WaylandSchoolBlog.moved
You've reached Jeff Dieffenbach's blog, which I use to post, comment on, or respond to Wayland school-related issues. The opinions expressed here are my own and do not reflect an official position of the Wayland School Committee.

Wayland School Committee home

current | fy08 jul-dec (no entries) | fy07 jan-jun (no entries) | fy07 jul-dec | fy06 jan-jun | fy06 jul-dec | fy05 jan-jun | fy05 jul-dec | fy04
05/07/2005
Dieffenbach: The images below were scanned from a 2-page handout distributed at the 2005 Annual Town Meeting by an anonymous group calling itself "Voters for Responsible Sending" (VRS). The only identifying information is an email address: responsiblespending@comcast.net.

The handout attempts to paint the Wayland School Committee in a poor light by making a comparison to the Lincoln School Committee. The comparison fails at two levels: first, and less importantly, it uses two completely different formats to "compare" the two committees; second, and far more importantly, it unfairly distorts the actions of the Wayland School Committee.
Side 1
212k
PDF 		|
|		 208k
JPG
Side 2
141k
PDF 		|
|		 136k
JPG
Side 1
With two exceptions, Side 1, which describes the Lincoln School Committee (LCS) budget/override decision process, is not objectionable. The exceptions are telling, however.
  VRS: It is the obligation of our leaders to win back the trust that they represent all residents of Wayland.  
Certainly, it is a worthy goal to have all voters trust town leaders. The suggestion, however, that some leaders--by inference, the Wayland School Committee (WSC)--have trust to "win back" without any supporting indications as to where said trust might have been lost is simple playground name-calling.

  VRS: It should be noted that the [Lincoln] School Committee strives to be transparent in its budgeting process. In this regard, it did not try to place "hot button" items in the override proposal in order to make it appear more compelling.  
Again, the inference is that the WSC either (1) put together a cut list that it was not prepared to implement or (2) put together a cut list that would remove high priority items ahead of lower priority items. Both suggestions are highly offensive.

The LCS budget/override process described on Side 1 could be applied almost word-for-word to the process used by the WSC. The one difference is worthy of discussion: the extent to which the WSC provides public handouts. This issue is discussed in responding to VRS Side 2.

Side 2
VRS shifts gears from the narrative form used to describe the LCS process to a timeline recounting the WSC process.

  April 12, 2004: Public Hearing for FY05 School Budget - citizen requests public hearing held net year earlier in process, before budget gets finalized  
  June 21, 2004: School Committee tentatively sets public budget hearing for February 28, 2005 to comply with citizen request of April 12 (source: SC minutes)  
  July 7, 2004: Citizen asks that budget hearing be held earlier in process, before budget is finalized (source: SC minutes)  
By state law, school committees must hold budget hearings AFTER they have approved their budget.

  October 4, 2004: SC FY06 preliminary budget guidelines discussion (source: SC minutes) - no budget handouts for public  
The School Committee discussed its 1-page Budget Guidelines at the October 4th meeting. The "public" consisted on one observer, Tom Sciacca, a reporter for the Wayland Voters Network.

By law, public documents discussed in open meeting must be made available within ten days of a written request. Given uncertainties in public attendance and variable numbers of relevant documents of different lengths, Lori Frieling, then chair of the WSC, and Mr. Sciacca agreed that requested copies would be made available the following day and not the full ten days later.

  October 18, 2004: Town resident submits written statement requesting courtesy copies (handouts) of documents being discussed during meeting for the public. SC votes to accept FY06 budget guidelines (source: SC minutes)  
Only one observer was in attendance: WVN reporter Sciacca.

At the October 18 meeting, mindful of Ms. Segals requests of April 12, 2004, and July 7, 2004, the School Committee discussed publicizing its planned January 11, 2005, and January 18, 2005, budget work sessions as opportunities for the public to participate in the budget process prior to the required budget hearing following committee approval of the budget.

  November 1, 2004: SC meets with FinCom to discuss FY06 budget (source: SC minutes) - no budget handouts for the public  
Only one observer was in attendance, WVN reporter Sciacca.

Regarding copies of documents, the committee's recollection is that Mr. Sciacca made a comment to the effect that he did not need "more paper hanging around his house" and that the agreement that he had reached with the committee was reasonable.

  January 10, 2005: Dr. Burton presents FY06 budget for SC for their consideration (source: SC minutes) - no budget handouts for the public  
There were five observers in attendance: Sam DiSavino from the Charena Farms neighborhood regarding issues related to the proposed high school project, Lea Anderson and Dianne Bladon from the High School Building Committee to meet with Mr. DiSavino, then School Committee candidate Louis Jurist (now elected), and Mark Santangelo (who departed at 8:20pm). (One committee member recorded that three other residents--Pat Abramson (departed 8:10pm), Michael Patterson (departed 8:30pm), and Annette Lewis (departed 8:39pm)--were in attendance, but the sign-in sheet did not indicate their presence.)

On the day following the meeting, Superintendent Gary Burton sent budget materials to reporter Matt McDonald of the Boston Globe and reporter John Hilliard of the Wayland Town Crier.

  January 11, 2005: Publicized budget workshop held - but no agenda, no minutes, and no information posted on SC web site  
Despite Ms. Segal's request for open public participation in the budget process, there were no observers in attendance at the January 11 meeting.

Since the meeting only had a single agenda item (budget workshop), and since that item was in the meeting title, no agenda was issued. VRS is incorrect regarding the posting of the minutes, which were made available here on the Wayland Public Schools (WPS) web site. Regarding "information posted on SC web site," VRS may be confusing the WSC web site (www.waylandschoolcommittee.org) with the WPS web site (www.wayland.k12.ma.us). Regardless of this minor error, VRS is correct that no information was posted. It should be noted, however, that it is not the School Committee's practice to post information on either the WSC or WPS sites before or after every meeting.

  January 18, 2005: Regular meeting & publicized Budget workshop - but SC minutes silent on FY06 budget discussion  
For the budget discussion portion of the January 18 meeting, the only observer was Mark Santangelo, who arrived at 9:35pm and departed at 9:44pm.

Earlier in the meeting, several residents from the Charena Farms neighborhood--Sam DiSavino, Kathy Siracusa, and Jerry Melnick--participated in a conversation with the committee and with HSBC chair Lea Anderson. The omission from the January 18 minutes of the budget discussion was an oversight; the minutes will be corrected.

  January 24, 2005: SC meets with FinCom to discuss Jan. 10 approved budget (source: SC minutes) - no handouts for the public  
The observers were Louis Jurist (School Committee candidate), Chris Reynolds (officer of the pro-HS project "Building the Future" organization), John Hilliard (reporter for the Wayland Town Crier), and WVN reporter Sciacca.

The January 24 minutes are incorrect as the School Committee did not approve the budget on January 10 when it was first presented by the Superintendent; the minutes will be corrected.

VRS inexplicably includes the 1/25 special election and 1/27 Special Town Meeting for the proposed high school project in it's timeline that is otherwise about the operating budget process.

  February 7, 2005: SC agreed to discuss revised FinCom guidelines, set FY06 budget, and set date for budget hearing on Feb. 15  
Observers: Lea Anderson (HSBC), Dianne Bladon (HSBC), Louis Jurist (committee candidate), Jody Pongratz, Lisa Valone (Loker PTO), Jeff Koechling, Barb Wolfson, David ?, and WVN reporter Sciacca.

  February 15, 2005: SC voted (3-0-2) to approve FY06 operational budget of $27,881,368 (source: SC minutes) - no budget handouts for the public  
Observers: Lea Anderson (HSBC), Dianne Bladon (HSBC), Lynda Rosenthal

  February 28, 2005: Posted on SC website calendar as Budget Hearing but minutes title Regular Meeting; SC discussed revied draft budget booklet. NO Budget Hearing occurred (source: SC minutes) - no  
Observers: Louis Jurist (committee candidate) and WVN reporter Sciacca.

The "Budget Hearing" title of the meeting was incorrect and inadvertently left over from the discussion back in 2004.

  March 7, 2005: SC conducted final review of budget booklet and set Budget Hearing for April 11 (source: SC minutes) - no budget handouts for the public  
Observers: Bill MacDonald (participating in girls hockey discussion), Louis Jurist (committee candidate), WVN reporter Sciacca.

  [Early April 2005, completed budget booklet arrives at residents' homes - first time the public sees the proposed FY06 school budget]  
  April 11, 2005: SC holds FY06 Budget and Override Hearing after final budget is set and printed  
As stated earlier, by law, the School Committee is required to hold a public budget hearing after the budget has been approved by the committee. VRS is incorrect in that it was "set" before the April 11 hearing. Should the committee decide based on input at the hearing that changes are required, they are free to make such changes prior to the budget discussion at the Annual Town Meeting.

From October 4, 2004, through April 11, 2005, the Wayland School Committee conducted at least 12 public meetings at which the FY06 operating budget was discussed. All public documents were available by request. At the public meetings leading up to the April 11 budget hearing, only two had more than 1 attendee who was not a School Committee candidate or there for a specific non-budget topic: 3 people were in attendance on 1/24 and 6 people were in attendance on 2/7. The budget workshops, publicized to meet the request of Ms. Segal, saw no attendees on 1/11 and only 8 minutes of Mark Santangelo's time on 1/18. The remaining meetings had only a single observer, usually WVN reporter Sciacca.

In sum, the Wayland School Committee conducted an open budget review process similar in most respects to that conducted by the Lincoln School Committee.
05/02/2005
Dieffenbach: The latest issue of the Wayland Voters Network newsletter, WVN #89, contains several points worthy of response.
  WVN: TOWN MEETING 4/28 AND 5/2

When Annual Town Meeting resumes tonight, the first vote will be on appropriating $402,000 for two modular science classrooms at the High School.

The article, No. 11, was moved ahead of others when voters approved a selectman's motion Thursday night to take the matter out of order. If approved, it would make another article unnecessary.

Apparently, this temporarily resolves a disagreement that began when Superintendent Gary Burton notified WayCam that it would be evicted from a high school building, saddling the town with a contractual obligation to provide space for the local cable TV service. Selectmen met with Burton and WayCam officers, promising to work toward a cost- effective solution. As a precaution, selectmen proposed Article 2 in the warrant for the Special Town Meeting beginning on May 4, asking for $200,000 to move WayCam to another location.

Burton ultimately agreed with the selectmen, but says WayCam will not be allowed to stay in its present location beyond another year.

So if voters approve the first item of business tonight, the selectmen will pass over (withdraw) the $200,000 proposal. 		 
The WVN doesn't quite have it right with respect to the proposed modular classrooms and the WayCam space. The modular science classrooms are needed because the current science space is inadequate, and to deal with climbing enrollment in science classes and overall. The added space, however, is not enough to provide for needs at the high school.

In 2000 and again in 2002, the schools notified WayCam that the space would be needed for school purposes at some point in the near future. With that notification in mind, WayCam elected to put in a fairly expensive fiber optic cable installation in 2003. [05/08/2005 note: This may not be a complete description of the conditions under which the new fiber optic cable was installed; I will make a modification if necessary once I've gotten a look the contract.] In January of 2005, the schools notified WayCam that the current cable studio space would be needed for the fall of 2005, and that WayCam would need to find other facilities.

Based on a request from the Board of Selectmen, the School Committee agreed that as long as the modular science classrooms were approved, that it would be possible to put off WayCam's move by no more than one year. This decision is not ideal from an educational perspective, but takes into account that finances are presently tight.

WVN's characterization of the situation with such terms as "disagreement," "evicted," and "saddling" is distorting. Despite no obligation to do so, the High School has been a good host to WayCam for a period of many years at no charge. School officials would like to continue to host WayCam, but simply don't have the space to do so. The town is not being "saddled" with the burden of finding new space for WayCam; rather, the town has benefited considerably from school hospitality.

  Before Thursday's Town Meeting ended, voters approved the $48.936 million operating budget for fiscal year 2006, based on the tax override approved two days earlier at the polls. This will end the hiring freeze that affected all town departments except the schools. The $1.297 million capital budget was also approved.  
The schools were not treated any differently relative to other town departments with respect to hiring and the override. Had the override not been approved, the schools would have had to cut approximately $1.5M in costs. How the schools allocated the remaining budget with respect to personnel would have been no different than any other department: FY2006 funds could not be spent until an FY2006 budget was approved by Wayland voters.

  One of the useful things about Town Meeting is that voters have the chance to pose questions to officials in a public setting. A few examples from Thursday night:

-- Is the School Committee so autonomous that it can exceed town fiscal guidelines? A. Guidelines are presented to the School Committee as well as the Board of Selectmen. The School Committee does have the authority to sign union contracts. We strongly recommended a one percent salary increase for 2005, which the School Committee followed. But the 3.5 percent yearly raises agreed to for 2006 and 2007 were higher than recommended. 		 
The School Committee is responsible for negotiating salary settlements with the various school unions. In arriving at such settlements, the committee works with the Board of Selectmen and the Finance Committee. Leading up to the settlement covering the FY05-07 period, the Finance Committee indicated that salary increases for the FY05 school year should not exceed 1%. While not obligated to do so, the School Committee nonetheless met that request. While it is true that the Finance Committee expressed an interest in a salary settlement lower than what the School Committee ultimately arrived at, that settlement was impractical in the face of surrounding market conditions. The School Committee is pleased that the settlement that it arrived at was the lowest settlement on record over the last 35 years, and competitive with surrounding towns and recent negotiations.

  -- Lincoln's school committee involved voters in its recent decisions and arrived at a detailed and transparent budget after several public meetings. All of this was done before the budget and override were put to the voters. Why not here? A. The Wayland School Committee had two budget work sessions before its final budget hearing, which were open to the public.  
As indicated by a School Committee member on the first night of Annual Town Meeting in response to this question, Wayland's process is quite similar to Lincoln's. In response to a request from a resident last year, the Wayland School Committee publicized two January budget sessions as times when residents could discuss the budget early in the process. No residents attended. In addition to those two meetings plus the final budget hearing in April, the School Committee held numerous meetings throughout January, February, March, and April at which residents could discuss the budget and the override.

  -- The capital budget lists borrowing $200,000 for School Department "technology" and another $200,000 for building repairs. May we have more clarification? A. The list isn't here but we can provide it. -- So the $400,000 is for whatever it happens to be spent for? A. We have the list. It includes flooring and roof work. We'll make the list available.  
On Friday morning following the first night of Town Meeting, the School Committee posted capital budget details here. In addition, the committee asked to have such a breakdown avaiable at future town meetings.
04/26/2005
  WVN #86: Voters have asked WVN for clarification of several points related to the tax override in tomorrow's election. Here are answers to the most frequently asked questions.  
Dieffenbach: Given the WVN's track record, it should not surprise readers of this page that they attempt to put the schools in a poor light while being sympathetic to the needs of other departments. This blatant divisiveness serves the town poorly. Compare, on the other hand, the actions of Save our Services, the pro-override grass-roots organization lobbying for maintaining services town-wide.

  HOW MUCH WOULD BE CUT FROM THE SCHOOL BUDGET IF THE OVERRIDE FAILS? HOW MUCH FROM OTHER TOWN DEPARTMENTS? IS EACH SHARE EQUITABLE?

The School Department is proposing a total budget of $27.8 million in FY06, a 6.7% increase over the FY05 total. Of the total, $27.4 million must be appropriated by Town Meeting (the rest is covered by fees and other revenues), a 5.7% increase over last year. The School Dept. has outlined cuts totaling $1.5 million if the override fails, a decrease of 5.5% from the total request.

School budget, proposed cuts, related info:
http://www.wayland.k12.ma.us/announcements.html

Other town department budgets would be cut by $781,000. The School Dept. would bear 66% of the cuts, other departments 34%. This is in keeping with the approximate percentage of the total operating budget that is devoted to the schools vs. other departments. But it could be argued that the School Dept. is not bearing its fair share, because cuts would come from a school budget increased by 5.7%, whereas cuts in most other departments would come from budgets only slightly increased or level-funded. 		 
The WVN misreads the budget. The school numbers include salary increases, whereas the numbers for other departments do not. Salary increases for those departments are included by the Finance Committee in a separate $505,000 line item called Reserve for Salary Settlements.

Without taking the municipal settlements into account, passage of the override will allow municipal expenditures to rise by 1.1%. Municipal (non-school) salaries total approximately $8M for FY05. If those salaries are increased by 3.5% (about $280k) and added in to the municipal department budgets, the average overall increase is 3.7%.

Given that the Finance Committee has budgeted not for the $280k attributed to the 3.5% increase alone, but for $505k (perhaps to cover to-be-negotiated increases other than direct salary), the potential municipal increase could be the same 5.7% as the schools are requesting.

  In terms of head count, it could also be argued that the proposed reductions in police and fire department personnel are disproportionately high compared to the proposed reductions in school personnel. (Police – 2 FTE out of 22 or 9%; Fire – 3 FTE out of 25 or 12%; Schools – 16 FTE out of approx. 400 or 4%.)  
Each department chose how to arrive at the contingency cuts requested by the Finance Committee.

Notice that the WVN does not say anything along the lines of, "It could be argued that the shifting enrollment picture in the school system--down at the elementary and Middle School leves, up at the High School--resulted in requested personnel increases for FY06 in the schools without a corollary on the municipal side."

  I'VE HEARD THAT ANYWHERE FROM 10 TO 2O TEACHERS COULD BE LAID OFF IF THE OVERRIDE FAILS. WHAT'S THE BOTTOM LINE?

The bottom line is that the net reduction in teaching and other certified staff positions would be ten. According to the School Department, 16.3 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) certified staff positions would be eliminated (two HS physical education teachers, one academic teacher, one counselor, two elementary teachers, plus reductions in other teaching, library, music, art, PE and computer instruction positions). At the same time, six new FTE academic teachers (three high school, three elementary) are being hired for the next school year. So the net reduction would be 10.3 FTE. It's not clear how many of those are currently vacant and would remain unfilled, and how many individuals actually would be laid off. Adding to the lack of clarity is the fact that on the School Dept.'s website, there are general references to differing numbers of layoffs. 		 
The bottom line is that school services would be significantly reduced. According to the school administration, 31 educators will have their time cut; 15 of whom will lose their positions completely. Unlike the description of lost services that the WVN provides for the police and fire departments below, they elect not to mention any of the programs that the schools would lose.
  • Elementary school band and strings
  • Elementary school 5th grade spring
  • Middle School spring sports
  • High School freshman sports
  • Plus class size increases, ...
  • ... losses of summer professional development for teachers, and ...
  • ... reductions in gym, library, technology, art, and music throughout the district
Now, take a look at how the WVN treats police and fire in comparison to the schools.
  HOW WOULD PUBLIC SAFETY BE AFFECTED IF THE OVERRIDE FAILS?

Police Chief Robert Irving and Fire Chief Robert Loomer wrote in the Wayland Town Crier on April 14 that they would cut two police positions and three fire positions. One police position would be the community services officer. The second cut would affect the number of officers on patrol and detectives available to investigate crimes. For the Fire Department, the reduction would be three full-time fire fighters. Fire Chief Loomer told WVN that as a result, staffing at the two fire stations would be the bare minimum, necessitating overtime pay to firefighters who are called back to fill vacant shifts when someone is out on leave. "The overtime budget is up, while efficiency is down," said Loomer. He also said the 10-member on-call "auxillary force" would be disbanded, for a savings of $12,000. These residents of Wayland, Natick and Weston receive special training and are on-call to provide extra staffing in case of major emergencies. (Loomer said ordinarily some or all of them are brought in 6-to-8 times/year.) Without the on-callers, Loomer said the department would rely more heavily on other communities when extra support is needed, and it may cost "a little more" in overtime. 		 
No objection to this treatment. Just disappointment that the WVN doesn't give the schools the same consideration.
04/22/2005
Dieffenbach: WVN #84 presents the Wayland Voters Network's opinion on the April 13 League of Women Voters candidates night/override debate.

  WVN: It wasn't a true debate, but rather two opposing PowerPoint presentations: Vote Yes to maintain services or vote No to force creative change in town government.  
The implication that "creative change" might provide equal services borders on being an insult to our town employees. With town budgets already as lean as they are, department heads have had to be creative for years in order to deliver only some of the services that they would like to provide. If the override fails, they will continue to be creative in minimizing the reduction in services. But make no mistake, there will still be a reduction in services.

On the school side, the creativity resulting from a failed override won't come as much from the educators as it will the students. Students who might have played in the elementary band and strings program, in Middle School spring sports, or in High School freshman sports will have to find other creative ways to spend their time.

  WVN and newspapers have reported in detail on the Fincom hearings (Fincom PowerPoint presentation and other info at http://www.wayland.ma.us/accounting/index.htm). We'll concentrate here on Schmidt's ideas because until now there has been little exposure to the argument that a No vote can be prudent and responsible (Schmidt's PowerPoint presentation at http://home.comcast.net/~ecoastgss/overridecon_final.htm).  
It is surprising that an organization whose stated purpose is "to ensure that Town of Wayland voters are informed about Town decisions that will directly affect them, and to encourage voter participation" would only look at one half of the only side-by-side "debate" on the override.

  ["Vote no on the override" advocate Steven] Schmidt criticized the comprehensiveness of the override, giving voters an all-or-nothing choice.

"I don't like omnibus bills," he said, noting that some Massachusetts towns offer a la carte override choices. "If you want to know where your money is going," avoid the all-or-nothing approach. 		 
Mr. Schmidt mischaracterizes the process. The ballot question allows Proposition 2 1/2 to be overridden by a single amount (some towns split school and municipal services into two separate ballot questions--bravo for Wayland resisting such a divisive approach). Town Meeting, on the other hand, allows residents a high degree of "a la carte" selectivity regarding what to fund.

  Schmidt warned that if property taxes rise excessively, fewer potential buyers will find houses affordable, demand will decrease, houses will remain on the market longer and sell at lower prices.  
All available research suggest the opposite. Increased spending on schools correlates with higher housing values. In Wayand, since 1989, the cumulative added tax bill for the average home has been about $29k. By comparison, the real estate appreciation for that home has been $290k, a factor of ten greater.

  [Schmidt] noted that Wayland's average `05 tax bill of $7904 is 154% higher than the average tax bill statewide.  
Mr. Schmidt failed to note that Wayland's 1999 per capita income (the last year available from the Department of Revenue) is an even higher 200% of the state average.

  "We got here by not making fiscally prudent decisions," Schmidt said.  
Mr. Schmidt fails to cite a single example. This is an easy statement to make, just not an easy one to support. In essence, he is blaming Wayland residents for being fiscally imprudent over the years.

  Property taxes are up an average of 5.38 percent annually over the past 18 years, higher than the state average. If you project that mathematical slope into the future, the imbalance worsens, [Schmidt] said, raising the question, "Are we throwing money at problems or making wise decisions?"  
Again, this assertion about property taxes is out of context unless presented in conjunction with real estate gains and comparisons to peer communities.

  Lentz showed graphs showing Wayland in relation to towns considered comparable, though some have a greater commercial-industrial tax base than Wayland's 4 percent. Schmidt countered with graphs ranking Wayland among all 51 Massachusetts towns of 10,000-15,000 population, though some of them may have different educational goals.  
The WVN appears to agree that the comparison doesn't fully hold up.

  Among those 51, Wayland's tax levy and per-pupil school costs are both third from the top. In non-school spending we're fifth from the top but much closer to the median.  
Again, no comparison to income. Of the towns that Mr. Schmidt examines, Wayland is 2nd in income, trailing only Weston.

  The 51-town comparison provides clues about whether Wayland gets its money's worth for its school expenditures, Schmidt said. Comparing per-pupil costs with achievement on the Composite Performance Index used by schools shows, to nobody's surprise, that the lowest-spending schools generally produce the worst results. But as expenditures rise, performance tends toward a plateau (a saturation curve, in mathematical terms). Each added dollar produces a smaller performance increase. Ultimately added spending may produce nothing measurable.  
Mr. Schmidt's analysis contains a major flaw--he examines only Composite Performance Index, which despite its name is a combination only of ELA and math MCAS scores. He does not look at things like other test scores, activity participation, awards, college acceptances, local crime and dropout rates, etc.

  Thus Wellesley spends 4 percent less per pupil than Wayland and reports better results.  
After going to the trouble of comparing Wayland to like-sized towns, Mr. Schmidt breaks his own rule in matching Wayland against Wellesley on a per pupil spending basis, as Wellesley has more than twice the population of Wayland. As a result, it is not surprising that they might be able to deliver education a bit more efficiently (better balance of class sizes, for instance). And, the "better results" that Mr. Schmidt showed were negligible: less than one percent (186.6 on the Composite Performance Index for Wellesley vs. 185.0 for Wayland), and then only for one year on one small aspect of school "results."

  Is it "anti-school" to refuse the schools some of what they ask? No, said Schmidt; it's saying that the town should tighten its belt before we agree to pay for a new level of taxes.  
Voting against the override is anti-school in the sense that such a vote it will reduce the services that we deliver. The only reasonable argument in support of voting down the override is that as much as the voter dislikes underfunding school and municipal schools, they simply can't afford to spend the money. And even that argument fails to consider that they are financially better off by borrowing against the equity in their home, paying the increased tax, and watching their real estate value continue to appreciate at an increased rate.

  If teachers are laid off will it be the demise of the school system? No, said Schmidt; we're on a saturation curve and can do more with less.  
Of course teacher layoffs won't be the demise of the school system: no school official has made this claim. That said, there is absolutely no evidence that we can do more with less. Clearly, we will do less with less. To suggest that the cuts that the schools have outlined won't in fact be essentially the actual cuts is calling school officials liars.

  What if class sizes rise? Schmidt pointed to studies showing that it makes a significant difference when a class is smaller than 15, but adding one or two students to a class of, say, 21 makes no measurable difference.  
Mr. Schmidt pointed to one study (perhaps meaning the famous Tennessee STAR study, although he alluded to a Kentucky study). And, Wayland class size policy is at the upper end of the range that he cited: 20 for grades K and 1, 23 for grades 2 and 3, and 25 for grades 4 and up. We won't be adding one or two students to a class of 21. In many cases, we'll be adding those students to classes of 23-25.

  "Only you can decide what you can afford," Schmidt concluded. "Don't be bullied by the scare tactics."  
It is more appropriate to say, "Don't be mislead by overly rosy 'more with less' assertions."
04/16/2005
Dieffenbach: Although they go on to issue an apology of sorts in WVN #83, saying that they "deeply regret the errors," the Wayland Voters Network in WVN #82 makes its most false and insidious allegations to date.

The subject line of that issue of their newsletter: "School Budget Hearing, Open Meeting Law Violation." Inside the newsletter, they falsely accuse Superintendent Gary Burton of agreeing that Wayland children are undisciplined. They falsely accuse the School Committee chair of denying WayCam the right to videotape the meeting. And they falsely accuse another School Committee member of admitting to an Open Meeting Law violation.

None of these things happened. It is completely irresponsible of the WVN to print these false allegations and distribute them to their membership without a shred of supporting information or evidence. They owe a huge apology to their membership and the town for attempting to poison the atmosphere so close to an override vote that has such critical implications for town services.

The specifics of their false charges are as follows; false accusation number one.
  WVN: A questioner asked whether eliminating after-school programs would leave more children free to make mischief after school. Superintendent Gary Burton seemed to agree that Wayland's children were sufficiently undisciplined as to make this a risk.  
Dr. Burton made no such agreement. He said merely that national statistics show that children not occupied with after-school programs (athletics, arts, other extra-curriculars) have a higher incidence of getting into trouble, and that he had no reason to suspect that Wayland children were somehow exempt from behavioral dynamics. He did not call them "sufficiently undisciplined."

On to false accusation number two.
  The Committee ended the public hearing and adjourned to the library to continue its meeting at 9:45. Voter Ken Isaacson immediately questioned an apparent decision by Frieling to not allow video taping of the general meeting (the hearing was recorded by Waycam volunteer Richard Turner and will be broadcast). Frieling declined to allow the taping then under way to continue beyond the discussion of Waycam's moving, saying she wanted to discuss the issue with her group.  
Ms. Frieling did not disallow WayCam from taping, nor did she direct them to stop taping once they had started. Rather, she said only that School Committee meetings were not usually recorded. WayCam had not given the committee the courtesy of any advance notice that they would be taping (no notice is required under Open Meeting Law). More tellingly, while WayCam did stop taping, they did so after covering the part of the meeting that interested them (the School Committee's discussion of whether or not to ask WayCam to vacate its space at the High School so that the space could be used for more valuable educational purposes). It is not clear why WayCam did not find the other topics on the committee's agenda sufficiently interesting to record.

And false accusation number three.
  Burton raised an issue with the Committee regarding his evaluation. The Town Crier has asked for a copy of his latest evaluation, completed last June. Burton questioned whether it is a public document and whether he is obligated to release it, although he said he was prepared to do so to avoid political controversy. The request was made citing the Public Records Law and recent comments from an Assistant District Attorney re a similar request in Hudson. Member Bob Gordon, an attorney, argued strongly against releasing it, saying that the ADA's comments were under the Open Meeting Law, not the Public Records Law, and that while it may have been true that they violated the OML last June when they evaluated Burton in Executive Session, and that anyone who might have been present at such an open meeting would have had a right to a copy, no one who wasn't at the open meeting that they didn't have has a right to ask for the document after the fact.  
Mr. Gordon said no such thing about violating Open Meeting Law last June (or any other time) with respect to Superintendent Burton's evaluation, nor did any such violation occur.

It bears repeating: the Jekyll-and-Hyde WVN switches between providing the community with valuable information on meeting dates and content to conducting an atrocious smear campaign against town officials and others. Why? Wayland residents, the media, and others must demand of the WVN leadership an accounting for their unacceptable actions.
04/16/2005
Dieffenbach: In a 04/14 Town Crier letter, Wayland resident Kent E. George accuses the School Committee of "abrogation of fiscal accountability."

Mr. George's main point is that the salary settlement that the committee reached with the Wayland Teachers Association (the teacher union) and the other three unions that the committee oversees exceeded the Proposition 2 1/2 limit. As a result, Mr. George wants the schools to absorb all of the reductions necessary to keep the budget within Proposition 2 1/2, apparently leaving other town departments free to make necessary increases.

His suggestion does not hold together. Health insurance and pension costs alone consume all of the Proposition 2 1/2 allowance. What Mr. George is suggesting, then, is either that no town employee would get any increase at all, or alternately that the schools would take a pay cut to allow the municipal employees a reasonable increase. His logic fails to take into account the market forces at work or the town's desire to maintain its level of services.
  George: Selectman Brian O'Herlihy noted in the same hearings that the school unions elected to take salary increases out of any negotiation. They were apparently willing to discuss some issues with regard to medical benefits, but the salaries had to be what they wanted.  
It is not at all clear how Mr. George comes to this conclusion. Salary levels were most definitely on the table at the most recent negotation. The union made a request at one level, the School Committee countered at a lower level, with the eventual settlement the result.
04/16/2005
Dieffenbach: In a 04/14 Town Crier letter, Wayland resident Lyndon Wilkes takes an undeserved swipe at the School Committee.
  Wilkes: I am even more certain that a union will make this choice [salary increases at the expense of head count reductions] every time when they see that their employer never follows through with any headcount reductions. Since it is clear that our elected town officials are incapable of making personnel reductions it is essential that Wayland voters restore some equilibrium in the collective bargaining process by voting no on the operating budget override on April 26.  
The School Committee's Budget Guidelines clearly lay out the committee's approach to overseeing the Wayland Public School system. While the School Committee is certainly cognizant of external financial pressures, it is their primary responsibility to provide for a quality education. The committee is not incapable of making personnel reductions, it is unwilling to make them unless enrollments are declining or except as a last resort.

  The school budget document [presumably, here] is curiously lacking in information that would allow a Wayland taxpayer to understand the average salaries and salary distribution of the Wayland School Department.  
Mr. Wilkes is incorrect; slides 36 through 41 of the presentation he cites show how Wayland's salary schedules stack up against other towns. Anyone interested in seeing a ranking of average salaries (which is different than the salary schedules in that the schedules show possible salaries, not actual ones) can find that information here.

The DOE data shows that Wayland's average salary is second, behind Boston. Our salaries are consistent with the School Committee's stated philosophy of paying well to attract and retain excellent teachers. It is important to note, however, that our relatively high salaries do not translate into correspondingly high per pupil expenditures (PPE), which are what drive the school budget. Regarding PPE, Wayland ranks 7th among peer towns behind Weston, Newton, Brookline, Concord, Framingham, and Dover, whose salary rankings range from 9th (Newton) to 59th (Weston).

  Although the School Committee provides comparisons (often misleading) to other towns with respect to relative spending and taxation levels, no such comparative data is provided on teacher salaries.  
It is irresponsible of Mr. Wilkes to make his allegation of "misleading" without giving a single example. If any of the committee's comparisons is in fact misleading in any significant way, it would surely issue a correction.

  There is no clearer evidence of extravagance in the fiscal 2006 school budget than the fact that while total enrollment is projected to increase by a single student the total number of teachers is scheduled to increase by 2.85 full-time equivalents.  
Mr. Wilkes misunderstands the relationship between teachers and enrollment. Increases in enrollment at one level (the high school) may trigger increases in staffing while decreases in enrollment at other levels (elementary and middle school) may not be sufficient to reduce staffing. And of the 2.85 FTEs that he cites, two are in the form of an academic center instructor at the high school and a reading specialist at the elementary school level. These positions are expected to keep costs down, not send them up, but catching at-risk students before they require much more costly special education services.
04/14/2005
Dieffenbach: After several newsletters providing excellent information with little or no editorial comment, the Wayland Voters Network's latest effort, WVN #80, requires a response. It is curious to note that the WVN newsletter does not cite any audience comments supporting the override.

  WVN: The following report on the April 4 meeting of the Board of Selectmen was prepared by WVN subscriber Molly Upton.

BOS/FINCOM: MORE QUESTIONS ABOUT BUDGET, UPCOMING OVERRIDE VOTE

There was considerable discussion about the contracts signed by the School Committee last year, which provide a 3.5% increase in salaries in FY 06 and again in FY 07, exceeding the guidelines given by FinCom. 		 
As Finance Committee chair Bob Lentz indicated at the School Committee Budget Hearing on Monday, April 11, the Finance Committee's only guideline with respect to negotiations for the current teacher contract was to limit the increase for the first year (from FY03 to FY04) to 1%. The School Committee met that guideline. To be clear, the Finance Committee indicated back in January of 2004 that an override would be needed in the spring of 2005, and that the School Committee should be cognizant of that fact as it conducted the negotiations.

  Some citizens wondered how the School Committee could sign a contract that helps propel the town into an override. Although Selectman Betsy Connolly sat in on the negotiations, by state law the School Committee is the contract signer.  
Betsy Connolly did not sit in on the negotiations. By law, the Board of Selectmen are entitled to have a representative sit in on School Committee internal strategy meetings, but not the negotiations themselves. In the most recent negotiation, John Senchyshin from the Human Resources Department served as the Board of Selectmen representative. On several occasions, Betsy Connolly and Bob Lentz also joined strategy meetings at the request of the School Committee.

  [For example, one might note that in FY 05, the schools' operating budget jumped 6.6% while the total public safety budget rose 1.5%.  
As the WVN corrected in WVN #81, the school increase was 1.74%, not 6.6%.

  The schools' proposed operating budget for FY 06 rises another 5.6%, while the public safety budget is nearly level, with an increase of less than 1%.]  
According to the Finance Committee, the increase for public safety does not include salary increases. Those increases are accounted for in the Reserve for Salary Settlements account pending completion of negotiations with the relevant public safety unions. Were salary increases included, the public safety budget increase would be higher by roughly 3.5%.

  Several charts were displayed, showing how Wayland compares to similar towns in terms of residential tax burden, per capita expenditures, etc. (Info available at State Dept.of Revenue website.) Based on average property tax bills in 2004, Wayland is number eight on a list of top-taxed towns in the state. A member of the public suggested looking at taxes as a percentage of assessed value, rather than just comparing the average tax bill in one town with the average in another.  
"Taxes as a percentage of assessed value" is simply tax bill, as a bit of algebra shows.

Tax Bill ($) = Assessment ($) x Tax Rate ($/$1,000 of assessment)
Tax Bill ($)
Assessment ($) 		= Tax Rate ($/$1,000 of assessment)

Comparing tax RATES from one town to another is not nearly as meaningful as comparing tax BILLS, as it is the latter that affects a homeowner's wallet. So, the first of the WVN's tables (below) presents an accurate representation of the tax cost of living in Wayland. The second table, on the other hand, is just a listing of what are in essence tax rates. To put Wayland's tax rate in an overall perspective, the 2003 value of $12.52/$1,000 ranks Wayland 207th in the state out of 340 towns listed by the Massachusetts Department of Revenue. By comparison, the average is $13.35 and the median is $13.28.
 
Rank by taxTownProperty taxSale price$/100K
1.Weston$11,767$ 1,513,402778
2.Sherborn9,889903,5851,094
3.Lincoln9,7301,133,103859
4.Carlisle9,224871,9331,058
5.Dover9,0041,262,324713
6.Concord8,8051,016,324866
7.Sudbury8,101737,7271,098
8.Wayland7,904724,7321,091
9.Cohasset7,804912,429855
10.Belmont7,686767,5981,001
11.Wellesley7,5641,108,877682
12.Manchester7,139797,312895


Rank by Tax Dollars per $100K sale price
1.Sudbury$1,098
2.Sherborn1,094
3.Wayland1,091
4.Carlisle1,058
5.Belmont1,001
6.Manchester895
7.Concord866
8.Lincoln859
9.Cohasset855
10.Weston778
11.Dover713
12.Wellesley682
 
2005-03-11
Dieffenbach: WVN #76 quotes the Superintendent in a manner that fails to present the spirit of the conversation.
  WVN: The Committee did its final review as a group of the Budget Booklet which will go to the printer this week, to get to voters two weeks before the budget hearing scheduled for April 11 (7:30 in Middle School auditorium). Burton told the group that "we will produce for you shortly a list of items to be removed from the budget if the override fails." This list will not, however, be included in the budget booklet for fear of running afoul of campaign finance laws prohibiting advocacy of a ballot question (the override). The booklet will include a section touting the schools' excellence and reputation. "It is pure propaganda", said Burton.  
Dr. Burton used the term in its literal sense ( www.dictionary.com: 1. The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause).

The School Committee and the Superintendent certainly advocate the cause of education in Wayland, in part through the publication of the Budget Booklet each year, and specifically with language that touts "the schools' excellence and reputation."
02/25/2005
Dieffenbach: WVN #73 presents their take on the February 10 post-vote HSBC meeting. They paraphrase comments made by HSBC members (all HSBC comments preceded by "--").
  WVN: -- The HSBC's campaign targeted Wayland families with children in the schools. Maybe it should have campaigned harder with other groups.  
An interesting thought, but the HSBC itself didn't "campaign." That role was left to the School Committee and to Building the Future. Rather, the HSBC appropriately focused its communication on town-wide efforts including a number of community forums and a mailing that went out to all residents.

  -- "People thought of us as advocates." (One selectman had argued against including the committee's report in the special town meeting warrant because it was slanted in favor of the plan.)  
Presumably, the "slanted" parenthetical addition is the WVN's, and not part of the HSBC member's comment. Talk about a glass being 1/5 empty. Another way to put it would be, "Four of five Selectmen voted in favor of including the committee's report in the Special Town Meeting Warrant because it did an excellent job of summarizing the project in a way that helped voters make a decision pro or con: scope, cost, reimbursement scenario, and so on.

  -- There was "misinformation" about the cost. Chairwoman Lea Anderson criticized those who calculated a worst-case scenario more costly than the HSBC's. That evidently referred to WVN analyses, which invited voters to consider not only Wayland officials' economic predictions, but also expert opinion and the recent history of interest rates. (For example, economists including former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker have predicted a better than 50 percent chance of a world monetary crisis within a few years.)  
Interesting that the WVN can jump all over statements such as, "reimbursement is likely," yet hang their own hats on the "better than 50 percent" prediction of one retired economist commenting on an undefined possible crisis at an undefined time with an undefined impact on municipal borrowing rates in Massachusetts.

  -- Only 200 of the 4600 residents who voted Jan. 25 were well informed about the issues.  
This is a curious statement, perhaps due to being taken out of context. It's possible that none or all or any fraction in between of the 4,600 were well-informed. 200?

  -- The eight-page flyer sent at taxpayer expense to all households was "way too intellectual."  
Again, the WVN harps on the flyer being sent out "at taxpayer expense." The HSBC's charge (by the Town, not simply by the School Committee) was to communicate its findings. Certainly, the WVN doesn't expect that the HSBC members themselves should have been responsible for funding that communication, right?

  -- Maybe any vote for construction funds should be contingent on state reimbursement.  
When the School Committee brought the proposal before the town despite the reimbursement moratorium, it did so knowing that approval was by no means certain. What the committee asked the town was whether or not it was willing to take a risk on reimbursement not being guaranteed in exchange for getting a new facility in place 2 years earlier than waiting would have allowed. The town said no, and committee members have expressed the opinion that the next proposal that will be brought before the town will include the provision that construction funds not be voted on until reimbursement is guaranteed.

  The last remark [regarding funds being contingent on reimbursement] is a significant change for the HSBC and the School Committee, which months ago said flatly that the state would provide reimbursement, then changed its position to assert that the state was likely to provide reimbursement.  
To my knowledge, the HSBC never said that the state would (with certainty) provide reimbursement. The charge that the School Commmittee did so is misleading and inflammatory, as the WVN well knows. As blogged in an entry dated 9/17/2004, they refer to a 9/15/2004 School Committee letter to the Town Crier. In that letter, the committee made two references to reimbursement.

In the first reference, they wrote, "The full cost of this project has been estimated at $55.5 million, and we expect reimbursement, at least 40 percent, of the approved cost from the state under the Massachusetts School Building Authority." Note the word "expect." In the second reference, the committee wrote, "We are delighted that the new School Building Assistance legislation under Chapter 70B of the Mass. General Laws will provide significant reimbursement to the town after 2007. This will significantly lessen the financial burden on our taxpayers."

Yes, the committee was a bit careless in not being more explicit in the second reference with respect to reimbursement only being likely or expected, and not guaranteed. One thing is clear, however: the School Committee never "flatly" said that the state would provide reimbursement. And, as soon as the language in question was pointed out (and out of context at that), the committee issued a correction. The School Committee did not "change its position." One would expect journalists with "67 years of experience" not to make what could be generously called a rookie mistake, or less generously, an out and out distortion.

  Wayland may have been the first town to make the new Massachusetts School Building Authority aware that it planned to start before reimbursement standards are known and more than two years before the earliest date to apply for aid. The agency warned that towns proceeding in the meantime should be prepared to bear the full cost of construction.

At the HSBC meeting Steve Friedlaender of HMFH Architects said that the MSBA now actively discourages towns from spending any money on planning until reimbursement regulations are adopted in mid-2006. 		 
Actually, the MSBA has been consistent from the outset in stating that until reimbursement is restored in 2007, there are no guarantees and that towns should proceed with that in mind.

  Though they informally decided against asking voters in April to overturn the decision they made in January, the committee looked for ways to keep the project alive with a small amount of funding. Anderson said that the town counsel would have to rule on whether there are loopholes allowing some spending despite the freeze mandated by voters at town meeting on Jan. 27.  
Again, the WVN inflames with its choice of words in a manner counter to respectable journalism. Ms. Anderson did not use the word "loophole," although the WVN clearly and improperly presents the language as her own. They paint a picture of the committee seeking a way to circumvent the town's will. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the town's Moderator, Peter Gossels, its counsel, Mark Lanza, and Article 2's lead petitioner, Lynda Rosenthal, all agreed that Article 2 prohibits only design work.
02/24/2005
Dieffenbach: George Harris comes out guns blazing in his 2/17 letter to the Town Crier. Rather than actually take constructive aim at anything in particular, he chooses to take uninformed swipes at school officials. Uninformed? That's right. Mr. Harris, who in his letter takes a stand on just about every aspect of the recent proposal to modernize and expand Wayland High School, saw fit to attend only one informational forum and not a single HSBC or WSC meeting in the year leading up to the vote. So on what does he base his mean-spirited and baseless screed? He'll have to answer that question himself. Where this blog can help, however, is in crafting the letter he might have written.

  Harris: "They have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind." - Hosea. VIII, 7  
  Dieffenbach: "Our doubts are traitors, and make us lose the good we oft might win by fearing to attempt." William Shakespeare, Measure for Measure, Act I, Scene IV.  

  Harris: Voters last month unequivocally repudiated the proposed $57.3 million teardown and rebuild of Wayland High School. Yet the plan was overwhelmingly supported by 4 out of 5 selectmen, 5 out of 5 School Committee members, 7 out of 7 Finance Committee members, and 11 out of 11 High School Building Committee (HSBC) members. That is, 27 out of 28 responsible town officials endorsed the plan that the public ultimately crushed. Proponents hailed this "broad expert support" as a reason to vote for the project.  
  Dieffenbach: Voters last month declined to support the proposed $57.3 million modernization and expansion of Wayland High School, despite the plan being overwhelmingly supported by 4 out of 5 selectmen, 5 out of 5 School Committee members, 7 out of 7 Finance Committee members, and 11 out of 11 High School Building Committee (HSBC) members. That is, 27 out of 28 responsible town officials endorsed the plan to which the public ultimately said no. Proponents hailed this "broad expert support" as a reason to vote for the project.  

  Harris: How could so many officials be so out of touch with the public? One quite obvious reason is that the 27 did not represent the voting public at all. Last year the chairwoman of the HSBC said, when the other 10 members were chosen, "I couldn't be more pleased ... The members also represent all areas of Wayland, which is important." Maybe they did represent all areas, but they most certainly did not represent all viewpoints, which is far more important.  
  Dieffenbach: How could so many officials have supported a plan that the public was not yet ready to support? The most likely reason is that the uncertainty regarding state reimbursement created an environment in which no project of any significant scope would move forward.  

  Harris: In fact, the HSBC and its appointing board, the School Committee, represented only one viewpoint - any other was automatically rejected. That viewpoint held that unrestricted spending is the answer to achieving educational superiority. Wayland's dream is to have the best schools. The best schools have the best physical facilities. Ergo, since the best schools produce rising property values, everyone in their own self-interest should want to spend vast sums of tax dollars to "modernize" Wayland High School by replacing it with a new one.  
  Dieffenbach: As to the project itself, the HSBC, at the request of its appointing board, the School Committee, studied three approaches to meeting a reasonable educational program: primarily renovation, primarily new construction, and a blend of the two. They did so with the philosophy that responsible spending is an important component in maintaining educational excellence. Wayland's dream is to have great schools. Great schools have great teachers and physical facilities to help those teachers serve the students. Along the way, strong schools produce rising property values.  

  Harris: That sell did not resonate with voters. Knowing that state reimbursement was highly uncertain, despite misinformation to the contrary put out by proponents, voters understood that having an extravagant high school might not be enough to attract newcomers to a town with extravagant property taxes - taxes that many current residents could ill afford to pay.  
  Dieffenbach: The merits of the project did not overcome voter uncertainty regarding reimbursement. Knowing that state reimbursement was not certain, voters appear to have made the statement that it would be judicious to wait on construction spending until that uncertainy is lifted.  

  Harris: In its arrogant zeal to realize its dream, the School Committee committed an error that responsible officials should always avoid but rarely do in Wayland. It framed a win-lose debate. There would be no compromise. It would give no quarter to the opposition, and the opposition predictably would respond in kind. The School Committee and its nonresident superintendent should have known that their zealousness would tear the community apart, but it didn't matter to them as long as they won.  
  Dieffenbach: In its desire to move ahead with a much-needed project, the School Committee asked the town whether it was willing to take a risk. To mitigate that risk, it asked the building committee to find cost compromises that would not have a large impact on the quality of education. And it did so while taking the high road in the face of an opposition that sometimes did not do the same. The School Committee and its superintendent expected that while the debate would sometimes be contentious, that the community was far too strong to let the issue tear it apart.  

  Harris: The School Committee packed the HSBC, manufactured specifications ensuring an overdesigned facility, gave rosy, baseless predictions of state reimbursement, mesmerized the Finance Committee into backing its fiscally irresponsible plan, and prevailed upon the selectmen to call a referendum and special Town Meeting for the dead of winter, which had the effect of discouraging some elderly and disabled voters from participating. Believing they were invincible, the School Committee and the boards under its spell rolled the dice and lost.  
  Dieffenbach: The School Committee picked the HSBC, developed specifications ensuring a reasonable facility, gave realistic projections with and without state reimbursement, received the support of the Finance Committee, and prevailed upon the selectmen to call a winter referendum and special Town Meeting to accommodate scheduling needs.  

  Harris: In the wake of the project's defeat, the School Committee's letter to the Town Crier pledged to "move forward in a manner that is both educationally and financially sound." Had it made that pledge a year ago and honored it, the results might have been far different.  
  Dieffenbach: In the wake of the project's defeat, the School Committee's letter to the Town Crier pledged to "move forward in a manner that is both educationally and financially sound." Despite having made that pledge all along, the result was not what they had hoped.  

  Harris: Theirs was easily the most profound failure of leadership in the past 30 years in this town. But there is actually some good news resulting from the bitter, destructive debate. It has awakened a sleeping giant - the public. It is aroused as never before. Hopefully, the giant will not go back to sleep anytime soon.  
  Dieffenbach: The vote was easily the most disappointing in the past 30 years in this town. But there is actually some good news resulting from the debate. It has involved the public.  

  Harris: In the aftermath, we hear calls (from proponents) for everyone to come together. There are pleas for the opponents to step up to the plate and contribute ideas to rescue the high school, despite the fact that alternative approaches were summarily rejected when offered in the past because the School Committee and its contractors knew better. Much more is needed.  
  Dieffenbach: In the aftermath, we hear calls (from proponents, but sadly, not from opponents) for everyone to come together. There are requests for proponents and opponents alike to contribute alternative ideas to support the high school. Having been put on hold, the School Committee should use the remainder of the moratorium period to define an alternative approach and bring it back to the town for deliberation.  

  Harris: Our leaders have failed. They failed because they had the wrong message, used the wrong methods, and practiced the politics of exclusion and deception. And they have refused thus far to take full responsibility for their failure.  
  Dieffebach: Our leaders brought a project before us, and it failed. But its failure need not be permanent. Thoughtful reconsideration and certainty regarding reimbursement can turn the tide.  

  Harris: Yes, we do need to make substantial improvements at the high school, of that there is no doubt. But our present leaders have shown themselves incapable of getting the job done and have alienated the public in the process. Only new blood can break the high school stalemate by restoring the government's integrity and regaining the public trust.  
  Dieffenbach: Yes, we do need to make substantial improvements at the high school, of that there is no doubt. Our leaders have shown themselves capable of grasping the issues, and dedicated in the effort and expertise that they have contributed to a complex initiative. Time--and reimbursement--can break the high school stalemate and reveal the government's integrity and its public trust.  
02/10/2005
Dieffenbach: It's a bit disappointing that high school project critic Tom Sciacca, in a 2/10/2005 letter to the Town Crier, attempts to trash Superintendent Burton for a practice that has defined Wayland for more than 30 years: keeping school open when it snows.
  Sciacca: One can only speculate about Burton's motives, conscious or unconscious. But could it just be coincidental that the following day a special election was scheduled to be held? An election whose timing, in the middle of the worst part of winter, had been roundly criticized by town residents? An election to attempt to get approval for a project Burton initiated and promoted relentlessly - a new high school?

Could it be coincidental that closing the schools on Monday would have validated the critics' contention that winter weather this time of year is just too unpredictable and dangerous to schedule such an event? 		 
Without any evidence whatsoever, Mr. Sciacca suggests that it was not this long-standing practice, but rather the proximity to the Special Town Meeting, that led Dr. Burton to hold school on Monday, January 24. I fail to see how the two are even remotely related.

Mr. Sciacca goes on to state that critics of the project (himself included?) contend "that the scheduling was deliberate to discourage senior voting and improve the chances of approval of the costly proposal." As school officials have repeatedly stated, the timing of the vote was driven by two needs: to finish the preliminary design study and to meet the spring window for environmental testing.

But Mr. Sciacca isn't content just to put himself inside the heads of the Superintendent and school officials. He seems to claim similar access to all "no" voters, attributing the defeat of the high school detailed design project not only to anger regarding the timing of the vote, but also to the proposed project scope. To paraphrase his accusations against the Superintendent, one can only speculate about Mr. Sciacca's motives, conscious or unconscious. But could it just be coincidental that he neglected to mention perhaps the single biggest reason for the no vote: the lack of clarity regarding state reimbursement.

Project supporters and critics alike lament a divisiveness gripping the town. But it is not supporters and critics alike who are responsible for it. Anyone who doubts the truth of this statement need only read the School Committee blog, the WVN newsletters, or the Town Crier. The words and actions of project supporters have been noticeably free of personal attacks. Sadly, project critics cannot say the same.
02/03/2005
Dieffenbach: WVN #71 misunderstands how school spending is approved.
  WVN: Two new positions not driven by population increase are also proposed, an Academic Center teacher at the high school and a new reading teacher at the elementary level. Although never approved by the voters, these positions were actually already created in the current fiscal year by the School Committee, which managed to find the funds in its existing budget in spite of claims of bare adequacy in its current budget.  
Regarding "never approved by the voters," voters approve the School Department's budget six line items. Given the complexity of school budgeting, and per state law, they do not approve individual expenditures. It is not uncommon for the needs foreseen in a January budget proposal to change by the following September or beyond. One of the many responsibilities of our school administrators is to adjust expenditures to meet the most pressing needs as they arise.

A more important issue is that it's not clear how this not-so-thinly-veiled dig at the schools--"in spite of claims of bare adequacy in its current budget"--helps the public dialogue. It seems to me that the WVN is furthering the very divisiveness that they sometimes decry. The stated mission of the WVN is information dissemination. Yet, the repeatedly lace their newsletter with anti-school editorializing of this sort.

Elsewhere in WVN #71:
  The School Department's total proposed FY06 operating budget of $27,816,428 is up 6.4%, or $1,682 million over the current year budget. Offsetting this is an additional $191,000 in user fees and transfers accrued in a variety of ways reluctantly proposed by Superintendent Gary Burton, such as higher sports fees and a new $1/day parking fee at the high school. The Finance Committee guideline was for a 4% increase, already far higher than the current general inflation rate.  
The general inflation rate, of course, is not a relevant comparison, as it includes such items as milk and clothing. A school expenses inflation rate would be a far better measure, one that to my knowledge is not readily available. It is worth noting that the proposed budget increase for Sudbury is 7.8% and for Lincoln-Sudbury is 10.6%.
02/02/2005
Dieffenbach: WVN #66 continues the WVN's one-sidedness with an objection to the Council on Aging's (COA) mailing to the town about tax relief efforts.
  WVN: TOWN MAILING TARGETS SENIORS

A mailing at taxpayer expense a few days before the Jan. 25 tax override election promises financial help to the elderly.

"Worried about rising property taxes?" the weekend mailing to seniors asks. "We're working on it." 		 
Interestingly, the WVN has no objection to targeting seniors with its own mailings. It is hard to imagine, however, what they might object to regarding the COA's mailing, which provided information relevant to the special election to a presumably interested Wayland constituency.

The WVN cites two anonymous seniors commenting on the COA mailing.
  One 70-something resident who wishes to remain anonymous told WVN: "It's outrageous to start promising `snake-oil' and who wants it anyway? Seniors shouldn't have to go on charity just because the town is irresponsible. It doesn't solve a thing."

Said another older resident, "It's almost like a bribe for our votes." 		 
It would be interesting to know how hard the WVN looked for residents who appreciated the mailing.

The WVN then shifts gears to offer its suggestions on how to manage the high school needs.
  -- Build a science building behind the existing arts building. This would cost enough money to trigger requirements to bring the rest of the campus up to code. Wayland could apply for waivers of at least some of those state requirements. In any case, wait until costs are known before breaking ground.  
A science-only building ignores a major portion of the educational plan: namely, commons, arts, and athletic spaces. Waiver applications for the current site would almost certainly be denied. In any event, the safety, health, and handicap accessibility code upgrades that are needed are hardly the sort of improvement that we should try to avoid.
  -- Deal with the impending increase in enrollment to a projected 972 in 2010 with relatively inexpensive modulars. Before proceeding with major construction, wait for enrollment projections of the years after 2013, when the population is expected to be in the 800s. If it's decided to replace many or all of the buildings, include planning for expansion or contraction in the following decades.  
Enrollment is expected to be well into the 900s beyond 2013, and that is based only on what can be projected based on students currently in the system. It would be irresponsible to do work on the high school and not build in flexiblity for unknown enrollments over the 50 year plus life of the proposed facility.
  -- Devote at least $1 million annually to renovation beyond current maintenance costs, performing as much work as possible in the summer. No expensive architectural plans or big-time project managers or long- term debt.  
Renovation of the existing space barely dents the surface of the educational plan and the overall facility needs. "Expensive" architectural plans are a critical aspect of doing a project well. "Big-time" project managers are equally critical, and strongly preferred to small-time project managers. $1 million in annual funds would certainly be debt, and probably long-term debt.
  -- Convert the Commons to classrooms and build a new classroom and lab building.

-- Connect an existing classroom building with the existing Commons to create new space. You might put the cafeteria in the new extension and convert the Commons to classrooms. 		 
Both of the above ideas would trigger code upgrades across the campus without addressing the educational plan or overall facility needs in full.
  -- Assuming we plan to get more service from the existing buildings, use a little imagination to spruce up what we have. Involve students and volunteers in landscaping and interior design.  
Involving students in landscaping and interior design is a fine idea in the context of education. However, it would do almost nothing about addressing the major needs of the facility.
  -- Limit new construction to a new classroom building, but 10 percent smaller than under the present plan to better reflect enrollment projections and real needs. No new gym, commons or auditorium.  
This is essentially the Stop Gap plan, which assuming reimbursement was shown to save only 10% compared with the full design while omitting a major portion of the educational program: commons, arts, and athletics.
02/02/2005
Dieffenbach: WVN #65, which was distributed the day before the special election, characterizes remarks made by Katherine P. Craven, new Executive Director of the Massachusetts School Building Authority. The WVN's characterization, while accurate, might appear to be "new news." In fact, her remarks are completely consistent with what school officials have been saying all along: there is no guarantee of state funding.

That said, nothing in Ms. Craven's remarks changes the stance of school officials that reimbursement is "likely." Why?
  • Ms. Craven is in no position to say anything other than that towns moving ahead should be cautious as there are no guarantees.
  • Based on known projects throughout the state, the amount of money available for reimbursement in the first two years of the program, $1.020 billion, is estimated to be twice what will be needed.
  • Building regulations are not expected by experts to change dramatically, and the project that school officials proposed allowed for time to modify the design to meet those regulations when they emerge in 2006.
  • While "first in line" may not be the right terminology, the idea of applying for reimbursement on July 1, 2007, clearly improves Wayland's chances. Perhaps a better way of saying this is that Wayland would be in the first "applicant pool" for reimbursement.
01/17/2005
Knight: CSP requests a response from me:
  CSP: We're still paying off the bills for the last renovation in 1992.  
Yes, at a low $200k/yr through 2012, thanks to 61% reimbursement secured immediately at the end of the job.

  The former and current Superintendent, and the '92-'94 School Committee projected that the renovation would last for 30 years. ... Ask School Committee member Fred Knight why our investment fizzled out so soon.  
We did a lot for the $6.2M spent between 1989 and 1992, but I would characterize it as selected improvement in the infrastructure and cosmetic upgrades. For example, the heating and ventilation system was partially replaced and half the roofs were replaced, but the main electrical and plumbing distribution systems were essentially untouched. See the HSBC's Phase 1 report for in-depth comments.

As is often the case, we didn't fully anticipate things to come: the 50% increase in enrollment, the ADA requirements, the ubiquitous use of technology, or the changes in educational delivery methods. Some things definitely have worn out; others need significant changes. Based on the statements made in the 1990's, the picture painted was too rosy, but we will have gotten 15 more years out of a facility that now has too many problems. Heather Pineault and I address this in more detail in our letter in the 1/13 Town Crier. The HSBC team spent 11 months wrestling with the best way to satisfy our needs. Their decision to build new reflects a conscience effort to do the right thing---with less risk, less disruption, and at a cost similar to renovation.
01/16/2005
Dieffenbach: The images below were scanned from a 4-page mailer sent out by "Citizens for Sensible Planning" (CSP) and received by select Wayland residents on or about January 15, 2005. This mailer is by far the most misleading and distorting document yet put out about the high school modernization and expansion project. I rebut the mailer's claims one-by-one below.

223k
PDF 		|
|		 430k
JPG
263k
PDF 		|
|		 501k
JPG
217k
PDF 		|
|		 513k
JPG
200k
PDF 		|
|		 395k
JPG

97k
PDF 		|
|		 182k
JPG
It's one thing for an informed resident to vote against the educationally and fiscally responsible high school modernization and expansion project for personal economic reasons: "The project is reasonable, but I simply can't afford it." It's quite another thing to cast a "no" vote based on the CSP's unsubstantiated inflammatory mischaracterizations.

CSP Mailer Page 1
  • It is a gross and incendiary distortion to call the proposed project a "Taj Mah High School." Nearly 100 highly-skilled volunteers have expended a huge number of hours over a span of two-and-a-half years to arrive at a cost-effective project that meets a reasonable education program. Compared with peer communities, neither the educational program nor the building that would serve it is in any way out of line. The project lacks many "nice to haves:" a pool, a hockey rink, a cafeteria capable of accommodating the entire student body in one sitting, an auditorium capable of doing the same, and classrooms sized above the absolute minimum for state reimbursement.


  • "Extreme Makeover?" Well, yes, but for renovation dollars. That's not a crime, that's smart spending. For the same amount of money as riskier renovation-intensive options, the new construction option provides a far higher quality building.


  • "Blank Check?" A ludicrous assertion. In fact, school officials are asking for only the funds necessary to proceed with the detailed design phase required in order to be able to apply for state reimbursement.


  • "Bad Planning?" This is a slap to the face of the High School Building Committee (HSBC) members and the project manager and architect. The proposed project is in fact an example of exemplary planning, and CSP knows it.


  • It has long been the practice in Wayland to have a civil and open debate followed by a public vote. In the past, Town residents have voted against police, fire, school, and other spending without any threat or form of retribution. It is not clear what the CSP is afraid of in proposing a "Secret (Paper) Ballot."
CSP Mailer Page 2
  • The cost of the proposed project is not "exorbitant," as demonstrated by the benchmarking performed by the HSBC. At a cost of $245 per square foot, the Wayland project ranks towards the low end of a range of $232/sf to $281/sf for Hopkinton, Marblehead, Hudson, Lincoln-Sudbury, and Groton-Dunstable.


  • CSP has a problem with "only" 31% of the projected square footage going into "academic space." The 31% number includes only classrooms and labs. CSP is negligent in excluding art/music/drama (6%), student support (13%), and faculty/storage/other (18%), which brings the academic total to 68%. Certainly, large spaces such as the existing Field House and the new gymnasium and auditorium make up a relatively large percentage of the project, but that is typical of all high schools.


  • For some inexplicable reason, the CSP has a problem with 17% of the project funding being reserved for cost escalations and contingencies. First, it would be misleading not to include these items. Second, if these items were not included, the CSP would be sure to jump on the omission.


  • Based on the high school's code upgrade, enrollment, and program needs, continuing to renovate on top of the 1991-1992 renovation would be throwing bad money after good. Why the CSP would advocate for wasting taxpayer money this way is unimaginable.


  • School officials have repeatedly explained why timing dictated a January Town Meeting: completion of the Preliminary Design Report (November 18, 2004) coupled with the start of testing for the Waste Water Treatment Plant. There was no "maneuvering." A winter Town Meeting is just as likely to "discourage" younger citizens from voting, to continue CSP's unfortunate stereotyping.


  • The CSP accuses school officials of illegality with respect to continuing to work with the current architect and project manager. Not only is this practice completely legal, it avoids the very problem experienced by the Public Safety Building, which switched architects in mid-stream. Continuing with the same professionals saves money and time relative to a new architect having to come up to speed on the project. Benchmarking against other projects provides the surety that costs are competitive.
CSP Mailer Page 3
  • CSP completely mischaracterizes the enrollment picture. The chart below shows the current enrollment projection through the 2013-2014 school year, the last year based on children currently in the system.

    What CSP calls a "brief peak" is actually a trend. Note that the dropoff in the final year is due in large part to this year's atypically small Kindergarten enrollment. Next year's K enrollment goes back up, meaning that the 2014-1015 projection will also go up. And these are just the enrollments about which we can make predictions based on students in the system. The plan is to build a new high school that will last 50 years or more. It would be irresponsible not to be able to accommodate larger enrollments that might result from new housing in Wayland (the 2002 High School Feasibility Study Committee reported Lani Ravin's long term projection of an additional 913 students due to build out).


  • CSP absurdly charges that, "Somebody decided, 'The ceiling's too low,' so they want to tear the building down."


  • CSP claims that the "High School Building Commission [presumably, CSP means "Committee"] thinks it has a lock on the tax costs of this project." This statement could not be farther from the truth. The HSBC has made projections about tax impact based on stated assumptions. Nothing more.


  • CSP says that there is "no public consensus on this plan." Of course not, that's precisely why the project is being put before the town for a vote. At the November 2003 Town Meeting, however, there was most certainly a consensus, with more than 70% of the meeting voting for the just-completed preliminary design project.


  • The HSBC delivered three alternatives for meeting the educational program, plus a fourth alternative, the "Stop Gap" that did not meet the educational program. CSP's claim that this did not occur is ridiculous.


  • CSP states that "The FinCom has yet to hold the public hearing it owes us to discuss the town's finances and impacts of proposed projects. Many feel they've been stonewalling the public." While no such public hearing is "owed," the FinCom has certainly provided an independent assessment of the project's finances.
CSP Mailer Page 4
  • Page 4 of the mailer is a letter from the CSP to Wayland citizens. The letter begins, "[CSP] was formed to refute the campaign of half-truths and pressure tactics. Proponents want to spend $57.3 million of your money on a trophy high school." What campaign of half-truths? The HSBC and other school officials have been extremely diligent in putting out facts and well-supported projections. What pressure tactics? A town-wide mailing? Phone calls to residents? Email? And doesn't "trophy high school" smell a bit of "half-truth and pressure tactics?"


  • "Education run amok," a statement attributed to an anonymous "educator," is equally baseless.
CSP Mailer Page 2-3 "recommendation insert"
  • CSP recommends a "Top-Ten Starting List" of how to proceed. The list includes asking the School Superintedent for a 'must have list' and a 'wish list.' The Superintendent has done exactly that, in the form of the educational program.


  • CSP would like to see "people who want to find fiscally responsible solutions" in charge of the HSBC. In HSBC chair Lea Anderson, the town clearly has such a person, and in the full HSBC, the town clearly has such leadership. The HSBC was created by Town Meeting and it has brillantly conducted itself in delivering the highest-quality findings and recommendations.


  • CSP suggests giving "this project the time and resources it needs to be done right." That is exactly what has been done. Over a period of two-and-a-half years, the project has been thoroughly studied. A sum of more than $400,000 has been responsibly spent to come to an educationally and financially responsible proposal. No viable alternative was found, nor has one been suggested by CSP. CSP claims, "We support Quality Education for our children," a curious statement with no evidence to support it.
01/13/2005
Dieffenbach: WVN #62 gets back to what the Wayland Voters Network might have been all along: information. Several minor corrections are warranted.
  WVN: The election on Tuesday, Jan. 25, will be held at the usual polling places (Middle School and Town Building), 7am-8pm. One question will be on the ballot: whether Proposition 2˝ tax increase limits should be exceeded in order to borrow funds to design the proposed $57.3 million dollar high school reconstruction project. The School Committee is seeking $4.2 million in design funds, but no amount is specified in the ballot question. A simple majority is needed for the ballot question to pass or fail.

The town meeting on Thursday, Jan. 27, will be held at night in the high school field house and other locations in the event of an overflow crowd. Only Town Meeting can appropriate funds. A two- thirds majority is needed to do so. The School Committee's article seeking $4.2 million in design funds will be considered first. A petitioners' article seeking a freeze on further spending on the high school project until certain conditions are met will be considered second. Whether the tax override ballot question is approved or defeated on Jan. 25 will have a major impact on town meeting on Jan. 27. (Future WVN newsletters will provide more information about town meeting.) 		 

Regarding the schedule below of upcoming School Committee meetings, the meetings on 1/25, 1/26, and 1/27 are tentative.
  Up-coming Meetings (School Committee Rm, 2nd Floor, Town Building):

1/11: Budget Working Session
1/18: Budget Working Session & Special Town Meeting Preparation
          [Possible Mtg. w/ Charena Rd. Neighbors]
1/24: Budget Meeting with Finance Committee
          [Possible Mtg. w/ Charena Rd. Neighbors]
1/25: 8:30 p.m. Town Meeting Preparation
1/26: 7:30 p.m. Town Meeting Preparation
1/27: 5:30 p.m. Field House for final Town Meeting Preparation 		 

The WVN then turns its attention to the 2005-2006 budget discussion.
  Burton also stated that last year was the first time in his 10-year tenure that the School Budget was prepared so as to meet the Finance Committee's guideline for percentage increase. Moreover, this year, he employed a different budgeting process than in the past. In prior years, each school principal was told how much money he/she had to spend and a budget was created around that dollar amount. This year, the principals were asked to create individual budgets based on what each thinks is needed to "make this a very good school system" but not to pad their budgets and not to get carried away.  
Regarding the budget process, the college student volunteer who reported back to the WVN did not quite capture Dr. Burton's comments accurately. The usual practice is for the Superintendent to ask the building level and other administrators to put together a budget. While he might provide some general guidance, he does not specify a monetary target. Preparing the budget for the current 2004-2005 school year was the one exception in recent memory. Because of atypical constraints imposed by the Finance Committee, Dr. Burton provided monetary targets to his staff and asked that they not exceed those amounts. This year, preparing for the 2005-2006 school year, the process has reverted to the usual practice.

  Burton said that FY 06 requests submitted by the principals amounted to a 9.84% increase over last year's approved budget. He said that to bring the increase down to 6.44%, he cut $888,271 from the amounts requested. He also stated that in FY 04, the School Department returned $100,028 to the town in un-used funds. Along with this, Burton stressed how valuable teachers were and said that although enrollment projections are only up two students, he wants to hire six additional staff.  
It appears that the section about the increase of two students resulting in six new requested teaching positions was cut off. Dr. Burton continued by saying that the increased enrollment at the high school accounted for three of the six positions, and that based on the class size guidelines, the specific location of students making up the lower elementary enrollment did not allow for a reduction. Instead, the location of the students resulted in two new sections: kindergarten (1 teacher and 1 aide) and one other classroom teacher.
1/13/2005
Dieffenbach: WVN Treasurer Michael Short (the WVN treasurer) writes in a 1/6 Town Crier letter about other school projects. While his treatment appears reasonable on the surface, it is interesting to note the two types of projects that he highlights: inexpensive and successful versus expensive with problems. A slanted look, perhaps?
  Short: Northbridge, about 25 miles west of Wayland, built a new high school three years ago for $28 million, less than half the cost of the Wayland proposal.  
As 1/13 Town Crier writer Cynthia Sheppard Lavenson writes, "The fact is that the school Northbridge built for $26.2 million several years ago would now cost nearly $55 million, factoring in today’s costs, a larger student body, increased participation in sports and extracurricular activities and other differences (in the educational program)."

Short continues:
  The 175,000-square foot building is designed for a population of 850, roughly what Wayland's is expected to be in a few years.  
Mr. Short mixes apples and oranges. The new high school in Wayland is being designed with classroom space for 1,100 students and core space for 1,200. Wayland's HS student population between now and the 2013-2014 school year (when this year's Kindergarten reaches 9th grade) drops below 900 only once (to 892, not 850), and averages closer to 940. For Northbridge to be designing for 850 at 80% to 85% capacity would suggest that their student body is much lower than Wayland's, on the order of 680 to 720.

  The [Northbridge] cafeteria (300 seats) and auditorium (340 seats, with fine acoustics and warm wooden paneling) are smaller than those in the Wayland design, not because of budget problems but because school administrators wanted them that way. An 850-seat auditorium like the one projected for Wayland would be too intimidating for many students, says Northridge Principal Christine Johnson. Northbridge, like Wayland, has an auditorium at its middle school that can be used for larger audiences.  
In a 1/13 Town Crier letter, Kim Reichelt does and excellent job detailing the rationale behind the 850 seat auditorium. Suffice it to say that both the current HS Little Theater and the MS auditorium are constantly in use--busing HS students to the MS is simply not practical.

  Northbridge's $160 per square foot was less than $168 in Worcester, $182 in Woburn and $191 in Shrewsbury. (Wayland's cost is estimated at $245 per square foot.)  
Mr. Short fails to escalate Northbridge's cost based on construction inflation. Wayland's project would begin construction more than five years later, and following a steep rise in construction material costs.

  If everything sounds perfect, well, it's not. Most large building projects produce a few surprises. Though Northbridge High School was finished on time and on budget, a dispute continues with a contractor over the playing fields. Until that is settled, students must use existing fields elsewhere in town.  
Wayland's track record in building schools is excellent. The early 1990s renovations and the subsequent elementary school and Middle School additions were also finished essentially on time and on budget. Wayland fully expects to continue this success with the high school.

Mr. Short lists deficiencies in a number of projects unrelated to Wayland. One merits comment.
  Newton: A $56 million renovation at Newton South High School is reported in local newspapers to be months behind schedule and more than $2 million over budget. The project manager is Turner Construction Co., which was hired for Wayland's project.  
Mr. Short suggests that Turner is somehow responsible for this schedule and cost, yet they were brought in after both had already been determined.
1/12/2005
Dieffenbach: In WVN #61, Margo Melnicove makes an important point about the absence of mention in the HSBC's town-wide mailing of the Tuesday, January 25 high school vote at the polls.
  WVN: Conversations with many voters in recent days indicate there is still confusion over the tax override election on January 25 and special town meeting on January 27. Some of the confusion appears due to the fact that the High School Building Committee's recent town-wide mailing makes no mention of the Jan. 25 election. The reason is that state law prohibits using public funds to influence the outcome of an election. So the HSBC's mailing, paid for by tax dollars, mentions only the Jan. 27 town meeting.  
The newsletter continues with other useful information.
  The election on Tuesday, Jan. 25, will be held at the usual polling places (Middle School and Town Building), 7am-8pm. One question will be on the ballot: whether Proposition 2˝ tax increase limits should be exceeded in order to borrow funds to design the proposed $57.3 million dollar high school reconstruction project. The School Committee is seeking $4.2 million in design funds, but no amount is specified in the ballot question. A simple majority is needed for the ballot question to pass or fail.

The town meeting on Thursday, Jan. 25, will be held at night in the high school and other locations in the event of an overflow crowd. Only Town Meeting can appropriate funds. A two-thirds majority is needed to do so. 		 
A minor point of clarification: the primary meeting location will be the High School Field House, as always. The two overflow locations are also at the high school: the Commons (cafeteria) and the Little Theater.

More importantly, town meeting attendees should be aware that the expected high attendance at the Thursday, January 27 Special Town Meeting will make for complicated logistics, particularly with respect to parking. Details are available in the bright blue STM Warrant that arrived this week in the mail. See the back of the first (unnumbered) page at the front of the Warrant. Key highlights:
  • Parking is limited to 382 spaces at the high school. Please carpool!
  • Once parking at the high school is full, attendees will be directed to satellite parking (shuttles provided)
    • Middle School
    • Sandy Burr
    • St. Ann's Church
The WVN then presents its own guide the the high school proposal. Excerpts are commented on as follows.
  THE NEED

Facility Age. Though older buildings may not be as well maintained as those built in the 1970s, all are structurally sound. 		 
Structure is, of course, only one component of a building able to host adequate educational activities. Size, condition of components other than the structure, and appropriateness to task are others that are not "sound."
  Enrollment. The HSBC says Wayland High School should be expanded by about 70,000 square feet, largely because enrollment is expected to be "900 to 1,000 for many years." In fact, projections based on enrollment in lower grades indicate that after a brief population bubble peaks in 2009, the enrollment will decline to the low 800's.  
Here, the WVN is incorrect. They apparently fail to take into account the fact that as a class of students moves through the system from kindergarten to grade 12, their number grows. Over the last five years, this gain has averaged over 7%: 900 students in grades K-3 will increase to 964 students in grades 9-12 as new students enter the system at a greater rate than any students depart. The table below shows projected enrollments at the high school for the range of school years that include the current kindergarten.
  • 2005-2006: 925
  • 2006-2007: 935
  • 2007-2008: 929
  • 2008-2009: 935
  • 2009-2010: 972
  • 2010-2011: 958
  • 2011-2012: 959
  • 2012-2013: 964
  • 2013-2014: 892
The WVN is being a bit disingenuous in calling 8 of these 9 years a "bubble." It is of course just as, if not more, likely, that the final year (which drops because this year's kindergarten class of 170 is small) is a "dip." In fact, next year's kindergarten class is projected to be in the 190-205 range, which is indeed suggestive of a dip.
  PRELIMINARY DESIGN

With two large structures replacing seven smaller buildings, the collegiate campus atmosphere which students praise would change. 		 
School officials would love to be able to preserve the campus style high school, as indicated by the priorities of the educational plan:
  1. Safety, health and code compliance, and functional and adequate core academic spaces
  2. Non-core academic spaces, common spaces and spaces for extracurricular activities
  3. Campus-style environment
The High School Building Committee (HSBC) concluded that preserving the campus style would be too expensive. Yet, the WVN chides school officials for moving to a more cost-effective 2-building plan.
  BUDGET AND FINANCING

The HSBC says that a reasonable estimate of the tax impact of the project is $352-$468 added annually for 25-30 years to the tax bill for a house assessed at $498,000. But this depends on the state paying $18.6-$21.4 million (32-37 percent) of the total cost. The state generously supported school building for years, to the point that cities and towns (including Wayland) are still owed reimbursement for hundreds of projects. The state declared a moratorium on school building aid and will not accept new applications until July 2007. 		 
The WVN is to be lauded for including the "with reimbursement" tax impact estimates.
  More importantly, the entire mechanism of state aid has changed. Massachusetts is making a statewide survey of school needs. New standards for aid won't be known until 2006, but it is already clear that the percentage of aid will be smaller than in the past and the total amount of aid will be limited to $500 million annually to start. Will a Wayland project already under construction, including demolition of structurally sound buildings and designed for an enrollment that may never be reached, be approved before the state deals with crumbling, unsafe buildings in other communities?  
The lower percentage of aid is factored into the HSBC's tax impact analysis. The $500 million limit on reimbursement funds exceeds by a substantial amount the largest amount available in a year for reimbursement in the past. And, that number will increase to $520 million in 2008 and $540 million in 2009.
  FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

The HSBC conducted no design competition. The designers who were hired arrived at three plans ranging from complete renovation to complete reconstruction of all facilities except the Field House. All plans would have cost roughly the same. Voters may question whether other designers could have come up with more economical solutions. 		 
Hiring multiple designers would have significantly increased the cost of the current $355,000 design study. There is no evidence to suggest that other designers, working to the educational program, would have come up with a lower cost option. Benchmarking against nearby communities against whom we compare ourselves supports this claim.
01/11/2005
Dieffenbach: A piece by Linda Segal in the 1/6 Wayland Town Crier, recycled in the 1/9 Metrowest Daily News, WVN #59 and WVN #60, belabor the same inflammatory claim: that comments made by school officials prior to the early 1990s high school renovation somehow constituted a fraud perpetrated upon the town.

The gist of these comments was to the effect that said renovations would last 25-30 years. Yet Ms. Segal objects to the fact that the School Committee proposes to replace the high school only 15 years later. Two questions come to mind:
  • Were school officials misleading the town in the early 1990s?
  • Are school officials misleading the town now?
The answer to both is a clear and emphatic "no."

Early 1990s: Some of the early 1990s renovations would indeed last longer than 15 years. Others would not, meaning that honestly made projections at the time by vendors and other experts simply didn't come to pass.

Now: To suggest that we should throw bad money after good is an insult to Wayland taxpayers. Yes, some of the early 1990s renovations might last us longer. But keeping them would result in either a higher cost, significant harm to our educational program, or both. School Committee members Fred Knight and Heather Pineault clearly make this case in a draft letter submitted to the Town Crier for publication on January 13. Excerpts from this letter are presented below.
  Knight/Pineault: ... The fact is that although the high school is structurally sound, events that have occurred since 1992 have combined to render it materially inadequate in both size and functionality.

The renovations of 1989-1992 focused on overhaul of building systems (roofs, HVAC, ceilings, carpeting, asbestos abatement, and painting), resulting in partially-renewed infrastructure for buildings in midlife and a “like-new” cosmetic appearance. This $6.2M project is being reimbursed by the state at 61%. The cost to the town, including interest, is about $200k/year through 2012. ... The investment is well worth the 15+ years of extra life we realized for the high school by the time the proposed project is finished.

Does the need for major work today mean that the money spent in 1989-1992 was wasted? Not at all. The town got what we paid for and what we needed at the time. As is noted in Ms. Segal's article and in School Committee reports (both back in the early 1990s as well as our recent HSBC report), the buildings are structurally sound. However, that does not mean that they are adequate to meet the needs of our teachers and students in the 21st century. They are not. 		 

More troubling than Ms. Segal's misinterpretations of the changes that have occurred over the past 12 or so years are her attacks on public officials.
  The School Committee (SC), the High School Building Committee (HSBC) and other Wayland public officials spent much of 2004 crafting sound bites instead of sharing the truth about Wayland High School. ... Public officials cannot ignore their past work and fiduciary responsibility because new individuals come along wanting a new trophy high school.  
It is shameful for Ms. Segal to mischaracterize the outstanding work of the HSBC and others as being about "crafting sound bites." She is equally out of line for suggesting that anyone wants to build a "trophy school."

And she is flat out wrong when she says that "we are still paying millions of dollars for an unfulfilled 30-year expected life span." In fact, we are paying about $200,000 per year through 2012. Given that many of these systems will be up and running through at least 2008, the potential "lost" value would be $800,000 at most. And as Dr. Knight and Ms. Pineault point out, we have in fact gotten our money's worth out of the early 1990s renovations.

  And it is beyond comprehension why the new Massachusetts School Building Authority, overseen by the state treasurer's office, would want to fund the demolition of buildings when the state not so long ago reimbursed Wayland 61 percent of the cost to renovate those very same buildings.  
The new MSBA legislation makes it quite clear that new work can be both considered and reimbursed any time after ten years following prior reimbursed work. The HSBC and its architect and project manager have done excellent work to justify the need for the high school modernization and expansion project. For Ms. Segal to suggest otherwise is a wanton disregard for the facts.

Finally, Ms. Segal decries democracy itself.
  Some residents posture they regret the divisive, browbeating campaign being waged for a new school. Others see that damaging behavior as the intended strategy, to bully to get what they want; the price tag, extravagance and hardship on others be damned. ... Project proponents already are making calls, similar to what occurred last year, causing enough discomfort that some schoolchildren's parents stayed home rather than be seen voting publicly. Nobody should be pressured or disenfranchised.  
School officials have presented the reasons for the HS project in a clear and professional manner. They have developed a proposed solution to the HS needs that is responsive to both educational and financial demands. It is ludicrous that Ms. Segal wishes to deny project proponents the right to get the message out. "Nobody should be pressured or disenfranchised?" Perhaps she refers to the WVN, which masquerades itself as informative while actually being advocational, and which chooses to be selective in sending out absentee ballot applications to those they appear to think most likely to vote against the project.

Ms. Segal's words serve her purposes, not the towns, and they do so willfully and without constructive benefit.
01/10/2005
Dieffenbach: In a 1/6 letter to the Town Crier, resident William Curry suggests that the reason for the high school is not better education, but rather to serve ...
  Currier: as a monument to an extravagant group known as the Wayland School Committee (WSC)  
This ridiculous charge undermines the interesting story of his education at Phillips Academy in Andover, Harvard College, and Harvard Business School. He then continues with a point with which the School Committee would certainly agree.
  My opinion is that it is the faculty and the administration that can make or break superior student achievement, not the shell within which the education is conducted. Of course proper upkeep and maintenance of the facilities is not only necessary but the full responsibility of the Wayland School Committee.  
Unfortunately, "proper upkeep and maintenance" are no longer sufficient to meet the educational needs of Wayland's children, as has been documented in this blog and elsewhere. We cannot upkeep our way to contemporary science facilities. We cannot maintain our way to additional classroom space. Like the old buildings at the prestigious schools that Mr. Currier attended, the shell of the current high school is not in danger of falling down. But a school is much more than a shell. The capital funds that Phillips and Harvard have put into their shells have not recently been put into ours.

Mr. Currier shifts gears to talk finances. He incorrectly characterizes the recent Middle School renovation as being over budget:
  Examples [of cost overruns] are the middle school - budget $9.5 million, overrun by $1.3 million or 14 percent, ...  
In fact, this is not the case at all. As outlined in this blog on 9/11/2004, $10.7 million was approved for the Middle School before any construction began. In fact, the project went over by a mere 1.3%, not the 14 percent that Mr. Currier alleges.

Mr. Currier then presents a series of figures purporting to represent the cost per student of the new facility under various interest rates and borrowing terms.
 
  • $78,219 per student at 5 percent interest in 20 years.
  • $88,762 per student at 7 percent interest in 20 years.
  • $91,362 per student at 5 percent interest in 30 years.
  • $107,163 per student at 7 percent interest in 30 years.
 
In calculating these costs, he erroneously uses the figure of 1,100 students (the planned capacity of new classroom space) instead of the number of students who will be in the building *each year* over the planned life of 50 years or more. Assuming an average of 1,000 students per year over the next half century, the corrected numbers would instead be as follows.
  • $1,721 per student at 5 percent interest in 20 years.
  • $1,953 per student at 7 percent interest in 20 years.
  • $2,010 per student at 5 percent interest in 30 years.
  • $2,358 per student at 7 percent interest in 30 years.
Mr. Currier exhorts the School Committee to return to the drawing board to find other less costly solutions. The HSBC did exactly this, finding that a Stop Gap approach would cost nearly as much, yet deliver so much less educationally.
01/10/2005
Dieffenbach: In a 1/6 letter to the Town Crier, resident Bill Huss makes false accusations of the School Committee.
  Huss: .. is it democracy when supporters attempt to limit voter turnout by scheduling a special January election when no other issues are to be decided and many older residents will be out of town or homebound due to bad weather?  
If Mr. Huss had been following the project, he would know that the project schedule, and not some nefarious scheme to keep home potential school supporters, drove the January vote. That, or he is calling town officials liars.

  Is it democracy when only one option is considered - either spend over $50 million or do without a modern high school? Can any reasonable person believe that there is not a more conservative alternative worthy of public debate?  
The HSBC examined a more conservative alternative and has presented that alternative in two public meetings. Not a single person has yet voiced support for the Stop Gap alternative that spends almost as much taxpayer money yet delivers so much less from an educational standpoint.

Mr. Huss then makes another false accusation.
  In addition, supporters have attempted to hide the true magnitude of the upcoming vote by crafting the ballot issue to encompass only the $4.2 million to design the project. Their hope is that a smaller dollar value will fool many voters into believing that the "real" spending decision will be made at a later date.  
In fact, the eleven member HSBC recommended unanimously to the School Committee that a single vote on the entire project be taken this January. Two of the five School Committee members agreed, but after getting the sense from the Board of Selectmen that two votes would be better received in order that more be learned about the state reimbursement rules, the School Committee narrowly voted for the two votes. No attempt has been made to fool anyone.
01/10/2005
Dieffenbach: In a 1/6 letter to the Town Crier, resident Deirdre Maxted suggests some interesting design ideas that the HSBC and its consultants might consider as they move into the detailed design phase of the project.
  Maxted: The High School Building Committee (HSBC) must be commended for the long hours meeting and planning an upgrade to the existing high school and for their final report mailed to voters in December. Clearly they were very focused on the serious responsibility. Their report indicates that the preliminary design is now complete. I strongly disagree. The preliminary design the HSBC developed is flawed. I have cheaper suggestions that should be considered.  
The current "design" is far from complete. The HSBC will certainly consider where cost can be reduced as part of the detailed design phase.

  The HSBC design suggests providing each faculty department (arts, math and English) with separate teacher conference rooms, kitchenettes, etc. The common area dining facility also provides for faculty dining - why the duplication of teacher dining options? How about faculty provided with one central facility that promotes common academic culture, interdepartmental discussions and a more cost effective use of space?  
While the added cost of the separate "kitchenettes" would be extremely small, the goal of interdepartmental discussion that Ms. Maxted is certainly worth aiming for.

  I might also suggest that instead of providing separate computer rooms for teachers and students, why not move to the way of the future when every teacher and student will have his/her own laptop computer? Teachers should have their own computer in their office. Portable computers might be rented (like musical instruments) or bought for students by parents. This removes the significant cost of building separate rooms for computer use and technology support, while also teaching the students the responsibility that goes with ownership.  
For the foreseeable future, computer labs (like kitchenettes, a small part of the overall project) will be needed and used. Nothing about the proposed design rules out the use of laptops, although expensive school funding of laptops is not on the horizon.

  Don't forget that building the new high school will quite likely result in an increase in the School Committee budget for higher utility and janitorial services, ...  
The project's architect estimates that utility costs for the new facility will be slightly less than for the current high school as the energy inefficient campus with outdated building technologies is replaced with superior ones.
  ... not to speak of the theft insurance and technology support costs if the school provided computers for students.  
School officials are not planning on providing computers for students.

  One other idea - was any consideration given to possible federal grants that may be available for a "green" building? If possible such an environmental design would make Wayland High School a stand-out in Massachusetts while providing students with an extraordinary educational tool.  
Our architect, HMFH, is a leader in green building design. Green funds helped reduce the cost to the town of the High School Feasibility Study back in 2002, and green design and any available funding will continue to be part of the project as it unfolds.

  Food for thought! Let us ruminate and ask the HSBC to come up with a less expensive, more affordable plan.  
The Stop Gap alternative is less expensive, but only somewhat, and with major educational deficiencies.

  Moreover, ask the HSBC to put the actual design out for bids, not just the construction. Surely competitive bidding will provide costs less than is currently up for a vote on Jan. 25 (and Jan. 27).  
The work that HMFH and Turner (our project manager) have done in coming up with the current proposal has been money well spent. Any small savings that might result from putting the $4.232 million detailed design phase would surely be offset by the cost of a new architect starting from scratch (a lesson learned from the Public Safety Building experience).
current | fy08 jul-dec (no entries) | fy07 jan-jun (no entries) | fy07 jul-dec | fy06 jan-jun | fy06 jul-dec | fy05 jan-jun | fy05 jul-dec | fy04

Wayland School Committee home