Mr. Gold is Badly Misguided

Reading Selectman Gold's letter to the editor in this week's Longmeadow News gave me a very acute case of déjà vu.  The Selectboard's present efforts to meddle in the school budget process is a mistake that Selectboards apparently find irresistible every few years. I will try to explain as clearly as I can why Mr Gold's argument for a "level funding" school budget is a very bad idea.

First, I can't help marvel at Mr. Gold's explanation for why "every town department" should be level "funded" in Fiscal 2014. Apparently, the Selectboard has decided that we should fund "capital" infrastructure improvements out of the town's "operating" budgets.  What were the reasons for this almost comically irresponsible budget "strategy?" The cost of bonding for all the needed improvements would have been very high, twice as much as for the new high school, and "it was felt that a way had to be found to begin to include the cost of these capital repairs in the general operating budget so that we could tackle these infrastructure issues over time without exceeding the Proposition 2&1/2 levy limit."

That's right, the board didn't want to capitalize the cost of capital projects because they didn't want to burden the taxpayers with additional taxes. Of course, if the taxpayers are unwilling to pay for these improvements, they could tell us that themselves in the Prop 2&1/2 override vote that would be required to fund these capital improvements properly.

Sadly, what is really at play here is sour grapes. Mr. Gold was among those who opposed the new High School project.  He argued at the time that it would crowd out these very infrastructure improvements now being discussed.  So, by not taking the case for an override to the voters, Mr. Gold and his allies get to preserve their very weak political argument against the new High School, while at the same time extracting their pound of flesh from those evil pro-school people by poaching the schools' operating budgets.
The politics of this budget battle are indeed sad, but we don't need to settle for exposing Mr. Gold's political immaturity here because his proposed treatment of the schools' budget fails spectacularly on the merits as well.

Mr. Gold states that "all town departments, from accounting to zoning, from Parks and Recreation to schools, prepare a fiscal 2014 budget at the same level as fiscal 2013."  Just in case you missed his clear implication that the School Department should budget the same way every other town department budgets, Gold continues, "in fact, all the town departments except the School Department met that budget directive." Less than three paragraphs into a very long letter to the editor and Mr. Gold has already revealed a shocking ignorance of public budgeting theory and practice, not to mention the clear intent of state law.

Notice that Mr. Gold chose to use the non-specific "level budget" terminology instead of the more precise (not to mention honest) term, "level funding" budget. Public budgeters are familiar with the very important difference between a "level-funding" budget and a "level-services" budget.  In fact, there are only two reasons for failing to specify precisely and clearly which one is being referred to in a public budgeting situation. Either the speaker lacks a very basic understanding of public budgeting or the speaker is intentionally being obtuse. In Mr. Gold's case, I think both apply.

The difference between level "funding" and level "service" budget formats is that the former gives a department the same dollar amount as the previous fiscal year, while the latter gives the department the amount of funds necessary to provide the same level of services as the previous year. The appropriateness of the choice between the two formats centers on the issue of "measurability." How precisely can the satisfactory delivery of an agency's services be quantitatively measured for the purposes of optimizing the efficiency of resource allocation decisions?  If it is easy to predict and measure the cost of the successful achievement of an agency's mission, then a "funding" budget is right and proper.  When such a department consistently ends the fiscal year with unspent funds, there are surely savings to be found.  When satisfactory service delivery is not easily predicted, quantified, classified, and prioritized, a "services" budget is much more prudent.  Mr. Gold thinks the satisfactory delivery of K through 12 education is sufficiently predictable and uncomplicated to impose the same level funding budget "directive" on the Schools as has been imposed on the DPW.  You may be thinking me unfair here. Surely Mr. Gold understands that budgeting for the "satisfactory" education of kids cannot be reduced to per unit costs and benefits, like paving sidewalks or mowing lawns?

In his Longmeadow News treatise, Mr. Gold catalogs "four reasons" why the schools should budget like every other department: payroll attrition, declining enrollments, consistent turn backs by the School Committee, and the existence of dedicated fund accounts controlled by the School Committee.

His (mis)understanding of the budgetary impact of "declining enrollments" provides the most vivid and disappointing example of just how little Mr. Gold knows about running a school system. He argues that declining enrollment over the last five years (down 499 students systemwide since 2005) is prima facia evidence that the cost of educating our kids has gone down.  He writes that "neither school department staffing nor funding reflects that enrollment reduction." He drives his point home by telling us that over the same time period "the school department's non-cafeteria staffing has increased as has their overall budget by over 10%."

It is beyond Mr. Gold's comprehension that a reduction in the number of recipients of a service (even apparently a wide range of complex services) would not ipso facto reduce the cost of providing said services. Unfortunately, the members of the School Committee and the schools' administrators have to base their decisions on the complex realities of operating a high quality public school system, not on the Selectboard's childish inability to understand the difference between running a school and running a public works department.

The folks elected by the entire citizenry as the stewards of our schools, as well as the highly trained professionals who run those schools, have for YEARS tried to explain reality to Mr. Gold, and others like him.  How could he not understand? He's a grown man for Christ's sake. Unfortunately, the only reasonable explanation is one Mr. Gold constantly, reflexively, denies. He doesn't believe them. He believes that they are either incompetent or are operating in bad faith; unnecessarily wasting taxpayers money. He believes this because to him it CANNOT POSSIBLY cost 10% more to educate 2800 kids in 2013 than it did to educate 3300 kids in 2004.

Ever try to explain to a nine year old why her allowance is less that her 14 year old sister's, or why her bedtime is earlier? Watching pols like Gold argue with professional education administrators about school budgets is like watching a petulant child arguing with very patient parents trying desperately to explain that their child's notion of fairness is neither fair nor prudent.

One of the reasons Massachusetts law invests so much responsibility in elected school committees for the management and operation of our schools is to protect our schools from know-it-all, self righteous, politicians like Mr. Gold, who understands nothing about the expert management of high quality public schools, but doesn't know that he knows nothing. Mr. Gold thinks the schools should compete with every other town department for funding and that treating the schools differently amounts to giving special treatment to some of our townspeople over others. Thanks to Proposition 2&1/2 local politicians like Mr. Gold have for decades now (unintentionally perhaps) pitted taxpayers with kids in the schools against taxpayers without kids in the schools in order to enforce their misdirected efforts to be careful stewards of taxpayers' money. In reality, these efforts can charitably be described as "penny wise and pound foolish."

Gold faults the School Committee for having routinely given back unspent funds to the town at the end of the budget year. He boasts "that the Selectboard has worked hard to minimize turn backs, and with a track record of consistent turn backs it was felt that better budgeting would prevent us from raising tax money that wasn't going to be spent." Does Gold believe that the money turned back evaporates, or is somehow wasted simply because it didn't become available sooner? Does he suppose that taxpayers oppose increasing our rainy day funds and improving our bond rating?

He thinks the school committee (who unlike the Selectboard serve without any financial compensation) should be compelled to more precisely estimate their costs ahead of time, just like the Selectboard has. So, Gold not only doesn't understand the difference between the school department and the DPW, he also assumes that the School Committee can do their job more efficiently then they do at present simply because the Selectboard realized that it could.

Mr. Gold thinks "contingency" budgets should be smaller in the school department. What remains unclear, however, is how "better budgeting" in the School Department's budget planning stage will save taxpayers any money at all.  The level of precision, in terms of budget planning, that Mr. Gold wants to impose on "every department" will not impact the administration of every department equally.  School department planners are dealing with variables infinitely more difficult to predict and measure quantitatively than are planners at the DPW. In all likelihood, Mr. Gold's wrong headed egalitarianism (or petty spitefulness) would require the School Department to divert resources from more mission critical operations to budget planning.  He defends his argument about reducing turn backs from the schools by pointing out that the School Committee, unlike the Selectboard, has "line item flexibility," which he apparently assumes "frees" them from the uncertainty that justifies contingency budgeting in the first place.  Did it ever occur to Gold that the schools' budget rules are more flexible than the Parks Department FOR A REASON! Does it ever occur to some children that they can't (and more importantly, shouldn't) have everything they want simply because some other kid has it?

He also wants school administrators to stop wasting so much time thinking about how to improve our kids education in a rapidly changing world, and instead to spend more time figuring out (more precisely that they currently do) how many teachers will retire during the year, so they can ask for less in their annual budget proposal.

Finally, Gold believes it is reasonable to impose a level funding budget on the schools because of the existence of "designated fund accounts" controlled by the School Committee. He wants the School Committee to raid these funds to create one time reductions in the schools' budget proposal for the purpose of helping the "general government" (i.e. the departments run by the Selectboard) balance their budgets.  That's right, he doesn't like the idea of the School Committee having money in the bank, so to speak, while the Selectboard doesn't. Gold didn't suggest the funds from the LHS Parking Lot account be used to reduce the oppressive fees we charge our students for extracurriculars; he wants that $40,000 to go to the non-school departments budgets because....well......because the School Committee shouldn't get to have or do stuff that he and the Selectboard cannot.  Pitiful.

Pols like Gold, who pander to anti-tax political sentiment without regard to the substantive realities of public budgeting and finance, make me wish a schools superintendent would channel Jack Nicholsen while testifying about the budget before the Selectboard. I would love to hear a bone fide expert on education administration tell Mr. Gold that she would prefer that he and his fellows respond to the School Department's budget by "just saying thank you" and then "going on [their] way."

Unfortunately, because he doesn't agree with the duly elected officials in whom the town's voters (not just the voters with kids) placed the job of overseeing the operation of the schools, Mr. Gold takes it upon himself to meddle in affairs about which he knows nothing. It's time for the town's voters to meddle with the composition of the Selectboard, replacing Mr. Gold with someone who knows more, or with someone who at least knows what he doesn't know.

Who's Afraid of the SBC?

The opponents of the high school building project remain indignant. Between Jim Moran’s longmeadowbuzz site and the Masslive forum, the out of context facts and narrow choices and interpretations of statistics continue unabated. Surprisingly, these folks may have made some headway with Longmeadow News columnist Alex Grant, whose last two columns are dedicated to attacking the legitimacy of the Longmeadow School Building Committee.

Mr. Grant’s columns are consistently timely, thoughtful, and very well written, and it's important to note here that he is a supporter of the new high school. Notwithstanding the implications of the columns being criticized here, it would be wrong to lump Mr. Grant in with the crowd that continues to work to disrupt and discredit the school building project. However, it would be fair to say that Mr. Grant's criticisms of the SBC are both inaccurate and are providing aid and comfort to the very small but very loud anti-schools faction in town.

The crux of Mr. Grant’s initial piece was that his inability to trace the legal origins of the SBCs authority to manage the school building project suggests –to him-that the committee is exceeding its legal mandate, and is operating as an unaccountable policy making body. He reports that despite a “Freedom of Information request” as well as his review of “available public documents,” he could not find a legal paper trail leading back to the creation of the SBC, though he did acknowledge finding documentation of the appointment of its members by the Select Board and the School Committee acting jointly- a fact that seriously weakens the force of his conclusion that the SBC is not accountable to anyone.

His latest column, a response to the SBC's response to his initial column, seems to double-down on a very weak argument, having had the most salient part of his argument debunked by the SBCs clearly written and precise response. Despite his acknowledgement that the Select Board and School Committee appointed the members, Grant amazingly still claims that there is no proper "appointing authority" and that without a written record of the "creation" of the SBC that includes clear and precise language regarding jurisdiction and oversight, the committee's actions are illegal, illegitimate, or both. In fact, they are neither.

Mr. Grant's complaint amounts to a criticism of present law and standard operating procedures for the administration of local projects of this type and scope. He want's to tether every administrative decision involving large resource commitments to the political process. In other words, he wants more direct democracy on issues such as this because he thinks it "strange that a democratic form of government had produced an unelected entity with the authority to spend more money than the town entire annual budget." If "strange" means unusual, then he's simply wrong. If by "strange" Grant meant that it ought not be done because of the potential for the abuse of administrative discretion, then he's raising an interesting point worth discussing. Unfortunately, Grant has couched his criticisms as charges against the SBC. He thinks they ARE abusing their discretion, not merely that our present legal arrangement grants them too much discretion. On this point, of course, he is clearly wrong.

Mr. Grant should acknowledge this error and reframe his criticism as an argument against the design of the system in place, rather than what amounts to a personal-and baseless- attack on the integrity of the members of the SBC. Carrying water for the always colorful but rarely rational opponents of the new high school is a disservice to the community. Mr. Grant should explicitly disassociate himself and his criticisms of the SBC from this small but vocal faction in town politics.

Safety improvements to football would increase competitiveness

Alex Grant’s column in the January 27th edition of the Longmeadow News about the safety of high school football was a wake-up call for me, and it should generate a thoughtful dialogue among community leaders.

The studies revealing the dangers of head injuries in football are not new, but they are becoming increasingly precise in ways that demand ongoing attention and re-examination, especially from those of us who support and participate in youth football, as my son and I do. For me, the key piece of information provided by Mr. Grant was the finding that medically significant head trauma occurs in collisions that are not severe enough to cause a concussion.

My decision to let my son play football was not easy, but at the end of the day I was satisfied that concussions were the danger to be avoided and contented myself with the notion that I would make my son sit out the remainder of a football season if he got a concussion. If the research on more subtle, even indiscernible, head injuries resulting from routine play in football is sufficiently established, then I will have to strongly reconsider the pros and cons of youth football for my kids.
Many football fans and former players, now parents, see this type of research as an assault on the purity of a game that has considerable -positive- impact on the physical and character development of its players. I share their desire to protect the game and thereby its positive impacts on players. However, I’m not sure that defending the style of play dominant today qualifies as defending the “purity” of the game.

I think there is an argument to be made that these troubling injuries represent, not hard, tough play of a hard, tough game, but rather lazy, unskilled, and misguided play of a game that should require greater intelligence, athleticism and agility from all 11 players. In other words, the increased safety risks of contemporary football represent the real assault on the purity of the game.

As competitive football has become increasingly so, protective gear has evolved in ways that improve safety on the one hand, but that facilitate changes in strategy and tactics as well. The replacement of intelligence, athleticism, agility, and proper form and technique with brute force and power has clearly been an unintended by-product of advances in safety equipment, which are now used to protect from and to project punishment. The increased value of brute force and strength has also clearly allowed less athletic, even less healthy, young men to become valuable players. It has created an incentive to intentionally engage in body development that we know has negative impacts on short and long-term health.

Even linemen on both sides of the ball 50 years ago had to be much more athletic, quick on their feet, and thoughtful. They could rarely rely on size or brute force to overwhelm opponents, nor could they use their entire body as a weapon on every play. The bone crushing “hits” on receivers and backs by defensive players at all levels of football today are just that, “hits.” They are not tackles. They are not the product of expert tackling, but rather they are the result of expert “hitting” which pleases the crowd and adds another psychological layer to football strategy, but it does not equal the level of intelligence, agility, and athleticism required of good tackling. It also results in higher scoring games due to less effective tackling, which ironically is a win-win for pro football where the bottom line is about entertainment. You get highlight reel hits and highlight reel scoring, neither of which should be important in amateur athletics.

The biggest complaint about youth football players is their lack of sound tackling skills. But just as youth basketball players mimic the fundamentally unsound maneuvers of NBA players, such as traveling and carrying, young football players see NFL “hits” as the way it’s supposed to be done. The most serious injuries in football come most frequently from bad tackling technique; from “hits,” not from sound tackles.

The NFL doesn’t really play the game designed by Walter Camp at Yale University in the 1870’s, and because the “pro game” is about entertainment, not physical fitness or character development, I believe that youth, high school, and even college football need to set themselves apart from the game’s professional incarnation in much the same way as youth, high school, and college wrestling have always done. Today, neither pro football nor pro wrestling have anything to do with fitness or character development, which makes both incompatible with the goals of youth, high school, and college athletics.

I believe that football can be played safely, not by demanding less of an important quality like toughness, but rather by requiring more of qualities like, tactical intelligence, teamwork, athleticism, quickness, and agility. Restoration of amateur football’s purity may require smaller shoulder pads, helmets without face masks that can be used as weapons, and rules reforms that reduce the functionality of uncontrolled power. It may prove less exciting for the fans in the stands, but it would also prove much more competitive, and frankly more difficult, for the players on the field, which I think everyone would admit is far more important for the development of student-athletes.

Last Minute Voting Tips, Recommendations

Remember the two most important factors when deciding how to vote:
1. Your own perspective
2. The powers, responsibilities, and limitations of the office being sought

For any race, voters should have a clear understanding of exactly what they want from an elected official, regardless of the position. When choosing someone to provide a service to you, it’s the service you require and want that must be well understood. You want candidates who share your philosophy, view of the facts, and your interests. Don’t let candidates attract you to their ideas, claims and interests. Pick the ones that come closest to you.

Make sure you understand what an office holder’s actual role, responsibilities and powers will actually be if elected. Ask yourself if a candidate’s promises are even possible in the office they are seeking. For example, if a candidate for an executive office like mayor or governor is promising tax cuts or specific reforms, it’s important to understand that he or she CANNOT PASS ANYTHING alone. Electing a governor, for example, who will face a legislature of the other party can be tricky. While it may create a useful check and balance, it will also render that gubernatorial candidate’s promises on taxes or other legislation effectively moot.

When voting for a legislator, state or federal, remember that this person will be one of many. Do not be fooled by legislative candidates who claim that they will bring change, or any specific policy achievements. Also, be wary of candidates for legislative office who simply offer empty rhetoric, like “a strong voice” or an “end to business as usual.” It is very important to match your general philosophy when choosing legislators, especially because legislatures are run by political parties, which are separated by general philosophy. In legislative elections, parties matter most. If you are liberal, don’t be fooled into voting for a conservative. If you are conservative, don’t be fooled into voting for a liberal.

Smart voters have a clear idea about the appropriate role of government. They also have at least a basic understanding of the way their local, state, and federal governments actually work. They are neither cynical, nor naïve. If you are not sure that you fit this description of a smart voter, YOU STILL HAVE TO VOTE! Either do your best, or find a friend who you trust and respect and take his or her cues. Cue voting is a perfectly rational approach to fulfilling your civic responsibility. Obviously, the hard part is choosing your trustee wisely.

Good luck.

P.S. My ballot choices: (offices not listed are those I have not looked at closely enough to recommend)

• No on all ballot questions
• Patrick/Murray for Governor/Lt. Gov.
• Candaras for State Senate
• Ashe for State Representative
• Mastroianni for District Attorney

Professionalism over Political Rhetoric

Sometimes the stakes of an election are too high to let empty rhetoric go unchallenged. The election for Hampden County District Attorney this year is one such election. We have had the luxury of a highly professional DA for the last 20 years, effectively taking our DAs office off the list of stepping stone jobs for ambitious politicians. Unfortunately, the Democratic candidate for DA this year is intent on changing this.

Hampden County voters have already elected a popular state senator to a Clerk of Courts post who lacked any relevant qualifications for that job and may be poised to similarly politicize the county’s top law enforcement office. Comically, then Senator Brian Lees made very similar arguments for why (despite not even being a lawyer) he should be elected Clerk of Courts as Senator Buoniconti is now making for why he (despite his lack of trial and prosecutorial experience) should be elected District Attorney.

When Bill Bennett chose to retire, the initial crop of interested candidates was very encouraging; all career trial attorneys. Then, career politician Steve Buoniconti decided to exploit his huge political war chest (raised to support his state senate re-elections) to get himself promoted to the more visible DAs office. The result was a primary campaign in which the well financed and well organized Buoniconti campaign avoided saying anything substantive, frequently borrowing ideas and arguments from the websites of his much more qualified challengers in order to avoid embarrassment in debates. Thanks to superior name recognition, low voter turnout, and a local media unwilling to engage in investigative journalism, Buoniconti survived the primary despite having the thinnest resume and a host of ethical questions swirling around him.

But alas, all was not lost. Mark Mastroianni’s decision to avoid the crowded Democratic primary and run as an independent candidate may end up saving the local Democratic establishment from itself. Mastroianni, who like Buoniconti spent 5 years as an ADA, has since become one of the most successful and well respected defense attorney’s in the state.

Unlike Buoniconti, Mastroianni’s five years as a prosecutor were very distinguished, making it necessary for the Buoniconti campaign to minimize the importance of trial and prosecution experience in the race to become the county’s top prosecutor. Instead, Buoniconti is claiming to have superior “vision” and “community outreach” skills that will make him a better DA. Despite the vacuous nature of this argument, Buoniconti hopes to survive by exploiting his financial and organizational advantages. His ability to use Democratic coattails and other party mobilization efforts are crucial to his chances of beating his much more qualified opponent in November.

Mastroianni, on the other hand, has benefited from a surge in post-primary fundraising and endorsements from key prosecutorial and law enforcement individuals and groups. In addition, there is a not so quiet whispering campaign among Democratic Party officials and activists who say that they will vote for Mastroianni, but cannot publicly endorse him because of their place in the party infrastructure.

My own vocal opposition to Mr. Buoniconti’s election has jeopardized my elected positions on both my town Democratic Committee and the Democratic State Committee. Nonetheless, I continue to speak out forcefully against the election of an unqualified, career politician to the DAs office because public safety is too important and too precarious in our region to be sacrificed on the altar of partisan politics. Mark Mastroianni has earned the respect and the endorsements of the vast majority of the WMass law enforcement community for a reason. Law enforcement professionals do not want to be led by a career politician, especially one who thinks that a DA’s public relations duties are more important than his law enforcement duties.

More Democratic Party leaders need to come out of the shadows and admit that the party has nominated an unqualified candidate for Hampden County District Attorney, whose inexperience in law enforcement and as a trial attorney will not be mitigated by his political experience on Beacon Hill. Though I have publicly endorsed the independent candidate over the party’s nominee, I encourage other state and local party committee members to come out publicly against Mr. Buoniconti’s election. Doing so without explicitly endorsing Mastroianni’s election will prevent Buoniconti partisans in the state party from trying to punish you by threatening your party committee membership. The safety of our communities is too important to be left to politicians.


Jerold Duquette, M.P.A., Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Political Science
Central Connecticut State University

69 Clairmont Street
Longmeadow, MA 01106

DAs Debate

The debate between Mark Mastroianni and Steve Buoniconti is easy to summarize. Mr. Buoniconti asks us to vote for him because of his "vision" and because he is the "candidate of change." I'm not joking; he really said both of these things. Mr. Mastroianni's pitch is a bit more conventional. He asks us to vote for him because of his skill and experience as a trial attorney.

Basically, Buoniconti is trying to make the DAs office appear to be something other than the county's top cop. With the exception of angrily taking exception to a her characterization of his prosecutorial experience in an exchange with Republican reporter Stephanie Barry, Senator Buoniconti repeatedly tried to downplay the prosecutorial duties of the DA, preferring instead to see the position as "a prosecutor & more." Ostensibly, he's the "and more" candidate. Buoniconti has adopted the proposals of several of his primary challengers, despite the fact that these same candidates are now supporting Mastroianni. When asked how he would make his many ideas about "community prosecution" work, Buoniconti simply said that he "wouldn't rest" until they worked, and that he would make his people work "very hard."

On the other hand, Mr. Mastroianni made the case that all of the community programming being promised by Buoniconti is laudable but futile if the DAs office is not able to earn the respect of the community by doing its primary function, prosecutions, very well. While Mastroianni essentially supported the "ideas" Buoniconti is relying on, Buoniconti has essentially conceded that Mastroianni is the better attorney.

The panel of questioners tried to frame the race as one between a candidate focused on the courthouse and prosecutorial professionalism and a candidate who wanted to expand the scope and visibility of the DAs office in the community. What they likely realized, but were too polite to articulate, is that Buoniconti's community rhetoric, which is indistinguishable from his rhetoric as a state legislator, is a strategy of necessity. Buoniconti cannot run for the county's top prosecutor position as a trial lawyer because he isn't a trial lawyer and when he was he failed to distinguish himself. Buoniconti even tried to argue that the DA is NOT the top trial attorney, but rather is a manager and leader of a large complex organization, an angle that he avoided in the primaries because all of his opponents had much more leadership and management experience. Though he still compares badly with his November opponent on this score, he has no real choice because he compares even more unfavorably with Mastroianni on trial court experience and success.

Now that the race is down to two candidates, Buoniconti's inexperience and lack of knowledge about the DAs role are increasingly apparent. To win, Buoniconti must succede in running out the clock and winning the media coverage battle. Mr. Mastroianni, who has apparently raised quite a bit of campaign cash since the primary election, has to be very aggressive in highlighting his own experience and his priorities for the DAs office.

Both candidates will use "contrast" ads and charges in the weeks ahead. Buoniconti tipped his hand on this tactic during the debate, arguing that Mastroianni's success as a defense attorney and his work for high profile criminal defendants would "delight" criminals who would see a Mastroianni election as a win for criminal defendants. He claimed that he "couldn't wrap his head around" how Mastroianni could "turn on a dime" and go from criminal defense to criminal prosecution. This approach is sensible politically, given Buoniconti's serious credentials and experience disadvantages, but it also illustrates his lack of understanding of the criminal justice system. In fact, he is unintentionally (one hopes) discrediting the criminal justice system by implying that defense lawyers are not seeking justice. He's making a purely political argument, driven by electoral motives, and he's actually illustrating how talented a trial attorney Mastroianni is when he attacks him for defending high profile criminal defendants. Obviously, such defendants usually get the most talented attorneys and Mastroianni's knowledge and experience on both sides of the criminal justice system over the last twenty years is obviously more important for a DA than Buoniconti's undistinguished tenure as an ADA and his decade long immersion in Beacon Hill politics.

Buoniconti even tried to claim that Mastroianni's defense work would cost the county too much money because he would have to recuse himself from prosecutions of former clients, while there would be "no such conflicts" if he were elected. Despite the mack truck sized opening here, Mastroianni didn't pounce on the myriad of political conflicts of interest weighing down the state senator. Instead he merely referred obliquely to the fact that he has to keep defending clients to feed his family, while Buoniconti gets "checks" for doing nothing.

This was, of course, a reference to Buoniconti's "work" for the Hampden County Retirement Board, a job the board admits was given to him in order to leverage his influence on Beacon Hill. When questioned directly about this obvious conflict of interest and blatant example of influence peddling, Buoniconti was indignant, but not informative. At one point he tried to deflect criticism by pointing out that the guy who had the job before him was someone who deserves great respect. He didn't happen to mention that his predecessor in the HCRB job was also a state legislator hired for his influence on Beacon Hill. Nor did he remind the audience that the Retirement Board admitted that they hired another (non-politician) attorney to handle the board's "more complicated legal work."

Senator Buoniconti has been over matched in every debate so far in this race. Last night was only different in that his incompetence was more obvious. All of his responses were canned, rehearsed, and light on relevant detail. He rhetorical weapon of choice all night was the glib cliche. He completely avoided elements of questions that required knowledge of prosecutorial procedures. Mastroianni, on the other hand responded to the law professors questions in a lawyerly, intelligent way, trying to be precise. Nobody in that audience, even Buoniconti's supporters, could possibly believe that he is more qualified and a better attorney than Mastroianni.

I wish the law faculty at WNEC were willing to judge last night's debate because although both candidates have WENC law degrees, only one of them represented the law school well last night.

Open Letter to the LDTC

Dear fellow Democrats,

I understand there is some disappointment about my opposition to the election of Democrat Steve Buoniconti to the position of Hampden County DA. I would like to take this opportunity to explain why I will be supporting the Independent candidacy of Mark Mastroianni for this critically important position in local law enforcement. However, I also want to acknowledge the legitimacy of concerns about the party rules regarding the endorsement of non-Democrats. I am fully prepared to accept whatever sanctions the local or state party may choose to impose on me for my opposition to Buoniconti’s election and my strong support for his much more qualified opponent, Mark Mastroianni.

The fact that county offices like the sheriff, DA, and clerks of court include partisan primaries in Massachusetts is unfortunate. The nature of these posts, all of which involve the administration of justice, makes them a poor fit for partisan politics. The district attorney’s office cannot be allowed to become a landing zone or stop over post for career politicians. The effectiveness of the office requires that the DA stand beyond the reach of the political quid pro quo that animates the public policy making processes in city and town halls and on Beacon Hill. A district attorney’s credibility with average citizens is essential for the maintenance of effective partnerships with community leaders and neighborhood residents, whose cooperation in the prevention, investigation, and prosecution of crime is crucial.

If we elect a career state legislator, whose credentials as an attorney and a prosecutor are paper thin, and whose conduct on a number of fronts remains questionable, we may well be doing irreparable harm to the district attorney’s office by inviting very reasonable doubt about the capability and priorities of our county’s top law enforcement official. Furthermore, our town committee may well be doing harm to its own credibility by supporting a candidate that everyone knows is far less capable and qualified than his opponent. What is gained by holding our noses and supporting the Democrat Buoniconti? There is no policy issue on which Buoniconti has a substantively different position than his opponent. There is no difference in the stated goals of both candidates, or even in their support of particular law enforcement strategies. The only difference is that Buoniconti is simply saying what he’s told to say in order to get the job and Mastroianni actually knows what he’s talking about and has demonstrated that he wants to do the job.

I have listened very closely to each candidate in this race. Senator Buoniconti’s performances in the debates have been embarrassing. His campaign material and public statements are filled with vague generalizations and feel good rhetoric, something slightly more forgivable in a legislative election but totally unacceptable in a race for DA, especially from a candidate with a very weak resume. He is very clearly in way over his head.

I do not like having to speak so frankly and publicly about Senator Buoniconti’s lack of fitness for this position. As far as I know, he has been an able state senator and I have always known him to be a friendly sincere fellow, but we simply cannot afford to offer him the benefit of the doubt on a job like district attorney. On the job training is not appropriate for the county’s top cop, nor is the ever-present possibility of political scandal (real or trumped up by political adversaries) when electing a career politician.

I believe in the nobility of politics as well as the nobility of public service. With my support for Mark Mastroianni in the race for Hampden County DA, I am putting my money where my mouth is. I strongly encourage my fellow Democrats to put our party’s principles ahead of its protocols this November by casting your vote for Independent candidate Mark Mastroianni in the race for Hampden County District Attorney.

Jerold J. Duquette, M.P.A., Ph.D.
Member, Longmeadow Democratic Town Committee
Member, MA Democratic State Committee
69 Clairmont Street
Longmeadow, MA 01106
Jeroldduquette@comcast.net
www.jeroldduquette.org

Goodhines calls for Buoniconti to Withdraw

The following is a press release from the Goodhines campaign.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELASE
September 2, 2010

GOODHINES CALLS FOR BUONICONTI TO WITHDRAW
FROM RACE FOR DISTRICT ATTORNEY

SPRINGFIELD, MA – Based on mounting evidence of Senator Buoniconti’s questionable ethics, Jim Goodhines, candidate for Hampden County District Attorney, called on Buoniconti to withdraw from the race.

“The story on the front page of in this morning’s edition of The Republican revealing Senator Buoniconti’s failure to report $100,000 in income to the State Ethics Commission was the final straw in an ever growing haystack of evidence pointing to the Senator’s questionable ethics.

“I simply can’t stand idly by while someone who has exhibited such poor judgment pursues the highest law enforcement position in Hampden County. This may be how business gets done on Beacon Hill, but not in our courthouses.

“In addition to today’s revelations in the paper, Senator Buoniconti has accepted, and only under duress, returned campaign contributions from convicted felons and special interest groups. He’s embellished his legal experience, claiming that he was a Chief Prosecutor when in reality he only acted in that capacity briefly while the appointed Chief Prosecutor was out of the office. He claims to have supported CORI reform legislation in his Spanish language campaign brochure despite having voted against it. And the list goes on.

“Politics brought Senator Buoniconti to this race, and politics is what we’ll get in the DA’s office if he is elected. Being the District Attorney is not a political opportunity, it is a serious job. It’s a job that demands integrity and a commitment to seeking the truth. Senator Buoniconti’s choices raise serious questions about his commitment to justice and his ability to maintain the integrity of the Office of District Attorney. I urge him, for the sake of the Office and the people of Hampden County to do the right thing and withdraw from this race.”

The New Buz will Continue!

Im sure many Longmeadow residents were very dissappointed by the capture of the LongmeadowBuzz web forum by anti-school and anti-community zealots and the censoring of posts that were critical of the web master's political positions durinig this Spring's town election season. Having lost its credibility in our community, I have launched an "uncensored" alternative here for the arguments and opinions of all Longmeadow residents.

Here at the Buz, no one's opinions will be censored for content and every opinion, accompanied by the name and address of its author, is welcome. Unlike the now discredited Buzz, here residents are welcome to post information on ANY topic of concern that they want to share with fellow residents.

There is no need to sign up for the new Buz, you simply have to email your post to jeroldduquette@comcast.net and I will post it for you.

Please consider becoming a follower of the new Buz and enjoy the opportunity to participate in free and open discussion and debate with your neighbors and friends.

Longmeadow must reject the dividers.

The ferocity of opponents' efforts to prevent Longmeadow from accepting $34 million grant from the state to be used to re-build LHS is truly alarming. Trying to get a handle on the substance of the opposition's argument was easy, they have no substantive argument. All of their seemingly legitimate questions and concerns were clearly and definitively dealt with during a very comprehensive and transparent process that began in 2007. What they do have is the will to say absolutely anything that might confuse enough low information voters to derail the new high school project without regard for the financial consequences to the town's tax payers.

After all of Mr. Wojcik's and Mr. Fregeau's and Mr. Gold's and Mr. Moran’s arguments were thoroughly disproved, the folks with the ironic group names ("A Better Longmeadow" and Citizens for Responsible Government") have settled on one last ditch argument; a conspiracy.

Since actual evidence of a conspiracy doesn't exist, these militant anti-school residents have decided to employ some old fashion misdirection. Arguments about real costs and state funding processes are gone, replaced by out of context excerpts from correspondence between the MSBA and Longmeadow's School Building Committee. You do have to admire their nerve; taking letters that essentially prove they are wrong and simply pretending that they support their disproven claims. The letters in question, which have been and are publicly available, and which have been thoroughly discussed and referenced by advocates of the project in public, actually prove that the MSBA would have preferred renovation if it could be done well enough for less. These letters also reveal that the MSBA experts, not the town's, inspected the facility and determined that a rehab would be too costly and not sufficient to guarantee the building's long term viability.

The MSBA, though its own independent inspection and analysis ruled out state funding for any rehabilitation. This indisputable fact makes it perfectly clear that a NO vote on Tuesday could not possibly save Longmeadow tax payers ONE THIN DIME! In the absence of state money from the MSBA there is absolutely no doubt that repairing the high school would cost more than the $44 million we'd be paying if the voters say YES on Tuesday to a brand new, 21st Century high school.

So you see, the opponents aren't defending tax payers. If they succeed tax payers will pay more for less. They are essentially culture warriors who have convinced themselves that any money for schools is part of a socialist conspiracy that must be stopped at all costs, literally and figuratively. They are the Glenn Beck devotees among us, if you will. The fact that some of the new high school project's most visible supporters are VERY conservative Republicans, many of whom have opposed overrides in the past, has completely escaped these folks' notice.

No matter what happens on Tuesday, this town needs to have a serious conversation about how we govern ourselves. The leaders of this insane, anti-school, anti-tax payer crusade have to be taken to task and removed from any positions of authority in our town government. It would be a bit more understandable if the override in question was really going to cost tax payers more than the alternative, but the clearly established fact that Longmeadow's taxpayers will pay MORE if we reject the state's $34 million grant moves the opponents' argument from bad but understandable to bad, stupid, and counter-productive. In times like these Longmeadow absolutely cannot afford stupid.

Vote YES on Tuesday and reject any candidate who hasn't been willing to stand up and call a spade a spade. Its time Longmeadow dumps its dead weight and moves forward with seriousness of purpose, integrity, and most importantly, intelligence regarding its precarious fiscal challenges.

A YES vote will not only save us on our property tax bills, it may actually save our town from fiscal suicide at the hands of the former and current leaders whose incompetence put us in a fiscal bind in the first place.

Jerold Duquette

In Katherine Craven's Own Words

Truly a shame that the opposition has resorted to such a tactic. Here are the Executive Director Katherine Craven's own words from the meeting with Longmeadow residents on May 18th 2010.

Question: "CAN YOU CONFIRM THAT A LETTER WAS SENT FROM THE MSBA TO THE LONGMEADOW SCHOOL BUILDING COMMITTEE IN NOVEMBER 2009 ASKING THAT THE SCHOOL BUILDING COMMITTEE RESUBMIT THEIR PROPOSAL WITH ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING BUILDING RENOVATION?"

Answer: Yes, When we first looked at the initial-this is not unusual either-as I said before, our general impulse is to renovate when we can-because we have less surprises potentially about the building SITE in a lost of places. We needed clarification on the renovation costs-we thought it was very high when it first came into us and then we realized the level of effort that was required in a renovation including that all of the structures within the building would have to be completely gutted. We thought that the unit costs for the foundation seem a little high. We'd gone back and forth with the Town and their professionals on all of these minute details--and that's NOT AN UNUSUAL thing for us because before I would make any recommendations to Treasurer Cahill and the Board of the MSBA, I want to make sure that we had all the answers on the costing.

There were several things , as I mentioned before MULTIPLE TIMES, that convinced us that the new school building was probably the more COST EFFECTIVE SOLUTION for Longmeadow High School's problems. The structural problem in the front, ADA in the building, the subterranean sort of utilities and issues--those things would have had to be pulled out. 4.5 years of phased renovation vs 2.25 years of new building phasing. Those are ALL VERY COMPELLING reasons that we thought that the new building scenario that was presented to us--after hearing the CLARIFICATIONS on the reno REALLY MADE SENSE TO US.

Question: "WHAT ROLE DID CONGRESSMAN NEAL, STATE SENATOR CANDARAS, AND STATE REP ASHE PLAY REGARDING THE LONGMEADOW SCHOOL BUILDING COMMITTEE DISCUSSIONS WITH THE MSBA DID THESE OFFICIALS IN ANY WAY INTERACT WITH THE MSBA ON BEHALF OF THE LONGMEADOW SBC, AND IF SO IN WHAT CAPACITY AND TO WHAT OUTCOME?"

Answer: I talked to Sen Candaras and Rep Ashe all the time as part of my job, We're an agency that has to do annual reports to the legislature. We have a lot of sets of eyes watching how we spend your money. The time that any legislator could actually affect any decision by the Authority is whether or not to put you in the pipeline to begin with.

There are plenty of districts just waiting to get to the position that Longmeadow is in right now. There are probably ONLY 70 DISTRICTS that are in the pipeline to the extent that Longmeadow is and I can point out to you that it is BECAUSE of the STRUCTURAL PROBLEMS that I can't point to any other district buildings that aren't in the pipeline for 34MILLION right now.

The whole question of whether a congressman, rep or senator or even GOD could influence this project could only have occurred prior to you getting into the pipeline.

LUCKILY YOUR CONDITIONS WERE SO BAD THAT WE TOOK YOU ALMOST RIGHT AWAY--after a 4 year moratorium.

You have every right to question us for our veracity, credibility, track record but I'm happy to say that we actually have a good track record of doing what we say. We wouldn't be here today if we did not follow through--and we have the money for you set aside. We tried to set up something that is SO ABOVE BOARD AND CREDIBLE that is outside the usual process and that's what the legislature basically said to do. "

Ms. Craven spent a significant amout of time answering questions from Mr. Moran, Mr Occhuiti, Mr. Nolet and Mr. Wojik. In fact, Mr. Nolet asked Ms. Craven to send us MORE money! She answered all of their questions completely and truthfully.

Mr. Moran's last minute attack on the process and the integrity of the School Building Committee is his last shot of bolstering his candidate's support. Sad that Mr. Moran and the members of A Better Longmeadow have to resort to dirty politics to try and spread fear and doubt when this process has been completely tranparent!

By Christine Swanson

Paranoid Personalized Politics

The following is a famous quotation about intelligence/ critical thinking variously attributed to folks like Eleanor Roosevelt and Einstein.

People with extraordinary minds, talk about ideas.
People with average minds, talk about events.
People with simple minds, talk about other people.

The quote mirrors the levels of analysis; from subjective opinion (people) though facts (events) and to thoughtful interpretation (ideas). Everyone operates at all three levels, though too often not in an integrated way. Critical thinking involves the logical integration of all three levels of analysis in the effort to answer a complex question.

The practitioners of Paranoid Personalized Politics are trapped in the lowest level of analysis (people) to the extent that both the factual and conceptual levels of analysis serve only to reinforce their emotionally driven feelings about politics. An inability (or unwillingness) to logically integrate facts and ideas with their emotion laden opinions leads to political positions and arguments in which everything is attributed to the intentions, actions, etc… of people (individuals and/or groups).

These are the folks who see liberals or conservatives as the root of all evil. They attach blame to people or groups as if systems, environments, and other relevant factors are absent leaving only good and bad people to praise and blame. Longmeadow, like every small town, has at least its share of PPP. Right now the small band of lunatics opposing the new high school project are providing us with a very stark example of PPP. Their opposition to the project is %100 rooted in distrust and dislike for certain people, and/or a certain kind of people. They claim that these evil people who want to tax the elderly out of their homes have literally “conspired” to manipulate the Massachusetts School Building Authority to fund an excessively expensive new school instead of a renovation.

Specifics claims like Jerry Nolet’s assertion that the new building was a taj Mahal supported by guilt ridden working moms, and Mr. Fregeau’s charge that communists among us want to close the library and get rid of the books, are comical but also sad and a bit scary. Not to be outdone, Mr. Wojcik decided to falsely accuse a university professor and Select Board member of having “no use for the [Storrs} library.” He even claims to have a quotation to that effect.

What evidence do they have for their counter-intuitive (to say nothing of counter-factual) claims? They have out of context quotes from letters that have been publicly available and publicly discussed by proponents of the project. In a comical effort at cleverness, these folks who claim to be for “A Better Longmeadow” submitted a Freedom of Information request for these letters that have been publicly available all along. All the better to sell a conspiracy theory, no doubt. The fact that their charges of conspiracy were directly refuted by the MSBAs executive director while in Longmeadow speaking about the project, only adds fuel to the engine of this dastardly conspiracy. Of course she denied it! That’s exactly what we’d expect from an evil doer, right?

While this sort of behavior is usually harmless, since the vast majority of Longmeadow voters recognize this irrational paranoia, it is still something we must nip in the bud. Our particular form of government, which requires that any significant investment decisions be to the voters, creates opportunities for these paranoid fantasies to produce very counter-productive decisions about local governance.

We can’t afford to spare the feelings of folks like Mark Gold, Roger Wojcik, Jerry Nolet, and Philip Fregeau. We have to be brutally honest with voters about the emotionally and intellectually immature approach of these perpetual gadflies before they do serious harm to the financial stability of our town. We cannot afford to let their foolishness cost us our high quality public services, like the library and senior center, which ironically would only be in jeopardy if these fools succeed in misinforming the voters. They have to be called out loudly and clearly. We have to shine a bright light on their baseless, irrational, rantings if we want to protect our town’s historic identity and values.

It’s a dirty job, but somebody’s got to do it.

A Generational Decision

As one of the oldest incorporated towns in the Commonwealth, Longmeadow has maintained and embraced its long history and bucolic surroundings. The true New England charm of our town serves a backdrop to delivering outstanding services to the residents. Our Public Safety, Senior Services, Parks & Recreation Departments and Library touch all residents. Our school system's reputation of excellence is one of the key components in making Longmeadow a community of choice among new residents. Longmeadow is a great place to live and raise a family.

As we embark into the second decade of the 21st century, Longmeadow, like other communities, is challenged with difficult decisions. The challenging conditions seen in our global economy can be felt in our own backyards. Similar to other suburban communities, this year we are again asked to find balance in the delivery of services we have grown to expect and the cost of providing them.

Like other New England communities, our infrastructure is aging. Though we have made great progress in recent years with the addition of a Fire Department Complex, three elementary school renovations, general site work and other modest building upgrades, there are still key projects like the town's water and sewer lines, the DPW facility and a long term, sustainable solution to the condition of our largest asset, the Longmeadow High School, that need our attention.

Throughout the decades and centuries of Longmeadow's existence, local government and residents have been presented with similar issues as we face today. Our tax base is limited by its residential nature therefore large capital based projects and infrastructure investments must be fully vetted and deemed the right use and investment of taxpayer dollars. Nearly a century ago the high school, two middle schools and five elementary schools were built; the investment in our town rests on our shoulders. We need to embrace any opportunity that allows us to rebuild our worn out infrastructure.

One of these opportunities is upon us. The design of a new/renovated Longmeadow High School submitted to the MSBA for funding approval includes a new academic building combined with a renovation of the 1971 wing. Our state's school building authority, the MSBA, announced on March 31 that it had approved a maximum grant reimbursement of $34,004,658 towards the cost of our high school addition/renovation project.

On May 25, the Special Town Meeting took the first step to fund the high school project by approving the warrant article. The next step will be the ballot question on June 8. It is a simple majority vote - if residents vote yes then we move forward with the project and funding from the state; if residents vote no, then the high school project fails and funding from the state will no longer be available.

For nearly 13 years we have been working toward the possibility presented today, where a viable option finally exists to fix our high school and can be presented to you, our residents for approval.

Over the last 22 months, the Longmeadow School Building Committee (SBC) has worked to position our project within the guidelines of the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA), knowing full well that we had one shot to take advantage of the current reimbursement program. The alternative: compete with hundreds of communities and nearly 500 other statements of interest filed with the MSBA. Since the 2008 Fall Town Meeting High School Feasibility Study funding approval, the SBC has been working towards a solution to the high school's aging facilities. Working in collaboration with the MSBA, the owner's project manager Joslin Lesser & Associates, and OMR Architects, Longmeadow completed its required Feasibility Study and Schematic Design in March 2010.

As stated earlier, Longmeadow is now asked to balance among several challenges. In the short-term a potential for reduction and restructuring of town and school services may have a noticeable impact. In the long-term we are asked to consider a sizeable capital investment. This intersection of seemingly opposing dynamics is unusual, and may be faced only once in a generation. Though this is not the first time Longmeadow contemplates its future, we believe this decision may define the complexion of our community for decades to come.

Surrounding communities have recently supported investing in new high school projects while facing the same economic constraints. We hope that as a community, we seek to understand each and all of the dimensions that this decision will have, encompassing both current residents and future generations. Though it is difficult to separate today's seemingly uphill battle from the hope and promise of a better tomorrow, we believe Longmeadow will ultimately make the right decision.

In conclusion, we would like to thank all of you the citizens of Longmeadow. Your participation, comments, questions and concerns bring great value to both of us and our fellow School Building Committee members.

Robert E. Barkett, Co-Chair, SBC

Peter Greenberg, SBC Member and Finance Committee Liaison

Jenn Jester will be a great School Committee member

Jennifer Jester is running for the School Committee for all the right reasons. Her overly modest description of herself as "an attorney, a mother, and an active citizen" evidences exactly the kind of practical results orientation public spiritedness that we need right now in town government.

Jennifer's impressive educational and professional accomplishments are nowhere to be found in her campaign materials. Instead she focuses what she will do as a member of the committee and on her vision of our schools and our town's commitment to excellence.

Anyone who has had the opportunity to speak with Jennifer Jester is probably already supporting her candidacy. For others, I strongly recommend contacting her and speaking with her about our schools before you go into the voting booth on June 8th.

I am thrills to have the opportunity to elect Jennifer Jester to the School Committee, where I know she will be a committed advocate for and defender of our communities high educational standards and our children's promising future.

Jerold Duquette
Former School Committee member

The Facts, Ma'am.

In case you were wondering about the flurry of papers that fell out of your Reminder this week, one of them is from the Citizens for a Responsible Government. This organization has been opposed to much progress in the town's history, and I was pleased to see that Mark Barowsky, Chair of the Longmeadow Finance Committee, responded to what he called the "published propoganda" via a note to the School Building Committee (SBC) with many points of clarification and correction. Of course, the SBC knows the truth, so he is preaching to the choir. I post much of his letter here as a way of reaching out to a wider audience of interested readers. All emphasis via bold/italics is mine.

"A flyer inserted in this week's reminder by the CITIZENS FOR A RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT made erroneous statements as to the position and [recommendation] of the Finance Committee presented at the Special Town meeting on May 11th.

"The Finance Committee's recommendation was that the project is 'financially feasible' not 'feasible'"

"The Finance Committee at no time stated that taxes will double by the year 2020 if only this project was approved"

"The Finance Committee's calculation for the rise in taxes through 2020 NEVER included a negotiated contractual escalation of 4.5% for labor costs"

What about those other projects? Like other town buildings? Like the DPW facilities? Or Williams or Glenbrook? Or how about a sky bridge to connect the Community House and Town Hall? Or a monorail, for that matter? ;-)

In all seriousness, lots of things can be considered, but few are within the realm of possibility. What does Mr. Barowsky say about them?

"The Finance Committee has noted that while there have been many studies performed that there has been no prioritization for any of the projects and while there is a recognized need, it has yet been determined if any of these projects need to be on an immediate basis. The Finance Committee has recommended that the boards prioritize and put a plan in place as to which and when each project should be initiated."

"Unless the statement was made behind closed doors, the comment that 'several of the Finance Committee members repeatedly insisted that property owners could always choose not to pay the taxes' was never made in our meetings. Such an aberration can only be deemed a deception."

"This Citizens for a Responsible Government seem to use such information as a drunken man uses lamp posts - for support rather than for illumination."

I don't know about that, but I do know that the focus on any town vote should be based on the facts, on the legitimate merits of a case. The facts of the LHS are clear--clearly disturbing. The need for action has been established. The proposed plan meets those needs and addresses the concerns about maintenance and cost effectiveness. The proposal we will vote on JUNE 8th at the Community House from 8am to 8pm is a financially feasible proposal. The whole town will benefit if the vote is a gracious YES, thank you.

Rebecca M. Townsend
for more information, go to Lancer Pride.org

This just in from Peter Greenberg, also a member of the Finance Committee:

As a member of the Finance Committee, whose responsibility it is to conduct long range fiscal planning, we have reviewed a number of 10 year scenarios. When you scenario plan, you assume both good and bad. That leads to “what ifs”, uncertainty and outright guesses. I admit that I don’t have the powers to foresee the next 10 years and these days, it’s hard to predict what may happen 6 months from now. But what I can tell you today, at this moment, is that our Town has very little long term debt and can afford the LHS project before you, our residents on June 8.

I don’t have to remind you that our town’s financial Achilles heel is that our tax base is limited by its residential nature and the restrictions of Proposition 2 1/2. There simply is very little extra revenue to fund these major capitol projects while trying to maintain the level of day to day services that we now enjoy. We have to find, and if deemed proper, embrace any opportunity that allows us to one by one, rebuild our worn out infrastructure.

One of these opportunities is upon us. For nearly thirteen years, we have been trying to get to this point today, where a viable option finally exists to fix our High School. Over the last 22 months, the Longmeadow School Building Committee (SBC) of which I am also a member, has worked to position our project within the guidelines of the MSBA, knowing full well that we had one shot to take advantage of the current reimbursement program. The alternative: Lose the approved 34 million dollar grant and literally start over competing with 100’s of other school districts already vying for the same dollars. Again, looking at this moment in time, losing that money would be in my opinion, financially irresponsible.

Thousands of hours have gone into the design of the high school submitted to and approved by the MSBA for funding. It keeps us competitive with other bedroom communities in providing a high school facility that can legitimately reach a 50-year life cycle. It will allow our teachers today and tomorrow to fully take advantage of 21st century learning initiatives and it provides key academic and community spaces that our current footprint under any renovation plan would be difficult to match.

Surrounding communities have recently supported investing in new high school projects while facing similar economic constraints as Longmeadow. I hope that as a community, we seek to understand every dimension of this decision, encompassing both current residents and future generations. Though it is difficult to separate today’s seemingly uphill battle from the hope and promise of a better tomorrow, I believe the residents of Longmeadow will ultimately make the right decision.

In the 50’s my grandparents made that decision by voting for the construction of our current high school facility. I honor their memory and their foresight to keep excellence in the delivery of Longmeadow’s public education, by suggesting that we do the right thing for our children and grandchildren, and vote yes for this project.

Thank you.
Peter Greenberg

Michael Clark deserves your vote.

Twenty year old UMass student Michael Clark wants to contribute to the leadership of his hometown, where he was raised, educated, and intends to remain after college graduation. His campaign, which includes folks of all ages and stages, has been very impressive in its organization, outreach, and seriousness. His public statements and arguments, especially his strong support for the new high school project, have been positive, insightful, and respectful of that which he does not yet know.

The effectiveness of our five-member Select Board is greatly enhanced by membership diversity. Michael’s intelligence and strong interpersonal communications skills, combined with his unique accessibility and eagerness to learn, will provide Longmeadow residents with unprecedented entre into the work and workings of the Select Board. Unburdened by family and professional obligations, Michael will bring valuable energy and time commitment to the Select Board’s community outreach efforts. A student of government and politics, Michael will also provide a valuable explanatory perspective to citizens unschooled in the processes and procedures of town government.

His capacity to listen to residents’ concerns, and his willingness to bring those concerns to the Select Board without political baggage or bias make Michael Clark uniquely qualified and situated to add value to our town’s governance as a member of the Select Board.

Am I very pleased that he is running and very enthusiastic in my support of his election on June 8th.

Elect Swanson!

Christine Swanson has done something very rare in politics; she has actually done what every local office seeker says they will do if elected. Ms. Swanson’s campaign materials refer to the need for better short and long term economic planning and point to her success in the private sector as evidence of her ability to get the job done. Christine Swanson, as a member of the School Committee and as the chair of the School Building Committee, already has the record to back up the rhetoric. Longmeadow will make a crucial investment in its future with the construction of the new Longmeadow High School because Christine Swanson saw the need to move forward with our town’s long term capital improvements and took the initiative to make it happen. Her precise and extremely well researched rebuttals to the critics of the high school project have been masterful in both their civility and comprehensiveness, and make her standout head and shoulders above her opponents for election to the Select Board on the question of competence and knowledge of the job.

While everyone in town, me included, was talking about setting priorities and planning ahead, Christine was doing it. For the past three years she has been pushing and prodding the town’s leaders to move forward with a systematic assessment of our capital needs and for coordinated planning between town boards. At the same time, she was showing us how it’s done. She wrote our statement of interest to the state and led the effort to obtain an unprecedented amount of state aid to our community, $44 million. Hard work, incredibly impressive transparency and community input, and determined leadership characterize the efforts of the SBC, chaired by Swanson.

Political leadership at the local level is very difficult. It is more often than not a mine field of entrenched notions of “how things are done,” turf battles, and personality squabbles. Christine’s ability to move Longmeadow forward is a case study in successful small town political leadership. Christine has earned my vote as well as my eternal gratitude for excellence in community leadership at a time when our town needed it most.

Longmeadow is coming together

The affirmation of our collective interest and values on display at the Special Town Meeting was heartening. Holding communities together is always difficult work, but when a small loud minority constantly seeks to divide residents into special interest pleaders competing for town resources, its even more difficult.

The effort to upgrade our high school has served (and is serving) some very important purposes. Not only is it leading us into the future with our priorities in tact, it has also provided our town with a vivid example of effective public sector economic planning. Calls for prioritization of town services are not new. During my brief sojourn into elective politics it was practically my mantra. The School Building Committee has shown us the way to plan and organize; the way to include the entire community in big decisions, and the way to work with the state government as partners, not adversaries.

Unfortunately, there is an under current of division in our town fueled by those who don't like the fact that Longmeadow was built on its public schools. This small but Hardy band of residents prefers to see themselves as customers of the town, which is merely a discount service provider to them. To them, every dollar going to the schools is a dollar that they don't benefit from, leading them to cry "foul" and ask where their share is. Though these folks are VERY SMALL in number (apparently around 211), they have had limited success in scaring other residents into voting their way in the past.

This small group of anti-school, anti-community residents rely on demagoguery and misinformation in their efforts to frighten struggling Longmeadow families into voting against their long term self-interests. By exaggerating and de-contextualizing property tax trends and government debt obligations, these folks, who create ironically named organizations like "A Better Longmeadow" and "Citizens for Responsible Government," hope to scare the many families in town who don't have the enormous property wealth that they do and who rely on their salaries to get by. These are the soft targets for the anti-school demagogues, not the elderly, who are as a group the wealthiest people in the wealthiest town in Western Massachusetts.

The vast majority of Longmeadow retirees are neither selfish nor cheap. They are proud of their success and their ability to make good on the generational bargain that has made our town great. They are appalled and ashamed of the few among them who seem intent on reneging on the deal that got their kids a top notch education and provided them with $250,000 to $1 million dollars of home equity. The teacher who spoke at the Special Town Meeting who mentioned the 15 Ph.D.'s on the high school faculty in the 1970 and 80s was speaking to that NO voter with her fingers in her ears because her kids got Ph.D.'s and high quality facilities but she wants our kids to live with "structural failures" and classrooms that don't even meet accreditation standards.

Maintaining high quality services and high standards of achievement in Longmeadow will not be easy. Residents have to believe in each other and in the community the way we do our families. We will have to appreciate both the costs and benefits of maintaining higher standards than neighboring communities. If you think of taxes as merely a drain on your family budget, rather than a crucial item within it, you are setting yourself and our town up for failure. Your property taxes are quite different from your income taxes, or even the taxes you pay at retail stores. Property taxes STAY AT HOME in our town, which we need to see as OUR PROPERTY from which we all get tremendous benefits.

The quality of life we have built in Longmeadow doesn't come cheap, and we have to face the financial costs with open eyes; with eyes that see the BENEFITS as clearly as the costs. Nobody like paying taxes, but local taxes that stay in the community really need to be understood differently. These are direct investments that pay for all the amenities and high quality services we all enjoy. If you think of Longmeadow as your home, which we all should, then we should invest in it with the same sense of importance, enthusiasm and sacrifice as we do our houses and yards.

The average property tax payer in Longmeadow pays less than 2% of annual income in property taxes and yet it is these taxes that protects the value of our homes, provides all of us with front line public health and safety, infrastructure, education, and quality of life services. If you tried to get even one of these services in the private marketplace the cost would far exceed your property tax bill.

I've lived in six states and the District of Columbia. I've lived in urban, rural, and suburban areas. Longmeadow is an incredibly beautiful town with wonderful people who have their priorities straight. We are a town that has succeeded because we have understood that each generation stands on the shoulders of the previous generation and we have made sure that the children of Longmeadow can see it all; and go as far as their courage, determination, and talent will take them.

If you don't value Longmeadow's high standards and high quality services, then why are you here? If you are looking for the "best deal" in terms of price, then Longmeadow isn't for you. If you're looking for the best community with the best schools, the best parks, the cleanest and safest streets and homes, then join in and help those of us who want to truly "save our town." If some of us are truly in danger of losing ground due to the cost of maintaining our town's standards, then we need to collectively help keep us all afloat, not agree to slow progress and decrease our quality of life just to save money. It's going to cost a lot of money, and require plenty of sacrifice of time and energy, but at the end of the day we'll enjoy tremendous peace of mind, pride of place, and the eternal gratitude of our children and grand children.

Lets truly "save our town." The next crucial step is to vote YES on June 8th.

What is before Longmeadow voters?

We have 1 issue to decide tomorrow night: whether to accept Commonwealth money earmarked for Longmeadow's High School, or to reject that offer. Yes or no.

If we vote no, there is not another plan waiting in the wings. We would need to start from square one, and the money the Commonwealth held for us will go back into their general pool for building projects. The LHS would not get repaired; nothing constructive would happen as a result of a no vote.

If we choose YES, however, we benefit in many ways. One way is through the favorable economic climate for such large scale projects. Our interest rate would be at an historic low, and construction bids would likely come in lower than at another time. Evidence from other districts bears this out. Another way is that the timeframe for building would be expedited. Two years--two years without kids in trailers.

The Finance Committee's opinions on this project matter to some degree, since they are the long range planning financial group for Town Meeting. As of this writing, they have not presented Longmeadow with a long range plan, however. Any informal discussion that they may have had regarding other projects is uninformed by a variety of factors: What is the cost for each item? Will we receive grants or other aid from the state or federal government for such projects? There are too many unknowns for the FC to make any valid claim about the future. It is a shame that our FC would waste time discussing that which they have no control over.

Aristotle even classifies deliberation as that which includes practical matters within people’s power (In The Rhetoric, 1359a); there are too many unknowns for them to deliberate about such possible future items. They are inconsequential to the issue before us.

We know the consequences of inaction-voting no. We know the benefits of acting positively with a YES vote. Those concerns, plus our values and interests, are legitimate to consider. I hope Town Meeting decides to keep its eyes on the prize.

Rebecca M. Townsend

Wray Endorses LHS Project

Over the past two years, a team of exceptional individuals has been hard at work pursuing a sustainable, long-term solution for the deficient physical structure of Longmeadow High School (LHS). These individuals, many of them volunteers, come from varied backgrounds of engineers, architects, educational professionals, public sector management and successful private enterprise entrepreneurs. This group of individuals, collectively known as the School Building Committee (SBC), has put in many hours, personally sacrificing time with their families to follow a very specific process dictated by the MSBA in order to present our town with the best possible solution for LHS.

It is important to note that the SBC does not answer to and is not influenced by any other elected board in town. The SBC has conducted numerous open forums, information sessions, and building tours in order to solicit public input, educate the community and substantiate the most educationally appropriate and financially prudent solution for our town. As elected officials in town, we are asked to make decisions that we feel are best for the entire town based upon the best information given by our appointed experts. In this case, the SBC is the appointed expert. Personally, I, as an elected official who has supported cross-functional efforts to create sustainable budgets and valued services for the whole town, support the great work that they have done. No process is ever perfect. It is undeniable that the economy has not recovered, and not everyone may like every facet of the process that is presented to us but, in the end, the decision is clear.

Supporting the project presented by the SBC and approved by the MSBA is the right course of action. We must trust our experts who have served this community with distinction. The current combination of low interest rates, low construction costs and state reimbursement money make it a decision that we must say YES to.

Armand Wray
Member, Longmeadow School Committee

Chris Swanson & Michael Clark on the High School project

PUYD#32, HS Project

Satisfied yet?

Last night the Executive Director of the Massachusetts School Building Authority, as well as the members of the town's School Building Committee and the expert designers who are working on the high school project answered EVERY SINGLE question and concern that opponents of the project have used as a basis for their support of a NO vote. The Gold/Moran claim that we could do a cheaper renovation of the so-called 1971 wing and still get MSBA funding was unequivocally rejected by all of the experts, despite repeated efforts by Mr. Moran, Mr. Wojcik, and Mr. Nolet to pry their preferred answers out of the speakers.

So what now? With every single objection debunked now by every qualified authority at both the state and local level, what will Mr. Gold/Moran say next? [I only ask about Mr. Gold and Moran because the other prominent opponents have already exhausted their credibility on this matter.] Will they continue to pretend that they know more about every element of this project than the full range of experts who have spent the last two & a half years vetting the proposal on the table? Will they simply choose to ignore the opinions of the experts, who have also made clear that a Yes vote would be the most economical option for Longmeadow's taxpayers, and vaguely claim to believe the project is simply too expensive to take on right now, despite the fact that it will only increase in cost going forward?

Or, will Mr. Gold/Moran put their money where their mouth is and support this project because every one of their concerns has been clarified and every hesitation they expressed about the project has been shown to be unjustified?

If Gold/Moran chose to see this rationally and change their position to support the YES vote, I will salute their integrity and willingness to do the right thing even when doing so is embarrassing and possibly politically damaging.

"Politics ain't bean bag" and I do not apologize for holding public officials accountable as frankly and directly as I can for their views, lack of views, and positions. Nothing I have said or written has been unreasonable or unsupported. The real insult to civil debate has come from the opponents of the High School who have refused to participate in a single debate about the issue, preferring instead to employ unrebuttable (and frequently unhinged) rhetoric in LTEs, and other one-way communications techniques. Indeed, the one venue where the opponents faced immediate rebutted was Mr. Moran's LongmeadowBuzz web site where the effectiveness of these rebubttals apparently pushed Mr. Moran to take an action that may have doomed his laudable goal of providing the town with a forum for open debate and dialogue. Mr. Moran's censorship of my analysis of Mr. Gold's candidacy and his opposition to the high school project on LongmeadowBuzz was the ultimate in uncivil behavior in a democratic community.

It's time for Mr. Gold to admit he has been wrong about the high school and for Mr. Moran to either allow his LongmeadowBuzz forum to be an open forum or to remove the site altogether.

Stop Insulting Longmeadow’s Senior Citizens!

The opponents of Longmeadow’s New School project claim that we cannot afford “this project at this time.” Unfortunately, they do not offer any viable alternatives other than those already considered and rejected by both the School Building Committee and the Mass School Building Authority. They hint that “other capital needs” will be crowded out if we spend $44 million on the high school, but they NEVER say which ones should be prioritized over the high school. They also never mention that the SBC included officials from across the town departments and that they fully support the proposed High School project. What do the opponents know that the town manager, chief financial officer, and DPW director don’t? Who knows? And they’re not saying.

The opponents paint a picture of Longmeadow’s future financial picture that would have you believe that we’ll never be able to afford anything. I wonder why they don’t describe Longmeadow’s financial situation in comparative context? I wonder why they don’t mention that Longmeadow’s future financial obligations to pay employees and retiree benefits, for example, are no different than any other comparable Massachusetts town, a dozen of which are building new high schools? How do opponents explain (to themselves) the fact that no community HAS EVER voted against state aid for a school building?

Since their arguments about costs have, are, and will be flatly contradicted by the facts, what is the real argument against the high school project? Is it that our senior citizens are struggling on the edge of financial insolvency? You might think so the way they go on about “senior citizens on fixed incomes.” Funny that none of the vocal opponents, all of whom are senior citizens, fit this description. Far from it! They are wealthy retirees sitting on homes worth up to 10 times what they paid for them. Are they just standing up for their less successful or savvy elderly neighbors who lost everything in the financial meltdown? I don’t think so. You don’t get to the point of retirement in this town without understanding retirement investing 101. As you age you reduce the risk in your investment portfolio.

Apparently, Mr. Nolet, Mr. Wojcik and Mr. Fregeau think that they are smarter than other Longmeadow seniors who must be destitute by now. Does anybody reading this actually know even one retiree who would lose their home or be financially stretched by a $400-$600 annual increase in property taxes than doesn’t even start until 2014 and that declines every year thereafter?

Take a look at the actual property values of the homes in town with NO signs on the lawn. It’s very easy. Just go to http://data.visionappraisal.com/LONGMEADOWMA/search.asp and type in the address (or owner’s name). Particularly revealing are the properties of the loudest opponents.

The reality is that Longmeadow retirees are retired from successful careers and are very economically savvy and secure. They are also, despite the fear mongering, mostly IN FAVOR of the High School project. If the fate of the high school were in the hands of Longmeadow's retirees I am frankly quite certain that the project would pass. The Rogenesses are much more representative of the wisdom and public spiritedness of our seniors than the Nolets and Wojciks.

The folks I’m worried about voting no are the residents that really are struggling; the families with two working parents who have to shell out thousands of dollars for their kids "public" education, thanks to the many fees and various "lessons" that now have to be privately obtained. I’m worried that some of these folks don't have time to monitor local politics and are not aware that the NO NO's are distorting reality.

Longmeadow retirees built this town and are proud to pay their share for its improvement and progress. They don't want their legacy to be destroyed by a few selfish and narrow minded fools. Only these few want to take the huge equity this town gave to them and deny today’s Longmeadow families the quality of life and education that they and their kids got.

Vote YES and tell the No No’s to stop running down our senior citizens.