Vol. 3, No. 1
January 21, 2003
Contents
1) COURT OVERTURNS PLANNING BOARD'S HOME DEPOT DECISION
On January 16, 2003,the Middlesex County Superior Court issued a final judgement in the
zoning appeal brought by Ten Hills residents Louanna Evarts against the Assembly Square
Limited Partnership (ASLP) and the Somerville Planning Board. The suit challenged the grant
of a Special Permit to demolish most of the old Assembly Square Mall and construct a new
Home Depot on the site. Judge Stephen Neel vacated the decision of the Planning Board, holding
that the Board had not properly applied Somerville's Zoning Ordinance to ASLP's application.
The Court's decision holds that the Planning Board "has used the factual circumstances of
ASLP's petition to drive its interpretation of the Ordinance, rather than using its interpretation
of the Ordinance to drive its consideration of the petition. That is an analytical approach which
will mold the Ordinance to whatever petition is before the Board; moreover, that approach is
not in compliance with the Ordinance...."
At a special meeting of the Board of Aldermen, which she called for 8:30 a.m. on Saturday, Jan
18, Mayor Dorothy K. Gay was asked her reaction to the court's decision. "I feel very cheated
this morning," she replied. Mayor Gay did not elaborate what it was about the judge's analysis
of the law and facts that she regarded as 'cheating.' The Mayor further stated that the City
Solicitor had spent the previous day conferring with ASLP's lawyers. The defendants have 30
days in which they may decide to file an appeal.
2) SCHOOL COMMITTEE EXCITEMENT
A) Committee Says No to Democracy, Yes to Superintendent
On Monday morning, January 13, I began receiving telephone calls concerning rumors that the
School Committee was that night planning to vote on extending the contract of School
Superintendent Albert Argenziano, a contract due to expire June 30, 2004. Board of Aldermen
President Sean O'Donovan, who serves as an ex officio member of the School Committee, was
out of town. He had left a message on his answering machine asking constituents to call me with
any concerns, and had asked me to "cover" for him during his absence.
Everyone who telephoned asked for a contract review process that would include public input
into the extension decision. I checked the official agenda for that night's School Committee
meeting; oddly, the contract extension item did not appear. I wondered if the Vice President of
the Board of Aldermen had the authority to act as ex officio member of the School Committee
in the absence of the President, similar to the Board President's role as Acting Mayor when the
Mayor is out of town.
At about 4:00 p.m., School Committee Chair Rosetti called to saying that she was concerned
that I might come to the meeting, and had asked the City Solicitor whether I could participate
in it. She assured me that the Solicitor's opinion was that I had no legal authority to do so. This
call struck me as strange, since I had asked neither Ms. Rosetti nor the Solicitor for their advice
on the matter. I spoke with Alderman O'Donovan, and learned that Ms. Rosetti had called him
about the Solicitor's opinion as well.
That night, at the School Committee meeting, I was astonished to learn that the Committee had,
in a previous Executive Session, voted to give the Superintendent a $1,500.00 bonus, and a raise
of 3% added to his salary. Then, incongruously citing the city's impending budget crisis due to
cuts in state aid, Ward 4 School Committee person Charlene Harris made a motion to extend
the Superintendent's contract for an additional two years.
In my quest to learn what I might do in Alderman O'Donovan's absence, I had been given
conflicting information about whether or not I could be sponsored to speak before the
Committee. The final word was that I could not be. I asked if I could make a written statement
read aloud, but when School Committee person Roberta Bauer started to read the statement, she
was ruled "out of order," by Chairman Rosetti.
After very little discussion, and a plea from a minority of members for a longer process that
included public input, Mrs. Harris' motion went to a vote. Along with Mayor Gay, and School
Committee Members Dennis Sullivan (Ward 1), Theresa Cardoso (Ward 2), and Mary Jo Rosetti
(Ward 7) voted in favor of the contract extension; Roberta Bauer (Ward 3), Kate Murray (Ward
5), and Carolyn Taylor (Ward 6) voted against it. Superintendent Argenziano's contract is now
extended through June 30, 2006.
In remarks I gave earlier this month, I stated that if this city had an enemy, it was complacency
and fear. (My speech can be read online in the "Why...?" section of this website.)
This vote of the
School Committee exemplifies the baleful effects of both these undesirable motivators. The pro-extension School Committee members spoke about how wonderful the Somerville schools are
under the Superintendent's leadership, then expressed the fear that Superintendent would leave
his post in the midst of a fiscal crisis. They voiced the related fear that the city might not be able
to find a sufficiently wonderful replacement superintendent. The result is more years of bondage
to the status quo.
[Since I began writing this piece on January 14, the Somerville Journal has published its Jan.
16 edition, with two stories about this meeting ("Super deal," "School Board breaks open
meeting law"), an editorial ("There should be alternates on the school board"), and a number
of good letters to the editor. The Journal can be viewed on line at
www.townonline.com/somerville].
B) Consultants Present Initial Findings/ Feedback Opportunity
The Study
As I previously reported, on October 23, 2002, the Somerville School Committee voted to hire
a consultant to make a report and recommendations regarding long term plans for use of school
facilities (with the proviso that a new Lincoln Park Community School be a given component
of any plan). The only bidder on this contract was the New England School Development
Council (NESDEC). NESDEC reported its initial findings and recommendations to the School
Committee at a public meeting held January 9, 2003. Since this was the night of a regularly
scheduled Board of Aldermen's meeting, neither President O'Donovan nor I was able to attend.
"Initial findings"
The copy of the NESDEC presentation that I requested from the School Department was
unfortunately illegible. Luckily, thanks to the capable reporting of Kirsten Russell, I have been
able to learn, preliminarily, that "NESDEC identified two overarching problems in the city. 1.
Educational opportunity is limited by age, design and/or condition of certain facilities, affecting
the programs that can be offered. 2. A long-range plan is needed to make best use of the
available resources." NESDEC then offered four tentative "solutions" or "options" for
Somerville's facilities needs:
"1) Construct a new Brown School ($20M); put Unidos at Powderhouse or LPCS [Lincoln Park
Community School]; renovate Edgerley ($400) to use as "swing" space; Choice program
remains at the Healey (and add a second site?); continue to support options
community and business [sic].
2) Construct new Cummings ($20M); plus Option 1.
3) Continue Brown and Cummings (status quo) until enrollment declines and schools are not
needed; Unidos at PHCS Powderhouse Community School] or LPCS.
4) Move Brown to nearby PHCS; reassign Brown building to other use; move Cummings
program to nearby schools (Winter Hill? LPCS? JFK?); reassign building to other use; reassign
Unidos to Old Edgerley."
To What End?
What I cannot discern in this hodge-podge is any sort of thought process. What assumptions are
being made about the future of our public school system? What implications do the various
"options" have for what programs are to be offered within that system? Shouldn't programming
drive a building plan, and not vice versa? Does anyone, anywhere have, dare I say it, any sort
of vision for our public schools? Or was the NESDEC report commissioned as a justification for
a giant sale of city-owned real estate?
To comment on the "initial findings"
Comments can be sent by e.mail to: dkennedy@nesdec.org
The format preferred by NESDEC is:
i) to identify whether you presently have or formerly have had children attending the Somerville
public schools; whether you have children who will be attending the schools, or whether you are
"an interested resident with no children in the schools."
ii) "Please list the TOP THREE PRIORITIES you would like the Somerville school committee
to consider when making their long-range facilities plan (e.g. class size, reducing cost,
neighborhood schools, new schools, program options, etc.)"
iii) "Do you have any additional information about the schools that you feel would be useful to
the school committee in making a long range plan?"
C. School Input Opportunity in Ward 6
On Tuesday, February 4, from 7 to 9 p.m., Ward 6 School Committee person Carolyn Taylor and parent/activist
Joel Nitzberg will be hosting a discussion of people's "goals and needs" for the Somerville
public schools. This meeting will be held in the downstairs church hall of the First
Congregational Church on College Avenue; entrance is on the Francesca Avenue side. For more
information, call Joel Nitzberg at (617) 627-9003.
3) IKEA COMMENT OPPORTUNITIES
A. Chapter 91 License Written Comments Due
This section of the Massachusetts General Laws deals with the protection of public rights on
riverbanks and historic tidelands. Written comments on the impacts on the proposed IKEA to
be built on the Mystic River shoreline will be taken by the state's Department of Environmental
Protection (DEP) until Monday, January 27, 2003. Such comments must be addressed to:
Ben Lynch, Program Chief
DEP Waterways Regulation Program
One Winter Street, 6th floor
Boston, MA 02108
The Chapter 91 regulations state that private use of filled tidelands for uses which are nor water-dependant may be allowed if the project proponent proves that such uses serve a compelling
public purpose. IKEA's plans can be viewed on the third floor of city Hall, at the OHCD office.
The state's Chapter 91 regulations, 301 Code of Mass. Regulations 9, can be viewed at:
www.state.ma.us/dep/brp/waterway/about.htm
Tie-in: Boston Globe highlights Medford development along Mystic
A related newspaper article of interest was published in the Sunday Globe North edition (a
geographic variant on our City Weekly edition), on January 16, 2003. Under the byline of
Kathleen Conti, "City may team up on traffic circle design," describes a transit-oriented new
mixed-use development proposed for the Wellington Circle area of Medford, and how IKEA and
other nearby proposed developments are expected to impact traffic, as well as Medford's interest
in a regional solution.
B. Planning Board Hearing
The Somerville Planning Board will hold public hearings on Thursday, January 30, 2003,
starting at 7:30 p.m. in the Aldermen's Chambers, on a variety of permits required for the
proposed IKEA development under the Somerville Zoning Ordinance. For more information,
contact OHCD at (617) 625-6600, ext. 2500.
4) DAVIS SQUARE RALLY AGAINST WAR ON IRAQ
On Friday, January 24, from 5:30 to 6:30 p.m., CPPAX and Somerville/Medford United for
Justice with Peace will be sponsoring this peace rally. Among the invited speakers are my
colleague, Alderman Tom Taylor, and State Representative Pat Jehlen. For more information,
or to help with outreach, call (617) 426-3040.
5) THANKS FOR YOUR RE-ELECTION SUPPORT!
Thanks to all who attended my fundraiser dance party during the torrential rains of Saturday,
December 14, and to all who contributed to my campaign. The party was great fun, and many
have expressed the hope of having another event where the Calypso Invaders can bring their
limbo rack and their irresistible beat!
Lost glasses?
While cleaning up, we found a pair of eyeglasses on the dance floor (the dancing did get pretty
lively later in the evening.) If they're yours, call and claim them.
copyright 2003 Denise Provost
This file has been converted from WordPerfect
Using wp2html.exe by Andrew Scriven