Voters pass $54 million override budget
Published on May 5th, 2004
STONEHAM, MA - In a sizzling night of debate complete with in-your-face shouting matches, boisterous mob-like outbursts and even a reported assault and battery, 383 Stoneham citizens passed a $54 million contingent FY05 budget at Monday's Annual Town Meeting.
Paving the way for a June 15 Special Election for a $2.9 million override, the board of Selectmen voted unanimously the next night in favor of the ballot question, saying Monday night's vote illustrated the collective will of the people.
"I'll be voting for allowing it on the ballot, but I will not support an override for reasons I've already stated," remarked Board of Selectmen Chairman Cosmo Ciccarello last night before voting in favor of the June 15 Special Election.
While Selectman Bob Sweeney agreed with Ciccarello's sentiments, Selectmen Tony Kennedy, Charlie Smith, and John DePinto all felt the override served the best interests of the town. However, not many of those Selectmen celebrated the passage of the contingent budget in light of what they considered a disgraceful and embarrassing show of disrespect at Monday's Town Meeting.
"I think it was not conducted in the best manner. I think it was overly contentious. I was not impressed by last night's Town Meeting," said Kennedy at last night's Board of Selectmen meeting.
"I know a lot of tempers were running high, including myself, and I hope people come in with cooler heads," added Smith.
In an vote that could certainly come back to hurt the town should an override not pass, Town Administrator David Berry claimed that the confusion expressed by audience members Monday night over the $315,409 usage of the town's stabilization account was shared by some town officials.
According to Berry, because the town approved only using $315,409 out of the stabilization account instead of $600,000, the town's budget will be an approximate $285,000 out of balance should the override ballot question fail in June.
"The non-override budget is now out of balance by $285,000. There's no money available. Basically we can make $285,000 in additional cuts or increase revenues," explained Berry Tuesday morning. "An effort was made by me to convince the Finance Board and Selectmen that the motion should be for $600,000. Unfortunately they didn't agree with that."
In what could prove to be yet another Town Meeting controversy, Calthea Street resident Matt Whooley refuses to let Article 25 go and has filed a motion for reconsideration of the article at Town Clerk John Hanright's office, according to Ciccarello.
Whooley has filed the motion on the grounds that Town Moderator Michael Rotondi incorrectly considered School Committee member Marc Grimaldi's killing motion to reconsider Article 25 before entertaining a request for adjournment, which takes precedence over reconsideration under "Robert's Rules of Order", according to Ciccarello.
While at the time Whooley made the motion Rotondi did remark that, "we've gone through this process before, Robert's Rules directs me to accept a motion for reconsideration regardless if there's a motion for adjournment," the moderator said he will not reconsider Article 25 on Thursday.
"My understanding is that since we voted on reconsideration that you can't take up the article at another meeting. So that would be out of order," said Rotondi in a telephone interview Tuesday night.
Although the Town Meeting Warrant slated the budget article to be discussed last as Article 25, former Selectman Darin Leahy proposed considering the budget out of order after considerable debate was generated concerning the salaries of elected officials.
"We've just spent a half hour talking about $74,000. Let's spend the remainder of the meeting talking about $54 million," Leahy remarked to the applause of the assembly.
Although town officials including the Board of Selectmen and Finance Board expected prior to Monday's Town Meeting that someone would request discussing the budget out of order, Rotondi scoffed at the suggestion by town officials that he squash any such request.
"It appears the moderator doesn't feel he has the power to make Town Meeting follow the articles in order," announced Finance Board Chairman John Warren at his board's meeting a half-hour prior to the start of Town Meeting.
Upon Leahy's motion, Warren requested that the town split the question, taking one vote on the stabilization account usage requiring a two-thirds margin of victory and a separate majority vote for approving the town's budget.
Requesting that the town approve using $315,409 of the stabilization account for the FY05 budget, Warren proposed first addressing the savings account to prevent citizen amendments from further tapping into the account.
"The stabilization account has been called our rainy day account. It is not the economic recovery account which it has been used for over a number of years," said Warren, arguing that the savings should be used towards projects such as the proposed new Emergency Operations Center. "For that reason, we wish to have a vote on the stabilization first and it would prohibit amendments from drawing from the stabilization account," the finance board chairman added.
However, Leahy and others seemed confused about how the override tied into the stabilization account.
"I just don't understand. Is this stabilization money part of the override? Is it not part of the override? Where is this money coming from?" Leahy asked, who would repeat himself several times during the ensuing debate.
"That's a good question because it's a complicated budget matter. The money would be coming out of the stabilization. The answer to your general question is that it would be unrelated to the override," Town Counsel Bill Solomon answered.
However, Oak Street resident Gilbert Feke disputed Solomon's claim, saying that $600,000 would be used under the stabilization account under a zero-override and that nearly $300,000 of those funds would be placed back into the account with an affirmative proposition 2 1/2 vote in June.
Finance Board member Richard Gregorio then took the floor and affirmed Solomon's original statement, drawing himself into a back and forth exchange with Feke.
"The budget we are voting on is contingent upon the town approval of a $315,409 from the stabilization. End of conversation," said Gregorio.
"Excuse me, I disagree with that. There's a zero-override budget. Your budget infers taking $600,000 from the stabilization under a zero-override budget and then you want to take about $300,000 and put it back. Make it clear to the people," retorted Feke.
"I'm making it very clear," Gregorio said.
Although Feke's wife, Carol, later attempted to amend the stabilization account to utilize more funds, the amendment was defeated. The $315,000 amount was then subsequently approved. The assembly then began to hear a series of budget talks concerning the projected budget cuts to the town should an override not pass. Met by a series of boos, shouts and objections, the School Committee spent over a half-hour on their presentation. The school committee met a hostile crowd before its presentation even began, as outspoken audience members led by Leahy disputed Assistant Superintendent Joe Casey's right to sit on the floor as a non-resident. While the school committee and town officials have said for weeks that they would utilize Town Meeting as an opportunity to explain the consequences of an override in an open-forum, those presentations appear to have indirectly acted as a filibuster of sorts, --stifling citizen debate as the clock approached midnight and also potentially impacting the voters ability to stay throughout the meeting. In fact, according to the participation numbers presented by Hanright, nearly 80 citizens entered town hall between 9:30 and 10 p.m. as the budget was discussed. But with 782 voters ultimately walking through the doors, only 581 citizens voted on the budget article.
Another indication that citizens were growing weary played out after Carol Feke offered an amendment to the budget. Although both Feke and her husband had submitted written copies of their amendment at the outset of Town Meeting and had alluded to the amendment several times during the budget discussion, Rotondi barred the couple from the proposal after the question was moved.
"The amendment needed to be made verbally before the question was removed," replied Rotondi, evoking the fury of both Fekes, with Gilbert at one point shouting face-to-face at Solomon and Rotondi in protest.
"You can't buffalo people into moving this question because they want to go home. It's a bad idea," Feke screamed.
"I will challenge you in court on this," his wife added defiantly.
Eventually allowing the amendment, Carol Feke's presentation was constantly interrupted by angry shouts and screams.
"The reason I spent 100 of hours on my time on this..." began Feke.
"Do you have a job to go to tomorrow," yelled one man over the hissing and grumbled objections of many.
"Hurry up," screamed another.
Feke's amendment was defeated soundly by the assembly and the main motion passed soon thereafter.
Subscribe and get Home Delivery of The Independent
Save 36% off the newstand price — that's like 18 FREE issues!