FINANCE CONTROL BOARD CHAIR MEETING WITH SCHOOL COMMITTEE, September 7, 2004

Present: Alan LeBovidge, Ken Shea, Jennifer Dugan-Murphy, Tom Ashe, Ann Southworth, Rosemary Shea, Antonette Pepe, Joseph Burke, Connie O’Hare, Marjorie Hurst, Carey Sheehan

[A three item agenda was passed out. Items were:

1. Protocol and Process for Decision-Making

- School Committee decisions—School policies, practices, budget

- When does Control Board review?

2. Putnam High School

- Physical plant issues and their impact on program status

3. Labor Relations/Collective Bargaining Issues]

AL: I went to the Chamber of Commerce this noon, and I was really pushing Putnam.

JB: The CEO at WMECO is a strong proponent of Putnam; she hosted a meeting of CEOs to get help for Putnam.

AP: There has been a lack of leadership and cooperation there.

The School Committee meeting with the general advisory board—things are starting to move.

AL: Inertia, a fog....

AP: It’s been going on for a number of years.

AL: There’s nothing we can do about history. Too many people want to focus on woe-is-me. Never mind about the past!

AP: Let’s change what happened in the past.

AL: [at 1:30] Let’s get started.

Rosemary Shea calls the role.

AL: Mayor Ryan is on vacation.

TA: We hope to clear the air; we developed an agenda to consider some of the big and little issues. The first item is a protocol for decision-making. What limitations will there be on our role on a day-to-day basis?

AL: The Finance Control Board (FCB) has a right to rescind financial decisions. The School Committee has a whole other set of laws that apply. We want a better understanding of what happens in the School Department. Jake Jacobson is interested in this topic, and hopefully, he will be able to work with you guys; you sent a lot of information, and I forwarded it to him. I have a dream that, in the end, the School Committee will say, “By changing the way we do things, we can do better for education or free up money for the general fund.”

In terms of busing, there is transportation, and there is busing. Transportation is getting students to school; busing was put in place for a social agenda, but is that what is needed today? If, for instance, $15million is in the transportation budget, but $5million is for transportation, it would be nice to say “We’re going to relieve the City of $x of transportation costs.

Of all the stakeholders, what can [various] people put into the pot? I put this in my letter. Boston has a whole department to get payments in lieu of taxes from not-for-profits. How high can you drive property taxes? It all sounds good, but can average homeowners carry that? How much is a one-time payment which, having been paid, goes away? Trying to balance and move money around, e.g. back taxes: how much of that can actually be captured? How can we bring the City back to financial health?

Fundamentally, the Mayor and I are in violent agreement; we’re in the same ballpark. Mayor Ryan’s [CVR’s] view is “Let’s go to Beacon Hill and get the money for a range of reasons.” That’s fine. He went there earlier for $20million and came back with a $52million loan. If you want to wait for the legislature, I don’t want to wait for that.

I’m focusing on the School Committee, where are you going? If you could free up money, what would be the best use for it?

TA: The School Committee has acted responsibly.

AL: The only reason I mentioned wages and salaries is that labor-related expenses are the greatest expense the city has. Naturally, you have to look there as part of the solution.

TA: Should we operate as we have been?

AL: You need to keep the FCB involved. We don’t want to rescind.

KS: In a lot of the votes we have to take involve money. Should there be a dollar amount where we should involve you?

AL: On the city side, we get involved after $500,000.

KS: What does involvement mean? We need to keep things moving.

AL: Phil Puccia, who is here 3 or 4 days a week, reviews a list of contracts put together by the Mayor. The Mayor talks to Phil.

JB: The contract for the “relocatables” for the New Leadership Charter School....

AP: $15million on the city side doesn’t come from the state? Why should the School Committee pay? Why isn’t Boston paying?

AL: That was just an example. I did a talk show this morning. I’m not here to lobby the legislature; I can’t solve that problem. The legislature has plenty of mandates. For instance, some people want me to take care of the Quinn bill; I can’t deal with that.

AP: I’m not asking you to lobby. If any money comes from the school department budget, we have places to put it.

AL: I’m clearly in the camp of “you have a lot of deferred maintenance.” It’s no good if the school department survives, and the City crashes and burns. We are searching every nook and cranny for money the City is behind the 8 ball.

MH: There are places where we can change. If we come up with changes, you’ll entertain them?

AL: If tomorrow you say we could free up $x if certain legislation were tweaked...

MH: For example, if we make a cost-savings proposal, you will may also need to spend money here....

AL: I’ve used this with the legislature on the tax side. I asked them to spend $3.6 million for software which has now collected $85million in back taxes.

TA: The consequences of doing nothing at Putnam High School....

AL: Where is that money? Is there still at School Building Commission?

JB: They are charged with oversight of bonding for school building. There is $13million in that account now. [It seems unclear whether or not this is cash.]

CS: The largest is the VanSickle bond.

JB: We need to find out if cash is available. The School Building Commission has authorized funds.

AL: When do you close out projects?

JB: The City holds out to be sure of getting full 90% state reimbursement. We have some accounts open longer than 3 years.

AL: Is this a “kitty?”

CS: Air quality is still an unresolved issue at Sumner Avenue.

AL: Did you sue the contractor?

JB: If money is authorized and bonded for, most judicious use would be to figure out a way to use it as the City share for the Putnam project, thus making the project more feasible.

AL: We’re talking about a total re-do not a fix-up.

JB: Estimates are in the $32 to $34million range. This wouldn’t make the City eligible for state matching funds (88%? 90%?)

AL: Has anyone looked at this from a legal perspective? Can this be legal if people bought bonds for one project, but now we want to use it for another one? Does this building qualify? It’s not on the old list. If not, special legislation is needed to put it there.

JB: We’re still looking into that. The Commissioner of Education is sending me that.

AL: Commissioner Driscoll wondered why Putnam wasn’t on the list.

CS: It would take 18 to 24 months to fast track Putnam.

AL: My concern is this scheme is skirting the rules. Conceptually, it sounds like a great way....

AP: Legislators say they can’t jump Putnam over other schools.

AL: I am told that Senator Melconian put through some special legislation, but we don’t know if it went through.

KS: The FCB can be of assistance, because the Putnam piece, if programs have to come out [of there], it will increase busing costs because students will need to be bused to Chicopee.

JB: As a test, we took 300 students from the programs the state says are in trouble, and it would cost $1million in tuition and $300,000 in transportation.

AL: What would you do with that property?

JB: We’d build on Roosevelt Avenue behind the present facility. The front part could be a park or streetscape. There is lots of property there. The best sequence would involve relocation of Forest Park Middle School students to the existing building for the two years it would take to build a new school there. When they move into the new school, old Putnam could be demolished.

AP: It wouldn’t be a bad idea if Putnam were re-built solely as a vocational facility with the learning center next door at Sci-Tech. That could cut the cost by $30million. We might convince the legislators with this idea.

AL: I can’t believe the legislature would want to go there.

Meeting adjourns at 2:15pm to go into executive session to discuss labor relations/collective bargaining issues.