I address Steve Glovsky's campaign ugliness elsewhere: the purpose of this thread is the easy rebutting of his fact-averse Town Crier candidate announcement.

Quote Originally Posted by Steve Glovsky
Budget cuts that we were told just last year would devastate our school system and require massive layoffs and program cuts, we are now told can be absorbed with just a few nonessential, administrative cuts. These same cuts made last year could have avoided the premature closing of Loker School and the imposition of another override. Why should we believe that we haven’t been similarly misled year after year?
Mr. Glovsky's math is off. This year's cuts, made in response to late notice of a State Aid reduction, total on the order of $180,000, less than half of the initially estimated $400,000 in elementary school reconfiguration savings, and about one third of the current estimate of $550,000.

Moreover, this year's cut list includes the removal of two positions who work directly with students, one through retirement and the other made possible by next year's enrollment decline at the Middle School.

Quote Originally Posted by Steve Glovsky
And this year in the midst of our obvious economic troubles, it is unbelievable that we are being asked to approve spending nearly $1 million for planning to support an application for future state assistance to construct a new high school. Money merely for an application, not for a new high school.
Mr. Glovsky gets his facts wrong here, twice.

While the Debt Exclusion gross amount is $726,000, the net borrowing that is being asked of Wayland residents is $315,600 as the result of the state's 40% reimbursement. (Note that the 40% is applied not only to this $726,000 amount, but also a prior $300,000 amount approved by the Town.)

The current request isn't for an "application fee," it's to cover the cost of conducting a feasibility study and developing a schematic design, as mandated by the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) who will be supplying the 40% reimbursement.

Quote Originally Posted by Steve Glovsky
Assuming the state will someday have money available for such assistance, we are only one among nearly 25 percent of all Massachusetts cities and towns approved to just ask for it. And even that approval to ask is now a few years old; no doubt by the time any money is actually available there will be more communities approved to ask for it.
The state money is available today, and the state's approval isn't "a few years old"--it's current, as evidenced by their producing THIS YEAR a target enrollment number of 900. I don't understand Mr. Glovsky's "25 percent" statement--the fact is that Wayland was one of only 19 communities whose application was accepted by the MSBA to proceed to the next phase of the reimbursement process. The real question is what funds the state will have, if any, if we fail to act now.

The much-needed work at the High School isn't going away if we don't approve the Debt Exclusion. The only thing that might go away is the reimbursement, leaving Wayland to fund expensive repairs without any state assistance, resulting in an expense that might be the same as or greater than what we'd spend with reimbursement, but with far less of a facility to result.

Quote Originally Posted by Steve Glovsky
Can we really believe that "Wealthy Wayland" with its unblemished history of override passage will be favored with state assistance from a limited fund?
The MSBA has made it explicitly clear that town wealth does NOT factor into their reimbursement process.

Our School Committee members, dominated by the influence of those most ardently pushing for a new high school, no doubt realize Wayland will, in all practicality, never see state assistance, but they sense the more we spend in planning the easier it will be to get town approval for local funding, saying "after all, look at what we’ve already spent."
The process is different this time around: Wayland won't be spending money without the guarantee of state reimbursement. And I have never heard any town official cite past spending as a reason to continue.

Meanwhile, the roof of our existing high school leaks for lack of funds to repair it.
The School Committee appreciates both the perception and reality of spending funds on the current facility while asking for approval to proceed on the next steps toward a new facility. Our actions and intent have been to spend as little as possible on anything other than safety-related issues.

Quote Originally Posted by Steve Glovsky
The watchword of government today is transparency. It is clear our school budget has been and remains anything but transparent.
This is a ludicrous statement. One need only visit the Wayland School Committee (bottom of the "What's New" section) and Wayland Public Schools Web sites to find this budget information.

Quote Originally Posted by Steve Glovsky
In article after article, our superintendent of schools, in patronizing tones, tells us – not asks us – to trust him to know what the citizens of Wayland want from our schools and to leave it to his financial judgment to determine what providing it takes.
What an odd assertion, given that the Superintendent ends every column with the question, "Do you agree? I'd really like to know."

For a more detailed look into Mr. Glovsky's platform, I invite readers to view his WaylandeNews.com Q&A response.

In question 5, he writes, "We should pay what it takes to have the best educated and skilled teachers available." In question 8, he contradicts himself, writing "Wayland's schools are highly regarded for our MCAS results and our Special Needs funding and services. MCAS results have a far higher correlation to the make-up of the residents in a community than to per capita expense or facilities. Unless we reduce our property taxes, our MCAS results will decline with our property values."

I have no clue what he is saying about the correlation between MCAS results and "the make-up of residents in a community," but it sounds ugly to me. How he proposes to maintain MCAS scores (and teacher salaries) while reducing property taxes is a mystery to me.

I'll give Mr. Glovsky one nod, however: he at least elected to respond to the fair and thoughtful WaylandeNews.com survey, unlike two of the other candidates. Malcom Astley, Mr. Glovsky, and I were all able to provide detailed answers in the flexbile WaylandeNews format; for some inexplicable reason, Jeff Baron and Paul Grasso weren't able to navigate that straightforward task, providing instead a "spin" that surprisingly hasn't raised John Flaherty's ire.