The Job's Not Finished

by Glenn C. Koenig, Webmaster at Town Wide Mall

Maynard, MA - With 45 articles in the Warrant* for this year's annual town meeting, the meeting, held on Monday evening, May 19th, was likely to run longer than usual.  But with at least four "hot button" issues among the first 25 articles, debate and voting on just those 25 took nearly four hours, leading the moderator to ask to adjourn the meeting at 11 PM.  The motion was hastily approved, and voters left within a few minutes.
The decision was to continue the meeting to the very next evening, Tuesday, May 20th, at 7:00 PM, at the same location (The Fowler Middle School on 3 Tiger Drive), starting with Article 26.

The overflow crowd in the gymnasium due to the unusually high turn out for last night's meeting.

* For anyone unfamiliar with what a "Warrant" is in Town Meetings, please see my Perspective Page and read the "Town Goverment Introduction" PDF document there.

Note - To anyone who left the meeting last night before adjournment and who wishes to attend the meeting tonight, please bring your copy of the warrant and other reports with you, as supplies may be limited.

Because of intense public interest in some of the articles, the sheer number of voters who showed up had to be seated in two different rooms, with a video and audio hook-up link between the two.  Students in the WAVM high school studio program set up and operated the equipment so that those in the gymnasium could see and hear the moderator, hear voters with questions in the main hall, and see the same slides projected on the screen there.  This also gave voters in the gym the opportunity to ask their questions via a separate microphone.

The microphone and screen in the gym to accommodate the overflow crowd.

By the time I arrived, just  few minutes late, I was directed down the hall to the gym to take a seat in the bleachers.  Because I headed directly there, I missed passing by the table with the last minute hand-outs and reports, so I had to go back to get them once I realized that I wanted to refer to the Finance Committee's report.  From what I could tell, many in the gym also did not notice that there were hand-outs and therefore had only a copy of the warrant to refer to.

The first six articles were either routine issues that start off annual town meetings, or concerned the overall salary plan and budget for the entire town.  These were all discussed and voted on (and approved) in the first 40 minutes or so, with only a moderate amount of debate, even though nearly $54 million was involved.

Article 7, seemed to be about a mere technicality involving connecting electric power lines to the former Coolidge School on Bancroft Street.  However, a number of voters got up to inquire about the status of trees in the area, so it took awhile to have all their questions answered.  Once these questions were answered, the article passed.

Then the first big draw of public participation was taken up and discussed, that of arranging for a new Senior Center (Articles 8 and 9).  This took awhile, as it involved a tax override (meaning that the town would add $200,000 to the budget each year, thus increasing the tax rate to provide that).

The building at 141 Parker Street, where space is proposed to be leased for the Senior Center.  Note the Market Basket supermarket and apartments in the background, as part of the Maynard Crossing Development.

This was the first time that many voters present learned of the details as to where the space to be leased is located, and how it would be outfitted to serve as a new center for the over 3000 seniors (residents over 60 years of age) who live in Maynard.
There were questions regarding the impact on the actual tax increase on a typical home in Maynard, and how that would increase 2.5 % in each subsequent year, according to the limits imposed on property tax increases, by state law.

Then it was time for Article 10.  This was for a separate tax increase of  $612,000 for the school department. Debate on this article took the better part of an hour, with more than one interruption for applause or other sounds from the crowd, despite the admonitions of the moderator.  On one side were proponents who stated that they originally wanted over twice that amount but were compromising to only ask for the $612,000.  On the other side were those questioning the cost per pupil for the Maynard Schools, which they cited as around $24,000 per pupil, per year, significantly above what many other towns are paying.  Debate seemed to center around the cost to pay "paraprofessionals" on staff in the schools.  School officials stepped up to explain that they are personnel who are not teachers, per se, but provide other services to students deemed to be important, including English as a second language instruction and practice. At one point a voter cited an executive order by President Trump that seemed to limit the national languange to "English only" and thus oppose this specific function within the schools, causing a stir among the crowd in the room.  Others spoke from more of a personal impact, related to rising taxes, as they seek to remain in Maynard on limited incomes.  The question seemed to be, "How long could this go on?" without pushing some residents out of town.  Even some current students were permitted to speak in favor of the article, although they were not yet old enough to be registered voters.

Eventually Article 10 passed, just after 9 PM. At this point, a significant number of those present got up and left the building.  After a short break, the meeting got back in order to move on to the next articles.

Part 2 of the Meeting

After settling down, Articles 11 through 14 were relatively routine.  Article 15, "Prohibit Use of Second-Generation Anticoagulant Rodenticides on Town Property" was then taken up.  This is otherwise known as the "rat poison ban."  These toxic chemicals are usually enclosed in small black plastic boxes placed near the foundations of buildings in an attempt to poison rats.
The proponents had to amend the article to also include "First Generation" chemicals before a discussion and vote on the article itself.  The discussion centered around how, counterintuitively, the use of these poisons actually has caused rat populations to increase in a number of other cities, due to the fact that the poisons also kill the natural predators of the rats.  It was reported that the natural predators do a better job of controlling the rat population than the poisons do.  Other points to support the article were listed in the Comments section from the sponsor, in the Warrant, following the text of the new Chapter 47, to be added to the bylaws.  There seemed to be no significant opposition to the article and it passed by an overwhelming majority.

After a few more articles were voted to formally transfer income into Enterprise funds (for water and sewer, along with Golf Course receipts), along with a few more for by-law amendments.  Then it was time for what turned out to be the last article of the evening, Article 25. 

This was to add a new by-law, Chapter 48, to detail the requirements for residents and businesses to clear sidewalks in town for the safe passage of pedestrians.  Discussion on the article took nearly 45 minutes with many comments from voters in the hall.
Some of the points made were:
• Most people don't actually walk on most sidewalks; they just walk in the street, even in good weather (when there is no snow or ice)
• Many sidewalks are cracked or broken, difficult to walk on, and difficult or impossible to clear of ice and snow.
• Most sidewalks in residential areas were constructed in the 1930s, funded by the Works Projects Administration, a federal program during the Great Depression, 90 years ago.  Most of these have not been replaced since then.
• Residents who are seniors are often unable to clear the amount of snow and ice that accumulates.
• The plows that clear the streets often leave large piles of snow covering the sidewalks at street corners.
• People living on corner lots have a much greater length of sidewalk to clear.
• Many properties in Maynard do not have sidewalks at all, so pedestrians must walk in the street anyway.

The sponsor of the article spoke to emphasize that Maynard does not have any current by-law that even defines the responsibilities of residents and businesses.  Some discussion pointed out that, although the sidewalks themselves are constructed and maintained by town government, legally, the property through which they run is still private property, down to the edge of the street itself.
The sponsor of the article stated that it was his intention to make the article primarily "educational" so that residents would understand what was expected, which heretofore has not been detailed in a by-law.  He said that enforcement was proposed to be a non-criminal citation with a fine of only $25.00 so as not to be an onerous burden, but more of an encouragement.
He also stressed that storm drains and fire hydrants are actually on Town Property and therefore no one would be fined for failing to shovel them out.  They were mentioned in the by-law text only to encourage and remind residents to please clear them of snow or overhanging vegetation, if possible.

As the time neared 11 PM, the meeting seemed at first to be reaching an impasse.  There was concern that the entire article would be voted down and nothing would be accomplished.  Finally, someone mentioned that a "Motion to Commit" could be used to avoid having to either approve or disapprove the article.  This would officially put off action until next year and render the article for further study in the mean time.  This motion passed, after which the meeting quickly adjourned.

Notice - Election on Tuesday May 27th.

Articles 8 and 10 concern a property tax increase (aka an override), so a general election is needed for the voters to approve the change. This election is being held on Tuesday, May 27th, from 7 AM to 8 PM, at the Fowler School at 3 Tiger Drive.  There was no early voting for this election.  You can only vote by mail if you have previously obtained a ballot last week, so if you haven't done that, you must vote in person on Tuesday, the 27th.  A link to the town's web page on the election is here:
https://www.townofmaynard-ma.gov/170/Elections
A sample ballot is available for viewing on this page on the town's web site:'
https://www.townofmaynard-ma.gov/DocumentCenter/View/3788/Sample-Ballot

Town Meeting, Night 2

On account of other personal life demands, I have not yet had time to report on the second evening of Town Meeting, which took place on May 20th.  My report here will probably have to wait until I return from a long needed vacation trip, in mid June.

News Index

Donate

Perspectives

Town Wide Mall is free for anyone to read and carries no advertising, so our only means of support is from your donations.  Please consider helping with a donation of any amount. Click on the Donate button, above, to see the options.

Commentary

I am still amazed that it has taken this long to finally do something to provide better facilities for Maynard's Senior Center and the Council on Aging.  We spend millions per year on schools (nearly half the town's entire budget), and have routinely voted substantial increases for both school buildings and annual school expenses, yet somehow we have failed to allocate even a few thousand dollars to get this done, until now.  I'm glad that we have finally been able to remedy this situation, and I urge you to go to the polls to vote for the override to authorize the modest tax increase needed (see notice, above).
One might say that school children have their whole lives ahead of them.  It seems to me that senior citizens also have their whole lives ahead of them as well.  I think it is wrong to just think of the number of years that might entail, as if quantity was all that mattered, rather than the quality of life that I believe we should be supporting for all citizens, regardless of age.
To me, learning is a life-long process, not just for young people.  I think it is an antiquated idea that all learning should take place before an individual reaches their early 20s, with the rest of one's life devoted to a single career.  That may be fine for those in academia, and certain specialized lines of work, but for everyone else, life is more typically a series of different jobs and activities that change every few years, as many studies have shown.

§ § §

During the debate on Article 25, regarding sidewalks, I had some thoughts. First, I could tell how much work the sponsor had put into drafting the proposed by-law and his supporting remarks, covering pages 33 through 38 in the Warrant.  At the same time, it seemed to me that the apparent lack of support for the article may have stemmed from the "blanket" nature of the provisions listed.  Even the Finance Committee, in its statement at the end of the article, said that it, "... understands there may be concerns about implementation of this article ..."   It seems that 45 minutes of debate was certainly testament to that!
I have to credit the sponsor for emphasizing (on page 37) that, "... this by-law promotes a sense of community and shared responsibility ..."  After all, as he states just prior to that, "Expanding DPW services would require significant funding for new equipment, more frequent replacements, additional staffing (often at overtime rates), and possibly more contractors." This is not to mention the cost of replacing worn, cracked, or uneven sidewalks.
As it is, with the town's current financial situation, no one has come up with a way to raise the many thousands of dollars to fund all that.
Over the next few years, it appears that the town's financial situation will become more and more constrained.  If this is so, then we will become increasingly reliant on volunteer efforts to do what we can to maintain a reasonable quality of life here in Maynard.

So, back to the proposed by-law itself, what is to be done instead?  Is it possible to rethink how legislation like this might be approached in an entirely different way?  Clearly, the sidewalk situation in Maynard is complex.
What if we tried to better define which sidewalks represent the greatest need for pedestrian use, rather than just refer to all sidewalks in general, town wide?  Although listing actual locations may seem to be a novel approach in a by-law, perhaps that is key to creating something that might work without burdening large numbers of people for whom clearing a sidewalk on their property is clearly impractical or unnecessary.  To simplify things, perhaps we could divide the town into a few specific "sidewalk zones" and specify appropriate regulations for each.
What follows is (admittedly a rather lengthy) story about a similar by-law situation I encountered years ago.  I recount it here mostly to show an example of how conventional government regulation failed and was replaced by something that was just as effective, but without unnecessarily burdening the population at large.  So, sit back and I'll tell you a story.

§ § §

I’m reminded of an article we took up in Town Meeting in Arlington, back in the 1990s.
This was a seemingly innocuous article about increasing a number of minor of fees.  One item on the list increased the fee for a second yard sale permit from $10 to $15.
I had forgotten that we even had a fee for this.  But at this point, I asked myself, why do we even have permits for yard sales in the first place?  I got up to ask about this, but my comment was ruled out of order by the moderator as “not being within the scope of the article;” as it was only about fees; other  provisions of the bylaw could not be debated.  OK, fair enough.
During a break, I talked with my friend Alan, another Town Meeting member.  He and I realized that to change this, we had to start to work now, to prepare for next year’s Town Meeting.  We agreed that he would go off to gather the signatures of 10 registered voters (necessary to submit an article to place in next year's Warrant), while I agreed to research the background.
It turned out that, five years or so earlier, there were a number of complaints by residents that some neighbors were running yard sales almost every week of the summer.  Their streets were clogged with the cars of shoppers, and it was clear that this was more of a business on the side, in a residential zone (where such a business was prohibited), rather than just selling off some extra household items.
So, the town did what any classic government might do.  They enacted a bylaw to regulate yard sales.  It stated that there could only be up to 2 yard sales at a given address per year.  To ensure compliance, the owner of the property would have to obtain a permit for each yard sale they wanted to have.  The first permit would be free, but if they wanted a second one, there would be a fee (originally $10).  Anyone caught by the police holding a yard sale without a permit would be subject to a fine of $200 ($490 in today's dollars) unless they immediately took down their sale and removed all the items.

There, that should do it!      However, … can you see where this is going?

As communication in local towns is frightfully inefficient, most people were unaware of the bylaw, failed to obtain a permit, and held their (perfectly legitimate) yard sales anyway.  Many of them had just moved into town, wanted to sell off extra furniture or household items they no longer needed, and had no idea that such a bylaw existed.  In those days towns did not have their bylaws on a web page, and searching through the long list of bylaws on paper was impractical.
If the police happened to notice a yard sale going on, and asked to see a permit, the homeowner was stuck.  “OK, where can I get one?” they might ask.  The answer was,  “Well, at the Select Board office in Town Hall, but it’s closed until Monday, so it’s too late now.”  So dozens of honest people had to cancel their yard sales on the spot. (I doubt anyone actually paid the $200 fine.)
Meanwhile, each Friday, at the Select Board office, a clerk had to gather all the permits for the coming weekend, enter the addresses into a spreadsheet, then forward that to the police department so that patrol officers would know who had a legitimate permit, in case there was a complaint.
When I visited the office, a woman there showed me an entire file drawer filled with folders of the permits, each folder for a year the bylaw had been in force.  The folder for the first year was relatively thin, but the size of the folders grew substantially from then on.  That increase occurred because the existence of the bylaw had slowly spread by word of mouth.
After that, I went to talk with the Chief of Police.  I asked him, "Could there be a way for the police to record a note in a ledger whenever they encountered a yard sale, and issue a fine if they found someone holding one for a third time?"  He assured me that they always file a report any time they are called to an address for any reason.  And, yes, such reports were listed by address in their computers, so it would be easy (even with the computers available at the time) to bring up records for that address to see if someone was having a third or subsequent sale in the same season.

Then I hazarded a guess.  I asked him, “How many people are there, who are trying to run a business in their front yards? Perhaps only a dozen or so?”  He responded, “Oh, less than that.”  Then I said, “And I bet you know who they are.” He replied, “Yes, we know who they are.”
At this point I realized something really important:  Literally hundreds of people had been inconvenienced every year by having to apply for permits, or even worse, forced to dismantle their yard sales or pay a hefty fine, … all in an effort to catch maybe 5 or 6 people who were abusing the privilege.  This was, of course, a tiny fraction of the approximately 18,000 households in town!
Talk about government overreach!  And this wasn’t the result of some harsh “law and order” administration.  Rather, it was the result of well meaning people who hadn’t thought through the implications of their “solution” to the “frequent illegitimate yard sale” problem.

So, Alan and I came up with a new solution.  We submitted our article for the Warrant, which said the minimum: “To see if the Town Will vote to amend, modify, delete, or otherwise revise the yard sale bylaw, or take any action related thereto.”  (We worded it that way to give as wide a latitude as possible, and to allow a fully open debate, before voting on the exact language at the meeting.)
Then we drafted our motion with the language we hoped to replace the existing bylaw.  The Town Manager added the part about having to end sales by 4 PM, and the whole thing passed.  You can now find it, still on the books in Arlington.  It's Bylaw Title V, Article 10
https://tinyurl.com/TWMLink10
We got rid of all the permits, spreadsheets, fees, and harassment of innocent yard sale families, all in a few simple paragraphs.  When I next visited the Select Board office, the women who worked there thanked me profusely for having saved them all that work, especially having to deal with disgruntled members of the public who showed up to apply for permits and complained about the excess bureaucracy.
The following year, there were some across the board staff reductions, so the town also saved money.  Mostly, this was accomplished by not replacing a few personnel who had retired.

§ § §

I tell this story because it’s an example of how easy it is to do the classic government thing.  That is, make a broad based law to “catch all those bad guys out there who are doing bad things.”  It takes more time and effort to dig down into the details and figure out a better way to more “surgically” target just the problem you want to solve, while alleviating common folk from the numerous side effects and trouble a broad based law can create.
Historically, perhaps the biggest error in legislation wasn’t a law at all, but a constitutional amendment, the 18th, which prohibited the production, distribution, and sale of “intoxicating liquors” in 1920.  It worked out so badly that it was later rescinded by the 21st amendment, after 13 years of turmoil.  It inconvenienced millions of innocent people who just wanted to stop by their local pub for a pint and gave rise to an entire organized crime movement that terrorized the public in the process.
The lesson from that is that laws can seldom dictate culture; instead the best laws follow culture, as much as possible.  That is, if the majority of people want something, they will find a way to have it, regardless of what the law (or the amendment) says they should do.