2014 Town Election Endorsements

This Town Election I find myself with much less time on hand. Unfortunately my endorsements this year will be short and to the point.

I believe I will have more time free up prior to Election Day, and if anyone has questions about my picks I would be happy to elaborate.

We have three uncontested town-wide races this year. I unreservedly endorse Stephanie Lucarelli for Town Clerk, Mary Winstanley O’Connor for Assessor, and Daniel Brosnan for the Arlington Housing Authority.


Town Treasurer
We have a rare contested race for Town Treasurer this year, with incumbent Stephen Gilligan facing challenger Julie Dunn.

I endorse Julie Dunn.

Stephen Gilligan has his detractors in town.
(see some background here: YourArlington.com)

He also has equal numbers of stalwart supporters.

The ranks of both his detractors and supporters are full of reasonable, smart, and respected people in town.

My view: no matter where you come down on debates about whether Mr. Gilligan has done well for the town or not, this is the sort of professional-office-yet-elected-position that benefits greatly from periodic house-cleaning.

I do not believe it serves Arlington's interests for the office of Town Treasurer to be a job for life.

It is a rare thing to have a sharp, qualified candidate such as Julie Dunn step up and ask for this job.

Let's give it to her.

Even if every complaint made by Mr. Gilligan's detractors were false, Arlington benefits from fresh perspective and energy brought by a qualified professional such as Julie Dunn.


Board of Selectmen
Two incumbents and one challenger are running for two seats on the Board of Selectmen this year: Diane Mahon, Dan Dunn, and Bob Tosi.

I endorse the two incumbents.

Both Mahon and Dunn fill important roles on the board.

Diane Mahon brings a passion for communicating with people and serving in the unofficial role of "Constituent Services Chair" on the board.

Dan Dunn is wicked smart, an effective innovator, and holds strong personal values in line with transparency and fair access.

It would be a loss for Arlington if either one of these two did not remain on the Board.

It was just two years ago that I happily endorsed Bob Tosi as candidate for the Board of Selectmen.

In a five-way race for two open seats, Joe Curro was a clear choice, and Steven Byrne ended up getting the second seat.

At the time I did not feel we knew enough about Mr. Byrne for me to endorse him (I have been pleasantly pleased so far on that front, and suspect I will endorse Mr. Byrne's re-election when the time comes).

Mr. Tosi on the other hand has a long resume of valued service to Arlington.

Unfortunately there is not a current member of the Board that I would want to kick off in exchange for Mr. Tosi.

I also feel it shows an unfortunate lack of political acumen for him to choose to run again this year, especially since he has failed to make a case for firing either of the other two candidates.

If you are going to attempt to take a job away from people that already hold it, you need to give the voters a better reason than "I'd be good at it too."

Further, if you are going to be effective in a political office, you need to show sufficient political wisdom to know when to enter the fray, and when not to do so.

In a sense, Mr. Tosi's choice to run this year against two popular and valued incumbents is the most effective argument against choosing to place him in a political office.

There is an outside chance in the demographic-algebra that drives Arlington electoral politics that Mr. Tosi makes a run up the middle and actually does secure a seat on the Board this year.

If he does, I fear the political costs will make him a much less effective member of the Board than he would have been had he chose a better time to make his move.

Essentially it is my opinion that if he wins, he fails, and if he does not win, he loses.

With the service he has provided Arlington over the years, it is my hope that we haven't seen the last of him with this election.

But he still doesn't get my vote. Not this time.


School Committee
There are four candidates running for three seats on the School Committee this year.

Bill Hayner and Paul Schlichtman are both incumbents that should easily and rightly be re-elected.

Michael Buckley has come back to run again, having been defeated last year.

Jennifer Susse is running for the first time.

I'm voting for Bill Hayner, Paul Schlichtman, and Jennifer Susse.

Jennifer Susse has been active in school related organizations, and is also a Town Meeting member in Precinct 3.

She is incredibly bright and energetic.

She is also a strong independent thinker.

Jennifer Susse will make a fantastic member of the School Committee.


Town Meeting
Depending on where you live, there are some very competitive races for Town Meeting this year, with contested races in precincts 3, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 15, 20 and 21.

***UPDATE: If you live in one of those precincts and want to see who is on the ballot for Town Meeting, you can view the whole official ballot for this year's Town Election from the Town Clerk's website.
Here's the link: Official Ballot

I am up for re-election myself in Precinct 4, but with four candidates running for four seats, I need only hope that my penchant for sometimes saying out-loud what would be more expedient to keep to myself has not encouraged a spirited write-in campaign to unseat me.

Of all the other precincts experiencing competitive races this year, for now I will only speak on Precinct 7.

I hope that the voters in Precinct 7 will choose to send Theodore W. Sharpe, Sheri A. Baron, Timothy M. Hughes, and Andrew P. Bengtson to Town Meeting this year.

If you live in Precinct 7, write those four names down and take them with you to the polls on Saturday, April 5th.

Here they are again, so seriously: grab a pen or pencil and write this down:

• Theodore W. Sharpe
• Sheri A. Baron
• Timothy M. Hughes
• Andrew P. Bengtson

There are two other candidates for Town Meeting from Precinct 7 this year that Arlington would be well served to not have at the meetings:

Christopher P. Loreti and Mark H. Kaepplein

Others have more colorful names for them, but I lump both of them into a category of members I simply call "ax-grinders."

There is a small but exceedingly vocal minority at Town Meeting whose only discernible purpose is to pursue their own personal vendettas.

They are what I call the Arlington Tea Party.

They are for nothing, but against much.

Arlington needs its critics.

Arlington does not need its critics sabotaging the work of Town Meeting.


Those are my endorsements (and anti-endorsements) for Town Election this year.

Please remember to vote on Saturday, April 5th.

If you might be out of town, remember that you can go into Town Hall and vote an absentee ballot.

That's a Wrap

We wrapped things up last night by 10 p.m., and it was unfortunate it took us that long.

Most of what we had in front of us were routine, annual appropriations articles.

Exceptions to this included two appropriations, one for $20,000 to pay for signs highlighting historic and cultural points of interest in Arlington, and another for $2,000 to pay for a molded metal sign to go in front of the Uncle Sam statue.

Discussion on each of these got ugly.

We witnessed what looked like an Uncle Sam committee that has spiraled into an abyss of dysfunction.

I don't have all the details about everything going on, so won't try to speculate too much on explanations.

Suffice it to say for now that the committee is in need of healthy leadership.

We approved the $2,000 in large part because the Town Manager would be in charge of writing the check, and not the committee.

The discussion on the $20,000 appropriation turned into a witch hunt, with some members using it to try and smear the character of people in our community.

By the time this was through, I would have voted to spend twice that amount on the ugliest, most repulsive signs imaginable, out of disgust.

The "arguments" against the appropriation were specious, largely based on us not having seen these signs yet.

Just because we vote to appropriate money - making it available to spend - does not mean that it gets spent on bad work.

People have to sign off on the final product before anyone gets paid.

Try to imagine Town Meeting discussing whether a majority prefers one font or another, or like the color scheme chosen.

The actual issue in front of us was whether promoting these points of interest is a worthwhile endeavor, and a sound strategy to promote economic development.

Further, you could get into a discussion of how much is an appropriate amount to spend.

One point that opponents have brought up that has sufficient quality to be discussed, is whether we are doing these sorts of things in a strategic, planned manner, or whether we are throwing a bunch of ideas against a wall and seeing what sticks.

But they have been too busy carrying out personal vendettas to waste time fleshing out that argument.

This is the biggest problem facing Town Meeting: a small and vocal number of members who use the institution to wage their own personal campaigns against people they disagree with.

Too many issues get hijacked by these endeavors, with no respect to the actual issues being discussed.

If everyone would approach issues from the perspective of what was right for Arlington, rather than how they might "score points" in petty battles over mole-hills, Town Meeting would better serve its residents.

In the end, despite these problems I believe we did good work this year, respecting a balance between providing services and exercising frugality.

I am up for re-election next year, so whether I return to Town Meeting again will be a decision made by the voters in my precinct.

I hope I have given voters plenty of information to base that decision on.

Of course I hope voters will approach me and give us both the opportunity determine whether we are moving in the right direction.

Night 5, Trees and Fees

Last night we completed debate and passed the Town and the Capital budgets, as well as our annual appropriation to the Minuteman, and the creation of a Special Education Reserve Fund.

As anticipated, the Town and Capital budget passed.

There were two attempts last night to amend these from the floor.

An amendment from Christopher Loreti of Precinct 7 would have changed the Capital budget by directing $30,000 from a parking study to bolster efforts to plant more trees in town.

An amendment from Stephen Harrington of Precinct 13 would have changed the Town budget by appropriating an additional $300,000 to education, and while it is not legally possible for Town Meeting to tell the School Department how to spend it's money, the hope was that this money would be used to reduce fees for extracurricular activities.

You can (might be able to) read up on Mr. Harrington's proposal here:

http://truepersons.com/2013/05/05/town-meeting-2013-night-5-school-budgets/

[Actually, if truepersons has decided for whatever reason to block you from their site, as they have some, you won't be able to read up on this.]

This morning my rationale for supporting or opposing each of these amendments might be due to the merits of the need, or the importance of staying within our plan, or feedback on how important these issues are to my constituents and neighbors.

Last night, my rationale for opposing both of them was simple: I had no advance opportunity to consider these amendments and think seriously about them.

We've had the Finance Committee's report since April 19th, and the Capital Planning Committee's report since April 22nd.

Both amendments were made from the floor, with no copies provided to Town Meeting members.

Either of these amendments could have been distributed in advance, giving me and others a chance to study them correctly, and weigh them on their merits.

They were not, and predictably both were defeated by large margins.

We have about one more night's worth of work to do, and we'll wrap up the 2013 Annual Town Meeting.