If I May: Balancing the Seesaw
For some time now, Belmont has been engaged in an unofficial debate about how its government should function and how much power the various branches should have. While there are many aspects that could ― and possibly should ― be discussed, what appears to be an increasingly powerful executive accompanied by a frequently acquiescent legislature is a cause for concern.
Centralizing Belmont’s Government Structure
Much of this unofficial debate stems from the effort in recent years, to centralize Belmont’s governmental structure. Why has this occurred? Because Belmont has a variety of problems many of which relate to funding. Altering government structure has been and continues to be thought of as one way to deal with at least some of these problems; the approach was touted in the so-called Collins Center Report, an analysis of Belmont government done by the Edward J. Collins Center for Public Management and submitted to the town in June, 2022.
Among its most significant recommendations, the Collins Center Report advocated centralizing and empowering Belmont’s executive by making both the Town Treasurer and the Board of Assessors appointed positions within the executive rather than independent elected positions. Both required a positive vote by Town Meeting followed by a vote to implement in a town-wide election; the changes passed.
To at least some extent, unifying financial functions in Belmont’s executive has produced coordination and efficiency. However, it has also resulted in an assumption of power by the executive branch headed by the Select Board which overtly or covertly appears to view Town Meeting as its tool rather than its equal.
Using the Legislature as a Tool ― The Downside of Centralization
Most legislatures in democratic systems are set up such that when the executive and legislative branches are separate entities, the legislatures have power at least equal to that of the executive. Even so, the legally stipulated equal balance between the executive and legislative branches can become skewed so that one or the other branch is favored; this currently seems to be the case in Belmont.
While the Select Board has traditionally exerted considerable power over Belmont affairs, the addition of the Treasurer and the Board of Assessors to its purview gave it even more control. Intentional or not, subsequent to these changes, Select Board members have come to operate as if they are the arbiters of what happens and the legislature is something of a rubber stamp.
This has been expressed in two significant ways.
The first consists of cavalier treatment of Town Meeting Members (TMMs) and private citizens who: (1) volunteer their expertise independent of town appointment to polish legislation such as zoning by-laws; or (2) submit Citizens Petitions intended to make changes that will improve town government.
The second involves obtaining required Town Meeting authorization for commitments that have already been made by the Select Board or other members of the executive such as the School Committee. Critically, by law, these commitments, which typically involve funding, can not proceed without Town Meeting approval.
Cavalier Treatment of TMMs and Private Citizens
During the March 2026 Town Meeting debates on the Belmont Center Overlay, Select Board Vice Chair Taylor Yates (Chair as of July 1) characterized in-depth work done by three TMMs, Bob McGaw of Precinct 1, Doug Koplow of Precinct 6 and Tom Foley of Precinct 7 as being “without merit.” Mssrs. McGaw and Foley are attorneys and Mr. Koplow has done considerable work on climate change as well as on zoning and has significant experience analyzing government documents. Their object was to make sure that the zoning changes that were being presented to Town Meeting were carefully worded so that there would be no surprises or unintended consequences when the changes were implemented.
Paul Joy, a Precinct 7 TMM and a former Economic Development Committee Chair, submitted a number of Citizens Petitions, consisting of changes he felt would benefit Belmont, to the May/June 2026 Town Meeting. While it is unclear that all could have passed, they were interesting, innovative approaches. After having withdrawn all but one, Mr. Joy withdrew the final submission, in large measure because of the harassment to which he and his family had been subjected throughout the entire process; he laid this out in a letter to town officials and TMMs. TMMs applauded Moderator Adam Dash’s comment that “it’s not OK to treat people badly” vigorously.
A 2025 IF I MAY article, Keeping Belmont’s Democracy Alive https://jfeinleibifimay.com/?p=1336 itemized the Select Board’s treatment of people who disagreed with aspects of its zoning efforts. Included were Doug Koplow as well as Carol Berberian and Jeff Birenbaum both of whom had been on the Planning Board and Marie Warner, Chair of the Economic Development Advisory Committee. Ms. Berberian is now a Select Board member.
The 2026 events have been the cause of considerable concern on the part of many TMMs and others. Considering them in tandem with those that occurred in 2025 suggests the existence of what can most kindly be called an unfortunate trend.
Commitments Prior To Town Meeting Approval
At the 2026 spring Town Meeting, TMMs were asked to appropriate funds for commitments made by the executive before legally required approval had been obtained from Town meeting.
Members were asked to authorize funds that had been agreed to by the School Committee in order to arrive at a new contract for Belmont’s teachers. The union had already accepted the contract. The funds were to come from what is called Free Cash but which are actually reserves intended to be used for emergencies. Use of Free Cash requires Town Meeting approval. While union negotiations are confidential, a way should have been found to determine whether Town Meeting thought this use of Free Cash was acceptable and, if it was, to obtain approval for it before the contract was finalized.
An appropriation of an over $1 million addition to the funds that will be used to compensate property owners for temporary or permanent easements needed for the Community Path was sought. The amount was submitted only a few hours before Town Meeting was to vote on it. Chair Matt Taylor, speaking for the Select Board, stated that funds had to be available within a few weeks so Belmont’s application for state funding for the Community Path could meet the Mass DOT submission date. TMMs were told that failure to appropriate the funds would cost the town its place in the funding queue; however, during the discussion, Taylor said this may not be the case.
In both instances, the executive (Select Board or School Committee backed by the Select Board) had made financial commitments on their own even though Town Meeting approval was legally required before they could do so. Yes, it was necessary to reach a contract settlement. Yes, there were unexpected changes in estimates made by outside expert consultants.
None of that alters the fact that Town Meeting’s requisite consent to the appropriation of funds was not obtained prior to the time these actions were completed. Moreover, in the case of the Community Path funds, none of the fiscal analysis that would ordinarily take place before approval was sought had occurred.
Overcoming Executive Chutzpah!
The classic definition of chutzpah involves the person on trial for murdering his parents who throws himself on the mercy of the court because he is an orphan. Demeaning knowledgeable citizens is properly called chutzpah. So too is committing funds prior to obtaining legally required legislative approval and/or appropriations.
TMMs must assert themselves so that the executive knows that it has to treat the legislature as its equal and that it may neither demean TMMs/citizens nor proceed before legally required approvals are obtained. This is essential if Belmont is not to become tyrannical. Obtaining that balance may take time and require governmental changes but it can begin with the tools currently available.
Individuals and TMMs (such as Mr. Joy) should be encouraged to create and bring Citizens Petitions to Town Meeting. To avoid the negativity that is engendered when a Citizens Petition is something with which the Select Board does not agree changes in Belmont procedures should be made so that this is done under the aegis of the Town Moderator. Unlike the Select Board, the Moderator is required to be neutral.
Select Board or other Board members who mock these efforts must be called out by the public and the press and also, perhaps by the Moderator. Why the Moderator? Because the job requires that he/she be a neutral community leader.
TMMs as well as citizens who are willing to apply their expertise to the review of by-law changes including but not limited to, zoning changes should be encouraged; these changes should be considered in their entirety rather than piecemeal as often happens. Moreover, such efforts must not be overseen by members of the executive who have a vested interest in them such as the Select Board, the School Committee, the Planning Board, the Town Administrator and the Town Planner.
A way must be found to create greater confidence in the opinions of Town Counsel; at present, this is not always the case.
Town Meeting itself must find a way to send a compelling message to the executive so it knows that not all its actions are acceptable. It may be that the only way for this to happen is if it votes down items favored by the executive particularly those advanced without required Town Meeting approval or substantive analysis.
And the unofficial, volunteer opposition groups, such as those that lately have formed when controversial items are proposed, should be encouraged not merely to form but to get their message out as early as possible.
If a start can be made, Belmont will begin to balance what is now a wildly out of balance executive/legislative seesaw.
Judith Feinleib, a Precinct 6 Town Meeting Member has a doctorate in Political Science and, as an independent consultant, helps people with social media posting, writing and in-house and external corporate communications. Contact her at feinleib@gmail.com Her articles can also be found on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/jfeinleib
