The Reality of What Weiss Farm Means to ALL of Stoneham

Weiss Farm has been a long-standing, looming issue for the ENTIRE Stoneham community and as I came to discover through discussions on Facebook, a lot of newer residents weren’t aware of what had been going on. One part of the Weiss Farm “saga” has been the proposal of a “land swap,” and since the Facebook group discussions were met with a lot of response, I thought it was worth turning my Facebook write-up into a blog so a wider audience would be able to read it, especially since there is an election TOMORROW, April 2, making this a time-sensitive article for residents to read today:

Allow me to demonstrate how little George Seibold, incumbent Select Board candidate that is on TOMORROW’S ballot for re-election, knows or cares about the Weiss Farm land swap proposal, or the proposed overbuilding on the Weiss Farm site. In 2014 I proposed a land swap to mitigate the overburdening of town resources, and the major impact on the town that building several large scale apartments would have on the community as a whole. The current Select Board has abandoned the swap. Instead, they’ve thrown up their hands with a sigh and the defeated belief that the development of Weiss Farm won’t happen because a developer can’t build on wetlands. Unfortunately, this is a strategy that has never worked and it failed in Stoneham. I know the rebuttal the Board will make to the below – “we spent over $600,000 fighting this project so let’s just stand back and ‘green light’ it.” They can’t even conceptualize that as part of our negotiations, they could compel the developer to share in our costs.

Due to the fact that explaining 40B itself is confusing and complicated, I will touch on a couple of key points pertaining to Stoneham and 40B. I’m not against affordable housing, which is very different than a 40B. Affordable housing is necessary and something we are morally obligated to promote. I am against a 40B development, as are most communities, because in the name of 40B developers can bypass our building & conservation bylaws. That means that if an apartment complex at the Weiss Farm site could accommodate 60 units, for example, in the name of 40B a developer could crow bar 300 units into the same site. In order to reject a 40B proposal, a community needs to prove they have met their town’s obligation. Our obligation is that 10 % of the total land mass, minus open space and streets, is deeded affordable housing. Currently there is debate as to whether we are at 10% for various reasons.

For the sake of argument, let’s assume Stoneham has not met our obligation. Even if we fight this project and successfully stop it, we are still vulnerable to another large 40B project as long as we have not met this obligation. Weiss Farm might not be in your neighborhood, but the next one could be. If we fight this developer and win, a 10 story 40B could be built at Redstone next time. Or, a property owner somewhere in Stoneham might own a home or property that is innocuously located in your neighborhood and sell to a 40B developer. A 40B developer can bypass residential zoning, too. Either way, the problem of not meeting our obligation needs to be solved so that our community has more say in the kind of building projects that can change the culture of our town. Successfully executing a land swap with this 40B developer would assure we meet our obligation, and no other neighborhood ever has to deal with this nightmare again.

Now let me explain the land swap: Our proposal was to trade a town owned property that is currently protected under open space and recreation- the Stoneham Oaks. This is a par three golf course, which has historically lost approximately $50K per year. We could swap this land in exchange for 13 acres at Weiss Farm which could then be deeded and protected for open space and recreation. If we could manage the swap, traffic from a 300 unit development would be relocated to the outskirts of town instead of congesting not only Franklin Street, but also Main Street in both directions, plus Montvale Ave. Naturally with all of this additional traffic, people will find side streets to avoid that traffic, thus congesting streets that had been quieter in the past. If the town could negotiate a swap, the entrance to the apartment buildings would be accessed through Cummings Park in Woburn so there would be no congestion on Williams Street or the Stoneham Arena. Most people exiting in the morning would take a right and get on the highway.

Another important concept to consider is that the Town can’t sell the Stoneham Oaks to a commercial developer, an argument that has been made in the past. This is because the Oaks is designated as open space. Once land is designated open space it can’t be sold. It can only be traded as replacement with land of equal or greater size and value. Besides the Oaks, there is no other publicly owned land in Stoneham that could be traded for Weiss Farm.

If we could negotiate a swap, rather than put 40B apartments in an area that has no access to public transportation or retail elements, you would be putting a 40B on a golf course that has access to a bus line that goes directly into Boston. Over by the Oaks there is retail and restaurants that are within in walking distance. Even the Bike Path is nearby, as is the former General Foods currently under development. The Oaks would be ideal for apartments as it would also be close to employment options.

Lastly, I don’t know about most people, but I don’t consider a golf course that one has to pay in order to enter is really considered “open space.” Also, because the National Parks Department would need to approve the swap, the Town would need to have a plan in place to both develop Weiss Farm as open space and we would need to have the means to pay for it. One way to pay for it is to dedicate the more than $350K in additional tax money we would realize from the newly developed apartments as dedicated funds to truly develop a magnificent, all-inclusive open space for everyone in Stoneham.

Had this Select Board educated themselves or considered other options available to us as a Town, they could have gotten the developer to contribute financially to this project, especially since the Oaks is more attractive to a developer. At one point, Stoneham had the upper hand in negotiations, but now that Corcoran has won on wetlands, our negotiating power has been diminished.  It is not too late, but the window of opportunity is closing. Remember, if we do not meet our minimum 40B requirement, any 40B project can circumvent local building conservation bylaws to keep their projects economical and profitable to them– WITHOUT any consideration to the impact their profits will have on our community.

I guess the Select Board does not care about the investment you the homeowners have made in this community, their actions are the exact opposite of investing in the residents and they’ve demonstrated no interest in the quality of life for the residents of our Town.

Elections do have consequences. We have one candidate up for re-election that likes to rant about “open check books” and rail on and on about how that previous Boards had the audacity to actually spend money to protect its residents. He continuously makes decisions that have resulted in hundreds of thousands of dollars spent because he doesn’t even bother to educate himself on alternatives. If you are alright with the concept that spending money to protect residents is a waste of money, you should vote for George Seibold. As a reminder, he feels Weiss Farm only affects the people who live near it and since he does not, it doesn’t matter to him:

Some interesting discussions came out of the Facebook Stoneham Community Group post, so I am sharing those as a “Q&A format” for everyone’s benefit. I will update the blog if more share-worthy discussions emerge:

 

****

******

On a final note, George Seibold claims he wants to be held accountable. Yet look at how he reacts when asked questions… rather than answer, he attacks with childish rants, baseless accusation, and immature deflections. We get the elected officials we vote for:

 

Update at 10:00 p.m.:

If you’re still undecided and care about what Weiss Farm can do to our town, then you should give very serious consideration towards NOT voting George Seibold tomorrow. This exchange regarding Weiss Farm that took place moments ago is very alarming:

Stoneham’s Missing TA: The Plot Takes a Turn

-co-authored by Tom Boussy and Liz Erk

If you’ve been following along, you know that Stoneham’s Town Administrator, Thomas Younger suddenly disappeared back at the end of September. This disappearance happened at the same time questions were raised about “criminal misconduct.” If you need to catch up or recap, here you go:

Part 1: New Chair, New Questions

Part 2: The Silence Is Deafening

Part 3: All Five Select Board Members Should Resign

Part 4: Chair MacNeill: You “Forgot” the Attorney General Letter

Each time these blogs have been shared to the Stoneham Community Facebook Group, Chairwoman Shelly MacNeill deflects and denies, and Select Board member George Seibold comments with insults, deflections, and denials like this one on March 26, 2019:

“Funny how you keep trying to shine light on a full moon. Unlike when you were Chair, everything has been public.”

Actions speak louder than words. George repeatedly says the current Board does everything in public, yet this Board has met in Executive Session 12 times from July through December, 2018. They roughly had around 20 Executive Sessions in total for the year, but they have yet to release several sets of complete minutes, namely from September 2018 and October 2018. When you finish reading the following, you’ll definitely question George’s definition of “everything has been public.”

Since the end of September, both Liz Erk and I have been very publicly asking a lot of questions, requesting documentation, and sharing what we’ve found along the way via this blog. We’ve been extremely consistent, but what has NOT been consistent is the story the Select Board, namely Chairwoman Shelly MacNeill, has been trying to sell. (Funny thing about the truth- if you tell it all along, you don’t have to think about your answers. And when you don’t have to try and think about every answer, you avoid eventually slipping, like Chairwoman MacNeill did this week.)

On Monday, March 25, 2019 I asked Shelly MacNeill the questions in my recent blog directly. You can read the full emailed response from her here.   The first thing that jumped out at me from Shelly’s response was this portion:

Question: If Thomas Younger wasn’t removed, then why was the Stoneham Town Hall Employee Association (THEA) citing the TA’s removal in this November 2018 grievance letter?

Now let’s look at the “criminal misconduct investigation” that was referenced multiple times (see prior blog). Black type is the question from me, red is the response from Shelly:

Shelly MacNeill’s statement right there is the first time any official from the town has stated that Thomas Younger was the one who initiated the investigation into criminal misconduct. (Trust me, us “reasonable people” would have flagged that piece sooner had it been admitted to prior to this) The September 24th, 2018 Select Board meeting, and also the night that Mr. Younger brought the criminal investigation forth, is when he disappeared. (Or, as Town Counsel and Shelly MacNeill like to say, “given permission to remain at home.”)

Remember, George Seibold was quoted in redacted January 2019 Select Board minutes:

On Tuesday, March 26, 2019 Liz Erk asked the Select Board for the “buyout” agreement that took place following September 24, 2018. This is what was sent to her:

 

“Not viewed as punishment.” Interesting, considering everything that’s been laid out. Was Thomas Younger told to “remain at home” because he tried to bring a criminal investigation forth? Sounds like punishment if that’s the case.

Here’s an even BIGGER issue: Our Select Board has FIVE members. So Shelly decided to tell the Town Administrator to “remain at home” with her “permission” because SHE wishes to  “go in another direction?” Shelly MacNeill is not a Mayor, she’s the Chair. She does NOT have that authority to act on her own. And while we’re on the subject of “Select Board members forgetting they’re on an ELECTED TEAM OF FIVE,” let’s be real and I challenge this Select Board to say otherwise: Anthony Wilson was forced to resign as Chair under pressure because he made a decision WITHOUT the rest of the Board. (Remember these meetings where Raymie Parker said she wanted a reorganization of the Board because of “some things that happened over the weekend,” and then Anthony resigned the role and Shelly was then voted Chair very quickly? Almost looks like it was planned ahead of time…)

So now the very serious question is: Did all five Select Board members violate Section 8 of the Selectmen-Administrator Act (with Town Counsel aiding them in covering it up), or did Shelly MacNeill by herself (with the other four and Town Counsel covering it up)?

A subsequent Facebook conversation that took place where a former Stoneham DPW worker came forward. You can read the full discussion here.

These portions stand out, however:

All of these questionable matters are certainly hard to keep track of, so here’s a timeline recap:

July and August, 2018 the Board and the TA apparently have a mutual agreement to terminate his contract on November 16th, and produce an amended agreement on 8-21-18.  Thomas Younger said on several occasions that he wanted to stay through the October town meeting (10-15-18) and a few weeks after to “keep the ship sailing.”

Then somewhere between August 21,^st 2018  & September 14, 2018 an alleged “backroom deal” takes place and the rest of the Board, as well as all of Town Hall, gets wind of it on or around September 15^th, 2018.

Tuesday, September 18^th, 2018 Board Member Raymie Parker announces at the very beginning of the meeting that “because of some things that happened over the weekend,” she would like reorganization of the Board to be on the next meeting’s agenda. At the conclusion of this meeting, the Board enters into Executive Session to discuss strategy with respect to litigation involving Eversource. (it’s interesting that the board won’t release these minutes, as Shelly in her response to me said that they have a written agreement with Eversource.  “The board negotiated a mitigation agreement with Eversource.” And yet she went on to say, “As you are well aware, there are many issues that are discussed in Executive Session that cannot be shared with the public until they have been completely resolved, if ever.” If that’s done, then legally it should be released.) It is believed that a decision was made that night to fire Thomas Younger, He is suspiciously missing from the next meeting on Monday September 24^th, 2018 where Anthony Wilson steps down as Chair, stating that he was too busy to continue as his duties, and as if it was rehearsed ahead of time, Shelly is named Chair, Raymie becomes Vice Chair, and George becomes the Secretary. Now it’s possible that the Board voted to remove Town Administrator, Thomas Younger at this ES meeting because these minutes also are not published. They enter into ES to discuss the Town Accountant’s contract and to “investigate charges of criminal misconduct,” or to “consider the filing of criminal complaints pursuant to M.G.L. c. 30A, sec.     21(a)(5).”

Three days later on September 27^th, 2018 in front of all of Town Hall, Shelly and Town Counsel go to Younger’s office and deliver Shelly’s “permission to stay home” and ask him to leave, making that the TA’s last day.

On October 2^nd, 2018, the Board’s next meeting, they appoint Debbie Pettengill as interim TA.

On November 6th, 2018 the Town Hall Employee Association (THEA) files a second grievance saying that the last negotiation was October 2^nd, 2018 and that the Board was in the process of removing the TA.

***Again we ask, does the Select Board want to finally come clean and tell the truth? As you can see, we will never stop working to uncover the facts.

Chair MacNeill: You “Forgot” the Attorney General Letter

There was a Facebook post that shared a blog on Wednesday that, once again, asked the Select Board to explain why and how former Town Administrator, Thomas Younger, was dismissed. As usual, this Board will not provide any answers, aside from one post on Chairwoman Shelly MacNeill’s private Facebook page. Unfortunately, unless you are the Chairwoman’s “Facebook friend,” then you can’t ask any questions directly.  Therefore, I sent a friend request two days ago that has not been accepted, so I am responding in a format that invites ALL of the public to participate fairly.

All that has transpired is an unacceptable form of open government. Not only is just about everything getting done in Executive Session, this Board is glaringly only accountable to their friends.  Someone sent me a screenshot of Shelly’s personal post that included several letters between Town Counsel Galvin, myself, and the Attorney General’s office. Shelly’s post and the letters were essentially an effort to show the Board did nothing wrong. However, Shelly omitted a key document from the Attorney General’s office that requested documents for the ongoing investigation into this matter:

 

The citizens of Stoneham deserve transparency and as tax payers we are owed answers to the questions below (what seem to be asked repeatedly with no answers):

Chairwoman Shelly MacNeill, please explain why you did not follow our Town Code when dismissing Town Administrator Thomas Younger. On what date did Younger stop being the TA? According to the heavily redacted minutes that Attorney Bob Galvin sent, the Select Board had to buy Thomas Younger out out to avoid a lawsuit. Please see this excerpt from the heavily redacted minutes:

Because policy and procedure is main focus point of yours, I know you must be familiar with our Town Code. It is very specific when it comes to the removal of the TA. I have included it in this post for your convenience and easy reference. This is Section 8 of Chapter 26 in The Select Board Administrator Act:

Sec. 8.  Town Administrator – Removal.

The selectmen, by three concurring votes at a meeting of the board, may move removal of the town administrator. At least twenty days before such proposed removal shall become effective, the selectmen shall file a preliminary written resolution with the town clerk setting forth in detail the specific reasons for such proposed removal, a copy of which resolution shall be delivered to the town administrator. The administrator may, within ten days of service of such resolution, reply in writing and may request a public hearing. Service shall be deemed to have been accomplished by leaving a copy of such resolution at the administrator’s last known address. If the administrator so requests, the board of selectmen shall hold a public hearing not earlier than ten days nor later than twenty days after the filing of such request. After such public hearing, if any, otherwise at the expiration of twenty days following the filing of the preliminary resolution, and after full consideration, the selectmen by a three-fifths vote of the full membership of the board, may adopt a final resolution of removal. In the preliminary resolution, the selectmen may suspend the administrator from duty and such suspension shall be treated as a temporary absence. The town administrator shall continue to receive his compensation until final adjudication as provided herein. Upon the adoption of a final resolution of removal, the selectmen shall pay the administrator in the amount equal to one month’s pay up to one full year of service to the town an additional month for each additional full year of service to the town, but in no event more than an amount equal to three month’s pay; provided, however, that the cause for such removal is a criminal act all severance pay shall be withheld.

The Executive Session agenda published on the same date that the TA was dismissed referenced “criminal misconduct.” Was the TA being investigated for criminal conduct? The public has a right to know.

 

 

The September 18, 2018 Select Board meeting right before Executive Session has Select Board Member Raymie Parker demanding a re-organization of the Board, because “of things that came about this weekend.” The public has a right to know what transpired that led to a demand for reorganization. The following meeting on September 24, 2018, on the same night as this meeting in questions, then-Chair Anthony Wilson coincidentally announced he was “too busy” to fulfill his duties as Chair. (I couldn’t help but notice how not one Select Board member seemed to be surprised by Anthony’s announcement. Without missing a beat, Shelly was nominated and elected Chair, and rookie Select Board member Raymie was nominated and elected as Vice Chair.)

Pursuant to the matter at hand, I asked Select Board member, George Seibold these questions this past Thursday evening (full dialogue between George Seibold, Liz Erk, and myself here), he couldn’t answer them. Shelly, as Chair I implore you to address these questions:
1) Where can I find the agenda that includes “Removal of TA” on it? I must have missed it because we both know it is illegal for anything to be discussed by the board without 48 hours notice to the public.

2) Can you demonstrate how you followed Section 8 of the Select Board Administrator Act? Because I can’t find it anywhere. When this is answered, I will be satisfied that the law was followed and I will stop asking questions.

3) How much was the buyout referenced in the response by Attorney Galvin and how was this legally done? Town Meeting controls the town budget and the Select Board has no authority to appropriate money without Town Meeting’s approval.

4) How much did the stipend cost the town for the interim TA (The one who was hired to fill in for the TA that wasn’t removed.)?

5) The New TA got a $21,000 raise. Where did that money come from? This raise was given to an inexperienced Town Administrator. I’m sure he will do a great job, but how did you decide to pay him more than the averages given to other TA’s who have more experience? And what line item did the raise come from?

6) Did an employee of the town vote on her boss’ contract? At this same Executive Session of January 8th 2019 you have an employee of the town, Select Board member, Raymie Parker not only debating and voting on the New TA’s contract, but she seconded the motion. Isn’t this a direct conflict of interest, according to the State of Massachusetts’ law? You now have an employee debating and approving her boss’ salary:

 

7) This Board has repeatedly stated that it doesn’t like to spend money on lawsuits. Is that why you stopped fighting Weiss Farm and Eversource, where the traffic congestion and levels of exposure in residential areas will rise considerably?

8) And one final question: How much did we spend on legal fees for the “criminal misconduct” case that you want to pretend didn’t happen?

Shelly, while you may feel that this and Wednesday’s blog post are “personal attacks,” they truly aren’t and instead are publicly asking VERY serious legal questions. You see, the problem with the highest elected Board in town (who are the people that are in charge of policy and procedures), setting the town’s budgets and asking for money for capital improvements, among other things, is this: If you didn’t follow the Town Code when removing the TA and then repeatedly refuse to even acknowledge that something happened, and then stonewalled every question while another member of the Board keeps hurling insults to anyone that questions this Board’s behavior, then what else are you doing that we don’t know about? This Board meets in Executive Session more than it meets in Open Session. Eventually something of great importance will come up, like a new High School, and if the tax payers don’t trust this Board, then it will be very difficult to get something passed on a ballot.

 

And remember it was just a couple of weeks ago on March 5th, 2019 that you all discussed how you wanted to be held accountable:

 

All Five Select Board Members Should Resign

Back in October, Former Select Board member, Tom Boussy asked two important questions on two occasions. As a reminder:

1-     Why Stoneham suddenly had a new Chairperson, Shelly MacNeill and why did former Town Administrator, Thomas Younger suddenly disappear.  

2-     Stonewalled, evasive responses from Town Counsel, Robert Galvin Esq. of Galvin & Galvin (Letter 1, Letter 2), as well as questions regarding why Select Board member and town employee, Raymie Parker is voting on personnel agenda items, when it is very clearly outlined by State law that it is a conflict of interest.

In a letter of response to Tom Boussy, Town Counsel states that former TA Younger was “given permission to remain at home”:

Fast forward to March 2019 and residents are still being met with shifty, slippery responses from leadership. First, we have this North Suburban News article in which the Select Board Chair, Shelly MacNeill merely states that the former TA is “no longer coming into the office,” and then when asked for the January 8, 2019 Select Board meeting minutes under the Freedom of Information Act, Town Counsel responded with a heavily redacted set of minutes that hides the criminal misconduct portion of the Executive Session discussion. (ie.- continuing to do whatever it takes to keep the criminal misconduct information hidden from the public.) However, Town Counsel did not redact two very important, egregious portions:

1-     When discussing the new Town Administrator, Dennis Sheehan’s salary and employment terms, George Seibold states that the town avoided a lawsuit by buying out TA Younger’s contract:

…Town Counsel Galvin subsequently stated that Sheehan knows the TA Act (Town Administrator Act). Does he mean this same TA Act that the Select Board was in VIOLATION of when TA Younger magically disappeared in September 2018:

Let’s recap: Select Board member George Seibold, who arrogantly displays unprofessional, combative conduct on Facebook community forums on a very regular basis, including for the missing TA situation, states the town avoided a lawsuit by buying out the former TA’s contract. Lawsuit for what, exactly? What did the town do that was so bad that those actions resulted in the ENTIRE Select Board, WITH Town Counsel’s consent, opting to VIOLATE the above LAW?? (And let’s not forget the above-linked and screen-captured letter where Town Counsel states the TA was merely “given permission to remain to home.”)

And now let’s visit another part of all of this:

  Why is Select Board member and town employee, Raymie Parker voting (and deliberating ) on her boss’ salary when it is a direct violation of State law for conflict of interest? Especially since in a letter to Tom Boussy, Town Counsel assured Tom that Raymie Parker will “discharge her duties ethically”:

And yet in the above screen grab Raymie voted (and in this pdf to the minutes you can see where she deliberated salary figures), therefore discharging her duties UNETHICALLY and ILLEGALLY.

The town needs to seriously reconsider who it employs as Town Counsel because Robert Galvin himself appears to have questionable abilities to uphold his duties, as outlined by the Supreme Judicial Court Rules of Professional Conduct.

The Town’s Select Board has become a sideshow of shifty, shady, and circus-like behavior. Between all of the above and then Select Board member Raymie Parker challenging Select Board member Caroline Colarusso to “go outside” as though they were at a bar on March 5, 2019…

…we as a town deserve better, including receiving the truth from our leaders, ethical behavior, professional conduct, and Town Counsel that upholds their duties.

One of the upcoming Warrant Articles that we are voting on at Annual Town Meeting in May includes a measure that would allow residents to recall our elected officials. This was put forth by Select Board member Raymie Parker and she herself is doing a great job of illustrating why we need a recall option. When you look at all of the above, and then here where at the March 5, 2019 Select Board meeting she states she is aware of what she cannot do as a conflict of interest…

…and yet she repeatedly votes on agenda items that she knows full well that she shouldn’t be under State law. (As an aside, I have no problem with a resident that is a town employee serving as an elected official. I believe that everyone who is a resident has a right to run for office and serve. However, I have a huge issue with an elected official that is a town employee that has REPEATEDLY committed ethics violations by voting on matters that are a conflict interest. In fact, on March 5, 2019 no sooner did the Select Board finish a discussion about the need for a town employee to recuse themselves from voting on a matter that is a conflict of interest because otherwise it’s an ethics violation, Raymie Parker voted on an issue that was a conflict of interest pertaining to whether or not the Board should take favorable or unfavorable action on a Warrant Article that discusses whether or not a town employee should be able to hold elected office in Stoneham):

 

Then we have George Seibold acknowledging that the town avoided a lawsuit by buying out the former TA’s contract, as stated and evidenced above. Yet this move violated the LAW as outlined by the Town Administrator Act. There is not ONE Select Board agenda posted ANYWHERE, for either Open Session or Executive Session, where a discussion of dismissal or buyout of the Town Administrator is listed, as required by the above-posted Section 8 of the Town Administrator Act. I cannot think of anything more important in terms of local government being discussed and implemented than the removal of a TA without letting the taxpayers know, and then flat out refusing to acknowledge the Board’s illegal action for the past six months.  

Select Board Chairwoman Shelly MacNeill (who by virtue as Chair is the ringleader), Select Board member Anthony Wilson (who appeared to be getting pushed out of his Chair role, but then suddenly he voluntarily resigned the Chair right before the same meeting that the TA disappeared, saying he was “too busy” for the role. Gee, not suspicious at all…), and Select Board member Caroline Colarusso went along with this illegal removal of former TA Thomas Younger. Regardless of who voted for or against allowing a buyout that completely ignored the above-displayed law, all of them have been silent on what took place. This occurred in September 2018 and yet it is now March 2019… SIX MONTHS LATER and none of them have done anything that suggests they were against the illegal activities that took place. Even if they were bound by keeping Executive Session contents confidential, any one of them could have stated vaguely and on public record at Select Board meetings where TA discussions took place that “while they cannot divulge specifics, they do not stand by the actions taken by the Board in September 2018 and want that on the record.” Simple. Instead, all five Select Board members appear to be complicit with violating Section 8 of the Town Administrator Act, namely “removal” as displayed above.  

In my opinion, not ONE Select Board member conducted themselves in any way that is in the best interest of Stoneham residents. All five were elected to act ethically, legally, and in ways that best represent the tax payers. As evidenced by everything that I have laid out here, I believe that all five members of the Select Board should resign their positions immediately.

 

**If any Select Board member has proof that they are willing to share that shows they did NOT go along with the illegal removal of former Town Administrator Thomas Younger, I will gladly edit this blog post to reflect as such. As the saying goes, “If you watch a wrongdoing and take no corrective action, then you are every bit a part of the problem.”

 

…And remember, you did say you wanted to be held accountable at March 5, 2019’s Select Board meeting:

Mis-Managed Accounts, $2.5 Million Accounting Discrepancy, Improper Revolving Funds…

What do Olivia Newton John and the Town of Stoneham have in common?

 

*drum roll*

 

Apparently the last time both had good records was in the 80’s.

 

 

Seriously, if you’ve paid taxes here at any time since 1991, you’re going to care about what the Town Accountant, David Castellarin had to say in this Select Board meeting clip from December 18, 2018 regarding what a disaster the town’s finances are. The accompanying Stoneham Independent article gives a decent overview, but you need to watch the video to really appreciate how bad things are. Some of the highlights include:

 

•             Accounts Receivables have not been reconciled since 1991.

 

•             Cash has not been reconciled for over two fiscal years.

 

•             The town took a hit on Free Cash for over $50K for not being reconciled last year.

 

•             Corrections were made to the controls of our Accounts Payable process. Our vendors were not able to match invoices to services/materials because instead of referencing the invoice numbers on a bill, invoice numbers were made up beginning with Invoice Number One. This continued through end of year. When an invoice was entered into Accounts receivable with the made up invoice number, the bill could not be found.

 

•             There has been a significant decrease to the number of voids and voided checks.

 

•             Corrected the employee expense reimbursement policy. In examining past practices, there was no proper back up to employee submissions and reimbursements were made incorrectly. For example, reimbursements were made for sales tax, which is not allowed. The expense reimbursement process did not have proper back. There were no receipts, cancelled checks, paperwork, or expenses to serve as back up.

 

•             The Fiscal Year 18 residential taxes were committed, but only showed one commitment on the books. The second commitment hit the previous fiscal year and was backed out on the journal entry, but the corrected entry was not made in Fiscal Year 18.

 

•             In the past, the Town Accountant did not sign off on financial contracts to prove the availability of funds. This has been corrected.

 

•             Corrected multiple years of police time.

 

•             Closed out stagnant special revenue funds totaling $118,487. This was closed into the General Fund, which will help increase Free Cash this year.

 

•             Our books were SIGNIFICANTLY out of balance by $2.5M dollars.

 

•             Added budgets to previous Town Meetings to Munis that were missing.

 

•             Corrected Fiscal Year 17 and 18 for Chapter 90 money charged into incorrect year.

 

•             Instituted form and policy for calculating Enterprise Fund indirect costs.

 

•             Found a stack of Fiscal Year 18 journal entries that were not made.

 

•             Correct 17 occurrences. This is money from Fiscal Year 17 that was brought into Fiscal Year 18 to pay for outstanding bills that had not come in. These funds did not balance.

 

•             Encumbrance were paid directly from a Control Account, which is not allowed. 

 

•             Major corrections to vendor files. 13,331 files still need to be corrected.

 

•             Reconciled Fiscal Year 17 and 18 Capital Accounts.

 

•             Closed out Backflow Prevention Fund into Water Enterprise Fund in the amount of $131,150. That fund should have been closed out when the enterprise funds were adopted.

 

•             Closed all revolving funds that were not allowed by Mass Law 4453.½  and added revolving fund bylaws to comply with Mass General Law

 

•             Because we pay Stoneham TV an annual amount of between $400-500K of our revenue, we need to decide if we want to adopt a Revolving Fund and keep 10%, or let money flow into a General Account. Made sure Stoneham TV submitted required reports.

 

•             Corrected FICA deductions that were taken out of paychecks. We are not allowed to pay FICA plus we are paying our 6.25 % which should not have happened.

 

 

Video from the December 18, 2018 Select Board meeting:

 

 

I’m especially pretty angry about this because I sat at a few (televised and recorded) meetings over the past couple of years where some current Select Board members were pretty vocal and hostile against Select Board members (past and one present) and former Finance & Advisory Board members who refused to accept that “things were fine,” and kept asking for a closer look at the town’s financials. But, of course, being outnumbered meant a further investigation didn’t move forward, which brings us to the present not-so-shocking set of circumstances.

 

So… why isn’t the CURRENT Finance & Advisory Board questioning these errors in the books? This is the group, appointed by the Town Moderator, which is tasked with looking out for the taxpayers. The prior FAB was constantly questioning irregularities and came under fire from the current Town Moderator, along with a small, yet vocal group of residents (some who now serve on the current Select Board) for questioning the DPW, the Arena, and the prior Town Administrators and Accountants.

 Residents who are concerned by everything laid out here should reach out to the current FAB with questions. Per the town’s website:

The Finance and Advisory Board is an appointed by the Moderator and derives its authority and responsibilities from the statutes of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the Special Act, and the By-Laws of the Town.

Mission

The Stoneham Finance and Advisory Board is to:
• Review fiscal and capital matters
• Consider and balance the needs of all citizens
• Make recommendations
• Explain the impact of decisions to Town Meeting

From the Town By-Laws:
“Sec. 2-18. Matters to be considered.
The finance and advisory board shall consider matters relating to the appropriation, the borrowing and the expenditures of money by the town; its indebtedness; the methods of administration of its various officers and departments: property valuation and assessments; revenue sources and other municipal affairs; and make recommendations to the town, and any town board, officer or committee, relative to such matters. (1932 Bylaws, Art. 2, Sec 3; revenue sources, 5-4-92)“

 

(And here is the Stoneham Independent article from January 2, 2019 that gives a quick snapshot of what the Town Accountant went over)

 

Settlement Ends ‘Hostile Work Environment’ Lawsuit: Town’s Attorney Says…

I wanted to start with a quick personal note- I only ever got involved in supporting local candidates that I truly believed in- Ann Marie O’Neill and Tom Boussy. I have been doing public relations for over 20 years and have my own PR consultancy, which means I know that what I publicly put myself out for is a reflection on me and my values. So when the North Suburban News ran a story regarding the settlement that was reached for a complaint involving a town employee against Selectmen (past and present), I was disheartened to read an article that not only merely listed complaints, but was sensationalized to attract attention and thus interpreted by readers to mean that people were found guilty.

When I read that none of the Selectmen or the town’s attorney, Seth Barnett could be reached for comment, I was surprised. I reached out to the paper’s publisher and confirmed they did not have everyone’s contact info, so this was incorrect. I then found out the paper had tried to reach others after 5:00 p.m. and the story ran at 10:45 p.m. later that same evening. In my professional experience, this suggests to me that this new, up-and-coming news outlet was looking to be first to run a story about the settlement and didn’t want to risk being “scooped” by waiting to get in touch with involved parties.

 

The North Suburban News story was shared to a variety of Facebook groups and almost immediately there were several comments smearing the Selectmen named in the complaint, as well as others carrying on about how guilty the Selectmen were.

I then went to former Selectman, Tom Boussy and asked him to comment. He stated that he was adamant in not wanting the town to settle, and he had wanted to go to court to clear his name from what he says was a frivolous law suit. In response to The North Suburban News article, the following is from Seth Barnett of Pierce Davis & Perritano, the attorney that represented the Town of Stoneham in this case:

 

From: Seth Barnett

Sent: Friday, January 11, 2019 4:28 PM

To: ‘Lisa Redmond’

Subject: RE: Settlement in case of Erin Sinclair v. Town of Stoneham

 

Hello Lisa,

 

            I understand that an article was published with regards to this lawsuit and the allegations against Mr. Boussy, Ms. Colarusso or Ms. O’Neill.  While I cannot discuss the terms of any settlement, I can offer that there is no admission of liability or acknowledgement of any wrongdoing by the Town, Mr. Boussy, Ms. Colarusso or Ms. O’Neill in reaching a settlement of this matter.  In fact they expressly deny the allegations contained in the Complaint and any settlement reached on their behalf is independently undertaken by the Town’s insurer as a business decision. 

 

            As further background information, your article appears to only present the allegations plead by Ms. Sinclair in her Complaint.  The article, however, did not include the denial of those allegations or any responses of Mr. Boussy, Ms. Colarusso or Ms. O’Neill that were contained in their Answer filed with the Court at the outset of the litigation.  Mr. Boussy, Ms. Colarusso or Ms. O’Neill maintain that the information gathered before and during the litigation supports their steadfast belief that the allegations brought against them were without merit regardless of the insurer’s independent decision to engage in settlement negotiations on their behalf.  Prior to the suit, the Board of Selectmen promptly retained the services of an outside investigator to investigate the allegations in order to determine whether such charges had merit.  After conducting thorough investigations into the complaint, investigator determined that the charges of a hostile work environment and defamation could not be substantiated. 

 

Thanks,

Seth

 

So there it is. Because the North Suburban News did not take the time to do thorough fact-finding, three people were ultimately deemed to be guilty by readers because of an article that not only failed to do thorough reporting, it also failed to explain the difference between an “alleged complaint” and a “court finding.”

The Silence Is Deafening

One week has passed and still no answers from the BOS. I thought for sure that my inquiries would be addressed at this past Tuesday’s Board of Selectmen meeting, but I guess this board doesn’t feel that they are accountable to the taxpayers.  (The AG has not approved the name change yet, so it’s still the Stoneham Board of Selectmen)

I will ask the questions again based on the meeting the other night:

• Was the chair removed or did he resign his position? It sure looked like the board wanted him out as chair on September 18^th, but the next week he resigned his position, stating he was too busy to continue the role. Not one person thanked him for the time he dedicated to the town, and they quickly selected a new chair and vice chair– with little to no discussion.

 

• Watching the meeting on Tuesday October 2^nd, it was very obvious that the Town Administrator is no longer working for the town, but he’s being paid until November 16^th. Did he quit or was he fired? I don’t believe that if he did quit, the town would be obligated to continue to pay him until Nov. 16^th. But the fact that they had the Town Accountant as a temporary Town Administrator for that meeting, and then voted Debbie Pettengill (Administrative Assistant to the Town Administrator) as the interim TA tells me that something happened, and the information is being withheld from the public. I cannot find any agenda that includes dismissing the TA after he agreed to stay on until November 16^th.

 

• I found it interesting that Selectwoman Parker went to executive session on September 24th to discuss criminal misconduct of a town employee and to discuss strategy in preparation for negotiations with nonunion personnel, including the Town Accountant. As a town employee she needs to recuse herself from any budget item, including pay rates for employees, and I have to believe that she couldn’t be part of a criminal investigation on a town employee either. Yet on the Tuesday, October 2nd meeting she abstained herself from the vote for the interim TA when she should have recused herself from the discussions.  She needs to remain consistent on  issues that she can and cannot participate in, and to avoid any confusion or the appearance of tipping off a board member, she should leave the room for the entire discussion.

New Chair, New Questions

As many residents might be aware, in a highly unusual move, Stoneham now has a new Chairperson of the Select Board as of September 24^th, 2018. This situation has left the town with more questions and no answers, so I am urging the new Chair, Shelly MacNeill to begin her term with transparency.

I sent the following letter through the Select Board’s office to Stoneham’s town attorney, Robert Galvin Esq. of Galvin & Galvin and Chairwoman MacNeill, last Thursday, September 27^th…

…and then it was sent to the entire Select Board on Friday, September 28^th.  Around the same time there was apparently a department head meeting to announce that the Town Administrator, Thomas Younger had walked off the job, even though the Board and Mr. Younger had agreed that he would stay on until November 16^th, assuring a seamless town meeting in October.

I feel that it’s incumbent on the reorganized board to truthfully explain to the tax payers why the Board was reorganized, and why the TA abruptly left.  I have second-hand information, but I would prefer to hear it directly from the new Chair so that rumors can be dispelled.

Thank you,

Tom Boussy

Stoneham Trash Fee: One Abuse After Another

Trash is a long and boring story, but this post is to simplify and educate everyone on the history and facts leading us to Town Meeting on Monday, 7, 2018.  There are two issues at hand with Article 22: One is whether the Town of Stoneham should charge its residents a trash fee. The second issue is much larger- the idea that the Selectmen wish to charge you a trash fee to build reserves. To understand the trash fee, we unfortunately must go back in time to appreciate how we got here.

The trash fee has existed in various forms from $0 to $50 in the first part of the decade.  During the budgeting for FY12 there appeared to be a shortfall that would require cuts in the school as well as general government. The idea of a trash fee was first floated in the January 18^th Board of Selectmen’s meeting by then Chair Paul Rotondi. The idea was that they would have a warrant article for a $1.9M override and then if that failed, they would have a trash fee effective July 1, 2011.

Selectmen’s Agenda January 18, 2011 –                                              Page (2)

Trash Fee Discussion/Chairman Rotondi

Chairman Rotondi passed the gavel to vice Chairman Vallarelli.

Chairman Rotondi moved to do a $1.6 million trash fee effective 7/1, based conditionally on 1) a four-year plan agreed to by the Tri-Board that the Town go forward with; 2) If the Town asks for an override then the trash fee does not go into effect.  It will be one or the other. Selectman Sweeney asked how much money per household. Selectman Gregorio said $252 per unit.  Chairman Rotondi said even with the trash fee there will have to be some cuts.  He said the Selectmen have no other place to go now but to approve this trash fee.  He said he thinks it should be unanimous.  Selectman Sweeney said even if they don’t agree, they still need it and the Selectmen have the power to do it or not do it.  Chairman Rotondi said he is saying the majority of each board.  Selectman Gregorio said the motion should probably have a date.  Chairman Rotondi moved to have a $1.6 million trash fee effective 7/1, conditioned on 1) agreement reached by majority of triboards to de done by 3/1 and 2) if things get worse and they decide to do an override instead, if the override passes, they don’t have an override and a trash fee.   Motion was seconded by Selectman Sweeney.  Selectman Gregorio said he is not in favor of a flat trash fee and they should work with the committee on pay as you throw.  He said if they have a flat trash fee, they should have something to offset seniors.  Selectman Sweeney said they should put what percentage will go to each department.  Chairman Rotondi agreed and said with a percentage based budget, there is an incentive to save.  He said that, over the last five years, the Town has consistently saved money, and they lost all that money because it went someplace else.  A roll call vote was taken.

Voting in favor:        Selectman Gregorio        Chairman Rotondi        Selectman Sweeney

Vice Chairman Vallarelli

Opposed:        Selectman DePinto

During the February 15^th BOS meeting the board voted unanimously to place the $1.9M Prop 2 ½ override on the warrant for the 2011 Annual Town Meeting.  Obviously the override failed at town meeting so the trash fee was set to go into effect on July 1 ( The start of FY12). This is where the wheels started to come off the cart. At the April 2011 BOS Meeting the DPW director said that the trash budget needs to be $1.6M and that it would only leave $15,750 in surplus.  The problem here was that this was an outright lie. The total cost for hauling and tipping (disposal) the previous year was only $1,242,228, leaving a surplus of $357,772.

In 2012, the first year of the trash fee, the town made a 13th payment of approximately $70,000 to Hiltz by paying two months in one payment. The June FY12 payment and the July FY13 payment (in advance with the FY12 trash fee money.), and an additional $58,500 was transferred out of the trash fee as an appropriation into another account.

 

 

These numbers also include $20,000 in overtime at Stevens Street & $60,075.23 for “other purchased” and $500 for supplies, and the minus report is still showing a surplus of $110,601.16. So, in the FY13 budget the trash budget was increased by $173,877 to $1,582,600 knowing that the actual cost in FY12 was only 1,242,228 the next, and that year the minus reports showed a surplus of $185,224.65 with increases to non-trash related items.

The abuse continued when The BOS wanted to reduce the trash fee on the meeting of July 24, 2012 (FY13). The DPW director made a presentation full of lies, telling the Selectmen that it would be very difficult to lower the fee and when Selectman Vallarelli asked “how many tons of trash we were tipping” he said not once, not twice, but THREE times 9,000 tons. The problem with that statement is that the town hasn’t tipped 9,000 tons since FY06– in fact according to his records he understood the prior year we only tipped 7,317 tons. This is important because we pay by the ton to tip or dispose of our trash somewhere around $63 per ton at the time.

In 2013 Selectmen Vallarelli questioned why the trash wasn’t going out to bid, and that he thought we could get a better price and because recycling was free at the time. The board voted to form a sub committee with Frank and myself, and the more we investigated it, the more options we had. Together with the Town Administrator, the Director of Public Works, and Town Council we developed an RFP with five different options that would save the town money. The options ranged from continuing the existing contact language to a two-barrel system with automated pick up.

This was opposed mostly by town employees, and then lead by the newest member of the BOS and DPW director. All they really wanted was for Hiltz to get the contract. This dragged out for about eight months until Selectman DiPinto made a motion to put the vote off until next year, costing the town a minimum of $100,000 because Hiltz came down $100,000 in their quote from the option year that was in their contract.  Trash talks continued, and the TA announced that we were going to a barrel system with automation pick up when Selectmen Sweeney made a motion to form a trash committee.  This committee was lead by the DPW Director, who didn’t give the committee any information about a barrel system or automated pick up. This is because Hiltz was obviously insolvent, and they couldn’t afford the new technology (Or new trucks for that matter).  A year and half later Hiltz got the contract and there was a 90 gallon limit and it added weekly recycling. This was far from the best deal out there and the newest member of the BOS famously posted that she never really cared about how the trash was picked up; only that Hiltz got the contract.

At the special town meeting of 2014 I wrote an article that passed a town meeting establishing a special fund where the trash fee would go, and that it could be spent on trash items, hauling and disposal or anything that would help lower the trash fee. Low and behold we had a surplus of $435,490 in the first year FY15, and we were over in $500,000 FY16. Then at the beginning of FY17 Hiltz informed the town that they would no longer honor their contract, and to add insult to injury they never posted a bond that would have covered the difference that the town would have to pay to bring in a new contract. In the meeting of the FAB on 1-30-17, the TA and TA  (town administrator and town accountant) informed the members that $500,000 from the trash surplus was used in FY17 and that we would have to find $500,000 to cover the short fall of FY18.   So these decisions not only cost us another $500,000, but this year alone the cost of hauling is $350,000 more then it would have been had we gone with a different hauling company in FY15.  Additional recycling is no longer free, so we are paying for that as well.  We put in the original RFP that recycling is free for the entire contract. When Hiltz went out of business I was on a trash subcommittee with the current chair, and he couldn’t see an advantage to a barrel system that would have provided free recycling for the next 10 years. 

We were working towards a sustainable reduction in the trash fee with a steady increase in free cash. Now the Board is telling you that even though we had $3.4 million in free cash in FY 2017 they want to continue to charge you money in the form of a trash fee while freely admitting that it’s really an illegal prop 2 ½ override.  After totally mismanaging your money for the last  seven years, the Board is telling to simply trust them because they “know what’s best for you.”

 

 

3 to 2

This past Tuesday Stoneham voted for something our town has not had before that I feel is exciting and worth noting: For the first time in history, Stoneham has a Board of Selectmen with three women. (I was pretty certain this was accurate, but I couldn’t find a record that listed who was on all prior Boards of Selectmen anywhere before 2012, so I ended up having to call a variety of life-long residents around town with generations of Stonehamites in their families to confirm.)   As a town we have had a consistent track record of women participating in town government, and this new “three to two” roster on the BOS is just one more reflection that Stoneham is a town that encourages the opposite of what has been the norm in national politics when it comes to gender.

The two elected BOS members have something tremendous in common, and I’d argue the most important trait, that they bring to the five member leadership team: Caroline Colarusso and Raymie Parker both have proven track records of working tirelessly for Stoneham.

Raymie Parker: Following her 2014 BOS candidacy, Raymie escalated her already notable résumé of Stoneham involvement farther by participating in various groups and committees:

My involvement in Civic and Community Events includes the Strategic Action Plan for Stoneham Square created by the Town with support from the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC), the Stoneham Transportation Advisory Committee (STAC), Socks for Seniors, and several one-time events.

I decided to volunteer to serve on the Strategic Action Plan committee to understand the potential for our town – particularly for our town center. Our public participation activities included community workshops and meetings to provide residents and stakeholders the opportunity to develop a collective vision for Stoneham Square. The recommendations made following this six-month effort resulted in many wonderful improvements including a Stoneham Square website, a how to do business guide, and a façade improvement program. Also a product of this committee was the formation of the Stoneham Community Development Corporation (CDC), STAC, and Stoneham Square Advisory Committee.

I worked with Raymie on a portion of the early MAPC efforts in Stoneham, so I can attest to her drive and passion when it comes to moving initiatives ahead.

Caroline Colarusso: Following her 2014 candidacy for State Representative, Caroline immediately poured her enthusiasm and already-in-progress Stoneham-focused advocacy to work towards a successful 2015 BOS run. Now entering her second term, Caroline can continue building upon serving Stoneham:

She’s fought HARD against the Weiss Farm Project, and stood up to high rise apartment complex projects that our town cannot afford. She continually calls for accountability in how our tax dollars are used and managed, including reviews of funds and improprieties, she brought attention to the snow and ice budget, and oversight to the trash accounts. She provides oversight and really isn’t afraid to challenge the “status quo.” She supported technology initiatives over and beyond what has been part of the approved school budget. As a mother whose children all attended Stoneham schools, she understands the importance of helping our students be successful so they can excel and compete.

Caroline constantly works to help keep Stoneham affordable for seniors and young families. She makes decisions with the interests of residents at heart. Based on her efforts to manage the town’s costs, it’s obvious she gets that people are struggling to make ends meet while raising a family. At the same time, she has helped to make Stoneham more attractive to visitors and businesses by supporting tax incentives to grow small businesses.

I’m excited to see what’s to come for Stoneham as the new BOS begins its work. Congratulations to both Caroline and Raymie!