Share This Article
The SPS School Committee met on Monday and talked about several important topics. The school safety discussion with Police Chief Scott Nix is likely of interest to many parents, and you should watch that at 0:03:00. Chief Nix provides a full update on school safety, including an update on School Resource Officers, Officer Rico, the Sudbury Youth Police Academy, and more.
Later on in the meeting they got into recurring agenda items and regular business, and things got a little bit odd. We break them down below.
Curtis Outdoor Health and Wellness Space: No Qualifying Bids
Superintendent Brad Crozier shared the news that the Curtis Outdoor Health and Wellness Space did not receive any qualifying bids. (1:00:19) It appears the bids they received came in significantly over budget, but they did not disclose the amount in discussion nor in the packet. None of the committee members asked how far over budget the bids were, though they may have received correspondence with that information prior to the meeting.
For context, here’s their Community Preservation Committee (CPC) application. That’s where they sourced the funding for this project. That made it through Town Meeting in May for $480,000.
As a result of not receiving a qualifying bid, they decided to dice the project up into its component parts (site preparation, delivery, installation, paths, landscaping, etc.), and bid them out separately. The idea is that the SPS administration and Combined Facilities Director will play the role of general contractor, and save some budget by doing that work themselves. Superintendent Crozier stated that they’re holding to their original timeline. (1:12:10)
However, they said that paths and sidewalks may come later, and the landscaping was described by Chair Nerssessian as on-hold or optional because of budget. It sounds like they’re either going to value engineer some of those items out to stay within their budget, or look for other sources of funding later. (1:09:00) The conversation was vague on this point, but it seems fairly clear that they are only holding to the original timeline for the initial phases of the now-piecemeal project, not the whole project.
So the project is on schedule and on budget, except it’s not. But some of it is, and the parts that are delayed or might get cut don’t count, because now they’re optional!
They’re also dealing with weather risks, as the installation could be delayed if conditions aren’t suitable. Presumably landscaping would be delayed until the spring given it’s on hold for now, and winter is coming quickly. But again, it may also be cut due to budget constraints.
Given the lack of detail, we asked the SPS administration how far over budget the bids were along with a few other questions. They acknowledged that they had received the question but are treating it as a public records request, so we haven’t gotten an answer as of this publishing.
While most of the public is very likely aware that supply chain delays, bad weather, cost escalation and inflation all make construction projects unpredictable these days, it’s remains unclear why the SPS School Committee and Administration endeavored to characterize this project as they did.
Fall Town Meeting Articles
The committee received a sizable list of detailed questions from Select Board member Charlie Russo (via Town Manger Sheehan) regarding their article for the Nixon roof design, as well as their capital plan. You can review that list in the Select Board packet (page 44). There was also discussion about this in the Select Board meeting. (More on that in the Select Board article below.)
In Monday’s meeting, the School Committee questioned the questions and questioned the “process” by which they arrived through the Town Manager. (1:17:25) At one point Chair Nerssessian questioned why a so-called “liaison process” wasn’t followed. We’re unable to find any such process documented anywhere. The Select Board recently updated their liaison policy, and there’s nothing in the policy that would preclude the Town Manager from communicating at the request of the Select Board with a school district or school committee, or any other human beings on the planet. (Page 18)
At other points in the conversation the SPS School Committee members seemed to be referring to the process that unfolds in the months before Annual Town Meeting, when annual budgets are put together and various articles are reviewed by the Finance Committee and the Capital Improvement Advisory Committee (CIAC). They seemed to feel the exact same process is supposed to be used for a Fall Town Meeting. This matter was subject to a little debate amongst the Select Board on Tuesday, as well. In that meeting, the apparent consensus was that Fall Town Meetings were fundamentally different from an Annual Town Meeting given the time pressures, though they still want to get the input of the FinCom and CIAC. (0:28:00)
Ultimately, Chair Nerssessian called the mere act of asking some of the questions potentially “damaging” because the questions cited school building projects and financial situation in Andover that she didn’t think were a fair comparison. (1:25:47) But they were used as a reference point to illustrate the need for planning school building replacement well ahead of time and spreading them out. The comparison, as illustrated by another question in the list, might be quite apt. Question number seven asks:
“Why are the School Buildings the only capital items with no replacement dates in the SPS Capital Plan? Can these dates be added?” (Page 44)
Criticism of other committees and the Town administration has become a bit of a pattern for the SPS School Committee over the past year.
In the middle of their December 2022 budget meetings, Chair Nerssessian and Vice Chair Gerson voiced skepticism, if not suspicion, about the Town’s handling of Medicaid reimbursement funds:
“How many years have they said that they couldn’t transfer funds to us because there was no mechanism. But now there’s $80,000 that they magically, we can have access to at the snap of their fingers, because it was deposited in an incorrect account. Like, that just seems very strange to me.” (1:55:00)
The SPS School Committee shared strong criticism of the Finance Committee (FinCom) in April when they didn’t appreciate the comments of some FinCom members. During an April meeting Vice Chair Gerson stated:
“When I’ve watched the FinCom meetings back I’ve often wondered what it’s like. Like what it’s like to be appointed by one and accountable to none. And just be able to, you know, tear down other people’s work with feelings, not rooted in fact.” (1:41:32)
Chair Nerssessian then doubled down on the criticism of FinCom:
“I just found that discussion in such poor taste. So disrespectful to the residents who have come together to support the school district. It’s not the Finance Committees job or charter to opine on messaging of members of, residents in the community, who volunteered their time. It’s their job and charter to opine on our budget, warrant articles and town business.” (1:43:08)
Even though the SPS budget conversations in December 2022 started with critical comments about the Town administration, Nerssessian eventually went on in the April meeting to say that comments by members of the Finance Committee were inappropriate for a Town committee:
“I am extremely disheartened when I turn on those meetings and I hear statements like that about the administration. It’s extremely disrespectful. It’s not something I expect on Town boards and committees.” (1:54:48)
Those expectations don’t appear to apply to the SPS School Committee.
During a conversation on budget adjustments on Monday, Chair Nerssessian took it up a few notches when she bemoaned the lack of control SPS has over the salary schedule for three specific staff members who are shared between SPS and the Town. (1:42:25)
The two entities share the Combined Facilities Director, an Admin support, and the Town Electrician. The SPS Director of Business and Human Resources explained that they had to make a budget adjustment to account for raises, and that the raises are based on a schedule in their negotiated contracts. Nerssessian felt SPS should have a say in it.
For broader context, it is well outside the norms of most municipal committees to discuss the salaries or raises (performance-based or otherwise) of specific Town or district employees in open session. Committees and Boards generally have to do performance reviews of Superintendents and Town Managers in open meeting, but the employees beneath those posts are generally off-limits as it can come across as threatening or embarrassing. The compensation of specific employees (outside of collective bargaining situations, which usually happens in executive session) is generally well outside the purview of the relevant committee or board.
The School Committee itself has Operating Protocols that do appear to discourage this type of commentary, as well as some of the prior comments this year. (Protocols here.)
Generally speaking, this type of staff-sharing arrangement is done for efficiency. Neither entity has to carry the full expense of the position in question, yet the work gets done. But in this case, it was presented as if the Town was inconveniencing SPS. Chair Nerssessian said the arrangement made her “extremely uncomfortable” in part because the raise amount was not an insignificant number. She then juxtaposed the amount of money spent on shared maintenance staff raises with other school initiatives the money could have funded. (1:45:20)
The budget adjustment for raises was for $10,425.00. That’s $10K for the folks who keep the lights on in a school district with a budget of $44,126,163. (page 6, blue highlighted line.)