After more than an hour of debate at Town Meeting, the proposed Proposition 2½ override of $107,000 to subsidize user fees for athletics at Bromfield was defeated by majority vote. It was also defeated by voters at the polls Tuesday, by a vote of 834 to 305.
At issue in Article 30 was the high cost of user fees for school athletics at the Bromfield School—for example, $425 for basketball and $350 for soccer—all paid by students’ families. The article proposed to supplement family-paid fees with $107,000 raised by way of a Proposition 2½ override, a measure that would permanently add that amount to the town’s levy limit.
Jim O’Shea, Bromfield principal and co-chairman of the Bromfield School Council, which sponsored the article, spoke in favor of the measure at Town Meeting, saying that athletics are “an integral part of a public education, allowing students to celebrate successes, and learn leadership and teamwork.” He added that passing the article would help share the costs of these programs across the community and take significant economic pressure off families.
Terri Neville of Littleton County Road, who said she was speaking on behalf of friends unable to remain at the meeting, objected to the override, stating that her friends, parents of six children between the ages of 5 and 16, only paid for the sports they could afford on their family budget and were “against the redistribution of wealth.” Neville then asked “Why hasn’t the School Council looked into fundraising activities? Why can’t expenses be lower … as opposed to an override?”
O’Shea responded that, by not supporting the override, the town would be asking for families to pay up to $600 per student to participate in sports. He added that the school budget is a “very tight ship. There’s not a lot of waste and [there are] very expensive costs, such as the cost of buses.” He said that students “run programs all the time to raise funds,” but said they can’t reach the level of funding required to support the programs.
Billy Salter of Elm Street pointed out that the article, the only Proposition 2½ override in the warrant, reduces costs “for a small, defined subgroup in town.”
Steve Rowse Old Littleton Road supported the override, and argued that if the motion did not pass, the School Committee should make all extracurricular activities family-funded. Other residents agreed, offering as an example that costs for the drama program—which include thousands of dollars for fees for scripts and the use of the school auditorium for plays—are built into the school budget.
Paul Green of Old Littleton Road said that he fully supported the article, arguing that athletics teaches teamwork, leadership, and gives self-confidence. “Also,” he said, “… public education is not free, it’s cost-shifted across generations.” He added, “This [article] is in my own self-interest. The value of my property is dependent on the actual and perceived value of a good school system.”
Debbie Ricci of East Bare Hill Road agreed that fees are too high and should be capped, and said further that the School Committee should have been putting funds aside to support athletics, “if only $25,000 a year.” Ricci then proposed an amendment to reduce the amount of the override from $107,000 to $50,000. The amendment was not accepted by the committee and was voted down.
Susie Macrae of Oak Hill Road commented, “We need to focus on ‘what is public education.’ We all grew up with sports being part of our public education and we don’t want to lose that.”
