The Select Board is still grappling with how to move forward in the aftermath of failed votes for building a new 4-grade Neary School.
Members are working on drafting a charge for a new K-8 school building/research committee they can find consensus on. Meanwhile topics on the Southborough School Committee’s agenda this Wednesday could have a big impact on the potential options.
School Committee Agenda for June 11th
At last month’s Select Board meeting, School Committee members didn’t weigh in on the path forward for handling the school building issues. But this week, their agenda will include two items that have been part of public debates over the building issues and constraints on choices.
The agenda for this Wednesday’s meeting includes the item “Environmental Conditions Review and Assessment”. No explanation is provided, but I’m assuming that related to the publicly raised questions about the old landfill uphill from Neary School.
The proximity of the capped site and concerns raised by residents about the potential for toxic leaks running toward the school fueled some opponents’ passionate opposition to investing in a project on the current site.
Also on the agenda is “Grade Configuration and Facilities Plan”.
Many opponents to the proposed MSBA project argued that the Town should make better use of the existing schools rathe than building a new one. A “Plan B” proposed as an example suggested Finn, Woodward and Trottier Middle School could accommodate all of the K-8 students.
NSBORO administration argued against that approach. One of their arguments was that it would require including 5th graders in the middle school building. There were some logistical concern, but their most strenuous repeated argument was that it was educationally inappropriate.
That was debated by Plan B proponents, who pointed to other grade 5-8 schools.
In public meetings, Administrators and Select Board members highlighted that the Southborough School Committee is the authority on the grade configuration. The committee previously voted against including 5th graders at Trottier. This is the first time the topic will be potentially revisited since the Town Meeting took place.
Also newly added to the agenda is “Review of Select Board Ad-Hoc Charge: PreK to 8 School Research Committee”. That one surprised me since it insinuates there is a charge that’s ready for review. As of the Select Board’s most recent meeting, the board had yet to approve one.
Select Board Debate at June 3rd Meeting
Last Tuesday, the Select Board continued its discussion on the potential charge for a new committee to research viable school building options for Southborough Public School students.
They continued to debate some of the same disagreements from their May 20th meeting. But they appeared to be on track for the majority of members to come to general consensus on a charge soon.
Initially, Select Board Chair Andrew Dennington hoped the board could agree on a charge that night. That would allow them to start recruiting and appointing members. (His ambitious goal was for the committee to report its findings in September and complete it by the end of this calendar year.)
In the end, the decision was punted again to allow Dennington and member Tim Fling to work together to come up with a charge combining elements from each of their drafts.
That may be ready for voting on in their next regular meeting on June 17th. (This week’s meeting is dedicated to their annual goal setting session.)
The board agreed that a new committee should study several options and come up with a set of comparable facts to help the public weigh the pros and cons. The range of options encompassed basic fixes to Neary, bringing the school up to code, reconfiguring grades to fit students into other schools, and allowing the committee to come up with additional ideas to consider.
The biggest flash point was whether or not to include the $80M proposed project co-funded by MSBA as one of those studied options.
Dennington opined that the takeaway from Town Meeting was that voters were upset they were only given one option. Member Al Hamilton, who had publicly opposed the project at Special Town Meeting, accused members of spinning what voters had decided.
Hamilton asserted that the Town’s votes were a rejection of the expensive project and “referendum” against the Select Board members who had supported it. He moved that the board should inform the MSBA that it will not be pursuing the version of the project the state supported.
Member Kathy Cook, who also serves on the Neary Building Committee and its Financial Subcommittee, continued to argue against taking the option off the table until it is necessary. Cook stressed that under MSBA project, the state foots $35M of the costs. She posited that when all of the options are studied and compared, voters could find that other options for fixing Neary or fitting students into other schools are even more expensive.
Dennington and Vice Chair Marguerite Landry voted with Cook against Hamilton’s motion. Only Tim Fling voted to support it.
The number of members to be involved was still undecided. And Select Board members also still didn’t see eye to eye on on whether a new committee would be strengthened or weakened by including members of the current Neary Building Committee.
All agreed that including fresh perspectives from people with different expertise and project opponents is important. But there was debate over whether current members’ valuable experience and expertise outweighs the baggage they bring given voters’ upset over the expensive proposal they had backed.
Some argued that voters won’t trust information presented by a committee that includes the original committee’s members.
Since the meeting, Hamilton’s public discourse has likely sown even greater public distrust in the process. In a Letter to the Editor on this blog, Hamilton publicly pushed the board to take the MSBA option off the table. In a comment under the letter, he wrote:
It is clear that the plan is to arrange for the minority that voted yes to hold fast to the New Neary while dividing the clear majority that voted no by dissipating their votes among other options. Is this cynical? Perhaps, but it is hardball and it requires a hardball response.
As long as the Select Board is perceived as defying the will of Town Meeting and the Voters the atmosphere of anger, mistrust, and suspicion will continue
Hamilton’s “cynical” narrative isn’t consistent with the arguments that fellow board members made.
In kicking off the discussion, Dennington suggested that a future forum/Town Meeting could allow voters to rank their choices. (A ranked vote is specifically designed to avoid a situation where something is selected that has the biggest share of the vote but is opposed by the most people.)
They publicly agreed on the need to identify a path that could get support from 2/3 of voters.
Some of the board’s discussion focused on facts/analysis the committee should research and conduct. Dennington’s draft charge included:
providing the community with an informed discussion of options for resolving the critical capital needs at our K-8 school buildings in a financially responsible manner while maintaining the highest academic standards and vision for the Southborough Public Schools.
Fling argued that he wanted to talk all opinion out of the committee’s work and just have them pull together a comprehensive set of facts. He also asked for the work to include looking at a 10 year solution to defer massive spending until after the town is able to get past the looming “tax cliff”.
Hamilton posited that the Select Board needs to come up with a budget of what is affordable for the Town to consider. He argued that giving an architect the “checkbook” leads to an expensive project. Cook argued that the committee had actually tried to do that initially, but kept being told that figures they proposed were impossible for a project given the fiscal environment.
During the discussion, there was again plenty of public comment from still-engaged voters. Much covered the same ground as before, but there were points worth noting.
Eric Glaser stressed that proponents of the MSBA building project had scared parents and residents into thinking that the current Neary School Building is unsafe. He said that if it was unsafe he’d want to pull his son out tomorrow. But he checked with the Superintendent who had explained while there are building “deficiencies”, it is safe. He urged the board to make that clear to parents who are now scared about sending their kids to the school.
Kristen Lavault suggested the committee’s financial considerations should include the potential property value impact of closing Finn School on the south side of town.
Andrea Hamilton wanted assurances that the savings in operational efficiencies touted by the NSBORO administration from consolidated schools aren’t actually program cuts. She wants a “detailed analysis,” and for any real savings to be “locked tight”.
Residents Mary Tinti and Becca Dente worried that having the new committee focus too much on the costs of projects could negatively impact the educational benefits for students that should be considered in building designs.
