Hit By The Bus ...

The cost of regular bus service (excluding SPED) will be almost $1.3 million in FY '11.

The State requires that the Schools provide free bus transportation to students in grades K-6 who live more than two miles from the school.   It also provides that each student's bus stop must be within 1 mile of their house. (See MGL 71:68)

There is no requirement to provide free bus service for grades 7-12.

Given the condition of the roads and the lack of sidewalks in Sandwich, it is neither safe nor practical to expect every kid to walk to school.  But given the budget situation the Town is facing, I would suspect a reduction in transportation, or at least a reduction in FREE transportation is unavoidable.

Some options:

Is this a Life Lesson ? (A Guest Column by Agent X)

Panhandle - verb; to stop people on the street and ask for food or money : beg; to accost on the street and beg from to get by

It's Fall in Sandwich. That means that you can't enter a Hess, Dunkin Donuts, the Dump, the Post Office or any other business in town without somebody in a uniform jersey with a coffee can accosting you for a buck.

I wonder why the homeless who frequent the Hyannis Noah Shelter don't just throw on a team jersey and hit the streets of Sandwich?

Isn't panhandling illegal?

Is begging a life skill or just something we hope the kids will grow out of?

(Contributor asked to remain nameless --- for obvious reasons!)

A Rose by Any Other Name?

I have had several messages from folks this week asking if I had noticed that many of our favorite dump guys (I mean, Transfer Station Attendents)  seem to be working undercover -- their trademark Flourescent t-shirts replaced by civilian duds!

Could it be that all this talk of budget cuts and "Pay as You Throw" has focussed more attention on the fact that there are more people on duty at the dump each day than the Fire Department?

Are all of these people getting paranoid -- are we actually camoflaging the staff?  Or, are we really using undercover operatives to guard the scrap metal piles?

Maybe we should be re-directing the dump-cam  to keep an eye on the situation?

The Joke's on us ...

I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts.

Will Rogers, quoted in Saturday Review, Aug. 25, 1962

It's always interesting watching the traffic numbers for this site -- very shortly, we will be showing 15,000 hits since July. Not Boston.com -- but I think I made $28.00 from Google ads! (That's $8 more than a subpoena fee -- and I don't need to wear a tie!)

The response to the online petition drive was underwhelming.  The concept of people putting their names to their opinions just hasn't been fully embraced yet!  The organizers have asked me to take down the link until they re-tool.  That's fine -- if anybody else has a survey/petition they want to try,  send me a link and the NPTA "Editorial Board" will consider it!

I'm still amused about the concern over who "sponsored" the petition -- the petition is sponsored by the people who signed it.  There were 3 statements, sign if you agree, don't sign if you don't agree --- no need to over-think it!  The story is the signers -- not the sponsors !  (I was skeptical about the sponsors being anonymous -- but seeing how crazy it made some people -- I guess they made the right choice!)

The School Committee will be dropping by the High School for a  meeting next Wednesday night.  But, if you would like to share your thoughts with them individually, each member's email address is now listed on the School District's website.

If you are chatting with the Committee, you may want to mention that the Selectmen have been discussing a $2.25 million deficit next year (just in case they don't read The Enterprise -- although I WOULD agree with them on THAT point!) .  Of that amount, approximately $1.5 million relates to the school budget.  Given the fact that the school payroll goes up almost $1 million per year, plus utilities, transportation, LEGAL COSTS, etc ... It would appear that they are looking at a fairly decent sized financial pothole on their highway to excellence.

Pleeeeease tell me there's a Plan.  

Pleeeeeease Don't tell us ya gut nuthin' .... Again.

The Halifax Rule ...

When I was a kid, we used to have what we called "The Halifax Rule" -- the premise being that anything repeated multiple times on Nana's porch in Halifax must be true ... no matter how outlandish it may have seemed.

Last year, we had a similar phenomenon at School Committee meetings when a particularly ill-informed citizen used to get in front of the camera and ramble on about lists of numbers of which she had absolutely no understanding -- nor to the best of our understanding, had she ever made any effort to get an explanation. (For our amusement, when she was off-camera, she also used to heckle the Committee, make faces, and generally act like a third grader in need of medication.)

The problem was, she chanted her nonsense so often that she appeared to be credible.  While anybody who knew what was going on laughed at her -- those who weren't paying attention assumed she knew what she was talking about. Their mistake!

I have no tolerance for people who claim to represent the public but make no effort to gain an understanding of the issues involved and who see meetings only as a chance to play for the camera.

The goal of this space is to present what I believe to be the facts and to attempt to resolve the misinformation and clarify the rumors which swirl around Town like flies on ... well, you know. Readers may not agree with me -- that's fine. But the huge number of good people I have worked with over the past few years know that I've got no axe to grind -- except with the uneducated, misinformed malcontents who threaten to harm my kids' educations, ruin my property value, or waste my tax dollars in order to protect their own self-interests.

THAT is why some anonymous comments submitted to this site have begun to dissappear into that data abyss reserved for emails containing the phrases "Nigerian Lottery" and "male enhancement".  I'm not going to help perpetuate lies, rumors, and deliberate misstatements by publishing them to be read by the 6 people who read this site regularly (OK, "6" is an understatement -- the numbers are good!)

An argument should certainly be made that public debate requires that  all opinions be heard.  The reality is all opinions can be heard -- any idiot can start a blog (Go ahead, say it!).  But, nowhere does it say anybody is required to support the dissemination of undocumented rumors, or deliberate misinformation.

One last point:

The members of the school committee are unpaid volunteers (contrary to the lie widely told by members of a certain local sports organization with big balls) who were legally and fairly elected by the voters.  I may disagree with some of their choices -- but that's fine ... they may even disagree with mine (?).  They are, however, the choice of a majority of the people who showed up to vote.

It's irrelevent WHAT motivated those voters to show up (Ironically, over the past two years, they have voted in some folks who never bothered to vote themselves!)  --- the fact is they showed up!

I do have a huge problem with those who did not bother to invest 10 minutes in improving their town.  They certainly have the right not to vote ... but I certainly have the right to ignore their comments.

Down the Rabbit Hole ... (From Bob Guerin ...)

According the Sandwich Enterprise, the Superintendent’s decision to join  the School Choice Program has generated $150,000 in new revenue for the Town in 2 years.

Free Money!

According to the Enterprise, families in other towns value our Superintendent's curriculum, including ELA and Everyday Math.

So, in addition to running our schools, Dr. Johnson has devised a way to have roughly one half of her current salary paid by other towns over the past two years.

What do you do with an employee like that?

I know…. fire her.

Ethical Scorecard ?

There's been much criticism focussed on the prior School Committee Chairman's failure to properly post the meeting where the Superintendent's contract was voted. 

Despite the fact that the continued meeting was announced 46 hours in advance during a posted public meeting, was widely publicized on local cable, the local paper, and on a large sign in the High School lobby, it was not posted on the bulletin board in the Clerk's Office 48 hours in advance -- as apparently required by law.

While I am not aware of any huge multitude of citizens that trek to the Town Hall Annex on a daily basis to check for possible meetings to attend, the strict letter of the law was not met -- regardless of whether the spirit of the law was.  Although the Committee unanimously voted to continue the meeting, the Former Chairman deserves a kick in the ass for not double-checking the posting requirement for "Continued" meetings.

(Kicking self in ass now)

OK, so besides choosing to disregard the portion of Open Meeting Law requiring a judge's ruling to vacate a contract (thereby opening the Town up to potential litigation exposure),  how has the new Committee fared in their other ethical challenges since the election?

1) Kangas announced at her swearing in ceremony that they had already picked their new Chairman.  Maybe not a violation of the letter of the law because her discussion with her new colleagues took place before she was sworn in (BUT probably after she was elected).  This was, however, certainly a violation of the spirit of the law which requires open public discussion of all Committee business. 

The longer the fiddling goes on, the bigger the fire is getting!

It was announced at the Selectmen's meeting tonight that, based upon the advice of their counsel,  the School Committee has now decided to refer the Superintendent's contract fiasco to the Attorney General's Office for review.

When was this decided?

This wasn't discussed at the last public meeting.  Was there a special meeting called?  Was a vote taken or did the Chairman just act unilaterally?  (I would have acted unilaterally -- but I probably would have been criticized for not consulting the entire Committee!)

That's not my biggest concern.

I am concerned because the law clearly states that, despite a potential OML violation,  only a judge can invalidate an otherwise valid contract AND that any action to invalidate a contract must be brought within 21 days.  So, why keep wasting time with another non-judicial review?

But, it was also noted at tonight's meeting that the Superintendent's own counsel was now involved and Town Counsel had been updated on the situation.  THAT should be setting off some alarm bells in SOMEBODY'S head!