It’s As Sad As It Is Amazing! (By Bob Guerin)

Taxpayers, teachers and parents should read this week’s Enterprise story about the MA school building repair moneys program and Dr. Johnson’s long, lonely campaign to interest Town officials in “free money.”

Apparently, while Dr. Johnson has been working diligently to obtain more than $1.5 million in state building assistance, no one on the Capital Improvement Committee, School Committee or Board of Selectmen has been working toward the same goal with a shared sense of urgency.  Instead, the Capital Improvement Committee and Board of Selectmen have been brainstorming new ways to pull dollars from well worn and nearly empty taxpayer pockets.  The School Committee remains mute on the issue.

Now with time expiring on the state construction aid program, folks on the Board of Selectmen and Finance Committees are waking up to the state funding possibilities Dr. Johnson has been highlighting for more than 3 years.  And now they’re pledging to help pursue this state aid. 

One can only look on in amazement as a “fired” town employee (the Superintendent) works diligently (including attending Board of Selectmen meetings on her own time) to convince town employees and town officials to pursue unclaimed and available state building and repair aid.

Where's the School Committee in all this?  Nowhere. 

School roofs leak, windows fail, heat and plumbing systems disintegrate.  All buildings are in need of serious repair and only the “fired” Superintendent advocates for the schools and for capital repairs and for FREE money from the state to get it done and paid for. It’s as sad as it is amazing!

What happened to "Open, Transparent, Public Input, blah, blah, blah" ?

A funny thing happened last night, it seems the School Committee's annual public budget hearing will need to be rescheduled from January 26 because the Chair chose not to advertise it as required by law.

The clock is running out.

The Town Charter requires the budget be delivered to the BOS by February 1 and Mass General Law (Chapter 71, Section 38N) says the public needs seven days notice -- or more specifically:

The school committee of each city, town or regional school district shall hold a public hearing on its proposed annual budget not less than seven days after publication of a notice thereof in a newspaper having general circulation in such city, town or district. Prior to such public hearing said committee shall make available to the public at least one copy of said proposed budget for a time period of not less than forty-eight hours either at the office of the superintendent of schools or at a place so designated by said committee. At the time and place so advertised or at any time or place to which such hearing may from time to time be adjourned all interested persons shall be given an opportunity to be heard for or against the whole or any part of the proposed budget. 

 So, assuming somebody makes a call today, and gets a notice in tomorrow, ain't no way there's going to be a (legal) budget hearing on January 26.

It seems that the Committee that was so concerned about improved Public input and proper notice blew it yet again!

So, if there is a public hearing on the 31st (or maybe the 1st), how will they be responding to the concerns their constituents may raise at the public hearing -- if they plan to deliver an approved budget on February 1 as required?

The sad reality is they won't respond.  The only "little voices" they will hear come from the small minority of the Town that showed up to elect them -- the people who have their own person interests to protect -- their contract, their job, their pool, etc.  

At least we got that copier toner under control!  

Response to School Committee Staffing Discussion (by Richard Augustine)

At the Jan 11^th SC meeting, Chair Sherry Marshall read a statement from Nancy Crossman expressing concern that Dr. Johnson’s budget proposal eliminated  1 of 10 High School, Social Studies positions and added 2 Literacy Teachers. 

Marie Kangas then claimed by proposing the foregoing, Dr. Johnson’s actions were illegal because State regulations require Principals make hiring decisions, and because her budget created a new position without School Committee approval.

This lack of logic is incomprehensible!

1)     This was a budget presentation, not a hiring dictum
2)      The position is NOT new!  We currently employ 9 Literacy Teachers.  A new position requires creation of a new position description.  Obviously, we already have one in use. 

You, Madam Chair, agreed with Ms. Kangas, making you appear even more irrational, given Dr. Johnson and SC members Killion & Susko pointed out the foregoing to you!

Ms. Kangas then referenced a future mandate that will require increased student, Social Studies proficiency at some unknown date.  She advocated retaining the Social Studies position and adding 1 Literacy Teacher, claiming this would satisfy high school student needs.  Simply put, students reading below grade level cannot enhance subject knowledge if they cannot fully comprehend the material.

Can you imagine how ineffective assignment of 1 Literacy Teacher, working with 1,000 high school students, would be?  We currently have 1 Literacy Teacher for each 250 grammar school students.

Dr. Johnson stated a fair percentage of high school students read below grade level.  She explained a Literacy Teacher’s role is not remedial in nature, but rather to instruct some classes and mentor fellow teachers (about 40 in the HS)  to meet regulations requiring all teachers be competent in literacy intervention as well as their academic disciplines.

During the explanation I heard Ms. Kangas mutter to herself, “Not with my vote”.  So much for her open mindedness and legal requirement that she consider public comment before budget approval!

Not surprisingly, Ms. Kangas didn’t mention that our Vice Chair’s husband, is a Social Studies teacher.  

Dr. Johnson indicated 1 Social Studies teacher is pregnant and won’t be returning.  What if she does return?  Is Mr. Linehan’s job at risk?  Is the union leadership fretting that a 10% Social Studies class size increase (now about 17) will negatively impact teacher workload? 

To date, many grammar school students have been the recipient of the most effective Literacy Program in the Commonwealth.  I say to parents here and those watching on TV, if we fail to effectively expand the Literacy Program into our High School, your children will be short-changed.  They need effective reading and comprehension skills to better succeed, both in college and in life.

On Wednesday, Jan 26th, at 7:00 p.m., the SC will host a legally required, ‘Public Hearing’ on the budget.  If you don’t attend and demand your children be afforded the same in-depth opportunity given to grammar school students, no one else will – and your kids will suffer the consequences!

----------------------------------------------------------------

We need to do something to get High School parents to attend the ‘Public Budget Hearing’, scheduled for Jan 26^th, at 7 p.m., at the high school.

To my knowledge, this is the first time a School Committee has ever meddled with or  tried to direct the School Administration with respect to strictly academic matters.

There is no question in my mind that the Teachers Union leadership is behind this ill-advised move!

After reading the above, please consider the following:

1. The three SC members in question, Marshall, Kangas & Crossman (Linehan has recused herself) have absolutely no, direct academic experience.  They are not teachers and were never school administrators.  Hence, in this respect, they bring NOTHING to the table)
2. The Superintendent, School Principals and related curriculum staff have 100 + years of such experience.  For heavens sake, this is why we hired / promoted them.
3. Kangas & Marshall’s reasoning and justification for trying to keep a Social Studies teacher and reduce assignment of a Literacy Teacher to the High School is illogical, irrational, inefficient, ridiculous, detrimental to and a disservice to high school students and their parents (I can’t find enough words to express how ludicrous and brazen this is).

If any of you have ready contact with high school parents, the high school PTA, or other educationally directed groups, can you please do one or  any number of the following:

1.      Ask them to watch tomorrow night’s SC meeting

2.      Forward my comments to them

3.      Ask them to attend the Jan 26^th Education Budget Public Hearing

4.      Ask them to support the reduction of one (1) Social Studies teacher and assignment of two (2) Literacy Teachers to the high school.

If this ‘Runaway School Committee’ gets away with this, God only knows what will be next!  If they succeed, it will truly be a disservice to high school students!

Budgetary Twilight Zone

As most have come to expect, there were several bizarre comments during the last week's School Committee budget discussions.  A couple of the highlights:

Despite the fact that the Committee employs a Superintendent with a PhD in Education, and despite the fact that the Superintendent employs a staff of Administrators, also with advanced education degrees; the Committee has chosen to second-guess the individual teacher assignments in the Administration's budget proposal because THEY (despite their complete lack of wisdom, training, or experience) would prefer to see another High School Social Studies teacher -- not another Literacy teacher!  

I hope they did this because they felt that Literacy is waaaaaay over-rated -- and not because a School Committee spouse is one of the High School Social Studies teachers!

Yes, said member did recuse herself from that discussion, but the balance of the majority coven all made impassioned pleas to save the position - include one who actually submitted a written statement of support for the position in advance of the meeting -- despite the fact she had never even heard any public discussion of the issue!  So much for public debate and committee collaboration!

Then, there was the expected wail of "we need more time to review the budget".  These issues have been percolating for months (while they were enamored with copy machine selections!!).  There were no surprises in the budget document they saw last week.  A decision was reached to ask the Selectmen for more time.  Two nights later, the Selectmen announced that the budget schedule was set by Town Charter ... and their homework was due -- whether the dog ate it or not!

A more immediate current year budget concern -- the Schools will likely need to fund more than $80,000 to pay the Minkoff settlement.  I would be curious how the Committee proposes to fund that -- in the CURRENT year.

And, if the Minkoff case cost the Schools $80,000 (after insurance) what do you suppose the Johnson case will cost ?  Since that is likely to settle in the current year also, what kind of litigation reserve account has been established?

The fun continues ...

A Voice of Reason ?

The highlight of last night's BOS meeting was a special guest appearance by former Selectmen Frank Pannorfi who urged the Board to establish realistic priorities for Capital spending so people don't waste time on projects that have no hope of gaining public support.

I agree.  How can we possibly talk about a new Library Building with both the Police and Fire Headquarters buildings on the verge of being washed out to sea?  (OK, maybe I exaggerate slightly!).

The message that seemed to resonate across Town in October was that many people recognized the need for improved Public Safety buildings -- and maybe more efficient consolidated space for Town Offices.  But, at the risk of offending yet one more group (I have nightmares about bibliophiles, in bathing suits that get off work at 3 PM each day!), I did not hear any great uproar of support to build a $13 million book warehouse.  Maybe it was drowned out by the folks rushing to buy Kindles, Nooks, IPads, Netbooks, and personal computers?

Frank has always been a class act.  Always prepared, responsive and open to discussion, always willing to disagree without being disagreeable and always willing to acknowledge differing opinions.  We occasionally disagreed on issues, but we have agreed on many more over the years.   (Sorry, Pal, I still think you were misguided about the Town Hall reno!!)  

I hope we will be seeing more of Mr. Pannorfi in the coming months!  I wonder what he does on Wednesday nights?

Now Available at:

 NotThePTA Sales and NotThePTA Sales - Part 2

Highlights / Lowlights ?

Yes, There are!

I watched approximately five minutes of this week's School Committee Meeting and two highlights came screaming out at me:

1) The always-on-the-ball Kaitlin Meiss assisting Mrs. Kangas with her budget.  Note: If you can't contain your facial expressions, you should slip the camera man a few bucks to swing the lens away a little faster when you're done talking!  Kangas is in good hands with Kaitlin -- this is her third ride through the budget circus!

2) A motion by Linehan to review several years of SPED legal invoices.  The amusing thing is that she should already be looking at those invoices every week when she approves the warrants for payment.  Either she is not doing her job by not signing warrants, OR she is not doing her job by signing warrants without reviewing the underlying documentation. 

Since the Administration has already supplied a summary of the relevant disbursements, which was never questioned, I think the more likely answer is that Jess has absolutely no idea of what she's asking about.  I would suspect the point of the exercise is to point out that any savings in SPED costs have resulted in increased legal costs.  Duh!   Given the astronomical costs of out-of-district placements, there absolutely needs to be a legal review to ensure the District is providing appropriate legally-required services in the most cost-effective manner.

I would be far more interested in asking for details on legal expenditures related to Union Grievances, Union Contract Negotiations, and the Johnson and Minkoff lawsuits.  Nobody seemed worried about those!

Lipstick on a Pig ?

Somebody gave me an interesting article in this week's Emptyprize (well, relatively speaking).  It seems the U.S. Military has come to the aid of the Community School by supplying the labor needed to replace flooring, paint walls and generally spruce up the modular buildings behind the Wing which are currently used to house the pre-school program.  The Community School only had to provide the materials (paint, laminated flooring, etc.) that were used.

Let me stress that the current "structure" is essentially a group of double-wide trailers that was once used to house students before the High School was opened.  The word obsolete does not even begin to describe them.  There is no question the work was needed.

There had previously been a serious effort to build a new, permanent structure to house the program -- until some arrogant SOB's on the School Committee pointed out the Emperor was bare-assed and that there was no was to cost-justify incurring additional debt service given the fact that there was (or would likely be) room in existing buildings -- and that the Town already couldn't afford to maintain the buildings it had.  Given the current financial position of the Community School (as documented by the recent audit) that would certainly appear to have been a bullet dodged!

Over the past two years, alternate existing spaces have been looked at at both the high school and at the other K-8's.  There was even discussion of a small modular addition to the High School which would allow students planning to major in education, some early childhood education experience.

What happened?

I asked a School Committee member when it was decided to spend capital dollars on re-doing the trailers -- that member knew nothing about it.

How much did this reno work cost ?  Where was it budgeted?  As I recall the Community School has been running in the negative for the past two years and was projected to go negative again this year.   How did they find funding to buy the supplies?

More importantly, why wasn't there any public discussion about a decision to renovate an asset that everybody has agreed is way past its useful life?

Again, the building certainly needed the work, and we're all appreciative of the military intervention in our pre-school program -- my only concern is how are we paying for our share --- and why was there no public discussion of it?

Could we have used the military labor to renovate existing school spaces to move the pre-school program into one of the existing buildings -- create some efficiencies and save some money on maintenance and utilities?

Could we  have used the military labor to repair the track or some other District project?

Did anybody on the School Committee (particularly those so concerned about "oversight" !) even ask the questions?

More than one way to skin a cat ....

The new regulations now call for Public Meeting Agendas to be posted in advance along with Meeting Notices to give residents a chance to tune in or drop in for matters they may be concerned about.  While the law requires they be posted in a public place, it doesn't specify a "convenient" public place.  (Seriously, how many people wander over to the Town Clerk's Office to check the bulletin board each morning?  But, I'm not going to have THAT discussion!!)

I'm sure both the BOS and the School Committee are meeting the LETTER of the law very nicely.

The Selectmen are also meeting the SPIRIT of the law.  Anybody can request an automatic email from Town Hall with a link to Thursday night's BOS agenda, which includes a detailed meeting agenda, and some related documents .  Sort of a "Play at Home" edition of the BOS meeting.

The School Committee ?  Not so much.

The School Department does have a link to the meeting agendas on its website, but the agenda is hardly informative.  In fact, if you look at the agenda for the December 15 meeting it mentions no significant discussion of the Community School fiasco except for an update under the Superintendent's report.  The Supt. appeared to have had nothing to do with that Community School report (so much for truth in advertising!)  Had the true content been known, I can think of several people who would have been there with opposing viewpoints!

Since the newest members of the SC expressed so much concern about "community involvement", "transparency", "public input", "public information", "improved communication", blah, blah, blah ..., a few questions spring to mind:

Why is there no detail or attachments on the Agenda?

Why not use an email list to distribute the agenda in advance and MAYBE attract some interest from folks who may really care what happens in the schools?

Why has so much discussion of the Supt Search process been happening off-camera?  Probably legally posted meetings -- but why hide?

Why is the Committee allowing "unscheduled" Special Guest Speakers to meetings who are allowed to pontificate without rebuttal? 

Why is Public Forum scheduled BEFORE discussion of the Superintendent Search process this week?  Doesn't the Committee want to know what the public thinks of the search process -- and maybe the folks who will be "randomly" appointed to the latest search committee?  So much for Community input.

What have you done to improve the past practices which so many of you previously condemned?  (Hint:  Nothing!)

Why has there been no response to the Community School Audit report?  If you disagree with the report, respond and put that disagreement on the record.  Unlike the creatures under a 5 year old's bed -- It's not going to go away if you ignore it!!

How's that new copier contract working out?

A Little Perspective ...

Our prayers and best wishes go out to Sgt. Matt Susko (son of Barbara and Steve) who completed a deployment in Iraq last year and was redeployed to Afghanistan this past weekend.

To Matt and all his colleagues, thank you for your service -- and we all look forward to having you home again soon!!

Happy New Year ?

With hungover sugar plum fairies still dancing in many heads, this is usually prime time to wax philosophical and optimistic about the outlook for the coming year.

From a personal perspective, that's easy.  I have a healthy,  happy (relatively!), family that I love very much -- and who tolerates me.  I still have a job, and we still have a comfortable roof over our heads.  Three of my kids have very good teachers and are doing well in the Sandwich Schools.  The fourth is doing well in college as a direct result of the knowledge and experiences she gained from her teachers in the Sandwich Schools.  (She's studying to be a teacher herself.)

From a municipal perspective, I'm not geting the same warm feeling.  There seem to  be a few major recurring issues bogging us down:

We are facing major municipal financial issues with far too many leaders with minimal or non-exisistent financial/managerial experience.  Running a multi-million dollar municipal budget with hundreds of employees and thousands of "customers" depending on your decisions is NOT like running a Boosters Club Bake Sale!   We need new faces with professional experience to get involved with local government.  It's unfortunate that these are the foks who are usually too busy with "real" jobs.  These folks also probably do a quick mental cost-benefit analysis in their heads and see little advantage in giving up time with family or profession in order to fight with the peanut gallery. 

In addition, far too few people have also been unwilling/unable to speak out against the special interests that have taken over our lives.  The Teachers Union (SEA) is a great example.  The Town employs a tremendous number of experienced, engaging, and highly motivated teachers, but until they take control of their own Union, they will, unfortunately, continue to be tarred with the same brush.  The SEA has done tremendous damage to the District and its own members by not giving its members an opportunity to vote on a wage freeze -- as town unions and many OTHER school department unions did.  As a result,  the School Budget (and school jobs) will be cut next year in order to fund the preservation of municipal jobs.  (How would you like to be one of the school employee who did give up a raise but may be laid off because the SEA didn't?)

The ongoing Community School debacle will also continue to bog us down.   I've said many times  -- and while others may disagree, I have never thought anybody benefitted personally from the practices of the past.  I have never disputed that the Community School operated as allowed by the School Committee.  My argument has always been that the laws have changed since the Community School was formed and it was essential that the School Commitee take responsibility and restructure the program to meet current legal and budgetary standards.  I also do not believe that the Community School is covering all of its own costs.  And, if the Comunity School is not covering its costs -- that means the School District is.   This "quest" has certainly opened up a hornets nest!  I'm amazed at the huge resistance to acknowledge a changing regulatory environment.  Just fix the problem and move on!!

And, of course, there's the Superintendent issue. 

It should be an interesting year ...