Awaiting the Snow Fall . . .

For five days now we've been hearing about yet another big snowstorm heading our way, which has the potential to leave us with a new foot of snow for the shoveling. Of course, looking around our neighborhoods, one would think that there was still a foot of snow on the ground, given all of the parking spaces being "reserved" with everything from kitchen chairs to parking cones to mattresses. Really, how long after a person has shoveled out this space should they reasonably expect that it be there for them when they get home?

This got us to thinking about other issues of "snow etiquette." In fact, several weeks back, a number of our readers were in a "commenting war" over just who should be responsible for making sure sidewalks are shoveled or, even more critical to public safety, digging out the fire hydrants near their houses. Frankly, we believe the good neighbor policy would dictate that each individual and business should be responsible for clearing their own sidewalk of snow. If you have an elderly neighbor or a neighbor who, for whatever reason, is unable to take care of the task for themselves, what do you lose by helping them out? An hour or so of your time? And by shoveling out a fire hydrant, you could be saving someone's life -- maybe even your own.

Of course, there is also the dilemma of where to put the snow, especially when there is such a
large snowfall. Many people feel that throwing the snow back out into the street is a good option. Why? First of all, the plow is only going to push it back into your driveway. Second, it can help form dangerous ruts and bumps in the road, particularly when it's done once the plowing is finished. And third . . . believe it or not . . . it's a violation of city ordinances to throw snow out into the street. It takes a little extra work to shovel the snow up onto an existing snow bank or to walk back to your lawn to dump it . . . but it's worth it to help keep the street clear. Folks with snowblowers even have the option of aiming the path of the snow they are clearing, and yet, some still choose to blow it back out into the street. How does this make sense?

Snowstorms are one of those rare times, in today's frenzied world, for neighbors to help each other out. Those old enough to remember the Blizzard of '78 may also remember walking the streets and meeting neighbors they never knew they had and helping neighbors to whom they might otherwise not even say hello. Why wait until the weather paralyzes us into being good neighbors? Take what could be the last opportunity of this winter season to do the neighborly thing -- clear your sidewalk, dig out a fire hydrant, and keep the snow out of the street.

Weighing in on Education: Is the Administration Too Heavy?

Recent press coverage of the Hancock ruling has been widespread, and a diversity of opinion exists. The lawsuit was brought against the Commonwealth by underperforming but poor communities looking for more funding, despite the billions of dollars that Massachusetts has poured into its schools since 1993, the year school education reform went into effect. Although our own senator, Jarrett Barrios, felt Hancock should prevail, a number of legislators have stated that it’s not more money schools needs – it’s how they spend it that’s important. For further information on the lawsuit, and various opinions on it, please see the symposium sponsored by MassInc. Symposium: The Hancock Case

That said, there has been a fair amount of criticism of the superintendent and his school committee during the last year concerning the overspending of their budget by a half-million dollars. This overspending added to the difficult financial issues currently facing the City, but the question on everyone’s lips, from McKinnon’s to Dunkin Donuts is this: “why do we need a superintendent and three assistant superintendents?” That’s the $250,000 question, actually, because $250,000 is what two administrators cost.

We looked at ten communities in the Commonwealth with a student enrollment similar to Everett. The ten communities hail from just about every corner in Massachusetts, from the Cape to the North Shore, from the wealthy to the not so wealthy. What is notable is this; not one of them has three assistant superintendents.

City/Town Enrollment Administration
Andover 5,939 1 Supt. 1 Asst.
Barnstable 5,586 1 Supt. 1 Asst.
Chelmsford 5,773 1 Supt. 1 Asst.
Chelsea 5,578 1 Supt. 1 Asst.
Everett 5,321 1 Supt. 3 Asst.
Revere 5,713 1 Supt. 1 Asst.
Salem 4,923 1 Supt. 2 Asst.
Shrewsbury 5,562 1 Supt. 1 Asst.
Somerville 5,616 1 Supt. 1 Asst.
Westford 5,112 1 Supt. 1 Asst.

It has been argued that one of our assistant superintendents isn’t a “real” assistant superintendent, although his cost to the taxpayers of $120K plus certainly puts him in that category. Salem, which has two assistant superintendents, is notable because each one of those administrators holds a doctorate degree. This is not the case in Everett, despite the fact that each of these gentlemen makes PhD or EdD money. This is another issue that the School Committee could review: is each of the school administrators properly qualified by the Department of Education? Were all the waivers filed (particularly in the case of the superintendent) and have they participated in properly accredited continuing education programs? (We don’t mean the online Phoenix University programs – we mean real university education).

Could $250K be better spent? Indeed it could. $250K could provide five more teachers to provide classroom instruction for our children. This would be a good place for the School Committee to begin reform – right at the top. But here’s the bigger question – does the School Committee dare to be that brave?

We Were Just Wondering . . .

Whatever happened to the request by the Board of Aldermen for an audit of the School Building Commission? After all, we’ve heard many promises from members of the Board over the past few months that they will operate proactively when it comes to the fiscal health of the City. The request for the audit, one must assume, was a move in that direction. The piece was referred to the Finance Committee, where it has been sitting dormant for several weeks, yet to make an appearance on an agenda, even though the Committee has met at least three times since the beginning of the year. Evidently, Alderman Van Campen, who was a sponsor of the piece, has requested that it be kept off of the Finance Committee agenda indefinitely.

It made us wonder . . . why has an issue that just six short weeks ago was of critical importance to the financial well-being of the City been put on the back burner by the very people who requested the action in the first place? Could it be that the sponsors of this piece have come to realize that they’ve allowed themselves to be pulled into the vortex of the storm that has been raging between the Superintendent & the School Committee and the Ragucci administration?

There is evidence to indicate that the Board is not unified in the quest to audit the School Building Commission. Alderman Joe McGonagle, who was the Board liaison on the SBC, is said to have resigned from the Commission after the Board requested the audit and had the Chairperson of the SBC appear before them. Alderman McGonagle’s feeling was that the Board could obtain all the information they needed through him as the liaison and, in fact, made that statement at a Board of Aldermen meeting. It would appear that Alderman McGonagle felt that the Board was working around him – and against him – and that being the case, his participation on the SBC was pointless. This is not an unreasonable reaction. Rumor has it that Alderman Jason Marcus has now appointed himself as the liaison, but the speculation is that the Alderman has no intention of attending or participating in SBC meetings.

Back to the question . . . why has the request for the audit been all but abandoned? We don’t know – but our guess is that the sponsors of the piece came to realize that they were being used by the Superintendent as instruments of subterfuge. They threw together an agenda item with no substance and have been unable to coherently construct a case as to why they feel this audit is justified. The members of the SBC and the Mayor have indicated their willingness to cooperate with an audit, but the Board has provided no parameters within which they believe the audit should be conducted.

Given the political climate this year, it could be the proponents of the audit felt they were hedging their political bets by ingratiating themselves with the Superintendent and the School Committee, who have actively supported an audit of the SBC – ostensibly because they felt stung over the audit currently being conducted on the School Department. It would appear that they entered into this gamble without checking the odds. Unlike the School Department, the School Building Commission is not operating under a cloud of indictment. The SBC has never tried to fly under the radar in their activities or operated in a vacuum. They welcomed the addition of liaisons from the Board and the Common Council, and they’ve indicated their willingness to cooperate with an audit. The Board lost the best source of information that they had on the SBC when they insisted on going around one of their own members in their attempt, once again, to make the administration look bad. And now the sponsors of this piece are trying to get themselves out from under the mess they’ve created by acting as though it never happened. They should be professional enough to have the Finance Committee review the matter, return it to the Board without a finding and refer the matter back to sponsor. In other words, it’s time to grow up.

Full Disclosure & the New High School

It was a great day for the City when, last summer, Mayor Ragucci announced that the National Park Service had finally approved the City's parkland replacement plan that would allow the city to move forward with the construction of a new high school on the Terraces at Glendale Park. Since that time, the specs have gone out to bid and, perhaps not surprisingly, have come back significantly higher than originally anticipated. This leaves the Ragucci administration on the horns of a dilemma -- how will the City pay for the new high school?

According to an "article" in the Everett Advocate last week (although we suspect this was a press release from the Mayor's Office masquerading as a news story), it was reported that the low bidder on the project came in at $64 milion -- $13 million higher than the original bid submitted in 2001. The 2001 bid was obtained prior to the delays encountered due to the efforts of the Coalition to Save Glendale Park to stop the project from going forward. The key, of course, is to take steps to prevent this additional cost from being passed on to the taxpayers.

This project is crucial to the continuation of other projects in the city -- the reconfiguration of the land at the old Hale School (which has already been demolished) and a 7 acre park at the old General Electric site. It is critical that the City explore all avenues available to see that the project moves forward. It is also critical that the process be as thorough -- and as open -- as possible. The Ragucci administration and the City Council need to put aside political machinations and put all their cards on the table.

The Joint Finance Committee of the City Council is scheduled to meet tonight (Thursday,
Feb. 10), and this issue will be up for discussion. There is a rumor going around that some of the members of the Committee want to rush the piece through, no questions asked, so that at a future date they can claim "no one told us about this" if the worst case scenario -- a tax increase -- becomes a reality. The Mayor and his financial team must put together a viable package for review and must be willing to answer all questions posed to them to achieve an agreeable outcome. There will be those who will be tempted to grandstand, this being an election year, and attempts will be made to demonize the process and assign sinister motive unless all information is out in the open.

The public has an obligation as well to be informed, to ask questions, and to hold our elected officials -- ALL of our elected officials -- accountable in this process. This project is too important to the city and to the future of our young people to allow politics to rule the day.

Residential Pahking Program...not a bad thing

A public hearing on the newly proposed residential parking program was held last week. Chaired by Parking Clerk Paul Kelly and Sgt. Paul Strong, the meeting was well attended, with more than a hundred residents on hand to hear about the new program. There were a few elected officials in attendance.

On the face of it, the program doesn’t seem like a bad idea. All residents who pay excise tax to the city of Everett will receive a residential parking sticker, which will allow them to park on city streets. The restricted times will be from 11PM - 6AM, Monday through Friday, although a number of residents expressed their support for having the restrictions begin at 6PM or 8PM. The program will not guarantee anyone a parking space in front of their house, nor will it allow one to park at a meter without paying. It is the hope of the Ragucci administration that the program will cut down on congestion on city streets by forcing non-residents to find somewhere else to park, as well as getting commercial vehicles off the street. It looks like a good first step!

There maybe a few kinks to work out, but the program seems like a winner, although we would like to see the program enforced 24 hours a day! The City of Everett has become one of the largest and cheapest parking lots in the Commonwealth. A significant number of commuters, particularly from the North Shore, come to Everett to beat the $3 toll on the Tobin Bridge and park on our city streets. They grab a bus on Main Street or Broadway to the train station, and then in a few stops - they’re at work. Meter overtime tickets only cost ten bucks; that’s still twenty dollars cheaper than parking in Boston! There was an effort by Alderman Van Campen to raise the fines - but it was shot down by the Common Council last night (good of them to give out-of-towners a nice break). It’s about time for this sweetheart deal to end!.