Select Board Candidates Get Last Word On Forum Questions

The format didn’t allow for a lot of thought expansion, so we offered all participants a chance to update their positions

If you have not seen the 2024 Select Board Candidates Forum, you can watch it here.

While Moderator Robert Hayes did a great job, as anyone who’s participated in a candidate Q&A knows, there are always a few “I wish I’d said …” or “I wanted to rebut that” moments. So we offered all the Select Board candidates an opportunity to expand on their answers or clarify what they may have seen as misinformation.

The School Committee forum is here, and you can watch the Board of Health candidates here.

Tom Bowley told us that he stands by his answers at the forum.

Eric Ryder also did not wish to update any answers.

Jomarie Buckley: We are a town that values education, and our town budget being 60% schools shows that. What matters to me — and to many other residents — is keeping as much of that budget in district as possible. And you do that by making sure that our teachers’ salaries are highly competitive. In doing so we will both attract and maintain the best teachers available. We want the best for our students. And that means the best teachers. We want new residents to seek out Tewksbury. And that means the best teachers. We want TMHS to increase student enrollment. And that means the best teachers. Tewksbury’s pride in our school system is well-founded — and it will continue to be well-funded.

On the MBTA question, to reiterate, nobody on the panel is for this mandate. It is very heavy-handed. But the reality is, when individuals don’t follow the healthcare mandate, people get fined. When businesses don’t follow OSHA mandates, people die. And when municipalities don’t follow this mandate, our budget gets shredded. Is this really the hill we want Tewksbury to die on? If we were to say no, vote and tell the Commonwealth no, it’s more than just lost grants, we will lose a large ability of our self-determination.

James Mackey expanded on a number of areas.

On Economic Development: Regarding recent remarks on our economic development efforts, I wish to set the record straight. Assertions that not having an active economic development committee is “unacceptable” misses the mark on how Tewksbury operates. Economic development remains a key focus, yet it is not incumbent upon a committee of volunteers to drive this mission alone. We have the fortune of having an Economic Development Director, Alexandra Lowder, whose exemplary work with new and existing businesses speaks volumes to her capabilities and to new development in our town.

When faced with vacancies and a committee challenged to define its mission, we chose a practical approach: to reconvene only when necessary. This decision is rooted in a philosophy instilled in me from the military, that good leadership involves empowering and trusting capable individuals. I have engaged extensively with Ms. Lowder, gauging the landscape of our town’s development needs. Her consistent updates and proactive measures have shown no gap needing a committee’s intervention. The strategic choice to focus on Ms. Lowder’s full-time role over a part-time committee reflects the towns confidence in her abilities and her evident dedication to the economic prosperity of Tewksbury.

Clarifying Our Tax and Budget Priorities: Recent discussions at the forum highlighted a range of views on taxation and budgeting that warrant a clear, factual response. There were suggestions of tax reductions coupled with proposals for expanded services and staffing — positions that seem to overlook the complexities of our fiscal responsibilities.

It is essential to understand that prudent fiscal management does not rely on catchy phrases or broad promises. It is grounded in the practical realities of our town’s budget—a reality that must balance the appeal of lower taxes with the necessity to fund vital services. Our fiscal plan is detailed in the town manager’s budget presentation and reflects a careful balance between affordability for taxpayers and the need to invest in our community’s future.

Navigating this delicate balance requires more than aspirational statements; it requires a keen insight into the intricacies of our financial ecosystem. My commitment to Tewksbury’s financial health is unwavering, ensuring that every decision is made with the utmost consideration for both our present needs and our long-term prosperity.

On the MBTA Communities Act: I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate and clarify a couple of points from last night’s discussion about the MBTA communities legislation. Firstly, I believe there’s a consensus that this is a problematic piece of legislation. It was poorly conceived, offering a one-size-fits-all solution, and has resulted in an unwarranted level of government overreach, underlined by the threat of losing funding. Despite these issues, it is, however, a law. As a Select Board member, I respect our duty to adhere to the laws and regulations that govern us.

Addressing challenges with the law should be, and has been, brought to our legislature, as demonstrated by the open meeting where Senator Finegold and Representative Robertson were present to discuss and explore options. Unfortunately, the current situation leaves us with no options at this time.

The Town of Milton has chosen the path of noncompliance and is currently dealing with the ramifications. Their decision has led to the loss of critical funding and has attracted threats of even more severe financial consequences, along with a lawsuit from the Attorney General which could result in the imposition of a Special Master to oversee zoning. This is a cautionary tale for us; if Milton’s noncompliance leads to a scenario where they have zero input or control on where and how this zoning is implemented, the potential financial damage and the loss of autonomy in these zoning decisions is something we want to avoid in Tewksbury.

With regards to the currently proposed zone, which includes few properties likely to be developed any time soon and one property already slated for redevelopment, we are faced with a significant decision. The legislation requires us to create a zone for up to 1214 units, but strategically, it makes more sense to concentrate development in an area already slated, that is unlikely to reach full capacity under the current plan. This would mean a potential smaller project within the zone, possibly around 400 units, and avoids unnecessary overdevelopment in other parts of the town.

It’s a tough pill to swallow, given the flawed legislation we’re working with, but this approach may save us from constructing upwards of 1600 , instead potentially resulting in approximately 600 units. This represents a considerable saving in terms of development impact and preserves more of our town’s character.

I live only a few hundred yards from the proposed zone, so the decision is not abstract for me; it’s personal. Despite this, I believe that the path we are on is the best course of action for Tewksbury, balancing compliance with our commitment to maintain the integrity of our town.

The Select Board has not taken this matter lightly. We have conducted numerous public sessions, met with our delegation, and publicly received presentations from NMCOG. Our staff has facilitated public outreach meetings, and not until January, just five months before the town meeting where we will approve the finalized zoning plan, were these concerns raised. It has been over two years of involvement from the town, the Select Board, and our engaged residents. To introduce half-baked arguments against compliance at this eleventh hour is not only irresponsible but dismisses the diligent efforts and consensus-building that has been a hallmark of this process.

To those who now propose running for the Select Board with the intention to stop this legislation, I must ask where this resolve was during the last two election cycles when this was being addressed. The Select Board has completed its part of the process, except for taking the zoning article to the town meeting, which, incidentally, is sponsored by the Planning Board, not the Select Board.

In my view, we must be pragmatic in picking our battles. If a path to victory — such as the one Milton might be forging — becomes clear, I will not hesitate to lead the charge of presenting an article at October town meeting to reverse the zoning. Until such an opportunity is presented, noncompliance is not a risk we can afford. For anyone seeking more context or information, I recommend reviewing the document prepared by the Town Counsel for the Brookline Select Board.