from a B-R School Comm. member
September 24, 2006
Bridgewater
Raynham
Easton
East Bridgewater
West Bridgewater
Massachusetts
Legislation & Politics
USA
Legislation & Politics
World
Education
Bridgewater-Raynham Schools
Massachusetts
USA
Archives (past stories)
Opinion/Analysis
Joseph Gillis Jr.
You can do something!
1. B-R School Comm. passed an Article at our August Meeting, moving forward with plans for $1.9M in additional work for the new Regional High School.
2. Raynham requested that we keep language vague (no mention of funding, as in a Prop 2 1/2 over-ride) as it should be up to each Town to put forth how each wishes to fund. B-R concurred that this was reasonable, as we did not want to tell another elected body how to manage its business.
3. Because of a requirement that the Article be acted upon within 60 days, if a Town wishes to decline the Article, B-R rescinded its August vote and re-vote the Article on Sept 13th. This essentially allowed each community to call for Town Meeting votes and possible ballot question at already scheduled Fall Town Meeting and State Election Day in November.
4. Raynham BOS has put forward the issue for their November Fall Town Meeting.
5. This is my understanding here --- > Bridgewater BOS was concerned about B-R moving forward with the work without the BOS being able to determine the funding mechanism. That is why B-R gave its word that we would follow the intent of the BOS as far as going to Town Meeting and having a ballot question. The B-R School Comm. did not believe it was their place to stipulate funding mechanisms. So, some of the comments early in the BOS Meeting about following the intent of the BOS is based on this - saying that we would follow their direction in handling this through Prop 2 1/2 debt exclusion votes.
6. The Bridgewater BOS voted unanimously to call a Special Town Meeting on October 5th. The Article for Town Meeting is as follows:
To see whether or not the Town will vote to approve the $1,965,000.00 borrowing authorized by vote of the Bridgewater-Raynham Regional School District on September 13, 2006, for the purpose of paying additional costs of constructing, originally equipping and furnishing a new District High School, which approval shall be contingent upon both the approval of these additional expenditures, as reimbursable, by the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) and a vote of the Town to exclude the amounts required to repay the Town’s share of any such debt from the limitations of Chapter 59, Section 21C of the General Laws, or to take any other action relative thereto.
I do not have the exact wording B-R submitted to the Towns, but the underlined section was not part of the orginal B-R Article.
7. The Bridgewater BOS then did not have a successful vote to call for a ballot vote on a Prop 2 1/2 (Chapter 59, 21C in Article). Therefore, no ballot vote is scheduled.
So, an over-ride is only possible when both acts happen - TM vote and ballot vote. For those who have been around Bridgewater awhile, I seem to recall them in reverse order once; although normally TM and then ballot.
What all this means now is unknown. While I have not seen the agenda for this week's B-R School Comm. Meeting, I would guess that this will be a topic of discussion. Perhaps even with some updates from legal and state sources on next steps because of the oddity of only one vote scheduled.
Another interesting point about the HS project. It was approved at TM for $76.5M but defeated at the ballot. The project got a a discussion point of $71M, but through some individuals was finally settled on $69.1M - based on feedback from many, but without any votes that I can recall. This $69.1M then passed TM and ballot. So, in the interest of accuracy, the voters (townspeople) never voiced an opinion on a $71M project. The project went from $76.5M by $71M to $69.1M based on the work of then Supt Gerhart and others. I can understand concerns about the cost of the project, and taking multiple tries at funding, but in this case I do not believe that the Town ever voted on $71M.
I did not support the $76M or $69M - a shock to most reading this - but I just do not recall a step at $71M. So, that mutes to a degree the argument of a 'back-door' mechanism to have the project accepted at $69.1M + $1.965M now.
Lastly, the two Selectmen - Lawton and Oliari - have every right to voice their concerns. In fact, as duly elected leaders it is their responsibility. One thing I have learned about the process of making decisions as an elected representative is that sometimes the decisions are hard. There are competing interests to the issue, and you utilize a set of guidelines to help make the decision. Nothing good comes from knee-jerk reactions of anger towards these two elected officials. Marybeth Lawton's term is up in April - and this will probably be a point of discussion should she run again. Mark Oliari has another year even after that.
So, heated rhetoric and name-calling will not accomplish much. Been there, done that, lived through it. Not happy with a vote, regroup and rethink the issue. Being angry with the person who cast a vote is probably not an effective way to convince them of your message. Especially if you are hoping to get them to change a position on a vote.
