Wednesday, May 20, 2020


WORCESTER – Upset over Superintendent Maureen Binienda’s handling of the district’s remote learning amid the ongoing pandemic, the city teachers union on Tuesday afternoon said it planned on staging a protest Thursday.
Members of the Educational Association of Worcester intend to organize a “Caravan for Public Education” that will drive from the Immaculate Conception parking lot on Grove Street to City Hall on Thursday afternoon.
The union claims Binienda has “crafted an inadequate response to the impact that the coronavirus has had on public education,” referring to the remote learning model that has been in effect since physical schools closed on March 13.
“Superintendent Maureen Binienda is refusing to bargain in good faith with the EAW or to even set up joint management-labor committees,” union president Roger Nugent said in Tuesday’s statement. “The rapid transition to remote learning after schools closed in mid-March continues to present new challenges to students, families and educators. Instead of working collaboratively with those closest to the situation, the superintendent is issuing mandates that are doing more harm than good.”
Binienda on Tuesday afternoon said she had no comment about the union’s statement.
The EAW is calling on the administration to:
‒ Reduce the amount of time teachers are having to spend logging their work.
‒ Take better advantage of classroom support professionals, who the union says are being underused.
‒ More rapidly provide technology to students at home.
‒ Negotiate with the union through joint-labor management committees to find solutions to the schools shutdown.
The association said it has sent a letter detailing those requests to the superintendent.

Tuesday, May 19, 2020

Officials struggle with Phillipston budget

For Athol Daily News
Published: 5/18/2020 3:45:23 PM
Modified: 5/18/2020 3:45:19 PM
PHILLIPSTON – “In the budget I had started putting together, there was money for training, and money for capital investments and a lot of other things we were going to be able to do this year; right now, those are all on hold.”
That was the prelude Phillipston Chief Administrative Officer Kevin Flynn provided to last week’s joint remote meeting of the town’s Selectboard and Finance Committee, held to figure out just how to proceed with the municipal budget for FY21. The new fiscal year is supposed to begin July 1 but, due to the coronavirus pandemic, many municipal budgets may not be enacted until after that date.
Flynn explained that the state is allowing cities and towns, after July 1, to operate under a so-called one-twelfth budget — based on FY20 figures — until an overall spending package can be approved for the entire fiscal year.
“There are limits on that,” he explained. “It has to include the school district’s assessment. It would have to include money for pension and insurances, and similar assessments. It has to include debt service. We would not be able to use money from stabilization or free cash. And we can’t spend money on capital items or salary increases.”
Because of the local economic impact of the pandemic, as well as its effect on state revenues — and, thus, state aid — Flynn presented officials with an FY21 budget reflecting a slight increase of about $60,000, or about 1.5 percent, from the current year’s budget of just over $3.8 million. Much of the increase comes from a projected hike of $100,000 in the town’s share of Narragansett Regional School District budget.
Flynn estimated a loss of revenues from a variety of sources, due to the coronavirus, amounting to $235,000.
He stressed that these are preliminary figures only, which are subject to change following further deliberations by the Selectboard and Finance Committee.
Flynn noted that his FY21 budget plan did not include $93,000 in Proposition 2 ½ override monies approved by the town last year for additional funds for the Narragansett Regional School District.
“The $93,053 is shown here as a negative number,” Flynn said. “That’s because it was made clear to me that there were strong forces at work who were going to try to reverse the override, to try to put through an underride, and it was likely that money would not be available. So, that money is not used in any of my options.”
“Has the state given any direction at all of when they think they might tell us what they would reduce state funding by?” asked Finance Committee member Brian Nason.
“No,” Flynn responded. “What they have shared with us is all very dramatic information. The Senate chairman of the Ways and Means Committee has shared that (the state) is four to six billion dollars in deficit in revenues for this year. He said this is the worst year since 1946, when they started keeping records.
“Expect that there will be major hits to local revenues, to local education funds, and to regional transportation.”
Flynn said he would not consider an across-the-board cut in municipal pay.
“I don’t mind cutting 5 percent on expenses,” he said. “We can make that work; we stretch a little harder and we don’t get as much done as we want. But I don’t I don’t like cutting peoples’ wages. Especially because it’s only going to happen on the town side. The school department is not going to cut their employees’ wages 5 percent, we all know that.
“They’re going to say, ‘CBA — collective bargaining agreement — we can’t cut anybody’s wages over here. Sorry. So, nobody on the school side gets hurt when you do that; it’s only the town side that gets hurt, and it never catches up after that.”
Town officials will attempt to hammer down details of a budget proposal in time to present it to voters at the annual town meeting, currently scheduled for Monday, June 16.
The annual town election is set for Monday, June 22. Three positions — a one-year seat on the Board of Health, tax collector, and a three-year seat on the Narragansett Regional School Committee — have no candidates. There is but a single candidate for each of the remaining elective offices. A question on the ballot seeks to change the post of tax collector from an elected to an appointed position.

Monday, May 18, 2020

Massachusetts General Law, chapter 40:

Section 49: Annual town reports; publication; penalty for noncompliance

Section 49. The selectmen, before the annual town meeting, shall at the expense of the town make available the annual town report for the use of the inhabitants containing the report of the selectmen for the calendar or fiscal year preceding said meeting, the report of the school committee, statements in tabulated form prepared under section sixty of chapter forty-one unless otherwise printed as provided in said section, the annual report of the town accountant for the preceding fiscal year as provided in section sixty-one of chapter forty-one, the annual report of the town treasurer as provided in section thirty-five of chapter forty-one, and except as otherwise provided by vote or by-law of the town, of such other officers and boards as consider it expedient to make a report, the jury list as required by chapter two hundred and thirty-four, and such other matters as the law, or the town by vote or by-law, requires or as the selectmen consider expedient. If the selectmen neglect or refuse to make the annual report, they shall severally forfeit fifty dollars.
A town may by by-law provide for the printing of such fiscal year reports as it deems suitable within ninety days of the close of the fiscal year. A copy of such fiscal year reports shall be transmitted by the town clerk to the state library before the first day of November. A town may also by by-law provide for the printing of all reports of town officers and boards, committees and commissions on a fiscal year basis in place of the calendar year report required by this section.

Tuesday, May 12, 2020

https://www.templetonma.gov/sites/templetonma/files/uploads/declaration_of_postponement.pdf


About Templeton Annual Town Meeting postponement; note date document signed, time stamped and date posted to town web site.

Saturday, May 9, 2020

The U.S. Supreme Court also dealt with the right to travel in the case of Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999). In that case, Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, held that the United States Constitution protected three separate aspects of the right to travel among the states:
(1) the right to enter one state and leave another (an inherent right with historical support from the Articles of Confederation),
(2) the right to be treated as a welcome visitor rather than a hostile stranger (protected by the "Privileges and Immunities" clause in Article IV, § 2), and
(3) (for those who become permanent residents of a state) the right to be treated equally to native-born citizens (this is protected by the 14th Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause; citing the majority opinion in the Slaughter-House Cases, Justice Stevens said, "the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment . . . has always been common ground that this Clause protects the third component of the right to travel.").