66°
HOLDEN, Mass. — Holden schools are facing a potential reduction of eight Holden elementary school teachers along with sweeping district-wide cuts made in an effort to close a budget gap of around $1.5 million dollars.
At Monday night's special school committee meeting, superintendent Thomas Pandiscio proposed cuts that included all district literacy coaches, a vice principal at Wachusett Regional High School, and the reduction of 15 elementary school teachers district-wide to help meet the shortfall.
In Holden, Dawson Elementary school could lose a third, fifth and second grade teacher; Davis Hill Elementary a fifth, second and first grade a teacher; and Mayo Elementary a third and first grade teacher.
Additional reductions include two Wachusett Regional High School English teachers and one Mountview physical education teacher.
The school committee voted 12-6 in support of the motion that would allow the district administration to make cuts "in order to eliminate both known and anticipated deficits" — wording that drew concern from some members.
"It was this blanket statement that some people were concerned about," said school committee member Stacey Jackson. "Two weeks ago we had a balanced budget, last week at the business and finance subcommittee meeting, we had a running deficit of $700,000, and yesterday we had a deficit of $1.5 million, and I did ask the superintendent, 'what's it going to be next week?.' I was not comfortable that this to me was a perceived moving target."
In addition to Jackson, members Julie Kelley, Sarah LaMountain, Deidre Kosky, Erik Scheinfeldt and Lance Harris voted not to support the motion.
Steve Hammond, who voted to support the motion, said the cuts were chosen because they could be implemented three weeks before school starts.
"They aren't the best cuts we could have made, but they are the best cuts we could make right now," he said. "A lot of the emails I received today talked about how we cut teachers before anything else, but nothing can be further from the truth. We cut a number of things first, and we've decimated our administrative staff ahead of teachers."
Hammond said there are also a discussions in executive session that could help change the reductions.
"If those come to fruition, we'd like to reinstate as many of those elementary teachers as we can. On Thursday we'll talk about what progress we've made on that, and we'll probably meet again next week and keep going to keep driving progress on that, so there's a good chance some number of those teachers may be re-instated."
Additionally, the superintendent will meet with school principals on Wednesday to see if there may be alternative cuts in other areas that might be cut.
"The problem is, we're three weeks away from the start of school, so there may be areas people would want to see cut but they're not feasible cuts to do on Aug. 7," said Jackson.
Jackson said she was most concerned about the elementary class size, which will increase to up to 27 students per classroom.
"A class size of 27 or 28 kids, especially at the young elementary grades of first, second and third grade — that's going to be a big challenge for both our students and our teachers. They will rise to the occasion, they've done it before, but it's something else we're putting on them," she said. "Long-term it's going to be a challenge because anytime you cut something out of the budget it's that much harder to get it back in."
Hammond said that the cuts are undoing a lot of the work that the school committee has done over the years.
"We've lost all our literacy coaches, so the teacher training has been done, but the progress that we made on the literacy program has stalled and will probably start to degrade. Class sizes are atrocious, but we don't have a ton of choice given where we are," he said. "I think it's important to note that we're in a crisis mode because of the error of the business manager, but there isn't any money that's missing. If that mistake had not been made, than we would have been in this spot in March or April or May. This is the essentially the budget cliff we said that we were going to hit — we're here. "
The cuts to elementary school teachers also drew criticism from Selectman Anthony Renzoni.
"The town of Holden is looking at eight elementary school teachers getting pink-slipped this week, because the district had a hard time balancing their books the children are going to pay for it," he said. "My daughter is going to be in a 26-child classroom this year, and that's unacceptable. These school committee members will tell you that when times are good anything over 18 is not good, and now we're endorsing 26-children classrooms and taking their libraries away unless parents can get in and volunteer to keep those libraries open."
Throughout the budget process earlier this year, Renzoni said the town of Holden took a lead in supporting the proposed number.
"I was very vocal that we needed to support the schools and this was what they needed. Holden is a lot like Sterling, we supported the budget, and now Holden's children are going to pay for it. It's a pretty sad set of circumstances."
Renzoni said he did appreciate the no votes from the three Holden delegates to the school committee, but said he was saddened to see that there was no public comment session added to Thursday night's agenda.
"I reached out to (chair Duncan Leith), I know that several people in town made the same request, and I just saw that their agenda and there's no public comment. Thursday night I think there will be a couple hundred concerned residents there that have been blindsided by these 11th hour budget cuts, and the elected officials on our school committee are not even going to hold a public comment session to hear from the people that asked them to represent them? I think they're having a hard time remembering that they're there to represent the interests of the people of Holden, as it relates to the schools."
The school committee will meet again at 7 p.m. on Thursday, Aug. 9 in the Media Center at Wachusett Regional High School. Renzoni said that if the school committee does not allow for public comment, residents are more than welcome to come to the Holden Board of Selectman's meeting on Monday night.
"We'll make sure they're on T.V. and we'll capture for the record their feelings on this budget crisis," he said.
School Cuts include:- A Curriculum supervisor
- 6 administrative personnel, including literacy coaches
- Closing school libraries (note: library aides will be laid off or reassigned to other positions. The libraries may be run by parent volunteers this year.)
- Reduction of two school bus routes
- Reduction in Athletic Transportation
- A change in stipends for cafeteria monitors
- eliminated high school parking lot security
- Reducing 15 elementary teachers to increase class size to a maximum of 28 students/class (details below)
- Reduction of two English teachers at the HS (teachers will now teach a total of 10 sections of classes a year, rather than the 9 they previously taught)
- Reduction of a PE teacher at the HS
- Reassigning a HS Assistant Principal to be a math teacher
- Elimination of elementary parent conferences (the savings is for the substitutes hired to cover classrooms)
- Additionally, the Chocksett principal position was not reinstated.
Comments (57)
Hello, I feel obliged to correct the misinformation in Mr. Meyer's latest
posting. I was not "soundly defeated" in any election but have served
continuously since March of 2002. Another slip in Mr. Meyer's
memory.
Margaret Watson
Ah it would appear that Margaret Watson may have been ‘technically’ correct when she claimed that “Duncan Leith was not a member of the School Committee at the time the Inspector-General's report was ISSUED.”
The Inspector General’s Office conducted a thirteen month investigation (March 2004 through April 2005) of the WRSD budget and they issued their scathing twenty-seven page report ($139,000 in ‘excessive or unjustified’ spending) in early May 2005.
Records show that Duncan Leith and Margaret Watson were both on the school committee before and throughout the full Inspector General’s investigation. Both ran for reelection on May 9, 2005 (just days after the IG’s report was released).
Both were soundly defeated, losing in every precinct to two political unknowns. Margaret lost to the top vote getter by an amazing 370 votes (29.4%) and Duncan lost by an even greater 431 vote (35.9%) margin. Clearly the voters did NOT want Duncan Leith or Margaret Watson serving on the school committee.
Unfortunately with EIGHT Holden members on the school committee (lots of seats and few candidates) Duncan and Margaret were able to slip back onto the school committee at a later time.
Perhaps Margaret can tell us how she voted ‘for’ a forensic audit ‘after’ she had apparently been voted off of the school committee. Oh and Margaret, Al Tutela’s questionable ‘business lunches’ came to $10,315 not the $9,000 you claimed. Just another one of those many mistakes you and Duncan failed to catch.
Tom Pandiscio did the right thing by resigning. After admitting to more than $3 Million in mistakes just over the past nine months it was clear he had lost all credibility but Tom Pandiscio was not alone in these mistakes.
Senior members of the school committee bear full responsibility for their lack of action in this succession of million dollar mistakes. Duncan Leith, Margaret Watson and Cindy Bazinet have all been on the SC dating back to the dark days of Al Tutela.
We should reasonably have expected at least one of them to catch at least one of these million dollar mistakes. They did not! For years they told us they were spending our tax dollars (some $90 Million per year) wisely. Clearly they did not!
To restore credibility Duncan Leith, Margaret Watson and Cindy Bazinet must immediately and permanently resign from the school committee. The SC has some very capable new members who are willing to step up and do the job.
Members who are willing to ask the tough questions that Duncan, Margaret and Cindy failed to ask year after year. It is time for Mr. Leith, Ms. Watson and Cindy Bazinet to step down and let these new members do their job.
Without these resignations there will be NO return to credibility for the school committee.
We need to educate children and that costs money. We also need to be sure that our tax dollars (some $90 Million per year) are being spent wisely. We need to ask the tough questions before we end up in yet another crisis situation. We tried giving ex-Superintendent Al Tutela a blank check and we all remember how that ended.
One more point: Duncan Leith was not a member of the School Committee
at the time that the Inspector-General's report was issued. He was off
the committee for several years and so had no part in any of these
deliberations.
Margaret Watson
I would like set the facts straight on the actions the School Committee took
following the issue of the Inspector General's report of seven years ago.
1. The School Committee voted for a forensic audit at that time, and I,
as a member, also voted for it. The chair at the time (no longer with us)
contacted an outside firm that did conduct a preliminary audit, not a forensic audit,
as the findings of the preliminary audit did not seem to warrant such an extensive investigation.
She (the auditor) and her staff did make some rather minor recommendations that
were taken seriously and put into effect.
2. We hired an independent counsel, a lawyer from Boston named
Elizabeth Valerio, who told us that the District had to pay for unused
vacation days. This is the law for both public and private companies.
The payment for unused vacation days was the bulk of the amount
cited in the I G report. Most of the vacation days spent by the
the then Supt. and his staff were spent in unforeseen contract
negotiations that summer.
3. As a result of the IG report the chair spent a good deal of time
that year revising the District policies, which helped to clarify
business procedures and also tightened procedures regarding
taking of vacation days.
4. About $9,000 plus of the money cited in the IG report went
to "business lunches" taken by the then Supt. as he continued
to work with colleagues over a normal lunch break midday. This
amount was spent over a three year period, and following the IG
report, he discontinued the practice of business lunches.
All of this information (except for the comment on the lunches) is contained in official minutes taken by the
School Committee. You can find these minutes posted on the
Wachusett District web site.
Margaret Watson
Still waiting to see the $300,000.00 quotes. But wait we still have not even seen the RFP. All of what is being said and done is based on a number that fell out of the sky.
Lets see now, so far the lesson being taught by Dr. Pandiscio and the School Committee is;
Full Forensic Audit = Less Teachers
Full Forensic Audit = Larger Class Size
There will be a test on this. Study well.
Bless the parents for coming out. They should indeed be opposed to teacher cuts. However, the superintendent said at Monday's meeting that as many teacher positions as possible would be restored as early as Thursday's meeting following a positive vote on a phased audit at a savings of $250,000. That's precisely what happened. The superintendent did not "back down" in the face of pressure. He did what he said he would do if that vote passed.
Did you really say, Mr. Ed, the cuts were made to cover budget mistakes? How was that supposed to work? Did those cuts fool people into thinking there had been no budget errors? And the school committee bought into that? Really? In the face of the phased audit they voted for? I think they would be surprised to learn they had been part of a cover up.
Mr. Ed, you forgot your fifth assistant principal talking point. Are you ready to concede that one?
On one issue, you are correct. Your definition of witch hunt is not mine. Every effort is being made to hold the District accountable. That's what the audit is about. But to hold only three school committee members accountable among twenty, among the dozens who have served over the years, the three you regard as your nemeses, yup, that's a witch hunt.
Why let ‘FACTS’ get in the way of a good argument eh Ms. Deminimus (Maureen F) Maximus.
Apparently you missed the fact that Tom Pandiscio and his school committee have already admitted to making $2.7 Million in budget mistakes just over the past nine months (and these are just the ones we know about so far). They have admitted that they had to make drastic cuts (teacher layoffs) to balance their budget.
Haven’t you been paying attention? Oh wait you didn’t even bother to attend the meeting Thursday night. You never saw the dozen or so children holding signs or heard the 200+ parents and teachers there to protest those cuts. You didn’t listen to their impassioned pleas to restore all those elementary school teachers.
The fifth assistant principal? The WRSD web site lists five assistant principals. The list of Job Titles / Salaries provided by Mr. Pandiscio lists five assistant principals. Case closed.
We pay Superintendent Thomas Pandiscio more than $200,000 per year ($3,846 per week) in salary and benefits plus we give him up to three months of paid time off per year. We should expect him to catch at least one of the more than $3 Million in budget mistakes. He didn’t.
Duncan Leith, Margaret Watson and Cindy Bazinet have been on the school committee through every one of these more than $26 Million in budget mistakes, cost overruns and lost lawsuits. We should expect at least one of them to catch at least one of these Multi-Million dollar mistakes. They didn’t.
If by “witch hunt” Ms. Diminimus (Maureen F) Maximus means I expect these people to be held accountable for their mistakes then for once she is correct. I do expect these people to be held accountable for their continued mistakes. I do expect these people to spend the school district’s $90+ Million annual budget wisely. I do NOT expect them to continually make Multi-Million dollar mistakes with our money.
It is time for the school committee to take a ‘Vote of NO Confidence’ in Mr. Pandiscio and to begin a search for a new superintendent. It is time for Duncan Leith, Margaret Watson and Cindy Bazinet to end their ‘Reign of ERROR’ and to immediately and permanently resign from the school committee. No more Multi-Million dollar mistakes with our tax dollars.
Our ‘friend’ Deminimus Maximus (AKA Maureen F) would have you believe that I am on a “witch hunt”. OK let’s look at the FACTS.
Tom Pandiscio and his school committee have admitted to making more than $3 Million in budget mistakes just over the past nine months (just over $26 Million in budget mistakes and cost overruns over the past eight years). The school committee immediately went into crisis mode. To cover their Multi-Million dollar mistakes they threatened to cut eighteen elementary school teachers.
When hundreds of parents, teachers and a dozen or more kids holding signs showed up to loudly protest their cuts Tom Pandiscio and the school committee backed down and suddenly found enough money in other accounts to save all but one of the threatened elementary school teachers. Ms. Deminimus would have seen this amazing display of distrust in Mr. Pandiscio and the school committee if she had bothered to show up at the meeting last night.
We pay Superintendent Thomas Pandiscio more than $200,000 per year ($3,846 per week) in salary and benefits (plus we give him up to three months of paid time off per year). We should expect him to catch at least one of the more than $3 Million in budget mistakes. He didn’t.
Duncan Leith, Margaret Watson and Cindy Bazinet have been on the school committee through every one of these more than $26 Million in budget mistakes and cost overruns. We should expect at least one of them to catch at least one of these Multi-Million dollar mistakes. They didn’t.
If by “witch hunt” Ms. Diminimus Maximus means I expect these people to be held accountable for their mistakes then for once she is correct. I do expect these people to be held accountable for their mistakes. I do expect these people to spend the school district’s estimated $93 Million annual budget wisely. I do NOT expect them to continually make Multi-Million dollar mistakes with our money.
It is time for the school committee to take a ‘Vote of NO Confidence’ in Mr. Pandiscio and to begin a search for a new superintendent. It is time for Duncan Leith, Margaret Watson and Cindy Bazinet to end their ‘Reign of ERROR’ and to immediately and permanently resign from the school committee. No more Multi-Million dollar mistakes with our money.
You have chosen three out of twenty to blame, demanding that they, and only they resign in disgrace and take the fall. These are the same individuals you have harassed, sued unsuccessfully, peppered with abusive correspondance, and blasted by name from the microphone for years. You've always wanted them gone and now you are seizing your golden opportunity.
Witch hunt.
We have serious problems to confront in our District budget. Mr. Ed is taking this opportunity to conduct a witch hunt.
Why did Duncan Leith, Margaret Watson and Cindy Bazinet get singled out and asked to immediately and permanently resign from the school committee? They are the three Holden members who have been on the school committee since the Al Tutela days. When the MA Inspector General’s Office investigated their budget and found $139,000 in “Wasteful Spending” the IG’s Office recommended that they do a ‘Forensic Audit’. Duncan Leith, Margaret Watson and Cindy Bazinet all voted NO to a Forensic Audit!
Duncan Leith, Margaret Watson and Cindy Bazinet were all on the committee when they pushed through the high school building project. As you remember that project ran $15 Million over budget then we got sued for and lost an additional $6.4 Million.
Duncan Leith, Margaret Watson and Cindy Bazinet were all on the committee last September when they made two budget mistakes totaling $383,645 and not one of them caught either mistake.
Duncan Leith, Margaret Watson and Cindy Bazinet were all on the committee when they made the $1.2 Million mistake last month and not one of them caught this huge $1.2 Million mistake.
Duncan Leith, Margaret Watson and Cindy Bazinet were all on the committee when they made the second $1.5 Million mistake and again not one of them caught this $1.5 Million mistake. More than $3 Million in budget mistakes just over the past nine months and not one of them caught even one of these mistakes.
Duncan Leith, Margaret Watson and Cindy Bazinet have each been on the school committee through each and every one of these $24.2 Million ($22,239,000) in mistakes and they claim they are spending our tax dollars wisely.
$24.2 MILLION in mistakes and not one of them caught even one of these incredible mistakes and they claim they are spending nearly $90 Million of our tax dollars every year wisely?
Clearly they have not been paying attention. We cannot afford any more multi-million dollar mistakes. Clearly it is time for Duncan Leith, Margaret Watson and Cindy Bazinet to immediately and permanently resign from the school committee.
Ah finally my question is answered. Thank you very much. It would seem that these folks can be considered the holders of seniority on the SC. It would also seem that because of this august stature other less senior members might be inclined to defer to the most senior members in some or most cases based on perceived notions that they posess advanced knowledge of the inner workings of the district. These same folks also enjoy vast support of the community due to the fact that they are and have been re-elected numerous times over the years. So the thought that other members defer to them is not out of the realm of possibilities. I certainly know from experience having served on committees, it is the natural progression. Now along these lines there is also a responsibility to guide and educate the novices. It must also entail an ethical approach to such education and guidance. Therefore these people have a vested interest in the outcome of any and all audits that may be conducted. They also have an understanding of the depths that various types of audits can plumb. Resistance to the deepest most detailed audit must then be for reasons othr than the mere cost of such audit as it seems they have a "money is no object" attitude towards any of the projects as has been pointed out. Please do not diminish the faith that the voters have obviously put in you. They are the ones you represent prove to them that they have not erred.
Well, at least you got the answer you were looking for. Good thing, too, as all that supposition and firm possibilities of definite maybes that make up the rather tortured course from A-to-B-to-Q that appears immediately above might well have gone unstated here.
Yes I did get my answer. I am glad you agree with the suppositions presented as evidenced by your inability to refute them. I was only trying to clear my confusion and maybe some others confusion on the three individuals who seem to be taking quite a bit of flak. Not everyone has the "inside" story. I am sorry if you feel I was following a less than logical path and would like to know where I was wrong or what you disagree with.
No, I do not agree with your suppositions. Had I, I would have said so. My not refuting them with anything other than pointing out that your preordained conclusion is the product of grotesquely tortured reasoning should have been your first clue that we have no agreement. But, in examining what you said, I was indeed struck by just how little you said. What you've stated is a definite conclusion based upon nothing but indefinite statements, so it's impossible to to agree with your conclusion unless one also accepts your suppositons as fact, and then agrees that such facts inescapably lead to your conclusion. [Sorry in advance for the all-caps, but there's no other way to the highlight parts of your statement that are nothing more than qualified possibilities.]
"IT WOULD SEEM that these folks CAN BE CONSIDERED the holders of seniority on the SC. IT WOULD ALSO SEEM that because of this august stature other less senior members MIGHT BE INCLINED to defer to the most senior members IN SOME OR MOST CASES based on PERCEIVED NOTIONS that they posess advanced knowledge of the inner workings of the district. These same folks also enjoy vast support of the community due to the fact that they are and have been re-elected numerous times over the years. So the thought that other members defer to them is NOT OUT OF THE REALM OF POSSIBILITIES. I certainly know from experience having served on committees, it is the natural progression. Now along these lines there is also a responsibility to guide and educate the novices. It must also entail an ethical approach to such education and guidance. Therefore these people have a vested interest in the outcome of any and all audits that may be conducted. They also have an understanding of the depths that various types of audits can plumb. Resistance to the deepest most detailed audit must then be for reasons othr than the mere cost of such audit as IT SEEMS they have a "money is no object" attitude towards any of the projects as has been pointed out."
Your conclusion that the three members in question have more of a vested interest in the outcome of an audit than any other member of the committee it not supported by the idea that older members of the committee have an obligation to educate less senior members. These ideas certainly can exist independently of one another. And any perceived money-is-no-object attitude does not support your conclusion that their objection to such an audit must come from some fear as to what it might disclose; these are, even if true, also completely independent circumstances.
Just admit that you've made up your mind that the three people on the committee whom you don't like have done something wrong and leave it at that.
[Duplicate post]
And, at all relevant times, so were 15-17 other school committee members. Your complaint is based in ideology and personal animus, Mr. Meyer, and not in any particularly singular or identifiable responsibility.
But then, so goes the easy courage of being nothing more than a chronic critic.
[Comment deleted and moved to below Name Withheld's comment.]
"He and his type have one overall goal: to "starve the beast" of public education. So they will uniformly vote down whatever funds they can"
Really?
So, in other words, you believe in your heart of hearts that this man,. Mr. Myer, who is clearly concerned about public funds and wishes to hold those entrusted to them who mismange those funds, does so because he wishes to shut off all funding for public education? In other words, his conscious design is that my children go without an education?
I am a parent of a child in this school system. I want all our children to get a good education, and I support our teachers 110%.
But I also am a citizen and one who is disgusted by the premise that because one of my fellow citizens is concerned about where our money is spent, it therefore follows that he or she is some hate-mongering "agitator".
I suggest you read books like "The Stamp Act" by Edmund Morgan and "The Creation of the American Republic" by Gordon Wood.
Both those works as well as many others on the period, do a particularly good job at elucidating one of the most notable times in our history. A time when those who sought fiscal accountability from those who governed them were labled and dismissed by those doing the governing as "agitators" and similar such dergogatory terms.
We can all agree on some measures that might help us avoid the considerable fiscal challenges now facing our schools, disagree on others. That is fine. That is as it should be.
But can we refrain from accusing our fellow citizens of possessing motives such as wanting to see our childrens' educations literally be taken away, simply because they are dissatisfied with the current governance of our schools?
Can we all look to the better angels of our nature and, in doing so, maybe....just maybe....even teach our children a lesson in civility and civic virtue in the process?
Mr. Ed has often spoken of his motives over the years. Dig out your old Landmarks and read them. He has also demanded other resignations, taken the District and individuals to court on numerous occasions, attempted to rescind education-related town votes, gone to court for an emergency halt to the high school project, and on and on. Does no one recall any of this? Mr. Ed is not a casual citizen asking questions. He and his group, Holden Associated Taxpayers have taken a pledge not to support an override of any nature or of any size ever, ever, ever, in the town of Holden. It is their mission not to spend one more cent on schools than is mandated. They have told us their motives.
Because of his aggression in these matters over the years and because he speaks for the group, others have resisted, debunking his half-truths, distortions and lies. This brings the wrath of Mr. Ed down upon one's head. Ask Ken O'Brien, Maureen Floryan, and yes, Mr. Leith. Ms. Watson, and Ms. Bazinet. Once again he is trying to use a crisis to his advantage and smear his percived enemies with the same broad brush.
Why is it that the better angels are invoked only when someone fights back?
Name Withheld writes:
"So, in other words, you believe in your heart of hearts that this man,. Mr. Myer [sic], who is clearly concerned about public funds and wishes to hold those entrusted to them who mismange those funds, does so because he wishes to shut off all funding for public education? In other words, his conscious design is that my children go without an education?"
No, not in other words, as, clearly, I said nothing of the sort. What I said is that he wants schools to exist on subsistence funding, and, if pressed, to be privatized by means of vouchers, charter schools, or some other non-publicly funded means. Why would you put my words "in other words," when my exact words are there for your reading.
Please don't make the strawman arguments you wish me to make so that you may burn them down as unreasonable.
Strawman arguments?
My intent was and is nothing of the kind.
I simply am saying I, for one, am immensely concerned about this and my grave concern for the fiscal well-being of our Town, our school system and our taxpayers does not in any way shape or form make me a "hater", an "agitator" or any other such thing.
I am also deeply concerned about my child's education and the excellent teachers who work where my child goes to school, as well as all the others in the District.
I am sorry to hear that you, someone else on here and Mr. Meyer have, apparently, some type of feud or whatnot. And no, I know nothing about it and, frankly, I am not interested in it, either.
What I am deeply interested in, however, is our children's future and, concomitantly, the future of this school district.
Again, I would urge you to re-read my comment. I responded solely and specifically to your question and did not address my comments in any form, shape or fashion to your position on any matter (for I truly knew not what your positions were), your child's education, or anything other than why--as you inquired--Mr. Meyer continues to incessantly blame only three members of the school committee for the entirely of what he perceives to be the districts problems.
Should you, however, associate yourself with his position on these various issues, you are certainly free to do so. If that then forces you self-identify as an agitator--not an inherently perjorative term--or a hater, that too is up to you.
Can someone tell me why Mr. Meyer has "targeted" only a few members of the school committee? Are they the same members that served during the DOE investgation and are they still ignoring recomendations made by the DOE back then? If not can someone please tell me who else was serving at that time? This would help me sort through some of my confusion. Thanks in advance.
The thing you need to understand about Mr. Meyer and those of his mindset is that he relishes his self-appointed role as agitator for the deeply held principle that any money spent on public schools above bare subsistence is hard-earned tax money wasted. He and his type delight in the failure of ballot measures that provide more money for schools, for he sees public education as a fundamental overextension of "government power" into an area that could and should be the sole province of the private sector.
And why is that? Because doing so would allow for his all-encompassing belief that supposedly unerring "market forces" would provide not only a profit motive--the greatest motivation to which man is capable--but a destruction man's greatest evil: the teachers' union. So he applauds efforts to bring charter schools and voucher systems to replace the traditional public school model. He supports the move to remove funding mechanisms that cause the need for the most confiscatory tax of all, the school tax. And he abhors those who stand in his way, and calls for their heads on a platter at the drop of a H.A.T. At present, those people are Duncan Leith, Margaret Watson, and Cynthia Bazinet.
He and his type have one overall goal: to "starve the beast" of public education. So they will uniformly vote down whatever funds they can. They force the district to, as costs increase, attempt to fulfill its mandate with less and less money, and then complain vigorously when the slightest errors are made. For instance, you see and hear Mr. Meyer complain incessantly about the $139,000 in so-called "wasteful spending" that was found as a result of the IG's 13-month investigation. And while no one wants to see any money wasted, to Mr. Meyer, this represents gross malfeasance in office by Dr. Pandiscio and--tellingly--only the aforementioned members of the school committee. In perspective, this amount represented 0.15% of that year's schools budget and, no doubt, less money than it took the IG to find it.
And so now we come to another budget year, and where do we find Mr. Meyer? Right where we expect him to be: actually celebrating--over and over and over again--his claim of a misspent, misappropriated, misallocated, and even missing $3 million. Is there any doubt that he and his ilk woke up two weeks ago in what they perceived to be the glorious sunshine of Mr. Brennan's errors? There certainly shouldn't be, for it gave them even more justification to mount their white steeds, swords brandished, to once again attempt to slay the three-headed hydra of Leith, Watson, and Bazinet.
And so when the district was forced to back into Rutland's budget number, Mr. Meyer got a two-fer: less money for the beast and the chance to criticize and ridicule his usual targets for what use they chose to make of the provisions that were left to them.
But do not be fooled into thinking that he is alone or represents some fringe group, some small-time Quixotes tilting at windmills to satisfy personal grudges and agendas. For he and his type have captured positions of power and responsibility in local, state and federal governments all over this country. But here you need look no further than our own Board of Selectmen, where we see this attitude on display no further back than the recent interviews for appointments to the school committee. Take a look at Holden Community television where you see Selectman Ferguson chiding the applicants and literally daring them to tell him that they do not, like him, take the mandate to do what's best for the children in the district as code for just wanting to spend more money.
This is why Mr. Meyer targets only a few members of the committee--where, paradoxically, neither Ms. Watson nor Ms. Bazinet even serve on the subcommittee of competent jurisdiction over budget and finance matters. And, whether he'll admit it or not, he's only happy when he can make their lives difficult. It gives him purpose.
I will not defend Mr Meyer. I do not know him. I do not know his motives. I'm not going to speculate. He's certainly an irritant which is unfortunate because his abbrasive delivery frequently overwhelms his message.
Since you've taken the time to get on your soapbox, I'll get on mine for a moment. You seem to be of the mindset that every dollar spent on education is converted into a meaningful improvement in educational outcome. This is plainly false. As a contrived example, we could allocate funds to replace all desk chairs with Herman Miller Aerons for all students. Clearly, this is ridiculous but is it really any more wasteful than security in the high school parking lot? I realize this has been cut, but only after the latest budget crisis. A budget we were previously told had already been cut as deeply as possible without impacting core educational programs. Is high school parking lot security a core educational program?
You also clearly endorse the government monopoly on education. To those of us who support charter schools, it's not a matter of "market forces." It's a matter of choice. With the current system there are few alternatives to public schools. Most of which are expensive and restricted to the wealthy. In addition, if you do choose a non-conventional education, for your child, you get the priveledge of continuing to pay for the public education that was unsuitable for your needs. As a result, most of us are saddled with a take-it-or-leave-it school system where there is very little choice of curriculum. If you want something else, sorry, you'll have to pack up and move.
I have a cousin who is a former teacher in the NYC school system. She eventually left NYC public schools to go to work for a charter school in the city. They are achieving measurably improved academic results with fewer resources. Their per-pupil cost is substantially less than the NYC average. They also have an impossibly long waiting list. We need more schools like this to compete with public schools and force them to innovate. And by innovate, I don't mean buy iPads.
I want to provide my kids with the BEST education they can possibly have. Period. Recent events have only reinforced my doubts that the WRSD can provide that for my kids. Too bad I can't afford to send them anywhere else.
The argument dwilliams presents is the typical conservative vs. liberal argument that has dogged humanity throughout recorded history and won't be resolved here, in my lifetime or until armageddon.
The focus therefore should remain on the problem at hand. WE need desperately to sort out this budget. The children need this sorted out even more. Steps must be taken quickly so that what is needed is in place. All the opinions of what color socks go with what suit are not getting us any closer to closure. We need to maintain a laser focus on the budget problem(s) anything thing else is a distraction.
First no town has the ability to "force the district into any budget number". A defensible budget could have been brought to DOE. This did not happen. Other commenters have already stated why. I have never met Mr. Meyer but I have independently been able to verify information presented by him and found that he has never "fudged the numbers". I do not involve myself in personality conflicts that others may have. Given the aforementioned I can see no reasonable explanation for any delay or watering down of a forensic audit. Dr. Pandiscio has said there is "nothing to hide" so why do others attempt to hide it for him?
This is called scapegoating. Would you like some additional names for Mr. Ed's list? How many school committee members have served since the IG report? Which ones are responsible for Mr. Brennan's errors and which ones are not? Which years count and which ones do not?
"Are you now or have you ever been a member" of the school committee for x-number of Mr. Ed designated years? Then off with your head!
I find your allusion to "McCarthy" humorous but in the meantime "Me thinkest the lady protest too loudly".
You blew the quote, joedell.
You may want to verify it as you verified Mr. Ed's info.
I was waiting for you to comment on that. I think misquoting Hamlet is a forgivable sin. It doesn't change the correctness of his assertion.
I do not speak for Mr Meyer, do not know him, and frankly do not know who he is.
But I suspect it is far less that he wants "certain school committee members heads on a platter" and far more that he is a citizen in town who's concerned about where our money is going.
I was sickened to hear one of the school committee members say at Monday's meeting that those who similarly wish for accountability, fiscal sanity and good stewardship of the people's money "agitators"
Between these cuts and the situation with Mr. Brennan and the budget discrepancies, these are extremely serious times for our school system and our children.
If we now live in a time when raising concerns about how our money is being spent makes one an "agitator" then God help us all.
We might just as well be again living under King George, III and Lord North.
Mr. Ed has repeatedly asked for the immediate resignations of three, and only three, members of the school committee who in his mind are as responsible as Mr. Brennan for the current crisis because they, uniquely, should have known. If you care to trace back, you will see that he has been demanding these resignations since the moment the story broke. Read his own words. He wants them to resign in disgrace. Just those three, the three he has repeatedly clashed with in the past if you care to look up the history. If that's not demanding their heads on a platter, I don't know what is.
Too bad you don't know who Mr. Ed is. Maybe you should find out because he's not just asking questions. The community may be asking questions but Mr. Ed is a bona fide agitator who lards his questions with untruths (see guidance director discussion). Do your research about his past involvement with the District. He has the right to ask any questions he wants but before you wring your hands over his being a victim of a slur, read his own scurrilous attacks.
To Deminimus Maximus (AKA Maureen F): Please stop lying and exaggerating. Until your ludicrous “9 Billion times” comment no one has ever said anything about a fifth Assistant Principal being a guidance counselor. No one ever period.
The WRSD web site lists FIVE Assistant Principals at the high school. The Job Titles / Salaries list provided by Mr. Pandiscio lists FIVE Assistant Principals at the high school. There is no mention of any of them being anything other than an Assistant Principal. There are also SEVEN Guidance Counselors, two Guidance Secretaries and twenty Custodians just at the high school.
The district is now in crisis mode trying to recover from the more than $3 Million in budget mistakes they made just over the past nine months.
Now Maureen F. Maximus be honest, if you had a child in the district would you rather see them cut a teacher or a custodian? Cut three teachers or two of the FIVE Assistant Principals at the high school? Cut three more teachers or two of the FIVE plus curriculum consultants at the high school? Cut three more teachers or two of the SEVEN guidance counselors at the high school? OK Maureen, what would you do if you could save ten elementary school classroom teachers? What would you do if you could cut classroom sizes down from 28 students to 20?
What Mr. Ed says in paragraph one is not true. It has been said, multiple times, for years.
There are those who have fought for adequate budgets that would result in smaller class sizes. Then there is Mr. Ed and his HAT group who have fought against the District budget every year of their existence, never giving a rat's patootie about class size. In fact, one of the staple HAT arguments has always been,"Why when I was a lad, we had 50 kids in a class and we turned out just fine."
Remember when you railed against electives at the high school that in your opinion contained too few students? Remember when it was explained to you that more than one elective was being conducted in the same classroom at the same time? Remember how contemptuous you were of teachers who "only" had this or that number of students? Some of us remember.
Your conversion to a defense of smaller class sizes is very recent. It was just a few years ago that you were lamenting the lack of maintenance at the high school because if only a little more duck tape had been used we wouldn't have had to rebuild that darn building for those darn kids who were busting out at the seams. Your born-again concern for class size and teacher cuts would be a trifle more convincing if you didn't have an actual track record on these matters.
Those who have consistently fought against teacher cuts and large class sizes are education supporters, not Mr. Ferguson's "numbers man."
Now that money will be saved by the prudent vote for a phased audit, many of the teacher cuts may be avoided. Members of the community should not be deceived into thinking Mr. Ed is a friend of education in our District. He is not.
Let's try this one more time to clarify the principal count since you didn't understand it when the same issue was identified in the comments on your 5/9/12 letter on this site (http://holden.dailyvoice.com/news/letter-wrsd-get-facts-part-two) spreading half the story information. At that time it was identified that one of assistant principals was a department head (guidance services), so you are incorrect that "No one ever period" identified this.
The WRSD staff directory does list 5 Assistant Principals, no disagreement there, and they are as follows:
Mr Costa (Asst Principal Lower House - Green)
Ms DeSimone (Asst Principal Sr Class)
Mr DiBendettto (Asst Principal Lower House - White)
Ms Knowles (Assistant Principal Guidance Services)
Mr Weymouth (Asst Principal Jr Class)
**note the positions in parenthesis were obtained through a 2 minute search on the WRSD website
Now, if you cross-reference to the WRSD Guidance page (http://www.wrsd.net/wrhs/guidance.cfm) you will find that Ms. Knowles actual title is Assistant Principal Guidance Services. While this appears odd that the title is not department head or similar, it is what it is. Now it is obvious you have an axe to grind with Maximus so no apology expected there but an acknowledgement of your err would be greatly appreciated to the remainder of the readers who may have blind faith in the facts(?) you present.
And while not obligated to identify other questionable statements/facts(?); in your post of August 8, 2012 @ 11:28am on this same story where you present your list of 'issues', being a man of facts that you are, I would ask you to check your math as you state 20 custodians work 120 hrs a day (therefore average of 6 hrs day each) equates to 800 hrs per week (last time I checked 120 x 5 = 600)?
Also, I did not see anyone mention this here, though perhaps I simply missed it. But just now, I was watching he tape of last night's school committee meeting. The superintendent said specifically that the Wachusett school district's school buildings have been traditionally "overstaffed" considerably.
Just thought I would mention this.
Do we really have to call those with whom we disagree 'ignorant" ?
How uncivil and what a horrendous example we set for our children by reducing ourselves like that.
Next time we turn on cable news and see the latest story of sme distrurbed person inflicting cruelty, violence, intolerance or worse upon his fellow man, and then wonder where it all could possiby have originated,, let's stop and look in the mirror.
If a person is ignorant of why assistant principals are important then why is it uncivil and horrendous to say so? If a person has had it explained to him repeatedly that the fifth assistant principal at the high school is actually the way the head of guidance is catagorized, and he continues distort the point for propaganda purposes, I would say ignorance is far too polite a term.
Mr. Ed suffers from no such delicacy. He wants the heads of three, precisely three, out of twenty school committee members on a platter. Now that's harsh. He wants to trash him some reputations. I doubt use of the word ignorant will send us all to our fainting couches.
maximus,
If the 5th principal is actually the head of guidance, then there are 13 full time people in the Guidance department, yet some kids feel lucky if they get to see their guidance counselor once or twice a year for a few minutes.
Something doesn't seem right.
Please back up your assertion. Wachusett students of my acquaintance made appointments with their guidance counselors and saw them multiple times each year, especially during junior and senior year college and job searches. In addition, the counselors spend a great deal of time meeting with or calling any number of parents of 2,000 students. Not to mention intense time commitments on the behalf of troubled and at-risk students.
I urge you educate yourself on the responsibilities of guidance counselors in a large public high school in 2012.
Again with the lies Ms. Maximus (AKA Maureen F): Please don't try to intentionally try to mislead people. There are FIVE Assistant Principals at the high school as listed on the WRSD web site. There are FIVE Assistant Principals at the high school as listed on the 'Job Titles / Salaries sheet provided to me by Mr. Pandiscio under the MA Public Records Law. There are also SEVEN Guidance Counselors plus TWO Guidance Secretaries at the high school. Now please just go back and hide like a scarred child behind your Deminimus Maximus alias.
Dear Long time observer, how childish of you to hide behind an alias (like you pal Deminimum Maximus AKA Maureen F) while taking shots at others for exposing the failures of Mr. Pandiscio and the school committee to spend our hard earned tax dollars wisely (almost $90 Million per year). How childish of you to try to make someone else sound like the bad guys for their own failures.
We never said assistant principals or curriculum consultants were unimportant just that the district has more than they need in both categories. WRHS is approximately three times the size of Auburn High. Why do we need five times that number of assistant principals and five times the number of curriculum consultants?
Given the current budget crisis created by serious financial mismanagement within the district (four mistakes totaling more than $3 Million just over the last nine months) we feel it would be better to save some of the fifteen (15) elementary school teachers they plan to cut. Better to cut two of the five assistant principals at the high school to save three classroom teachers. Better to cut two of their five curriculum consultants to save three more classroom teachers.
Custodians? They are important too but do we really need twenty custodians working 800 man hours per week just at the high school?
Now long term observer let’s test your level of comprehension. Be honest, if you had a child in the district would you rather see them cut a teacher or a custodian? Cut three teachers or two of the five assistant principals at the high school? Cut three more teachers or two of their five plus curriculum consultants? What would you do if you could save seven elementary classroom teachers?
With regard to your final silly statement about the school committee not listening, perhaps if they had listened they would have caught one or two of their own million dollar mistakes before they dug themselves into this very deep, very embarrassing hole. Perhaps they could have avoided this very costly situation if they had listened the last time when the MA Inspector General’s Office recommended a forensic audit after their thirteen month investigation of the WRSD budgets found $130,000 in ‘Wasteful Spending’.
$3+ Million in mistakes in nine months. It is clearly time for Mr. Pandiscio and the school committee to start listening.
Mr. Meyer.
Respecfully.
Twice in this post you use the pronoun we.
I understand this word to mean, I and another or others.
Who do you represent?
The "fifth" assistant principal at the high school is the guidance director....the "fifth" assistant principal at the high school is the guidance director....the "fifth" assistant principal at the high school is the guidance director....
Why are they laying off so many elementary school teachers and increasing class sizes to unacceptable levels while they:
1. Still list five full time assistant principals just at the high school (FY12 average salary $87,700 per year)?
2. Still have a $542 per day part time curriculum consultant (a WRSD retiree) on top of five full time consultants that already cost us more than half a million dollars per year?
3. Are still paying thousands of dollars per month to provide expensive SmartPhones to custodians, food service workers, outside consultants etc.?
4. Still have twenty or more full time custodians (120 man hours per day – 800 hours per week) just at the high school?
5. ????
The district has already admitted to making more than $3 Million in mistakes just over the past nine months and these are just the mistakes we know about so far.
We pay Superintendent Pandiscio more than $200,000 per year ($3,846 per week) in salary and benefits plus up to three months per year in paid time off. Three Million Dollars in mistakes in nine months! Why didn’t he or the school committee catch even one of these mistakes?
We need to educate children and that costs money. We also need to be sure that our tax dollars are being spent wisely. We need to ask questions before we blindly give Mr. Pandiscio roughly $90 Million every year to spend.
The District is cutting one assistant principal at the high school. The"fifth" assistant principal at the high school is the guidance director as you well know, Mr. Ed, because you've been told 9 billion times over the years. Disinformation.
So it looks like we will be down to three assistant principals at our high school. Not efficient, not good for the needs of kids, but, yeah, it will save some money.
Just don't pretend your motivation in demanding certain cuts is smaller class sizes. That won't pass the smell test. You have a list of names of people you want rid of. You've made that abundantly clear.