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
|
06/29/2006
|
Dieffenbach: In a
6/28 letter
to the Town Crier, a resident takes exception to the School Committee's position regarding "individual comments"
and the Superintendent's evaluation (see the 06/25/2006 blog entry).
| |
Resident: I just cannot believe what is going on in this town ("School Committee rejects DA decision").
What is going on is we have these elected people on the board who are supposed to protect our interests.
What are they protecting now? What's the big deal? Release the e-mails. Don't tell us that you're protecting
the future possibilities, etc., which is ridiculous because you have already changed the process of evaluation.
| |
The resident is correct in that the School Committee performs three fundamental roles in protecting the educational
interests of the town: setting policy, recommending a budget to the town, and overseeing the work of the Superintendent.
The better that the committee is able to perform these roles, the better it protects Wayland's educational interests.
While some may disagree, it is at least arguable that (a) better feedback yields better educational results and that
(b) better feedback will emerge from a more candid process.
The Public Records Law
clearly supports this position by exempting personnel files.
Some argue that the Open Meeting Law
contradicts the Public Records Law with respect to the openness of such files, but
no read of the Open Meeting Law suggests that a document not viewed by or deliberated on by a quorum of a committee is
nevertheless a public document.
The fact that the committee has changed its Superintendent evaluation process away from one that includes "individual
comments" does not mean that the new result is better. Should the issue be resolved in favor of the Open Meeting Law's
wording that protects individual comments, the committee would be in a position to return to a more effective process.
The resident continues.
| |
To me there are only two reasons you don't want to release them, (1) you don't want your personal comments made public,
(2) you have an ego that says you're always right and no one is going to tell you differently. Which is it?
| |
There is of course a third reason: (3) making the individual comments public leads to a less effective Superintendent
evaluation process which in turn slows the ability of the district to continue to improve.
The resident next turns to the Superintendent's role regarding the evaluation process.
| |
You do not have the right to spend my money over an ego trip. Where is Superintendent Gary Burton through all of this?
He has enough time to write article after article about everything. Why can't he come forward and say release everything,
I have nothing to hide, don't waste money, I need it for the schools.
Certainly he has been the mouthpiece for the School Committee. Of course Burton doesn't live in Wayland and could probably
care less what a rich town like Wayland spends on legal fees, but I do.
| |
[Edited 2006-10-03] Regarding the Superintendent's opinion on the committee's actions to date with respect to the evaluation process,
he has done exactly what the resident recommends, speaking in favor of releasing the documents. While the committee certainly
respects his opinion on this matter, it is not his process to manage nor decision to make.
| |
What message are Burton and the School Committee sending to our kids? That's it's OK to be a scofflaw and to
flout authority if you have something to hide? The public's right to know trumps the School Committee's collective ego.
| |
Perhaps the committee's message to our school children speaks to the merits of standing on principle. The public does not
have an unabridged "right to know;" the Open Meeting Law and the Public Records Law recognize the needs of organizations
to effectively deliver services and therefore allow certain types of communication
to be private: strategy sessions regarding negotiation, negotiations themselves, communication between one member and another
as long as a quorum of a committee does not deliberate, and preliminary recruiting conversations, to name a few.
| |
I also suggest that the town invest some money in training public servants with compliance with the Open Meeting Law.
Remember, the taxpayers of this town pay on both ends. What kind of a hollow victory will it mean anyway,
unless there are some damning words in those e-mails!
| |
It is interesting that the resident makes no mention of public servants complying with the Public Records Law. The initial
Superintendent evaluation process to which the Middlesex District Attorney took exception was one that the committee
adopted on the advice of legal counsel and out of respect for the Public Records Law. The fact that the Open Meeting Law and
the Public Records Law are contradictory necessarily puts committees in a bind.
The District Attorney favors the Open Meeting Law over the Public Records Law, as is that office's right. When the DA
requested that the committee release meeting minutes and the Superintedent's evaluation (in opposition to the Public Records Law),
it did so and altered its evaluation process (possibly to the detriment of that process and the Wayland Public Schools).
[Edited 2006-10-03]
Members of the School Committee are well-versed in the
Open Meeting Law as it applies to the functioning of the committee. With the release of those minutes and the evaluation,
the School Committee is now fully compliant with the Open Meeting Law,
which does not require that individual comments be made public. The content of the individual comments is irrelevant,
but the positiveness of the resulting evaluation speaks for itself.
|
|
06/25/2006
|
Dieffenbach: An article for which I was interviewed in the
6/22 issue
of the Town Crier merits elaboration around two points: the use of email by the Wayland School Committee and the
committee's response to the Middlesex District Attorney's inquiry regarding the 2004 evaluation of Superintendent
Gary Burton.
The first is a minor point. The article's focus on "e-mails" misses the point. At issue is whether or not
documents written by one committee member and seen by the chair without deliberation are public under the
Open Meeting Law.
Whether or not such documents were transmitted by email is beside the point; they would be equally
public (or not) were they sent by regular mail, described over the telephone, or discussed in person.
As to the committee's policy on the use of email, it is entirely consistent with the Open Meeting Law. The committee
uses email only for logistical purposes, most notably to set meeting dates, times, and agendas. The committee does not
discuss or deliberate on the merits of matters before it by email or any other form of communication outside of
open and executive sessions as allowed by the Open Meeting Law.
The second point is more substantial. The article begins by correctly framing the question at hand.
| |
Town Crier: The School Committee voted last week to reject instructions from the Middlesex District Attorney’s
office to comply with the Open Meeting Law by releasing individual comments made by committee members as part of
Superintendent Gary Burton’s 2004 performance evaluation.
| |
After the email digression, the Town Crier continues.
| |
The DA’s office found that the committee violated the Open Meeting Law (OML) in June 2004 by discussing the evaluation
in executive sessions, not making e-mails available to the public and not providing copies of the final evaluation.
| |
What the Town Crier failed to note was that the committee followed a process recommended by its legal counsel.
When presented with the DA's opinion, the committee
met all of the DA's requests (reading the DA's opinion at a committee meeting, making the draft and final evaluations public,
and amending meeting minutes). The only request that the committee did not follow was to make the individual comments public,
for the simple reason that by virtue of the fact that those documents were never deliberated on nor ever even seen by a quorum
of the committee.
|
|
06/24/2006
|
Dieffenbach: In a
6/15 letter
to the Town Crier, a resident expresses his opposition to the use of Community Preservation Act funds to offset a
minority fraction of the cost to install a synthetic turf playing field on the site of the current
football field at Wayland High School.
| |
Resident: When I advocated for the passage of the CPA in Wayland, it was very clear there were three intended
uses for funds - buying conservation land, historic preservation and affordable housing.
Apparently some lawyers, including town counsel, think there is a loophole in the language of the law that
allows use for artificial turf on a school playing field. Others disagree, and the issue has been
the subject of a court challenge in another town (not yet resolved). But even if such a loophole exists,
it is just that - a loophole. It is an unintentional artifact of the language used to define the three
very clear purposes of the law.
| |
Article 14 in the 2001 Annual Town Meeting Warrant could not refute this contention more clearly.
The first “Recommendation to Town Meeting” in that article explicitly specifies “for the acquisition, creation,
and preservation of land for recreational use; … and for rehabilitation or restoration of such … land for recreational
use … .” The resident curiously calls this explicit, front-and-center “recreational use” language a “loophole.”
Moreover, Wayland does not tread new ground, as it were, with this proposal. Near neighbors Acton and Sudbury are
just two of many towns that have voted to apply CPA funds to the installation of synthetic turf playing fields.
The Wayland School Committee and the Wayland Park and Recreation Commission both support the installation of a
synthetic turf playing field on the site of the current football field at Wayland High School. The synthetic field offers
several key benefits to youth and adult teams as well as to the town. At present, wear restrictions limit use
to 5% of full capacity and exclude any use by the public. A synthetic turf field would substantially increase
available time for games, allow other fields to be rested periodically, provide added rental income to the town,
and reduce maintenance costs. The field would not place an added tax burden on Wayland residents, instead
drawing primarily on private fundraising with some use of Community Preservation Act funds, the latter
allowed by Chapter 44B of the Massachusetts General Laws.
|
|
05/24/2006
|
Dieffenbach:
WVN 170
makes a series of implications and accusations that merit comment. At least
this most recent WVN issue ends on a positive note.
| |
WVN: The chairmen of the School Committee and the selectmen have
been quietly pushing a million-dollar plan for artificial turf at the
High School. Tom Sciacca reports.
...
Selectman Chair Michael Tichnor and School Committee Chair
Jeff Dieffenbach requested that the plans for the next
million-dollar school project, a new artificial turf playing field, be
kept quiet until the override and town center votes were resolved,
according to President Craig Foreman of the Boosters in a report
to the School Committee.
| |
For my part, prior to the 5/15 School Committee, I didn't "push" but rather had all of one conversation with Craig Foreman
about the artificial turf field proposal. My advice to Mr. Foreman was hardly in the spirit of keeping the proposal "quiet" in
the negative connotation of WVN's editorializing,
but rather because the override and budget effort leading up to Annual Town Meeting (a) didn't need any
distractions and (b) would keep the turf proposal from getting its fair share of attention.
[Edited 2006-10-03]
WVN next turned its attention to the process that the School Committee plans to use to evaluate Superintendent Gary Burton for
the 2005-2006 school year.
| |
The School Committee voted to use an evaluation process this
year whereby the chair writes a draft of an evaluation, the full
committee discusses it in open meeting, the chair will modify it
accordingly, and then a final discussion will occur in open
meeting. This process avoids individual committee members'
written inputs. There is a dispute between the Wayland School
Committee and the Middlesex District Attorney's Office as to
whether such individual inputs are public.
Superintendent Gary Burton's evaluations for the last two years,
which have been made public by order of the District Attorney's
office, contained no significant criticisms. Last year's evaluation
encompassed the failure of the high school renovation proposal,
but the committee declined to hold Burton accountable for any
part of that failure by ascribing it entirely to uncertainty over state
funding.
| |
"Entirely" is a curious assertion. In Superintendent Burton's most recent evaluation, the School Committee wrote:
Given the margin of defeat on the proposed architectural design study for the high school modernization and expansion,
the failure was likely not the result of poor execution, however, but rather the inevitable result of the state moratorium
on school building reimbursement and other factors [emphasis added]. As next steps, we await with you the results of the planned HSBC survey,
the anticipated 2006 regulations, and a general sense of the reimbursement landscape. We commend you and your administrators
for so ably managing an inadequate facility in the interim, and for the tremendous amount of work that you have
collectively contributed in support of the modernization and expansion planning. We must together choose wisely when,
how, and in what form to bring the project back to the voters.
WVN continues:
| |
Subsequently a survey answered by thousands of
voters made it clear that the excessively large scope of the
project, which was Burton's responsibility, was at least partly
responsible for the negative vote. It remains to be seen if the
committee will now hold Burton accountable.
| |
WVN misunderstands the process if they ascribe the scope of the project to be the Superintendent's responsibility.
That responsibility clearly belonged to, and belongs to, the School Committee.
WVN's swipes at the Superintendent continue:
| |
This year there were two notable school management failures: [one] special needs outplacements and a year's delay in installing the
modular science labs so badly needed at the High School.
Burton has taken credit for years for highly efficient management
of the Special Education program by avoiding very expensive
out-of-district placements. This year six sets of parents prevailed
in state hearings that forced the town to spend an extra $180,000
for such placements. This extra expenditure was included in the
override recently passed. In interviews with WVN, SPED parents
have expressed extreme anger with the schools and with Burton
personally, leading them to push for a judicial resolution.
| |
Wayland's school administrators do an admirable job managing the special education program. Naturally, there is tension
between the services that we would all like to offer and the cost of offering these services. The fact that out-of-district
placements were required is a comment on the needs of students, not on the Superintendent's management of those needs.
| |
[two] The modular labs were scheduled to be in operation last
September, but will not be usable until next year. Burton blames
the problems entirely on irresponsible vendors. But Burton was
responsible for choosing the vendor, and a citizen has told WVN
he warned school officials before the decisions were made that
the chosen vendor was unreliable.
| |
As the Superintendent has repeatedly said at School Committee meetings, the completion of the modular science classrooms
has been unacceptably delayed. What WVN fails to suggest is any course of action that the Superintendent or anyone else
might have taken to avoid those delays.
| |
In most organizations the senior manager is held accountable
for results, with excuses disregarded. But current School
Committee Chair Jeff Dieffenbach has in the past expressed
great admiration for Burton, and with the new evaluation process
Dieffenbach is responsible for drafting the evaluation.
| |
WVN's non sequitur segue from accountability to admiration ignores the fact that the Superintendent's evaluation has
always been conducted by the full committee during my tenure, as it will be again this year. WVN is correct on one point,
however; I have admiration for Gary Burton's work as a Superintendent.
WVN isn't done yet:
| |
Burton plans to bring in Dick Amster of Turner Construction for
$5,000 without bidding to advise on prioritizing urgent work at the
high school, leaving $45,000 of the $50,000 voted by Town
Meeting to do actual work.
| |
It doesn't take much to read impropriety into WVN's remarks. As they undoubtedly know, bidding is not required for projects
less than $5,000. As for the selection of Turner Construction, even those unfamiliar with construction projects will quickly grasp
that Turner's experience with conditions at Wayland High School allows them to accomplish the prioritization work far more
effectively and cost-efficiently than a newcomer.
As promised, a comment on WVN's positive remarks merits attention.
| |
Newsweek's annual survey ranks Wayland High School 874th in
its list of the best high schools in the United States. Weston is
No. 242. Does this mean anything?
Not much, experts say.
...
Newsweek rates 25,000 high schools by one measure: the per
capita number of College Board Advanced Placement exams
taken by students. Because it doesn't measure how well
students do on the exams, schools can achieve a high rank by
encouraging many students to take the tests even if they do
poorly.
Thus Locke High School, one of the poorest-performing high
scnools in Los Angeles, ranked 520th, even though 73 percent
of the students failed the AP exams they took.
"It does not make sense to evaluate high schools on this basis
alone," Daniel Hastings, MIT's dean for undergraduate
education, told the New York Times.
An inexact but better measure of a high school's effectiveness is
students' success in getting into college. Wayland High School
is known for that at many college and university admissions
offices.
| |
|
|
04/23/2006
|
Dieffenbach: Despite being informed by the Finance Committee, the editor of Wayland eNews, and me of significant
errors in their yellow flyer (see 4/9 blog entry), RSVP continues to distribute highly
misleading information with a 4-page yellow brochure received via mail by some Wayland households last week.
Full-page scans of the 4 pages are immediately below; a debunking of various claims follows.
| |
RSVP Page 1: We believe a bottom-up approach to budget preparation, i.e., a serious examination and restructuring
of the town's budget and services, is the first essential step to ensure fiscal restraint. With the successful passage
of three overrides in the last four years, there has been little incentive for public officials to consider this
new approach.
| |
It's not clear what RSVP supporter Pat Abramson means by "bottom-up" budgeting or by calling the approach "new"
(it's been around for years), but to suggest that the schools don't practice it is a mischaracterization.
Each year, the schools start with enrollment. From that enrollment, the administration then determines the
size of the teaching staff required. Based on existing staff, retirements, and the teacher contract,
a personnel cost is calculated. On the non-personnel side, costs are driven by the number of students
(text books, paper, other supplies, transportation) and the cost of running a building (utilities and maintenance).
The fact that the schools consider costs from prior years does not take away from the fact that they build a budget
each year from the bottom up. (Top down budgeting would be to start with a dollar amount and determine how to allocate it.)
| |
For these people [the ones anonymously listed earlier in Ms. Abramson's letter] and for all of our fellow residents,
RSVPwayland sees defeat of the override as the only way to set Wayland on a new direction of inclusion and accountability
so needed in our town.
| |
Ms. Abramson accuses Wayland officials of a lack of accountability. This is a false accusation completely without foundation.
In fact, Wayland officials have always been accountable to the electorate or their appointing board.
Moreover, they have always been accountable to Annual and Special Town Meetings.
| |
RSVP Page 2: Of 306 communities reporting to the MA Dept. of Revenue in FY06,
Wayland has the 8th highest average single family-tax bill.
| |
The page 2 title reports that Wayland has 8th highest tax bill. What the title fails to report, however,
is that Wayland's per capita income ranks 7th (in 1999, the most recent year for which the Department of
Revenue reports data on that metric).
| |
The average property tax has increased 18.2% (with compounding) over the last two years alone.
| |
This repeats the erroneous claim from the yellow flyer (see 4/9 blog entry) that taxes will have
gone up 18.2% from FY05 to FY07
should the override be approved. The actual number is 17% (8.9% from FY05 to FY06 and 7.5% from FY06 to FY07, compounded).
The difference is small, but indicative of other larger RSVP errors.
| |
Going back to 2000, the average tax has increased 47%.
| |
This repeats the misleading claim from the yellow flyer (see 4/9 blog entry) that the average tax bill
has increased by 47% since 2000.
As covered in the blog entry, the actual number (supported by the Finance Committee) is about 35%.
| |
2006 Single Family Tax Bill: $8,693
2007 *** Proj. 7.5% increase with CPA - Single Family tax Bill: $9,457
| |
The RSVP table erroneously shows that the average tax bill will increase to $9,457 if
the Community Preservation Act (CPA) "increase" of $112 is included. The CPA has
been in place since 2001. For no reason whatsoever, RSVP includes this amount for FY07 while excluding it for FY06 and
prior years. In fact, the $112 CPA "increase" that RSVP portrays is actually about $12.
| |
Wayland should not rely on annual overrides to balance its operational budget.
| |
Wayland officials apparently agree. As shown on Slide 37 of the School Committee's
February 2 budget forum presentation,
Wayland's overrides have been smaller and less frequent
than many of its peer towns. Moreover, the Finance Committee's three-year forward-looking plan has been designed to
avoid overrides for at least the next two years.
| |
And a larger commercial tax base is no guarantee of avoiding an override next year.
| |
Presumably, RSVP refers to the Town Center project endorsed by the Board of Selectmen, the Finance Committee, and
the School committee. To suggest that the Town Center might help next year is strange, since the
project would not generate revenue for the town until several years later at the
earliest. That said, a larger commercial tax base certainly makes avoiding overrides a few years out more likely.
| |
RSVP Page 3: Recent history across our state indicates our property values will not decline
| |
RSVP repeats the misleading claim from the yellow flyer (see 4/9 blog entry)
that property values are not harmed by failed
overrides. As covered in the blog entry, this analysis conveniently
fails to report that property values increase substantially more when overrides
of the sort that Wayland is contemplating are approved compared to when they are
rejected.
| |
RSVP Page 4: If approved, this would be the fourth override tax increase since fiscal year 2003!!!
| |
RSVP fails to indicate that the current override would be the 4th such request since 2000. As shown in the
2/2 School Committee budget forum presentation referenced above, Wayland officials have done a good
job keeping overrides to a minimum.
|
|
04/12/2006
|
Dieffenbach: In a
4/6 article
in the Wayland Town Crier, the Crier outlines salaries of Wayland department heads.
| |
Town Crier: The district also pays its teachers well. According to the Massachusetts Department of Education,
Wayland teachers earned an average of $66,812 in fiscal year 2005, the fourth highest in the state (behind Brewster,
Boston and Cambridge).
| |
The Crier neglects to put that information into context. First, peer districts Newton, Dover-Sherborn, and Wellesley
have average salaries only 2.5-3.5% lower than Wayland. Second, Wayland’s entry level salaries are competitive with
peer towns; it’s only when teachers gain years of experience and advanced degrees that they start to see separation.
This second point reflects the School Committee’s often-stated philosophy of paying well to attract and retain
top-quality educators.
Third, and most importantly, the article failed to report Wayland’s per pupil expenditure (PPE). On this metric,
Wayland as a district ranked 13th in FY05 according to the Massachusetts Department of Education, trailing Lincoln,
Dover-Sherborn, Weston, Newton, Brookline, Concord, Lincoln-Sudbury, Bedford, Concord-Carlisle, Dover, Lexington, and Dedham.
In sum, on the measure that affects the taxes that residents pay, Wayland delivers outstanding results while stacking up
well relative to peer towns.
|
|
04/09/2006
|
Dieffenbach: The anti-override group RSVP handed out distinctive yellow flyers at the landfill on Saturday.
The full flyer is available
here.
Below are responses
to each of the "Fiction/Fact" items on that sheet; many of those items are
highly misleading if not outright incorrect.
| | RSVP 1
|
RSVP's "Fiction" claim
|
RSVP's alleged "Fact"
|
|
Close Station 2 when the ambulance is away and make other drastic cuts in public safety services that will
put the well being of Wayland residents in jeopardy.
|
Scare tactics! A majority (4 out of 5) of our Board of Selectmen has chosen to make these cuts. There are
other options and the current proposed budget cuts are not engraved in stone. The selectmen [sic] can choose
to fund public safety. Why don't they?
|
| |
Reality: The decision to propose the failed override cut list was not just that of the Board of Selectmen. The Finance Committee also
approved the budget, the override, and the cut list. And all boards participated in the task of putting together the budget,
as did the Town Administrator, the Finance Department, and the department heads. Together, these many individuals came
up with a proposal that they think balances the various needs of the town.
| | RSVP 2
|
RSVP's "Fiction" claim
|
RSVP's alleged "Fact"
|
|
Your property values will plummet.
|
Of the 33 failed overrides since 2000 that were greater than $1M, NOT ONE of these defeats resulted in average
property valuations the next year. In fact, the average INCREASE was 15.5% in the year following the
failed override! Failed overrides and property devaluation? That myth is BUSTED. (Source: MA Dept of Revenue)
|
| |
Reality: This assertion is both misleading (the MA Dept of Revenue said no such thing) as well as erroneous on several
levels. First, override
proponents have in no way claimed that property values will "plummet." Second, and more importantly, the analysis in question
(carried out by Board of Selectmen member Alan Reiss on his own behalf) fails to consider the property value effect
when overrides are approved.
Given that property values were generally rising during the period in question, it should not be surprising to learn
that those values increased even when overrides failed. For overrides between $1M and $3M (Wayland is asking for $2.1M)
and property values in the
$300k to $900k range (Wayland's median is currently near $600k), the average property value increase when
overrides failed was 9%.
However, when overrides were approved, the property value increase was 15%
(details here).
So, towns like Wayland that fail overrides DO harm property values relative to those that approve overrides.
| | RSVP 3
|
RSVP's "Fiction" claim
|
RSVP's alleged "Fact"
|
|
Only fixed income seniors will suffer from a property tax increase and seniors who need tax relief will get it
through the state's Circuit Breaker program.
|
Only if they qualify. What about middle income residents? As of US Census 2000 for Wayland; 8% earned less than
$35K/yr.; 16% earned less than $50K/yr.; 42% earned less than $100K/yr. Are you struggling just to stay put
in our "wealthy" town?
|
| |
Reality: Override proponents have not said that only fixed income seniors will "suffer" from a property tax increase.
Obviously, anyone on a low fixed income will feel the effect of the override. Most residents in the below $35K category
that RSVP cites will qualify for property tax relief.
| | RSVP 4
|
RSVP's "Fiction" claim
|
RSVP's alleged "Fact"
|
|
The quality of Wayland schools will deteriorate.
|
Quality of education has not deteriorated in towns where overrides have been defeated. Dismantle the budget not
the educational program.
|
| |
Reality: In the very next item (see below), RSVP claims, "Words are cheap. Show us the numbers, please." Yet, here
they make an assertion regarding the funding of education without any substantiation whatsoever.
[Edited 2006-10-03] The quality of education in Wayland will certainly suffer if the override fails. Specifically, the quality of
elementary school specials will be reduced, class sizes at the Middle School will be increased, and the fee burden
on families will go up. Curious readers of the RSVP flyer should email them at
rsvpwayland@comcast.net to ask them about this "reasoning."
| | RSVP 5
|
RSVP's "Fiction" claim
|
RSVP's alleged "Fact"
|
|
This override helps stave off future overrides in 2008-2010.
|
This is a goal without any guarantee. Words are cheap. Show us the numbers, please.
|
| |
Reality: The Finance Committee's
plan is quite clear. Unfortunately,
the realities of contract negotiation prohibit them from releasing the specific numbers behind a significant portion
of that plan. Presumably, RSVP is not suggesting that the town weaken its position at the bargaining table. Also presumably,
they are not questioning the integrity of the Finance Committee, although a reader of their flyer could be forgiven for
thinking so.
| | RSVP 6
|
RSVP's "Fiction" claim
|
RSVP's alleged "Fact"
|
|
"Wayland has always balanced fiscal prudence with common good." (a pro-override flier)
|
The average property tax has increased 47% since 2000. If this override passes, the increase in the average
property tax since 2000 (with compounding) is projected to be about 60%. (Source: MA Dept of Revenue)
|
| |
Reality: As with RSVP's error on property tax and overrides, their 47% number also appears to be in error.
In this case, they neglect to account
for growth that results from renovation and new construction. To arrive at 47%, they look at the average tax bill each
year from 2000 to 2006 and calculate the percentage change. This approach does not factor in renovations and additions made
to houses (that add value), nor does it factor in new homes (that on balance are larger than the existing average).
The correct way to calculated
the percentage increase is to look at three values for each year relative to the prior year's tax levy.
- The percentage change within Proposition 2 1/2
- Any percentage change allowed because the levy limit was not fully used
- The percentage change owing to overrides
The middle type (unused levy limit) can occur when taxes had not gone up by the full 2.5% in prior years. For instance,
in FY99, taxes went up 1.5%, and in FY00, taxes didn't go up at all. The necessary data is available in the Annual
Town Meeting Warrants. Here's the summary since 2000, with projections out to
FY09 assuming no override in FY08 and FY09.
Fiscal
Year |
Tax
Levy
($M) |
Prop
2.5
%Incr |
Unused
Levy
%Incr |
Over-
ride
($M) |
Over-
ride
%Incr |
Yearly
%Incr |
Com-
pound
%Incr |
Run-
ning
Avg
%Incr |
| 2000 |
n/a |
0.0% |
0.0% |
$0M |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
| 2001 |
$26.6M |
2.5% |
0.0% |
$0M |
0.0% |
2.5% |
2.5% |
1.3% |
| 2002 |
$29.0M |
2.5% |
1.9% |
$0M |
0.0% |
4.4% |
7.0% |
2.3% |
| 2003 |
$32.0M |
2.5% |
0.0% |
$1.3M |
4.1% |
6.6% |
14.1% |
3.4% |
| 2004 |
$33.1M |
2.5% |
0.0% |
$0.85M |
2.6% |
5.1% |
19.8% |
3.7% |
| 2005 |
$35.2M |
2.5% |
0.0% |
$0M |
0.0% |
2.5% |
22.8% |
3.5% |
| 2006 |
$36.4M |
2.5% |
0.0% |
$2.3M |
6.3% |
8.8% |
33.7% |
4.3% |
| 2007 |
$37.8M |
2.5% |
0.0% |
$2.1M |
5.6% |
8.1% |
44.4% |
4.7% |
| 2008 |
$39.0M |
2.5% |
0.0% |
$0M |
0.0% |
2.5% |
48.0% |
4.5% |
| 2009 |
$40.3M |
2.5% |
0.0% |
$0M |
0.0% |
2.5% |
51.7% |
4.3% |
Rather than the 47% figure cited by RSVP, the actual number
appears to be much lower, at about 34% (bold blue cell in the table above). The
Finance Committee reports a nearly identical number: 35.5%.
| | RSVP 7
|
RSVP's "Fiction" claim
|
RSVP's alleged "Fact"
|
|
The override is for the common good and benefits all of us.
|
Not if you are forced out of town because you can't afford the property taxes. Not if you are struggling to
stay here.
|
| |
Reality: No one wants to see taxes rise nor people forced out of town. At the same time, cutting services and harming property
values does no one any good either. In fact, those on a fixed income are hurt the most given the large fraction of their
assets represented by their home. For those wishing to stay in town for many reasons including the appreciation of their
property value, there are ways to use the growing equity in their home to pay the smaller dollar value increase in taxes.
| | RSVP 8
|
RSVP's "Fiction" claim
|
RSVP's alleged "Fact"
|
|
The financial impact of the tax increase on the average Wayland taxpayer is affordable for most.
|
The average tax bill will increase by approximately $790 to nearly $9,485, an 18% increase over the last 2 years
(with compounding). Has your income increased 18%?
|
| |
Reality: RSVP's calculation of the increase in average tax bill is incorrect, as is their calculation of compounding.
The average tax bill in FY06 was $8,693. Increasing
that tax by the 7.5% number that RSVP uses leads to a new average tax bill that is $652 higher, not $790. And using
the average value instead of the median value distorts the effect upwards. The median tax increase will be
$178 within Proposition 2 1/2 and $355 for the override, for a total of
$533.
| | RSVP 9
|
RSVP's "Fiction" claim
|
RSVP's alleged "Fact"
|
|
"Wayland is not in the welfare business." - a town official's recent comment on keeping the town affordable.
|
Since when is affordability equated with welfare? So much for the town's "social contract."
|
| |
Reality: Citing a quote like this without attribution or context is inappropriate. By words and actions, Wayland town officials
consistently indicate that they are balancing the needs and wants of all citizens.
Overall, RSVP's flyer is misleading, with many calculation errors, all distorting the effects of the override upwards and
not downwards. For as serious an issue as a tax override, they have a responsibility to do better. Wayland residents should
hold them to this responsibility. Please email them at rsvpwayland@comcast.net
to let them know that you are dissatisfied and/or to ask them to elaborate on their claims.
|
|
04/08/2006
|
Dieffenbach: In a
4/6 letter,
a Wayland resident chairing the anti-override group RSVP puts out erroneous numbers regarding recent tax increases.
| |
Resident: Unless we act this year, RSVPwayland sees no end in sight to spiraling spending.
The average property tax is up 47 percent since 2000 (according to Mass. Department of Revenue),
to $8,693. If this override passes the average property tax will be up 60 percent since 2000 at a whopping $9,485.
These facts are deeply disconcerting.
| |
In fact, the tax burden has increased on the order of 35% over the period in question, not the 47% cited by
the resident. This difference will be discussed in more detail in a future blog entry.
|
|
04/03/2006
|
Dieffenbach: Many Wayland residents received postcards in the mail from Wayland's "Responsible Spending
Voters Project" (RSVP),
www.RSVPwayland.org. Low resolution scans of both sides of that postcard
can be seen below.
| |
RSVP:
| |
Responsible Wayland voters should be aware of several things as they read this postcard.
1. Override supporters want a town government that represents all of Wayland as well. Efforts by the Board of Selectmen,
the Finance Committee, and all other boards and departments reduced a $3.8M level services deficit down to $2.1M. That
accomplishment is a clear sign of accountability. The Finance Committee's plan to avoid overrides for the next several
years is a clear sign of reform.
2. RSVP calculates the compounding of 8.9% and 7.5% tax increases as 18.2%. The correct number is 17%.
3. Resident's votes certainly do count. The override vote last year was approximately 2,600 to 2,000. The postcard neglects
to mention the number of yes votes. Readers of this blog can be the judge of whether the 2,000 "almost won." RSVP also fails
to mention that had last year's override failed, no one would have "won"--the cuts to town services would have been
significant.
4. The average tax bill in Wayland HAS increased by 47% from FY2000 to FY2006. That amounts to $2,776. RSVP goes on to ask
whether salaries have increased by a similar percentage. Most certainly haven't, but it's a safe bet that many have increased
by more than $2,776. A $500 per year raise would be enough to exceed the property tax increase.
5. For people who itemize on their federal taxes (which includes most people with mortgages of any significant size),
real estate taxes are deductible, which reduces the impact of the increase significantly.
6. RSVP says nothing about the increase in real estate value that has accompanied the tax increase. According to the
Department of Revenue, the average house price in FY2006 was $693,259. To cover the $2,776 tax increase, the value of that
home would have to have gone up from $690,483, or 0.08% per year (that's less than 1/10th of one percent). Homes in Wayland
have almost certainly increased in value by 0.08% per year more than if last year's override had failed.
7. RSVP says that the average tax bill will go up by $790. This is an exaggeration. The 7.5% tax increase represented by
Proposition 2 1/2 AND the override together will be $652 for the average tax bill ($8,693 in FY06).
8. By choosing the average tax bill, RSVP skews the effect upwards. A more realistic number is the MEDIAN tax bill. That's the
tax bill for which half of all Wayland residents pay more and the other half pay less. For the median house, the tax bill
will increase $190 due to Proposition 2 1/2 and $376 due to the override, for a total of $566.
It's important to put the tax increase in perspective. These increases have not gone for extravagant services. Rather, they
have kept services essentially level over the period in question. And they have been modest relative to peer towns
(see the 12/14/2005 blog entry).
No one likes to see taxes increase. But the proposed increases are reasonable compared with peer towns, represent a sizable
reduction below what a level services increase might have been, and head off what will be significant cuts to town public
safety, education, and general government services. What RSVP fails to mention is that a failed override will have the
harshest impact on seniors (for whom public safety is even more important than for younger residents) and citizens
on a fixed income (for whom decreases in property value hit much harder than those with higher incomes).
|
|
04/02/2006
|
Dieffenbach: I've been asked several times to elaborate on the School Committee's proposal to reconfigure the
elementary schools should the override not be approved.
Briefly, the committee's plan in that event would be to place Kindergarten at Loker, Grades 1 and 2 at Happy Hollow,
and Grades 3 to 5 at Claypit Hill. Our school administrators estimate that such a reconfiguration would save
about $635k after an additional $165k in transportation costs have been factored in.
One variation of the questions: why not implement such a plan regardless of whether the override passes--if it does
pass, free those funds up for other important uses? The short answer is that putting such a reconfiguration in place
would be premature and incur educational and logistical costs in excess of the benefits.
On the educational side, there are two schools of thought with respect to the impact of how elementary schools are configured.
One alternative argues in favor of neighborhood K-5 schools that allow more cross-grade interaction. The other alternative
suggests that having all of a given grade in a single building helps to increase curriculum and class size uniformity.
The decision about which option to go with depends not just on on which option is currently in place (that is, there is some
value to avoiding the disruption that would come with change regardless of whichever alternative is current practice), but
also in varying degrees on what the prospects are for future near-term change (the schools wouldn't want to reconfigure once,
then do so again only a few years out) as well as on the impact on families.
While elementary enrollments (primarily in the form of smaller entering Kindergarten classes) have dropped the past few years,
the latest information suggests that the schools will see a reversal (or at minimum no reduction) for the 2006-2007 school year.
What the future holds depends on "regular" turnover and build-out plus the "special" circumstance of the Town Center/40B
resolution. A shift to K/1-2/3-5 (or the more extreme K-2/3-5 in only two buildings) makes less sense if there is higher
elementary enrollment coming in the near future.
Schools run best at about 85% of capacity. Having a bit of breathing room allows for activity set-up/take-down time,
routine maintenance, and a less confining feel. For the current 2006-2007 school year, the capacity utilization of the
three elementary schools (as well as the Middle and High School) is as follows.
|
School
|
2005-
2006
|
2006-
2007
WITH
override
|
2006-
2007
WITHOUT
override
|
|
Claypit Hill
|
84%
|
79%
|
97%
|
|
Happy Hollow
|
88%
|
85%
|
98%
|
|
Loker
|
84%
|
79%
|
38%*
|
|
Middle School
|
85%
|
86%
|
86%
|
|
High School
|
96%
|
97%
|
97%
|
*Note that Loker's "without override" capacity utilization drops to 38% because Loker becomes a Kindergarten-only school
(with 8 or perhaps 9 sections filling its 19 rooms) in that scenario.
On the logistics side, the schools spent two years planning for the closing of Loker (which reopened in 1992). Having to
accomplish the reconfiguration in time for school to open in September of 2006 will overly burden school administrators.
For families, the possibility of having children in all 5 schools (or even just all 3 elementary schools) also creates
undesirable logistical challenges.
In sum, enrollments become too tight at the elementary level should the override not pass.
|
|
04/01/2006
|
Dieffenbach: In a
3/31 Town Crier letter,
a resident outlines valid and invalid reasons for taking one position or the other on the operating override. As valid,
he cites the pro position concerned with a loss of town services, the con position of affordability, and the con position
of future budget balancing.
| |
Resident: Other opponents of the override believe passage will diminish any future attempts to balance the budget.
Again, these residents are concerned with the general well-being of the community and their arguments are straightforward.
| |
Financially, the opposite is true. Passage of the proposed FY07 override makes it easier to balance the budget within
Proposition 2 1/2 in the future, not harder (as would be true with a failed
override).
The resident describes concerns about property values as not being fair-minded.
| |
Resident: One argument that does not ring true, however, is the position that we need an override in order to
support property values. What these proponents are saying is that everyone should shoulder an increased tax load
so they, the proponents, can maximize their selling price. They will then depart Wayland, leaving the residents
who remain behind to carry the increased tax burden.
Gulosity and self-interest are never admirable and do not serve as an acceptable rationale for supporting or
opposing any town issue.
| |
Here, the resident takes a curious stance. If the override fails, basic economics says that there will be a loss of services
and a corresponding negative impact on property values. I haven't heard a single proponent even remotely suggest that they
desire the override in order to boost their own property value in advance of selling that property. Desiring increased
property values looks out for the entire community just as much as the valid cases the resident lays out.
Moreover, for those on fixed incomes, a drop in property value has a much stronger harmful financial impact. Keeping property
values up helps those residents the most.
As to the statement about "self-interest," the resident comes perilously close to insulting Wayland voters. Self-interest is
often a leading (and perfectly acceptable) reason for a voter's decision one way or the other on matters before them
at the polls or Town Meeting: budget, zoning, character of town, and so on.
|
|
03/31/2006
|
Dieffenbach: In a 3/16 Town Crier
letter to the editor,
a Wayland resident takes exception to recent columns by School Superintendent Gary Burton
(Town Crier 3/9)
and State Representative Candidate Tom Conroy
(Town Crier 3/9).
| |
Resident: In their commentaries last week, Superintendent Gary Burton and Democratic want-to-be-state-representative Tom Conroy each,
subtly but unequivocally, targeted the seniors in our town with invocations to suck it up for the good of the community.
It was a déjà vu of the nasty altercation I overheard after one of the school budget hearings between a young mother and an
older citizen in which she was telling the man it was his obligation to support the schools and stop complaining - it was
her kids' turn.
Dr. Burton and Mr. Conroy are much more subtle and "proper" about it. But it still amounts to trying to shame our
senior citizens into feeling their job isn't over yet. Now, whether they've got the money or not, they've got to
pay their tax dollars and keep supporting the kids.
| |
A careful
read of Dr. Burton's column reveals nothing other than well-articulated conventional wisdoms about the importance of public
education. While Mr. Conroy takes a position on the $2.1M override recommended by the Board of Selectmen and the
Finance Committee, he does so with great consideration to the financial difficulties faced by some in town. Wayland residents
are encouraged to read the original Burton and Conroy pieces to see how far off the mark the resident's accusation
of "shaming" turns out to be.
|
|
03/02/2006
|
Dieffenbach: In a generally informative issue
(WVN #148),
the Wayland Voters Network overstates the cost of the auditorium and gymnasium that were part of the
High School Building Committee's January 2005 proposal.
| |
WVN: PRIVATE FUNDS
...
In a number of states with property tax limitations similar to
Massachusetts' Prop. 2-1/2, private funds are being used to augment
taxes.
In some places, particularly in California, private funding of
academic resources has raised serious concerns about public policy.
But what is being discussed here is similar to a trend reported
recently in the New York Times and elsewhere, private funds and naming
opportunities for school facilities. School supporters in some states
have raised millions in private funds. A new Wayland High School
auditorium and gym, representing about $15 million, were the most
controversial parts of the rejected $57-million plan.
| |
According to one of the high school project architects, "The gym cost at ~13,000 gross s.f. - before added escalation,
contingency, etc is $2.5 million. With the associated overhead,
contingency, escalation, soft costs including design, etc - it becomes a
total of $3.5 million.
The base auditorium at about 10,000 s.f. including the stage and walls
comes in at ~$2,000,000. It would increase if you included the set
design, dressing rooms, etc. With soft costs, escalation, etc. it would
total about $2,800,000."
These quick estimates (not detailed cost calculations) put the cost of the two spaces at about $6.3M, not the $15M
that the WVN offers.
|
|
03/01/2006
|
Dieffenbach: Nothing seems to interest the Wayland Voters Network more than distorting the emotions
of school officials:
WVN #147.
| |
WVN: ANGRY WORDS, $28.4M BUDGET APPROVAL
...
Even before the Feb. 14 School Committee meeting was called
to order, member Bob Gordon assailed the Finance Committee
for asking that an additional $100,000 be cut from the fiscal 2007
school budget.
He accused the Fincom of "grandstanding" at a budget meeting
the previous night. According to the Fincom, the School
Committee's proposed utilities increase was far higher than that
allowed by other town boards.
After the meeting began, Gordon said, "It seems to me that it's
not a terribly prudent- quote unquote- save". His voice grew angry
again as he said of the Fincom's questioning, "it should have
been two months ago."
| |
The WVN continues its habit of describing changes in the tone of ones voice when displeased
as "anger" instead of simply expressing a concern over the issue at hand.
| |
The Fincom asked a number of questions about details, and
school business manager Joy Buhler, her own voice tinged with
anger, said she had already answered some of those questions
over and over. But Chair Jeff Dieffenbach agreed to put together
answers to the latest Fincom inquiries, including a history of new
positions like the math/science coordinator this year and the
reading teacher last year.
| |
The business manager was not directing her words to the Finance Committee requests, but rather
to a request by a School Committee member. And her words were not angry, but rather carefully chosen and
highlighted to inform the committee of what would be involved (and what tasks would have to be deferred)
in order to put together the materials requested.
|
|
02/28/2006
|
Dieffenbach: In a
12/16 letter
to the Wayland Town Crier, a Wayland resident launches a curious personal attack on me (and by extension,
the School Committee). [Note: This blog entry mirrors a letter from me to be published on 3/2.]
| |
Resident: Wayland Voters Network declined to publish some highly misleading statements from School
Committee Chairman Jeff Dieffenbach made at the School Budget Hearing of Feb. 2.
The Crier chose to publish them without qualification in last week's edition
("School budget would require an override"). Voters deserve to know the whole truth.
TheCrier reported "According to Dieffenbach, Wayland has the second highest teacher salaries in the state behind Boston,
and 'we're proud of that.'
| |
Note that based on the latest Department of Education data for FY05, Wayland now sits 4th in average salary behind
Brewster, Boston, and Cambridge.
| |
However, Dieffenbach noted that Wayland's per pupil expenditure is 73rd in the state, and about 13th amongst peer towns."
| |
The resident neglects to include the rest of my remarks on the topic.
I noted immediately the weakness of this comparison (many of the systems are much smaller than Wayland,
or are urban, or are vocational schools with different cost structures), choosing instead to focus on peer towns.
The Dec. 14, 2005 entry of the School Committee's blog
presents data showing that Wayland ranks 13th among such peer towns. How was that particular listing of towns arrived at?
The Boston Globe (in an article referenced by the blog) listed a number of towns that
was expanded by several that the
Globe neglected to consider - Acton, Boxborough, Brookline, Carlisle, Concord and Lexington.
| |
When later asked for backup, Dieffenbach referenced a Massachusetts Department of Education Web page.
| |
For an unknown reason, the resident chose not to ask me directly, but rather through an intermediary, such that
I wasn't aware of why the questions were being asked. Had the resident engaged me in a dialogue, I'm quite sure
that I could have cleared up his uncertainty.
| |
The Web page showed that the majority of those "more expensive" school districts were vocational-technical schools
or multi-town high schools, which are naturally more expensive than single-town purely academic
districts which include relatively cheap elementary schools.
| |
As I mentioned when I made the original remark.
| |
Other districts listed as more expensive than Wayland are tiny, and therefore have very high diseconomies
of small scale. Rowe, for example, has more than twice the per pupil cost of Wayland, but has only 61 students!
In such a small district many classes would be very small and administrator expenses would be spread over few attendees.
Yet other "expensive" districts are in places like Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket, which are naturally more expensive.
| |
Again, I pointed out the flaws in the "73rd" comparison at the time that I made the original remark.
| |
Dieffenbach's backup material also included a list of what he called "peer towns,"
which he described as more relevant to such a comparison, and within which Wayland ranks as 13th.
But in addition to the expected Sudbury, Lincoln, Concord and Weston, he includes Waltham, Watertown and Framingham
as "peer towns" whose systems are more expensive than Wayland's. But those urban communities have to deal
with problems that affluent suburban towns largely don't have, like large non-English speaking populations.
So again, these are apples and oranges comparisons. Others of his comparison towns have much smaller school
populations than Wayland's, with the relevance problems noted above.
| |
The backup materials that he alludes to apparently refers to an email that I sent to the intermediary. In that email,
I quickly showed a comparison of towns to make the general point. The 12/14/2005 blog entry represents my more
thorough analysis, and does not include Waltham, Watertown, or Framingham.
To this point in the resident's letter, his comments are at least about matters of fact.
[Edited 2006-10-03]
| |
Voters may want to evaluate other comments made by Dieffenbach in light of the above,
such as his claim that shaving a few percent off the school budget will "dismantle" our school system.
| |
The School Committee as a whole chose the word "dismantle" to describe the potential cuts that we are
facing: premature closing of an elementary school, large-scale layoffs, elimination of entire
academic programs such as library, halting of professional development, and canceling of school-funded
athletics and extracurricular activities.
I am pleased that the Finance Committee has seen fit to recommend an override that if approved
by the town will enable us to avoid a dismantling of that magnitude.
By his remarks, Mr. Sciacca appears to treat such cuts lightly. I encourage Wayland residents to evaluate
his latest attack on its merits or lack thereof. Please read this blog and form your own judgment.
Note also the general nature of the many opinions of Mr. Sciacca and others who editorialize
for the Wayland Voters Network. Or to better "evaluate comments made by Dieffenbach," send me an
email - I respond to them all - to discuss school issues firsthand:
dieffenbach @ alum.mit.edu. Best of all, attend one of
our many public meetings and hear our deliberations directly.
In a time when many in Wayland plead for a more civilized tone, Mr. Sciacca lowers the level of debate in town.
Wayland deserves better.
|
|
02/13/2006
|
Dieffenbach:
WVN #145
contains several items that merit comment.
| |
WVN: SELECTMAN'S OVERRIDE PRESENTATION
Selectman Alan Reiss is scheduled to present a slide-illustrated
rundown on tax override options at 9:15 p.m. Tuesday during a
regular BoS meeting. Unless you are there you might not be able
to view the slides. For an electronic copy of the presentation,
email Reiss at AlanJReiss@Verizon.net.
| |
It is interesting to note WVN's selectiveness in what materials they "circulate." For whatever reason, the WVN did NOT
see fit to direct its readership to the presentations made by the School Committee at public forums held on 10/17/2005 and
2/2/2006 despite the fact that unless residents were able to attend, they would not be able to view the slides.
The presentation referencd by the WVN represents Mr. Reiss' opinion alone and not that of the Board of Selectmen. In the
past, Mr. Reiss has staked out an anti-override position. His presentation carries this same position as an undertone.
| |
SCHOOLCOM DEBATES FINCOM'S CUT REQUEST
...
Dieffenbach provided some background to the Fincom's request,
saying that while a truly "level services" budget would be about
$28.75 million, the committee had sent a $28.5 million
recommendation. Now Fincom is asking for a $28.15 million
version. The committee wrangled over the history of the budget
process until member Louis Jurist suggested they should stop
arguing over where they were and start figuring out how to get
to the Fincom's number.
| |
The committee was neither wrangling nor arguing, but rather talking through a series of numbers in order
to determine the most rationally supported "level services" number.
| |
But Superintendent Gary Burton angrily said that he didn't agree
that $28.75 million ever was a level services budget, and the
$1.8 million override that the Fincom is reportedly trying to reach
with its budget reduction requests is an arbitrary goal.
| |
The WVN's propensity for acscribing emotion to school personnel, most frequently the Superintendent,
is curious indeed. The Superintendent most certainly did not speak "angrily."
|
|
02/12/2006
|
Dieffenbach: In a 2/7/2006 Boston Globe Editorial, Timothy P. Cahill, treasurer of Massachusetts and chairman of
the Massachusetts School Building Authority, commented on a one-time increase in payments to wait-listed school
projects to account for construction inflation.
| |
Cahill: The choice is simple. More money granted to the projects on the waitlist will result in a
funding reduction for communities that have been waiting for the new program. Communities such as Danvers,
Belmont, Beverly, Natick, Wayland, Norwood, Hanover, and Plymouth should not be forced to wait any longer.
We made a promise to lift the moratorium in 2007 and commit up to $500 million, in the first year,
to fix the schools. It is a promise that I intend to keep.
| |
|
|
02/11/2006
|
Dieffenbach:
WVN #143
contains several items that merit comment.
| |
SCHOOL BUDGET PRESENTED TO FINCOM [1/30]
WVN: The School Committee met with the Finance Committee on
Monday night to present the proposed FY 07 budget.
Superintendent Gary Burton made the main presentation, and
was careful to point out that his original proposed budget had
been increased by the School Committee. In speaking to the
choices made he said, "We can debate for a long time what are
the real core values of the school". He went on to say, "What you
learn on the football team is equally important as what you learn
in English class" although if forced to choose he would choose
English. "The reputation of the school is still intact", he said,
which could make it harder to convince people that a new
position needs to be created and significant work needs to be
done, for example at the high school.
| |
The WVN curiously seems to be suggesting that in order to convince Wayland residents that the various aspects of
the schools need attention, it is first necessary to let the schools and its reputation fall into a state of disrepair.
| |
FINCOM ON OPERATING BUDGET [2/2, same night as School budget forum]
...
The School Committee says its budget is $235,000 less than
the "level-funded" budget requested. But much of that reduction
is due to declining enrollment, members of the Finance
Committee observed.
| |
The School Committee has consistently said that by far the smaller share of its $235k reduction is enrollment-driven,
with the remainder due to service level reductions suggested by the committee out of respect for the town's financial situation.
| |
The Finance Committee noted the
school's utility budget has risen by a much larger percentage
than that of the town, and felt the School Committee could
reduce its energy expenses by more than $100,000.
| |
The Finance Committee informed the School Committee that school utility costs in FY07 were up 40% compared with 29% on
the municipal side of the budget. The comparison is not necessarily equal for a number of reasons, including the fact that
the Town Building will now be closed on Thursday nights and the fact that school utilities haven't been fully funded by the
budget over the past few years.
- In FY04, school utility budget was $765,035, actual was $908,339
- In FY05, school utility budget was $826,238, actual was $931,408
- In FY06, school utility budget is $925,000
- As of 1/31/06, schools had spent $526,098 (not yet halfway through heating season)
- In FY07, school utility budget is projected to be $1,257,000
- This is 35% above FY06 utility budget
- This is 19% above our projected FY06 spend
| |
At public
comment, one observer mentioned that busing is a potential
sizeable fee source that remains untapped by the School
Committee. WVN recalls Superintendent Burton told the ad hoc
committee he estimated the town pays $133,000 to provide
busing to students not mandated to receive the service.
| |
For FY06 and FY07, actual and projected fee increases on families total about $300k. The committee has commented that
these fee increases are likely to have already decreased participation, and that further such increases may push past
a "tipping point." Charging for a different service such as transportation does not change the fact this dynamic. Morever,
bus fees may not be a particularly practical or effective way to raise revenue.
On the practical side, issues range from safety (more walkers in a town without any real sidewalk infrastructure) to traffic
congestion (more children being driven to schools) to logistics (is transportation denied to a child at a bus stop without
a bus "card?"). On the effective side, an annual fee of $180 would generate about $38k in revenue that would be
offset by about $20k in costs (bus passes, routing software, part-time transportation coordinator) for a net of only $18k.
|
|
01/27/2006
|
Dieffenbach: In an otherwise excellent
description (WVN #138)
of a recent School Committee meeting that touched on a number of topics, the Wayland Voters Network
mischaracterizes the committee's comments on enrollment changes that might result from the Town Center project
presented at the Special Town Meeting last November.
| |
WVN: Dieffenbach expressed a preference for the fewer-bedroom plan, which
would attract fewer young families with school children. When the same
developer proposed 120 housing units as part of his town Center
proposal last year, the only noticeable comment from the School
Committee was a note from Dieffenbach indicating that the schools
could handle any increased school enrollment.
| |
On 8/30/2005, I sent Michael Tichnor, chair of the Board of Selectmen, an email containing the following statement:
|
At our meeting last evening, we [the School Committee] discussed the Town Center project and its possible impact on schools.
To summarize briefly, all of our buildings are beyond the "ideal" operating capacity of 85%.
While arriving at precise numbers is difficult due to the way that the buildings are used,
here's my estimate of where we stood as of October of 2004.
- Claypit: 95%
- Happy Hollow: 90%
- Loker: 89%
- Middle School: 85%
- High School: 94%
Even planning for 95% capacity is dangerous. However, at that number, we would have about 140 empty seats.
In theory, we would therefore be able to take in 140 students as long as they were perfectly distributed.
Of course, that distribution would shortly affect the high school, since so much of the current capacity
is at the Middle School. So, the "true" capacity is probably closer to half the 140 number--say, 70.
My understanding from you is that your consultant uses 0.32 students per condominium. At 120 units, that would
mean about 40 students, which we could absorb if the distribution were okay. And, the cost number of
$10,000 per student is probably appropriate.
In short, while 40 new students would place a burden on our system, it would not be an overwhelming one.
That statement, however, does not factor in other unexpected enrollment growth, of course.
|
In short, the Wayland Public Schools are obligated to provide an education for the children of all Wayland residents. That is
a far cry, however, from saying that we "could handle any increased enrollment," the inference being without overloading
our current capacity.
|
|
01/21/2006
|
Dieffenbach: In
WVN #136,
the Wayland Voters Network presents its opinions of the School Committee budget meetings on 1/9, 1/12, and 1/17.
| |
WVN: After three meetings, the School Committee has increased the "level
services" budget proposed by Superintendent Gary Burton that itself
represented a 3.7% increase from fiscal 2006. Burton's budget included
some additional fees, self-funding of the ski and swim teams,
reduction in teaching staff warranted by the drop in elementary
enrollment, and some consolidation of classes.
| |
The committee has not increased anything, but rather discussed whether or not to make changes either up or down for FY07.
In noting both the Superintendent's increase compared with FY06 and the committee's discussion about whether or not
to increase that amount, the WVN fails to comment on the most important aspect of the FY07 budget under discussion: at a 3.72%
increase over FY06, the FY07 budget would come in at about $350,000 BELOW the Finance Committee's level services
budget guideline. The reason for the difference includes the following:
- Lower elementary school enrollment
- Class size increases at the ES and MS levels (in some cases slightly exceeding the class size policy)
- Decision not to fill the librarian position at Claypit Hill being vacated by a retiring teacher
- Substantially increased athletic and extracurricular activity fees
| |
There was no discussion by Burton or the School Committee of
recommending any reduction in the budget. The Finance Committee had
requested two budgets from all departments: a level-service budget
(allowing for energy and contractual increases) and one with an 8%
reduction from the level service. Tom Sciacca reports.
| |
This statement by the WVN is factually incorrect, as noted above. The FY07 budget under discussion is in fact about $350,000
lower than the Finance Committee's level service budget guideline.
| |
Fees were raised by about $50,000, or ten percent over last year's fee
level, in Burton's proposed budget. Burton said his proposed fees
"didn't seem to be out of line" with fees charged by other towns. The
Committee deferred a decision on whether to raise fees further to
compensate for the restoration of the ski and swim teams.
| |
The WVN is again in error. Fees for FY06 are expected to be as follows: $145,000 for middle school and high school athletics,
$30,000 for middle school and high school activities other than athletics, and $36,000 for high school parking, for a total
of $211,000. For FY07, fees currently project out as follows: $200,000 for athletics (an increase from $50 per season per
athlete at the middle school to $100 and from $125 to $200 at the high school, assuming that fees are not increased further
to allow for the restoration of swimming and skiing; otherwise, approximately $270,000), $60,000 for activities (assumes a fee
doubling from $50 to $100 per student per year), $30,000 for parking (no increase, but less usage than projected), and
$44,000 for elementary instrumental music (the committee is discussing spreading this more broadly over elementary
activities), for a total of $334. Instead of the 10% increase stated by the WVN, this represents a 58% increase in
fees borne by families.
| |
Member Bob Gordon opined that fees are acceptable in areas that are
not part of the core program and where individuals can't easily
substitute for the experience.
| |
This appears to be a typographical error on the part of the WVN. Mr. Gordon's statement was to the effect that fees
are more acceptable (which is not the same thing as being acceptable) in areas that are not part of the core program and
where individuals CAN easily substitute for the experience.
| |
AUTONOMY OF SCHOOL COMMITTEE
As to whether to raise more fees or not, Gordon said, "I'm not
suggesting we impose further fees just to reduce others' taxes". At
another point he said that the School Committee doesn't report to the
Fincom or the selectmen, but that they have an independent
responsibility. He urged "responsible financial management", but
thought the budget is "not out of line". He thinks that at a 3.72%
increase Wayland is the "flinty outlier" with respect to planned
increases among affluent west suburban towns.
| |
It is helpful that the WVN pointed out this fact. Here are a few early projections for school budget
increases in nearby towns.
- Ashland: 12.9%
- Boxborough: 3.99%
- Lexington: 6.07%
- Needham: 12%
- Sudbury: 6.5%
- Wayland: 3.72%
- Wellesley: 11%
- Weston: 6.7%
| |
According to the Boston Globe, Wayland is second in the region in per
capita municipal spending, behind only much more affluent Weston.
| |
The WVN fails to note that the Boston Globe comparison excluded peer towns including Acton, Boxborough, Carlisle, Concord,
and Lexington. With those towns factored in, Wayland's per capita spending was 5th. Wayland, which has the 5th
highest per capita income among peer towns, fares better on more relevant
metrics such as average tax bill (8th) and per pupil school expenditure (13th) as noted in the
12/14/2005 blog entry.
| |
HIGH SCHOOL BUILDING ISSUES
...
A regional accreditation group has raised issues about the high school
buildings and asked for a plan to address problems. Dieffenbach,
however, said he doesn't care about accreditation, believing a Wayland
High School diploma would carry the same weight whether or not it was
blessed by the regional group, which has no legal authority. He does,
however, care about safety. Some of the problems that have been noted
relate to safety, such as a lack of sprinklers.
| |
The WVN takes my remarks out of context. What I actually said was to the effect that accreditation loss would not bother
me if it were to be revoked for several years for issues solely relating to non-safety related issues at the high school
while longer term plans for the deficient facility were being fleshed out.
| |
OTHER MATTERS
...
During a public comment period, a voter said he was disappointed that
the school department did not adopt a top-down budget process, where
they would decide first on an acceptable level of expenditure and then
construct a budget to live within those means.
| |
This comment mirrored a 1/19 letter to the Town Crier, addressed in the 1/20 blog entry below.
|
|
01/20/2006
|
Dieffenbach: In a
1/19 letter
to the Town Crier, a Wayland resident compliments the School Committee for its communication efforts before
chastising it for its budget process and, amazingly, its activities to lobby the state legislature for more education aid.
| |
Resident: Last year I was one of many Wayland residents who urged the School Committee to adopt more open communications
and more frequent budget hearings so that voters could attend and provide their input.
I also urged a "top-down" budget process to replace the traditional "bottom-up" method that had been used during easier
fiscal times, before the last recession.
What has happened in a year? I congratulate the School Committee for opening the process wider so that voters can now see
some of what goes on, and are able to have their voices heard.
| |
In part at the request of town residents, the committee did add a fall budget hearing to its calendar. However, the openness
of the process has otherwise been the same as it has been in past years.
| |
But I am disappointed that the voices still fall on deaf ears when it comes to the school budget methodology itself.
The School Committee has still not adopted a top-down budget in spite of the critical financial situation.
We have record deficits and no end in sight, future obligations for health care and pensions
(much of the health care expense school-bred but borne on the town side of the ledger),
and looming financial investments for education, water quality and other development.
These will further saddle Wayland with higher and higher budget deficits and taxes year after year.
The School Department is responsible for at least two-thirds of that.
It is very disappointing that the School Committee has not given the School Department a firm budget number
to reduce spending for at least this year. All town governing bodies must do their part to support
not only the delivery of education in Wayland, but public safety and other services, too,
that all residents are tightening their belts to pay for during these years of never-ending tax increases.
| |
The resident is mistaken. At the initiation of the Finance Committee, the School Committee gave the Superintendent two
budget guidelines last fall: one that would maintain level services and a second with a top-down cut of approximately 8% below
that level services amount. The Superintendent developed three such -8% budget options from which the committee selected
one plan. Interested readers may see that plan on the home or "more" pages of this site.
The committee then followed the -8% exercise with a series of meetings to see what an acceptable budget might look
like that falls somewhere between the level services and -8% plans. Those meetings are still underway. The next will be on
1/23 (7:30pm at the Town Building) at which time the committee will prepare a recommendation to be presented to the
Finance Committee on 1/30.
| |
All members of Wayland government were elected to serve all the voters of Wayland equally.
And all the voters of Wayland need and deserve the highest degree of fiscal restraint from their government,
because the end of Wayland's financial turmoil is not nearly in sight, in spite of last week's political
grandstanding on Beacon Hill.
| |
[See note below] "Political grandstanding?" Presumably, the resident refers to the committee's participation in the 1/18 State House rally
organized by Chelmsford in support of higher education aid to town. It is not at all clear how a good faith effort to lobby
for more state aid flowing in to Wayland might somehow be construed as "grandstanding." The committee has pledged to work
at both the local and state levels to do whatever it can to improve Wayland's budget situation. To then be insulted for
that effort is curious indeed. One can imagine that had the committee not attended the rally, that this resident or
others might be criticizing town officials for sitting on their hands and doing nothing.
[01/22/2006: Several school supporters have pointed out to me that the "political grandstanding" remark MAY not have been aimed
at Wayland residents and officials who attended the 1/18 rally. The subtle "last week's" provides a clue that would not have
been needed had the writer been more explicit, for instance by saying, "... last week's political grandstanding by the
Governor on Beacon Hill." I apologize if I was mistaken for attaching "political grandstanding" to the only
government--Wayland's--mentioned in the sentence and paragraph. 01/31/2006:
The resident assured the School Committee that the "political
grandstanding" remark was not aimed at any Wayland official; the committee
thanked the resident for the clarification.]
|
|
01/13/2006
|
Dieffenbach: In a
01/12 letter
to the Wayland Town Crier, a Wayland resident gives kudos to Wayland High School for the recent NEASC accreditation
report. A reader of the resident's letter might come away with the conclusion that all is well at the school.
| |
Resident: Kudos to Charlie Ruopp, principal of Wayland High School, and all school staff for the positive outcome
of the New England Association of Schools and Colleges (NEASC) report.
We should all be pleased that the NEASC accreditation visiting committee affirmed our great pride
in Wayland schools and granted the High School continued full accreditation.
| |
Yes, the NEASC granted the HS continued full accrediation. However, the resident is remiss in not noting the following
statement made by the NEASC: "Following its review and discussion of the school’s decennial evaluation report,
the Commission expressed its serious concern [emphasis added] related to a number of facilities,
space, and health and safety issues throughout the campus facilities as detailed in the Community Resources
for Learning section of the decennial evaluation report." After listing the concerns, the NEASC continued:
"Accordingly, school officials have been requested to submit a Special Progress Report by April 1, 2006
providing detailed information on action taken to address the following facilities, space, and health and safety concerns:"
In short, there is a large asterisk on "full accreditation."
| |
... The High School is not perfect and needs some updating, especially relating to
safety and handicapped accessibility requirements.
| |
"The High School is not perfect" is a substantial misstatement of the building's poor condition,
a condition that has been
denied by no one.
| |
It is important for Wayland citizens to know it is usual procedure for a the self-study to be
provided to NEASC prior to the accreditation visit and brings the NEASC committee up to speed on town demographics,
school philosophies, etc., prior to their visit. As reported by the Wayland School Committee,
the NEASC opinions are heavily influenced by what information is provided to them by these self-studies.
The Wayland self-study used the Wayland High School Building Committee's report with language we all know.
The Building Committee report served as backbone for the proposal last year for building a totally new
$57 million high school that was soundly defeated by voters.
It's little wonder then that the NEASC recommendation mirrors the recommendations of the High School Building Committee report.
Now administrators seem to be lining up prematurely to reintroduce the need to rush to plan a new high school.
| |
No one has questioned the HSBC report on the poor condition of Wayland High School. As promised a year ago, with the
imminent release of the Massachusets School Building Authority's draft regulations, the
School Committee and the administration are beginning to plan how to move the facility forward on both a short-term
and long-term basis. That plan includes maintenance in FY07, a study of how best to address the NEASC findings, a possible new
direction for the High School Building Committee, and consideration of how to address the overall needs at the High School.
To call this consideration, supported and requested by both the Board of Selectmen and the Finance Committee, a "rush" is
not an accurate reflection of the situation.
|
|
01/12/2006
|
Dieffenbach: In a MetroWest Daily News
opinion piece,
columnist Jim Kleinkauf offers a possibly but not obviously tongue-in-check take on New Year's resolutions. After
skewering federal politicians, he turns his attention to the local level. Rather than focus on actual scoundrels,
however, he focuses on, in at least one case, a respected public official, Wayland Superintendent Gary Burton.
| |
Kleinkauf: Gary Burton: As school superintendent in Wayland, Burton has gone to extreme lengths to avoid public scrutiny
based on his self-admitted hatred of the press. The Wayland School Committee was recently chastised by
the Middlesex District Attorney’s office for violating the Open Meeting Law by discussing Burton’s
performance evaluation in executive session.
This year, Burton should resolve to take a refresher course in political science, paying particular attention to the
importance of the First Amendment. And, he might save on gas by carpooling for the course with town officials from Hopkinton.
| |
Mr. Kleinkauf, whom to my knowledge has never contacted a school official in Wayland, is wrong on several levels.
First, the Superintendent has gone to NO lengths to avoid public scrutiny. The decisions made regarding his evaluation
were made solely by the Wayland School Committee (read more
here).
Moreover, the committee's decisions were made in the context of the conflict between two laws and in the
interest of conducting the most useful evaluation possible. Based on the District Attorney's opinion regarding 2004,
the committee changed its practice for 2005. An "extreme lengths" position would have ignored the
District Attorney's opinion altogether.
Second, I know of no "self-admitted hatred of the press" by Superintendent Burton other than his "easily recognized as
tongue-in-cheek graduation" talk last June. Like many public officials and town employees, he may be frustrated by the
press on occasion, but in my experience, he (and the School Committee) have always been extremely cooperative with the
Town Crier, the MetroWest Daily News, and the Boston Globe.
Third, Mr. Kleinkauf fails to disclose that his employer has taken sides on the issue of how Superintendent
evaluations are to be conducted, both in general and specifically with respect to Wayland, and therefore
has given up the stance of objectivity.
Wayland faces serious financial pressures and difficult budget decisions. Poisonous, distorting, and disrespectful
writing of the sort that Mr. Kleinkauf offers threatens the financial well-being of the town and
the property values of its residents.
|
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
|
|
