Tomorrow is Election Day

Select Board Race

School Committee Race

High School Building Project

A couple of comments...

• About two months ago, I wrote a article entitled- A “sign” of things to come…. in which I wrote:
  
  "Let’s hope that town voters are smarter than that and will make informed decisions based upon knowledge of the candidates and/or issues rather than relying upon sign counts."
  
  Little did I realize how prophetic that would be.... a person would think driving today through Longmeadow based upon lawn signs that the vote tomorrow on the high school project will be unanimous since you cannot find very many "NO" signs and "YES" are prolific throughout the town. Of course, we know that many NO signs were stolen in the past few weeks so lawn sign counts are likely to be representative of the overall sentiment.
  
  
• The high school building project has been particularly ugly from both sides. Let's hope that no matter what the outcome tomorrow that both the winners and losers can accept the democratic outcome and our town can move forward.

I have spent considerable time learning about the candidates and the high school building project and have already filled in my ballot (see below).

[click to enlarge and print]

Now is the time…

for transparency and truthfulness.

This morning I took some time to visit Storrs Library to read the letters dated November 3, November 10 and November 19, 2009 sent by the MSBA/ Katherine Craven’s office to the Longmeadow School Superintendent Jahn Hart. What I read in these letters made me very angry. Angry because our School Building Committee- co-chaired by Christine Swanson (elected School Committee member) and Robert Barkett (elected Select Board Chair) failed to share the contents of these letters publicly. It is interesting to note that Ms. Hart was quoted by CBS-Springfield as saying, “these documents had been public ever since they were written in November”. However, they appeared only this morning for public review because they were obtained through the efforts of Roger Wojcik and his group using the Freedom of Information Act to gain access.

Below are links to these MSBA documents…

MSBA, Mary Pichetti, Director of Capital Planning to E. Jahn Hart, 11/03/09
MSBA, Mary Pichetti, Director of Capital Planning to E. Jahn Hart, 11/10/09
MSBA, Katherine Craven, Executive Director, MSBA to E. Jahn Hart, 11/19/09

I personally developed and maintained the School Building Committee’s (SBC) website at no cost to the town since the summer of 2009 and it has provided town residents with a wealth of information about the project. There is not much about the high school building project that cannot be found on the SBC website (except these letters).

In these letters the MSBA strongly recommends that the Longmeadow SBC reconsider the renovation option with different project scope options. Below are some excerpts from the letter dated November 10, 2009 from the MSBA to Superintendent Jahn Hart…

“As noted previously, since the MSBA’s senior study, the MSBA and its consultant have believed that the Longmeadow High School has strong potential for renovation, and the conclusions of your feasibility study have not substantially altered that view. The overall condition of the building is solid and the renovation options outlined… rely heavily on very little retention of the existing spaces with widespread removal of masonry walls, thus increasing the cost of the renovations.”… “Please be advised that MSBA is willing to work with Longmeadow to preserve existing spaces in similar circumstances”… “there is no cost estimate for a renovation option that utilizes existing classroom spaces”… “This factor obviously impacts the cost analysis of new construction versus a renovation option” … the decision to about whether to renovate the existing facility is a critical next step”… “further due diligence is required”

These letters are very revealing and should be read by all town residents…
it is very clear that the MSBA in early November wanted Longmeadow to reconsider the renovation option (with different assumptions) with the potential outcome being a much lower cost alternate to the project that will voted on June 8.

As many of you know who follow the LongmeadowBuzz blog, I have been actively engaged in the school building project and debate having attended most of the public forums including the most recent forum with Katherine Craven. I have also frequently posted articles about property tax information related to the project and more clearly explained “average” property tax increase to town residents including my most recent post entitled School Building Cost and Taxpayer Information (4/16/10).

After the SBC decision on September 30 to select option 2B (new + renovation) until late November, there was a “quiet period” during which there was very little information shared with town residents about the SBC activities. Meeting minutes for the SBC were not posted on the website from June to late November . The committee had also not met their legal obligations to file minutes with the Longmeadow Town Clerk in a timely manner. In late November I requested that the School Building Committee send me the missing meeting minutes to help people understand what was going on. Gradually these meeting minutes appeared.

It is interesting that the 11/05/09 SBC meeting minutes mentioned the MSBA letter + SBC response but did not reveal any details. The 11/19/09 SBC meeting minutes were not received for posting until February 10. These 11/19/09 minutes do share some insight into the role of our local politicians in getting the project approved at the MSBA Board Meeting on 11/18/09.

Back in October I wrote a Buzz article called “Now is the right time!” (10/04/09) in which I urged support for the new school project because I listened and believed all of the information that was being shared with the public by the Longmeadow SBC. I felt that this was the right decision. Now I feel that I was deceived by the same committee that I was helping.

As the School Committee and Select Board became engaged in a difficult FY2011 budget process, I became very concerned that Longmeadow could not afford the $78 million new + renovated school project and still be able to maintain the other services and employees that makes Longmeadow a great place to live. With other capital improvements as well as rapidly rising operating costs on the horizon, a cost effective solution for the high school was clearly needed. It now looks like the game plan from the start was to build new and not seriously consider renovation of the existing building.

I would like to hear from our elected officials who knew what was going on with the MSBA in November but decided not to share the information with town residents. Take a look at the distribution for these letters to find out who received copies. This is not transparency in government.

WE NEED ELECTED OFFICIALS WHO WILL BE OPEN AND HONEST AND WHO WE CAN TRUST.

I would urge town voters to consider rejecting the High School Project and vote NO!

We need qualified candidates...

The following are excerpts from the Select Board Candidate Debate held on May 18, 2010 and sponsored by The Longmeadow Youth Sports Council. Production of the video was provided by Phillip Steiger and his efforts are gratefully acknowledged.

The entire Select Board Candidate Debate can be viewed on LCTV's website at http://www.longmeadowtv.org/

Answers for the first debate question are posted below:

What experience do the four candidates running for the two Select Board openings have in financial services and the budget setting arena?









After listening to the candidate answers to this important question, it is pretty clear that one candidate in particular lacks the needed skills and experience to effectively manage a $50 million budget and make difficult and complex decisions facing our town.

While I applaud Mr. Clark's initiative to step up and become involved in town government, our town cannot afford to elect someone to the Select Board at this critical time who is likely to be doing a lot of "on the job training" and resume building.

Mark Gold's School Building Position

Below is a letter posted this week on Mark Gold's re-election website explaining his position on the Longmeadow High School building project.

Longmeadow High School Project

One of the major issues to be addressed by the residents of Longmeadow this year is whether or not to approve the proposed high school plan. The current proposal is actually two projects in one: construction of a new classroom building and the renovation the 1971 wing. $65.6 million of the costs (all related to new construction) is eligible for 51.8% state reimbursement. The balance of the project’s $78.4 million project cost will be paid for though a $44.4 million debt exclusion bond.

In the six years (2003-2009) I served as chair of the Capital Planning committee, recognizing the needs of the high school building, I led the Capital Planning Committee in recommending the appropriation and expenditure of over $500,000 to address physical plant needs of the high school.

The needs of the high school building are very clear – particularly the physical plant issues such as heating and electrical systems, classroom amenities, and handicap accessibility. Despite the fact that the proposed project includes shortcomings that concern me, and that I would have preferred the townspeople to have been allowed direct input into selection of the final project alternative, the fact is we are presented with the project that is before us: a 186,000 sq. ft. classroom building tied to a renovated 1971 wing. There remains, however, opportunity to adjust the project scope and to control costs for the $9.4 million portion of the project related to renovations for School Administration offices, the pool, and LCTV without putting the state grant money at risk. A revised plan for financing the project that reduces the financial burden that this bond will put on the most vulnerable residents of Longmeadow can also be developed without putting reimbursement funds at risk.

Based upon the effect that the current project is likely to have on the taxpayers of Longmeadow, I am concerned that passage of this project in its current form will restrict the town’s ability to raise funds necessary for future capital needs and / or to maintain current service levels at the schools and town departments. If the issues related to expenditures for renovations to accommodate the School Department offices and the proposed financing schedule are modified to lessen the financial impact to the community I would support this project. However, as currently proposed I cannot support a project that includes the financial burdens imposed.

Should the town-wide vote reject the debt-exclusion proposal, I will suggest that the School Building Committee use the MSBA’s appeal process to, at a minimum, revise the scope of the noneligible portions of the project and alter the proposed financing plan for this project to lessen the financial burden of this project for the five to ten year period after project completion.

In summary, my objection to the proposed Longmeadow High School construction and renovation project is based on the financial burden this project will have on town residents, and the limiting effect the cost of this project may have on residents’ willingness to raise other necessary funds over the next five to ten years. With modifications to this project, and within the scope of the MSBA policies, we can provide adequate educational facilities for our students without constraining our willingness or ability to maintain the level and balance of our school and town services.

Mark P. Gold
Candidate for Re-election
Longmeadow Select Board
May 10, 2010

www.GoldforSelectBoard.com

Citizens for A Better Longmeadow

is the name of the group led by Roger Wojcik that organized a “public” forum that was attended by an overflow crowd of ~ 65-70 people last night at Storrs Library. The meeting objective as outlined at the outset by Mr. Wojcik was to provide some factual information about the financial issues facing the town both today and into the future. This group believes that many town residents need additional information to make informed decisions at the upcoming town meetings on May 11 and May 25 as well as town elections on June 8. Mr. Wojcik asked attendees to be respectful to each other and not have a repeat of the April 12 forum.

First of all, I applaud Mr. Wojcik’s attempt to provide some factual information about town finances including both the town’s annual operating and capital budgets as well as some of the other current liabilities such as Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB). In addition to being a member of the town’s Finance Committee and a past member of the Capital Planning Committee, Mr. Wojcik has useful workplace experience in developing and managing corporate budgets. During the meeting Mr. Wojcik was criticized a number of times by some attendees, particularly about the accuracy of a $35 million OPEB future liability but he pointed to an official town analysis by Scanlon & Associates as his source. Similar objections were voiced about a report on town infrastructure problems and there were attempts by some attendees to discredit this information as well.













Other than one flamboyant outburst by a well-known town resident and regular poster on this blog, the meeting proceeded with a reasonable decorum- far better than the previous forum on April 12 (see my previous post)…. that is, until Mr. Wojcik turned the meeting from an information session into a political debate about Select Board candidates for the upcoming election and the inadvisability of electing former/ current School Committee members to the Select Board. What followed was not unexpected from my vantage point given the makeup of the audience.... the meeting turned into a similar “shouting match” situation as did the April 12 forum and the meeting ended on a very sour note….

Regarding Mr. Duquette’s latest post here on the Buzz blog…

I have listened and attended numerous Select Board/ School Committee meetings as well as official public forums on the current school/town budgets and high school building project during the past 9 months. I believe that I understand the situation quite well and have become very concerned about where we are headed.

Mr. Duquette makes the following statement in his latest Buzz post…

“The library is an operating expense, while the new high school is a capital expense. Closing the library doesn’t do anything to advance the high school project.”

He also states that Mr. Wojcik would have “earned a poor grade in my public budgeting course”. During the meeting Mr. Duquette also restated his recurring theme that “you can’t run public government like a business”.

As Mr. Wojcik tried to explain at last night’s meeting, a capital expenditure turns immediately into an line item operating expense through annual repayment of interest + principal. For the proposed high school project this operating budget line item is likely to be ~ $3.5 – 4.0 million in FY2014 (based upon estimates by Paul Pasterczyk- Town Finance Director but actual numbers are dependent upon municipal bond interest rates). (See my recent post to determine individual property tax impact.)

Mr. Duquette’s approach is similar to many new HS school building advocates who have simply decided to ignore or discount or discredit mention of the any other financial needs of the town and want to simply move forward and build the new high school. They do not want to discuss the financial ability of Longmeadow’s town residents to support such a project.

I believe that we are making a mistake if we simply choose to ignore Longmeadow’s other financial issues as we debate the decision to build a new high school. Given our difficulties in formulating the FY11 budget, it is clear that we will be making additional difficult choices in the very near future… not necessarily ones that we want to make but ones that we are forced to make. These unpopular choices may include reductions in teachers, fire dept/ police dept staff, additional curtailment of library services ……

Our town leaders need to BALANCE available financial resources to deliver both school and town services so that all segments of our town population are treated fairly. With two seats (out of 5) on the Longmeadow Select Board being decided at the June 8 election, it is important for town voters to fully understand each candidate’s position on this issue so that they can make right choices.

A “sign” of things to come….

Annual Town Elections are Tuesday, June 8 and there is an important race for Select Board with two seats being contested by four candidates. The outcome of this SB election will likely be very important with regard to the future of Longmeadow given that 2 out of 5 voting members will be selected. There is also a contest for a School Committee seat. In addition, there is likely to be a ballot question regarding a Proposition 2½ debt exclusion override for the new high school.

See posting on the Longmeadow Community Bulletin Board for additional election race details.

With so much at stake our town could easily become the lawn sign capital of western Massachusetts.

Below is the town bylaw covering the placement of lawn signs in advance of an election.

6-314. Billboards, Signs and Other Advertising Devices
(e) A temporary sign relating to (i) a candidate for public office, or (ii) an issue which will be voted on at a town meeting or election, or (iii) some other issue which may be of general concern, interest or controversy or (iv) a scheduled function, event or activity sponsored by a non-profit organization, may be erected by the owner of property in any zone or by permission of such owner, but subject to the limitations set forth in subsection (c).

(ii) Temporary signs permitted by subsection (e) (i), as limited by section (e) (i), or signs permitted by section (e) (ii) may be erected no sooner than sixty (60) days prior to the election or meeting at which the candidates or issue will be voted on and must be removed no later than two (2) days after such election or meeting.

This means that Friday, April 9 is first day that lawn signs can be placed without violation of our town bylaw.

There have been past town elections that seemed to suggest that the more signs the better since the election would be determined by who had the most signs on the major streets in town. Let’s hope that town voters are smarter than that and will make informed decisions based upon knowledge of the candidates and/or issues rather than relying upon sign counts.

I ask that each election committee for SB and SC candidates and the expected pro/con political action committees related to the new high school project consider limiting the number of signs placed on lawns to 100 or less so our town does not become the lawn sign capital of Western Massachusetts.

Longmeadow is such a beautiful town in the springtime.

An Important Election Season

The following nomination papers have been certified for the Town of Longmeadow Annual Town Election to be held on June 8, 2010.

Select Board – 2 three year seats:
Roy Johansen, 85 Western Drive
Mark Gold, 129 Avondale Road (Incumbent)
Michael Clark, 169 Cooley Drive
Christine Swanson, 96 Salem Road
David Gustafson, 173 Ardsley Road

School Committee – 2 three year seats:
Thomas Brunette, 187 Quinnehtuk Road (Incumbent)
Tracy DeMarco, 152 Meadow Road
Jennifer Jester, 129 Farmington Avenue

Planning Board – 1 five year seat
Kenneth Taylor, 149 Academy Drive (Incumbent)

****At this time the town will need to hold a preliminary election for the two Select Board seats to narrow the field of five candidates down to four on Tuesday, May 4 from 8 am – 8 pm, unless any candidate withdraws their name. The deadline to file objections or withdrawals is March 31 at 5 PM.

Annual Town elections will be held on Tuesday, June 8.

At this election will likely be a vote on a debt exclusion Proposition 2½ override of ~ $46 million for the new high school and the election of two Select Board members who will likely be very influencial regarding the future direction of our town.

It's now the time for town residents to wake up and become informed.

Special Town Meeting/ Election for Longmeadow School Building Project

The Longmeadow Select Board (SB) meeting this past Monday (2/01/10) turned into a marathon 4+ hour session with the first hour dedicated to visitor comments (vs. normal five minutes). The primary subject for these comments was the proposal by the School Building Committee (SBC) to have a separate Town Meeting and Town Election for the School Building Project. The proposed timing for both was before the Annual Town Meeting scheduled for May 11. This school building project is currently in final design phase before being submitted for approval by the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) in March 2010. The estimated project cost is ~$81 million which will require a Proposition 2½ override vote (2/3 majority) at a Town Meeting and at a townwide election (majority YES vote). Estimated taxpayer annual property tax increase is $1/1000 or $300 for a $300,000 home payable every year for 25 years.

Below is a 10 minute video (courtesy of LCTV) with selected excerpts from this “public comments” agenda item…



The primary argument used by most people speaking in favor of a separate special town meeting was that people needed ample time to ask their questions so that they could decide which way to vote. As I conduct my own unscientific poll around town, I do find many residents who do not have a good understanding as to what is happening. The SBC has made a good attempt so far to help educate town residents about this project through numerous public forums but there appears to be a lot more that needs to be accomplished….

I strongly agree with town resident Arlene Miller (see video excerpt) who stated that waiting for the town meeting (annual or special) is too late to learn about the project in order to make an informed decision. Longmeadow voters need to do their homework on this project before the town meeting and only look for clarification on key points.

Voters also need to be able to factor in the operational side of our town finances. With a potential major cut in town/school services and/or operational Propositional 2½ override for FY11, town residents need to have this information at the same time as this school building project decision is made.

After considerable discussion, the SB decided by a vote of 4:1 in favor (Rob Aseltine against) to schedule a special town meeting on May 25 (after the Annual Town Meeting on May 11) and not to grant the request of a special election.

I strongly agree with this SB decision and feel that any attempt to circumvent it through a SBC initiated voter petition or other means should be met with public skepticism as to its motive.

Select Board Seeks to Remove Safety Valve

From the looks of the Town Meeting warrant, the Select Board seeks to make some major changes to the freedoms currently afforded to the public:

Article 6: Change the date of the Annual Town Meeting to an unspecified date to be set by the Select Board.

Article 7: REMOVE the ENTIRE Referendum Procedure from the Town Charter.

The Referendum is a little-used procedure. It is a safeguard. It states, in part: "No final vote of a town meeting on any warrant article, except:(...); shall take effect until after five days from the dissolution of the town meeting. If a petition seeking a referendum vote on any article is not filed with the select board within the said five days, the votes of the town meeting shall then take effect."

What does it mean? If Town Meeting voted to institute Stupid Bylaw X, then 3% of the voters could petition to have that decision placed on an election ballot. Then, if voters who voted at an election decide to scrap Stupid Bylaw X, they can. If they want to keep it, they can.

Without that referendum procedure however, the Select Board removes a valuable and much requested check & balance. As Clerk of the Charter Commission, I kept detailed notes on our deliberations. Among them include the following.

"Charter Commissioners noted that the number [of Petitioners required to start the Referendum] needs to be high enough to prevent abuse, yet low enough as to be attainable should Town Meeting vastly underestimate the will of the non-attending public" (10-29-03)

Two members "expressed concern that the town voters might use the opportunity to reconsider Town Meeting decisions at the ballot box too frequently." (3-9-04; see also 12-17-03). Clearly that has not happened.

Others called it a "safety valve" (10-29-03, 11-5-03, 12-17-03 )

"Reasons for including the referendum in the charter: no one at the hearings indicated that they disliked this procedure; they were asking questions to clarify it because it is something new. Since Massachusetts General Law requires Special Town Meetings be held if only 200 voters petition for one, the town needs a different safety valve that allows for more people to vote, even with absentee ballots. Special Town Meetings do not allow for absentee ballots. The Referendum procedure is in place to “compete” with, or serve as an alternative to, Special Town Meetings. If the town tried to live with this provision for a few years and decided that it doesn’t work as anticipated, the town could remove this provision" (12-17-03, emphasis mine).

How common are referendum procedures elsewhere? "Marilyn Contreas (Senior Policy Analyst for the Dept. of Housing and Community Development) ...said that they are very prevalent." (11-12-03, emphasis mine)

"It is the ultimate check on a town meeting run amok" (7-23-03, emphasis mine).

SO WHY does the Select Board want to REMOVE this important right of the people?

According to the warrant, "By deleting this section, the Town gains more time for budget deliberations and to enable the annual election to be conducted before the end of the school year."

This is NOT a good reason, since nothing in the referendum procedure prohibits the election from happening before the end of the school year. Referendum elections may be held as special elections or as part of a general election. No law requires them to be held with a general election. Town leaders have connected the one time a referendum was used with a general election, but that was a choice, not a requirement. The Select Board's reasoning attacks a problem with the wrong weapon.

The Charter Commission set the date of Town Meeting for "the last Tuesday in April"....Perhaps the Select Board would like to have Elections come AFTER Town Meeting, so they cannot be held accountable by the voters for their actions/inactions at Town Meeting?

Who knows....what does matter however, is that the Select Board would like to take away a hard-won right of the people to protest stupid decisions that do not represent the voters.

In addition to Articles 6 and 7, Article 8 also aims to gut the Charter's protections for access to information. By cutting in half the time requirements for descriptions of items on the warrant, the Select Board shortens the public's time to review the items they will vote on.

What to do? Well, voting NO on these articles SAVES our freedoms.






Respectfully submitted,
Rebecca M. Townsend