Monthly Archives: June 2015

2015 annual town meeting: how town meeting members voted

The 2015 annual town meeting held eleven electronically recorded votes, the same as the annual town meeting last year, even though this year’s town meeting considered only about half as many articles. As happened last year, there were discrepancies between votes reported by the town clerk, three days after the town meeting ended, and votes declared by the moderator when they were taken. This year there were no “straw” votes–supposedly just to get a count–and the biggest discrepancy was a difference of two votes–not enough to change any result.

Frank Caro, a Precinct 10 town meeting member, stepped out as captain of recorded votes. He would leap to a microphone and ask for a recorded vote. Edward “Sandy” Gadsby, the moderator, would call on supporters to stand, and he would count to see if there were at least 35. There always were. Soon Dr. Caro needed only to approach a microphone and didn’t have to say why. Perhaps because it needed less than two minutes, town meeting members took to the process.

With the table of recorded votes, two indices have been calculated for each town meeting member. One is an index of voting, measuring participation: 100% for voting Yes, No or Present at every opportunity, 0% for being absent or not voting at every opportunity. The other is an index of concurrence, measuring agreement with the town meeting results: 100% when voting Yes or No the same way as every result at town meeting, -100% when voting the opposite way as every result. Votes of Present (or Abstain), records of being absent and records of not voting were counted as neutral for an index of concurrence.

There were, in total, 266 records with no vote being cast by town meeting members who had checked in with tellers and taken out their assigned keypad transmitters. That was far more than the 75 vote records of Present (or Abstain). An average of 32 out of 248 town meeting members were absent at the two sessions–that is, they did not check in and take out their assigned keypad transmitters. There are no records of whether town meeting members stayed at the town meeting sessions after checking in.

The voting records designated as Precinct AL (at large) are those for the moderator, the town clerk, members of the Board of Selectmen and the single state representative who lives in Brookline. High indices of both voting and concurrence were recorded for Benjamin Franco and Nancy Heller, members of the Board of Selectmen, at 100% voting and 82% concurrence. Three town meeting members were recorded with both 100% voting and 100% concurrence: Virginia LaPlante of Precinct 6, Craig Bolon of Precinct 8 and Lee Cooke-Childs of Precinct 12.

– Craig Bolon, Brookline, MA, June 28, 2015


2015 annual town meeting: budgets, bylaws and resolutions, Brookline Beacon, May 30, 2015


Brookline 2015 annual town meeting, electronic votes as of May 31, 2015
Source: Town Clerk’s on-line records

No. Day Article Result Question voted
1 5/26 10 N Changes to Living Wage bylaw, motion to terminate debate
2 5/26 10 Y Changes to Living Wage bylaw, opposing changes to seasonal and temporary
3 5/26 10 Y Changes to Living Wage bylaw, main motion as amended
4 5/28 13 N New bylaw requiring tap water in restaurants, motion to refer
5 5/28 13 Y New bylaw requiring tap water in restaurants, main motion
6 5/28 14 N New bylaw for bottled water ban, motion to terminate debate
7 5/28 14 N New bylaw for bottled water ban, motion to refer
8 5/28 12 N Changes to snow shoveling bylaw, limit discretionary delay in enforcement
9 5/28 12 Y Changes to snow shoveling bylaw, fine on first violation rather than warning
10 5/28 18 N Resolution for study of eminent domain, motion to terminate debate
11 5/28 19 Y Resolution opposing Boston Olympics in 2024, main motion

Electronic recorded votes Y for “yes,” N for “no” A absent    
2015 annual town meeting P for “present” or “abstain” Q not voting Index Index
Pct. Given name Family name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Voting Concur
  Vote Result N Y Y N Y N N N Y N Y    
1 Cathleen Cavell N Y Y N Y N N Q Q Q Q 64% 64%
1 Jonathan Cutler N Y Y N N N Y Y Y Y Y 100% 27%
1 Elijah Ercolino N Q Y Y Q Y Y Y Y Q Q 64% -9%
1 James Franco Y N N Q Y Y N N Y Y N 91% -18%
1 Richard Garver Y Y N N N N Y P Y Y N 100% -18%
1 Neil Gordon N Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Y Y 100% 45%
1 Helen Herman N Y Y A A A A A A A A 27% 27%
1 Carol Hillman N Y N A A A A A A A A 27% 9%
1 Sean Lynn-Jones N Y Y N Y N N N Y N P 100% 91%
1 Alexandra Metral Y Y Q Y Y N N Y Y N N 91% 18%
1 Paul Moghtader Y N Y N Y Y N Y Y Y Q 91% 0%
1 Bettina Neuefeind Q Q Q N Y N N Y Y Q Q 55% 36%
1 Robert Schram Y Y Y N Y Y N N Y Y Y 100% 45%
1 Kate Silbaugh N Y N N Y N N Y Y Q Q 82% 45%
1 Robert Sloane Y Y Y N Y N N Y Y Y N 100% 27%
                               
Electronic recorded votes Y for “yes,” N for “no” A absent    
2015 annual town meeting P for “present” or “abstain” Q not voting Index Index
Pct. Given name Family name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Voting Concur
  Vote Result N Y Y N Y N N N Y N Y    
2 Judith Kidd Y Y N N Y Y N N Y P Q 91% 27%
2 Lisa Liss Y Y Q N Y Y N Y N Y Q 82% -9%
2 Rita McNally A A A A A A A A A A A 0% 0%
2 Adam Mitchell Y Y Y N N Y N Y Y Y N 100% -9%
2 Barbara O’Brien Y Y N Y N Y Y Y Y N N 100% -45%
2 Gwen Ossenfort Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Y N 100% 9%
2 Linda Pehlke A A A A A A A A A A A 0% 0%
2 Susan Roberts Y N Y Y Y Q Y N N Q N 82% -27%
2 Livia Schachter-Kahl Q Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Q 82% -9%
2 Diana Spiegel N Y Y Y N Y Y N N N Q 91% 0%
2 Stanley Spiegel A A A A A A A A A A A 0% 0%
2 Eunice White A A A A A A A A A A A 0% 0%
2 Bruce Wolff A A A Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q 0% 0%
2 Ana Vera Wynne Y Y Y Y Y Q Y Y Y Y Y 91% 0%
2 Richard Wynne Y N Y A A A A A A A A 27% -9%
                               
Electronic recorded votes Y for “yes,” N for “no” A absent    
2015 annual town meeting P for “present” or “abstain” Q not voting Index Index
Pct. Given name Family name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Voting Concur
  Vote Result N Y Y N Y N N N Y N Y    
3 David Aronson Y N Y Y N Y Y N N Y N 100% -64%
3 Harry Bohrs N Y Y N Y Q Q N Q P P 73% 55%
3 Patricia Connors Q Y Y Q Y N N Y Y N Q 73% 55%
3 Mary Dewart Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y N Y 100% 45%
3 Murray Dewart Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y N P 100% 36%
3 Dennis Doughty N N Q Y N N Y N Y N N 91% 0%
3 Jane Gilman Y Y Y N Y N N Y Y N Y 100% 64%
3 Heather Hamilton Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y P Y 100% 0%
3 Gary Jones Y Y Y Q Q Y Y N N Y Y 82% -9%
3 Laurence Koff Y N Y A A A A A A A A 27% -9%
3 Donald Leka Y Y Y N Y N N Y Y N Y 100% 64%
3 Kathleen Scanlon N Y Y Q Q N N Y Y N Y 82% 64%
3 Frank Steinfield N Y Y Y N Y N N Y N N 100% 27%
3 Rebecca Stone N N Y Y Y Y N Y Y P Y 100% 18%
3 Jean Stringham Y Y Y N Y Y N N N N Y 100% 45%
                               
Electronic recorded votes Y for “yes,” N for “no” A absent    
2015 annual town meeting P for “present” or “abstain” Q not voting Index Index
Pct. Given name Family name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Voting Concur
  Vote Result N Y Y N Y N N N Y N Y    
4 Sarah Axelrod N Y Y Y Y N N N Y P N 100% 55%
4 Eric Berke N Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y N 100% -27%
4 Sarah Boehs N Y N N Y N N N Y Y Y 100% 64%
4 Alan Christ N Y N N Y Y N N Y P N 100% 36%
4 Ingrid Cooper N Y Y N Y N Y Y Y N N 100% 45%
4 Anne Covert N Y Y Y Y N N N N N Y 100% 64%
4 Frank Farlow N Y Y N Y N N Q Y N Y 91% 91%
4 Martha Farlow N Y Y N Y Y N Y Y N Y 100% 64%
4 Nadine Gerdts A A A N Y N N Q Y Y Q 55% 36%
4 John Mulhane Y Y Y Y N N Y N Y Y N 100% -9%
4 Mariah Nobrega N Y Y Y Y N Y N Y N Y 100% 64%
4 Joseph Robinson Y Q Q Y Y Y Q Y N Q Q 55% -36%
4 Marjorie Siegel Y Y Y Q Q Q Q Y Y N Y 64% 27%
4 Virginia Smith N Y Y A A A A A A A A 27% 27%
4 Robert Volk Y Y Y N Y Y Y N N Y N 100% -9%
                               
Electronic recorded votes Y for “yes,” N for “no” A absent    
2015 annual town meeting P for “present” or “abstain” Q not voting Index Index
Pct. Given name Family name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Voting Concur
  Vote Result N Y Y N Y N N N Y N Y    
5 Richard Allen N N Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Q 91% -18%
5 Robert Daves N Y Y N N Y Y N Y Y N 100% 9%
5 Dennis DeWitt A A A A A A A A A A A 0% 0%
5 Betsy Gross Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y 100% -27%
5 Michael Gunnuscio Y Y Y Q Q Y N Y Y Y N 82% -9%
5 Angela Hyatt Y N Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Y 100% -27%
5 David Knight Q Q Q A A A A A A A A 0% 0%
5 Hugh Mattison Y Y Y N Y Y N N Y N Y 100% 64%
5 Puja Mehta Q Q Q N Y N Y Q Q Q Q 36% 18%
5 Randolph Meiklejohn N Y Y N Y Y N N Y Y Y 100% 64%
5 Phyllis O’Leary Q Q Q N Y Y N Y N Q Q 55% 0%
5 Andrew Olins Y N Y N Y Y N N N Y Q 91% 0%
5 William Reyelt N Y Y N Y N N Y Y Y N 100% 45%
5 Claire Stampfer Y Y Y A A A A A A A A 27% 9%
5 Lenore von Krusenstiern P Y N Y N Y Y N Y Y Y 100% -18%
                               
Electronic recorded votes Y for “yes,” N for “no” A absent    
2015 annual town meeting P for “present” or “abstain” Q not voting Index Index
Pct. Given name Family name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Voting Concur
  Vote Result N Y Y N Y N N N Y N Y    
6 Catherine Anderson N Y Y Q Q N Y Y Y N N 82% 27%
6 John Bassett N N N N Y Y N N N Y Y 100% 9%
6 Jocina Becker N Y Y Q Y Y Y N Q Y Y 82% 27%
6 Christopher Dempsey N N Y N Y Y N Y Y Y Y 100% 27%
6 Brian Hochleutner Y N Y Y Y N N N Y N N 100% 27%
6 Sytske Humphrey Y Y Y N N Y Y N Y N Y 100% 27%
6 Virginia LaPlante N Y Y N Y N N N Y N Y 100% 100%
6 Merelice N Y N N Y N N Y Y N Y 100% 64%
6 Clinton Richmond Y Y Y N N N N Q Q Y Y 82% 27%
6 Ian Roffman N Y Y N Y N Y Y Y N P 100% 55%
6 Daniel Saltzman N Y Y Q Y N Y Y Y N N 91% 36%
6 Kim Smith N Y Q N Y N N Y Y N Y 91% 73%
6 Ruthann Sneider N Y N N Y N N Q Y N Y 91% 73%
6 Robert Sperber N N N A A A A A A A A 27% -9%
6 Thomas Vitolo N Y N N Y N N Y Y N Y 100% 64%
                               
Electronic recorded votes Y for “yes,” N for “no” A absent    
2015 annual town meeting P for “present” or “abstain” Q not voting Index Index
Pct. Given name Family name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Voting Concur
  Vote Result N Y Y N Y N N N Y N Y    
7 Ellen Ball Y Y Y Q Q Y N Y Y Y N 82% -9%
7 Susan Cohen Y Y Y Y N Y Y N N N N 100% -27%
7 Keith Duclos Y Q Q N Y N Q Y Y N Y 73% 36%
7 Susan Ellis N Y Y N Y N N Y Y N Y 100% 82%
7 Ernest Frey N Y Y Y Y N Y N N N N 100% 27%
7 Phyllis Giller Y Y Y Q Q Y Y N N N N 82% -9%
7 Susan Granoff N Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N 100% 9%
7 Mark Gray Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y N Y 100% 27%
7 Kelly Hardebeck Y N N Y Y Y Y Q Q Q Q 64% -45%
7 Jonathan Lewis Y Y Y A A A A A A A A 27% 9%
7 Jonathan Margolis A A A A A A A A A A A 0% 0%
7 Christopher Oates N Y Y Y N Y Y N Y N Y 100% 27%
7 Stacey Provost P P P P Q Y Y P P Y Y 91% -18%
7 Rita Shon-Baker Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y N Y Y 100% -45%
7 James Slayton Y Y Y N Y Y N N Y Y Q 91% 36%
                               
Electronic recorded votes Y for “yes,” N for “no” A absent    
2015 annual town meeting P for “present” or “abstain” Q not voting Index Index
Pct. Given name Family name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Voting Concur
  Vote Result N Y Y N Y N N N Y N Y    
8 (vacancy) (vacancy) A A A A A A A A A A A 0% 0%
8 Lauren Bernard N Y Y Y P Y Y Y Y N Y 100% 18%
8 Craig Bolon N Y Y N Y N N N Y N Y 100% 100%
8 Abigail Cox N Y Y Y Y Q N Y Y P Y 91% 45%
8 Gina Crandell Q Q Q A A A A A A A A 0% 0%
8 Franklin Friedman Y N Y N Y Y N Y Y Y Q 91% 0%
8 David-Marc Goldstein P P Y Y N Y Y N N N Y 100% -9%
8 John Harris N Y Y Y Y Y Y P Y N Y 100% 36%
8 Anita Johnson N Q Y Y N Y Y P Y Y Y 91% -9%
8 Edward Loechler Y Y Y N Y N N N Y Y Y 100% 64%
8 Robert Miller Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y P Q 91% 27%
8 Barbara Scotto N Y Y A A A A A A A A 27% 27%
8 Lisamarie Sears A A A Q Q N N N N Q Q 36% 18%
8 Sara Stock A A A A A A A A A A A 0% 0%
8 Maura Toomey Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Y Q 91% 18%
                               
Electronic recorded votes Y for “yes,” N for “no” A absent    
2015 annual town meeting P for “present” or “abstain” Q not voting Index Index
Pct. Given name Family name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Voting Concur
  Vote Result N Y Y N Y N N N Y N Y    
9 Liza Brooks Y Q Q Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Q 73% -36%
9 Joseph Geller N N Y Q Q Y N N Q P Q 64% 18%
9 Paul Harris P Y N N Y Y N N Y P Y 100% 45%
9 Nathaniel Hinchey P Y Y N Y Y N N N Q Q 82% 36%
9 Barr Jozwicki A A A Y Y Y Y N N Y Y 73% -18%
9 Joyce Jozwicki Q Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 91% 0%
9 Pamela Katz Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Y Q 91% 18%
9 Julius Levine A A A A A A A A A A A 0% 0%
9 Stanley Rabinovitz A A A A A A A A A A A 0% 0%
9 Harriet Rosenstein Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Q Q Q 73% 0%
9 Martin Rosenthal N Y Y N Y N N N N N Y 100% 82%
9 Charles Swartz N Y Y Y N N Y N N N N 100% 9%
9 Dwaign Tyndal A A A Q Q Y Q Q Q Q Q 9% -9%
9 Judith Vanderkay Y Y N N Y Y N N N Y Q 91% 0%
9 George White Y Y N Q Y Y Q Y Y Y Y 82% -9%
                               
Electronic recorded votes Y for “yes,” N for “no” A absent    
2015 annual town meeting P for “present” or “abstain” Q not voting Index Index
Pct. Given name Family name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Voting Concur
  Vote Result N Y Y N Y N N N Y N Y    
10 Clifford Ananian N Y N N Y N N N Y Y N 100% 45%
10 Carol Caro N Y Y Y N N Y Y Y N Y 100% 27%
10 Francis Caro N Y N Y N N Y N Y N Y 100% 27%
10 Sumner Chertok A A A A A A A A A A A 0% 0%
10 Jonathan Davis N Y Y Y N Y Y N N Y Y 100% -9%
10 Linda Davis A A A Q Q Y Y N N Y Y 55% -18%
10 Holly Deak Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Y Q 91% 18%
10 Stephan Gaehde Y Y Y N Y N N Y Y Y Y 100% 45%
10 Daniel La Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Y Q 91% 18%
10 Paul Lipson Y P Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y N 100% -18%
10 Sharon Sandalow A A A A A A A A A A A 0% 0%
10 Theodore Scholnick Y N Y Y Y Y N N P Y N 100% -18%
10 Stanley Shuman Q Q Q N Q Q Y Q N N Y 45% 9%
10 Alexandra Spingarn Q Q Q Y N Y Y N Y Y Q 64% -27%
10 Naomi Sweitzer Y Y Q N Y N N Y Y Y Y 91% 36%
                               
Electronic recorded votes Y for “yes,” N for “no” A absent    
2015 annual town meeting P for “present” or “abstain” Q not voting Index Index
Pct. Given name Family name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Voting Concur
  Vote Result N Y Y N Y N N N Y N Y    
11 Carrie Benedon Y Y Y N Q Y N Y Y Y N 91% 0%
11 Joseph Ditkoff N Y Y N Y N N Y Y N N 100% 64%
11 Shira Fischer Y Y Y Y Y N N N Y N Y 100% 64%
11 Shanna Giora-Gorfajn N Y Y Y Y N N N Y N Y 100% 82%
11 Jennifer Goldsmith N Y Y Y Y Y N Q Q Q Q 64% 27%
11 Martha Gray N Y Q N Y N N Y Y N Y 91% 73%
11 Bobbie Knable N N P Y Y N Y N Y N N 100% 18%
11 David Lescohier Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Y Y 100% 27%
11 Kenneth Lewis Y N N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y 100% -64%
11 David Lowe N Y Y N Y N N Y Y N Y 100% 82%
11 Rebecca Mautner Q Y Y Q Y N N N Y Y Y 82% 64%
11 Maryellen Moran Q Q Q A A A A A A A A 0% 0%
11 Carol Oldham Y Y Y N Y N N N Y N Y 100% 82%
11 Brian Sheehan N Y Y Y N N Y Y Y N N 100% 9%
11 Karen Wenc N N N Y N Y Y Y N N Y 100% -45%
                               
Electronic recorded votes Y for “yes,” N for “no” A absent    
2015 annual town meeting P for “present” or “abstain” Q not voting Index Index
Pct. Given name Family name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Voting Concur
  Vote Result N Y Y N Y N N N Y N Y    
12 Michael Burstein Y Y Y N Y Y N N Y Y Y 100% 45%
12 Bruce Cohen Y P N A A A A A A A A 27% -18%
12 Lee Cooke-Childs N Y Y N Y N N N Y N Y 100% 100%
12 Chad Ellis Y N N N N Y Y N N Y Y 100% -45%
12 Harry Friedman Y N N N N Y Y N N Y Y 100% -45%
12 Jonathan Grand Y Y Y Y N Y Y N N Y Y 100% -27%
12 Stefanie Greenfield Y N N N Y N N Q Q Q Q 64% 9%
12 Casey Hatchett Q Q Y Q Q N Y N N Q Q 45% 9%
12 Amy Hummel P N N N N Y Y N N P Y 100% -27%
12 Jonathan Karon Y Y Y N Y Y Y N Y Y Y 100% 27%
12 David Klafter N Y N Q Q N N Y Y N Y 82% 45%
12 Mark Lowenstein N Y Y N Y Y N N Y Y N 100% 45%
12 Judy Meyers N N N N Y Y N N N P Y 100% 18%
12 William Slotnick N N N N Y N N N Y Y Y 100% 45%
12 Donald Weitzman N Y Y N Y N N N N Y Y 100% 64%
                               
Electronic recorded votes Y for “yes,” N for “no” A absent    
2015 annual town meeting P for “present” or “abstain” Q not voting Index Index
Pct. Given name Family name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Voting Concur
  Vote Result N Y Y N Y N N N Y N Y    
13 Joanna Baker N Y Y N Y N N Y Y N Y 100% 82%
13 Carla Benka Y N N N N Y Y N N N Y 100% -27%
13 Roger Blood A A A A A A A A A A A 0% 0%
13 Chris Chanyasulkit Y Y Y N Y N N N N N Y 100% 64%
13 John Doggett Y N Y N N Y Y N N Y N 100% -45%
13 Jonathan Fine Y N Y Y N Y Y N N P Y 100% -36%
13 Andrew Fischer N Y N N Y N N Y Y N Y 100% 64%
13 John Freeman Y N Q P Y Y Y N Y N Y 91% 9%
13 Francis Hoy A A A A A A A A A A A 0% 0%
13 Ruth Kaplan A A A A A A A A A A A 0% 0%
13 Werner Lohe Y Y Y N Y N N Y Y P Y 100% 55%
13 Paul Saner Y N N Q Q Q Q Y Y Y Y 64% -27%
13 Lee Selwyn Y N N Y N Y Y N N N Y 100% -45%
13 Barbara Senecal Y Q Q Y N Y Y N N Q Q 64% -45%
13 John VanScoyoc Y Y Y Q Q Y Y N N Y N 82% -27%
                               
Electronic recorded votes Y for “yes,” N for “no” A absent    
2015 annual town meeting P for “present” or “abstain” Q not voting Index Index
Pct. Given name Family name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Voting Concur
  Vote Result N Y Y N Y N N N Y N Y    
14 Robert Basile Y N Y Y N Y Y Q Q Q Q 64% -45%
14 Clifford Brown Y N Q Y P Y Y Q Q Q Q 55% -45%
14 Gill Fishman Q Q Q Y N Y Y Q Q Q Q 36% -36%
14 Paula Friedman Y N N Y N Y Y N N N Y 100% -45%
14 Kenneth Goldstein N P P N Y Y Y N N Y N 100% -9%
14 Jeffrey Kushner Y N N N N Y Q N Y Y Y 91% -18%
14 Fred Levitan A A A Y N Y Y N N Q Q 55% -36%
14 Roger Lipson Y Y Y N Y Y Q N N Y Y 91% 18%
14 Pamela Lodish N N N Y N Y Y Y Y N Y 100% -27%
14 Shaari Mittel Y N Y Y N Y Y N N Y Y 100% -45%
14 Kathleen O’Connell Y Y Y N Y Y N N Y Y Q 91% 36%
14 Benjamin Rich A A A A A A A A A A A 0% 0%
14 Lynda Roseman N P Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Y 100% 0%
14 Sharon Schoffmann Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y 100% -9%
14 Jennifer Segel Y Y N Y Y Y N N Y Y Y 100% 9%
                               
Electronic recorded votes Y for “yes,” N for “no” A absent    
2015 annual town meeting P for “present” or “abstain” Q not voting Index Index
Pct. Given name Family name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Voting Concur
  Vote Result N Y Y N Y N N N Y N Y    
15 Mariela Ames A A A Q N Q Q Q Q Q Q 9% -9%
15 Eileen Berger Y Q Q N Y Y N N N Q Q 64% 9%
15 Michael Berger A A A A A A A A A A A 0% 0%
15 Abby Coffin A A A A A A A A A A A 0% 0%
15 Jane Flanagan A A A Q Q Y Y Y Y Y Y 55% -18%
15 John Hall A A A A A A A A A A A 0% 0%
15 Benedicte Hallowell Q Q Q N N N Y Y Y Q Q 55% 0%
15 Janice Kahn Y Y Y Y N Q Y N N N Y 91% 0%
15 Ira Krepchin Y Y Y Y N Y Y N N N N 100% -27%
15 Robert Liao Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Y 100% -9%
15 Richard Nangle A A A Q Q Y Q Y Y Y Y 45% -9%
15 David Pearlman Y N Y N Y N Y N N N N 100% 9%
15 James Rourke A A A A A A A A A A A 0% 0%
15 Ab Sadeghi-Nejad Q Q Q Y Y Q N Q Q Q Q 27% 9%
15 Cornelia van der Ziel N Y N N Y N N N N N Y 100% 64%
                               
Electronic recorded votes Y for “yes,” N for “no” A absent    
2015 annual town meeting P for “present” or “abstain” Q not voting Index Index
Pct. Given name Family name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Voting Concur
  Vote Result N Y Y N Y N N N Y N Y    
16 Saralynn Allaire Y N Y N Y Y N N Y N Y 100% 45%
16 Robert Allen N N Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Q 91% -18%
16 Beverly Basile Y N Y N Y Y Y N N P Q 91% -9%
16 John Basile Y N Q Y N Y Y Q Q Q Q 55% -55%
16 Stephen Chiumenti P P Y Y P Y Y N Y Y Y 100% 0%
16 Regina Frawley N Y Y Y N Y Y Q Q N Y 82% 9%
16 Thomas Gallitano N Y Y A A A A A A A A 27% 27%
16 Scott Gladstone N Y N Y P N Y N Y Y Y 100% 18%
16 Alisa Jonas N P N Q Q Q Q Q Q N N 45% 0%
16 Judith Leichtner P Y Y Y Y Y Y N P N Y 100% 27%
16 William Pu Y N N Y Q Y Y Y Y N Y 91% -36%
16 Joshua Safer Y Y Y N Y Y N N Y N N 100% 45%
16 Irene Scharf Y Y Y Q Q Q Q Q Q N Y 45% 27%
16 Arthur Sneider N Y Y Q Q Y N Q Q Q Q 45% 27%
16 Joyce Stavis-Zak Y Y Y N Y Y Y N Y N N 100% 27%
                               
Electronic recorded votes Y for “yes,” N for “no” A absent    
2015 annual town meeting P for “present” or “abstain” Q not voting Index Index
Pct. Given name Family name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Voting Concur
  Vote Result N Y Y N Y N N N Y N Y    
AL Nancy Daly N N Y N Y Y N N Y Y Y 100% 45%
AL Benjamin Franco N Y Y N Y Y N N Y N Y 100% 82%
AL Edward Gadsby P P P P P P P P P P P 100% 0%
AL Bernard Greene N Y Y P P N Y N Y N Y 100% 64%
AL Nancy Heller N Y Y N Y N N Y Y N Y 100% 82%
AL Frank Smizik Q Y Y Q Q Y N N Y Y N 73% 18%
AL Patrick Ward P P P P P P P P P P P 100% 0%
AL Neil Wishinsky Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y 100% 9%

Housing Advisory Board: “smart growth,” $35,000 consultant

A meeting of Brookline’s Housing Advisory Board on Wednesday, June 24, started at 7:30 pm in the first-floor south meeting room at Town Hall. All the current members except Kathy Spiegelman were on hand. Board members heard a presentation on Chapter 40R “smart growth” development and joined with Planning Board members in a continued review of Chapter 40B regulations, as asked at the town meeting in May. They are considering a consultant study estimated to cost $35,000.

Smart growth: Chapter 40R of Massachusetts General Laws and companion Chapter 40S are legacies from waning years of the Romney administration, trying to promote so-called “smart growth.” The catch-phrase mainly means development near public transit, reducing needs for automobiles. In the classic Massachusetts traditions, our hydra of state government grew a new tendril. It is currently headed by William E. “Bill” Reyelt, who is a Precinct 5 town meeting member in Brookline.

Mr. Reyelt illustrated his description of Chapter 40R to the housing board with computerized slides. The state is offering tiny incentives to communities that set up special “smart growth” zoning districts and approve housing development permits. They mainly amount to one-time payments of $1,000 to $3,000 per housing unit for each unit built beyond standard zoning.

Sergio Modigliani, a Planning Board member, observed that the cost of educating a student in Brookline schools averages around $18,000 a year. At that rate, state payments would be eaten up in at most a few months, while Brookline taxpayers would be exposed to uncompensated costs for at least a century. Maybe not so “smart.”

All Mr. Reyelt could offer was that Brookline might become “eligible” for partial compensation under a Chapter 40S program, but there is “no guarantee” of state funding. All the communities participating in Chapter 40R turned out to be smaller cities, far suburbs and rural towns. None are among the towns Brookline typically regards as peers, including Arlington, Belmont, Lexington and Winchester.

Chapter 40B regulations: As proposed by the Advisory Committee, last May’s annual town meeting referred a proposal to change Chapter 40B law and regulations to the Housing Advisory Board and the Planning Board, asking for a “plan for Brookline to work with other mature, built-out communities…to achieve a temporary ‘safe harbor’ status” from disruptive development, such as one proposed at Hancock Village. As the Advisory Committee wrote in its recommendation, that will take changes to state regulations.

Despite town meeting’s directions, the Housing Advisory Board looks to have taken off on a tangent. Instead of working on changing state regulations, members are considering a consultant study for a “housing production plan” to counter 40B development under current regulations.

Brookline already has such a plan, produced in 2005. Little of significance has changed since then. To satisfy current regulations, Brookline would have to develop more than 250 housing units a year that are subsidized to Chapter 40B levels. For the past 15 years, Brookline has averaged less than 10 such units a year.

Housing Advisory Board members estimated spending about $35,000 on a consultant study for a new housing production plan. However, they had not contacted any potential consultants. Instead, board member Karen Kepler, a lawyer, noted that a contract under $35,000 would be exempt from state public bidding requirements.

Virginia Bullock, one of the town’s housing project planners, said Brookline had a good chance of getting $15,000 from a new state grant called “planning assistance toward housing.” Board members speculated about how to wheedle money out of the Advisory Committee or how to bleed Housing Trust funds. Those are set aside to support subsidized housing units, not to stuff the pockets of consultants.

– Beacon staff, Brookline, MA, June 25, 2015


Matthew J. Lawlor, Chapter 40R: a good law made better finally starts showing results, Congress of the New Urbanism, October, 2006

Planning assistance toward housing (PATH), Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Development, 2015

Craig Bolon, Hancock Village: development pressures, Brookline Beacon, February 22, 2015

Zoning Board of Appeals: Hancock Village 40B conditions, Brookline Beacon, January 6, 2015

Zoning Board of Appeals: Hancock Village 40B, getting to Yes, Brookline Beacon, November 4, 2014

Board of Selectmen: water fees, snubbing the public

A regular meeting of the Board of Selectmen on Tuesday, June 23, started at 6:50 pm in the sixth-floor meeting room at Town Hall. The board had invited Frederick Russell, the director of the Public Works water and sewer division, to present a proposal for revising fees. Unlike practices of years ago, the board did not announce or conduct a hearing.

Public affairs: Stephen Cirillo, the finance director, announced another agreement with a nonprofit organization for payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT). It is with Soka Gakkai, a Buddhist organization at 303 Boylston St. Mr. Cirillo noted that it is the twentieth PILOT agreement he has negotiated, starting in 2006. The board approved.

Water and sewer fees: Mr. Russell’s proposal was presented with a computer display that, as of noon the following day, had not been made available to the public on the municipal Web site. According to him, the average bill will increase 4.6 percent, starting in July–far in excess of general inflation. Compared with other eastern Massachusetts communities, Brookline’s water and sewer fees are already high.

It was obvious to many that some of Mr. Russell’s data could not stand scrutiny. Board member Nancy Daly said that a back calculation indicated an average residential bill of over $9,000. The claim for average increase in dollars, divided by the claim for average increase in percent, shown on Mr. Russell’s displays, indicated an average quarterly bill of about $2,200. Mr. Russell could not explain clearly.

A severe problem with Brookline’s water and sewer fees has long been known. It stems from failure to adjust for the number of dwelling units served by a water line and meter. Brookline has mostly multifamily housing. Fewer than 20 percent of households are found in single-family houses.

Brookline has had information about numbers of dwelling units for decades. It has been available from computer databases for over 20 years. Mr. Russell said his division’s failure to bill on a fair and equitable basis was lessened by a scheme of base rates and block rates, but data he displayed showed substantial inequity.

Members of the public led by Ernest Frey, a Precinct 7 town meeting member, and David Lescohier, a Precinct 11 town meeting member, came with information showing that Brookline was practicing unfair billing. Although the Board of Selectmen often accepts comments on public affairs topics at ordinary meetings, not just hearings, Neil Wishinsky, the board’s chair and a former Advisory Committee member, pointedly snubbed Mr. Lescohier and his allies. The board approved the proposed fee changes after only brief discussion.

Personnel, contracts and finances: Ray Masak, a building project administrator, asked for approval of a $2.61 million contract with Contractors Network of East Providence, RI. It will rebuild and repair large parts of the 16-year-old municipal service center at 870 Hammond St. Design errors have led to expensive corrections, rivalled only by the Pierce School disasters of the early 1970s. Most members of the board seemed oblivious to Brookline’s costly history of mistakes. They approved the contract.

Anthony Guigli, a building project administrator, won approval for two major contracts that begin a project to enlarge and renovate Devotion School. HMFH Architects of Cambridge gets $8.13 million for final plans, specifications and design coordination. Shawmut Design and Construction of Boston gets $10.55 million for its services as general contractor. The entire project has been costed at about $120 million–by far the most expensive in Brookline’s history.

Mr. Guigli also won approval for two much smaller contracts to complete school repairs. GWV of East Boston gets a $0.04 million change order, most of it to replace the main sewer connection at Lawrence School. Lambrian of Westwood gets $0.02 million more to complete work at old Lincoln School. Ms. Daly asked about science room casework removed by mistake. Mr. Guigli said that the change order included an adjustment for damages.

Andrew Pappastergion, the public works commissioner, won approval of $1.22 milllion for the first year of a five-year contract with Casella Waste Systems of Peabody, to collect and process recycled materials. A five-year contract with Waste Management of Houston, TX, which began Brookline’s single-stream recycling, is ending. Casella submitted a more favorable bid. The cost is significantly higher than the current contract. Mr. Pappastergion won approval for a $0.2 million reserve fund request, to be heard by Advisory on July 7.

Casella already operates solid waste transfer from the Brookline transfer station off Newton St. It takes town refuse collections, street sweepings and catch basin cleanings to a sanitary landfill in Southbridge that recovers methane and uses it to generate electricity. The company will take recycle collections to a largely automated separation plant in Charlestown. Unlike Waste Management, Casella does not plan to incinerate any materials but will bundle and sell them for reuse.

Licenses and permits: A representative for Teleport Communications applied for a permit to install an in-street conduit on Hammond St. Traffic in the area has been disturbed recently by work on gas mains. Teleport estimated five days for its job, committed to all-hours access for residents and promised to notify residents a week before commencing work. The board approved.

Two liquor license holders were brought in for revocation hearings. Vernissage, a restaurant in Washington Square, and GPS Wines and Spirits, across Boylston St. from the Chestnut Hill Shopping Center, have closed. Both were given about five more months to reactivate businesses or transfer licenses.

– Beacon staff, Brookline, MA, June 24, 2015


Devotion School Building Committee: opting for a community school, Brookline Beacon, September 26, 2014

Climate Action: planning a home invasion

At its meeting Monday, June 22, our sometimes torpid Climate Action Committee started a new, invasive approach that, if carried through, promises to impact every Brookline household, business and institution. The name of the game is “community choice aggregation.” What’s that?

Utility restructuring: During the mid-1990s, ambitious state administrations–mostly run by Republicans–began to promote deregulation, particularly for energy. They were apparently taking cues from the deregulation of airline fares during the Carter administration. The federal Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 had proven mostly aspirational. State rather than federal government had most sway over utilities.

The United States has a cultural background of enthusiasms for apparently simple solutions to genuinely complex problems–for example, punitive public-school testing claimed as a solution to gaps in educational achievement, a poster child of the Reagan administration. That outlook has strongly influenced so-called “restructuring” of electric power and other utilities.

California conducted the first major experiment, starting in 1994 and descending into chaos in 2001, a year of blackouts and corruption–the Enron price manipulation crimes. Massachusetts started in 1996, during the troubled Cellucci administration. The following year, before the real Big Dig costs had been divulged to the public, the General Court was maneuvered into passing the Utility Restructuring Act of 1997.

Community choice aggregation: The main act of Massachusetts restructuring was to squeeze big electric companies, Boston Edison and New England Power, into selling their generating plants and focusing on local power distribution. A sleeper in the law was a provision for municipal cooperatives: not the traditional sort that own wires, transformers and meters–instead an offspring that engages in financial manipulation.

A widely advertised feature of the Restructuring Act allowed electricity customers to designate generating companies, from whom they would buy wholesale electricity carried to their locations and billed to them by distributing companies. A lengthy section of the act forbids distributing companies from switching customers’ generating companies. Only a voluntary action initiated by a customer can make a switch.

Another sleeper in the schizophrenic Restructuring Act, authorizing so-called “community choice aggregation,” stood those protections on their heads. For ten years, it remained little known and little used. By 2007, there were only five community choice aggregators–all but one a small town. Under the act, a town meeting can approve a program, and a board of selectmen can then contract with a distributing company.

A board of selectmen can also designate a combination of generating sources. Once that is done, local customers are automatically switched–without voluntary actions and without their permissions. They will get notices. They have a month to “opt out”–returning to generating sources of their own choosing. If they fail to act in a timely way, their suppliers are switched without permissions, in whatever way some board of selectmen chose, supposedly on their behalf.

Motives and side effects: For some communities, the main motive has been trying to lower the price of electricity, by combining purchasing and by bargaining for many customers. Success has been spotty at best. Stung by price reverses, in 2012 Ashland and Marlborough suspended their community choice aggregation (CCA), returning local customers either to “standard rate” plans or to generating companies they chose.

A 2013 report by researchers at Tufts University found that “savings reached through a CCA are modest and unpredictable.” In their conclusion, the researchers observe, “A purpose of [state] deregulation was to lower electricity rates through competition, but rates in deregulated states have increased more significantly than rates in regulated states.”

To long-term observers, that comes as no news. In 2006, David Cay Johnson had reported in the New York Times, “A decade after competition was introduced…the market has produced no [overall price] decline. Instead, more rate increase requests are pending now than ever before…Electric customers…are facing rude surprises….”

– Craig Bolon, Brookline, MA, June 23, 2015


Joshua Laufer, Betsy McDonald, Brenda Pike and Mengmeng Zhou, Community choice aggregation: municipal bulk buying of electricity in Massachusetts, Tufts University, May 6, 2013 (36 MB)

Joe O’Connell, Ashland halts electric power program, MetroWest Daily News (Framingham, MA), December 27, 2012

David Cay Johnson, Competitive era fails to shrink electric bills, New York Times, October 15, 2006

An act relative to restructuring the electric utility industry in the Commonwealth, regulating the provision of electricity and other services, and promoting enhanced consumer protections therein, Massachusetts General Court, Chapter 164 of the Acts of 1997

Transportation Board: tone deaf

When the Transportation Board held a public review of a recent proposal to rip out all 66 of the public parking spaces on the east side of Babcock Street, between Fire Station No. 5 and Commonwealth Avenue, on Thursday, June 18, it held back. No action was taken, but the proposal from the Bicycle Advisory Committee, appointed by this board, remains on the books and could still be implemented.

Over 60 Brookline residents came to the meeting, despite the onset of summer vacations and the competing Devotion School “Carnivale”–the former spring fair on steroids–drawing hundreds from the school district plus many others town-wide. About 30 residents spoke at the Transportation meeting, even after board chair Joshua Safer tried to shoo them away–saying the board “got it.”

Threat and insult: So far, the board did not “get it.” Most of its members live in suburban settings. They obviously fail to understand the urban settings of North Brookline and Brookline Center, where nearly half the town’s population lives, and some apparently don’t care. They said nothing.

The board’s Bicycle Advisory Committee threatened and insulted the Babcock Street neighborhoods. On June 1, without consulting any neighborhood people or visiting the neighborhoods, they proposed a plan to remove all 66 public parking spaces on the east side of Babcock Street, between Fire Station No. 5 and Commonwealth Avenue, plus 16 potential spaces currently marked “no parking,” to install a bicycle lane.

One committee member, Tommy Vitolo, a Precinct 6 town meeting member, dissented. Dr. Vitolo argued against disruption of the Babcock Street neighborhoods. However, he was unable to persuade any other member of this neighborhood-hostile committee. The other members opted to invade Babcock Street neighborhoods with bulldozers, ordering people around and destroying key parts of the Babcock Street social and physical environments.

Remedies: Well in advance of the Transportation Board Meeting, Andrew Pappastergion, the commissioner of public works, agreed with Precinct 8 town meeting members to defer work on Babcock Street to next summer. However, no public participation is guaranteed, and so far none has been arranged. A Precinct 8 town meeting member has asked the Board of Selectmen to appoint a project review and monitoring committee.

The only long-term remedy likely to prevent a recurrence of this abuse is to dissolve the narrowly focused and irresponsible Bicycle Advisory Committee. Instead of a single-interest group, the community needs a Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Committee. It would represent the main, human-powered transportation alternatives that need protection from operators of motor vehicles.

On June 18, it was not clear that Transportation Board members heard the cadence or the melody. Instead, they appointed a person who came across as yet another bicycle “groupie” to the Bicycle Advisory Committee. The neighborhoods have been patient. They will wait months but not years. They are looking for clear and positive, decisive action. If that does not happen, people will likely say other adjustments are needed.

– Craig Bolon, Brookline, MA, June 19, 2015


Craig Bolon, Conflicts of interest: state treasurer and transportation board member, Brookline Beacon, June 10, 2015

Board of Selectmen: Village Street Fair, trash metering

A regular meeting of the Board of Selectmen on Tuesday, June 9, started at 7:10 pm in the sixth-floor meeting room at Town Hall. The board had invited Andrew Pappastergion, the public works commissioner, to present plans for a trash metering system, replacing Brookline’s partly unstructured, fixed-fee approach to collecting solid waste from households and businesses.

Some board members had attended a “visioning” session conducted at Town Hall the previous evening for the Economic Development Advisory Committee. According to Neil Wishinsky, the chair, it focused on “medium-scale commercial parcels.” Board member Nancy Daly commented that “most projects would require rezoning.” Zoning changes take two-thirds votes at town meetings and have become difficult to achieve. Ms. Daly said there would need to be “neighborhood involvement and dialog.” So far there has been none of either.

Public affairs: Andy Martineau, an economic development planner, reported on the Brookline Village Street Fair, a new event to occur on Harvard St. from noon to 4 pm Sunday, June 14 (not June 15 as in the meeting agenda). Best known among similar events nearby may be the annual Allston Village Street Fair, usually held on a September Sunday. Mr. Martineau’s plans sounded somewhat more commercial, with about 40 merchants involved. Performances are planned by Vanessa Trien and the Jumping Monkeys, a favorite of young children, Ten Tumbao, Afro-Latin-Caribbean music, and the Muddy River Ramblers, bluegrass.

Richard Segan, from the Brookline Sister City Project, asked the board to approve a proclamation for Brookline Sister City Week, to be October 18-24. Cornelia “Kea” van der Ziel, a Precinct 15 town meeting member, and Peter Moyer, a Brookline resident, had visited Quezalguaque, Nicaragua, the third week in May. Drs. van der Ziel and Moyer described their visit and future plans. The board approved the proclamation.

The two Brookline physicians have mainly been concerned with atypical chronic kidney disease, a longstanding and severe problem in Quezalguaque–also common in Costa Rica and El Salvador. Unlike similar maladies in the United States, mainly found in older people, in Central America the disease strikes people as early as their twenties. Every year thousands die. Although environmental and occupational factors are suspected, no cause is known. Those working with the Sister City Project plan to extend epidemiological efforts, hoping to associate the disease with locations, occupations, water supplies, agricultural chemicals and other potential influences.

Trash metering: Andrew Pappastergion, Brookline’s commissioner of public works, presented the first detailed plans for trash metering. Programs known by that trademarked term–coined by WasteZero of Raleigh, NC, a contractor for Brookline–aim to improve on antiquated and simplistic “pay as you throw” efforts through automation, public education and convenience.

The City of Gloucester achieved a 30 percent reduction in waste disposal costs during the first full year of such a program, according to the Gloucester Times of March 7, 2010. However, Gloucester previously had a poor recycling record, while Brookline began curbside recycling in 1973 and has operated an increasingly advanced program since 1990.

Six Massachusetts towns with populations above 30,000 have some form of solid waste limit: Plymouth, Taunton, Amherst, Shrewsbury, Dartmouth and Natick. None of them are among the more urbanized and sophisticated towns Brookline typically regards as peer communities–including Arlington, Belmont, Lexington and Winchester. There is strong evidence that in urbanized and sophisticated communities public education has been more effective than trash metering at reducing solid waste. Although Brookline has a Solid Waste Advisory Committee, so far its members have been passive, performing no public outreach. Those are hurdles for Mr. Pappastergion’s plans.

Mr. Pappastergion presented a slide show to the board. It included a review of Massachusetts information organized by the Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs. State officials remain focused on antiquated and simplistic “pay as you throw” efforts, so far found mostly in smaller rural or suburban towns.

Mr. Pappastergion presented data unavailable to the public: recycling rates for communities using municipally supplied bins. The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection has collected recycling rate data since 1997, but after 2008 state officials stopped releasing them to the public. It appeared that no Massachusetts town with a population above 30,000 operates a program comparable to the one Mr. Pappastergion proposes.

Mr. Pappastergion proposes that Brookline supply to each of about 13,000 customers now using municipal refuse services a 35-gallon bin with wheels, similar in construction to the 64-gallon bins already supplied for recycling. Brookline would reduce the number of collection trucks from six to four and equip those trucks with automated bin-handlers like the ones now used for recycling bins.

Households would continue to pay the current $200 per year fee to have one 35-gallon refuse bin and one 64-gallon recycling bin collected each week. Extra refuse bags would be available at stores and town offices. They would have 30-gallon capacity and cost $2.00 each. For fees yet to be stated, Brookline would supply extra bins collected each week. Mr. Pappastergion estimated that 35-gallon bins would hold, on average, 40 lb of refuse, while 30-gallon bags would hold 25 lb.

Based on his estimates, Mr. Pappastergion might be proposing that Brookline violate state law by charging more than the cost of service for refuse bags. He estimated a cost of container and disposal at $1.15, as compared with a $2.00 fee. However, he did not include costs of collection and transfer. He provided no estimates for likely quantities of bags or extra bins.

In the proposed program, current practices for collecting bulky items, yard waste and metals would not change. Combining personnel, supplies, contractual services and capital equipment, Mr. Pappastergion estimated savings of about $0.1 million for fiscal 2017, the first full operating year, rising to about $0.4 million per year for fiscal 2022 and later years–including allowances for inflation.

Members of the board reacted with a diffuse scatter of comments. Mr. Wishinsky said the refuse bin on display looked “awful small” and asked about 48-gallon bins. Mr. Pappastergion said 35-gallon bins were important “to achieve goals of this program.” Board member Bernard Greene, in contrast, said he was “surprised at how large” the 35-gallon bin was. “We’d have room to rent out space.” Ms. Daly asked whether people would use compactors to overstuff the bins. Mr. Pappastergion doubted that would occur.

There were several questions about storage space and handling, to which Mr. Pappastergion responded by citing four years’ experience with the larger, single-stream recycling bins. The introduction of those elements led to increasing Brookline’s recycling rate from 30 to 37 percent, he said, but during the past two years progress has stalled. The department has yet to stimulate recycling through public outreach. It is not clear whether the department has the talent or the willingness to try.

Personnel, contracts and finances: Sara Slymon, the library director, won approval to hire three librarians, turning current interim positions into permanent ones, thanks in part to the tax override passed by voters in May. Mr. Greene and board member Ben Franco asked how the positions would be advertised. Ms. Slymon replied that union contracts restricted the library to internal posting unless a qualified candidate could not be found. She said all the current employees were well qualified for their positions.

Linda Golburgh, the assistant town clerk, asked for approval to hire an administrative assistant. The position is becoming vacant because of a retirement. It marks the third recent change in personnel at a small agency. Ms. Daly remembered that the current employee previously worked in the office of the Board of Selectmen. The board approved, with Mr. Wishinsky asking Ms. Golburgh to seek help from Lloyd Gellineau, the chief diversity officer, and Sandra DeBow, the human resources director, to insure a diverse candidate pool.

Peter Ditto, the engineering director, asked for approval of a $0.07 million increase in the contract to renovate Warren Field. The contractor is New England Landscape and Masonry (NELM) of Carver, MA. The board asked whether the project was staying within budget limits. Mr. Ditto said that it was and that the project was about to conclude. The board approved the change order.

Mr. Ditto also asked for approval of a $1.07 million contract with Newport Construction of Nashua, NH, to reconstruct Fisher Ave. It is this year’s largest street project. The other bidder, Mario Susi & Son of Dorchester, which is working on other Brookline projects, proposed a substantially higher price. The board approved the contract.

The board also approved several smaller financial transactions. Among them was accepting a $0.06 million state grant, using federal funds, to hire a transportation coordinator based at the Senior Center on Winchester St. Ruthann Dobek, director for the Council on Aging, described an innovative program aimed at helping older people adjust to living without automobiles. Board members asked how the program would operate in future years.

Frank Caro, a Precinct 10 town meeting member and a member of the Age-Friendly Cities Committee, responded that such a program had already begun with volunteers and would continue that way if necessary. However, Dr. Caro said, the program needed planning and coordination. Even a year of staffing, he contended, would move the program to better levels of service.

– Beacon staff, Brookline, MA, June 12, 2015


Celebrate Brookline Village, The Village Fair, 2015

Cause of CKD epidemic in Sister City remains a mystery, Brookline Sister City Project, 2010

Miguel Almaguer, Raúl Herrera and Carlos M. Orantes, Chronic kidney disease of unknown etiology in agricultural communities, MEDICC Review 16(2):9-15, Medical Education Cooperation with Cuba, 2014

Board of Selectmen: new members and leadership, Brookline Beacon, May 13, 2015

Town elections: tax override for schools passes, Brookline Beacon, May 5, 2015

Trash metering, WasteZero (Raleigh, NC), 2010

Solid Waste Advisory Committee: recycling and trash metering, Brookline Beacon, September 3, 2014

Craig Bolon, Recycling makes more progress without trash metering, Brookline Beacon, April 11, 2014

Conflicts of interest: state treasurer and transportation board member

Conflicts of interest abound in government: duties to represent citizens, as opposed to private interests. Few political officeholders are immune. Locally and recently, we have seen Brookline residents involved.

Deborah Goldberg, a former chair of the Brookline Board of Selectmen who is now the Massachusetts state treasurer, recently disclosed a potential conflict involving her husband, Michael Winter, a J.P. Morgan executive. His firm was awarded contracts to market $100 million in state bonds. Mr. Winter, however, does not work in the company division responsible for government bond marketing.

In a local context, Christopher Dempsey of 43 Brington Rd., a Transportation Board member, has an apparent personal interest in a proposal submitted to his board by the Bicycle Advisory Committee, on which his father, John P. Dempsey of 43 Brington Rd., now serves. At an evening meeting on Monday, July 1, the elder Mr. Dempsey argued and voted in favor of a proposal to remove all parking from the east side of Babcock St., from Fire Station No. 5 at 49 Babcock St. to the town line at 1010 Commonwealth Ave., in order to install a lane marked exclusively for bicycle use.

That part of Babcock St. now has a total of 66 available parking spaces along a street with many apartment buildings that have no parking. The Bicycle Advisory Committee proposal is scheduled to be reviewed by the Transportation Board at a June 18 meeting. On Monday, June 8, town meeting members from Precinct 8 agreed with Andrew Pappastergion, the public works commissioner, that work on Babcock St. would be deferred until 2016, avoiding near-term confrontations on the issue.

– Craig Bolon, Brookline, MA, June 10, 2015


Matt Stout, Treasurer hubby’s firm got $100M in bonds, Boston Herald, June 10, 2015

Brookline Transportation Board, Agenda for June 18, 2015, See item 7