Milton View

Vote For Milton

2010-10-31T12:15:00.003-04:00

On Tuesday we’ll be voting on a Governor’s race and ballot questions. Each of these votes has implications for Milton.

The 2010 mid-term election is being waged against the backdrop of an economy struggling to recover from the worst recession since the Great Depression. Anxiety, frustration and anger abound. Having been turned out of power in 2008 in the wake of economic disaster, an amnesic Republican party seeks a partial return to power touting the identical economic and fiscal philosophy that resulted in massive deficits and a lessening of proper government regulation of business.

Governor’s Race

Republican challenger Charlie Baker is running on lowering taxes. He wants to lower the income tax from 5.25% to 5%; the sales tax from 6.25% to 5%; and the corporate tax from 8.75% to 5% over four years. Much like the national Republican claims for “trickle down” economics, Baker believes this will spur business growth. He blames Governor Patrick for our unemployment rate, even implying that jobs are leaving the state because of the tax situation. He characterizes Patrick as a tax and spender who should have cut the budget rather than raise the sales tax.

Mr. Baker’s tax cuts would eliminate about $2.5 billion from state revenues. This would be added to the $3.24 billion loss in revenue that occurred when the country sank into a near depression in 2008, an amount the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation called, “the most severe two-year decline in tax collections in the state’s history”. Needless to say, removing $7.24 billion from a $29.4 billion state budget, a significant portion of which is non-discretionary, cannot be accomplished by vague and cynical references to waste, welfare recipients and illegal immigrants.

It is simply not possible to accommodate this level of revenue loss without significant, painful, and unprecedented cuts to programs like Chapter 70 Funding for Education and Aid to Cities and Towns (potential consequences for Milton will be discussed under Question 3 commentary). Other than the “Baker’s Dozen” list of reforms and changes, representing a small fraction of the cuts that would have to be made, Mr. Baker has carefully avoided telling us how cutting the budget by this amount can be done without severe reductions in services at the state and local level.

But is Mr. Baker right in pinning our fiscal situation on Governor Patrick? Is he a “tax and spender”? Are businesses moving out of the state? Must we sacrifice adequate funding of our schools and other town services to fund tax cuts that will miraculously save a moribund economy?

Governor Patrick took office with many plans for moving this state forward. He wanted to encourage key industries that leverage our strengths as a state; increase funding for education to improve outcomes; provide property tax relief; among many others. Less than mid-way through his term he was faced with a national economic situation worse than any Massachusetts Governor has faced since the 1930’s. In spite of this he made significant progress in key areas.

While every state was impacted by the economic situation, not every state has been recovering at the same pace. In Massachusetts the unemployment rate has declined from 9.5% in January to 8.4% in September. The latest quarterly economic report shows our state continuing to grow at twice the national rate. And contrary to Mr. Baker’s claim that Massachusetts is inhospitable to business, the most recent annual study by CNBC places Massachusetts 5th in the nation in friendliness to business against a broad range of key factors.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/37554006/

On the education front the news is very good. Massachusetts ranks at the top nationally in mathematics and reading at both the 4th and 8th grade level according to the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Perhaps even more impressive was our students’ performance on the international TIMSS test of mathematics and science against students from around the world. In the 2007 test, Massachusetts 4th graders ranked 2nd in science and tied for 3rd in mathematics. Massachusetts 8th graders tied for 1st in science and finished 6th in mathematics. Despite the recession, Governor Patrick continues to fund Chapter 70 at historically high levels.

Property tax relief has been more difficult to deliver with revenue losses from the recession. Despite this, property taxes under Patrick have increased annually at 4.1%, 3.7%, 3.3% and 3.2%. Under the previous Governor Mitt Romney they increased 6%, 6%, 5%, and 5.6%. Imagine what the Governor could have done with even an average economy. And imagine what these rates will be if Baker’s tax cuts go into effect.

So despite a terrible national economy Governor Patrick made progress toward some important goals. Far from relying on taxing and spending, the average annual increase in state spending under Patrick was 1.7%. Mitt Romney’s budgets increased 6.6% annually and when Charlie Baker was in charge of the state budget in the 1990’s they increased by 5% annually. Patrick has managed a tough fiscal climate with budget cuts (approximately $1.4 billion according to the Massachusetts Tax Foundation) judicious use of the rainy day fund, Federal stimulus money, and an increase in the sales tax.

We have a stark choice on Tuesday. We can continue the progress we’ve seen in Governor Patrick’s first term and maintain as many core services as possible while the state economy continues to improve, or we can turn to Charlie Baker’s drastic remedy for a misdiagnosed economic situation, putting money in your pocket that you’ll then need to spend at the local level in increased property taxes to avoid devastation of services. One choice is progress, the other a cynical shell game to get elected.

Questions 3 and 1

Carla Howell, Massachusetts best known Libertarian is back trying to throw a monkey wrench into the government budget and state services. Question 3 proposes rolling back the sales tax, not from 6.25% to 5% where it was, but to 3%. This proposal is so extreme that even Charlie Baker is opposed to it. The revenue loss if this measure passes would be $2.5 billion, similar to the cost of Mr. Baker’s entire package of tax cuts. Proponents of this measure continue to maintain that we are a particularly tax burdened state, justifying draconian cuts in taxes. Of course Carla Howell also maintains we can cut this amount from the budget with no loss of core services. At one time Massachusetts deserved the title of “Taxachusetts”, but that was long ago. In 1978 our total state tax burden was 11.5% of income and we ranked 4th nationally. The latest figures from 2008 put our tax burden at 9.5% of income, ranking us 23rd in the country.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/460.html

The Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, in a report called “Question 3, Heading Over the Cliff” has detailed the disaster this ballot question would cause, and demonstrates perhaps why businesses in Massachusetts oppose this measure. You can read the report here:

http://www.masstaxpayers.org/sites/masstaxpayers.org/files/MTF%20Question%203%20Report.pdf

Simulations of the size of needed cuts to Chapter 70 Aid and General Aid to Cities and Towns have been run. Milton would stand to lose just under $1 million. You can see the simulation data by clicking on the link at the bottom of this page.

http://www.mma.org/local-aid-and-finance/4976-sales-tax-ballot-question-threatens-local-aid

Question 1 would eliminate the sales tax on alcohol which was included in the bill increasing the sales tax. Funds from this component of the sales tax largely go to funding substance abuse treatment programs around the state. Massachusetts was one of only 6 states in the country that didn’t impose a sales tax on alcohol. Proponents of repeal, funded by $2 million from the liquor industry, complain that this represents double taxation on alcohol and is driving business to New Hampshire. But all of the states taxing alcohol also have an excise tax at the wholesale level, so Massachusetts is hardly doing anything unusual. As for alcohol sales, they are up in Massachusetts since the tax was imposed.

It’s over but for the voting folks. Those who show up, win. I urge you to vote for a second term for Governor Patrick and reject Questions 1 and 3. Otherwise, there will be severe repercussions on our own struggle with fiscal affairs right here in Milton.

Letter to Representative Timilty on Ulin Rink

2010-06-20T20:24:00.005-04:00

Rep.WalterTimilty@hou.state.ma.us

Dear Representative Timilty,

I heard with dismay your comments at the Milton Board of Selectmen Meeting on the subject of the Ulin Rink. You stated, and Representative Scaccia agreed, that you would not support Senator Joyce’s 25 year lease because it could lead to “privatization” of the rink.
It’s very important to use words carefully, especially when they might mislead people about issues. No matter who leases or obtains a permit to Ulin rink, and no matter who operates the rink (municipality, non-profit, or private operator) Ulin Rink will remain the property of the Commonwealth and oversight of its operations will remain under the purview of DCR.

This oversight is extensive. All state owned rinks must adhere to uniform guidelines. These include:

Minimal requirements for public skating
Mandatory ice scheduling meetings
Restrictions on fee increases
Minimum maintenance and capital expenditure requirements
Regular Inspections by DCR
Insurance and performance bond requirements

Your use of the term privatization is not only wrong technically, it also fails to expose any negative consequences from private companies actually operating rinks. In practice, their ice rental rates are less than municipally operated rinks or the one rink operated by a non-profit. Almost 20 state owned rinks are now operated by private companies. If there were any problems with this arrangement, surely you or someone else would be citing these problems by now. Instead, we hear the repetition of claims, or the use of buzzwords like “privatization” even though no evidence supports them, and much evidence refutes them. If you have specific evidence to the contrary, you owe it to your constituents to present it.

Both you and Senator Joyce have introduced bills that could lead to the Town of Milton leasing Ulin Rink. Provided the Town wishes to get the lease, there is no difference between the bills except that your bill provides for a 20 year lease while Senator Joyce’s is for a 25 year lease. Since the town has indicated it wants to execute a long term lease, what possible reason can you have for not supporting the Joyce bill if it becomes the alternative with the best chance of passage? As you must know, Selectman Shields characterization of the Joyce bill as one that doesn’t guarantee Milton preference is wrong.

Your failure to support a Joyce alternative bill could lead to the worst outcome for users of the rink as well as state taxpayers, who now see a $330,000 drain on rink operations. Each of the Selectmen finds a 5 year permit an inferior option for the town. And yet if you fail to support Senator Joyce’s bill and neither bill passes, the default outcome is the DCR’s 5 year permit.
It’s difficult to understand your opposition since it doesn’t seem to be supported by anything. It leads people to wonder if you are simply unwilling to see Senator Joyce get some credit for the many years he has spent on this issue. Failure to resolve this years ago has cost the Massachusetts taxpayers a great deal of money, and users (and potential users) of the Ulin rink have been served less well than residents of those communities who have embraced non-state operational status.

I urge you to reconsider your position and support whichever of the two bills will pass to allow Milton to proceed under a long term lease.

Sincerely,

Philip Mathews

P.S. This letter will be posted to my blog.

www.miltonview.blogspot.com

Ulin Rink Fiasco

2010-06-16T14:50:00.008-04:00

On January 11th, the Division of Conservation and Recreation issued an RFP for 5 five state-owned skating rinks, including Milton’s Ulin rink, currently operated by the DCR. This RFP was but the latest step in an almost 10 year process to remove the state from the management of ice rinks. The operation of these rinks, together with the high capital costs associated with them, were the impetus. To-date, 29 of the 43 state owned rinks have gone through the same or a similar process with great success. The economic crisis of the last few years creates a greater sense of urgency as budget cuts have seriously impacted the DCR. The Ulin Rink in Milton, for example, loses $334,000 per year, and no money is being banked for capital maintenance.
I suspect that the DCR anticipated a relatively smooth process given their many rounds of permitting and leasing successes. The specifics of the RFP had been refined over many years. The use of private operators (19 of 29 rinks) has been shown to be a huge win/win for the state, communities and the skating public (see link to Pioneer Institute Study). The towns in the latest round of RFP’s were given the same right of first refusal that all other communities were given. Guarantees of rate restraint and preservation of current allocations of ice time were made. There is a wealth of experience and data to relatively quickly assess the options and choose a prudent course of action.
And yet at the latest discussion of Ulin Rink by the Board of Selectman we hear Selectmen Shields and Sweeney blaming the state for the predicament the town now finds itself in -- facing a deadline and not really knowing what it will do. How did we get to this point? Why hasn’t the Board talked to private rink operators as an option? Why do the Ulin rink discussions cover the same ground over and over again, beginning to resemble a send up of the movie Ground Hog Day? Why, after 6 months, must we depend on Senator Brian Joyce to get us a fifth deadline extension to June 30th?
The answer is simple. From the very beginning Selectman John Shields has stated his opposition to having a private operator involved with the town. Since his arrival on the Board, Selectman Sweeney has echoed this same theme. They claim that under a private operator ice time will not be guaranteed for Milton Youth Hockey and other non-profits. They claim that private operators will jack up prices making it unaffordable. Without the private operator option, the town is left with either operating the rink ourselves, a risk the Selectmen understandably do not want to take, or finding a non-profit to take it over. And it is this option, and this option alone, that has been pursued, largely by a great commitment of time by volunteers. Meanwhile, the Board of Selectman has failed to fully explore the option of a private operator.
Had the private operator route been examined, the Board would have discovered that fears of lost ice time and unreasonably high prices are without foundation. After all, there is a lengthy record involving numerous communities. Readily available public information exists demonstrating the high degree of success of private operators in expanding access, maintaining reasonable rates, ensuring ice time, securing financial stability, and making ongoing investments in maintenance and capital improvements.
In 2006 the Pioneer Institute published a study on the success of competitive contracting of state owned ice rinks. As part of that study they included a survey of ice rink rental fees for 96 ice rinks conducted by Facilities Management Corp. a private rink operator. Here are the results.

Operator------------------------------------------------------Cost Per Hour

State-owned rinks under long-term lease,-pvt. operator-------------$160
State-owned rinks under long-term lease,-munic. operator-----------$172
Municipal Rinks----------------------------------------------------$189
Non-Profit Rinks---------------------------------------------------$199
College Rinks------------------------------------------------------$204
School Rinks-------------------------------------------------------$215
Private Rinks------------------------------------------------------$240

In March of this year I did a quick survey of DCR rinks and a few others covering the area inside Route 495. Most have a two tier rate system –one rate for non-profits, and one for everyone else. Since the concern is about youth hockey and school hockey, these are the non-profit rates.

DCR Operated Rinks-------------------------------------------------$175

Boston (7rinks)
Medford (2 rinks)
Milton
Quincy
Somerville
Weymouth

Municipal Operated Rinks

Arlington-------------------------------------------------$225
Haverhill-------------------------------------------------$210
Peabody---------------------------------------------------$190
Canton----------------------------------------------------$200
Everett---------------------------------------------------$180
Waltham---------------------------------------------------$180

Non-Profit Operated Rinks

Boston Daly Mem. Rink/Newton Country Day School-----------$235

Private Operated Rinks

Facilities Management Corp. (9 rinks)---------------------$180
North Shore Rink Mgt. Assoc. (2 rinks)--------------------$210

Non-DCR Rinks

Stoneham Arena--------------------------------------------$210
Quincy Youth Arena (oper. by Quincy Youth Hockey)---------$290*

*Sept.1 – March 30 Prime (5pm-10pm) Non-prime $250

As you can readily see, the claim of higher rates by private operators of DCR rinks is a myth. They are more than competitive with other forms of management. FMC, the largest operator and the one to have already contacted the town about discussing an operating arrangement, is as competitive as any non-DCR operated location, and only $5 per hour higher than the DCR rates.
I’m not a champion of privatizing government functions. Often the savings are illusory and providers are less responsive to citizens. But this is a special circumstance. The economic model used by DCR cannot be successful. The employees of the DCR can only devote 4-6 months per year to rink management. The rest of the year they must manage 450,000 acres of forests, parks, greenways, historic sites, seashores, lakes, ponds, and other state owned properties. The financials for a 4-6 month season do not work while maintaining reasonable prices. But a 9 or 10 month season can, and private operators have lead the way in showing how this can be done. The results over and over have been reasonable prices, preserved ice time, large expansion of public use, and capital investment to preserve these important assets. Some private operators do all this and also make not so modest payments to the communities they serve.
The Board of Selectmen needs to get serious about this issue. The track record for success for non-profits operating ice rinks in Massachusetts is paper thin. It’s time to put aside the petty politics and the attempts to protect certain members of Youth Hockey. The Board has a responsibility to the Town and to all who use the rink today and in the future. Talk to some of the many communities with private operators. Meet with private operators and get their perspective while asking them to address concerns they may have. This shouldn’t be this hard, and wouldn’t be if the process had been undertaken with complete openness rather than being constrained by a desired outcome based on unreasonable fears of change. This multi-million dollar asset should be managed by professionals who have the best chance to be successful while protecting both the town and the state from what is currently a money losing proposition.

http://www.pioneerinstitute.org/pdf/06_04_skatingrink.pdf

Decision Time or Yard Signs Don't Vote

2010-04-26T00:18:00.003-04:00

Three years ago Kathy Fagan threw her hat into the ring for a seat on the Board of Selectman. Although she had been involved in town affairs, she was unknown to many Milton residents. She ran on a legitimate platform for change, responding to a clear groundswell of feeling that the most important Board of Town Government simply didn’t represent a town much changed over the last 20 years. She vowed to focus on tackling problems the town faces rather than trying to turn the clock back to a time that is gone forever.

She took this message to the voters in her intelligent, energetic and respectful way. They responded, and she won, defeating incumbent James Mullen in a close race. In the three years since she has begun to deliver on issues she campaigned on. That’s why I endorsed her three weeks ago.

But much remains to be done. And those who see change and progress as a threat are poised to attempt to defeat her. If we look at the campaign of her opponent, it differs in style but not content from her opponent three years ago. His campaign themes are meaningless (Putting the taxpayer first), contradictory (smart growth/ commercial development only in commercial districts), or code for no overrides (Be fiscally accountable). Supporter and loser in the race three years ago James Mullen attended the COA debate and in his loud way asked a question about the last override to make sure opponents of overrides got the message.

Rather than addressing any of the challenges we face in a thoughtful way, the Sweeney campaign has spread false rumors about Fagan’s stance on dense residential housing on the Governor Stoughton land. They’re trolling for votes on private ways telling people they going to lose free plowing, clearly an issue of monumental importance to the future of the town. And then there is Mr. Sweeney’s response to a question about diversity at the first Selectman’s debate. I print his answer verbatim.

“I fully understand your question, and I do believe there’s a minority population out there that feels a bit isolated. In my case, after about the second night of town meeting, I deliberately made an attempt to meet with some African American people who shared the same view as I did on the Temple issue and I talked to them in the back and I was really trying to lead them, to get them involved and to let them know there was certainly one town meeting member that welcomed their input, and recently I’ve spoken to an African American gentleman from Precinct 1 who’s upset about the issue and he’s a candidate for town meeting. So I think in terms of the issue of minorities I think we need to reach our hand out to them a little bit better. They’re part of the community, and they’re welcome so long as they do what the rest of us do –work hard, contribute, etc., and I think we could improve our relations in that area.”

Do we really want to go thru this again. I have no reason to believe there is a hateful bone in Mr. Sweeney’s body. But the sheer insensitivity, and blindness to prejudice that statement represents is astounding. Diversity is reduced to reaching out on condition of agreeing with him politically, and on not exhibiting traits he apparently associates with certain non-white groups.

Let’s focus on the serious challenges we face as a community, a whole community. Get out and vote for Kathy Fagan for Selectman on Tuesday.

Board of Assessor Endorsement

2010-04-26T00:16:00.000-04:00

There are three candidates for this office. Last year I supported Todd Greenwood in his race against Thomas Gunning. This year he and Jim Henderson are running against Kathi Heffernan.

Todd is a strong candidate and if he were running against one of the other incumbents I could easily support him. His educational background and experience in Quantitative Analysis equip him for the job. A year ago he took the Assessors course offered by the Department of Revenue.

But he’s running against a bright spot on the current board. Kathi Heffernan is dedicated to a job she’s done for some time and done well. While opponent Jim Henderson seems to believe the Board should be “advocates” for taxpayers, Kathi properly understands the role as adhering to well prescribed procedures to ensure fair and accurate valuations of real estate, and to properly adjudicate requests for abatements.

I’m looking at a piece of literature from Jim Henderson’s campaign. It asks, “Frustrated with your tax assessment?” and goes on to suggest a vote for change. Is Mr. Henderson promising lower assessments? Just for those who vote for him, or everyone? Does he have some reason to believe there is a problem with assessments? As a CPA he touts his knowledge of taxes. But a CPA is paid by a client to use the tax code to minimize tax payments. That is not the job he is running for. A member of the board of Assessors has certain limited power affecting individual Milton residents. They can neither be advocate for nor against any taxpayer. Kathi Heffernan’s appreciation of this important point explains why she has never taken political contributions while serving in this role.

I hope Todd Greenwood runs for the Board of Assessors next year. This year, I hope you vote for Kathi Heffernan.

School Committee Endorsements

2010-04-25T12:40:00.005-04:00

With four candidates seeking two seats we certainly have a spectrum of choices for the school committee. The school committee post is challenging. Complex problems of education, finance, management and personnel continually confront anyone who takes on the challenge. I’m supporting the two candidates who I believe offer the best skills and temperament for the job. I’m endorsing Glenn Pavlicek and Denis Keohane.

Both Glenn and Denis are staunch supporters of the French Immersion program. While all of the candidates responded “no” to a question at the League of Women voters debate about whether they would ever agree to do away with the program, that is not in my view a commitment to safeguard it from misguided political pressures that could affect the program without eliminating it. Let’s understand that the value of this program accrues not just to the students in it, but to the entire school system and town as a symbol of educational excellence and innovation.

Glenn Pavlicek

Glenn is an extremely valuable member of the School Committee, bringing a wide range of skills and knowledge to a multi-faceted and complex role. He is not a single issue candidate seeking office to advance a specific cause. He has always worked to improve every aspect of the system to serve every student in the system.

As Chair of the Warrant Committee and member of the School Building Committee Glenn has had a key role in the construction of our new schools. He was a member of the citizens’ group “Fair Funding for Milton” that helped secure over $500,000 a year in Payments In Lieu of Taxes for the town. His work on Special Education includes working with the Department of Education on compliance issues, and supporting changes in instruction and curriculum that permitted a 20% reduction in out-of-district placements. These students are now educated in their home town, as they should be, and the system saves money doing so.

Three years ago Glenn pledged during his campaign to improve the level of communication and the openness of the school system. Today we have a stellar team of administrators running our schools. They work tirelessly to inform, educate and explain what’s happening with education in Milton.

The current economic crisis presents a serious challenge to educational excellence. Federal Stimulus money will cushion the blow somewhat for the coming fiscal year, but beginning the following year deep cuts are in the cards.

As an educator with long experience in town finance, Glenn is uniquely qualified to meet this challenge. He recognizes there are no easy solutions of the kind that make for great political slogans. He will do what he has always done, work quietly and effectively to get the job done.
Please support Glenn Pavlicek with one of your two votes for School Committee on April 27th.

Denis Keohane

Denis is a successful, self-made businessman. I was first struck by his obvious commitment to education, exhibited by his own decision to attend college as an adult and while building his business- not an easy thing. He “wanted to lead my children by example” he has said.

He has announced his intention to focus on the business side of the committee’s activities-- budgeting, management and negotiating. Not only is this his expertise, but he understands that educational strategy and policy are the province of the Superintendent, with committee input.

We’ve all heard business executives who’ve claimed that if government or education were run like businesses we’d be better off. Of course businesses and government are entirely different undertakings and skepticism of such remarks is warranted. But Denis is not saying that. He is saying that to have a member with his perspective on the committee improves it by adding skills while not losing sight of the uniqueness of an educational mission.

I know some people have expressed concern with the strength of some statements Denis made at the Milton League of Women Voters debate. He is a political novice after all, and I think he was simply trying to distinguish himself and emphasize his areas of expertise.

We have a very experienced committee membership at the moment. It’s a good time for someone with a deep passion for the power of education and a different professional background to come on board. Denis Keohane is offering his service to the town and I think we should accept his offer.

I hope you’ll give your second School Committee vote to Denis Keohane.

Planning Board Endorsement

2010-04-22T15:49:00.002-04:00

This is a difficult endorsement. Difficult because the incumbent, Ed Duffy, is a good man. We’ve been on the same side politically often, and occasionally on opposite sides, as with the Tucker Village proposal. Between his employment and years on the planning board, he’s given half a century of service to the town he was born in and loves. He deserves our sincere thanks.

As I watched the debates for this office, Ed’s refusal to consider any change to our basic zoning struck me as wholly incompatible with the approach we need to consider to keep Milton strong in the future. The zoning worked well for a time, but doesn't serve our needs going forward.

It was about 75 years ago that Milton developed its zoning laws. These laws and the effort to write them are treated with almost religious reverence by those who adamantly oppose any commercial development outside of the present commercial districts, ever. Based on original Euclidean zoning principles, land uses were strictly segregated, with residential zones separated, isolated, from the other uses. These other uses were much more likely to be industrial or manufacturing. It made good sense to separate homes from the noise, pollution and sometimes noxious fumes factories often produced.

Today, far fewer jobs come from smokestack industries and protection from their effects is less important. The three small commercial zones might have served a good deal of the needs of a pre-WWII community when the automobile was far less prevalent and the population 10,000 less than today. But times have changed. Milton probably has as many automobiles today as it had people in the 1930’s. The culture of work has changed, with two earner families now the norm. The pace of life has so accelerated that convenience now commands high value, especially to families with young children. Local amenities that save time are in demand, as people have no time to drive to the other side of town, or out of town, for things they need. Nor does it help traffic problems that now manifest themselves in almost all parts of Milton when a substantial car trip is needed to buy almost anything.

Oddly enough, many who hold the 75 year old zoning ordinance sacrosanct describe themselves as supporting “Smart Growth”. Current Selectman John Shields did in his campaign four years ago. Current Selectman candidate Sweeney proclaims as much as he declares support for commercial development in the three established zones only. One has to wonder if they’ve read anything about Smart Growth-- two of the core principles of which are mixed use development, and the creation of walkable neighborhoods. How do three small commercial districts located on the periphery of the town accomplish that?

Cheryl Tougias represents a different perspective on key planning issues and would bring to the board an appropriate skill set. Cheryl is a registered architect, who obtained her Masters Degree in architecture from Columbia University. She owns and operates an architectural firm. She has many years experience designing and taking through the approval process numerous types of projects. She is committed to sustainable design and historic preservation.

Cheryl is an impressive woman. Her design background is diverse, and she has worked with a large number of approval authorities. She understands the value of building consensus and the vital role planning can play in laying the necessary foundation for it. The Planning Board would benefit from what she has learned from dealing with other planning organizations, and the Town would benefit from her professional credentials in a job that should take on even more importance in the years to come.

I urge you to support Cheryl Tougias for Planning Board on April 27th.

Campaign Politics

2010-04-19T00:02:00.003-04:00

From the day Robert Sweeney announced his intention to run against Kathy Fagan for Selectman, there was a suspicion among many that Mr. Sweeney was motivated primarily by the future of the Governor Stoughton land that abuts his neighborhood. Now he appears to be attempting to win the election by completely misstating Ms. Fagan’s position on that very issue.

Over two years ago the Board of Selectman appointed a committee to study and recommend potential land uses for the Town Poor Farm, consistent with the will of Governor Stoughton. Robert Sweeney was co-Chair of that committee. Their report was issued in December with the single recommendation that an endowment fund of $5 million be established, with three alternatives for raising such a fund. One of those alternatives involved developing the property for affordable housing.

During the last few weeks the Sweeney campaign has been telling voters that Kathy Fagan supports high-density affordable housing on the Governor Stoughton land. This claim is completely false. Understandably it hasn’t been made publically in literature, or in debates. In politics there is often an underground campaign waged simultaneously with the public one. Unfortunately, in Milton it’s been raised to an art form over the years. Using the ancient network of the rumor mill, you can communicate what you wouldn’t want to answer to publically over the back yard fence, at sporting events, while dropping the kids off to school or wherever you meet fellow residents. If you’re lucky, the campaign is not discovered until it’s too late for the truth to overtake it.

Kathy Fagan opposes high-density affordable housing on the Governor Stoughton land. In fact, she opposes high-density housing anywhere in the town because she believes the costs associated with providing town services, especially school costs, would outweigh the benefits. If you’d like to see it in Kathy’s own words, click on the link to her website on the left.

Now, let’s focus our attention on the broad portfolio of issues we have every right to expect our Selectmen to deal with. We’ve begun to make real progress on some fronts during a frightful economic period. A single issue candidate motivated by an issue with a personal interest on the Board of Selectman would be a step back.

If you think your friends might be victims of the underground campaign, forward them a link to this blog or to Kathy’s website. While you’re visiting Kathy’s website, take a look at the debate segments posted there. I think they speak for themselves about who is best equipped to deal with the many issues we face.

You can see the complete League of Women's Voters debate for all positions here:

http://lwvmilton.homestead.com/YouTube.html

Beware Complacency

2010-04-05T22:35:00.002-04:00

It’s April, which means it’s election time in Milton. Ordinarily, any endorsement I might make for a candidate comes just before the election. Not this year.

Kathy Fagan is running for re-election to the Milton Board of Selectman. In contemplating this fact, I recalled the Spring of 2007 when Kathy won election against a Milton political institution. I reread posts I made during that campaign. As I did so, the emotions—concern, frustration, embarrassment, and sadness --came flooding back.

I also recalled what a breath of fresh air Kathy represented to the status quo. A status quo that just in the weeks leading up to the election recommended a cut in trash sticker fees in the midst of a major budget deficit; disparaged the work of a town employee publically; dismissed a racist letter to Milton No Place for Hate; and made irresponsible last minute changes in a $1 million plan for the Central Avenue business district funded by a state grant.

The choice was a stark one. We could continue to muddle along ignoring, or failing to recognize, important risks to Milton’s future. Or we could begin the difficult and lengthy process of identifying and facing these risks. We could find our vision for Milton in the present and near term future, or in the rapidly receding image in the rear view mirror.

How different is the Spring of 2010. Kathy’s impact on the Board of Selectmen and the town was immediate. Acrimony has been replaced with civility and respect. The Town’s agenda items are completely different. No longer do we spend time on a quixotic effort to preserve a 100 year old town structure, or roll back taxes at a time we desperately need revenues, or fight old grudges with actions that cost a major Milton institution hundreds of thousands of dollars. Instead we’re enjoying new restaurants that will also provide a small stream of revenue to the town. We’re embarking on a wind turbine project with town revenue measured in the millions of dollars. Construction is underway in the Central Avenue business district. We’ve opened a wonderful new library that is smashing all records for patronage. Bulk purchasing of things like energy is saving us thousands of dollars. And we can even pay bills on the town’s website.

All of this would be an enviable record in the best of times. But the last 3 years have not been the best of times. The country is just beginning to emerge from the worst economic crisis since the depression. Despite plummeting state aid, we were able to preserve most of our services while resisting any temptation to tap the rainy day fund. Thus our bond rating remains stellar and borrowing costs minimized. All of the things we continue to do to make Milton a great place to live rewarded homeowners with one of the lowest impacts on real estate prices in the state.

So why an early endorsement? Well, in part because of the excellent job Kathy has done. But also in part because I’m not getting the sense that people realize how far we’ve come from the Spring of 2007. There seems to be a high level of complacency for both the progress we’re starting to make, and for Kathy’s re-election campaign.

Kathy’s opponent is well financed and starts the campaign with some ready- made constituencies, some eager to turn back the clock. If you want to see continued progress on issues that matter to you, you need to get involved. Kathy is having a fundraiser this Friday night, April 9 at the View Restaurant and Tavern, Presidents Golf Course. Drop in and say hi. Relax, have a drink, talk with interesting people like yourself, and drop off a check to help the campaign. Can’t make the date? Then use the secure link at http://www.fagan4milton.org to donate or send a check to The Committee to Elect Kathy Fagan at 78 Capen Street, Milton, MA 02186.

Let's not take a step backwards.

Ulin Rink

2010-03-19T11:23:00.004-04:00

On January 11th, the Department of Conservation and Recreation issued a Request for Proposals on five rinks in the greater Boston area, including Ulin Rink in Milton. The RFPs invite bids by interested parties to lease these rinks on a five year basis and allowed municipalities a “prequalification period” during which a municipality could submit an application on a prequalified basis to take over the management of the rinks. The deadline for such an application was February 17th.

On February 18th, the issue was raised at the Selectmen’s meeting by members of Milton Youth Hockey during Citizens Speak. In the ensuing discussion, Chair John Shields characterized as a lie a commitment by Senator Brian Joyce that the town would have more time to respond.

On March 5th, the Boston Herald ran a story that presumably passes for journalism in that publication. In it, the reporter acted as nothing more than a public relations organ for a group of Milton residents who maintain against all reason that private operation of Ulin Rink would have negative consequences for Milton citizens. John Shields was quoted as asking, “what’s it in for Senator Joyce” in describing Joyce’s support for the town utilizing a professional management company to manage Ulin Rink.

The prequalification period has been extended to May 3, almost 4 months since the state issued the RFP’s. One hopes that Mr. Shields, Chair of the Board of Selectman, is doing more than issuing the intemperate remarks he’s known for. Not only is the clock ticking, but it should hardly be news to the Town that the state has been trying to get out of the ice rink management business for some years now. Over 70% of the state owned rinks are managed by non-state entities, and when the five urban rinks are under lease, only 9 of the 43 state rinks will still be managed by the state.

Senator Joyce had planned to discuss this issue further with the Board of Selectmen at their meeting Thursday night. Sometime Wednesday, the Senator was informed that Ulin rink was not on the agenda.

I asked the Senator to send me what he was going to present, and after reading it, I asked him if I could publish the material on my blog. He agreed. This is an important issue for the town. It is important for the Selectmen to examine all their options and not just assume the town or a non-profit with no experience should attempt to run this multi-million dollar asset.

-------------------------------------------------
March 17, 2010

Dear Town Officials and Interested Citizens,

A fair amount of concern and some misinformation have circulated recently regarding the future of the state owned and operated Max Ulin Rink. I write to inform you of the current situation. This week the Massachusetts Senate again passed legislation that would lease this estimated $5,000,000 facility to the Town of Milton for twenty-five years at a rate of $1 per year. Should that legislation not pass the House of Representatives, the Patrick Administration will instead move forward with its plan that does not require legislative approval to offer the facility to the Town for five years, and if refused, to private entities.

It is my sincere hope that the House will pass my bill, a variation of which has passed the Senate for eight consecutive years, for three reasons:

1. State taxpayer savings of at least $12,500,000 over twenty-five years.
2. New revenue to the Town of Milton of an estimated $2,500,000 over twenty-five years.
3. Professionally run year round facility, with abundant low cost ice time available to Milton’s High School and Youth Hockey programs.

State Taxpayer Savings of $12,500,000

The current annual operating loss of Ulin Rink is some $334,000 and growing. Also, money is not being set aside for necessary and inevitable capital repairs and improvements. Thus the estimated twenty-five year cost of $12,500,000 to the state’s taxpayers if current operations remain unchanged is likely a conservative one.

Moreover, DCR Commissioner Rick Sullivan has indicated to me that inaction is not an option in light of a projected 30% cut in DCR’s operating budget. He believes that the department must permit or lease the facility in order to ensure its continued long-term operation.[1]

Estimated New Town Revenue of $2,500,000

Senate Bill 2327 would not only professionalize operations at the Ulin Rink, save state taxpayers millions, and result in a better facility remaining open year-round; it would also create a new source of revenue for the Town.

I do not propose that the Town hire additional employees with resultant salary, health care, pension and other costs, nor do I propose additional responsibilities for existing personnel. Rather, I propose that the Town contract with a professional rink management company to operate the facility at no risk to the Town, while simultaneously receiving new recurring revenue.

The state would, of course, insist upon an open and competitive bid process for the selection of such a management company. To aid in my calculations on this matter, I contacted FMC Ice Sports, which currently operates twenty-five public skating rinks in Massachusetts, to determine what they would offer to the Town for the right to operate Ulin Rink.

FMC would offer Milton a similar arrangement to that which it has with Boston, Chelmsford and Everett, and would pay 5% of all gross revenues to the Town, with a guaranteed minimum of $50,000 per year. Based on its past experience, FMC estimates that the Town’s revenue could eventually exceed $100,000 per year. Over a period of twenty-five years, that could result in over $2,500,000 in new revenue for Milton.

FMC or another company would also set aside 5% of revenue each year toward capital repairs and improvements, which would ensure a properly maintained facility.

Finally, FMC indicated that it would provide the Town with a bond that would protect the Town from any financial exposure, name the Town and Commonwealth as additional insureds on all liability, property, workers compensation and other insurance, and absorb any unexpected losses while maintaining payments to the Town.[2]

Guarantee Existing Ice Time and Price for Milton High School and Youth Hockey, as well as continued use of Locker Rooms and Storage Facility

FMC has indicated a willingness to ensure that both Milton High School and Milton Youth Hockey keep all of their existing ice time, that the rink rental rates charged to those teams be frozen for five years, and that any increases thereafter require DCR approval. No such written guarantees of ice availability for Milton High School and Youth Hockey currently exist. Also, ice rental rates would most likely rise if the state continues to operate the rink. An informal survey of rink rental rates conducted by my office indicates that the rates that would be paid by Milton Youth Hockey and Milton Public Schools under my plan would likely be the lowest in the region.

And since public officials recently raised questions concerning the conversion of a cinderblock storage room to a locker room by Curry College at the college’s expense, the DCR is now reviewing its policies that allow at least eight other non-profit organizations near-exclusive use of skating rink facilities. The DCR indicated that any changes to current policy would likely be uniform.

The Town could protect the current exclusive usage of locker room facilities by the Milton High School girls’ and boys’ hockey teams at Ulin, the exclusive storage facility usage by Milton Youth Hockey, and, if desired, the locker room usage by Curry College, as part of its contract with a management company.

Better Maintained and Operated Facility Open Year Round

By professionalizing the management of the Max Ulin Rink, the Town and its skaters would enjoy a better maintained and operated facility with double the amount of available ice time for our children.

My own experience as a parent of five hockey players has convinced me that private operators run better rink facilities than the state. A noted public policy institute reached the same conclusion: The Pioneer Institute for Public Policy Research issued a White Paper in 2006 called Long-Term Leasing of State Skating Rinks: A Competitive Contracting Success Story, wherein it concluded that state owned rinks operated by private operators result in (i) increased ice availability; (ii) the least expensive ice rentals in the state; (iii) greater rink attendance; and (iv) more capital investment in rink improvements.[3]

Conclusion

I believe that Senate Bill 2327 would save state taxpayers at least $12.5 million over a period of twenty-five years, create $2.5 million of new revenue for the Town over that same period, and ensure that Milton’s youth enjoy an abundance of inexpensive ice time in a well maintained, professionally run facility. Alternatively, if Senate Bill 2327 does not become law, I believe that the governor will exercise his prerogative to permit Ulin Rink for five years in order to save very limited state resources for higher priority items. While the latter approach would save state tax dollars and likely afford Milton’s skaters more inexpensive ice time, I believe that my legislation promises greater financial benefits to the Town.

Thank you for taking the time to read this letter and for the opportunity to represent you in the Massachusetts Senate. If you have any questions concerning this or any other matter, please do not hesitate to contact me by email at bjoyce@senate.state.ma.us or by telephone at my office (617) 722-1643, or at my home (617) 696-0200.

Sincerely,

Brian A. Joyce
State Senator

[1] Commissioner Sullivan’s letter dated March 15, 2010 is Attachment 1 to this letter.

[2] FMC’s letter dated March 8 is attached to this letter as Attachment 2.
[3] The Pioneer Institute’s White Paper can be found at www.pioneerinstitute.org/pdf/06_04_skatingrink.pdf. Other reports of note include the Department of Conservation and Recreation’s Interim Report with Accompanying Recommendations for Legislative Actions by the Department of Conservation and Recreation, Relative to the Feasibility and Merits of Executing Long Term Lease Arrangements for Recreational Facilities that are Under the Control of the Department found at: http://www.mass.gov/dcr/documents/rinks_report.pdf, and from the Office of the Inspector General, a November 2002 report entitled Long-Term Leasing of DEM Skating Rinks, which can be accessed at: www.mass.gov/ig/publ/demrinks.pdf. The IG’s report notes that its review was as a result of my request to ensure that state rink leases maximize state revenues, maintain full access to skating for the public at reasonable hours and rates, and maintain sufficient oversight to ensure the taxpayers’ interests were protected.

-----------------------------------------------------

March 8, 2010

Senator Brian A. Joyce Room 413-A State House Boston, MA 02133

Dear Brian,

Thank you for your inquiry on the potential third party operator proposals the Town of Milton could expect should it exercise its option to lease and operate the Max Ulin Skating Rink owned and currently operated by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

It is my professional opinion that a long term lease of the facility and subsequent bid for a management firm would benefit the Town and the citizens served by the Ulin skating rink.

My company currently operates twenty five public skating rinks throughout Massachusetts in partnership with the Commonwealth, municipalities and a college. In some instances we operate state-owned ice skating rinks as a third-party partner with municipalities such as the City of Boston (Roche Arena in West Roxbury), the Town of Chelmsford (Tully Forum), and the City of Everett (Allied Veteran’s Skating Rink).

These arrangements have proved effective in achieving the public recreation purpose of the facility while relieving the municipality of all financial risk as well as the burdens of management and facility programming in the specialized field of ice sports. I’m confident that a similar collaboration would prove to be the most effective approach to guaranteeing the rink serves the recreation needs of the community in the future.

The current RFP issued by the Department of Conservation and Recreation is a laudable attempt by the department to gain operating efficiencies within the constraints of existing legislative authority. However, a longer term lease could be more beneficial to the rink users and the town's taxpayers as it would allow an operator to implement proactive facility and programmatic initiatives necessary to expand services and reverse the current budgetary shortfalls.

The legislation you have filed that is currently under consideration in the legislature would authorize the Commonwealth to lease the facility to the Town for up to twenty five years on a prequalification basis – I am certain this would be the best outcome for all parties, most particularly the citizens served by the rink. This is similar to the agreements FMC and many municipalities have entered into directly with the Commonwealth. It provides the best opportunity to ensure the long-term success and stability of the skating rink.

In the following sections I will briefly outline what I believe would be possible in a long term agreement. I understand that an arrangement such as this would require the Town to initiate an open and competitive public bidding process. My intent is solely to demonstrate the potential benefits that could be achieved by the Town partnering in such a way with FMC or another professional ice rink management firm.

FMC Ice Sports (Facility Management Corporation) is a Massachusetts corporation established in 1992 for the purpose of operating publicly owned ice skating rinks. In the eighteen years since its inception the company has expanded to currently operate twenty five ice rink facilities across the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

The company’s headquarters is located in Pembroke, MA with a senior management staff of over 20. This includes accounting, marketing, sales, maintenance and operations, information technology, concessions and programming divisions. This organizational structure provides for specialized talent and responsibilities in the critical areas of ice rink management, operation and programming.

Our team of senior management works closely with our onsite rink management and staff with extensive training and policy guidelines. As a mature and successful organization we offer a depth of expertise and knowledge of facility operation and ice sport programming that is unparalleled.

The firm has an unblemished record of success in our partnerships with public entities. In particular we have worked closely with the Department of Conservation and Recreation and have a strong organizational commitment to achieving the greatest potential of the DCR rink system. This is not simply a business for us; we take very seriously the public responsibility that comes with operating DCR rinks.

Financial Terms

We believe that the Ulin Skating Rink can be operated in a self-supporting manner with the appropriate application of efficient operating practices and proactive programming and marketing of the facility. As such, we would be willing to assume all financial risk of operations in an agreement with the Town. In addition our revenue and expense projections provide sufficient confidence to make the following statements:

1. We would pay the Town 5% of all gross revenues generated at the facility, with a guaranteed minimum of $50,000 per year. In the early years of a potential agreement this minimum amount would equate to more than 10% of revenues, however we are certain that we can significantly grow revenues by expanding the programs and services available to the citizens and extending the operating season. It is entirely possible that the Town could eventually realize $100,000 or more per year in new revenue. In our public/private partnership at the DCR's Roche Arena in West Roxbury we have consistently increased fee payments by expanding to year round operation, generating approximately $80,000 in 2008 and 2009 that was split between the city of Boston and the Roche Rink Fund, and we expect that payment to increase.

2 We would dedicate an additional 5% of total gross revenues to a set-aside capital sinking fund maintained by the Town or the Commonwealth (as the parties agree) for the sole and exclusive purpose of funding capital repairs and improvements to the facility over the life of an agreement. We believe this amount would be sufficient to ensure available capital for major repairs, replacements and improvements given the existing condition of the facility.

3 Guarantee the Milton High School boys and girls hockey teams and Milton Youth Hockey their current ice rental rate for the first five years of an agreement. Increases subsequent to that time would be subject to DCR authorization to ensure the fees remain affordable.

4 Guarantee the Milton High School boys and girls hockey teams and Milton Youth Hockey their existing ice allocation so long as the ice is used exclusively by the respective programs for the purpose of operating their public and not-for-profit athletic programs. There are currently no such guarantees as to retaining the same ice time and not having increased pricing from the DCR.

5 Guarantee the Milton High School boys and girls hockey teams will maintain their exclusive use of two locker rooms during their season, and the Milton Youth Hockey maintains a storage facility, so long as this practice is approved by DCR (as it is currently).

6 FMC’s compensation would be derived from the operating surplus, if any. Operating deficits would be absorbed by FMC with no risk to the Town. A bond would insure financial performance by FMC. This results-based model incentivizes efficient and customer focused management as well as proactive programming that will increase recreational opportunities for the citizens.

7 Liability, building / property, machinery, workers compensation and auto insurance would be provided by FMC with the Town and Commonwealth as additional insured where appropriate to protect both entities from risk.

8 Provide a detailed monthly report of revenues and attendance to the Town and DCR as well as an independently audited annual financial report. We would utilize online scheduling software that allows the Town or any citizen / user to view ice schedules, public sessions, programs, special events, etc. ensuring financial transparency and accountability.

Management Approach

As the largest operator of publicly owned ice rink facilities in the nation, we have a keen understanding of the need to achieve the public mission in an efficient and creative manner. We don’t view our operation of these important public assets as “privatization”, rather our role is to achieve the maximum public benefit by increasing utilization and extending the operating season, this in turn provides the revenues needed to sustain the operation of the facility without subsidy. In an agreement with the Town we would propose to:

1 Employ all management and support staff for the quality operation of the facility. FMC has created companywide training and development programs as well as operating procedures and guidelines that are centered on the principles of providing a safe, clean and well-maintained facility with affordable user fees to encourage participation.

2 Extend the operating season with the goal of year-round ice operation. While the demand for ice skating and hockey are certainly seasonal, there is a significant percentage of the skating community that would utilize the facility during the spring and summer for recreation and competitive skating as well as hockey leagues and development programs.

3 Expand the existing public skating schedule as per the requirements of DCR.

4 Develop new programming to increase the hours of operation without displacing the existing youth hockey, high school and college users. Our programming focus would be on developmental, niche uses such as ISI recreational skating, adult introductory classes and off-season programs that will supplement but not compete with the existing non-profit youth groups.

5 We would seek to operate the snack bar, vending and skate rental concessions “in-house”, generating needed revenue for rink operation and maintenance.

Maintenance and Operation

FMC would be responsible for all repairs and maintenance to the facility, equipment and grounds. Single repairs exceeding $10,000 or aggregate repair costs over $20,000 in a year would be deducted from the capital reserve sinking fund.

As an operator of a large number of ice rink facilities within a geographic region, we are able to achieve many significant efficiencies in the maintenance and operation of ice arenas. These include:

1 Employ a central maintenance staff that includes a certified refrigeration technician, ASE ice resurfacer mechanic, carpenters and painters.

2 Bulk purchase operation supplies and industry specific materials to achieve best pricing and terms.

3 Aggregate the purchase electricity and natural gas in the competitive market to control these large operating expenses.

4 Negotiate preferred pricing from refrigeration, mechanical, electrical and other service contractors.

5. Maintain spare ice resurfacing equipment in regional “hub” facilities for transport in emergency as well as to allow machines to be pulled from service for extensive maintenance and overhaul.

6. Work with utilities to access energy efficiency grant funds to help defray the cost of needed efficiency upgrades at the facility, such as:

a. A low emissivity ceiling over the ice

b. Sealing and insulating openings in the building envelope that are allowing large amounts of moisture laden untreated air to enter the building

c. Modify the refrigeration plant to optimize brine flow in the split circuit and upgrade controls with CPU automation

5 Employ an in-depth preventive maintenance routine on all equipment, including daily, weekly, quarterly and annual maintenance will ensure assets are cared for in the highest quality manner.

6 Purchase an electric powered ice edger to eliminate noxious emissions from the existing gasoline fueled ice edging machine.

7 Provide quality figure skating and hockey rental skates to encourage attendance at public skating sessions.

In closing, I sincerely appreciate you taking time to review this outline and would be happy to supply more information or discuss the contents in greater detail. I understand there are many considerations that will factor into the Town’s decision on how best to proceed on the Ulin Rink. I hope I have provided some information that will be useful in those considerations.

As I’m sure you are aware, the Ulin Rink plays a very special and important role in the community. I thank you for your efforts it continues to serve that purpose and would urge the Town of Milton to give every consideration to operating it directly or partnering with a professional management firm to ensure it continues to have that positive impact on the lives of so many people.

Rob McBride President FMC Ice Sports

Temple Shalom and Tucker Village Proposal – Home Stretch

2010-02-17T20:36:00.007-05:00

In less than a week, the Special Town Meeting will take up the zoning overlay article submitted by the Planning Board to permit development of a small commercial center on the Temple property.

One of the arguments offered by opponents states that a commercial development anywhere outside of the current commercial zones will ruin Milton. We will suddenly resemble Randolph, or Braintree, or Quincy. Even as hyperbole, this would be a stretch.

Many Milton residents have expressed their growing frustration with the increasing burden home owners bear for just maintaining the services we enjoy today. I receive many emails from them every override year stating their adamant opposition to any overrides until the town begins a serious attempt to increase commercial revenue.

Milton has one of the lowest shares of real estate value from commercial real estate of any sizeable community in the state. Since 1982, the commercial share of real estate has fallen from 8.6% to 3.9%. The actual revenue from commercial property has declined from 6.2% of total in 1986 to 5.9%. This is despite the fact that we adopted a split tax rate in the interim that taxes commercial property at a much higher rate than residential.

The town’s most recent zoning changes involved the Central Avenue business district, where we essentially re-zoned commercial property to largely residential. Milton is not in danger of rampant commercial development. If anything our profile more and more resembles a rural farming area, or one of the highest income suburbs in the country.

Contrary to the assertions of some, Milton residents have not rejected prudent commercial development. The town DPW Yard is cited as evidence of rejection. But that issue was disposed of by three Selectmen who chose to not even seek proposals on a no obligation basis. The town didn’t get to express its will. Town Meeting never debated or voted on it.

On the other hand, residents did get to express their views on commercial development via a survey conducted by the Planning Board. Almost 700 took part in the lengthy, detailed study.

Among the findings:

53.4% favored permitting businesses compatible with residential use in residential areas. Only 17% said no, the remainder said maybe.

56.6% favored establishing new business zones to expand commercial base, only 18% opposed, the remainder said maybe.

60% favored any new building in new business zones be controlled by the Planning Board under a special permit process.

67% agreed with establishing “neighborhood retail” zoning districts that didn’t have detrimental effects on neighbors.

Anyone wishing to claim this doesn’t represent the views of residents bears the responsibility to produce equally weighty evidence to the contrary. Merely saying “I know better” doesn’t qualify.

In a fallback position, opponents point out that the tax revenue from this project will not solve our fiscal problems, that it is not a “home run”. The logical conclusion of this line of argument is no commercial idea would ever be considered because there is no project that would solve our problems that would also be acceptable to the town. To continue the baseball analogy, we don’t need home runs, we need as many singles and doubles as we can string together. Not just commercial development. But wind turbine projects that will save the town millions. Citizens group efforts like the one that secured $ 500-$600,000 a year for payment in lieu of taxes. Securing grants for solar power to save money at the Council on Aging and the High School.

We need to do whatever we can to help residents, especially those who are struggling to remain in the town. A well designed project that offers numerous benefits to the town needs to be one of the many initiatives undertaken.

To my emailers who have long complained about the lack of commercial development, this is your opportunity. Email or call your Town Meeting Members and let them know your views. A list of all TMMs can be found here:

http://www.townofmilton.org/Public_Documents/MiltonMA_Clerk/TTM%20Terms.pdf

Other Issues

Much distracting and incorrect information has been circulated in the last week or so. The Milton Times made a serious reporting error that caused some to question whether the traffic issue at the development site could be managed. And opponents of the development delivered a DVD to Town Meeting Members that looks like it was produced a year ago at the very beginning of this process. It wasn’t, but that’s the point.

The Times erroneously reported a conflict between the Planning Boards peer review traffic expert, and the traffic expert hired by the developer. No such conflict exists. In fact, the peer review states:

“HSH has determined that, according to the information presented in the TIA and the response to comments letter, the roadway network possesses the necessary capacity to serve the development without unduly burdening the neighborhood transportation network.”

The opponents’ DVD merely restates all of the dire consequences they’ve been claiming since the very beginning of this process. Watching it you wouldn’t know that two separate traffic experts have concluded that no undue burden will result. You wouldn’t know that the Planning Board is requiring a property value analysis with possible design mitigation if needed. You wouldn’t know that a real estate expert hired by the Planning Board has found the current proposal, and a high density 40B rental housing development as the only possible projects that could obtain funding in this economy. You wouldn’t know that in fact the neighborhood is not opposed to the project, but is in fact split, with many supporting the amenities and neighborhood gathering place Tucker Village will provide.

The traffic study estimates that during the peak hour during the week, 162 additional trips will be made on Blue Hill Avenue, or 2.7 cars per minute. A fraction of this 2.7 cars will become cut through traffic, and this fraction will be spread over 10 or more streets.

We can expect the opponents to attack the Temple and its planning process at Town Meeting. They argue the Temple didn’t involve them early enough and that they didn’t consider all the alternatives. But the Temple’s first order of business was to find out what options made sense and get a consensus of its members. And all the alternatives were considered, including demolishing part of the current Temple, and renovating the remainder with proceeds from low density residential. This didn’t generate enough revenue to renovate the Temple and financing wasn’t unavailable. Also considered was a 40B rental project. This didn’t provide enough money and the extensive parking necessary for this type of development didn’t leave enough parking for the Temple.

But all of this is really no longer relevant. Town Meeting will recognize what the Planning Board recognized. We have a 4 acre lot of land that is in play. The status quo will no longer exist. Either Tucker Village will go forward, or the Temple will sell the land. The real estate expert’s report states that what can attract funding and a developer is a high density, 40B rental project. The Town needs to decide what is best for the Town, and the neighbors need to understand that the alternative will pose many of same issues as Tucker Village. So let’s compare the two likely options and the impacts

Impacts of Likely Uses of Temple Shalom Site

-----------------Tucker Village--------------------------------40B High Density Rental

Traffic-------some increase,high % existing traffic----------some increase, all additional

----------------traffic studies say manageable-------------------peak period AM/school start

----------------peer review of traffic study-----------------------no traffic studies

----------------mitigation funds available--------------------------no mitigation funds

----------------single entrance/exit Blue Hill Ave.--------------possible multiple, side streets

Home Value-------possible limited impact--------------------possible limited impact

-----------------------protection thru permitting proces----------no protection

-----------------------peer reviewed mitigation---------------------no mitigation

Crime---------------not a likely problem----------------------------not a likely problem

Appearance--------strong influence on design, appearance------------very limited control
----------------------materials via permitting process

---------------------preservation of natural features---------------------very limited control

Green Space----30% target of overlay article--------------unknown with very limited control

Buffers------------generous buffers in overlay article-----unknown with very limited control

Taxes--------------approximately $157,000-----------------slightly more, offset by costs to
------------------------------------------------------------town according to Warrant Comm

Benefits to the town----Preservation of Temple Shalom--------------Affordable housing

--------------------------Preservation of Campbell School-------------Minor net tax revenue

------------------------- Retail amenities for west Milton

-------------------------Neighborhood gathering place

-------------------------Jobs for Milton youth

-------------------------Walkable shopping area

-------------------------Infrastructure improvements

-------------------------Tax revenue

-------------------------Funded mitigation with peer review

Over a year’s worth of work by the Planning Board, along with expert reports that rebut the claims of catastrophic impact by opponents, the clear benefits to the town, and the expressed desire of Milton residents for prudent retail commercial development ought to sway Town Meeting members to support the overlay article sponsored by the Planning Board and supported by the Warrant Committee.

Temple Shalom “Tucker Village” Milestone

2010-01-17T16:25:00.003-05:00

After many months of meetings and public testimony, the Planning Board has voted its support for a zoning overlay article that will be considered by Town Meeting at a February Special Town Meeting. Last week, the Warrant Committee voted a favorable recommendation for Town Meeting consideration.

The planned unit development would permit the construction of two commercial buildings on the Temple Shalom site, along with a new Temple. The Temple has requested this overlay as a last chance to maintain a functioning house of worship for Milton’s Jewish community. An eroding financial situation and a Temple too large and inefficient to be maintained have lead to this point.

The sale of the land for the proposed development would provide funds to build a new, smaller Temple, as well as annual revenue in the range of $100,000. The Temple has relied on Bingo for additional revenue, but this is no longer a viable source of funds as participation is declining, and running the weekly games places a heavy time commitment on the membership.

The coming debate on Town Meeting Floor will feature two themes : the Tucker Village proposal itself, and the question of whether Milton will even consider commercial development outside of the existing two small areas currently zoned for that use. Let’s consider the proposal itself.

To begin with, I support the article submitted and supported by the Planning Board and Warrant Committee. It is carefully crafted and can produce a very desirable outcome for all stakeholders: the Temple and its membership, the neighbors, and the Town. The continued presence of the Temple, which just celebrated its 65th anniversary, must move anyone concerned with Milton’s heritage and the town’s commitment to diversity. The Campbell School is highly regarded and provides an important service to Milton residents. The proposed pharmacy and grocery offer services to an area of town where none exist today. The modest, but not insignificant tax revenue sends a message to those residents struggling to remain in a community with ever rising taxes that we hear their concerns, and that when we can, when it otherwise makes sense, we will add this type of effort to all the others we must undertake to deal with our financial situation.

Since the very beginnings of this process, the opponents have offered the usual litany of reasons for opposing it. Litter, crime, safety, lowered property values, and traffic- accompanied by the usual bogeymen- “BIG BOX RETAIL” and “NATIONAL CHAIN STORE”. I find most of these arguments exaggerated or flatly contradicted by the existing facts. Certainly there is no big box retail proposed for this site, and the last I checked most of us patronize a national chain for our medications. While there was the oxycontin phase of pharmacy robberies, retail establishments like banks, convenience stores and service stations have long shown up in FBI statistics as the top retail robbery locations. Have there been a rash of robberies at the CVS in East Milton?

The most salient issues in the run up to Town Meeting are: (1) Home values, (2) Transparency, (3) Spot Zoning, and (4) Traffic.

Home Values

The abutters to the site are concerned that the development will negatively affect the values of their homes. This is understandable. But the assertion of negative impact has been repeated with a certitude leading someone to believe that all small, well designed commercial developments have a negative affect. That is not the case at all. Earlier in the process the developer presented an analysis of property values in the immediate neighborhood surrounding the Fruit Center. It showed no impact following the construction of that 33,000 sq. foot retail complex.

Small developments offering services to the surrounding area can also have no impact on home values, and at times can increase home values. While some may prefer to not live near a commercial site, others do not mind, provided it is properly designed, sited, and buffered. As long as there are sufficient numbers of people who desire proximity to some basic services, there will be willing buyers for property.

The Planning Board has included in the Overlay Article language requiring an assessment of impact on home values for the immediate abutters, with the further requirement of mitigation before proceeding. This should protect the property owners concerned and home values ought not be a stumbling block for Town Meeting Members.

Transparency

The opponents’ attorney, Andrew Upton, has championed this attack. If you ask what it means, there is only one way to define it for you. It means the Temple could be lying about their need for this development, as currently outlined, and that unless they completely open their books for inspection we should not pass the overlay. The Planning Board properly ignored this argument. Contrary to Attorney Upton’s assertion, the Planning Board was not concerned with the Temple’s finances, but with carrying out its responsibility when a property owner places a lot, a sizeable lot, in play. The property owner informed the Board that they were either going to win approval for a development or sell the property. At that point the Planning Board had to assess the proposal as well as keeping in mind possible scenarios if the property were sold.

But how will Town Meeting members respond to this line of argument? It will surely be made by Mr. Upton.

When construction began on Temple Shalom 65 years ago there was no major benefactor as other Temple’s in the area enjoyed. The construction costs were raised by mostly small donations from the Jewish community. Therefore the Temple was constructed in stages, as the money was raised.

Today a few hundred Milton residents call Temple Shalom their religious home. Like all Temples, Temple Shalom is an autonomous financial entity. Its revenues come primarily from annual membership fees. Nationally the household membership fee for a Jewish house of worship is three or more times the average annual household offering made by Christian denominations. Jewish congregations tend to be much smaller, requiring greater contributions from all. In recent years the Temple has made additional assessments on membership to keep afloat while it has developed a survival plan.

The Temple is run by a Board of Directors, numbering between 20-30 people. Elected annually, these individuals have complete access to and knowledge of Temple finances. To place any credence in the implication of Attorney Upton’s “transparency” claim, these directors would be committing a fraud on Town Committees, the Town as a whole, and even their own membership. Is this where we want to go at Town Meeting, essentially accusing a large number of our fellow residents, respected members of a Jewish Temple, of deliberately misleading us? I hope this is an argument that will be rejected by Town Meeting as unworthy of consideration in deliberations that will touch one way or another on the continued presence of Temple Shalom in Milton.

Spot Zoning

Selectman John Shields has characterized the zoning proposal as spot zoning. By this I assume he means illegal spot zoning. A common definition describes the term as a “singling out of one lot for different treatment from that accorded to similar surrounding land indistinguishable from it in character, all for the economic benefit of the owner of that lot.” Looking at how the courts have interpreted this language one finds that neither different treatment nor economic benefit to the lot owner describe the complete legal test for spot zoning.

In Massachusetts, courts employ a balancing test weighing the public benefits of the zoning against any negative effects on neighbors. A challenge to a Town Meeting passed zoning change would have to be filed in the courts by someone with standing – say abutters. Mark Bobrowski writing in “Handbook of Massachusetts Land Use and Planning Law…” notes:

“Where spot zoning is alleged, the challenger has the burden of proof. ‘To sustain that burden they must prove facts which compel a conclusion that the question of whether the amendment falls within the enabling statue is not even fairly debatable’. The court has characterized this burden as ‘heavy’.

Bylaw changes must be submitted to the Attorney General for endorsement. Often in these circumstances, opponents of the bylaws communicate to the AG concerns about spot zoning. One can find standard language employed in the published Endorsements in these instances.

“We point out that we received a number of opposition letters suggesting, among other things, that the proposed zoning by-law constitutes “spot zoning” as that term is understood in state law. “Spot zoning” has been described as being “the singling out of a particular parcel of land for special zoning treatment where such land is indistinguishable from surrounding land that has been held to be invalid as spot zoning.” Spot zoning is usually concerned with situations in which an economic benefit is specially conferred on a particular landowner. See, e.g., Atherton v. Selectmen of Bourne, 337 Mass. 250 (1958)

It must first be noted that an economic benefit to the owner of land resulting from the rezoning of the land from one district to another is alone insufficient to compel the legal conclusion that the amendment is “spot” zoning. It is rather the concomitant absence of traditional planning and zoning considerations that would compromise the legitimacy of town meeting’s action in rezoning the parcel. In other words, to arrive at the legal conclusion that town meeting “spot zoned” a parcel, we must first find that the traditional zoning factors were absent.

The courts have held that “the challenger bears a heavy burden of demonstrating that there is no zoning purpose to the amendment in the face of the presumption of validity that the amendment enjoys.” Beal v. Building Comm’r of Springfield, 353 Mass. 640 (1968); Smith v. Board of Appeals of Salem, 313 Mass. 622 (1943) (where there is room for reasonable doubt, judgment of local authorities must prevail). “

Finally, Massachusetts General Law specifically provides for just the type of Planned Unit Development the zoning article contains in Chapter 40A:Section 9.

“Planned unit development” means a mixed use development on a plot of land containing a minimum of the lesser of sixty thousand square feet or five times the minimum lot size of the zoning district, but of such larger size as an ordinance or by-law may specify, in which a mixture of residential, open space, commercial, industrial or other uses and a variety of building types are determined to be sufficiently advantageous to render it appropriate to grant special permission to depart from the normal requirements of the district to the extent authorized by the ordinance or by-law. Such open space, if any, may be situated to promote and protect maximum solar access within the development.”

Town Meeting Members should feel confident that a serious deliberation of this article will not result in a finding of spot zoning, which in any event could only be decided by the courts

Traffic

Concerns about traffic generated even by a small commercial development always need to be taken seriously. This is one of the factors that can have an effect on home values. Progress in assessing traffic impacts has been made. A Traffic Impact Assessment has been prepared by the respected traffic consultants Vanasse & Associates. It can be found on the Planning Board page of the town’s website.

The Vanasse study finds the current Blue Hill Avenue totals for traffic volume during peak weekday evening hour and midday Saturday hour (the time of the greatest traffic volumes) and the projected increase in these volumes as follows.

Current Vehicles Per Hour -----------------------------With Project Vehicles Per Hour
Weekday evening-----988----------------------------------------------------------1150
Saturday midday-----740-----------------------------------------------------------880

Those estimates translate to an additional 2.7 and 2.3 trips per minute during the peak hour of use.

There is a great deal more in the study. I encourage people to spend some time reading it. We also need to see the peer review study, funded by the developer and using a consultant selected by the Planning Board, for confirmation of the methodology and results; and we need to assess the full benefits of any mitigation efforts, especially with respect to cut through traffic. This peer review study will be completed before Town Meeting.

The Vanasse study can be found here:

http://www.townofmilton.org/Public_Documents/MiltonMA_BComm/TEMPLE~2.PDF

Development, Temple Shalom and Abutter Veto

2009-10-31T12:36:00.005-04:00

“Consideration has been given to the possible advantages of encouraging industrial development of a restricted character in certain sections of the community. It is recognized that increased costs in the operation of the Town, together with the improvement of highway and transit connections to the center of Boston, may bring about pressure for the expansion of areas available for commercial or industrial development. The argument that such changes would result in a net increase in municipal revenues is not borne out by studies of the ratio of potential tax income to the increased costs that would probably be required of the community.”

From the Summary Report of Milton’s Original Master Plan of 1958

This snippet from the town's original Master Plan epitomizes the history of commercial development in Milton. Written at about the time Route 128 and the Southeast Expressway were completed (the highway improvements referenced in the quote), it dismisses commercial development as a source of revenue. By 1957 there were already 99 companies doing business on Route 128. This grew to 574 in 1964, and 1212 in 1973.

Apparently other communities did not share our view and many of them enjoy a flow of millions of dollars of revenue from various types of development along this major highway.

But that's the past, and conscious decisions made in the past severely limit our ability to exploit on a significant scale this kind of revenue. However, opportunities do present themselves and when they do we need to give them very serious consideration and support those that make sense. By support I mean active, vocal, public support. Otherwise the default position in Milton is no, aided by a long history of de facto veto power wielded by abutters who oppose development.

Temple Shalom has been fighting to preserve its congregation in Milton for many months now. They have proposed developing their property on a modest scale and using the funds gained to build a new, smaller and more efficient Temple and support their annual operating budget. There is widespread hope that this important religious institution can remain in the community.

Whether this hope can be realized depends on agreeing to some level of development on the Temple's property on Route 138. For months now the Planning Board has been reviewing a proposal that includes a CVS pharmacy (12,900 sq. ') and 20,000 sq. ' of additional retail or office space, and a new 12,000 sq' Temple on the 4 acre site. For reference, the Fruit Center is 25,000 sq' on 2 acres. They are nearing a recommendation vote on a zoning overlay for possible consideration by the Town Meeting.

At the last meeting each member of the Planning Board informed the public of their preliminary conclusions. Two of the members, Bernie Lynch and Ed Duffy, clearly communicated their intent to oppose any development. Members Emily Innes, Peter Jackson, and Alexander Whiteside expressed a level of comfort with the idea of a Temple and one other structure, but had doubts about a three structure development. They also strongly suggested that the Temple and their developer come back with creative ideas for siting to demonstrate how the proposal fits the property, with its substantial change in elevation and the presence of ledge.

Tomorrow evening at the Milton Council on Aging (6:30pm) the Temple will be responding with a presentation. It will include drawings of what some are calling the "Tucker Village" Marketplace. The site would include:

-a pharmacy

-a small food coop

-a coffee shop

-a new Temple

The buildings would be clapboard style with heights no taller than homes in the neighborhood, designed by the architect who designed the Abby Park restaurant.

The plan includes 35% green space, with a playground, gathering place and woods.

It's possible the Planning Board will be voting on the overlay after reviewing this proposal. What everyone needs to realize is the nature of the choice facing the Board and all of us. It is not between this proposal and the status quo. Failing to win approval for a financially viable solution, the Temple will be forced to sell the property, closing this religous institution after 65 years. The choice is between development and a lot that lies vacant or is purchased by someone for development. A 40b development would be high on the list.

Planning Board Member Alex Whiteside reiterated the need for a substantial community benefit from a project like this. Stark reality poses the choice I just pointed out above. I see these benefits as follows:

-the continued presence of an important, long time religous institution

-the continuation of a highly regarded pre-school (the Campbell school)

-valuable retail services for the west side of our town that currently is without any

-a small but not insignificant source of annual tax revenue to the town ($160,000).

Now picture the lot vacant, or with a high density 40b development.

If you believe as I do that we cannot allow opportunities like this to die before they are ever considered by the town meeting and possibly the town as a whole, then contact the Planning Board members and let them know how you feel. Better yet, let's go to the meeting tomorrow night, view the Temple's presentation and tell the Planning Board members what we think.

What's At Stake

2009-05-24T15:50:00.004-04:00

In 2 weeks we will once again go to the polls to decide whether we want to preserve town services by raising our taxes. On five occasions in the nearly 30 years since Proposition 2 ½ was passed we said yes. It is difficult to imagine anyone thinking that the $8.5 million those votes added to our revenue base could be removed without crippling current service levels in Milton. In other words, those votes were necessary to preserve what we value in a community.

This year we are faced with a potential lose of services significantly greater than in prior years. Our normal need for an override every few years, as so famously noted by our retiring Treasurer Kevin Sorgi, has been compounded by a loss of over $1 million in State aid caused by the severe recession. The result is deep cuts in the big departmental budgets --Police, Fire, DPW, and Schools—with smaller cuts in virtually every town budget.

These are tough economic times. Some Milton residents know this first hand. All of us share the psychological burden. Some who would otherwise support an override may not be able to because of economic challenges. This is understandable. On the other hand, as a town Milton has held up well during the downturn. While home values in the Boston metropolitan area have declined 19% in the past year, in Milton they’ve grown 3%. The difference to the owner of a medium priced home is over $115,000 in assets over just a 12 month period.

Faced with both economic pressures and the loss of essential services we become frustrated and anxious. This has created a desire among a few to “send a message”. Their reasons vary. Some want to target their frustrations on the unions. Others wish to blame those who oppose commercial development and the tax revenue it could bring. A group of elementary school parents want to focus their frustrations on the French Immersion Program.

There is a well known expression for this kind of thinking and the actions it could produce. It’s called “cutting off the nose to spite the face”. It means a needless and self-destructive over-reaction to a problem.

Does anyone harboring these thoughts believe they will not suffer if the override fails? I’m going to try your patience and laboriously list the major impacts of the contemplated cuts. I defy anyone harboring any of these single issue frustrations to deny that they will bear a far greater consequence for their protest vote than their intended target. And I ask them, long after your feeling of satisfaction has passed, and the consequences have become palpable, how will we ever get the services back?

Service Cuts If the Override Fails

Police Department

- loss of 5 police officers
- loss of 6 traffic supervisors
- loss of 2 emergency 911 dispatchers

The traffic supervisors are the crossing guards who protect the hundreds of children who walk to Milton schools.

The loss of 5 officers will have serious consequences. In a recent interview Chief Wells points out that Milton will have fewer than 50 staff for the first time in 100 years. Not only will response time be affected, but so will patrols. For many years now 5 officers have patrolled the Milton streets in the evening and overnight hours. This will be cut to 2 patrols.

Fire Department

-loss of 5 firefighters

On top of losses in prior years, this will require the closing of one of the three fire stations. Outgoing chief Malcom Larson describes the consequences as “delayed and inadequate response to emergencies” as well as greater risk to firefighters.

DPW

The loss of yard waste pickup will likely cost many residents a substantial portion of the proposed tax increase to privately contract for removal of clippings, leaves and other yard waste.

Schools

-loss of 47 staff, including 32 teachers

There will be drastic changes throughout the system. Superintendent Mary Gormley
says “educational quality on all three levels will suffer. Let’s look more closely.

High School

The following cuts would have the strong possibility of having the High School placed on academic probation by NEASC.

• Elimination of over 12 more full time staff, including teachers from the English, art, history, mathematics, world language, music, family/consumer studies, and physical education/health departments
• Cuts to support staff, library, business course, and the guidance department
• Increased class sizes: 25 to 30 in electives; 25 to 35 in required core subjects
• More than 400 students in study halls
• Reduced graduation requirements
• Fewer Advanced Placement Courses
• Elimination of World Language and Humanities classes
• Elimination of Interactive Math Program
• Elimination of lab activities in science classes
• Additional increases in fees for athletics, clubs, and activities

Middle School

The team teaching concept, long recognized as a sound educational tool for the challenging circumstances of 1000+ middle school students, will be eliminated.

• Elimination of 6 team teachers in math, English, science, and geography/history
• Elimination of 2 world language teachers, 1 art teacher, 1 computer teacher, 1 librarian and .5 physical education teacher
• Elimination of leveling for English language arts, and possibly for math
• Elimination of the entire Latin program, in which more than 80 students currently participate
• Reduction in frequency of world language classes to every other day
• Elimination of Grade 6 writing program
• Increase in electives class sizes to 25-30 students
• Increase in English, math, science, social studies, and world languages class sizes from to 24 to 30
• Reduction in time available for common planning, curriculum meetings, parent meetings, peer observation and other activities that contribute to a better education for your child
• Elimination of physical education classes for some students
• Elimination of the honors art program (ACE)
• Implementation of study halls, which are discouraged by the state’s Department of Education
• Closing of the library during the day

Elementary Schools

-Loss of 11 classroom/specialist positions leading to larger class sizes
-classes with 34 children and only one classroom teacher
-all instructional aides (who currently assist teachers in classes of 26 or more)will be eliminated
-elementary schools will be restructured, so families may end up with children in more than one school.
-children may have to attend school outside their neighborhood
-children may have to attend kindergarten in one school, and then switch to another for grades 1-5.
-many more children will be bused across town.

The breadth and depth of service cuts is so great that dozens of residents have committed to educate the entire town and support an override to prevent them—even in these difficult times.

The organization is called Invest In Milton. We have two weeks left to get this information into the hands of all voters so they can make an informed choice.

Here’s the website:

http://www.investinmilton.org/

We need your help. There are a couple of things you can do.

1) Forward a link to this post to anyone you think needs to know the details of service cuts

2) Make a donation to help finance the final pieces of communication and other crucial activities. Any amount, whatever you can afford. You can donate online at the website, or send a check to:

Invest In Milton
99 Nancy Road
Milton, MA 02186

Board of Assessors Endorsement

2009-04-27T17:44:00.001-04:00

The three person Board of Assessors is charged with the evaluation of all real estate and personal property in the town of Milton. Current members are Kathleen Heffernan, M. Joseph Manning, and Thomas Gunning. Mr. Gunning is running for reelection against Todd Greenwood.

Unlike many Boards in town, the Board of Assessors has had little infusion of new blood in some time. Mr. Gunning has served in this post for 42 years. While one can only marvel at the length of service and dedication to the town, it is time for someone who comes from a different generation of Milton residents to step into this role and lend their voice to the deliberations. It is true that we would be losing Mr. Gunning’s experience. On the other hand, this is one of the most experienced Boards in town. Mr. Manning has been a board member for over 50 years, first elected in 1957.

Todd Greenwood is an ideal candidate for this board. He’s a 20 year resident of the town. His children attend the public schools and he is involved in a number of social and sports activities. He represents Precinct 7 as a Town Meeting Member. He has a graduate degree in Business Administration and has spent a good part of his career working as a Quantitative Analyst for major corporations. As a demonstration of his commitment to hit the ground running should he be elected, Mr. Greenwood has already completed the Massachusetts Department of Revenue’s course for Assessors.

Todd has had a difficult time engaging his opponent in a discussion of the office for which they are both running. Mr. Gunning chose not to appear at either the Milton League of Women Voters, or Milton Cable debates. This deprived the residents, especially many of the new residents who have only lived in the community for a decade of two and have never seen Mr. Gunning, from weighing the two candidates.

I think we need new energy on the Board of Assessors and I think no candidate should take the voters for granted. Please join me in voting for Todd in tomorrow’s election.

Check out Todd’s website and blog here:

http://greenwoodforassessor.com/index.html

By the way, GET OUT AND VOTE TOMORROW. We have an important Treasurer’s race, in which I hope you’ll support Charlie McCarthy for reasons already stated. In any event, it is your duty to vote.

Milton Town Treasurer Endorsement

2009-04-22T17:06:00.004-04:00

For the first time in many years Milton voters will be selecting a new Town Treasurer. Running for the office being vacated by the retiring Kevin Sorgi are Janet Lorden, James McAuliffe and Charlie McCarthy.

Perhaps due to the long interval since this office was contested there seems to be a great deal of confusion about the position, its duties and responsibilities, and the types of experience best suited to the job. I’ve heard residents talk about the need for accounting experience, sophisticated investment background, and “knowledge of finance". Some people go so far as to describe what amounts to a Chief Financial Officer position.

In part the confusion emanates from the specific experience being emphasized by two of the candidates, Janet Lorden and James McAuliffe. Because their backgrounds are in finance/accounting, which they understandably tout, many voters assume that these skills are central to the function of Town Treasurer. That is not the case.

In Milton, as in most towns, financial responsibility is decentralized. Budgeting is the domain of the Finance Committee (Warrant Committee), with final approval by Town Meeting. The books are kept by the Town Accountant, who reports to the Board of Selectman through the Town Administrator. We have outside auditors who go over the books, and a bond consultant to advise on debt issuance.

The treasurer/collector (occasionally separate functions in some communities) is an operational department head. The duties include:

The billing and collection of all town taxes
The timely deposit of all collected funds
The investment of funds not needed immediately in highly safe instruments, emphasizing safety and liquidity over yield
The management of payroll and employee benefits plans
The issuance of short and long term borrowing

While there is certainly a great deal of record keeping involved, accounting is not a function of the department. The investing function is properly circumscribed by state law to ensure safety of the funds. A community, especially in these economic times, cannot be chasing high returns. If we wished to do that, we’d turn the function over to someone like Fidelity.

One unstated, but widely agreed function of the job is that of “independent watchdog”. As an independently elected town officer, the treasurer has the ability to sound the alarm without fear of job loss if he or she feels the town’s interests are being jeopardized. Consequently, the office holder should be someone the residents know and trust. Someone who has a track record of service to the town. Someone who has exhibited a concern for the community apart from any considerations of a paying job.

I believe that person is Charlie McCarthy. Jim McAuliffe and Janet Lorden are good citizens of Milton with fine backgrounds. But they seem to be running for a position that does not exist. Charlie McCarthy, on the other hands, has attributes for this job his opponents simply do not.

Consider this experience. He’s led the preparation of three town budgets. He knows more about where the money comes from and where it goes. As Selectman, he shared the ultimate role in the issuance of town debt, and worked with the current Town Treasurer and Town Accountant to prepare presentations to the bond rating agencies. Their success in obtaining an improved rating lowered substantially debt costs to the town. He had a key role in both the school building and Council on Aging building projects. He knows the functions of those departments and consultants (Selectman, Assessor, Accountant and Bond Consultant) the Treasurer works with to carry out the office’s responsibilities. And he’s run his own business, including meeting a payroll and managing staff.

If you really want a good sense for which of the candidates has the strongest grasp of the job and the specific experience appropriate to it, spend a short time viewing the Milton League of Women Voters debate and the Milton Cable debate here:

http://charliemccarthy.com/CharlieMcCarthy/Media.html

Also, check out the interview with Charlie at the 02186.mytownmatters.com blog, an excellent resource for Milton news.

http://02186.mytownmatters.com/?p=1783

I suspect you'll do as I will, and vote for Charlie McCarthy on April 28th.

More on Comparable Expenditure Data

2009-03-25T12:53:00.006-04:00

My last post on spending data for comparable communities elicited a substantial amount of comment, mostly private. I’d like to address two departmental budgets in light of this feedback.

The first involves Police expenditures. Some people maintained the comparison was unfair because the Police budget includes items not found in other towns’ Police budgets and therefore skewed the results. Some of the cost factors cited:

1. Police cruisers, usually found under capital budgets.

2. School crossing guards, usually found under school budgets.

3. Dispatch employees

These issues have been raised since 2002 when the comparisons were first put together, and despite being addressed at the time, continue to be brought up.

1. Police cruisers are not included in the budget for comparison purposes. The state has always excluded capital expenditures for obvious reasons.

2. It is not uncommon for school crossing guards to be included in the Police budget. At least 5 of the comparative communities do so.

3. The cost of dispatch employees and any other incidental costs found in the Police budget are simply not of a magnitude to change the overall picture. The Milton Police budget accounts for 8.22% of the town budget of $68.8 million. The closet community in the rankings is Hingham, at 7.06%. It would take a reduction of $688,000 in the budget to reduce the percentage from 8.22% to 7.22%. This is a best case scenario in which we assume only Milton should have any costs removed, and we would still lead the comparable communities in the rankings.

While I fully understand the concern any department would have to the appearance of more than adequate funding vis a vis other communities, the answer is to make the case for the funding, not attempt to cast doubt on the numbers with assertions that are incorrect.

The second budget that received attention was the School budget. Here the point was made that other costs for school services were included in non school budgets. I would point out that this is true for all town budgets. The costs referenced are for benefits, primarily health insurance, and retirement benefits. An analysis by Warrant Committee Chair Tom Hurley allocates these costs to the schools, and in the aggregate to all other departments. Here it is. Data for two of the 13 communities was not available.

Town---------------------------------------------School Exp. % of Town Budget

Walpole-------------------------------------------------------59.95

Westwood----------------------------------------------------57.15

Reading-------------------------------------------------------56.10

North Andover----------------------------------------------54.55

Needham-----------------------------------------------------54.47

Holliston-----------------------------------------------------53.61

Westford-----------------------------------------------------53.21

Westborough------------------------------------------------52.38

Milton--------------------------------------------------------52.34

Hingham-----------------------------------------------------48.27

Belmont------------------------------------------------------44.15

This type of comparison suffers from two problems. The only departments we know these costs for are the school departments. For all the other departments, in all the comparable communities, we don’t have the data to compare. Consequently we are using a unique standard for just one department.

Also, departmental budgets are essentially annual operating budgets that reflect the costs of current services delivered to taxpayers. We shouldn’t include retirement costs and health insurance for retired employees in these numbers any more than we should include long term debt costs.

A reader asked me to look at comparative Library expenditures.

What follows comes from the Massachusetts Bureau of Library Commissioners and is 2007 data.

Town----------------Town Approp.--------------Operating Income-------% of Budget

Belmont---------------1,724,389-----------------------1,901,307--------------------2.8

Hingham--------------1,349,937-----------------------1,574,385--------------------2.5

Westford--------------1,401,112-----------------------1,452,946--------------------2.0

Scituate-----------------878,728--------------------------929,769--------------------2.0

Reading---------------1,131,546-----------------------1,202,379--------------------1.8

Westwood---------------906,179-------------------------918,198--------------------1.7

Sharon-------------------775,033-------------------------802,938--------------------1.6

Needham--------------1,235,652----------------------1,327,303--------------------1.5

Milton-------------------928,326-------------------------935,048--------------------1.4

Walpole-----------------676,326-------------------------738,220--------------------1.3

Westborough-----------806,118-------------------------853,201--------------------1.3

North Andover---------767,810-------------------------804,395--------------------1.2

Holliston----------------426,903-------------------------470,919--------------------1.1

Calendar Notes

League of Women Voters Debate

Town Election time is here. One of the major events of the political season is the annual debate sponsored by the Milton League of Women Voters. This year it will be held on Monday April 6th at 7:00pm at Fuller Village.

Planning Board Survey

March 31st is the last day to take the Planning Board survey and include your opinions on issues of development, housing and open space in Milton. As of a few days ago, about 524 people had taken the survey online. More people than that read this blog. So if you haven’t yet taken the survey, spend a few minutes providing the Planning Board with the information they need to move forward, confident that they have a broad spectrum of views on issues affecting Milton’s future. Here’s the link.

http://snipurl.com/cnxu1

Comparable Communities Financial Data

2009-02-25T22:48:00.006-05:00

At the special town meeting on Monday a town meeting member asked for comparisons for Milton and similar communities. It seems like a good time to update some data I’ve published a couple of times over the last 3 or 4 years. I’m adding to it a deeper look at community expenditures that I first prepared along with other Warrant Committee members 5 or 6 years ago.

First, what is a comparable community? I’m using a list developed by the School Long Range Planning Committee for inclusion in that document. The communities were selected by an ad hoc group comprised of myself, Treasurer Kevin Sorgi, School Committee Member Mary Kelly, then Warrant Committee member Natalie Monroe and Co-Chair of the School Long Range Planning Committee Greg Hall. We agreed unanimously on the following criteria.

1. That the community have a K-12 public school system.

2. That the town have an EQV within approximately 10% of Milton's (EQV stands for equalized value, and is a financial factor which measures the taxable wealth, or tax base, of a community. It is relied upon by the Massachusetts Department of Revenue to compare communities in Massachusetts).

3. That the median family income be within 10% of Milton's.

4. That the town population be in the range of 15,000 to 35,000.

5. That the K-12 school enrollment be in the range of 2500 to 4500.

Twelve towns closely fit the criteria: Belmont, Westwood, Walpole, Scituate, Sharon, Hingham, Holliston, North Andover, Westborough, Westford, Reading, and Needham.

Here is a series of data comparisons for these communities. The source for this data is the Division of Local Services of the Massachusetts Department of Revenue.

Average Single Family Tax Bill, Rank Order

Town------------------------------------Avg. Single Family Tax Bill

Belmont-------------------------------------$8951
Westwood----------------------------------$7928
Sharon--------------------------------------$7833
Needham-----------------------------------$6907
Westborough------------------------------$6784
Hingham-----------------------------------$6515
Westford-----------------------------------$6415
Milton--------------------------------------$6217
Holliston-----------------------------------$6157
North Andover----------------------------$5896
Reading------------------------------------$5858
Scituate------------------------------------$5182
Walpole------------------------------------$5159

Medium Family Income in Rank Order

Town-----------------------------------Med. Fam. Income

Needham--------------------------------$107,570
Westford---------------------------------$104,092
Westwood-------------------------------$103,242
Sharon-----------------------------------$99,015
Hingham--------------------------------$98,598
Belmont---------------------------------$95,057
Westborough---------------------------$94,610
Milton-----------------------------------$94,359
North Andover-------------------------$91,105
Reading---------------------------------$89,076
Scituate---------------------------------$86,058
Holliston--------------------------------$84,878
Walpole---------------------------------$84,458

Tax As a Percent of Income

Town--------------------------------------% of Income

Belmont--------------------------------------9.4
Sharon----------------------------------------7.9
Westwood-----------------------------------7.7
Holliston-------------------------------------7.3
Westborough--------------------------------7.2
Hingham-------------------------------------6.6
Milton----------------------------------------6.6
Reading--------------------------------------6.6
North Andover------------------------------6.5
Needham-------------------------------------6.4
Westford-------------------------------------6.2
Walpole--------------------------------------6.1
Scituate---------------------------------------6.0

% Non-Residential Assessed Value

Town-----------------------------------------%

Westborough--------------------------------40
Westwood-----------------------------------14.4
Westford------------------------------------13.9
Hingham------------------------------------13.3
Walpole-------------------------------------13.1
Needham-----------------------------------12.7
North Andover----------------------------12.2
Holliston-----------------------------------11.1
Reading-------------------------------------8.6
Sharon---------------------------------------7.8
Belmont-------------------------------------5.8
Scituate--------------------------------------4.4
Milton----------------------------------------3.6

The Municipal Revenue Growth Factor measures the year to year growth in revenues.

Town----------------------------------MGRF Avg/2005-2009

Westborough----------------------------------5.84
North Andover--------------------------------5.40
Hingham---------------------------------------5.33
Westford---------------------------------------5.10
Holliston---------------------------------------5.10
Walpole----------------------------------------4.99
Needham--------------------------------------4.66
Westwood-------------------------------------4.63
Scituate----------------------------------------4.40
Reading----------------------------------------4.30
Milton------------------------------------------4.20
Sharon------------------------------------------4.18
Belmont----------------------------------------3.83

Expenditures for Major Budget Segments As a Percentage of the Budget

Education

Town-----------------------------------------------% Budget

Sharon-----------------------------------------------59.65
Holliston--------------------------------------------58.69
Westford--------------------------------------------53.93
Scituate----------------------------------------------53.87
Westborough----------------------------------------53.25
North Andover-------------------------------------52.56
Belmont---------------------------------------------51.45
Reading---------------------------------------------50.94
Westwood------------------------------------------50.73
Walpole---------------------------------------------49.83
Needham--------------------------------------------49.78
Hingham--------------------------------------------49.31
Milton-----------------------------------------------45.97

Police

Town-----------------------------------------------% Budget

Milton------------------------------------------------8.22
Hingham---------------------------------------------7.06
Scituate----------------------------------------------6.32
Walpole---------------------------------------------6.22
North Andover-------------------------------------6.11
Belmont---------------------------------------------5.45
Sharon-----------------------------------------------5.22
Westwood-------------------------------------------5.18
Reading----------------------------------------------5.16
Westford---------------------------------------------5.08
Needham---------------------------------------------4.78
Holliston---------------------------------------------4.31
Westborough----------------------------------------3.63

Fire

Town-------------------------------------------------% Budget

Scituate------------------------------------------------8.42
North Andover---------------------------------------6.29
Hingham----------------------------------------------6.05
Needham----------------------------------------------6.01
Milton-------------------------------------------------5.99
Belmont-----------------------------------------------5.22
Walpole-----------------------------------------------4.84
Reading-----------------------------------------------4.78
Westwood--------------------------------------------4.35
Westborough-----------------------------------------4.32
Sharon-------------------------------------------------4.09
Westford----------------------------------------------3.02
Holliston----------------------------------------------1.34

Public Works

Town--------------------------------------------------% Budget

Westwood----------------------------------------------6.64
Belmont-------------------------------------------------6.47
Reading-------------------------------------------------6.28
Walpole-------------------------------------------------6.03
Milton---------------------------------------------------5.96
Holliston------------------------------------------------5.96
Hingham------------------------------------------------5.74
North Andover-----------------------------------------5.52
Scituate--------------------------------------------------5.51
Westford------------------------------------------------5.32
Sharon---------------------------------------------------4.72
Westborough-------------------------------------------4.56
Needham------------------------------------------------4.14

Debt Service

Town-----------------------------------------------------% Budget

North Andover-------------------------------------------14.70
Westford--------------------------------------------------13.76
Westborough---------------------------------------------13.47
Sharon-----------------------------------------------------12.89
Holliston--------------------------------------------------12.22
Westwood------------------------------------------------11.46
Reading----------------------------------------------------9.94
Needham---------------------------------------------------8.17
Hingham---------------------------------------------------7.67
Belmont----------------------------------------------------6.51
Milton------------------------------------------------------6.24
Walpole----------------------------------------------------4.19
Scituate-----------------------------------------------------3.33

Fixed Costs

Town------------------------------------------------------% Budget

Walpole----------------------------------------------------17.11
Milton------------------------------------------------------16.77
Needham---------------------------------------------------16.10
Reading-----------------------------------------------------14.94
Scituate------------------------------------------------------14.06
Westborough-----------------------------------------------13.74
Belmont-----------------------------------------------------11.27
Hingham----------------------------------------------------11.19
Westwood--------------------------------------------------11.18
Westford----------------------------------------------------10.43
Holliston-----------------------------------------------------9.90
North Andover----------------------------------------------5.34
Sharon--------------------------------------------------------4.91

A rough approximation of the amount of services provided can be gleaned from expenditures on a per capita basis.

Town--------------------------------------------------Exp. Per Capita

Westwood------------------------------------------------$3882
Westborough---------------------------------------------$3487
Westford--------------------------------------------------$3412
Holliston--------------------------------------------------$3155
Needham--------------------------------------------------$3092
Hingham--------------------------------------------------$2921
Belmont---------------------------------------------------$2912
Sharon-----------------------------------------------------$2909
Reading----------------------------------------------------$2899
Milton------------------------------------------------------$2641
Scituate----------------------------------------------------$2533
Walpole----------------------------------------------------$2512
North Andover--------------------------------------------$2389

So what general conclusions can we draw from this data?

In terms of taxes, we are 8th out of 13 like towns. Statewide we rank 43rd. In 1990 we ranked number 31, in 1995 number 35, in 2000 number 38, and in 2005 number 47. The override of 2006 halted a slide of 16 places in statewide ranking. As a percentage of income, we also rank 8th.

In the value of non-residential real estate subject to taxation we rank last. At 3.6% we are in the bottom 12 or so communities statewide.

In annual revenue growth we rank near the bottom. Without the 2006 override, our 5 year growth would have been under 4% per year, significantly below our peer communities and the state average of 4.92%. Remember, .5% growth amounts to almost $350,000 at our budget level. That’s $1,750,000 over the five year period.

As for how we allocate our budget, we differ substantially from our peers in the following areas.

Education – We spend the lowest percentage on Education, by a significant margin.

Police - We spend the highest percentage on Police, by a significant margin.

Debt –We rank near the bottom on debt payments.

Fixed Costs- We are near the top on this category, which includes benefits, all insurance costs, and pensions costs. At almost 17 percent, it’s a budget buster.

Expenditures – We are hardly a spendthrift community. We rank near the bottom. If we spent the same per capita as the town just above us our budget would be $6,708,000 greater.

I have all this data on a spreadsheet. If anyone wants a copy, shoot me an email.

==============================================

Planning Board Master Plan Survey

At the strong urging and under the direction of Planning Board Chair Emily Innes, the Planning Board has taken a first important step toward revising our Master Plan. The citizens of Milton are encouraged to make their views known via a survey. The survey seeks to discover what it is the citizens of Milton want to see the planning process focus on – housing, open space, development, etc..

The survey is ideal for getting input from the greatest number of residents and avoiding overrepresentation of views of special interest groups. It is detailed. The open ended component allows for substantial responses to be developed. It could take a fair amount of your time to do a good job.

Fortunately, the software utilized by SurveyMonkey permits anyone to take the survey over a period of visits, when time allows. As long as you do not click “done” until you are actually done, you may return and work as many times as you wish. Simply click “exit the survey” and when you return you will be brought back to the place you left off.

If the data recapped above and the financial problems we have had in the last decade do not spur you to action, I don’t know what will. Make you opinion count. Tell your town leaders what you want them to do. Channel your frustrations and fears constructively on a matter of real importance to our town’s future.

Here is the website:

http://snipurl.com/cnxu1

You have until the end of March to finish it.

Now What Do We Do?

2009-01-22T15:14:00.004-05:00

Signs of a serious situation abound. Commercial banks, investment banks, mortgage companies, and all three US auto manufacturers have collapsed or seek government help to avoid doing so. Government revenues have begun to plunge and the jobless rate is rapidly increasing. At least 43 states are already running deficits, including Massachusetts.

The economic crisis that erupted during the Presidential campaign in September dwarfs concerns that last spring partly motivated a decision not to seek an override in Milton. We are now faced with an even larger need for new revenues to avoid even more serious cutbacks in town services. And we do so in an economic environment far worse than last year.

How we handle this coming year’s budget will play out over the next two to three months. It will involve drastic cuts in services, an override, or a combination of the two. More important in some ways are possible measures we can take as a town to safeguard our fiscal health in the next few years.

So what things ought we be considering to protect our financial health, cut our costs, and maximize our revenues?

Join the GIC

As of November two rounds of negotiation between the town and union representatives have failed to produce agreement to join the state insurance system. The sticking point is the unions’ insistence on a 5 percentage point increase in the town’s share of premium payments. Milton’s experience on this issue is mirrored statewide. Only 27 of 480 entities (communities, charter schools, regional schools, planning councils) have voted to join the same insurance system that state employees participate in.

Virtually all of the towns who have joined have agreed to an increase in the town’s share of premium payments as a cost of reaching terms with their unions. Here is a sampling of readily available information.

Community-----------------------------------------Increase in Share of Premium

Quincy-----------------------------------------------------85%-90% + $300/employee/year

Melrose----------------------------------------------------82%-87%

Stoneham--------------------------------------------------80%-85%

Weston-----------------------------------------------------80%-85%

Weymouth-------------------------------------------------70%-80.25%

Randolph--------------------------------------------HMO 72.5%-85%
------------------------------------------------------PPO 50%-85% over 4 years

Millis------------------------------------------------------60%-70%

Pittsfield--------------------------------------------------80%-85%

At some point, it could be argued, the town should capitulate on the issue in order to enjoy significant, though reduced, savings. But the recent crisis offers another opportunity. Speaker of the Massachusetts House Sal DiMasi has indicated his intention to introduce legislation removing union veto power over a decision by local communities. Our town leadership and citizens should lobby our elected representatives, and our Governor, to support this idea.

Current projections show a savings of $1 million on health insurance costs for the town in year 1(assuming no new additional members), as well as the freeing up of another $1 million currently held in the self-insurance trust we maintain as part of our self-insurance program. These are sizeable sums of money. The increased town share of premiums proposed by the unions (from 85% -90%) would eat up close to $500,000 of that savings. Statewide, savings for local communities could be as much as $750 million.

Outside of local government, employees have for some time been experiencing increased co-pays, increased deductibles, increased share of premiums, and increased premium costs –all at the same time. No one can blame organized labor for wanting to avoid this reality. How many of us would not choose to avoid it if we had the right to vote at our places of work? But the times dictate the need to act. We will lose too many of our services and the unions too many of their fellow employees if we don’t. The paralysis of no options must end.

Increase the Stabilization Fund

The Stabilization or “Rainy Day” Fund is money put aside by communities to use in the event of emergencies. For background see:

http://miltonview.blogspot.com/2006_10_01_archive.html

We currently have about $1.3 million in our fund. Use of the money requires a 2/3 vote of town meeting.

Our balance constitutes about 1.5% of our annual budget. The state recommends a 5% balance. The uncertain severity and length of the current crisis puts into stark relief the importance of an adequately funded account to help mitigate loss of services during downturns in the economy.

Our fund was established in 1996 at the urging of then Warrant Committee chair Mary Fitzgerald. Since that time there has been no regular contribution to augment the initial $500,000. Only a couple of windfalls of one time money have been added.

Experience has shown that to be effective a Stabilization Fund must satisfy two criteria. It must be large enough to provide a significant infusion of money during hard times without being completely depleted. And it must have a funding mechanism that provides for both consistent and meaningful contributions to quickly return the fund to appropriate levels after it has been tapped. Without these features Town Meeting is unlikely to use the fund.

Today neither of these needs are being met. At $1.3 million the fund is not large enough. Nor is there a regular flow of money to replenish it. A 5% balance (about $4.5 million) that received regular contributions would be a different matter.

There is no more important time than now to address this issue. Since 2003 Massachusetts law has permitted a Stabilization Proposition 2 ½ override. Unlike normal operating overrides, contributions to a Stablization override can only go to the fund, even beyond the initial year of the funding.

An override of $250,000 would cost the owner of an average priced home in Milton about $30 per year. It would have the following positive benefits.

-- triple the size of the fund in 10 years

-- ensure regular, sizable additions outside the annual scramble for money

--make it more realistic to judiciously tap our current balance in what is shaping up to be the worst financial times in decades

--strengthen our financial house in the eyes of bond rating agencies at a time when many communities may face downgrades, and when Milton will be selling bonds for the new library

--provide a much needed sign of proactive foresight to a citizenry that craves solutions, security, decisiveness, and some kind of good news

That’s a pretty good return on $30 per year.

Revise the Master Plan

Two current members of the Board of Selectman included this in their election platforms. It’s past time to get started. The current chair of the Planning Board, Emily Innes, has begun the process with a planned town-wide survey of issues. A Master Plan means different things to different people. Development, housing, open spaces –all of these have their constituencies.

Given present circumstances, as well as systemic issues of taxation, development must be an important part of any plan. Whenever talk of a Master Plan is heard, one quickly hears that Milton is a built out community and the prospect of increasing our commercial revenues slight. While that may be true, I’d rather have that be the conclusion of the planning process, not a going in assumption that dictates the direction of the undertaking. In addition to new development we should take a look at redevelopment, which itself can add to commercial revenues. We need to be completely open about what we can do before we proceed to what we ought to do.

Support Passage of the Municipal Partnership Act

In his recent state of the state address Governor Patrick signaled his intention to resubmit those elements of the Municipal Partnership Act the legislature failed to act on last year. These include a local option for a 1 or 2 percent restaurant tax. Two years ago estimates indicated this could provide Milton with $150,000 in added revenue should we adopt the measure. With two new planned restaurants (they are coming aren’t they?), both more upscale in price, this amount might be higher. But first the legislature must pass the law. We need to support this and other initiatives for local control. Today, the hands of local officials are often tied by state laws. If we’re going to manage in hard times, we need the authority to do so.

The national crisis in our economy is of unknown depth and duration. But a crisis it is. As President Obama noted in his inaugural speech on Tuesday, the time for “putting off unpleasant decisions…has surely passed.” We should heed these words here in Milton and in the Massachusetts legislature. It will determine to a great extent how well we weather the storm.

The Definition of Fiscal Insanity –Question 1

2008-10-19T13:40:00.004-04:00

Question 1 on this year’s election ballot proposes the elimination of the state income tax in two phases – half beginning in January of 2009, and the remainder in January 2010. This is the second go round for this initiative. It was first proposed in 2002 when an astounding 45% of voters supported it after it was largely ignored by most as an idea so obviously misguided and reactionary that it required no organized opposition.

The personal income tax yields $12.5 billion per year, or 40% of current state spending. The sheer size of the revenue loss ought to make obvious the utter recklessness of the proposal. How many entities —the company your work for, your town government, your own budget,--could sustain a loss of 40% without massive consequences? Consider that the elimination of every employee working for the State of Massachusetts would only save $5.3 billion per year.

Unfortunately, when you consider the impact on local communities generally and Milton in particular, the impact would be even greater. The state has a number of legal obligations it must fulfill irrespective of a momentary loss of sanity at the ballot box. These include Medicaid payments (required under Federal law to continue to receive 50% match), Chapter 70 education aid (that portion mandated by statute for foundation aid), debt service, MBTA funding, and the Massachusetts School Building Assistance fund.

These obligations total about $12.5 billion. Therefore, cuts to state spending necessitated by the loss of income tax revenue would have to come from the balance of state spending- totaling $19.3 billion. Cuts would have to be in the range of 71% under this scenario. Let’s look at the category and amounts of local aid Milton receives that could face an average 71% cut.

Lottery Aid------------------------------------------------------$2.75 million
Additional Assistance------------------------------------------$1.25 million
Police Career Incentives ---------------------------------------$266,000
Pilot for State Owned Land -----------------------------------$608,000
Library Grant -----------------------------------------------------$31,000
Elderly Exemptions ---------------------------------------------$28,000
Veterans Benefits -----------------------------------------------$104,000
School Lunch -----------------------------------------------------$21,000
Charter School Reimbursements -------------------------------$35,000
Chapter 70 Non-Obligatory -----------------------------------$1,580,000

Total $6,678,000

If these aid items end up being cut an average of 71% Milton stands to lose approximately $4,737,000. This is about twice the size of the largest override in Milton’s history. It would come on the heels of an existing need for an override of between $2-$3 million in order to restore substantial lost positions in the last two years and prevent further losses. And the impact could be further increased if state revenues continue to decline and further cuts in current state spending need to target local aid.

All of this is not to suggest that local aid cuts alone would be sufficient to make up for a 40% loss in revenue. On the state level substantial cuts would be necessary in public safety, higher education, human services, business development, and many other areas. Capital spending on state infrastructure, already deficient in the face of substantial, demonstrated need, would be decimated. Current state law caps levels of capital spending as a percent of state spending. A 40% cut in state spending under the mandated formula results in no spending on capital items for seven years.

The author of this initiative, as in 2002, is Carla Howell, self-styled Libertarian. Libertarians are the closest entity we have in America to Social Darwinists. Not only should human beings sink or swim based on their own actions or abilities (social survival of the fittest), but government at all levels is largely an unnecessary evil that stands in the way of a true utopia thwarted only by bizarre notions of social needs and social responsibilities.

Happily, if supporters of Question 1 were limited to holders of such views, no one would be worried about the vote. But the question seems to be attracting support from an indeterminate number of angry, frustrated voters. Fueled by an unprecedented level of cynicism, some people are toying with the idea of a “message vote” as some sort of feel good substitute for calm, thoughtful analysis.

It takes very little effort to discover that proponents of Question 1 have no basis for believing the state could sustain such a loss of revenue without severe consequences. They dismiss cuts on the state level as simply a matter of cutting waste or unnecessary programs. They don’t bother to identify or quantify these cuts, for good reason. Local impacts are completely ignored. We’re supposed to be satisfied with expressing our anger and the prospects of more money in our pocket while turning a blind eye to what will happen to public safety, education, and virtually every area of town services.

We can only hope that reason will trump emotion on election day.

The Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation’s analysis of Question 1 can be read here:

http://www.masstaxpayers.org/files/MTF_Question1_Analysis.pdf

=============================
Acorn

Is anyone else as frustrated at the media’s analysis of voter fraud allegations as I am? It’s not surprising that the Republican Party and Sen. McCain are conducting this offensive. This has now been a campaign tactic of theirs for a few election cycles. Remember that two of the US Attorneys fired by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in the scandal that lead to his and other Bush administration resignations were fired for their refusal to file voter fraud charges against Acorn in 2004 due to lack of evidence.

The media’s response to this organized campaign has been poor. For those who might be interested, read Acorn’s response to the charges made against them.

http://snipurl.com/4i4v6 [www_acorn_org]

For an analysis of the myth of voter fraud in America, have a look at Justin Levitt’s (NYU Law School) study of the issue.

http://truthaboutfraud.org/pdf/TruthAboutVoterFraud.pdf

Jubinville for Governor’s Council

2008-09-10T19:35:00.002-04:00

Next Tuesday, September 16th, is primary election day in Massachusetts. On the Democratic ballot is a race for the Governor’s Council.

This somewhat obscure body (officially the Executive Council) performs an important function. Written into the original Massachusetts constitution by John Adams, its primary duty involves giving advice and consent to the Executive branches’ nominations for Judicial appointments.

Adams gave great weight to the concept of Judicial independence and therefore favored their appointment rather than election. At the same time he realized there had to be some check on a Governor’s choices- a considered review of legal ability, character, and judgment. Thus a group of citizens was created to perform that function.

Over the years the council has performed well, and poorly. In the 1960’s a series of scandals resulted in a reduction of responsibility. Many current observers advocate its elimination. But it exists today, and the work it does is important and deserves at the very least a small amount of our attention.

The Council is composed of 8 members who face election every two years. They are paid $26,000 and meet more or less weekly. The districts are geographically huge, making it difficult to wage a campaign against an entrenched incumbent – especially when so little attention is paid to the office by the press or individuals.

This hasn’t stopped Milton attorney Robert Jubinville from mounting a challenge for the Democratic nomination for District 2. He is taking on 14 year incumbent Kelly Timilty of Roslindale. He’s running on two major issues – he’s better qualified and Ms Timilty has not been doing the job.

Jubinville has a 30 year record as a trial attorney, with over 7000 court appearances. He’s been in a lot of courtrooms and seen a lot of judges in action. He points to this experience, properly I think, as an important and unique attribute in the process of selecting good judges. Ms Timilty lists her occupation as Governor’s Councillor. I couldn’t get any more detail than this since she did not return my phone call.

Jubinville states that Timilty missed 50% of the council’s meetings in the 12 month period from the summer of 2006 to the summer of 2007. This led the Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, in a story written by Julia Reischel, to describe the District 2 race as -“The No Show and the Defense Attorney”. Reischel also described Timilty as one of the quietest of the members during a series of meetings she attended.

I don’t think this is a difficult choice. On such a basic level as showing up for work the incumbent fails the fundamental test of public service-- paid public service, I might add. Jubinville not only has a very strong professional background for this job, his expressed concerns about standards for Judges refreshingly emphasizes old fashioned good government qualities of qualifications and character. On the other hand his opponent stated in a forum in Holliston that she would approve judges who didn’t “legislate from the bench”, code words for a political litmus test. I urge you to support Robert Jubinville on Tuesday, September 16th.

------------------

Please Support Grace Varela

Grace Varela is eight. She is the daughter of Julio and Sheila Egan Varela of Milton.

Just about a year ago she was diagnosed with Type 1 diabetes. Grace describes the change in her life on this website:

http://walk.jdrf.org/walker.cfm?id=87039116

Grace has decided to walk in the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation’s “Walk To Cure Diabetes” on October 4.

I know that many readers of this blog know the Varela’s, either through political campaigns, or the public schools. If you want to support this little girl’s worthy cause you can do so at the website listed above.

Turner's Pond - Park or Wilderness Area?

2008-08-13T21:00:00.007-04:00

When my children were small and we lived on Maple Street we made occasional visits to the pond. My son and I would circumnavigate the park on our own little adventure. After a couple of attempts to take my daughter in her stroller, I admitted defeat to the rough, uneven and occasionally wet terrain of the path created over decades by the steps of thousands.

During the last couple of years a group of Milton residents, and subsequently the Milton Parks Department, have put together a plan to improve accessibility by constructing a crushed stone pathway around the pond. They have raised $200,000, the entire cost of the project. The Parks department fully supports the plan, drawn up by Pete Jackson, a Milton Landscape architect. Just last night, after a great deal of study, the Conservation Committee blessed the project.

Now as always in Milton, any change generates opposition and the Turner’s Pond pathway is no different. I don’t say this to disparage those who have concerns. But any observer of the Milton scene knows full well that it is far from rare for small groups of opponents to exercise a disproportionate influence on decisions due to their own diligence and strength of feelings, and to the relative apathy of the rest of the citizenry.

So what are the concerns? Abutters, who constitute the majority of the opposition, fear improved accessibility will produce increased noise, litter, teenage partying, and a racetrack for young bicyclists. A group I’ll call “naturalists” are concerned that increased usage might affect the presence of certain wildlife occasionally seen in the area.

Somehow improved accessibility has been interpreted as a large increase in usage, and of negative types. Who besides those currently prevented from enjoying the park by reason of age or infirmity or affliction will be encouraged to visit? I don’t believe teenagers are currently discouraged from holding drinking parties by the lack of a crushed stone pathway. Will parents pushing strollers make lots of noise? Allow their young children to discard their candy wrappers?

Turner’s Pond is a park, not a wilderness area. It is meant to be enjoyed by residents of the town, and ideally by all who wish to do so. One of the abutters told the Boston Globe that not all residents should expect to be able to use the park, anymore than all Americans should expect to be able to hike and have full access to the Grand Canyon. Huh? The last time I checked many Americans not able or willing to hike down into the canyon enjoyed access to it via boat rides down the Colorado River, or on plane rides through the length of the canyon.

Turner’s Pond is named after Jacob A. Turner. Turner purchased what was then largely a swamp in the 1870’s. He used the land for a commercial enterprise – The Milton Ice Company. The current body of water was created by dredging and a dam, constructed to provide more ice. It exists today not in some ancient natural state, but as a result of man-made efforts that would not even be permitted by the Conservation Commission which last night approved the sensible plan to make it easier for people to experience it.

The concerns some are raising are matters of regulation and enforcement, should they materialize at all. We shouldn’t shy away from creating opportunities of this kind because of theoretical consequences. I remember some of the reasons offered for not allowing access to the Neponset bike path in Milton. Anyone who has biked from Milton to Castle Island in South Boston must wonder what all the fuss was about.

Much of the recent news on this has occurred over the summer. Many people are not here, or are not paying much attention to what’s going on. If you believe that enjoyment of Turner’s Pond should be open to all and that we should take advantage of $200,000 in a State grant and private donation now to realize that goal, please contact members of the Board of Selectman and the Parks Department to let them know how you feel. They need to hear from people other than those who oppose the initiative.

For your convenience:

Board of Selectmen

Kathy Fagan
kfagan@townofmilton.org

John Michael Shields
jshields@townofmilton.org

Marion McEttrick
marion@mcettrick.net

Parks Commissioners
Parks Dept phone number at Town Hall
617-898-4940

Barbara Brown
barbarawgc@comcast.net

John Davis
jdavis@cahilldavisgroup.com

Terry Driscoll
terry@willsand.com

David Perdios
dperdios@townofmilton.org

Can Town Meeting Government Still Do the Job?

2008-06-18T13:23:00.004-04:00

A few weeks ago I began to compose an article on the recent Annual Town Meeting, and the run up to it. I wanted to echo Charlie Winchester’s comments before the members about failed leadership. Then the Milton Times arrived. It contained a letter to the editor from my friend Steve McCurdy that posed the fundamental question. Is the Town Meeting form of government still up to the task of addressing complex community problems in the fast-paced 21st century?

Steve’s answer is no. Authority and responsibility are too diffused and the town meeting unwieldy. There is no source of leadership, leaving us to hope that multiple boards, with multiple members can somehow reach consensus and point in the same direction. He recommends following communities like Braintree and Weymouth who in recent years abandoned Town Meeting in favor of a Mayoral form of government.

A few years ago I would have rejected this suggestion immediately, as I’m a great fan of our form of government. I still don’t agree, but witnessing the continued erosion of our fiscal situation and this year’s chaotic budgetary process the question of how we forcefully and strategically address complex problems will increasingly intrude upon public discussion.

So just how did we end up at a Town Meeting at which the Board of Selectmen and the School Committee opposed the considered recommendation of the Warrant Committee? Perhaps we should begin by asking why they opposed the override recommendation. It was the majority view of both elected bodies that an override was not politically feasible. Times are tough economically and no one had stepped forward from the citizenry to lead the charge in a campaign destined in any event to begin too late to be mounted successfully.

This reasoning lead to a very risky decision. There is no reason to believe the economy will be in better shape a year from now. Indeed, the Massachusetts economy has not been that bad. Anyone who has served on the Warrant Committee during recessions that caused an actual substantial reduction in state aid understands the difference. But if the continued spike in world energy prices prompts the recession we’ve so far been able to avoid, and Massachusetts fully feels the effects, we could be faced with the prospect of seeking an even larger override at an even worse time. The consequences of a failed attempt will be commensurately greater to the level of town services, with the schools once again suffering disproportionately.

The origins of this year’s budgeting fiasco seem to emanate from decisions made at the very beginning of the budget building season. We are told that the prospective $700,000 cost for health services for firefighter Anthony Pickens precipitated a call to many department heads to prepare for a tight budget year as they put together their submissions. This led to the Warrant Committee receiving requests that upon examination clearly did not meet level service for many departments, a standard agreed upon as part of a financial planning process. Arguments about the definition of “level service” strike me as defensive. If departments can provide the same service with fewer people, then maybe they were overstaffed to begin with. I doubt that is an argument department heads would like to find themselves supporting.

But why did the Picken’s medical costs spur a call for austere budgets, rather than an early recognition that an override was likely needed, even more so because of it? Only a few months before, the Town Meeting had passed a budget resulting in 30 staff cuts in the schools. Other large departments were spared as serious a consequence only because of the frequent and frustrating lack of a labor agreement with the Police and Fire unions, postponing cuts in those departments.

While it is true that the final picture of a budget cannot be known for months into the planning process, there are structural aspects to our fiscal reality that only a remarkable occurrence could altar. For years the annual cost of maintaining current service levels has been growing faster than our annual revenue growth. We’ve now reached a point that such costs, combined with the growth of “bills”, exceed our yearly new revenue even as soon as one year after an override. As annual cost increases approach revenue increases, the result will be the need for more frequent and/or significantly larger override efforts. Unchanged, this phenomenon will worsen at an increasing pace and poses a threat to service levels in Milton.

Given this reality, and the substantial medical costs we were faced with early on, the beginnings of an educational effort on the need for an override should have started in the early Fall. Instead of having some department heads submitting inadequate budgets, the budgets would have made clear what the needs were. Instead of underplaying the implications of budgets, everyone should have clearly and loudly communicated the likely cuts that would have been necessary. Rather, we had a situation in which the Warrant Committee was stunned by one department head’s assessment of his budget just before town meeting. We had anonymous "sources close to town 's decision makers" making wholly incorrect charges about the Warrant Committee’s role to the Milton Times.

This is what happens when there’s an absence of leadership. The vacuum is filled with hesitation, confusion and infighting. However, I’m not ready to conclude that this is
endemic to a town meeting model. Within it there exists a spectrum of leadership styles, from the passive to the active. Certainly, witnessing members of two elected groups monitoring the number of phone calls and emails and waiting for a few citizens to lead the charge is an example of the former.

We have the right people in place to begin a more aggressive approach to addressing issues that are quickly becoming severe. Building support for an override next year is a necessity. We need to fulfill the promise of a revised Master Plan, one that gives full consideration to the DPW Yard as suggested in the Economic Development Plan, along with intensive re-development of our present commercial zones. And please, this should be done with outside experts, not town residents with political axes to grind.

A few years ought to be sufficient to judge whether a 17th century model that has served us well for so long can adapt to the unremitting pace of challenges and required solutions of today. By then, more people will be willing to answer Steve McCurdy’s fundamental question.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Erratum

In an earlier version of this post I identified anonymous sources in Town Hall as the source of a report in the Milton Times. Upon rechecking, it was "sources close to town's decision makers". I apologize for the error, since those sources may not have been in Town Hall.

French Immersion II

2008-03-25T09:09:00.001-04:00

My first article on FI resulted in quite a few responses –some publicly as blog comments, the majority private emails.

A number of responses from those who view FI as a problem claimed I was out of touch with current issues. That the issues which motivate their concerns are different, and of recent vintage, from what I enumerated. Leaving aside the fact that I noted I hadn’t yet addressed all the topics, this claim rather quickly runs up against hard reality. Each of these “outdated” accusations against FI has been repeated in letters to the Times (Milton version), on a blog, and in emails to me. They continue to be part of a cacophony of complaints of varying degrees of legitimacy.

Before addressing some of these other topics, a word about language immersion. It’s occurred to me over the last months from comments made by many people, even supporters of FI, that Immersion is not understood. For example, here’s a provocative statement for you: French Immersion is not a language subject. Sound crazy? It’s completely true. An immersion program is a content based method of instruction in which core curriculum content is taught in the target language instead of in English. The focus of the classes in FI is identical to English classes. The goal is to learn the same basic elementary school skills in language, math, science and social science. The foreign language is simply the language of instruction.

The language is learned as a by-product of content instruction. Immersion is aptly named. It’s like being immersed in water as a means of learning to swim, with protections and proven methods to guide the student to success. The student focuses on deciphering the content of the teacher’s verbal presentation and written instruction. Gradually competence and confidence are gained. When English is introduced after a couple of years, all the content and basic literacy learned in French are transferred to English.

So when I hear comments such as, “maybe the money spent could be better invested somewhere else”, or that “during this budget season, everything including French Immersion is on the table”, I’m confronting statements emanating from a lack of understanding about the program. Putting French Immersion “on the table” makes no more sense than saying we’re putting English on the table. Educationally, Immersion is a world class investment. For the same dollar spent in English, students learn the same basic curricula while acquiring a fundamental level of understanding of a foreign language unobtainable by any other method of language instruction.

So what are the “current” concerns?

1. The FI program has fewer students of color and fewer boys. Consequently, the English program has a very high percentage of boys and a much higher percentage of African American students.

2. The FI Immersion has far fewer special needs students.

3. The FLES program has been cut, a move viewed as unfair to the English program.

The racial and gender disparities in the make up of the two programs exist, although they are sometimes exaggerated. It occurs, but for rare exceptions, as a consequence of choices made by parents of the students. For this reason alone, outlandish charges of segregation ought to be dismissed.

For the record, here are the approximate three year averages reported by Principal John Drottar’s evaluation team to the School Committee.

Gender

French---------------Girls 57%--------Boys 43%

English--------------Girls 43%--------Boys 57%

Race

French---------------White 85%-------Non-white 15%

English--------------White 70%-------Non-white 30%

SPED

French----------------5%

English---------------24%

Class Size

French----------------20

English---------------22

Two possible implications of this free choice result deserve attention. Do the differences in the makeup of the two programs detract from the educational quality of the English program, as apparently many FI opponents believe? And, irrespective of the answer to that question, wouldn’t it be better for the overall social education of students to have a better mix in both programs?

Let’s begin with some basics. Both programs spend the same amount of instructional time across language arts, math, science and social studies. I won’t deal here with whether the FLES classes constitute a full exposure to the core curriculum. Both programs use the same math curriculum, including the same textbooks. Both programs use the same science kits, with the French teachers providing necessary translations. The social studies program is also virtually identical. So both programs focus on the same content. The difference rests with the method of transmission. The French program transmits content through the French language, the English program through the English language. The only inevitable difference in educational outcome is the superior foreign language skills of those in FI.

Now I don’t expect anyone would seriously argue that the small differences in class size or gender composition create a poorer learning environment for English students. Class size changes from year to year and we’ve gone through periods when both programs have had larger classes. Yes, these are averages and there are statistical outliers, the odd class here or there with a substantial number of students. But that can be dealt with, and ways to do so are already being discussed. While the gender disparities are noticeable, there is no reason that even larger differences would detract from educational quality. As it is, there are a substantial number of boys in FI and girls in English.

I won’t even discuss, for what I hope are obvious reasons, the purely theoretical implication that the number of students of color in a classroom could impact educational quality.

Which brings us to special needs. The SPED compositions of 5% in French and 24% in English need some adjustment. Students in the French program are evaluated later than those in English, creating a slight undercount. In English, some of the SPED students receive instruction outside the standard classes. Even after making slight adjustments for these factors, the current classroom mix is troubling. We should look carefully at any instructional issues this might present, for both student populations.

And then there is FLES. Many parents are outraged about the cuts to this program. None that I have heard has offered other cuts they would make to fund it. Some kind of equivalency between FLES and FI has been suggested, with some even claiming that cuts to FLES should be accompanied by cuts to FI. No such equivalency exists. The FI program is a complete academic program which does everything the English program does and more. It teaches the core curriculum. It is a program of choice. FLES is a language course. It is a required subject for all English students whether they and their parents want it or not. Time devoted to it is taken from time on the core curriculum. It represents an additional cost to the system.

Having said that, I support its continued funding. The importance of foreign language ability grows and we need to offer options for obtaining it. We all need to remember, however, that its funding means cuts system-wide to the tune of a few hundred thousand dollars These are likely to come from teachers and non core subjects.

It would be desirable to have a good mix of students in both programs. We could encourage this result if we knew more about the reasons for parental choices. Why do some parents put their sons in English and their daughters in French? Why are parents of students of color and students with special needs more likely to choose English? Answers will create possibilities for eliminating some of the perceptions of risk that may underlie decisions on program choice. Here are some things we should consider doing.

1. We need to do some research. Not a survey sent home to parents, but qualitative research with either in-depth interviews or focus groups permitting the kind of exploration that will uncover more than surface motivations.

2. Public information and education about the Immersion program needs to be greatly improved. Some residents, especially those who have recently moved to town, are unaware of it. Many residents still think of it as a language program. The town of Holliston has offered a FI program for almost a decade longer than Milton. You can find information about it on their school website. Parents of pre-school children need to be educated about the program so that they have an informed choice about possibilities for their child.

3. Rather than maintain a separation of the two tracks unnecessarily, they should be mixed as soon as the Immersion students begin to have certain subjects in English. Principal Drottar’s review team has recommended this.

4. We need to make sure that our capability to service students with special needs in the FI program is every bit as good as in the English program. Access should not be affected by lack of services, or its perception, for the majority of special needs students.

The French Immersion program is not going anywhere. Any attempt to dismantle it would create a backlash with substantial consequences for the town and for support of education in Milton. It would be senseless to harm a program of such value, both educational and financial. The most troubling aspect of the attack waged against it is the complete lack of proposed solutions or changes to address legitimate concerns. The impression quite understandably left is of an agenda to eliminate FI. We need to focus on the issue of inadequate funding, which is a real threat to the educational quality of all programs in the Milton schools. It’s time to move on.

French Immersion

2008-02-11T09:41:00.000-05:00

The recent celebration of the foreign language program in the Milton Schools, coincident with the 20th anniversary of the French Immersion program, occurred at a time of growing attacks on that very program.

We’ve been told that FI is elitist; more expensive than the English program; has better books and supplies; has smaller classes; provides an early exposure to foreign languages denied to students in the English program; has never been evaluated; and produces superior academic achievement because it’s more “enriched” and has fewer students with special needs. I’m sure this list is not exhaustive. As the emotions of opponents have grown, so have the claims. And frankly, they tend to get more and more outrageous. A recent blog commentary even concluded that French Immersion doesn’t work!

This proliferation of increasingly dubious assertions has potentially negative consequences. The piling on of perceived slights and inequities suggests an agenda to destroy the immersion program. Unrestrained and unanswered, it risks a counter action by the many supporters of FI, who have to-date exercised admirable restraint. The feared “schism” could then occur. On a more practical level, a grab bag of issues threatens to bury some possibly legitimate concerns that with goodwill could be addressed.

Let’s look at some of the issues.

Elitism

It is a struggle to take seriously a charge of elitism against a program whose members are self-selected on the basis of freedom of choice. In ways the discussion should end right there. No barriers of any kind are placed on enrollment. After all, immersion programs function on the same principles with which all human beings learn their native language. With the possible exception of a sub-set of students with special needs (the research is sketchy) there is no reason why any student can’t succeed in FI.

More Expensive

There has never been any evidence presented that would support this continued assertion. You can teach the core curriculum in French or you can teach it in English. Nothing in the structure of an immersion program necessitates additional costs. Studies done in Canada demonstrate that in most cases immersion is the equivalent cost or less of other programs once it is up and running. Exceptions occur when complex transportation issues arise. Ironically, many who make this claim support a grades 1-6 FLES program which indisputably results in the English program costing more.

Class Size

Class size has always been a major concern of mine, both as a parent and as a Warrant Committee member. I have a child graduate from both the English and French programs. The years they attended the Milton Public Schools constitute the first 16 years of French Immersion. Most of those years the French classes were larger, but occasionally the English classes were larger. Whatever the current state, the fact is relative class size changes from year to year.

A quick search of yellowing Warrant Committee files yielded relative class size data for both programs. For comparison purposes consider that across 4 elementary schools and 5 grades we have 20 grades offering both programs. I have data for 2002 and 2003. Here’s a recap.

10/4/02

Grades in which French classes were larger------------------------11

Grades in which English classes were larger------------------------6

Grades with essentially equal class sizes----------------------------3

10/1/03

Grades in which French classes were larger----------------------12

Grades in which English classes were larger----------------------5

Grades with essentially equal class sizes--------------------------3

The point has been made that enrollment in the English program tends to increase over time because the French program does not accept new students after grade 1, causing all new students to be placed in English. Unfortunately, this fact about “program” size has been misinterpreted as equating to “class” size. It could result in larger class sizes and it could result in smaller class sizes due to the manner in which the number of classes in a grade are determined.

If there are two second grade English classes at Collicot with 21 students each, 6 new students would result in two classes of 24 students. However, if these same two classes had 24 students to begin with, six new students would trigger either the creation of a third class or an effort to transfer a couple of students to another school to keep classes within School Committee guidelines or administration standards. A loss of students in either program can also produce different results.

More on other issues very soon.

An excellent online resource for the study of foreign languages, with information about Immersion and FLES programs, can be found at the Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition at the University of Minnesota.

http://www.carla.umn.edu/index.html

==========================
Sustainable Milton Solar Challenge

Sustainable Milton has accepted a Mass Energy Challenge to help the New England Wind Fund. If 300 families from Milton donate $100 or $5 per month for a year to the Wind Fund, Milton will receive a 4 kilowatt solar installation for a town building. Your donation will support increased use of two important alternative energy sources. Although the final deadline for this challenge is April 30, a significant incentive has been offered those who contribute by this Friday, February 15 –the chance to win a one week vacation in Hawaii, with odds the lottery could never offer.

Information about the challenge can be found here:

http://sustainablemilton.org/SolarChallenge.html

Full Day Kindergarten

2008-01-03T15:23:00.000-05:00

The educational benefits of full day Kindergarten are generally recognized and seldom challenged.

A substantial body of research indicates that graduates of full day programs enter the crucial first and second grades with more advanced understanding in both language and mathematics and are prepared to capitalize on a rigorous and more fast-paced curriculum. These early gains have been shown to continue into the third grade in some of the most recent research.

For communities trying to address the achievement gap issue, FDK offers more benefits. The research also shows that at risk students enrolled in FDK programs substantially close the gap in educational achievement. This is true for all three segments of this group – language, socioeconomic and racial based.

A program that both raises the level of performance of all, while addressing the needs of those at risk is one we should pay attention to.

Thus, the actions by the Milton School Committee to introduce FDK in Milton is a very positive step. Paradoxically, it could have a negative impact if we’re not careful about its structure and implementation.

The current estimates of the cost of the program is around $400,000. I’m not sure whether that includes the savings to be enjoyed from a likely substantial reduction in the half-day program, which legally we would have to maintain. Funding this out of the current inadequate budget is simply not tenable. The likelihood of receiving additional money for it in this year’s budget, given the state of our finances, is nil. So the School Committee has decided to introduce the program on a fee basis.

Statewide fee-based programs run from $400 per child to over $4,000, with the average around $2600. The sad fact is that many people are not able to afford something like $2600, or possibly more. The Committee is looking at a sliding scale for fees in recognition of this. I hope they arrive at something considerably less than the average for those most in need. It is this very group from which a substantially large proportion of at risk students come. And so the paradox. A FDK program that financially excludes at risk students will turn an opportunity to close the achievement gap into an exercise that increases it, as those able to afford it make increased strides in educational preparation.

First and foremost this type of outcome would be a tragedy for the individual student. It would also create an educational problem down the road for the schools, as additional scarce resources would need to be pinpointed for remediation. This is not likely to be a one or two year proposition. Although we may not be hearing much about it yet, the near term budgetary news is not going to be good. We need to be thinking about how we can keep this from becoming a two-tiered educational system over an extended period of time.

This issue is on the School Committee’s agenda for next Tuesday, January 8, 2008 at 7:00 pm.

For research on FDK:

http://cehd.umn.edu/CAREI/Reports/Kindergarten/

===============================================

KIVA-ORG

Can you remember the time, just over a decade ago, when critics were pooh-poohing the internet as a phenomenon that really had no practical purpose. Businesses didn’t think they should invest too much into it. Advertisers and agencies couldn’t imagine how they would make money with it. Retailers refused to believe that consumers would ever trust online payment systems enough to conduct commerce with it. The basic freedom of one to one contact seemed like some kind of futurist’s chicken dinner circuit subject matter.

Today, people in the developed world have seen their lives changed by the digital revolution. Corporate America has diverted billions of dollars of marketing expenditures to the world wide web. Information, of varying degrees of quality, are available at the click of a mouse. And commerce is flourishing. We buy books, prescription drugs, clothes, wine, jewelry, and just about anything else you can think of through our web browsers without leaving the house.

Now, thanks to two Stanford graduates, the same technologies are being put to use as a powerful tool for international social involvement.

Kiva.org facilitates mico-loans to start up and very small enterprises in poor regions all around the world. Who are the bankers supplying these loans? People like you and me.

It works like this. Kiva.org has partners in developing countries to identify and vet individuals who have a business idea and need money to realize their dream. The loan requests are usually between a few hundred and a few thousand dollars. Information about the business and owner are displayed on Kiva.org’s website. Using the same kind of online payment systems designed for commerce, individuals from around the world invest in this much needed capital formation. They go to the site, select from number of investment opportunities, and participate by loaning as little as $25. When fully subscribed the loans are made. Periodic reports of the progress of the business are posted online, and the loans are repaid in 10 months to a year.

At that point you return your small amount to your bank account, or invest it in something else. This organization has really begun to take off. In the past week over 13,000 lenders joined Kiva. $800,000 was loaned to almost 1200 businesses. The organization is very upfront about risk, and you can read the extensive information on each loan and region. But for as little as $25 you can help entrepreneurs who have no other resource build their economies one small business at a time. It puts an entirely new, post digital world twist on Tip O’Neill’s aphorism: “All politics is local.”

Check out http://www.kiva.org/

========================================
The 1909 Wing

Check out this YouTube video on the demolition of the old wing of the former High School- to Steely Dan’s _My Old School_. Turn up your speakers!

http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=FMmFc46Dkf4

Those Budget Blues

2007-12-15T16:46:00.000-05:00

The annual town budgetary process, otherwise known as the period of weeping, has begun.

One of the signposts of this season witnesses the entirely misguided and biased reporting on the subject by the Milton Times.

In two recent issues the town newspaper has addressed the budget with respect to the School Department’s request for a 4.8% increase. The request was described as exceeding the “budget prepared by the town.” A headline to a teaser box read “Schools’ Request Busts the Budget”, referencing a “preliminary balanced budget for the town”.

Now it’s understandable that the new editor of our town organ, who comes here from another part of the country, might not be acquainted with how budgets are done in Milton, and all communities with the Town Meeting form of government. But the reporter who authored both of these quotes certainly should know by now. It is not too much to expect those covering town events to have a modicum of understanding with which they can place news events in some degree of context. Instead, we are fed highly sensationalized headlines and sound bites that distort the reality of important happenings. Sadly, these distortions invariably occur in coverage of school finances.

Suffice it to say there is no “preliminary budget”, balanced or otherwise. The new Town Administrator has proposed a balanced budget, working with some of the town departments. It has not been voted on by the Board of Selectmen. But the Town Administrator’s proposal is no more a town budget than one offered by the School Committee in which they presume to decide what funding all other department budgets should receive.

Under the Town Meeting form of government the budget is developed by the Warrant Committee and considered and passed by the Town Meeting. This body takes input from all departments and appropriate elected bodies. However, the final decisions are its own and its recommendation serves as the point of discussion at town meeting, while alternative proposals must be presented as amendments on an article by article basis.

The Warrant Committee has now received all the budget submissions and will spend the next 3 months crafting a budget which balances need with resources as best they can. Given the state of our finances you can expect another year of substantial service cuts as we are forced to reduce staffing levels again. An override to prevent more cuts is not at the moment being considered. This isn’t because one isn’t needed to avert further reductions in service. Cutbacks in fire service and the loss of many positions in the school department already are quite noticeable. The need to cut more, possibly on the same order of magnitude of last year, will be unacceptable to many Milton residents. Political psychology might suggest a course of toughing it out until next year, but the hole will only be bigger, and the override necessary to restore services to prior levels larger.

The Milton Times articles suggests that the School Department’s request is somehow irresponsible. School Committee Members are elected officials of the Town with overall responsibility for delivering the high quality education residents demand. It is their responsibility to request what they feel is necessary, within reason, to meet that demand. Were they to instead submit a budget merely for the purpose of helping the Warrant Committee do its job, they would not be discharging their duty to Milton’s 3800 school children.

The size of the School Committee request is not surprising. They bore the brunt of service cuts in last year’s budget, experiencing staff cuts out of proportion to their share of town staff. They continue to struggle with significant challenges in several educational areas. Now the Warrant Committee has a thoughtful budget proposal that in no way restores all they lost last year. As always, they will make the tough choices and then we’ll have a preliminary budget.

----------------------------------------------------------

Emily Innes, current member of the Planning Board and past Chair of the Warrant Committee, is enjoying a very successful start in her new business as an Interior Designer. This past March she was chosen to be a member of WHDH’s Room for Improvement Design Team. She’s taught a course at the Cambridge Center for Adult Education, and this January she will teach two courses at the Forbes House Museum. For a flyer on the courses and more information about Emily’s business:

http://www.innesinteriors.com/

----------------------------------------------------------

“Cradles to Crayons” in Quincy is an organization that helps provide some essential services to children in poverty. So far this season they have distributed a record number of winter coats, and yet they estimate that 2000 children still need them. During this season of giving, give a moment’s thought to whether you have any children’s coats, ‘new or gently used”, which you could donate to a child who otherwise may go without. They have a deadline of December 19th. For more on the organization and drop off information for any donations:

http://www.cradlestocrayons.org

Or you can contact me.

Short Takes

2007-10-08T19:35:00.000-04:00

Health Insurance Negotiations.

The October 1st deadline for communities to notify the state of their intention to join the state health insurance program has passed. Public reports indicate that only 3 Massachusetts communities and 4 regional school districts reached agreement [70% union approval] with unions by that date.

Apparently there were two meetings between Milton officials and the unions. Reports indicate that presentations made by the Superintendent were very informative and clear. In the end, some of the unions felt there was not enough time to consider the switch to the state plan. And some claimed not to be satisfied by the completeness of answers to their questions.

It appears the legislature is going to extend the deadline to the end of the month, so all may not be lost. Negotiations should continue and intensify. Perhaps the Selectmen need to be a little more involved in the process. Every effort to answer every question must be made. If an insurance consultant from the state would help, then let’s seek the help. It is already clear that next year’s budget is shaping up to be another exercise in fairly extensive service cuts. We must do everything we can to capture the savings that would result from a switch to the state plan.

The leaders of both houses of the Massachusetts legislature are on record as being willing to take a hard look at changing the legislation to remove a union veto. Unions should understand that the next three plus weeks may represent the only chance they will ever have to influence the terms under which communities transition to the GIC program.

Land Fill Escrow and The Stabilization Fund

Two years ago the town attempted to transfer the remaining money in the land fill escrow account [about $750,000 at the time] to the Stabilization fund. Before the Town Meeting the state declared they were not yet ready to okay the funds for release. Now that the state has done so, the Warrant Committee is going to recommend that a large portion of it be put in either the Stabilization Fund, or the Capital Stabilization Fund, or both.

The town's accounting firm and the bonding agencies are concerned about the low and declining levels of reserves the Town holds. While they will consider money in either fund part of our reserves, the practical use of them is different. The Capital Fund must be used for capital expenditures, while the Stabilization fund can be used for any expenditure, including capital. It constitutes more of an emergency fund because of its flexibility. We have a very low balance for emergencies, with the potential near term need for money to cover catastrophic health care costs not covered by insurance. For these reasons I hope the Warrant Committee will opt for putting the money in the true emergency fund.

Long term we will never enjoy an adequate Stabilization Fund balance, nor will we ever feel safe enough to actually use it, unless we have a dedicated, consistent stream of revenue for it. A Stabilization Fund Prop. 2 ½ override of $100,000 would cost the average Milton taxpayer between $10-$15 per year. Yet it would double our balance in less than a decade. You can read more about it here:

http://miltonview.blogspot.com/2006_10_01_archive.html

Policy or Micromanagement?

Last week’s School Committee meeting devoted over half an hour to a discussion of a proposed policy to require the Superintendent to secure Committee approval of changes made to administrative support staff positions. The proposal was tabled for even more discussion at a later date.

Massachusetts general laws and the Massachusetts Association of School Committees set forth laws and suggestions, respectively, for delineating the roles of Superintendent and Committee. The trend over the last few decades has been to provide educators with more autonomy in the management of public schools. Neither state law nor the MASC provide detailed differentiation of these potentially conflicting roles. Only the broadest descriptions are offered. The Committee is charged with setting policy, hiring the Superintendent, and helping develop, approve and be an advocate for the budget. The Superintendent is responsible for operations, hiring of Principals, and developing educational proposals for the Committee’s consideration and approval.

Beyond that there is a great deal that does not fall easily into either role and communities differ in the degree to which the elected School Committees assume control of various issues. Unfortunately, anything can be called “policy” simply by doing so and creating a policy. However, the very broad descriptions offered by the mentioned sources define policy quite clearly as educational policy.

The organization of the central administration support staff ought to be in the purview of school operations, and unless it involves educational policy or budget I fail to see why the committee wants to approve it. Certainly notice of such changes should be made, on a timely basis. And the committee should inform the Superintendent of their opinion. But approval?

Let’s keep our priorities straight. We have many serious educational issues to tackle. How do we maintain momentum on closing the achievement gap in the face of more imminent cuts to the budget? What resources and efforts are we going to put into the Pierce Middle School to ensure adequate yearly progress in Mathematics and English? Why isn’t de-leveling as a possible tool in this regard being discussed after being rejected last year solely due to insufficient study and notice? What long range plan for financial recovery from what is looming as the second straight year of inadequate budget are we considering?

The list could be much longer. Let’s devote scarce time to the important issues rather than embarking on an unwarranted assumption of authority that represents a somewhat disturbing trend of over reaction to criticism, whether warranted or not.

----------
I've added "Sustainable Milton" to my links list. Check it out.

[where:02186]

Time to Tackle Health Insurance Costs

2007-09-07T17:07:00.000-04:00

It should be no secret to anyone that the rising cost of employee health insurance constitutes the most pressing issue on the expenditure side of Milton’s financial problems.

In fiscal year 1998 the cost of these benefits was $3 million. For the current fiscal year of 2008 it stands at $8.2 million. Most alarming is the rate of increase of the last five years. This growth now produces such prodigious annual incremental increases that it threatens to eat up nearly all the annual growth in revenue, itself not very robust, and leave little left over to maintain our current staffing levels needed to provide the services we are long accustomed to.

A highlight of Governor Patrick’s recent campaign was the “Municipal Partnership Act”. The key component offered a streamlined approach for communities to join the state employees’ health insurance system. This provision was signed into law near the end of July, as Chapter 67 of the Acts of 2007. The law lays out the procedures that must be followed to transition to the state plan.

The financial benefits to joining are substantial. During the past five years municipal insurance costs have increased 84% or 13% per year while the state’s program has increased 47% or 8.1% per year. A joint report by the Boston Municipal Research Bureau and the Massachusetts Taxpayers foundation has conservatively computed the possible savings statewide to be $436 million in FY 2013, and $1.4 billion by FY 2018, just ten years from now. Using the same assumptions for a conservative savings we can see a possible scenario for Milton.

-----------NON GIC 11%------GIC [State] 8.1%--------------Annual Savings

2008------$8.2 million----------$8.2 million

2009------$9.1-----------------$8.9-------------------------$ 200,000

2010------$10.1-----------------$9.6------------------------$ 500,000

2011------$11.2-----------------$10.4-----------------------$ 800,000

2012------$12.4-----------------$11.2-----------------------$1.2 million

2013------$13.8-----------------$12.2-----------------------$1.6 million

2014------$15.3-----------------$13.2-----------------------$2.1 million

2015------$17.0-----------------$14.3-----------------------$2.7 million

2016------$18.9-----------------$15.5-----------------------$3.4 million

2017------$21.0-----------------$16.8-----------------------$4.2 million

2018------$23.3-----------------$18.2-----------------------$5.1 million

Even in the very first year the savings could be hundreds of thousands of dollars, rising to millions of dollars on an annual basis in a matter of a few years. So what does Milton need to do to join the state plan?

Notify all collective bargaining units within the town of its desire to negotiate entry into the state system.

Establish negotiations with a collective bargaining committee comprised of a representative from all unions and a representative of retired employees.

The individual unions would have a weighted vote in the negotiation based on the proportion of employees in the town’s health plan. Retirees would have a 10% vote.

Secure approval of an agreement by vote of 70% of the union committee, with any conditions for acceptance, a dispute resolution process for future agreements, and a process for withdrawal,

Notify the state of this agreement by October 1, 2007 in order to enter the state system by July of 2008 for Fiscal Year 2009.

One of the early criticisms of the law is the short timeframe for first year admittance. From the date of passage to the deadline of October 1 is about 2 months. Even for communities who may have started the process the day after passage this leaves very little time to secure union agreement.

I would be surprised if Milton has even begun the process. But we should. The financial implications are so significant that it is hard to imagine a good reason not to start immediately. There is already discussion about asking the legislature to postpone the notification date. If we go to work now we might be able to meet a later date, and if not, the process will have begun and give us more likelihood we’ll be ready a year from now, even at a cost of $200,000 savings next year.

The other reason Milton and all communities should begin now involves other aspects of the law’s provisions. Many feel getting a 70% vote of union reps is unlikely. If that proves to be the case the legislature has it in its power to change the entire mechanism for entry. The unions need to realize that, as they go through this process, and they need to understand that voter patience with overrides required in part to fund health care benefits superior to what they enjoy in the private sector is quickly coming to an end.

We won’t know if union intransigence requires action unless a number of communities get about the process of negotiation. If that is delayed, needed reforms will be delayed, and Milton will pay the costs of unrealized opportunity along with everybody else.

This should be the number one priority for the Board of Selectmen, who have the authority under law to initiate this process. Nothing else that can be done in the short term will have the financial impact of joining the state insurance plan. The Governor’s home community should be in the vanguard of a process which so ably demonstrates Deval Patrick’s understanding of the problems of local communities and his desire to propose intelligent solutions.

[where:02186]

The Armenian Genocide and “No Place for Hate”

2007-08-20T18:52:00.000-04:00

The 20th century has often been described as a particularly bloody period of world history. R.J. Rummel of the University of Hawaii estimates that around 250 million people were killed in acts of democide, the murder of innocent people by governments. This figure does not include military combatants, but does include the sum of all mass murders, whether meeting the definition of genocide or not.

The Armenian Genocide was the opening act of this century of murder. During the first world war, between 1915-1917, somewhere between 600,000 and 1.5 million Armenians, a Christian minority in the Muslim Ottoman Empire, were killed by the “Young Turks” regime then in power. Many of these deaths occurred on forced death marches across the eastern part of Turkey into the Syrian desert. Death squads attacked the hundreds of thousands of defenseless deportees all along the route, leaving a bloody trail of dead. The small numbers who arrived in their desert destination died from starvation and thirst in large numbers.

What had a decade before been an ethnic group of 2 million people within modern day Turkey, and with a 2000+ year history in the region, was gone. Most were murdered, the remainder part of a diaspora population now found in numerous countries around the world.

Just as with the Holocaust, there are those who deny the genocide. Unlike the Holocaust, these deniers include the nation who perpetrated it, and a few well credentialed and generally respected historians. Armenians have fought for decades for the proper recognition of the fate which befell them. Almost a century removed from the event, this recognition is spreading. Today, 21 countries have passed resolutions declaring the mass murder to be a genocide. In the United States, 40 of the 50 states, including Massachusetts, have so declared. And today, a bill in the United States House seeks to have the United States give its recognition.

The obstacle to speaking truth on this matter involves “Realpolitik”. President Bush fears retribution by Turkey, viewed as the only secular, somewhat democratic Muslim nation in the region. Similar concerns motivate the ADL and its Executive Director Abe Foxman. The ADL is one of the sponsoring agencies behind the important and successful “No Place for Hate” program. The ADL, founded as an organization to combat anti-semitism, fears that Turkish Jews would be targeted for retribution and that Turkey’s alliance with Israel would be threatened in the event the ADL supported US recognition of the genocide.

The ADL’s position prompted the town of Watertown to withdraw from the “No Place for Hate” program. Over 8000 residents of Watertown are of Armenian ethnicity and town leaders felt obligated to protest the ADL’s views on this issue.

http://snipurl.com/1pqhu

What about “No Place for Hate” in Milton? This organization has been an invaluable resource for a diverse and rapidly changing community. It has contributed significantly to fostering an atmosphere of openness, tolerance and inclusion. It is inevitable however, as this issue gains traction with the firing of the regional ADL leader and the resignations of regional board members, that Milton and other chapters of “No Place for Hate” will have to face this issue. They should face this issue.

The action in Watertown is understandable. But I don’t think withdrawing from an organization which has done so much good because of a single, albeit significant, error in judgment is the right thing to do. The ADL’s position is barely defensible. An organization founded to combat hatred and the violence that can emanate from it cannot fence sit an issue of genocide, and the rationales provided by Abe Foxman have been embarrassing. For an organization like the ADL, principle must trump practical politics.

I urge the Milton No Place for Hate organization to work from the inside to change the ADL’s position. Pressure must be placed on the national organization to rethink its views. There are 58 Massachusetts communities participating in the program. A petition signed by all chapters forwarded to Foxman and individual board members, and released to the press, would be a good start. An organized campaign of support for the genocide recognition bill in Washington directed to our government representatives would also help. I suspect similar efforts will start elsewhere.

The ADL’s intransigence on this matter threatens the credibility and moral capital of an important organization. Working for change has the added benefit of serving as an example of the very beliefs which underpin both organizations.

[where:02186]

Once Again, the Double Standard

2007-07-27T19:27:00.000-04:00

The crackerjack investigative staff of the Milton Times has rocked the summertime calm of the 7th best place to live in America! “School Clerical Staff Win Large Raises.” Imagine our good fortune that this story did not break before Money Magazine identified Milton one of the top 10 of 3000 similar communities. How would they have reacted to news concerning the “honesty and accountability”, as the Milton Times editorial described it, of the Milton School Department? Would we have lost the top Massachusetts position to Chelmsford?

Sarcasm off.

Alright. So what’s the story? Five clerical staffers in the school department were given raises for FY 2008 ranging from 8-16%. These are sizeable increases. And they are occurring at a time when personnel are being cut in the school department because salary increases in the school department were not funded by the Town Meeting. This somehow raises issues of honesty and accountability in the eyes of the Times, and of fiscal responsibility according to some others.

Let’s look at the numbers. The FY 2008 raises for these five employees total $24,868. Had they been the standard 3%, they would have been around $17,872 less --this amount out of a school budget of over $30 million, with the average cost of single teacher running around $50,000. Is this fiscal irresponsibility? Lack of honesty? Does it really contribute to the pain being inflicted upon Milton school children by a wholly inadequate budget coming out of Town Meeting? Of course it doesn’t. Descriptive terms like those used by the Times and others lose all meaning when they are applied in such an inappropriate way.

In the real world of government and private industry increases in compensation beyond the standard occur all the time. When a Police patrolman becomes a Sergeant, or a Sergeant becomes a Lieutenant, the pay jumps more than the standard 3%. When a school teacher becomes an Assistant Principal the same thing occurs. Whenever the responsibilities of an employee in the private sector change significantly, whether accompanied by a title change or not, raises above the standard are expected. These changes occur in good times, and they occur in bad times when layoffs are necessary. They occur because smart management knows that keeping employees properly compensated and motivated is crucial at all times.

It should not be surprising to anyone that the Milton Times is beating the drum on this story. Their long history of antagonism toward the School department begins at the top and manifests itself in a double standard with respect to “news” which has been seen over and over again. Do you really believe the Times is only interested in the issue of large raises during times of very tight budgets?

The Warrant for the 2007 Town Meeting contained the following statement in the report of the Warrant Committee.

“For the 28 DPW employees who are members of the Milton Public Employees Association, the aggregate cost of salary increases from FY2007 to FY2008 is $128,137, a 10.92% increase. The Town does not have sufficient revenue to sustain increases of these magnitudes year after year.”

Not a single member of the public, and not a single Town Meeting member rose at Town Meeting to question or oppose this action. Money to pay these increases was approved. Neither before nor after the Town Meeting did the Milton Times raise this as an issue of accountability, or, indeed, at all.

Along with the front page article the Times ran an editorial about this story. Apparently it is growing sensitive to charges of unfairness in its coverage of the schools. It claimed a responsibility to disclose information it had discovered. The Times has been receiving leaks of information for many years. Why do these leaks place more of an obligation on the paper to report about something than the facts laid out plainly in something like the Town Warrant, on exactly the same issue? And why does it seem to get such leaks about the School Department only?

The fiscal problems we face as a town are far more complex than the simplistic, agenda driven output of the Milton Times. No one should expect that enterprise to expend the effort to understand and communicate the larger questions. What we can expect of citizens, and especially of Town Meeting members, is a resistance to the emotional responses which sensationalized reporting can engender.

Milton Firefighter Tony Pickens

2007-07-05T14:11:00.000-04:00

Public announcement made during a concert at the Milton Town Green the evening of July 3, 2007:

Good evening. I’m Jeff Stone. Most of you have signed a large get-well card that Gail Marie Dwyer has been circulating around. Thank you for signing it. I’d like to make a short announcement about something that is important to the community.

Milton Firefighter Tony Pickens was struck by a car this week and he was severely injured. He is currently fighting for his life at a Boston hospital and he has a long road to go to recovery.

Tony was helping at a minor accident outside the Atherton St. Fire Station when he was hit. His fellow firefighters administered first aid immediately and probably saved his life.
Our first responders – fire, police, EMT’s – are priceless and precious to the community. This is a reminder of how they put their lives in danger to help others. Please, let’s keep Tony Pickens in our prayers and thoughts at this time. Thank you.

-------------------
If you somehow missed this story:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/07/02/firefighter_at_accident_scene_is_hit_by_car/

The most recent press reports list Tony's condition as being slightly upgraded from critical to serious.

The School Budget – Myth and Myopia

2007-06-29T19:45:00.000-04:00

For the past 3 months, more of what can best be described as disappointing nonsense has been uttered about the Milton school budget than during any comparable period in recent years. As has occurred so often in the past, much of it has been unanswered. And some of what has been said is more than merely disappointing.

At the annual town meeting Diane Agostino attempted to convince the town meeting that the format of the school budget violated state guidelines. This is untrue, as the current Chair of the School Committee pointed out. A fairly new town meeting member from Pct. 9 stood to lecture the school committee on its responsibility to taxpayers to negotiate better terms in health coverage with the School unions. The Superintendent informed the member that the Schools did not negotiate the health benefits, but a town committee did. She was too polite to ask why this topic had been raised during the School budget, as if the issue of health insurance wasn’t one involving all town departments.

Another recently elected member asked why the school department issued raises above 2 ½ %, the artificial amount established by the eponymous law. Again, no one asked why such a question was saved for the school budget discussion. Aren’t raises above 2 ½ % an issue for all town departments? Indeed, why wasn’t the point raised earlier in town meeting, when actual raises in excess of 2 ½ % were approved and funded by the TM, while raises for the school department weren’t being financed in any event?

While these kinds of criticisms emanate from a quite obvious agenda to attack the schools, other equally erroneous claims came from self-described school supporters. I assume that frustration at finding ourselves constantly mired in a funding crisis caused these reactions.

The School Department and School Committee were charged with mismanaging their budget. They should have known that additions made after the successful override of 2006 could not be sustained. One citizen at a public hearing held by the schools characterized the hiring of specialists and academic coaches as “frills” equivalent to a “Disney vacation”. Some well meaning people decried the fact that the schools, and the town as a whole isn’t run like a business.

Well, the additions made after the 2006 override were what was promised to the residents and one of the reasons they voted for the override. Let’s not forget that most of that money was used to maintain programs and teachers that would have been lost otherwise. The additions made were focused on the task of improving academic achievement and closing the achievement gap, proper and important educational goals. The recent gains in math scores, especially the substantial gains at Tucker, were described by Elementary Math coordinator Maryellen McDermott as due likely to Math coaches. Hardly a frill.

If the school department were to follow the advice implicit in this criticism, it would mean disaster for the Milton school system. The underlying fiscal structure of the town, coupled with the long time practice of funding pay raises, has meant that the schools lose personnel in most years in which an override is not passed. To not use override years to recover personnel or to make additions essential to academic achievement, would result in a steady drop in staffing until some anemic level, capable of being funded by our anemic growth in revenue, was reached. The School Committee’s job is to take the case for educational excellence to the town. It’s not to fix fiscal and budgeting issues that it has no control over.

The School’s budget problem is not a result of pay increases given to its employees. If it were, equally volatile budgets would be the experience of many town departments, since pay raises negotiated with all town unions are not significantly different. Each year for the past few years the Warrant Committee has been provided with an informal recap of raises, by union, over the recent past. This is not an audited study, but a look back through the records by the Personnel Department. Here is what this year’s recap showed for the past 17 years.

TOWN OF MILTON EMPLOYEES

Cumulative Percentage Wage Adjustments by Category -- 1990-2007

POLICE (Superior Officers)--------------------------------72.83

SCHOOL TEACHERS (Unit A)-----------------------------72.66

POLICE (Patrol Officers)-----------------------------------71.12

SCHOOL CUSTODIANS------------------------------------70.73

FIRE--------------------------------------------------------67.76

SCHOOL NON-UNION-------------------------------------67.64

LIBRARY---------------------------------------------------66.15

MPEA (Public Works, Cemetery)---------------------------64.55

TOWN NON-UNION (Chapter 13)-------------------------64.44

SPEA ------------------------------------------------------63.64

The current, and recent crises in the school budget are not a matter of the size of raises given out, but the fact that its raises are not always funded, while other town departments are. If any of the other large departments had to live with unfunded salary increases, they too would be experiencing the same ongoing need to lay off staff, cut service and ask town meeting and the Warrant Committee for more money.

What the School Committee should do is the following. It should begin to present its budget request for funding salary increases in a separate Warrant Article, as many other departments do. This would have these salutary effects.

Force the consideration of funding salary increases out into the open and create a more level playing field for the school budget

Focus the attention of the town and Town Meeting on the size and significance of salary increases and how it relates to our systemic fiscal problems

Provide a better sense of what it costs to maintain level service funding for the largest part of town expenditures (salaries town-wide), so we can face the true dilemma of raising taxes, increasing revenues or seeing services erode, rather than looking for a bogeyman.

One of the inevitable consequences of this approach is to force a justification of different standards for funding raises. Recent history suggests that we will no longer be able to fund increases for all town employees in non-override years, barring some significant change in local or state circumstances. When it is not possible to fund all raises, the fair approach is to take whatever money is available for raises, after paying for “bill” increases like insurance and Special Education costs, and apportion it among the large departments in proportion to the number of employees these departments represent town-wide. Past practice would justify fully funding smaller departments because not doing so would mean crippling or eliminating the services they provide.

Such an approach would dispel the notion, artificially created, that the school’s budget problems are of its own creation.

----------------------------------
Potpourri

Illegal immigrants in the United States pay $8.5 billion a year in Social Security and Medicare taxes, funds they will never be able to draw from. The Social Security portion of $7 billion represents 10% of the so-called “surplus” being paid into the Social Security account and spent each year by the US Congress – a friendly IOU being placed in the account.

---------------------------------

The Milton Times reports that ex-Selectman Jimmy Mullen has $11,000 remaining in his campaign coffers. Speculation centers on whether he plans on another campaign. He claims people have asked him to run again. Of course, the money could also be needed to fund a campaign for Town Clerk in 2009.

The Clock is Ticking - Let’s Act to Preserve Quality of Life

2007-05-14T17:40:00.000-04:00

Jeff Stone
Town Meeting Member
Precinct 11

A Hobson’s Choice is defined as “the necessity of accepting one of two or more equally objectionable alternatives.” That is the kind of choice we faced at Town Meeting on May 10th with Article 39 concerning the School Budget for Fiscal Year 2008. Town Meeting Members were forced to choose between two things the town treasures, unfettered educational excellence and fiscal prudence. Fiscal prudence won and there will be less for Milton students next year.

First off, a last-ditch proposal was made to take $300,000 from the town’s Stabilization Fund to partially shore up the depleted School Budget recommendation and avoid some of the inevitable staffing and programmatic cuts. The prudent decision, almost all agreed, was to reject the proposal because raiding the Stabilization Fund for an annual operational budget is bad precedent and would jeopardize our already jittery bond rating.

But raiding the Stabilization Fund was what I was voted for, nonetheless. Not because it is fiscally wise but because I think it has become necessary for this town - us - to give ourselves a swift kick in the posterior about our fiscal condition and get working on some remedies. In that sense, raiding the Stabilization Fund might actually have been fiscally prudent in a backdoor sort of way if it shocked us into doing the serious economic planning process we’ve neglected. We’ve got to get beyond the annual budget crises and override campaigns. We need a dope slap to face our real situation, which the experts call “Structural Deficiency.” Raiding the Stabilization Fund and seeing our bond rating lowered might have been just the shock we needed to get motivated.

On the first day of Town Meeting, the Warrant Committee had given a sobering report on the gathering fiscal storm. The storm seemed offshore but three days later it arrived. The schools will now make cuts in many areas. Eventually the same will happen to police, fire, DPW and other budget areas. We will see gradual - and maybe abrupt - drop-offs in the quality of the services we appreciate.

When it comes to broadening the town’s tax base, Milton’s been acting for years like a snoozing old dog with flies buzzing around its head. We’re going nowhere fast. I don’t have an explanation for this. We have way too much talent, brains, devotion to community, money and influential people in our town to justify the glacial pace in this area. And now we even have a Governor as Paul Vaughan reminded us at Town Meeting. Let’s hope that will help.

Not counting on Deval to rescue us, however, Marion McEttrick talked about several plausible tacks we can take, like reducing town health insurance costs, applying for more state aid and exploring both residential and commercial development. I’d like us to do the latter and do more than explore it. We’ve done enough exploring.

It’s time we take action steps necessary to put out RFPs for developing potential commercial locations scattered throughout town. We need to develop a can-do attitude about this. Milton may wind up looking a bit different with business along Rt. 138, Randolph Ave., Central Ave., Granite Ave and other spots but developments can be sensibly controlled and Milton will still be Milton.

We can’t sell off our chunk of the Blue Hills for revenue, nor should we, but it’s high time to get real and add some commercial tax revenue so we can hopefully avoid a raft of Hobson’s Choices. If our three selectmen and our other superb elected officials, voluntary town committees and town staff provide us with leadership in this matter, I believe that Milton residents will support them.

==========================
Senator Brian Joyce and the Massachusetts Affordable Housing Alliance (MAHA)are bringing to Milton a First-time Homebuyer Workshop. Are you prepared to purchase your first home? Do you know someone thinking about purchasing a home? MAHA can help make dreams come true. Do it right the first time with our award-winning 12-hour first-time homebuyer workshop on Tuesdays, June 5th, 12th, 19th, & 16th, 6 - 9p.m. at St. Mary of the Hills (Lower Church), 29 St. Mary's Rd., Milton. Cost is $35 per person. The certificate provided to participants upon completion of the workshop is required for affordable mortgage products and down payment assistance programs. To register, please visit www.mahahome.org/class, or for more information, contact Chava Hassanat 781-636-4000 or chassan@mahahome.org.

=========================

The Milton Library is asking residents to take a five minute survey. Please visit their webite at http://www.miltonlibrary.org/ and answer a few simple questions.

Collective Bargaining and the Town Budget

2007-05-09T18:31:00.000-04:00

The first two nights of Town Meeting have been rather perfunctory, but for the somewhat overwrought reaction to the not unreasonable suggestion by the School Committee that the Blue Hills Budget be sent back for a little trimming. Diane Agostino’s charge of “mean-spiritedness” was, as they say, rich-- coming from someone who has routinely and mistakenly attacked the public school budget, even in years in which wage increases were not funded, such as this year, while the Blue Hills budget includes wage increases of 4%. Which brings me to my topic.

Warrant Committee Chair Katie Conlon made an excellent presentation on the state of our finances at the beginning of Town Meeting. She correctly pointed out the need for efforts to both slow cost increases and find new sources of revenue. This year’s fiscal dilemma led the Warrant Committee to look even at wage adjustments. The following appears in the report of the Warrant Committee in the Town Warrant .

“First, any recommendation against funding salary adjustments would impact only the non-school departments. Town Meeting appropriates separate amounts for salary expenses and general expenses for all departments except the School Department. Under State law, the Town Meeting is authorized to appropriate only a total amount for the School Department. Therefore, Town Meeting could decide not to appropriate funds for salary adjustments only for employees other than school employees. This difference raises issues of fairness and equity. The problem caused by wage adjustments exceeding available revenue is Town-wide and, we believe, requires a Town-wide solution.”

Some points.

1. The decision to not fund salary adjustments affects all departments when judged from the perspective of town residents who expect services, as well as employees.

2. While the Town Meeting cannot dictate how the public schools spend any increase they receive, that does not prevent the Warrant Committee and Town Meeting from appropriating sufficient funds for them to pay for salary adjustments. Indeed, providing significantly less than what is needed to do so makes the point entirely moot.

3. The Town Meeting obviously can decide to not appropriate money for salary increases for the Milton schools as well as other town departments. They have so decided with respect to the schools on a number of occasions.

4. Viewing not funding raises for departments as being unfair to the non school departments assumes that the primary group to be considered is town employees, when it is the services provided residents that should be paramount.

Let me try to clarify this issue, since it appears many do not understand the overarching problem.

Under state law, collective bargaining with non-school personnel is undertaken by the Board of Selectmen and designated personnel. When an agreement has been reached, the only body who can ratify it is Town Meeting, and that ratification must be done in the form of an article which simultaneously funds the agreed upon increase. No funding increase, no contract. In contrast, state law calls for the School Department and Administration to negotiate a contract and when agreement is reached, the vote of the School Committee alone finalizes the contract and obligates the School Department to pay that increase, whether the town meeting provides the funding for it or not.

So here are the potential consequences. If town side contract proposals are not funded, employees in those departments do not receive raises. But the services the town receives from them is unaffected. If the School Department’s contractual raises are not funded, the raises must still be paid. Without funding, this is done by cutting enough staff to free up the necessary funds to provide the raises. The remaining employees get raises, but the residents get sharply reduced educational services. No one is to blame for this fact. All involved are merely operating under the rules dictated by state law. However, it is somewhat disconcerting that the Warrant Committee seems to be missing this important point.

The existence of a state law which was probably intended to protect school systems has been detrimental to them because it divorces the binding approval of a contract from any funding source. The consequences are significant. Currently the Police and Fire departments are without a contract. The Warrant Committee indicated last night it would cost $300,000 to fund a 2 ½% increase for FY08. It is likely an agreement will be reached during the next 12 months and an article will be placed on the Warrant next year to accept, and retroactively fund, the raises. That will mean that all raises for all town departments for FY08 will have been funded, with the exception of the school department.

Sadly, this fact is not an aberration. It will represent the third time since 2000 that this has occurred. Our recent history as a town has been to protect positions in non school departments while the schools absorb significant loses. This year 20+ lost positions in the schools, 2 in the Fire department and 1 in the Police department is another example of that. When you consider that school personnel represent approximately 2/3 of town employees, you can see that a disproportionate burden of lost positions falls on the schools, and the youngsters in our schools will pay the price.

This discrepancy in non-override years is why a disproportionate amount of override dollars are directed to the schools in override years. Without it the Milton public schools would be a shambles. Unfortunately, this provides fodder for those who really don’t care if the schools are properly funded, and who perennially blame the need for overrides on the schools. Next time you hear that line, you’ll know what to say.

Milton Women’s Club

2007-04-28T14:16:00.000-04:00

The Milton Women’s Club has offered to donate its function hall at 90 Reedsdale Rd. to the Town. The Club has found it difficult in recent years to operate and maintain the facility, and hopes by giving it to the town to preserve the building as a community resource while being able to use it for its meetings.

The facility sits on just over an acre of land with about 6000 sq. feet of built out space. The assessed value is just over $1 million. As a non-profit, the Women’s Club pays no taxes on the property.

The Selectmen have scheduled a Special Town Meeting within the Annual Town Meeting to discuss an article requesting authority to acquire the gift from the Women’s Club. The Warrant Committee has made no recommendation as it waits for more information on the proposal.

All sides seem to agree that accepting this generous gift must be coupled with a mechanism guaranteeing financial self-sufficiency. The town simply doesn’t have the money to fund the operational costs of running the center or for immediately needed renovations and repairs. Nor does it have the financial resources for ongoing maintenance over the years for this 75 year old structure. We struggle with adequate maintenance of our current town buildings.

One idea being floated is accepting the property and leasing it to MPEG Access Inc. This is a private, non-profit entity formed to take over the running of the local cable access services. Currently these are required of Comcast as part of their license to operate in Milton. They wish to extricate themselves from this requirement. To do so they must provide the town with a substantial benefit. It’s hoped that such a benefit would be a sum of money sufficient to undertake necessary renovations, [$150,000-$200,000] and provide a stream of revenue to cover the annual operating expenses of the building.

The problem is that no agreement with Comcast yet exists. Nor is it likely to exist by the Special Town Meeting. I think the town meeting needs to see a well constructed pro forma which convincingly shows that sufficient upfront revenue and ongoing revenue exists to make the enterprise financially viable on its own. I don’t see how this can be done in the next week or so. Perhaps it would be better to put this off until a possible Fall Special Town Meeting.

I’d also like to know what alternatives to MPEG might be financially viable. Some of the current tenants utilize a temporary liquor license for events. As we’ve discovered with the Council on Aging, the costs and complications of doing that once it is owned by the town might preclude such use and decrease the center’s attractiveness for certain events.

Even under the MPEG scenario, would they require the entire 6000 sq. feet for their operations? It seems too bad to not utilize the large, commercial kitchen and the performing stage for other town uses. It would also provide additional sources of revenue.

The Warrant Committee will be meeting this week to discuss this issue further.

The Changing of the Guard

2007-04-25T17:39:00.000-04:00

Kathy Fagan’s utterly exciting and necessary victory in yesterday’s Selectman’s race is being described by the Boston Globe as an upset. I suppose the outcome fits the conventional definition of an upset. But what occurred yesterday is merely the culmination of a process that has been underway for some time now.

Marvin Gordon got it right in his comments at the beginning of the election coverage on Bernie Lynch’s show: Milton has been undergoing a transformation in its makeup that is affecting the political landscape. Twenty years ago, ten years ago, perhaps even five years ago, there would have been no upset.

For many of us who have been working on campaigns in the last decade this process has been apparent. Successful attempts to build new schools and renovate our library, long neglected town assets, were signs of movement. It was also clear that the change was systemic and thus inevitable. What wasn’t clear was the timing. When would we reach the tipping point? I believe we have. It’s arrival may have been hastened by our good fortune in having a candidate like Kathy Fagan; a decent, capable and respectful woman with the heart of a lion.

It now seems clear, based on the last three town-wide elections [June 2006 override, November election, and yesterday] that when the voters turn out in good numbers, say 45% minimum, there is a majority for what I would call a progressive agenda. There is nothing radical about this agenda. It does recognize, however, that the status quo is dangerous to our town’s future. It understands the need for investment in our infrastructure. It clearly sees the threat from a systemic fiscal problem that is likely to increase our taxes significantly, or force severe service cuts, or possibly both. It embraces our growing diversity and values people for who they are, not how many generations their families have lived in town. And it appreciates the history of this town. Indeed, ensuring a future that is as good constitutes the entire foundation of this progressive agenda.

As I looked around at the 200 or so people gathered last night to celebrate a campaign victory, I made note of the group’s composition. What a collection of creativity, talent and energy. A true juggernaut. There were long time Milton residents in their 60’s and 70’s. A significant number of baby boomers. And a large contingent of 30 somethings, many who played lead roles in the campaign. It was a microcosm of Milton progressives, some of long standing, and many having been here long enough to decide that they could shape events, not just be affected by them. Once a majority recognizes its new status, it’s next to impossible to keep them down on the farm.

Limburger and Lilacs

Limburger to the current Selectman whose behavior on last evening’s broadcast of election results was very revealing, and no doubt will be remembered by many for a long time.

Lilacs to James Mullen who came to the Fagan campaign party to congratulate his victorious opponent.

[where:02186]

It's In Your Hands

2007-04-23T19:54:00.000-04:00

It's often claimed that political campaigns, whatever else they might accomplish, reveal under the glare of attention much about the candidates. Muskie's crying, Eagleton's depression, Nixon's sweat, Ford's "free" Poland, Dan Quayle's JFK association: these all represent, fairly or not, aspects of those candidates that had an effect on the way voters perceived them.

Our own little campaign here in Milton has developed a theme of its own. That theme is arrogant disregard of Massachusetts laws.

Some weeks ago the Boston Globe advanced a story begun by the Patriot Ledger. The story dealt with what seems clearly to be a violation of the Massachusetts open meeting law when Selectmen Mullen and Shields conducted an executive session meeting under false pretenses. The Norfolk District Attorney's office is now investigating this matter. Here is the link to the Globe story. I would give you the link to the Milton Times coverage but for the fact they have deliberately buried the story. Does anyone think that paper would miss the opportunity to cover even an innocent violation of the same law by the School Committee?

http://snipurl.com/1fd4n

Yesterday's Boston Globe brings us another troubling issue. Apparently candidate James Mullen caused a letter of support to be circulated among employees at Town Hall. Some of those employees have told Selectman Marion McEttrick they felt pressured to sign. This would appear to violate conflict of interest laws and a complaint will be filed with the State's Ethics Commission.

Here is a link to yesterday's Globe story.

http://snipurl.com/1hr27

Tomorrow you can stay home and hope things turn out right, or you can make sure that you and everyone you know gets out to cast a vote to ensure that things are put right.

Selectman's Race

2007-04-17T11:12:00.000-04:00

Selectmen’s Race

This year’s Selectmen’s race presents as complete a contrast in candidates as one could imagine. Incumbent and career politician James Mullen is being challenged by Kathy Fagan, an Attorney who has held elective office and numerous volunteer posts in Milton. This contrast is reflected in their respective campaigns.

Ms. Fagan’s campaign has sought to draw attention to long neglected problems and to offer ideas to address them. She understands that the long term quality of life in our town depends on our getting control of our financial situation. New sources of revenue other than overrides alone must be found. Ways to control the growing costs of government need to be part of the solution

She begins by advocating an updated Master Plan. You remember this phrase. It was much bandied about in last year’s campaign, even figuring prominently in the literature of John Shields. Absolutely nothing has been done. This is a crucial first step to identifying possible opportunities for diversifying our tax base in a manner consistent with our town character.

She also makes a very sound recommendation for a town-wide traffic plan. Consider the number of problem areas in town: Highland Street, Thatcher/Canton Avenue, the intersection of Adams, Canton and Randolph, the Fruit Center neighborhood in East Milton. We’ve taken a piecemeal approach to these locations, but need a comprehensive study to understand how they are related and what future steps we might need to take.

The Fagan campaign has offered many other ideas such as multi-year budgeting to avoid yearly surprises, and specific ideas for revenue enhancement and cost control. As important as anything else, she’s pledged to return civility and respect for all to the Milton public square. The many people who have meet Kathy during this campaign are struck by her decency and positive attitude, and her willingness to listen and engage on issues. The imperious and vindictive attitude currently characterizing town affairs must end.

The Mullen campaign, by contrast, is characterized by a near total lack of content. I haven’t seen a single idea proposed. There is no apparent clear understanding of what our problems are. Most striking, after 6 years on the Board of Selectmen the campaign has not claimed a single accomplishment in its communications to voters. Even his supporters seem to struggle for endorsement content. We’re told he loves the town. I’m sure he does. We’re told he’s experienced and has made countless contributions. Perhaps, but what are his plans for now, for the future? We’re not looking for philosophical platitudes. We’re looking for competence and ideas.

At this point in our history we require something more substantial than love of town, length of residency, and the ties to the old boy network as sole requirements for the job of Selectman. Ms. Fagan will bring energy, ideas, and a refreshing commitment to problem solving to the Selectman’s job. She offers a clear choice over an incumbent who has a lifetime of paid political service. And by the way, Kathy loves Milton too! I ask you to support Kathy Fagan on April 24. And I ask you to vote. This needs to be a choice of the entire town. If you stay at home, someone else will be speaking for you.

Planning Board

In this race Pete Jackson is challenging Dr. William Dolan. Dr. Dolan has served the town well for over 30 years as a Planning Board member. Such long service is admirable. But this is a town board that has had very little change in many years, with most current members working on multiple terms. I think its time for new energy and new thinking.

Pete is a landscape architect. He designs parks and is involved with planning and design of open space and recreational areas. He has served on both the Columbine Cliff Neighborhood Association and the Milton Village/Central Avenue Revitalization Committee. He has spoken eloquently and with insight at Planning Board Meetings, recently pointing out to the board a mistake in the drafting of an article dealing with the Milton Falls development.

Pete has already proven his value to the planning process in Milton and would make an excellent member of the Planning Board. For more information about him, click on his website under my links list. I urge you to vote for him next Tuesday.

Precinct 10 Town Meeting Member

After much deliberation and study, I’m endorsing myself for the two year seat for Town Meeting in Precinct 10.

For anyone wondering about my views or understanding of town issues I can only refer them to the nearly 70 articles I’ve published in the more than two years since I established this blog.

I confess that I’ve been busy during this campaign and have done nothing to campaign for the town meeting seat. Furthermore, my opponent has received the endorsement of James Mullen, not only current Selectman, but as Town Clerk the person in charge of Milton elections. Mullen apparently introduced her at his non-fundraising fundraiser and announced she was running against a “bad person”. This must be Mr. Mullen’s new way of describing people who have different views than his, a replacement for the term he used two years ago, those who were not “the real people” of Milton. I guess I’m a twofer.

All I can do is ask those readers of the blog who live in Precinct 10 for their vote, and ask other readers who know residents in the precinct to recommend me to them.

Various Election Races, More Sad News

2007-04-15T13:45:00.000-04:00

Moderator

Current Moderator Brian Walsh is being challenged, once again, by Diane Agostino. This is Ms. Agostino’s 7th run for this office, I believe. In the past her campaigns have been characterized by attacks on Warrant Committees, Selectmen and others. She’s blamed her losses on “factions”, although describing the majority of voters in 7 straight elections as a “faction” is somewhat puzzling. This year she appeared to be running for School Committee, trumpeting simplistic claims about Milton’s school budget allocations for administration.

Brian Walsh is completing his 5th year as Moderator. He’s introduced some innovations at Town Meeting which are improvements. The meetings are run with a good balance between members’ rights to be heard and members’ desire to not drag the meetings out unnecessarily. Most importantly he has the temperament necessary for the impartial managing of town meeting and appointment of able town volunteers to numerous town committees. Please support Brian Walsh on April 24.

Board of Health

There are two candidates for this position, Barbara Mason and Anne Fidler. I worked with Barbara on the Warrant Committee. She is a dedicated volunteer for the town who returned for a partial year on the Warrant Committee this year when unexpected departures created openings. I’m sure she would make a good contribution to the board. But in Anne Fidler we have a very rare opportunity of tapping an exceptional level of training and experience. Her educational attainments and long career in public health at the national and regional levels would be important assets to the Board of Health. I urge your consideration of her candidacy. For more information about Ms. Fidler, click on the link below.

http://snipurl.com/1gkgm

Park Commissioner

Incumbent Barbara Brown is being challenged by Rick Dunn. Ms. Brown has served in this post for a number of years during which important strides have been made in the maintenance of athletic fields. Mr. Dunn has worked with the youth of Milton for two decades as coach of various sports, Program Director and President of the Milton High School Boosters. His close connections at the grass roots of town sports in such a broad range of activities would provide a useful perspective on the Board, which is why I will vote for him.

Board of Assessors

Incumbent Kathie Heffernan is being challenged by Douglas Lantigua. This race, frankly, is one of the more troubling campaigns this year. Mr. Lantigua claims that there is a “practice of lowering the high end properties assessments thus thrusting the tax burden on the under $750K housing market.” This is a ridiculous claim. Such a “practice” would require the active participation by Ms. Heffernan, Thomas Gunning and M. Joseph Manning, along with Assessor Jeff D’Ambly, in a conspiracy to create such a result. The Department of Revenue, which certifies town assessments, would have to be asleep at the switch. And you would expect to see large numbers of successful abatements, including appeals of rejections to the Appellate Tax Board. You can check the link below to see that not a single case from Milton has been appealed to the Appellate Tax Board in the last 8 years.

http://www.mass.gov/atb/findings.html

Kathie Heffernan has served on the Board of Assessors with honesty, fairness and care, as she has in so many other volunteer roles for the town. She is state certified as an assessor. Please join me in returning her to office on April 24.

Another Hate Crime

Sadly, haters have struck again in Milton. On Saturday morning, congregants of Temple Shalom arriving for Shabbat services were greeted by swastikas painted on the front sign and on the parking lot door. The crime was reported to Milton Police, who are investigating.

Perhaps this time some of our town leaders will exercise leadership in sending the clear message that such crimes, far more destructive to psyche’s than buildings, are simply not tolerated in Milton. I’m reprinting a letter from Paul Etkind, President of Temple Shalom and urge all to get involved in any community-wide solidarity effort that might be planned.

____________________________________________________

Letter from Paul Etkind, President of Temple Shalom:

"It is with a mix of profound sadness and fury that I report to you that two swastikas were painted on Temple Shalom. They were first noticed by congregants as they came to the Temple for Shabbat services this morning. One was on the front sign of the Temple and the other was on the parking lot door to the Social Hall.

This despicable act was reported to the Milton Police. They came immediately, took pictures, and have begun an investigation. The Milton Interfaith Clergy Association was notified and we are gratified by their immediate and vigorous support. They will be informing their congregants tomorrow from their respective pulpits. Some town officials were called and various people stopped by this afternoon to see the symbols of hatred.

The swastikas have been cleaned off of the sign and the door. The door was painted over so there is no physical evidence of the offense. However, we will not stop at simply cleaning and painting. We would like to have a community-wide observance of solidarity among the faith communities, town officials and the general public. We are checking calendars for next Sunday, April 22 perhaps in the evening. We will confirm this with you as soon as possible. The officers will be working with the Rabbi, the other faith communities, and with area officials to plan the event.

It is our hope that this incident will give all good people in and around Milton the opportunity to stand shoulder to shoulder with us at Temple Shalom in order to confront prejudice and reaffirm a sense of solidarity with the best that is within us, the attributes of decency, mutual respect and good will."

Opportunity Lost

2007-04-11T16:36:00.000-04:00

The great Israeli statesman and diplomat Abba Eban once said: “The Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.” Eban’s observation about those nations with whom Israel was trying to negotiate peace also characterizes recent action by the majority of the Board of Selectmen on the Central Avenue Revitilization Plan.

The $1 million state grant obtained by the town presented a wonderful opportunity to conceptualize and realize a substantial transformation of the Central Avenue district. Together with the overlay zoning which permitted the consideration of three largely residential developments, it offered the promise of a pedestrian focused, safe, and attractive area. It would create a “sense of place”, an attribute that the Urban Land Institute noted was missing in the area today.

The key component of a new Central Avenue business district was traffic calming. The current area is an ode to the post war, auto worshipping era with a cavernous mass of blacktop through which vehicles traverse at high rates of speed without the benefit of traffic controls, properly sited crosswalks or clearly defined traffic lanes. A successful revitalization requires a shift of focus from the auto to the pedestrian. The business focus will change from a predominant servicing of the quick pick-up-and-go auto customer to a significant business by pedestrians from the neighborhood, including the residents of nearly 100 units of housing planned to be built there. Both the town’s residents and the area businesses benefit substantially.

That is the vision that drove the planning begun under former Town Planner Aaron Henry and supported by former Town Administrator David Colton. The product of that effort, now known as Plan A, has three strategies for addressing the current auto-centric reality of the area.

“Bump outs” in front of the Wine store and Central liquors to reduce the amount of roadway in the square and better direct the flow of traffic through it.

Properly positioned cross walks that permit drivers to see other vehicles and pedestrians at all roads converging on the square.

Stop signs, sited according to common sense safety rules just before the crosswalks.

Plan A was opposed by Frank O’Neil, owner of the building housing the businesses on the south side of the district. The proposed location of the crosswalks and the bump out in front of Central liquors eliminates three parking spaces. Two of these spaces are made up for by a new space in front of Central Laundry and one directly across the street. The number of lost spaces in front of this building has been consistently mistated by opponents of Plan A.

Reacting to the opposition of Mr. O’Neil and his tenants, the Board of Selectmen had an alternative plan hastily drawn up. Plan B keeps the three spaces in front of Central Liquor by abandoning all three strategies crucial to the district's transformation. The Planning Board opposed it. The traffic consultant could not approve it because it included the ridiculous plan of placing a stop sign after a crosswalk. The neighbors vociferously opposed it as an abandonment of the vision for this area. And yet James Mullen and John Shields voted for it. Shields claimed the lost spaces [one space was lost] would hurt the businesses. Mullen claimed to fear loss of the state grant due to threats from O’Neil to fight the plan, a threat which could only be assured of success if it meant a lawsuit.

So the opportunity to miss an opportunity was seized, all for a single lost parking space directly in front of the businesses, despite the fact that Plan A provided more total parking spaces in the business district. It is difficult to comprehend such a lack of vision, such wrong-headedness. No business is going to suffer from one fewer space in front of their very door, when more spaces are created such a short distance away. Does Mr. O’Neil really believe the alternative for customers – driving a further distance and still dealing with parking problems—is more attractive? Have his customers lost the ability to walk ten or twenty steps after parking in one of the new parking spots?

No Selectman can be expected to possess the myriad skill sets necessary to manage a modern day community. That’s why experts are employed, people whose training enables them to actually know what they’re talking about. In this instance the board not only rejected the advice of professionals, their discussion made a mockery of the expertise of those who drew up the original plan. Who will forget Mr. Shields petulantly insisting that the town can place a stop sign anywhere they wish, or claiming with a straight face that the placement of a loading zone would require a walk of “a hundred yards”, which happens to be the length of a football field. Similarly, Mr. Mullen’s insistence that the town couldn’t use its enforcement powers to successfully prevent delivery trucks from ignoring the delivery zone sounds more like a rationale justifying no change.

The inability to appreciate or understand the importance of planning simply can’t continue. As Selectman Marion McEttrick noted, to prevent the failure of this revitalization we will likely have to correct this shortsighted blunder at a later date, on our own nickel. How many other opportunities are we missing because of a failure of vision, an unthinking adherence to the status quo? And for how long will be go on accepting it? The answer to that question is up to the voters of Milton.

A Sad Day for Milton

2007-04-05T20:34:00.000-04:00

No one who cares for our community could have felt anything other than sadness upon opening the Boston Globe this morning and reading Matt Carroll’s story. For those of you who missed it, it can be read here:
http://snipurl.com/1fd4n

The beginning of the story is not new. Last September, at the end of a report by the Co-Chairs of Milton’s “No Place For Hate” committee, Chair of the Board of Selectmen James Mullen attacked one of the Co-Chairs for a letter to the Globe she had written-- two years prior-- disagreeing with Mr. Mullen on an issue of voter registration. Mr. Mullen claimed this political disagreement was an example of “hate”. He equated it with the type of hate being combated by the “No Place for Hate Committee” For more information:

http://miltonview.blogspot.com/2006_09_01_archive.html

A few weeks later, two members of the Milton clergy requested a private meeting with the Selectmen, obviously concerned about the impact of the actions by Mr. Mullen and Mr. Shields. A private meeting for this purpose violates Massachusetts law. Therefore, Mr. Mullen announced to the public that a private, “Executive Session” would be held at the end of a regular meeting to discuss “"the deployment of security personnel and devices." This was not the purpose of the session. Mr. Mullen knew this was not the purpose of the session. How does Mr. Mullen square this with his statement before the League of Women Voters last night that he has never lied to the residents of Milton?

What transpired at the meeting, held after Selectman Marion McEttrick reminded the other two Selectmen that it was an illegal meeting and then left, is reported by the Globe. The only disputed point is whether John Shields said the attack on the No Place for Hate member would actually help Mullen and Shields politically in some parts of town. He claims that was not what he said. David Colton, in a memo recap of the meeting written afterward, and Rev. Parisa Parsa both agree that those were the words used.

As bad as all of this is, it gets worse. Also at the private meeting a hate letter sent to the leader of the No Place for Hate committee was shown to Selectmen Mullen and Shields. Part of the letter read: "Your committee is nothing but reverse discrimination against the white people in this town. We totally support Jimmy Mullen and John Shields 100%. Why don't you get out of the kitchen and take the blacks in Milton with you??? "

During the Globe investigation Mullen was asked about the hate mail and responded that people have been known to perpetrate hate crime hoaxes. "People themselves did these things to get sympathy." Mr. Mullen went on to say that he wasn’t accusing the recipient of the hate mail of writing it herself. Of course that raises the question of why he said it.

Mr. Mullen’s response should have been an unqualified condemnation of the letter’s contents and whoever sent it. Instead, he raised the specter of a hate crime hoax. Certain extremist groups in this country have long exaggerated the phenomenon of such hoaxes. They often use it in their ideological wars to support their, er, antiquated views on race in America. For Mr. Mullen to resort to it in an attempt to distance himself from his role in the whole affair is at the very least an example of a deaf ear with respect to real hate in society.

Jokes about Jews and Blacks are no longer tolerated in decent society. But the true bigots are still among us, as the writer of the hate letter proves. They’ve been driven underground, often spewing their venom in anonymity. They must do so because society for some decades now has used one of its most powerful tools against intolerance and prejudice –social ostracism. Society now considers these views to be so dangerous that people of all political stripes treat those expressing them as social outcasts.

Occasionally they surface. Some event triggers a response. Someone in a position of authority says or does something which rightly or wrongly convinces them that they’ve found a kindred spirit. Emboldened, they act from the perceived safety of anonymity. I think this is what Rev. Arthur Wright meant when he urged Mullen and Shields, according to David Colton’s memo, "to take some responsibility for a response to the hate letter since the author had mentioned their names in it and since it followed the exchange they had initiated". And yet sadly, both men seem more concerned about carrying on their petty political antipathies.

Hatred and intolerance of people who are different from us is a devastating menace which, in its public and most dangerous form, we have been able to restrain like the proverbial Genie in a bottle. It is the responsibility of leaders to act decisively and unambiguously whenever they see a revival of this scourge. And when they do not, it is up to the rest of us to do so. Mr. Mullen and Mr. Shields should want to let the writer of the hate letter know that they do not support him 100%.

School Committee Race

2007-03-30T09:55:00.000-04:00

We have three candidates running for two seats.

Glenn Pavlicek epitomizes the highly valuable School Committee member. An educator with a Ph.D. in Mathematics, Glenn is a strong advocate for math and science education. As a former Warrant Committee Chair he understands the budget issues facing our schools better than anyone. And as an experienced past member of the School Committee he will contribute from day one to addressing important issues, such as improving communication between the schools and parents.

To get an idea of what Glenn can contribute in the future, look at the contributions he made in the past.

As Warrant Committee chair he successfully advocated for the School Building Project before town meeting.

When it appeared the town might have to ask voters for yet another tax increase to finish the Collicot gym, he used his understanding of the School Building Assistance Program to work out approval from the Department of Revenue to finance it without another override.

He played a key role with the group “Fair Funding for Milton” in securing PILOT funding from the state for the Blue Hills. We will receive over $500,000 this year for use not only in our schools, but for all town services.

He worked with the Department of Education on some SPED compliance issues which could have been very costly if not resolved.

These are unusually significant contributions for any office holder. Glenn has a website which I’ve added to my links list. I urge you to vote for Glenn Pavlicek on April 24, as I will.

Beirne Lovely has logged more hours working for the Milton public schools in the last 6 years than anyone could imagine. He has taken on some very tough issues with his trademark tenacity and energy.

He has been unwavering in his efforts to ensure that the parents of Milton school children have all the information they need and the ability to speak out about the Student Reassignment Plan. He refused to accept, long after many others would have, anything less than first rate athletic fields at our new High School. And during a period when we were without a Superintendent he personally worked with the interim Superintendent to develop the detailed budget for the schools.

He has also pledged to oppose any attempt to eliminate the French Immersion program, a sine qua non with me.

Beirne is a dedicated public servant who devotes his time and talents to our school kids long after his own have left the system. He deserves your vote on April 24. He will have mine.

Karen Lambert is making her third run for a school committee seat. Her message appears to be the same as in the past. She claims to support “fiscal accountability” and “optimal educational outcomes within budget”. It seems to me this is simply code for not forthrightly saying we don’t need to give the schools as much money as we do. This view is reinforced by her record on overrides [see Campaign Notes below]. There are many honest differences of opinion about educational policies and their ability to produce excellent education for our children. But denying the resources necessary for excellence and being willing to live with the mediocrity inadequate budgets produce is not something I can endorse.

Campaign Notes

At the Beirne Lynch debate incumbent Jimmy Mullen claimed his opponent Kathy Fagan was a supporter of the DPW Yard development and came before the Board of Selectmen multiple times to offer such support. Ms. Fagan corrected him, pointing out she had only spoken about the idea once, as being something which should be investigated. This comment was made at the very first presentation on the subject, during which Mr. Mullen said: “I think you just might have something there”.

Ms. Fagan noted that her reaction exactly paralleled Mr. Mullen’s through the various phases of the project, ending with the same conclusion that objections to the project made it unworkable.

It will be interesting to see if the Mullen campaign continues to attempt a re-writing of history.

========================
At the same debate the School Committee Candidates were asked whether they supported the series of overrides which resulted in our soon to be completed 6 new schools and whether they supported the operational override last June.

Karen Lambert gave a rather confusing answer on the building overrides, apparently claiming to have supported the “compromise plan” override, which did not pass. She led some to believe that she supported last year’s operational override, and then offered that someone’s support for increasing their taxes was somewhat of a private affair.

Of course for someone seeking a public post in government, one’s opinion on funding levels for town government is quite appropriately the public’s business. Furthermore, Ms Lambert made her opinion known in a letter to the editor which appeared on May 26, 2006, one which makes clear she opposed the override. You can see it here: http://snipurl.com/1dze9

Where Did the Money Go?

2007-03-21T17:28:00.000-04:00

This is a question many people are asking. I’ve been asked numerous times in the past week or so. The “money” referred to is of course the $2.4 million resulting from last year’s successful override. And the question is being asked because we once again face significant loss of services despite having passed the override such a short time ago.

The fact that it is asked, however, reveals that many of us still don’t understand the nature of our fiscal problem.

The answer to the question couldn’t be simpler. The money went precisely to the places identified during last year’s override campaign. It went toward preventing the loss of numerous DPW employees, the closing of the recycling center, the loss of streetlights and yard waste collection. It forestalled the loss of 6 police patrol officers and a cut back by 1/3 of police patrols. It pays for 2 or 3 firefighters who would otherwise have been lost, necessitating the part-time closure of a fire station. It protected the services to our children provided by 28 teachers; prevented the premature closing of the 1909 wing with the attendant consolidation into just two elementary schools; and it provided the money to open the new Collicot and Cunningham schools. This doesn’t even cover all the smaller departments whose service levels were maintained.

These services and others are in place today because the $2.4 million pays for them. Our financial problem is not caused by how override money is spent. It’s caused by an imbalance between our revenue growth and the growth in costs. And the problem seems to be getting worse.

Let’s try to understand the problem as follows. Community services are provided by people, so employee costs are the main component of a town’s budget. Employees get raises on an annual basis, probably in the range of 4 – 4.5 % when factoring in longevity. I conservatively estimate that today we need about $ 2 million more each year to cover raises for town employees and keep the level of service they provide the same. But this “carry-forward” cost will go up each year as the base increases by the level of raises. In other words, next year it will take $2,080,000, the following year 2,163,200, and so on, just to maintain the same number of employees.

Now let’s consider the second largest growth item, employee benefits. Benefit costs for our employees have been growing at double-digit rates for some years now. For the coming fiscal year these costs are increasing over $1 million.

So just to maintain our staffing levels and pay for their benefits we need over $3 million in new revenues yearly. The increased revenue for the coming year is in the range of $1.5 million. The problem should be obvious. Now add in all the other inevitable increases –the growing costs of many expense items, the growing costs of government mandated SPED in the school budget, the growing costs of repairing or purchasing town vehicles, and many more.

More disturbing than the systemic nature of this problem is the fact that it appears to be getting worse. It is mitigated somewhat during boom economic times by increases in state aid. And it gets worse during recessions when state aid decreases. But we are somewhere in between right now and the problem is significant even shortly after an override. Cost increases grow each year and revenue increases seem stagnant or down.

Our leadership is simply not dealing with this reality, one that has been apparent now for some years. So don’t be surprised when some level of crisis occurs on a yearly basis. Until we find ways to control our costs and increase our revenues the reality will not change.

And until we get new leadership, that will not happen.

Our Continuing Fiscal Problem

2007-03-14T15:47:00.000-04:00

The major article in yesterday’s Patriot Ledger carried the headline: “Sharon Voters Demand a Mall”. On Monday evening over 2000 residents, one of the largest turnouts for a town meeting on record, demanded a vote after only two speakers had presented. They then voted to rezone 57 acres of land for a commercial development that is hoped will produce $2 million in revenue to the town.

In explaining the raucous meeting and the outcome, the Ledger reporter wrote:

“Sharon’s lack of commercial development has led to one of the more lopsided tax bases in the state, with roughly 94 percent of tax revenue coming from residential property.”

Sharon’s reliance on the residential property tax is almost identical to Milton’s. And like Milton, Sharon has resorted to overrides, especially in recent years, just to preserve its historical level of services. A few years ago it passed an override 62% greater than the one we passed last June. It appears the residents and leadership of Sharon have realized that continual and complete reliance on residential tax increases is not a sustainable option. When will our leadership come to the same conclusion?

Last Saturday the Warrant Committee passed a preliminary budget for next year. They began the day with $4.8 million more in requests than they had money to fund. They ended the day with most departments getting the same dollar allocations, or less, than this year. The preliminary result is personnel losses in every major department. Raises for Fire, Police and Teachers are not funded. No overtime for the Fire Department has been budgeted, possibly threatening our ability to keep three fire stations open. There is no money for the Stabilization Fund or capital needs. Now this is a preliminary budget and allocations could change over the next two to three weeks. But what won’t change is the reality of service losses, because the revenue number is not going to change substantially.

Preliminary Estimate of Personnel Cuts

Schools------------20+ cuts
Police---------------2 cuts
Fire---------------- 2 cuts
DPW---------------3-4 cuts

How do we find ourselves in this situation 9 months after passing a $2.4 million override? It certainly would have helped if the Board of Selectmen hadn’t reduced last year’s Warrant Committee override recommendation by $500,000. That money would help reduce the severity of the cuts we face now. But the problem is more basic. And frankly I’m boring myself repeating what I’ve been saying for some time. We have a systemic fiscal problem because our revenue increases are insufficient and some of our costs are out of control. No community in eastern Massachusetts can maintain itself on 2 ½ percent increases. The state average has been about 4.5% annually since 2000. And on the cost side we’ve been faced with yearly group insurance increases in the neighborhood of $1 million for the last few years, often eating up all or most of new revenue.

We don’t have the luxury of 57 available acres abutting a major interstate, as Sharon does. Still, we need to find ways, multiple ways, to increase our revenues and control rising costs. The current leadership of the Board of Selectmen seems to be saying, based on lack of action, that there is nothing much we can do other than accept service cuts or raise residential property taxes. We need new blood, someone who recognizes the problem and has the ability to come up with ideas that might lead to solutions.

As you’re probably aware Kathy Fagan has announced her candidacy for Board of Selectmen, opposing long time incumbent James Mullen. I’ve added her website to my links list. Visit and learn more about Kathy. Read some of her ideas under the “Moving Milton Forward” menu item. And get involved in Milton’s future between now and election day on April 24th.

Trash Stickers Redux

2007-03-06T17:36:00.000-05:00

“Just when you thought it was safe to go back into the water!”

In a first for this blog readers properly identifying this allusion will be entered into a sweepstakes drawing. The prize? The assignment to write the next article on trash stickers, should it prove necessary. At this point I’m beginning to feel like Bill Murray in the film “Groundhog Day”.

As incredible as it may seem, Chairman James Mullen proposed for the third time a reduction in the trash sticker fee at the last meeting of the Board of Selectmen. His articulated rationale for an action that will affect town services: “It’s too high”.

Now, it is election season and Mr. Mullen is running for re-election. So I suppose the reasoning makes sense—to Mr. Mullen. But surely the Board as a whole recognizes the fiscal folly of cutting revenues when we have a sizeable budget shortfall already.

Member John Shields then reported on a meeting with representatives of the state Department of Environmental Protection. Based on his recollection of the meeting he made the following claims.

# Trash sticker fees must be based on the cost of trash collection alone.
# Any other costs of the solid waste program must come from the tax levy.
# Since our sticker fee income exceeds the cost of trash collection alone, we are in violation of state regulation and must reduce the trash sticker fee.

Each of these statements is incorrect. I spoke with Joseph Lambert, one of the DEP employees in the meeting with Mr. Shields. When I told him about what had been communicated at the Selectmen’s meeting, he offered that Mr. Shields must have been confused about the information provided and that the meeting was long and complicated.

There is no regulation or law, nor has there ever been, controlling what communities can charge for a unit based fee for trash. The DEP does make a recommendation for new communities just starting a “Pay As You Throw” program. They recommend a “two-tiered” system in which the unit fee covers the variable cost [the disposal or tipping fee, not the collection cost] and all the remaining fixed costs are covered by an annual fee or through the tax levy. The purpose of this is to make sure communities collect enough money in the early days of the program. Until a recycling rate is established, usually after two or three years, it is difficult to estimate just how much trash will need to be disposed of. An initial two-tiered structure assures all costs are covered.

As Mr. Lambert said to me, Milton is not a new community, having operated a PAYT program for some years.

As of September 2006, there were 120 communities with PAYT programs in Massachusetts. Of this, 97 had “two-tiered” or “multi-tiered” programs. Milton has a two-tiered program--part of the cost is covered by trash sticker fees and part by the property tax levy. Of the 97 communities, 60 have a two-tiered system in which residents are charged both a fee per unit [trash sticker or bag or barrel] and a flat annual fee.

So our fee level does not violate any rules, regulations, or laws.

What about the charge that the fee is too high? Too high on what basis? The current level covers about 2/3 of our total solid waste program cost of approximately $1.5 million. This is not too different from the historical levels since we closed the landfill in January 1999 and assumed a new, significant cost to dispose of our trash. And as I noted in an earlier article on this subject, a number of South Shore communities charge more than we for trash.

http://miltonview.blogspot.com/2006/10/trash-stickers-again.html

If we cut these fees we’ll need to cut services to make up the difference. This Saturday the Warrant Committee will have it’s famous all-day Saturday meeting. This traditionally signals the end of a long budgetary process of many months-- the day on which the committee makes an attempt to arrive at a balanced budget by making necessary cuts. By all reports they have been struggling with a $5 million shortfall. To precipitously withdraw an additional $300,000-$400,000 from their planned revenue stream at this late date is the height of irresponsibility.

Compounding matters is Chairman Mullen’s suggestions for service cuts, suggestions that do not even equal the lost revenue. We don’t have a Mayoral form of government in Milton. Budget allocations are made by the Town Meeting based on recommendations made by the Warrant Committee. It is these two bodies that will decide how budget cuts will be made, not the Chairman of the Board of Selectmen.

Perhaps most disturbing were comments made while announcing his cuts. He publicly and unnecessarily disparaged the duties of a loyal town employee, and grossly mischaracterized the responsibilities of the position. People who work for the town should be treated with the same kind of respect as everyone else.

The Selectmen will be discussing and voting on the trash sticker fee reduction this Thursday at 7:30 pm. Last chance for comment.

The Milton Hospital Imbroglio

2007-02-16T18:20:00.000-05:00

Milton Hospital has been an important town institution for over a hundred years. For 55 years it has occupied the current site on land purchased from the Pierce Estate in 1944. In the ensuing decades numerous expansion projects were undertaken to enhance the healthcare services provided to residents of Milton and surrounding communities.

The benefits of a community hospital are many. The most obvious involve crucial medical services for residents. Treatments for any number of emergency medical conditions benefit from the close proximity of patients to competent emergency facilities and personnel. For victims of strokes, heart attacks, and serious accident traumas the length of time between the onset of an emergency and its proper treatment can be the key to survival. Every household in Milton is within a few minutes of the emergency department of Milton Hospital. Over 18,000 visits were made to it in 2006.

We also enjoy the convenience of a broad range of other medical care. Altogether about 7,100 Milton residents were cared for at the Hospital in the past year –over 25% of the town. During 2005, 42% of residents requiring inpatient acute care obtained it at Milton Hospital. Free medical care of $ 250,000 was dispensed in 2006 to residents who simply didn’t have the means to pay. In addition, the Hospital sponsors weekly educational lectures on health related issues and trains both its staff and others in emergency preparedness in the event we need to respond to a terrorist attack or other significant event.

The Hospital is also a business, of course. It employs a large number of people, 93 of whom are Milton residents. Although it is a non-profit institution, it pays property taxes on the office buildings that are part of the medical complex. It is one of the largest commercial taxpayers in town, contributing over $115,000 in tax revenue.

During the past year the Hospital has been much in the news, and often a topic of discussion at Selectmen’s meetings. Recently the story took on a more serious tone when the Town’s new Building Commissioner issued a stop work order for the Hospital’s current construction project. The Hospital has appealed the order. The stop work date was amended to the end of March, and Board of Appeals will hear the appeal on March 13.

So what exactly is going on?

The Hospital has had a number of construction projects over the past 50 years. As with all such projects, issues of neighborhood impacts will occur. And there have been a relatively small number of Hospital neighbors who strongly feel that not all that could be done to mitigate impacts has been done.

Around the time that the current Board of Selectmen took office following last spring’s town elections, some members of the Board began to adopt the rhetoric of some abutters – arguing that the Planning Board should have reviewed the project [they don’t have the authority], that the town should have done more to represent the interests of the neighbors, that the Board of Appeals should have somehow acted differently. Underpinning these comments were thinly veiled charges of impropriety that involved former elected officials who have political views opposed to those of members Mullen and Shields.

The subject became a key issue in the interview process for a new Building Commissioner. The interviewees were offered it as an example of the kind of issues that the new Board wished to be dealt with more effectively by the Building Department. After Mr. Prondak was selected for the position he was directed to intervene on behalf of the Board and investigate the claims made by abutters. Mr. Prondak undertook a three-month compliance review involving a review of the documents and plans dating as far back as 1944; held a series of meetings with abutters; and made visits to many abutter homes to check on their complaints.

His report was issued at the end of December. As an abutter, I received a copy of it. Apart from some obvious mistakes it was a balanced review [the report claims the Hospital purposely introduced Japanese Knotweed as part of its landscaping plans, a ridiculous idea. A common means of introduction is through landfill. Even a tiny fragment of a root can give rise to this incredibly invasive plant]. It made no final determination of compliance, but described a number of measures taken by the Hospital to mitigate neighbors problems and noted other issues which needed to be dealt with.

During this time of course the Hospital was undertaking the construction project for which the Board of Appeals had issued a Special Permit and Variance on September 16, 2005. Ten days after Prondak issued his report he issued a stop work order on the project on entirely new issues. He claims that changes made to the design plans violate design plan approval given by the Zoning Board of Appeals. This is a curious assertion given the following points:

*The Zoning Board of Appeals did not approve a design plan and is not in the business of approving such plans.

*What the Board of Appeals did was approve a Special Permit and Variance which dealt with the height of the planned new addition, the location and size of additional parking, and the total square footage of the new addition.

*Subsequent changes to the design plan were made to cut the costs of the project and did not involve the specifics of the Special Permit and Variance.

*These changes were reviewed by the Town’s Building Department, and were found to be in compliance with all applicable zoning.

*The Building Department issued a permit for the project which the Hospital is legally obligated to adhere to.

Two changes made by the Hospital are at the core of the Building Commissioner’s order. The original plan called for two mechanical units to be built on the roof of the two story addition. This was reduced to one, somewhat larger unit. The remaining unit was rotated 90 degrees and set back 42 feet from Highland Street. This reduced the width facing Highland Street by 46 feet and placed the room adjacent to the present Hospital building, substantially blocking its visual presence from Spafford Road.

Why would the Building Commissioner seek to stop work on a project which is not violating any legal requirements, over changes that reduce the impact on abutters of the new Hospital addition? It increasingly appears to be an exercise in political intimidation.

So while we’re spending money for outside counsel for what appears to be an exercise in legal bravado, the Hospital must deal with the potential impact of a Stop Work order. Even a small delay can have substantial consequences. The Hospital has spent $8 million to date and has already made design changes to control rising costs. A delay threatens the loss of sub-contractors to other projects resulting in costs of delay and subsequent startup.

The additions the Hospital seeks to make with this project will enhance the medical care it can provide people in this area. But a more fundamental impetus drives this effort. Milton Hospital has been losing money for some years now. Substantial sums of money. In many cases millions of dollars a year. The Hospital’s reserves have been covering these loses, but the magnitude and duration of them will not permit this to continue. There is no way to cut costs within the Hospital’s core functions and still fulfill its core mission. The current project and those of recent years add greatly needed outpatient services that also happen to be strong revenue producers. Along with other initiatives that have been undertaken it is vital to creating a financially viable Hospital at a time when Community Hospitals are disappearing from the landscape of medical care in this country.

The current action against the Hospital strongly resembles harassment. It’s hard to come up with a more inappropriate way to treat such a valued institution at its time of need. I trust the Zoning Board of Appeals will vacate the Building Commissioner’s order in keeping with the very clear approvals it gave over a year ago.

Blog Update: In the 24 days since my last post approximately 250 people have clicked on “View My Complete Profile” – presumably new visitors to the blog who have come because of electronic or other referrals. I hope this indicates a growing awareness of the current political state of our town and that it will translate into individual activism between now and election day on April 24, 2007.

Article Update: At the Selectmen’s meeting a week ago the Town’s auditor presented highlights of last year’s audit report. Two points touched on topics I addressed in my last post. The auditors are concerned about the low and declining level of reserve funds available to the Town. Also addressed was the town’s debt level. Member Shields attempted to get Mr. Sullivan to agree that the town had a high and growing level of debt. Mr. Sullivan responded that in fact the town had historically maintained too low a debt level, around 2-3%, and that only recent needed borrowing had raised it to the 7-8% range. He stated that the debt should be at least 10%, or in a range of 8-12% of expenditures, and that once this level was obtained it should be maintained to avoid spikes in such needed expenditures.

Challenges and Leadership

2007-01-22T19:48:00.000-05:00

During the Selectmen interviews of Town Administrator candidates, one of the interviewees turned the tables and asked the members what they thought the major challenges facing Milton were.

Chairman James Mullen, without a hint of hyperbole, answered “survival”, explaining that he meant survival under Proposition 2 ½. Member John Michael Shields cited the town’s debt, which he claimed to be high, and his belief we couldn’t afford any more Proposition 2 ½ overrides for that reason.

Mr. Mullen’s response, while accurate, was not very enlightening. How do we define survival? What particular circumstances are creating this challenge? Is our challenge any different from other Massachusetts communities? Mr. Shields’ diagnosis, on the other hand, is simply not the case.

Milton for many years has had a very low level of debt. That is not necessarily a good thing. Unless you are very wealthy, debt is required to make investments in the basic infrastructure of a community, just as it is for a family who wishes to own a home, a car, and often to provide children with a college education. For decades many other communities were making such investments in their schools, libraries, public works facilities, fire stations, etc.. We weren’t. By the time we got around to addressing our school building crisis the schools were old, outdated, and lacking basic safety systems. Two of the schools, Collicot and the High School 1909 wing, were sub-standard by any measure. The condition of the High School was a partial reason for the school being placed on academic probation.

In recent years we have taken on more debt. We are close to having school buildings worthy of our children. We are tackling much needed renovation and expansion of our library. But does that mean we have taken on too much debt?

The DOR’s Division of Local Services publishes data on community finances, including debt. Let’s look at the total outstanding debt for a few communities. Let’s also look at the more important measure, debt service burden, or the cost of carrying that debt as a percentage of our annual budget. Data is from FY 2006 unless starred, which is 2005.

Community--------------Total Debt Millions---------- % of Budget

Belmont*------------------------------$36.6-------------------------------5.9%

Braintree*-----------------------------$26----------------------------------3.9%

Canton---------------------------------$57----------------------------------9.9%

Cohasset-------------------------------$58.8-------------------------------20.3%

Dedham*------------------------------$42.8--------------------------------4.9%

Hingham*-----------------------------$47.9--------------------------------8.3%

Milton ---------------------------------$15.6--------------------------------7.1%

Needham------------------------------$53----------------------------------8.9%

Scituate--------------------------------$34.6--------------------------------8.2%

Sharon---------------------------------$41----------------------------------12.1%

Walpole-------------------------------$34.4---------------------------------7.4%

Westwood----------------------------$54-----------------------------------11.7%

Compared to 12 similar communities, we rank last in dollar debt, and 9th in debt burden as a percentage of our budget. Our debt burden of 7.1% would put us about 175th in the state, or middle of the pack, for FY2005. Just 5 years before, in FY2001, Milton had a debt of $6 million with a debt burden of just over 2%, 303rd out of 351 communities, and when the state-wide average debt was 7.5% of budgets.

So if debt isn’t the major challenge facing Milton, and mere survival is too ill-defined and amorphous, what are our challenges. Here’s one man’s opinion.

Tax Base

Last year during discussion of the DPW Yard development issue the town had a much needed exposure to the issue of our overwhelming dependence on the residential property owner for revenue. When the Board of Selectmen voted to not issue an RFP, which would only have solicited ideas for the yard, there was discussion about the need to update in some way our master plan. The message seemed to be: we’re not against commercial development, just not in the one place where someone actually wants to do it.

Since then there has been no mention of any plan. There is some development being done: in Central Avenue and the possible Milton Hill residential development. These are promising projects. But they are residential projects in reality. They might expand the tax base, but far from diversifying it, they increase our dependence on residential property taxes. Consider that the Central Avenue projects at the Hendries plant and Fallon ambulance sites replace historically business generated taxes with largely residential taxes. While understandable given what was appropriate for the location, the impact on our tax base is nonetheless real.

In all likelihood, a community like ours with over 97% of our taxable property value non-commercial will at some point be forced to choose between affordability for many of its current residents and the level of services we currently enjoy.

More information about this issue here:

http://miltonview.blogspot.com/2006/02/selectmen-issue-dpw-rfp.html

Financial Planning

Even with our tight revenues we could do a better job of planning. Our departed Town Administrator proposed a multi-year approach that used excess levy capacity and agreed upon budget constraints by every town department to reduce the number of overrides. It also permitted department heads to plan over a five year period with some assurance about their budgets.

Currently we go from year to year with what can best be described as a roller-coaster approach to budget planning. Every few years we pass an override which allows us to bring service levels up to something approximating historic levels. And then for the next few years we have to cut staff because our natural revenue growth is not equal to the growing costs of level service funding. This is followed by another override and then another slow erosion of service. This particularly affects the School Department because they generally bear the greatest burden of cuts. Teacher staffing levels go up and down like a yo-yo, not based on need, but on the inevitable outcome of a year at a time planning process. This can’t be good for educational excellence and must be a nightmare to manage.

http://miltonview.blogspot.com/2006_02_01_miltonview_archive.html

Emergency Funds

Milton continues to live with a woefully inadequate Stabilization Fund. Given how close to the edge we live fiscally, this should be a serious concern. We need to find a way to increase it to a level where it can do some good. I’ve offered an idea here:

http://miltonview.blogspot.com/2006/10/those-rainy-days_116206163729315231.html

Capital Expenditures

We don’t spend enough on capital needs, and we haven’t for a long time. Many of the vehicles driven by our DPW, cemetery, and Fire Department staff are old and in need of replacement. We’re struggling now with a $500,000 expense to replace a fire truck, money which may have to come out of next years operating budgets. Needed work to some of our fire stations was put off for years. And our DPW building is old, in some ways inadequate, and a not very pleasant facility to work in. Five years ago David Colton, then DPW director, told the Warrant Committee that it would take $1-1.5 million per year over 10 years to bring our roadways up to adequate levels. We spend only what we get in Chapter 90 funds from the state, which was about $500,000 when Colton made his estimate and is now only about $370,000. This is not a problem unique to Milton, but what do we do about it?

Our Changing Face

The makeup of our community has changed in the past 2 decades. There are organizations and many fine residents who have worked hard to ensure that Milton is an open, welcoming community to a diverse group of people. However, we must be ever vigilant. A couple of incidents in the past year remind us that there will always be those who are threatened by change. Our elected officials need to be aware that political issues can be used to further private prejudices. Care must be taken, as we discuss issues about which there can be legitimate disagreement like the School Assignment Plan and Student Residency, to prevent their exploitation for purposes of dividing us.

So that’s my list. What we really need is a list that results from an informed discussion. For that we need new leaders who are willing to step forward and offer their expertise to help us chart a future course. The Town Meeting form of government is under pressure in many communities. It depends on volunteers who are willing to bring to government skills and experience not just to manage the day to day and week to week problems of running a town. But to understand the importance of sound planning, to identify the challenges that are ahead, and to strategize solutions. We need people who respect our past while recognizing that you can’t navigate a sound course by gazing fondly into the rear view mirror.

Election season is upon us. Who will step forward?

Declared Candidates To-Date

James Mullen has taken out papers for re-election to the Board of Selectman.

Beirne Lovely has announced he is a candidate for re-election to the School Committee

Glenn Pavlicek , former School Committee Member, has taken out papers for School Committee

Michael Vaughn has taken out papers for School Committee

Pete Jackson has taken out papers for Planning Board.

Pete has a website which I’ve added to my links list. Check it out and take part in his survey.

Full Day Kindergarten

2006-12-18T17:43:00.000-05:00

Just over 2 years ago, in the Fall of 2004, the Superintendent presented to the School Committee an administration analysis of student achievement in Milton. Using data from MCAS and other tests, the Superintendent notified the committee than an achievement gap existed among Milton schoolchildren. Milton’s African American students were enjoying rates of academic achievement at statistically significant levels below those of white students.

A few months later in January of 2005 Tucker parents came before the School Committee during a number of meetings to voice concerns about a perceived lack of urgency in developing and communicating an action plan to address this issue. The Superintendent emphasized the importance of the time consuming task of analyzing data to identify problem areas. Member Beirne Lovely suggested the committee had not done a good job of informing the community of efforts being undertaken.

Here we are two years later. Do we have a comprehensive plan for closing the gap? What are its elements? What is the projected cost of individual initiatives? What is the planned schedule for introducing them and how will they be financed? Do we have benchmarks for measuring success?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Full-day kindergarten benefits children academically.
• Children who attend full-day kindergarten learn more in reading and math over the kindergarten year than those in half-day programs.
• Full-day kindergarteners exhibit more independent learning, classroom involvement, productivity in work with peers and reflectiveness than half-day kindergarteners.
• Children in full-day kindergarten classrooms spend more time in self-initiated activities and teacher directed individual work and less time in large group instruction.

Strategies for Children, Boston Massachusetts
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As someone who follows these issues fairly closely, the fact that I don’t know the answer to these questions suggests that no systematic effort to inform residents of any plan has occurred.

This isn’t to suggest that nothing has been done in two years. Far from it.

---------------The Committee adopted as one of its “Strategic Planning Goals” the narrowing of achievement gaps and raising all student expectations by 2007
---------------Data analysis is ongoing to understand the educational issues at the school, grade, classroom and individual student levels
---------------Class size, especially at the K-2 level, has been reduced
---------------Math coaches have been introduced for targeted help
---------------The SPED program is undergoing an ongoing overhaul

These are important efforts that will produce results. However, the importance of a comprehensive plan with some of the elements I suggested can be seen with the recent discussion about Full Day Kindergarten. The Administration's modest request for funding a pilot program at Tucker to pave the way for full scale introduction in 2008 was cut from the FY 2008 budget request because the total budget increase was judged to be too high. The request was treated as almost a surprise. It was described as an important thing to have at some indeterminate point in the future when the money for it might appear.

This is no way to plan. The Full Day Kindergarten program should have been a key component all along of any strategy for closing the achievement gap. We built our new schools with the space for the program. We should have had in place a strategy for implementing it.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Full-day kindergarten helps close the achievement gap.
• At-risk students who received full-day kindergarten through Montgomery County, Maryland’s Kindergarten Initiative made significantly greater progress in language proficiency than comparable children in half-day kindergarten.
• A study of 17,600 Philadelphia children found that full-day kindergarten helps children from low income families perform better and saves the school district millions of dollars through significantly reduced grade retention in first, second and third grade.
• Research from Lowell Elementary School in Albuquerque, New Mexico, where the average entering kindergartener was already 22 months below grade level, showed that children in the school’s half-day kindergarten made an average gain of 5.4 months during a 9 month period, while children in the fullday classes made a 16 month gain on average.
• Research from the Minneapolis Public Schools showed that minority children in full-day kindergarten gained literacy skills faster than peers in half-day classes. School officials credit full-day kindergarten with helping to close the achievement gap between poorer and more affluent children.

http://www.mccsc.edu/Kplus/research.pdf

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We can’t simply sit back and hope that some future override will provide funding for it.. We just had the largest override in our history in nominal terms, but Full Day Kindergarten wasn’t even discussed. And this, some 18 months after the achievement gap issue surfaced and received so much publicity.

We have no idea when the next override vote will occur, let alone the next successful override. As we just recently had confirmed, our overrides almost always are struggles to maintain level service and are fraught with the political problems caused by the legislatures mistake in placing the authority to call overrides in the hands of as few as two elected officials.

It is simply not acceptable to be passive on this program’s introduction. The research clearly indicates that Full Day Kindergarten is highly successful at significantly reducing disparities in academic readiness as children enter the crucial two years of Grades 1 and 2. It is not a panacea. Long term maintenance of gains are still being studied. But there is no simple fix to the achievement gap. Like most difficult challenges it requires multiple initiatives-- by the schools, by students and by parents—each of them necessary to achieving success.

The School Committee needs to take the lead on this issue, in keeping with one of its Strategic Planning Goals. Planning for it should be formalized with a school sub-committee and perhaps a parent group. Ways of phasing in the program and consideration of re-prioritizing the budget need to be considered. We can’t wait what might be years before additional money is available. The full cost of this program represents just over 1% of the school’s budget. Creative effort commensurate with its importance to closing the achievement gap needs to happen.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Summary: The Needham Public School system conducted an evaluation from October 2004 to May 2005 comparing children in half-day kindergarten programs to children in full-day kindergarten programs. The sample included ten Needham students and ten METCO students. The METCO program supports children from Boston to attend suburban public schools. This evaluation compares the social, emotional, and cognitive gains made in half-day and full-day kindergarten using teacher observations, parent ques tionnaires, and mathematics and literacy tests.
Findings:
· Full-day kindergarten students showed an increased engagement in activities and a greater sense of stability and community.
· Children attending full-day kindergarten improved more than the half-day kindergarteners in literacy skills – such as sound and fluency.
· Full-day kindergarten children demonstrated greater improvement in math skills than the children in half-day kindergarten.
· Full-day METCO children showed the greatest growth in both literacy and math assessments.
· Teachers of children in full-day kindergarten programs gained a greater familiarity with their students and had better collaboration with families compared to teachers of half-day programs.

Vote

2006-11-06T17:59:00.000-05:00

Tomorrow is election day. The polls are open from 7 am to 8 pm. Please exercise your constitutional right and duty. And be sure to vote for Milton’s own –Deval Patrick!

What others have said about voting:

The right to vote...is the primary right by which other rights are protected – Thomas Paine

Those who stay away from the election think that one vote will do no good: 'Tis but one-step more to think one vote will do no harm. – Ralph Waldo Emerson

Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost. John Quincy Adams

Republicans have been accused of abandoning the poor. It's the other way around. They never vote for us. Dan Quayle

Votes are like trees, if you are trying to build a forest. If you have more trees than you have forests, then at that point the pollsters will probably say you will win. Dan Quayle

And my personal favorite, one which I hope will characterize the reaction of the Kerry Healey camp tomorrow night.

The voters have spoken - the bastards! Morris Udall

Those Rainy Days

2006-10-28T14:52:00.000-04:00

The old aphorism advises us to “save for a rainy day”.

Most states and many municipalities maintain “rainy day funds”. One of the more prudent actions of the Massachusetts legislature during the go-go economy of the late 1990’s was to stash a significant amount of money away in anticipation of an inevitable economic downturn. Just before the recession of 2001 that fund had grown to around $2.3 billion. During the next two years a significant portion of it was used to cushion the blow caused by a drastic decline in state revenues.

Although tapping this fund didn’t prevent reductions in state aid, it prevented an even greater impact on local government budgets. Returning the state’s rainy day fund to proper levels is one of the reasons, in addition to returning local aid to the level of 5 years ago, that Kerry Healey’s support for an immediate cut in the state income tax is misguided.

Massachusetts state law provides for cities and towns to create their own emergency funds, called Stabilization Funds. All but 13 of 351 communities have established and funded accounts. Their total balance is $440 million. Some of those who have not include Belmont, Concord, Hingham, Newton, Wilmington and Boston. The Department of Revenue recommends funding levels equal to 5% of annual operating budgets. Most reserve under this level, but the range is wide with the highest found in the town of Rowe at 67%. This is no doubt an effort to plan for life after the nuclear power plant and the massive revenue it provided. Milton has just under $1 million in its fund, about 1.28% of our annual budget. The statewide average balance is 2.33% of budgets.

We owe the establishment of our Stabilization Fund to resident Mary Fitzgerald. In 1996 Ms. Fitzgerald was the Chair of the Warrant Committee. She was concerned that the Town had no reserve of this kind. Through persistence and persuasion she convinced the Warrant Committee and the Town Meeting to appropriate $500,000 to fund the beginnings of a reserve. This was no small accomplishment. Diverting $500,000 from our perennially tight budgets meant some pain and some tough budgetary decisions.

Experience has shown that to be effective a Stabilization Fund must satisfy two criteria. It must be large enough to provide a significant infusion of money during hard times without being completely depleted. And it must have a funding mechanism that provides for both consistent and meaningful contributions to quickly return the fund to appropriate levels after it has been tapped. Without these features Town Meeting is unlikely to use the fund for fear of having nothing in the event an emergency even more serious than a short recession occurs.

Today neither of these needs are being met. At just under a million dollars the fund is not large enough. Looking at the last two recessions, we probably need enough to make a difference for two fiscal years, perhaps $500,000 per year. This wouldn’t preserve everything, but it would reduce the impact on lost services and make recovery of those services less onerous post recession. A balance of say, $2 million, would allow the town to do this while preserving a significant amount of money as a base for rebuilding the balance.

But our current funding mechanism is also inadequate. The year after $500,000 got the fund started no contribution was made. In 1998 the Warrant Committee requested a $100,000 contribution and Town Meeting said no. Budgets were just too tight. The only other sizeable addition to the fund occurred in 2000 when Warrant Chair Charlie McCarthy fought for depositing $200,000 in supplemental Lottery Receipts in the fund. Our budgets are simply too tight to expect regular, sizeable contributions to come from diverting money from immediate needs. What we need is a source of new revenue.

A change made in 2003 to Massachusetts General Law presents an opportunity. That year the Legislature expanded the number of Stabilization Funds a community could have. As part of that effort they also added a new provision to the Proposition 2 ½ law. Before this provision, proceeds of a Prop 2 ½ override could only be earmarked for a stated purpose for one year, after which the money would be allocated as all other funds during the annual budgetary process. The new provision states that an override passed for purposes of funding a Stabilization Fund must be allocated for the same purpose in subsequent years. Town Meeting, the final budgeting authority, could not change this and divert the funds to another use.

We now have the means of creating a separate source of funding that is both significantly large and reliably consistent. An otherwise insignificant Stabilization Fund Prop 2 ½ override in the amount of $100,000 would cost the average taxpayer somewhere in the vicinity of $10-$15 per year. And yet it would result in a doubling of our fund in under 10 years. It would grow annually by 2 ½ %, preserving its buying power over time. It would remove the funds from the annual struggle to balance our budget. And the fiscal discipline it demonstrates would be viewed favorably by our bonding agencies.

We need to prepare better for shocks to our fiscal well-being, because our margin for safety is too small and budgetary pressures are not likely to go away. In addition we should look for other “one-time” money to add to the fund. Former Warrant Committee Chair Emily Innes championed the idea of placing the remaining money in the Land Escrow Account in the fund; and current chair Katie Conlon proposed this at the 2006 special town meeting. We should resolve the issues that arose and put that money in the fund.

I encourage elected officials to investigate this approach.

More information on the new law can be found here:

http://www.dls.state.ma.us/PUBL/IGR/2004/igr04_201.pdf

Trash Stickers, Again

2006-10-02T18:15:00.000-04:00

At the last Selectmen’s meeting Chair Jimmy Mullen announced his wish to reduce the trash sticker fee from $3 to $2. The reason for doing so? Lots of people really hate the fee, according to Mr. Mullen. There was no discussion of how the $300,000-$400,000 of revenue would be replaced, or alternatively what cuts in Town services would be implemented if the fee is reduced. Indeed, no vote was taken on the matter. The Town Administrator was asked to prepare a report on the trash sticker program for discussion at the next meeting.

I think a little background is in order.

Municipalities nationwide face a growing problem with the disposal of Municipal Solid Waste. According to the EPA there were 7683 Municipal Solid Waste landfills in 1986. By 2001 there were only 1858. Massachusetts had hundreds of such landfills over 25 years ago. Today there are 17. As municipal landfills have been closed, capacity needs have been met by the creation of huge, regional landfills. States like Massachusetts and New York have only 5-10 years capacity remaining, at which point all or a substantial part of our solid waste will need to be transported out of state.

There is a world of difference between having your trash collected and taken to your community dump or landfill and having it picked up, transported long distances and then paying the landfill operator for the privilege of putting it in a hole in the ground. As regionalization creates longer and longer distances between communities and disposal sites, and as the supply of landfills struggles to handle increasing amounts of solid waste, costs escalate. The further you ship waste, the transport costs increase. A decreasing supply of landfills within easy reach means increased tipping fees.

Like many other communities Milton had to deal with this issue in 1999. State regulations mandated the closing and capping of our landfill. We were faced with the need to transport our trash and pay tipping fees for its disposal. This new cost amounted to approximately $750,000 in the first year, and we were faced with the problem of how to fund this new expense. The Board of Selectmen offered residents a choice between an override or a “Pay as you throw” trash sticker program to pay for some of these new costs. The residents opted for a trash sticker program.

The trash stickers were originally priced at $1.50 each, and then were raised to $2.00. These prices never covered the entire cost of the program, but probably paid for 67%-75% of it. A year ago this Spring the Selectmen raised the price to $3.00, something the Warrant Committee had been urging for two years as it dealt with budget shortfalls. In making that recommendation the Warrant Committee looked at how other communities were handling their trash costs. Then member Brian Cherry conducted a survey, which I have updated as of October 2, 2006.

The survey of 23 South Shore communities found that 10 have a transfer station program (Braintree, Cohasset, Duxbury, Hanover, Hanson, Hingham, Hull, Kingston, Plymouth, and Scituate). The remaining 13 communties have curb side pickup programs – 5 incorporate the cost into the general budget and 8 charge a fee.

Community--------------March 2004-----------------October 2006

Halifax-------------------$1 sm/$1.50 lg.------------$1.80 sm/$2.50/lg.

Marshfield-----------------------$310-------------------------$365

Pembroke-----------------------$220------------------------$240

Randolph------------------------$100-------------------------$200

Rockland------------------------$244-------------------------$244

Stoughton-----------------------$168-------------------------$168

Weymouth-----------------------$50-------------------------$100

Whitman------------------------$200-------------------------$250

Milton-------------------------$104-------------------------$156

As you can see, the majority of surveyed towns have had to institute fees to meet news costs of solid waste disposal, and of 9 communites, our $3 per week sticker price is the third lowest.

Of course no one likes to pay taxes or trash fees. That is hardly a revelation. The fact remains that residents chose to pay for this program with fees rather than through property taxes. If the fee doesn’t at least keep up with increases in the cost of trash disposal, we’ll be diverting ever increasing amounts of money from our general revenue stream that would otherwise pay for other vital town services.

Reducing this fee now would be fiscally irresponsible. Do we have a surplus that no one is aware of? Have we ever been in a situation other than one in which we fight to maintain the level of services we have now? The Selectmen can make the politically attractive decision to reduce fees, but the Warrant Committee and the Town Meeting will have to cut budgets somewhere to make up the difference. And residents will experience the cuts in service. Perhaps residents wouldn’t be so upset if someone took the time to explain to them the growing cost of getting rid of our trash, or let them know whether they were going to have to get along with fewer Police, Firefighters or Teachers as a result of a hasty, ill-advised action.

Of Politicians and Thin Skin

2006-09-23T12:03:00.000-04:00

Those who were unable to catch Thursday’s cable broadcast of the Milton Board of Selectmen’s meeting missed what must be the most bizarre and disappointing political spectacle ever seen on local access cable.

Deep into a long agenda, the Board heard from the Milton “No Place for Hate Committee”. Co-Chairs Jeff Stone and Deborah Felton reported on the group’s activities during the past year and previewed some upcoming events.

At the conclusion of their remarks Chair Jimmy Mullen, ably assisted by member John Shields, began to castigate Mr. Stone and Ms. Felton, and their organization for failing to address “hate” directed toward them! They offered as an example the most recent annual Town Meeting. Mr. Mullen claimed to have never seen so much “hate” and Mr. Shields once again raised the subject of emails received, or exchanged or intercepted that he found disturbing.

Apparently sensing that none of this political debate has anything to do with the “No Place for Hate” committee, Mullen and Shields tried harder to make a connection. Mr. Shields complained that Ms. Felton had made reference to Shields Park, named after his father, as “Shields Park, so called” in a speech made at Town Meeting. Ms. Felton appeared dumbfounded at the somewhat paranoid reading into this innocent comment an act of hate. Then Mr. Mullen read an almost 2 year old letter to the Boston Globe written by Ms. Felton in which she disagreed with statements about voter registration made by Mr. Mullen in a Globe article on the subject.

What are we to make of all this? The actions of the two Selectmen would be almost droll if not so mean spirited. After all, equating spirited political disagreements with the “No Place for Hate” Committee’s agenda to combat racism, anti-Semitism and other serious forms of hatred which have throughout history resulted in marginalization, persecution and killing is absurd on the face of it. It raises serious concerns that they even understand or appreciate what those efforts mean, efforts characterized by Mr. Mullen as “singing kum ba yah”.

Apparently Mr. Mullen and Mr. Shields are among the most thin-skinned of politicians. Just what have they experienced that predecessors haven’t? Mr. Shields touted in his recent campaign a return to civility. Was he referring to the unremitting attacks his opponent endured for the better part of a year over a town issue –complete with public conduct every bit as intimidating as the recent Town Meeting, scandalous emails, and charges of dishonesty? Of course not, some of those same citizens bankrolled his campaign. Is Mr. Mullen blind to the fact that dividing town citizens into “the real people of Milton” and presumably those who are not, specifically talking about the majority of elected Town Meeting members, constitutes a remark that skirts the boundaries of political discourse while raising questions about the criteria he uses to make this distinction?

No Selectman is untouchable, or immune to criticism. We expect elected officials to conduct themselves with dignity and to treat citizens who come before them with respect. Mr. Stone and Ms. Felton are highly respected members of this community who have given much as volunteers to making it a better place to live. Their treatment on Thursday was but the latest escalation of petty political vendettas that have characterized Mr. Mullen’s term as Chair of the Board of Selectman.

The Board of Selectmen will next meet this coming Thursday. This may mean that cable re-runs of the last meeting will run for a shorter period of time than usual. You should make an effort to see the tape of this last meeting.

Please Vote for Deval Patrick

2006-09-08T18:44:00.000-04:00

One week from this coming Tuesday, on September 19th, Massachusetts voters will go to the polls in a statewide Primary Election to select party candidates for the November election. I want to urge that you consider voting for Deval Patrick as the Democratic nominee for Governor. The reasons are many. You can read much about him and his extensive policy plans at his website, by clicking on his name in my links section.

But the theme of this blog is our town of Milton. So I’d like to discuss some of Candidate Patrick’s plans affecting local communities, plans that should resonate with Milton residents.

Tax Rollback

Patrick is the only candidate who opposes an immediate rollback in taxes based on the 2000 vote, recognizing that this would only be a continuation of the financial shell game that has been going on under Governor Romney’s administration.

Back in 2000 when the voters decided that income tax rates should be rolled back to 5.0%, we were still in a period of economic expansion that was one of the longest and most powerful in our country’s history. The record growth in state revenues helped fuel
a multi-year increase in state aid to cities and towns, at long last beginning to live up to the promises made to local government when Proposition 2 ½ was passed over 25 years ago. It allowed us to sock away a sizeable sum in the State’s rainy day fund. And yet the surpluses generated by an economy that seemed as if it was going to hum along forever continued to occur. Under those circumstances it made sense to consider lowering rates. Indeed, rates were lowered some, from 5.75% to 5.3%.

Are the circumstances today the same? Beginning in 2001 the bubble burst. The reality of the economic cycle reasserted itself. A recession worsened by the 9-ll attack caused State revenues to tank. The rainy day fund was tapped up to a prudent level, demonstrating the wisdom of filling it when times are good. Even with the infusion of the rainy day fund, net state aid to local communities dropped from a high of about $4.3 billion to a low of about $3.7 billion in three years. This $600 million decline meant a decline for Milton, from a high of $6.1 million to a low of $4.5 million. Even after a couple of years of recovery, statewide aid is still close to $300 million less and Milton’s $800,000 less that it was 5 years ago.

How did we cope? We raised taxes on the local level, and we cut services. Statewide, the average, annual single family property tax bill went up over $1100 between 2000 and 2006. Despite this, we still were forced to lay off a few thousand teachers, firemen and policemen, and others as well.

Deval Patrick knows that if we cut taxes now, we are merely shifting a greater burden to individual communities. He gets it exactly right when he says the first priority of an improving revenue situation should be to return local aid to its previous higher levels, adjusted for inflation. Then, if the economy continues to do well, we can look at finishing the rollback which we have already made substantial progress toward. It would be easy and perhaps politically expedient to go along with the tax cut. But it would be a deception, a deception we would be playing on ourselves. Patrick deserves credit for proposing the right plan for the taxpayers pocket book and services.

School Fee Proposal

One of the ways schools have coped during the last few years is to charge fees for various school activities. This has helped reduce the impact on classroom instruction caused by very tight budgets. In Milton we have charged fees for participation in athletics for some time, and they can be very onerous on some families. Principal Drottar at the High School has eloquently made the case for finding a way to eliminate these fees. His analysis has shown that children from families of limited means may be opting out of what is an important character building activity, even when informed that arrangements can be made to handle the costs. All children who attend public schools should be able to participate in school activities that have been a traditional part of public education.

Deval Patrick recognizes this fact. He proposed this week the establishment of a fund which would encourage school systems to eliminate these fees. Any school system that either eliminates or continues to refrain from instituting an activity based fee would receive in state aid, over and above Chapter 70, $35 per student. This will not only encourage the discontinuance of these charges, but provide an ongoing incentive to not re-institute them. Based on a 3700 member student body, this would amount to $129,500 for Milton. If I remember by budgets correctly, this would just about be enough to replace the entire amount raised by the current fees. And if not, close enough.

I think this proposal is very revealing of the qualities I respect in Deval Patrick. It reinforces his understanding of the importance of what’s happening at the local level in Massachusetts. It demonstrates his knowledge and commitment to public education. And it shows he cares about those less fortunate being left behind.

New Revenue Flexibility

For how many years have we heard officials at the state and local level say we need alternatives to the property tax. Now, often what is meant is a new source of state revenue that could be dedicated to local aid.

Patrick has gone on record supporting giving local communities options for raising revenues that many other states give their cities and towns. One example is a meals tax. Whether a community wished to utilize any or all options would be up to them. Such taxation would be completely under their control. While not a major revenue generator for a town like Milton, it is an important option for communities to have if we’re going to seriously deal with the need to reduce dependence on the property tax.

Deval Patrick has a vision for what Massachusetts communities should be:

http://www.devalpatrick.com/resources/pdf/Moving%20MA%20Forward%20Cities%20and%20Towns.pdf

“Cities and towns have the most direct impact on people’s lives. Without strong schools, safe streets, intact roads, bridges and other infrastructure, adequate municipal services, and attractive parks and open space, the quality of our lives suffers. I believe a rational revenue structure, sensible tax policy and fair distribution of state resources to cities and towns -- so that property taxes can be lowered and kept low -- are essential elements of a true partnership between state and local government. And I see a state where those partnerships are of equal importance whether it’s a big urban center or a small rural village.”

I urge you to vote for Deval on September 19th.

==============================

If you haven’t had a chance to watch Brian Kelley’s show on Milton cable, “Talk of the Town”, check it out. He has interesting interviews and has added a new feature with Eileen Maher offering movie reviews. He’s got a crack production staff, including Ben McCarthy handling the audio and video.

Dog Days - Short Takes

2006-08-08T19:01:00.000-04:00

1909 Wing – RFP?

In a development filled with irony, Chairman of the Board of Selectman Jimmy Mullen, with the support of member John Shields, proposed the writing of an RFP for the development of the 1909 Wing at the July 25th Selectmen’s meeting.

Just a couple of months ago the Board aborted the issuance of an RFP for the DPW Yard. They stopped a process of ongoing public discussion that took the better part of a year. Throughout that period Selectmen were accused of “fast-tracking” the process, a claim that became increasingly ludicrous as we witnessed month after month of public discussion.

Now we have an example of fast-tracking. Nothing like a comparable airing of public views has occurred around this issue. Where is the public hearing? How have the neighbors to the 1909 wing been afforded the same lengthy period of time to make their concerns known as the neighbors of the DPW Yard? Shouldn’t the concerns of neighbors, the School administration, the School Committee and the School Building Committee be addressed in the structure of any RFP? What kind of development would we permit? Would it require a zoning change? Didn’t member Shields state that one of the problems he had with the DPW RFP was that the zoning change should have been sought before issuing the RFP?

Mr. Mullen has agreed to meet with the neighbors. They should insist on a meeting with the entire board sitting in a public hearing. There is a School Committee Meeting this Thursday evening at 7:00 at the High School Library. Residents are free to offer their opinions during Citizens Speak. The School Committee controls the 1909 Wing and it is important for them to know how the residents feel about placing a private development on Middle School property.

School Residency

The Milton Times and Selectman Jimmy Mullen continue to beat the drum on an issue that remains nothing more than the unfounded claim of a runaway problem with non-residents attending the public schools. We have no more evidence today that as many as 100 non-residents are involved than we did when the speculations were first uttered over 3 months ago.

Mr. Mullen makes much of the agreement the School Committee entered into with the Board of Selectmen in order to entice the majority of that Board to agree to what was the only responsible action on the override to begin with. Just what did the School Committee agree to? Here is the resolution they passed.

That the School Committee hereby undertakes to the Board of Selectmen that it will review carefully all procedures which the school department follows with respect to monitoring and enforcing the requirement that only Milton residents be entitled to enroll and attend the Milton Public Schools and, at the request of the Board of Selectmen, to meet with them to discuss such procedures and to entertain and consider any evidence indicating that non-Milton residents are enrolled and attending the Milton Public Schools.

Three pretty simple tasks: review procedures, meet and discuss them with the Board of Selectmen, and investigate any evidence presented about non-resident school attendance.

I can’t imagine it would take long to review procedures. They were only adopted in 2004 as part of the ongoing updating of the school policies manual. The process is quite rigorous. You can read about it in the first link below. The School’s policy statement can be read on pages 4 and 5 under the second link.

https://www.edline.net/files/8d9307c00c1331143745a49013852ec4/Residency_6-8-06.pdf

https://www.edline.net/files/052eef1ecdbff2663745a49013852ec4/Section_J-adopted.pdf

These procedures and policies have been found by the Department of Education to conform with their guidelines. They are in keeping with Massachusetts State Law and case law. The School Committee should have its meeting with the Board of Selectmen, inform them of these facts, and of the fact that no evidence has been presented supporting the original claims. Then, with their obligation met, we should leave rumor and innuendo to those who will increasingly be seen as employing them for apparent political purposes.

New Links

I’ve added some new web links to my list.

The first is for Phil Dunkelbarger’s website. Dunkelbarger is a Democrat running against Stephen Lynch in the Democratic Primary for the 9th Massachusetts Congressional District. Check out an attractive new candidate for consideration as our Representative.

The second link is Milton’s own Deval Patrick’s website. Massachusetts desperately needs a Governor with both competence and compassion. The site is excellent.

Next is my long time friend Howard Dinin’s blog. Howard is a writer and photographer, among other things. He just returned from a few weeks at his home in Provence and the blog contains many recent musings on things French including a recipe for ratatouille in the August 2 post.

Finally, Emily Innes will be transitioning her election website to a blog dealing with Planning issues and more. She promises to post an article by August 13, three days after the next Planning Board meeting.

Who Has a Right to Attend the Milton Public Schools?

2006-07-12T12:13:00.000-04:00

Periodically during the past decade or so the question has been asked whether some students attending our schools were non-residents, and therefore not eligible to attend. The question has been asked by neighbors and friends, in public meetings of elected officials, and as I know from personal experience, by Warrant Committees of the School Administration.

Repeatedly School Superintendents and the Police Department, which has two detectives assigned to investigate potential residency violations, have assured the Town that they are on top of this issue. There is an extensive registration process during which multiple pieces of documentation regarding residency are requested. Detectives with many years of combined experience use their abilities and tips from Milton residents to identify cases that require investigation. Each year students are asked to leave the Milton schools as a result—seven during this past year.

Now, once again, the town faces this question, albeit in a more sensationalized and politicized way that threatens to be very divisive. In May at the Annual Town Meeting Selectman Jimmy Mullen stood before the town meeting, and the television cameras, proclaiming that he had reason to believe there were as many as 100 students in the system who were not Milton residents. A few weeks later at a School Committee meeting Attorney Robert Connolly told committee members that all they had to do was go to the borders of the town on any school day to see people walking into Milton to go to school.

Selectman Mullen based his charge on an anonymous person he claims is in a position to know. When asked subsequently to provide the name of a single student who should not be attending our schools, he could not. Presumably either the source could provide no names or Mr. Mullen didn’t consider it important to ask. But if a single violator can’t be identified, why should anyone believe there are any, let alone one hundred? As for Mr. Connolly’s charge, it strains credulity to suggest that Milton Police Detectives would be so incompetent as to be fooled by such open flouting of residency laws on a daily basis.

Unable to support his claim, while perfectly content to repeat it, Mr. Mullen is now attacking the school system’s residency policy. He suggests it is more liberal than necessary and has offered the policy of the Boston Public Schools for comparison. The Milton Times, in an article that tended to promote the controversy while offering little clarity or understanding, echoed this message.

The right of any student to attend a public school is not, in the final analysis, governed by any community’s residency policy. That right is defined by state law and any precedents established in court cases that interpret that law. To find out more about the state of the law on this issue I contacted Nate Mackinnon of the Department of Education, the source mentioned in the Milton Times article. After some discussion Mr. Mackinnon agreed to check with the legal department and obtain any legal advisories on the residency issue. He then faxed me two legal opinions that represent the Department of Education’s view on the legal definition of residency. I’m going to quote extensively from one of these letters because it lays out detailed reasoning concerning Massachusetts law.

The letter is from 1990 and is addressed to the Town of Peabody. It comments on a complicated case of physical and legal custody of a student with parents in two different towns.

--------------------------------------------------

“As you know, the basic rule regarding the right of children to attend school is contained in G.L. c. 76, s.5. This statute provides in pertinent part as follows:

‘Every person shall have a right to attend
the public schools of the town where he
actually resides, subject to the following
section. [Emphasis in original]’

In the Department of Education’s opinion, this statute is to be read literally: children who actually reside (i.e. live) in a town, whether with their natural parents, other relatives, by themselves, in a foster or group home or in virtually any other living situation, are legally entitled to attend the town’s public schools. In short, the statute avoids technical questions of custody, guardianship and domicile; the only question to ask is: where does the student actually live. This interpretation of G.L. c. 76, s.5 is supported by the statute’s legislative history as well as Opinions of the Attorney General and the courts. Prior to a 1913 amendment, G.L. c. 76, s.5 referred to the legal residence of the child’s parent or guardian, or the child’s residence if there was no parent or guardian present. The 1913 amendment omitted the technical issue of custody by basing the right to attend school on the child’s actual residence. The literal interpretation of G.L. c.76, s.5 was reaffirmed in Mulrain v. Board of Selectmen of Leicester 479 N.E. 2d 745 (Mass. App. 1985). The court held that while the statutory meaning of residence varies, where a particular statute uses the expression “actual residence”, residency becomes a matter of “personal presence”, with or without any implication of civic privileges or duties. (Id., 479 N.E. 2d at 746). Since G.L. c. 76, s.5 states that every person shall have a right to attend the public schools of the town where he or she actually resides, residence under this statute does not include any other factors except the location of the child’s home.

The only statutory limitation on a child’s right to attend the schools of the town where he or she actually resides appears in G.L. c.76, s.6, which states in pertinent part:

‘If a child resides temporarily in a town other than the legal
residence of his parent or guardian for the special purpose of
there attending school, the said town may recover tuition from the
parent or guardian…computed at the regular rate established by the school committee for non-resident pupils, but in no case exceeding the average expense per pupil in such school for said period. [Emphasis in original]'

Therefore a child is entitled to attend the public schools of town in which he or she actually lives, but, if the child is living in a town which is not the legal residence of his or her parent or guardian, for the sole purpose of going to its schools, the town may charge tuition. Since few children live in a town apart from their parents “for the special purpose of there attending school”, the applicability of G.L. c.76 is quite limited. This analysis of G.L. c.76, SS5 and 6 has been supported by the courts of the commonwealth. In the 1977 opinion in Anrig v. Joseph, Suffolk Superior court docket number 18871, the court applied this approach to a case in which two children moved from their mother’s home in Dedham to their grandmother’s home in Norwood because of family problems. Norwood refused to admit the students unless they paid tuition or their grandmother became their legal guardian. Based on the facts in that case, the Court held that the children were entitled to attend school without payment of tuition in the town in which they were residing with their grandmother, regardless of their guardianship”

---------------------------------------

So unless the town can show that a student living with someone other than a parent or legal guardian is doing so for the sole purpose of attending the schools, that student has a right to attend. Given the many family and social reasons that might occasion a young person’s choice of living situation, this is a difficult legal standard to meet.

What about the Boston schools policy? Mr. Mullen cites in particular the words: “the residence of a minor child is presumed to be the legal residence of the parent (s) or guardian (s) who have physical custody of the child.” Remember, this is a policy statement and Boston is entitled to publicize as stringent a set of requirements as they wish. The question is, how are decisions actually made. The policy “presumes” parental or guardian residency. But it does not say admission will be denied in non-parental and non-guardianship living situations. Another DOE legal opinion from 2000 states: “Nothing in the statute authorizes a school district to condition admission on additional requirements. Therefore a school district may not condition admission on such things as legal guardianship, parent’s residence or receipt of certain documents, with the exception of immunization records in accordance with G.L. c.76, S15.”

So why do we find ourselves in the middle of this acrimonious debate? Why hasn’t the Board of Selectmen, which has legal counsel on retainer, sought a legal opinion regarding the residency policy, one that I believe would clearly show that ours is a thoughtful approach crafted with state law and legal precedent in mind? And by what perversion of logic is the School Committee being pressured to perform an investigation of violations that have not even been shown to have occurred? The School Committee needs to make a comprehensive public statement on this issue, and those elected officials who seem intent on creating a controversy for whatever reason need to start acting more responsibly.

The 1909 Wing – Sentimental Attachment

2006-06-29T22:17:00.000-04:00

For the better part of four years now Selectman Jimmy Mullen has made the renovation and commercial re-use of a portion of the 1909 wing of the old High School his hobby-horse. His proposal is seductive in its simplicity. Let’s retain some indeterminate portion of the 1909 wing, permit office space to be developed in the structure, and funnel any tax proceeds to the public schools. Bolstering his advocacy is a non-binding vote of the citizens at the annual town election in 2003.

Discussion on this topic has been decidedly one-sided. With the exception of the estimable Charlie Winchester, Mr. Mullen has had the stage to himself and has used the opportunity to hammer home the theme of a simple proposal that represents a big win for everyone involved.

On March 24, 2003, barely a month before the annual town election, the Selectmen placed a question on the ballot. In the ensuing 5 weeks there was little discussion of the question. This was no doubt due to two factors. First, the School Building Assistance administration had declared that any execution of Mr. Mullen’s idea would constitute a material change to the approved building plan, with serious consequences. And second, the vote was purely advisory, having no binding authority on Town officials. So no one bothered to point out the problems with re-use of the 1909 wing. Consequently, what most voters based their vote on was the plain language of the ballot question:

“Do you favor retaining a portion of the 1909 section of Milton High School to be placed on the tax rolls and used as commercial office space with said income to used exclusively for the operation of Milton Public Schools?”

Who could object to such an innocuous sounding plan to put more money into educating our children?

I suspect many would if we took a closer look at the issue. A start in this direction was made a couple of weeks ago when Charlie Winchester and Jimmy Mullen appeared on Bernie Lynch’s _Milton Speaks_ to “debate” the topic. Mr. Winchester noted that Massachusetts Department of Education site size guidelines for Middle Schools called for 15 acres plus an additional acre for every 100 students, or 25 acres for Pierce Middle School. The Pierce School site is 8.8 acres. Even with the availability of the adjacent Kelly Field for some athletic activities the site is significantly below state guidelines. The architectural firm Drummey Rosane Anderson pointed out in their 1999 Facilities Study that “the site is extremely compressed, lacking the necessary parking and athletic fields.”

So why would we want to truncate a site which is already small by allowing an office building to stand about 100 feet (assuming we demolish more than half the remaining 1909 wing) from the entrance to a school attended by 1000 youngsters? Not only would the entrance to the school be substantially blocked visually, but since all the planning for the site assumed the demolition of the 1909 wing, the proximity of the proposed office building would affect student drop off, building deliveries, and the number of parking spaces. Handicapped parking, by its nature sited nearest the entrance, would be lost. In addition, Mr. Winchester expressed concerns about whether the storm water management system would require changes.

Mr. Mullen appealed to the widespread trend to re-use old buildings. He lamented the destruction of the Vose school and the old Town Hall, and cited examples of other old structures, including schools, that have been preserved and renovated around the State. But the fact of the matter is none of these examples is analogous. In no instance did he cite a case in which a portion of an old school building was developed commercially on land carved out of existing school property on which a functioning school sits. I’ve been unable to find any examples of this. I doubt anyone else can.

Let’s try a little thought experiment. Let’s suppose that five years ago, before the final plans for the schools were finalized, the town was approached by a commercial developer. The developer proposes the construction of a commercial office building which, because of the size of the site in question, would need to stand in close proximity to any planned school. To realize their vision they request that a portion of town property under the care and custody of the School Committee for 100 years or so be lopped off, re-zoned, and an RFP for commercial development be issued under the guidelines of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 30B. The School Building Committee objects to the proposal because of the resulting impracticality of properly siting a modern Middle School on a lot already too small, and because of the inappropriateness of a commercial development on land contiguous to a large public school. Do you think the residents of Milton, the elected boards, and the Town Meeting would approve of such a proposal? I very much doubt it.

The only difference between the thought experiment and the situation we face is that the potential office building, in un-renovated condition, already exists. But that fact doesn’t address any of the serious issues an office building raises. In truth, this is about an understandable but misguided sentimental attachment that Selectman Mullen and others have for an old Milton structure. But sentimentality is no reason to adversely impact a school that Milton and Massachusetts taxpayers spent tens of millions of dollars building, and a few thousand Milton children will attend. It’s time for the appropriate officials to have a public discussion of the issue and officially vote to demolish the 1909 wing, as planned from the beginning, once it is no longer needed as swing space.

June 13th Election – Question Two – Moderator’s Term

2006-06-08T17:45:00.000-04:00

Lost in the flurry of activity and discussion around the Proposition 2 ½ override is the presence on the ballot of a second question – one which would amend the Town Bylaws to increase the term of the Town Moderator from 1 year to 3 years.

The impetus for this change was a Citizens' Petition presented to the Annual Town Meeting in May of 2005. The article was supported unanimously by the Warrant Committee, the Board of Selectmen, and the Town Meeting. Following that vote, the Selectmen were required to ask the Massachusetts Legislature to approve this home rule petition, which they have done.

The position of Town Moderator goes back to the very beginnings of the Town Meeting form of Government. The moderator was elected as the very first order of business of the town meeting, and served only for the length of that town meeting. So the original term of office for the moderator was a sessional term. Subsequent town meetings in the course of the same year required another election for moderator by town meeting.

During this early period Selectmen, Town Clerks, Treasurers and other officials were also elected by the town meeting.

The Moderator’s duties were focused on the Town Meeting itself. This responsibility was placed in the hands of an individual who the public viewed as having the character and learning required to regulate the business of the meeting in a fair and efficient manner.

Beginning in the 19th century, election to these offices began to be conducted by town-wide ballot, and the moderator and other officials were elected to one-year terms. The moderator would preside at all town meetings held during that year.

As town government has become more complex and the time commitment for officials has grown, most communities have moved to three- year terms for positions such as Selectman, Treasurer and Town Clerk.

The Moderator’s responsibilities have also grown. From an initial focus on the town meeting itself, the moderator has acquired substantial appointive duties to various volunteer committees. In 1870 a number of citizens in the then town of Quincy formed the first finance committee in the Commonwealth because of their dissatisfaction with the community’s financial affairs. The popularity of finance committees grew quickly and in 1930 the Massachusetts courts ruled them as a legal entity for municipal government, and in the same year the legislature made them a mandatory component of town government for all but the smallest of communities. Today roughly 80% of finance committees are appointed, with 80% of those appointed by the town moderator, as is the case in Milton.

Over time there has been a proliferation of volunteer committees, both standing committees and special committees. They have become indispensable to preserving the viability of the town meeting form of government. They bring expertise to the increasingly complex nature of municipal management without turning the town meeting’s authority over to a cadre of full-time professional managers. In Milton today, the Town Moderator makes appointments to 10 different committees. A total of 69 Milton residents fill these positions. All of these committees serve specialized needs, and it is the responsibility of the Moderator to search far and wide for people with a wide variety of experience, talent, and a commitment to serve. This is a time consuming task, and an ongoing one that is not best suited to a single year term of office.

All across the state communities are recognizing the appropriateness of a three year term for moderator, just as they have recognized it as appropriate for other town offices. According to Ed Newman of the Massachusetts Moderator's Association, the breakout of different term lengths is as follows -- 164 towns maintain a 1 year term for moderator, a significant number of these are small communities with an open town meeting, 135 towns have adopted a 3 year term, and 2 towns have a two year term.

A three year term for Town Moderator makes sense for the role that position plays, and will bring it into conformity with other elected town positions. I urge you to vote yes on Question 2 on Tuesday June 13.

Yes, Another Override

2006-06-03T15:50:00.000-04:00

Just 10 days from today the citizens of Milton will decide whether to raise taxes by $2.41 million or suffer the most far reaching, significant cuts to services since Proposition 2 ½ was passed. In the 26 years since the law was enacted we have overridden the tax limit for our operational budget, as the law provides, in four years. We have also passed a number of debt exclusion overrides, long term but temporary tax increases to fund substantial capital improvements.

Recap of Operational Overrides

Year------------------------Amount

1989------------------------$596,228
1990------------------------$1,977,140
1995------------------------$1,391,219
2001------------------------$2,144,210

Total------------------------$6,108,797

It is sobering to consider where we would be today if we had to reduce our level of services by over $6 million (unadjusted for inflation). And as anyone who has lived here during this period of time knows, these increases were not to fund new services, but simply to maintain a basic level of service. So it is with this override.

The consequences of a failed override to our level of primary services has been much discussed. At the most basic level we expect local government to protect our homes and our persons; keep our streets and sidewalks clean, clear, and maintained; and provide our children with a quality education. Without an override all of these basic services will suffer significantly. For an overview of the impact on the Police, Fire, DPW and School departments, go here:

http://www.yes4milton.org/facts/documents/Impact_No_Override.pdf

No one should think the many other departments that provide desired services will be unaffected by a failure to raise taxes.

The Library will lose one part-time employee and most of its funding for new books and materials. They will have to make up this loss in some way or their status for the state grant to build the library would be lost.

There will be staff reductions in Town Hall which will likely result in a longer wait to transact business with Town Hall departments.

The Council on Aging will have insufficient funds for the van service for elderly residents and utility costs for the COA Building.

The Board of Health will stop animal inspections.

The Parks and Recreation Department will be forced to consider reducing some programs to use the money to maintain the town’s athletic fields.

Numerous other departments will also be impacted.

Why Do We Need Overrides?

Well, it certainly isn’t because we spend too much on services. The best measure of this is to look at operational expenditures on a per capita basis. Milton spends on town services $2319 for every resident. The State average is $2422 per resident. This $103 per resident difference means Milton would need to raise its expenditures by almost $2.7 million just to reach the statewide average. In fact, Milton ranks 144th out of 347 reporting communities on this measure, despite ranking 43rd in Median Household Income. Compared to comparable communities as identified for the Town by Municipal Benchmarking LLC., Milton ranks 15th out of 20 towns. One of those communities is our neighbor Canton. Canton spends $2609 per resident. We would need to increase our spending by almost $7.8 million to purchase the same level of services.

I think a strong argument can be made that we are spending too little. That’s why our roads and sidewalks are in such need of repair. Why our Fire Department is chronically understaffed. Why our classrooms have too many students. Why we have an insufficiently funded rainy day fund. Why we are behind on taking care of our capital needs.

But this override isn’t about addressing a shortage of services. It’s about preserving what we have. Town leaders have been telling residents for some years that we will need periodic overrides. And yet, understandably, whenever one is in the offing people ask why. The simple answer? The costs for keeping the same level of service in place rise faster than our revenue. Our revenues grow annually almost a full percentage point less than the state average. We have one of the lowest commercial tax bases in the state and we have little new growth of any kind. Each year this systemic problem robs us of about 1% or so of our buying power. Over the course of a couple of years this is managed by cuts here and there that are not in and of themselves serious. After 4 or 5 years, however, you’re talking about 5-6% of the budget and the cumulative effect becomes significant. During this cycle of 5 years since the last override you have the compounding problem of a recession induced cut in state aid. We’re still receiving less than we did four years ago.

So this is why we face the unpleasant choice of raising our taxes or witnessing a troubling erosion in our core services. This erosion will be noticeable, which is why the Town department heads have taken the unprecedented step of voicing their concerns to the residents in public forums. If the override fails, all of the repercussions that have been described will occur. And next year at this time, having long ago progressed from cutting fat to cutting meat from the budget, we’ll face the need to cut services again.

---------------------
The League of Women Voter’s Forum on the Override provides an excellent overview of the subject. It is being repeated on Milton cable often. Consult your cable guide.

Please visit the “Get the Facts” page of the Yes4Milton website for a wealth of information:

http://www.yes4milton.org/facts/facts.html

Override Campaign Begins

2006-05-15T18:20:00.000-04:00

As you probably know by now, Town Meeting voted in favor of the entire contingent budget as presented by the Warrant Committee, and supported unanimously by the Board of Selectmen and the School Committee. The $2.41 million override election which results from this vote has been scheduled by the Selectmen to be held on June 13th.

A citizen volunteer group has formed to inform the residents of Milton of the importance of passing this override. The organization has adopted the name “Yes4Milton” and dozens of residents have already joined the effort. In the short span of little more than a week, they have created a website which already contains a great deal of information on the need for this override. I’ve added the website to my links list.

If you visit the site I think you’ll find substantial data explaining our fiscal situation and the impacts on our level of services if we don’t obtain revenue above what Proposition 2 ½ permits. Check out the “How to Help” section and find out what you can do if you wish to help. Money, of course, is always welcome. An ambitious campaign of communication is needed to place a large amount of information before the voters. You can visit the website (be sure to bookmark it!) at:

http://www.yes4milton.org/index.html

During the next four weeks I will be writing about this very important issue for our Town.

Full Disclosure: I am a member of “Yes4Milton”.

Central Ave.Planned Unit Development Article 51

2006-05-07T15:18:00.000-04:00

The Town Meeting began to discuss this important article near the end of last Tuesday’s meeting. Town Planner Aaron Henry gave a comprehensive presentation on all aspects of the Planned Unit Development.

The need for zoning relief in the Central Avenue business district is clear. The Hendries plant has been vacant for 12 years, its plywood windows testimony to the lost value to the property owner, the neighborhood, and the Milton taxpayer. The Fallon Ambulance building, long the home of a respected Milton business, now lies empty. And the Central Avenue parking lot has an owner who has the right to develop his property in some fashion.

As Aaron Henry explained, the current zoning is not conducive to development. The Zoning change suggested under this article would encourage a type of development, mixed-use, that is economically viable and is being employed with increasing frequency all over the country. It is compatible with Smart Growth principles and with Transit Oriented Development as practiced by the MBTA on property it owns. It features:

--a mix of residential and retail
--a higher density of development
--the creation of what is both a mini-community and a town center
--housing opportunities for singles, empty nesters, and the sons, daughters, and employees of Milton

There seems to be little disagreement with the basic features of the Planned Unit Development. Concerns that have been raised seem to focus on scale. Long time Town Administrator John Cronin spoke at length about his belief that four story structures would be too large for the area. How does one argue with what is at base a subjective opinion? Many people do not think four stories would have to be overpowering. There are two buildings of 3 1/2 to 4 stories at the intersection of School Street and Central Avenue, just out of the square. The visual impact of these new structures will have much to do with their design and the proposed PUD gives the town the tools it needs to effect positive results. Contrary to the statement made by a Town Meeting Member, no building could rise 45 feet straight up from the sidewalk. Set backs of floors above 2 stories are required.

The concerns expressed by John Cronin have been codified into an Amendment to Article 51 which will be considered tomorrow night. The primary change is a significant reduction in the density permitted under the PUD. The base number of housing units is reduced from 1 unit per 1000 sq. feet to 1 unit per 2000 square feet. Under the most generous bonus provision (1 unit per 1500 sq. feet), this would seem to reduce the number of units allowable at the Hendries building from an upper limit of 47 units to approximately 23. The question is whether such a significant reduction eliminates the economic viability of the project.

The issue of economic viability was a key factor in soliciting the help of the Urban Land Institute. It makes no sense to pass zoning which places demands on developers making it impossible for them to raise the money necessary to undertake a project. The ULI’s recommendations considered this key factor. Their recommendation on unit counts has been challenged on two rather flimsy grounds. The first holds that since the word “urban” appears in their name, they are trying to impose urban standards on Milton. This is really silly. The members of the ULI are well versed in development in suburbs as well as in cities. They’ve also been described as part of the development industry because of the nature of the work they do, and therefore would be prone to suggest a scale favorable to the developer and to the detriment of the town. I think this unfairly maligns the professional integrity of this group of volunteers. At the very least it is just as likely that their understanding of development financing is providing us with an important wake up call.

In the final analysis it will be up to the developers to convince the Town Meeting tomorrow night of the need for the density proposed in Article 51. As with any decision of this kind there is an element of risk. Town Meeting Members need to keep in mind that there is just as much risk, perhaps more, in turning down this article as in accepting it.

The owners of the Fallon site have been clear in letting the town know that it cannot wait much longer before deciding what to do with its property. A quick sale to a Church is a strong alternative to a protracted development process which might not even offer an equivalent profit. This would remove the property from the tax rolls, and lose the opportunity to provide housing and retail development we need.

The Hendries owners have indicated they might have to consider a 40B development. Whether we have “faced down” such threats before, or have merely managed to dodge a bullet, the fact remains that should such a development be pursued, densities on the order being proposed under this article are almost guaranteed. What would not at all be guaranteed is the kind of rigorous approval process we are used to, and you could forget about relying on anything like the design standards included in this PUD. Chapter 40B limits the profitability for the developer. But 20% profit, a streamlined Comprehensive Permit process, and the ability to appeal to the state Housing Appeals Committee for “uneconomic” conditions set by the town sounds like an appealing alternative if what the developers and ULI have told us about economic viability is true.

Whatever happens to the individual pieces of property, the failure of this article to pass likely means we will lose the opportunity to plan in a coordinated fashion three significant parcels in the Central Avenue business district. We will likely lose the mixed-use component and the commercial taxes that would have resulted. Let’s just remember that there are risks to saying yes, and risks to saying no. I think the latter outweigh the former.

“We campaign in poetry, but we govern in prose”.

2006-04-28T20:58:00.000-04:00

This perceptive observation (variously rendered) by Mario Cuomo, a man who should have been President, is about to be confirmed right here in our beloved town. The condensed language form of poetry, the nuance and symbolism, and the multiple interpretations which result, must give way to more logical structures of language for the purpose of conveying clear meaning. In other words, we will now learn what John Shields meant when he talked about “putting the taxpayer first.”

After all, the taxpayer is not only the payer of taxes, but the recipient of the services those taxes pay for. Perhaps Mr. Shields was talking about services? Of course, our children do not pay taxes. So I suppose one could interpret Mr. Shields’ slogan as meaning that he wishes to put the taxpayers ahead of our children. We naturally shrink from such an interpretation. Didn’t Candidate Shields say “every child should have the best education available?” But as poetry becomes prose, all will be revealed.

What has emerged to date is a combination of fact and rumor. I offer them here because time is short and based on what is emerging, we need to decide whether we’re going to sit idly by while two elected officials make important decisions for the town, ignoring in the process the Town Meeting and the Warrant Committee.

The Selectmen will have an emergency meeting on Sunday evening at 7:30 to deal with the override question. Pressure is being placed on the Warrant Committee to develop a third budget, with a much lower override amount. Selectmen Mullen and Shields will refuse to place the Warrant Committee’s current recommendation on the ballot for the citizens to decide, irrespective of Town Meeting’s vote. An item has been placed on the agenda dealing with rescinding the trash sticker fee increase of a year ago, removing between $300,000 and $400,000 from the revenue stream, worsening an already serious situation. The Selectmen will seek a delay in consideration of the budget items until the second week of Town Meeting. This would effectively put off any override vote until after the end of school, and perhaps after many families have left town for summer vacations. And finally, it is rumored that an override of $1.5 million dollars might be considered, evenly split between the “town side” and the schools.

I have already written about the effects on town services of no override. You can review it by clicking on the article “Budget Blues” under the “Previous Posts” list to the left. When you’ve reviewed it, consider the additional effect of a rollback in trash sticker fees. The rumored $1.5 million override has the following consequences:

--It will raise taxes on Milton taxpayers

--Milton taxpayers will still see a significant decline in services, especially those with children

--We will be back in a similar budget crunch, likely next year, definitely by the following year

--We will almost certainly not be able to open the Collicot and Cunningham Schools in September of 2007

Why do we find ourselves in this position? More importantly, why are such severe consequences to the quality of life in our community so overwhelmingly in the control of two Selectmen?

The answer to the first question was clearly explained by Glenn Pavlicek 5 years ago as Chair of the Warrant Committee in the 2001 Town Warrant.

"The principal goal of any budget process is to balance the organization's expenditures with its revenue. Even looking at the problem at this large a level, we quickly find the fundamental problem that the Town of Milton is facing. Over the last few years, Milton has seen its revenues increase at a rate of about 3.5% annually. Indeed, if you examine the revenue chart inside the front cover of this warrant, you will see that, excluding the proposed override, the Town's revenue is again projected to grow at just under 3.5%. The problem is that, for Towns near Boston, this amount of growth is insufficient to maintain a constant level of service. The factor that the Commonwealth uses to maintain a constant level of service for Towns near Boston (a "Municipal Cost of Living Index"--if you prefer) is 4.7%. In simplest terms, this 1.2% differential means every year Milton's revenue comes up about $600,000 short of what is necessary to do what was done the year before."

We haven’t had an operational override in 5 years. At $600,000 per year in lost buying power, that comes to $3 million, just to maintain “a constant level of service.”

The answer to the second question should be deeply concerning to those who admire the Town Meeting form of government. In 1980 the citizens of Massachusetts passed Question 2, better known as Proposition 2 ½. This citizens’ initiative was a reaction to a decade of property tax increases averaging 7-8% annually. I think it was a reasonable reaction, although the 2.5% increase which became the standard was utterly arbitrary in its selection. The legislature had to come up with a mechanism for communities to trigger a vote of the citizens to increase taxes above 2.5%, since they recognized that such adjustments would be necessary. They determined that such a referendum should require the approval of the “local appropriating body”: and they then inexplicably named the Board of Selectmen as that body.

I say inexplicably because it was. For hundreds of years the dominant form of government in the New England states was the town meeting. It has been so in Milton for about 350 years. The Town Meeting decided all important matters for a community. Among these were all financial issues, including how much money would be expended and how it would be expended. In the last century or so the legislature required communities of a specific size to establish Warrant or Finance Committees, whose function is to study and advise on financial and other issues to be brought before the Town Meeting. So when the legislature placed the authority for calling override elections, as well as for the amount of the override, in the hands of Selectmen, it abetted the usurpation of hundreds of years of Town Meeting authority.

So today we are faced with the situation in which two people, elected Selectmen, can decide for the entire town if we have an override vote at all, how much the override will be, and even how those amounts will be allocated. Now this misguided section of the Proposition 2 ½ law doesn’t require that Selectmen ignore centuries old traditions of self-government. But it does give them the legal authority to do so. We can only hope that Selectmen Mullen and Shields, who make much of Milton tradition, can be persuaded to listen to the Warrant Committee and the Town Meeting and allow the taxpayers to decide whether they want to increase their taxes or cut services.

The rest of us have equally important decisions to make. The Town Meeting and Warrant Committees have to decide not to be bullied or have their prerogatives trampled. Citizens have to make their voices heard. As I studied the recent election results it appeared that some stayed home, including some school supporters. Need I say that it might be time to get up off the couch! This Sunday’s Board of Selectmen’s meeting will contain the usual portion of Citizen’s speak. I suggest you limit yourself to 3 minutes even though a majority of the current committee claims to not find such limits necessary.

Moderator Election

2006-04-24T19:26:00.000-04:00

Brian Walsh has been Moderator for four years. In winning the post he succeeded an exceptionally able Moderator in Rick Ward. Rick, like a number of his predecessors, is an Attorney familiar with the law governing the conduct of Town Meeting. While Brian Walsh didn’t bring that knowledge to his new job, he’s acquired a good understanding of it in a short period of time.

The Moderator’s role has two major functions—oversee the conduct of Town Meeting and recruit/appoint Milton residents to a number of standing and special committees. Brian has performed both admirably. His rulings at Town Meeting have been considered, yet forceful. He’s drawn the proper balance between permitting Town Meeting Members to be heard on all the issues, and recognizing the importance of not letting the meeting drag on for many nights, as is often the case in other communities. His committee appointments, especially to the School Building Committee and the Library Building Committee have been very good. And while I disagree with Mr. Walsh, and his opponent, on appointing Town employees to the Warrant Committee, he’s done a good job recruiting members for this difficult job during a period of high turnover.

The voters seem to think he’s doing a good job as well. Last year, Walsh’s fourth campaign for the office, he received a higher percentage of the vote, nearly 60%, than in any prior election. Of course it is ridiculous that such an important office should be subject to annual election. I was happy to support my wife Nancy’s citizens’ initiative to change the term of office for Moderator to 3 years, a change that will take effect at next year’s election.

Walsh’s opponent, as has been true for the past 4 years, is Diane DiTullio Agostino. While it was refreshing to see Ms. Agostino run a campaign free of the vitriol that has characterized her prior campaigns for this office, she hasn’t offered any reason why Brian Walsh shouldn’t be re-elected. Mr. Walsh not only has a track record of success in performing this job, he has the proper temperament to perform a very important function during a coming period of difficult decision making. The voters will expect and hold him to a very high standard of objectivity.

I ask that you join me in supporting Brian Walsh for Moderator in tomorrow’s election.

What Is This Campaign About? Follow the Money!

2006-04-21T16:39:00.000-04:00

When John Michael Shields submitted papers to run for Selectman on the final day for filing, many people were surprised. In the immediate aftermath Mr. Shields stated his reasons for running as a concern for the direction the town was heading in.

The campaign is now winding down and frankly, it has been difficult to discern just what candidate Shields means by wrong direction. He’s mentioned taxes, but his opponent has a track record of helping avoid tax increases to fund our operating budgets. He’s called for a small override while proclaiming, “every child should have the best education available.” These two things are not compatible.

Then there is the issue of development. His campaign literature treats this in general terms. He’s “concerned” about some plans for development around town. He’s for “Smart Growth”, a concept not violated by any of the proposals under discussion. And he engages in considerable political hyperbole by claiming to be an “urban planner” based on working for a developer for a couple of years. In the Milton Speaks debate he expressed his view that Central Avenue Business district plans were “too dense” and he criticized the RFP for the DPW Yard, indicating he would limit development to residential.

Could this be the wrong direction Mr. Shields is really talking about? This past Tuesday the candidates were required to release preliminary information on campaign contributions. Mr. Shields' information was notable for two reasons. First, the amount of money he was able to raise in a short time, approximately $20,000. More striking was the concentration and source of the money. Approximately half of all the funds raised came from 18 contributions of the maximum amount allowable under law --$500. All 18 of these contributions came from well-known opponents of any consideration of commercial development at the DPW Yard. Additional contributions of between $50-$500 came from 10 other opponents, meaning that more than 50% of all the money raised to date by Mr. Shields comes from this special interest group.

Why would this group give so generously to Mr. Shields? Let’s remember their agenda. They don’t just oppose the possibility of commercial development at the DPW Yard. They oppose the town even having the opportunity to look at commercial ideas and decide, as a whole, what would be best for Milton. In Mr. Shields they have a willing partner. He’s already declared that he would not vote to issue an RFP that includes commercial development. He apparently considers it perfectly fine to decide, along with one other selectman, what should be on the table for the town’s consideration on this very important issue.

If Mr. Shields thinks pursuing commercial development at the DPW Yard is wrong, that’s fine. If he thinks such development would be going in the wrong direction and that he wants to be the standard bearer for that position to the citizens of Milton, that’s fine. But what is not fine is to limit, with the help of his financial backers, the choices that should be examined by all of us before we make a decision that should take into account the needs of the entire town.

----------------------

On another front, this week’s Milton Times contained a letter from Richard Shea. Mr. Shea is one of the leaders of the opponents to commercial development at the DPW Yard. The Shea family contributed $2000 to Mr. Shields, 10% of total contributions. In his letter to the editor he makes the following comment:

“Second, during Mr. McCarthy’s tenure as Selectman, the cost of the original school rebuilding projected(sic) has mushroomed from $100 million in 2001 to $150 million in 2006. While I don’t lay the whole blame for the $50 million increase at the feet of the incumbent Selectman, I am struggling to understand how this budgeting disaster is a step forward for Milton.”

This statement contains not only misstatement of fact, but demonstrates a lack of understanding of both the school building issue and the Board of Selectmen’s responsibilities.

Mr. Shea's purported $50 million cost increase includes $17 million of private donations to fund various enhancements to the schools.

During the period of construction, the entire construction industry was hit by a surge in inflation, one that was made worse by Hurricane Katrina. School building projects all across the state were impacted. This fact, and the fact that the state had stopped making inflationary adjustments to the per square foot reimbursement, was part of the reason we were recently able to add money to the project without a proposition 2 ½ override.

Finally, the Board of Selectmen has neither responsibility nor authority for the School Building Program.

Mr. Shea is running for Town Meeting Member in Precinct 9. Precinct 9 residents might wonder why Mr. Shea would make such irresponsible remarks without taking the time to study the issue.

School Committee Election

2006-04-15T20:52:00.000-04:00

The Massachusetts Association of School Committees (MASC) says the following about the role of School Committees.

“A school committee must be responsive to its constituencies in governance, sensitive to the diverse needs of all learners, an advocate for students and learning before the people of the community and, as such, a vigorous ambassador for public education before all citizens.”

With respect to school finance the MASC says:

“Work to ensure that necessary funds are appropriated for the district and that a balance is maintained between needs and resources in the distribution of available monies.”

For me an “advocate for students”, a “vigorous ambassador for education before all citizens” who “ensure(s) that necessary funds are appropriated” represent the basic criteria for consideration as a member of a school committee.

This year’s election has three candidates running for two seats—incumbents Glenn Pavlicek and Mary Kelly, and challenger Lynda-Lee Sheridan.

I’ve known Glenn Pavlicek for some years now. We worked together on the Warrant Committee--during two years he was the Chair. I’ve never worked with anyone quite like Glenn. It doesn’t take long to figure out how intelligent he is. But unlike most people equally blessed, Glenn prefers to bring his considerable talents to bear on issues in a quiet, unostentatious way. For this reason, he is not a great politician. He hasn’t developed the knack for spending more time claiming credit for solutions than in actually developing them.

But develop them he has. Glenn doesn’t take a back seat to anyone in the contribution he has made to the soon to be completed school buildings our youngsters attend. He has worked tirelessly on three different committees on the financing, educational specifications and construction supervision of every one of these schools. When construction inflation threatened the building of the Collicot and Cunningham Schools, he was a vocal advocate of “Safe and Equal” schools. And when further inflation threatened the completion of the Collicot school as originally planned he not only supported more money to complete the job, he worked with the School Building Assistance folks and the Department of Revenue to make sure the added funds could be legally authorized under the levy limit. This eliminated the need for another override election.

Glenn is an educator by profession. He understands the importance of properly funding our schools. He also knows that money is tight. As a member of “Fair Funding for Milton” he helped the town secure a new stream of revenue, $500,000 per year, as PILOT money for the state owned Blue Hills land. Intelligence, a passion for education, a rare problem solver, and an advocate for our children—the reasons I’ll be voting for Glenn Pavlicek on April 25th.

I first meet Lynda-Lee Sheridan during election season some years ago when we were both running for Town Meeting member in Precinct 9. We both attended the same election night get- together (there was probably a school override vote on the ballot) and waited anxiously for the election returns. When the final tallies were announced, I was lucky enough to have won the final slot, one vote ahead of Lynda-Lee. I remember being struck by how gracious she was. And of course, she won a seat the next year, and her distinctive voice has been a welcome addition to town meeting.

Lynda-Lee is also an educator by profession. She has been a Special Education teacher in the Boston Public Schools for over 20 years. This expertise would be valuable in a school system striving to solve past problems in Special Education. She would be an asset as we seek to bring SPED students back into the Milton schools and integrate them into classrooms using Inclusionary Models.

She’s long been involved in education in Milton, as a long time member of the PTO and the School Site Council. She’s also rightly proud of her advocacy for every school building override. The school children of Milton will have no better advocate for their interests than someone whose caring and concern for young people is so palpable. That is why I will vote for Lynda-Lee Sheridan on April 25th.

Mary Kelly has served for three years on the school committee. As I thought about each of the candidates, there were two things about Ms. Kelly’s tenure that I just couldn’t reconcile with someone I could support for the Milton School Committee. The first was a statement she made at the League of Women Voters debate. She described herself as “the taxpayers voice” on the school committee. That struck me as odd. Shouldn’t a school committee member be the “children’s voice”? Aren’t there enough voices for the taxpayer, including every taxpayer, not to mention the elected Town Meeting members? Was the key point here “taxes”?

The other issue which concerned me was Ms. Kelly’s opposition to the “Safe and Equal Schools” override of $14 million to permit the reconstruction of the Collicot and Cunningham Schools. I find it unconscionable to have advocated for a no vote that would have conferred second class status on the Cunningham and Collicot school communities. Not only would they have been forced to attend schools significantly inferior to other elementary school students in Milton, but in the case of Collicot, a school rapidly approaching an unsafe condition.

Glenn Pavlicek and Lynda-Lee Sheridan are vigorous advocates for the education of children. They are educators. They will make the case for the financial needs of the school system, knowing that the taxpayers of Milton have the ability to make their own decisions on increasing taxes. Please join me in supporting Glenn and Lynda-Lee on April 25th.

Thoughtful Problem Solving

2006-04-09T09:58:00.000-04:00

Charlie McCarthy’s tenure in town government both as Warrant Committee Chair and as Selectman has resulted in more progress for the town than we’ve seen in many years.

His well-known role in the building of our Council on Aging Center, our new schools, and the soon to be expanded and renovated library are only part of the story. Charlie has worked to streamline our town government, keep our costs down, and find new sources of funds. These kinds of successes require a thoughtful approach to problem solving.

Charlie’s opponent, John Michael Shields, has proposed as a key plank in his campaign a cooperative effort with neighboring towns to lower costs for trash removal. While this idea might have superficial appeal, if you look into the matter you’d find that no one in our region is doing it. Is that because no one has thought of it?

There would seem to be two ways in which a multi-town, cooperative approach could theoretically save money- bargaining power for tipping (disposal) fees or for collection costs. But volume of waste does not provide negotiating power because the supply of landfills and other disposal types is limited in Massachusetts. That’s why the city of Cambridge pays $91 per ton to Milton’s $80 despite having a much greater volume of solid waste. The city of Boston has divided the city into 11 separate districts. Each one is bid out separately with multiple contracts issued. They pay anywhere from $77 per ton to well over $80 per ton.

On the collection side, a cooperative approach presents operational issues that are almost impossible to overcome. Members would have to have very similar solid waste programs. They would have to recycle at approximately the same rates, and recycle the same types of items. Even the South Shore Recycling Cooperative, an 8 year old, 15 town cooperative has never attempted a joint bid for trash.

So problem solving is hard work. But in just the past 2 or 3 years Selectman McCarthy has been involved in a number of successful efforts. 1) the town changed to a self-insured program which has saved us $650,000 in the first two years on health insurance costs. 2) the most recent contract with 6 town unions kept pay increases to just over an average of 2%, substantially less than the most recent contract for state workers, for example, 3) re-organization of town government has saved the town $1 million, and 4) the town negotiated a $1.7 million mitigation payment from NSTAR. Compare this to the town of Stoughton, which originally negotiated a $250,000 payment. The negotiator of that deal and the three selectmen involved are all gone.

Some have said we need some new blood in Town Government. I’ve got news for you, in this election Charlie McCarthy is the new blood. He doesn’t believe that just saying no constitutes a vision for the town of Milton. That’s why I’ll vote for Charlie McCarthy on April 25th.