Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: I saw a movie, Once Upon a Time, a Sleeping Beauty of a new High School waiting...

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    117

    Default I saw a movie, Once Upon a Time, a Sleeping Beauty of a new High School waiting...

    ... waiting upon the Prince’s kiss of deficit funding in some mythical place called Wayland

    I know, Im boring, but could we be serious for a moment. Did you know there’s a vote and Town Meeting this week? The more I post or talk to people, the more I seem to be becoming monothematic. That is, an advocate for just one thing. Seems I think town financial transparency is important. A value-based end in itself, yes, but also as the step needed to get people enough information so that they can see whether Wayland is facing a dismal financial future (my belief) or not. And that as only a step towards making decisions about how to fix the problem. So first financial transparency.

    Since I’m promoting honesty, I feel obliged to tell you that I’m thinking of offering an amendment to Warrant Article #2 (about the new high school). The proposed amendment would require the town (school committee actually) to provide a listing of all monies received and spent on the high school project. Pretty simple, pretty straight forward.

    I have a variety of reasons for thinking that this is a good thing to do. Some “informed” folks I’ve mentioned it to seem to think the school committee will try to defeat this amendment for a couple of different reasons. I’m curious to see how it all goes down.

    (Now Jeff and Kim, I’m counting on you to tell me what’s wrong with this amendment idea.)

    donBustin@verizon.net

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    726

    Default

    Don, I'm not sure that I see anything wrong with expecting the town to provide the financial information you seek regarding the HS project. I suspect it would be done anyway. There may well be reasons it doesn't make sense to amend the article, but I don't know of any.

    Good to hear that you will be able to make Town Meeting, as I had thought you said that you are never able to go. I am glad we can expect to see you there, and I look forward to a chance to meet you!

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    448

    Default

    Don, at last year’s meeting, a motion was made by a resident to look at using free cash to keep Loker open as a last ditch attempt to avoid destroying a vibrant school community which would upend the lives of 350 kids and their families, and the
extreme overcrowding, building code violations, over capacity classrooms, increase in bullying and discipline problems, hour long bus rides, increased pollution, etc., that would result from the school committee’s reconfiguration, which, according to Jeff Dieffenbach was put forth in order to “help pass the override” that year.

    After the motion was made and just a few brief Pros and Cons were voiced, someone stood up and made a motion to curtail any further discussion and go to a vote, in order to move things along.

    I would expect something similar this year.

    Last edited by John Flaherty; 11-16-2009 at 10:59 AM. Reason: To add visual aid and make correction
    John Flaherty

    Any views expressed are NOT mine alone.
    Wayland Transparency - Facts Without Spin
    http://www.waylandtransparency.com/

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    726

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John Flaherty View Post
    Don, at last year’s meeting, a motion was made by a resident to look at using free cash to keep Loker open as a last ditch attempt to avoid destroying a vibrant school community which would upend the lives of 350 kids and their families, and the
extreme overcrowding, building code violations, over capacity classrooms, increase in bullying and discipline problems, hour long bus rides, increased pollution, etc., that would result from the school committee’s reconfiguration, which, according to Jeff Dieffenbach was put forth in order to “help pass the override” that year.

    After the motion was made and just a few brief Pros and Cons were voiced, Kim stood up and made a motion to curtail any further discussion and go to a vote, in order to move things along.
    That, Mr. Flaherty is a bold-faced... untruth. To use a kind word for it. I spent that Town Meeting sitting among a group of Loker parents, and I voted with them on that amendment. I absolutely did not move the question on that amendment.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    726

    Default

    I would like to refer readers to this document:

    Wayland Town Report 2008.

    See the following from the page which is numbered 109 (which is 113 of the PDF):

    AMENDMENT TO MOTION NO. 1: Paul Grasso moved and was duly seconded that line Item 44 on Page 35 of the Warrant be amended by adding the sum of $439,000.00 to the school budget to keep Loker a full K-5 school for the academic year 2008-2009 and that the sum be provided from Free Cash.

    MOTION TO TERMINATE DEBATE: Perry Smoot moved and was duly seconded to move the question.

    Further, I would like to note that moving to terminate debate on an item does not mean that you are against that particular item. I note that I voted to terminate debate (a motion which carried unanimously) on the Community Pool article, for example, which I wholeheartedly support. Further, my inclusion of the note above is in no way intended to make any sort of negative comment about Mr. Smoot, whose position on the amendment and whose reason for moving the question at that particular time I do not know.
    Last edited by Kim Reichelt; 11-16-2009 at 03:20 PM. Reason: to add to the final point

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    448

    Default

    Kim,

    You're right.
    I was wrong. I'm sorry. I made a "bold-faced" mistake, and have changed my original post to remove your name and simply say that "someone" curtailed the discussion.

    I was confused about which motion you curtailed.


    The point of the rest of my post remains unchanged.
    Last edited by John Flaherty; 11-16-2009 at 11:12 AM.
    John Flaherty

    Any views expressed are NOT mine alone.
    Wayland Transparency - Facts Without Spin
    http://www.waylandtransparency.com/

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Wayland MA
    Posts
    1,431

    Default

    Fortunately, John, your original post remains in this thread--I know that it's important to you that errors not be retracted.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    448

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Dieffenbach View Post
    Fortunately, John, your original post remains in this thread--I know that it's important to you that errors not be retracted.
    Jeff, you might need to hit your "Refresh" button.
    I corrected my post before I added the apology post.

    .
    John Flaherty

    Any views expressed are NOT mine alone.
    Wayland Transparency - Facts Without Spin
    http://www.waylandtransparency.com/

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Wayland MA
    Posts
    1,431

    Default

    John, see post 4.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    726

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John Flaherty View Post
    Kim,

    You're right.
    I was wrong. I'm sorry. I made a "bold-faced" mistake, and have changed my original post to remove your name and simply say that "someone" curtailed the discussion.

    I was confused about which motion you curtailed.
    Thanks for the apology, which I appreciate.

    I would appreciate, however, since I seem to recall that this same exact accusation has been made before, that people make a little more effort to check the facts - feel free to even ask me - if you have any doubt at all.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •