The Narragansett Regional School District Committee

Listed as Committee members:

Melanie Murphy . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Secretary / UFCW
Libby Pittman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .PMS/NDEA
Jessica LeClerc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BES /NDEA
Becky Jillson . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . .  TC / NDEA
Heidi Aukstikalnis . . . . . . . . . . . . . MS / NDEA
Darlene Dickson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Para / UFCW
Cindy LeBlanc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  Custodian / UFCW
McKenzie Lyons . . . . . . . . . .  . . . .Resident / Templeton
Jeffrey Marques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Resident / Phillipston
John Telepciak . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . Phillipton Selectmen
Julie Richard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Templeton Selectmen
Kim Pratt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Phillipston Finance Committee
Jeff Bennett . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Templeton Advisory Committee
Kevin Flynn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Phillipston Administrative assistant
Carter Terenzini . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Templeton Town Administrator
Vikki Chartier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  .School Committee / Phillipston
Rae-Ann Trifilo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . School Committee / Templeton
Chris Casavant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . District Superintendent

This was not a spook committee, it was not a sub committee, rather it was an advisory committee with an intended purpose of making recommendations to the school committee.

It was stated in a document from the NRSD school committee, which Daniel Sanden is listed as a member. Within the letter, it asks if you are interested in serving on it, please respond to the school committee no later than December 11, 2017.

The letter also states the committee will initially meet monthly and may increase in frequency as we draw closer to the opening of the new school.

I will state it was not a very structured entity, more of a very informal gathering to look at how things might evolve with the new school, including funding, staffing, student population, etc. There were many thoughts and ideas tossed about and then the ones that had a general consensus of being acceptable or probably considered by the school committee were listed and grouped together.

It might have been better if all the people who signed up / volunteered would have actually showed up for most or all of the meetings, but that did not happen. Templeton selectmen for example, had to have a second volunteer to serve after the original person never showed up. In the end, only a few were present for all of the meetings In theory, it was a good idea, in practice, not so much.

My opinion is this was another example when a process was put forward, many volunteered to take part, but then refused to take the time to do so. It is like democracy, people say they want it, they just do not wish to give up their free time to take part in the process.

What one community did:

FITCHBURG - Blindsided by the Gardner mayor’s decision last week to withhold funding for Montachusett Regional Vocational Technical School, the school is checking into the legality of the move, the superintendent said.

Gardner Mayor Mark P. Hawke, who has been seeking an update since last winter of the school’s governing agreement with participating cities and towns, wrote to the Monty Tech School Committee chairman Jan. 3 that the budget planning timeline wasn’t being followed and “the city of Gardner will be escrowing any further payments until the school district comes into compliance with the district agreement.”

The 22-member school board voted not to discuss Mr. Hawke’s initial request for review of the regional agreement last February, and sent his subsequent request, made in October, to a policy subcommittee.

The October request from Mr. Hawke, in a letter that was also signed by Fitchburg Mayor Stephen DiNatale, said the school’s regional agreement is out of compliance with state law and needs updating. The last amendment to the document was 18 years ago, the letter said, and it is need of a “comprehensive review.”

The regional agreement, more than 50 years old, outlines obligations between the school district and the 18 cities and towns it serves. Monty Tech is the second largest regional vocational school in Massachusetts.

Mr. Hawke’s Jan. 3 letter to school board Chairman Brian J. Walker said Gardner and other member communities had not received a tentative operating and maintenance budget request from the school committee for the next fiscal year by Nov. 15 as required in the the regional agreement, which also calls for a budget to be adopted by Dec. 1. The school district was in violation of its contract with member communities, the letter said.

Superintendent Sheila M. Harrity said this week she was surprised by the Gardner mayor’s take on the budget process.

“It was on the docket for January,” Ms. Harrity said. “It was a bit of a surprise to hear that Mayor Hawke was withholding funds for the budget approved last year to run the school for this year because he’s looking for next year’s budget numbers. Withholding funds is brand new. I found out about it Thursday (Jan. 4).”

The school contends that state law supersedes language in the regional agreement, Ms. Harrity said, and Monty Tech is doing what it has done for 25 years and what all other school districts in the state do: provide budget requests to cities and towns in January after the governor releases his budget figures.

The School Committee has also received similar letters requesting a review of the regional agreement in the last few weeks from the Winchendon and Narragansett Regional school districts, Ms. Harrity said. So far, only Gardner is withholding payments to the school, she said, but Winchendon School Committee member Gregory S. Vine is requesting Winchendon selectmen follow suit.

“The subject of the (Winchendon) letter was not included on the agenda of the Monty Tech (full) school committee in either December or January,” Mr. Vine said. “Given the fact that these three communities (Fitchburg, Gardner and Winchendon) send the largest number of students to Monty Tech, I felt it was a slap in the face to our cities and towns that the topic was apparently being ignored.”

Mr. Vine said he would like to see the agreement reviewed for several reasons, including when the budget is provided to member towns and also to change the way students are selected from contributing school districts.

“At present, vocational schools are allowed to choose students based on five criteria, among them academic standing, discipline records and absenteeism,” he said. “This basically allows them to choose only the highest-performing students among applicants.”

He said he believes the process “leaves students behind,” who would benefit from a vocational program and state law prohibits member districts from offering vocational programs that mimic those at the vocational school they belong to.

However, Mr. Walker said the School Committee reviewed the admissions process a few years ago and allowed public input. No substantial changes were made, he said, and no one has come before the committee requesting another review of the admissions process since.

Mr. Walker said he disagrees that the School Committee ignored the issue of reviewing the regional agreement.

“The whole intent of the issue going before the policy subcommittee was for it to be a collaborative effort and for a level of transparency as we moved through the process,” Mr. Walker said. “It seemed like we were going in a good direction and we invited officials from the towns to our meeting next week (Jan. 16).

“Then, Mayor Hawke sends the letter out about withholding funds. It put a little something on the spirit of collaborating. It was almost out of nowhere. We’ve been keeping him informed with the process and it caught many of us off guard, for sure. It is frustrating and I hope we can work through this,” Mr. Walker continued.

Mr. Hawke said his decision to withhold payments has nothing to do with Monty Tech staff, students or the superintendent.

“The School Committee has refused to act in a judicious manner with regard to updating the outdated agreement,” Mr. Hawke said. “I have no idea what a thorough update and review of the regional agreement would produce. I do know it is a document that was written in a different day and age. It is so old that no one, including Monty Tech, actually has the first amendment.”

He said, “The issue is with the School Committee as a whole and their refusal to listen to the four largest sending communities’ wishes to update the regional agreement ... Currently, Monty Tech does not notify any of the communities of anything, which I find unfortunate and not within the guidance of the regional agreement. The cities and towns should have advanced notice of the budget and what it contains and provided the opportunity to have input.”

Our schools need fixing

More than a year ago Superintendent Casavant asked the school committee to OK an advisory committee he wished to form to study how are district ran. We OK’d it but I personally wondered why it was needed?

He put it together with people from both towns and began holding meetings – every two weeks! That in itself was very unusual because all subcommittees generally meet monthly. After a number of meetings, Phillipston’s Administrative Assistant and one of our Selectmen who were on the committee quit going. I went to see what was going on. It seemed to be an infomercial to sell the Superintendent’s plan for reorganizing the district. He basically wanted to turn Phillipston grade school into a babysitting service for children ages 3-5 and send all our first through fifth grade students to the new Templeton Elementary school. I got hold of 3 or 4 copies of the minutes of these meetings. What do you know, there was no list of who was at meeting and no one signed the minutes! A spook committee!

After we complained about these irregularities, a meeting of people from both towns was held in the auditorium. The meeting was advertised on “Facebook” — how tacky. People from both towns showed up to complain about his plan. Nobody was buying it.

At the next School Committee meeting, we voted to stick with the original plan, which called for the fifth grade coming back to PMES when the new elementary school opened in Templeton. That’s where things stood when Phillipston voted at town meeting this May to approve the school budget and the override. At that meeting, Casavant told us, “I have no intention of closing this school.” A few days later he told people at Templeton town meeting that he would recommend closing Phillipston to balance the budget.

Then later he convinced the school committee to go along with his original plan to put pre-school and kindergarten in Phillipston and grades one through five in Templeton.

Phillipston is up in arms! I can’t imagine the teachers are very thrilled, either. We don’t like to be lied to or double-crossed. We will not stand for our grade school (used as such since 1948) – and added onto twice, at the urging of the school committee) to be turned into a glorified babysitting service.

There is a serious movement on to recall our three school committee people and we are serious, in our belief, that the Superintendent – the most divisive superintendent we’ve ever had – should be removed.

Daniel Sanden

Phillipston

No to adjusted school budget, no to cuts to town budget, no to access to new elementary school until people come to senses.

NO to school budget until school committee cuts one elementary school principal and eliminates the new assistant elementary school vice principal, which I believe would save an additional $250,000.00 (conservatively) No to asking for another override.

If the commissioner of education wishes to slap the face of Templeton voters by approving a 1/12 budget using the FY2020 numbers rather than FY2019, then right back at him. Templeton should refuse to pay anything until a new regional agreement is completed which begins by giving Templeton one additional member of school committee (Phillipston loses one) and elections are separated; Templeton votes for it's school committee members and Phillipston votes for theirs. That is my view on a starting point. Put Templeton's proposed contribution in escrow until the matter is settled, do not pay one dime until things are straightened out, on paper!

I am prepared to rumble, I wonder if Templeton voters are too? This has to be a long term commitment otherwise nothing will change. If voters are not willing to go the distance, then just throw in the towel now. Please show up for selectmen meeting and voice your opinion. Show up for the special Town Meeting on July 18 at 7:00 P.M. and vote.

Using some information from the MSBA website:

Templeton Elementary School

Total project budget . . . . . . . . . . . .$45,058,033.00

Reimbursement rate . . . . .63.11%

MSBA paid to date . . . . . . . . . . . . $17,368,720.00

MSBA estimated remaining
payment (s) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $  5,392,059.00



$17,368,720.00 + $5,392,059.00 = $22,760,779.00

$45,058,033.00 / 2 = $22,529,016.50

50% of total project budget MSBA reimbursement (approximate)

So much for the advertised 63.11% - which can probably be attributed to 63.11% is only applicable to eligible costs rather than the total project cost. So, if MSBA wants to take money back, you have a dollar figure to use as a starting point. Keep in mind, 47 million was the figure town meeting authorized to borrow.

Just so it is clear: there are over 5,000 registered voters in Templeton, of those, records show 1160 voters took time to vote on override and of those, 320 voted for the override and 827 voters said no to the override. So about one fifth of voters thought it important enough to show up to vote. Translation - 1/5th told the other 4/5ths what to do and apparently that is okay. If you wish something to happen, show up and if you do not wish it to happen, show up!

Costs as shown in FY2020 Spending plan:

Page 58A increase in Town Accountant / personnel

After Hubbardston agreement -          $127,470.00
Before Hubbardston agreement -        $  90,000.00

On face value, it appears increase of   $ 37,470.00

Increase
Town Accountant salary -                     $  7,500.00

Increase
 switch from part time to full-time -      $49,780.00

Now benefits - approximately -             $25,000.00

Net Increase -                                         $61,934.00

part-time was $20,346.00 / no benefits

So, first year of accounting agreement with Hubbardston equates to a payment from Hubbardston to Templeton for $37,000.00 and Templeton taxpayers are on hook for additional $61,934.00 to cover this agreement. In the end, it seems this agreement benefits Hubbardston far more than Templeton, again!

Increase to Templeton . . . . . . . . . $61,934.00
Decrease to Templeton . . . . . . . .  $37,000.00
Net increase to Templeton . . . . . . $24,934.00

Looking at the straight math, how does this benefit Templeton now and in the long run?

Was this part of a five year plan that was done in three years? Perhaps should have taken more time looking at plan?