From: Alisa Brewer
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 10:28 AM
To: Select Board; Finance Committee
Cc: Town Meeting Coordinating Committee
Subject: Survival Center Press Conference Noon Wednesday May 30, 2007?
http://www.dailyhampshiregazette.com
Daily Hampshire Gazette, Wednesday May 30, 2007
Survival Center pushes for funding
By MARY CAREY Staff Writer
AMHERST - The Amherst Survival Center is in the spotlight again. It's
the site of a press conference today on human service funding and the
subject of a coming Town Meeting petition article requesting funding
for a clinical social worker to work there part-time.
Members of the center's board of directors, its Executive Director
Cheryl Zoll and Town Meeting member Isaac BenEzra will be at the noon
press conference at the 1200 North Pleasant St. food and clothing
distribution and drop-in center. Their subject is looming cuts in the
town's human services budget.
Town Meeting likely will try to sort through four competing
recommendations for funding at its sixth session on Thursday. Advocates
of spending more on human services planned to make their case today
that the town shouldn't cut back human service funding for residents
who are struggling already.
"To us it would have devastating effects," Ruth Wade, president of the
center's board of directors, said of a proposed reduction in funding
for human service agencies from $142,000 to $25,000.
Last year, the town contributed $33,000 to the Survival Center alone.
Zoll said the cut "would be hitting us at a time when we also have a
mandate to grow and change. We would have to cut around the edges."
Staff training, for example, likely would have to be cut.
"Another thing that would fall by the wayside are field trips," Zoll
said. "They're very modest, like going to a movie, but they mean a lot
to some people who never leave Amherst."
The $25,000 that the Finance Committee recommends spending this year
would be split among the center and other agencies such as Big Brother
Big Sister program, Family Outreach of Amherst, Center for New
Americans, Men's Resource Center, Not Bread Alone and University of
Massachusetts Commuter Services.
The Select Board recommends raising the Finance Committee's recommended figure by another $31,000.
"Even with a cut of 'only 85,000,' as the Select Board is recommending,
hundreds of residents will be adversely affected," board members wrote
in their report to Town Meeting.
The town's Community Development Committee, for its part, is requesting
$114,450 in funding for human services, while BenEzra has prepared a
motion asking Town Meeting to fund the full $142,000 contributed last
year.
The rules of Town Meeting this year, as outlined by Moderator Harrison
Gregg, require members seeking more funding for certain line items to
explain where the money would come from.
But BenEzra said he would not suggest where to find the money. That's
for budget writers to figure out, BenEzra said. "To ask the people who
are being cut by over 80 percent where is the money going to come from
begs the question of where the money is."
Meanwhile, Jon Nelms, a Survival Center client, is seeking to have Town
Meeting spend $9,000 to hire a part-time clinical social worker at the
center. Nelms was among clients whose criticisms of the center last
summer eventually led to wholesale changes there, including the
retirement of longtime Director Evangeline Westcott.
Since then, the center's board hired Zoll and is in the process of
hiring two other staff members and Zoll has instituted new programs,
including an open mic night. Things are going "extremely well "at the
center, Wade said, but a social worker would be a welcome addition.
"We've felt the need for a social worker. It's been a priority," she
said.
But if the $9,000 Nelms is suggesting to hire a social worker were to
come out of the $33,000 Wade and others are hoping the Survival Center
will receive, it would still amount to a cut from last year, Wade said.
Daily Hampshire Gazette (c) 2007 All rights reserved
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Article 16 Regional Agreement Assessment
From: Michael Hussin (Pelham SC Chair)
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 11:54 PM
To: Select Board
Cc: Kathleen Anderson (Amherst SC); Elaine L. Brighty (Regional SC
Chair); Maureen Ecclestone (Pelham SC); Michael Katz (Leverett SC); Sonia Correa Pope (Amherst SC); Tracy Farnham (Pelham SC); Andrew Churchill (Chair, Amherst SC); Marianne Jorgensen (Shutesbury SC); Westmoreland, Debbie; Brewer, Alisa
Subject: Pelham and Regional School budget
Dear All,
Below you will find two letters both written by me tho' at different times of the day! Forgive any repetitiveness!
May 30, 2007
I am dismayed at the tone expressed towards Pelham and its citizens
(and indirectly towards it's school committee and town boards) in Ms.
Greeney's letter to the Gazette this morning. While the letter may be
trying to explain the difficulties Amherst and our regional school system is
facing it unfortunately comes across as hostile and condescending. While
things in Pelham may have appeared somewhat confusing at times let me
try to explain what is in fact clear. Pelham residents had a long and
well-debated discussion about the implications of their vote at the Annual Town Meeting on May 5 and voted overwhelmingly to support the 3% budget proposed by their school committee. This was in no way understood by the voters to be simply a 'preliminary' meeting.
Due to other matters in the organizing of Pelham's warrant and town budget another Special Town meeting is planned for June 13. This is to finalize the details of the remaining town budget items as the Select Board wanted to wait and see if further funds might become available from the state. Yes, each line item will be voted again at this meeting but no one should be under any illusions. A formal vote has already been taken and the sentiments of the voters were very clearly expressed. Nothing has changed as a far as the school committee's support of this vote. Again, the citizens of Pelham and it's school board do understand and appreciate Amherst's concerns. I am sure we will be mindful again of these concerns. Still, I must express my disappointment and confusion at the language and attitude expressed in this letter.
Far from building the sense of community and cooperation
needed to find what is best for our schools and our children, the use of
such aggressive phrases as using 'the nuclear option' as well as the
overall threatening tone leads down the road to an unnecessarily adversarial relationship. It also seems presumptuous at best for a single board member to declare, "Amherst does not want to use this 'nuclear option' and vote down the per pupil assessment method ", as if this board member is the town. This is harsh rhetoric I'm sure not all the members of Amherst Town Meeting share. I also trust this does not reflect the sentiment of the rest of the Amherst Select Board.
We are all trying to make the best of a very difficult, trying situation and do the right thing for our kids and our communities. Everyone deserves to be treated with care, consideration, and respect.
Thank you for all the work and time I know each one of you puts in,
Michael Hussin
Chair
Pelham School Committee
Re: any misunderstanding about Pelham's approval of the 3% budget for
the regional schools:
On May 5th at the official annual town meeting the 3% increase for the
regional schools was approved overwhelmingly, as was the regional
assessment method and the school committee's elementary school budget
request. However, the rest of the town budget was level funded , as was
suggested by the the select board, pending any new information about
more funds being made available from the state. the select board had
already picked a date for a second, Special Town Meeting to be held
June 13th to vote on the rest of the budget. This would of course
include voting a second time on the already approved regional school
budget. While it is technically true that the budget ,including the
schools budget ,is not "over till its over", the same numbers already
passed by an overwhelming majority for the schools, including the 3%
for the region, will be brought forward again. This time those same
numbers, voted and passed, will be proposed not just by the school
committee but by the select board as well.
It is also true that any number could be lowered on the floor of the
second special town meeting, but the town did vote and approve the 3%.
The main point is that the May town meeting was indeed the official
Annual Town Meeting . The issues of the regional budget and the
situation in Amherst with all the possibilities and implications
regarding the assessment method were discussed and debated at length.
The town voted as it did. Those same proposals will be brought forward
again. The school committee has not changed its position regarding its
request for the 3% budget and the town select board has moved from a
'level' funded request for the schools to proposing the same numbers
passed on May 5. That is how it currently stands.
M
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 11:54 PM
To: Select Board
Cc: Kathleen Anderson (Amherst SC); Elaine L. Brighty (Regional SC
Chair); Maureen Ecclestone (Pelham SC); Michael Katz (Leverett SC); Sonia Correa Pope (Amherst SC); Tracy Farnham (Pelham SC); Andrew Churchill (Chair, Amherst SC); Marianne Jorgensen (Shutesbury SC); Westmoreland, Debbie; Brewer, Alisa
Subject: Pelham and Regional School budget
Dear All,
Below you will find two letters both written by me tho' at different times of the day! Forgive any repetitiveness!
May 30, 2007
I am dismayed at the tone expressed towards Pelham and its citizens
(and indirectly towards it's school committee and town boards) in Ms.
Greeney's letter to the Gazette this morning. While the letter may be
trying to explain the difficulties Amherst and our regional school system is
facing it unfortunately comes across as hostile and condescending. While
things in Pelham may have appeared somewhat confusing at times let me
try to explain what is in fact clear. Pelham residents had a long and
well-debated discussion about the implications of their vote at the Annual Town Meeting on May 5 and voted overwhelmingly to support the 3% budget proposed by their school committee. This was in no way understood by the voters to be simply a 'preliminary' meeting.
Due to other matters in the organizing of Pelham's warrant and town budget another Special Town meeting is planned for June 13. This is to finalize the details of the remaining town budget items as the Select Board wanted to wait and see if further funds might become available from the state. Yes, each line item will be voted again at this meeting but no one should be under any illusions. A formal vote has already been taken and the sentiments of the voters were very clearly expressed. Nothing has changed as a far as the school committee's support of this vote. Again, the citizens of Pelham and it's school board do understand and appreciate Amherst's concerns. I am sure we will be mindful again of these concerns. Still, I must express my disappointment and confusion at the language and attitude expressed in this letter.
Far from building the sense of community and cooperation
needed to find what is best for our schools and our children, the use of
such aggressive phrases as using 'the nuclear option' as well as the
overall threatening tone leads down the road to an unnecessarily adversarial relationship. It also seems presumptuous at best for a single board member to declare, "Amherst does not want to use this 'nuclear option' and vote down the per pupil assessment method ", as if this board member is the town. This is harsh rhetoric I'm sure not all the members of Amherst Town Meeting share. I also trust this does not reflect the sentiment of the rest of the Amherst Select Board.
We are all trying to make the best of a very difficult, trying situation and do the right thing for our kids and our communities. Everyone deserves to be treated with care, consideration, and respect.
Thank you for all the work and time I know each one of you puts in,
Michael Hussin
Chair
Pelham School Committee
Re: any misunderstanding about Pelham's approval of the 3% budget for
the regional schools:
On May 5th at the official annual town meeting the 3% increase for the
regional schools was approved overwhelmingly, as was the regional
assessment method and the school committee's elementary school budget
request. However, the rest of the town budget was level funded , as was
suggested by the the select board, pending any new information about
more funds being made available from the state. the select board had
already picked a date for a second, Special Town Meeting to be held
June 13th to vote on the rest of the budget. This would of course
include voting a second time on the already approved regional school
budget. While it is technically true that the budget ,including the
schools budget ,is not "over till its over", the same numbers already
passed by an overwhelming majority for the schools, including the 3%
for the region, will be brought forward again. This time those same
numbers, voted and passed, will be proposed not just by the school
committee but by the select board as well.
It is also true that any number could be lowered on the floor of the
second special town meeting, but the town did vote and approve the 3%.
The main point is that the May town meeting was indeed the official
Annual Town Meeting . The issues of the regional budget and the
situation in Amherst with all the possibilities and implications
regarding the assessment method were discussed and debated at length.
The town voted as it did. Those same proposals will be brought forward
again. The school committee has not changed its position regarding its
request for the 3% budget and the town select board has moved from a
'level' funded request for the schools to proposing the same numbers
passed on May 5. That is how it currently stands.
M
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Finance Committee Article 17 Update
[NOTE from Alisa: this is from the TMCC one-way listserv]
The following information is from the Finance Committee and will be posted as a document on the Town web site on Thursday.
From: Finance Committee
To: Town Meeting
May 30, 2007
ARTICLE 17. SUMMARY OF AMENDMENTS AND FUNDING SOURCES
As Town Meeting continues its work on Article 17, the operating budgets for municipal services, libraries and schools, there are several remaining parts of the budget for which amendments to Finance Committee motions are anticipated. This is the list, as we know it today. There may be others.
Planning/Conservation/Inspection Services – Recommendation of the Select Board to increase the appropriation for Conservation Services by $12,000 for seasonal staff at Puffers Pond and trail work.
Community Services – Recommendation of the Select Board for $77,812. Within the Community Services budget, that board would like to see $31,000 added to Human Service Agencies; a decrease of $24,000 in tax support for LSSE; and an increase of $70,812 to open War Memorial Pool and the wading pools for the summer. There are two other expected amendments. One would request an increase for Human Service Agencies of $117,000; the other would reduce the Community Services budget by $100,000, presumably from LSSE.
Library Services – a proposed increase in tax support of $19,000 to reflect new fine receipts.
Regional Schools Assessment. The amount of money required for the Amherst assessment in support of Regional Schools is still unsettled. There are conflicting views as to whether Amherst is already obligated to fund assessments at the 3% increase level Recent opinions seem to support that it is. The recommendation in the Finance Committee Report to Town Meeting is for a 1% assessment increase. Last week, the Regional School Committee (RSC) proposed a compromise calling for 2% assessment increases for all of the towns of the Region, and the Finance Committee voted to recommend the compromise. If Amherst Town Meeting votes the 2% amount, the RSC would need to vote to approve assessments at that level by a two-thirds vote, something that might or might not happen. A 3% Amherst assessment requires $238,081 above the amount currently budgeted; a 2% assessment requires an additional $119,041.
Funding the increases.
If Town Meeting were to approve all of the additions and neither of the reductions, the result would be a total increase in spending of $337,853 to $456,893, depending on the amount of the Regional Schools assessment. At present, the only existing source of funds to cover this amount is the $100,000 made available when Town Meeting reduced the General Government budget by that amount. Two other potential sources are reserves (Free Cash) and a Proposition 2 1/2 override.
The Finance Committee recommends that all of the available $100,000 be used as partial funding for the Regional assessment. Doing so means any of the other amendment increases would have to be paid for with budget cuts, spending reserves or funds from a successful override referendum. None of the alternatives is a good. Budgets are all very tight already. The Finance Committee’s recommendation to use no reserves to balance the FY 08 budget is an important element in maintaining the financial well being of the Town. An override referendum this year would surely decrease the possibility of including an override next year as part of a carefully thought out financial plan for the Town. The cost of an override election – about $12,000 – is not included in the FY 08 General Government appropriation, and this functional area has already been reduced significantly.
The Committee’s recommendation on how to fund any increases that Town Meeting might vote would have to take into account the specific amount and the practicalities of raising that amount. Our first preference is that the need for additional funds not be voted, except for any necessary amount over $100,000 for the Regional Schools assessment.
The following information is from the Finance Committee and will be posted as a document on the Town web site on Thursday.
From: Finance Committee
To: Town Meeting
May 30, 2007
ARTICLE 17. SUMMARY OF AMENDMENTS AND FUNDING SOURCES
As Town Meeting continues its work on Article 17, the operating budgets for municipal services, libraries and schools, there are several remaining parts of the budget for which amendments to Finance Committee motions are anticipated. This is the list, as we know it today. There may be others.
Planning/Conservation/Inspection Services – Recommendation of the Select Board to increase the appropriation for Conservation Services by $12,000 for seasonal staff at Puffers Pond and trail work.
Community Services – Recommendation of the Select Board for $77,812. Within the Community Services budget, that board would like to see $31,000 added to Human Service Agencies; a decrease of $24,000 in tax support for LSSE; and an increase of $70,812 to open War Memorial Pool and the wading pools for the summer. There are two other expected amendments. One would request an increase for Human Service Agencies of $117,000; the other would reduce the Community Services budget by $100,000, presumably from LSSE.
Library Services – a proposed increase in tax support of $19,000 to reflect new fine receipts.
Regional Schools Assessment. The amount of money required for the Amherst assessment in support of Regional Schools is still unsettled. There are conflicting views as to whether Amherst is already obligated to fund assessments at the 3% increase level Recent opinions seem to support that it is. The recommendation in the Finance Committee Report to Town Meeting is for a 1% assessment increase. Last week, the Regional School Committee (RSC) proposed a compromise calling for 2% assessment increases for all of the towns of the Region, and the Finance Committee voted to recommend the compromise. If Amherst Town Meeting votes the 2% amount, the RSC would need to vote to approve assessments at that level by a two-thirds vote, something that might or might not happen. A 3% Amherst assessment requires $238,081 above the amount currently budgeted; a 2% assessment requires an additional $119,041.
Funding the increases.
If Town Meeting were to approve all of the additions and neither of the reductions, the result would be a total increase in spending of $337,853 to $456,893, depending on the amount of the Regional Schools assessment. At present, the only existing source of funds to cover this amount is the $100,000 made available when Town Meeting reduced the General Government budget by that amount. Two other potential sources are reserves (Free Cash) and a Proposition 2 1/2 override.
The Finance Committee recommends that all of the available $100,000 be used as partial funding for the Regional assessment. Doing so means any of the other amendment increases would have to be paid for with budget cuts, spending reserves or funds from a successful override referendum. None of the alternatives is a good. Budgets are all very tight already. The Finance Committee’s recommendation to use no reserves to balance the FY 08 budget is an important element in maintaining the financial well being of the Town. An override referendum this year would surely decrease the possibility of including an override next year as part of a carefully thought out financial plan for the Town. The cost of an override election – about $12,000 – is not included in the FY 08 General Government appropriation, and this functional area has already been reduced significantly.
The Committee’s recommendation on how to fund any increases that Town Meeting might vote would have to take into account the specific amount and the practicalities of raising that amount. Our first preference is that the need for additional funds not be voted, except for any necessary amount over $100,000 for the Regional Schools assessment.
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Article 25 Community Preservation Act: Historical Preservation
{Material Scanned In & Copied for Select Board News & Read Mail}
PETITION ~ Amherst MA ~ May 2007
TO: Town of Amherst Town Meeting,
Select Board,
Historical Commission, and
Community Preservation Act Committee
We residents of the Town of Amherst ask that a perimeter fence not be installed at South Amherst Cemetery.
[Article 25 of the 2007 Annual Town Meeting includes a request for $40,000 of CPA funds for a perimeter fence at South Amherst Cemetary]
NAME ADDRESS
Alfred H Mathieson XXX Shays St
Anne Mathieson XXX Shays St
Lucy L McMurrer XXX Shays St
Daniel P McMurrer XXX Shays St
Please see attached note from Jean Jeffries
{Letter dated 5/24/07 from Jean Jeffries, XXX South East St}
PETITION ~ Amherst MA ~ May 2007
TO: Town of Amherst Town Meeting,
Select Board,
Historical Commission, and
Community Preservation Act Committee
We residents of the Town of Amherst ask that a perimeter fence not be installed at South Amherst Cemetery.
[Article 25 of the 2007 Annual Town Meeting includes a request for $40,000 of CPA funds for a perimeter fence at South Amherst Cemetary]
NAME ADDRESS
Alfred H Mathieson XXX Shays St
Anne Mathieson XXX Shays St
Lucy L McMurrer XXX Shays St
Daniel P McMurrer XXX Shays St
Please see attached note from Jean Jeffries
{Letter dated 5/24/07 from Jean Jeffries, XXX South East St}
Article 22 Capital Program Buildings & Facilities
From: "Musante, John"
Date: May 29, 2007 8:20:10 AM EDT
To: "Seaman, Katherine", "Gregg, Harrison", "Shaffer, Larry", "Ziomek, David" , "Town Clerk", "Tucker, Jonathan", "Weiss, Gerald", "Awad, Anne", "Brewer, Alisa" , "Greeney, Hwei-Ling" , "Kusner, Rob", "Steinberg, Andrew", "Blaustein, Marilyn" , "Bobrowski, Paul", "Carlozzi, Alice", "Moran, Kay", "Morton, Brian", "Slaughter, Doug"
Cc: "Weston, Gail"
Subject: RE: Amendment to Article 22
The $30,000 for shade trees is already on the JCPC cut list and will not be part of the motion for Article 22 because of the defeat of the override (see JCPC Report on page A95 of FC Report). Nancy Gordon probably was not aware of that when she wrote her 5/25 letter to H Gregg.
-----Original Message-----
From: Seaman, Katherine
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 2:59 PM
To: Gregg, Harrison; Musante, John; Shaffer, Larry; Ziomek, David; Town Clerk; Tucker, Jonathan; Weiss, Gerald; Awad, Anne; Brewer, Alisa; Greeney, Hwei-Ling; Kusner, Rob; Steinberg, Andrew; Blaustein, Marilyn; Bobrowski, Paul; Carlozzi, Alice; Moran, Kay; Morton, Brian; Musante, John; Slaughter, Doug
Cc: Weston, Gail
Subject: Amendment to Article 22
Attached please find an amendment to Article 22 that Nancy Gordon dropped off this afternoon. Some of you may receive hard copies.
Enjoy the long weekend!
~Kate
Kate Seaman
Administrative Assistant
{unable to attach letter; asked that $30,000 item be dropped from Article 22 Capital Program Buildings and Facilities}
Date: May 29, 2007 8:20:10 AM EDT
To: "Seaman, Katherine", "Gregg, Harrison", "Shaffer, Larry", "Ziomek, David" , "Town Clerk", "Tucker, Jonathan", "Weiss, Gerald", "Awad, Anne", "Brewer, Alisa" , "Greeney, Hwei-Ling" , "Kusner, Rob", "Steinberg, Andrew", "Blaustein, Marilyn" , "Bobrowski, Paul", "Carlozzi, Alice", "Moran, Kay", "Morton, Brian", "Slaughter, Doug"
Cc: "Weston, Gail"
Subject: RE: Amendment to Article 22
The $30,000 for shade trees is already on the JCPC cut list and will not be part of the motion for Article 22 because of the defeat of the override (see JCPC Report on page A95 of FC Report). Nancy Gordon probably was not aware of that when she wrote her 5/25 letter to H Gregg.
-----Original Message-----
From: Seaman, Katherine
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 2:59 PM
To: Gregg, Harrison; Musante, John; Shaffer, Larry; Ziomek, David; Town Clerk; Tucker, Jonathan; Weiss, Gerald; Awad, Anne; Brewer, Alisa; Greeney, Hwei-Ling; Kusner, Rob; Steinberg, Andrew; Blaustein, Marilyn; Bobrowski, Paul; Carlozzi, Alice; Moran, Kay; Morton, Brian; Musante, John; Slaughter, Doug
Cc: Weston, Gail
Subject: Amendment to Article 22
Attached please find an amendment to Article 22 that Nancy Gordon dropped off this afternoon. Some of you may receive hard copies.
Enjoy the long weekend!
~Kate
Kate Seaman
Administrative Assistant
{unable to attach letter; asked that $30,000 item be dropped from Article 22 Capital Program Buildings and Facilities}
Friday, May 25, 2007
United States Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH)
See http://www.usich.gov/
for the weekly e-newsletter the Select Board receives, entitled United States Interagency Council on Homelessness e-newsletter: Reporting on Innovative Solutions to End Homelessness
for the weekly e-newsletter the Select Board receives, entitled United States Interagency Council on Homelessness e-newsletter: Reporting on Innovative Solutions to End Homelessness
Reappointment: 250th Anniversary Committee term length
From: Barry Roberts
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 7:27 AM
To: Select Board
Subject: Attention Rob Kusner- 250th Anniversary Committee - Appointments and term
Rob,
A review of the 250th Anniversary Committee’s members at the last meeting brought up an issue that is troubling to the committee. Almost all the committee members have been working very hard on plans for the celebration year however some of their terms expire before we finish the celebration year. The committee feels that it is very important for this committee to keep momentum and continuity thru the celebration. We are looking for your advice on how to accomplish this. We would like to have everyone who is now on the committee and any new appointments’ terms run thru the year 2009.
Thank you,
Barry Roberts
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 7:27 AM
To: Select Board
Subject: Attention Rob Kusner- 250th Anniversary Committee - Appointments and term
Rob,
A review of the 250th Anniversary Committee’s members at the last meeting brought up an issue that is troubling to the committee. Almost all the committee members have been working very hard on plans for the celebration year however some of their terms expire before we finish the celebration year. The committee feels that it is very important for this committee to keep momentum and continuity thru the celebration. We are looking for your advice on how to accomplish this. We would like to have everyone who is now on the committee and any new appointments’ terms run thru the year 2009.
Thank you,
Barry Roberts
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Five College Emergency Dispensing Site Working Group
From: Five College Emergency Dispensing Site Working Group On Behalf Of Donna Baron
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 3:51 PM
To: FCEDS LISTSERV
Subject: thank you
A big thank you to:
Assistant Chief Zlogar from Amherst Fire,
Mary Snyders from the Red Cross, and
Kate Kelly from the Strategic National Stockpile
for joining our College/Town Emergency Dispensing Site Working Group today. We hope you'll be able to join us again.
Save the Dates for Future Meetings at Five Colleges:
June 12 from 10-11:30
June 26 from 10-11:30
July 17 from 10-11:30
I'll have notes out shortly.
Donna
____________________________________________
Donna L. Baron
Director of Information Technology
Five Colleges, Incorporated
http://www.fivecolleges.edu
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 3:51 PM
To: FCEDS LISTSERV
Subject: thank you
A big thank you to:
Assistant Chief Zlogar from Amherst Fire,
Mary Snyders from the Red Cross, and
Kate Kelly from the Strategic National Stockpile
for joining our College/Town Emergency Dispensing Site Working Group today. We hope you'll be able to join us again.
Save the Dates for Future Meetings at Five Colleges:
June 12 from 10-11:30
June 26 from 10-11:30
July 17 from 10-11:30
I'll have notes out shortly.
Donna
____________________________________________
Donna L. Baron
Director of Information Technology
Five Colleges, Incorporated
http://www.fivecolleges.edu
Article 25 Community Preservation Act: Historical Preservation
From: "Select Board"
Date: May 24, 2007 2:55:01 PM EDT
To: Anne Awad, "Brewer, Alisa", Gerry Weiss, Hwei-Ling Greeney, "Kusner, Rob" Cc: "Shaffer, Larry"
Subject: FW: petition to stop the fence
-----Original Message-----
From: LJR
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 5:18 PM
To: Select Board
Subject: petition to stop the fence
Dear Select Board,
I live next door to the cemetery. I love the open space there. No one seems to go through it who is up to no good. I would hate to see you close it off. It is an unnecessary expense, and won't deter invaders who want to get inside even if it's 8' high.
Concentrate instead on beautfying our town. Build a fountain larger than the one on Main St. , with cafes all around, like in Paris, where the people will come. This will add atmosphere that Amherst wants to bring here. Cut down the heavily concentrated sumac that blocks the open views at MT. Pollux, where the apple trees are dying because the town has neglected them. The trees badly need to be pruned and farmed. (I myself have gone up there to cut thorny weeds off the apple trees that choke them). Poison Ivy is prevalent. This is one of the most beautiful areas in Amherst being lost, because you built an underground parking garage that is hardly used, a deterrent to the town's good feeling?
I have more to say but will stop here. Please consider this email a request to NOT build the fence and to concentrate elsewhere where funds are needed more.
Lorna Ritz
Date: May 24, 2007 2:55:01 PM EDT
To: Anne Awad, "Brewer, Alisa", Gerry Weiss, Hwei-Ling Greeney, "Kusner, Rob" Cc: "Shaffer, Larry"
Subject: FW: petition to stop the fence
-----Original Message-----
From: LJR
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 5:18 PM
To: Select Board
Subject: petition to stop the fence
Dear Select Board,
I live next door to the cemetery. I love the open space there. No one seems to go through it who is up to no good. I would hate to see you close it off. It is an unnecessary expense, and won't deter invaders who want to get inside even if it's 8' high.
Concentrate instead on beautfying our town. Build a fountain larger than the one on Main St. , with cafes all around, like in Paris, where the people will come. This will add atmosphere that Amherst wants to bring here. Cut down the heavily concentrated sumac that blocks the open views at MT. Pollux, where the apple trees are dying because the town has neglected them. The trees badly need to be pruned and farmed. (I myself have gone up there to cut thorny weeds off the apple trees that choke them). Poison Ivy is prevalent. This is one of the most beautiful areas in Amherst being lost, because you built an underground parking garage that is hardly used, a deterrent to the town's good feeling?
I have more to say but will stop here. Please consider this email a request to NOT build the fence and to concentrate elsewhere where funds are needed more.
Lorna Ritz
From: "Select Board"
Date: May 24, 2007 2:54:18 PM EDT
To: "Awad, Anne", "Brewer, Alisa", "Weiss, Gerry" , "Greeney, Hwei-Ling" , "Kusner, Rob" ,
Cc: "Shaffer, Larry"
Subject: FW: [AmhTownMtg] NoHo adds while Amherst subtracts
-----Original Message-----
From: Dick Mudgett
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 12:59 PM
To: amhersttownmeeting@yahoogroups.com; Wentworth, Mary
Cc: amhersttownmeeting@yahoogroups.com; Nick Grabbe, Larry Shaffer; Select Board; Finance Committe; Finance Department
Subject: Re: [AmhTownMtg] NoHo adds while Amherst subtracts
Dear et al.
After last nights debacle on public safety, I wonder if the chief will be open to suggestions for program or system chages that will stress his men further and add to his budget without additional financial support which town meeting wasn't willing to consider in its defeat of two motions that would have retained two of his current police staff. Many comments, not all, made on this thread seem to be a dream to micro-manage public safety through "suggestions" that affect ability to respond and with implicit cost increases that town meeting would clearly be unwilling to consider. If you think some of these notions are really worthwhile, why don't those of you proposing them make an appointment with Chief Scherpa and explain to him how he can do all these things with a reduced staff and financial support. I'm sure he'd be glad to discuss these things with anyone with a good proposal including the necessary staff and funding. All of the negatives brought up at the meeting may or may not be true, but expecting these defects to change without additional support is unreasonable.I remember the time I unintentionally set off my ADP alarm and forgot how to turn it back off. A police officer was at my door within 3 minutes, a very short response time for which many seniors and non-seniors have reason to be thankful. If you'd like a new chief, keep trying to micromanage the department, arguably the best damn force in the region with a student population that imposes a heavy off-campus burden on the town and its 98 or whatever number of restaurants, bars, bistros and shops without producing any significant revenue to the town though its minimal commercial tax contributions.
The state, with its 5% meals tax, gets more money from the students than we do all of their purchases, to a great extent because commercial property is taxed on a capitalized net return of building owners rather than true market value. And if anyone thinks a 1.5% meal tax "bone" would, if passed, make a difference in town financing, you may have my nomination for pollyanna of the year.
Do you think Bush is keeping us safe from terrorism? If so, let's eliminate any work by the police in following up on potential threats to the region and the community. After all, who would dare to upset Amherst's apparent invulnerability?
Since I voted for both higher amounts, I can't move for reconsideration. Would anyone on this listserve be willing to make such a motion? If so, good luck, and count on my vote again.
Dick Mudgett, Preceinct 6
Quoting Mary L Wentworth:
Thank you, Gerry, for opening up this conversation about alcohol use
and its effects on our town. I would add that it is not only those
neighborhoods that you mention that are impacted. They are on the route
back to the campus. But many drinkers do not immediately head there.
They come down into the parking garage area, Lessey Street, and
Sweetser Park. What kind of an example does this whole scene provide
for younger teens at the high school? Is this a situation made to order
for those selling illegal drugs?
I would like to see the SB hold a hearing on this topic. Would that be
possible?
Mary
On Thursday, May 24, 2007, at 05:36 AM, Gerry Weiss wrote:
A few more thoughts: back to the State. It seems to me that there should
be a policy that the state will provide towns with funds for police/some
number of students, like one officer/3 or 4000 students. Someone last
night pointed out that UMass is adding some number of students (1500?)
over the next few years. That impacts the town, especially the police and the neighbors.
I also think we do need a wider conversation about alcohol. Drinking is
good for some merchants in town. Does it pay its way? What is the
economic impact on the town of a dry campus? The social impact of
hundreds of drunk and semi-drunk students returning to their dorms at 2
AM via Lincoln, Fearing, etc? What would the impact be of UMass becoming
wet again? The social impact? What would the impact be of closing bars
at 12 instead of 1?
Gerry
Phil Jackson wrote:
I think that there are at least three real determining factors in the discussion:
1. Benchmarks for size of police-to-total population. What are the
recommended guidelines for the number of resources?
2. Statistics on the type/frequency of police responses combined with
some trend analysis. In order to respond to, investigate, process,
etc., how many resources are required to address the communities needs?
3. The impact of the colleges, but most particularly UMass, on the
APD. How much does the demand increase during the school year and what
compromises in other capabilities does this increased burden create to
our resources who serve the total town?
Again: UMass' police is its department. It is policing a physical
space far smaller than the 29-square miles of Amherst. They are only
responding to UMass' needs. Our dispatch center does not dispatch
them. They do not respond to a medical emergency on Bay Road, for
example, as first responders (as the APD do); they do not direct
traffic for a construction project on Main Street. And the list goes on.
To: amhersttownmeeting@yahoogroups.com
From: Gerry Weiss
Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 08:05:49 -0400
Subject: Re: [AmhTownMtg] NoHo adds while Amherst subtracts
Phil,Larry offered one piece of information to suggest that Amherst
was under staffing our Police Dep't. I offered some more pieces of
information. You offered some more. And we've only scratched the
surface of this discussion. How do we count our population when we are
trying to figure out staffing? Do we count the UMPD at all in staffing
numbers? If we count the entire population including on campus
students, and only our town force, then we have 50 for 34,000 or a
staffing of 1.47/1000, which is a horrible number. But is that an
accurate way to calculate this? It seems to me that we should not use
Northampton to compare to which was my original point. If we agree
that we're talking apples and oranges, then shouldn't any mention of
Noho be out of line? And if we put in Noho, then let's look at the
Noho budget - what is the police line? what % is that of town gov't;
what % is that of the entire budget? That's all I'm saying; the
discussion can go on and on and shouldn't stop at how many officers
Noho has. Everything is connected. I was expanding the conversation
away from Larry's headline.I would agree that 2 of the most important
social service agencies in a town are police and schools. Schools are
in the category of prevention (except for those children it doesn't
work for) and police are in response. (yes, they do have programs that
offer prevention as well). Other social services serve as prevention
organizations. I won't get into a conversation about rankings.Gerry
Phil Jackson wrote:>I'm assuming Mr. Kelley is
suggesting that Northampton has a larger force compared to Amherst.>
I'm curious, then, what the point of your (second) comparison is?>
Are your numbers intended to suggest that we, in fact, have a larger
force than Northampton? I don't believe that the town has any official
capacity to direct the activities of the UMass police force or to
dispatch them in response to 911 or non-emergency calls, so to include
them seems a stretch.> >And, are you also suggesting, by way of
comparison, that Amherst and Northampton are similar municipalities
from a police/public safety standpoint with respect to demographics? I
looked hard on YouTube for footage of the young ladies at Smith (or
anyone else for that matter) rioting in celebration, on- or
off-campus. No luck.> >I've heard the assertion from a disparate group
of people that the two most important social services agencies in any
community are the public schools and the police, both of which come
into direct contact daily with the neediest and most disadvantaged in
the community and provide a broad range of services. What thoughts do
you have on the validity of this?
To:amhersttownmeeting@yahoogroups.com
From: Gerry Weiss
Date:Tue, 22 May 2007 14:56:49 -0400
Subject: Re: [AmhTownMtg] NoHo adds while Amherst subtracts
I believe Mr. Kelley was the first to make
the comparison. I was responding to his comparison.
Phil Jackson
wrote:> I'm providing four examples of why Amherst and Northampton may
not be > exactly an apples-to-apples comparison with respect to
policing, as > Mr. Weiss seems to suggest.>> NOTE: Videos contain
adult language and content. Viewer discretion is > advised.)>> 2002:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=PcZ0F8GQ8rQ >
> 2003:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=DvtMOosv8xw >
> 2004:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=QXCcAUKt7uQ >
(NOTE: This one has
multiple instances of nudity in the first 2 mins)> 2006:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=LHHlGa80xuM >
>> Keep in mind that UMass
police are NOT Amherst police. Despite the > much-touted mutual aid
agreement, they are NOT additional police > resources.> Also, if you
haven't reviewed the town's crime statistics, you might > want to do
so:>> FY06: >
http://www.amherstpd.org/PDFs/Town%20Report%20PDFs/
FY%202006%20%20townreport.pdf >
http://www.amherstpd.org/sub_services_info_crime_statistics.asp >
>>
The Northampton PD does NOT publish comparable stats on its
website.>>
But, you can look at Springfield's stats for 2003 and 2004, which
use
the same FBI categories as the Amherst stats, for comparative >
purposes. I don't know how many officers they have, but I'm sure
it's
more than Amherst.>> To: amhersttownmeeting@yahoogroups.comFrom >
: >
gerryweiss@comcast.netDate:
Tue,
22 May 2007 07:18:11 -0400Subject: Re: [AmhTownMtg] NoHo adds
while
Amherst subtracts>> Population Northampton: 29,000 with 63
officers
= 2.17/1000Population > Amherst, counting all students: 34,000 with
50
APD + 60 UMPD = 110 > officers = 3.24/1000Population Amherst off
campus = 22,000 with 50 > officers = 2.27/1000larry kelley wrote:>
Hamp police at former level> > Monday, May 21, 2007> By FRED
CONTRADA>
fcontrada@repub.com >
>> > NORTHAMPTON - The Police
Department
is about to reach its highest > > staffing level in a decade after
hiring eight officers.>> The new > recruits will bring the total of
full-time officers and > supervisors > to 63, said Police Chief
Russell P. Sienkiewicz, the > highest number > since the Clinton
administration.>> Along with the hirings, the police > department is
promoting several > employees.>> Effective May 27, Sgt. > Scott A.
Savino will become a lieutenant on the > day shift. On that > same
date, Det. Jody D. Kasper will be promoted to > patrol sergeant, >
acting sergeant Robert J. Powers will be made a > full-time patrol >
sergeant, and Officer Craig R. Kirouac will be > promoted to the >
detective bureau.>> Sienkiewicz said that four recruits will enter
the
police academy in > Lowell for training on June 4. They are
Michael
J. > Briggs, 26, of > Newton; Brian J. D'Amico, 22, of Medway;
Timothy
M. > Miner, 23, of > Charlton; and Enzo A. Yaksic, 24, of Everett.>>
June 4 > will also be the first day of field training for Michael A.
DeCaro, > 23, of Agawam; Justin D. Hooten, 26, of Belchertown;
Andrew
J. > Kohl, > 23, of Easthampton; and Jaroslaw M. Przybyla, 34, of >
Southampton. > They will function as officers until the department
finds > slots for > them at the state-run police academy in
Springfield, > Sienkiewicz > said.>> All the new officers either
have
or are about to earn > bachelor's or > associate's degrees,
according
to Sienkiewicz.>> The > chief said that 147 applicants to the
department took the most > > recent exam in January. The competition
for police officers has grown > > fierce in recent years as states
such as California and Texas have > > been recruiting candidates
from
Massachusetts.>> "It's hard to recruit > and retain people in law
enforcement," > Sienkiewicz said.>> >
--------------------------------->
Date: May 24, 2007 2:54:18 PM EDT
To: "Awad, Anne", "Brewer, Alisa"
Cc: "Shaffer, Larry"
Subject: FW: [AmhTownMtg] NoHo adds while Amherst subtracts
-----Original Message-----
From: Dick Mudgett
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 12:59 PM
To: amhersttownmeeting@yahoogroups.com; Wentworth, Mary
Cc: amhersttownmeeting@yahoogroups.com; Nick Grabbe, Larry Shaffer; Select Board; Finance Committe; Finance Department
Subject: Re: [AmhTownMtg] NoHo adds while Amherst subtracts
Dear et al.
After last nights debacle on public safety, I wonder if the chief will be open to suggestions for program or system chages that will stress his men further and add to his budget without additional financial support which town meeting wasn't willing to consider in its defeat of two motions that would have retained two of his current police staff. Many comments, not all, made on this thread seem to be a dream to micro-manage public safety through "suggestions" that affect ability to respond and with implicit cost increases that town meeting would clearly be unwilling to consider. If you think some of these notions are really worthwhile, why don't those of you proposing them make an appointment with Chief Scherpa and explain to him how he can do all these things with a reduced staff and financial support. I'm sure he'd be glad to discuss these things with anyone with a good proposal including the necessary staff and funding. All of the negatives brought up at the meeting may or may not be true, but expecting these defects to change without additional support is unreasonable.I remember the time I unintentionally set off my ADP alarm and forgot how to turn it back off. A police officer was at my door within 3 minutes, a very short response time for which many seniors and non-seniors have reason to be thankful. If you'd like a new chief, keep trying to micromanage the department, arguably the best damn force in the region with a student population that imposes a heavy off-campus burden on the town and its 98 or whatever number of restaurants, bars, bistros and shops without producing any significant revenue to the town though its minimal commercial tax contributions.
The state, with its 5% meals tax, gets more money from the students than we do all of their purchases, to a great extent because commercial property is taxed on a capitalized net return of building owners rather than true market value. And if anyone thinks a 1.5% meal tax "bone" would, if passed, make a difference in town financing, you may have my nomination for pollyanna of the year.
Do you think Bush is keeping us safe from terrorism? If so, let's eliminate any work by the police in following up on potential threats to the region and the community. After all, who would dare to upset Amherst's apparent invulnerability?
Since I voted for both higher amounts, I can't move for reconsideration. Would anyone on this listserve be willing to make such a motion? If so, good luck, and count on my vote again.
Dick Mudgett, Preceinct 6
Quoting Mary L Wentworth
Thank you, Gerry, for opening up this conversation about alcohol use
and its effects on our town. I would add that it is not only those
neighborhoods that you mention that are impacted. They are on the route
back to the campus. But many drinkers do not immediately head there.
They come down into the parking garage area, Lessey Street, and
Sweetser Park. What kind of an example does this whole scene provide
for younger teens at the high school? Is this a situation made to order
for those selling illegal drugs?
I would like to see the SB hold a hearing on this topic. Would that be
possible?
Mary
On Thursday, May 24, 2007, at 05:36 AM, Gerry Weiss wrote:
A few more thoughts: back to the State. It seems to me that there should
be a policy that the state will provide towns with funds for police/some
number of students, like one officer/3 or 4000 students. Someone last
night pointed out that UMass is adding some number of students (1500?)
over the next few years. That impacts the town, especially the police and the neighbors.
I also think we do need a wider conversation about alcohol. Drinking is
good for some merchants in town. Does it pay its way? What is the
economic impact on the town of a dry campus? The social impact of
hundreds of drunk and semi-drunk students returning to their dorms at 2
AM via Lincoln, Fearing, etc? What would the impact be of UMass becoming
wet again? The social impact? What would the impact be of closing bars
at 12 instead of 1?
Gerry
Phil Jackson wrote:
I think that there are at least three real determining factors in the discussion:
1. Benchmarks for size of police-to-total population. What are the
recommended guidelines for the number of resources?
2. Statistics on the type/frequency of police responses combined with
some trend analysis. In order to respond to, investigate, process,
etc., how many resources are required to address the communities needs?
3. The impact of the colleges, but most particularly UMass, on the
APD. How much does the demand increase during the school year and what
compromises in other capabilities does this increased burden create to
our resources who serve the total town?
Again: UMass' police is its department. It is policing a physical
space far smaller than the 29-square miles of Amherst. They are only
responding to UMass' needs. Our dispatch center does not dispatch
them. They do not respond to a medical emergency on Bay Road, for
example, as first responders (as the APD do); they do not direct
traffic for a construction project on Main Street. And the list goes on.
To: amhersttownmeeting@yahoogroups.com
From: Gerry Weiss
Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 08:05:49 -0400
Subject: Re: [AmhTownMtg] NoHo adds while Amherst subtracts
Phil,Larry offered one piece of information to suggest that Amherst
was under staffing our Police Dep't. I offered some more pieces of
information. You offered some more. And we've only scratched the
surface of this discussion. How do we count our population when we are
trying to figure out staffing? Do we count the UMPD at all in staffing
numbers? If we count the entire population including on campus
students, and only our town force, then we have 50 for 34,000 or a
staffing of 1.47/1000, which is a horrible number. But is that an
accurate way to calculate this? It seems to me that we should not use
Northampton to compare to which was my original point. If we agree
that we're talking apples and oranges, then shouldn't any mention of
Noho be out of line? And if we put in Noho, then let's look at the
Noho budget - what is the police line? what % is that of town gov't;
what % is that of the entire budget? That's all I'm saying; the
discussion can go on and on and shouldn't stop at how many officers
Noho has. Everything is connected. I was expanding the conversation
away from Larry's headline.I would agree that 2 of the most important
social service agencies in a town are police and schools. Schools are
in the category of prevention (except for those children it doesn't
work for) and police are in response. (yes, they do have programs that
offer prevention as well). Other social services serve as prevention
organizations. I won't get into a conversation about rankings.Gerry
Phil Jackson wrote:>I'm assuming Mr. Kelley is
suggesting that Northampton has a larger force compared to Amherst.>
I'm curious, then, what the point of your (second) comparison is?>
Are your numbers intended to suggest that we, in fact, have a larger
force than Northampton? I don't believe that the town has any official
capacity to direct the activities of the UMass police force or to
dispatch them in response to 911 or non-emergency calls, so to include
them seems a stretch.> >And, are you also suggesting, by way of
comparison, that Amherst and Northampton are similar municipalities
from a police/public safety standpoint with respect to demographics? I
looked hard on YouTube for footage of the young ladies at Smith (or
anyone else for that matter) rioting in celebration, on- or
off-campus. No luck.> >I've heard the assertion from a disparate group
of people that the two most important social services agencies in any
community are the public schools and the police, both of which come
into direct contact daily with the neediest and most disadvantaged in
the community and provide a broad range of services. What thoughts do
you have on the validity of this?
To:amhersttownmeeting@yahoogroups.com
From: Gerry Weiss
Date:Tue, 22 May 2007 14:56:49 -0400
Subject: Re: [AmhTownMtg] NoHo adds while Amherst subtracts
I believe Mr. Kelley was the first to make
the comparison. I was responding to his comparison.
Phil Jackson
wrote:> I'm providing four examples of why Amherst and Northampton may
not be > exactly an apples-to-apples comparison with respect to
policing, as > Mr. Weiss seems to suggest.>> NOTE: Videos contain
adult language and content. Viewer discretion is > advised.)>> 2002:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=PcZ0F8GQ8rQ >
http://youtube.com/watch?v=DvtMOosv8xw >
http://youtube.com/watch?v=QXCcAUKt7uQ >
multiple instances of nudity in the first 2 mins)> 2006:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=LHHlGa80xuM >
police are NOT Amherst police. Despite the > much-touted mutual aid
agreement, they are NOT additional police > resources.> Also, if you
haven't reviewed the town's crime statistics, you might > want to do
so:>> FY06: >
http://www.amherstpd.org/PDFs/Town%20Report%20PDFs/
FY%202006%20%20townreport.pdf >
http://www.amherstpd.org/sub_services_info_crime_statistics.asp >
The Northampton PD does NOT publish comparable stats on its
website.>>
But, you can look at Springfield's stats for 2003 and 2004, which
use
the same FBI categories as the Amherst stats, for comparative >
purposes. I don't know how many officers they have, but I'm sure
it's
more than Amherst.>> To: amhersttownmeeting@yahoogroups.comFrom >
gerryweiss@comcast.netDate
Tue,
22 May 2007 07:18:11 -0400Subject: Re: [AmhTownMtg] NoHo adds
while
Amherst subtracts>> Population Northampton: 29,000 with 63
officers
= 2.17/1000Population > Amherst, counting all students: 34,000 with
50
APD + 60 UMPD = 110 > officers = 3.24/1000Population Amherst off
campus = 22,000 with 50 > officers = 2.27/1000larry kelley wrote:>
Hamp police at former level> > Monday, May 21, 2007> By FRED
CONTRADA>
fcontrada@repub.com >
Department
is about to reach its highest > > staffing level in a decade after
hiring eight officers.>> The new > recruits will bring the total of
full-time officers and > supervisors > to 63, said Police Chief
Russell P. Sienkiewicz, the > highest number > since the Clinton
administration.>> Along with the hirings, the police > department is
promoting several > employees.>> Effective May 27, Sgt. > Scott A.
Savino will become a lieutenant on the > day shift. On that > same
date, Det. Jody D. Kasper will be promoted to > patrol sergeant, >
acting sergeant Robert J. Powers will be made a > full-time patrol >
sergeant, and Officer Craig R. Kirouac will be > promoted to the >
detective bureau.>> Sienkiewicz said that four recruits will enter
the
police academy in > Lowell for training on June 4. They are
Michael
J. > Briggs, 26, of > Newton; Brian J. D'Amico, 22, of Medway;
Timothy
M. > Miner, 23, of > Charlton; and Enzo A. Yaksic, 24, of Everett.>>
June 4 > will also be the first day of field training for Michael A.
DeCaro, > 23, of Agawam; Justin D. Hooten, 26, of Belchertown;
Andrew
J. > Kohl, > 23, of Easthampton; and Jaroslaw M. Przybyla, 34, of >
Southampton. > They will function as officers until the department
finds > slots for > them at the state-run police academy in
Springfield, > Sienkiewicz > said.>> All the new officers either
have
or are about to earn > bachelor's or > associate's degrees,
according
to Sienkiewicz.>> The > chief said that 147 applicants to the
department took the most > > recent exam in January. The competition
for police officers has grown > > fierce in recent years as states
such as California and Texas have > > been recruiting candidates
from
Massachusetts.>> "It's hard to recruit > and retain people in law
enforcement," > Sienkiewicz said.>> >
--------------------------------->
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Article 25 Community Preservation Act: Historical Preservation
Several letters have been emailed to the Select Board stating that the South Amherst cemetary does not need a fence, and asking that the monies proposed for that be spent elsewhere. Let's try giving each letter a separate post and see what happens...if the staff liaison for the Historical Commission has sent a response to the writer, I'll include it in that posting. CPAC report to Town Meeting has details.
Article 25 Community Preservation Act: Historical Preservation
From: Judith Bannister
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 8:50 AM
To: Select Board
Subject: South Cemetery Fence
Save your money. We don’t want a fence.
South Cemetery is beautiful, a rolling green lawn that blends into the rest of South Amherst. The effect is one of peaceful, rural openness, something that is disappearing bit by bit as we build on much of the old farmland in Amherst. A fence would only intrude on this open space, an expensive reminder that the days of the natural flow of land and open spaces are numbered.
And let's face it, you couldn't build a fence high enough to keep out vandals unless you're thinking of adding a razor-wire top and I don't think that fits in with Amherst's image of itself. The fact is, South Amherst is not an isolated rural setting; it is a rural residential community. The cemetery is surrounded by homes full of people who act as perfectly adequate deterrents and who, at the very least, can call the police if they hear a ruckus in the cemetery.
I envision another drawback to a fence. Such a tightly enclosed environment might well tempt local residents who now walk their dogs (and many pick up after them) to bring them into the enclosure, unleash them and let them run. The chances of owners following their dogs around and picking up after them are nil so I don't see this as having a positive effect on the cemetery.
The Amherst town administration has been talking about cutbacks and complaining about a lack of money. Why would you then decide to spend money on another pointless project in South Amherst? You've pretty much fenced in the playing fields on Potwine Lane and given us a lovely blacktop parking lot where we used to make do with the wild grasses and wetlands. Please, take your money and use it somewhere where it's needed. South Cemetery is a very real part of South Amherst, actively used by local residents. We don't want it fenced off and locked at night; we want it to remain an open, vital part of our landscape, one that we enjoy visiting and walking through, even at night.
Thanks for listening.
Judy Bannister
XXXX Potwine Lane (one house away from the cemetery)
...........................
From: "Tucker, Jonathan"
Date: May 22, 2007 1:24:42 PM EDT
To: Judy Bannister
Cc: "Gai Carpenter", "Edith MacMullen", "Wald, James", "Brewer, Alisa"
Subject: RE: South Cemetery Fence
Dear Ms. Bannister:
Thank your for your letter. I hope this will address the concerns you raise:
Funding – The monies proposed to be used to design and install a fence for the South Amherst Cemetery are Community Preservation Act (CPA) funds. CPA funds cannot be used to address the Town’s budget difficulties or for any purpose other than community preservation projects. There are no Town budget savings to be had in deferring this project.
Who’s Making This Proposal – The Amherst Historical Commission proposed this project because Commission members themselves had observed increasing toppling and damage to historic headstones in the 1818 South Cemetery. To be clear, the Historical Commission had nothing whatsoever to do with the Plum Brook Recreation Area project, and there is no connection between that recreation area project and this cemetery preservation project. Amherst Town government consists of numerous volunteer citizen committees, each of which represents and independently pursues different aspects of the public interest. There is no monolithic “you” to address when trying to make draw parallels between different Town projects.
Cemetery Security - As noted, the Historical Commission proposed a fence for South Cemetery to improve security for old headstones and other resources in this historic cemetery. Among the headstones are a number of family plots and stones moved to South Amherst from cemeteries in the Quabbin towns, prior to its inundation. No fence will keep out determined vandals, any more than will the proximity of concerned neighbors. The damage done to date has apparently occurred without much accompanying ruckus, and in spite of the presence and vigilance of neighbors. The principal point of proposing a fence for this cemetery is to be able to gate the paved driveways—to keep vehicles out of the cemetery at night. There are numerous headstones set very close to the paved drives that are much more vulnerable to being struck at night than they are in the daytime. Partying in the cemetery is only one concern. There is a growing market in stolen historic funerary objects, including headstones. Being able to drive a vehicle right up to an intended object of theft—particularly something as heavy as a headstone—makes it easy to steal. Unlike in the downtown West Cemetery, where foot traffic from the bars makes it advisable to close that cemetery at night, there would be little need to limit night-time pedestrian access to South Cemetery. Cemeteries are historically intended to serve as public green spaces, places of contemplation as well as resting places for our dead.
Fence Design – No design has been developed for the proposed fence, beyond the general idea of using the historic wooden column-and-picket fence at the North Amherst Cemetery as a model, and the need to close off the driveway entrances. The Historical Commission intends to hold public meetings in South Amherst to develop design concepts for any such fencing, so South Amherst residents will have a voice in whatever occurs. It may be that the only places where any fencing would be needed would be along the streetside edges of the cemetery, with pedestrian access at the corners—partial ‘edge’ fencing of this kind would discourage people from letting their dogs off-leash during walks. The North Amherst Cemetery fence occurs only along the street. If for some reason it was decided that South Cemetery needed to be encircled with fencing, pedestrian gates could be created and kept unlocked. There are many ways to ensure continued pedestrian access for neighbors and visitors. South Amherst residents can help ensure that their interests are included in the fence design.
Rural Openness – I grew up in South Amherst from the age of six on, so I well remember the landscape you describe—I roamed across most of it throughout my childhood. South Amherst was 80% open fields and only 20% woods back then. That percentage has now reversed. Building construction to house new residents over the past 40 years is only part of what has reduced the sense of openness in South Amherst. The decline of active farming has also had a powerful ‘enclosing’ effect on the landscape, as the woods succeed in and cover former farm fields. The loss of a sense of openness that a fence might impose on South Cemetery could be a real one. That must be balanced, however, against other potential losses.
The historic North Amherst Cemetery fence (recently restored through the efforts of Amherst’s DPW and Smith Vocational School students) is a traditional rural feature, and it also serves as a visual barrier, unconsciously warning passing drivers of the presence of the cemetery. On the east side of the South Cemetery, South East Street runs uphill from the cemetery and serves as a major commuter corridor (as a Potwine Lane resident, you certainly know that from experience). South East Street is not going to become less busy in the foreseeable future. Without the visual ‘boundary’ reminder that a fence provides, a sight-impaired or inebriated driver on South East Street could visually “lose their way” at night and plow downhill into the cemetery, causing extensive damage to the historic headstones. In the balancing of public interests that all Town boards and committees struggle to achieve, the Historical Commission has come down on the side of protecting the historic resources that belong to all members of the Amherst community. That’s what this project is intended to do.
I hope that answers your questions. Please don’t hesitate to contact me with further questions.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Tucker
Planning Director
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 8:50 AM
To: Select Board
Subject: South Cemetery Fence
Save your money. We don’t want a fence.
South Cemetery is beautiful, a rolling green lawn that blends into the rest of South Amherst. The effect is one of peaceful, rural openness, something that is disappearing bit by bit as we build on much of the old farmland in Amherst. A fence would only intrude on this open space, an expensive reminder that the days of the natural flow of land and open spaces are numbered.
And let's face it, you couldn't build a fence high enough to keep out vandals unless you're thinking of adding a razor-wire top and I don't think that fits in with Amherst's image of itself. The fact is, South Amherst is not an isolated rural setting; it is a rural residential community. The cemetery is surrounded by homes full of people who act as perfectly adequate deterrents and who, at the very least, can call the police if they hear a ruckus in the cemetery.
I envision another drawback to a fence. Such a tightly enclosed environment might well tempt local residents who now walk their dogs (and many pick up after them) to bring them into the enclosure, unleash them and let them run. The chances of owners following their dogs around and picking up after them are nil so I don't see this as having a positive effect on the cemetery.
The Amherst town administration has been talking about cutbacks and complaining about a lack of money. Why would you then decide to spend money on another pointless project in South Amherst? You've pretty much fenced in the playing fields on Potwine Lane and given us a lovely blacktop parking lot where we used to make do with the wild grasses and wetlands. Please, take your money and use it somewhere where it's needed. South Cemetery is a very real part of South Amherst, actively used by local residents. We don't want it fenced off and locked at night; we want it to remain an open, vital part of our landscape, one that we enjoy visiting and walking through, even at night.
Thanks for listening.
Judy Bannister
XXXX Potwine Lane (one house away from the cemetery)
...........................
From: "Tucker, Jonathan"
Date: May 22, 2007 1:24:42 PM EDT
To: Judy Bannister
Cc: "Gai Carpenter", "Edith MacMullen", "Wald, James", "Brewer, Alisa"
Subject: RE: South Cemetery Fence
Dear Ms. Bannister:
Thank your for your letter. I hope this will address the concerns you raise:
Funding – The monies proposed to be used to design and install a fence for the South Amherst Cemetery are Community Preservation Act (CPA) funds. CPA funds cannot be used to address the Town’s budget difficulties or for any purpose other than community preservation projects. There are no Town budget savings to be had in deferring this project.
Who’s Making This Proposal – The Amherst Historical Commission proposed this project because Commission members themselves had observed increasing toppling and damage to historic headstones in the 1818 South Cemetery. To be clear, the Historical Commission had nothing whatsoever to do with the Plum Brook Recreation Area project, and there is no connection between that recreation area project and this cemetery preservation project. Amherst Town government consists of numerous volunteer citizen committees, each of which represents and independently pursues different aspects of the public interest. There is no monolithic “you” to address when trying to make draw parallels between different Town projects.
Cemetery Security - As noted, the Historical Commission proposed a fence for South Cemetery to improve security for old headstones and other resources in this historic cemetery. Among the headstones are a number of family plots and stones moved to South Amherst from cemeteries in the Quabbin towns, prior to its inundation. No fence will keep out determined vandals, any more than will the proximity of concerned neighbors. The damage done to date has apparently occurred without much accompanying ruckus, and in spite of the presence and vigilance of neighbors. The principal point of proposing a fence for this cemetery is to be able to gate the paved driveways—to keep vehicles out of the cemetery at night. There are numerous headstones set very close to the paved drives that are much more vulnerable to being struck at night than they are in the daytime. Partying in the cemetery is only one concern. There is a growing market in stolen historic funerary objects, including headstones. Being able to drive a vehicle right up to an intended object of theft—particularly something as heavy as a headstone—makes it easy to steal. Unlike in the downtown West Cemetery, where foot traffic from the bars makes it advisable to close that cemetery at night, there would be little need to limit night-time pedestrian access to South Cemetery. Cemeteries are historically intended to serve as public green spaces, places of contemplation as well as resting places for our dead.
Fence Design – No design has been developed for the proposed fence, beyond the general idea of using the historic wooden column-and-picket fence at the North Amherst Cemetery as a model, and the need to close off the driveway entrances. The Historical Commission intends to hold public meetings in South Amherst to develop design concepts for any such fencing, so South Amherst residents will have a voice in whatever occurs. It may be that the only places where any fencing would be needed would be along the streetside edges of the cemetery, with pedestrian access at the corners—partial ‘edge’ fencing of this kind would discourage people from letting their dogs off-leash during walks. The North Amherst Cemetery fence occurs only along the street. If for some reason it was decided that South Cemetery needed to be encircled with fencing, pedestrian gates could be created and kept unlocked. There are many ways to ensure continued pedestrian access for neighbors and visitors. South Amherst residents can help ensure that their interests are included in the fence design.
Rural Openness – I grew up in South Amherst from the age of six on, so I well remember the landscape you describe—I roamed across most of it throughout my childhood. South Amherst was 80% open fields and only 20% woods back then. That percentage has now reversed. Building construction to house new residents over the past 40 years is only part of what has reduced the sense of openness in South Amherst. The decline of active farming has also had a powerful ‘enclosing’ effect on the landscape, as the woods succeed in and cover former farm fields. The loss of a sense of openness that a fence might impose on South Cemetery could be a real one. That must be balanced, however, against other potential losses.
The historic North Amherst Cemetery fence (recently restored through the efforts of Amherst’s DPW and Smith Vocational School students) is a traditional rural feature, and it also serves as a visual barrier, unconsciously warning passing drivers of the presence of the cemetery. On the east side of the South Cemetery, South East Street runs uphill from the cemetery and serves as a major commuter corridor (as a Potwine Lane resident, you certainly know that from experience). South East Street is not going to become less busy in the foreseeable future. Without the visual ‘boundary’ reminder that a fence provides, a sight-impaired or inebriated driver on South East Street could visually “lose their way” at night and plow downhill into the cemetery, causing extensive damage to the historic headstones. In the balancing of public interests that all Town boards and committees struggle to achieve, the Historical Commission has come down on the side of protecting the historic resources that belong to all members of the Amherst community. That’s what this project is intended to do.
I hope that answers your questions. Please don’t hesitate to contact me with further questions.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Tucker
Planning Director
Article 25 Community Preservation Act: Historical Preservation
From: SelectBoard AT amherstma.gov
Date: May 17, 2007 9:05:13 PM EDT
To: aawad AT verizon.net, avbrewer AT comcast.net, gerryweiss AT comcast.net, greeneyh AT juno.com, robkusner AT gmail.com
Cc: ShafferL AT amherstma.gov
Subject: FW: No Fence At South Cemetery
-----Original Message-----
From: Peg Holcomb
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 3:30 PM
To: Select Board
Subject: Re: No Fence At South Cemetery
I am a resident of South Amherst near the cemetery. For 25 years I have
enjoyed walking thru the cemetery.
A very few of the old headstones are tipped over...but they have been
for many years. I do not and have not witnessed vandalism of any sort.
Even if a fence is installed around the perimeter it would not keep
folks out who are determined to enter. $40,000.00 is too much to spend
on a fence...Fix the Town Hall and the East Street School. Let's get our
priorities straight.
Date: May 17, 2007 9:05:13 PM EDT
To: aawad AT verizon.net, avbrewer AT comcast.net, gerryweiss AT comcast.net, greeneyh AT juno.com, robkusner AT gmail.com
Cc: ShafferL AT amherstma.gov
Subject: FW: No Fence At South Cemetery
-----Original Message-----
From: Peg Holcomb
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 3:30 PM
To: Select Board
Subject: Re: No Fence At South Cemetery
I am a resident of South Amherst near the cemetery. For 25 years I have
enjoyed walking thru the cemetery.
A very few of the old headstones are tipped over...but they have been
for many years. I do not and have not witnessed vandalism of any sort.
Even if a fence is installed around the perimeter it would not keep
folks out who are determined to enter. $40,000.00 is too much to spend
on a fence...Fix the Town Hall and the East Street School. Let's get our
priorities straight.
Article 25 Community Preservation Act: Historical Preservation
From: Irwin / Martha Spiegelman
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 3:31 PM
To: Peter Jessop; Tucker, Jonathan; Finance; Manager, Town
Subject: Re: Fence
Thank you for the information, but need to know how high the fence will be and what it might be made of.
Will there be 6 locked gates for the three paths running between Middle and SE Sts?
I was unaware of vandalism at South Cemetary in recent years or unlawful activity. Please update me. Thanks,again, Irwin Spiegelman
Peter Jessop wrote:
Irwin,
Here is the description of the work, and also a copy of a response from Jonathan Tucker to a citizen who had some concerns. As I am sure you are aware, CPAC only makes recommendations to TM, and then it is our job as TM members to vote for the various appropriations or not. If a recommendation is not approved by TM, then that money goes back into the CPAC fund and can only be spent on CPA eligible projects in the future.
South Cemetery – Restoration/Improvements
The requested funds would be used to design and install a perimeter fence (approx. $40,000) to improve the appearance and security of the 1818 South Amherst Cemetery. In addition to being a traditional burying ground for South Amherst residents since its establishment, South Amherst Cemetery also received numerous family burials transferred from cemeteries in the towns slated to be inundated by the Quabbin Reservoir in the 1930s. A number of families displaced by the reservoir moved to Amherst. A funding request for headstone restoration for the North Amherst Cemetery is scheduled for FY09.
Dear Ms. _______________:
Under Article 25, the Amherst Historical Commission is proposing CPA funding for a perimeter fence for the 1818 South Amherst Cemetery for two basic reasons:
1. To increase security for this historic burying ground. One of the first tasks in protecting any historic cemetery is to increase and ensure its security. The South Amherst cemetery is indeed a very beautiful site, as well as historic. Its open boundaries also make it very vulnerable. In addition to long-time South Amherst families, this cemetery contains numerous relocated graves of Quabbin area families. Restoring broken or damaged headstones and undertaking other physical improvements to the cemetery would be of little value if that investment in restoration could then be undone in a single night of vandalism. There is a growing illegal market in stolen funerary artifacts, including older headstones. Vandalism and inappropriate night-time ‘recreation’ and vehicle activity in cemeteries are increasing problems. The intent of creating a perimeter fence—obviously with gates—is not to restrict daytime access for families or visitors, but to allow the community to close the cemetery at night. West Cemetery in downtown Amherst is now appropriately fenced and closed at night for these reasons.
2. To improve the aesthetic appearance of the cemetery. One of the most important visual features of the 1818 North Amherst Cemetery (established at the same time as the South Amherst Cemetery) is its attractive roadside fence, which defines the edge of the burying ground, helps to declare the cemetery’s historic nature (through the design of the fence), and helps to visually separate the cemetery from the road for tired or inebriated drivers in the evening. A portion of the proposed funding would be used to help design the fence, and the South Amherst community would be involved in reviewing that change. No fence design would be selected or installed without public review.
All of the projects proposed under Article 25 were presented and reviewed at several different publicly-noticed meetings of the Historical Commission and the Community Preservation Act Committee. Article 25 is on the Town Meeting warrant signed by the Select Board and it cannot be ‘withdrawn’ by Town officials at this point. If you are not yourself a member of Town Meeting, you should speak to one or more of your Town Meeting representatives and consult with the Town Moderator concerning the best way to procedurally address your concern on the floor of Town Meeting when this article comes up for consideration.
I hope that answers your question.
Jonathan Tucker
Planning Director
I hope this is helpful.
Peter
Peter Jessop
Integrity Development and Construction, Inc
XXXX Pulpit Hill Road
.....................................
From: Tucker, Jonathan
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 5:01 PM
To: 'Irwin / Martha Spiegelman'; Peter Jessop; Finance; Manager, Town
Cc: Ziomek, David; Mooring, Guilford; Michael Hanke; Edith MacMullen; Elizabeth Sharpe; Gai Carpenter; Wald, James; Lyle Denit; Lynda Faye
Subject: RE: Fence
Dear Mr. Spiegelman:
As noted in my email summary below [NOTE from Alisa: now above] below, the fence has not yet been designed, so its materials, height, and gating will all be matters that the public can help to determine. There are three drives passing through South Cemetery, each of which connects to both South East Street and Middle Street. Since there are no crosspaths within the cemetery, it is logical to assume there will be six gates needed, and all will need locks if the cemetery is to be closed at night.
I cannot give you a specific history of vandalism in South Cemetery (we can certainly inquire with DPW and the Police Dept.), but one of the reasons that this item is a priority in the FY08 CPA historic preservation budget is because Historical Commission members themselves have noticed increasing damage to headstones in South Cemetery in recent years. Theft of funerary objects, illicit activity, and obvious vandalism are general trends all over New England. They have been observed in West Cemetery. South Cemetery is in a more isolated rural setting. That both protects it to an extent (there are fewer people nearby on a regular basis) and makes it more vulnerable (there are fewer people to observe and deter inappropriate behavior). Should the community wait until South Cemetery experiences a clearly established pattern of vandalism, unlawful activity, and significant damage to family graves and local historic resources before taking action? For the Historical Commission, prevention seemed a more responsible way to proceed.
I hope that answers your questions.
Jonathan Tucker
Planning Director
..........................
From: Irwin / Martha Spiegelman
Date: May 14, 2007 8:11:47 AM EDT
To: Hwei-Ling Greeney, Anne Awad, Rob Kusner, Gerry Weiss, Alisa Brewer
Subject: No Fence for South Cemetery
NO FENCE FOR SOUTH CEMETERY
Under Article 25 of the 2007 Annual Town Meeting, we learn that $40,000 of Community Preservation Act (CPA) funds has been requested to build a perimeter fence with six gates around the South Cemetery.
Why Town Meeting and the Select Board should reject funding
for the South Cemetery Perimeter Fence
1. The fence is an unnecessary expense. It may very well cost more than $40,000.
It will be almost 0.3 mile long, with six gates and high enough (4-6 feet ?)
to keep out intruders at night.
2. If the older grave stones, making up a small area of the cemetery, must be
protected, those portions of the cemetery could be appropriately fenced in.
3. It certainly will not improve the appearance of the cemetery. It will spoil the attractive, open grassy sward so many have long admired. Instead, the cemetery will be hemmed in and look "off limits."
4. If the $40,000 is not spent on the fence and is added to the over $200,000 in unspent Historical Commission funds, it might be used to cover part of the Town Hall and East Street School renovations (both historical buildings), which will cost over $750,000. This shift in CPA funds would help relieve the strain on Amherst's capital budget during this budget crisis.
~ Sign the Petition to Stop the Fence ~
~ Contact Select Board and Town Meeting Members ~
Advocates for the perimeter fence at South Cemetery have given two principal reasons.
1. To increase security for this historic burying ground. One of the first tasks in protecting any historic cemetery is to ensure its security. Open boundaries are said to make South Cemetery vulnerable to harm: restoring damaged headstones and undertaking other physical improvements would be of little value if that investment could then be undone in a single night of vandalism. It is said too that there is a growing illegal market in stolen funerary artifacts, including old headstones. The intent of creating a perimeter fence is to allow the town to close the cemetery at night. (West Cemetery in central Amherst is now fenced and closed at night for these reasons.)
A reason that this item is a priority in the FY '08 CPA historic preservation budget is because Historical Commission members claim that there is increasing damage to headstones in South Cemetery in recent years. It is
said that theft of funerary objects, illicit activity, and obvious vandalism are general trends all over New England. Such actions have been observed in West Cemetery. South Cemetery is in a more isolated rural setting, which
protects it to an extent (few people nearby on a regular basis) and makes it more vulnerable (few people to observe
and deter inappropriate behavior). For the Historical Commission, prevention seems a responsible way to proceed.
2. To improve the aesthetic appearance of the cemetery. It is said that one of the visual features of the 1818 North Amherst Cemetery (established at the same time as the South Amherst Cemetery) is its "attractive roadside fence," which defines the edge of the burying ground and helps to declare the cemetery’s historic nature by way of the design of the fence. [Not all would agree about an "attractive" nature of a fence.]
The South Cemetery fence has not yet been designed, so its materials, height, and gating will all be matters that the public can help determine. There are three drives passing through South Cemetery, and six gates will be needed, with locks, for the cemetery to be closed every night.
~ Sign the Petition to Stop the Fence ~
Contact Select Board, 259-3001 / selectboard AT amherstma.gov ,
and Town Meeting Members
Friends of South Cemetery, XXXX Middle Street XXXX May 2007
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 3:31 PM
To: Peter Jessop; Tucker, Jonathan; Finance; Manager, Town
Subject: Re: Fence
Thank you for the information, but need to know how high the fence will be and what it might be made of.
Will there be 6 locked gates for the three paths running between Middle and SE Sts?
I was unaware of vandalism at South Cemetary in recent years or unlawful activity. Please update me. Thanks,again, Irwin Spiegelman
Peter Jessop wrote:
Irwin,
Here is the description of the work, and also a copy of a response from Jonathan Tucker to a citizen who had some concerns. As I am sure you are aware, CPAC only makes recommendations to TM, and then it is our job as TM members to vote for the various appropriations or not. If a recommendation is not approved by TM, then that money goes back into the CPAC fund and can only be spent on CPA eligible projects in the future.
South Cemetery – Restoration/Improvements
The requested funds would be used to design and install a perimeter fence (approx. $40,000) to improve the appearance and security of the 1818 South Amherst Cemetery. In addition to being a traditional burying ground for South Amherst residents since its establishment, South Amherst Cemetery also received numerous family burials transferred from cemeteries in the towns slated to be inundated by the Quabbin Reservoir in the 1930s. A number of families displaced by the reservoir moved to Amherst. A funding request for headstone restoration for the North Amherst Cemetery is scheduled for FY09.
Dear Ms. _______________:
Under Article 25, the Amherst Historical Commission is proposing CPA funding for a perimeter fence for the 1818 South Amherst Cemetery for two basic reasons:
1. To increase security for this historic burying ground. One of the first tasks in protecting any historic cemetery is to increase and ensure its security. The South Amherst cemetery is indeed a very beautiful site, as well as historic. Its open boundaries also make it very vulnerable. In addition to long-time South Amherst families, this cemetery contains numerous relocated graves of Quabbin area families. Restoring broken or damaged headstones and undertaking other physical improvements to the cemetery would be of little value if that investment in restoration could then be undone in a single night of vandalism. There is a growing illegal market in stolen funerary artifacts, including older headstones. Vandalism and inappropriate night-time ‘recreation’ and vehicle activity in cemeteries are increasing problems. The intent of creating a perimeter fence—obviously with gates—is not to restrict daytime access for families or visitors, but to allow the community to close the cemetery at night. West Cemetery in downtown Amherst is now appropriately fenced and closed at night for these reasons.
2. To improve the aesthetic appearance of the cemetery. One of the most important visual features of the 1818 North Amherst Cemetery (established at the same time as the South Amherst Cemetery) is its attractive roadside fence, which defines the edge of the burying ground, helps to declare the cemetery’s historic nature (through the design of the fence), and helps to visually separate the cemetery from the road for tired or inebriated drivers in the evening. A portion of the proposed funding would be used to help design the fence, and the South Amherst community would be involved in reviewing that change. No fence design would be selected or installed without public review.
All of the projects proposed under Article 25 were presented and reviewed at several different publicly-noticed meetings of the Historical Commission and the Community Preservation Act Committee. Article 25 is on the Town Meeting warrant signed by the Select Board and it cannot be ‘withdrawn’ by Town officials at this point. If you are not yourself a member of Town Meeting, you should speak to one or more of your Town Meeting representatives and consult with the Town Moderator concerning the best way to procedurally address your concern on the floor of Town Meeting when this article comes up for consideration.
I hope that answers your question.
Jonathan Tucker
Planning Director
I hope this is helpful.
Peter
Peter Jessop
Integrity Development and Construction, Inc
XXXX Pulpit Hill Road
.....................................
From: Tucker, Jonathan
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 5:01 PM
To: 'Irwin / Martha Spiegelman'; Peter Jessop; Finance; Manager, Town
Cc: Ziomek, David; Mooring, Guilford; Michael Hanke; Edith MacMullen; Elizabeth Sharpe; Gai Carpenter; Wald, James; Lyle Denit; Lynda Faye
Subject: RE: Fence
Dear Mr. Spiegelman:
As noted in my email summary below [NOTE from Alisa: now above] below, the fence has not yet been designed, so its materials, height, and gating will all be matters that the public can help to determine. There are three drives passing through South Cemetery, each of which connects to both South East Street and Middle Street. Since there are no crosspaths within the cemetery, it is logical to assume there will be six gates needed, and all will need locks if the cemetery is to be closed at night.
I cannot give you a specific history of vandalism in South Cemetery (we can certainly inquire with DPW and the Police Dept.), but one of the reasons that this item is a priority in the FY08 CPA historic preservation budget is because Historical Commission members themselves have noticed increasing damage to headstones in South Cemetery in recent years. Theft of funerary objects, illicit activity, and obvious vandalism are general trends all over New England. They have been observed in West Cemetery. South Cemetery is in a more isolated rural setting. That both protects it to an extent (there are fewer people nearby on a regular basis) and makes it more vulnerable (there are fewer people to observe and deter inappropriate behavior). Should the community wait until South Cemetery experiences a clearly established pattern of vandalism, unlawful activity, and significant damage to family graves and local historic resources before taking action? For the Historical Commission, prevention seemed a more responsible way to proceed.
I hope that answers your questions.
Jonathan Tucker
Planning Director
..........................
From: Irwin / Martha Spiegelman
Date: May 14, 2007 8:11:47 AM EDT
To: Hwei-Ling Greeney, Anne Awad, Rob Kusner, Gerry Weiss, Alisa Brewer
Subject: No Fence for South Cemetery
NO FENCE FOR SOUTH CEMETERY
Under Article 25 of the 2007 Annual Town Meeting, we learn that $40,000 of Community Preservation Act (CPA) funds has been requested to build a perimeter fence with six gates around the South Cemetery.
Why Town Meeting and the Select Board should reject funding
for the South Cemetery Perimeter Fence
1. The fence is an unnecessary expense. It may very well cost more than $40,000.
It will be almost 0.3 mile long, with six gates and high enough (4-6 feet ?)
to keep out intruders at night.
2. If the older grave stones, making up a small area of the cemetery, must be
protected, those portions of the cemetery could be appropriately fenced in.
3. It certainly will not improve the appearance of the cemetery. It will spoil the attractive, open grassy sward so many have long admired. Instead, the cemetery will be hemmed in and look "off limits."
4. If the $40,000 is not spent on the fence and is added to the over $200,000 in unspent Historical Commission funds, it might be used to cover part of the Town Hall and East Street School renovations (both historical buildings), which will cost over $750,000. This shift in CPA funds would help relieve the strain on Amherst's capital budget during this budget crisis.
~ Sign the Petition to Stop the Fence ~
~ Contact Select Board and Town Meeting Members ~
Advocates for the perimeter fence at South Cemetery have given two principal reasons.
1. To increase security for this historic burying ground. One of the first tasks in protecting any historic cemetery is to ensure its security. Open boundaries are said to make South Cemetery vulnerable to harm: restoring damaged headstones and undertaking other physical improvements would be of little value if that investment could then be undone in a single night of vandalism. It is said too that there is a growing illegal market in stolen funerary artifacts, including old headstones. The intent of creating a perimeter fence is to allow the town to close the cemetery at night. (West Cemetery in central Amherst is now fenced and closed at night for these reasons.)
A reason that this item is a priority in the FY '08 CPA historic preservation budget is because Historical Commission members claim that there is increasing damage to headstones in South Cemetery in recent years. It is
said that theft of funerary objects, illicit activity, and obvious vandalism are general trends all over New England. Such actions have been observed in West Cemetery. South Cemetery is in a more isolated rural setting, which
protects it to an extent (few people nearby on a regular basis) and makes it more vulnerable (few people to observe
and deter inappropriate behavior). For the Historical Commission, prevention seems a responsible way to proceed.
2. To improve the aesthetic appearance of the cemetery. It is said that one of the visual features of the 1818 North Amherst Cemetery (established at the same time as the South Amherst Cemetery) is its "attractive roadside fence," which defines the edge of the burying ground and helps to declare the cemetery’s historic nature by way of the design of the fence. [Not all would agree about an "attractive" nature of a fence.]
The South Cemetery fence has not yet been designed, so its materials, height, and gating will all be matters that the public can help determine. There are three drives passing through South Cemetery, and six gates will be needed, with locks, for the cemetery to be closed every night.
~ Sign the Petition to Stop the Fence ~
Contact Select Board, 259-3001 / selectboard AT amherstma.gov ,
and Town Meeting Members
Friends of South Cemetery, XXXX Middle Street XXXX May 2007
Article 25 Community Preservation Act: Historical Preservation
From: Jane Chalmers
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 6:43 PM
To: Aldrich, Sonia
Subject: Article 25
Please share with members of the CPA Committee
In reviewing the warrant for town meeting, I noted that Article 25 contains an item for a South Cemetery Perimeter Fence in the amt. of $40,000.
I am writing to say that I do not feel that this expenditure is essential to the preservation of the cemetery. I personally do not want to see this beautiful site fenced in.
As a resident who has family buried there, I feel it should remain open and accessible. Fences create barriers and I know of no reason to place a barrier here.
If there is a compelling reason for the fence I would like to know what it is. Otherwise, I would like to request that you withdraw this expenditure from the article when it comes forth at Town Meeting.
Thank you in advance for consideration of my request.
Jane S. Chalmers
XXXX Potwine Lane
...............................
From: Tucker, Jonathan
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 12:25 PM
To: Jane Chalmers
Cc: Musante, John; Shaffer, Larry; Ziomek, David; 'Peter Jessop'; 'Roderick Francis'; 'MacMullen, Edith Nye'; 'Audrey Child'; Aldrich, Sonia; 'Nicki Robb'; 'Elisa Campbell'; Gai Carpenter; Wald, James
Subject: RE: Article 25
Dear Ms. Chalmers:
Under Article 25, the Amherst Historical Commission is proposing CPA funding for a perimeter fence for the 1818 South Amherst Cemetery for two basic reasons:
1. To increase security for this historic burying ground. One of the first tasks in protecting any historic cemetery is to increase and ensure its security. The South Amherst cemetery is indeed a very beautiful site, as well as historic. Its open boundaries also make it very vulnerable. In addition to long-time South Amherst families, this cemetery contains numerous relocated graves of Quabbin area families. Restoring broken or damaged headstones and undertaking other physical improvements to the cemetery would be of little value if that investment in restoration could then be undone in a single night of vandalism. There is a growing illegal market in stolen funerary artifacts, including older headstones. Vandalism and inappropriate night-time ‘recreation’ and vehicle activity in cemeteries are increasing problems. The intent of creating a perimeter fence—obviously with gates—is not to restrict daytime access for families or visitors, but to allow the community to close the cemetery at night. West Cemetery in downtown Amherst is now appropriately fenced and closed at night for these reasons.
2. To improve the aesthetic appearance of the cemetery. One of the most important visual features of the 1818 North Amherst Cemetery (established at the same time as the South Amherst Cemetery) is its attractive roadside fence, which defines the edge of the burying ground, helps to declare the cemetery’s historic nature (through the design of the fence), and helps to visually separate the cemetery from the road for tired or inebriated drivers in the evening. A portion of the proposed funding would be used to help design the fence, and the South Amherst community would be involved in reviewing that change. No fence design would be selected or installed without public review.
All of the projects proposed under Article 25 were presented and reviewed at several different publicly-noticed meetings of the Historical Commission and the Community Preservation Act Committee. Article 25 is on the Town Meeting warrant signed by the Select Board and it cannot be ‘withdrawn’ by Town officials at this point. If you are not yourself a member of Town Meeting, you should speak to one or more of your Town Meeting representatives and consult with the Town Moderator concerning the best way to procedurally address your concern on the floor of Town Meeting when this article comes up for consideration.
I hope that answers your question.
Jonathan Tucker
Planning Director
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 6:43 PM
To: Aldrich, Sonia
Subject: Article 25
Please share with members of the CPA Committee
In reviewing the warrant for town meeting, I noted that Article 25 contains an item for a South Cemetery Perimeter Fence in the amt. of $40,000.
I am writing to say that I do not feel that this expenditure is essential to the preservation of the cemetery. I personally do not want to see this beautiful site fenced in.
As a resident who has family buried there, I feel it should remain open and accessible. Fences create barriers and I know of no reason to place a barrier here.
If there is a compelling reason for the fence I would like to know what it is. Otherwise, I would like to request that you withdraw this expenditure from the article when it comes forth at Town Meeting.
Thank you in advance for consideration of my request.
Jane S. Chalmers
XXXX Potwine Lane
...............................
From: Tucker, Jonathan
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 12:25 PM
To: Jane Chalmers
Cc: Musante, John; Shaffer, Larry; Ziomek, David; 'Peter Jessop'; 'Roderick Francis'; 'MacMullen, Edith Nye'; 'Audrey Child'; Aldrich, Sonia; 'Nicki Robb'; 'Elisa Campbell'; Gai Carpenter; Wald, James
Subject: RE: Article 25
Dear Ms. Chalmers:
Under Article 25, the Amherst Historical Commission is proposing CPA funding for a perimeter fence for the 1818 South Amherst Cemetery for two basic reasons:
1. To increase security for this historic burying ground. One of the first tasks in protecting any historic cemetery is to increase and ensure its security. The South Amherst cemetery is indeed a very beautiful site, as well as historic. Its open boundaries also make it very vulnerable. In addition to long-time South Amherst families, this cemetery contains numerous relocated graves of Quabbin area families. Restoring broken or damaged headstones and undertaking other physical improvements to the cemetery would be of little value if that investment in restoration could then be undone in a single night of vandalism. There is a growing illegal market in stolen funerary artifacts, including older headstones. Vandalism and inappropriate night-time ‘recreation’ and vehicle activity in cemeteries are increasing problems. The intent of creating a perimeter fence—obviously with gates—is not to restrict daytime access for families or visitors, but to allow the community to close the cemetery at night. West Cemetery in downtown Amherst is now appropriately fenced and closed at night for these reasons.
2. To improve the aesthetic appearance of the cemetery. One of the most important visual features of the 1818 North Amherst Cemetery (established at the same time as the South Amherst Cemetery) is its attractive roadside fence, which defines the edge of the burying ground, helps to declare the cemetery’s historic nature (through the design of the fence), and helps to visually separate the cemetery from the road for tired or inebriated drivers in the evening. A portion of the proposed funding would be used to help design the fence, and the South Amherst community would be involved in reviewing that change. No fence design would be selected or installed without public review.
All of the projects proposed under Article 25 were presented and reviewed at several different publicly-noticed meetings of the Historical Commission and the Community Preservation Act Committee. Article 25 is on the Town Meeting warrant signed by the Select Board and it cannot be ‘withdrawn’ by Town officials at this point. If you are not yourself a member of Town Meeting, you should speak to one or more of your Town Meeting representatives and consult with the Town Moderator concerning the best way to procedurally address your concern on the floor of Town Meeting when this article comes up for consideration.
I hope that answers your question.
Jonathan Tucker
Planning Director
Article 25 Community Preservation Act: Historical Preservation
From: "Arcamo, Judith"
Date: May 16, 2007 12:25:16 PM EDT
To: Gerry Weiss, "Awad, Anne", "Brewer, Alisa", "Kusner, Rob", "Greeney, Hwei-Ling"
Cc: "Shaffer, Larry" , "Weston, Gail", "Seaman, Katherine"
Subject: Citizen phone call.
Mary E. Kohler, of XXXX Middle Street, (did not give her phone number) called yesterday afternoon to say: “No fence for South Amherst cemetery.” She received a flyer encouraging her to call the Select Board’s office expressing her feelings against the matter.
Should I get more calls on this matter, I will email them as they come.
Thanks.
Judith Arcamo
Administrative Assistant
Date: May 16, 2007 12:25:16 PM EDT
To: Gerry Weiss, "Awad, Anne", "Brewer, Alisa", "Kusner, Rob", "Greeney, Hwei-Ling"
Cc: "Shaffer, Larry" , "Weston, Gail", "Seaman, Katherine"
Subject: Citizen phone call.
Mary E. Kohler, of XXXX Middle Street, (did not give her phone number) called yesterday afternoon to say: “No fence for South Amherst cemetery.” She received a flyer encouraging her to call the Select Board’s office expressing her feelings against the matter.
Should I get more calls on this matter, I will email them as they come.
Thanks.
Judith Arcamo
Administrative Assistant
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Online Citizen Activity Form (CAF) Received
Janet Gorth of South East St has submitted a CAF for the Council on Aging.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Five College Town/College Emergency Dispensing Site Working Group
Five College Town/College Emergency Dispensing Site Working Group
Meeting Summary
Members Present:
Amherst Board of Health:
Amherst College: Richard Mears
Amherst Emergency Manager:
Amherst Fire:
Amherst Health Department: Epi Bodhi, Julie Federman
Amherst Police: Bob O'Connor
Amherst Regional Public Schools: David Slovin
Five Colleges Incorporated: Donna Baron
Hampshire College: Karen Kalmakis
Hampshire Public Health Coalition: Mary Kersell
Hampshire Regional Emergency Planning:
Quabbin Health District: Judy Metcalf
University of Massachusetts Amherst: Ann Becker, Bob Laford
Town of Sunderland: Wendy Houle
Town of Shutesbury: William Elliott Date: May 8, 2007
Time: 10:00 a.m.
Place: Five Colleges, Inc.
TOPIC DISCUSSION ACTION
Report from the Communication Planning Sub-Committee Mary Kersell reported on the recommendations of the Communication Plan Sub-Committee to create a simple redundant communication plan for the Five Colleges and surrounding towns for health related issues and incidents:
1) Set up a Five College/Town group on the HHAN system for communication regarding health related issues and incidents
2) The group for now will include Amherst, Hampshire, Mount Holyoke and Smith Colleges and UMass and Five Colleges, Inc and Amherst, Belchertown, Hadley, Leverett, Pelham, Shutesbury, Sunderland, South Hadley, Granby and Northampton.
3) Roles represented in the Five College/Town HHAN group:
i) For the Colleges:
(a) Public Health/Health Services
(b) Environmental Health and Safety
(c) Public Safety
(d) Emergency Manager
ii) For the Towns (depending on what each Town decides):
(a) Board of Health Point of Contacts
(b) Emergency Manager
(c) Backups to those positions since they are often part-time in the towns.
4) We would like to test this group on the HHAN in early July.
Mary and Wendy will continue to collect contact info from the Towns and will draft a memo that can go to the towns explaining the purpose of the communication system and confirming which roles we have added to the group.
After Mary can give Donna all the contact data, she will create a database for us to store the information for when we are ready to develop a redundant system – like a listserv.
Mary and Donna will check in with Ben Wood regarding Shelburne Dispatch and will make sure that we do not include Shelburne Dispatch in any of the contact info for Franklin County towns.
EDS Sites Epi Bodhi shared that town of Amherst would like to think through the EDS sites in a comprehensive manner that takes into account staging and education, prophylaxis, sheltering, and medical sheltering. It became clear to the group that it will be extremely helpful to have the town’s Emergency Manager (Mike Zlogar) attend a few of these sessions so we can take the EDS site conversation to the next level. Donna and Bob O’Connor will follow up with Mike and possibly the Town Manager, Larry Shaffer to see if we can get additional town representation on this committee.
Next Meeting May 22nd at 10:00 at Five Colleges
Meeting Summary
Members Present:
Amherst Board of Health:
Amherst College: Richard Mears
Amherst Emergency Manager:
Amherst Fire:
Amherst Health Department: Epi Bodhi, Julie Federman
Amherst Police: Bob O'Connor
Amherst Regional Public Schools: David Slovin
Five Colleges Incorporated: Donna Baron
Hampshire College: Karen Kalmakis
Hampshire Public Health Coalition: Mary Kersell
Hampshire Regional Emergency Planning:
Quabbin Health District: Judy Metcalf
University of Massachusetts Amherst: Ann Becker, Bob Laford
Town of Sunderland: Wendy Houle
Town of Shutesbury: William Elliott Date: May 8, 2007
Time: 10:00 a.m.
Place: Five Colleges, Inc.
TOPIC DISCUSSION ACTION
Report from the Communication Planning Sub-Committee Mary Kersell reported on the recommendations of the Communication Plan Sub-Committee to create a simple redundant communication plan for the Five Colleges and surrounding towns for health related issues and incidents:
1) Set up a Five College/Town group on the HHAN system for communication regarding health related issues and incidents
2) The group for now will include Amherst, Hampshire, Mount Holyoke and Smith Colleges and UMass and Five Colleges, Inc and Amherst, Belchertown, Hadley, Leverett, Pelham, Shutesbury, Sunderland, South Hadley, Granby and Northampton.
3) Roles represented in the Five College/Town HHAN group:
i) For the Colleges:
(a) Public Health/Health Services
(b) Environmental Health and Safety
(c) Public Safety
(d) Emergency Manager
ii) For the Towns (depending on what each Town decides):
(a) Board of Health Point of Contacts
(b) Emergency Manager
(c) Backups to those positions since they are often part-time in the towns.
4) We would like to test this group on the HHAN in early July.
Mary and Wendy will continue to collect contact info from the Towns and will draft a memo that can go to the towns explaining the purpose of the communication system and confirming which roles we have added to the group.
After Mary can give Donna all the contact data, she will create a database for us to store the information for when we are ready to develop a redundant system – like a listserv.
Mary and Donna will check in with Ben Wood regarding Shelburne Dispatch and will make sure that we do not include Shelburne Dispatch in any of the contact info for Franklin County towns.
EDS Sites Epi Bodhi shared that town of Amherst would like to think through the EDS sites in a comprehensive manner that takes into account staging and education, prophylaxis, sheltering, and medical sheltering. It became clear to the group that it will be extremely helpful to have the town’s Emergency Manager (Mike Zlogar) attend a few of these sessions so we can take the EDS site conversation to the next level. Donna and Bob O’Connor will follow up with Mike and possibly the Town Manager, Larry Shaffer to see if we can get additional town representation on this committee.
Next Meeting May 22nd at 10:00 at Five Colleges
Monday, May 14, 2007
EDITORIAL: Town Meeting Attendance
Three for three absences -- maybe the budget will bring 'em out?!?
1 POWER, MARK 129 Meadow Street
1 RUBECK, STRIDER 1040 N. Pleasant Street, #283
1 WASKIEWICZ, JOSEPH A. 324 Meadow Street
1 WINNE, ROBERT F. 105 Montague Road
2 GALE, KEVIN C. 227 Shutesbury Road
2 MACLEOD, PATRICK D. 228 Henry Street
3 INGRAM, JOHN S. 171 Pine Street
3 ROBERTS, LOUIS ANTHONY 172 Rolling Ridge Road
4 SAMONDS, KENNETH W. 86 Dana Street
5 PITKIN, DONALD S. 27 S Prospect Street
7 FORREST, TERRY S. 34 Pomeroy Lane, #5
7 JOY, KEVIN P. 214 Glendale Road
8 BASCOMB, CHRISTOPHER D. 32 Autumn Lane
8 PUFFER, JR. STEPHEN P. 318 Spencer Drive (Mr Puffer gets a free pass, given he's been in Town Meeting since forever:-)
10 ROSENTHAL, BERNICE M. 51 McClellan Street
EX ANDERSON, KATHLEEN DEQUENCE 266 East Hadley Road, #39
EX POPE, SONIA CORREA 16 Hitching Post Road
EX ROMERO, CHRYSTEL D. 54 Justice Drive
EX WANG, KATHLEEN 11 Dickinson Street
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
1 POWER, MARK 129 Meadow Street
1 RUBECK, STRIDER 1040 N. Pleasant Street, #283
1 WASKIEWICZ, JOSEPH A. 324 Meadow Street
1 WINNE, ROBERT F. 105 Montague Road
2 GALE, KEVIN C. 227 Shutesbury Road
2 MACLEOD, PATRICK D. 228 Henry Street
3 INGRAM, JOHN S. 171 Pine Street
3 ROBERTS, LOUIS ANTHONY 172 Rolling Ridge Road
4 SAMONDS, KENNETH W. 86 Dana Street
5 PITKIN, DONALD S. 27 S Prospect Street
7 FORREST, TERRY S. 34 Pomeroy Lane, #5
7 JOY, KEVIN P. 214 Glendale Road
8 BASCOMB, CHRISTOPHER D. 32 Autumn Lane
8 PUFFER, JR. STEPHEN P. 318 Spencer Drive (Mr Puffer gets a free pass, given he's been in Town Meeting since forever:-)
10 ROSENTHAL, BERNICE M. 51 McClellan Street
EX ANDERSON, KATHLEEN DEQUENCE 266 East Hadley Road, #39
EX POPE, SONIA CORREA 16 Hitching Post Road
EX ROMERO, CHRYSTEL D. 54 Justice Drive
EX WANG, KATHLEEN 11 Dickinson Street
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Here's what I wonder every time Town Meeting rolls around again -- where are some of the elected members? And could this be the year the Town Meeting Coordinating Committee considers a sort of "sunshine club" to call and ask these folks if they're OK, and asking them to start showing up?
I realize stuff comes up in everyone's life, and I sure don't want anyone who has a real issue to feel guilty, yet all the Town Meeting members have known about the meeting dates for months. So why are there folks who haven't come to *either* of the first two sessions?
For example (from the Town website: Town Meeting Attendance)
1 POWER, MARK 129 Meadow Street
1 RUBECK, STRIDER 1040 N. Pleasant Street, #283
1 WASKIEWICZ, JOSEPH A. 324 Meadow Street
1 WINNE, ROBERT F. 105 Montague Road
2 GALE, KEVIN C. 227 Shutesbury Road
2 MACLEOD, PATRICK D. 228 Henry Street
3 INGRAM, JOHN S. 171 Pine Street
3 MEAD, KIMBERLY MAY 16 Berkshire Terrace
3 ROBERTS, LOUIS ANTHONY 172 Rolling Ridge Road
4 BROCK, STACEY D. 48 Dana Street
4 JENSEN ABIGAIL M. 100 Dana Street
4 SAMONDS, KENNETH W. 86 Dana Street
5 PITKIN, DONALD S. 27 S Prospect Street
6 KLEINHOLZ, LISA 203 Heatherstone Road
7 FORREST, TERRY S. 34 Pomeroy Lane, #5
7 JOY, KEVIN P. 214 Glendale Road
8 BASCOMB, CHRISTOPHER D. 32 Autumn Lane
8 NAKAJIMA, ERIC T. 500 West Street, #17
8 PUFFER, JR. STEPHEN P. 318 Spencer Drive (Mr Puffer gets a free pass, given he's been in Town Meeting since forever:-)
9 BODIN, D. JOSEPH 35 Maplewood Drive
10 JACKSON, PHILIP S. 204 Lincoln Avenue
10 MCCARTHY, PATRICK ROBERT 2210 UM John Q Adams
10 ROSENTHAL, BERNICE M. 51 McClellan Street
EX ANDERSON, KATHLEEN DEQUENCE 266 East Hadley Road, #39
EX POPE, SONIA CORREA 16 Hitching Post Road
EX ROMERO, CHRYSTEL D. 54 Justice Drive
EX WANG, KATHLEEN 11 Dickinson Street
It doesn't mean all that much to say we have all the seats filled if it's really just that there are names attached to empty chairs:-( Let's hope things pick up when we start the budget May 21...
Alisa