Most of the fewer than 10 percent of registered voters who showed up at the April 2 Annual Town Meeting (ATM) expected a choice between two articles addressing much-discussed plans for Town Hall, Hildreth House, and the old library:
- Article 17, not recommended by the Finance Committee (FinCom), was the Municipal Buildings Committee’s (MBC) motion recommending schematic design for expansion and deferred maintenance of Town Hall and Hildreth House, or
- Article 18, recommended by FinCom, resulted from a citizens’ petition drafted by Selectmen Bill Johnson and Ron Ricci, calling for maintenance only for Town Hall, and maintenance of the old library to be used for temporary space during Town Hall renovation, and ultimately for some COA functions.
So, what actually happened?
Instead, Selectman Peter Warren read a revised motion under Article 17 and described a negotiation that took place during the week before ATM, mediated by Town Administrator Tim Bragan, between MBC representative Doug Coots and Johnson, representing the Article 18 petitioners. Article 18 was ultimately withdrawn.
After a standing ovation for Bragan by ATM attendees, MBC members presented their proposal, which included deferred maintenance and code compliance for Town Hall and deferred maintenance, code compliance, and expansion of Hildreth House. Any expansion of Hildreth House beyond an elevator for access would be funded by private sources.
FinCom Chairman Bob Thurston stated that FinCom had reversed its recommendation against the article and favored passage of Article 17, funded by excluded debt. After an hour of presentation and questions (mostly about how and why the choice between the two original articles was being taken away), the motion passed by the necessary two-thirds vote, with only a handful opposed.
After the vote, Johnson moved to take no action on Article 18. Without discussion, voters agreed to take no action, and execution of the compromise was complete.
What did the negotiation achieve?
The Article 17 for which people ultimately voted differed by only two words from what was printed in the warrant. The words “and expansion,” pertaining to schematic design plans for Town Hall, were removed. The original intent of MBC, according to MBC Chairman Ron Ostberg, was to produce one set of plans for renovation and code compliance and a second set of plans for expansion. The cost for the second set of plans was to be $40,000, so the amount requested was reduced from $225,000 to $185,000.
How did the compromise happen?
How did Johnson and his fellow selectman Ron Ricci arrive at the conclusion that Article 17 was acceptable and Article 18 could be withdrawn? Through a complex negotiation process that took place in the days leading up to ATM.
Article 18 had called for renovation of Town Hall for municipal government uses only, and “construction, reconstruction and renovation of the old library for use as temporary offices during reconstruction of Town Hall; additional space for Council on Aging functions and offices; community center usage and meeting space.”
Johnson argued in a Viewpoint article run in the Press and other publications the week before Town Meeting, and at a public forum, that, based on data excerpted from MBC reports, the old library was a better solution for COA needs, and the lower cost would make funds available for other needed COA programs.
At a candidates forum 11 days before Town Meeting, FinCom member and Capital Planning and Investment Committee (CPIC) Chairman George McKenna challenged backers of the two articles to find a compromise, so that Town Meeting would not have to choose.
After failed attempts among the parties to schedule negotiation sessions that would be acceptable to all and respect Open Meeting Law, Bragan decided to step in and was able to arrange Saturday meetings with Coots and Johnson.
According to Bragan, initial explorations with the two were conducted separately; they didn’t meet together until two days before Town Meeting. The focus of the first meetings was to understand what were the most important priorities of each side and to look for concessions that could lead to a solution acceptable to both sides.
In interviews with Coots and Bragan, the Press looked for significant breakthroughs, but instead found that there were not major short-term differences separating the two sides, and that the conflict could be resolved by crafting a document that would guide future stages of construction, rather than the scope of current article(s). Coots said that MBC priorities would be to preserve the integrity of upper Town Hall for possible future restoration as performance space, and to maintain and expand Hildreth House as the center for COA activities. Johnson’s priority, as stated in an e-mail, was “…bringing a more fiscally responsible proposal to the voters.”
Bragan met again separately with Coots and Johnson early in the week before ATM, after which a “Memorandum of Understanding” (MOU) took shape. On Tuesday afternoon, prior to a scheduled MBC meeting, Bragan called selectmen Warren and Marie Sobalvarro to his office and briefed them on progress, after which they joined the MBC meeting in the Town Hall meeting room. After two hours of discussion, MBC voted 4-0 to proceed with discussing concepts consistent with current negotiations between Johnson and Coots (see sidebar, March 29 MBC Minutes).
Negotiations continued on Wednesday, with phone calls back and forth between Bragan and Johnson/Coots. The three met face-to-face for the first time for several hours Thursday afternoon, putting the finishing touches on the MOU, and agreeing that it would be the basis for a revised Article 17 and for Article 18 being withdrawn. The three agreed that it would be important for FinCom and CPIC to have an opportunity to reconsider their recommendations related to both articles.
Johnson attended Thursday’s CPIC meeting and told the committee there was good likelihood of an agreement by Saturday, and that there would only be one motion presented at ATM, Article 17. However, he said, the concurrence that had been achieved had to be verified with the MBC and with petitioners, so it was premature for FinCom or CPIC to reconsider their recommendations. He said they would be able to do so Saturday morning, at their posted meetings before ATM.
In its last public meeting before Town Meeting, the MBC met Friday afternoon at 3:30 p.m. and spent several hours with Bragan reviewing the MOU as negotiated between Johnson and Coots. There were some issues in the document that were difficult for MBC to accept. As an example, Ostberg pointed out that neither the Article 18 petitioners nor the MBC had the authority to make some of the commitments outlined in the document, such as changing zoning so that the old library would be zoned commercial. After working through several edits that would have made the MOU more acceptable to MBC, Bragan expressed concern about whether the changes would be acceptable to the other side, and if not, there would be no alternative to the original articles 17 and 18. The idea emerged to change the focus of the document from an agreement between MBC and petitioners to a “Statement of Intent” to be adopted by the Board of Selectmen, as a framework to guide future actions based on Article 17.
While the change of focus of the document from MOU to Statement of Intent didn’t resolve all MBC concerns about some of its provisions, MBC was able to refocus on the agreed two-word change in Article 17 and elements of the statement they could support, including provisions that would maintain full upper Town Hall space with future addition enabled, the principle of private funding for expansion of Hildreth House, and the goal of leasing the old library so all costs of renovation and ongoing operations and maintenance would be funded privately. Ostberg drafted a statement that he would read at the beginning of MBC’s presentation at Town Meeting (see sidebar), expressing MBC’s support of key elements of the statement as it existed Friday.
The last round of changes to the document was made by Johnson during a meeting with Bragan Friday night. Bragan conferred with Sobalvarro and Warren to confirm their support for the changed language, to be presented for BOS approval Saturday morning.
At the pre-ATM BOS meeting Saturday morning, Bragan described the negotiations of previous days and reviewed the final version of revised Article 17 and the Statement of Intent that had been completed Friday night. BOS members, as well as MBC, FinCom, and CPIC members, saw the statement for the first time just minutes before the start of ATM. Despite the short review, and without discussion or opportunity for public comment, the BOS unanimously adopted the statement minutes before the posted pre-ATM meeting times of FinCom and CPIC. FinCom and CPIC then convened, in either a joint meeting or two parallel meetings. It was hard to tell, as all were standing in a circle next to the table where FinCom would sit during Town Meeting. The preference of a majority of CPIC members (Cheveralls, Russo, Ricci) for delaying the vote to a future special town meeting, which had been voiced during Thursday’s CPIC meeting, was not considered. After brief discussion, FinCom voted 6-1 (Steve Colwell voting no) to support the modified Article 17.
Handouts of the document were not available for voters.
What next?
Despite intense negotiation back and forth in the run-up to ATM, the Statement of Intent adopted by BOS did not represent complete agreement between the two sides. After ATM, MBC member Pete Jackson prepared an analysis of the Statement of Intent, comparing word-for-word the version from the end of Friday afternoon’s MBC meeting to the version approved by BOS Saturday morning. He presented his findings at an MBC meeting last week, where members considered asking BOS to rescind the statement, because of the many differences—some significant. In the end, MBC members decided it would be more constructive to focus on what their successor committee should be charged to do. Chairman Ostberg took the action to draft the charge, which will have been the primary agenda item for their meeting Thursday, April 21, 1 p.m. at Town Hall.
In summary, the “great compromise” between articles 17 and 18 was removal of two words— “and expansion” —related to plans for Town Hall. The compromise included a statement of intent from the BOS dealing with considerations beyond the scope of either article, mostly focused on minimizing future expansions for other than municipal government uses, and where expansion for nongovernment use is needed, requiring private funding.
The change to Article 17 did not compromise any part of the MBC report or long-term direction in that expansion of Town Hall, while taken off the table for now, is not precluded at a later date.
Article 18 petitioners got a commitment that Town Hall expansion, except for code compliance i.e. access, will not be considered at this time, and a statement of intent from the BOS that expansion for municipal government purposes would be minimized, and expansion for nongovernment purposes would not be funded by public money.
