If you left or tuned out of this past Monday’s epically long Board of Selectmen’s (BoS) meeting early, then you missed an informative and often tense discussion over the town’s elementary school plans.
The penultimate agenda item focused on whether the BoS would support a Citizens Petition for a non-binding referendum about keeping Wellesley a 7-elementary-school town rather than eliminating one under the Hardy-Hunnewell-Upham plan that’s been taking shape for years. Backers of the petition are looking to get the referendum on the March ballot.
The petition text was proposed as follows: “Do you believe the Town of Wellesley should keep our current seven neighborhood elementary school model by rebuilding and/or renovating the Hardy, Hunnewell and Upham Elementary Schools, instead of closing one school and redistricting all of our elementary students into six schools? Please vote YES or NO.”
The BoS voted 4-1 against the petition as worded, which means that as things stand, this question will not appear at the polls on Tuesday, March 17, 2020.
However, should the request receive signatures from 10% of Wellesley’s registered voters (approximately 1,800 signatures) by Feb. 4, 2020, the ballot question must by law be permitted to appear.
Pointed words
During Citizen’s Speak, Wellesley resident Mari Passananti, said that the plans for a new Hunnewell School represent an “extravagant, ludicrously priced plan” which “eliminates green space.”
“By 2021 I’m highly confident that every registered voter in this town will understand that a vote for the massive tax hike will also equal a vote to close the Hardy School, and that is what I think many people at Town Meeting didn’t totally grasp,” Passananti said. “That vote for a big Hunnewell was a vote to close Hardy…Don’t let a School Committee and a Superintendent with a Father Knows Best attitude push through a contentious proposal.”
BoS Secretary Jack Morgan in comments addressed to Passananti said, “You are casting aspersions on our Superintendent as well as our School Committee. We have talked about the decline in civil discourse here in Wellesley. You are disrespecting the School Committee, this Board, and the 80% of Town Meeting members who voted in a way that you didn’t want.”
After some more back-and-forth, Passananti said, “If you turn us down, we’ll get the signatures we need and the question will appear on the 2020 ballot. You have a chance to stand up for democracy. Please do so. The citizens deserve a vote.”
Wellesley resident Lauren Duprey said, “We like having these small schools,” and voiced concerns about the increased traffic that could result with a larger Hunnewell School.
Jonathan Gerbode Grant, a Wellesley resident since 2015, voiced frustrations about not knowing what was going on with the process. “I haven’t had time, and someone hasn’t been reaching out to me somehow. We need to think about the methods of how we’re communicating with the town.”
Chair of the Wellesley Republican Town Committee Carl Nelson weighed in and said that he was there to support approval of the referendum on the ballot.
A total of six residents exercised their right to air their views during the Citizen’s Speak part of the BoS meeting set aside for discussion of the referendum.
BoS members speak
Once all citizens had a chance to speak, the meeting was opened to the BoS for comments. Regarding talk about Hardy closing, Morgan said, “There’s only one entity in town that can close a school, and that’s the School Committee. Town Meeting can’t vote to close a school.”
Morgan said a referendum question should be based around the actual proposal. The wording he said would more accurately reflect that proposal was, “Should the Town rebuild at least two schools: Hunnewell and either Upham or Hardy, and rebuild the third school if the K – 5 enrollment increases to 2,350 students on a trending basis and/or if the current school configurations are limiting educational needs.”
Elementary school student enrollment for 2019 – 2020 is at 2,094.
Elementary school student enrollment is expected to decline through Fiscal Year 2021 – 2024.
Selectman Beth Sullivan Woods suggested that the BoS could partner with proponents of the ballot question to try and reach a compromise in which both sides could agree on the wording. “To me, having competing questions on the ballot sounds like perpetuating the confusion, so if we can avoid it that would be preferable.”
Selectman Lise Olney pointed out that there is a reason that Wellesley is governed by Town Meeting. “I don’t feel like good governance comes from ballot referendums. We have representative government because long ago we decided that we were going to elect people who were just our neighbors to make studied decisions about what happens in our community.”
Selectman Tom Ulfelder said that a school could be built in addition to Hunnewell and one other school, but that “would be predicated on enrollment rising to a level where it can be filled and wherefore there is a cost/benefit to operating that school.”
As Ulfelder was talking about Wellesley as a model in special education because of the way the district treats children and families facing challenges, he was interrupted by a resident who insisted to be heard, saying that she’d had her hand up for 15 minutes. After being asked a couple of times by BoS Chair Marjorie Freiman to please come to the microphone, it became clear that the speaker, who did not identify herself, wished the Board to halt the school talk and allow the next agenda item — that on the Climate Emergency Resolution — to go forward. She said it was getting late, and there were several young children in attendance.
Everyone wants their turn
Ulfelder said, “The thing is, we have other mothers here who are paying babysitters. We’re sorry this has gone on…”
Whoops. Interrupted again, this time with a scolding. “I beg your pardon if I’ve upset you, but I think we all have a voice as well. Just one of your citizens. One of your voters. Wanted to raise an issue.”
Freiman said, “This issue we’re talking about here is as important as the climate emergency. I understand it’s running late, but we’re having a very important conversation.”
Frieman decided to let the kids come up and limit their comments to two minutes each. Three college-age students briefly spoke. Freiman thanked them on behalf of the BoS for their involvement in important community initiatives, then asked if there were any other young people who would like to speak.
“There were a couple of younger students, but they had to leave,” she was informed.
Finally, the BoS voted on whether it supported putting the petition as proposed by the citizens on the ballot. The vote was 1 to put the petition on the ballot, and 4 not to do so.
From here, the citizens who put forward the referendum question say they will seek the signatures they need to ensure that the question is added to the ballot at the March 17, 2020 polls.
MORE:
SMMA Feasibility Study Report, August 2019
Hunnewell, Hardy, Upham Facilities projects, Town of Wellesley overview
Save Wellesley Neighborhood Schools Facebook page
Do you have a link where I (Wellesley resident) can add my signature to the ballot question petition? That the BoS would shoot down the opportunity for people to voice their opinion greatly upsets me.
Thank you for that question. Because state law governs collection of signatures, electronic signatures don’t count. You must sign in person, in ink.
We have a large all volunteer referendum team to collect the signatures. If you’re eager to sign, and/or to join our volunteer team, please email:
saveallschools@gmail.com
Thank you again for your interest and have a great weekend!
I wish some parents with preschool age children would run for school committee. They have the most at stake with all this talk of major redistricting, and new neighbors’ voices seem underrepresented at the town meeting, unfortunately.
I do agree with Ms. Gilbert’s comment that new apartments will be attractive to young families who want to move here for our good public schools. Apartments might be our new family starter homes with land prices so high.
It doesn’t really matter how long the committees have worked on this issue if their end result is not popular with voters. Hardy school serves a distinct community. Why should they lose their school and get redistricted without getting any say? A process like that seems undemocratic and plain unfair.
For that matter, why can’t Wellesley vote on a plan for all our older school buildings, instead of having a series of piecemeal tax votes? I think the middle school needs some work and it hasn’t been part of this planning to my knowledge…
Anyway, a vote seems like a fair way to decide about Hardy and redistricting. Thank you for covering this story.
The size of schools, and the question of three schools versus two schools, have been thoroughly vetted through studies, several committees, public hearings, neighborhood meetings, as well as at town meeting, our representative town government, beginning in 2012. It is nearly 2020 now.
You can view an outline of recent history of studies, meetings, hearings, and such beginning on page 7 of this document, https://wellesleyma.gov/DocumentCenter/View/10649/2018-June-STM-Report_FINAL_and_Appendices.
…and more recent history beginning on page 5 here:
https://wellesleyma.gov/DocumentCenter/View/18346/2019-Dec-STM-Advisory-Report-FINAL
I don’t believe the plan is to “get rid of” the school that is not in use, but use it for other town purposes, but it might be worth asking school building committee that question.
The fact that the same people on various HHU committees keep coming up with the same plan does not mean it is a good plan and should move forward. Some of the committee members who vote are town employees which in and of itself seems inappropriate.
The Special Town Meeting on 12/9 is being labeled by the BOS as a vote for no support for keeping 7 schools which is ironic because we were specifically told we could not discuss that topic by the Moderator. In fact we have not been able to discuss consolidation at any HHU STM over the past two years. My guess is most TMMs were not aware what their vote actually meant at the last STM or they didn’t listen to their constituents very well.
The town residents should have been asked from day one how we envision the future of our schools for this project but we weren’t. There was a question on a 2016 survey in which over 50% of the respondents answered they where not in favor of consolidation (page 82 of the document linked below.). This document also provides feedback of an early HHU forum in which the same opinion was expressed. This feedback is never addressed. It is nice to say you reached out for feedback but you need to actually listen to it.
https://wellesleyma.gov/DocumentCenter/View/9198/Public-Outreach-Report—Appendix-1
It is definitely time for a referendum so we do not risk setting this process back with a potential failed debt exclusion.
Lastly, I for one would be appalled if Wellesley moves forward with two modern schools in our least diverse areas of our town. A design as such will be a field day for the media. Didn’t we just hire a diversity director for our schools?
Another interesting twist on the enrollment numbers is tangled up in the 40B situation. The School Committee claims that each unit has only a 0.25 child ratio. That would mean that there would only be 1 child for every 4 units occupied. As anyone knows this is absolutely ludicrous as one of the top reasons to move to Wellesley is for its excellent schools. Many of the proposed 40B sites are situated around Hardy/Sprague, not to mention the gigantic site on Great Plain Ave. clearly impacting Hunnewell. I cannot fathom how the School Committee can get away with the level of underestimation.
Thank you Mrs. Swellesley for putting the school enrollment into context. The potential ballot question wording advanced by Mr. Morgan stated that at least two schools would be rebuilt, and potentially a third IF the 2,350 enrollment threshold is met. This is a highly misleading statement, given current 5 and 10 year enrollment projections do not get near that threshold – a point Mr. Morgan omitted. The fact is there are NO enrollment projections that would trigger construction of a third new elementary school.
The current plan is to build two new schools, each with a capacity of at least 50% more students than the building it would replace. This, by definition, will necessitate closure of one school, and town wide redistricting to go from 7 to 6 elementary schools.
The lack of transparency on these facts is why so many parents are frustrated with the School Committee. Many believe it is a deliberate attempt by the SC to mislead the public in advance of votes on debt exclusions in 2021 for the two proposed new schools. All of the facts on school closure and redistricting need to be in the open for the voters to make informed decisions, and voters should be allowed to weigh in on those facts.
Mr. Morgan bemoans the decline of civil discourse in local politics; however his misleading statements and omission of facts, advanced from his perch as an elected official on the BoS, does far more damage to the discourse than does a citizens’ remarks during public comments.
A full, comprehensive plan for school construction, closure, and redistricting should be presented to the parents and taxpayers of Wellesley. Anything less is a subversion of democracy.
A few thoughts..never get rid of school buildings. The amount of students may look like it’s going down but you never know what’s around the corner..Needham had to comply with a over 200 apartments and Weston is dealing with a large complex right now, Wellesley could be next. Can you say additional children for our schools. Neighborhood schools are so important and are becoming a thing of the past. Keep them as long as you can.