Sturbridge Selectmen’s Candidate Questionnaire

1. What do you feel is the most pressing concern facing Sturbridge

today?

a. Prescott S. Arndt: The most pressing concern is to grow the tax

base to provide the services needed for the Town while ensuring
that our plans ensure good neighbors.

b. Mary Blanchard: We have a BOS that concentrates its efforts and

most of its time acquiring open space and controlling growth while
paying little attention to other pressing issues.

c. Jeff A. Bonja: The most pressing concern facing Sturbridge today

is generating revenue to support the variety of elective and
mandatory services the residents’ desire.

d. William A. Emrich: No Response

e. Scott Garieri: Lack of economic growth and long-range fiscal

planning.

f. Priscilla C. Gimas: Declined

g. Kevin J. Smith: Our most pressing concern is the fact that we don’t
have enough tax revenue for needed town services and, at the
same time, we’re losing businesses left and right which is only
making the problem worse.

We have a variety of departments, from the Town Clerk to the DPW

and police, all looking for additional staff. For the most part, they
have very good arguments for needing help; the Town just doesn’t
have the tax base to pay for these new employees. Rather than
seeing town services suffer, we need to find ways to increase tax
revenue so we can pay for needed employees and other town
expenses. Since we are limited in the amount of property taxes
that can be raised (and who really wants us to do that anyway), we
need to attract more businesses to expand the tax base.
2. In relation to question 1, what do you propose to address and
resolve that concern?

a. Prescott S. Arndt: Actively search for good corporate neighbors

that would contribute to the tax base and enhance the Sturbridge
atmosphere

b. Mary Blanchard: As a member of the BOS I would bring up other

items of importance and be more attentive to issues brought
forward by the Town Administrator and Department Heads.

c. Jeff A. Bonja: Generating revenue for town services requires

working with the Economic Development Committee and other
community based resources to identify potential and
underdeveloped current sources of income, as well as potential
sources of income that may require private or public development.
As a Selectman, I would make this a priority and be sure that this is
progressing in an urgent manner.

d. William A. Emrich: No Response

e. Priscilla C. Gimas: Declined

f. Scott Garieri: Work with the Planning Board, the Economic

Development Committee, the Finance Committee, and the
Chamber to develop strategies to encourage sound commercial
and Industrial growth in order to effectively increase our tax base.

g. Kevin J. Smith: Here are my ideas regarding the “growth” we need

in Sturbridge:

• Try to bring together, with a “middle of the road” approach,

those that seem to want no growth for Sturbridge and those who
want aggressive growth. No growth is obviously not working.
The Town doesn’t have enough tax revenue to fund its needs.
However, we could be very particular about the type of growth
we pursue. For example, maybe we can agree that light
industrial or office space would be a good compromise to help
with tax revenue and provide quality jobs, yet wouldn’t create
traffic problems or put excess stress on police/emergency like
retail. We could put to work the new Economic Development
Committee so they are an active committee (not a passive, “let’s
just discuss what we’d like” kind of committee) and get them to
pursue companies that meet certain criteria. They could search
the real estate notices for companies looking to buy land or rent
in central Massachusetts. Then, market ourselves to these
 companies. Vanguard Solar is a perfect example for the Galileo
property. I found them by reading an article in the Worcester
Business Journal which stated they were looking to relocate in
Central Massachusetts (I’ve passed this on to the Town
Administrator so it can be passed on to the property owners).
I’m all for actively marketing ourselves to these companies so
we bring in the kind of growth everyone can agree on rather
than sitting back hoping the right kind of companies come to us.
Considering how long some spaces have been vacant (Ames,
for example) and how many more empty buildings Sturbridge
now has and more to come (like Rom’s), we have to stop talking
and start acting.

• Utilize the new Economic Development Committee to come up

with a “Welcome to Sturbridge” type of packet for new
businesses so they know exactly what they need to do to get
their business started. I’ve heard various businesses in town
claim that there is no one source to go to which tells them what
permits or forms they need often leading to frustrating delays
and the perception that Sturbridge is not “business friendly”.

• Support existing Sturbridge businesses so we don’t lose any

more of them. We’ve lost a lot of businesses in the last few
years. I keep thinking that it would certainly behoove the Town
to do whatever we can to help keep our local businesses
profitable. For example, I have ideas as to how the Town could
help some of our local businesses, like construction,
restaurants, etc. For example:

1. If a new business comes into town and wants to build a

small office building or renovate the property they’re
buying, couldn’t we consider a TIF (tax break) only if they
agree to bid the work strictly to local construction
companies? Couldn’t we also tie a TIF to an agreement
to hire locals as employees first before looking
elsewhere? What about a town policy to only bid locally
(when possible, if we don’t offer a service in town
obviously it’s not possible) for work done on town
buildings? For example, if we decide the police station
needs a new coat of paint inside, only take local bids, etc.
2. The Town should work more with Old Sturbridge Village
to bring back our tourist industry. We continue to see
tourism declining in Sturbridge which certainly isn’t
helping many of our businesses. Old Sturbridge Village
has commercial land on Route 20, the development of
which could be critical to tourism. The right businesses
on that land could improve tourism; the wrong buyers
could make the situation worse. I have concrete ideas to
help tourism as well which you’ll see later on in question
# 4.
3. Work with local business owners to discuss services that
would increase local patronage such as a discount
programs for locals. I’ve heard a lot of local businesses
comment that they wish more locals patronized their
businesses rather than going out of town for the same
services. Many towns, including several in the
Berkshires, have increased local patronage by giving
locals a small discount (say 10%). Like Old Sturbridge
Village, these businesses could simply ask to see a
driver’s license for proof ofSturbridge residency. If this
gave locals an incentive to dine and shop locally, our
businesses should see a nice addition to the bottom line.

4. Use our buying power as a Town to help businesses save

money. For example, in the 2/4/08 Worcester Telegram, in
the local section under “Charlton Notebook”, there’s an
article that discusses a new contract that Charlton just
signed with Casella providing them with free pickup at all
municipal buildings, a 25% discount for all residents who opt
for trash and recycling pickup and four free hazardous waste
days. If the Town of Sturbridge negotiated a similar
agreement but included businesses, we would not only be
helping our local businesses save money but we’d also save
the Town over $6,000 (we’re paying $6,605 for pickup for all
municipal buildings) and save money for residents who
either don’t find the recycling center convenient or who can’t
manage the trip (those with disabilities or seniors may find
our recycling center challenging). This may even make
Sturbridge a “greener” town as residents will quickly become
aware of how easy it has become to recycle with curbside
pickup. Most carriers offer the service at no additional
charge if you hire them for trash pickup and there is no
longer any sorting necessary. If we could make Sturbridge a
“greener” town, save the Town money, and provide savings
for those residents and businesses that currently pay the
 going-rate for their trash/recycling pickup, it would be a win-
win situation for everyone.

3. What do you feel is the second most pressing concern facing

Sturbridge?

a. Prescott S. Arndt: The second most pressing concern is intimately

linked with the first. We need to develop a plan to expand
Sturbridge's revenue stream that all Sturbridge residents can get
behind.

b. Mary Blanchard: We have been in the unique position of having

over 25% of our taxes paid by industrial and commercial
businesses that have a limited demand on our Town services. We
are losing this base at a time when there is a higher reliance on
local property taxes to pay for the costs of both General
Government and Education.

c. Jeff Bonja: The second most pressing concern facing Sturbridge is

the lack of vision that has allowed the town to become imbalanced
with respect to services required/desired and revenues available.

d. William A. Emrich: No Response

e. Scott Garieri: Ensuring that we have an appropriate sized WWTF

to provide for the challenges and opportunities over the next 20
years. Additionally we need to establish a true vision for our future
and develop plans designed to ensure the economic vitality of
Sturbridge.

f. Priscilla C. Gimas: Declined

g. Kevin J. Smith: Our second most pressing concern is the continual

decline in tourism. Sturbridge needs to act on its desire to remain a
tourist town. According to our master plan, most residents would
like Sturbridge to remain primarily a tourist town but we’ve done
very little to address the fall off in tourism. This decline, year after
year, is hurting local businesses and putting a dent in the tax base
and the revenue we get from the hotel/motel taxes. Basically,
fewer tourists lead to less tax revenue and less money to spend on
town services. Improving tourism would not only get Sturbridge its
identity back but bolster the business community and increase tax
revenues providing the Town with the cash flow necessary to
improve services.
4. In relation to question 3, what do you propose to address and
resolve that concern?

a. Prescott S. Arndt: Work with all of the Town boards and get as
much consensus opinion from residents as possible while
developing and executing a strategic vision to grow our revenue
stream.

b. Mary Blanchard: The BOS needs to reach out to the people who
run businesses in Town to see what the Town Government is doing
that helps them and what we can do to help them stay and prosper
in Sturbridge.

c. Jeff Bonja: To address the current lack of vision and imbalance,

my first priority would be to complete the process of instituting
zoning changes that could impact the current business and
residential concerns of our town. As Selectmen, my role would
focus on management and oversight; assuring that committees and
boards appointed by the Board of Selectmen are working efficiently
and with urgent priority to bring proposed zoning changes to Town
Meeting. Specifically, I would be looking for the Zoning Study
Committee to produce tangible results and to articulate how their
proposed actions will affect the town not only in the short-term, but
also in the 5, 10, and 20 year time horizons. The Zoning Study
Committee should reconcile their recommendations with those of
the Economic Development Committee to ensure that any
additional growth and demand for services is supported by the
requisite revenue generating activities. The Planning Board must
then act upon the specific recommendations for zoning changes so
they can be voted on by residents at Town Meeting in the near
term. Once the town has voted upon proposed zoning changes,
the Board of Selectmen would need to evaluate how the approved
zoning changes may affect the current imbalance and then
evaluate what further action then needs to be taken.

d. William A. Emrich: No Response

e. Scott Garieri: In order to properly plan for the future and address
potential challenges and opportunities, we will need to tools to allow
for effective expansion of our commercial and industrial base. As
such expanding the WWTF to 1.4 - 1.5 million gallons per day
would be both fiscally appropriate and responsible. In the end it will
always cost more not to have enough.

f. Priscilla C. Gimas: Declined

g. Kevin J. Smith I think we should be questioning the status quo.
For example, we’re the only community that gives a portion of our
hotel/motel taxes to SATA (Sturbridge Area Tourist Association).
We have to ask ourselves if we’re getting the results we were
hoping for. Again, I know this is a controversial subject since I’m
talking about change. Sturbridge really needs to recognize when
something isn’t working up to par and take action to improve results
– instead, we always seem to stay with the status quo, hoping for
the best. In the case of SATA, we keep giving nearly $90,000/year
hoping to see tourism increase. Instead, we’re being told by SATA
that tourism is decreasing year after year. SATA has told us that
tourism is down ever since 9/11. While 9/11 did hurt the tourist
industry, other tourist communities are setting records in tourist
revenue due to the weak dollar and are already back to pre-2001
levels. Here’s an article from last month discussing the record
setting year in NYC:

http://wcbstv.com/local/new.york.city.2.628806.html

Search the internet and you’ll find communities all over the
country setting similar records. So, if New England has the
closest airport for overseas visitors, why isn’t Sturbridge
getting its share of tourists? Something must be wrong with
our marketing approach. So, do we stay with the status quo
or try to do better? Here are some suggestions:

● Rather than giving nearly $90,000 to SATA every year, maybe

we should investigate the cost of getting “professional” help.
While it’s likely the folks at SATA are trying their best, we may be at
the point where professional help is necessary.
There are companies, such as Destination Development
www.dditeam.com that have worked with various tourist towns
across the country to create a brand for them, tell them the steps
they need to take to increase tourist traffic, etc. I looked at a
sample of one of their tourist assessments for a Washington state
town and saw a lot that we seem to be doing wrong:

1) First, they say too many communities are now trying to

promote “outdoor recreation” only to find a lot of tourists can
canoe, hunt, ski, bike ride and walk in their own home towns
– no need to make the drive to your town. They say we
must differentiate ourselves somehow to make Sturbridge
worth the drive. One tourist attraction that does make us
unique is Old Sturbridge Village, something I’m guessing
we’re not capitalizing on.
 2) They suggest pedestrian-oriented shopping areas; we’ve
done just the opposite. Crossing route 20 downtown is far
from pedestrian-friendly, it’s downright scary!
3) They suggest narrowing the streets to create an intimate
setting, we widened route 20 to a four lane road!

Just reading those three suggestions made me think that maybe

we’re not getting the best advice? Could we improve tourism
considerably if we got professional help from a company that has
experience helping other tourist towns? I have no idea what it
would cost but let’s say it costs $50,000 in the first year to get an
assessment and recommendations. We’d still be ahead about
$40,000 and could use that to help alleviate the Town’s budget
crisis. Let’s say their suggestions sound great but will cost us
$150,000 to implement. That’s less than two years worth of what
we normally give to SATA. After two years, we could have a plan in
place, changes made, tourism booming and we’d now still be
ahead $90,000 per year that we’re not paying to SATA anymore.
That money could fund salaries for needed town employees.

5. What is your position on growth and what do you believe needs to be

done in order to increase our tax base?

a. Prescott S. Arndt: It's the most important thing and is incorporated

in my answers to the above.

b. Mary Blanchard: A community that does not have healthy growth

becomes stagnant, real estate values decline and it becomes a less
desirable place to live. I support growth that maintains the character
of Sturbridge and meets the requirements of our zoning bylaws.

c. Jeff Bonja: I am neutral on growth in general. People who own

land should have the right to do with it as the please as long as it
fits within the laws of the town. With that said, if the overall plan for
the town indicates that too much growth of a certain type and/or in
a certain area would result in an imbalance in the future, I am in
favor of restricting that zoning when done in an open public forum
(i.e. it would have to be the will of the people of the town, as
reflected in a democratic vote on the issue). With the assumption
that residential growth has an overall negative revenue effect, but
also with the understanding that people have the right to develop
their properties within our current zoning laws and that the
community may see an overall positive social impact of certain
development, I see no other option than to look for revenues from
other sources including retail, commercial, and industrial. It is also
 important to point out that some of this “other” development may
provide intangible community benefits that cannot be easily
reflected on a balance sheet. Obviously social gathering places
such as recreation parks, movie theaters, and even good
restaurants provide not only a revenue source but also a location
for the community to gather and interact.

d. William A. Emrich: No Response

e. Scott Garieri: We need to better understand the financial

challenges that we face as a town and to then work with the
Planning Board, EDC, FinCom and others to help identify
meaningful solutions. We need to develop a more positive
approach to business proposals whether we think them appropriate
or not so that proponents in general will identify Sturbridge as a
town willing to at least engage in meaningful dialogue. We must
take the necessary steps to attract business proposals that can
then be reviewed by the various boards and committees for the
benefits or lack thereof associated with each. We must truly realize
Sturbridge for what it is, what it is not, and what it will never be.

f. Priscilla C. Gimas: Declined

g. Kevin J. Smith: See question 2

6. What is your plan for increasing the tax base in Sturbridge?

a. Prescott S. Arndt: In addition to the above, doing the research and

looking for models of successful communities as defined by overall
atmosphere and ability to provide needed services.

b. Mary Blanchard: I would support the efforts of the newly-formed

Economic Development Committee, open dialog with business
groups and tourists associations. I also think the Town should look
into the feasibility of funding the position of an Economic
Development Coordinator.

c. Jeff Bonja: Obviously the Economic Development Committee

(ECD) will be the engine with respect to this process and I will look
to that team to see how they are progressing. On my own this is
how I would progress:
i. Brainstorm to identify all of the sources of potential income
that we as a town can utilize. While there are many obvious
sources (residential taxes, commercial taxes, etc.) I want to
make sure we identify as many sources as possible.
 ii. Perform a gap analysis to identify how “hard” each revenue
goal is to attain as well as the overall magnitude of benefit it
will provide.
iii. Working from this list, prioritize activities based on resources
required and overall net benefit.
iv. Engage with the ECD as well as the Town Administrator and
other private sector resources to work on each of these
prioritized revenue sources. Set dates for periodic status
review to allow for priority and activity adjustments due to
progress to date and shifting economic variables.

d. William A. Emrich: No Response

e. Scott Garieri: Again, working with the Planning Board, the EDC,
the FinCom, and the Chamber to create opportunities and
incentives that will attract industry and commercial enterprises to
town. An important first step is to expand our infrastructure (i.e.
WWTF and water) in order to have the leverage and necessary
infrastructure incentives to attract desired growth.

f. Priscilla C. Gimas: Declined

g. Kevin J. Smith: See Question 2&4

7. What do you see as your primary responsibility as a selectman?

a. Prescott S. Arndt: Representing the people of Sturbridge.

b. Mary Blanchard: Our Charter establishes the BOS as the policy

makers for the Town. To do this, Board members must be
accessible to all members of the community in order to evaluate
their needs and desires for the Town. Our Charter and M.G.L. also
requires selectmen to ensure that Town Bylaws are enforced.

c. Jeff Bonja: I see the primary role of the Selectmen to be leaders,

visionaries, and communicators for the residents. They must be
able to rise above individual biases and singular special interest
groups to provide a balanced government for the people of
Sturbridge.

d. William A. Emrich: No Response

 e. Scott Garieri: Working with the Town Administrator and other
boards to help develop sound fiscal and growth policies while
simultaneously ensuring consistent deliberation on all issues that
come before me. It is imperative for public officials to maintain
objective and open minds at all times and to ensure that each and
every decision made is done so with the best interests of all
Sturbridge residents in mind.

f. Priscilla C. Gimas: Declined

g. Kevin J. Smith To prompt discussion and set deadlines for the en-
action of policies that benefit the townspeople and taxpayers of the
Town of Sturbridge. Too many times in the past, we have had
study committees discuss what should be done with no deadline for
an action plan. We’ve literally been, “all talk and no action”. We
need to discuss the tough subjects openly. Then, once consensus
is reached, steps must be taken to move forward as soon as
possible.

8. What do you view the role of the Finance Committee to be?

a. Prescott S. Arndt: Representing the financial interests of the

people of Sturbridge.

b. Mary Blanchard: The Fin Com, according to the Town's Bylaws,

gives recommendations that are in the Town's best interest on all
department budgets, transfer requests, warrant articles, zoning
articles and general bylaw articles. The Fin Com should give the
residents unbiased recommendations on matters presented to
voters at the Annual and Special Town Meetings.

c. Jeff Bonja: The Finance Committee is responsible for fiscal

oversight, with some level of legislative review with respect to town
meeting issues.

d. William A. Emrich: No Response

e. Scott Garieri: They provide the mechanism to review our entire

fiscal package and develop a perspective that provides a clear
picture of our financial weaknesses and strengths. Through more
effective use of the the FinCom’s guidance and input, the town
would be better able to make fiscally responsible decisions and
embark upon more long range financial planning for the future.

f. Priscilla C. Gimas: Declined

 g. Kevin J. Smith: Since they are appointed by the Town Moderator,
the Finance Committee is designed to provide a check and balance
to the Town’s elected boards as well as those committees
appointed by the Board of Selectmen. Since they are not elected,
they have no incentive to vote for something because of its political
popularity. Instead, they provide objective recommendations to the
townspeople on all topics to be acted upon at Town Meetings.

9. What do you view the role of the Planning Board to be?

a. Prescott S. Arndt: Representing the people of Sturbridge to

encourage and ensure sound growth and planning strategies.

b. Mary Blanchard: The Planning Board is responsible for long term

planning including the adoption and implementation of a Master
Plan, site plan review and approval and to make sure our Zoning
Bylaws meet the needs of the community. As an appointed board
hopefully these plans would be consistent with the policies of the
BOS.

c. Jeff Bonja: The Planning Board’s role is execution of the goals set
forth in the town’s master plan, and the maintenance and
development of that same plan for the future.

d. William A. Emrich: No Response

e. Scott Garieri: To ensure the application of Mass General Law and

the town bylaws to any and all planned developments under their
jurisdiction, and to assist with the development of long term
planning strategies to effectively manage growth via a master plan
and zoning bylaws.

f. Priscilla C. Gimas: Declined

g. Kevin J. Smith: The Planning Board should be consulted and/or

involved in the development of all policies relating to growth and
infrastructure since decisions or policies made in those venues
directly affect their work.
10. Based upon your position relative to growth and our tax base, what
do you believe to be the most appropriate sized Wastewater
Treatment Facility to plan for the future of Sturbridge?

a. Prescott S. Arndt: 1.5 MGD

b. Mary Blanchard: As the Town’s Consultant, Tighe and Bond, has

said, the cost of a wastewater treatment plant will never be lower
than it is today, and the regulatory requirements will never be less
stringent. This plant upgrade has to meet the wastewater treatment
needs of Sturbridge for the next 20 to 30 years. At the present time
we, as a town, are fortunate to have approximately 25% of our
taxes coming from our industrial and commercial tax base. Looking
forward no one can predict what new industrial or commercial
needs may arise. We must have the ability in our WWTF to
accommodate future potential needs. Plant capacity should not be
used for limiting growth or for other political reasons. The plant
should be designed for the largest capacity that is found to be
technically and economically feasible, which according to Tighe &
Bond presently seems to be no less than 1.3 MGD. Thus, based
upon the recommendations of paid professionals and considering
the unknowns over the next 20-30 years, I would support a WWTF
of 1.3 up to a 1.4 MGD.

c. Jeff Bonja: I do not believe that our physical infrastructure should

be used as a tool to force planning. Physical infrastructures that
have 20 to 30 year lifetimes should be sized so as to handle the
worst case projected requirements placed on it plus a margin, even
if those requirements are not intended to be met. Case in point is
our current unacceptable situation with Burgess and the Town Hall.
As a community, our continuing “patches” and lack of foresight with
respect to maintenance put us in positions where we “have to”
make a decision versus “planning to”. I do not disagree that we
have allowed residential growth to get ahead of our planning for
revenues and services and the appropriate way to address this is
through proper revision of our zoning bylaws.

d. William A. Emrich: No Response

e. Scott Garieri: I do not favor using the WWTF as a means of

controlling or limiting growth. Those determinations are best
addressed through thoughtful and well planned zoning, a sound
and pragmatic sewer service by-law, and long term planning
spearheaded by the Planning Board, as part of its role under MGL.
I do believe however that we need to recognize, that there will be
many challenges and opportunities presented over the next 20
 years, and it is my view that a minimum plant size of 1.4 - 1.5 MGD
is necessary, practical, and economically prudent in order to
address the many unknowns we will face over that 20 year period.

f. Priscilla C. Gimas: Declined

g. Kevin J. Smith: The Finance Committee will be considering the

various Warrant articles relating to the Waste Water Treatment
Facility at our March 4, 2008 meeting. Until I have considered all of
the facts, I cannot express an opinion over what size plant will
adequately serve the Town for the next 20 years. However, I would
not consider constructing too small of a plant in order to control
growth. Growth should be controlled by zoning, not infrastructure.

11. Do you believe it appropriate for elected or appointed officials to be

in conflict with the Sturbridge By-laws?

a. Prescott S. Arndt: Of course not.

b. Mary Blanchard: It is never appropriate for anyone to be in conflict

with our bylaws. It is particularly inappropriate for Town officials.

c. Jeff Bonja: Obviously having been the former Zoning Officer for
Sturbridge I believe that if a law is on the books it should be
observed equally by everyone. With that said I also have first hand
knowledge that some of our laws are outdated and ambiguous with
respect to current times. When residents unintentionally run afoul
of these laws, I do not think it is right to use this for political gains.
Generally, I worked with people who ran into these situations and
tried to help guide them so as to be in compliance. I have never
supported using our zoning laws as weapons for one neighbor to
antagonize another.

Again as a former zoning officer I find it difficult to drive around

town and not see “tons” of violations, intentional or not. If we as a
town do not feel it important enough to enforce all of our laws
equally, then we should be very careful as to what laws we put on
our books.

d. William A. Emrich: No Response

e. Scott Garieri: Absolutely not. Elected and appointed officials have

an obligation to exemplify the importance conforming to, and
complying with all bylaws, laws, regulations, and rules within a
community. Undoubtedly, situations might arise when officials may
 be truly unaware of any conflicts they may be guilty of and this
(though unfortunate) is understandable. However, once an official
has been made aware of a situation in which they are in conflict it is
imperative that any such situation be rectified immediately, so as to
ensure no loss of public trust or confidence.

f. Priscilla C. Gimas: Declined

g. Kevin J. Smith: No. Just because you choose to serve the

community does not excuse you from following all of its rules and
policies. If, in some manner, you are not meeting a regulation or
bylaw, you should attempt to bring yourself into compliance as soon
as possible.

12. What do you believe your role is relative to committee appointments

made by the Town Administrator?

a. Prescott S. Arndt: The role of a selectman with regard to

committee appointments is to work with the Town Administrator to
help recruit and support the best people for committee participation.

b. Mary Blanchard: The BOS should review all recommendations and

vote on each with an open mind, taking into account the time and
effort our paid professional - the Town Administrator - has put into
making such recommendations. A negative vote should be based
on valid reasons and not on a selectman's personal preference.

c. Jeff Bonja: As outlined in the Town Charter the Town Administrator

shall appoint, subject to the confirmation by a majority of the BOS,
a defined list (§ 6-1) of boards, offices, and commissions. It
interestingly also states (§ 6-2) that the Town Administrator shall
appoint all “other” committees, positions etc as required by the
charter, bylaws or general laws but excludes the confirmation
component. I doubt that the intent was to say that the “defined list”
of appointments was important enough to warrant confirmation and
that these “other” positions were below some threshold for review
by the BOS. Therefore the best practice would be for all appointees
to be “confirmed” by the BOS thus ensuring that the merit principle
(§ 6-4) is applied in all cases.

In reality no action of the Town Administrator can or should escape

the review of the BOS. The charter vests, through their election to
their position, the sole executive authority of the town in them and
the Town Administrator is strictly an agent appointed by them to
help them with their duties. While this puts the burden of oversight
 on the BOS it should not warrant micromanagement as this just
negates the purpose of having a Town Administrator in the first
place.

d. William A. Emrich: No Response

e. Scott Garieri: I believe the selectmen’s role is to provide oversight

to ensure that those appointed to committees or boards are
objective and balanced individuals who are able to deliberate on
issues without being prejudicial one way or the other. Having said
that, I believe that the individual hired to mange the Town, (the
Town Administrator) must be given the latitude to make
appointments without over zealous involvement from the selectmen
who may knowingly or unknowingly tend to make the appointments
more political than appropriate. A selectman’s role is more policy
oriented with implementation of that policy the responsibility of our
Town Administrator. Therefore, I believe that we need to provide
him or her with the authority and support to make appointments in
the most objective and politically free manner possible.

f. Priscilla C. Gimas: Declined:

g. Kevin J. Smith: The Town Administrator should have the latitude

to appoint the people he/she feels will best serve the purpose of
that appointment. With that said, the Selectmen should challenge
the rationale of an appointment if there appears to be a conflict of
interest. If the Town Administrator’s reasoning does not appear
sound, the appointment should be rejected but an explanation
should be offered as to the rationale of the rejection.

13. Do you believe it appropriate for a quorum of board or committee

members to serve on a sub-committee providing input to the full
board?

a. Prescott S. Arndt: The membership of each sub committee should

be evaluated on a case by case basis to ensure the most benefit for
the Town.

b. Mary Blanchard: I do not believe a quorum of a board or

committee should serve on a sub-committee. In fact, I was the one
who originally raised this concern in a letter I wrote to the BOS.

c. Jeff Bonja: I am personally very concerned in general about the

magnitude of “recycling” we see with respect people sitting on
committees and sub committees. One of the purposes of a
 committee or sub-committee is for it to delve deeper into issues that
the main body does not have the experience or bandwidth to
handle. I personally would like to see no more than one delegate
from a main body assigned to a sub committee. The remaining
seats should be first filled by residents not sitting on a committee
and then by residents sitting on unrelated committees.

d. William A. Emrich: No Response

e. Scott Garieri: Despite the fact that at times it may be simpler to

over-utilize volunteer officials due to a lack of available volunteers,
it may ultimately be one of the factors that keep others from
stepping up to serve as their may be (whether real or not) the
perception of a close network, so to speak. Secondly and more
importantly, there is (if even only minimally) the potential for
individuals unwittingly to pre-determine a judgment prior to review
by the full body. This serves as an injustice to the process and may
lead to voter apathy or disenfranchisement which ultimately
damages the deliberatory process.

f. Priscilla C. Gimas: Declined

g. Kevin J. Smith: Just in case voters are reading this who do not
know what a “quorum” is, a quorum is the minimum number of
committee members needed to have an official meeting. For
example, on the Finance Committee, we need five members to
attend a meeting in order to have a “quorum”. Without five
members, we can’t hold a meeting. With five members, even if the
five are attending another committee’s meeting, a quorum has been
reached and that meeting should have been posted as an “official”
Finance Committee meeting so the public and the rest of the
Finance committee could attend. Having this policy, we as a Town
ensure that committee members can’t have substantive discussions
without the rest of their committee and the public being there.
Allowing a quorum of Committee A to serve on Committee B could
allow those members to discuss official business of Committee A
without all of their other members present.

With the exception of the Finance Committee*, I have no problem

with some members of one committee serving on another
committee or even a sub-committee of their respective board or
committee. It’s hard enough to get qualified volunteers for various
committees; we shouldn’t discourage a qualified person from being
on more than one committee. However, once an entire quorum
joins a second committee, it would seem we’d have new concerns.
If we don’t have a bylaw preventing this, we probably should.
 * The Finance Committee is considering adopting a policy to
prevent its members from joining other committees so that we can
remain completely objective.

14. What is your position on allowing limited retail as an allowed use via
special permit in the PUBD?

a. Prescott S. Arndt: I think that retail is an important individual

component of an overall strategy in the PUBD to make sure that the
desired growth in that district happens.

b. Mary Blanchard: I support allowing limited retail as an allowed use

in the PUBD. I believe this is consistent with the original intent of
the Route 15 Study.

c. Jeff Bonja: It’s an appropriate use for that area as what was
originally planned has obviously not worked out.

d. William A. Emrich: No Response

e. Scott Garieri: We need to encourage and stimulate more

productive growth and projects by creating opportunities and
incentives for business to consider locating in Sturbridge. The
PUBD as it is currently zoned has attracted little interest in the 10
year period since its creation. In business terms, 10 years can be a
lifetime, and for such a strategically located area to have garnered
such little interest speaks to the challenges of the current zoning.
The entire PUBD should be re-evaluated to determine if in fact such
a project is probable in the present zone, particularly considering
the lack of infrastructure available. Allowing limited retail in the
PUBD which compliments any proposed project may provide the
added incentive which might help to spark more interest thereby the
town with some alternative proposals to review. By no means would
I suggest that limited retail will be the golden solution to the lack of
interest in the PUBD, but I do believe based upon careful study of
the area and the region, that it will at least be a piece and perhaps
a significant one in helping to stimulate a worthwhile project for
consideration.

f. Priscilla C. Gimas: Declined

g. Kevin J. Smith: The Finance Committee will be reviewing this topic

when we discuss the Warrant Articles. Until I have considered all
of the facts and arguments related to this issue, I cannot express
an opinion on its merit.
15. What is your position on the selectmen’s decision to alter a
previously approved public safety improvement plan, in order to
save a tree declared by the Tree Warden and the D.P.W. Director as a
Hazard (in conjunction with MGL, Chapter 87)?

a. Prescott S. Arndt: The Selectmen in general need to carefully

balance the overall wants and needs of the people of Sturbridge as
a whole, with the wants and needs of individual residents who are
affected most by any particular policy position, and by looking at
objective outside analysis (from experts where possible) and come
to the right decision with as much transparency as possible.

b. Mary Blanchard: I believe the BOS decision to have been wrong in

its position by not giving proper weight to the Tree Warden's
decision and the recommendation of the DPW Director.

c. Jeff Bonja: I am against it. If I lived there and felt obligated to save
the tree, I would seek funds from the people who live around me
and not from the town. That $1600 is needed elsewhere.

d. William A. Emrich: No Response

e. Scott Garieri: I believe it to be an unwise course of action for

decisions in this arena to be based upon political considerations as
opposed to engineering concerns or public safety standards. We
employ paid professionals with the required knowledge and
expertise to make such decisions and who are certainly better
qualified to do so than elected officials.

I believe those professionals should be given the support and the

authority to render such decisions free from political interruptions.
To embark upon a process of second guessing public safety
decisions made by professionals with the requisite skills to make
such determinations, is a slippery and dangerous slope.

f. Priscilla C. Gimas: Declined

g. Kevin J. Smith: Based on the facts presented to the Finance

Committee, I believe the Selectmen made a mistake. The tree was
not a unique species nor in a highly visible location. The costs
associated with saving the tree were not confined to the tree itself.
Their decision resulted in additional costs to the paving project
taking place on McGilpin Road. The decision also exposed the
Town to an unacceptable amount of potential liability. As a result of
the voting at the Special Town Meeting (taxpayers overwhelming
 voted not to save the tree), the Board should reconsider their
decision and act accordingly.

I’m sure it’s tempting for Selectmen to try to help a few of their
constituents, but the goal of any Selectman should be to think of
what’s best for the Town as a whole.

16. Do you believe that Sturbridge residents have an inherent right to

complete access to the dealings of local government?

a. Prescott S. Arndt: The people do have an inherent right to access

to the dealings of local government. Government should be as
open as possible while understanding that some sensitive issues,
like litigation strategy, should be dealt with privately to protect the
best interests of the people.
b. Mary Blanchard: Yes, the residents, by law, have a right to
unhindered access of local government through open public
meetings.

c. Jeff Bonja: Sturbridge residents absolutely have an inherent right

to complete access to the dealings of local government, as long as
such access is consistent with the Open Meeting Laws (OML).
When I was the Building Inspector I wrote software that generated
a database of all of the activities in the Building Office. This had
the benefit of not only saving the town money due to the significant
amount of public record requests that I would get, but also
benefited the town and many boards as I generated real time data
regarding building and zoning activities. All town activities, with the
exception of those covered by the OML, should be fully transparent.

d. William A. Emrich: No Response

e. Scott Garieri: Absolutely. The only productive government is

transparent government. Governmental bodies, (whether elected or
appointed) have an obligation to ensure that citizens are fully
apprised of the dealings and deliberations they engage in. That
responsibility includes an absolute requirement to provide factual,
objective, and honest responses to citizen requests. It is never
appropriate for officials to refuse to answer questions or to provide
adequate objective information with which residents can make
informed decisions. For their part, residents have a right and an
obligation to question and challenge government in order to ensure
appropriate oversight.

f. Priscilla C. Gimas: Declined

 g. Kevin J. Smith: During my time as Chair of the Finance
Committee, we advocated for televised public meetings so that
townspeople are informed of what topics are being addressed by
various town boards and committees. I absolutely feel the
townspeople have a right to access their representatives through as
many venues as possible.

17. Do you believe that it was appropriate to challenge the B.O.S. and
the Conservation Commission in order to ensure their meetings were
televised?

a. Prescott S. Arndt: I believe it is appropriate for any citizen to

express legitimate concerns that they have with their elected and
appointed officials.

b. Mary Blanchard: I believe the citizens acted appropriately in

petitioning for televised meetings of the Conservation Commission.
All other meetings held in Veterans' Hall have been televised.

c. Jeff Bonja: Yes.

d. William A. Emrich: No Response

e. Scott Garieri: Absolutely. The fact is that this should not have
required a challenge in the first place. The Finance Committee
recommended several years ago in their annual report, that an
effort should be made to televise as many meetings as possible in
order to ensure that residents had access to information when
considering town-wide issues. Televised meetings of such an
important body should have been initiated as soon as the
scheduling and technology was available, which in the case of the
ConCom was several years ago once they began meeting in the
Town Hall meeting room.

For any group of elected or appointed officials to stand by and force

such a logical request to be moved to the point of a signature drive
and legal challenges is an ominous statement about the belief or
lack thereof in open transparent government. It was an
embarrassing and needless situation.

f. Priscilla C. Gimas: Declined

g. Kevin J. Smith: Any town resident should have the right to ask for
televised access to their representatives. They should also have
 the expectation that such assess will be granted as long as it is
technically possible to do so.

18. Can you explain exactly who it is you believe you represent as a
selectman?

a. Prescott S. Arndt: The people of Sturbridge.

b. Mary Blanchard: A selectman represents ALL the residents and

taxpayers of our community.

c. Jeff Bonja: Selectmen should represent all of the people of

Sturbridge.

d. William A. Emrich: No Response

e. Scott Garieri: There are nearly 10,000 residents living in

Sturbridge and I have a responsibility to represent EACH and
EVERY STURBRIDGE RESIDENT and BUSINESS. Obviously
decisions made will not always be popular with all residents, as
interests and viewpoints are varied, but a selectmen’s primary
responsibility regarding representation is to ensure his or her
decisions are in the best interests of the majority of residents at all
times.

We do not have district representation here is Sturbridge, so a

selectmen must realize at all times that his constituents comprise of
every resident in town. Additionally we must consider the business
residents in town and their concerns as they are tax paying
residents (if only by location) and thus have a vested interest in the
success of our town. We are a community, and that community is
varied and is an important concept to remember at all times.

f. Priscilla C. Gimas: Declined

g. Kevin J. Smith: The same people I represent on the Finance

Committee: the taxpayers and townspeople of Sturbridge.
19. What do you feel is the single most important attribute a selectman
should posses?

a. Prescott S. Arndt: There is no single most important attribute. A

successful selectman will possess many attributes. They will need
to be open minded, have a sense of fairness, use common sense,
be able to think critically, and always be open and accessible.

b. Mary Blanchard: A selectman should have the willingness to look

into all issues that come before the BOS, listen to everyone who
wishes to be heard and make an honest, unbiased decision based
on what he or she feels is best for the Community as a whole.

c. Jeff Bonja: Integrity

d. William A. Emrich: No Response

e. Scott Garieri: Integrity

f. Priscilla C. Gimas: Declined

g. Kevin J. Smith: Selectmen should always act in the best interest of

the Town as a whole. They should never put their personal
preferences or the preferences of one or two voters ahead of the
good of the Town as a whole.

20. Why should I or any resident vote for you?

a. Prescott S. Arndt: The people of Sturbridge should vote for me

because I will bring a new perspective to Town government, and
the ability to understand the issues, listen to all viewpoints
presented, critically analyze the situation, and openly and
reasonably present what I feel is the best solution for everyone. As
someone employed in Sturbridge with a family of 5 and as
someone involved in many Sturbridge activities, I have a unique
and healthy perspective on our Town.

b. Mary Blanchard: I have been active in Town Government for over

25 years. I know the Community, the current issues and how Town
Government functions. I am open-minded and have the willingness
to devote the time and energy to research and study all aspects of
issues brought before the BOS.

c. Jeff Bonja: Residents of Sturbridge should vote for me because I

am honest and do not have a scripted agenda. Above everything
 else I have to have a clear conscience and ask myself “Is this
something my kids would be proud of?”

I have a professional background and experience working on and

for executive boards. My experience and business education,
including a MBA, allows me to work effectively in the disciplines of
finance, operations, human resources, and sales/marketing. This
professional experience also allows me to see through many
special interest agendas and work on the issues that are important
to the whole organization that I will serve.

I also have significant training and experience with developing and

executing business strategy, which I can use to benefit the
community. We need to stop looking at just the present and start
doing some integrated forecasting and planning. How many
residents do we think we will have in 1 year, 5 years, 10 years?
What is the range of that forecast? What services will those
residents require? Will there be capital expansion requirements?
What about existing infrastructure? What is the trend for
commercial and industrial revenue? What needs to be done to
support that revenue? Etc.

I am in the unique position of having first hand experience of how

our government works from inside as I was the Building Inspector
and Zoning Enforcement Officer for the Town of Sturbridge. This is
a unique perspective that I believe none of the other current
Selectmen or candidates share. It allows me to have a much
broader understanding of issues within our town government and to
not be swayed by internal politics. It also frames my position on
absolute transparency in government operations. I saw how easy it
was for even the elected officials to lose touch with the reality of
what was going on. I want to make sure that we have Selectmen
that are not afraid to ask the tough questions. I am also one of the
first graduates of Sturbridge’s Citizen Leadership Academy.

I have lived in Sturbridge for 7 ½ years and plan to raise my family

in this town. While I am by no means new to town, I did not grow
up here and have lived and traveled in many diverse areas within
the US and abroad. While it is important to maintain a certain
legacy so we are not doomed to repeat our past hard learned
lessons, it is also paramount that we blend in new ideas and
concepts so we can break out of stagnant cycles that have resulted
in overall decay in our town.

d. William A. Emrich: No Response

e. Scott Garieri: Sturbridge is a beautiful town with unlimited potential
and opportunities that are being squandered due to short-
sightedness and lack of vision.

I believe that we has the ability to attract new commercial and

industrial growth that can provide a much needed boost to our tax
base while providing the desired balance to maintain a wonderful
community.

If we are to remain a viable town with good schools, appropriate

public safety resources (police, fire, D.P.W., etc.), adequate
benefits and pay packages for town employees, as well as the
financial resources to provide assistance to our seniors, then we
need to undertake all necessary steps to increase our tax base with
appropriate and desired projects.

I will bring a business type approach to representing residents that

is grounded in objective deliberation and practical decision making,
and I will ensure that the Economic Development Committee, the
Planning Board, and the Finance Committee are involved in the
decision making process to make certain our economic decisions
and long range planning are appropriate.

f. Priscilla C. Gimas: Declined

g. Kevin J. Smith: This is my 12th year as a member of the Finance

Committee and my 10th as Chair. I believe my experience will be
invaluable. Taxpayers/voters won’t have to wait for me to “catch
up”; they can count on me to hit the ground running since I already
know what needs to be addressed. I’ve been very happy on the
Finance Committee and think we’ve come a long way, I just
continue to feel that our suggestions are not being acted upon.
We’ve consistently brought up issues that we feel need to be
addressed in our annual report such as growth, cost-cutting
measures, etc. – but never see them acted upon.

I feel I’ll have more of an opportunity to set the agenda as a

Selectman and hope to make positive changes that will affect us for
years to come.