Senior Center Site Committee "Indefinitely Postponed"

Plums Has Good Questions and a Misleading Headline (0.00 / 0)

Town Meeting - NOT Fin Comm - will decide whether Dedham sets up a Senior Center Committee.

The Fin Comm - on a split 6-3 vote - RECOMMENDED that Town Meeting IP the proposal.

The Fin Comm members who recommended the IP stated that Dedham should use its existing process.

The existing process does NOT require that TM be the primary decision maker for this major Town project.

We think that TM will vote FOR our article because it requires that TM be the primary decision maker for any senior center.

We trust that TM will do what is best for the Town as a whole.

Look for more information closer to Town Meeting.

Fred

P.S. Check out the sponsors of the article and see how many of us do not live near the Endicott . . . and some of us- like me - are seniors, too :-)

---

by: FredCivian @ Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 14:51:21 PM UTC

Decision (3.00 / 1)

Town Meeting voted 108-105 to establish the Senior Center Siting Committee on a roll call vote.

It was a PC evening: polite and and courteous.

Lots of good arguments both ways.

---

by: FredCivian @ Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 03:45:48 AM UTC

??????? (0.00 / 0)

I was there ,I question the vote count. any chance to see the numbers? There were a lot of people that said yes and no right behind me and I could hardly hear them,so I question how they heard them way down front

---

by: edman50 @ Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 04:02:49 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The count (0.00 / 0)

I tried my best to keep a running tally of the substitute motion to create a Siting Committee.  I missed one yes vote, and there was one that I was unclear on and, as it turns out, marked incorrectly.  However, my unofficial tally by district has it as follows:

One: 16 yes, 12 no.
Two: 14 yes, 15 no, 1 abstention
Three: 12 yes, 13 no
Four: 24 yes, 11 no
Five: 13 yes, 16 no
Six: 13 yes, 21 no
Seven: 14 yes, 16 no

If you do the math you will see that comes to 106 yes and 104 no.  The official count was 108 yes, 103 no, and I can't remember in which precinct I was unclear on the vote.  However, I think this gives a pretty good indication of where the votes lie.

One interesting thing here jumps out at me at first blush.  The margin of victory clearly came from Precinct Four, otherwise known as the neighbors of the Endicott Estate.  You can say that this is a case of NIMBYism, and I think that would be fair to a degree.  However, one of the people at the microphone tonight who leveled a charge of NIMBYism was one of the same people who told the Avery Reuse Committee that she didn't want any more housing in East Dedham.  What is good for the goose is good for the gander, I guess.

myDedham.org - a community since 1636 and online since 2007!

---

by: Brian @ Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 04:50:20 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Oakdale (0.00 / 0)

Precinct 6 is as much Oakdale as Precinct 4. It abuts the Estate, I believe. And they were the most clear vote against the new committee (in other words, for the Endicott Estate Senior Center).

The debate last night was amazing, because I truly believe some TM members changed their minds during it.  Particularly after the comments by the Town Administrator.

Dedham voters should be proud of the process. It really worked last night. That's what Town Meeting is all about.

However. Over 50 TM members didn't even show up. When the margins are so close, even a few members o either side would have made a big difference.  I hope the paper publishes an attendance list.

---

by: plums @ Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 14:43:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I changed my vote (4.00 / 1)

I think the debate was fantastic, and I was enormously impressed with the statements made by nearly every person who spoke. All sides (I believe there are more than 2 sides) have very compelling arguments to support their positions, as well as significant weaknesses, holes, and/or half-truths in their arguments.

I personally believe there are many good reasons why the Senior Center should be at the EE, there are also many reasons why other sites should be considered, and there are many reasons why the "process" needs to be evaluated and clarified.

One thing that is quite clear to me is that the town has no established policy for the proposal set forth by the CoA. I think it would be perfectly fine if the town had started saying "We don't know the process" back in the spring. However, it is disappointing and embarrassing that there has been so little progress defining the process since that time. It seems like the first stab at doing so took place at the BOS meeting last week, and event that isn't very clear.

I personally have no idea how to interpret Bill Keegan's answer to Kristen's question. The BPCC is supposed to be involved, but if you check out the town's website, the BPCC has accomplished exactly 2 things in 3.5 years: they published a pdf of the presentation about the Dexter Senior Center proposal in April 2008 and they met in November 2012 to review the RFP for the new Police Station. While I am sure they have done more than that, I am frustrated, as usual, with the publication of meeting schedules, agendas, and minutes on the town website.

I think we owe it to the senior citizens in Dedham to establish the siting committee quickly and come up with a proposal for TM as quickly as possible. It would be fantastic to have a report for TM before May 2014.

---

by: stephradner @ Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 17:44:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Proud of the process (0.00 / 0)

A short time before the Meeting began, Bill Keegan leaned over to me and said something to the effect of, "That's how the process is supposed to work."

He was talking about Article 9, however, which changed the bylaw relating to celebrity appearances, not Article 7, the Senior Center article.  I had caught before the ByLaw Review Committee's meeting a few weeks back that a similar change had been attempted in the 90s but the Attorney General had struck it down as being unconstitutionally vague.  I was worried that the same thing would happen again.

I raised the point with Carmen Dello Iacono, the article's sponsor, and he had Town Counsel go back and draft an amendment that fixed the problem.  The FinCom approved it in their traditional pre-Town Meeting meeting in the band room and, though I don't think too many people noticed as we breezed through the rest of the warrant, there was a new original motion not printed in the book.  

Carmen came up with a great idea to improve a bylaw, the ByLaw Review Committee made some suggestions on how to improve it, and the final result is that Town Meeting approved a change that is going to be beneficial for all involved. That's another area where we should all be proud of the process.

myDedham.org - a community since 1636 and online since 2007!

---

by: Brian @ Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 19:07:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Abstention (3.00 / 1)

The only discussion or real vote of the evening and a TM rep abstains. Why bother taking up a seat.  

---

by: Dan63 @ Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 17:36:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Senior Center Site Committee Update... (0.00 / 0)

I have a question, I recently watched a re-run of their first meeting.
Something very unusual came up, Carmen D., the Chair, mentioned that right before the meeting he was presented with info. about an upcoming warrant article, asking for a "Special-Special Town Meeting."

The basis of the article from what was mentioned was to have the "Senior Center Siting Committee" be dissolved. The petition for the article was signed by at least 239 residents.

My question is, if anyone who signed the petition is a member of the Senior Citing Committee, are they in a conflict of interest and should they be removed by the Committee?

The signed list of petitioners should be available next week at Town Hall, would it possible to post a link to the names when available?  

---

by: OakdaleLifer @ Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 23:49:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't understand (3.00 / 1)

There is a petition to have a Town Meeting to negate the decision just made by Town Meeting? Huh?

Would this special special meeting happen with the same Town Meeting members who voted in November, or after the April election (which would still have at minimum 2/3 of the same TM members?)

---

by: plums @ Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 14:50:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's right (3.00 / 1)

It's not just a petition anymore.  It's going to happen.

If 200 voters request that a Special Town Meeting be called, the Selectmen have 45 days to schedule it.  That puts us somewhere in March, and means the exact same people who voted the last time will be voting again this time.  I suspect that the intent is to have the people who want to disband this committee try to drive up attendance among their supporters.

myDedham.org - a community since 1636 and online since 2007!

---

by: Brian @ Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 16:56:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'll be there (3.00 / 1)

And not remotely happy to be called back. We debated for HOURS.  Now we have to do it again because COA wasn't prepared. And because some no-shows want a second chance to vote.  Will they pay my babysitter bill? I paid last time too, because I did my civic duty and showed up.

---

by: plums @ Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 18:52:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Done deal? (3.00 / 1)

Do the Selectmen have discretion to not schedule the meeting at all, or are they required to hold a special TM anytime they get a petition with 200 or more signatures? I would think there is some sort of provision for the Selectmen to judge when a petition is frivolous so we don't waste time, energy, and funds on meetings which are unnecessary.  

---

by: barney miller @ Sat Feb 09, 2013 at 18:17:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

or... (3.00 / 1)

...unless one or more of the Selectman have a bias toward a particular outcome and/or have inferred a preferred outcome to one party, that may now not be evident, and have advised on the process to go forward with a petition, and will not turn down the request to re-open, frivolous or otherwise. It is quite interesting as to how the Selectman could be unbiased and judicious in this process, and to be the ones to make these decisions, democratic process or not.

And as an aside, does anyone think that pushing for a site that is clearly controversial, will endear the community as a whole to this entire project? To what end? Larger and more impactful global decisions have been made with more diplomacy, transparency and good will.  Personally, I find it disrespectful to the tax paying citizenry as a whole that no other site other than a brand new building on the Estate (and don't even suggest the misleading plan that 'the barn' will be 'renovated') seems even remotely acceptable to this group (and just for that alone, I will not support it). Seriously, who do you think you all are? We are neighbors and friends and the lack of good will, particularly when expounding and lamenting such grave concern for the seniors, the seniors, the seniors is, at best, feigned transparency). To jam this construction onto the only site in town that has any sense of grandeur and openness, and continues to be chipped away of its beauty with endless shortsighted decisions and no sense of long term aesthetic stewardship is bewildering...utterly bewildering.

Here's an idea, how about we use that newly built monstrosity on the corner of Whiting and River, or the one to be built near the large Rt. 1 rotary, or how about any number of previously open lots that now have "builder mcmansions" stuffed into every square inch.  Yes, a little off topic, but the idiocy of these allowances and priorities of this town's leadership make my blood boil.

---

by: Network @ Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 19:27:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Number Of Town Meetings? (0.00 / 0)

From what I was told at Town Hall, there may be two Special and one annual Town Meetings to attend.

One most likely in March, one in May and the annual in November, don't  you just love democracy at work?

---

by: OakdaleLifer @ Sat Feb 09, 2013 at 01:07:16 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Town Meetings (3.00 / 1)

Democracy does take time  :-)

The Annual is in May, as usual.

The Special is usually in November . . . as usual.

The extra special - the one recently requested  - will be in late March/early April.

---

by: yorviskalinsky @ Sun Feb 10, 2013 at 00:22:27 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Another Scenario? (0.00 / 0)

Would either of these be possible?

1) At the March special, if the "Senior Site Committee" gets voted down and is dissolved, could a warrant article asking for the Committee to be reformed be put back on the warrant for the November Annual Town Meeting?

2) Or, could a petition be singed by 200 residents asking for the "Site Committee" to be reformed, calling for another Special Town Meeting, sometime before the November TM, bringing the total number of Town Meetings to 4?

---

by: OakdaleLifer @ Sun Feb 10, 2013 at 01:57:01 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Date for Town Meeting (0.00 / 0)

Town Meeting is scheduled to take place on May 20.

I am curious about something.... warrant  items could be submitted up until Feb 8. Obviously this petition was submitted before then. Why force a special meeting for this? What justification is there for calling 250+ people back rather than following the standard process and having the question addressed 8 weeks later at the regular meeting? It smells fishy to me.

---

by: plums @ Sun Feb 10, 2013 at 03:02:57 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes and Yes (4.00 / 1)

1) First off, a little clarification.  The November Town Meeting, though it happens annually, is actually a Special Town Meeting.  State law requires us to have at least one meeting in the spring, and this is the Annual Town Meeting. Any other meetings, including the one that happens in the fall, is a Special Town Meeting.  Now, just to muck things up a little further, at the next meeting of the Charter Advisory Committee we will likely vote on whether to have two Annual Town Meetings, one in the spring and one in the fall.  The only difference in practice, really, will be that the Selectmen will no long have discretion over what to include in the warrant for the Fall as they do now.

Now, with that out of the way, yes, a new article could be placed on either the November 2013 warrant or May 2014 warrant.  The warrant has already closed for the 2013 May meeting, though the Selectmen could choose to reopen it.

2) Yes, 200 people could ask for yet another Special Town Meeting to recreate the dissolved Committee.  Once again, the Selectmen would have 45 days to schedule it.  If this unlikely sequence of events happens, I imagine that they would schedule it for immediately before the the May Town Meeting.  Then we would have a Special Town Meeting just to deal with this, and as soon as the Moderator gaveled that one to an end he would immediately gavel the Annual Town Meeting open.  This has happened once or twice in the last decade, most recently to take up the issue of buying St. Mary's parking lot, if I remember correctly.

myDedham.org - a community since 1636 and online since 2007!

---

by: Brian @ Sun Feb 10, 2013 at 15:10:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Speaking of the Charter Commission . . . (3.00 / 1)

I been looking - in vain - for info on the Town's website about meetings or documents. Hopefully it's not a UBD error :-)

Brian, could you please find out where on the Town site is info about the Charter Commission . . . and perhaps ask your colleagues to post the meetings on the Town calendar?

Thanks

---

by: FredCivian @ Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 02:58:10 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Done (3.00 / 1)

I got a page created for the Committee.  You can also find a copy of the Charter as well.

myDedham.org - a community since 1636 and online since 2007!

---

by: Brian @ Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 15:14:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Cost of Special Town Meeting (0.00 / 0)

The Dedham Times reports that this special town meeting will cost the town $3000-$4000 (for things like the stenographer, paperwork and the police detail).

Seems like a frivolous waste of money, considering that the only purpose of the meeting is to reopen a question already answered by the same body of voters a few months ago.

---

by: plums @ Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 19:37:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

frivolous (0.00 / 0)

I agree - it is frivolous and for that reason I hope the Selectmen will opt not to grant the meeting request, if that is within their power. If we do need to meet again I expect the outcome will be the same, which is too bad for the seniors. I voted for the formation of the Sr Center site selection committee to explore other sites because that process seems to be the best opportunity the seniors have of getting a center built relatively quickly.  Stalling the approved process in order to try to push through a poorly conceived plan at Endicott just does the seniors a disservice in the end.  

---

by: barney miller @ Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 20:07:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

No discretion (3.00 / 1)

Frivolous or not, we will be having a Special Town Meeting to debate this issue again.  If 200 people decide they want to gather the 273 Town Meeting Representatives, plus other town officers who are required to be there, to debate whether or not the sky is blue, that is their right.  Once the signatures are certified, the Selectmen don't have a choice.

myDedham.org - a community since 1636 and online since 2007!

---

by: Brian @ Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 04:24:55 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Is this a part of the charter discussion? (0.00 / 0)

Thanks for the clarification, Brian. I'd asked that question earlier but thought from the responses that the Selectmen had discretion. To clarify, it sounds like I could get 200 signatures to hold a special TM to debate whether Dedham should pass an article declaring April 12th is Big Foot Appreciation Day in Dedham, and the Selectmen would have no choice but to hold the meeting. Is that correct? If so, Brian, has the Charter Commission considered whether to add any checks and balances to that process?  

---

by: barney miller @ Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 14:22:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Prime example of checks and balances (0.00 / 0)

I'd say the fact that gathering 200 certified signatures is deemed sufficient to call to order TM is an excellent example of checks and balances at work.

Sure, it might seem like a waste of time or sour grapes but giving the town's residents the ability to force consideration of an issue by their elected representatives is a powerful check.

I'd be happy if the meeting is just called to order and a vote is held...no need for a repeat of the same old arguments for two hours.

---

by: Eric C. @ Wed Feb 13, 2013 at 04:37:46 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Agreed (0.00 / 0)

Especially since our selectmen are on so very many committees, I don't think it's in the best interest of anyone to give them discretion to dismiss petitions.  

Anyway, my annoyance isn't with the process, it's with the people who put forth this petition.  

For the charter committee, I could see perhaps raising the required number of signatures to 1% of the town's population, since a special town meeting is such a big production.  200 people sign a petition, 300+ people have to spend an evening in the school auditorium.

---

by: plums @ Wed Feb 13, 2013 at 13:55:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Bar too low (0.00 / 0)

Allowing only 200 people to call a TM is a pretty low bar.

Looking forward to your calling the question ASAP.

---

by: yorviskalinsky @ Thu Feb 14, 2013 at 03:12:02 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not in the charter (0.00 / 0)

The provision that allows 200 people to call for a town meeting is in state law, not the Charter.  So, no, this is not something we are considering.  

myDedham.org - a community since 1636 and online since 2007!

---

by: Brian @ Thu Feb 14, 2013 at 04:05:27 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

STM Cost (3.00 / 1)

The Town Clerk is asking for just under $2k to cover the cost of the upcoming special town meeting.

Deeming the costs frivolous is subjective, but compared to other uses of taxpayer funds I don't get too worked up over a dime (or less) per household to cover the STM.

---

by: Eric C. @ Wed Feb 13, 2013 at 04:25:17 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks for the poll, Brian (3.00 / 1)

I think it's very revealing.  As of now, 15 out of 18 poll takers have voted against revisiting the Senior Center Site Committee question.  

There has been so much positive coverage for the other "side" recently, including a blurb in Sunday's Globe, and that Transcript article that attributes all the opposite to the COA's proposal to "Endicott Estate neighbors". http://www.dailynewstranscript... So it is interesting to see that a lot of people are quietly keeping with the majority view that the COA's proposal was not the one we should move forward with.

---

by: plums @ Tue Mar 12, 2013 at 19:20:35 PM UTC

So for the special town meeting warrent, (0.00 / 0)

what did the budget committee end up recommending? Yay or Nay? Anyone know?

---

by: plums @ Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 21:26:26 PM UTC

Nay (0.00 / 0)

There was a 6-1 vote against the article.  

myDedham.org - a community since 1636 and online since 2007!

---

by: Brian @ Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 02:02:52 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Next Step .. after special (0.00 / 0)

Current Committee will report back to the 2014 Annual Town Meeting with their findings/recommendations.

At the time they may or may not submit an article for funding of a full scope feasibility Study. Probably reporting back to the 2015 Annual Town Meeting.

At 2015 Annual Town meeting, there could be an article to either use debt exclusion or the Hotel/Meal Tax stabilization fund to fund the construction of recommended Center.

Earliest opening of proposed Center, 2017, if all things fall in place.

No opinion, no hype.

---

by: cebonvini @ Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 01:21:53 AM UTC