Wellesley Town Meeting rejects motion to form academic excellence study committee

April 26, 2022 by Bob Brown 6 Comments

Wellesley’s 2022 Annual Town Meeting came full circle Monday night, ending with a few hours of presentations & mini speeches about academic excellence after kicking off at the start of April with a lengthy debate over the public school budget. While the budget passed on Night 2 of Town Meeting, Article 44’s Motion 1 on Night 7 to create an academic excellence study committee did not, with the “No” votes outnumbering the “Yeses” by a count of 150 to 70 (with three Town Meeting members abstaining).

The Advisory Committee, which in previous tallies resoundingly recommended against Article 44, disclosed a much closer 6-5 vote against Motion 1.

The night began with the unveiling of a freshly amended motion marked up in blue and red that focused on specific actions related to Article 44, which called for the Wellesley School Committee and Wellesley Public Schools to prioritize academic excellence over other activities. The motion voted on by Town Meeting on Monday specified the creation of a 12- or 14-member academic excellence study committee (including student members) to be appointed by the moderator with the goal of determining whether in fact WPS academic performance has faltered, documenting possible areas for improvement, and delivering a report to the School Committee, all while further refining a definition of the philosophy of academic excellence.

Bruce Franco, the resident who put forth the citizen petition that was Article 44, made his pitch to Town Meeting members on the motion. He described the motion as prescribing “a study committee to assist parents in resolving their academic concerns. Examining parent concerns in a town-wide, interactive public discussion is a communication that doesn’t currently exist.” Franco stressed the term “interactive” and rejected the notion of the entity as a “shadow school committee” (a phrase Supt. Dr. David Lussier used in campaigning against the article). Franco cited shortcomings in the town’s public school leadership, pointing to a lack of responsiveness from the School Committee to citizen concerns and a lack of oversight of the administration. Franco listed a number of concerns that go beyond falling school rankings, and acknowledged rankings aren’t everything (as we all know, organizations of all types have a long history of highlighting or downplaying blue ribbons, awards, or rankings to fit their needs). But Franco did say the downward trend in rankings, and the closely related issue of AP course offerings, is what initially grabbed his attention.

Coincidentally, US News & World Report issued its new high school ranking results Tuesday, and Wellesley was down from #26 in the state last year to #32. Nearby, Weston High School ranked #10 in the state.

School Committee Chair Catherine Mirick responded following Franco’s presentation, encouraging Town Meeting to reject the motion. She said the article emphasized focusing all resources on just one of the school system’s four core values (the others being commitment to community, respect for human differences, and cooperative/caring relationships). Mirick explained the school system’s commitment to preparing students for the real world through its “profile of a graduate” work focused on skills and competencies sought by colleges and businesses, and outlined in its strategic plan, slated for an updated release this spring. She also ticked off numerous ways that the School Committee and administration allow for community input, including new opportunities for dialogue through school forums.

From there, Town Meeting members (and a few non-Town Meeting members at the end) shared their takes, with some espousing an “in the School Committee/administration we trust” approach. Others advocated for giving a study committee a chance, figuring there’s no harm in doing so, especially given all that the School Committee has on its plate. Some shared examples that they said illustrated how academics are being given short shrift vs. social and ethical issues that would be better taught at home. In all, more than 30 Town Meeting members spoke.

A sampling of thoughts from proponents (please see the embedded recording below for complete statements and many more):

Leanne Leibman: “I want nothing more than for WPS to succeed, and for that reason I will be voting ‘Yes’ on this article… WPS may be meeting the needs of many of its students, but why would we not strive to meet the needs of all our students. The fact is we have an exodus on our hands. I’ve spoken to many parents and the No. 1 reason they tell they left WPS or are planning to leave is because academics. We need to stop the bleeding… If forming an academic excellence committee can help prevent these things even a little, I’m all for it.”
Ethan Davis: The father of first grade twins said he initially figured to vote “No” on the article, but changed his mind after looking into the issue more thoroughly and observing many families leaving the school system. “If nothing else happens tonight I hope the message gets through that [communications] needs to improve. Even the emails I received over the past few weeks urging me to vote ‘No’ on this article admitted that the administration needs to do a much better job of being proactive in seeking input from the parent community to determine what Wellesley parents think the priorities of our schools should be…”
Joanne McIntosh: “I’m not sure why trying to measure whether there has been a tangible decline in the quality of education is so controversial. While I understand why that educators and teachers may feel defensive and unfairly criticized, I think we owe it to our kids to determine whether we do have issues and how best to resolve them. We can’t let fear, denial, and deflection, quite frankly, influence our ability to see things clearly…”

A sampling of thoughts from opponents:

Ezra Englebardt: “I am not in favor of it for two reasons: The highly subjective nature of the term ‘academic excellence’ and the subversion of the School Committee by the legislature…”
Paul Criswell: He said he appreciated the concerns expressed by parents, but that this proposed committee was not the way to address those concerns. Among his points: “This committee’s mission is remarkably ill-defined. The first thing it’s going to do is get 12 to 14 people to agree on the definition of the philosophy of academic excellence, and it’s going to get all 14 people to agree to this within a 2-year period? I would suggest to you that that’s not going to happen. If they have any extra time, they can define what justice and beauty are after that…”
Susan Maggioni: “As Ms. Mirick noted in her remarks, academic excellence is one of four core values at the Wellesley Public Schools… I encourage Town Meeting to view academic excellence as not separate from those other three values. Rather, academic excellence comes only when these other three values are incorporated into our children’s educational learning…”

While proponents of Article 44 didn’t win over Town Meeting, they had their voices heard. The meeting reaffirmed that the “school community” can’t be defined just by those who have kids in the system or who are in the school system as students. It includes those taxpayers who have younger children, no children, kids in private schools, or those with graduates of the system.

The School Committee and the School Department took the article seriously, devoting a good chunk of at least one School Committee to the topic of academic excellence because of it, meeting with Franco, and engaging at Town Meeting. While protests, citizen petitions, and study committees outside of their control aren’t school leadership’s preferred formats of feedback, they would seem to have the potential for impact.

You can review the entire segment on Article 44 starting at about the 20-minute mark of the Wellesley Media recording.

Helicopters to fly low over Boston Marathon course in Wellesley

April 15, 2022 by admin Leave a Comment

Think we spotted one here from the Wellesley Square train station

The U.S. Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration is conducting low-altitude helicopter flights (see video) over Wellesley and other sections of the Boston Marathon route through Monday, April 18 in preparation for the race.

The Nuclear Emergency Support Team aircraft will measure expected background radiation as part of standard preparations to protect public health and safety on the day of an event.

The public may see a twin-engine Bell 412 helicopter, which is equipped with radiation-sensing technology. The helicopter will fly in a grid pattern over the areas at 150 feet (or higher) above the ground at a speed of approximately 80 mph. Flyovers will occur only during daylight hours and are estimated to take approximately two hours to complete per area.

Wellesley’s 2022 Boston Marathon charity runners

Wellesley OKs accessory dwelling units

April 13, 2022 by Bob Brown Leave a Comment

An article several years in the making to allow homeowners to carve out self-contained accessory dwelling units (ADU) on their property passed intact at Wellesley Town Meeting on Tuesday night after withstanding several attempts to amend it with restrictions.

Article 39 Motion 1, brought to Town Meeting by the Planning Board and supported by the Select Board and Advisory Committee, passed by a vote of 187 to 21, with 6 members abstaining. Discussion of Article 39 Motion 1 and the amendments consumed the entire 3-plus hour Night #6 of Town Meeting, and we’ve embedded the Wellesley Media recording below. Town Meeting will continue on April 25, after public school vacation week, and at that time the last couple of articles will be discussed and voted on.

Accessory dwelling units (ADUs) are also known as in-law apartments, though proponents argue they can be used for way more than that to address a variety of housing needs, as outlined in the town’s Unified Plan and Housing Production Plan, and as addressed by new state rules. Those needs include possible income for homeowners, such as those who need that money to afford the high cost of living here. ADUs, which must include their own sleeping, cooking and sanitation facilities, also have sustainability benefits (though some say adding detached units might have the opposite effect), and can preserve historic homes and other buildings such as carriage houses and barns, according to proponents.

In addition to the Planning Board, an advocacy group called Building a Better Wellesley has been pushing for ADUs to improve housing affordability and attainability.

Those raising questions about ADUs cited concerns about possible abuse of a new zoning bylaw amendment. They worry that ADUs could be used, for example, for short-term rentals that might disrupt neighborhoods. Questions were raised about the possibility of private equity firms swooping in to snap up properties and take advantage of new ADU rules, or whether other corporate entities might find angles to exploit that aren’t in the spirit of the proposed zoning bylaw change.

A Board with a Plan

The Planning Board played defense via offense regarding proposed amendments to the Article’s Motion 1, with Board Chair Jim Roberti urging fellow Town Meeting Members during his opening presentation to reject more restrictive amendments. The Board covered possible criticisms of the Article and shored up its responses during a meeting in late March, so Planning Board and Department members were ready with answers to most questions raised. Roberti noted that Needham is looking to remove restrictions during its Town Meeting.

During his presentation on the Article, Roberti stressed the detailed and public process used to craft Article 39 to amend the town’s zoning bylaw. This process included a close look at how dozens of other communities have approached ADUs. He stressed that ADUs, which would not exceed 900 sq. ft. in size, must comply with all other zoning, building, and heath rules in town regardless of whether they are attached to an owner’s primary property. Those detached would require additional scrutiny, and all units would require annual certification.

Based on a review of how ADUs have played out in other communities, Roberti said we’re most likely looking at three to five new ones per year. Most lots in town couldn’t accommodate new ADU structures due to setback and other rules, he said.

Those proposing and backing amendments suggested more restrictions might help the town feel its way through the beginnings of documented ADUs in town, including enforcement, and allow for loosening of rules later on if so desired by the community. Numerous references to walking before running were made.

Amendments proposed

The first two proposed amendments were brought forth by the versatile David Himmelberger, who earlier during Town Meeting temporarily stepped in for the moderator. The first proposed amendment sought to extend the initial minimum leasing period from 30 to 90 days in order to “make short-term rental abuse less possible” and the second would have disallowed the building of new detached structures for ADUs out of concern that single-residence districts could get denser in a hurry despite Planning Board assurances that a relatively small percentage of properties would be candidates for construction of such buildings.

The proposed amendments generated plenty of discussion, including by those who cited uncomfortable experiences with short-term rentals near them. Others weren’t clear on what such concerns were all about. Town Meeting Member Caren Parker said she was against the first proposed amendment: “I can think of many legitimate reasons why somebody might want to rent for a month, such as their other lease or house starts in a month and they want to live in the area before then….maybe visiting the area for medical treatment…staying with family who maybe can’t accommodate them in their own home…”

The second proposed amendment got more Town Meeting support. Questions were raised on everything from the impact of new buildings on the town’s tree bylaw to the tax impact.

The first proposed amendment was defeated by a vote of 102 yeses/115 nos/3 abstentions, and the second by a vote of 107/111/4.

The third and fourth proposed amendments were brought forth by Ryan Daws, who said he supported Article 39 though saw it a “niche solution” to the housing shortage “given how expensive it would be to build one of these.” The third proposed amendment recommended that no more than three people could occupy an ADU, and the fourth recommended limiting ADUs to having at most two bedrooms.

“We can always relax these restrictions at a later date, but it would be hard to undo what’s done if we learn opportunistic owners are taking advantage of this situation,” Daws said. “I think it gets back to what we talked about earlier, being a little bit more incremental. Let’s walk before we run.”

Discussion and voting ensued. Among the concerns raised about the amendments were how these restrictions would play under federal fair housing laws, and how they might exclude families from moving here. Town Meeting Member Lina Musayev spoke out against these amendments: “I’m hearing a lot of exclusionary talk tonight and that concerns me. Let’s encourage more families to move here. For example, if the outside of an exterior structure matches the architectural style of the primary dwelling, why should we set limits on the number of bedrooms? We don’t do this with new house construction…”

Both amendments failed to pass, by counts of 49 yeses/165 nos/4 abstentions, and 56/160/4, respectively.

Bringing it home

The last half hour or so of the meeting turned back to the original Article 39 Motion 1, which passed easily. Among those in support was John Schuler, who shared that his four children after graduating years ago from college all sought and found work in Wellesley, but couldn’t find housing here. “For a variety of reasons I strongly support Article 39,” he said. “For those of you who are newer Town Meeting members, this is my 70th consecutive year as a Town Meeting member and it has long been my hope that we would have this sort of an article brought before us.”

Wellesley not ready to rethink Town Meeting quite yet

April 12, 2022 by Bob Brown Leave a Comment

Wellesley’s Representative Town Meeting form of government is touted for giving a strong voice to the community in legislative matters, but also has its downsides, including meetings that take place over a matter of weeks and average three-plus hours apiece, and for articles that can be difficult to understand.

Motion 1 under Article 24 on this year’s Town Meeting warrant, brought by the Select Board at the request of Town Moderator Mark Kaplan, raised the possibility of forming a 5-member Town Meeting Operations Study Committee to review the operations of Town Meeting by looking at its guidelines, town bylaws, etc., including the length of the moderator’s term, electronic voting benefits and drawbacks, and the length of time that people can speak.

(Discussion starts at about the 3-hour, 13-minute mark of the Wellesley Media recording of Town Meeting Night #3.)

A report would be delivered to the next Town Meeting after being submitted to the Select Board and moderator.

In introducing the motion, Select Board Chair Tom Ulfelder noted that the guidelines for Wellesley Town Meeting haven’t been updated since 1974. “It is past time when a review is both necessary and appropriate to ensure that Town Meeting is operating in a manner best suited to serve the town’s interests,” he said.

The Advisory Committee voted 11-0 in support of the motion, which includes establishment of a committee that would evaluate extending the moderator’s tenure from 1 to 3 years.

During the following discussion, more than a dozen Town Meeting members posed questions about how such a study group might be formed and make decisions. One asked about whether such a group could make a decision that would wind up limiting Town Meeting debate. Others wondered why the group might have five members, suggesting having at least one to represent each of eight precincts might make sense (Moderator Kaplan said he came up with five based on his understanding that that’s how many the previous study committee had). Concerns were also expressed that such a group would need to have both experienced and newer Town Meeting members, while one member asked what problem the proposal would be trying to fix.

Town Meeting Member Jared Parker said “In theory, Mr. Moderator, I’m in favor of such a thing, except not when I’m given a reason of ‘because that’s what we did in 1974.’ I think if we’re really going to try to effect change and study this, all representatives from all precincts should be around.”

Regarding a question about legislative guardrails on what such a committee could recommend, Ulfelder emphasized that “the guardrails are that you can’t make changes without the approval of Town Meeting. I think that is the ultimate control. A committee could c0me up with a series of recommendations that Town Meeting flat out rejects.”

Town Meeting Night #3 ended with Ulfelder suggesting that the Board digest the input given on the motion by Town Meeting members and consider working it for the next night. The meeting adjourned, and indeed, Ulfelder started things off on Night#4 (at about the 7-minute, 30-second mark of the Wellesley Media recording) by announcing that the Select Board voted unanimously to withdraw the motion shortly beforehand.

“Town Meeting is a remarkable example of New England democracy,” he began, “precisely because its 240 members—no matter who we are and what we do—are equal. Everyone is no greater than 1/240th of the vote in the Wellesley Town Meeting. We heard from many of you loud and clear when you articulated the concerns and suggestions that you all had to the direction of any such study committee and its scope, and breadth, and composition, and we take those opinions very seriously.

“We also believe that there is no value in going forward in such an exercise unless there is an absolutely clear consensus and broad support for the composition, the depth of the work to be performed, and the breadth and the scope of what would be included. Therefore we realized we need to reconfigure how we might approach this with the input from Town Meeting and go forward at a future date.”

(Yes, we are playing some Town Meeting catch-up due to us being away recently. Town Meeting Night #5 (April 11) ended with a vote on Article 41 Motion 1. Night #6 will pick up with Article 39, on accessory dwelling units (it was pushed until later in Town Meeting to accommodate anticipated discussion in light of several motions to amend), and Article 45, a citizen petition on academic excellence.)

More: School budget dominates Wellesley Town Meeting early on

Nearby, Natick selects Town Governance Committee

Wellesley police officer exam coming up

April 12, 2022 by admin Leave a Comment

The Wellesley Police Department is seeking new police officers and has an exam coming up on June 25 at 9am at Wellesley High School, 50 Rice St. Incentives include competitive pay and opportunities for academic credit.

https://wellesleyma.gov/870/Employment

Questions about the upcoming exam and Wellesley Police Department employment may be directed to Lieutenant Marie Cleary at 781-235-1212 or MCleary@WellesleyMa.gov

Wellesley Select Board office hours, April 11

April 8, 2022 by admin Leave a Comment

Wellesley Select Board member Beth Sullivan Woods will host Zoom office hours on Monday, April 11, noon-1:30pm.

Residents may ask questions, give input, and share concerns about Town operations, economic development, and other issues.

Please email her directly at bsullivanwoods@wellesleyma.gov to request your 15-minute appointment.

You will receive a response confirming your meeting time and the Zoom link.

School budget dominates Wellesley Town Meeting

April 4, 2022 by Bob Brown Leave a Comment

The first night of Wellesley Town Meeting this past week was pretty cut-and-dried, with motions on Articles 1 through 8.1—plus a raft of others bundled into a consent agenda—easily passing. But there was a hint of what might be to come on night two (March 29) when a Town Meeting member asked town leaders about whether any of Wellesley’s surplus monies might be considered for an “underride” that would return dollars to taxpayers (answer: nope).

Night two (see Wellesley Media recording from March 29) kicked off with the School Department’s report and pitch about why it needs roughly $85M to operate in fiscal year 2023. This was one of several departmental presentations related to Motion 2 of Article 8 regarding the town’s Omnibus Budget. The school presentation and subsequent discussion took up almost the entire 3-plus hours of Town Meeting on night two.

Anticipating questions about why it needs more than $2M above what it has spent this year—a figure that falls within the town’s 2.75% increase guideline for departments—despite continued declining enrollment, Wellesley Public School system officials were ready with answers. This included an emphasis on the fact that some 94% of the proposed budget went toward instructional and student service costs, and that the school system has been able to live within shrinking town spending guidelines in large part by reinvesting savings from staff reductions.

Superintendent Dr. David Lussier and Assistant Superintendent for Finance and Operations Cindy Mahr combined to explain that even though full-time staff positions are being eliminated in light of falling enrollment (particularly at the elementary school level), others are being hired to allow the school system to operate more efficiently and to address post-pandemic needs. For example, WPS seeks to hire 11 permanent substitutes, which administrators argue will make for a higher quality experience for students, reduce costs, and reduce logistical hassles for the schools. Also being added to the payroll via federal grants will be adjustment counselors at the pre-K-5th grade levels to help kids with their social and emotional needs. Math specialists are being added to address community concerns in that important area of learning. Lussier acknowledged: “It is a complex picture going forward.”

The administrators also addressed their budget needs for supporting special education, adhering to teachers’ union contracts, and for continuing diversity, equity & inclusion efforts, including the reduction or elimination of numerous student fees.

Other departments, including the library and public works, also delivered their reports and pitches. While no doubt appreciating the efforts of those entities, Town Meeting members seemed to let out a collective “Whatever” and concentrated on schools.

The Advisory Committee shared that it approved the Motion 2, but by a 9-5 split. Advisory’s Tom Cunningham said of particular concern to some on the committee were “continued annual school budget increases despite a significant and continuing decline in enrollment. This was a topic of concern in previous budget discussions, and some on advisory felt that this issue is not being adequately addressed” in light of school performance, rankings, etc.

Next up were Town Meeting members, and Royall Switzler started off the comments-and-questions section, proposing an amendment to the motion that would knock the school budget back down to the level of the previous year, roughly $2.3M less than what was proposed. “My concern is that we’re spending too much money and we’re not getting what we’re paying for,” he said. Other Town Meeting members also raised questions about spending, wondering how WPS can continue to request more funds and increase the amount spent per pupil even as enrollment continues to drop (one answer to the rising cost per pupil is that Wellesley remains in line with similar communities).

The amendment failed to pass, but did spark discussion with participation from about a dozen Town Meeting members, including a request from one that fellow Town Meeting members not compare more recent school rankings from U.S. News & World Report to those prior to 2019, when a different methodology was used. Wellesley’s fall in this ranking has been cited by those looking for school reform, including proponents of a citizen petition on this Town Meeting warrant.

Town Meeting Member Paul Merry pointed out that just because enrollment is declining doesn’t mean a corresponding decrease is warranted in spending. “There’s not a linear relationship between the cost of the school’s services and the loss of enrollment…I’m not saying that there perhaps shouldn’t be a careful review of how money is being spent and how services are being used by students…” (Lussier later agreed with this point about the non-linear relationship between declining student population and staff/costs, noting that the distribution of the decline across classrooms and grades is a key factor in impacting school resources.)

Joelle Reidy, a parent of 3 children in the school system, argued strongly for the proposed budget. “Our children need this money, and it’s not just for learning—it’s for emotional support, for psychological support, for so many different things that we don’t understand, because we didn’t go to school in 2022…,” she said.

The fact that the school budget was generating much discussion, and has in the past, prompted Town Meeting Member Matthew Hornung to comment that the school budget might deserve its own warrant article in the future, echoing a comment he pointed to from the Advisory report.

“The School Department seems to consistently be the source of the greatest controversy and ire surrounding the budget, and as a matter of democratic representation I think it would be advisable in light of this sort of thing happening almost every year at Town Meeting that we consider going forward viewing the school budget separately from the rest of the town [budget] because of the unique issues that it represents,” Hornung said, “and that would allow Town Meeting to vote, I think more accurately representing popular will of the community and not have to put all the rest of the town budget sort of on the same question as the school budget specifically.”

After the amendment was voted on, discussion continued related to the overall budget, and a dozen or so Town Meeting members weighed in. The focus was entirely on schools. Town Meeting members raised questions on everything from the nature of student fee reductions/increases to investments in intellectually challenging courses/resources (beyond a new maker space). A Town Meeting member also asked about staff diversity (Lussier said: “There’s still a high level of disproportionality between the diversity of our students and the diversity of staff. Currently just over 30% of our students are students of color…in terms of our staff, we’re just under 10% diverse…,” the latter percentage of which he added is as high as it’s ever been.).

In the end, Motion 2 on Article 8 regarding the Omnibus Budget passed by a vote of 175/21/1, as did a third motion on the Article.

Town Meeting resumes on Monday, April 4 at 7pm with Article 13, which is a Board of Public Works-related topic. There are 49 articles overall on the warrant.

More: Wellesley Annual Town Meeting begins by honoring esteemed residents who have passed

« Previous Page