DeGeorge will not be deterred
Published on August 18th, 2004
STONEHAM, MA - For anyone who knows the Franklin Street resident, John DeGeorge cannot be deterred.
But that didn’t stop several town officials and a few members of a citizen group from approaching him earlier this week in an attempt to convince the Stoneham resident to withdraw his warrant article for Thursday’s Special Town Meeting.
“That’s unacceptable to me because as you know, this measure lost by six votes last time,” said DeGeorge of Article One, which will request permission to petition the state legislature to create an act allowing a citizen’s underride petition.
“Since they called this meeting, I decided to bring it back. And if it fails again this time, I’ll bring it back in October. And if it fails in October, I’ll bring it back in the spring,” DeGeorge added defiantly.
According to DeGeorge, the Selectmen, who supported his article last May, should present a good reason to citizens for opposing the article this time around. Doing so because they disagree with the premise of an August Town Meeting isn’t enough, says DeGeorge.
“This is a no-brainer for the citizens. And the only reason I’ll keep bringing it back again and again and again, is because I feel it’s in the best interests of a democratic government,” said DeGeorge of the proposition, which seeks to force Stoneham to approve a provision of Massachusetts State Law that already allows citizens to bring an underride question to the ballot.
Elaborating on his feelings about being approached by town officials earlier this week, the Franklin Street resident claims the Selectmen are crying foul because they’re losing at their own game.
“It was ok to have a summer town meeting last year and now it’s not? They’re playing a game and they don’t like the way it’s being played so they pick up their models and leave,” said DeGeorge. “I think the whole idea of them trying to get me to withdraw is discriminatory not only against the Fekes, but against any citizen petition.”
While town officials couldn’t be reached for comment by press time about their alleged attempts to convince DeGeorge to withdraw his article, several officials didn’t hide their disapproval of the spending request.
“They’re worried about laying off teachers and we’ve laid off police and fire. Meanwhile the schools are finding all this money and we’ve found nothing. It really wasn’t right what she [Carol Feke] did. I feel bad the board didn’t vote against the Town Meeting,” said Selectman Cosmo Ciccarello.
“I’m not supporting any of these articles,” added Town Administrator Ron Florino in a separate interview. “I don’t think we should be spending any of this money right now. What if we got $1 million [instead of $300,000 from the MBTA]? Would we be spending all of that right now?”
According to Feke, the opposition to her warrant article is especially unfair given the town’s plans to spend more than $650,000 on various municipal expenses in October. With the school department’s budgetary needs much more time sensitive, Feke believes the August Town Meeting is warranted.
“My position is not to under fund and cause concern or risk to people. The question becomes for the town, do we want a second rate elementary school because we want to be fiscally over-conservative?” asked Feke.
Yet according to Stoneham resident Peter D’Angelo, who campaigned with the Fekes earlier this summer to defeat the override ballot question, the need for the funding has already been filled. Saying that the school department has identified well-over $400,000 in unanticipated savings and revenues since the Fekes presented their petition, D’Angelo believes it prudent for the couple to withdraw their request.
“Since the petition was circulated and gathered, the School Committee has either funded, redirected funds, or identified savings to the line of over $500,000. So why in hell are we having this meeting? The purpose has already been met by the schools,” D’Angelo argued.
“Only in Stoneham would we do something as fiscally as dumb as this. But the politics of Town Meeting are such that this has a good chance of passing,” the former Finance Board member added.
While the Fekes agree that the schools have restored several elementary school positions that the warrant article originally intended to fund, they believe the purpose of their article hasn’t become null and void.
“My kids were in Stoneham Schools for twenty years and I’m a former teacher. I think we have to be even-handed here. And for some reason, there’s a strong reluctance to consider the school system’s needs. They’re trivialized, while the police and fire departments’ needs are overemphasized,” said Feke.
“It doesn’t change the intent of the article. What happens is because they did find more money, they’re able to restore more and more teachers than originally planned,” added Feke’s husband Gilbert.
While several town officials oppose the Fekes’ article, Florino has changed his stance on Article Two, which seeks $100,000 in funding for the traffic directors. According to the Town Administrator, after several meetings with Safety Officer Larry Rotondi, he became convinced that the town needs 12 traffic directors this year.
However, Florino will propose funding the 12 positions until October Town Meeting, when the town will have a better grasp of its finances.
“It looks like there is a safety issue and a need for 12 traffic directors. So I think that we could fund these 12 until October [Town Meeting]. If Town Meeting doesn’t approve the additional money then, we run out of funding for them. But I think that’s a risk we have to take,” Florino said.
Subscribe and get Home Delivery of The Independent
Save 36% off the newstand price — that's like 18 FREE issues!