June 18, 2007

Letter to the Editor by Deirdre Connolly

For over two months I have been waiting for a decision to be made by the School Committee/Superintendent to reinstate the kindergarten PSP’s (instructional aides).  The school committee vowed, at town meeting and at their own meeting subsequently, that for a cost of a mere $55,000 for five positions, and with a significant town-wide/grade-wide impact to be felt from the loss of these professionals in our kindergarten classrooms, that this was their first priority--to reinstate these positions when funds became available.  Yet at the May 22 School Committee meeting the School Committee, having found over $100,000 of “new” money, chose to spend that money on other things.

One can argue that adding two new first grade sections was reasonable, as enrollment apparently exceeded expectations.  But the School Committee never mentioned spending new monies to hire a new nurse at Harrington. I am a health professional and generally laud efforts to improve student health.  But I have a problem with the fact that the stated priorities of the School Committee were not adhered to.  Those priorities were loudly proclaimed at town meeting, but the decision not to implement these priorities occurred late at night at a poorly publicized, poorly attended meeting.  Put simply, the School Committee failed to do what it promised.

Recently I have heard that the PSP flap is connected with the PSP contract.  Apparently the PSP contract, as negotiated and signed, omitted a clause which gave the union’s consent to an increase in their health insurance copay, (once all the other unions agreed to this increase). MA state law mandates that ALL town unions, (in this case 19), must agree before a change in municipal employee benefits will take place.  If the PSP union and all unions in town do not agree to the copay change, then townwide savings will not be achieved.  The omission of this clause in the PSP contract was likely a clerical error.  But my understanding is that with each month that passes that the new copay is not achieved, there is a $25,000 cost to the town, or a failure to achieve a $25,000 savings. Clerical errors should not be the driving force behind educational policies in Chelmsford.

There is plenty of blame to go around.  Who negotiated the contract and failed to include the copay clause?  Once the mistake was noted, why did not the union negotiator do the right thing for the PSP’s (whose jobs they are supposed to protect) and for our children and for the town—and make the appropriate contract amendment?  If these matters stand to save the town hundreds of thousands of dollars, shouldn’t they have been reviewed by legal professionals?

I am an involved parent, taxpayer and professional.  I am by inclination supportive of the schools and of the school committee, but I have been disturbed during this process by the lack of transparency and by the lack of responsiveness by the school administration/leadership. I understand that some of these issues are not able to be discussed due to ongoing contract negotiations. I have been in communication with the office of the Superintendent, both by email and by phone requesting a meeting to clarify some of these issues.  They have not responded to my inquiries.  With open communication, spurious claims/fears can be assuaged and collaborative problem solving can be achieved.  I look forward to a new era of open communication with the new School Administration.

Sincerely,

Deirdre Connolly MD

_______________________________________________________________

May 31, 2007

Letter to the Editor by David Heddison

___________________________________________________________

May 18, 2007

Letter to the Editor: Kindergarten aids are needed

by Kathy Gaphardt, Hitchinpost Rd

As a town resident and a kindergarten teacher for the past 16 years, I would like to take this opportunity to ask again that the School Committee reconsider the potential cutting of the kindergarten aide positions in next year’s school budget. I have thought about this issue for the past few weeks and one of my foremost questions is how did this particular budget issue ever make it to the bottom of the heap when the new state monies became available?

Cutting the kindergarten aides affects an entire grade level across the town. It will have a direct, negative impact upon the academic programs and services we offer to our kindergarten students. It will also directly affect the social and emotional supports we can put in place. There will not be that extra staff member there in the classroom to offer encouragement to those who need a boost, or to help mediate those friend-making issues that kindergarten students are learning, or to help implement behavior plans that are structured to aid students who may be struggling to comply with the expectations of kindergarten. The list goes on and on. And this is without mentioning the safety and crowd-control concerns that are inherent in dealing with very young children.

It is important to consider that we are talking about $55,000. For this relatively small amount of money in the scope of the school ($45 million ) budget, we receive the services of five trained professionals who offer academic support to our vulnerable kindergarten students. I believe these aides all work 25 hours a week. That’s five practically full time staff members. This is an amazingly economical use of our money.

Last year, when kindergarten art was cut to every other week, the kindergarten staff was not pleased. But there was no major outcry.

Things needed to be cut. This cut did take away from the kindergarten program, but it was one we could work around. Cutting the kindergarten aides is not something we can work around. This is an irreplaceable loss to our program and to our students. I find myself wondering how I can come to terms with this next year, how I can accept that our program will not be as good. No matter how hard I work, I cannot make up for the loss of our aide. No matter how hard I work, I cannot provide the same services and program for my students.

My personal question is can I live with this or should I leave kindergarten? A far more important question is can we all live with this? Can we truly agree that such a valuable and economical program be left out of the budget? Is this really the budget item that should be left out, waiting for possible grant monies to appear?

Again, I respectfully ask that the kindergarten aide positions be funded within the school budget.

-Kathy Gaphardt

____________________________________________________

May 14, 2007

A Message from PCF Co-President in charge of Housing

Dear Fellow Residents,

Like many of you, I grew up in Chelmsford.  I take great pride in this community. As part of my work with PCF, I have made a few observations that I would like to share. Chelmsford’s growth has mimicked the substantial growth of the MetroWest suburbs over the last 40 years. Despite state laws such as 40B that blanket the communities of the Commonwealth with a generic mandate, individual communities like ours have worked in earnest to develop planning guidelines that are specific to the environments of own towns.

Over a decade ago, Chelmsford created a Master Plan developed by experts, parents, residents, elected officials and concerned citizens.  The important work that went into developing the Plan was meant to give direction to Chelmsford’s policies and planning into the next decade.  Whether good or bad, eleven years have passed and we have not revised the Master Plan for the coming years.  With ten years of hindsight aiding us, I would like to raise several areas of concern:

 1)      The town has not followed Plan guidelines for town-appropriate density in housing development. The results are units whose size dwarfs their neighbors and in additional vehicles that have contributed in excess of 60% increases in town traffic.

2)      The town has been unable to review the impacts of proposed developments before allowing them to move forward, a practice that restricts our ability to select a preferred option.

3)      The town has been forced to expend significant resources to combat increases in traffic, despite warnings about traffic-impact scenarios raised in the Master Plan (e.g. Chelmsford continued to develop beyond not only the recommended growth scenario but beyond the “worse case” high-development scenario as well.)

4)      The town continues to fail taxpayers who are paying for sewer implementation but who also continue to wait for sewer connections while new developments are tied-in to the system before they are.

5)      The town has witnessed increases in housing units beyond the expected “full build-out” at the same time that our population has not grown as predicted (in reality, the only growing demographic are residents age 65+ who have grown 38.9% between the 1990 and 2000 census - the important “professional” and “family” demographic has decreased substantially.)

6)      The town has been unable to coordinate 40B developments in a manner that allows us to reach .75% growth in one year in order to earn a one year reprieve from 40B proposals. This would allow the town the necessary time to develop a strategy that provides for a town-centered plan to create affordable housing. 

PCF wishes to be a resource for town residents and a sponsor of forums where ideas can be shared to create policies that work for our community. All things considered, I would suggest the following efforts be closely considered and implemented:

 1)      Mandate financial data supplied by developers through the Local Initiative Process (LIP) to be “verifiable.”  This simple change would help the town combat abuses as detailed by the MA Investigator General. By having full disclosure during the proposal process, the Selectman would be empowered to make requests based on actual data, not data that provides unwarranted wiggle room for extra developer profits.  In return, the Board of Selectman and town should show good faith by ensuring that the LIP is the expedient process it was designed to be in order to save developers time and money. 

2)      Mandate the use of linkage fees/impact fees/set-aside fees to offset the financial impact of development in town.  Such fees have been utilized in highly successful practices by municipalities across the country and will help balance budgets and limit negative impact on town services (particularly public safety, water, sewers and schools)

3)      Mandate that new developments cannot connect to town sewers unless they pay for the excess needed to supply residents who are currently waiting (and paying) for town sewer services.  Recent reports indicate that Chelmsford will exceed its sewer capacity and will need to seek out opportunities to supplement current capacity for residents.

4)      Require 40B developments in Chelmsford to have higher percentages of affordable units and lower density.  Legal precedent is clear in allowing (even encouraging) this effort so long as any standards required by the Selectman or Board of Appeals does not make the project “uneconomic.”  This would provide more (much needed) affordable units in less disruptive ways while still allowing for a fair profit to be earned by developers.

These efforts would represent huge strides in making progress to maintain and preserve the wonderful community we live in.  I encourage all residents who share these concerns to call or write their elected representatives.  I would also like to thank those town officials who work diligently to handle town housing issues.  40B developments in particular take up a disproportionate amount of time from appointed and elected officials.  Recognizing this, I propose PCF as an avenue by which residents can assist the town in coordinating these efforts. It is my wish that through diversity, hard work and alliance-building, we can confront the important housing issues facing this town. 

 All the best,

 Fred Marcks

_____________________________________________________________________

May 10, 2007

PCF Evolves

Preserve Chelmsford’s Future has grown, and so we’d like to take a moment to talk about how we’ve evolved, our new project, and our updated organizational structure.

PCF began as a group of parents concerned about the proposal to close the Westlands Elementary School. We worked together with members of the School Board, Initiative for Local Aid (ILA) and the Board of Selectmen (BOS) to understand the issues facing the town and schools that had provoked the suggestion to close a neighborhood school. We put forward alternative plans that helped show why closing the school was not in the best interests of the town. We engaged with ILA in lobbying our local and state representatives for fair school funding. These efforts have begun to pay off. We’ve seen increased Chapter 70 monies from the state and much better understanding of our needs in the legislature.

Of course, school funding isn’t the only important issue facing our town. In keeping with our mission, PCF is taking on a new project to continue to be a vehicle for positive change. One looming problem is the state-imposed mandate that towns attain 10% of their residences as “affordable” (by their arcane definition). This mandate, and the 40B developments it has helped to spawn, have challenged Chelmsford’s neighborhoods and environment. Balancing affordable housing requirements while preserving the character of Chelmsford won’t be easy, but we hope PCF will provide a forum where long-term solutions can be considered. Fred Marcks, new to PCF, will coordinate our slow-growth activities.

We’re not taking our eye off of our neighborhood schools. Chapter 70 aid to our schools is still short-changing Chelmsford and has this year barely returned to 2002 funding levels. Brian Doherty will continue to coordinate overall PCF activities.

We’ll be working to make PCF and this website a resource where Chelmsford’s citizens can come to get and share information about the issues that face our town. Solving these complex problems will require hard work and alliance building, both at the town and the state level. We invite you to join in the process.

Deirdre Connolly