We passed the CPA, sending to the voters of Arlington the question of whether we adopt this act or not. This I would characterize as the most popular article in front of Town Meeting this year, in the sense that it is what most people are interested in and will take away as the key action from this year's Town Meeting.
While this year's Town Meeting will be spoken of as "the one where they dealt with the CPA," many would say the most important article considered by us was article 21, "Amendments to the District Agreement of the Minuteman Regional Vocational School District."
In case you are unfamiliar with what our membership in the Minuteman school district means for Arlington, I will try to supply some background:
UPDATE: for a more articulate and informative explanation of this whole issue, go read the comments made last night by Paul Schlichtman of precinct 9, which he has shared with us all on his blog:The Minuteman Regional Vocational School is a real gem.
http://schlichtman.org/blog/2014/05/07/amending-the-minuteman-regional-agreement/
It is governed by a school committee composed of representatives from each town that is part of the district. If you are a "member community," you get a vote on how the school is managed. This of course includes how much money is raised from member communities to spend on the school.
Each community gets one vote.
Funding the Minuteman works a little differently. Naturally, if your community only sends a couple of students to the school, it would be unfair for you to pay as much as a community that sends a hundred students to the school.
Herein lies the problem. Taken independently, the statements "one community one vote" and "one student one dollar" both seem fair and equitable.
Taken together, the statements fall apart.
Arlington, Belmont, and Lexington are three communities that send a lot of students to Minuteman. There are 16 member communities, and some of those don't send very many students at all. I believe it was said last night that Dover sends 1 student.
When a question comes up that involves a serious investment of money, towns like Dover can afford to vote their ideals. They are basically asked this question: "How much money should Arlington taxpayers spend on the Minuteman?"
In Town Meeting each year we vote on an appropriation to the Minuteman. This gives you the illusion of a choice. Once 11 other communities have passed the appropriation, it doesn't matter how Arlington votes. We are required by law to provide the money the other member communities have approved.
Let me say it again: the Minuteman Regional Vocational School is a real gem, and it isn't hard at all to understand why.
We approved a new agreement last night that will take steps toward lessening this nightmare. It doesn't go far enough, but it is a step in the right direction.
I'm hoping someone more knowledgeable than I will take the time to post a comment to this entry, providing the highlights of this new agreement. I don't want to take that on, as I don't have the materials in front of me right now to double-check my facts, and it is a complicated set of changes. That's part of the reason why this article doesn't win the title of Most Popular Article of Town Meeting, 2014.
Popular or not, it is probably the most important vote I have ever made, and may be the most important vote I ever make in Town Meeting.
I definitely didn't invent the analogy, but the old agreement is a little bit like the U.S. Senate and a little bit like the UN Security Council.
ReplyDeleteFor most decisions, it was a simple majority where a town like Dover has as much say as a town like Arlington. Sort of like the US Sentate where Wyoming has as much say as California. For really big decisions (like changing the agreement, taking on new debt, letting a town leave) you needed unanimous consent. So, for those decisions, any town could veto the whole thing - like the UN Security Council.
For the new agreement, it's kind of like our bicameral legislature. 50% of the power is based on representation (like the US House) and 50% of the power is based on 1 town, 1 vote (like the US Senate). Rather than have two separate bodies, they just weight the votes that way.
For really big decisions (like debt, amending the agreement, allowing someone to leave), I believe you still need unanimous consent (so back to the UN Security Council analogy).
But, it's better than where we were before.
I'm also hopeful that this new agreement could make joining the district marginally more attractive than it is now for larger towns to enter into. I'm pessimistic on the chances of that happening just now, but this new agreement isn't quite as ugly a deal for a town as the old one.
Deleteposted by Sue Doctrow: From the recent meeting at the Minuteman with the Superintendent and 15 TMMs, which I really enjoyed (thanks for setting it up, Assistant Moderator Jim O'Conor!), there seems to be optimism that other towns/cities will be interested in joining with a new agreement. Also, especially with the new state legislation he mentioned, non-member municipalities will then be obligated by law to contribute to capital costs as part of their tuition. To me, it seems like this would remove some of their incentive to stay out of the district. Furthermore, while several options are being discussed, the Superintendent described a vision of a smaller school than the one now, but still large enough to have room for new potential members' students (such as Watertown..the Superintendent said it now sends ~70 kids). This could enable the school to be almost completely filled with member students with few, if any, spots for the non-members (vs the >40% non-member students who use it now). This could provide even further incentive for municipalities that really use the school to want to join the district. So, taken all together, while this agreement is not perfect for any one town, it seems to me to be a substantial improvement. (Especially if that state legislation becomes a reality.)
DeleteLast night’s article on the regional agreement was one more step in the larger task of reforming the school. Our objective is to take a school that was mismanaged – in 2010 the most expensive school in the state, with declining enrollment, outdated programs and a crumbling building, and reposition it for success.
ReplyDeleteA simple way to put the progress made in context is to read past Town Meeting reports. Below I have copied the Finance Committee’s comments on the 2010 proposal by Minuteman to issue bonds that would have funded a feasibility study:
Finance Committee Comment, 2010 Town Meeting, Article 58:
There is broad agreement within the Finance Committee that Minuteman Regional Vocational School provides excellent education opportunities for its students. However, a continuing trend of declining enrollment has reduced Minuteman's population to the point where it is operating at only about half of its capacity. If projected forward, this trend will make the financial burden for member cities and towns prohibitive. Furthermore, the Finance Committee has not been presented with convincing evidence that there is a viable path forward. Hence, it is the consensus of the Committee that this bond authorization is premature. We request that the Minuteman Regional Vocational School District develop a strategic plan for its future. In particular, we request that this plan consider-
1. More effective recruitment of students to attend the school
2. Alteration of its offerings so as to attract more in district students
3. Possible merger with other vocational districts of municipal vocational programs so as to share facilities
Since this vote (and slightly before), Minuteman has……
* Performed an enrollment study to understand what type of school they should have, and are close to settling on about 650 students.
* Reviewed the 1970 regional agreement, concluding that it deters communities from joining the district and angers the larger member towns so much that they refuse to participate in the building of a new school. As we experienced last night, they are actively working to get a revised agreement approved.
* Supported the Superintendent they brought in shortly before this vote, a reform minded leader that eliminated outdated programs and programs with unsustainable enrollment levels, added modern programs and cut the per pupil cost of the school.
* Worked with the Mass School Building Authority at the state level to secure a better reimbursement funding formula for vocational school projects. http://www.massschoolbuildings.org/programs/voc_tech-
* Stopped the decline in enrollment and are now increasing student enrollments. Sure it’s mostly non-members, but that’s a good first step.
* All the other things they have done, but I cannot remember (there’s been a lot of heavy lifting).
Yes, it’s taking a long time (government moves slowly), but every year we make more progress to reforming and repositioning a school that is critically important to the economic prosperity of the students we send there.
Thanks for this background, Dean!
DeleteYes, Dean, thank-you. I found your comments really helpful Wed night and was hoping they would refocus some potential detractors (e.g. unhappy about the changed weighted voting formula) on the good that is in this proposed agreement, and all the cooperation that seems to have gone into it. Sue (needs to add last name to Google Profile) Doctrow
Delete