Last Saturday’s fast-moving Special Town Meeting, attended by 108 masked voters, may have set a record for brevity, running just 52 minutes. One reason for its rapid pace was that eight of the nine articles garnered little or no discussion, with seven of them passing by unanimous votes.
Only Article 2, on the fate of Bromfield House, drew speakers to the microphone. Debate over this article—which took up half the meeting—was settled by an amendment that gives final say on what becomes of the building to a later town meeting, rather than to the Select Board, as the original motion proposed.
The noontime skies were bright and temperatures hovered in the mid-60s. Ten couples made use of the couples tent, but the tent for those unable to wear masks because of medical conditions remained empty for most of the meeting. Most of the attendees took their seats under the spacious main tent. The cost of the event to the town was $14,000, the same as the cost of the outdoor Spring Town Meeting held in June, Town Administrator Tim Bragan told the Press. Every dollar is reimbursable through the federal CARES Act, he said.
Bromfield House is focus
Introducing Article 2, Select Board Chair Alice von Loesecke said the school district would no longer need Bromfield House for its administrative offices after October 2021. Passing the article, she said, would affirm the School Committee’s 2013 vote to turn over Bromfield House to the town, after which the Select Board would “run a process where we include all the pertinent committees in town” with the goal of retaining the land but not the house.
Pete Jackson, speaking as president of the Bromfield Trustees, asked that the Select Board “bring us into the process from the very beginning.” He pointed out that any disposition of Bromfield House and its land would have to be approved by the probate court in Worcester and the attorney general, and he hoped the trustees and the Select Board could act together in petitioning those officials. Then, speaking as a private citizen, Jackson asked the Select Board for a fully transparent, public process on the disposition of the building.
Ben Guthro, of Fairbank Street, asked whether the final decision would be up to the Select Board alone, with no further input from town meeting. Von Loesecke said that interpretation was correct, although she again promised the process would be public. Then Mark Mikitarian, of Shaker Road, suggested splitting the article to vote separately on giving the Select Board that authority. And Paul Green, of Old Littleton Road, strongly opposed any idea of burning the century-old building—a suggestion made at a Select Board meeting in July—because of its proximity to vegetation and the new elementary school.
Bev Rodrigues, of Old Littleton Road, reminded voters of Bromfield House’s history. “Somebody should be speaking for the house … and I guess it probably should be me,” she said. She explained that her grandfather, James Albion Dunlap Sr., had lived in Bromfield House for 37 years while he was principal of the Bromfield School. She said he taught half the classes there and even made the students’ baseball bats. Her father, the late James A. Dunlap Jr., had been born in the house. “I do not want the history of this house, this beautiful house in this beautiful location, to go lightly,” Rodrigues said.
Terry Morton proposes an amendment to Article 2, the disposition of Bromfield House. (Photo by Lisa Aciukewicz)
Terry Morton, of Bolton Road, made explicit what others had implied. “Some of us have some credibility issues with the Select Board in terms of openness,” he said, referencing the process that led to recent changes in town center sidewalks, parking, and traffic patterns. Morton proposed amending Article 2 to require an up-or-down vote at a future town meeting to ratify any plan the Select Board offers for disposal of the Bromfield House property.
After a brief discussion, the Select Board members accepted Morton’s idea as a friendly amendment by a 4-1 vote, with Stu Sklar alone in opposing it.
Next up was Willie Wickman, of Willow Road, who said she was concerned that a special town meeting might be sparsely attended. She asked that the up-or-down vote be at an annual town meeting. But Bruce Nickerson, of Stow Road, countered, “If the decision is controversial, it won’t be a small meeting.” The Select Board did not accept Wickman’s proposal as a friendly amendment and when it was put to a vote, it was rejected.
With Morton’s amendment ensuring that voters will have another chance to express their wishes on Bromfield House and its land, Article 2 passed with the required two-thirds vote.
Other articles zip through
Voters quickly and unanimously approved Article 1, giving National Grid an easement so it can move the utility pole now inconveniently standing in the Bromfield School driveway to a new location away from the pavement.
Article 3 called for $314,000 from the Capital Stabilization and Investment Fund to rebuild the exterior ramp that serves as an emergency exit on the middle school wing of the Bromfield School. The article passed without discussion and with the necessary two-thirds vote, although it was not unanimous. The school district will add another $200,000, drawn from the Devens fund and the Shaw Trust, bringing the total expenditure on the project to $514,000.
Article 4, authorizing $6,557 (also from the capital fund) for a new computer system (SCADA) to monitor the town wells and the water tank, likewise passed without discussion. The vote was unanimous.
Article 5 called for $20,000 from the Community Preservation Fund to be used for emergency rental assistance for qualified residents in low- to moderate-income housing who have been financially impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Bonnie Heudorfer, of Stow Road, asked for clarification on whether the assistance would cover the private rental market as well as specifically low-income housing. Community Preservation Committee Chair Didi Chadran said that remained to be determined. Michelle Catalina proposed amending the measure to cover mortgage payments as well as rent, and the CPC accepted the change as a friendly amendment. The program is to be administered by the Municipal Affordable Housing Trust. The measure passed unanimously.
The three financial articles on the ballot, Articles 6, 7, and 8, were approved in less than four minutes flat. All three were presented by von Loesecke, and each passed by unanimous vote. The most consequential of the trio was Article 6, which reduces fiscal 2021 spending in five categories for a savings of $328,686, eliminating a lingering deficit and leaving the town with a $100,000 surplus. Bruce Nickerson, a former member of the Finance Committee, had the only question: Did the adjustments of Article 6 include a smaller payment to the town’s other post-employment benefits (OPEB) trust fund as, he incorrectly alleged, had been reported by the Press? No, replied von Loesecke. The Select Board had decided that move was unnecessary, as the Press reported correctly in its Oct. 2 issue.
That left Article 9, a proposed change to Harvard’s zoning bylaws that would have encouraged the development of housing suitable for seniors who wished to downsize and remain in town. Planning Board Chair Justin Brown said that, though the amendment “represented a lot of hard work … to address the need for smaller-scale housing,” the board had decided to bring the plan to Spring Town Meeting “after greater public outreach.” He moved that the town table Article 9, and that motion passed unanimously.
Moderator Bill Barton then asked for a motion to dissolve the meeting, and the day’s last vote was again unanimous.
—John Osborn contributed to this article.
