Dear Fellow Concordian,

Last Saturday’s Boston Globe featured an article titled “Lead found in artificial turf in New Jersey”. The article describes the decision to close two sports fields in New Jersey after health officials discovered unexpectedly high levels of lead in the artificial turf surfaces. According to the Associated Press, the Consumer Product Safety Commission is investigating possible health hazards from lead exposure in artificial fields.

The pigment used to color the nylon fiber used in the New Jersey fields contains lead chromate, a component used to extend the yarn color lifespan. Lead chromate is a highly insoluble compound which is diluted and microencapsulated within the nylon fiber. In fact, OSHA requires no protective measures when handling the turf.

Whichever direction the New Jersey investigation takes, it is irrelevant to the CCHS fields project. The product being installed on our fields is Sprinturf Ultrablade DF. While this product contains extremely low levels of lead chromate, the product is made of polyethylene, not nylon. Quoting from the same Boston Globe article:

“The New Jersey Health Department found lead in both the nylon fields it tested, but in none of the ten polyethylene surfaces it examined”.

On a more positive note, the fields project is nearing completion, with an official inauguration scheduled for early June. The hundreds of weather-related spring sport cancellations and the capacity shortages that have limited kids from participating in sports will soon be a thing of the past.

Sincerely,

Erik Jarnryd
Implementation Coordinator – CCHS Project
Friends of CC Fields

In the name of “process” some opponents of the playing fields have called for a special Town Meeting. Yet they ignored the town government “process” leading up to annual Town Meeting and delayed the Town Meeting “process” with repeated paper ballots. The town government “process” began with official town studies documenting the need for playing fields and the vetting of 25 possible publicly owned sites. The “process” continued with 30 public hearings and culminated with the relevant town boards approving the necessary permits to build fields at CCHS. All this happened before Town Meeting.

The “process” continued at 2007 annual Town Meeting when two-thirds of the voters approved funding for the fields. These funds along with private and approved CPA funds will combine to build the fields. The Finance Committee unanimously supports this plan and praises it as “…creative use of multiple funding sources.” It is doubtful Concord will ever again have such a financially attractive opportunity to finally fund fields in the right place. If special Town Meeting votes to rescind that funding the opportunity may be lost.

The opponents claim to recognize the need for playing fields but can’t think where to put them. No one has identified another convenient 8 acres of public land that can accommodate two playing fields, parking and lights and will not impact valuable farmland or be directly adjacent to a neighborhood. Following a “process” has led to the CCHS site.

In order to frame a reasonable debate at the special Town Meeting it is important voters become educated on what has transpired previously. To arrive at Town Meeting with little knowledge of the issue demeans the “process” and town committees, and abrogates our responsibility as legislators.

To become educated voters can read the Recreation sections of the 1987 and 2005 Long Range Plans, follow the discussions in The Concord Journal, visit the playing fields Web site at www.ccfields.org, read the Finance Committee report for the 2007 annual Town Meeting and attend the joint Finance Committee and Board of Selectmen June 6 public hearing.

Hopefully the debate at the special Town Meeting will be unencumbered by secret ballots, reflect a greater understanding of the “process” and the wisdom of fields at CCHS. This will culminate in a no vote on the motion to rescind, no on paper ballots and no on alternative sites.

The Massachusetts Environmental Protection Agency filing by Friends of Thoreau Country is a slap in the face to all Concordians. By requesting state intervention, a MEPA filing sends the message that a town is either unwilling, or incapable, of handling its own permitting matters.

The filing undermines the basic essence of township government. What is the point of having permitting bodies, staffed by citizen volunteers, conduct a legitimate and representative permitting process, when a few disgruntled citizens can call on the state to undermine those efforts?

MEPA filings are normally triggered when a project surpasses certain size thresholds. Since the fields project is nowhere near the threshold size, Friends of Thoreau Country is arguing it is in fact part of a greater “long-term project” that includes the Beede swimming pool, construction of a new bus depot, and future reconstruction or renovation of the high school. When one considers that the School Committee has not even decided whether to build a new school or renovate the existing one, how can it be argued that the project is already well under way?

In its MEPA filing, Friends of Thoreau Country makes several false or misleading allegations. The Beede Swim Center was “improperly segmented from ongoing plans for CCHS replacement.” This despite the fact that the swim center was entirely planned and paid for by private citizens. The MEPA filing undermines the validity of permitting for the swim center and is an insult to the hundreds of generous donors who supported the project. This is a small price to pay from the Friends of Thoreau County’s perspective.

The MEPA filing alleges the project could result in “contamination of aquifer recharge areas protecting the town’s water supply.” In other words, forget about the approvals by the Water Commission, the Natural Resources Commission and the Board of Appeals, and let’s ignore the fact that the fields would be at least 30 feet from the water table. Only the state can protect us Concordians.

The allegations get worse. The playing fields site is described as “meeting the definitions of an Archeological site.” It is falsely alleged that the bus depot at the high school discharges massive contaminants to the ground. The rubber infill used for synthetic playing fields is “hazardous solid waste.” Isn’t it ironic that the fields opponents repeatedly call for turfing playing fields in other sites, but when the fields are near their back yards the product is suddenly hazardous waste?

For good measure, Friends of Thoreau Country concludes its filing thus: “There is reason to believe that the new Playing Fields may be related to the change in playing fields from public to partially private use by Concord Academy. As matters of public trust that are constitutionally protected, these issues beg for MEPA review.”

This closing allegation, combined with statements made at Town Meeting, is more evidence of the strategy of divisiveness employed by playing fields opponents. They are pitting cross-country runners against other students, Concord against Carlisle, and now private schools versus public schools. How else to explain their sponsorship of Article 4 at the upcoming Town Meeting, which seeks to have Carlisle parents pay for playing fields built in Concord?

The playing fields opponents have called for and obtained a second opportunity to debate playing fields in a new Town Meeting. Whether one agrees or not with the merits of a new Town Meeting, at least it is a process that is respectful of town government. Concordians will be debating Concord issues in a session moderated by Concordians.

Do field opponents have faith in their ability to prevail at the next Town Meeting? Why even force a new Town Meeting (costing at least $15,000 and hundreds of hours of volunteer time), when its results may be rendered irrelevant by this shabby and callous maneuver? The tactics used by Friends of Thoreau Country have reached a new low. And the biggest insult to Concordians is that these efforts are sponsored by a group that has effectively co-opted the name of Henry David Thoreau.

For months, back-and-forth arguments have taken place over whether two artificial turf fields should be built in woods considered part of Walden Woods behind Concord-Carlisle High School.

With a special Town Meeting planned for Wednesday, June 13, it finally seems the town may reach a resolution to this contentious issue.

By attending the Board of Selectmen and Finance Committee’s joint public hearing Wednesday, June 6, on the Town Meeting warrant, you can bring the town one step closer to the end that’s in sight.

The playing fields debate has been hashed out from practically every angle imaginable since its introduction in the fall of last year. By now, residents who are paying even the slightest bit of attention can’t feign ignorance on the topic — there’s just way too much information available.

And there is too much information out there. Dueling Web sites, letters and guest commentaries in this newspaper, master plans and status reports, news articles and even a report on National Public Radio — the list goes on and on. There are so many valid arguments, and so many different reasons to vote one way or the other that it would take hours to go through everything. Trying to make sense of it all would consume your life, and possibly make your head explode.

On Wednesday night, the town is giving residents one last chance to come together and learn about this issue in a civil environment. The hope is that the hearing, at which each warrant article on the Town Meeting warrant will be discussed, will give voters a good primer on the issues. Here’s your chance to hear about each warrant article and why it is being presented. Here’s your chance to get your own questions answered. Here’s a great opportunity to find out what you will be asked to vote on before you’re on the spot to make a decision. 

The public hearing takes place in the Alcott School auditorium Wednesday, June 6, at 7:30 p.m. If you want to put an end to the playing fields issue, it’s in your best interest to be there.

Opponents of the fields project have made much of a 2002 study by Sasaki Associates, claiming it proves there are many alternatives to the high school site. Here is the reality.

The one-day study was a review of 1994-95 aerial photographs of town to identify possible field sites without regard to parking, access, or current land use. No site visits were done.

The author, David Herzel, cautions, “At the outset I want to emphasize that our review was not detailed and did not have the advantage of specific issues impacting any of the sites. The intent was to identify POTENTIAL opportunities. We assume that site-specific analyses will be required to determine whether or not the potential opportunities can be realized.”

The study identifies 16 possible locations; 12 of these locations were included in the 25 examined by the fields committee as alternative sites. (The report may be obtained at the library or at www.ccfields.org/sites.)

The remaining four locations were not seriously considered due to obvious issues. They were:

The Prison Farm: This active farmland is not currently for sale. If shared, it would be an unsafe venue for our children and unattractive to visiting teams.

The Light Plant: This site would require use of abutting state land which it’s unlikely the state would ever allow, considering a possible future redesign of the rotary. It would require players and fans to fight rotary traffic at rush hour. Wetlands issues and an existing gas line would further complicate the site.

The State Police barracks: This site, used to park police cars, would only accommodate a half-sized playing field with no parking.

North of Nine-Acre Corner: Willow Guzzle is actively farmed and is considered important open space. Because of significant wetlands the site would only fit two undersized fields if they were squeezed next to Sudbury Road, a busy commuter route. Reducing the project to one field would not help, as the two field sites are separated by private property (two houses).

It is significant to note that the report also recommended two to three fields at CCHS. “With grading and tree removal behind the school, the relocation of the bus parking (onsite being preferred we assume), and reconsideration of the configuration of all the fields, it appears that two or three additional fields could be accommodated.”

With respect for both sides of the playing fields controversy it seems to me that the issue is not so much about preserving the Deep Cut Woods, but a simple case of NIMBY: not in my back yard.

It is perfectly understandable that the neighbors on Bristers Hill Road would be concerned about extra traffic, noise, etc. However, when one chooses to live abutting a public school, one understands that the school’s needs and programs can change and the use of property owned by the school can change as well.

There is no question that we need new fields for our children and I do think that the Fields Committee has done a thorough and honest search of all possible locations and have determined that the high school land is the best choice.

I hope that both sides of this issue will be honestly and clearly portrayed at the Town Meeting on June 13 and we can move on to building the new fields that have been so clearly needed for many years without further delay.

Article 4 of the special Town Meeting warrant would demand that the town of Carlisle split the cost of building new playing fields at the high school. At first blush, some will find this reasonable, like “going Dutch” for a dinner-date.

On closer examination, though, this seems just plain wrong.

Carlisle has constructed and made substantial improvements to its fields (particularly the Banta-Davis complex in 1998) that benefit both Concord and Carlisle players (I’d bet that more Concord players play on Banta-Davis than Carlisle players, in fact), without demanding contributions from the town of Concord or its residents. The proposed Banta-Davis Phase 2 project, if and when approved, likewise seeks no town of Concord support even though it would benefit Concord athletes immensely.

Carlisle athletes and their families are already paying for the new CCHS fields through user fees imposed on all youth and adult sports league participants. These fees can run into hundreds of dollars per family per year. Substantial funds and pledges have been committed by Carlisle residents wishing to make private donations to the project, and it’s expected that many more Carlisle families will step up, as Concord and Carlisle families are being solicited for contributions with equal vigor.

In the end, I can’t help but feel this is another delaying tactic by those who seek to block the fields at any cost: its passage would seek to drag Carlisle through the same kind of expensive, time-consuming process they’ve forced on the town of Concord, or else delay until next year.

Is the next step to erect a tollbooth where Monument Street meets River Road, to cover the cost of maintaining and improving the Concord roads that Carlisle residents dare to use?

Is this ever going to end?

Opponents to the playing fields project have stated repeatedly that there are better options for locating a two-field complex than the proposed site at the high school. We would appreciate the opportunity to set the record straight.

At the outset, it is worth noting the town and volunteers have closely examined 25 alternatives for all-purpose fields (visit www.ccfields.org/sites).

While the proposed high school site was identified in 2001, the search for alternatives started many years earlier. The 1987 Concord Long Range Plan identified the dire shortage of playing field space, recommending a third field complex similar to Emerson and Rideout. The plan also recommended that wooded sites be considered first before farmland or open fields. This seminal report provided the town with a mandate to support field advocates in the search for potential sites.

Armed with these recommendations, the town manager and field supporters teamed up to evaluate options. Several opportunities for playing fields presented themselves as the town acquired parcels of land at Harrington Farm, Virginia Road, Strawberry Hill, Hebb and Mattison field. In each of these cases the group’s efforts to secure partial usage for playing fields were politely rebuffed as each parcel was designated as conservation land. The town then looked at the Albano land on Lexington Road, but the determined access to the site was not adequate.

The end of this phase of the search process was the town landfill project. Mass Highway approached the town with an offer to pay $5 million for the receipt of soils from the Big Dig project. These monies would have been used to build multiple fields on the site. However, safety concerns and resistance from conservation groups led Mass Highway to withdraw its offer.

The next phase of the search process was launched with the 2003 Playing Fields Study. This study assessed existing facilities at Emerson, South Meadow, Ripley, Cushing, Cousins, Rideout, Sanborn, Thoreau and Willard. The study’s main conclusion was that many of the fields were in need of renovation, and that the inability to rest fields for a season or two was contributing to this problem. Lack of available space at these sites also precluded the possibility of new fields.

The 2003 study further intensified the search process. Over the next two years, eight additional sites were considered: the Burke land, the Amendolia land, the White Row parcels on Commonwealth Avenue, the Wastewater Plant, Wright Road (NE Correctional), the Scimone land, and the Concord Ice Company land. All these sites were found to be inadequate or too challenging to develop for fields.

This search re-affirmed the high school as the only feasible site that met all the necessary criteria: maximum benefit to both high school kids and youth sports members; good site access; sufficient parking and environmental suitability. The last two years have focused on a comprehensive and inclusive search for permitting and funding, which have led us to where we are today.

While a very large majority (between 63 and 73 percent on the various votes) at the last Town Meeting supported new playing fields at the CCHS hill site, we recognized that everyone wants to be assured all reasonable alternatives were seriously explored. It seems hardly fair that a small number of opponents would now suggest that there has not been a serious consideration of alternative sites — as that has been discussed at many public hearings and was also summarized at the recent Town Meeting. We invite any interested citizens to learn more at www.ccfields.org/sites. There are also hard copies of the report at both town libraries and other major municipal sites. If you have any questions, please contact us at info@ccfields.org.

The building of new playing fields is too important to the youth of Concord to be caught in a swirl of fear and half-truths concerning the imagined environmental impact. There has been an assumption by some that creating playing turf fields as currently proposed is detrimental to the environment because it will require cutting down trees, which absorb carbon dioxide. Let’s look at the environmental impact the shortage of fields creates as well.

As an engineer who has had to analyze and manage energy conservation projects I will attest that predicting the total effect of a project can be difficult. To analyze a project one must look at all the carbon dioxide inputs and outputs and calculate the net total effect. The Fields Committee has committed to planting more trees to mitigate the net effect on the atmosphere. More importantly, on the positive side, with the fields at CCHS, hundreds of athletes will drive shorter distances and thus create less air pollution.

Building turf fields is also beneficial when one considers that the maintenance is extremely low and there is no need to mow constantly with pollution generating lawn mowers. Not to mention, fertilizers, pesticides also needed for grass fields. In addition, the use of recycled tires as part of the turf substrate is a much preferred use than in a landfill.

Also to be considered is that there is a significant undercounted population of athletes who play club sports. One reason they do so is for access to playable fields. My 13-year-old son plays club soccer and we have had to travel as far away as Portland, Maine, Ludlow and Plymouth for access to playable fields. Today I drove to Lancaster, 44 miles round trip. Hundreds of athletes were playing on five turf fields; Concord fields were closed. We went to three separate turf fields in April while Concord fields were still unplayable and closed. By the way, my son’s home field is 24 miles away, a turf field in North Andover.

An analysis of the inputs and outputs results in a clear conclusion. Lack of fields causes athletes to drive outside Concord. To reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, I urge that the fields be built without delay so athletes, siblings and parents don’t need to drive to get access to playable fields. A delay causes pollution.

The fields project has proven surprisingly divisive for the town and I wish it were not so. We should put our trust in the recommendations of our town manager and volunteer boards — all of whom overwhelmingly support the project. We should not let a vocal minority derail a good plan that solves a widely recognized problem.

Concord has always been governed by hard-working volunteers. The many who serve on town boards devote untold hours to understanding issues and making decisions in the best interest of the town. Small groups of citizens will object to certain decisions for personal reasons, as in this case, but that is inevitable. The town boards are obliged to do what is best for the town, and those boards would not have voted their unanimous support unless they believed this to be a plan that effectively balances the personal interests of the abutters with the greater interests of the town.

Though I have not been involved with the planning of this project — and we should all thank those who have — my family is one of more than 70 others that have pledged financial support to the project (and I am not aware that any corporations have given money). We have four young children who will build skills, friendships, and character on these fields and we want to pull our weight. Let’s stop the bickering and move ahead with the proposed fields plan. The unqualified endorsement of our town manager and boards is good enough for me.

To the editor:

In a letter last week, resident Nancy Stirewalt of Monument Street called into question the private fundraising efforts in support of the new playing fields in Concord. How unfortunate that the generosity of our fellow citizens would be called into doubt or question. This represents the third time the credibility and motivation of our generous donors has been questioned by a citizen who has not bothered to take the time to learn the facts — before writing to The Concord Journal. As co-chairman of the Friends of Concord-Carlisle Fields development effort, which to date has raised $1.2 million from 75 individual donors with no strings attached to any gift or pledge, I’d like to set the record straight once and for all.

Ms. Stirewalt asserted in her letter that because the names of the donors have not been made public, this fundraising effort is in fact “code for the corporatization of our public schools.” Our fundraising effort is focused on securing financial commitments from private citizens of Concord and Carlisle — not corporations. Is it that hard to believe these families care enough about this town to donate their own money to a project with the broad-ranging positive impact of these new fields?

Our campaign is eight months old, and came about as a way to expand and enhance the quality and scope of the project to match the glaring needs of the youth sports and to also leverage private dollars for public money. The Community Preservation Committee made a strong recommendation to all applicants that a private fundraising component would enhance the success of the project. Every approved CPA project had a private fundraising piece.

These citizens should be celebrated for their generosity, not vilified. If they choose to remain anonymous and not call attention to themselves, their wishes should be respected. Similar to ongoing preservation, public housing and other important initiatives, our donors give because they believe in the value of youth sports, and the important role they play in a vital and balanced community.

While some of our opponents have taken the tact of questioning the veracity of our effort, many town officials have praised this model as a shining example of how we can all work together to make Concord better. In a time when many are upset about how this debate has played out, let’s celebrate these community “builders” and ignore the community “detractors.”

Phil Gibson

Highland Street

We're writing to address misunderstandings or misinterpretations in last week’s Concord Journal Guest Commentary involving proposed playing fields at CCHS. The Commentary, “Questions Go Unanswered” implies there were a number of important issues that had been ignored over the past 10 months of public discussion. We’d like to – once again – provide those answers for the benefit of the community.

1. Destroying Deep Cut Woods? No. The playing fields will be sited on a land owned by the Concord-Carlisle Regional School Committee and is NOT "the" Deep Cut Woods. There is evidence that this area was nearly free of trees within the past hundred years.
   
2. Fields Twice as Costly? No. Proposed field construction costs are comparable with other towns' investmentst to install turf fields. We have planned $50,000 in additional landscaping to mitigate visual impact on four nearby Bristers Hill Road residents. We’ve also planned expensive, premiere lighting solution to minimize light spill to just a few feet beyond the edge of the fields, adding nearly $200,000 expense to the project.
   
3. Obliterate the Cross Country Trail? No. The cross country trail is being retained – a vast majority in its current configuration. To accommodate the two fields, some sections of the trail will be re-routed and in the view of the CCHS Athletic Director, the “cross country trail can be enhanced”.
   
4. Kids on the Cross Country Team Matter Less Than Other Athletes? No. . It is terrific that the cross country team is a “no cut” sport and those student athletes will continue to have use of this course for their 1-2 home meets each year. And with additional playing fields, CCHS will finally be able to offer intramural and club sports – so MANY MORE students can participate in “no cut” athletics on the campus.
   
5. Use of Debt Relative to a New Willard School? Very manageable. The use of debt is a common funding technique for municipal capital projects that provide long-term benefit. The Board of Selectmen, Finance Committee and School Committee all have a vested interest in ensuring we maintain a strong financial position (and retain our strong AAA bond rating) and are sensitive to and sensible about the timing of such projects. All three boards voted unanimously for this project by a combined vote of 23 to 0!
   
6. Should Wait for High School Master Design? We did. The Regional School Committee developed a master design for a new building in 2005 and 2006. The fields are sited outside any potential new building footprint. If a new high school building is constructed, these two new fields will offset fields taken away during construction, allowing our student-athletes the chance to practice and play games at home (vs. being bused out of town for practices and games).
   
7. “Behind-Closed Doors” Negotiations with Concord Academy? Wrong. The town explored several scenarios with Concord Academy to develop a “win-win” scenario in which CA would fund new playing fields in return for limited afternoon usage of Emerson Fields. The Selectmen, Recreation Commission, Finance Committee and others were well aware of these preliminary discussions – they were hardly ever at a “negotiation” stage.
   
8. Cell Towers on the New Fields? No. Never been considered. Not being considered. The idea of cell towers within the playing field light stands has never been contemplated.
   
9. Declining Enrollments at the Elementary Schools Reduces Field Need? No. Sports participation rates are still increasing. While current projections show a modest decline in enrollment, the number of children playing youth sports has expanded rapidly over the past ten years with no sign of abating. The proposed fields will help meet demand that has built over the past forty years, before Title IX, before the advent of multiple sports now seeking fields.
   
10. Carlisle Is Not Funding Any of This Project? No. Carlisle’s contribution comes in three forms: through the land provided by the Concord-Carlisle Regional School Committee (worth millions), through private donations and through recurring user “maintenance fees”.
    
11. Reforestation Not a “Teachable Moment”? We simply disagree here. First, this is not a “historic ecosystem” as opponents of building on this site suggest. Second, we believe a concerted effort to plant new trees (mature trees as well as saplings) can teach all of us to take responsibility for nurturing the environment. Third, we are raising additional funds to help with reforestation. Balance in our community is an important lesson in the face of those who argue for one extreme point of view on one issue at the expense of all other goals.
    
12. An “Unethical Meeting” With Students to Discuss Fields? No. CCHS students requested an informational meeting about the fields as they had some information (and a lot of misinformation too!). Mr. Haley, the CCHS Athletic Director facilitated the meeting to provide information about the project – not to sway opinions of the students or of their parents as alleged.
    
13. “Unethical Use of Town Website”: No. The town’s website can be used and has, in the past, been used to convey information and positions on warrant articles before a town meeting. If this had been a matter to be decided at the polls, then no information can be displayed on the town’s website. State law is very clear and there were no issues with use of the town’s website in this case.
    
14. Lack of Public Vetting the Choice of Artificial Turf? No. A wide range of opinions and expert advice will be solicited before the type of artificial turf is chosen. Concord will have some good choices as the new turf technology is attractive (looks like freshly planted sod), safe and long-lasting.
    
15. Youth Sports and Field Development Group Only Voice in Site Selection Process? Wrong. While many volunteers invested thousands of hours on this project, including looking at 14 alternative sites, the ultimate decision was a collective one – involving the Recreation Commission, the Regional School Committee and the Board of Selectmen. And this site passed all regulatory standards.

Mr. Hecht’s assertion that “the citizens of Concord were finally able to witness the ‘win-at-all costs’ mentality that has characterized this project from the beginning” is wrong and insulting.

This project has been a collaborative effort involving the Regional School Committee, the Selectmen, the Recreation Commission and representatives of youth/adults sports groups and neighbors. This has been discussed at 38 public meetings over the past 10+ months. Volunteers and members of the Regional School Committee conducted dozens of small group meetings with the Brister Hills neighbors. Based on what we learned, the project scope was reduced from 3 to 2 fields to accommodate these neighborhood concerns.

Are the Selectmen, the Finance Committee, the Recreation Commission, and the Regional School Committee, together, advocating energetically for this project on this site? Yes.

Did we play by the rules, as written, at Town Meeting? Yes, with the Town Moderator having every opportunity to referee.

Does this represent a "win at all costs" mentality? We don't think so.

We look forward to continuing a civil and respectful discourse with all in town who are interested in and concerned about this project. And we especially appreciate the concern about tree removal to make room for these two playing fields. We’d have preferred to find an open field near the high school – but none exist.
Whether “for” or “against” playing fields, we might all be well advised to stay focused on the facts. Let’s keep the debate in fair territory!

Additional information about this project can be found at www.ccfields.org.

The authors are leaders of Concord-Carlisle’s youth sports organizations and Field Development Group that has worked for new playing fields for the past six years.

Jeff Adams, Al Antonitis, Bill Barrett, Amy Carlton, Pete Castrichini, Dekkers Davidson, Paul Dewey, Peter Fischelis, Phil Gibson, Don Hawley, Johanna Hunter, Erik Jarnryd, Michael Kolowich, Nick Miller, Silas Witherbee.

As many know, I have been an environmental activist for more than 30 years, am a parent of girls who have played at least four sports on our overused fields, and am a strong supporter of the proposed high school fields site for many reasons presented elsewhere. Here, I speak as a parent of a member of the cross-country team. Many of us and our children support the fields at this site. If you walk the course now, you will be surprised at its condition with many roots sticking up, and holes, sand, and other obstacles especially in the area of the proposed fields. It is not all beauty since much of it runs past the old gravel pit and Route 2 and the car noise is very high. The course is short. As observers, we only have a couple of minutes now to watch our children run.

The majority of the current course will not be disturbed if these fields are built and children and adults who run the course will have a similar experience as they do now. For the remainder, building the fields can give an opportunity to improve the course. If the people concerned about the fields work closely with the cross country and track coaches, portions of it can be regraded, covered with wood chips from some of the trees that are taken down, roots covered or removed, and the course lengthened to 3.1 miles, thus improving its safety and quality.

If it includes running around the new fields, it will make cross-country much more of a spectator sport and even more popular than it is now. For a great example of this, I remember a race at Westford last fall. While the cross-country teams ran around the track after being in the woods much of the time, their friends who were playing in a soccer game on the infield cheered them on and parents of kids on both teams cheered everyone. Isn’t this what sports and community should be about?

People on both sides: please do not make kids in different sports take sides against each other. Let’s work together to improve the playing and running locales for all.

 Richard Beinecke
Lang Street

I am writing in regard to the guest commentary column by Kenneth Hecht, published in the Concord Journal on May 3. Mr. Hecht’s column is replete with misrepresentations, two of which I wish to address.

Mr. Hecht’s characterization of “youth sports organizations” (apparently a reference to proponents of the fields project who coach or are otherwise involved in Concord youth sports) as “unsportsmanlike” is irresponsible and insulting. As a parent of children who have played on Concord sports teams, I can personally attest to the dedication and sportsmanlike conduct of each of my children’s coaches (many of whom also support the fields project). None of these coaches, whether on or off the playing field, have ever demonstrated the “win at all costs” mentality that Mr. Hecht suggests; each of these coaches instead has been a role model. It is insulting to these talented individuals — and insulting to the intelligence of voters — for Mr. Hecht to cavalierly accuse them of a lack of fair-mindedness simply because they disagree with him. In similar vein, Ms. Connie Levine’s reference, in her presentation at Town Meeting, to the “lucrative youth sports” organization, insults the integrity of the coaches and sports administrators alike who give up their time and energy to ensure that children have a healthy and fun environment in which to learn and play sports. The insinuation that such persons somehow derive personal financial gain through their participation in Concord youth sports would be laughable but for the fact that Ms. Levine expressed it during the course of a serious public debate on an issue of real consequence to the town.

Mr. Hecht’s characterization of the vote approving Article 30 as having “subverted” the Town Meeting likewise is misguided. Town bylaws expressly authorize reconsideration, and Philip Swain’s motion for reconsideration was made in accordance with the bylaw, having been made within the 20-minute time limit set forth there. The use of reconsideration did not “manipulate” the outcome of the process, as Mr. Hecht contends, as reconsideration is a procedure the town allows and was properly invoked. The “democratic process” was not undermined; the process worked in precisely the manner intended: during the reconsideration of Article 30, several new speakers made measured, eloquent comments, which apparently caused a sufficient number of voters to change their minds — based on the new information presented — and to approve Article 30 the second time around.

Amy Spector

Main Street

I am responding to misstatements made in the guest commentary by Kenneth Hecht in last week’s The Concord Journal, regarding use of the reconsideration procedure at Town Meeting April 24.

Mr. Hecht claims the reconsideration vote on Article 30 was a “travesty of the democratic process” and “an attack on the democratic process.” Similarly, in a letter to the editor, Raymond Siegelman states the process was “perverted” by virtue of the fact that the initial vote disapproving Article 30 was reconsidered. Mr. Siegelman notes that, under Robert’s Rules of Order, a motion for reconsideration may be made only by a voter on the prevailing side of a vote; he further asserts such a motion traditionally is made when new information has been forthcoming.

Concord has expressly declined to adopt Robert’s Rules of Order, preferring instead the more straightforward “Town Meeting Time,” which explains that many towns have dispensed with the rule that only a prevailing voter may move for reconsideration. As reflected in its bylaw, Concord limits a motion for reconsideration by providing that such a motion must be made in the same session of Town Meeting and within 20 minutes of the vote sought to be reconsidered. This prevents a belated attack on the original vote by someone on the losing side and provides notice to those tempted to leave that reconsideration may occur. The reconsideration bylaw is included verbatim in Concord Town Meeting Traditions and Procedures, available at Town Meeting. While Mr. Hecht states “327 persons” left the meeting prior to the vote approving Article 30, it’s unclear how many had left at the time the motion for reconsideration was made; the 327 vote difference was between the original vote at 9:30 p.m. and the second vote at 12:15 a.m. The motion to reconsider was brought within approximately 10 minutes of the announcement of the first vote on Article 30.

The fact that some chose to leave Town Meeting after the initial vote and after the motion for reconsideration doesn’t undermine the validity of the vote on reconsideration. Moreover, given that a significant number of voters who left the meeting prior to the final vote were parents of young children — who presumably needed to return home at such a late hour and at least some of whom likely favored Article 30 — the decreased number of voters was no more or less “unfair” to either side.

Marc Silver

Old Road to Nine Acre Corner