Cambridge Civic Journal Forum

May 16, 2013

Communication from Councillors Cheung, Kelley, Reeves and Simmons to Mayor Davis (May 16, 2013)

Filed under: Cambridge,City Council,School Committee,schools — Tags: , , , — Robert Winters @ 5:51 pm

May 16, 2013

Mayor Henrietta Davis
795 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02139

Dear Mayor Davis:

With only three of all nine Councillors voting in favor of the Cambridge School Department budget on Thursday, it is clear that there is a heightened level of frustration and angst amongst the Council – one that should not go unnoticed. The principal duty of the Cambridge City Council is to exercise fiduciary control over the City of Cambridge to ensure that it is meeting and exceeding the goals set by the Council each session. As adopted in December of 2011, one of our principal goals is to "strengthen and support human services, public education, and out of school learning in Cambridge for the benefit of residents of all ages". On May 9, the will of the Council showed that questions and concerns remain as to whether the budget makes significant strides towards meeting this integral goal.

Many citizens throughout the City share this concern. In each of the last three Citizen Satisfaction Surveys, the quality of our public schools has been the top ranking concern amongst all Cambridge residents. It is crucial that all elected and appointed officials understand the importance of addressing the concerns that our community has expressed and that many Councillors raised in regard to the budget as it was presented at the May 9 Finance Committee meeting. We recognize that the wealth of concerns that were raised at this point may not be met in the next year, much less be solved during this current budget discussion, but it is important for the District to acknowledge that these concerns are real and that the District, coordinating with Cambridge’s elected officials and relevant City staff, will address them and develop a comprehensive, data-driven and outcomes-oriented long term plan to work towards accomplishing them in the years to come.

In particular, we think the District must make a clear and focused effort in these areas:

1. Research has time and time again demonstrated that youngsters who participate in a high-quality preschool program demonstrate higher levels of academic achievement, more socially responsible behavior, and make significantly higher earnings as an adult. We must invest in early childhood education to ensure that each and every child in Cambridge has the opportunity to attend preschool, and the current budget should more clearly explain how CPSD is supporting this notion now and how that support will be continued in the future. If the budget does not address this concern, it is not in line with the Council’s goal of strengthening public education.

2. Throughout discussions about CPSD with current, former, and prospective families, classroom management, school climate and teacher training are consistently recurring issues, as is supported by past CPSD parent surveys. We would like to see a budget that sets clear goals for teacher training as it relates to classroom management and school climate, along with associated data about student disciplinary issues. We understand that the CPSD budget cannot include every effort that the District is making, but it is important that the budget reflect the attempts made to address major concerns raised by the families it has been created to serve. A failure to assess these issues in the current budget is not in line with the Council’s goal of strengthening public education.

3. Family engagement has been another important issue that the FY2014 School Department budget appears to overlook. The Family Liaisons play critical roles in ensuring that parents have a steady guide through all school-related issues and concerns, and they are tireless advocates for the children they work with, often going above and beyond their job descriptions to ensure that our kids get the very best educational experience possible. Study after study has shown that children do better at school when there is an active partnership with the parents and the families, yet the money devoted to Family Liaisons and the family engagement process is nowhere as robust as it needs to be. A failure to assess this great need in the current budget is not in line with the Council’s goal of strengthening public education.

4. Understanding why students and families opt to leave the District, whether it be to attend a charter school, private school, or school in another district, is crucial for schools to improve. At present, the City spends approximately 9-11 million dollars annually, depending on state reimbursement formulas, on charter schools and a significant proportion of school-aged residents opt not to attend Cambridge public schools. Making an aggressive attempt to understand what educational needs that families perceive CPSD as not well-equipped to meet seems like a logical first step in figuring out how to address these concerns. If we do not address the concerns of residents who ultimately decide to send their children to academic institutions outside of CPSD, the Council is not furthering its goal of strengthening public education in the City of Cambridge.

5. The Council has committed to an extensive school building upgrade project that will add a quarter of a billion dollars to our City’s debt load, a figure that will bring our total debt load beyond the level at which we have traditionally set the limit. Additionally, we’ve discussed the potential of extended day, expanded pre-k, eventually expanding the wrap around program, giving computers to kids, broader world language offerings, an office of college success, and other potentially large programmatic expenditures which are not accounted for in the long-term budgetary plan. While we are fully in support of investing in programs and facilities to give our students and staff the facilities they need to grow and thrive, we need a more comprehensive long-term picture to make informed decisions about expenditures that will ultimately be reflected in higher taxes for our residents. We also need to understand the trade-offs and considerations that go in to thinking about how these programs and facilities will increase our return on investment, given that Cambridge already has one of the highest per pupil costs in the state. The failure of the budget to address this concern is not in line with the Council’s goal of "[evaluating] City expenditures with a view of maintaining a strong fiscal position and awareness of the impact on taxpayers while providing a high quality array of city services".

6. There is a concern that the population growth may not keep pace with the amount of building renovation called for in the proposed school budget. It would be most unfortunate if, after a decade of renovations, the City has four state-of-the-art school buildings with precious few students to occupy them. This is why it is important that we have at least a five-year projection for the Innovation Agenda. We would be much better served if we have a sense of how much this will cost going forward, if we can anticipate what additional expenses may need to be called for, what additional positions may be created that will need funding, how many students will be expected to be housed in these buildings, and so forth. The failure of the budget to address this concern is not in line with the Council’s goal of "[evaluating] City expenditures with a view of maintaining a strong fiscal position and awareness of the impact on taxpayers while providing a high quality array of city services".

7. Why, in a District that is very multi-cultural, do so many events, activities, programs and awards seem to be demographically disparate? The systemic inequities and racial unbalances that continue to exist between student populations strongly impact the ability of all of our children to reach their full potential. Failure to address this concern is not in line with the Council’s goal to "value and support the racial, socio-economic, cultural and religious diversity of our city".

Given the scope of the $150,000,000 CPSD budget, along with the roughly 22 million dollars in charter school payments and school construction debt service, it is clear to us that not all of our concerns will be able to be met immediately. We would like a clear commitment from the School Committee and CPSD staff that the next budget year will start with a focused discussion with the City Council and City staff of the above-listed concerns, and that measurable steps will be taken to ensure that additional concerns of families, students, and members of the community are addressed as well. If we can get that clear commitment, we would be willing to support this year’s CPSD budget and work with all concerned parties to make sure future budgets better reflect the fiscal and educational concerns of the City.

Several years ago, we initiated the practice of holding City Council-School Committee Roundtables to increase the amount of communication between these two bodies, in the hopes of avoiding the very situation in which we now find ourselves. It would appear that we either need to increase the number of Roundtables we hold each year, or we need to set aside specific Roundtables each year to devote exclusively to discussing drafting the school budget, to ensure that City Councillors are able to publicly provide feedback as a group and air concerns during the budget drafting process.

Please feel free to contact us directly should you have any questions or concerns about this communication.

Sincerely,
Councillor Leland Cheung
Councillor Craig Kelley
Councillor Kenneth E. Reeves
Vice Mayor E. Denise Simmons

Cc: Councillor Marjorie Decker, Finance Committee Chair
City Council
School Committee
Superintendent Jeff Young
City Manager Bob Healy
Deputy City Manager Richard Rossi

May 13, 2013

Letter from Marc McGovern and Richard Harding, Co-chairs of the Budget Subcommittee of the Cambridge School Committee

Filed under: City Council,School Committee,schools — Tags: , , — Robert Winters @ 9:53 am

As Co-Chairs of the Budget Subcommittee of the School Committee, we are writing to express our complete disappointment in the actions taken by a handful of City Councilors who, on May 9, 2013 voted against next year’s school department budget. The school department budget process began over 8 months ago. During that time, numerous public meetings were held to gain community input. Meetings were also held by school councils made up of parents, teachers and administrators who made recommendations to the administration regarding budget priorities. Meetings were held with principals, the teachers’ union, the special education parent advisory council and others to gain budget insight. Many difficult and challenging conversations were had over these months culminating in a balanced budget that was voted unanimously by the School Committee.

It should be noted that these councilors did not express their reasons for voting against the budget at the time of the meeting. Some of the councilors asked only a few questions, never indicating that they would take such action. Since the meeting, three of the five councilors have provided information as to their concerns, none of which relate to the budget itself. The two major concerns expressed were controlled choice and charter school enrollment. These are two important issues and we do not question that they are worth discussion. What is confusing to us, however, is how will voting against the budget help better understand either of these issues? The truth is, it won’t. Families send their children to charter schools for various reasons. Every public school district in the country is aware of this issue and works to keep students in district, Cambridge is no different. In regard to controlled choice, the School Committee, the administration and the public have been working hard on this issue for the past two years, starting with a working group led by Patty Nolan and Richard Harding, and now a subcommittee of the whole led by Alice Turkel and Fred Fantini. Over 20 meetings have been held and as recently as May 7, 2013 the School Committee held a public meeting to review over a dozen recommendations as to how to improve controlled choice. If this issue was of such concern to these councilors that they took this unprecedented step, why didn’t they come to any of these meetings? Why didn’t they raise this concern sooner? Why didn’t they write an email, make a phone call or sit down for coffee to discuss these concerns? Their lack of communication makes us wonder if these are real concerns or just political posturing.

Let us be very clear, the political maneuvering that was carried out at this meeting will do absolutely nothing to help address these concerns. The councilors have done nothing to help bring us together as city leaders. What they did do, is drive a wedge between the school community and the city community. What they did do was potentially damage contract negotiations. What they did do was show that making a political statement was more important than insulting, disrespecting and undermining several months of work by parents, teachers, principals and school administrators. If that is not bad enough, they did it all without any communication, warning or chance for the superintendent or School Committee to be prepared. This was a complete and utter blindside to all who worked so hard.

What is also confusing is that since the School Committee passed the budget several weeks ago, not one of these councilors contacted us with any concerns or questions. Even prior to the meeting, none of these councilors pulled us aside and asked for explanations or gave any indication that they might vote against the budget.

It is important for the public to know that the City Council does not have the authority, nor is it their role, to vote specific budget allocations up or down. The Council must vote on the budget as a whole. So to make a political point these councilors voted down the entire budget which included funding for an additional autism classroom for our autistic children. They voted down adding additional school psychologists, inclusion specialists, athletic trainers, and additional staffing for our new upper schools. They voted down adding an additional Special Start classroom and funding the Wrap Around Zone at the Fletcher Maynard Academy modeled after the Harlem Children’s Zone. They voted down funding for professional development for our teachers, for paying our teachers, and for providing school improvement funds. They voted down funding for additional community outreach, and against our partners: Cambridge School Volunteers, City Sprouts, Science Club for Girls, and Breakthrough.

We stand with our parents, teachers, superintendent and School Committee colleagues who worked so hard on the proposed budget which we believe will help move our district forward.

Hopefully, with some time to catch our collective breath, more rational heads will prevail and these Councilors will see that their actions were more damaging than helpful.

Sincerely,
Marc McGovern and Richard Harding
Co-Chairs of the Budget Subcommittee of the Cambridge School Committee

November 19, 2011

Cambridge Municipal Election Results

Official Final Election Results: The official winners for City Council were (in order of election):
Leland Cheung, Tim Toomey, David Maher, Henrietta Davis, Denise Simmons, Craig Kelley, Marjorie Decker, Minka vanBeuzekom, and Kenneth Reeves.

For School Committee, the official winners were (in order of election):
Fred Fantini, Patty Nolan, Alice Turkel, Mervan Osborne, Richard Harding, and Marc McGovern.

Complete City Council and School Committee Official Final Results and Extras
(PDF includes Counts with transfers, Ward/Precinct #1 votes, #2 vote distribution for all candidates, and number of rankings)

Spreadsheets of City Council and School Committee Official Final Results and Extras
(Excel file includes Counts with transfers, Ward/Precinct #1 votes, #2 vote distribution for all candidates, and number of rankings)

Round-by-Round Official Final City Council Results (HTML)

Round-by-Round Official Final School Committee Results (HTML)

Official Final City Council #1 Vote Distribution by Ward/Precinct (PDF)

Official Final School Committee #1 Vote Distribution by Ward/Precinct (PDF)


Traffic Report: Through Election Day, the Candidate Pages had a total of:
3,774 unique visitors
More than 16,237 candidate pages viewed just on Election Day.
33,546 pages viewed during Nov 1 – Nov 8.
44,842 pages viewed for October-November (so far)….

The Candidate Pages consisted entirely of the words of the candidates – no endorsements, no opinions of the editor of these pages. The fact that so many Cambridge residents took advantage of this resource to learn about the candidates before voting speaks volumes about the voters of Cambridge. – Robert Winters

November 7, 2011

Pre-Election Jitters – Nov 7, 2011 Cambridge City Council meeting and the municipal election

Filed under: 2011 Election,City Council,elections — Tags: , , , — Robert Winters @ 12:21 am

Pre-Election Jitters – Nov 7, 2011 Cambridge City Council meeting

The last thing on the minds of city councillors at this meeting will be the business of the meeting. On the eve of the biennial municipal election, the attention of everyone will be on Tuesday’s election. The agenda is light, and historically these pre-election meetings can break records for brevity.

The only noteworthy items are a few zoning-related matters that could be passed to a Second Reading, though it’s possible that the Bishop Petition (Unfinished Business #12) could again spark a few election-charged rhetorical brushfires. The other zoning matters are the deRham Petition (Unfinished Business #13), the Runkel Petition (Unfinished Business #14), the Bagedonow Petition (Order #3 and Committee Report #2), and the highly profitable Chestnut Hill Realty Petition (the proponents of which have contributed heavily to the campaigns of several city councillors).

This past week has been an interesting one in the political life of the city. Not since the darkest days of the Rent Control Wars have we seen such vitriol – perhaps the worst of which has come from the pseudo-press. I don’t know what kind of psychosis it is that drives fact-challenged bloggers with short perspectives to want to tell voters how to vote – even to the point of referring to several incumbents as "disgusting". A lot of bridges were burned this week.

My advice to voters is simple – ignore all endorsements, ignore the advice of pundits (including me), and spend a few hours learning about the candidates [http://vote.rwinters.com]. Above all, do your homework, and that includes evaluating any propaganda that’s been circulating from Hilliard Street, the pseudo-press, and people with hidden and not-so-hidden agendas. Then cast informed votes. In the Cambridge elections you can vote for as many candidates as you wish (for both City Council and School Committee). I generally advise people to first decide which candidates you like enough to list on your ballot, and then decide how to rank them – #1 to your favorite, then #2, etc. You do not have to rank all candidates, but it is best to rank more than a few. Above all, vote sincerely.

After the polls close on Tuesday, the preliminary PR Election Count will commence at the Senior Center across the street from City Hall. This year (if all the equipment works) CCTV will be broadcasting from The Count starting around 8:30pm. The program will be hosted by former School Committee member Susana Segat and Robert Winters (that’s me). Our hope is to have many of the candidates and other guests appear on camera to share their thoughts. There will be a followup program on Wednesday as the remaining ballots are tabulated and the final (unofficial) results are announced.

Unless the election is extremely close, it is likely that the preliminary winners announced on Tuesday night will be the same as those announced on Wednesday. Officially, the final results will not be determined until Friday, Nov 18 when potentially a handful of additional overseas absentee ballots are included, but there is very little chance that this will alter the results. – Robert Winters

November 2, 2011

2011 Cambridge Municipal Election – School Committee Candidates

Filed under: 2011 Election,elections,School Committee — Tags: , , , — Robert Winters @ 10:49 am

Election Day is Tuesday, November 8, 2011.

2011 Cambridge Municipal Election – School Committee Candidates

Marc McGovern (15 Pleasant St., 02139) was first elected to the Cambridge School Committee in 2003.

Nancy Tauber (137 Chestnut St., 02139) was first elected to the Cambridge School Committee in 2007.

Fred Fantini (4 Canal Park, 02141) was first elected to the Cambridge School Committee in 1981.

Mervan Osborne (149 Auburn St., 02139) is a 1st time candidate.

John Holland (26 Normandy Terr., 02138) is a 1st time candidate.

Joyce Gerber (10 Fairfield St., 02140) is a 1st time candidate.

Alice Turkel (12 Upton St., 02139) was first elected to the Cambridge School Committee in 1995.

Patty Nolan (184 Huron Ave., 02138) was first elected to the Cambridge School Committee in 2005.

Richard Harding (187 Windsor St., 02139) was first elected to the Cambridge School Committee in 2001.

Bill Forster (244 Lexington Ave., 02138) is a 1st time candidate.

Charles Stead (598 Putnam Ave., 02139) is a 4th time candidate.

Photos and profiles of all the Cambridge candidates may be found at the Cambridge Candidate Pages
http://vote.rwinters.com    or    http://vote.cambridgecivic.com

July 1, 2011

2011 Cambridge Candidates, Office Sought, Nomination signatures filed and certified

Filed under: 2011 Election,City Council — Tags: , , — Robert Winters @ 3:29 pm

The deadline for submitting signatures was Monday, August 1, 5:00pm.

The following candidates failed to submit sufficient nominating signatures to qualify for the ballot:
City Council: Randy Fenstermacher, Michael Andelman, Charles McNeill.

Nomination Papers - 2011

CandidateOffice SoughtAddressSignatures SubmittedSignatures Certified*Notes
Cheung, LelandCity Council157 Garden St., 02138100 (July 1)92July 1
vanBeuzekom, MinkaCity Council20 Essex St., 0213975 (July 1), 25 (Aug 1)89July 1
Moree, GreggCity Council25 Fairfield St., 02140100 (July 25)74July 1
Marquardt, CharlesCity Council10 Rogers St., 0214158 (July 6), 18 (July 11)68July 1
Decker, MarjorieCity Council61 Walden St., 0214051 (July 5), 40 (July 22)83July 1
Toomey, TimCity Council88 Sixth St., 02141100 (July 5)100July 1
Reeves, Kenneth E.City Council340 Harvard St., 0213999 (July 26)83July 1
Mello, GaryCity Council324 Franklin St., 0213975 (July 20)67July 1
Nelson, MatthewCity Council108 Pine St., 02139100 (July 11)82July 1
Kelley, CraigCity Council6 St. Gerard Terr, 0214074 (July 15)69July 1
Seidel, SamCity Council48 Maple Ave., 0213993 (July 22)83July 1
Stohlman, TomCity Council19 Channing St., 0213897 (July 11)85July 1
Maher, David P.City Council120 Appleton St., 02138100 (July 19)95July 1
McGovern, MarcSchool Committee15 Pleasant St., 02139100 (July 13)90July 1
Harding, RichardSchool Committee187 Windsor St., 0213999 (July 22)95July 1
Fantini, Alfred B.School Committee4 Canal Pk #203, 02141100 (July 5)99July 1
Turkel, AliceSchool Committee12 Upton St., 02139100 (July 27)96July 1
Williamson, JamesCity Council1000 Jackson Place, 0214041 (July 11), 26 (July 25)60July 1
Holland, John J.School Committee26 Normandy Terr., 0213855 (Aug 1)52July 5
Simmons, DeniseCity Council188 Harvard St., 02139100 (July 22)82July 5
Ward, LarryCity Council372 Broadway, 0213970 (July 29)60July 5
Fenstermacher, Philip R.City Council50 Quincy St., 02138--July 5
Tauber, NancySchool Committee137 Chestnut St., 0213987 (July 22)76July 5
Andelman, Michael D.City Council34 Chatham St., 02139--July 6
Davis, HenriettaCity Council120 Chestnut St., 0213980 (July 12)67July 6
Gerber, JoyceSchool Committee10 Fairfield St., 0214070 (Aug 1)63July 6
Osborne, MervanSchool Committee149 Auburn St., 0213950 (July 27), 12 (July 29), 17 (Aug 1)67July 6
Nolan, PattySchool Committee184 Huron Ave., 0213850 (July 25), 13 (July 27)59July 11
McNeill, Charles J.City Council73 Hampshire St., 02139--July 19
Forster, BillSchool Committee244 Lexington Ave., 02138100 (July 29)90July 22
Stead, CharlesSchool Committee598 Putnam Ave., 0213992 (Aug 1)73July 22
Pascual, JamakeCity Council10 Laurel St. #5, 02139100 (Aug 1)50July 27
Glick, Silvia P.City Council135 Inman St., 02139100 (Aug 1) - withdraw (Aug 17)90July 28
List of candidates who pulled nomination papers for the 2011 Cambridge City Council or School Committee election

* Signatures are only unofficially certified by staff in the Election Commission office. Actual certification does not take place until August when the Election Commissioners vote to certify candidates. A minimum of fifty (50) certified signatures are required for a candidate’s name to be placed on the ballot.

2011 Cambridge Municipal Election Calendar

« Newer Posts

Powered by WordPress