Monday, April 28, 2014

Town Meeting Omen

 Jones Library Director Sharon Sharry

The moderate surprise this evening at the kick off to the 256th Amherst Town Meeting was the Jones Library getting blow back over Article #6,  a $25,000 appropriation to couple with a state grant of $50,000 to fund a 2-year study to prepare for a major renovation of the building (possibly doubling in size).

The state grant application also requires a clause seeking possible site approval if an entire new building in a new location is called for.  Library Director Sharon Sharry told Town Meeting that site selection is an inherent part of the grant process but stated confidently, "If I were a betting person I would bet the library will stay right where it is."



 Pitched roof bombs patrons with snow and ice during winter


One town meeting member had tried to refer the article back to committee and another member tried to amend the motion to nix the clause referring to a new building on a new site.  But both motions were voted down on voice votes by a comfortable margin, and after about 45 minutes of discussion the main motion passed by the same comfortable voice vote.

Vince O'Connor, comeback kid 


The bigger surprise of the night was the resurgence of activist Vince O'Connor, who has been somewhat marginalized over the past few years.  His motion to add $125,000 to the Community Services budget to support Social Service agencies went against the recommendations of the Finance Committee, Select Board and Town Manager.

Town Manager and Amherst Select Board

Although the $125,000 was never in doubt since Article #21 coming up later in Town Meeting had that amount coming out of Free Cash for the same Social Service agencies.  The difference is by putting it in the General Fund budget as a line item, it comes out of taxation.

According to Town Meeting member Renee Moss, "Having this $125,000 as a regular line item does say as a town we are committed to this and proud of it."  Amherst is one of the very few, possibly only, municipalities in the Commonwealth to spend town tax money on Social Service agencies.

In his initial presentation O'Connor told Town Meeting that he would be moving to cut $200,000 from the Planning Department when their $327,729 budget line comes up for discussion. 

The last few years the town used Community Development Block Grant money (federal money) to fund the Social Service agencies, but last year Amherst lost its status as a "mini entitlement" community.

After about an hour of discussion O' Connor's motion passed on a recorded Tally Vote of 79 "Yes" to 74 "No."

O'Connor has a few expensive petition articles coming at the end of Town Meeting, including Article #37, a request to double the Community Preservation Act surcharge to 3%.  Amherst already has the highest property tax burden in the area.

And under Article #38, spending $750,000 to take by eminent domain 40 Dickinson Street, the old car dealership recently purchased by Amherst College. 

32 comments:

Anonymous said...

Sounds like the sustainable folks are losing ground in town meeting. What Vince did would have failed a few years ago. It will be interesting to see if this is the end of progressive change for Amherst.

Anonymous said...

Seriously? I was in town meeting when the Amherst Family Center came forward asking for "seed money". They said it was a one time deal. They were back the next year asking for more money. And the year after that, and along with them, came other social service agencies asking for money. I understand that we need to help people out, but if you want to support these groups, send them a check. Please do not make everyone pay for it out of taxation when we already have one of the highest rates in the state.

Captain said...

I had very mixed feeling about adding the $125,000 to the community services budget last night. I’m very comfortable adding this money to support Social Service agencies but I don’t think adding it as a line item to this budget is the right way to do it.

First we don’t have any board or group in place to allocate the money fairly and efficiently (as Alyssa Brewer spoke last night) and an upcoming article (21) has the town spending the same amount to Social Service agencies but clearly lays out who will be getting the money.

And secondly, what was voted on last night was to add $125,000 to the bottom line total of the Community Service budget and could not be allocated specifically for Social Services. In other words that money could really be added to any part of the Community Services (including the Health dept, Pools and the golf course) and not go to social services at all. And given that as of now we don’t have a way to disperse the money, I don’t think we are really accomplishing as much as we thought we did when we voted it in last night.

I understand that Vince plans to remove $200,000 from the planning board budget to pay for this but I really don’t think that is likely to happen. So that means that this money will be really coming from 2 possible places: defeating article 21 ($125,000 allocated to very specific social services) or from Free Cash. I think there was a slight miss understanding last night that Free Cash meant that we just had extra money hanging around like pocket change. Our Free Cash is our buffer for emergencies and, having grown it over last few years, is what has given us a higher bond rating which will allow us to borrow much needed money at a lower rate.

I appreciate the sentiment of what happened last night but I’m a little concerned that we might have done it the wrong way….

Anonymous said...

This vote made me realize the importance of Town Meeting. I have changed my thinking on this issue over the years and it has been useful to hear people's thoughts during the debates. I was struck by the fact that the Select Board, Finance Board and town staff, all with one, unanimous view were so out of step with so many Town Meeting members. Have they lost sight of the fact that budget decisions ultimately are made by Town Meeting, the final authority? The boards are there to advise Town Meeting, not to spend town money. Just because something has gone through a committee process doesn't mean it's the right decision -- or the commitee's right to make a decision.

Larry Kelley said...

Yeah, I've been saying that about the Golf Course for over 25 years.

Anonymous said...

Anon 8:17,

May you and others like you, fill more seats at town meeting in the coming years, and bring it back to its former glory.

Anonymous said...

Larry,

I'm sure you could convince Vince to petition to have the golf course sold to become affordable housing. That would solve problems for lots of groups.

Chris said...

To anonymous 8:17.

Actually, I take that more as evidence that Town Meeting membership is way out of line with the will of the average voter! Or financial expert, etc.

[And I'm a Town Meeting supporter. I just have to face the sad truth.]

Anonymous said...

79-74

153 Town Meeting members voted. And where, might I ask, were the other 87 members? Too afraid to cast a "no" vote that seemed (erroneously) to say "I don't care about the poor" or sitting at home watching the NHL?

Another traditional feature of Town Meeting: tally votes that barely constitute a quorum of the body.

Anonymous said...

Town Meeting members should lose their seats any night they fail to appear. When quorum is called, any registered Amherst voter should be allowed to fill (and vote!) those seats for the night.

Anonymous said...

Vince isn't worried about how high the property taxes in Amherst go because he doesn't pay any -- he has a Section 8 Subsidy and we get to pay his.

Anonymous said...

Was anyone from the public paying attention last night? Does anyone understand the significance of what happened? We are now going to have a pot of money that our local charities can vie for. Is the process going to be transparent in determining who gets money and how much, and who doesn't?

Is there anyone out there watching? Hello?

Anonymous said...

can't the select board set the policy based on the what they mentioned last night: food, shelter, heat.

Anonymous said...

The town should not foot the bill for social services or $106k on the Unitarian Church window

Anonymous said...

Why do hard working taxpayers even live in Amherst anymore? One of the ideas our Charters Of Freedom were founded upon is that we, as a people help those who cannot help themselves....not those who can but feel their government should without any contribution (financially or otherwise) on their part. "Ask not what [Amherst] can do for you............."

Valerie said...

I did not understand the payment for the window, nor that town meeting members are not required to be there each night. I would fill in in a heartbeat, I think that is a great idea!

Anonymous said...

I too would agree to fill in for absentee town meeting members.

And I too did not understand why we paid for a church window shouldn't the members of that church pay for that?

Anonymous said...

On the one hand, we expand social services, build more affordable housing, and attract more people in need to our town to enjoy the free stuff. One the other hand, we complains about our property tax going up year after year, and watch our school performance going down year after year, and are told because we have a lot of family qualified for free or reduced lunch program, and the kids from poor families are expensive to educate. Hello, may be I am not that progressive, or political correct?

Anonymous said...

For those of you wondering why Amherst paid for the church window I would recommend you read about CPA (The Community Preservation Act). Or better yet volunteer to serve on the committee. You will learn a lot.

As for the absentee Town Meeting Members this is nothing new. Lots of people don't show up. In fact many run for a single issue and show up to vote for or against that issue and don't show up anymore. They should vacate their seats, but don't, just in case. Certainly not good behavior.

If you don't like it Run for Town Meeting and keep showing up or try to change the town charter to a Mayor or Open town meeting.

Dr. Ed said...

Larry, I'm asking this, not saying it -- I am seriously asking this:

How can the town give money to the social service agencies? How is this even legal?

Arguably it's fee for service -- the town is purchasing social services from these agencies

OK, but the town is obligated to issue an RFP and these agencies have to bid on it and there have to be three qualified bids and all the rest of the garbage that is involved in trying to spend public money.

I'm not saying it is or isn't a good idea to do this, but asking how on earth it is legal to do it.

I keep coming back to competitive bidding -- anything that the town purchases has to be subject to a competitive bid so that whomever wishes to provide the goods or services to the town for less can do so -- the lowest bidder gets the contract and the town gets the savings.

But there is a contract -- which specifies exactly what the town is getting for its money -- how many tons of hot asphalt pavement, how many gallons of fuel oil, or (somehow measured) the services the town is getting from these social service agencies.

But in order to get there, you have to start with the town issuing a Request for Proposals (RFP) which has never been done.

How exactly is Vince's motion really any different than taking a shoebox full of $100 bills and wandering around town, giving fistfuls of them to folk whom you think will do something good with them? You can't do that with public money, for all kinds of reasons...

Anonymous said...

I am not sure why people are so hostile to giving tax money to help feed the poor, house the homeless and help heat homes through a tough winter?

The town taxes pay for helping the elderly at the senior center, helping vets services, they fund a social worker at the schools, the police to assist people who need help, subsidize swim lessons, camps, preschool, etc. How is this any different? If we cut one, should we cut them all?

The real question is can we afford it? I think one town member's point that the town supports a golf course so why not help people pay for food and fule was a good one.

Anonymous said...

Anon 11:05: ...and watch our school performance going down year after year, and are told because we have a lot of family qualified for free or reduced lunch program, and the kids from poor families are expensive to educate...

Simply false, "performance" has not been going down year after year, and if you think you have been told (and by whom?) that "poor families are expensive to educate" that's also false.

Funny how the stories we tell ourselves often reinforce false and negative notions that we want to believe, for some crazy reason.

Dr. Ed (part 1) said...

...if you think you have been told (and by whom?) that "poor families are expensive to educate" that's also false.

No, I'll actually agree with Team Maria on this one -- children from "poor" families are more expensive to educate. That does need to be said.

What Team Maria isn't saying is that the poverty itself is a non-causal indicator -- that the children are more difficult to educate (and hence more expensive to educate) for the very same reasons why the family is living in poverty in the first place.

Let's face reality and start with the ABCs -- poverty is largely reduced by: (a) marriage first, (b) pregnancy second, and (c) father remaining & living under the same roof. As offensive as it may be to say this, research shows that this is true.

OK, *beep* happens -- and I have a friend whose wife died of Leukemia and another whose husband died of some genetic brain disorder -- both are "single parents." I'm also not disputing that there are some situations where both the woman and the children are far better off without the father being anywhere near -- along with situations where it truly is not healthy for two people to try to live together (although it would have been nice if they'd realized this before children got dragged into the mix).

I want to be clear that I am not speaking about all persons living in poverty nor about all single parents -- there are a lot of people doing a damn good job raising their children, and they are doing it under far less than ideal circumstances. Those who know me know that I did my best to advocate for such people when I was Section 8 Inspector -- that's why that landlord in Palmer sued me.

OK?

But much as we can talk about the AFD's ETOH runs while being aware that there are also things like Larry's girl who fell off a horse, I suggest that we can talk about some of the single mothers while being aware that there are a whole lot more that we aren't talking about.

It's 3AM on New Year's Day and a baby is crying -- an unattended baby. The child's mother had left the infant asleep and then gone out to celebrate New Year's Eve, like she always had in years before. And maybe she had planned to come back just after midnight and maybe the child would still have been asleep if she had, but she got arrested for OUI...

Dr. Ed (part 2) said...

Part 2

I just described a real incident that happened in Amherst. This sort of thing, and lesser variants of it, happens a lot more than people realize and the bottom line is that there are a lot of custodial parents -- OK, single mothers -- who haven't yet matured enough to understand what it means to be a custodial parent. What it means to be responsible for the life of another human being, a helpless human being who is totally dependent upon you.

I'm not talking about the stuff that good parents feel guilty about, but the stuff they'd never imagine doing...

And we can start with the live-in boyfriend du jour. I'm not talking about a single mother dating, etc. -- although hopefully not discussing the explicit & intimate details of last night's acrobatics with her young children over breakfast the next morning.

I'm talking about -- you meet a guy, you bring him home and have him live with you. Notice that I didn't even discuss "sex" -- but "bring home and have live with you and your children. You really don't even know who he is, either...

And then six weeks later, maybe a couple months -- maybe even sometime next year -- you get rid of him and bring home another guy who then lives with you.

And you keep doing this. Many of these relationships tend toward being tumultuous, often ending in domestic violence, arrests, police officers coming into the apartment, 209As and such. The kind of stuff that sorta freaks out a small child...

So there is a parade of adult men through your life and we won't even get into the girl whose body is starting to mature and who realizes that her mother's newest boyfriend is far more interested in her than any of the earlier ones were. This happens -- rapists, which is what they are, pretend an interest in the mother so as to gain access to the daughter. And then there are those who do something similar to gain access to the boys. It's a really sick world, but I digress...

Dr. Ed (part 3) said...

Part 3

But you are lucky and other than occasionally being hit for no reason you can understand (because there is none), he doesn't harm you. And initially, you start building a relationship with this adult who lives in your home, except that they keep disappearing. It's a lot like the death of a parent except that there is no funeral, you aren't allowed to grieve the loss.

How long before you start turning all of this inward and start building emotional walls around yourself?

Many of these schmucks -- and calling them merely that is being charitable -- are quite abusive. The children try to protect their mothers, and are neither old enough nor big/strong enough nor anything else enough to really be able to do so.

Many are quite unstable, with the children never knowing if they will be hugged or hit -- or why. I can think of about four who were so unstable that I never knew if I would be having a friendly conversation or desperately attempting to de-escalate a confrontation that was rapidly heading toward violence.

I can think of one man in particular, who claimed not to live in the apartment (another issue) who truly scared me. I'm told he scared the APD as well -- and they were arresting him with some degree of frequency for fairly serious acts of violence against persons and the property of others.

There were children living there. There were children living in the apartment where the incident with the Latin Kings occurred, and in the building where the gang execution graffiti was found (different complex). Children are bringing all of this with them to school -- and that's what is making them more expensive to educate.

And let's face it, the mothers themselves have issues, and there are a whole lot of households where the child is the actual adult in the household.

I will never forget the maybe-14-year-old girl who really didn't want me to see that both her mother and the toilet were laying on the bathroom floor. Mother had unmounted the toilet (it's only two bolts) and I was very glad to see that she'd also shut the water off first, and in this particular case there were known mental health issues involved.

Yes, we got both mother & toilet off the floor -- my point being that there are a lot of fairly young children forced to act like adults because they are the closest thing there will ever be to an adult in that household. My experience is that a child who has to "grow up fast" like this remains incredibly immature in others -- and that creates problems when you try to educate the child.

My critics will have fun with the above, but those of you who really are with the APD/AFD know that I am accurately describing parts of Amherst and what goes on there. This is reality, it isn't pretty, and I personally think it is time for Amherst to stop pretending that it doesn't exist.

Reality check: Amherst has big-city problems.

Now I'm a no-nonsense educator who wonders "whatever happened to 'reform school'" and what we need to do to bring them back -- and who on a more serious note wonders how much "Oppositional Defiance Disorder" we'd have if it meant you couldn't get your driver's license. (Seriously -- if it is medically impossible for you to obey authority and to comply with rules, should you really be driving?)

And I'm not a fan of Common Core, Mitchell Chester or much of anything else I've seen happen in K-12 in the past years, either in Amherst or elsewhere in the Commonwealth.

HOWEVER, the fact does remain that this environment -- not poverty itself but the environment I described above -- does impede education and hence make the child more expensive to educate.

Dr. Ed said...

I am not sure why people are so hostile to giving tax money to help feed the poor, house the homeless and help heat homes through a tough winter?

The Pilgrims almost starved the first year -- men asked themselves why they should work hard only to feed other men's families.

The next year the land was divided into individual plots where each man could keep (or trade) whatever he could grow. Men worked hard knowing that they would benefit from it.

The problem with what you propose is that eventually no one will work. Forget Locke and our inherent God-given rights to our lives, our liberty and our property -- simple reality is that we are getting close to a tipping point where everyone will be poor and needing handouts and then what?

Anonymous said...

Dr. Ed is correct. Amherst pretends itself as wealthy, Utopia. In fact, the sky high property tax has already driven hardworking middle class families away. Without these hardworking families, who is going to support the Utopia? Not really advocate against helping people in need of help. But, to sustain the prosperity of this town, we really need to find ways to relieve tax burden of our citizens and keep the hardworking, tax-paying families in the town. They are the pillar of this town.

Anonymous said...

The following 75 duly elected Town Meeting members did not cast a vote:

Amherst Annual Town Meeting
Monday, April 28, 2014
Vote #1 - Article 12, O'Connor Motion to Increase by $125,000 - Yes 79, No 74 - Motion Passed

LAST NAME FIRST NAME ADDRESS PCT
ACOSTA NELSON 3 AUTUMN LN 8
ADAMS MAURIANNE 14 BESTON ST 10 ANDERSON GREGG EDWARD 45 DANA ST 4
ANDRESEN GAVIN A. 45 HIGH ST 9
APPY KATHERINE G. 60 RED GATE LN EX
ATWOOD CHARLES B. 69 POMEROY LN 7
AUERBACH SARAH W. 143 GRAY ST 9
BARBERET DENISE RENEE 67 NORTH WHITNEY ST, #1 9
BEAL ERIC D. 161 G PINE ST 3
BenEZRA ISAAC 1164 SOUTH EAST ST 8
BENTLEY RICHARD N. 24 NORTH PROSPECT ST 10
BERTRAND CLARE E. 610 BAY RD 8
BLOOM STEVEN L. 259 LINCOLN AVE 10
BRAUN STEPHEN R. 180 LINCOLN AVE 10
CAIRN RICHARD D. W. 100 HEATHERSTONE RD 6
CAMPBELL EMAHUNN R. 352 NORTHAMPTON RD 5
CARROLL KATHLEEN M. 11 FISHER ST 3
CLAPP DANIEL E. 40 BLACKBERRY LN 2
CLOUTIER DAVID ROBERT 19 VAN METER DR 3 CONNOR-KIRSHBAUM SUSAN T. 8 ALYSSUM DR 8
COULL JOHN W. 20 SHEERMAN LN 2
DABROWSKI THADDEUS E. 9 SQUIRE LN 7
DISTEFANO PAOLA 115 MONTAGUE RD 1
EIDELSON JAN 80 KELLOGG AVE 9
FEDERMAN BARRY H. 101 COLUMBIA DR 5
FERNANDEZ-PEREIRA WALTER 201 FEARING ST #361 4 GAGE MARGARET E. 208 MONTAGUE RD 1 GILES MICHAEL A. 57 BLUE HILLS RD 4
GIORDANO ROCCO F. 17 EASTMAN LN, #211 3
GIRAUD MELISSA E. 360 SOUTH PLEASANT ST # 5 GRANT-THOMAS ANDREW P. 360 SOUTH PLEASANT ST # 5
GRAY CAROL JEANNETTE 815 SOUTH EAST ST 7
GREENBAUM LOUIS S. 298 MONTAGUE RD 1
GREENEY HWEI-LING 76 McCLELLAN ST 10
GREGG NANCY N. 131 ROLLING RIDGE RD 3
GROSSCUP BEN T. 67 NORTH WHITNEY ST, #4 9 HART JOLENE K. 129 MEADOW ST 1
HARVEY EDWARD V. 40 FARMINGTON RD 7 HAZZARD RUTH V. 235 A PINE ST 3 HOLSTEIN CAROLYN M. 190 EAST LEVERETT RD 2 HOOKE RUTH F. 218 SPENCER DR 8 JACKSON PHILIP S. 204 LINCOLN AVE 10
JENSEN ABIGAIL M. 100 DANA ST 4
JOHNSON CAROL M. 21 SOUTH SUNSET AVE 4
JOHNSON ROY A. 109 BLACKBERRY LN 2
KACEY AMBER M. 22 LESSEY ST, #519 5
KELLER, JR GEORGE R. 120 PULPIT HILL RD, #25 1 KING STEPHEN J. 208 MONTAGUE RD 1
KLEINHOLZ LISA 203 HEATHERSTONE RD 6
KLINE CHRISTINE A. 18 NORTH PROSPECT ST 10 LARAJA TARYN S. 7 STRONG ST 9
LEBOWITZ MATHEW E. 135 RED GATE LN 9
LEE JEFFREY C. 815 SOUTH EAST ST 7 MAGUA MUTHONI C. 188 PINE ST 1 MANDEVILLE HAYLEY MARIE 620 MASS AVE, #608 4 MASCIS MICHAEL JOSEPH 27 JEFFREY LN 5
McCOOLE FINN J. 191 FEARING ST #22 4
MCGOVERN KATHARINE M. 16 MEMORIAL DR 5
MCPEAK-LAROCCA PATRICIA E. 33 FISHER ST 3
MORALES VICTORIA 4 LAUREL LN 6
MORTON BRIAN D. 9 VAN METER DR 3
MOSELEY FRED 70 LARKSPUR DR 8
O'BRIEN LAWRENCE E. 22 HARRIS ST EX
O'BRIEN PATRICIA 22 HARRIS ST 3
O'CONNOR MARGOT SHEA 53 DANA ST 4
O'KEEFFE JONATHAN P. 73 BUTTERFIELD TERR 9
OLDHAM JAMES BURGESS 17 COLUMBIA DR 5 PAGE MAX 15 SMITH ST 9
PILKINGTON TREVOR D. 201 FEARING ST, #361 4
PISTRANG JAMES W. 41 HIGH POINT DR EX
PRICE ALIVIA LEE 58 SEELYE ST 5
QUINN LAURA L. 151 SHAYS ST 7
RIDDLE CHRISTOPHER E. 252 STRONG ST 2
RIVERA DANIEL PAUL AC BOX 817, BOX 5000 5 ROSSEN MICHAEL L. 99 DANA ST 4
RUESCHEMEYER JULIA Y. 165 NORTH WHITNEY ST 9
RYAN GEORGE E. 18 DANA ST 4
SALA MARCY A. 161E PINE ST 3
SARAT AUSTIN D. 76 SNELL ST EX SCHWARTZ JEAN A. 20 SHEERMAN LN 2
SHEN TONG 6 CHESTERFIELD DR 5
SMITH AUDREY YALE 45 DANA ST 4
STACEY PATRICIA ALYCE 280 LINCOLN AVE 10
STAHL CHRISTOPHER D. 201 FEARING ST #345 4 TARONE PIETRO C. 46 HOBART LN 3
TAUB JENNIFER LYNN 259 LINCOLN AVE 10
TRAPHAGEN KATHLEEN G. 496 SOUTH EAST ST EX
TROAST KATHARINE E. 99 DANA ST 4
TURNER FAYTHE E. 129 HEATHERSTONE RD 6 TURNER MERRYLEES 194 AMITY ST 5
TURNER VERNON D. 194 AMITY ST 5
VANDERLEEDEN KEVIN H. 73 CURTIS PL 6
VARDATIRA SHARON M. 404 STATE ST 2 WELLMAN ROBERT R. 60 VALLEY VIEW CIR 7
WHITE PRISCILLA A. 318 LINCOLN AVE 10 WINDROVER ELIZABETH 318 LINCOLN AVE 10
WRONKA JOSEPH M. 4 CHADWICK CT 6

Anonymous said...

Can Vine ' s article be brought back up for reconsideration?

Larry Kelley said...

Yes, but it would have to come from someone who did not vote against it (the list of folks above would qualify).

Anonymous said...

Anon 6:24,

I think some of the people on your list lost the election.

Anonymous said...

Many of the people who did not vote Monday night have otherwise excellent attendance records. Was there some other community event that pulled people away? Perhaps that explains it.