by Frank Schroth
During the final night of Town Meeting there were several discussions of interest. As with previous nights, Town Meeting voted the recommendations of the Warrant Committee. Here is a summary of the articles and the votes taken.
Articles 38 and 39 concerned appropriations for the Reserve Fund which is used to finance “extraordinary or unforeseen expenditures”. The recommendation for Article 38 sought $396K for the 12 month period beginning 7/1/14 and Article 39 sought $597K for the year beginning 7/1/15. The key unforeseen expenditure behind these figures is the demolition of the town owned portion of the Hendries building. One might argue that this cost was foreseen. What wasn’t foreseen was the delay. The demolition that was expected in 2014 has not happened. The Warrant Committee requests were to decrease the amount for 2014 and increase the amount for 2015 to ensure that funds werew available for demolition expected this year. Town Meeting Member Peter Mullin (Precinct 2) asked for an update on the status of the project. Katie Conlon, Board of Selectmen, confirmed that Carrick Realty had obtained a Comprehensive Permit from the Board of Appeals (i.e. permit to build a 40B apartment building) and has also obtained a demolition permit from the Conservation Commission. She said the town had not yet obtained their demo permit for their portion of the building. She also said that they have had productive ongoing discussions with the developer for a project that would make best use of the site. She acknowledged the frustration of the neighbors. The Conservation Commission is scheduled to hear the town’s application for a demo permit Tuesday evening (5/12).
Article 40 was for authorization of revolving funds. Various town departments have revolving funds that are used to pay for variety of items. Departments have caps on the amount that they can spend from these funds. The article which can be found in the warrant identifies the purpose of the revolving fund and the source. For example, the Library has a revolving fund for operation and repair of facilities that is funded from rental charges for the Kidder Branch library. It has a cap of $25,000. A friendly amendment was made to the this article requiring that at the end of the fiscal year those boards with revolving funds “make a full and complete report” detailing revenue collected and funds expended. Ted Hays, Chair of the Warrant Committee, said that the Parks & Rec department has a revolving fund not covered by this article. A town bylaw permits them this fund. The amount earned annually and deposited into that fund is estimated to be equivalent to the Parks & Rec budget appropriation. The appropriation approved for FY16 by Town Meeting was $457,131, a 6.5% increase over FY15.
Article 41 was a housekeeping article that transferred custody of a road from a municipal dump purpose to a general municipal purpose. Town Meeting had previously approved land adjacent to the road be repusposed for general use and the article inadvertenly omitted inclusion of the road.
Article 42 concerned revising the definition of a quorum for appointed committees. The recommendation is to have a quorum determined by the number actually appointed rather than the size of the committee. For example, the Warrant Committee has 15 members appointed by the Moderator. However, people leave at end of terms or resign etc. So while it has 15 members, there are occasions when it is not at full strength because the moderator has not filled vacant seats. The article proposes if there are, say 13 active members, then a quorum would be 7 not 8. The reason this is an issue is that, again taking the Warrant Committee as an example, to lose a day due to failure to make a quorum intensifies the work load. Cindy Christiansen (Precinct 7) opposed the article saying “it is not good policy.” She characterized it as a “floating quorum” and said it could have unintended consequences.
Moderator Brian Walsh recused himself as moderator as he wanted to speak on the issue as an ex officio Town Meeting Member. He appointed Town Counsel to serve as moderator which was challenged by Diane DiTulio Agostino who asked if the temporary moderator lived in town and, given he didn’t, if he could be a moderator. He cited a section of MGL 39 that stated he could.
Moderator Walsh in his capacity as a ex officio Twon Meeting Member addressing the . . . Moderator
Mr. Walsh, who as Moderator makes many appointments, spoke in favor of the article. Frank Guiliano (Precinct 3) asked if there were criteria for appointments to the Warrant Committee. “Is there something that excludes people?” Walsh explained that for the Warrant Committee he looks for people with financial expertise, though not exclusively, and that he seeks to maintain balance in terms of characteristics such as gender, age, and geographic part of town, He said, “I want it to look like the town.” He also added that he does not want people who have an issue or might use the appointment as a “bully pulpit.”
Virginia Donahue King (Precinct 3) offered an amendment to have the article restricted to only the Warrant Committee. The amendment was opposed by the Town Government Committee and the Warrant Committee and the amendment was defeated. The article went to a vote and passed.
Articles 43, 44, 45, and 46 all passed. 43 established a committee to review the town bylaws with exception of zoning, wetlands, personnel, and stormwater management also passed. 44 appropriated $5,000 into the Housing Trust. 45 establishes an enterprise fund for the operation of the Ulin Rink. 46 permits the town to petition the legislature for a liquor license. Assuming the license is granted it will be awarded The Plate at the Marketplace upon a successful application process. A friendly amendment was sought by Melissa Fassel Dunn that would restrict hours of operation, prohibit a bar area, and stipulate other requirements. Ms. Dunn said that the neighborhood has a positive meeting with Suzanne Lombardi, owner of the Plate, and these were all aspects of the development they agreed on. However, the Moderator, reluctantly, ruled it out of scope. The Selectmen will hold a hearing prior to granting any license and these types of requirements can be written in at that time.
Emily Innes, Chair of the Planning Board, spoke to articles 47 and 48. The first dealt with illuminated signs in town. It was recommended to refer this back to the Planning Board for review. Ms. Innes said that the Planning Board would present a bylaw at the October Town Meeting to address the issue. A citizens petition had sought a moratorium on backlit signs. Currently there is no bylaw for lighted signs. They are reviewed by the Sign Review Committee which makes a recommendation that then goes to the Board of Selectmen for approval. The Selectmen had approved a sign for Kennedy Carpet against the Sign Review Committee’s recommendation. Residents have objected to the sign as well as others in the East Milton area and the concern is that they will set precendents for signage inconsistent with the look and character of the square and its history.
Article 48 was also a citizens petition. This was for zoning byaw for condominium development. The recommendation was to vote no. Innes said that the condo working group was continuing to develop zoning for this housing type and they looking at two specific types: condos for large estates that might factor in the historic structures and one for condos near public transit. Town meeting abided by both recommendations.
And then Town Meeting adjourned.
The “Point of Order”, not challenge, raised regarding the substitute Moderator was for Town Meeting Members, especially newly elected TMM, to learn their options under Mass General Law 39 when a Moderator wishes to step down and a replacement is needed.
MGL 39 was read in answer to the Point of Order by the already stand-in Town Counsel, now stand-in Moderator, as our long time Atty and town resident John Flynn was absent that evening.
MGL 39 allows TMM to vote on either 1) Town Counsel or 2) Town Clerk.
Town Clerk, Susan Galvin, is clearly more qualified than a person who is not a Milton resident, would not be qualified to identify which speakers were elected TMM and was not knowledgeable on our Town Meeting procedures. These shortfalls were in no way the individuals personal fault, but simply because he was was a temporary stand-in Town Counsel.
Town Clerk, Susan Galvin on the other hand is a qualified stand-in as Moderator since 1) she knows who the elected TMMs are, 2) she knows Milton’s Tiwn Meeting speaker procedures and 3) while not a legal requirement, Susan is a Milton resident.
A Point of Order supersedes all Town Meeting business and in an attempt not to prolong our last TM night, the Point that Milton TMMs had a more qualifier choice to vote on for the stand-in Moderator was made with the reading of MGL 39.
Sadly, longtime, if not lifetime, former Town Clerk, Selectman and School Committee Member James G. Mullens comment to address this Quorum Question may expose the behind the scenes reason the actual Moderator would appoint the less qualified option.
To learn that James G. Mullen was appointed to our Warrant Committee only to be called on the day of the first meeting to learn he’d been blackballed was shocking.
The actual Moderator’s comments on the Quotum question were presented as an Ex-Officio TMM. Brian Walsh stated as Moderator he is very concerned that his appointments not use the position as a bully pulpit.
Walsh’s actions on both the stand-in Moderator and Walsh’s comment on the Quorum question confirms politics, not qualifications continues to impact Milton residents services and lives.
Should Mullen have been an acting member of our Warrant Committee, he would have been only one (1) voice out of (15). One voice without any powers to use the position as a bully pulpit.
Each elected Town Meeting Member has an obligation to raise both Points of Order as well as questions at Town Meeting.
As a TMM since 1982, Warrant Committee Member for four years, Selectmen for three years and many other volunteer experiences in Milton, I will continue to share my knowledge at Town Meeting so the facts don’t get buried by the politics.
PS: The truth is the word “bully” can be more appropriately applied than as presenter in Walsh’s comment, but that will see the light in another story.
Little confused as to the role of the Warrant Committee. I thought that the Warrant Committee was another name for a finance committee, and as such , financial expertise as well as a reasonable understanding of municipal operations were the key prerequisites for consideration by the moderator for appointment.
I get age , gender and geography on most boards and committees but not so sure they are of overall importance on this committee, given the charge and responsibility.
I can be convinced to change my mind but….
I didn’t realize that anyone was providing a summary like you have done. Excellent work and thankyou. I am a new Town Meeting Member and will look forward to more details as we progress through the year.
Dick
The Warrant Committee’s role (as defined in Section Two of the Town Bylaws) is to review every article before Town Meeting (whether financial or not) and provide a recommendation to the Town Meeting (to whom they are solely responsible to). From an experience perspective, you need it to be as diverse as possible given the nature of the budgets and the non budget articles that come up – financial experience is certainly beneficial on the committee, you just don’t need all 15 members to be forensic accountants.
Ultimately, Department heads need to manage the paper clips, the Warrant Committee and the Town Meeting need to ensure they are adequately supplied – diverse experience on the committee often does help to identify a better model of paper clip.
Thanks Ewan , for the clarification. I mistakenly thought the Warrant Committee was another name for a Finance Committee, like Needham, where members are charged ” to review the operating and capital budget submissions and other financial warrant articles.” As I mentioned , my view is that it is important to have people , considering we do not currently have a CFO,,have financial experience and a basic understanding of municipal government involved with these type of deliberations.. I also agree that we don’t need forensic accountants as they usually don’t get involved with reviewing budgets as proposed.
Maybe given the time commitments made by the Warrant committee as constituted and with the responsibility of reviewing every article, it might be worth looking to separate out finance issues and create a traditional Finance Committee and have an additional committee review and opine on non financial issues.
I’m reading the comments with great interest as I am also a recently elected TMM. I understand why a seat would go vacant on the WC late in the year but it’s disconcerting to find out that some people are “blackballed” from serving on any committee.
Thanks Paul (and everyone else) for the comments. Regarding the statement that a resident was “blackballed,” bear in mind that is one person’s characterization. There are often 5 sides to every coin. No one should be “blackballed” but neither should anyone feel entitled to be on a committee.
Frank, well said.