What is wrong with the Peabody Public School System?

Is it just me or is this one of the saddest years ever for the beleaguered Peabody Public School System?

• First they have this horrendous budget cut that pretty much will undo most of the good progress made in the Peabody Schools in the past 10 years (and remember the ONLY PLACE IN THE ENTIRE CITY BUDGET THAT NEEDED CUTS was the Public Schools!)
  
  
• Then Superintendent Milton Burnett decided that a select few of his management team needed BIG RAISES... EVEN THOUGH HE HAS AXED 75+ employees and more than 25 teachers
  
  
• And now comes this gem... The cost savings plan to remove highly trained (and higher cost) school adjustment councilors and replace them with lesser trained (and cheaper) school guidance councilors - WHICH WAS APPROVED BY THE SUPERINTENDENT - is actually going to cost the City a bundle!

The Salem News: 'Cost-saving' layoff plan has backfired

Now I have admitted to not being a big fan of coach Niz and don't think he is an effective school committee member. However I can not fault him in this instance. He was simply making a suggestion for a potential cost savings move during the ridiculous sham of a budget that the school committee was working on.

The problem here was in what happened next... the highly paid educational administrative profession known as Superintendent Milton Burnett SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THESE IMPORTANT POSITIONS! Now... is the difference the number one thing he needs to deal with on a daily basis? Of course not. But THIS IS HIS JOB! He should have looked into this matter (if he didn't already know how it worked) and figured this out BEFORE making this STUPID MISTAKE.

How do we expect our students to learn how to think and act in intelligent and proactive ways when the very people in charge can't even do the basic tasks correctly (while getting a very nice paycheck for the honor as well)??????

Peabody should join into the new North Shore Technical High School

Peabody needs to join into (and be a leader in) the new North Shore Technical and Agricultural High School (NSTAHS).

The State (finally) seems eager to move forward with the NSTAHS (the combination and expansion of Essex Aggie and the North Shore Tech HS) with at least $77 million dollars.

While the other cities and towns involved still need to finalize their involvement, they are all on the way to getting it done.

Except for Peabody which is dragging its heels and putting up false protests in order to delay the process... which will mean that Peabody will end up NOT participating in this most worthwhile endeavor.

Peabody Lynnfield Weekly: Peabody wants more info before joining voke merger

Remember, PLW stories are only online for 1 week

Salem News: New voke school will get $77.5 million from State

Peabody should stop the endless debating and commit to joining (and being the leader in) the new NS Tech HS. Peabody has the largest number of students in technical programs and people are turned away each year. The current facilities at the Higgins are woefully inadequate AND the State has denied funding for the Higgins in the past specifically because the Peabody Voke is located there! The current program is not currently meeting the needs of its students and the equipment and programs are quite far out of date. This program needs to be expanded and modernized and Peabody can not (and will never) do it alone. This is the perfect way to join forces with other cities and town to share the costs, as well as get the State to shoulder much of the responsibities for this good idea.

Now, I am not saying that the City is wrong to want good information about this project (and especially the costs the City will need to provide.) But the fact of the matter is there ARE no guarantees in this world and estimates are just that... subject to change without notice. The idea that in this one instance the City would need such a super fine level of detail in order to make a decision is NOT the usual way things work in this City.

Thus, the delayed decision making seems much more like a stalling tactic than good financial prudence. Basically... if the City waits long enough, the project will simply GO AWAY because the State will pull the funding and we can go back to underfunding the current crappy program we offer our students today.

And if you think this is simply my opinion... read Dave McGeney and Beverly Dunns comments (from the PLW):

School Committee veteran David McGeney, acknowledging that vocational instruction likely incurs higher costs, argued that Peabody’s current course offerings are poor, at best, and should have been addressed years ago.

“Under serving our kids to save money is not what we’re about,” he said, adding that vocational education is often viewed as a “stepchild” to traditional schooling, which he feels has been the case in Peabody as well.

“We’re doing a terrible, terrible disservice to that portion of our student population,” he said.

Dunne agreed, pointing out that vocational programs have been on a “shoestring” budget for decades. She said many of the teachers have to buy simple supplies for students, such as Band-aids and gloves, out of their own pockets.

Sadly these School Committee members can see the folly in underfunding programs when they occur OUTSIDE the School Committees budget - but they were only too happy to be part of the committee that has underfunded the Peabody School System for several years in a row, including this most recent kick in the teeth to the students of Peabody.

Spring Pond - Clean Again!

The City is reporting that the sludge dumped by the City into Spring Pond over the course of many years, has been cleaned up and they have met the DEP deadlines.

Salem News: Spring Pond cleanup costs city $393,000

While there are certainly unanswered questions, and many more unsubstantiated rumors and claims/cross claims, surrounding the many years of intentional "overflow" dumping of water treatment sludge into Spring Pond... it is good to know that the work is complete and that the pond is back to its original state.

Here are some images from GoogleMaps and Maps.Live to refresh your memory of the situation. Click on each for a larger view.



The original intent of the (almost) $1 million dollar bond was not to just clean up the sludge, but to purchase new equipment and upgrade the facilities. I could not find the original estimates for each portion of the project, but I believe these numbers ($393,000) for clean up costs was in the estimated range.

For all the talk at the time, there has been little public discussion concerning the who, when and why this all happened from City Government. I would certainly be more in favor of a real investigation into this matter and a public airing of the findings. I feel this is important especially since so many wild allegations have been thrown around in the blogs and the street corners, ball fields and coffee shops.

So while I am glad this clean up in done, I would like to have seen the 'report' on the reasons we needed to do it in the first place.

Should a 9-1-1 call bring ALL the rescuers all the time?

This question arose during a discussion on the Peabody Patriot concerning the purchase (or refurbishing) of a Peabody Fire engine.

Currently (I believe) when someone calls the 9-1-1 Emergency line the operator dispatches all three help and rescue groups to the location - Police, Fire and Ambulance.
Please correct me if I am wrong on this point.

So the question for discussion is...
Does it make sense to send all three responders to each call for help?

I would say that I can easily make a case for both sides in this case.

1) ASSESS THE SITUATION AND SEND ONLY WHAT IS NECESSARY:
This is called triage in the emergency rooms of every hospital (or if you remember that TV show M.A.S.H.) - where by someone listens to the person making call for help, asks questions to determine the need and then they send those services that they see as being necessary to solve the problem.

This would probably work in 99% of the cases involving a call for help to 9-1-1. A professional who is trained in emergency triage would need to be on duty 24/7... and maybe not just one. This might be yet another good reason to consider regional 9-1-1 emergency call centers (but that is yet another debate/discussion topic).

The worry is in that 1%... nobody is willing to have the dropped ball happen when it is your spouse or child's life on the line. In that case... send them all... send the Marines too!

However, as a cost saving move it might end up reducing the need for so much redundancy as well as reducing the load on all members of the 'rescue' teams (only sending 1 or 2 when needed, instead of all 3 all the time.)

2) SEND ALL THREE ALL THE TIME:
When someone calls 9-1-1 it is usually in an emotionally charged state. Something is very wrong, someone is hurt or dying, someone just crashed into their car, the house is on fire, etc. etc. etc. They may or may not be fully aware of the severity of the situation... they may be confused or simply not know how good or bad the situation is.

Also, there might be a large time delay if the wrong rescuer is sent when another is needed. What if the car accident simply looks minor, but in fact, someone is hurt badly or fuel is leaking out in an obscure location that no one sees... until it is too late? Or a smell of smoke in an apartment might bring the fire fighters, only to discover the apartment next door has an unconscious occupant due to smoke inhalation.

Lives are precious and can not be replaced. Vehicle engines, transmissions, tires... these can be repaired or replaced.

- - - - - - - - - - -

Perhaps the best solution is a middle ground... where we do some minor level of triage in order to reduce the time, effort and expense on all three groups... but we also lean towards sending MORE rather than less in any case that possibly warrants it. This would probably only reduce the number of responders in 10-20% of the cases... so the question is would this small savings be worth the additional risk of harm to the public in need?

And... what happens when a call is made and someone later sues the City for not sending all 3 in the first place and they suffer some horrible loss?

I look forward to your comments and thoughts.

School Enrollments Shrinking

There has been much discussion on the streets and the blogs about the possibility of a school closure. But now we finally get the first professional analysis (preliminary report) of the enrollment situation.

~~click image for a larger version~~

It shows a 14.39% decline in the student enrollments within the next 10 years time. If these numbers have validity, and I do not doubt that they are indeed accurate, then it seems to only make sense to discuss the possibility of closing one of the elementary schools here in Peabody.

BUT ONLY IF THE EDUCATIONAL INTEGRITY OF THE SCHOOL SYSTEM IS MAINTAINED!

July 4th: Fun should remain

I have been taking some time to consider the suggestion of Councilor Gamache to cancel the annual July 4th Ward Celebrations.

You can read about the controversy here:
Salem News: Peabody considers suspending July fourth celebrations
Salem News Editorial: Cost no reason to nix 4th of July events in Peabody
Peabody Patriot: July 4th parties... a thing of the past?

While I understand that we are in a fiscally difficult economic situation... and that practically everyone is also facing a similar economic crisis at home and at work... I simply must say that this is the wrong move at the wrong time.

I do not agree with the posters who have been saying that it is from Mayor Bonfanti's lips to Councilor Gamache's ear... Gamache can think and act for himself. However, I think that this was simply one of those times when we all wish he hadn't.

While I would certainly love to see a check for $12,000 show up in my mailbox, the fact is that this is a tiny amount of City funds that goes to making neighborhoods and families feel more connected to each other and the City. I know that the City spends more on paper clips than $12,000 each year.

We really need to get our priorities straight when dealing with this financial crisis.

Many others have suggested that the Council members could simply cut the $150/month stipend that they receive and save more than $19,800 each year. Now I am sure that they have already made plans for these funds (or not, but they get the money in either case) so they don't wish to lose it. The money for the Ward celebrations, however, will not affect them personally in any way.

So I simply think that Councilor Gamache was looking for a way to look good while losing nothing. And frankly, it might have been fine if he were not screwing the little kids of Peabody (which are the ones that these celebrations are for in the first place.)

Now others have postulated that the Councilor(s) are actually hoping to get rid of this event - as it ruins their personal vacation plans and causes them to do lots of work planning, fund raisng and running these events... but I'm not so sure of that. If someone has any evidence of this... let us all know.

So, yet again, The City Peabody looks like a fool in the newspapers and in the hearts of its citizens. All because people do not THINK about the consequences of their actions (or simply proposals in this case).

:::Caveat:::
Now all that being said... IF (and only IF) the City is actually in such DIRE FINANCIAL STRAITS that it really can not fund these 6 celebrations (for $2,000 each) then I am ready to talk about a great many OTHER CUTS that would need to be made before this one.

This amount ($12,000) is 0.0000909% of the budget ($132,000,000)

IF we can't afford this amount for something that is a long-term event that brings kids and families and neighborhoods together... we should really think about what is truly important in this City.

~ps: I fixed the erroneous number of celebrations from 11 to 6!

Another Bad Moon Rising?

The recent article in the Salem news highlights a little known situation which, while not unique to Peabody at all, still will have a severe impact on our near-term, and long-term fiscal viability.

Salem News: Retirement Assets dip as market fails

Now, I will begin this post with a big admission... I don't know much about this... not much more than I read in the SNews.

The story in a nutshell - and feel free to let me know if I am getting this wrong somewhere...

Cities are required to fund the accounts that they plan to use to pay for employee retirement. However, they don't actually put in the $50 each week that employee X and Y are going to get in 10 or 15 years.

No. That would be logical. And safe.

So the Cities PROMISE that they will have the money for the retirees WHEN THEY RETIRE... but not before. In other words, the City will use these funds to do as they please (now I am sure that some is set aside for the retirees) but they don't need to come up with it until they actually retire.

This was a good scheme... until somebody noticed (or maybe someone retired somewhere and the City didn't have the dough?).

So the powers that be enacted a deadline (2028) where by the City must be fully funded for all retirees.

But the Cities didn't really want to put all their (our) money in the retirees bank accounts... they wanted to Play the Market and make a profit so we would have more funds to spend on City needs.

Unfortunately things are not so pretty in the market... in fact the S&P 500 has averaged -1.59% since 2000.... and is down -37% for 2008.

So... in order to still be able to meet the 2028 deadlines, all the Cities and Towns are going to need to be putting in even more tax money into these retirement accounts to make up for the bad investments made over the past few years. This is going to result in EVEN LESS WORKING CAPITAL FOR THE CITY.

Again, this is not problem unique to Peabody, nor was the fancy financial solution... in fact, it probably kept our level of taxes lower and services higher over the past several years... but it just adds one more straw to the camels back... and the sag is already starting to show LOTS of strain.

Budget Woes... but not 'til next year ???

I will admit it. I am as perplexed as everyone else about what to do with our City budget problems.

At first, I thought IF the cut in State aid was going to be a one time thing, then we could enact a small one-time payment from each household (<$50) and keep all the City services going as they are now. But now we find out that this is NOT very likely... and that an even larger cut in State aid is expected next year.

And I am upset because Mayor Bonfanti has decided to hunker down (my words) and not be proactive about the problems that are looming on the horizon. IF cuts are coming and there will need to be changes in the near future I say the time to prepare, plan and then even enact these changes is sooner rather than later.

The Salem News: City could see layoffs in next fiscal year

The solution is not to just leave unfilled positions vacant and to expect departments to continue doing their jobs without adequate supplies and other items or services needed to operate the City.

The solution is to take stock right now and see where cuts need to be made... see where positions need to be filled... and where they need to be lost. To give the departments back the money they need to actually serve the public well and not nickel and dime the City into inaction. The time for these action plans was YESTERDAY... but we still have time to make them right now.

Then the politically difficult (and personally distressing) task of actually making these changes needs to happen... and the sooner the better. If we are going to be losing people next year (for the sake of discussion let's say we will need to cut 40 jobs) then I say DO IT NOW and SAVE THE MONEY in salary and benefits TODAY because the news from the State next year might be even worse than we are all hoping or expecting.

I would rather not see anyone lose their jobs, but unfortunately that will not be the reality here in Peabody or many other places in this country. I have learned the hard way that delaying the inevitable only makes things worse for everyone involved... including the people who will end up being laid off.

UPDATED: City to lose almost $900K in latest State aid cut

UPDATED COMMENTARY

I must say that I have rethought my original idea presented below. I had proposed a ONE-TIME small tax payment on Peabody households and business to make up for the ONE-TIME state funding cut.

I no longer believe this is a good idea for the simple reason that these cuts are now NOT BEING SEEN as a one-time event. This became evident when the Mayor said that we need to prepare for additional cuts in State aid in the near future.

IF indeed this is the case, then a simple band aid of money (even small amounts) will simply allow the current business-as-usual mentality to persist despite further cuts coming down the road. Since this is what is now expected, then there is NO SENSE in postponing the inevitable... make the hard cuts that the current situation demands NOW which will allow the City as a whole to operate under a better (read cheaper) financial picture and then re-access when future cuts come along.

My reasoning is the same as I put forth regarding Salem's School budget loss (thanks to the crook they had in office) where it was not a simple one-time infusion of money that would help the City, but it was an on-going need for too much money. Thus, a one-time tax would become permanent... I am NOT advocating that.

More links on this story. The Peabody/Lynnfield Weekly:

==============================================================

The Salem News: Less state aid means $871,000 cut in Peabody budget
Lynn Item: Peabody bracing for 'real crisis' in budget cuts

Well... you can't say we didn't see it coming. It actually turned out a bit better than the Peabody Patriot has been predicting ($1.2M cut).

So now what do we do. We have the lowest taxes around and the services and educational system to prove it. Where do we begin to cut the $900,000.00 Even if all the cars went away and we enacted all the moves discussed in previous posts it doesn't come to that figure without BIGGER items... like a school closure and sale (because you won't reap much $$$ immediately without a sale).

Or what about this? A poster at the Salem News said every resident should pay around $17.50 each.... and the budget is back to normal.

But that would be unfair to larger families in my opinion. Here is one other idea...

Have a special assessment. In 2006 there were approximately 1,160 businesses in Peabody. In 2000 there were exactly 18,581 households in the City.

If each household paid a one time charge of $35 and each business paid a one time charge of $215 ~~~P~O~O~F~~~ Budget problem reversed and solved.

I personally do not have money to throw around these days (well almost any days to be honest) but I would be willing to pony over $35 per household to keep the City in the black and prevent cuts in services.

What do you think?

Special School Committee Group -- Looks to the West School as possible closure target

The Salem News: Panel evaluating each school: West's turn tonight

School Committee member Michael Moutsoulas's panel will be looking at the demographics, building and grounds for each school building in Peabody in an investigation into cost savings and educational consolidation.

I am in favor of such a review of our school needs. However I am not simply in favor of closing a school.

Here is the criteria I feel needs to be addressed before any school closing takes place:

1. Show through a proper demographic study that the population patterns and projections are being taken into consideration in any such plan
   
2. Show REAL and SUBSTANTIAL cost savings (both now and over time).
   A small savings that manifests itself in 10 years is NO REASON to disrupt hundreds of Peabody families.
   
3. Show that an EDUCATIONAL ADVANTAGE will happen for the students in Peabody... not just cutting teachers or administrators, but improving the quality and quantity of educational opportunities for our students.

All three of these criteria are needed if we are going to disrupt the lives of so many people.

Taxes are up, but Peabody still the lowest

The Salem News: As property values drop, some see leaps in tax bills

In the above article the Salem News looks at how the current financial crisis is playing out in municipal funding = Property Taxes. The majority of people they have talked to seem to be unaware of how local property taxes are assessed and how the final figures are decided upon.

The answer is quite simple, despite the spin that anti-tax messiah Barbara Anderson puts on it. But before I explain it... here is a peek at what we here in Peabody face... especially compared to our fellow North Shore communities. Note: We have both the lowest taxes and the lowest increase of anyone!

Taxes on the North Shore
[taken from the article]

Community...Average....Increase

Beverly....$4,852.43....$101.21

Boxford....$7,611.60....$188.32

Danvers....$4,390.96....$160.24

Hamilton...$7,856.24....$640.37

Ipswich....$5,178.17....$523.48

Manchester.$8,754.02....$849.14

Marblehead.$6,275.02....$170.14

Middleton..$5,633.18....$275.84

Peabody....$3,123.87....$ 73.76

Salem......$4,193.68....$139.22

Swampscott.$7,534.49....$241.94

Topsfield..$7,206.40....$198.40

Wenham.....$8,892.44....$632.25

Basically... the City looks at how much money it needs to operate and decides on a number = the total budget. Some of this money comes from fixed sources (the State, excise taxes, etc.) The remainder is what needs to be paid for out of local property taxes. Let's call this amount the Property Tax Budget (or PTB.)

Then the City looks at the total value of ALL property in the City (based on the most current valuations.)

(I will look at the situation where there is a single tax rate for both business and residential because it is easier to explain, but the method is similar - you just have two variables to deal with instead of one.)

Then you take the PTB and divide it by the total valuations and come up with a percentage...

Say the City needs $8 million in property tax revenue, and all the property in the City is appraised at $500 million...

Property Tax Total............................ $8,000,000 = 0.016 %
Total Valuations (all property).........$500,000,000

This is the TAX RATE. This is the rate you will multiply your property's appraised value by to get your total tax bill.

So if your house (in this example) is worth $375,000 your bill would be...

$375,000 x 0.016 = $6,000

Now it is a bit more complicated when you have two different sets of properties (residential and business) and you will need to do a few IF-THEN calculations until you find a formula that meets your needs.

=============== A D D E N D A ===============

This was also in the Salem News today: Property values drop $1.3 billion on North Shore

Here is the listing of total property valuations (and the drop in value) for the last year.

Housing values

............Value..........Changes

Beverly.....$5.02B.....-$107M (-2.1%)

Boxford.....$1.764B....-$ 76M (-4.1%)

Danvers.....$3.205B....-$ 96M (-2.9%)

Hamilton....$1.364B....-$ 45M (-3.2%)

Ipswich.....$2.358B....-$ 62M (-2.5%)

Manchester..$2.06B.....+$ 29M (+1.4%)

Marblehead..$5.088B....-$262M (-4.9%)

Middleton...$1.372B....-$ 94M (-6.4%)

Peabody.....$5.352B....-$231M (-4.1%)

Salem.......$3.754B....-$255M (-6.4%)

Swampscott..$2.362B....-$ 45M (-1.9%)

Topsfield...$1.151B....-$ 46M (-3.8%)

Wenham......$0.819B....+$ 18M (+2.3%)

Area......$35.669B...-$1.271B (-3.4%)

How will State Aid cuts affect Peabody?

The Lynn Item: State aid cuts affect some local communities more than others

The article above outlines a few City and Town leaders discussing how they plan on addressing the expected cuts in local aid. Here is the portion that pertains to Peabody:

...Peabody which picks up 20 percent of its budget from state aid.

Peabody Mayor Michael Bonfanti and his staff has been preparing for these cuts since they were first announced months ago. He asked all departments to trim 5 percent from their current budget and ordered that all potential hires come across his desk first. But, it's all in preparation - Bonfanti said there's no telling just how much Peabody will be affected.

"It'll have a devastating impact on us all," he said. "Until (Patrick) gets the 9C authority and makes those cuts official, we're just not sure."

Bonfanti said it's not only how much, but when the cuts would have to be made.

"When you have 9C cuts in the middle of a budget cycle, it really causes some disruption," he said. "If (Patrick) says to hold off until the next fiscal cycle, that'd be helpful."

A proposed 10 percent cut in local aid would equal at least $3.2 million for the city of Peabody, said Bonfanti. And with those cuts, could come the loss of several programs, including those for after-school children and adults with mental health disabilities.

"Some things don't impact you directly," he said. "They do so indirectly."

I don't have much to say about this right now. This is a huge amount of money to need to be cut from already tight budgets... and in the middle of the year, so many departments would have been spending based on previous figures, not these further reduced ones.

Someone recently commented that I am all doom and gloom (and worse!) The sad thing, in my opinion, is those folks who can't ever see what the reality of a situation is, and instead keep acting like it is just what they WISH or WANT it to be like.

These are the realities. Our already limited amount of public services and government access (thanks to our super low tax rate) is going to be cut even further. The incredibly prudent (even stingy) City financial accounting of the past two Mayors have left us with a dual legacy...

• Some money in reserve and a tax levy surplus (meaning they can choose to tax more without permission - an override)

• Very limited public services including uncared for property, lowest salaries in the area and second rate services (think snow plowing, sidewalk repair, etc.)

It would seem to me that the Cities and Towns which traditionally have higher budgets and more services will be better able to weather this current financial storm because they have somewhere to CUT that isn't already to the bone. But that is the political reality of the City of Peabody.

I fully expect to hear more people calling for tax CUTS because of the hard times not even recognizing that the City is in the same boat as well.

Full text of Mayor Bonfanti's 2009 mid-term Address

The Peabody & Lynnfield Weekly News: Transcript of Mayor Michael Bonfanti's 2009 mid-term address

(note: These links to the PLWN are only available for around 1 week!)

I will post the entire address in the first comment to save space on the main page of the Peabody Roundtable. Please feel free to comment.

City Hall to hand out across the board raises... despite economic woes

Salem News: Peabody's nonunion employees to receive raise

You know they say in the world of comedy...
Timing is Everything

Apparently this doesn't hold true for politics in the City of Peabody.

One day after a rather doom & gloom filled mid-term address to the City, Mayor Bonfanti announces a 3-year 9% raise for all nonunion employees.

Now, since the City is required by law to negotiate with the unions, they have always (if memory serves) given the same 'deal' to the nonunion employees after all the union contracts are completed. And the nonunion folks will be forced to accept the same higher portion of their medical benefits (with higher co-pays) as the union as well.

But what seem to be irking some, me included, is the idea that these raises are simple across the board increases without regard for any type of performance evaluation.

It is one thing when dealing with the union - in those cases the union has the authority regarding how it allocates pay levels. It is quite another when one considers nonunion employees. These folks are responsible for themselves and the City should not be rewarding everyone in every position regardless of performance.

What I am saying is this: Two employees, Bob and Bill.

Bob is kind of a slacker. He got his job and he used to work hard at it... but has come to see that it doesn't really matter if he hustles or not because he gets a raise either way. He is not always on time, doesn't work and play well with others and often seems to be thinking more about his upcoming weekend rather than the task at hand. I am not sure that Bob really deserves any raise at all.

Bill works really hard, is always on time, is helpful to his fellow workers and the public too. Does his job well and looks for ways to make things better. Bill deserves a nice big raise... but does he necessarily get one?

If times are so very tough... and folks, THEY ARE... Then maybe the answer is no. I hate saying that because while some will scoff at the Mayors assertion that if salaries are not keeping up with comparable jobs elsewhere we will lose good people, I absolutely agree with him.

But that is EVEN MORE REASON to institute a performance based system of raises! Frankly... we would probably all be happier if BOB LEFT.... but we should all be willing to PAY BILL MORE TO STAY!

And as far as timing goes... Jeez! You could NOT have created a more awkward situation if you had planned it for weeks! Then again... Ole Jorge at The Peabody Patriot called this exact situation DAYS AGO.

Close one of the Peabody Elementary Schools?

The Mayor in his mid-term address brought up the real possibility of drastic cuts in the City budget. One of those, as I quote from the Salem News is below:

He also challenged the School Committee to make some "tough financial decisions" about shedding staff, consolidating facilities and redistricting.

This brings up the contentious issue of possibly closing one of Peabody's eight Elementary Schools.

Let me be frank here. Nobody ever WANTS to close a school. I am very much a supporter of our public education system and believe we should fully support our schools. But I also understand that budgetary realities might mean that consolidation of the City Schools may bring both cost savings AND better educational opportunities.

A reader (OG) asked if I had any hard data about cost savings associated with the closing of one of the elementary schools. I do not. However, it doesn't take a degree in finance to figure out that by consolidating the Cities elementary school services into one or two fewer buildings, we would save all the costs of maintenance (heating, lighting, cooling, repair, cleaning, security, etc.) as well as reducing the need for redundant positions while still maintaining educationally appropriate class sizes.

Now those things would seem to be helpful in reducing the budget for education. But I can also see some additional costs in such a plan. Bussing students would, in all likelyhood become more expensive. We would be moving students from farther away than we do now (many students would need to travel farther to school) and fewer students in each school would fall within the 'walker' distances. Of course this might also reduce the costs of bussing as there would be fewer 'destinations' needed, simply longer bus routes.

I can also imagine that there will be structural changes/additions needed to accomidate additional students in the schools that will remain open. These might be a simple as the need for more lockers or as costly as the need to creater additional bathrooms or classroom spaces. Again, these are not simple claculations and would require some very serious and speciallized study to achieve the best possible results.

But all those factors simply are looking at the reductions that could be made in the budget. I also see some opportunities to better the overall educational experience for Peabody students. If you can begin to stop thinking about individual schools, and start thinking about system-wide resources... maybe we can have some of the art, music, sports, etc. teachers, who are now dedicated to one school, become a 'team' that travels to a different school each day or week.

For example: Suppose we have 8 music teachers in the 8 schools. what if we make 2 teams of 3 music teachers and have them spend Mondays in one school, Tuesdays in the next, etc. (or they spend a full week in each, rotating around.) This way students would get the benefits of these very important programs while at the same time getting a savings from 1) fewer teachers and 2) fewer unused spaces (all the programs could share the same spaces if possible).

I do not for a second think that I have all the answers here. I simply have some ideas and a feeling that with 400 fewer students in our system than in years past... we could easily meet the educational needs of our students even if we need tp close some of the facilities due to this budgetary crisis.

What do you think?

The State of the City - January 2009

Lynn Item: Bonfanti gives mid-term address
Salem News: Difficult cash decisions will be in cards for Peabody

I was unable to attend Mayor Bonfanti's mid-term address and the seating of the new City Council last evening. And the text of the speech is NOT (yet?) available on the Mayor's page at the City website. So these comments are based on the newspaper reports and other comments made at those sites and on the Peabody Patriot blog.

First, I think that the overall tone of the message - one of difficult times ahead - is nothing but accurate and a clear thinking assessment of what is to come. I disagree with those people who say he should be emphasizing the positive and downplaying the difficult realities we will all be facing. While "perception equals reality" can be true at times, in these circumstances I would prefer straight talk and not hearts & flowers.

I do not look forward to this coming year (and to be more honest... let's say YEARS because this recession is looking like nothing we have seen in most of our lifetimes). The best estimates for the length of the world-wide financial crisis I have read point to a 18 month (minimum) to 42 month (maximum) time frame... so I am betting on 2-1/2 years of difficult choices and unhappy citizens.

While I would not like to see the schools take the brunt of these cuts (especially not FIRST) I see the reality of the lower enrollments finally coming to a head. We simply have fewer children to educate at this moment, and while I STRONGLY SUPPORT a comprehensive analysis of future demographic trends for Peabody, I believe we are going to see fewer students for the foreseeable future.

Thus the closing of one (or more) schools is both a political reality and a good move for the vast majority of Peabody folks. Of course this will be very hard on some families who might have chosen their home based on proximity to a certain school... and I actually am a huge supporter of neighborhood schools, the times dictate a more cost effective distribution of our limited educational funds. Fewer schools will yield more educational value per pupil and per education dollar.

I strongly agree with the Mayor on the issue of Downtown improvements and the need to repopulate Downtown with businesses... but I believe the most intelligent method for achieving this goal is through the REZONING of Downtown (and the rest of the City) to promote a mixed-use of public, residential and commercial/business in the greater Downtown area.

What are your thoughts?

Peabody can NOT use affordable housing funds for fuel assistance program

Salem News: Lawyers say no to using affordable housing money for fuel assistance.

I have mixed feelings about this situation. While I still think that Ted Bettencourt was both unprepared and grand-standing when he made these proposals I like that he was 1) recognizing that people in Peabody are hurting in this financial crisis and 2) trying to solve a problem in an innovative way.

Now he really should have gone about this in an entirely different manner, but perhaps this speaks to the kind of person he is… I don’t know as I do not know the man. But my advice to him (or anyone in his position) is to NOT get people’s hopes up if you don’t do your dam homework first.

Councilor Bettencourt, next time you have a good idea why not run it by the experts in the City who understand these matters better than you do? I mean why not go and discuss this matter with the finance and legal teams we have in the City? Talk to the Mayor and your fellow Councilors. Find out what other programs already exist and see if your idea can actually be done legally BEFORE you need to go and announce an IMPOSSIBLE SCHEME to the PRESS… and through them, a needy public, all in an effort to LOOK GOOD.

I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt here. Maybe you simply were excited about a good idea and didn’t think through the whole thing before you yelled it to the world. Okay. That I understand. I actually like to see people having some passion about their jobs. Good for you. But let’s consider this a learning experience and maybe next time you can see if your idea is feasible before someone who is truly in trouble and really needs that assistance you promised hears about your plan and thinks help is on the way... when... it really isn’t.