To the editor:

I want to thank everyone who took the time to learn about the race for Governor’s Council, District 3.

It was a privilege to be a candidate and to experience firsthand our democratic process.

When I entered the race at the end of April, many voters I met knew little about the Governor’s Council or its enormous responsibility for confirming Massachusetts judges, who may serve until age 70. Three months later, when mail-in voting began, thousands more did.

That matters.

Contested elections are good for democracy. They give voters choices. They bring attention to issues that might otherwise receive little public scrutiny. They require candidates and elected officials to explain their decisions, declare their intentions for a possible new term, and create public discourse that strengthens our institutions.

I am proud that our campaign did just that.

We started a conversation about accountability, transparency, and public trust—and about why the Governor’s Council needs clear, publicly accessible rules governing conflicts of interest and the involvement of Councillors’ major campaign donors in the judicial confirmation process. Voters should not have to wonder what the rules are or whether the Councillors confirming our judges are exercising truly independent judgment.

We also brought much-needed attention to the enormous impact our court system can have on families. There are many excellent judges serving our Commonwealth, and the public has every right to expect that same standard of excellence throughout our judiciary. Whatever one’s politics, we can all agree that our courts must take allegations of abuse seriously, understand the impact of trauma on parties and children, strive not to retraumatize them through the court process, and make decisions grounded first and foremost in the safety and well-being of children.

I entered this race as a first-time candidate just three months before mail-in voting began. Governor’s Council District 3 encompasses 32 cities, towns, and communities. I am enormously grateful to every voter we were able to reach—and to the grassroots team that helped carry our message across the district.

Elections are about more than the final vote count. Democracy also happens in the conversations an election creates: when voters start asking questions, when public officials are called upon to explain their decisions, and when people become more engaged with the institutions that serve them.

An election ended on September 1. The conversation it started should not.

Thank you for listening, questioning, and engaging in conversations about who confirms the judges entrusted with administering justice in Massachusetts.

Margie Palladino
Wellesley

To the editor:

This letter is in thanks to the officers of the Wellesley Police and Fire departments.

On Saturday, August 1, my husband and I brought our special needs son to his good friend’s  birthday party on Brook St in Wellesley. As the party was ending, my son had a panic attack while descending some stairs to go home. After 1 ½ hours of us attempting to get him out of the house, our only option seemed to be to call 911 since our son is a large person and we could not move him.

When the police and fire officers arrived, he was too afraid to sit in the rescue chair or bed. The officers worked as a well-coordinated team and finally convinced him to sit down at the back stairs and put his legs over the stairs. After much time and patience, they got him to stand up and descend the remaining stairs. Because the officers exhibited such immense patience and kindness, our son was not frightened or traumatized while working with them. I will never forget it. My husband and I feel immense gratitude toward those wonderful officers.

Thank you!

Sincerely,

Betty and Rich Trakimas

To the editor:

I am a Wellesley resident who relies on the United States Postal Service for important deliveries. My USPS mail carrier, Pavlos “Paul” Salamasidis, has always been dependable. Here is just the most recent example:

While I was on a trip, Paul went above and beyond to assist me when my mail was held. My diabetes prescription was mailed before the hold began, but arrived late. I returned early to retrieve my held mail from the post office, only to be informed by the acting manager that Paul had it. Surprisingly, the package of medication was in the lobby of my building, even though the mail hold was still in effect.

Paul’s exceptional service extended beyond his professional duties. He went out of his way to help someone he didn’t know, ensuring that I received the medication I had run out of. Despite returning to Wellesley during my mail hold week, he made sure to deliver the package. Paul’s professionalism, friendliness, and caring nature truly set him apart.

I would like to publicly express my gratitude to our USPS letter carrier, Paul.

Sincerely,

David G.
Wellesley resident

To the editor:

There is an opportunity for Wellesley and other Massachusetts communities to give Medicare-eligible retirees access to the enormous and highly competitive individual Medicare marketplace (which is currently prohibited under State law)—potentially allowing retirees to save thousands of dollars, choose coverage better suited to their individual needs, and accumulate funds for future health care expenses, while at the same time saving municipalities money and substantially reducing their long-term retiree health care liabilities (also known as OPEB or Other Post Employment Benefit liabilities).

Massachusetts came surprisingly close last legislative session to giving cities and towns the legal authority to explore that opportunity.

H.1399, sponsored by Wellesley State Representative Alice Peisch, would have allowed Massachusetts governmental entities to consider providing Medicare-eligible retirees access to the individual Medicare marketplace, supported by employer-funded Health Reimbursement Arrangements, or HRAs.

For those unfamiliar with an HRA, it is a reimbursement arrangement—not a Health Savings Account (HSA) or Flexible Spending Account (FSA). An HRA is funded by the employer and reimburses retirees tax-free for eligible health care expenses up to an established amount. Depending on how the program is designed, unused HRA dollars can also remain available for future eligible medical expenses.

The Joint Committee on Health Care Financing reported the bill favorably and sent it to House Ways and Means. It remained there when the legislative session ended.

The proposal deserves another look—but so do some of the concerns raised about it.

Much of the opposition to H.1399 appeared to be based on impressions about what an individual Medicare marketplace might mean rather than on how such a program could actually be structured.

The most important fact is also the simplest:

This would be an option, not a mandate.

No municipality would be required to use it. The Commonwealth would not be required to use it. And giving governmental entities the legal authority to evaluate an alternative is very different from requiring them to adopt one.

Today, Medicare-eligible public retirees generally receive Medicare together with supplemental coverage arranged through their former employer. Under an individual Medicare marketplace approach, retirees would remain Medicare beneficiaries, but their employer could provide financial support through an HRA that retirees could use toward coverage available in the individual Medicare market.

That distinction matters because one of the recurring concerns about H.1399 has been that retirees could somehow “lose Medicare” or be forced into Medicare Advantage.

That need not be the case.

A properly structured program can allow retirees to choose traditional Medicare supplemented by Medigap and Part D coverage, Medicare Advantage, or other available Medicare coverage appropriate to their circumstances.

And that choice can produce substantial savings.

Depending on the governmental entity’s existing retiree plan and subsidy level, both retirees and their former employers could save thousands of dollars per person annually in premium costs while maintaining comparable or better overall financial
protection.

Why is that possible?

The individual Medicare marketplace is far larger and more competitive than any single municipal retiree group. Insurers compete for millions of Medicare beneficiaries on price, coverage, service and benefits. Retirees can select coverage tailored to their individual circumstances rather than every retiree being placed in essentially the same group arrangement.

That flexibility can extend beyond traditional medical and prescription coverage. Depending on how the HRA is structured, retirees may be able to use available HRA dollars — including dollars remaining after purchasing their primary Medicare coverage—toward dental, vision and hearing coverage that may not be included, or may be only partially covered, under their current municipal plan. Rather than simply reducing costs, the individual marketplace can give retirees the opportunity to use some of those savings to purchase additional benefits that matter to them — or, where the HRA permits it, preserve unused dollars for future eligible health care expenses.

The financial implications go well beyond annual premium savings.

For Wellesley, the issue looks very different from most Massachusetts communities—and that is precisely what makes the opportunity so interesting.

Wellesley has been responsibly prefunding its retiree health care obligations for almost 20 years. According to the Town’s December 31, 2024 OPEB actuarial valuation, Wellesley had approximately $159.7 million in accrued OPEB liabilities and $132.8 million in actuarial assets, making the program approximately 83% funded. Wellesley is therefore approaching the point where its OPEB trust can begin doing what it was created to do—pay retiree health care costs rather than requiring those costs to be financed from the Town’s annual operating budget.

Wellesley has also taken a deliberately conservative approach to valuing these obligations. The Town currently uses a 6% investment return and discount-rate assumption, even though we believe the OPEB portfolio can reasonably be expected to earn closer to 7.5% to 8% over the long term. That conservatism provides an additional margin of protection rather than relying on a higher assumed return to make the liability appear smaller.

But the potential benefit of an Individual Medicare Marketplace goes considerably further. If independent analysis confirms that the marketplace can lower the long-term growth of retiree health care costs while maintaining or improving financial protection for retirees, Wellesley’s OPEB liability could decline substantially even without changing that conservative 6% assumption.

There is another potentially important benefit unique to a well-funded plan such as Wellesley’s. OPEB funding requirements reflect not only the cost of benefits for today’s retirees, but also the actuarially projected cost of benefits being earned by active employees who will eventually retire. Once Wellesley reaches its full-funding objective and begins using the trust to finance benefits, the amount that can appropriately be supported by the OPEB trust may exceed the actual premiums being paid for current retirees. That difference could potentially provide additional budget relief associated with the Town’s overall health care costs.

The combined financial opportunity could therefore be unusually significant. Wellesley could potentially eliminate approximately $3 million in annual OPEB prefunding, begin using the assets accumulated over many years to finance retiree benefits, and potentially realize additional annual budget relief as the trust begins fulfilling the purpose for which it was established.

For a community that has spent decades responsibly prefunding these benefits, an Individual Medicare Marketplace is not primarily about solving an OPEB crisis. It is about harvesting the benefits of that fiscal discipline—lowering the underlying cost and long-term growth of retiree health care, protecting retirees, and potentially freeing millions of dollars annually for other Town priorities or taxpayers.

Why does a lower long-term health care cost trend matter so much? OPEB liabilities reflect not only what retiree health care costs today, but what those costs are expected to become over many years. If those costs grow more slowly, the projected cost of future benefits falls as well. Depending on demographics, benefits, subsidy levels and other actuarial assumptions, that alone could reduce an employer’s OPEB liability substantially—in some cases by 25% or more.

There can be an additional actuarial benefit for some poorly funded OPEB plans. Many governmental entities have set aside little or no money to fund future retiree health benefits and therefore must use relatively low discount rates in calculating their reported OPEB liabilities. In simple terms, the lower the discount rate, the larger the amount that must be reported today for benefits that will be paid decades from now.

Reducing the underlying cost and future growth of retiree health benefits can improve the financial sustainability of the program and, over time, potentially create greater opportunity to prefund those obligations. Greater prefunding may eventually support use of a higher discount rate, which could further reduce the reported liability.

But that potential additional effect is not what drives the 25% or greater OPEB reductions discussed here. Those reductions can result from the lower projected long-term growth in health care costs itself, before assuming any additional liability reduction from a change in the discount rate.

For municipalities struggling with enormous unfunded retiree health obligations, that is not a trivial opportunity.

It can mean greater financial stability, less pressure on property taxpayers, and more resources ultimately available for schools, public safety, roads, libraries and other municipal services.

But those potential savings alone are not enough reason to adopt the model.

Possibility is not proof.

That is where I believe the next version of this legislation can be substantially stronger than H.1399.

Opponents have raised legitimate questions: How do we know retirees will really be better off? What happens to someone with very high prescription costs? Could elderly retirees become overwhelmed by too many choices? Could someone be pressured into Medicare Advantage? And what happens if health care costs continue rising and today’s HRA is no longer adequate years from now?

Those concerns should not be dismissed.

They should be addressed in the legislation itself.

That last concern—the future adequacy of the HRA—is particularly important, and it is one H.1399 already sought to address.

The HRA cannot simply be established at today’s dollar amount and allowed to lose purchasing power over time. H.1399 included a mechanism for HRA funding to increase as the cost of the underlying Medicare coverage benchmark increases, and that protection should be preserved in any new legislation.

In other words, the objective is not merely to demonstrate that retirees are financially protected on the day a program is implemented. The HRA funding mechanism should be designed to help preserve that protection as health care costs rise in future years.

I have proposed that any future version also include a condition precedent to adoption: before a governmental entity could implement an individual Medicare marketplace, it would first have to obtain an independent financial and benefit analysis based upon its own retiree demographics, current coverage and subsidy structure.

The analysis should examine much more than premiums. It should consider deductibles, copayments, coinsurance, prescription drug costs, maximum out-of-pocket exposure and other reasonably foreseeable health expenses across retirees with different levels of health care utilization.

It should also evaluate whether retirees have access to a robust marketplace offering meaningful Medicare Supplement, Medicare Advantage and Part D choices.

And the analysis should be independently reviewed by a qualified health care actuary or other appropriate professional.

The principle should be straightforward:

If the analysis cannot reasonably demonstrate that retirees are expected to have access to financial outcomes comparable to or better than their existing group coverage, the governmental entity should not be permitted to implement the program.

I have also proposed continuing protections after implementation.

Retirees should receive professional and unbiased education, counseling and individualized enrollment assistance at no cost.

No retiree should be required to enroll in Medicare Advantage.

Retirees should retain access to the Medicare coverage options for which they are eligible.

The HRA escalation protection contained in H.1399 should be preserved in any new legislation, and HRA adequacy and retiree affordability should also be reviewed periodically to ensure that the promised financial protection remains meaningful over time.

And the statute should make clear that the new authority cannot be used simply as a mechanism to reduce retiree benefits or shift health care costs from governmental entities to retirees.

Those protections are not obstacles to reform.

They are how responsible reform should work.

There is an understandable tendency whenever retiree benefits are involved to equate “different” with “worse.” But that assumption should be tested against facts.

If an independent analysis shows that retirees can maintain comparable or better protection, save thousands of dollars in premiums, obtain substantially greater choice, and receive professional assistance selecting coverage—while their former employer also saves money and materially reduces its long-term OPEB liability—it makes little sense for Massachusetts law to prohibit the governmental entity from even considering the alternative.

Conversely, if the numbers do not work for a particular retiree population, the entity should stay with its existing arrangement.

That is precisely why this should be an option.

The debate over H.1399 should therefore not become a choice between protecting retirees and protecting taxpayers.

Properly designed, this approach has the potential to do both.

The question for the next legislative session is not whether Massachusetts should force municipalities into an individual Medicare marketplace.

It should do nothing of the kind.

The question is much simpler:

Should Massachusetts give its governmental entities the ability to determine, based on independent analysis and strong retiree protections, whether this alternative could provide better value for retirees and taxpayers alike?

That is an option worth having.

David Kornwitz
Chair, Wellesley Retirement Board
(writing in my personal capacity)

To the editor:

A 2025 American Psychological Association poll on loneliness found that more than half of U.S. adults reported feeling isolated from others at least half of the time. There are many causes of this deepening isolation, but much of it can be linked to the concerns Robert Putman raised in his 2000 book, Bowling Alone. If I were to describe this using an African proverb, I would say our societies reflect an ostrich camp with everyone’s head buried in the sand or on our phones. Putnam’s book bemoaned the decline of community ties in towns like our own Wellesley where, ever so slowly, people no longer know their neighbors and the sense of community is dwindling. And yet, in an unlikely corner of the town of Wellesley a community has taken root—inside the Orangetheory Fitness studio on Central Street.

When I moved to Wellesley in 2019 to start my job as a professor of Africana Studies, I did not know what to expect. The town was/is the most affluent town I have ever lived in. Having read Putnam’s work in graduate school, I anticipated that I might encounter some of the declining community ties he described. As a black woman still recovering from moving from Atlanta to New England, I had little hope that I would build a community. I was wrong, and I have never been so glad to be wrong. I built a strong community at our church, the Village Church. We have an excellent children’s program, and I hope more folks join us.

This letter, though, is not about our church. My most vibrant community was found in the most unlikely place: my gym,  Orangetheory Fitness (OTF), on Central Street. It’s hard to miss with its orange signs. I have tried every gym in town, and although I have found each place warm and welcoming, I have never seen a community like the one at Orangetheory. What we’ve built there is the kind of community Putnam dreamed to see revived.

There’s a guy named Michael C. who talks to everyone…I mean everyone. If he spots you outside of the gym, Michael is always quick to say hello. I think he might be a hedge fund guy because he takes two classes a day. Not knowing is what makes Orangetheory special. With the possible exception of college faculty and physicians, people rarely lead with their occupations. I have developed real connections with people I likely would never have met or talked to otherwise. Among my new friends are a passionate mom who runs an annual blood drive for folks with rare illnesses. A local teacher who has worked in our school district for over two decades and willingly shares tips on best strategies for supporting small children in an ever-evolving technology world. A local business owner who is always looking out for others in the gym and is quick to advise on correct technique. In another context I would find such aid invasive, but OTF has curated a world in which we welcome guidance from strangers.

In February 2026, I held my first book tour event for my book on the dangers of Voter Exit at Wellesley College. It was the first event at the college where I saw so many community members engaged and at ease. The room was packed. We ran out of chairs, and our students improvised by perching on windowsills. From my author’s seat, I saw many of my church friends. I expected them to come. I hadn’t expected so many of my Orangetheory friends to show up.

My friend Susan, a mom of four, whom I regularly exchange smiles with but have yet to share coffee or lunch, was engaged in conversation with a college friend. I saw the teenage children of a new friend who had recently moved to the U.S. from Australia. Later, our college president remarked that events that bring our communities together are important, especially today when the world is so deeply polarized.

I teach and write about the importance of dialogue across political divides. And yet, I love that I know very little, if anything, about the political preferences of my friends at OTF. I do know that many of them are good and decent people. If someone misses too many classes, people check in. When I experienced a medical emergency, the studio texted to check in on me and to assure me that they would freeze my account until I could return. It is the only place where I don’t think about my being a black woman. I am well aware of how difficult it can be for minorities to find communities. At OTF, all that matters is whether I start on the treadmill or the rower. I am on rower number 7. Always.

At OTF, we work hard, but we also laugh and connect. This is rare, and it is special. I am really sad that our gym, and our community might shut down because it is too expensive to operate here. If, as a town, we value places that build community and bring us together, then perhaps the town should invest in making it more accessible and affordable for businesses to stay. They might not look fancy on the outside, but they give our communities something more valuable. Bookstores are a constant reminder to us and our children that reading matters. Small family-owned ice cream stores teach our children the importance of hard work and a vision that anchors communities. If we don’t fight to save places like Orangetheory in Wellesley, then, in years to come, communities may need to spend millions addressing the problems and challenges that come with deepening isolation.

I have doubts that my single essay will change things. As my husband reminded me, decisions have been made, building maps redrawn etc, etc. However, I am a person of faith. I believe that closing does not have to be inevitable. There may still be time to explore alternatives. Could a modest increase in membership prices make it financially sustainable—and, if so, would members be willing to pay it? Could the property owner offer lease terms the studio can sustain? Could Orangetheory move to a less expensive location nearby? Could town leaders help the owners identify another suitable space? I do not know which of these options is best, but the absence of an easy answer should not become an excuse for doing nothing.

I am well aware that, given the many complexities and hardships in the world, it may seem petulant to worry about a gym closing. One might even argue that this betrays a lack of global awareness. However, there is room, even in these difficult times, to advocate for small joys. A business’s contribution to our town cannot be measured in revenue alone. There must also be room for places that generate human goodness. We have a lot to be grateful for, including the town library, Wellesley Books, Trullys, and our parks. Orangetheory is an unlikely place to cultivate community, and yet it has done just that. Let us not wait until its doors close to decide that it mattered. Let us act now—not just to save a gym, but to preserve one of the places where strangers in Wellesley still become neighbors.

Hoping for a miracle,

Chipo Dendere
OTF member with 240 classes, a mom, wife and local professor

To the editor:

On behalf of the Wellesley S.T.A.R.S. (Striving to Achieve Recreational Services), I would like to publicly thank the Wellesley Hills Junior Women’s Club (WHJWC) for its ongoing support of our teams. Created by parents and run by an amazing and talented group of volunteers, the Wellesley S.T.A.R.S. is an organization that offers an opportunity for friendship, competition, and achievement for athletes with a variety of disabilities. The financial support of the Wellesley Hills Junior Women’s Club enables us to offer our athletes a competitive program in which they would normally not be able to participate.

The Wellesley S.T.A.R.S currently offers opportunities in both swimming and track. Led by our head coach, Carly Donelson, our swim team competes in Special Olympics regional meets in Massachusetts as well as selective national and international events. Our Special Olympics track team practices at Dana Hall throughout the winter and spring. In addition to Carly, we have many other dedicated coaches and volunteers who work with our athletes every week, providing a warm and welcoming environment for all.

The Wellesley S.T.A.R.S. is fortunate to have the support of the community, and we are grateful to the Wellesley Hills Junior Women’s Club for its support over the years. We encourage others to continue to support the fundraising events of the Wellesley Hills Junior Woman’s Club. The success of their efforts is crucial to the long-term success of the Wellesley S.T.A.R.S. and other local organizations.

For more information on joining or volunteering for the Wellesley S.T.A.R.S., please visit our website at www.wellesleystars.org or email at wellesleystars@gmail.org

Sincerely,

Mercedes Leboreiro
President, Wellesley S.T.A.R.S.

To the editor:

My name is Joanne Wheeler. I was music teacher at Wellesley Middle School for eight years, and very much enjoyed my job, teaching kids ukulele, how to write music, and perform it in front of their peers.

My letter to you today comes in the form of four songs I wrote about teaching in Wellesley Public Schools. I recognize this is not a typical letter, but found that words alone could not express what needs to be said, and took some advice from Dolly Parton and wrote some songs.

First is Business Office Blues—a Johnny Cash cover about the tension between the Business Office and teachers; then Picture Perfect Principal, a reimagining of Gilbert and Sullivan’s Modern Major General; a Bo Burnham cover called How Schools Work; and finally a Ben Folds cover titled Dan Lemon, Pt. 2, about contract negotiations.

I want share this letter with the community so that the voices of teachers who cannot speak for themselves due to their employment status can be heard by the parents and taxpayers.

Joanne Wheeler
Former WMS teacher