(3/14/07)  The Select Board met Monday, March 12th.  Members Anne Awad, Rob Kusner, Gerry Weiss and Robie Hubley were present, and Hwei-Ling Greeney was absent.  Town Manager Larry Shaffer was present as well.

Public Comment:  Plantings

Bill Elsasser congratulated the Amherst College basketball team in their quest for a National Championship title next weekend.  He requested permission to install spring plantings on the sidewalk from the corner of Kellogg and North Pleasant Streets, up to the corner at Subway, and down Main Street to Amherst Chinese Food.  He said it would be at his own expense, and with assistance from Mr. Weiss.

Ms. Awad said she would be surprised if there would be objections to that.  Mr. Weiss said Guilford Mooring should be consulted on the placement and rules for such things.  Mr. Shaffer said talking to Mr. Mooring was a good idea, and to then see if this could be arranged quickly with his blessing.

Public Comment:  Override

Kate Troast requested that the community be given the choice of the Finance Committee's plan on the May 1st override ballot, and said that people would feel better if they knew about that option sooner rather than later.  She said that originally her budget concerns were just focused on the schools, but she has since come to appreciate many more community services that would be at risk without an override, and mentioned public safety, elderly programs, LSSE and the swimming pools.  She said it will take a big effort to think long-term about adding economic development to the community, and said that change is a challenge because many residents, including her, were attracted to Amherst because they like it exactly the way it is.  She said she will help develop community support for the three-year plan and that she still supports economic development and the hiring of an Economic Development Director for the town.

Mr. Kusner said that if Ms. Greeney were present, she might mention the Community Dialogue Task Force.  Ms. Troast said she was too busy with other related volunteer commitments, and Mr. Kusner said that Ms. Troast might consider passing the idea along to others. 

Ms. Troast spoke of interest in the Master Plan and, and said that it would be helpful to Town Meeting members to be made aware of the economic impact of voting for or against issues such as zoning changes, and said that leadership from the Select Board was needed for such matters.

Mr. Weiss said that perhaps the Economic Development and Industrial Corporation committee, one he said had been “dead” for 15 years, should be revived.  Ms. Awad said that committee had specifically been grant-funded, and that they could revive the concept but not its specific language.  Mr. Weiss said that because it is still on the committee list, people occasionally apply.  Ms. Awad mentioned Ms. Greeney's desire to cull the list, and said that with so many people interested in economic development issues, that another option could be expanding the Town Commercial Relations Committee's charge to include economic development.

Kate Kurz said she wanted the override option presented as soon as possible and urged that the May 1st date not be postponed.  Ms. Awad said there is no plan to change the date, and that that was a suggestion from an audience member last week, but it received no response from the Select Board.

Mr. Kusner said that whether or not the Board's deliberations concluded at this meeting, people could start thinking about the override, and that he hopes the Board's discussions on the subject were helpful to people.

Public Hearing:  Liquor License – Pasta E Basta

The attorney for Pasta E Basta explained that Luciano Matarazzo was transferring ownership of the restaurant to his son, Marco Matarazzo.  The restaurant also needed to update some of its permit details to reflect the current arrangement and operating hours, as well as have its liquor license transfer approved.  Mr. Hubley spoke of the Board's concern about minors being served alcohol, and urged the restaurant to be vigilant.

Mindy Domb thought the Public Hearing was the Public Comment Period, and asked the Select Board to consider starting its meetings at 7:00 p.m. rather than 6:15 p.m., to give people more time to get home from work, prepare dinner for their families, and be able to attend the meetings.  She said that a later start time might improve public participation.  Ms. Awad said that in the past, meetings had been weekdays at noon, and were moved to accommodate more people.  She cited the length of many meetings and how that would be made worse if the meetings started later.  She said that the first meeting after the election is when the Select Board deals with its leadership structure, and suggested that might be a good time to consider a time change.  Upon being made aware that this was not the Public Comment Period, Ms. Domb saved her other comments for later in the meeting.    

The Select Board voted 4-0, 1 absent, to approve the transfer for Pasta E Basta.

Public Hearing:  WMECO

A WMECO representative requested permission to relocate a utility pole on North Pleasant Street on the UMass campus to a nearby spot.  He explained that the pole had been temporarily relocated during construction work for a steam tunnel, and that UMass decided that it would like to leave it in the new location.  The vote to approve the pole relocation was 4-0, 1 absent.

Committee Appointments

There were no committee appointments.

Consent Calendar

The Consent Calendar comprised approval of the minutes from the February 26th executive session and the March 5th meeting.  The vote to approve was 4-0, 1 absent.

Proclamation:  American Red Cross Month

Mr. Shaffer read a proclamation naming March “American Red Cross Month,” something Amherst has done for a number of years.  Mr. Weiss said that approving the proclamation was difficult for him, because he said he has a problem with the national organization, though not the local chapter.  He said his objection was based on the Red Cross rejecting a $1 million donation from the Dixie Chicks because the organization disagreed with the group's politics.  The members agreed to amend the language of the proclamation to make March “Hampshire County Chapter of the American Red Cross Month.”  The vote to approve the amended proclamation was 4-0, 1 absent.  Mr. Weiss thanked the group for their “indulgence,” and Ms. Awad thanked Mr. Weiss for his “vigilance.”

Miscellaneous:  Letter of Support for Governor's Proposals

Mr. Kusner said that at the last meeting, they had voted unanimously to send a letter of support for the Governor's local finance initiatives, and he said that the letter that Ms. Awad drafted needed more work.  He said he thought it should be addressed to others, beyond Stan Rosenberg and Ellen Story, and he suggested adding a paragraph about their desire for the meals tax to also apply at UMass, and to mention the desire for special legislation regarding a fire protection services enterprise fund.  Ms. Awad suggested that those issues be mentioned in a separate letter, so as not to dilute the effect of each, and to give “focused support” for the Governor's package.  Mr. Hubley agreed, suggesting that dealing with one issue at a time would get each one more attention, and said that it was good to be in more frequent contact with the State legislature anyway. 

It was agreed that the letter of support for the Governor's Municipal Partnership Act would go to Mr. Rosenberg and Ms. Story, with copies sent to the Senate President, Speaker of the House, the Massachusetts Municipal Association, and possibly the Governor, with final signatures from the Select Board occurring next week.  It was also agreed that Mr. Kusner would draft a second letter related to the issues he had raised.

Discussion of Town Budget and Override

Ms. Awad said that there was some confusion after last week's meeting as to whether the date for the override election might be pushed back.  She said that was not being considered.  She said they now had to decide what to present voters with on May 1st and to engage the Board's support once they've done that.

Mr. Weiss spoke to the imperfection of the budget planning system whereby at the federal level, money that could go to schools is instead funding wars, and that at the State level, that budget is created later than what the town would prefer.  He called it a “flawed process” and said we do the best we can.  He said that the schools have made it clear that they want an override number now so they can plan.  He said that 60% or more of the override would go to the schools, which he said was the same as their overall budget percentage, and said he wanted to determine a number at this meeting.  He said the stakes are high for the Town, but they are higher for the schools.  He asked if it was possible to let voters know on the ballot what the percentage breakdowns would be for distributing the override money, emphasizing that he wasn't suggesting a tiered override, but one override with the percentage breakdowns.

Mr. Kusner agreed with Mr. Weiss' points and said the Board needed to come to a level of comfort if not consensus on the issue in order to support it. He compared the Board's deliberative process to making sausage, and said that was “not always pretty.” He said he thought the idea about the percentage breakdowns was interesting, but said that Finance Committee member Andrew Steinberg had said that override questions must conform to a specific format. 

Mr. Hubley recommended that all the Select Board members put their ideas on the table now so that they are all available for comment.  He said his own preference was to have two questions on the ballot: the Finance Committee's $2.5 million override with the three-year plan, and a one-year, $1.5 million option.  He said the smaller one would result in having the same money to spend this year as the larger one would, and he recommended it having all the same conditions as the first year of the three-year plan.  He said that publicity explaining the one-year plan should make clear that there would be another override question on next year's ballot if needed.  He said he's heard the objections to a one-year plan but doesn't think they are a big deal,  He said the Town Government Act specifies that the Town make a budget every year, so he said the three-year plan doesn't free anyone from the process of creating a budget.  He said working a year at a time provides flexibility and said that with the new Governor and the new legislature, the economy might change a lot.  He said you can't predict now whether you would or would not need another override next year, or if the $2.5 million would be enough to carry the Town through the three-year plan..  He talked about the affordability of the two amounts, saying that the $2.5 million override would add $404 to the tax bill of the average home valued at $330,000, while he said $1.5 million would add $242 to that same home's bill. He said it is analogous to a mortgage and how one pays that off in smaller increments, and said the smaller number is less discomforting to those of lesser means.  He said he's talked to many people who oppose any override, and some who would be more likely to support a smaller one.  He reiterated his points about being the same amount of money for this year, and that he felt both choices belonged on the ballot and that it should be made clear that the smaller amount means another override next year.

Mr. Kusner said that Mr. Hubley made an interesting point about risk versus opportunities, but said he found the idea of the $2.5 million providing a high enough ceiling to work for the next couple of years very attractive.  He said that perhaps if it were to take the form of one question on the ballot, it could seek the higher amount but not tax to that full limit, in order to help those people Mr. Hubley referenced.  He said that would be a compromise and wouldn't allow for banking as much money as the Finance Committee's plan called for, but would let it be a single ballot question.  He said he was committed to also dealing with other elements including being firm in negotiations with UMass and with employment contracts and seeking new sources of revenue.  He said going with the larger amount but not taxing to that limit allowed for a chance “to catch up,” and helped the Board achieve a comfort level if not consensus. 

Mr. Weiss said he thought Mr. Hubley's proposal was risky, and that requiring overrides in each of three years could end up costing people more than the $2.5 million option.  He suggested lowering the amount budgeted for the Town's portion of the spending caps to 3% for each year of the three-year plan because he thinks the Town has been spending money it doesn't have.  He said his proposal would save $178,000 and would require a $2.3 million override, and wouldn't affect the schools or libraries.  He talked about the Governor's proposed expansion of “circuit breaker” tax relief, and Mr. Weiss said he would look harder at residential exemptions for next year.  He said he would ask the assessor to look at assessed values of homes versus those of rental properties, and said he thinks rental properties have had smaller increases and that an exemption might correct that imbalance.  Ms. Awad noted that the circuit breaker relief would not take effect this year.

Mr. Hubley reiterated his points about flexibility with year-by-year overrides and the unpredictability of the situation, and said he likes everything about the Finance Committee's plan except one thing.  He said just because capping spending is promised, it doesn't mean that will happen, and he said that “projections” is a fancy word for “guesses.”

Ms. Awad said she was having a hard time supporting the $2.5 million amount and said she could support a lesser amount.  She said she was on the Board the last time there were two override questions on the ballot, and she didn't think that was a great option because she said it predisposes the smaller amount to passing.  She said she is getting 50 e-mails a day from people who want the three-year, $2.5 million option, but that she also finds it “scary” how many people are opposed to any override at all.  She said that it is opposed by quiet people who won't come to meetings but will come to the polls.  She said she feels a responsibility to put something on the ballot that she can promote and that can pass, and that she doesn't think $2.5 million can pass.

Elaine Brighty, Chair of the Regional School Committee and member of the Amherst School Committee, said that both of those bodies had endorsed the three-year, $2.5 million plan, and that if that amount passes, both agree to abide by the spending caps it entails.  She said that the Finance Committee has said that all the budgeting groups need to agree to the stringent caps for it to work.  She said that if the one-year override were to pass instead, it could not tie their hands to the three-year plan.  She said she has heard all iterations of this plan through many meeting she's attended of the School Committee, the Finance Committee, the Joint Capital Planning Committee, the Budget Coordinating Group and the Select Board, and that she strongly urged them to adopt this three-year, $2.5 million plan and to put it on the ballot as a single question, and to then start explaining to the public what the cuts will be.  She said many don't realize that the cuts will still necessitate two study halls for students at the High School, and that that will equal half a year of high school spent in study hall for those spending four years under that system.  She said those are the kind of cuts people aren't hearing about yet, and said that if the Select Board were to settle on that amount at this meeting, the education of the community could then take place.

Ms. Awad said that many do understand the cuts and many can afford the larger override amount, but want more detail to be able to make decisions.  She said that can happen once the Board frames the question. 

Mr. Kusner asked Ms. Brighty why Amherst's share of the Regional assessment goes up faster than the total Regional assessment, and said that Finance Director John Musante didn't change that number  in his various models because he said he didn't have the data.  Ms. Brighty said that the models are approximations, and for them to vary up or down by $100,000 is within reasonable variations at that scale of estimates.  She said that the number couldn't be determined more precisely because it depends on the number of students and on the percentage of State support for the Regional budget.  She said State support used to be 80% and now was 35% or less, and that that difference is borne by the Town.  She confirmed that that amount would also increase for the other towns in the region because this is the last year of the old regional assessment agreement, and next year all the towns would be the same.

Mr. Hubley said that considering there would be new members of the School Committee, the Select Board and Town Meeting in the next three years, he didn't believe they could be bound by such a commitment to spending caps now.  He said he would like a legal opinion, because he said his belief is that any decision made by a deliberative body can be reversed in the future.  Ms. Awad said it wasn't legally binding, but was more like a pledge of honor and that it would be uncomfortable for future members of these bodies to break the voters' trust.

Mr. Hubley reiterated his points about having the flexibility to readjust next year with a one-year plan, and asked if it would be possible to include language in the ballot question to compel the promise of adhering to spending caps in the three-year plan.  Ms. Awad said the questions would be very simple, along the lines of “do you approve of a $1.5 million override – yes or no,” and “do you approve of a $2.5 million override – yes or no,” and that the details of the plans and the promises would be part of the marketing and education effort with the public.

Mr. Shaffer said that Mr.  Hubley was correct that appropriation authority rests with Town Meeting by statute.  He said that the Town's budget is initiated by the Town Manager and said people could be assured that his budgets would adhere to the caps, and hence there would be nothing beyond those caps for Town Meeting to consider.  He said he's had many meeting with the Superintendent, and that he agrees that the schools will adhere to the caps.  He said that Town Meeting can't be held to these promises, but the Town administrators can be.  He said the three-year plan allows administrators of the Town, schools and libraries to put mechanisms into place to deal with the later years, and one-year overrides don't allow for that.  He said that the Town faces a serious situation and that it is being starved for revenue.  He said that for people who can't afford the override, that affordability problem isn't going to go away – voting down the override won't make it go away, and have Town life return to normal.  He said that if the override is rejected, the 1% budget comes into play, and then this will not be the same Amherst.  He said there will be severe and dramatic changes.

Mr. Hubley said he agreed with the point about if the override failed.  He said that if the $1.5 million override were to pass, those severe changes wouldn't happen, just as they wouldn't happen if the $2.5 million override were to pass.  He said the lower number being more affordable gave it the better chance of passing, and that the $2.5 million option had a higher risk of failing, and that putting both on the ballot gave the public the choice.  He said that it was the wisdom of democracy to let the people decide.    

Mr. Weiss asked Ms, Brighty if despite the risks of it not passing, the Schools still supported the larger amount, and she said both have already done so.  She said that if the Select Board supports the plan, she believes it has a good chance of passing.  Ms. Awad called that a “heavy burden.”

Mr. Weiss asked what support means.  He said he can support the fact that the budget will be devastated without the override, but he can't tell voters they must vote for it.  He said he can't tell homeowners who can't afford it that they must vote for the override, but that he could talk about the consequences of it not passing.  He said he didn't know if he was splitting hairs, and said that he represents “all the people of this Town.”

Ms. Brighty said that she does as well, and that “our definitions of leadership may be slightly different.”  She said that by “support,” she meant that they commit to the spending caps and the $2.5 million amount, that they understand and talk about the cuts and the consequences, and that they recommend very strongly to the town that this is necessary for its survival.  Mr. Weiss said he had “no problem with that statement.”

Ms. Awad said she feels that this is being set up such that if the $2.5 million option fails, it will be the Select Board's fault if the members aren't out there campaigning for it.    She said her responsibility is to put the question to the voters and to speak to the devastation to be incurred if it doesn't pass, but said she isn't responsible if it doesn't pass.  She said some boards are already saying that if it doesn't pass, the plan will be to then try for a smaller amount, and she said that is not an efficient option.

Mr. Kusner said that an override is one of several ways of raising the money to run the Town and schools, and that the other ways need to be focused on also.  He reiterated his points about negotiating employment contracts and negotiating with UMass, and aggressively pursuing the legislature.  He asked for help from the Superintendent and Town Manager with those efforts. 

Mr. Hubley said that framing the question as $2.5 million or going broke is incorrect.  He said there are thee options - $2.5 million, $1.5 million, or going broke.  He said he would support the larger option if he thought it would pass, but he doesn't, and said he thought $1.5 million would be better than nothing.  He said people should begin their efforts to educate and persuade the public immediately, and not to wait for the Select Board to decide.  He said to have the public convince the Select Board.  He said $1.5 million is a safety net, and said his political instincts are good, having lobbied successfully for much legislation.

Alice Carlozzi, Finance Committee Chair, said there would be two different results depending whether the $1.5 million or $2.5 million override were to pass. She said the two are not the same.  She said that the $2.5 million option is part of a plan, and provided the opportunity to retain the whole plan from the beginning with its separate parts of:  an override, spending caps, pursuing new revenues, and building up reserves.  She said you don't get that with the $1.5 million option.  She said the full plan can't be had without full funding from the beginning, and that the spending caps would go away, the opportunity to save all the time and energy that is wasted on budgeting every year would go away, and the plan would fall apart.  She said that three of the Select Board members had said they like the three-year plan, and she said that plan can only be had if it is fully-funded from the beginning.  She said there are venerable ways to look at how to represent the people, and that one option is giving them what they want.  She said another option is to take a leadership role.  She said that the Select Board has expertise that the general public does not have, because the Board spends so much time on issues and solving problems.  She said this is one of those times that the leadership option is important.  She said that the effort to educate the public about severe budget cuts is just the beginning, and once people recognize the full consequences, they may no longer oppose the override. She said that people are calling the three-year, $2.5 million override recommendation “the Finance Committee's plan.”  She said that it is really a plan for the Town, and suggested it be called “the Amherst Plan,” which she said would be short for “the three-year financial stability plan.”  She said that she urged the Board to put a question for a $2.5 million override on the ballot, and to allow the opportunity for the Amherst Plan to be put into effect.

Mr. Weiss asked for Ms. Carlozzi's opinion on lowering the amount of the override.  She said she hadn't been through all parts of the Town budget yet, but said that understanding it as she does, she doesn't see where such cuts could come from.  She said that restoring public safety funding was crucial.

Mr. Weiss explained his proposal, saying that his involved $178,000 in increases, as compared to the Finance Committee's $358,000 in increases.  He said that the Town Manager's list includes $800,000 in cuts and $300,000 in additions, which Mr. Weiss said he regarded as “unfunded wishes” rather than cuts.  He said that the override proposal would restore half of those cuts and his own proposal would restore less than half. 

Ms. Carlozzi said that the override adds the public safety funding and funding for an Economic Development Director. Mr. Weiss said that position was an unfunded wish.  Mr. Shaffer said that position is a critical component of the three-year plan as part of the concerted effort to develop the tax base.  He said that without having that system in-house, that effort would be severely limited.  He said the override allows for restoring public safety funds, hiring an Economic Development Director and opening the War Memorial pool. 

Mr. Weiss said that the override would allow for that funding, but wouldn't decide on it, because that is Town Meeting's role, and Mr. Shaffer agreed, saying that the tax levy would allow for such expenditures.

Mr. Weiss said he thought the Town had added positions it couldn't afford over the years, and Ms. Carlozzi said the only significant staff growth had come in Information Technology, which she said was not a choice but a necessity. 

Ms. Awad said they couldn't debate the Town budget at this meeting.  Regarding the leadership comments, she said that the Select Board had taken the harder path in the override consideration. She said it would have been easier to have immediately adopted the Finance Committee's recommendation six weeks, ago, but instead the Board chose to delve and probe further into it for the public's benefit.  She said that the people opposed to the override didn't fill the meeting room every week and that all the pressure on the Board was pressure for the three-year, $2.5 million dollar plan, and that the Board was taking a different approach

Mr. Kusner thanked Ms. Awad for that comment and said he felt the same way.  He then reiterated his idea about passing but not levying a higher amount.  Mr. Hubley said that this discussion shows that the three-year plan is already under negotiation, and that he predicted that if passed, it would ultimately not resemble the package it began as.  He said that budgets change dramatically from January to June, and even within some budget meetings.

Ms. Domb was recognized to start public comment on the topic.  She said she wanted to express gratitude and support to the Finance Committee and the Town Manager for putting together the Amherst Plan, which she called thoughtful, proactive and timely.  She said she supported the three-year plan for its fiscal planning and revenue generating elements.  She said the difference between the two options was the ability to plan and to know that a certain amount of money could be expected, cuts and hires could be anticipated and mechanisms could be put in place to absorb cuts.  She said she didn't want to face another override next year, and that she wanted to know that there was a three-year plan.  She said she didn't understand Mr. Weiss' comment about supporting telling people of the consequences of not passing the override, but not supporting telling them to vote for it.  She said that he wouldn't want her to tell people the consequences of not voting for him, but be unwilling to tell them that they should vote for him.  She spoke of fiscal responsibility and generating new revenues, and said that if new people came on to the boards and defied the promise to adhere to the plan's spending caps, then they would be voted out.  She said the Board was underestimating the voters' willingness to commit.  She said she didn't understand the Board's unwillingness to take the leadership risk in supporting a ballot questions that may not pass. She mentioned flying the UN flag outside of Town Hall, and said that that is a leadership risk, and that this is Amherst and we're supposed to take on such risks.  She said we're supposed believe in the people that live here and believe that they will be willing to take the risk that this is the right thing to do because it provides stability.  She said that when she's talked to voters, the point of the override isn't just the ability to afford it or willingness to be generous, but that they want a real plan for that money.  She said she urged the Board to put the Amherst Plan on the ballot, and that if they can't support it, then to at least commit to publicizing the consequences of not supporting it, and publicize that the one-year override requires another override next year.  She said people are waiting for the Select Board's lead to start the education process because they are the leaders.  She reiterated that the $1.5 million override has no plan, while the $2.5 million has a three-year plan for the Town, schools and libraries, and said that voters want the opportunity to vote for relief.

Mr. Hubley said he wasn't saying that there should be no plan; he was saying that they should pursue the first installment of the three-year plan.

Clare Bertrand said that as a Town Meeting member, she would make a commitment to the Select Board and to the community to act with restraint and responsibility at Town Meeting to support the plan put forth by the administration.  She said she would stay committed to the plan and would urge other Town Meeting members to stay committed to it as well.  She said that many in the community needed to be educated about the benefits of a longer range plan in order to support an override, and that she and others at Town Meeting would show restraint and responsibility in the long term.

Alan Root said that less than a year ago, the Town Manager had been at an event with senior citizens who told him of their financial difficulties living in Amherst.  He said that putting the $1.5 million “pay as you go” option on the ballot was a fundamental part of the democratic process.  He said seniors say publicly that they may not be able to afford to stay here, and families are more guarded with that fear.  He said that some people's taxes would double in six to eight years and that that was a heavy burden to carry.  He said putting both options on the ballot was the most democratic option, and that he didn't agree that the lower amount would pass automatically.  He said those promoting both amounts have the responsibility to explain their positions, and said it would all come out in the wash on May 1st, and urged that the Board let the people decide on both questions.

Mr. Kusner asked whether people would vote for both questions on the ballot, and if both passed, then the higher amount would prevail.  Someone confirmed that to be true.

Mr. Weiss said he disagreed with Mr. Root about offering two options.  He said this was an “illusion of alternatives,” because he said the $1.5 million option “comes back to kick you” next year, so he doesn't agree that it is the right thing to do.  He said he is trying to lead the town, and he said that means backing a three-year plan or not, but not that both plans are equally good.  He said he doesn't think they're equal, and that even though the three-year plan projects a deficit in FY11, it provides three years of stability.

Mr. Kusner said that most of the budget is salaries, and that the Town is in the process of negotiating three-year labor contracts.  He said there is value to having the contract and the plan fit together, calling that “periodicity,” and that it said it helps be tough in negotiations and argues for the three-year plan. 

Mr. Weiss said he has received lots of e-mail from people protesting increased cost of living adjustments (COLAs) but said that there is nothing the Select Board can do about that.  He said that he disagrees with the notion that if the money is there, it will be spent, and said he trusts the Town Manager and Superintendent to be tough negotiators.  Mr. Shaffer said that contracts and the terms and conditions of employment are part of collective bargaining, and he will have those negotiations in good faith.

School Superintendent Jere Hochman said that in the various school meetings and the four-towns meeting, people have reinforced the ideas of stability, predictability and simplicity.  He said there is pressure on the schools to live within their means, tighten their belts, be more efficient, and deliver on their promise for every student.  He said those are all benefits of the Amherst Plan, and said that in last year's non-binding ballot initiative, people said they wanted more cuts and more controls on spending and that the plan has all that.  He talked about the benefits of planning and predictability, and not having to spend four months each year looking at cuts, but instead, focusing on education.  He urged the Board to go with the simple plan, because people are already saying “didn't we just have an override?” making the idea of needing another next year with the one-year plan very complicated.  He said the schools are prepared to live within their means.

The Board took a straw vote regarding the number of questions favored.  Mr. Weiss favored one, Ms. Awad and Mr. Hubley favored two, and Mr. Kusner was on the fence, but said he was leaning more towards one.

There was some discussion about the pros and cons and logistics of one question versus two.  Mr. Kusner said he would like to find a way to achieve consensus on the issue.  Mr. Hubley disagreed, saying that if we waited for Congress to be united, nothing would ever get done.  He said both sides present their best arguments, and then vote.

Mr. Weiss asked if those who support two questions have an opinion on the one-year plan versus the three-year plan.  Mr. Hubley reiterated his point about mortgages, and the one-year plan being the first installment of the three-year plan.  Mr. Hubley said that he thinks he is showing leadership by not bowing to pressure and instead doing what he thinks is right. Mr. Weiss asked if Mr. Hubley was prepared for the possibility of his plan leading to higher override totals and said it amounted to categorical rejection of the Finance Committee's numbers.  Mr. Hubley said he accepts the numbers as “probabilistic,” and reiterated his points about the unpredictability of the future. 

Mr. Kusner said he disagreed with the analogy of the mortgage, saying it would be like having one with an adjustable rate that you can control, and reiterated his points about the benefits of having the plan length match the labor contract length.  Mr. Weiss also disagreed with the mortgage analogy, saying that with a mortgage you borrow all the money up front, you don't go back for more next year, and reiterated his points about the “illusion of alternatives.”  Mr. Hubley said that analogies and metaphors never match their comparison situation exactly, and the models are like analogies and if you reject one, you might as well reject the other.  He disagreed with Mr. Kusner's point about the contract and plan length not being a coincidence, and said that just because one thing follows another, you can't conclude that the first thing caused the second.  Mr. Kusner disagreed and said that the contract and plan length could be different, but that it would be logical to take advantage of the fact that they are the same. 

Mr. Weiss said that the one-year plan was more complicated than the three-year plan, and that having two plans was more complicated than just one.  Ms. Awad said she wanted a fall-back position in case the larger amount didn't pass, saying that a second override vote would be more complicated for Town Meeting.  Mr. Weiss disagreed, and said they might need to wait for Ms. Greeney to break the tie and determine a majority. 

Mr. Kusner reiterated his points about raising the higher amount but levying only to the smaller amount.  He said it would affect the Finance Committee's plan a bit, but would allow it to be just one ballot question.  Ms. Awad reiterated her point about concern that the larger amount would pass, and expressed doubt about voters accepting Mr. Kusner's idea and trusting that the full amount wouldn't be levied and that new revenues wouldn't get spent. 

Mr. Weiss said he thought the public vote would be as close as the Board's vote, and that he didn't understand how Ms. Awad could feel so strongly that the larger amount would not pass.  He said it would be a hard sell, and “Let's start selling.”  Ms. Awad said they would have to wait for Ms. Greeney's return next week.

Ms. Brighty asked if rather than deciding one question or two, if they might decide that the Amherst Plan will be on the ballot, regardless of whether there is another question also.

Mr. Hubley said he was opposed because he wanted both questions and didn't think they should bind Ms. Greeney with this vote.  Mr. Weiss said they could not bind her vote, but that she could not subsequently overturn the vote if the four of them were voting for it.  Mr. Kusner said that they could rescind their vote at anytime up until they sign the warrant, and said he was in favor of Ms. Brighty's idea.  Mr. Hubley said they had already decided to make the decision on March 19th, and proposed waiting until then.  Mr. Kusner said that the Board had been politely asked to consider this option, and said that the extra week of planning could be helpful, and that many people might not be around the following week because of Spring Break.  Mr. Hubley said it wasn't asked in politeness so much as it was a rhetorical gesture. 

Mr. Weiss moved that the Select Board agree that on the May 1st ballot will be a $2.5 million override, in accordance with the Amherst Plan.

Ms. Awad asked if he would accept language about the possibility of adding an additional question, and all agreed to that.  The vote to approve putting the Amherst Plan on the ballot, with the possibility of adding another question, was 4-0, one absent.

The meeting adjourned its open session just after 9:00 p.m., and the Select Board and Town Manager went into executive session to deal with matters of litigation.  The next meeting will take place Monday, March 19th at 6:15 p.m.

-- Stephanie O'Keeffe