Now, you can call me many things, but one thing you really can’t call me (with a straight face) is an “inactive voter.” Indeed, I’ve voted in almost ever local, state and federal election since I moved to Belmont. I blame my grandfather for that, who really considered voting a moral responsibility and made sure that his grandchildren saw it that way too. But I digress.

So I’m staring at this poll worker, who really was kindly and also an unpaid volunteer, and saying “huh?” This must be a mistake, of course, as I voted in the very last election. But no – I’m “inactive” as far as Belmont is concerned and need to go fill out a form to “reactivate myself” before I can cast a ballot.
So what gives? Well, it seems I’ve run afoul of State Law. In particular, MGL 51 Sect. 4, which requires towns to put any voter who doesn’t respond to the town census on an “inactive voter” list. What’s that? Well, it is what it sounds like – you’re a deadbeat voter who hasn’t dragged his (or her) butt to the polls for years. Or, you’re a besieged suburbanite who recycled both your Town Census (mailed in January) and the bold type warning/reminder card (mailed in October). I’m guilty as charged, as are about 25% of Belmont’s registered voters, according to the Town Clerk’s office. You heard it – 1 in 4, or about 4,000 of 16,000 registered voters in Town have been placed on the Inactive Voter list. Welcome to the club.

What can you expect with your membership? Well…once you’re on the list, in addition to getting the stink eye from poll workers, you have two State-wide elections to get reactivated, or you’re off the voter rolls altogether and have to re-register. Call it a fast track to disenfranchisement.

Don’t get angry. As I said, this isn’t some new law. As it turns out, this requirement has been on the books for years now, according to a spokesman from Secretary Galvin’s office, but it seems that towns haven’t been enforcing it. In recent months, the Secretary of State has been sending out reminders to Town Clerks about the need to enforce the law. Belmont, it seems, had been lax in enforcing the law since who-knows-when, so there was a huge spike in offending voters when they finally went through the list and figured out who was naughty and nice on this year’s Census. Other towns, which have kept up with the state requirement, might not see any spike on their “inactive voter” lists.

We’re not alone. This article from the Newburyport News (from October) says that a quarter of that Town’s voters, also, were going to be listed as “inactive.”
One problem with enforcing this statute is that it has the potential to cause gridlock at the polls, especially if, say, one in four voters is forced to divert from picking up their ballot to a separate table, fill out a (really confusing) “I’m an active voter” form and then return to the back of the line to go through again. It won’t matter much today in a single race election for a State Senate seat in the middle of December, no less. But you might expect some chaos come Nov. 2012 with both a Senate and Presidential race in the balance.

The other problem is that this law has the potential to disenfranchise a lot of active, responsible voters. I’ve been living in town for the better part of a decade now, and I think our home has been pretty good about filling out the Town Census when it arrives. (Though, obviously, not perfect.) While I understand the need to keep voter rolls accurate and try to capture voters who have moved out of town or changed addresses (and precincts), a smarter approach would be to have a “both-and” approach to declaring voters “inactive” rather than the current “either-or” approach. In other words: if you didn’t return your Town Census (also known as the Street List) AND you hadn’t voted in the last two state-wide elections, then your names goes on the Inactive Voter list. But if you had done one, but not the other, you stayed active. Thoughts?

• Belmont has spent around $1m of its own $$$ to fund the redesign of Trapelo Road. Trapelo Road redesign is very highly rated road project state-wide. Transport planners think we’re awesome! Woot.
• Massachusetts already spends close to $.50 of every $1 on health care costs with 1 in 5 residents in the State on Medicaid. (Did I hear that right?)
• Federal funds are up in the air for next year, including healthcare reimbursements from the Feds and money for transportation.
• Municipal plan design reform: allowing the mayor or selectmen of the municipality to change a municipality’s health cae plan design or enter the Group Insurance Commission (GIC) without entering into collective bargaining. Will backs it – doesn’t think it will be a raw deal for municipal unions.
• Funding education, police, fire. “Issues of regionalization” will become more urgent in the coming years. Agreed on that. Go to willbrownsberger.com for more information!

UPDATE: We’re now hearing a report out from the Ad hoc Subcommittee on Town Meeting Communications. Bullet points:

• There’s an inconsistent level of detail about issues.
• TM members don’t really have enough time to consider issues up for discussion.
• Its not easy to address complex issues that can’t be addressed in one sitting

There are a bunch of suggestions:

1. Open and close Warrant in January instead of March
2. Star Annual Town Meeting in May so as not to conflict with school vacation.
3. Encourage precinct caucuses
4. Institutionalize separate budget and non-budget Warrant briefings
5. Schedule annual Community Forum to address vision issues.
6. Increase the use of electronic communications with Town Meeting members – e-mail and Website to include background information on Warrant articles.
7. Create Moderator appointed standing committee to improve information for Town Meeting members (print materials, electronic, etc. A resource for TM members).
8. Identify and clarify process on how TM can obtain more information on a topic and keep that topic alive so that TM members have all the information they need to make a proper decision.
9. Implement a TM member orientation handbook. Revise and distribute it to TM members.
10. Organize a TM Member Association to handle things outside of TM.

There’s a written report (I’ll try to post it on B2). Thanks TM Communications Subcommittee!! Great work.

UPDATE: Articles 14 and 15: Ralph Jones is explaining why we should agree to take 0% interest loans from MWRA for sewer and storm drain line improvements in town. Just smiles on this one. Both motions are approved unanimously. Thanks, MWRA. I think your tap water tastes yummy!

UPDATE: We’re now on to the next item: Article 11 – revised motion authorizing expenditure from the town’s Revolving Fund. Ralph Jones, Chairman of the Board of Selectmen, is now explaining some last minute changes to this – $300,000 for the town’s Ambulance service will come out of the Capital Budget. Filing fees for Wetlands Protection – these fund administration and enforcement of the Wetlands Protection Act. This is confusing. I guess we don’t need to vote on this because its required by State law and there’s a separate fund to hold these accounts – this shouldn’t be part of the Town’s revolving account.

UPDATE: Article 6 – Appropriating $22,500 to provide non-contributory pensions for eligible employees of Town Depts…this concerns a single Town employee. Its approved unanimously.

UPDATE: Article 7: Appropriate $5.04m to provide contributory pensions and expenses in connection with Chapter 32 of MGL…Barbara Hagg, Town Accountant is speaking. The town’s pension is around 52% funded. Mark P. of BOS is saying it will be fully funded by 2028. Question from the floor: given that we’re behind – what did we pay in the past and what do we project we’ll pay over the next 10 years, given that our pension obligations won’t be fully funded. Barbara said she doesn’t have a 2010 actuarial study on this question. The amount we’ll have to shell out will increase 4.5% year on year, and we do new actuarial studies every couple years to see if our numbers are getting off course. This could be a big hit to town budgets in years to come, but there’s no way to know for sure. Its put to a vote and passes unanimously.

UPDATE: Angelo Firenze of BOS is introducing Article 8 – asking for approval of $532,410 for the repair, improvement and construction of highways within the Town. It is put a vote without any question and passes unanimously.

UPDATE: Ralph Jones of BOS introduces Article 5 appropriating funds to pay elected officials. Only two of these folks: the Town Clerk and Town Treasurer make any real money – $72,499 for the clerk and $89,145 for the Treasurer. The total assessment here is $185,586. There’s some interest here, as there’s a proposed amendment from the Warrant Committee to knock the Clerk’s salary down from $72k to $62k. BOS recommends approval of this. Ouch! Now Liz Allison, Chair of WC is speaking. TM allocated $60,000 last year. The 62,000 is a 4% increase. The Warrant is requesting a 20% increase and WC is calling bulls**t on that, it appears. Roy Epstein of WC is now addressing TM…Long and short is that average salary across similarly sized towns for Town Clerk is $60k. Also: TC gets a $2,500 stipend for sitting on the election board. Mass Municipal Association data also suggests a salary figure in the low $60k figure. Town Clerks Association data – which also tracks years on the job and total compensation (i.e. stipends). WC says when you correlate by size of town and years of service (in Belmont’s case: 2 years), the number is $65,000. Hmmm….doesn’t look good for Ellen!

Don Mercier is up to ask how big the Town Clerk staff at comparable towns. Good question!! Roy says they only considered full time clerks. Comparability of the office – Roy called around to different towns to ask about similarity of the job and seems satisfied that this is an apples:apples comparison in terms of job description and staffing. The discussion quickly gets heated, as defenders of our Town Clerk challenge the effort to knock down the salary level. Folks against this are saying 1) Ellen’s doing a great job (hard to argue), 2) Its a tough job – fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay 3) $72k is a living wage – this whole discussion is unseemly and not the way to do this, even though we can. I think folks like the idea of controlling salary growth, but singling out the two positions that TM actually controls isn’t going to accomplish that and the WC isjust  looking small and mean here. You’re a small, mean committee, Warrant Committee!! Mark P of the BOS is saying that the BOS is pursuing a top-down salary review of non-elected employees. Question: Town Clerk and Treasurer: how does oversight of those positions compare to non-elected town employees.

UPDATE: Oh G-d, this is such a flog. The motion passes by a narrow margin. I voted against it – Clerk should be appointed, not elected, same with the Treasurer. WC is trying to make a “point” here with this $10k salary increase – thereby missing the large “point” altogether.

UPDATE: Article 12: $150,000 transferred from the sale of cemetery plots. Passes unanimously. RIP.

UPDATE: Article 10: These are big $$ transfers from Sewer and Stormwater Enterpise Fund for water and sewer functions. These are fully funded from water and sewer rates – $5m and $7m. These are self sustaining funds, paid for by fees.  Both items pass unanimously.

UPDATE: Article 9: (Last one of the evening): Sum of $2m appropriated for public safety, public works, maintenance, etc. This is a dog’s dinner of different items – a boiler at BHS. Snow plow replacements, sidewalks and pavement management, networking equipment for the BPD, etc. etc. Site improvements: tennis court resealing. Hopefully we don’t go down a rabbit hole on this one.

“This remarkable new film shines a light on the price our kids pay for this “race to nowhere.” Cheating is commonplace, stress-related illness, depression and burnout are rampant, and ironically, young people arrive at college and the workplace unprepared and uninspired. Featuring the heartbreaking stories of young people who have been pushed to the brink and educators who are burned out and worried that students arenʼt developing the skills needed for the global economy, RACE TO NOWHERE points to the silent epidemic running rampant in our schools.”

The film screens in Belmont on May 5

Read more details about the event below.

+++++++++++

The Belmont PTA/PTO’s are proud to present a special screening of the critically acclaimed documentary film:

RACE TO NOWHERE

(Directed by Vicki Abeles)

Thursday, May 5th at 7:00pm at Belmont Studio Cinema

Film will be followed by a discussion with author Alfie Kohn and student success expert Cal Newport.

Tickets are available for $10 online at http://rtnbelmontstudiocinemas55.eventbrite.com/
Or $15 at the door.

Half the price of each ticket sold will be donated to Belmont’s Public Schools.PTO/PTA’s.

Event Information:

There has been a groundswell of interest in this film across the country. 800 people attended the screening at Belmont High School and a recent screening at the Belmont Studio Cinema sold out.  This special one-night event hosted by all the Belmont PTA/PTO’s is a fundraiser for our schools, which are facing dire budget cuts.   The evening includes a post-screening discussion led by noted local authors Alfie Kohn and Cal Newport.  Alfie Kohn is the author of twelve books, including NO GRADES + NO HOMEWORK =BETTER LEARNING.

Cal Newport created Study Hacks, the Internet’s most visited student advice blog and is the author of three books of student advice. His latest, HOW TO BE A HIGH SCHOOL SUPERSTAR, argues that it’s possible to do well in the college process without becoming overloaded or over-stressed.
Film Synopsis:

A concerned mother turned filmmaker aims her camera at the high-stakes, high-pressure culture that has invaded our schools and our children’s lives.  Race to Nowhere points to the silent epidemic in our schools: cheating has become commonplace; students are disengaged; stress-related illness and depression are rampant; and many young people arrive at college and the workplace unprepared and uninspired. Race to Nowhere is a call to action for families, educators, and policy makers to challenge current assumptions on how to best prepare the youth of America to become healthy, bright, contributing and leading citizens.

For questions about the May 5th Belmont event, contact Benita Gold at benita@benitagoldpr.com or Argelis Roman at roman.argelis@gmail.com.

We hope to see you on May 5th!  This is a great way to come together to support our schools and to join in the national dialogue on student stress and wellbeing.

Paul Solomon is telling us about what the Community Preservation Committee (CPC) would do. This is a requirement of the Community Preservation Act (CPA), so we’ve got to vote for this in order to be compliant with CPA (and get State funds). Dr. Solomon is telling us about the purview of the CPC, which makes it a good time to talk about Articles 24 and 25 and why its really puzzling that this has been resubmitted to Town Meeting. First of all, its rare for articles that get voted down to be resubmitted so quickly. Second: these articles, which were the last to be considered on Monday evening, failed because 1) they needed a 2/3 majority of TM to pass – a high bar, 2) the BOS and Angelo did a really, really bad job explaining the need for a sale now while raising significant questions about the wisdom of a sale with development happening in that area, which connects Trapelo Road to Pleasant Street. The BOS was, in fact, not 100% sure that the town owned the land in question, while Sammy Baghdady of the Planning Board suggested that his Board was looking at development in the area in which the parcels might potentially play a part. There were no pictures of the parcels in question, while the map provided was not clear about which parcels TM was even considering for sale. The consensus was “try again,” and that appears to be what Angelo the Board of Selectmen are doing. I’m game, but the decision by the BOS to distribute a circa 1875 town map to make their point (and what point is that?) is puzzling. The real question is why now? why all the heat and light to get this done so speedily?

OK – we’re now considering an amendment to Article 21 proposed by the Warrant Committee. Basically, the WC wants to add a phrase that will require the CPC to provide an estimate of “initial and ongoing capital costs, a five year projection of operating costs, and estimate of administrative costs and an estimate of foregone Town tax revenue along with a description of additional costs required of any Town department” to a section of Article 21 requiring the CPC to present to Town Meeting an estimate of the “anticipated costs” of any project under the CPA. Paul Solomon, Angelo and now Fred Paulson are speaking in opposition to the amendment saying that, in essence, that no other town requires this and that its not necessary – all those items would be in any cost estimate, without tying the hands of the CPC.

We’re debating this Warrant Committee cost amendment now. We’re hearing pros and cons. Folks like the idea of having clear and ongoing cost estimates to capital projects. I like that idea too, but attaching that kind of rider to CPA projects and no others seems more about ideology than policy. I just got up and spoke and said this – and that I felt like the Warrant Committee was abdicating its responsibility and that, after all, scores of towns across the State had passed and implemented the CPA without driving their fiscal car into the ditch. Ralph Jones gets up and says, in some ways, the same thing: that its the Warrant Committee’s job to look into these issues, so we don’t need to require that type of work of the CPC.

Don Mercier is now speaking. If you’re in Town Meeting, you know what that means. He raises the (totally valid) point that the Senior Center was built without adequate consideration of the (considerable) capital costs. However, the BOS adopted a rule after that debacle requiring said estimates for any future capital project, making this amendment mostly redundant.

Liz Allison – chair of WC – is clarifying that the CPC will do the ground work on cost estimates.

Adam Dash of WC – and former CPA Study Committee member – is speaking against the amendment. Too much micromanaging of an independent committee and too much detail. Besides there’s no enforcement mechanism if the CPC blows off the requirement. And why not consider global warming impact, parking, etc. He gets a big round of applause.

More TM members speaking against – WC, Capital Budget Committee are the proper bodies to consider these questions. CPC is, in the end, not a financial committee.

We vote – and the amendment fails. Woot!!

We’re now considering an amendment to Article 21 to add a member of the Recreation Committee to the CPC. This will not be a controversial amendment, I expect…

It passes, as does Article 21 in short order. Congratulations, Paul Solomon! Can’t wait for the CPA projects to get rolling in town.

UPDATE: Now for Articles 24 and 25 – Joe White explains that he submitted Articles 24 and 25 for reconsideration. Joe feels like a call for a standing vote on both articles was ignored by Moderator Widmer. Steve Rosales is now speaking in support of Joe – saying that we need to reconsider for “the integrity of the process.”

David Palmer (Precinct 7) asking about the vote tonight – given that its a different (and smaller) group of TM members. Good question.

“The mind can only absorb what the butt can endure.” – Steve Rosales – classic.

We approve the motion to reconsider.

On to Articles 24 and 25 – Angelo is addressing TM. He apologizes for a lack of information on the plots in question, the amount of tax revenue in question, etc. etc. He has good imagery now – showing the patchwork of town and private land around this extension on either side of the train tracks. Says he started looking at this almost four years ago. Angelo is reading a legal document saying its not clear how Belmont obtained title to the parcels on either side of the track. “Essentially, the title search has thrown the ownership of the property into question.” We have an easement put there in 1874, not used since. Northern portion discontinued as a public way.

As to value: Belmont Assessors: North piece is valued at $46,000. The tax rate would be around $2,000 on the North and on the South would be around $1,500 if we sold them. He asks us to reconsider our vote from Monday night.

OK – we’re not debating the proposal. Two speakers against the proposal. Folks are concerned about the impact on planning and development within Waverly Square. There’s a bigger picture…

On the table here is around $8.5 million in state grant money at some point in the future – probably July 2011. This should be a no-brainer, given that voting “yes” doesn’t compel the Town to spend any money on anything – or even form a building committee, while voting “no” forecloses on Belmont getting state money to build a new library anytime in the foreseeable future (read: the next 20-30 years).  The Warrant Committee, Capital Budget Committee and Board of Selectmen have all weighed in for approval of this, but we’ll see. The Tea Party line on this is “NO NO NO!” but not sure how many of them are in the audience.

Thanks to Sara Masucci for letting me bum a Smartie!

Matt Lowrie of the Library Board of Trustees (hereafter LBoT) is speaking and we’re getting to the elephant in the living room around the new library: the current softball field or soccer field gets nixed with the new library design. I’m ready to say goodbye to the softball field if I don’t have to sit in a cramped, 40 year old study carol with frayed wires hanging off of it when I want some quiet space to work, aren’t you? Given the narrowness of the available, non-playing field space, without nixing the softball field, our new library will most likely have to look something like this:

our new library? don't count on it!

State requirements say, based on Belmont’s population and use statistics for the existing, 29,000 square foot structure, we need to build a 45,000 square foot library to qualify for State matching funds. Plusses: modern infrastructure (like fire suppression and air conditioning) as well as AWDA compliance – which our current library doesn’t have and which we’re one good lawsuit away from having to offer at a cost of about 30% of the current usable space.

Belmont library stats:

• 313,000 annual visits last year – more than 1,000 a day!!
• 15,000 registered users.
• Current estimate on costs: $18.5m. State funds: $8.5m, $3m private fund raising, around $600,000 in pocket and $250 promised already. Estimated around $22m to build in current location.
• New library cost per house: $5/month or $60/year.
• This may work with other capital plans (like the police station)

Costs of doing nothing:

• $3.4m for roof, elevator, hvac, fire suppression
• $2.2m front steps, carpet and asbestos tile, power
• Accessibility: $1.0m – still has vacuum tubes (cool!)
• $60,000 for glazing, partitions
• Total: $3.4m to $6.6m.

Thanks to Sara Masucci for letting me bum a Sweet Tart!

School Committee has voted neither for nor against this plan because they don’t have enough information on what the building will look like and what the contingency plans for the softball field are. The BSC is worried about issues like accreditation for the school, adequate compensation for the land that is currently used as a softball field. Mark Paolillo of the Board of Selectmen says that everyone will work hard to find a solution to the softball field.

Question: how can we even talk about a new library when everything is going to pot in town?!

OHYMYGOD!! ZOMBIE INVASION AT TOWN MEETING!!! THEY’RE EVERYWHERE!! AAAARHHHGHGHGH!!!! THEY’RE EATING BRAINS!!

Zombies are at town meeting!!! Aaargh!

Anne Rittenburg is taking the time to skewer the library plan. Four words: heavily. ulitilized. athletic.facility. Matt Lowrie: analysis paralysis – we’ve been studying the bejezus out of this for a decade and now all we need to do is give the green light to possibly qualifying for state matching funds for almost 50% of this project at some point in the future (subject to Town Meeting approval, of course).

UPDATE: Lots of debate – mostly about the advisability of building a new library, which is – in moderator Widmer’s words – “out of scope” for the question. Someone suggests that Belmont’s fabled fire bug have a go at our fire suppression-less, fifty year old library and, with that, the question is smartly moved. We approve it heartily.

Article 17 gets pulled for some reason – whatever happened to the governance reform recommendations? This is one of them.

UPDATE: Article 18 regarding addresses in town. There’s an article to give the Board of Selectmen clear authority to appoint Town employees to oversee the numbering of all taxable and non-taxable properties. This could have a real impact on my plan to unilaterally relist my property as 54 7/8 Cross Street!

Dave Petto: IT Director for Belmont is addressing TM on Article 18. This article is brought to you by “all the departments in town.”  Turns out that all the different town computers have separate and non-reconciled address tables for properties in town. Example: Assessors table has parcel addresses, but not separate per-unit addresses for multi unit addresses. Verizon e-911, tax assessors addresses, etc. Apparently, correlating these addresses is a huge job and adding lots of overhead to Town departments. IT wants one address table that all the departments can reference. Makes sense to me.  I’m ready to vote “Yes.”

Question: will this bylaw require anyone to change their address, get a new license? Glen Clancy – short answer “Yes” but only in instances where there are inconsistencies or some safety issues. Glen virtually guarantees that folks in multi unit buildings won’t need to get a new address. Emphasis on “virtually.”

Question: What do other towns do about this? Are we ahead? Are we behind?

Glen Clancy: “I wouldn’t say we’re behind, I’d say we’re not…ahead.”

We vote to approve this common sense request from the town. No surprise.

UPDATE: OK. We just voted to dismiss something. I don’t know what it was. Article 19: The Tree Bylaw. (Thanks, Sara!)

UPDATE: On to Article 20: Stretch Energy Code. Even getting the right slide up on screen was a major and complex issue involving Town Counsel. That’s a sign that this Article is gonna rock!!

Moderator Widmer is suggesting that we “postpone” this Article. Or table it. Or take it out into the parking lot and shoot it. We’re all strongly in favor. Roger Colton moves to table. There are 50 “seconds” to this. We’re putting it off until later.

Suggestion: when we get amended bylaws how about putting the italics on the new stuff?!?!

UPDATE: Article 21: Community Preservation Act – there are three amendments to the original motion. This is gonna be a good one. Oop! We’re punting this one till Wednesday’s meeting, too. This is easy!!

UPDATE: Article 22: This one gives the Town Clerk the ability to distribute notices of pending Town Meetings to Town Meeting members electronically to the verbiage about distributing notice to TM members. This one should win easy approval – what with e-mail entering its third decade. We learn Don Mercer doesn’t have an e-mail account. Approved.

UPDATE: Article 23: Mike Liebenson of Warrant Committee is introducing this one, which is about consolidating the Town and School Dept. maintenance and facilities functions. Voting for this will authorize the Board of Selectmen, School Committee and School Dept. to implement a consolidation.

Looooong wind up to this article by Mike. I could do it in five words: This Will Save Us Money. Besides, my laptop is running out of juice. Can’t mike see the blinking battery light from up at the podium?!?

The graphic about teacher hours worked versus pay (after 15 years in the profession) is particularly enlightening. Teachers in the U.S. end up at the top of the scale in hours worked, but near the bottom for salary (as compared with GDP per capita).

Via:Master-Degree-Online.com

I’m not sure what this does – except counter the idea that Belmont spends extravagantly on its schools. Indeed, we perform in the top percentile, but spend per resident in the middle of the curve, so that would seem to suggest that our district is over performing. Of course, a look at the top spending districts per resident quickly shows that the correlation between per resident spending and performance doesn’t hold up. While almost all the top performing districts are in the top 100 in per resident school expenditures, its also true that some low performing districts are among the top ranked in per resident school spending.

I am writing to share the news with you that Dr. Entwistle, Superintendent of Schools,  has informed the School Committee of his intent to leave the Belmont Public Schools at the close of this current school year; noting that he is compelled to return to Maine for personal, family reasons.  On March 17^th the School Board for the town of Scarborough, ME will appoint him to lead their school district effective July 1, 2011.

We have been extremely fortunate to have the benefit of Dr. Entwistle’s leadership during the past two years and regret, but understand and support, his need to return to Maine.  He has, without question, added enormous value to the Belmont Public Schools organization and to our community.  The work he has done to simultaneously build and strengthen the Strategic Leadership Team of the Belmont Public Schools, while working in partnership with them to engineer the BPS organization for high performance, high efficiency, and greatest return-on-investment leaves us in very good stead, going forward into the future.

The School Committee and overall Strategic Leadership Team will continue to work in seamless partnership with Dr. Entwistle for the remainder of the school year, maintaining our relentless focus on creating the very best possible outcomes for our students and our school community.  We will also be engaging in a thoughtful, thorough, and inclusive process with respect to planning for both short-term and long-term transition of district leadership and will keep you apprised of those plans as they evolve.

Best,

Ann Rittenburg

School Committee Chair

Ralph Jones (Chair): Ralph.Jones@cadmusgroup.com
Angelo Firenze: angelo@angelofirenze.com
Mark Paolillo:  mpaolillo@belmont-ma.gov

-Paul

++++++++++++++++++++

Dear Friends,

Over the past seven years that I have been associated with the Belmont Public Schools, I have witnessed the gap between the high expectations for program offerings and the revenue available to pay for them grow annually.  In each succeeding budget cycle, I’ve watched the community employ a combination of “one-time” solutions, such as the use of funds from revolving accounts or the transfer of “free cash,” coupled with reductions in services that were palatable to the community, such as losses in clerical and custodial positions, deferred maintenance, and implementation of “Users’ Fees,” in order to bridge the gap.  While these solutions allowed us to operate as “normally” as possible from year to year, they did not address the underlying structural problem that our non-discretionary costs are outpacing the annual increases in revenue that the schools receive under Proposition 2 1/2.

Last month, Superintendent Entwistle presented three budget scenarios to the School Committee for next year, Fiscal Year 2012 (FY ‘12).  The first scenario outlined a “Mission Critical” Budget.  This budget proposal restored for FY ‘12 many programs that have been cut or intentionally underfunded over the past several years.  In order to implement this budget, funding to the schools would need to increase by approximately $2.9 million over FY ‘11, to a total of $43,526,480.  The second budget scenario presented represented a “Level Services” budget.  In this scenario, the Belmont Public Schools would continue to offer our current FY ‘11 programs.  Given the non-discretionary increases that must be built into the FY ’12 budget, such as contractual obligations, health care, insurance, out of district special education tuitions, and utilities and the loss of “one-time” federal stimulus grant monies provided to the district in FY ‘11, the town’s funding of the schools will have to increase an additional $1.9 million to 42,652,566 in order to provide the same services as today.  A third scenario, the “Available Revenue” budget, represents the funding that is currently projected to be available for the schools, or $40,574,854.  The gap between the Available Revenue Budget and our program needs has become so great that we cannot continue to offer the same level of service that the community has come to expect.

In order to meet the reduced dollar amounts projected in the Available Revenue Budget for FY ‘12, the “regular day” program at Belmont High School will see cuts that approach $550,000.  This figure does not include reductions that will also be made to athletic and extra-curricular programs at BHS.  Prior reductions in the areas of support staff, equipment, maintenance and instructional materials made over the past several years and the sheer size of this year’s shortfall have left us with little option other than to focus our reductions on programs that provide direct services to students.  The chart below outlines our current thinking regarding the reductions in terms of the loss of positions to both teaching and support staff.  Cuts to teaching staff will affect academic areas across the building, totaling a loss of 10.85 full-time equivalent (FTE) positions.  For the purposes of budgeting, every .2 is equivalent to one full-year course section.  Five sections are therefore equivalent to a 1.0, or a full-time teaching position.   The loss of 10.85 positions translates to a 15.5% reduction in the total number of teachers at Belmont High School.  Other reductions include the replacement of our professional librarian with a “monitor,” the elimination of one professional aide position, and reductions in teaching supplies.

*Amounts are based on $45,000 for 1.0 FTE per classroom teacher (Master’s Degree, Step 3 salary minus cost of unemployment benefits) and $22,500 per professional aide.

The reductions outlined in this chart will substantially alter the programs that we will be able to offer.  In English and Mathematics, our overall class sizes will increase, and sections that are currently dedicated to providing students with remedial services will be eliminated.  This increase in class size and the loss of extra support will also necessitate that the English Department’s Senior Thesis Project be suspended from the list of graduation requirements at Belmont High School.

These cuts will also substantially change our Science Program.  The reduction of 3.85 FTE in Science will be accomplished by adding a fifth section to each remaining science teacher’s current four course load.  Adding this section will mean that all science classes will be reduced by one, twenty-five minute “mod” per week.  Because of the reduction in learning time, Science classes will be restructured so they contain fewer laboratory experiences.  The addition of a fifth section to science teachers’ schedules will also mean the elimination of our Freshman Advisory Class that was implemented this year.

Staff reductions in Social Studies, Foreign Language, and Music will dramatically alter the variety of elective courses we will be able to offer.  In Social Studies, the reduction of two teaching positions will be reflected in the elimination of ten sections, nine of which will be elective courses.  The reduction of 2.8 FTE in Foreign Language will be accomplished through the elimination of all language courses above “Level IV,” including Advanced Placement offerings in French, Latin and Spanish.  In Music, a one section reduction will be accomplished through the combination of multiples levels of Choral Classes.

Reductions to the “non-teaching” side of our program will be no less dramatic. The elimination of our Professional Librarian Position will mean the end of the lending of books and the provision of reference support.  It will also mean Belmont High School will no longer be eligible to offer many of the free online databases that are currently available to students through the school’s website.  This elimination of our library program will also place our accreditation status with the New England Association of Schools and Colleges into jeopardy.

In order to ensure that all students are fully scheduled and meet our remaining graduation requirements, we will also need to restructure the sequence of courses that students may choose for their schedule.  In the new system, students will follow the sequence of courses outlined in the table below.  In order to maintain acceptable class sizes and to ensure that there are sufficient elective seats, we will need to change several current practices.  One change will be to discontinue the practice of allowing students to take two courses in a given discipline simultaneously.  In order to ensure that all students will have access to a more limited number of Advanced Placement offerings, no student will be allowed to enroll in more than three AP courses in a given school year.  Finally, elective offerings in Social Studies will be limited to seniors only.

I will be presenting this plan along with a list of changes to our credit and graduation requirements that need to be approved by the School Committee at its March 1^st meeting.  I will also be participating with the district’s entire administrative team in our annual budget overview meeting on Saturday, March 5^th.  I encourage you to watch these meetings yourself, either live or on Belmont Community Access TV, to learn about the changes to the district that are being contemplated in the Available Funds Budget scenario, and to make your opinions known regarding the direction of these changes to your elected officials.

As all budgets are a reflection of the current state of reality at a specific moment in time, I fully expect there will be changes to the Belmont Public School’s FY ’12 budget between now and the end of “budget season” in early June.  I will do my best to keep you informed of any changes that occur as a result of new budget scenarios to our plans for next year.

Sincerely,

Mike

Michael Harvey, Ed.D.

Principal

Belmont High School

221 Concord Ave.

Belmont, MA 02478

Many of you have written me to ask me what you can do to get involved. Ellen’s e-mail provides a very nice checklist that begins with attending tonight’s Board of Selectmen’s meeting at 7:15 pm at Town Hall and urging them to put a Proposition 2 1/2 Override on the ballot for the town wide election that’s scheduled for April. Without that first step, it will be impossible to address the funding gap that’s threatening to undermine what has been one of the state’s top performing school districts.

Here’s Ellen’s message:

Dear Friends,

Several important notes about the Belmont school budget crisis:

1. Board of Selectman meeting, tonight (Mon, 1/31, arrive at 7:15)

Can you come to an important Board of Selectman Meeting tonight at Town Hall at 7:30?  When it begins there will be a chance for citizens to voice their concern about the horrible cuts in store for our children next year. Some people will be standing up to ask the Selectmen if they intend to do anything to try to alleviate the damage done to the public schools with the revenue budget that has been determined for the schools. While none of you need to stand up and share your opinions, we need to fill the room with parents tonight to show that we are not letting this slip by….that the futures of the children of Belmont matter. An override is an important piece of the budget solution, which means we need to persuade the selectmen to put an override on the April 4 ballot. The deadline for this is February 28, and they only have TWO meetings between now and then (tonight and Feb 7). Please let me know if you can join me at the meeting tonight.

2. Email the our Selectmen – Ralph Jones, Mark Paolillo, and Angelo Firenze

Tomorrow, after we see what happens at tonight’s meeting, I will send you another email asking you to send an email to the Board of Selectmen. We have a very short amount of time to convince them to put an override on the ballot, and they will need to hear from a lot of voters if they are going to be swayed. Stay tuned!

[Editors note: You can email the Selectmen at selectmen@belmont-ma.gov, and  Ralph, Angelo and Mark individually at their town e-mail addresses. Let me know if you get any bounce-backs from these addresses - I'm pretty sure they're accurate, but I could be wrong - Paul.]

3. Join the email listserve for Save our Schools – Save our Town

We have formed a listserve for people who are concerned about the budget situation. You can join the listserve at http://groups.google.com/group/saveourschools-saveourtown.

4. Upcoming Board of Selectman & Warrant Committee meetings

One piece of the strategy is to try to pack the upcoming Board of Selectmen and Warrant Committee meetings with parents – unfortunately, they won’t believe we care unless they see us. We have sign up sheets on Google Docs – please visit and sign up to attend one or more meetings. There is one page for each meeting – navigate to the right page andyou’re your name to the list. Your presence will speak volumes!

5. Please forward this email to other Belmont parents, friends and neighbors

We are going to need vast numbers of supporters to fix this budget situation. Please help build the groundswell of support.

Thanks,

Ellen