Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-06-19 School Committee Minutes READING SCHOOL COMMITTEE Reading, Massachusetts Regular Session June 19,2000 Chair Dahl called the regular meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. in the Superintendent's Conference Room. Present were School Committee members Cavicchi, Twomey, Keigley, D'Antona and Dahl. Mr. Griset was not present. Also present were Superintendent Harutunian and Associate Superintendent Richards. EXECUTIVE SESSION At 7:05 p.m. Mrs. Cavicchi made a motion to enter into executive session for the purpose of conducting strategy sessions in preparation for negotiations with Custodians and Maintenance Workers, and to discuss pending litigation. To return to regular session at approximately 7:30 p.m. Mr. Keiglev seconded the motion. The vote was 5-0. Mrs. Cavicchi, Mr. Dahl, Mr. Keigley, Mrs. D'Antona and Mr. Twomey. At 7:40 Chair Dahl call the regular session meeting back to order. Chair Dahl read a statement written by the Reading School Committee. Over the past two weeks you may have read or heard that a civil lawsuit has been filed by a group of Reading citizens against the Town of Reading for hiring Earl R. Flansburgh & Associates as the architectural firm to design the new elementary school at Dividence Road and the renovations to the Barrows Elementary School. Earlier this year, in a change from past practice, the Reading School Committee issued a Request for Proposal (RFP)for architectural services on the two elementary building projects. Before the fall of 1999, school committees traditionally would hire the architect initially used to conduct a feasibility study, after a successful peer review of his work by an independent architect. At that time, school committees believed that they were not required to issue a second RFP when hiring the architect initially used to conduct the feasibility study. This changed in the fall of 1999 when the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued a decision involving the Town of Norwell that requires a change in the procedures municipalities must use for hiring an architect. The Court decided that municipalities could not hire the architect used to conduct a feasibility study without issuing a second RFP. Because of this ruling, the School Administration worked very closely with Reading's Town Counsel and Massachusetts Attorney General's office to develop an RFP and to follow a process that would comply with the designer selection law as mandated by the Supreme Judicial Court's decision. Regular Session -2- June 19, 2000 In March 2000 a group of citizen's filed a bid protest with the Massachusetts Attorney General's office alleging the Reading School Committee and the School Building Committee had not followed the State Building Laws. On May 11, 2000 the Attorney General's Office denied the bid protest. Here is an excerpt from the decision. ANALYSIS The Supreme Judicial Court in LeClair v. Town of Norwell, 430 Mass. 238 (1999), concluded that pursuant to G.L. c. 7 38D, municipalities are required to advertise for the final design work. The Court noted that designers who do a feasibility study, subject to peer review, may be eligible to compete for the final design work. The Awarding Authority here did advertise for the final design work. The Group complains that the advertisements for the feasibility study that appeared in the Central Register and the Reading Chronicle did not contain language informing potential bidders that they could be eligible to compete for the final design work. We note, however that the RFQ did contain such language. In this manner, the Awarding Authority did advertise for the final design work. In the advertisement, the Awarding Authority informed potential bidders that Flansburgh, the design firm that did the feasibility study would also be eligible for the final design work,subject to peer review. Although such candor may have discouraged other design firms from submitting proposals, this was the result of business decisions by the design firms and not a violation of the law. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth, above, the protest is denied The Reading School Committee and its Administration firmly believe that the procedures required by the Supreme Judicial Court's decision have been followed. The Reading School Committee is confident that it will prevail on the merits of the lawsuit filed by the citizen group and, if it does, will seek to recover its attorney fees. We will proceed with both elementary building projects and will oppose any attempt to stop these projects, which have been approved by votes of Reading Town Meeting and the citizens of Reading. Chronology March, 1998 Funds for Elementary Feasibility Study approved by Town Meeting. March 27, 1998 Earl R. Flansburgh, Architect firm awarded contract to do the Elementary Feasibility Study Regular Session -3- June 19, 2000 December 10, 1998 New elementary school and Barrows Elementary School renovation approved by Town Meeting January 27, 1999 Barrows Elementary School renovation approved and new elementary school defeated in Town vote November 15, 1999 New elementary school building project approved for second time at Town Meeting January 11, 2000 New elementary school approved in Town vote March 8, 2000 Peer Review completed March 24, 2000 A bid protest filed by a group of four Reading citizens over hiring Earl R. Flansburgh March 27, 2000 Earl R. Flansburgh, Architectural firm awarded contract to oversee both elementary building projects May 11, 2000 Massachusetts Attorney General's Office rules the Reading School Committee did not violate the law in hiring Earl R. Flansburgh and denied a bid protest filed by the group of Reading citizens June 1, 2000 A civil suit filed in Middlesex Superior Court against the Town by a group of twenty-two Reading citizens over the hiring of Earl R. Flansburgh The Reading School Committee SUPERINTENDENT'S REPORT Dr. Harutunian informed the committee of an excessive amount of requests for information from community members. The number of requests for information had exceeded 150 in recent times. Dr. Harutunian handed out a packet of information to Mrs. Mandell. This was information that she had requested. He also had a packet for Mrs. Cooper but she was not present. She would be receiving her packet the next day. Dr. Harutunian stated that he had exceeded the ten-day limit due to the work load in the office. Mr. Dahl asked the committee for comments. He stated that these requests for information does not include the discovery process of the law suit which included 18 more items. Mr. Dahl wanted the audience to understand the nature of a request for • , Regular Session -4- June 19, 2000 information. One letter could contain 10 items or 4 items. He read a list of requests giving the committee a flavor of the work involved with the compliance of these requests. He went on to say that some of the information requested is extremely confidential. CITIZEN'S INPUT Chair Dahl asked if there was anyone who wished to speak on a topic that was not on the agenda. Nancy Stager stated she was representing a broad coalition and broad cross section of people in the community. We appreciate the School Committee's dedication, its approach to the work you do. How the committee is selfless. The work the committee does is important to the fabric of Reading. It shapes the education of students. She applauds their willingness, how they took a stand. This is a process. She stated that the School Committee acted with grace under fire. She stated the her group cared They appreciated the fact the School Committee did not always take the simple road. She encourages the School Committee to stay the course. The large voter turnout was a positive sign. We do not want to slide backwards. We are behind you 100%. We will move forward together. We are with you. Chair Dahl thanked her. Mrs. Mandell thanked Dr. Harutunian for a well-orchestrated meeting. She said it was just another way to intimidate people and it will not work. Mr. Lautman stated that he had not planned to speak. He had no idea of the magnitude of this situation. People who file lawsuits are the intimidators. People who make excessive requests are the intimidators. He was appalled by the volume of requests. Mrs. Cavicchi stated that other than the 150 claims by the three same community members, the Superintendent's office only receives three to four other requests per year. Mrs. Epstein took exception with Mrs. Mandell's claim. This is a grass roots approach to let everyone know how much effort goes into all the work done around town. Mr. Dahl stated that Mr. Griset was absent. He was attending a Girl Scout function out of town. Mrs. Phillips asked how request made to the Town Hall ended up on a School Committee list of requests. The Superintendent explained that since all of the information requested from the Town Hall had to do with the School Department, the request makes its way to the School Department. Some of the current requests had to do with Endicott College, the SEEM Collaborative and Professional Development. So, he explained it does not matter where the request comes in, someone from his office still has to work on it. Regular Session -5- June 19,2000 Dr. Harutunian stated that he was too busy with the lawsuit to orchestrate a meeting like this. Chair Dahl asked if there were any more comments from the board or from the audience. Chair Dahl asked to have a five-minute recess. Chair Dahl called the meeting back to order. CONTINUATION OF SUPERINTENDENT'S REPORT There was conversation concerning the Substance abuse survey. Dr. Harutunian stated that the School Department had been working to change the survey. The option to have children not take the survey was changing prior to the Selectmen becoming involved. Concerned parents can see the survey on the Internet a week ahead of time. Mrs. D'Antona stated that she was glad that the Superintendent spoke on this issue. The watering down of data could defeat the purpose of the survey. The data is anonymous. It is used to understand trends. Dr. Harutunian stated that he received great feed back from the principals concerning the last day of school. He mentioned that having the Teacher In-Service Day on the Friday before Memorial Day Weekend was favorable for both parents and students. Dr. Harutunian reviewed the School Committee Calendar. OLD BUSINESS Dr Harutunian stated that there would be a second reading of Student Activities Account Policy DBEE. Mrs. Cavicchi made a motion to accept the second reading of Policy DBEE, the Student Activities Account. It was stated that there were no changes since the first reading of the policy. Mr. Twomey seconded the motion. The vote was 5-0. D'Antona, Keigley, Cavicchi, Twomey,Dahl The conversation shifted to the School Committee Strategic Plan and the School Committee Goals. The Superintendent explained that the book each member had received contained all old minutes where the strategic plan was discussed. Currently there are five goals in the Strategic Plan. There was conversation about drafting as goal six, "Intimidation Free Schools". Dr. Harutunian stated that Reading had applied but had not yet heard about a Bullying Grant from the Executive Office of Public Safety. He gave some background information and added that children needed to be safe in school. Mrs. D'Antona stated Regular Session -6- June 19,2000 that all these goals as well as the Bullying Grant fit in with a lot of other things happening around Town. We have a proactive approach. We have total commitment from the Town. We need to bully proof the curriculum. Mrs. D'Antona moved to accept the draft as a Strategic Plan Goal (Number Six) to continue to move towards intimidation free schools. Mr. Twomey seconded the motion. The vote was 5-0. Cavicchi,D'Antona,Dahl, Keigley,Twomey Chair Dahl asked if there were any more questions. FOUR ELEMENTARY TEACHERS The School Committee voted at its regular meeting on May 24, 2000 to add four additional elementary teachers for the FY01 budget. The Superintendent disclosed a plan to pay for four new elementary school teachers. He asked everyone to refer to the June 16, 2000 memo to the School Committee. Four teachers @ $36,000 $144,000 I Bus to transport from Killam to CMS (Kindergartners) $ 15,000 TOTAL COST $159,000 Remove 7.5 ed assistants built into FY01 budget $ 73,500 $ 85,500 Use $60,336 of the RISE Program Revolving fund $ 60,336 $ 25,164 Reduce regular day per pupil by$6.00 per pupil $ 25,164 BALANCE $ 0 Mr. Keigley asked how much money would be left in the revolving account. He was told there would be enough money to handle incidentals until the fund could build itself back up. Mr. Twomey asked what effect a$12.50 per pupil decrease would have. Dr. Harutunian stated that the elementary schools would be hardest hit. Mr. Twomey made a motion to (1) remove 7.5 educational assistants from the FY01 budget and (2) to transfer$60,336 out of the RISE Program Revolving Fund to put towards the salaries of RISE teachers and educational assistants and (3) reduce the regular day per pupil$6.00 per student. Mrs. D'Antona seconded the motion. The vote was 5-0. Cavicchi,Dahl D'Antona, Keigley, Twomey Regular Session -7- June 19, 2000 Mrs. Benjamin stated that the Administration should not be perceived as bending to certain groups. She is worried that the School Committee will only be proactive for one year. The children will slide backwards in second and third grade. She hoped things were not being considered as a slice in time. Mr. Dahl stated that this meets the needs but it does not address the large fifth grade. They cannot solve every problem at one time. Mrs. Benjamin wishes they could be proactive with the larger classes that have been large for years such as the classes at Killam. Mr. Dahl explained that we are trying to do the best we can. Mr. Keigley stated there are people that share your concerns. The focus should be on curriculum not class size. NEW BUSINESS The Superintendent explained that as part of balancing the FY01 budget the School Committee approved the development and implementation of user fees for athletes during the 2000-2001 school year. To that end, a committee made up of Phil Vaccaro, Richard Foley, Beth Klepeis and I worked to develop a plan implementing the School Committee's vote to generate $41,000 in revenue ($37,000 for freshman program and $4,000 for secretarial time) for the continuation of the freshman sports program. The Superintendent is recommending a fee of$50 per athlete per sport with a maximum of$125 per athlete for more than two sports and a$250 per family maximum. Mrs. D'Antona made a motion to accept the Superintendent's June 16,2000 memo for user's fees. Mr. Twomey seconded the motion. The vote was 5-0. D'Antona. Dahl, Cavicchi,Keigley,Twomey. The conversation turned to the hiring of a"Consultant to the Superintendent". The • Superintendent explained that we received proposals from seven entities. Mr. Livingstone's credentials and experience match the specifications we were looking for. Mrs. Cavicchi made a motion for the Superintendent to hire Mr. Livingstone as a "Consultant to the Superintendent" for two years with fees up to $70,000. Mr. Keigley seconded the motion. The vote was 5-0. D'Antona, Dahl Cavicchi, Twomey. Keigley Mrs. Cavicchi moved to adiourn at 9:45 p.m. Mr. Twomey seconded the motion. The vote was 5-0. D'Antona,Dahl Cavicchi,Twomey. Keigley espectfully submitted, J % ar K. aru nian, 'h. 1. Superintendent of Schools