In an apparent struggle between the Capital Planning and Investment Committee (CPIC) and the Municipal Buildings Committee (MBC), the School Committee decided to remain neutral, at least for now. Despite a request from CPIC that they take a stand, School Committee members concluded that—while they all had views as private citizens—they would not take an official position as to which of two versions of the proposed Warrant Article 18 was preferable.
Both versions of Warrant Article 18 (proposed as of Monday)call for capital funds to develop schematic plans for the renovation of Town Hall and for a senior center. One version, submitted by the MBC, specifies that the Hildreth House will “continue as the center for senior life.” The other version of the article speaks only of “a facility for the Council on Aging” (COA), and does not specify a location. (According to a document at the meeting, that version was inserted by the CPIC; however, Selectwoman Marie Sobalvarro said during the public comment period that it was written by Town Administrator Tim Bragan.)
This issue drew almost all of the public comment at the meeting. Lucy Wallace, a member of the COA and the MBC, as well as a former selectwoman, asked the School Committee, “Are you looking at all the capital articles and taking a position on them now, like the Fire Department and the DPW garage? Why are you looking at the MBC one?”
Wallace noted that, while she had served on a number of town boards, “I don’t recall any board taking a position on a potential warrant article before the selectmen have voted the warrant. … The Council on Aging does not take positions on School Committee articles.”
Carlene Phillips, also a member of the COA, called the matter “a question of boundaries.” “It is taking away the townspeople’s right to make a decision,” she asserted. “I’m really concerned about the behind-the-scenes manipulation to change the [MBC] recommendation, insert another one, and involve boards that have no direct connection to it.”
In response to the public interest, Cheveralls moved the discussion of Article 18 to an earlier position on the evening’s agenda.
In answer to questions about why the School Committee was considering the issue, Cheveralls said, “There’s nothing ulterior or clandestine about it. It was [because of] my conversation with the chair of the Capital Planning and Investment Committee, George McKenna.” Noting that the schools will be “competing head-to-head for scarce capital resources” with other town departments over the next five years, Cheveralls concluded, “I truly believe the School Committee does need to look at this.” He then called on other committee members to say whether they thought the group should take a position.
Member Kirsten Wright responded that she found the MBC proposal exciting, but did not feel that she knew enough about the financial aspects to vote on it yet. “I think it is an individual decision, ultimately,” she stated.
Patricia Wenger, speaking next, said, “I’m not comfortable making that decision tonight, but I would like to revisit it.”
Virginia Justicz asserted, “We are not a direct stakeholder here. … We will always have this balancing of resources, but I don’t think it is incumbent on the School Committee to opine on whether the DPW should get a truck or what we are allocating to roads or fire equipment.”
Piali De agreed, saying, “I asked myself, what do the schools have to do with this? I don’t see us as a stakeholder in this … If it came to a vote, I was going to abstain.”
Cheveralls stated that he has given an open invitation to the MBC to make a presentation to the School Committee.
