Read all the news on the Patch here:

Scharfman Picks Up Selectman Nomination Papers – Belmont, MA Patch.

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…

At stake is a more than $2 million gap between what the Town’s Warrant Committee has identified as “available revenue” for the schools and what the School Department has identified as its “mission critical” budget – in other words: a budget that represents the barest needs of the district if its to fulfill its stated educational mission.

As often happens in Belmont, the anger or misunderstanding about the School Department’s first try at a level service budget (which it now calls its “mission critical” budget) has put a bee in the bonnet of the town’s political class and become the focus of attention, rather than what matters: the really severe cuts to services that we all use and the likely increase in use and family fees that will accompany a failure to address Belmont’s budget gap.

As at last week’s meeting, the members of the Board of Selectmen this evening are likely to push back – asking whether the town and schools have done all they could to realize savings and questioning whether an override this years is the right thing for the town. They did so last week, with all three raising questions about the size and timing of an override.

What’s confusing to me is that, in the case of two Selectmen: Ralph Jones and Mark Paolillo, their position on the override is 180 degrees of what it was just last June when both (to their credit) stood up and took forceful political stands in favor of an override.

To underscore that, I’m posting links to some video testimonials that both made at the Belmont Town day last June ahead of the June 14 special vote for an override. I think both men speak eloquently for the need for an override. In his testimonial, Mark talks about the dire cuts to school and town services and on the urgent need for increased revenue, as well as an increased focus on cost savings.

“The revenues we expect without the override are insufficient to provide the services that we think the citizens of Belmont want…The basic question is ‘what level of services do the citizens of Belmont want and need, and how do we pay for those services,” Ralph says.

Mark similarly notes his belief that periodic overrides and other revenue infusions are unavoidable. The $3.5 million operating deficit “will result in significant cuts in town and school services. The (then) $2 million override is vital to avoid those cuts and for “long overdue capital projects,” as well as structural reforms that are meaningful and long term.

The question for those of you who are planning to attend tonight’s meeting, of course,will be “what has changed?”  If anything, between last spring and this fall the town’s operating deficit has only expanded, while federal stimulus funds that have floated us for the last two fiscal years are all but depleted. Given that, why is Belmont suddenly unworthy of an override whereas it was deserving, in the minds of both Ralph and Mark, in June? What money has the town wasted or what fat has been injected into our town and school operations that wasn’t there 9 months ago?

In fact, the only thing that has changed between now and then (besides the increasing volume of red ink) is that  the override campaign by One Belmont (of which I was a part) fell short by a couple hundred votes. Surely no “mandate,” and the throngs of folks who attended last week’s BOS meeting and have been e-mailing suggest that there’s considerable debate over Ralph’s question of whether Belmont really does want to be a town that settles for less a leaner, but also meaner version of what we have now.

And, if the reasoning is ‘I’m not for the override now because the last campaign for an override failed,’ then what they’re saying is that  their’s is merely a political stand with the “no” crowd versus a considered position that looks at the needs and interests of the whole town. In the meeting last week, both seemed concerned about the failure of the June “OneBelmont” effort. Mark noted that

“Last year’s override – and I supported it, I proposed it –  was a balanced approach to tax revenues – unfortunately it failed. It was $1 million for the schools, $600k for capital, and $400k for the town. But it failed. It was balanced, but it failed. It’s tricky. It’s tactically tricky, and getting the support. Many of us here are willing to pay more, I am, but there are many in town who cannot. We’re still in recovery mode. We have to take that into account – there are residents in this town who simply cannot afford a tax increase. There are families who we all know where one or both spouses are out of work and struggling to make ends meet but they want to stay in town. So we’re taking all of that into consideration.”

That’s well and good – but its not like the conditions in town have deteriorated any since last June. It’s not like we’re a mill town and the mill just closed. I don’t know what the unemployment rate is in Belmont or if its higher or lower than six months ago, but I’m willing to bet that its not appreciably different, and may even be better, given that the Massachusetts economy is faring better.

Ralph, also, said that “My reservation, is tactically, can we pass $3million. That’s all.”

I appreciate both Mark and Ralph’s support last year for OneBelmont, and hope to find them pushing for an override next year, but as I see it right now, both are being politicians, not leaders when it comes to the override question: dangling the possibility of “found money” which – even if it exists – will just be another one year band aid that will bring back the same divisions and arguments next year, and pushing to delay the question for a special election at the end of the year – at additional cost to the town.

As they said last June: the time is now – Belmont needs an override and it needs it now.

Oh yeah…and No Freeloader says “Paul Roberts has never seen a Tax he didn’t want to raise to fund his progressive agenda. More money for the teachers’ union naturally, but if he’d go back to Watertown, whence he came, Belmont Taxpayers would save MORE than his parking meter proposal in per pupil costs.”

God, what an ass.

Stay tuned.

Cisco's CEO and GM's Chair Talk at CES

As you know from reading B2 as well as the Citizen Herald and Patch, we here in Belmont face the prospect of wholesale cuts to our public education system including teacher layoffs at the elementary and middle school level, the elimination of foreign language instruction before high school (just what our kids need to prepare them to compete in a global economy – less foreign language instruction),  the elimination of elementary art and music programs. Its easy to get caught up in the specifics of the cuts and the budgeting (available revenue versus level service versus needs based budgets) and to start quibbling about numbers.

But the bare facts are that we here in town – as in many towns across the country – are standing on the precipice of a wholesale downgrading in the reach and quality of our public education system. Of course, Massachusetts stands head and shoulders above the rest of the country when it comes to the overall quality of taxpayer supported universal public education, and Belmont is among the top districts in Massachusetts. In other words, if you look at other states -California, Michigan, Ohio — the kind of unraveling process that we’re beginning to see is already well underway, and has been for much of the last three decades.

But its worth remembering that investments in public education aren’t just a nice to have – they correlate directly with our nation’s ability to continue innovating at the high end and, in the middle and lower tiers, producing workers capable of performing the kinds of jobs that the 21st century will demand. And those aren’t the kind of assembly line, stamp -it, weld-it, move on jobs of the 20th century. Even blue collar positions in the 21st century will require a kind of sophisticated understanding of technology, let alone the literacy and numeracy and language and communications skills that a quality primary and secondary education produce. The sad part is that its hard to see or prove a negative. We won’t be able to connect the dots between our “screw the next generation” decisions today and the lack of leadership, opportunity and innovation in 20 or 30 years. Things will be subtly crappier, other nations will create the Apples and Ciscos and Googles that may or may not decide to hire U.S. workers, and we’ll all argue about why. Some folks will suggest, rightly, that we’re reaping the sour harvest of a lost generation, educationally. Others will dispute it or point the finger elsewhere, and nobody will ever know for sure.

Fortunately (or unforunately) we can already hear the Cassandras at high levels of our society talking about the impact of the U.S.’s lack of investment in education.  Bill Gates has been warning policy makers and the public about this for years. Now more voices from the board room and private sector are joining in the chorus. Most recently, at the much-heralded Consumer Electronic Show (CES) a panel of CEOs and board members from GM, Cisco and Xerox said the U.S. eduation system was failing the country.

“We have a D minus in education, we need to work on bettering this, ” said Xerox Chairman Ursula Burns, who argued for tighter cooperation between government and the private sector to improve the education system – a model more closely aligned with that used in Western European nations like Germany.

I also noted this post on Forbes.com by Norm Augustine, a former Chairman and CEO of Lockheed Martin. Augustine points to the U.S. society’s tendency to downplay the importance (and status) of scientists and engineers – those who are most likely to build the businesses and industries of the future. He notes the perennially depressing  statistic that 70% of Ph.D’s in engineering from U.S. universities go to students who were foreign born. In the old days, those students might have stayed in the U.S. for lack of opportunities at home. But with Asian economies like India and China’s booming, that’s no longer true.

Part of the problem is the lack of priority U.S. parents place on core education. But there are also problems inherent in our public education system. We simply don’t have enough qualified math and science teachers. Many of those teaching math and science have never taken a university-level course in those subjects.

Developing nations have ” rightly concluded that the way to win in the world economy is by doing a better job of educating and innovating. And America? We’re losing our edge. Innovation is something we’ve always been good at. Until now, we’ve been the undisputed leaders when it comes to finding new ideas through basic research, translating those ideas into products through world-class engineering, and getting to market first through aggressive entrepreneurship.”

No longer. Some more depressing statistics:

• The World Economic Forum ranks the U.S. #48 in quality of math and science education.
• U.S. consumers spend significantly more on potato chips than the U.S. government devotes to energy R&D.
• In 2009, for the first time, over half of U.S. patents were awarded to non-U.S. companies.
• China has replaced the U.S. as the world’s number one high-technology exporter.
• Between 1996 and 1999, 157 new drugs were approved in the U.S.  Ten years later, that number had dropped to 74.

Augustine helped co-author a report five years ago recommending changes to address the emerging U.S. competitive gap. That report’s recommendations:

• Improve K-12 science and math education.
• Invest in long-term basic research.
• Attract and retain the best and brightest students, scientists and engineers in the U.S. and around the world.
• Create and sustain incentives for innovation and research investment.

Some changes were made. Some federal dollars were directed towards scholarships to encourage more college students to become math and science teachers at the K-12 level. But its safe to assume that many of those young teachers are struggling to hold on to their jobs as districts across the nation slash staff to address a combination of a down economy and the U.S. publics fixation on low taxes. Augustine points out that since his report was issued “6 million more kids have dropped out of high school in this country. What kind of a  future will they have? Likely not a promising one.”

Global leadership is not a birthright. Despite what many Americans believe, our nation does not possess an innate knack for greatness.  Greatness must be worked for and won by each new generation. Right now that is not happening. But we still have time. If we place the emphasis we should on education, research and innovation we can lead the world in the decades to come. But the only way to ensure we remain great tomorrow is to increase our investment in science and engineering today.

After watching a video presentation from Superintendent Entwistle’s budget presentation last week.  Janice Darias reviewed the key points of the Administration’s budget and said, in essence, what our Superintendent has been saying for weeks now: the available funds suggested by the Warrant Committee won’t cover the operations cost of the Belmont Public Schools and will necessitate deep cuts: teacher layoffs at the elementary and middle school level, the loss of music and art education,  the loss of curriculum director positions, the elimination of language instruction at the middle school and language electives at Belmont High. The cuts will be deep enough that, as long threatened, BPS will have to revise (read “dumb down”) graduation requirements to accommodate the cuts.

That was followed by some comments from Selectman Ralph Jones (who is running for re-election this year), and that’s where things got interesting.

Let me say, that I like Ralph Jones a lot and think his heart is truly in the right place. He’s been a moderate, fiscally conservative member of BOS. It was Ralph who asked me to research the parking meter question and I think he’s got his brain fully engaged – he’s detail oriented and he’s honestly interested in putting the Town’s accounts in balance. But Ralph’s now running for re-election and he didn’t distinguish himself  last night – addressing an audience of parents who were just told that their kids would be losing music, art and – for the most part -physical education next year by charging, in essence, that the School Administration and School Committee were lying to them, hiding money, and favoring grown ups (i.e school employees) over kids. Nasty!

Let’s unpack this a bit. Ralph’s argument, if I understand it, is that the Administration hasn’t truly presented a level service budget to the Warrant Committee, because the budget they did present didn’t assume that the various unions it must negotiate with would agree to a salary and step freeze for FY2012.

Instead, the administration budgeted for a contractual step increase as part of its Level Services budget – basically budgeting for contractual pay increases, rather than a pay freeze for FY2012. My understanding is that the total of those increases may be between $700,000 and $800,000. Now, its possible that the School Committee will succeed in winning a step and cost of living freeze for next year and be able to reduce its FY 2012 budget by that amount – I’ve heard encouraging chatter to this effect. But its not a foregone conclusion that the teachers will agree to such a freeze, and the schools aren’t banking on it at this point.

That’s, of course, prudent. And the School Department might have broken out “with step” versus “no step” in its Level Service numbers. Banking on a raise is a point worth taking up, for sure, and if I were the School Department or a teacher, I wouldn’t.

But that’s not what Ralph was saying. And what he was saying didn’t win him votes in the room, that’s for sure. How so?

• By playing parents against teachers and (wrongly) accusing the School Committee and Administration of playing games.
• By suggesting that the School Committee did not honor the will of Town Meeting in allocating a free cash distribution to keep the elementary school libraries open. The Committee and Administration did better than that – using the money to hire a full time elementary librarian to serve the town’s four elementary schools: the first time the town had had such a position in years. Alas, that position was terminated with the FY 2011 cuts.
• By saying that the parents in the room had been urged by teaching staff to come – they hadn’t. E-mail was sent out by the school PTOs, not teachers. If an e-mail did go out to a BPS listserv, it was inadvertent, certainly not a coordinated campaign. In any case, portraying worried parents as dupes of the teachers’ union isn’t cool.
• Finally, he was wrong by claiming that there was money in the budget to cover an almost $3 million gap in school funding, but that the school administration was not being forthcoming or transparent about it. No such thing is true and he knows it. As I said – it may be the case that wage concessions will trim the budget gap facing the schools by as much as $800,000. That will be awesome. It will also leave us with a $2 million gap and nobody is suggesting that there’s that much fat in the budget. It was misleading to suggest there was (and I called Ralph on it).

My take away: we’re going to have to fight like hell to even get an override vote on the ballot, let alone pass it. In doing so, don’t expect too much in the way of help or cover from either the Warrant Committee or the Board of Selectmen. Both showed last night that they’re convinced that the Administration is hiding money – their mantra for much of the last decade, despite the real evidence of cuts and pain on the schools side – and nobody has any swift ideas for bridging the gap or generating new revenue. Except, of course, parking meters, which I’ll be talking to Ralph and the BOS about on Monday. No kidding.