Yet another screening committee meeting on the Commissioner's search

 Interesting to note today that there's been another Commissioner's screening committee meeting posted for Monday

This after they'd met Tuesday after the Board meeting at which Chair Craven sure seemed to imply they'd be announcing finalists shortly. They're planning interviews in April (and frankly, some of us would like to know when!)

A few notes on Worcester School Committee and the superintendent's contract

As we now have a posted meeting for Wednesday night--UPDATE: this has now been moved to Thursday at 7 pm--(posted on Friday, as we can now see, thanks to the Worcester Sunshine Group) with a single-item agenda, I thought a few notes might be in order.

• The meeting is posted as an executive (closed) session, as it is contract negotiation with the superintendent. In Worcester, executive sessions commonly are held in the Mayor's office, as this one is scheduled to. However, all executive sessions must open in public session. Thus even as the meeting is held in the Mayor's office, the beginning of the meeting--the call to order, the roll call, the vote to go into executive session--is a public, open session.
• At the announcement of the reason for the executive session, the chair must also announce if the committee will return to public session. The committee can recess (end the meeting) straight from executive session, however--
• Votes of contracts--including that of the superintendent--must be made in public session. Thus the contract negotiations can and will be updated in executive session, but no contract vote is effective until it has been made in public session.

While superintendent contracts are public documents, to my knowledge, no one has made a records request for Superintendent Binienda's current contract. Thus the options open to the Committee at this point (bewilderingly) haven't gotten covered. A few points on that:

• the superintendent's contract has a renewal clause: the Committee had to inform her by December if they did not intend to renew. As such, simply not renewing is not an option they have at this point.
• The Committee can--and by all public indications has to chosen to--negotiate to renew her contract on whatever terms both parties agree to. However--
• there is also a clause in the contract allowing the Committee to renew for a single year. If they opt to do so, she can refuse, which would end her employment as of June 30.
• And committees do sometimes buy superintendent contracts out. See, most recently, Salem.

Worcester School Committee closes out the year

On the last day of school for the year, the Worcester School Committee meets for budget and for a regular session. The agenda is here.
They meet to discuss budget at 4 pm. The sequence of accounts is here; they made it through the non-salary accounts at the last meeting, so they'll pick up with the second page this week. Note that there are a series of responses to questions from the last budget session posted on the regular agenda; this includes further detail on the transportation change in the first and spells out the change in funding allowing for middle school sports in the second. There's also the traditional "you made these motions during the year to think about during budget; here are the answers" response.
I'm out of town, so you're on your own on this one.

After executive session (collective bargaining for liaisons, tutors, plumbers and steamfitters, and tradesmen), the regular agenda is taken up at 7pm. There are rounds of congratulations.

The report of the superintendent is presentation of the proposed strategic plan; note that this thus is the administration presenting a proposed plan to the School Committee, whatever rhetoric there has been otherwise. The agenda also has a motion assigning the proposal to subcommittee by section. With these items on the agenda, the time is good to comment on the proposal if you have comments. Public comment in Worcester takes place under a suspension of rules; I would be surprised if that doesn't happen this week.

There are a series of prior year payments:

• $3,750.10 made payable to the Milford Maine School District 
• $16,808.00 to James F. Farr Academy, Inc. for services rendered during a prior fiscal year 
• $70.00 to JN Philips Auto Glass for repairs to a school bus
• $3,090.00 to Van Pool Transportation for McKinney-Vento Transportation in June 2017
• $153, 022.52 to Direct Energy for natural gas payments; finance types, check the backup: there's a thing there around tracking of prior balances

There are also donations:

• $125.00 from George’s Coney Island to Woodland Academy 
• $250.00 from Amica Mutual Insurance Company to Woodland Academy 
• $250.00 from WEDF to Nelson Place School 
• $4,455.50 from Unifirst Corporation to Tatnuck Magnet School 
• $250.00 from WEDF to Belmont Street Community School

Mr. O'Connell is requesting that they review the new science curriculum.
There are several new courses coming through, seeking approval:

• Business Technology Seminar 
• Database Administration 
• Spreadsheet Development 
• Technical Theater and Design 
• Introduction to Life Sciences

Mr. Monfredo is asking "Administration forward a letter to the City Council requesting that it review the proposed zoning regulations for cannabis facilities and reconsider the proposed boundary by making it further than 500 feet away from any school building." Not sure why the School Committee wouldn't simply to this itself.
Mr. Comparetto is suggesting a development position be added to the Worcester Public Schools; please see Boston for why Worcester keeps its development outside the administrative structure. 

Mr. O'Connell wants to set up a public participation process for Doherty and Burncoat; watch this one. We'll be told that all meetings are posted public meetings, but note how few there have been for Doherty (and were for South) compared even to Nelson Place, let alone what happens in other districts. The Worcester way is come back with a fait accompli and say that there are no other options. 

And Mr. O'Connell has an item about JROTC participation in Memorial Day and Veterans' Day activities, which sounds like someone thinks they got left out.

Remember, if the School Committee doesn't pass the whole budget before their regular meeting, they'll stay after the regular agenda to do so then!

Update on the OML Worcester strategic plan complaint

My appeal to the Attorney General's office was mailed yesterday.

OH! And on Tuesday, the Worcester Public Schools twitter feed sent out this:

Join us for a Community Forum "Setting the Course: Creating a Strategic Plan for K-12 Education in our City" #WPSlearns pic.twitter.com/72jVHVQKWu

— Worcester Schools (@worcesterpublic) October 23, 2017

Note that Worcester East Middle is actually 420 Grafton, should you be heading there.
As it was the first notice, and I have a meeting tonight, I won't be there. But they suddenly appear to have decided that parents should come, as in the past half hour I have also received:

1. a computer-voice Connect-Ed urging attendance
2. a blank email: 

This...email is blank... pic.twitter.com/9IFbg2xd3i

— Tracy Novick (@TracyNovick) October 26, 2017

Too late to make it up to us on transparency... If you go, take notes!

TWO UPDATES:
Scott O'Connell went to the forum.
And Bill Shaner wrote a bit about the lack of public notice and input.

South High approved for Schematic Design yesterday

Yesterday, as reported in today's T&G, South High was approved for Schematic Design at the Mass School Building Authority meeting in Boston. It is approval for a new building, with a budget (MSBA estimates) of $191M.
You can find what the city (remember, the city, not the schools, build buildings) submitted here, though be warned that it's a big file that takes awhile. That and the preliminary submission from January. are at this point all we have to look at. That page off of South High's main page has no record of meetings--though they have to have had public meetings in order to vote--and no posted agendas--though, again, that has to have happened for the votes to have happened.

In fact, information about what's going on with this building project has been next to nothing, aside from a single T&G article in which Scott O'Connell interviewed Superintendent Binienda who explained that renovation had been considered (as required by MSBA), but:

School officials had been focused primarily on either rebuilding South High or renovating it extensively. The base repair option wouldn’t make any significant changes to the building, only fix existing issues, and Ms. Binienda said in the end, the other two options “were going to cost the same price.”

She also said the renovation option would be more disruptive to students, who would be displaced while the old school was under construction, and take longer than building a new facility, based on the district’s project team’s findings.

This is hardly a surprise, if you follow school building projects, but, outside of the few words here, who would know how this decision was made, or its merits? The relative merits of decisions already made--dropping the pool (suggested in the first round plan), expanding the Ch. 74 programs, adding a piano lab and foreign language labs, and so forth--are ones we have no insight into.

We're about to spend close to $200M on a new high school for the city. It's all public money, even if most of it comes from the state. It's supposed to serve all of our kids.

We should know more than we do. We should be invited to take part.
We haven't been.

EDITED TO ADD: a couple of screenshots of the approved design (thus far) after the jump:

This is two mock-ups from either direction: on the top, Apricot Street is at the bottom of the shot, and we're looking across the street at the campus; on the bottom, Apricot Street is at the top.

This gives an idea of how it all goes together: the ballfield as it is behind Sullivan, a new track facility and a new building. Note that all of this is on WPS property, though (EDITED) the orange triangles are NOT; they're on conservation land. So they're building right out to the line. 

DESE hearings on proposed charter schools

Copying from DESE:

MALDEN - The Department of Elementary and Secondary Education announced today that it has scheduled four public hearings in the coming weeks to invite community members to comment on four charter school final applications. The applicants submitted their initial prospectuses in time for last August's deadline, and if approved, the schools would open in fall 2017 or fall 2018.

Each of the charter school founding groups that submitted a final application will undergo a rigorous review process over the next three months before Elementary and Secondary Education Commissioner Mitchell Chester decides which of the proposals, if any, to recommend to the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education.
The public hearings are an opportunity for interested people to provide feedback on the proposed schools. At least one member of the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education will attend each hearing and will report back to the full Board on the public testimony provided at each hearing.

In addition to the hearings, members of the public can submit written comments through January 6, 2017 to: Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, c/o Charter School Office, 75 Pleasant St., Malden, MA 02148 or by email to charterschools@doe.mass.edu.


Public hearings will be held from 4:00–6:00 p.m. on the following days at the following locations:

MAP ACADEMY Plymouth
Wednesday, November 30, 2016
Plymouth Public Library
Otto Fehlow Meeting Room
132 South St.

 Hampden Charter School of Science - West*
Westfield Thursday, December 1, 2016
Westfield State University
Loughman Living Room in Scanlon Hall
577 Western Ave.

 Old Sturbridge Academy Charter Public School* Sturbridge
Tuesday, December 6, 2016
Sturbridge Town Hall
Veterans Memorial Hall
308 Main St.

 Equity Lab Charter School* Lynn
Wednesday, December 7, 2016
Lynn Community Room
10 Church St.

 For more info see http://www.doe.mass.edu/news/news.aspx?id=24004

Security/communication grant on agenda

On next week's agenda:

gb #5-132  -  Administration
To receive public comment regarding the School Committee’s support of the Worcester Police Department’s interest in obtaining a grant to support technology for enhanced communications between the Worcester Public Schools and the Worcester Police Department and vote to approve the application process.

This will be the first item taken up on the public agenda (after recognitions), so do come if you have comments to make. 

PARCC forums now have LOCATIONS!

Just posted by DESE:

• Tuesday, April 28, 2015, Fitchburg State University, Hammond Hall, 3:00-6:00 p.m. (following the regular Board meeting)
• Monday, May 18, 2015, Bunker Hill Community College, A300 Auditorium, 4:00-7:00 p.m. (in lieu of the special Board meeting)
• Wednesday, June 10, 2015, Bridgewater State University, Rondileau Campus Center Ballroom, 4:00-7:00 p.m.
• Monday, June 22, 2015, North Shore Community College-Lynn Campus, Gymnasium, 4:00-7:00 p.m. (in lieu of the special Board meeting)
• Tuesday, July 7, 2015, Springfield Technical Community College, Top of Our City Conference Center, 4:00–7:00 p.m.

And note: 

Individuals who would like to speak must register when they arrive and will be given three minutes to speak within the time allotted. In addition to hearing testimony from members of the public, the forums may also include brief presentations from educators and others with particular expertise on topics such as test administration, college and career readiness, alignment with the curriculum frameworks, implications for classroom instruction, and online testing. Members of the public who are unable to testify at one of the forums are encouraged to submit written comments to boe@doe.mass.edu.

We're doing what with Nelson Place land?

This was originally an adendum to the announcement of a public meeting on Nelson Place next Monday the 30th, but at this point, I'm concerned enough that I'm giving it its own post.

Item 9.6B regarding Nelson Place on the Council agenda for Tuesday is a land swap with Assumption that appears to give Assumption access around a wetland to the back edge of their property. Note, per Commissioner Moosey's memo, that the City already had the easement it needed for building a new Nelson Place through an early February vote of the City Council. This change simply benefits Assumption through the land swap. This assessor's map may clear things up a bit: Assumption owns 12 Romula (at the bottom right, which gives access onto a road) and owns the property marked as 0 behind that and the property marked as 500 (it's 500 Salisbury, their main campus) on the left middle of the map. You'll note that the property marked 0 and 500 Salisbury don't connect, but they could get from one to other via WPS property by cutting the corner of Nelson Place (which is 35, for 35 Nelson Place, in upper right).  

This seems to involve a land easement swap of WPS land as voted by the City Council, which it can't legally do; as we all have become very clear on, WPS land and the rights to it can only be conveyed through a majority School Committee vote. 

Moreover, an easement across public land, as it's a public asset that is being offered, would need to go out to bid. This hasn't. 

And the land in question is on the Open Space Top Ten List as passed by the Worcester City Council; it's called Bald Hill.

There was an effort at the very beginning of the Nelson Place process to try to tie this to new fields at the top of the hill that Assumption would pay for and allow the public to use...in fact, it sounded a lot like the deal that was being offered with Worcester State about fields adjoining Jesse Burkett field. The Worcester Public Schools administration made it VERY clear that this was not of interest; this is a school project, and playing field projects for public use and the college ties that may or may not go with them was not part of the deal (and, frankly, is a level of complication we'd just as soon not have). 
This neighborhood has likewise been very concerned about Assumption's role, if any, in all of this, as they're concerned about Assumption's expansion and ongoing questions around transparency. 

I've been impressed at how this has been handled by both administrations (most notably by Julie Lynch, who works for the DPW and has been the point person for the Nelson Place project). This deal undermines all of that.

I don't have an answer to any of this as yet. Yes, I've been chasing this down, but if it concerns you, I'd let Council know before Tuesday night.

Nelson Place presentation: Feasibility

The public hearing on Nelson Place's options for Feasibility is next Monday at 7 pm at the school.
I've just this afternoon gotten the presentation that the DPW will be making of the options that evening. Please take a look, and come prepared to speak to the proposals.

Additional Nelson Place public hearing scheduled

I've just been told that an additional public hearing on Nelson Place has been scheduled, AHEAD of the next vote of the building committee on the Preferred Schematic Design.
The meeting is on Monday, March 31 at 7 pm at the school.

Please come and please spread the word!

Open Meeting Law: Questions answered

• PowerPoint only with presentation; but there is a video online
• What about a joint meeting? Two postings?
• if both bodies plan to deliberate, they both post, but it can be one posting
• if a subcommittee meets after the full body meets, does it need its own posting? It can be a joint posting.
• Is an ad-hoc committee of a school committee for naming a building a public body? It depends. If they haven't been delegated a task, that it may not be formal enough. Is it within the jurisdiction?
• delegating areas of research? do you have a quorum and are you a subcommittee?
• procedural deliberations public? Yes.
• For public recruitment, if two people go, is it subject? Are they a quorum deliberating?
• Consequences? Most common, tell what you did wrong, tell you how you should have done it, "go and sin now more" BUT if you do it again...
• for remote participation: must be audible, can just use a conference call
• municipal website can be where things are posted
• final decision must be made publicly when it comes to candidates to consider
• minutes of executive session approved in open session? Still an open issue. Approval done in executive session is still protected
• Can co-sponsorship be published as part of the agenda? Clerk can request co-sponsorship, but it should be announced at the meeting. "If you are acting otherwise, you are acting as a conduit for deliberation"
• 
  Are AG's interpretations binding? Yes.
• Executive officer determines remote participation
• if there is public interest in an item, it's in your best interest to be sure it is properly posted
• what if criminal misconduct is not related to their professional competency? Rights of purpose one
• Detail of minutes? Back and forth of discussion and how issue was resolved
• Can members of body be cc'ed on submitting an item. Yes, but without an opinion. Would counsel against it. Best practice is to send directly to the staff person.
• Can rules be suspended for new business? Item "items not reasonably anticipated 48 hours in advance" Encourage public participation section; can end comment if new issues
• what if the public body doesn't meet within the 14 days of the complaint? Encouraged to call meeting to deal with it. Can write a response explain need for extension.Should generally get together to discuss it.
• How much detail must be given in posting of executive session? As much as reasonably possible without taking away reason for executive session."to the best extent possible what is to be discussed" There is a practical concern. Identifying union should be fine to list. Same deal with property: if naming it would have a detrimental affect, then don't name it.
• if a meeting has been properly posted, but there is no quorum, what can be done? There's no meeting, but this is a question of the rules of the public body. 
• is a review of personnel rules an executive session? Probably not (not covered)
• should all role call votes be voted publicly? Best practice is yes. Can a member change a vote? Matter for the rules of the body.
•