Use this search box to find articles that have run in our newspapers over the last several years.
Date: 5/16/2023
MONSON — Residents voted on the Special and Annual Town Meeting Warrant articles on Monday, May 8 at Granite Valley Middle School.
A total of 328 voters attended, a number far surpassing the 153 voters at last year’s meeting. Monson has a total of 6,368 registered voters at the time of this article, which is a similar number to last year, according to Town Clerk Mary Watson.
Special Town Meeting
The meeting began with voting on the Special Town Meeting warrant articles; a total of 19 articles were put to vote.
Article 7 gained some public questions due to a dollar amount change. The article was read at the meeting, as recommended by the Finance Committee, that the town transfer and appropriate $65,000 from free cash to the Legal Services Expense Account. The article in the warrant listed the amount requested as $50,000.
Resident Roxanne Gunther questioned why the amount had changed.
Finance Director Jamie Farnum then explained the amendment of the amount from $50,000 to $65,000 prior to the meeting, saying that, “[The town] historically starts at $50,000 [for legal counsel] but depending on the nature of the things that come up that does tend to raise and fluctuate.” Farnum said the total for legal council this year is $110,000, with $60,000 for outside legal counsel. Farnum said the last three years have been about $100,00 for legal counsel, a number which has remained relatively steady.
Resident Karen O’Toole, in response to the article, asked why the articles could be changed prior to the meeting and not have to reflect what is on the warrant. O’Toole commented that she had been “seeing this a lot,” in regards to what she saw as unexpected changes.
Moderator Peter Matrow disagreed, saying, “From my point of view, I don’t see this happening as often as you do.” Matrow went on to say that the Finance Committee recommended the $65,000 in the best interest of the town after having deliberated on the issue.
Farnum said the warrant language of “a sum of money” is deliberately worded to accommodate for last minute changes in the specific amounts of money, which may differ from the amounts listed on the warrant.
All Special Town Meeting articles passed.
Annual Town Meeting
There were two citizen’s petition articles on the warrant and a debt exclusion article for the Fire Department, all of which garnered more voter comments than any other articles.
Article 7 was a petition submitted by Anthony Allard and Karen O’Toole and signed by 11 voters, asking for voters’ support for the work of the Special Commission Relative to the Seal and Motto of the Commonwealth with its intention of creating a new seal and motto.
This article specified that there has been identified a need for improvement in relations between “descendants of the colonial immigrants and the Native nations of the state,” and a resolution for this should be initiated by coming up with a new seal and motto that reflects respect for all who call the state their home. Particularly, recognizing the Native nations habitation on the state’s lands before colonial settlers arrived.
A variety of differing opinions were presented by residents on the subject of the town officially supporting a statewide initiative for a new seal and motto for the state.
Resident Gretchen Neggers said, “The portrayal on the flag is not a specific Native American individual, it was actually modeled after an Indian chief from Montana. I had never really given the seal or the flag any thought until I began to educate myself. And I was stunned to discover the history and the source of the symbols of this flag. As soon as I had found that they dug up an indigenous native to measure his proportions to have it shown right on the flag, it was pretty horrific. Virtually every symbol on that flag has racist connotations.”
Finance Committee member Ken Parkes, who said he was speaking as a private citizen, said, “We are changing our history. We are changing the way we identify. I don’t want to do anything because we can, I don’t want to do anything because we should. We had nothing to do with things that happened back in 1755. Do we really, really need to do this? If you truly believe that the history and identity of Massachusetts rests upon this current flag, by all means vote for it.”
When it came to a vote, a count was required, which found 133 voters in favor of approving the article and 155 voters opposed. Article 11 did not pass.
Article, 12, another citizens petition, was submitted by Gunther and signed by 12 voters. It had three sections.
The first section asked that the Select Board be increased from three members to five members.
The second section requested that at the first annual town election to occur after the petition or act passes, the candidate with the highest number of votes will serve a three-year term, the candidate receiving the second highest number of votes will serve a two-year term, and the candidate receiving the third highest number of votes will serve a one-year term.
Thereafter, the article stated, as the terms of Select Board members expire, successors shall be elected for three years.
The third section said that the act requested in the petition take effect upon it passing.
The petition was intended to create a more equitable voice among residents and allow for more diversity of thought within the board. Increasing the number of members would also allow for sub-committees to be formed.
A number of voters commented on the article.
Resident Richard Smith said he was not in favor of the article, stating his 12 years of experience on the Select Board, and said more members made government more complicated and increased the number of direct supervisors the police chief, fire chief, and town administrator had to report to, therefore creating more work for them and using up more of their time.
Smith said there would be a loss of transparency because with a five-member board, it is legal for two members to “discuss things outside of town meeting and make back door agreements.” With a three-member board, no member can meet privately with another member to discuss any type of town matter and must go through a third party to relay messages, such as the town administrator.
Gunther spoke several times. “I personally believe it is already happening,” she said, referring to secret communication and back-door agreements. “If you watch the Select Board meetings it is like we are in a dictatorship,” she said, adding she was concerned that people were “not being allowed to speak” or silenced at meetings, specifically Select Board.
Resident Nathan Sanborn said he disagreed with the article, and mentioned that it was difficult to find quality, respectable people to run for town office in these times. “We are very fortunate to have Pat Oney and John Morrell on our Select Board, and three is plenty.”
Resident Bob Lamb said, “[Increasing the Select Board from three to five] simply serves no constructive purpose. It is being promoted by a group in town of very few people with a hidden agenda.” Lamb went on to say the petition to increase the board’s size had been brought up last year as well at the Annual Town Meeting and “failed by a two to one margin because no one wants it.”
Matrow halted the meeting several time during public comment on this article to remind residents to be polite to the speakers when it was their time to talk and not yell out of turn.
Resident Robert Caddy said, “I was really surprised at Mr. Lamb’s comments, we have no hidden agenda.” Caddy said he was one of the individuals that “spearheaded” the group behind the petition, and said the omission of Select Board member Mary Hull’s name in one of the previous comments, one that cast a respectful light on Oney and Morrell, was upsetting to him.
After approximately 11 speakers took to the podium with comments, several of whom spoke multiple times, a motion was made to close the debate, which was approved by majority vote. The article did not pass by majority vote.
Article 13 was stated in the warrant as being “the first step in authorizing a debt exclusion for the purposes of constructing/rehabilitating the town’s fire station building.”
The town voted on whether to allow the raising of funds to build and renovate the fire station “by taxation, borrowing, or transfer from available funds, an appropriate sum of money to pay costs of contractors, materials, equipment, architectural engineering, and project manager’s services” including all other incidental costs.
The funding for this endeavor was “contingent upon passage of a Proposition 2½ debt exclusion referendum.” So, to get the question of whether or not voters thought the fire station project should receive town funding, this article had to pass by a two-thirds vote.
A slide presentation of the proposed station renovations and additions was shown to the public.
Representatives of the offices of state Sen. Ryan Fattman (R-Sutton) and state Reps. Brian Ashe (D-Longmeadow), and Angelo Puppolo (D-Springfield) appeared to speak, supporting the article and offering a promise of their help in securing government funding for the project.
The vote moved Proposition 2 ½ question to the ballot for the annual town election on June 13. If the question passes at that election, the $6.6 million renovation project for the Fire Department would proceed.
Article 10, submitted by the Finance Committee, covered the town’s overall fiscal year 2024 budget and detailed amounts from the categories comprising this budget. A majority vote approved the article setting the town budget at $28.4 million, compared to the prior fiscal year’s $27.5 million.
General government, which includes but is not limited to, staff and board member salaries, totaled $1,78 million, compared to $1.76 million in FY23.
The public safety budget total came to $3.35 million. Included in this are the Police Department, the Fire Department, and the ambulance. This represented an increase over the FY23 budget of $3.09 million.
The education budget totaled $11.7 million, compared to the FY23 total of $11.9 million.
The public works budget, covering the Highway Department, Cemetery Department, and street lighting, came to $1.5 million.
Human services, which include the Board of Health, Council on Aging, and veterans’ benefits totaled $389,350, compared to $344,427 last year.
The culture and recreation budget, which covers the Monson Free Library, the Parks and Recreation Department, the pool, and the Historical Commission, totaled $587,621. This budget for FY23 was $574,724.
The debt service budget for several town projects totaled $1.86 million, comparable to the FY23 number.
Unclassified items in the budget such as health insurance, Hampden County pensions, Medicaid reimbursement, and more, totaled $6.1 million, an increase from $5.6 million in FY23.
Monson’s contribution to Pathfinder Regional Technical High School is $1.2 million, up from $1.1 million in FY23. Of Pathfinder Tech, Superintendent Eric Duda said an increase of eight students added this year accounted for the higher budget request.
All other articles passed with the exception of Article 20, which was recommended by the Finance Committee to pass over, and unanimously approved.