So why is there NO plan in place for the Beebe School? So the taxpayers will be footing the loss rental income but still no idea what’s going to be there. I am just curious. Also can the Superintendent and school comittee change what’s on the “list” of what override money will be used for ?

Its strange because they said the Beebe CAN NEVER be saved. Now its in the override. What about staffing for it. Add that to next years tax bill? Just lies..

In fiscal 2021 starting 7/20 the money can legally be transferred to the general fund. Look at the mayor’s blog stating how the Beebe will not be used until August 2020 at the earliest because of the current lease. Hello there is no plan in to use the 650k allocated in override to space for fiscal 2020. It’s a joke. After their talking points the YES group is conspicuously void of facts.

That is correct. In the second and all subsequent years, the $5.18 million can be spent however they want to spend it. In other words, there is ZERO accountability after year 1. This is the kind of shell game they are trying to run. It's a scam, plain and simple. Apparently we're supposed to just trust them to spend it wisely. Give me a break.

How stupid do they think we are? I guess that's sort of a rhetorical question. The answer is that they must think we're pretty stupid if they expect us to fall for this.

In case you think the motivation for all the "Yes" proponents is altruistic, try this on for size. You're a local attorney and life-long Melrose resident. You go before the aldermen and make an impassioned plea for the override, because you realize that you have to go before city boards in the future, something you do a lot of, to get approval for a project a client of yours has on the drawing board. So what are you going to do, kill the goose that lays the golden egg by pi$$ing them off and opposing this override? Probably not. You're going to say what they want to hear so you'll be considered "one of us", thinking you've influenced future decisions on those projects. You have a lot to gain personally in that case, don't you? Duh.

Teachers stand to make a 6% raise if override passes based upon the 1.85 million allocated in override. Obviously, there is no surprise why they are campaigning for it. It is certainly their right to campaign for it. However, I think it is a conflict of interest and in my opinion may violate state ethics rules when they are openly campaigning for an override using school resources by being on School grounds as students are being dropped off.

The average pay cited fails to mention that Melrose has younger teachers because as the Superintendent conceded there was a wave of retirement a few years ago. The younger the teacher the lower on the steps and lanes. If you compare the current steps and lanes schedules at the M-60 level to say Reading we are comparable. Also, Reading only pays 71% of its employees health insurance while Melrose pays 84%. Depending upon the health plan this difference could be a much as $2,500. Teachers deserve a raise in next CBA no doubt about it. However, 6% across the board raises will do nothing to improve student outcomes. Look at the DOE web site as the teachers and administrators retention rate in Melrose is slightly above the state average.

30% of teachers are within their first 3 years in the school district and 70 % are within their first 10 years according to the superintendent . Thus to compare averages is not an apple to apple comparison when our teachers are younger because of the recent wave in retirements a few years ago. Rather look at the steps in lanes schedule which is in the current school contract for the M-60 level and compare it to other towns along with our health care benefits

That sure is a cynical outlook. Unfortunately, it's a cynicism born out of long experience.

Your last override attempt got soundly trounced. So, what do you do to change the outcome this time? Why, you schedule a special election for this one. You tell people it's so you can get approval before the start of the next fiscal year, but the real reason is that you're figuring the average voter is less likely to turn out for a one-item election than for a general election. Now you can pack the polls with "yes" voters, hopefully changing the outcome.

You want cynicism? Look no further than that. And that doesn't even take into account the cost of such an election. But that's just chump change, right?

There's more. You're an elected official. You know this override is a scam, but you don't want to get in the line of fire by growing a pair and opposing it. Your answer to that dilemma is to parrot the "let the voters decide by putting it on a ballot" line, knowing that way no matter what happens, you come out of it looking okay, and you didn't damage your chances of being re-elected, even though you didn't have the stones to do what you know to be the right thing.

This happens every year on every issue with the BOA. You wonder why people are distrustful and cynical about this Override? As a mother of two kids who attend Lincoln, I want the best for my children and the MPS. Revolving door in/out Principals, mismanagement, coverups, lies and the lack of transparency for years do not bode well for passage. My husband and I live paycheck to paycheck. We will be voting NO. Our decision is part financial and also because we have seen too many $ games. The politicians are reaping what they have sown for decades. We are also offended by the aggressive and “mean girl tactics” of many Lincoln school parents. “Yes” proponents keep saying that Police and Fire needs will be dealt with in 3 or 4 years. This doesn’t sound like “One Melrose” or “One Community Open to All”.

The "Yes" camp mentality is the biggest reason for NO. They can put up their lawn signs and plant their flamingos, but they represent the most divisive campaign ever to harm our community. They don't even care that their data is cooked, their leaders are unethical, that their entire premise is based in contempt, as evidenced in any conversation with the proponents who simply don't care about the truth. This isn't just a case of a difference of opinion or philosophy. Just observe the body language of those putting this thing forward and it's clear as day who's telling the truth and who isn't.

Several years ago the mayor, school committee and superintendent had an opportunity to use the Beebe school K-5. The lease agreement with the SEEM Collaborative was up, and the Beebe was actively being used for students which meant it met all current health and safety requirements/codes for use as a school. What few people know is that the superintendent sits on the board of the SEEM Collaborative so the prudent decision to reclaim the Beebe for K-5 did not happen. Now we have trailers being used at great cost to warehouse our K-5 population. This could only happen in Melrose where common sense and transparency are tossed out the window. This is what happens when our elected officials blindly follow the "leadership" without asking prudent questions.

Funny, the vitriol, hypocrisy, and anger rampant on this forum changed me from a "probably no" to a "absolutely yes." sounds ridiculous when I say it, right?

If the attitude of some members of the political opposition is the biggest reason to support or not support a financial decision, then you're not as reasoned and logical as you pretend. Vote based on numbers and data, not whether or not you like the people supporting it.

You ******* people are ridiculous.

I will be voting based on numbers and data, both current and historical. That's why I will be voting no. What's ridiculous is voting based on talking points from those who have a vested interest, especially if those talking points have been shown to be questionable at best, and outright lies at worst.




You might want to think about following your own advice.

Yes. I'm sorry, the "sounds ridiculous when I say it" wasn't enough of a give away that that was a rhetoeically sarcastic statement of something that isn't true?

WHy can the Beebe all of a sudden be saved? Someone ask Taymore about it and please let the board no. (Sarcasm implied). Lets keep voting yes on matters that have no data or information behind them nd keep opening a door so the BOA and Mayor can keep asking for money aimlessly.

This whole thing is absurd. They couldn’t have figured this out prior to putting white trash trailers on the side of our elementary schools. This city is the perfect example of education does not equate to intelligence. How can you make that bad of a mistake? And now they continue to make mistakes. Instead of putting up an override that can pass, they continue to push this nonsensical school issue. You have bricks falling off the main street firehouse, you have the police department jumpstarting two of their cruisers just to get them started, and we are worried about what exactly with the schools? I would say this is laughable, but it’s really not, it’s scary but these people are running our city.

It is scary, as well as disheartening and disgusting. Makes you wonder how a city could be completely taken in by these charlatans. Where else could you have a convicted felon who never made restitution to his victims not only elected to the SC, but recently elected to be SC Chair?

As far as police and fire - there is NO plan to address that. Everything that's been said so far is a total lie, designed to gather support for this (again) scam of an override.

I've made up my mind already. If this override passes, I will be bailing out. I've already talked to a realtor - and NOT a Melrose realtor. They are complicit in this disaster.

Feral Cats are living under the portable “classroom” according to an Everett Street resident. Feral Cats and Rats go hand in hand.

What evidence do you have that the plan for the public safety buildings are a lie? And I've talked to a realtor for the opposite reason. If the override fails, then I'm getting out while my house is still worth something.

Media outlets from across the political spectrum have been publishing and airing reports recently regarding a housing bubble and a recession likely in the 1st half of 2019. Voting NO on The Override. Poor timing, folks. Economic issues will keep me up tonight after reviewing the losses my retirement account took this year! Belt tightening starts right after Christmas!

To Agreed and Enough - I've also been in touch with my realtor, and I'm bailing whether the override passes or fails. The bubble is about to burst. NH, here I come!

To Recession - you and me both. I just looked at mine. Took another 1.5% hit today. Has gone from a 6.6% gain as of Sep 30 to a 6.4% loss as of today, and with today's Fed interest raise, it's going to get worse. I expect 2019 to be bad. Looking at alternatives - gold maybe? Or maybe even guaranteed interest, at least temporarily. Overseas is killing me. Belt tightening already started.

It’s obvious OneMelrose has no answers despite Its mailings and website stating there are considerable savings and cost initiatives the city has done since the last override failed. If you are running a pro override campaign , how is it that you have no answers to this basic question. Furthermore, the OneMelrose website post yesterday stated police vehicles which were slated for replacement were not purchased . That is clearly false as earlier this month the BOA allocated $163,500 from 3.6 million of free cash certified from fiscal 2018 to purchase police vehicles. Additionally, increased enrollment may be an issue but why did the Mayor propose the override amount and BOA vote for the override in November when the Collins demographic study did not come out until December. It’s one thing to advocate for the override, but spreading false information concerning police vehicles and failing to explain it should be alarming to us all. Let’s wake up Melrose!!!


Look at our most recent Bond Rating by S&P which states Melrose has “very strong budget flexibility.” With available fund balance of 8.8% of operating expenses or $8million. Furthermore, according to most recent financials(6/30/2018) reserves improves to 8.6 million or 9.4% of expenditures due to positive financial operations. HELLO!!!!! Let’s wake up folk!s!!. I’m not sure why anyone in their right mind would support an override after reading the narrative report by S&P. It’s interesting that OneMelrose cites the S&P rating when in fact it is an argument against it. Who is advising this group on their talking points!!


I might be wrong about this but doesn't the PD lease their vehicles? I know they did at one time.

DOW down another 464 today. Can't wait until my 401K posts so ,I can see how much money I lost today. Fed says another 2 more interest rate hikes in next few months. Swell. Hey here's an idea - let's start a trade war. Override? NOT!

What do you expect to be living under a glorified trailer?

Wake up! We can't vote based on numbers and data because the superintendent, SC chair and Mayor won't give us the ****in data!! Would you buy a car without looking at the mileage and maintenance records?

From The Massachusetts Bar Overseers:

IN RE: EDWARD J. O’CONNELL S.J.C. Judgment of Disbarment entered by Justice Spina on September 18, 2003, with an effective date of October 18, 2003.1 SUMMARY2 On or about May 2, 2003, the respondent represented Countrywide Home Loans (“Countrywide”) at a closing in which Countrywide was providing a mortgage loan to Rafael Dones, for the purchase of a home from Veronica Kabba. The respondent took possession of the funds from Countrywide and deposited them in his client funds account. From those funds, the respondent was supposed to pay Kabba’s outstanding mortgage with Ameriquest Mortgage in the amount of approximately $195,000. The respondent did not utilize Countrywide’s funds to pay Kabba’s outstanding Ameriquest Mortgage. The respondent intentionally converted those funds to his own use with the intent to deprive Kabba of those funds, and with deprivation resulting. On October 26, 2002, the respondent represented a lender, Option One Mortgage (“Option One”), in the refinancing of the mortgage of James Dolbier and Joanne Cicero. PCFS Financial Services (“PCFS”) held the original mortgage on the property in the amount of approximately $209,000. The respondent received funds from Option One prior to the closing, but did not pay off the PCFS mortgage until April 14, 2003. Sometime later in April 2003, the respondent utilized funds belonging to another client, which he was holding in his client funds account, to pay off the PCFS mortgage. On August 15, 2002, the respondent represented a lender that was loaning money to a party to purchase property owned by Fran Basche. The respondent received money from the lender from which he was supposed to use to pay off Fran Basche’s mortgage at the Winchester Savings Bank. The respondent converted approximately $130,000 of those funds to his own use with the intention of depriving Basche of the funds and with deprivation resulting. Consequently, when the respondent wrote a check for approximately $203,000 to the Winchester Savings Bank on his client funds account, the check was dishonored. The respondent subsequently replenished his client funds account by borrowing approximately $170,000 from friends and family members, and paid off Basche’s mortgage. Sometime in 2000, the respondent represented Joseph Koerner in the sale of his home in Cambridge, and with respect to certain zoning matters. In connection with the zoning matters, Koerner gave the respondent $50,000 to cover the cost of any renovations to the property that might be required subsequent to the sale as an outcome of the zoning cases. The respondent deposited the $50, 000 in an escrow account at the Cambridge Trust Company. The respondent converted the $50,000 for his own business expenses, with the intention of depriving Koerner of the funds and with deprivation resulting. On or about February of 2000, the respondent was elected Treasurer of the East Cambridge Land Trust (“ECLT”), a Massachusetts non-profit corporation. The respondent, both prior and subsequent to February, 2000, also provided pro-bono legal services to ECLT. During the period in question, ECLT maintained bank accounts at the East Cambridge Savings Bank. Beginning in 2001, the respondent intentionally converted ECLT funds totaling approximately $152,000 to his own use with the intention of depriving the ECLT of the funds, and with deprivation resulting.
By his conduct, as described above, the respondent violated Mass. R. Prof. C., 1.2, 1.15, and 8.4 (c) and (h). The respondent executed a Consent to Disbarment and Statement of Disciplinary Charges. On September 4, 2003, the Board of Bar Overseers filed the consent and statement with the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County. On September 18, 2003, the county court (Spina, J.) entered a judgment of disbarment effective October 18, 2003. 1 The complete Order of the Court is available by contacting the Clerk of the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County. 2 Compiled by the Board of Bar Overseers based on the record before the Court.

The Mismanagement lack of Transparency and Coverups. No on any Override.