Last Wednesday night The League of Women Voters hosted their annual candidates debate at Fuller Village and there were actually a few sparks flying around .  .  .  among the Assessor candidates no less!

The School Committee

The first debate of the evening was among the four candidates for School Committee and almost all of the questions, which were submitted by the audience or emailed into the League, had to do with the budget. There 4 candidates competing for 2 seats are: Glenn Pavlicek, the incumbent, Margaret Eberhardt, Denis Keohane, and Murray Regan.

Regarding the first question on how to address a decreasing budget, Murray Regan said it would be hard to identify ways to cope with a decreasing budget without an actual budget in front of him. However, he would encourage the Governor to fully fund community resources. Pavlicek pointed out that the issue was not so much that the budget was decreasing as it was costs increasing and these costs were financial obligations that the schools were legally required to meet and that the administration and school committee were making the majority of cuts at the administrative levels not teaching levels. Keohane would use a prioritized list in order of importance of what the schools absolutely needed to keep. He pointed to the parent effort last spring that generated significant support for spring sports as an example of the sort of self-funding that may be required going forward to retain certain services. Eberhardt was in agreement with her colleagues on this.

Then there is the issue of French Immersion. When asked a point-blank yes/no question regarding whether they would contemplate reducing or removing French Immersion all the candidates replied no. The candidates also had this to say regarding French Immersion:

“You are probably looking at the biggest supporter for French immersion in Milton .   .   . I am proud to be a huge supporter. I wouldn’t change anything.” — Denis Keohane

“Half [the parents] are for it and half are against it [but] I would not recommend changing anything.” – Murray Regan

“It is a challenge finding certified teachers who speak French  .   .   .   [we need to] put Spanish back in first grade.” — Margaret Eberhardt

“The issue isn’t [just] French. We have lost art & music.  .  .  We have to look at putting something back in the English program.” — Glenn Pavlicek

Additional questions related to the budget included: how the candidates would ensure the schools got what they needed from the Warrant Committee;  if they would impose all employees sign on to state benefits,; and “fight” for special needs student services.

As a group the candidates did not subscribe to the wording of some of the questions. Eberhardt said, “I hate to think of us as fighting” regarding special needs and Pavlicek noted the issue was not the schools getting what they want from the Warrant Committee but the fact that the town does not have the revenue to do what it wants. Keohane did say with regard to the Warrant Committee, “Whoever holds their breadth longest wins. I don’t give up too easy.”

The budget discussion did flush out some differences in approach and position. Regan and Keohane stressed their business acumen and experience as valuable skills the current committee lacked. Eberhardt and Pavlicek cited their knowledge and experience as educators.

Here are a few more comments from the candidates:

“Teaching is the second hardest job after parenting.” — Margaret Eberhardt

“The biggest issue is money – we don’t have it. Would you let a plumber unplug a valve in your heart? The last thing we need is another teacher [on the committee].” — Dennis Keohane

“There were some pretty decent raises given out  .   .   . We all have to share. We all have to be fair.” — Murray Regan

“You cannot impose anything on anyone. Cities and towns don’t have that ability [re: imposing GIC on unions]” — Glenn Pavlicek

The Assessors

Mr.Greenwood in answering a question about how assessments are managed in a down real estate market, referred to one his opponents, Jim Henderson, as a “tax preparer.” When it was Mr. Henderson’s turn to respond, he took issue with that label and felt Greenwood was co-opting his campaign theme of being a tax advocate. Kathy Heffernan, the third candidate and incumbent, answered the question, responding that assessments are based on market sales and when sales go down, assessments go down.

Heffernan as the incumbent was on the defensive for most of the debate. Henderson and Greenwood were both critical of the Board of Assessors, arguing for better advocacy, openness, and transparency. As an example Greenwood cited the fact that there were no meetings held at 7:00pm when most town meetings are scheduled. Henderson referred to the difficulty the elderly have in filing exemptions. Either they are unaware of them or find them to complicated to complete. Heffernan said the openness of the committee was being unfairly criticized and stated she would “maintain a fair, equitable system of assessment.”

Mr. Henderson closed by saying,  “I am a little insulted at being called a tax preparer.” He reiterated he would be a strong advocate for the taxpayer. Heffernan said,  “I am little insulted to be a called an adversary to the taxpayer.” She was responding to comments that the office of assessors was adversarial and noted she was the only candidate not to take campaign contributions.

Mr. Greenwood wrapped up by saying, “I will work with energy and dedication.”

The Planning Board

The debate between the two Planning Board candidates illustrated their significant differences. Cheryl Tougias, who moved to Milton about 12 years ago is running against incumbent and lifelong resident Ed Duffy. Tougias spoke in support of the zoning overlay article for the Temple Shalom property and Ed Duffy voted against it.

Their different positions on Temple Shalom reflect their differences on commercial development in general. Regarding Temple Shalom, the candidates had this to say:

“It wasn’t easy going against the proposal. We would need 90 of those to save taxpayers $200.  It was not easy to vote against a religious institution” — Ed Duffy

“I supported the Temple Shalom overlay – the plan was not in its final form but it did accomplish important goals.” — Cheryl Tougias

In his response to questions Mr. Duffy stressed his knowledge of “the culture of Milton.” He cited the work that was done in 1938 and the 65 meetings that took place that year to establish Milton’s zoning plan “and it has not changed”. Tougias spoke of the need to “engage the entire town” as we move forward into the 21st century.

When the issue of the Master Plan came up, Mr Duffy acknowledged it had the potential to do good. Tougias gave a more expansive response stating that it could function as a guide for development, had the potential to contain “a shared vision for the future” and address areas where there is currently unpredictability.

Mr. Duffy closed by reiterating his “appreciation for the things we need to preserve and treasure.” Ms. Tougias noted that, “I value the town as much as anyone who has lived here much longer.  .  .  It is a network of professionals.”

The League of Women Voters debate will be aired on Milton Access TV this week-end in its entirety. You can find MATVs program schedule here.