Protecting the Fuel Tank Process
Last year’s June Town Meeting season was dominated by a passionate debate over when and how to replace Belmont’s Fuel Tanks as well as over the process that would be used for this. Following Town Meeting, it was agreed that Glenn Clancy, the Department of Community Development Director, would analyze fuel tank usage and investigate a wide variety of methods through which fuel could be supplied to town vehicles including the use of RFI’s to obtain usage and cost data from other entities; RFIs are Requests for Information for which no appropriation is needed. It was expected that while he was doing this analysis, Mr. Clancy would maintain continual contact with the abutters and with the Belmont community at large including those who could supply technical expertise.
The process began well with two public forums. Mr. Clancy had done considerable analysis, was open to input by the public, and agreed to test a WEX program ― the use of public gas stations instead of DPW tanks by Belmont’s fleet ― to determine cost and convenience. Because he has a history of designing programs that obtain community support, there was hope that a fuel tank replacement program based on further in-depth research including the use of a variety of approaches and a detailed financial analysis would be the result. Mr. Clancy’s conclusions will be presented at a public forum originally scheduled for April 28th which will now be held on May 19th. (Click for agenda and link)
Unfortunately, the process itself has been called into question by the actions of Select Board Member Roy Epstein. Under the guise of sharing facts, Mr. Epstein is commenting on the Fuel Tanks on his Facebook page. As of this writing, his “facts” consist of views identical to those he presented at last year’s Town Meeting when he unwaveringly supported placing two huge, expensive fuel tanks sited dangerously close to residents, above ground. One has to wonder how Mr. Epstein can serve both in his capacity as a Select Board Member and, as an objective evaluator of any fuel tank options proposed by Mr. Clancy, when he has consistently advocated for his one preferred option for the past two years.
As agreed by the entire Select Board, including Mr. Epstein, Glenn Clancy is the point person on the Fuel Tank project. Mr. Clancy has not made his public presentation. Because of that, even if Mr. Epstein has had advance notice, as is apparently the case, it is improper for him to comment until the Clancy presentation has been made.
What Mr. Epstein has succeeded in doing by commenting ahead of time under the guise of educating the public, is to taint the process. Some will have concerns about whether Mr. Clancy can be independent. Some will feel this is a blatant attempt to influence Town Meeting Members (TMMs) and the public before they have heard and seen Mr. Clancy’s report. And many will regard this as yet another reason to distrust Belmont’s elected, appointed and salaried officials. They will certainly have a point. The damage caused by Mr. Epstein’s premature comments will affect not only the Fuel Tank project but other Belmont issues as well. Overcoming this will require significant effort.
Between now and May 19th, the time taken by Town Meeting not withstanding, Mr. Clancy must be allowed to complete his analysis and, based on all the data, deliver the careful, fair solution backed by community support that is his hallmark. If Mr. Epstein wants the public to believe not merely that Mr. Clancy is independent and objective, but also that Belmont’s elected, appointed and salaried officials deliver independent, objective and fair solutions for the town’s residents, he must cease his campaign for his favored above-ground tanks until the report has been delivered.
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.
