Nothing at all wrong with that. An active democracy requires critics. They point out hypocrisy; they keep us honest.
But who keeps the critics honest? In both cases, on April 28, acting as a whole, the 2015 Town Meeting did.
Discussion of Article 6: special permits
Loreti’s citizen article (No. 6) sought to require that the building inspector review all applications for building permits, special permits and variances for compliance with the zoning bylaw.
The Redevelopment Board, where Loreti was once a member, recommended no action. So did the Finance Committee, in a 15-5 vote. Its comments reflect those of meeting members who spoke against the article April 28, citing the need for added personnel.
The Fincom report says: “The proponents refused to meet with the Finance Committee and instead sent a memo stating that there were no costs and the Finance Committee had no jurisdiction as it was a zoning article. The Town Manager stated in a meeting with the Finance Committee that, in his opinion, there was no problem to be solved and no need for the article.”
In presenting his article to the meeting, Loreti said he wants the Redevelopment Board to benefit from a review apart from the building inspector. He cited the need because some lawyers before the board have “close ties” the selectmen. He did not name any.
Michael Byrne, director of inspectional services, who would be affected by the article, said that the proposal does not square with state law and predicted that, if enacted, it would 1 1/2 to two employees.
To this point, all was civil. Then Precinct 14 member John Maher, who had been town counsel for more than 30 years until 2007, weighed in. After listing what he said were some of the many reasons the article should fail, Maher called it “an invitation to litigation” brought by a man who had sued the town, which he said cost the town $50,000.
As the pitch of meeting members’ murmurs rose, and Moderator John Leone issued warnings, Maher continued, saying the 2012 lawsuit Loreti brought may have led to Juliana Rice leaving as town counsel. She left in 2013. Maher said he did not want to “a party to personal vendettas.”
The lawsuit challenged how Loreti’s tenure on the Redevelopment Board ended in 2011. Court testimony in the suit shows deep divisions between Loreti and Jim Doherty, then a member of the Board of Assessors, and Byrne, the building inspector. Last October, a Superior Court judge ruled in favor of the town in that lawsuit, but Loreti’s attorney. Elizabeth Clague, wrote in an email April 29 that has filed a motion to vacate the ruling and that her client is pursuing his case.
Following the meeting’s 9:30 break, Precinct 13 member Stephen Harrington spoke in favor of the article. A man of numbers, he asked: How many special permits come before the Redevelopment Board in a year? Answer: about five. At two pages per report, he said a number of times, and that wouldn’t mean that much more work.
Would the attorney general approve this bylaw, if passed? Town Counsel Doug Heim gave a detailed “maybe.”
Harrington asked what lawyers represent clients before the Redevelopment Board. Leone said he did; Mary Winstanley O’Connor was also named. Harrington did not pursue any implications here, if there were any.
Loreti’s substitute motion — you can read it here >> — failed, 26-171-4.
Harrington questioned the vote of Selectman Steve Byrne, saying his father is the building inspector. Leone ruled him out of order, said there was no conflict of interest and said his statement was “almost a personal attack.”
In the end, the meeting defeated the article by supporting no action, 147-45-6.
Discussion of Article 9: Human Rights Commission
Harrington returned to center stage for Article 9, which involves changes to the Arlington Human Rights Commission.
What those changes might be remained unclear to selectmen, but not to the proponent. In recommending no action, the selectmen’s report says the article “does not specify what such amendment(s) would entail.” A February summary of that selectmen’s hearing reflects that view.
Selectmen Chairman Kevin Greeley told the meeting that the commission does excellent work, as did longtime member Sheri Baron.
Harrington cited just three complaints brought to the commission since it was established in 1993 and recounted the history of out-of-school suspensions he brought to the School Committee last fall. The latter resulted in a joint subcommittee to study the matter’s racial implications, an effort is ongoing. Harrington said he wants the rights commission to bring issues to the U.S. Department of Justice.
So that Town Meeting would have something to discuss, Harrington introduced a substitute motion, which you can read here >>
He disputed Greeley’s claim about a lack of clarity in his February presentation to selectmen.
In his summary of the April 28 meeting, Dunn writes: “If you don’t know who to believe at times like this, I invite you to watch the video of the meeting.” Good advice.
I watched both meetings, and I don’t have to watch the video.
To me, Harrington was grandstanding — and wasting the public’s time. It has happened before; it will likely happen again.
In a vote of 55-149-4, Harrington’s motion failed, and a voice vote supported no action.
Bottom line: In the cases of both critics, Town Meeting saw through the smoke and cast overall votes to make Arlington a better place.
This viewpoint was published Tuesday, April 29, 2015, and updated April 29, following comment from Loreti’s attorney.
