Dear Editor,
Nick Giurleo’s op-ed opposing the override and debt exclusion misrepresents the facts. Voting “yes” on ballot Questions 6, 7 and 8 is essential for Medford’s future — protecting our schools, public safety and city infrastructure.
Giurleo claims the “yes” campaign uses scare tactics, but the threat of underfunding is real. The FY 2025 school budget cut 23 positions, and 14 more were threatened to be cut. Without the override, these positions will be lost. As a parent, I trust the assessment by several members of the school committee that we need $3 million to protect 35–45 teaching, nursing, paraprofessional and administrative positions. Without this funding, class sizes will grow, increasing stress on teachers and diminishing the quality of education. The children of Medford deserve a school system that provides the attention and resources they need, not one that’s stretched too thin.
Giurleo also argues Medford’s teacher pay is competitive, but the current pay is not enough. Among non-charter schools, Medford’s pay ranks in the 65th percentile statewide, but only the 43rd among Greater Boston school districts. Cities like Somerville, Woburn, Bedford and others offer higher salaries. To attract and retain the best teachers, Medford must stay competitive.
Giurleo’s idea to use Medford’s free cash is short-sighted. The Massachusetts Department of Revenue states free cash should fund one-time expenses, not recurring costs like teacher salaries. Using free cash now would leave Medford vulnerable to future deficits, and all but $11 million of it is already allocated.
Giurleo also states that we should focus on economic growth to support tax revenue. While economic development is important, it’s a long-term solution. Growth should have been prioritized 5–10 years ago when many now opposing the override were in office. Fortunately, today’s city council is working hard to rezone and encourage commercial growth, which has seen its biggest gains in 20 years. However, that takes time, and our schools and roads need funding now.
Giurleo’s concerns about affordable housing are valid, but low tax rates and reduced services won’t solve the issue. Instead, we need to focus on initiatives like the city’s affordable housing trust and rezoning for greater housing density. Additionally, Medford has already maxed out its senior citizen exemptions until state law changes. Finally, all city councilors except George Scarpelli supported a linkage fee, and most have expressed support for a transfer fee to fund affordable housing. Ironically, Scarpelli, who said rising costs are just “what happens when you live near Boston,” now opposes the overrides, citing concerns for low-income residents.
Giurleo also questions transparency, but the ballot text explains the intended use of the funds. By law, override funds are earmarked for the first year and can only be used for other purposes in subsequent years by another vote. So yes, Medford citizens must trust their elected officials to spend the money appropriately. Stating otherwise, as Giurleo demands, would be “no better than fraud.”
As a parent and resident, I’m voting “yes” on Questions 6, 7 and 8 to secure the future of our schools and keep Medford a strong, supportive community for all families.
Sincerely,
Lizzie Charbonneau
Lizzie Charbonneau (EG’17) is a software developer and has been a Medford resident for over a decade.
