committee; Mary Jane Laus, Human Services Funding Committee; Florence Boynton, Kanegasaki Sister City Committee; Nancy Pagano, Kanegasaki Sister City Committee; Mary Santiago, La Paz Centro Sister City Committee; Kathleen Ford, Leisure Services and Supplemental Education Commission; Adrian Fabos, Planning Board; Carol Lee, Public Art Commission; Van Kaynor, Public Transportation Committee; Jim Ellis, Public Shade Tree Committee; Doris Holden, Registrar of Voters; Zina Tillona, Zoning Board of Appeals.

The Moderator introduced Town Manager Larry Shaffer, on board for his first official TM since starting the job. He talked about how glad he is to be here, praised the town’s employees, and gave special recognition to two groups: the fire and police departments who handled the big fire at Echo Hill with great heroism, and Nancy Pagano and the Senior Center staff who mobilized an emergency stop-gap effort to assist the transportation needs of seniors during a rough transition to a new service provider.

The business of the warrant then got underway.

Article 6 – the continuing saga of saving the historic Kimball House on North East Street – was postponed until Wednesday, November 8th, because its details are still being hammered out.

Article 13 – about removing the flawed Wetlands District designation from the zoning bylaw – was postponed until Wednesday, November 1st, to follow the “Special Special,” because the Planning Board and the Select Board are still working on it.

Article 1—to hear the reports of two committees. We approve it, and hear status updates from the Amherst Energy Conservation Task Force and the Outreach Bus Routes subcommittee of the Public Transportation Committee. The town’s Energy Conservation Task force is – surprise! – trying to get the town to conserve energy. It has done inventories of green house gas emissions, set goals for reduction targets, published a climate action plan, and worked with the town and the colleges to implement many and varied conservation measures. They are looking for ways to engage more citizens in such efforts, and their Renewable Energy Fair on the Common was one such attempt. Among the ways that citizens can make a difference: sign up to purchase renewable energy credits for which the town will receive money if the sign-up goal is met; walk, bus or bike instead of driving; use compact fluorescent light bulbs; and if you insist on having a car, at least keep it well-maintained and don’t idle. And speaking of buses: the Outreach Bus Routes subcommittee reported that a new bus route #32 is planned for debut in December, linking the hot spots of Amherst from Puffer's Pond to Atkins, thanks to the combined efforts of the Select Board, the Town Manager, the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission, PVTA and UMass Transit. Also, PVTA will fund the Gatehouse Road route for the rest of the year, and there’s a new plan for that neighborhood to be served by a re-routing of a Belchertown Road bus in the future. And all buses are now using ultra low sulfur fuel, so they are less polluting and less stinky.

Article 2 seeks to pay unpaid bills from previous years, but as we have none, it was dismissed.

Article 3 has three parts, all tying up loose ends from FY06. Part A seeks to make up for a deficit in the Health Claims Trust Fund with a transfer of $166,087 from the general fund’s free cash account. That amount will be reimbursed through an extension of an existing temporary surcharge on health insurance premiums. Much discussion about the inexact science of budget prediction, and what a small correction this is in relation to total claims which were more than $9 million for the year. Concerns were voiced about improving budget planning in the face of ever-increasing health care costs, and for how the surcharge and future increases affect the individual employees. Assurance from all that these are key issues being analyzed and addressed going forward. The vote to approve is unanimous.

Part B seeks to make up for a revenue deficit of $85,853 from the sewer fund with a transfer of that amount from the sewer fund surplus. The surplus fund currently has almost $750,000 in it and meeting a shortfall like this is partly what it’s for. Revenues were short primarily because UMass’ water conservation success has decreased their corresponding sewer usage fees more than had been expected. Much of this was a rehash of the original discussion on this budget area from the spring, with concern being expressed about why a higher pricing tier for UMass was eliminated, when that is one of the few ways of getting money from the school. The new information (new to me, anyway) in response is that the third tier was not eliminated rashly – it had been promised many years back that if UMass met certain conservation goals, that tier would be eliminated, and hence, this was following through on the town’s promise. In response to concerns about shortfalls for this year, Finance Director John Musante explained that either water or sewer rates are adjusted each year, and that this year’s anticipated sewer adjustment might occur in January instead of July. The vote to approve the transfer of funds was unanimous.

Part C was about the Golf Course. Same old story. Revenue shortfall. Needs transfer from surplus. “You know who” makes a big stink about it. Same old story. This time though, his latest video hectoring efforts annoyed too many too much, and was cut short. The vote to use money from the surplus to eliminate the deficit was nearly unanimous.

Article 4 – Golf Course, part II. This seeks to transfer the assets of the golf course enterprise fund to the general fund, essentially cleaning up the final details of having removed the course’s budget from enterprise fund status last spring, when it was put under the town’s community services budget. There were concerns about whether this gives the town and TM less insight into its financial situation. The answers to that were a) no, and b) changing is budget status is a done deal – that isn’t what this article is about. Questions about the status of the RFP for privatizing the course’s operations were addressed: it’s in progress, should be issued late this year with response early next year, other improvements are also being made including better marketing; and the RFP would ensure that people can still use the course for hiking, cross country skiing, etc. This vote again was nearly unanimous, with just a couple of scattered nos.

Article 5 was an easy one: rescinding previous unused borrowing authorizations in order to clear them from the books. These are leftover from three projects – a 1984 borrowing authorization for constructing the parking lot behind CVS, which left $298K unborrowed; a 2001 authorization for repairs to the Crocker Farm School which left $3,603 unborrowed; and a 2003 authorization for the Mechanic Street sewer project, for which $400K was not borrowed. No money was to be gained or lost by this action; it was merely a bookkeeping issue. It passed unanimously.

Article 7 was to enter into an Intermunicipal Mutual Aid Agreement for sharing resources with other communities during emergency situations and providing or receiving reimbursement for those resources. It was explained as formalizing a process already in place. Some concerns were voiced about details such as who is authorized to declare an emergency (answer: the town manager) and whether this agreement addresses the fact that the most vulnerable citizens are disproportionately affected by disasters (answer: no, but…) and it was explained these are the kinds of topics covered by the town’s emergency management plan, which is an entirely different document. The vote to approve was unanimous.

Article 8 was a petition article about the Gatehouse Road bus route. It was brought by someone who uses that bus and represents others who do or might use the bus, and was billed as requesting a show of support from the body for continuing that bus service. The petitioner told of collecting lots of signatures and how unhappy people were when the route might have been cut, and they’re happy service is being continued now and new options are being explored. Okie-doke. Lots of people spoke to how great the cooperation has been among all the entities that have kept the service going for this school year, and how important public transportation is, blah blah blah. A representative from the Pedestrian Bicycle Transportation subcommittee of the Public Transportation Committee (I think) spoke about this article being unnecessary at this time because no cuts were made or are expected, and a process is ongoing for prioritizing routes and how to best utilize all the public transit resources. People countered with: Buses are good! Cars are bad! TM must have its say!

To me, the oddest argument in favor of this article is that everyone should ride these buses and encourage others to, because currently they’re empty and it will be easier to support them if they’re full. OK, I get the part about full buses being easier to support – but encouraging people to ride them so that they are full doesn’t make sense to me. Does that mean pretend there is demand where there really isn’t? Does that mean trying harder to justify unjustifiable buses? I think people are stuck on the “Field of Dreams” theory of bus routes – if you build it they will come. But guess what? We built it. They’re not coming. Ridership reflects true demand, and true demand on certain routes is very low. The bottom line is this of course became another referendum on public transportation – are you for it or against it? – and not a discussion of the article, which was actually meaningless. But worse than being meaningless, it will become something to invoke in the future as TM’s past support of this route, next time a case is made for its elimination. I voted no, but I was among a surprisingly small minority. I would have thought that the minority would have been closer in size to the one that opposed continued funding of these routes in the spring, but perhaps because this wasn’t actually about taking any action or spending any money – it was a “show of continued support” – many of my former fellow opposers felt safe in supporting it. Whatever.

Article 9 was about the disposition of parcels on Olympia Drive to be used for affordable housing. This has been a long process, and this technical measure of allowing the Select Board to use its control of the property for this purpose is just the latest step toward this long-identified and long-supported goal. It was explained that a study has shown that 38 units are feasible for the space, and that they will be a mix of affordable and market-rate, and that significant public input will be sought on the project before the development RFP is issued. Concerns were raised about future costs to the town. It was acknowledged that there will be infrastructure costs, just as with any new residential growth, but that the builder and not the town will bear any development expenses. There was discussion about affordable housing’s benefits and necessities to the community, and the “costs of not providing” it. The vote required a 2/3 majority, and only two or three people voted to oppose.

This meeting was adjourned at about 10:15, to be reconvened after the “Special Special” on Wednesday.

And that one is sure to be special indeed.

Continue reading...

Reviewing the warrant

Wasn’t it just June? Where has the time gone?

Last night was the Warrant Review Meeting in preparation for next week’s Special Town Meeting. Not to be confused with the Special Special Town Meeting. Though Fall Town Meeting is essentially a yearly tradition, by writ, the spring meeting is the “Annual” TM and any other one is “Special.” A Special TM that convenes another Special TM within it – or immediately after—gets dubbed a Special Special. One hopes if we were to daisychain too many of these together, we might seek a new nomenclature.

But one mostly hopes we never face that problem.

And so the Warrant Review. There were only about 20 people there, but it was also shown on ACTV and will be repeated there several times.

The meeting was arranged by the League of Women Voters and the Town Meeting Coordinating Committee, and the chairs of both kicked things off. The moderator and various committee reps then explained each article.

Harrison Gregg began with Article 1, boilerplate that asks us to hear any reports that aren’t in written form. He expects only one “heard” report – from a committee whose name I missed, but it had something to do with energy.

Article 2 is housekeeping about transferring necessary funds to pay unpaid bills from last year, but it will be dismissed, because we paid all our bills.

Andrew Steinberg of the Finance Committee addressed Article 3, which has three parts, all addressing shortfalls from FY06 and the transfer of funds to deal with that. Part A regards the Health Care Trust Fund, and a $166,087 deficit requiring that amount to be transferred from the General Fund’s Free Cash account. Last year this occurred also, but the deficit was larger – more than $700K – and to reimburse the Free Cash account for those funds, a temporary surcharge was added to employee health care premiums from January 2006 to June 2007. For this new reimbursal, the surcharge period will be extended by three months. There were some questions and discussions here about two consecutive years of deficits to the Health Care Trust Fund, which Steinberg said the town is working with an advisory committee and consultant to address going forward. This issue will probably get a fuller hearing at TM.

Part B of Article 3 is about a sewer fund shortfall. Sewer charges are calculated by water usage rates, Steinberg explained, and because UMass has improved its water usage efficiency significantly, they have incurred lower sewer fees than had been anticipated. To meet the $85,853 deficit in the Sewer Fund, that much needs to be transferred from the Sewer Fund Surplus, which currently has a balance of almost $750,000.

Part C is about that perennial TM topic: making up for the Cherry Hill Golf Course deficit. (Cue Larry Kelley’s data-laden “Told ya so.”) The golf course fund came up short $10,742.69 in FY06 and that amount needs to be transferred from the Golf Course Fund Surplus, which has a current balance of more than $13,000.

Article 4 is also about Cherry Hill, and Finance Committee chair Alice Carlozzi explained it. Cherry Hill had been operating for a while as an enterprise fund, but we changed that in the spring and made it part of the regular town budget. This article officially dissolves the enterprise fund and transfers its assets – the remaining Surplus Fund money, and the “fixed assets” such as the course, the equipment, etc. – to the town. This clears up the bookkeeping of eliminating the enterprise fund.

Article 5 is another housekeeping article. It seeks for TM to rescind three previous borrowing authorizations the body has made in the past. These are leftover, not needed, or otherwise non-borrowed authorizations from earlier projects and Carlozzi explained that they simply need to be cleared off the books to give a clearer picture of the town’s debt capacity. No money is gained or lost by this.

Article 6 is going to be a tough one. This is the latest chapter in trying to save the historic Kimball House on North East Street. David Ziomek, director of conservation and planning, explained that the deal the town had made with the State for compensation and mitigation for taking some land out of the Agricultural Protection Restriction status has changed a bit, leaving us $128,000 short. (Recap: the property owners had wanted to tear the house down and build a new one. People went nuts. The owners agreed to leave the house and build a new one near it, but the restrictions on that adjacent land didn’t allow for that. The town has been working hard to get the state to remove the restrictions on that land, which it can only do by putting restrictions on an equal amount of land someplace else, and paying some money. That money was expected to be $83K, which was covered partially by the owners and partially by TM appropriating Community Preservation Act funds, and partially by the value of adjacent land to be added to the APR. But the state wants compensation equal to the appraised value of the land being un-APR’d, which at $211K, leaves us with this $128K deficit.) The proposal is that the town commit to paying that $128K over the next five years. It is expected to come from CPA money, but the CPAC would need to approve that, and the sequencing of these things don’t allow that to happen until after TM deals with this. Will the town keep spending money in order to preserve just the exterior of a house it won’t even take ownership of? Or will we let it be destroyed, for want of a few more bucks, a teensy drop in the bucket when amortized out across the many years it will stand and the many people it will inspire? We’ll see. This is sure to be one of the hot topics of this TM.

Article 7 allows the town to enter into “intermunicipal agreement” with other towns to share resources during an emergency. The moderator handled this one and the next couple. This one seems obvious enough, but I guess there is no such thing.

Article 8 is vague. It seeks “To see if the town will vote to continue, and, if financially and otherwise feasible, improve outreach bus service to Echo Hill and East Amherst.” It doesn’t involve any specific money or commitment at this point. Not sure if this is meant to “get the sense of the body” as Gregg suggested, or to actually tie our hands in some way. It smells funny to me.

Article 9 really is a housekeeping article: transferring two parcels on Olympia Drive from the Select Board to the Select Board, but with a new purpose. What had been in their keeping as general municipal property will now become affordable housing and open space. This is one of those technicalities in the long process of bringing these affordable housing units into being, but I suspect that it will turn into 200 people offering their opinions on the specific development plans – where will the trees be? Where will the parking be? What about those for whom this is unaffordable? Etc. Perhaps I’ll be pleasantly surprised.

Article 10 seeks to establish an Agricultural Commission, to replace the current Farm Committee. The state looks favorably at such commissions for grants and gravitas. Ziomek described it as essentially morphing the Farm Committee into this new name, with the same directives and advisory roles. The primary difference is that the Select Board created and hence could dissolve the Farm Committee, where this article would give those powers over an Ag Commission to Town Meeting. Pretty straightforward.

Article 11 is an interesting multi-part zoning article, but because the Planning Board feels all the details aren’t yet worked out, they will request that it be referred back to them to probably bring to TM again in the spring. Hence, I’ll skip it

Article 12: Ditto.

Article 13 is a complicated one about removing the wetlands district designation, which the PB now believes is not legal as written because zoning designations must be along specific and unchanging boundaries, and must be made law by a 2/3 vote of TM. PB chair Aaron Hayden described the wetlands designation as “floating,” because it is based instead on the determinations and measurements that define wetlands. The concern is how to remove this designation, which hasn’t been used in many years, without inadvertently exposing wetlands to development. The PB says they need to be protected, but not via a flawed zoning designation. This will no doubt be an interesting discussion.

Article 14 pertains to an easement for the parking garage which was found to encroach on private property. Town Manager Larry Shaffer said that the details of this are still being negotiated with the property owner, and he hopes to bring this article back in the spring.

Article 15 asks TM to receive the report of the Fire Station Study Committee, which details options for improving fire and EMT response times in town, particularly South Amherst. We need not accept the report, but merely receive it. The article also asks the Town Manager to develop a plan to finance either the recommendation for three fire stations, or a revamped two station concept. Either would entail new ongoing expenses for the future, and will surely inspire vigorous debate.

Article 16 seeks to establish an emergency access bylaw, which would require all buildings except single family homes that have supervised fire protection systems (described by Shaffer as systems that trigger an alarm and a phone call to a central dispatch) to have a key vault or “lock box” on site, holding keys or codes needed to access its locked interior spaces. The key to the lock box would be held at the Fire Station. Interesting questions about liability were raised, and many others are likely to come up once this article is discussed at TM.

Article 17 would establish an open burning bylaw that would enable the town to ticket illegal bonfires. Bonfires are currently regulated only at the state level, which allows municipalities one per year. Student bonfires cost the town money to deal with, and by establishing them as ticketable offenses, it will help recoup those costs and formally penalize such acts by creating a $300 fine.

Article 18 is about granting an easement to WMECO and Verizon for installing and accessing underground cables for a cell phone tower that will be built off of Pulpit Hill Road, in an area known as “Ruxton.” Permission for the tower was authorized by TM in the spring of 2005. This article just addresses an overlooked permitting detail.

So that’s the Special. The Special Special was discussed briefly in terms of how it would be handled. The expectation is that it will be convened on November 1st and then immediately adjourned until we complete the business of the Special. I wasn’t certain if the moderator was saying that this is definitely how the Special Special will proceed, or if it is probably the case. Perhaps ongoing discussions make that tentative, or perhaps there is some possibility of the body voting down adjournment and forcing that meeting to be held on November 1st. Or perhaps that is definite, and I just didn’t get it.

I am still formulating my opinions of and intentions for the Special Special, (which comprises four articles on national and international political issues) so I will defer my bloviating on that subject for little while yet.

Continue reading...

Branching out

I’ve decided I want to write about more than just the trials and tribulations of Town Meeting (or – egads! – the Survival Center,) so I started a new web site – www.inAmherst.com. It is in the very earliest stages, and I don’t yet have articles for every category, but I hope it will grow and improve. If you check it out, let me know what you think.

Continue reading...