JohnCraine's blog

Westwood Community Access Television (WestCAT), the town's non-profit public access television corporation, long in the planning stages had its first opportunity last night to provide live gavel-to-gavel coverage of a town meeting. An overflow crowd in the high school auditorium for a Special Town Meeting, viewed a presentation on the need for a new library, participated in heated discussion and overwhelmingly voted to approve the $13-million in construction costs. WestCAT recently hired an Executive Director and purchased equipment to launch a public access channel that will covering town meetings, events and provide an opportunity for local residents to showcase programming endeavors. WestCAT's state-of-the-art equipment was employed in the coverage. ED Greg Moberg manned the camera which provided a live feed set up by WestCAT board member, Dave Atkins, that could be seen 'live streaming' on WestCAT's website. With the high school auditorium filled to capacity, WestCAT's live internet feed was piped to the small auditorium for the benefit of the overflow crowd. Those who watched seemed very impressed with WestCAT's first effort at town coverage.

"We're extremely excited that we were able to provide coverage of our first Town Meeting and doubly so because our live streaming experiment actually solved a potential problem for meeting organizers", said WestCAT's President, John Craine.

Still in the formative stages, WestCAT's short range goal is to provide coverage of Selectmen, School Committee and other town meetings. The group is also working with Comcast and Verizon to get the programming on the local cable channels. In the meantime, video from town events will soon be available on WestCAT's website www.westwoodtv.org.

WestCAT is a 501(c)3 not-for-profit corporation.

from Boston.com 10/22/09

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/10/22/westw...

If you're interested in using rain water for your garden, lawn, to wash your car, or simply just to run through a sprinkler on a hot day then check out this page on the Dedham-Westwood water district web site. Every year the Dedham-Westwood water district arranges a special discount with a local rain barrel supplier. We've purchased four over the past two years and rarely do we need to ever use our public water supply for our garden. Why pay for public water and sewer? This water is free (although the barrels are not, but they are a VERY reasonable $50). Act now before the summer drought hits.

I would have spoken up at town meeting last night but I didn't think my comments would have an outcome on the vote for the library funding. However, I have some very real concerns about the timing of this project as I'm sure the library trustees do as well.

For those who weren't at town meeting last night, the town voted to appropriate $60,000 to the library to continue their development of architectural renderings in pursuit of $3.9 million in state aid to the town for building a new library.  According to the library's own presentation last night, this brings the library's out-of-pocket spending to about $380,000 for this project since 2005.

Later this year, I understand that the trustees intend to request a special town meeting at which they are going to ask us to approve a funding authorization for an amount between 3 and 4 million dollars. This money is estimated construction costs for a new library above and beyond the state aid and expected private donations. Their argument will be that if we don't vote through the funding, we are going to lose our $3.9 million in state contribution that they have been working on for 4 years.

Everyone who was at town meeting last night heard Pam Dukeman tell us to gird our loins for FY 2011. She is expecting significant cuts in services resulting from declining revenue. She also said that the town's bond rating had fallen in part because we did not have sufficient capital reserves.

So here's the problem I see looming. If the town decides to fund $3-4 million for new library construction in the fall, what are the chances that we're going to also pass a multi-million dollar operational override 6 months later? Not very good I think. This could be a real problem for the schools and other town services including the library. It would be fair irony if the library had it's operating budget cut by 20% at the same time it was putting up a new 32,000 sq ft building.

I also wonder about the cost of maintaining and operating a new library building. I assume the old library building will be retained for other purposes. If we are already behind in our capital reserves and can't keep up with maintenance on our existing structures, how can we justify building yet another one? Wouldn't we be better served keeping our exisiting infrastructure in good repair? Couldn't the $380,000, that's been spent pursuing the pot of gold from the state, have been better used to address some of the shortcomings of the existing building?

I commend the library trustees for their hardwork and dedication to making the library a true resource for our town. I realize this is a difficult conversation but it's one that needs to take place. This project made sense in 2005. Does it still make sense in 2009? What do others think?

 (I have moved this discussion to it's own thread and elaborated on several points)

I've never been a big fan of term limits because 1) every election we have the option of limiting someone's term anyway 2) the sword cuts both ways because you may end up limiting the term of someone who is a superior public servant. However, the argument for imposing term limits, that qualified candidates won't run if they feel they can't beat the incumbent, is also a valid one.

I read the FinCom mailing yesterday and believe there is merit in David Feyler's petition article. Specifically, I like the idea of a three-term limit with a one year moratorium. This provides an opening for new candidates while still allowing former public servants to run again after sitting out a year.  The more I think about it, the more I like it.

While we're on the topic, I haven't quite made up my mind about expanding the board from three to five members. On one hand, the three member board is insular but it is also effective for decision making. I fear that a five member board will become overly political but it would also somewhat address the concentration of power. But I don't really perceive there to be a problem in the power structure of the BOS and I like the efficiency of three decision makers versus five.

Another argument for a 5 member board is it would allow respresentation from each of the town precincts. This troubles me because it draws political boundaries where none now exist. The precincts are there to facilitate the polling process, not the political process (please correct me if I'm wrong). I am not a resident of Precinct 4, I am a resident of Westwood. I want my selectmen to work in the best interests of my town, not just my precinct.

So perhaps the best option would be to adopt the term limits article to ensure a flow of fresh ideas and new blood but keep the BOS to three members.

~

John Craine