Is our children learning?

No disrespect intended, but I gotta share this with y'all.

It's hard not to notice the Kelleher signs parked around town. They are enormous, and simple in their message. Actually, eloquent in their simplicity.

The other day we drove past one parked at the end of Green Street, and one of my kids read the sign "Kelleher At Large", and asked if that meant he had escaped from prison, because he was "at large." I'd never thought of it that way. We explained the intent of the sign to the child, which resulted in an Emily Litella "never mind."

You can't make this stuff up.

Frankly, I kinda like the signs. They are bold, emphatic statements. But once your kid tells you what they think the sign means, and you have to explain it to them so that Mr. Kelleher isn't misunderstood, they lose a little luster.

It's Over the Rainbow, searching for that pot of gold

Summary Paragraph: In which Menin muses about Halloween on Lime Street, and matters municipal.

Although Lime Street has, for years, been the place to be on Halloween, we might have slipped slightly as Marlboro Street drew Harry Potter fans from across the City with what I hear was an astonishing recreation of scenes and characters from the series of Potter books and movies.

Our next door neighbors, the Lofaro's, have put on a haunted house for going on 20 years now. Their vestibule is black-lit, and they dress up; the house is draped with Mummies and coffins, and many RIP tombstones (thankfully, they removed my Menin for School Committee scene so it wouldn't languish amidst the headstones- it will be back tomorrow).

The last three years, we've averaged about 450 trick or treaters; tonight, I lost count after 480- they came in waves. We see a lot of neighbors; and a lot of people who don't live here, as well. Families from Salisbury, Seabrook, Haverhill, Boxford, West Newbury ring the doorbells and shout "trick or treat". It is really wonderful, in a way- to have our neighborhood be a destination for families that want their kids to trick or treat safely, in a place where they are welcomed.

There was a very heavy police presence along Lime Street tonight. I spent some time talking with a cop I've known for years, some about the GIC, some about other things. Although I am deeply disappointed about the decision not to go with GIC, I can appreciate the point that it was a lot to ask and a short time to consider it. I think that happened partially by legislative design, ("see, they never really wanted it anyway"); enacting legislation in July, promulgating regulations in August, and closing the door (originally) on September 30, with a 30 day notice to required to pull together a meeting of union reps to discuss the issue. But until I am convinced otherwise by getting direct answers to the questions I raised in my previous post, something that was noticeably absent from the Daily New Article today, I have to question how it was handled once the City was responsible for getting it done.

But the conversation with the cop was also very interesting in another way, and confirmed much of what I have been saying in this campaign. You cannot deal with the school funding crisis in isolation; you must deal with the entire way the City, the municipality, does it's business. Opportunities to get the kind of efficiencies and savings from other Department budgets that we have gotten from the schools exist, and in some cases are obvious; what we lack is the political will and leadership to get it done.

The municipal budgeting process needs greater transparency; at least as much as the School Department has created in it's own process. Significant cuts, hundreds of thousands of dollars in savings, can be made; if leaders will lead and the people make their views known.

Ironically, it has been the School Department, and the School Committee that has set the bar for extracting efficiencies and making the decisions that require will and strength.

After the election, maybe, somehow, we can create a comunity dialogue about the municipal financial crisis we face, collectively. Bring together Department heads, talk about what is best for the City, and make some of those hard decisions, particularly on the City side.

One can always hope. In fact, it may be our last best hope of stopping the hemorrhaging.
The great storm may not be over, but it is breaking, and we'd best be ready for a new way to approach the issue of sustaining Newburyport as a place for seniors, businesses, industries, tourists, and students.

It is a time for leaders, for listeners, for simple and eloquent discussions of budgets, of who we have become, and what we want to be. Leaders who tell you they are leaders often aren't; real leaders will have accomplishments that have brought people into common agreement. Choose people at the voting booth who have lead by example; have taken unpopular stands and have been able to articulate why; play a few hunches, like Kathleen O'Connor Ives.

And be ready to become part of the great dialogue that will set Newburyport on it's course for the next fifty years. That is what this election is about, nothing less.

Well, you can kiss that money goodbye...

Summary paragraph: In which Menin laments that one of the quickest fixes to the cash crisis affecting the Newburyport Schools in 2008-2009, the possibility of the City employees joining the GIC, the state umbrella insurance policy, was voted down by some of the unions. The estimated reductions in City expenses had the unions agreed to the change were between $300,000 and $800,000, according to estimates he had seen.

This isn't an anti-union rant. Let me establish that from the beginning. In fact, in my life, I have been a dues-paying member of two different unions, the New York State United Teachers, and the Communications Workers of America. My cousin served as Union Vice President under Albert Shanker. As a matter of fact, I was out on strike for seven weeks in the coldest winter in Buffalo history, 1977, when the wind chill while we walked the line was -64 degrees. Altough I am and have been perfectly comfortable negotiating a contract as part of management, I suspect that I'm the only person in the School Committee race who has actually been both a union member and been seated at the management side of the table.

For an immediate, desperately needed source of revenue, it was absolutely critical that the adoption, facilitated by the Mayor, of the GIC happen. In order to make that happen, the Mayor needed to post a meeting of all (7) of the unions that bargain with the City, giving them 30 days notice. Even with the extension of 29 days granted by the legislature, this meeting, which was to be called a Public Employees Council, we still needed waivers from each union to meet without 30 days notice. Although some of the unions refused to show up at the first meeting, a meeting was finally arranged after some of the unions begrudgingly filed waivers, artificially reducing the time left to cut the deal.

The next step was reviewing the available options under GIC, and then to vote on whether to enter the program. Each union was given a weighted vote, depending on their total membership; by my calculations, the teachers union represented around 55-60% of the vote, AFSCME represented somewhere around 35% of the vote, and the rest were divided between the two police unions, the fire department, retirees and the Teamsters (I think those were the seven at the table).

The threshold for approval was 70% of the vote. Do the numbers. They were eminently reachable through a number of combinations.

I have received an e-mail from the Mayor's office in the last half hour stating that the PEC voted not to go into the GIC program this year, but explore the possibility of joining in 2010.

I am disappointed, but not as disappointed as I am angry. Very angry.

Not the senseless, directed in every direction sort of angry, More the focused, disgusted, appalled kind of angry.

Knowing that we are facing a year as bad as last year, and knowing that we have already turned down an override, I would like to have a series of questions answered.

• I would like an exact timetable of the actions taken by the Mayor to move this idea forward since August 30, 2007.
• I would like to know exactly which unions attended and which didn't attend the first meeting of the PEC convened by the Mayor, apparently held sometime in September (this was before we knew about the October 29 extension).
• I would like to know the exact dates the waivers arrived from the unions into the Mayor's office.
• I would like to know how many PEC meetings were held, when they were and when the vote was actually taken.
• I want to know which unions voted for, and which against entering GIC; if it was unanimous, what their issues were. Given the difficulty framing a short window for entry into the program (legislation passed in July, guidelines available in August, window originally closing September 30) I'm willing to give everybody the summer off- but I want a public accounting of sequence of events from September 1 to October 30. Who called what meetings, who showed, and when was the no go decision made.
• For those unions who voted no, I would like to know within a half percentage point the number of members who are residents of Newburyport. I want to know the percentage of people each union represents who are actually residents of this City. Not to put too fine a point on it, but one could draw a conclusion that a union representing a considerable number of people who live outside of the City they serve might be less inclined to respond to the financial reality facing the city, the kids and the schools ("give a damn").

Somehow, somewhere, the kids of Newburyport just got royally screwed. I want to understand the exact circumstances of that sequence of events; more than that, I want to understand, really
understand the underlying principles, or lack thereof, that drove the unions to make the choice they did. I'm not looking for an argument, or a scapegoat; I genuinely want to understand what
the issues were that took a greater priority at that table than the needs of the schools, which have laid off or attritted in the range 60 FTE's in five years.

I don't expect we'll get answers to those questions until I raise them on the floor of the School Committee, or as a part of the Revenue Task Force; and doubt we'll get answers even then. You should know that the Task Force has as of three weeks ago sent a strong recommendation to the Mayor to make this happen. It didn't, and whether that was through the Mayor's action or inaction, the caution or intransigence of the unions at the table, this community deserves answers.

The community deserves answers. The unwillingness, or distrust, or misunderstanding of the PEC, and their failure to adopt a quick-fix solution to a crisis we have been facing for several years needs to be explained to the community. It's not like the GIC offered anything less than are getting now in benefits; it just offered a windfall savings that would have been available to save further cuts of teacher jobs, class size increases, and the introduction of support services to students to keep us competitive.

Communication and the Community

Summary paragraph: In which Menin recognizes that the School Committee needs to improve how it communicates with the community, and steps taken to improve that problem.

One of my favorite lyrics comes from a Greg Brown tune, and it goes something like this "...Dream on little dreamer, dream on; the world isn't what you think it is, it's what it is..."

After I was first elected to the School Committee, during one of the many meetings I attended before the inauguration, I had a chance to watch the SC evaluate itself. When it came to the self evaluation question about communication, as I recall, there was only one tangible, measurable goal: Did we get the newsletters out in a timely fashion?

I realize that newsletters are important; I've heard them extolled as a critical factor in the passing of the High School debt exclusion, the second time. As far as I'm concerned the jury is out on that; they were important, absolutely, but more important was choice to disengage and simplify the debt exclusion question itself- the first package had everything in it from the library to DPW trucks to the High School

Once they were teased out into two separate campaigns, they passed handily on their own merits.

Keep in mind that sitting on the SC at that time were two people who were professionals in communications. As a matter of fact, the first Committee Nick deKanter and I served on together, sometime in the mid-to-late 90's, was a Task Force convened to help the School Committee better communicate with the community.

It has been a longstanding problem.

Some of it is represents last remaining shreds of the old Empire. There was a natural bent towards withholding information, an almost pathological obsession for Superintendents and School Committees to take aim at their own feet and blast away. Secrecy, withholding all the information needed for informed votes, were pretty much par for the course.

During several of the years I served on the School Committee, we engaged administrators who were allergic to bad news.

Another aspect of the difficulty in transmitting information to the community is that aside from newsletters, community access television has been a non-starter for the better part of two years. Local radio is virtually gone; most of what we now hear on local radio stations is piped in from somewhere else.

The third, and perhaps most critical element in communicating is that we deal every day in the schools with education issues that cannot be reduced to pithy, third grade level sound-bites. The issues are complex, involve many variables, and our culture has succeeded in reducing our attention span to within the diagnostic range for Attention Deficit Disorder. Some of the people entrusted to report for local papers don't know the issues, and work with editors who need to cram every story into a five word headline, regardless of the nuance and complexity.

Few voices in the local coverage are sympathetic to understanding the issues. Few outlets exist beyond the traditional to get the "gospel" to people-- newsletters, letters home; mostly targeting constituencies who already have a stake in the schools.

We have tried doing regular outreach to residents who consider themselves outside our constituency base, lunch meetings, presentations, etc. Although it is difficult to gauge the success of this, it can be done more often and more effectively. Better yet, we should find ways to open the school facilities to make them more hospitable to these people- Saturday afternoon classic movies, or teas hosted by different classes. How about using the computer labs and volunteer students after school to offer seniors an orientation to the internet?

There have been significant improvements made to our website, with the focus on making more information accessible, and using it as a means of gathering feedback from the community as a way of informing decisions we are researching between meetings.

We have extended the maximum flexibility possible into our open meetings, allowing for public comment, public conversation, and a suspension of the rules to have members of the public comment on issues as they are being brought to the vote. At the same time, having all of the information we need now to make informed decisions, we are doing a lot more due diligence, and are a lot more deliberative-- which for many, translates to interminable boredom. Having experienced the good old days, when decision-making was a formality and an end-run around deliberation, I'll take boring.

Other suggestions we have considered and implemented over time include a rolling series of forums, presented around the Wards; holding a School Committee meeting outside of the Schools once a quarter, working with Ward Councilors and PTO's to make Administrative staff and School Committee members available to meet on a more regular basis with both groups.

We have also had small group conversations with City Council members, to help them understand how we will be projecting budgets and forecasting expenses.

We have very far to go. We have come very far; none of us feel like the message is sharp, consistent, and strong enough to break through to the community, yet.

But we'll get there.

Big Beantown Baseball News!

Alex Rodriguez opts out of Yankee contract!

And Sox win World Series; MVP is 3rd Baseman Mike Lowell.

So, A-Rod, see you in Chicago, kid. You can help them not win a World Series for another ten years.

Education Innovation-- as inevitable as it is frightening

Summary paragraph: In which Menin tries to calm the roiling sea by advocating we all learn to tread water and have faith.

On some level, education is subject to the same fluctuation of focus and style as any element of American culture. New Math, phonics, basic literacy, multi-curricular approach; multiple intelligences, the list is endless.

Although this can be confusing and annoying ("what's the flavor this week?"), take solace in at least two things. All of these ideas and new approaches are backed by scads of research that show with whom they work and why. And the second thing is that if they don't work, there's still scads of research and some very concerned companies that will try very hard to figure out where they've screwed up.

In Newburport, however we have a special line of defense. Kevin Lyons. Angela Bik. And a cadre of teachers, newly inspired and becoming genuine, collaborative partners in academic progress and student achievement.

Lyons has already demonstrated that he is a consummate academic. I've never met anyone in thirty years with a sharper, keener ability to walk into a classroom, observe for thirty minutes, and walk away with a clear understanding of what is going right, what needs to change, and the best way to approach it.

If you have grown to appreciate Dr. Lyons as a transparent, straightforward advocate for the students; he has become much than that for the School Committee and School faculty. A quick case in point.

Last year, when the 3rd grade math MCAS scores were disappointing, he had the opportunity during a full day of inservices with teachers to discuss the issue. To summarize, he told the teachers that he had spent enough time observing them teach to believe this was not an issue of teacher competency- he was not scapegoating them. He told them he thought it was what we were teaching, or how we were teaching it. And rather than prescribe solutions, and he had some ideas, he asked the teachers themselves to form a study group and analyze every response by a Newburyport student to every 3rd grade math MCAS questions, draw some conclusions, and recommend some interventions.

So teachers from the Bres took on the job. After a great deal of analysis, they came to a very suprising conclusion, a conclusion that Lyons might have come to but any other Administrator likely would have missed. A conclusion that became evident to the teachers who took the time to deconstruct the answers.

It wasn't the operational math the kids were stuggling with.

It was literacy. We were teaching plussing and minusing; the test wanted them to do addition and subtraction. Literacy, which Kevin Lyons had identified as a critical need, I suspect, during the interview process. The teachers recommended a series of assessments given periodically in the MCAS format, and some changes to the language of math. We are seeing the benefit of those changes.

By empowering teachers to find solutions to questions like what and how, as opposed to why and why not, Dr. Lyons showed faith in the faculty and their competence.

Personally, after five years of happy talk, and pay no attention to that man behind the curtain, and nothing to see here folks, just keep moving, it was refreshing.

My final point is this, which I will repeat endlessly until election day. Yes, we are in crisis. We don't have any money to correct substantial problems with our curriculum and approach to education; we have been in academic hibernation for many years.

But if we can work out the money problems, and I believe that a package of options can ease the pressure now and in the long term, then we have a once-in lifetime chance to completely reshape our entire approach to the educational process, structurally, socially, and collaboratively.

Nothing is off the table. Longer schools days, allowing for more time on learning. Perhaps exploring a different school year schedule; the opportunity to run some credit-bearing programs (from PE to sailing, community service, ecology to engineering) in the summer, perhaps in collaboration with other local schools and colleges. There is no end to the creative collaborations with people in the community that could be attempted.

Nothing is off the table, folks.
All you need is leadership. We've got that.
Collaboration. We have teachers feeling valued and respected by their administrators, we have, quietly, built understanding and bridges with the City Council since the Override.
And, all we need now is faith. After six years on the School Committee, I haven't lost mine; we'll solve the cash problem, we'll run even more efficiently, and we will be creative. 2-4 years from now, we will have the system Lyons envisions, and the students deserve.

I believe that more than anything.
Funny. I am more jazzed about being part of this new era that I was for either two previous runs. The system is close enough to turning things around that I can taste it.

Rudy, Rudy, Rudy...

Summary paragraph: a political venting of the spleen about a fellow New Yorker with the lowest ethical standard north of Tail-Gunner Joe McCarthy running for the highest office in the land. Feel free to skip this post if you have a weak stomach or are under the care of a physician.

In one of my rare forays into national politics on this blog, I felt compelled early on to share some vitriolic, visceral thoughts about the one candidate running for President who I feel is demonstrably, ethically, and pathologically unfit to lead the United States. That candidate was, is, and will always be Rudy Giuliani.

Now, to be perfectly honest, I have no horse in the Presidential race yet. Nor does it really matter to anyone. My comments about Mayor Giuliani are being provided as a public service, akin to alerting people in an apartment building about a fire, or posting signs alerting people about thin ice. It is my opinion that if you stuck a pin in Rudy's ass, after an astonishing rush of helium, you would be left with an eleven year old snot-nosed bully, who steals lunch money from other kids. Just my opinion.

And he makes pandering into a science that is tangible, visible and measurable.

Don't take word for it. Check it yourself.

Today, from a New York newspaper:

"Last July, The Providence Journal asked the former mayor this fateful question: If the Devil said you can be President if you become a Red Sox fan, would you do it?

"I'm a Yankee fan," Giuliani replied then. "I always believe it's a sign of my being straight with people, about not wanting to fool them, that I was one of the first mayors to be willing to say I was a Yankee fan."

He went on to say he had "great respect" for true Red Sox fans, but as for becoming a Red Sox cheerleader in a Devil's bargain, "Probably that's a deal I could not make," he said."

And today?

Yankee Fan Giuliani Backing Red Sox

Published: October 23, 2007, Associated Press

Filed at 7:33 p.m. ET

BOSTON (AP) -- Sounds like a baseball flip-flop. Rudy Giuliani, a lifelong New York Yankees fan, said Tuesday he's pulling for their most hated rivals, the Boston Red Sox, to win the World Series over the Colorado Rockies.

''I'm rooting for the Red Sox,'' the Republican presidential contender said in response to a question, sparking applause at the Boston restaurant where he was picking up a local endorsement.

You can't make this stuff up.


Hey, all you Newburyporters who watched TV in the 60's and 70's! Remember Flip Wilson?

"The DEVIL made me do it."

It comes down to this, really. Do you trust a Yankees fan to be President of the United States? I fully recognize that this particular line in the sand would affect people from both sides of the party equation.


Personally, I wouldn't.

Y'all can make up your own minds. I'd offer my encapsulation of the classic Reagan line, "my mind is made up, so don't try to confuse me with facts," but it isn't even appropriate when it comes to Rudy. There aren't any facts there. Nada, zilch. Rudy has been spinning the truth so long, he can no longer distinguish when the truth ends and his imagination begins.

I now return you the Newburyport Schools blog, which hopefully has much more relevance to your daily life than this rant.

A Few More Thoughts For The Mother's Club

Summary paragraph: In which Menin takes advantage of being a blogmeister to clarify his remarks of last night, at the Forum.

First, let me say what I didn't say, and that is thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to all of you.

I didn't start off by describing myself and my background, for two reasons. The first is the gift and curse of incumbency; the second is that I wanted to get straight to some key points. So...

• Six years ago, I ran a campaign against the School Committee. I truly believed, and still do, that they were bright and committed people, with a wide array of skills. But they didn't know squatty-roo about what it takes to promote and sustain student achievement. They were builders, bricks and mortar folks, and there were none better. They promoted a Superintendent from within, 8 months before she would officially start, because they would not take the risk of the incoming majority finding a new Superintendent. They had issues with... let's say they had a familiarity with the use of control as path to getting what you want.
  

• I was the first teacher to sit on the School Committee in a long time. In addition to being licensed to teach K-8 and Special Needs in two states, I have also taken Montessori training in teaching 6-9 year olds, and 9-12 year olds. I also had experience running two non-profits over a period of 13 years, one I took over with a $5,000 debt (on a payday, which I made up out of my own pocket, until I could get the books straightened out). When I left the agency as part of a merger, the budget was $1,500,000 and we controlled about $2,000,000 worth of property; anyone driving down or up Route 1 near Topsfield can drive through it; Nike Village. The second non-profit was a startup national association of Consumer Attorneys; in four years, I took it from 15 members to 500. So I brought a very unique package to the table- familiarity with education and curriculum, financial management, and administrative experience; and an abiding faith in sunlight and transparency. Quite simply, I believe if you give people all the information relevant to the decision you are asking them to make, most of the time, they'll make a good decision.

• My first four years on the Committee were spent trying to push for process and document transparency, using new approaches to delivering curriculum, finding more ways to collaborate with groups on the community, and finding ways to engage the community in planning, assessment and the work of the schools and the School Committee. Those were difficult times; my strongest allegiance was with Dick Sullivan, with whom I had forged an agreement-- any motion he made, I'd second, any motion I made, he'd do the same. It forced the Committee to become more accountable and deal more publicly with yucky issues.

• Although I have "evolved", my fundamental concerns and beliefs as a member of the School Committee remain pretty rock solid. I believe in complete transparency of process. Every now and then, Dr. Lyons will mention some trend he's noticed over several years, and a few of us will chat in the parking lot after the meeting- the conversation will go something like this- "Did you know that?" "No, they never told me", "and we voted on that issue?" Information is the currency of power; and I've had the opportunity to work with some real hoarders in my time in Newburyport.

• I believe in fully engaging the community in every way possible. I introduced the idea of Public Conversation to the School Committee, extended Public Comment to two sessions each meeting; and have encouraged the use of suspending the rules to get feedback from the room before we vote on some issues. This has made the meetings a little more chaotic, more laborious; and while they could be run more tightly, I believe democracy is sloppy. I believe it is best to wear casual attire to events that celebrate the astonishing gift that the founders of this nation bequeathed us, because it can be pretty messy. Meetings lose focus. You can get overloaded with information. Believe me, it is far, far better for education to be overloaded with information, than asked to vote on issues with an underload of info.
  

• I believe in accountability. I have participated in four Superintendent evaluations, and in fact, lobbied for a change in the scoring system that originally proposed that went from poor to very good as options; and have been a strong advocate of reviewing the five-year plan developed during my first year on the Committee. I requested a review after 12 months, when there had been a dramatic change in our finances, I requested a review at 2.5 years, I requested a review a four years in. The Administration and the School Committee have never reviewed the five year plan. It is also my opinion that despite the herculean effort that went into the five year plan, the unexpected cut in state revenue by 20% should have immediately caused a review of the document and adjustment of goals to reflect the new dynamic. That didn't occur. I now believe we need a new five year plan that has a greater degree of organicity to it, and can respond to the volatile funding realities.
  

• I believe in collaboration. Although the NTA has chosen not to engage in collaborative bargaining for the last two contracts, I have always believed that the relationship between the union and the administration was frostier than it needed to be. Between changes at the Union, and changes in the Administration, there seems to be a mutual respect between the parties that I see as hopeful and promising.

• I believe in innovation, and best practices. I believe that we have teachers who teach the fur off any subject, and have lacked resources to stay up to date.
  

• I believe that the educational model we used for five years, which treated every child the same, was wrong. I was vocal about this for five years. I believe in Howard Gardener's ideas about multiple intelligences, that each of has ways we best process information and express ourselves; I believe now as I did then that we should be academically challenging kids who need to be challenged to stay engaged, and support those kids who need strategic support. With the change of Administrations we have moved away from the "one size fits all" approach. It will take several more years to fully implement a leveled approach to curriculum, but we will get there.

• I believe that we should be looking at innovative ways to generate revenue from the schools for the schools; that we should be making the school system more "user friendly" to groups that do not feel they have a stake in them through school-based or student/teacher community based interactions.

• As a member of the Task Force on School Revenue, I believe that we should and will have a long-term and short term plan for addressing revenue needs that will not be totally reliant on an Override. I believe that the forecasting tool developed by Committee members Dana Hooper and Gordy Bechtel will provide much needed direction and integrity to budget projections for the next 3 to 5 years, and will go a long way towards encouraging an informed, community-wide dialogue about how to address revenue shortfalls. I would support, unequivocally and strongly support an override, with specific abatements for seniors on fixed incomes who own property that would only be collectible once their home is sold, as part of a package of measures to address school revenue needs.
  

• After six years, five spent opposing cuts to programs that were not accomplishing the intent with which they were being made (leaving a skeletal framework so that programs could be restored when revenue was better). I believe that simple program restoration should not be the basis for moving forward; that student achievement, multi-curricular approaches and best practices, and multiple ways of assessing students learning to help us understand their needs, (and the how and what we need to do to tailor curriculum to meet their needs), is the direction to go.

• I believe that we should be talking about longer school days, re-framing the school year, and encouraging more community-based learning for the students.

• I believe that the schools are not simply a budget item to be argued over annually; I believe the schools are an ongoing discussion that touches the very heart of a community; it is about who we were, who we are, and who we want to be. It is about preservation and legacy, it is about preparing children for a future in which it will be up to them, literally, to undo the damage we have done to this fragile planet. I believe, literally again, that the future depends increasingly the education we are providing today. Schools are a public, civic, ongoing conversation, a give and take of ideas, a thoughtful, intentional movement towards informed citizenship.

• I believe, that this is a remarkable, painful and transitional time for our schools. As an educator and parent, I believe the silver lining to this dark cloud is that for the first time in generations, the old ways of doing things cannot be relied upon, mediocrity is not good enough any more. And within this new paradigm, with the support of the community and collaborating as partners with teachers, we have an unprecedented opportunity to completely reshape how we are educating children, to try pilot projects in areas like extended school hours, offering credit courses in the summer; there literally are no limits to our ability to reshape the basic package to get better value for the money we are paying, and identify new money based on innovation we seek. I am extraordinarily excited about this.
  

• I believe in apple pie, I believe in motherhood, and I don't think fatherhood is such a bad thing, either. I draw the line at the Yankees, though. Even as a New Yorker, born and bred, my revulsion for those arrogant SOB's began in the womb. In my entire life, I have refused to read a Yankee box score; and as an eight-year old kid, sharing the 'hood with Mary Carrier, I gave as good as I got in those inevitable "scuffles" that would occur about favorite baseball teams as part of growing up. And I will always remember this- it was never only one kid; Yankee fans would travel in groups of three- two to hold you while one pummeled you. Those bastards get the fans they deserve. Grrrrrrr.
  

It's late. Nose around the blog a little; you'll find that I'm more than happy to share my thinking on issues affecting the schools. Feel free to post your own comments, e-mail me with questions, or call me.

Thanks.

Vickie Pearson

Summary Paragraph: In which Menin remembers a hero of his.

On Mary Baker Eaton's blog today, she has written about as fair a representation of who I am as I could have asked for.

One point that could bear some clarification is that normally, School Committee terms are for four years. This is my third city-wide election, after having served six years. The School Committee elected four years ago experienced an unusual, and tragic event that had longer term implications than anything I've seen in Newburyport politics in the 19 odd years I've observed.

Topping the ticket (as I recall) was a force of nature by the name of Vickie Pearson. Towards the end of the campaign, she was diagnosed with cancer. By inauguration day, she was sworn in sitting in a wheelchair, off the stage, where all of the other elected candidates sat. To my shame, it never occurred to me that I, all of us on the School Committee, should have been sitting down there with her.

By our second meeting, maybe even our first, Mrs. Pearson succumbed to cancer. The enormity of this tragedy for the family is unspeakable, and I wouldn't even try to talk about that. But I will talk about what the community lost.

Vickie Pearson was the single most unconditionally respected citizen of this community. She was one of those rare individuals who literally changed the mood of everyone she came into contact with. Not only was she transparently genuine, she was a great listener, a thinker of deep and powerful thoughts, and a merciless consensus builder. The latter skill had to do with the sheer magnitude of her charisma; refusing to sit down to a parlay at her request made you feel like Scrooge.

I have no doubt that she would have been the strongest, wisest voice on the School Committee. She would have moved us beyond foolishness, kept us focused, and kept our eyes on the prize. Maybe she would have served one or two terms on the School Committee, and the pressure would have been brought to bear on her, her husband believes, to run for Mayor. And she would have been the Mayor that all others, past and present, would have been measured by.

By Charter, the job of filling a vacated seat on the SC until the next scheduled School Committee election, fell to a joint convention of the City Council and the School Committee. To cut to the chase, Steve Coles won that appointment, and served until 2005. Four seats were available in that election, three four year terms and the two year balance of Vickie's term. Because of the retirements of Dick Sullivan and Laurie Naughton, and the announced candidacies of Dana Hooper and Gordo Bechtel and Steve for the four year seats, and in keeping with the trend of often uncontested races, I chose to run for the balance of Vickie's term, and drew an opponent. I felt strongly that Dana, Gordo and Steve had a great deal to bring to the table, and I wanted to do anything I could to maximize the likelihood of their winning. They won.

I won, also. I won the last years of Vickie's seat.

Normally, we don't ascribe any particular slot with the person elected to it. Especially in city-wide races. It's just a slot, separate from the individual who is attached to it by coincidence of election

Not so with this seat, with me. Every meeting, I would ask myself "what would Vickie have done?" when I engaged in debate, and made votes. The stupidity and acting out is mine, the advocacy and the passion, the urge to articulate student centered planning and accountability and transparency and focus is much more "the Vickie" part.

For me, this will always be Vickie's seat. If I'm re-elected, she will always be at every meeting, cutting through the b.s., helping us to be constructive and consensual. I've always tried to do that, and I know how to do it; but it takes a spark of energy, a tug of communal responsibility to set it in motion.

Make no mistake, that spark is Vickie. The least political politician, and the best public servant who never served in the office the City wisely elected her to.

While walking Ward Six, I met Vickie's husband. We chatted for a while, and I told him that I had chosen to run for the remainder of her term, and that it meant more to me than just a seat at the table; that Vickie, in her short time, had provided a clear set of standards for public service that I worked very hard to measure up to. He thanked me and wished me luck.

Folks, I knew Vickie Pearson, and I'm no Vickie Pearson. But as an admiring student of hers, there hasn't been a day in the last two years that the phrase "what would Vickie do" hasn't been part of my thinking.

Regardless of the outcome, this will always be Vickie's seat.

One more point about the fiscal crisis

It always occurs to me after a conversation with someone that Newburyport had a lot of company when it came to last year's fiscal crisis. For some reason that only an economics professor could explain, our fiscal headaches, to a lesser or greater degree happened in most Massachusetts communities- it seemed like the banks suddenly called in their note, or we all maxxed out on the credit card; because of the pervasive nature of the lack of local revenue, more than 30 communities put overrides on the ballot, nearly all of them directed towards educational needs. Few of them passed.

Think I'm blowing smoke? Check out some of these recent articles, forwarded to me by the ever-enlightened Ellen Supple, one of the most valuable members of the Task Force on School Revenue:

Residents to education officials: Show us the money
By Douglas Moser, Gloucester Daily Times

Budget mediation slated for tonight
By Derek Gentile, Berkshire Eagle

Schools face $1.8 million deficit next year
By Joao Ferreira, Standard-Times (New Bedford)

Wanted: Public advice on schools
By George Barnes, Telegram & Gazette

A textbook case
Students lack materials because schools can’t afford them
By Jacqueline Reis, Telegram & Gazette (Worcester)

State: Marlborough schools need ‘corrective action’
By Dan McDonald, MetroWest Daily News

Billerica school has seen better days
By Jennifer Amy Myers, Lowell Sun

In fact, the only communities that seem to avoid the institutionalized fiscal problems we have are those communities that as part of their charters put an override for the schools on the ballot every two or three years as a matter of course (back to Ed Cameron's suggestion that the time has come for municipal reform).

Some people knew the tsunami was coming. There are some 300 school systems in Massachusetts; I seem to recall that at the time we were considering candidates to fill our own Superintendency, something like 125-150 other districts were doing the same thing.

The bad news is that it really stinks all over; the good news is that we are in touch and could expand those contacts to look at how other communities are addressing the need for school funding until the state and the feds wake up from their nap.

Thanks again for the clippings to Ellen Supple. Thanks for more than the clippings. She, and Kathy Flaherty and Ralph Orlando have for more than half of the time I've served on the School Committee, served as a constant reminder of on whose behalf we work, and to whom we as a Committee, and the Administration are responsible. Their constant presence at School Committee meetings, and their insightful, challenging comments have helped the Committee evolve.

And they're all pretty smart, too. I've never been able to get any of the three to remotely consider running for the School Committee.

Three possible sources of additional revenue...

Summary Paragraph: In which Menin tries to answer a question from this evening's forum that was directed at two at-large candidates, but only one answered.

The question was "name three additional sources of revenue for the schools beyond an override."

Without revealing any of the inner chamber deliberations of the Revenue Task Force, let me offer a few suggestions for the candidate who struggled.

• We could mug girl scouts and re-sell their cookies.

• We could sell the naming rights to shrubbery along the waterfront.

• We could turn the new, spiffed up City Hall into a bed and breakfast on weekends; starting Friday, at noon.

• We could fine Canada Geese for pooping on public property, payable in down, and repackage the down for Newburyport souvenir pillows to sell at Richdale's.

• We could open up a tobaggon run down from the top of the landfill, and charge by the hour for use.

• We could enact an ordinance against saying the word "tourist," with fines of twenty-five cents each time you are overheard saying it. I think this one could generate a lot of cash. It adds up.

• Add a local levy on "doggie bags" that are taken from restaurants. I have it on pretty good authority that very few dogs are actually getting to eat the contents of those bags.

• Charge a parking fee to anyone driving a vehicle that waits at the intersection of Green and Water Street without turning for more than five minutes.
  

• Attach a video-camera to a Seagull, and try to sell the idea of a Seagull Cam 24 Hour Reality show to one of the networks.

See? When you allow yourself to think outside of the box, anything is possible. Those are just a few of the innovative ideas I hope the city will consider

Thank You, Mother's Club...

Summary Paragraph: In which Menin expresses gratitude that some responsible entity has seen fit to invite all of the School Committee candidates to a forum with all other candidates.

Having had a second opportunity to attend one of these events (my first was two years ago), I wanted to tip my hat to the Mother's Club for giving we of the vote-pandering class a chance to trip over our tongues. It was really my first chance to see virtually every candidate running for office in the city at one time; by and large they are an impressive bunch.

I smiled when a number of candidates described themselves as fiscal conservatives, because there was a time when I would have had a visceral reaction; now I see them as allies in common service to make this a better city by spending more wisely and effectively. This goes back to an earlier post (rant, alright, rant) about Slate candidates; when I talked about a loose coalition of elected officials who are principle-driven, genuinely care about accountability, and have a larger vision that includes the entire city. I am lucky enough to consider myself among this group.

I recognize that my entire political career in Newburyport is an anomaly. I ran for School Committee six years ago, with an earring, a rat-tail six inches long and a reputation as a bomb-thrower. I asked lots of questions, annoying questions, and was quick to hold my peers accountable to the community and students. I was, and probably remain, a pain in the rear.

Somehow, folks in Newburyport know that, and expect me to continue. Many ideas I have been raising over the past six years without success have come to fruition with the change in School Administrators. Accountability for administrators. A focus on student achievement. Reconfiguration of the schools into more developmentally appropriate groupings. Transparency of all school processes; dialogue about issues, creating ways to bring the community into the process of generating ideas for funding, curriculum, cultural offerings.

My friends Bruce Vogel, Tom Jones, and Gary Roberts all describe themselves as fiscal conservatives; yet they understand the importance of spending money on the Schools; with the expectation that it be spent efficiently and that the outcomes in student achievement be measurable. They represent part of that ongoing political dialogue about who we are and where we are going.

Greg Earles is another Council member who fits the characteristics mentioned above. He's already demonstrated an ongoing commitment to the Schools through his participation as a parent, and as an active, very challenging member of the Joint Ed Committee bringing the City Council and the School Committee together monthly. Greg took a very unfair hit tonight from his opponent, who suggested that he was a "fly on the wall" at Joint Ed. I've worked with Greg on that Committee for at least three years; he has been diligent in his attendance and an asset on many issues. The breakdown in communications between the Council and the Committee has a long history, and Joint Ed has already spent a meeting talking about changing that. It is unfair to blame Greg for what has been an historical failure on the part of two elected bodies to figure out how to talk to each other. His opponent may not remember, but Greg sponsored Steve Coles and me as an agenda item on a Council Meeting early in the year, so that we could give them a heads-up on the likely recommendation for an override; two sitting City Council members voted no. They did not want to hear from us.

Ed Cameron, with his emphasis on Municipal Reform, is another strong, thoughtful future leader. There is a common denominator, besides gender, to this group-- they think beyond the moment, they believe that we can make decisions now to ensure a better future. You can see it in Kathleen O'Connor Ives, as well. This isn't about specifically what they, or we bring to the table. It is an openness to ideas, an expectation of accountability, and a desire to work collaboratively.

I describe my politics as radical pragmatism. I was raised as a Saul Alinsky-style strategist when it comes to community change, which may account for my occasional irreverent lapses. I seek the pragmatic; I define pragmatic as the solution that is efficient, compassionate, empowering, oriented towards building community and not destroying it, that is creative and affirming. Once we reach the pragmatic solution, the radical part takes over- I want it done NOW. I don't want to wait.

All of the people I have named above strike a zen-like chord in me- it isn't about them, it's about us, it isn't about blame, it's about accountability; it isn't about liberal, conservative, progressive, populist, it is about community. Like me, I get a sense that these people see politics in the same way I see education-- an ongoing community dialogue about who we are, and where we want to go, as a community.

There may be others out there I've forgotten; to those I apologize. I'm not telling anyone who to vote for, believe me; (well, I am asking you to vote for me). I have to say that after 8 years writing for the Undertoad, six years as an elected official saddled with a moribund and deteriorating school system that never seemed to cross onto the radar screen of those pulling the strings, these people represent the kind of public servant I always strive to be; with Ed and Kathleen, it's a gut feeling, since their public service has been limited.

Your tax dollars at work

Summary paragraph: In which Menin muses on the priorities of the Federal Gov't, and advocates for more local uses of available money.

Recently, I added a stat-tracker to the blog; one that has lots of features and doo-dads. The feature that keeps me, admittedly an easy target, amused is the one where you can call up a map that tells you where your hits are coming from. Although one of my fellow Newburyport bloggers did warn me about this, I have to say I was surprised and a little flattered when the following two hits appeared on the counter:


Host: cache-mtc-aa12.proxy.aol.com, ISP: America Online Inc, Entry Page Time: 16th
October 2007 11:21:04 AM, Visit Length: 0 seconds, Browser: MSIE 7.0,
OS: Windows Vista, Resolution: 1280x1024
Location: Virginia, Reston, United States , Returning Visits: 0, Referring URL:
No referring link

Host: cache-dtc-ag15.proxy.aol.com, ISP: America Online Inc., Entry Page Time: 16th
October 2007 03:18:40 AM, Visit Length: 0 seconds, Browser: MSIE 7.0, OS: Windows XP
Resolution: 1024x768, Location: Virginia, Reston, United States , Returning Visits: 0
Referring URL: No referring link

I've removed the IP addresses.

Reston, Reston. Virginia. Well, I don't know anybody in Reston, Virginia. I
do know that there are several Executive Branch agencies that have headquarters in Reston.

Folks, these are your tax dollars at work here in America, 2007. We have a federal government that refuses to guarantee health care and nutrition to every child under 18, but has the money to monitor every single blog in the country.

No Child Left Behind has never been funded at more than 15% of it's promised level, but the government is willing to spend time watching for subversive activity on the blog of an admittedly ornery candidate for re-election to a local School Committee. There isn't enough money to arm and properly equip soldiers fighting in a war of choice, and the World Language
Department at Newburyport High School has started the year without Spanish textbooks.

How do you even begin to teach children about the Constitution, the Rule of Law, the greatness possible in this country, when putting the word "Iraq" or AIDS in your blog sets off an alarm in small cubicle in Reston, Virginia?

Good people of Newburyport. The inter-generational compact is breaking down; for the first time, we are leaving our children a world that is in much worse shape environmentally than the one we inherited; our schools remain in the 20th century, and we cannot seem to engage in a public dialogue that isn't polarizing and cartoonish.

This is an important election. Look for people with a reputation for listening
and not shouting, for those who would try to find common ground and not raise substantive disagreements to the level of simplistic demonizing.

Look for people who embrace a range of opinions.When the seats are taken by people who already agree on the problems, the procedures and the outcomes, they stop listening to the community; there's no incentive to seek answers; they already have them. Public process, that messy, sloppy thing that is democracy, which leads to boring meetings and painstaking efforts to forge a consensus on the future
becomes a thing apart from outcomes.

When I first ran for School Committee six years ago, for all intents and purposes, the Committee was an echo chamber, a group of people who felt little need to move beyond token efforts to bring real dialogue into their decisions. They worked exceptionally well together, and it felt to me that votes on issues were merely a formality, ratifying choices that were made at another time and place.

That isn't what the City needs right now. When you vote, try to bring together as representatives people with a range of views and perspectives, to promote a real exchange of ideas as we move forward.

Thanks. If anybody wants me, I'll be walking the outer Wards, waiting to hear from the IRS telling me my taxes are going to be audited.

Hate the War, Love the Warrior

Summary paragraph: In which Menin shares a lesson he's learned about paying it forward.

Of late, one of my favorite political blogs, The Daily Kos, has been taking a lot of heat.

It leans left, admittedly, but it's a pretty good way to put a little fair and balanced in the whole news cycle, if that be your desire. Sometimes the bloggers go way overboard, but on the whole, postings are pretty thoughtful.

Especially this one, by a Kossack named Kath25.

It is relatively bad form to cut and paste large segments of a posting, so I ask Kath25 in advance to forgive me. Somehow, I don't think she'll mind it.

"It has been several months since we last organized a DailyKos box drive. CPT Matt Larson is a friend of DailyKos over in Iraq, and he will distribute these care packages to other soldiers who are not receiving mail, or anyone who needs some cheering up. Plus, there are hundreds of other soldiers who could use a surprise from those of us who are stateside.

When you’ve been deployed away from your family and friends for months, even a year, any little bright spot can make a difference. Let’s show our troops how much we still support them by sending over care packages to help them get through these next few weeks and months. It’s easy!

Send Packages To:

CPT Matt Larson
ATTN: Anysoldier
C CO 15BSB
2BCT 1CD
FOB Prosperity
APO AE 09348

I have permission from Matt to post this address, to expedite the process. If you’d like to send additional boxes to other troops, please do so. You can request soldiers’ addresses at AnySolder.com, and even look for specific branches of the military, home base locations, female soldiers, whomever you most want to help out with a care package. Many of the soldiers will have a specific wish-list that you can fill.

Shipping isn’t that expensive. The U.S. Postal Office offers a "flat rate priority envelope" that goes for $4.60 postage. There are TWO "flat rate priority boxes" that need $8.95. Weight and distance don’t matter with these packages – just fill it up as much as you can. Heavy magazines or books? PowerBars? Gatorade Mix? The flat-rate box cares not what it carries to our troops overseas, you just pay the flat rate. You can get a surprising amount of stuff in, even in the flat rate envelope. N.B.: Make sure to get the boxes with the red stamped "FLAT RATE" on them. You will have to fill out a customs form, but these are available at the PO and only require minimal information. Because the boxes are sent to an APO or FPO, the "flat rate postage" applies, and the boxes get there relatively fast – ten days to two weeks. Not sure what to send?

Here’s a list of commonly-requested items from soldiers currently registered on AnySoldier.com.

Commonly Requested Items:

Cotton Socks, Magazines, Women’s Cotton Underwear, CD’s, Men’s Cotton Underwear, DVD’s, Tampons, Crossword/Puzzle/ Sudoku Books, Sanitary Napkins, Paperback Books, Shampoo, Sketchbooks and Pencils, Conditioner, Paper and Envelopes, Tissues, Individually-Packaged Sports Drink Mixes (Gatorade, Propel) Body Wash, Microwave Popcorn, Lotion, Licorice, Lip Balm/Chapstick, Gum and Mints, Disposable Razors, Gummy Candies, Foot Powder, Packaged Cookies, Q-Tips, Meat Jerky.

If you don’t want to put together a box of your own but still want to make a contribution, head on over to Treat Any Soldier, which has pre-fab boxes all set to go. Just donate the cost, and the box is on its way. Treat Any Soldier was started by an Army Mom, based on what her son and his fellow soldiers most wanted to receive.

If you don’t want to spend much money on the contents of your box, here’s a few more ideas:

Empty out your collection of hotel soaps and shampoos and send ‘em off.
Burn a few mix CD’s from your fantastic music collection.
Involved with a group? Ask everyone to write a short letter and drop them in the box.
Teach a class? Ask your students to contribute a short note or drawing. Heck, that could even be worth extra credit.
Still reading those old magazines? Send them over. Even an old magazine is better than no magazine.

Don’t forget to add "DK" to the corner so Matt knows where the box came from. Include a note of thanks to the soldier who will receive your box. You may even get a thank you note. I sent a box back at Christmas, and received a nice note from CPT Larson and the person who received the box. Not sure what to say? Thank the troops for their service, tell them you support them and that you’re thinking about them. Heck, throw in a picture of your cat. I know how you people are about your pictures of your cats!

A Few More Do’s and Don’ts:

Don’t send pork products, pornography, or alcohol.
Don’t send homemade food, as the soldiers are required to throw it away.
Avoid anything that will melt, particularly in terms of food products.
It is hot in Iraq. T-Shirts must be Brown for Army (Tan for the new digital uniform, the 'ACU') and Navy, Green for Marines, Black or Brown for Air Force.
Marine boot socks are black. White athletic socks are for PT and sometimes under the boot socks.
If sending a liquid, put it in a zip-lock bag, then double-bag it upside-down from the first one. If an item can leak, it will.

Here's that address, one more time, send packages to:

CPT Matt Larson
ATTN: Anysoldier
C CO 15BSB
2BCT 1CD
FOB Prosperity
APO AE 09348

Thanks so much in advance for all of your participation on this! CPT Larson is looking forward to receiving all of these packages to give to his fellow soldiers, and I’m sure they’ll all be really happy to see so much support coming from those of us stateside."

Thanks to Kath 25, and thanks to the readers of Daily Kos, who do this several times a year. This a great family activity, also terrific for classrooms.

Pay it forward, folks. These are our brothers and sisters, sons and daughters. This is not about politics, it's about community.

Back to education next post.

Julio Lugo and J.D. Drew- not a baseball posting

Ed Cameron has a few thoughts worth noting in his blog today about the relationship of the parts to the whole.

Newburyport to Wealth is like Red Sox to Offense

These ideas and thoughts all harken back to my earlier post of putting people into office whose diversity of opinion and shared commitment to equitable outcomes are the assets this city needs to move forward. We don't need to agree on methods; we do need political leaders who have commitments to transparency and public engagement, and the faith that once you have all the information you need, the shared outcome can be arrived out by consensus.

Cameron seems to not only get that; he seems to live it.

Yet another faux endorsement

This is not a real endorsement. It is a faux endorsement. I've never personally met Arnold. In fact, Arnold has stopped returning my phone calls.

My mother tells a story of going into a deli on Broadway in New York in the early seventies, and watching the Governator grab and paw at a waitress, finally pulling her onto his lap against her will, the easier to gropinate her.

Of course, I told her she must have confused him with someone else. He would never, ever do anything like that. So, with regards to this faux endorsement, I remember something one of my two heroes, Lennon or Marx (John and Groucho) said. "Any club that would have me as a member I wouldn't want to join."

And remember what Freud said. "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."

Looking Like A Duck...

Summary Paragraph: In which Menin concedes that not everything that looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, and talks like a duck is a duck. It's just duck-like.

One of the other candidates, (we'll call them School Committee Candidate A), who appeared at the Friday night coffee for three of the School Committee candidates who worked on the Yes campaign, contacted me today in response to an earlier post, Wiping the Slate Clean.

According Candidate A, Candidates A, B, C, and D, who worked on the YES campaign are running independently of each other; and that the Friday night coffee, attended by A, B and C, was more along the lines of helping C get a jump-start. However, at one point between the coffee and the danishes, there was a clear indication that the purpose of the event was to present three fresh faces to make sure that the one old face running for re-election would be retired. This assertion did not come from one of the Candidates, apparently.

Everybody is entitled to their own opinion, I believe; but just because they support me doesn't mean I have to buy whatever they are selling. And I sure as hell try not to put myself into a situation that could be misconstrued as my buying it.

Candidate A said that when the conversation got personal regarding me and my re-election, and agenda driven, it became awkward for them and Candidate B. They didn't endorse the sentiments; they didn't deny them. They just were awkward.

I understand how that can happen. I've often been in situations when people trash-talk me about people I have to work with; sometimes they even trash people I don't respect or who don't respect me, but I still have to work with. I personally don't find it awkward; I usually divulge my relationship with the maligned individual, and thank the trash-talker for sharing their opinion, but that it isn't mine. It's that last little piece; thank you for sharing but that is not my experience nor my opinion that usually makes a difference. It draws the line which clearly says, your opinion is yours, and you are welcome to it, but don't try stuffing it in my ears

I remember a situation vaguely analogous to this in my own life.

When I was living in Buffalo, I was dating a woman who came from a robust, large Catholic family. Her father had served very honorably in World War Two, commanding a naval vessel.
Despite their small house, and simpler means, there was always room for me at the dinner table, and her mother was, and hopefully still is a saint. It was actually the closest thing I knew to a sustained family until I had my own.

One day, her father's former commanding officer was in town, and was invited to dinner with his wife. Two more plates were set at the table.

After a few glasses of wine, the Admiral's wife's tongue loosened up a little bit, and she began to ask some questions.

"What with a medical school, and dental school and a law school right nearby at the University of Buffalo, you must have a lot of Jews from New York City coming up here. That must be terrible. I've heard the school is actually called 'Jew-Bee' by people who live here. Doesn't it bother you to have so many Jews going to school here?"

I felt awful for my girlfriend and her family. They were terribly embarrassed, and were at a complete loss for what to say. They didn't deserve to have to respond or defend this foolishness; I'm usually not at a loss for what to say, as many of you who know me can attest.

I've been there before. People sometimes wear their ignorance and intolerance like a medal.

But it is also part of my cultural heritage to try to laugh, because if you can't, you cry.

I told Mrs. Admiral that it didn't bother me at all.

"All of my closest relatives are Jewish," I told her.

You could see my girlfriend's family trying to stifle laughs and hide smiles. Apparently, Mrs. Admiral missed the point, and continued to commiserate with me about how the Jews were responsible for many problems, ranging from venereal diseases to high interest credit cards. I just nodded, wondering exactly how far she could get her foot into her mouth. Mr. Admiral, however, caught the thrust of my remark immediately. After attempting to get Edith to stifle herself, he gave a swift kick under the table that I bet she still has a bruise from, 25 years later.

The point is this. If someone puts words into the universe that don't reflect your personal views, I think you have an obligation to distance yourself from those words, no matter how awkward that is. Define yourself, or you will be defined by the company you keep, and the little hurts thrown out into the universe that you allow to go unchallenged.

For Candidate A, who sought me out with a beef about what I had written, I have regained a measure of respect. I really do believe, now, that they are doing what I am doing; that is running for School Committee, and not against a person or an institution. How you move through the political world has a learning curve all it's own; I told this individual the dumber you get, the more you learn.

But learning to challenge ideas you don't believe is part of that learning curve. If you don't clarify the remarks, and challenge them, but stand there awkward, you become part of the problem.

And that problem is, of course, how to best build bridges.

Lesson one-- Demonizing is the first refuge of the divisive and unimaginative. It is the powder post beetle of bridge-building. Anyone lazy enough to ascribe a single characteristic to an entire group isn't your friend; they only become your ally when you accept their formulation. And the threshold for acceptance is very low; it is silence.

Lesson two- if you don't name a lie, a misrepresentation, a strategic lack of clarity, a simple statement that doesn't resonate for you when you hear it, it owns you, too. Flypaper.

So I'll tone down the talk about Slate YES. After talking with this Candidate A, I believe they are running a strong race, for the right reasons, and will be an asset to the School Committee, regardless of what happens to me.

As for the others, B, C, and D, I now realize they are hoping that Candidate A has long coattails. Long.

As long, they hope, as the slate blackboard in a Brown School classroom. And longer, they hope, than six years.

It's fall, and I can hear the ducks quacking. Seems like there is one less than I thought there was yesterday.

A Great Idea Out of Ward 6

Summary Paragraph: Things you can learn when you listen.

I was walking out in Ward 6 today, trying to squeeze in between the Patriots and the Red Sox (Go Sox); I was surprised and pleased by the welcome I received, and the general level of information people have about the Schools. Many different issues were raised; one in particular seemed so easy to accomplish that I promised the resident I would post it on line tonight, and push for the administration to make it happen this holiday season.

I spoke with a Mom, who's had three kids go through the high school and go onto residential colleges. She felt the high school did a great job getting them into college, but that they were genuinely unprepared for "freshman shock;" the freedom, the need to step out and make friends, the multi-cultural experience they are exposed to.

When we talked about how we could better prepare the HS students, we came up with two ideas. The first was to use some of the existing health classes to talk about establishing friendships, and how to meet people. The second idea was to have recent alumni who have come back into the area for vacation- Thanksgiving, Christmas/Hannukah, February- and give a "workshop" for parents and seniors about their own personal experiences during their first semester in college.

Thanks for these suggestions. With so much effort going on to smooth the transitions between the different schools, this makes perfect sense.

Wiping the Slate Clean

Summary Paragraph: In which Menin acknowledges a tough re-election campaign, and talks about what he believes is a significant strategic error by his fellow candidates for SC. Of course, Menin recognizes that he has a self-interest beyond the benign in the outcome of the election.

It's no secret that four of the five other people running for School Committee are running interlocking campaigns, with the goal, stated clearly during their meet and greets, that the City would be better off throwing all the bums out. When I look around, and realize that in the worst case scenario, should I be re-elected, there will still be two new members of the Committee, I believe that point of view will really need two basic assumptions to succeed.

The first is, obviously, that they need to convince people who have watched me fight for accountability for six years that I'm a bum. They need to convince the voters that my elimination from the School Committee, and the loss of six years of experience, of having worked with 3 superintendents, of ad nauseum advocacy for process transparency and accountability, full disclosure, and community involvement, is really prudent. The community knows that I've lived through two teacher contracts, helped negotiate one of them, and voted against the other for fiscal reasons. I have experience evaluating the superintendent 4 times; I've written curriculum, and grants to support curriculum, taught in the classroom and in adult education; Slate YES needs to convince more than just themselves that these assets, along with a ferocious and precocious streak of independence, a willingness to speak out to anybody any time, anywhere, lack value here in Newburyport.

Based on the feedback that I have been getting as I walk the Wards, that one is proving to be a hard sell. Maybe not hard enough, we'll see, but a lot of folks aren't buying it. And judging by the hits on my site and the feedback I'm getting, the Slate YES idea isn't getting much traction among the outer 60%, and there are a lot of folks I've spoken to who plan to make me one of their three votes, or are telling me I've got their bullet.

Which brings me to the second point. Even if you can prove the first point, something very difficult to do with anyone who has lived in this City more than six years; you have to convince Newburyport that electing three people who think alike, act alike, and have linked arms together to clog the lanes is the best thing for the schools. And you have to do that in an environment in which only one person has run for re-election to the School Committee in 10 years- me. I have articulated the problems, fought to bring all points of view to the table, insisted on more, better community dialogue and made very hard decisions on school contracts, budget cuts and reconfiguration. I have always done so thoughtfully, which is why people may disagree with me, but no one has ever suggested I was unprepared and sloughing off hard choices. Keep in mind, for reasons I understand better than anybody, my peers on the Committee for the last ten years have been four and out.

As a veteran of more than fifteen years of watching the ebb and flow of Newburyport politics, I can assert, with some degree of confidence, that this city traditionally abhors slates across a single elected body. It has always found them, when people are arrogant and ignorant enough to put them together and promote them, to be condescending and insulting. Newburyporters don't like to be told who else to vote for by candidates whose pitch is a straight line "vote for me and him and her"-- they don't like anyone assuming that they lack the judgment to make up their own minds. No self-identified, full "slate" of Council or School Committee candidates has been elected to my knowledge. I simply think in Newburyport, not only doesn't that old dog hunt, but to even try to foist such an insulting proposition on the City is like having that old dog poop on the front lawn of the people you are trying to convince you have the ability to listen to and lead.

What Newburyport does seem to understand are the occasional loose coalitions of candidates across several fields, who don't agree on every issue, but share principles by which they approach an issue and the community, and have faith that reasoned dialogue will result in consensus outcomes. That happens all the time, particularly on the progressive/populist side of the equation. A Mayoral candidate might align with a few City Councilors, a School Committee candidate. Sometimes, you can get a picture of how these loose coalitions form by looking for consistent patterns of signs on peoples' lawns; two or three candidates will seem to appear together around the city or in the Wards.

Although, it is fair to note, don't put so much stock in signs. I've spoken to folks who have Moak signs but have no intention of voting for him; the same goes for Erford Fowler.

But no group, with any respect for how Newburyport works politically, any basic understanding of how to run a campaign that doesn't divide, and any knowledge of Newburyport's political pulse, tic's and quirks would cobble a slate in a single field to throw the bums out, when there are already two seats open in the election. You'd need to present a pretty airtight case alleging high crimes, misdemeanors, or malfeasance. One doesn't exist, because the candidate you are running against isn't the person you have described to the community, and they know it; and the school system you describe is turning around as a result of the work of Kevin Lyons and the School Committee.

You might make a case against a candidate like moi because while I take the issues seriously, I try not to take myself so seriously. Maybe people really prefer pompous, self important blowhards, to irreverent, self-deprecating policy wonks. Or you might convince the community that they would be better off with an elected official who doesn't lengthen meetings by insisting on engaging the community in dialogue; that might work.

But that still fails to make the case for a slate that can be trusted by the community to grow into good, thoughtful public servants. Especially when their presumptive argument for electing themselves is y'all aren't smart enough to make up your own minds, so trust us to do that for you. Been there, done that 6 years ago.

Now, from a pure, venally strategic point of view, as someone who has watched the rise and fall of such venerable figures as Lisa Mead, Mary Anne Clancy, and Jack Pramberg, let me share an insider's analysis with Slate YES. I know my suggestions fell on deaf ears during the override, but you might want to think about this.

Let's suppose Slate Yes wins. Three new members on the School Committee, leaving Steve Coles as the most senior member of the Committee with four years. Let's suppose that the campaign message promulgated by Slate YES as recently as this Friday night, when three of them had a meet and greet together, that we need to clean house and get people who think like us, succeeds.

So we have three new members, all with learning curves that will vary from steep to steepest, who think alike, share the same views on issues, and more importantly, have run a campaign that is based on their expressed belief that the School Committee is an entity that is indecisive, marginally functional, and excruciatingly boring. I know that the majority of the sitting SC doesn't feel that way; in fact, given what we've had to do, the time we've had to do it in, and our ridiculous commitment to getting as much feedback from the community as possible, we kinda feel like we've given things the due diligence they deserve, now that we haven't had to fight tooth and nail to get the information to make good decisions.

So Slate YES begins their "reformation" of an elected body that feels like it is finally getting it's groove on.

Three votes for whatever reforms, or limitations on due diligence our impatient slate needs to see sacrificed to the illusion of efficiency. And maybe, three votes against screwing with what is not only finally working, but becoming an actual process of embedding institutional change in the schools.

Tie-breaker? The mayor. You want the Mayor to have that much power? I don't, regardless of who the Mayor is. I've already lived through that little experiment, and it accelerated the erosion of school academic programs like a match to gasoline.

I originally ran against a School Committee that was convinced it was smarter than the community and because of that, felt it didn't need to share much of what it was doing; I ran because I felt I need to get there to make a change.

I was pretty damned smart back then. I challenged a lot of assumptions, and asked a lot of questions. I played Mickey the Dunce a lot. And most of my peers never caught on that I already knew the answers to 90% of the questions I asked, and had a very reliable indicator to measure the variance between their responses and what I knew to be the facts.

I'm much dumber now. I listen more. I still get a steady stream of neat ideas about how to do things. But I've learned a lot.

I think I like the dumber me. It was very hard to keep up the appearance that I was smarter than everybody else, especially when it was never true.

So run, slate, run. See how they run. If you are right, and you are the political future of Newburyport, I will be whupped like a rented mule in this election, and will have to work for change from the outside. But even when I was on the inside, pushing for change, I was on the outside.

But if you are wrong, and only one or two of you manage to run the gauntlet of the electorate, then you start with a distinct disadvantage. You ran a campaign predicated on telling the community who was worthy of their vote and who wasn't. You were smarter than the voters, in your own minds. You didn't learn anything from the override vote. In fact, judging by the last six or so years, the smarter people may be smarter, inherently, but they sure as hell don't have a learning curve that can get them elected with much frequency.

They don't get it. That was the river; this is the sea.

And if you think the School Committee has credibility and communication problems now, wait'll you carry that baggage on board; especially after you have expressed your personal opinions of your potential peers, by name, to several people in the community. Word gets around, pretty quickly, especially among people who measure friendships and working relationships not by agreeing on everything, but by sharing common principles and having confidence that the means can be devised to reach shared outcomes.

We'll see what November brings.

But you know, the more time I spend out there talking to people, listening to them, going over where we've been (and I've been) and where we are going, the more I realize something that surprises even me.

I could get only 15 votes, and the kids have already won. In six years, I've been privileged to be part of a thousand hard decisions and solutions, but I've never had to trim my principles. I've run this campaign about the future; you've run it about the past. My campaign is idea driven, and boringly specific, yours has been personal, and requires people to choose whether to believe you or their lying eyes.

People don't like having serious decisions framed in such a simplistic format. Given enough time, and a shift of strategy, I believe a package of financial reforms and proposals, including an override, can succeed.

But Slate YES, I'm afraid you'll have to get as dumb as I am to see that.

A Truth is Not THE Truth

Summary Paragraph: In which Menin argues once again that taking facts out of context can bear little relationship to a universal truth, and wishes things were as simple as some people believe.

One more time. Does the teacher salary matrix, as negotiated 3 years ago, seem somewhat insensitive to the current fiscal crisis we are in? Yes. When I was the only SC member to vote against the approval of the contract at the time, something hard for me to do because I am a teacher, and a former member of a teacher's union, I said we were mortgaging the future, and that if the proverbial bottom dropped out, the teachers would bear the brunt of criticism. I am not Nostradamus; I just believed, 3 years ago, it would have implications down the road.

Is the salary schedule and structure a significant driver in the overall increase of school costs? Yes. The only one? No. Singling out the teachers, and analyzing their contract with no reference or familiarity to exactly what was gained or lost at the table is short-sighted, simplistic, and what those familiar with Alcoholics Anonymous call "stinkin' thinkin'."

Why? Because the analysis makes assumptions that are drawn not from reality, but from the way you think reality is, must be. The teachers have snookered the SC, the SC snookers the community, and what we have here is a whole lot of snookerin' going on. An assumption. A particularly nasty one, because it gains momentum to the degree it can demonize "the other" (fat cat selfish teachers), and do collateral damage as well (that easily snookered, lying School Committee).

So, what do we gain here that is of use to the community? After two of the hardest years our staff have ever had to endure, we are blaming them for all the problems of the schools. After
the SC has finally managed to address a range of problems from building safety to best practices through a reconfiguration that saved $750,000 in one year, and postponed any discussion of building a new school ($30,000,000) for ten years, we are finding a way to blame the School Committee.

Nothing. Nada. In fact, these truths, proffered as so self-evident, damage our relationship with the teachers as we go into contract negotiations. Maybe we'll clean out that rat's nest of ineptitude that has been pretending to be a SC. That's not tough; there will two new members under the worst case scenario.

Is every licensed teacher a good teacher? No.
Is every cop a by the books, honest cop? No.
Is everyone choosing to home school kids doing the right thing? No.
Is every Hollywood star a hedonistic, drug-using moron? No.
Does every player in baseball use steroids? No.

Like I've said before, a goat has a beard, but that doesn't make it a Rabbi.

Are the teachers solely responsible for the increase in costs in the running of schools? When 25% of our budget is used to pay for our statutory obligations to 10% of the student population, and that 25% can vary (upwards, always upwards) by $250,000, no. When utility costs doubled in one year, and every building we have has envelope issues, no. When the state requires every teacher to get a Master's Degree in an accredited program within five years to maintain a license to teach, you are dealing with a work force that needs constant professional development. I haven't finished the research, but I'm betting that aside from cosmetologists no licensed profession starts at a lower average base salary.

Has the time come for a new approach by the entire city to negotiating salaries? Yes, absolutely. We are way, way overdue for it. Can I sit here tonight and tell you what we will put on the table, take it or leave it? No, because that is bargaining in bad faith. There are labor laws prohibiting that kind of posturing on either side before talks begin; engaging in a specific public dialogue about upcoming contract negotiation strategies and goals in a specific way wanders dangerously close to the edge of what is legal; and it is way over the top when it comes to demonizing the second largest workforce in the city.

There will be reforms in upcoming contracts. There will be a reflection, I expect, of the increasing importance of student achievement and professional development, of new approaches to teacher assessment approached in upcoming contracts. It will take time; the reality is that when we sit down with the Newburyport Teachers Association to negotiate, they are represented by the Massachusetts Teachers association; in effect we are sitting down with every teacher's union in the state, and trying to avoid negotiating the same contract with the NTA that everyone else has. We are optimistic.

But anybody who thinks that there will be wholesale changes in one contract, while at the same time using a simplistic analysis of the last teachers contract without any reference to context, is naive, and in my estimation, simply not ready for prime time. Now is not the time for bluster and finger-pointing. You may have discovered a stand-alone context-less truth, but don't try peddling that crap as THE TRUTH. There is no one, single truth, especially when your analysis lacks any context.

That is your truth, and you are welcome to it. At it's very heart, it is divisive and incomplete. The city deserves a better and more honest framing of the issues, and the students deserve an elected official who is able to resist reducing complex problems to simple yes/no, us/them formulations.

Better Than Zero-based Budgeting-- Part 2

Summary: In which Menin describes a better budgeting process being adapted the School Committee.

The previous post describes on a meta-level the driving forces behind the approach to school budgeting before the arrival of Kevin Lyons. I have previously dealt with the issues of budget "drivers," such as teacher salaries, utilities and Sp Ed costs, and will continue to address those issues directly in future posts. I also didn't talk about the general process for creating the budget; I've gone over that previously and will again before the election.

The School Committee and Dr. Lyons have agreed on a simple guiding principle in moving forward on budgets.

Student achievement.

Rocket science. Had we figured that out years ago, (six, to be exact) when Dick Sullivan and I joined the School Committee and advocated putting the kids and curriculum first, we'd still be facing deficits, but the erosion of our curriculum wouldn't have proceeded at such a dramatic rate.

We will be looking at the budget through the filter of what best preserves and promotes student achievement in every area. We will put resources where analysis best indicates they can impact on the learning. Do we need curriculum development, professional training, do we need an additional class to provide more intensive or remedial support? We will prioritize that.

This year, we will be using tools for forecasting that we have never had. We will have hard data about which curriculum areas need immediate attention, which grades, which subject areas need to be focused on, what are the best practices to address those needs.

The budget process will utilize the feedback from the School Council, which in turn will be informed by the systematic, ongoing assessment of student progress. Once it has gone through Administrative Council (all of the administrators in the system, and the Superintendent), the Superintendent presents a recommended budget to the School Committee, which holds public, open hearings to consider the recommendations, and get feedback from the community.

Last year between the reconfiguration and the budget, the School Committee held over 20 public hearings; accepting public feedback at all of them.

It isn't zero-based budgeting. It's something better-- budgets driven by student achievement.

Coming to a School Committee near you-- soon.

Adapting Zero-based Budgeting Part 1

Summary paragraph: In which Menin briefly explains again why zero-based budgeting is an abstract exercise when it comes to creating School Budgets, but how a budget that is organized around a central idea makes more sense.

One of the unfortunate smokescreens blown during the override campaign was the need to change our approach to school budgeting to one based on the principles of "zero-based budgeting"- you start from Zero, and then begin to add in fixed costs, operating costs, costs incurred statutorily and keep building your budget from zero to whatever it becomes. Virtually no school systems use this format in it's purest form; because the variables that go into School Budgets are very volatile. It is hard to start from zero, because you very quickly move to meeting those expenses required by federal and state law-- classroom/teacher ratios, curriculum emphasis; then you add in known fixed expenses that are predictable- salaries, benefits, etc.

Since salaries in any municipal branch of government are going to amount to the great bulk of the expense- about 80% for education, and 88-94% for the last three years in the police and fire departments here in Newburyport, you have very little left for the operating costs like heat and electricity, which have varied wildly over the past five years.

With Special Ed costs, there are four principles that make projecting them an exercise in frustration-- 1) We have one of the highest rates in the state of serving Sp Ed students in the our district, as opposed to sending them out to other placements; 2) Costs for the specific services themselves are rising at an unpredictable rate from year to year; 3) It is, at best a crap shoot to estimate how many students will need special education services from year to year, with move-ins, move outs, new diagnoses, etc; and 4) It is hard to estimate the level of direct services these students will need. They represent about 10% of our students, and 25% of our need.

There is a better way to create a budget, though; something that is now possible for the first time, because Kevin Lyons has a year under his belt and the administrators and teachers share his vision for the schools.

Prior to this year, one of the most frustrating aspects of preparing the budget wasn't so much the steady cutting, but the lack of a coherent principle to justify those cuts. What should we cut to survive was the dominant question; some of us argued for a different question as the basis for budgetary action- why should we cut this. What is the impact on student achievement if we cut this? Prior to Dr. Lyons, or at least the five years I served under 2 previous Superintendents, at no time was a draft budget presented to us predicated on the simple question 'what can we do to preserve and promote student achievement.'

Several of us asked the question, repeatedly, in several different ways; we tried to tie the budget to a focus on student achievement. It didn't happen; simply because the information was not collected and tabulated in a way that allowed us to create a big picture, a driving vision for our schools. No real vision (except for vague ideas about best practices, excellent schools, and bricks and mortar).

And when that information was available, it was glossy, incomplete, with little year-to-year trend analysis.

So the common practice was to start with the budget of the previous year, and cut from there. The Committee would ask for a "level services budget" (one that projects the costs for keeping programs currently running, without assuming new or restored programs.). Once we had seen that budget, we would then ask the Superintendent to prepare a "level services budget"-- one that assumes no additional income. from the current year, which was, in effect, the "cuts" budget. And the the theory behind how we cut was to leave enough of the bare bones left, so that when money started flowing, we'd be able to bring it all back.

There are two flaws that were obvious in this approach, both of which I argued about on the floor of the SC for years. The first is that it assumes the way we have been doing things is the way we should always do things. The second is that such an approach is divorced from student achievement. What we were spending money on did not have a direct relationship to student outcomes. We kept class sizes small, and then watched the curriculum being taught die from neglect. Changing institutional cultures and practices is slow work; I have likened the first five years I spent on the school committee to 'riding shotgun on a glacier'.

There was, and is, and now will be a better way.

Next post...

The Charter School- My Position

Summary: In which Menin restates his position on the River Valley Charter School.

Some history and reality: Different kids learn in different ways. They take in information differently, process it differently; they develop the ability to think and be social in highly individualized ways. One size doesn't fit all.

The ability of a public school district to individualize and approach teaching students creatively really comes down to two things: money, and leadership. Well, there actually is a third factor- the ability to think and act outside the box. You can't just have two; you need all three.

The Charter School movement, to the extent that I understand the history, was the result of the confluence of two major tides in American thinking. The first was the recognition that many districts were not meeting the needs of the poorest, most challenged students; they were not adapting to the urban reality that in some neighborhoods, you can't do your homework when there are gunshots outside your window; you can't rely on parental support when the parent is a single mom working two jobs to put food on the table. Schools were simply not offering enough choices to students.

The second was the conservative movement towards privatization. When it became clear that school vouchers was a non-starter, the movement backed the Charter Schools idea. It was predicated on an overt agenda that competition is good, regardless of the market, and I believe a more subtle interest in stepping control of Schools away from elected boards representing the whole city, and into private boards, while still using state funds. Massachusetts codified the Charter School concept in 1993; and in hindsight there were two key elements that would prove to be divisive and noxious to the overall debate about best practices in education.

The first was that the funding for Charter Schools came right out of the Chapter 70 allotment for each host community. Since the Charter's students going out of Newburyport were funded at twice the amount of choice students coming in (the rationale was that unlike the public district, which owns it's buildings, Charter's had to assume capital and rental costs) , it caused an immediate impact locally to the school budget. For a while, the state gradually eased the money transition, but eventually, the stark reality set in. Had the funding for the Charter schools been a separate line item in the budget, and not funded through the reduction of Chapter 70 aid to public districts, a great deal of the tension would have been relieved.

The second was that a key line in legislation spoke about Charter Schools as being in "competition" with host public district schools, when it probably should have said "collaboration." Even legislation author Mark Roosevelt concedes the phrase did not capture the spirit of the legislative intent.

In Newburyport, the Charter school was founded by a group of parents who had long lobbied the School District for significant changes in the curriculum, teaching methodology and use of "best practices." These interests were longtime concerns; at the time I don't know if the School Committee considered trying to address these concerns by exploring the creation of a Horace Mann Charter School- a charter that is overseen by the School Committee.

As an institution, with a publicly elected body, the public district was unable to address the issues presented by the parents in a timely fashion; the decision by the parents to use the Charter School legislation, with it's favorable language, was taken very personally by the sitting School Committee and the community. It was one of the early Charter Schools outside of an urban setting.

Shortly after I was first elected in 2000, I became the first member of the School Committee to visit the Charter School, and worked for years to find some common ground for dialogue between the public district and Charter folks. Actually, I worked with Senator Baddour to try to find a way to get everyone to the table. Some fitful efforts were made, which resulted in a joint letter to the legislature saying there should be more funding for all elements in the educational system.

I believe that every school should have the resources and the flexibility to meet students where they are, to provide challenges and supports in appropriate measures.

I believe that one way to assess the degree to which a student has mastered skills is for them to present, or exhibit those skills, and not only through testing.

As a trained Montessori teacher, I believe that there are three year developmental periods between the ages of 0-21; that an individualized and well thought out program can be delivered through the greater use of multi-age classrooms.

Newburyport lacked the resources, leadership and momentum to do these things. More than that, the School Committee was wedded to an approach to education that was traditional, slow to innovate, and increasingly oriented towards teaching to the middle.

I understand the motivation of the Charter School parents.

I wish, and would advocate that Charter School funding be detached from what is a direct loss of Chapter 70 funds at a rate disproportionate to what Newburyport receives, to a separate line item in the state budget, with a separate funding mechanism.

The Charter school is real, and it isn't going away. I prefer to deal with, and make the best of reality. I believe that there is much we can learn from their efforts to date, and there are probably ways in which we can achieve some economic efficiencies by working together. I believe we can share "best practices" with each other, do joint training of staff, and perhaps even cross-offer Explores for the middle school-aged kids.

I wish there hadn't been an urgency on the part of the founding parents to create the school. However, I can also see, based on joining the School Committee shortly after the River Valley opened, that there was no way in hell a dialogue between the School Committee and Administration and the Charter advocates was possible; the atmosphere was poisonous and venomous.

That was a long time ago. Dale Bishop and Kevin Lyon have professional history with one another, which bodes well. I support a stepped-up conversation about education between the two of us; I support finding common ground and working towards a relationship that benefits both groups.

As the financial crisis eases over the coming years, I would like to have the School Committee consider opening a Horace Mann Charter School that has a focus on the arts or math/sciences. That is one of the reasons I have strongly advocated that the City retain control of the Kelley School; the building modifications to meet code for an upper level school (Middle, High School) are less stringent that those for and elementary school.

And I'll continue to lobby for the Charter Schools to be funded through a mechanism other than Chapter 70.

A Quick Note About the Forum

Summary paragraph: In which Menin tries to sum up the Educational Funding Forum held this evening.

Although the turnout could have been larger for the Forum tonight, the discussion was fruitful and spirited.

To boil it down to a few main points, I think we can safely say:

• There are some efforts that can be made to tweak the Chapter 70 formula that might help Newburyport in small ways in '09, such as looking at reimbursement for SPED transportation, and adjusting the incoming/outgoing rates for students going to the charter school.
• Efforts to reform Proposition 2.5 to allow for a binding restriction on money raised, to keep it permanently designated for schools is a fight no one has the stomach for. (Although no-one asked whether such a change could be made with a sunset clause in it that looks out five or ten years ahead)
• It is very unlikely that the minimum bottom will rise from 17.5% to 20% reimbursement, because of the influx of cash needed to make that happen.
• It is unlikely that the activation of circuit-breaker SPED money will change from the current 4X foundation figure (statutorily funded at 75% when money is apportioned, traditionally funded at 72% of costs over 4X foundation). We had hoped that since we have one of the highest rates of serving special needs kids in-district, which is the legal, moral, and fiscally most responsible thing to do, we might get the state to look at rewarding schools systems with high in district service rates by having circuit-breaker kick in at 3X. A nonstarter, it seems.
• The most immediate source of savings for the city would be the agreement of the City unions to enter into the state GIC pool, which would leverage the "buying power" of multiple communities to provide equal or better insurance plans at tremendous savings. Those would be somewhere between $500,000 and $800,000 in '09. The problem is that we have to get all city unions to the table, to do that each needs to waive the requirement of 30 days notice to meet (the window closes on October 29th); and then have a weighted vote of 70% of the union approve. The 70% threshold is easily attained, with the teachers and AFSME representing somewhere near 80% of the unionized employees in the City. The problem is that all the other unions have granted waivers and are ready to meet; apparently the two police unions have yet to respond.
• Federal help will not be coming in time for the '09 budget start, because of the commitment to veto any measure above his spending caps made by President Bush, and the inability (in the Senate) to muster a veto-proof majority. Our Congressman John Tierney chairs the House Subcommittee on Education, Senator Kennedy Chairs the same Committee in the Senate; and the hope is that a new administration of the Democratic persuasion might refocus our national funding priorities.
• Representative Costello feels that outside of joining GIC, which would free up money in the budget, and some tweaking of Chapter 70, the only real hope for '09 is in an override.

So, the School Revenue Task Force will issue the first of 3 or 4 preliminary updates on November 5th. It is fair to say that there are many more ideas being discussed to address long-term funding issues, and that these ideas will not just be limited to how the school does business, but will involve the City side as well.

Revenue Task Force Pre-Update about Impending Update

Although the first public "reporting out" or preliminary recommendations will happen at the November 5th School Committee meeting, Chair Brenda Reffett is preparing a public statement that will talk about the general topics we are pursuing; and recommendations we have already forwarded to the Mayor. In keeping with the spirit of our deliberations, I'll defer any specific comments and post her statement when it is available.

What I will say is this; the dialogue has been free-wheeling, very creative, brutally honest, and very clearly speaks to immediate ('09) needs, and long-term, institutional reforms and projects that could have a positive impact on the schools and the City in years to come.

If there is one more School Committee meeting you come to, I'd suggest the November 5th one. Not only is the agenda packed with critical updates and information, it is the last one before the election.

Have I mentioned I'm running for re-election, and would appreciate your vote?

A Chance To Be Heard

Summary: In which Menin reminds Newburyport of the Forum tonight

See you at the Nock Mick Middle School auditorium tonight at 7 pm. Expected to be there listening will be in Michelle Norman, Director of Policy for the Governor's Committee on Education, Julie Ryder from Senator Kennedy's office, State Senator Steve Baddour and Representative Mike Costello. Congressman John Tierney has been invited, but his attendance or that of a staff member or his staff haven't been confirmed.

A special thanks to Dick Sullivan, Jr., whose advocacy for education didn't end with his tenure on the School Committee.

A Balance of Questions

Summary paragraph: In which Menin shares something he learned about asking questions, and applies it to his time on the School Committee.

One of the first things I learned from the crisis work I referred to several posts ago, was how to phrase a question. You never should ask a why question; because it feels judgmental to the person you are saying it to, and it lends itself to an answer that moves the conversation in unproductive directions.

"Why did you do that?"

Why not?
Because!
What's it to you?

See what I mean? It may be torturous and long-winded to talk around the WHY, but it really helps.

I noticed that every time your cross a street, you genuflect. Can you help me understand a little more about that?

Yeah, WHY is quicker, but the above example opens up the conversation in a more generous and sympathetic way. And, it isn't judgmental.

So all ye candidates running for public office, some hard-won advice from the field of battle.

Open as few of your questions with a variation of "why" as possible (why do, why must, why did, why didn't, why can't, why won't, why will, etc.)

Start every possible exchange with "What if..." as much as possible.

"What if" is an invitation to partnership and collaboration, it is a sign that you are listening, a sign that you are affirming the other person. It is an invitation to step outside the box and dream.

"Why" is simply an invitation to step out into the parking lot and settle matters.

A simple civics lesson I've learned the hard way.

What if the the long over-due dialogue about municipal reform began with the question, what if...

For A Dancer... (Warning- sentimental)

Summary Paragraph: In which Bruce Menin remembers the life and death of a close friend, which occurred on the 1st anniversary of his own wedding to Julie Menin. And the lessons he learned from Charlie.

In that wonderful way life has of wrapping the sweet and the bitter, intertwined like ivy reaching skyward, October 15th has a special meaning for my wife and I. It is our wedding anniversary; in fact this is our 14th Anniversary. She is my hero; she is a wonderful, intentional loving mother, and has more creative muscles she hasn't flexed than anyone I know.

On October 15th, 13 years ago, one of my closest friends, Charlie Stramiello, succumbed to AIDS. It was an agonizing passing for him; the only time I ever visited a psychic, out of the blue, she told me that I needed to keep urging him in my prayers to look for the light, and then he would be alright.

Charlie and I met in 1972. We were both early admissions to a local Community College as part of the first group of American students to participate in the then brand new International Baccalaureate program. You skipped the last year of high school, took a very heavy course load in 5 subject areas and philosophy; the second year was spent in London; at the end of the two years we took a single exam 8 hours long in each subject area. Pass the test get the diploma. Fail the diploma, you still has an associates degree, with something like 90 credits to show for two years work.

Charlie got in because he was brilliant, and the program was creaming off the top of every high school in the county. I got in because they needed to fill a seat to make the program fly.

During our first day in class, our English teacher, the prim, bookish wife of one of the Deans, began to describe our studies for the semester. Her passion for the subject absolutely transformed her. Suddenly, her hair came down, she moved like an actress on the stage, and we were transfixed at her astonishing change, from quiet, subtle contained personality to an alive, sinewy, electric figure in front of us.

It was at that moment that Charlie, who was sitting next to me, passed a note betting me $5 that he would somehow do something so wonderfully bold, outrageous and libidinous with the Dean's wife by the end of the semester that I'm still blushing to this day. I knew then that I liked his style.

Charlie was an a terrific actor, a brilliant student, at times a hedonist; there was nothing he wouldn't try, and he was one of the funniest human beings I've ever met. We did some traveling together, actually spending a night shivering in the ruins of some castle near the Welsh border because we'd arrived too late to get into the hostel. Charlie and I had our ears pierced before we left England, he for his reasons, mine because I felt the year in England had marked a passage into adulthood for me. I passed out, and came to listening to Charlie yelling at the woman for what she had done to me.

Charlie hid his diagnosis from me for over a year; he lost friends because of it, and thought he would lose our friendship. That it meant so much to him surprised me, I remember; as did his fear that he would lose it over this issue. I also couldn't get my arms around how it was possible for someone to disappear from a friend's life when they needed you.

Charlie, who appeared in a few movies (The Eyes of Laura Mars and Star Dust Memories) had given up acting, was actually at the pinnacle of his next profession when he was forced to give up work. He had decided to become a meeting planner, if one actually makes such a decision; and within a few years, he was on the cover of their trade journal as one of the top 10 meeting planners in the country. He was president of their New York trade association for a year as well. That's where I borrowed the picture of him.

I tried to get back into New York City at least every month to spend time with him and his partner. In the summer of 1994, a few of us who had gone to school in England got together; I drove to NYC to pick him up and then back to Cape Cod to visit with all of us. He was gaunt.
He didn't last two nights, he was in a great deal of pain, so we drove back to New York.

Julie and I visited him in the hospital in September '94, at the urging of his partner. He was lucid, and when we hugged goodbye, we both knew it was goodbye. That was unlike everything I'd ever done or known before; I was deeply affected.

As Julie and I were celebrating our first anniversary, October 15th, 1994 at a B & B on Cape Cod, Paul, Charlie's partner called to tell us he had passed.

We were there for the funeral; a totally surrealistic event that Charlie couldn't have planned better if he had tried. I went up to pay my respects to his earthly remains, and his family had pinned above his face on top of the casket interior a picture of Charlie and I holding his ubiquitous bulldog, Hoonie, which Charlie had named after hearing someone use the phrase to describe a part of their body. That was pretty much when I lost it.

We all do the best we can. I have, had great affection for his parents, who were like a great indulgent surrogate aunt and uncle to me during my delinquent days, pulling all-nighters with Charlie to study before we left for England. Despite Charlie's eclectic lifestyle, they felt obligated to send him with some sort of religious ceremony, so they brought in a rent a priest.

And the priest talked about the tragedy of losing a son, because it also meant losing grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. And everyone in the audience knew Charlie had sown some mighty wild oats, but the likelihood of any of them producing an heir was extremely remote. So in the middle of the Padre's soliloquy, Mike, Charlie's Dad, asked if I would do an impromptu eulogy.

I did. I recounted some of our adventures, and some of my observations. Some stories were dicey, some roll on the floor funny, but they were all Charlie. As kind and considerate as he was, he could be outrageous and completely disarm anyone with words alone. A master at the snap. You ached after he went to sleep, or the visit was over, because his observations of the world were so witty and cogent. His friends in the audience, and his family also knew this Charlie, so it worked.

And then I looked out into the crowd, and saw several people who had abandoned him during his illness. Charlie was too busy and had too short an attention span to hold a grudge; but in some of our conversations, he named these people as the ones who had most disappointed him, by not returning calls or notes he had sent. He didn't have any "business" with any of them, didn't owe them money, he simply wanted their company.

My final comments were directed at them. Time is short, it passes quickly. People matter, lordy, in the end, they matter most. How you move through life among human beings, how you find ways to honor and love and comfort them; that really matters.

13 years and I swear I still think about him every day. Tomorrow, I'll light a memorial candle for him. A light. And I'll say the prayer again; move towards the light, Charlie. And don't trip on anything in the dark.

And Charlie, if he was watching me, would laugh and call me a putz.
"Why light a whole candle, you putz!" he would say.
"I was only half-Jewish."

For some reason, every time I approached New York City to visit him, I'd be cruising the radio dial, and the Jackson Browne song "For a Dancer" would be playing, and I would have to pull over because it always brought me to tears; still does.

It's all about Charlie, the song. It captures him like no other words I could ever string together.

So even in the middle of running for re-election, I am still learning to hold onto moments with the people in my life I see. My in-laws, my wife and kids. My neighbors, my friends, my peers, strangers; even people who I know have trashed me behind my back.

Because, as the Paradoxical Commandments point out, it is never about you and them, it's really about you and G-d.

I miss you, Chas. And I am grateful beyond words for the life I have been given, my partner Julie, my kids, my gifts and my challenges.

Keep moving towards the light Charlie. I know I'll need a guide when I cross over, so gotta get there.
And Happy Anniversary, Julie. How about we set up the tent in the backyard, and let the kids sleep out, and then order a pizza, just you and me?

Moon Dance

Lovely moon out there tonight. Clouds are clearing, and a fair breeze blowing out to right.

Go Sox. Go Youk, the Greek God of Walks, who isn't really Greek. Go Dustin Pedroia, who is smaller than I am. Go Tim Wakefield and Mike Timlin, who deserve another ring for their yeoman's service to the Sox over the years. Go Mike Lowell. Go Josh Beckett, the main reason my fantasy baseball team finished first this year.

And finally, go Big Papi. I had the chance to take each of my kids to their first game at Fenway this year, on separate occasions. And Papi homered in each game.

And go, voters. Look for the bridge builders.

It's a marvelous night for a Moondance.

Crisis Theory, Opportunity and Bridge Builders

Summary Paragraph: In which Menin sees opportunity where others don't.

In an earlier incarnation, I spent five years doing Emergency Mental Health work, both over the phones as a suicide counselor, and as an Outreach worker. I made 1,400 "home visits". I use the term home in it's broadest sense; we were the team of specialists who would get called to talk people off of bridges, do hostage negotiations, talk people out of killing someone else, visited alleys, department stores, bathrooms, city buses, just about any place a person can get themselves. We essentially served as a bridge between those in need of supportive services, and those services.

It was the most learning I have ever done in a five year period. I learned about humility and grace, fear and anger; I learned about how people cope with loss, and in several cases, how they prepare to die.

And I learned about me. In 1,400 home visits I was assaulted ten times, by a tiny fraction of the people I saw. I can tell you from personal experience that you are far more likely to be assaulted in a bar than by some one with mental illness. I also learned what it is like to be shot at, have a refrigerator tossed out a window at me; dodge a knife; a client once opened their door and had a loaded cross-bow pointed at my gut. I learned what it is like to try to resolve a hostage situation negotiating through a door while I could see the SWAT team setting up on the roof across the street. Another time, we were called out to talk with a Viet Nam vet who was parked in front of his ex-wife's house, an empty syringe, filled with air, jabbed into a vein in his arm; when a press helicopter flew overhead for pictures for the late news ("film at 11"), he started screaming. The only reason I think we didn't lose him was that the police all pulled out their service revolvers and aimed it the copter, which took off like a bat out of hell.

I learned what a privilege it is to serve, to be present with a person in their hardest, most frightening moments. Believe me, there was nothing heroic, by any tortured stretch of the imagination, to the work we were doing. It was humbling, powerful; and it was threaded with moments of otherworldly grace.

What does this have to do with Newburyport? Something I have alluded to in earlier posts was perfectly articulated in Mary Eaton Baker's Wicked Awesome Website this morning. Building bridges.

In crisis theory, the way it works is simply this. It is about building a bridge that will hold your weight.

We all have ways of coping with stress. Most of the time they work. When they no longer work for a person, or a city, you enter a period of crisis, which is characterized by two things-- a rise in energy, often dramatic; and a push towards some sort of resolution.

There are really only three ways a crisis can resolve. You can get your balance back, and restore the old ways of coping. The downside to this is that you are embracing a system for coping that has already failed. Another failure is inevitable, you've just pushed the problem into the future. Kind of like putting sick leave buy-back on the table when you have no money for raises.

The second option is to adopt new coping mechanisms, new ways to approach problems. When you think about it, there are really only two ways you can try to resolve a crisis by using new coping mechanisms. You can adopt mechanisms that are self-destructive, like drinking, suicide, social withdrawal, acting out, having a tantrum, electing the lesser of two evils, convincing yourself that it doesn't matter, they're all the same, and so on. You get the picture.

The final option is to channel that energy into finding new ways to resolve problems. Constructive, empowering; thinking about the problems in a new way.

Building bridges, for example.

A small group of people from the city side and the school side have been quietly talking about our fiscal crisis, and the impact it is having on the schools, and we've come to some interesting, consensual conclusions.

The Schools are symptomic of the problems faced by the City, and solving the problems of the Schools without looking at fundamental changes in how this City does it's business (Ed Cameron's calls for municipal reform) won't fix things for very long.

The answers are out there; we lack leadership.

The answers are complex, and we want simple.

The answers require some degree of sacrifice, and we want ours.

It will take a community to solve these issues, and our approach has traditionally been divisive, because it is too simplistic, and it plays to the least civil elements in our collective personality.

The quiet message of the Override was that YES people are pushy, SUV driving know-it alls; KNOW people are local yahoos who didn't make much of the schools when they were in them. The elderly came out to vote against the schools? Well, let's see what happens when they come to us for a debt exclusion for a senior center! It was about the Franklin's, for sure, but it was fueled by the socio-economic kindling of a City where more than 50% of the people living here as of ten years ago weren't born here.

We need bridge-builders. They share some very common qualities. They listen. They question everything, especially the status quo. They constantly try to find new ways of looking at the issues. They refuse to accept as justification for continuing a certain practice (say, contract negotiations), "Well, that's the way we've always done it."

They persevere. They keep their eyes on the prize. They have little time for petty, vindictive games. They respect process, and are inclusive and transparent. And most importantly, they don't carve up the town into liberal or conservative wards, they can see something that many can't, for some reason. That we probably agree on 85% of the issues, can find consensus solutions to 10% with real leadership, and agree to disagree on the remaining 5%.

I'm not sure what to call this group of "new" thinkers- there's nothing new about the way they think; many of their ideas defy categorization, as do they, come to think of it. They have a consistent set of principles through which they analyze an issue, and as a result, end up with solutions that range from conservative (in it's original meaning), to progressive and populist. Probably another key characteristic is that they don't presume to have the answers, but they have faith that they can be arrived at collaboratively. Finally, to a person, they simply are not afraid of the truth, of speaking it aloud, to the powerless and the powerful.

For now, I'm just happy to be a part of that dialogue. A few of us feel like we've been trying to figure this stuff out alone, when all the time there actually were other people doing the same dance at the same time.

And when this "movement" reaches critical mass, watch those old and dysfunctional coping mechanisms that characterize Newburyport civic life melt away.

Can I get an "Amen?"

We need bridge-builders. There are a few on the ballot this year; Mary Baker Eaton has a nose for them.

In some cases, it means returning people to their elected offices; in other cases, it means finding out whether an opponent can be a bridge-builder as opposed to an incumbent who is a divider.

We are the change. The people we choose to represent us are the tools of change. If we don't change, we will wither. Choose wisely, and vote for the city you want to see, and not the city we have become.

Winners and Winners...

Although I must express my disappointment that I didn't win, props to Al Gore, who often describes himself as the former future president, for winning the Nobel Peace prize. His ability to gather complex data and put it into a format that was clear and easily understood show all the hallmarks of a great teacher, and his refusal to believe that complicated issues can be resolved by a simple YES/KNOW framework should be a great inspiration to us all.

Ironically, he is sharing the award with the UN-based Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change. The latest research, as was predicted by NASA scientist James Hansen, whom our government tried unsuccessfully to censor, is wrong about global warming.


The Arctic Ice Cap is not melting as per their computer models. It is melting faster. The melt so far is decades ahead of what the computer model predicted.

I wonder if our house assessment will change if our house on Lime Street becomes beachfront property?

I also wanted to mention another, more local hero. Dr. Ralph Orlando has attended virtually every School Committee meeting for the past two years, has never shirked an opportunity to challenge us, and has worked cooperatively with anyone interested in finding funding for the schools. He is on the revenue task force, and has worked up a terrific power point presentation that takes the complex and breaks it down to manageable chunks. More than that, he has identified some reasonable areas within the current Chapter 70 formula where simple changes of how Newburyport is categorized can result in more funds for '09. He will be giving this presentation at the Education Forum on October 17th.

When Dr. Orlando speaks, people listen. He has been a major force on the state level, because of his unique access to those making the decisions, relationships cultivated during his many years of work with veterans.

Dr. O is a terrific example of community engagement that challenges and works with the real world to bring about meaningful change.

Another Faux Endorsement

I know John Kerry. I like John Kerry. But Newburyport, I'm no John Kerry.

Let this be proof that I'm willing to fabricate endorsements from both sides of the aisle. I am an equal opportunity fabricator. I am a shameless equal opportunity fabricator. But at least I'm honest about it.

Executive Sessions

Summary: Menin offers a description of the uses of Executive Session, with an important caveat.

At the conclusion of many School Committee meetings, some one will make a motion to go into Executive Session for one of two purposes: contract negotiations or possible litigation; and that we will not be coming back out into public session (that the results of our Executive Session for reasons that will become obvious, are for the time being restricted to that session). A role call vote is taken, the community and press are ushered out of the room, and our discussion begins.

Consistent with Ed Reform and existing laws, the term "contract negotiations" refers to any dialogue we are having relative to negotiations for the teachers or other union contracts; assisting the Superintendent in setting parameters for administrative raises (the Superintendent hires and evaluates all administrators), negotiating and hiring the Superintendent, and recommending and negotiating any raises with the Assistant Superintendent, pending a recommendation by the Superintendent. It may also refer to contract talks ongoing with sub-contractors. Once the Committee has made these decisions, they become part of the public record.

"Litigation" refers to ongoing or potential legal issues we may face; Special Education, athletics, Union grievances, etc.

There are no other items discussed at these sessions, no other votes taken. Often, these meetings end up with no decisions being made- they are simply informational. There is no discussion of how we will "frame" vote, and no deliberation as to how we will vote if the decision is one that we are required to make as part of a public session.

Once any items discussed at these meetings have reached their "statute of limitations," that is they have been resolved, it is my understanding that notes of the Executive Sessions become a part of the public record; that is certainly worth double-checking however, I could be wrong there.

One final note on SC decisions made in Executive Session, as well as those made in public session. School Committee rules require that once the vote is taken, the outcome is adopted as a decision made by the full Committee and enforced as such.

Let me put it another way.

Do not assume that any decision made in Executive Session was made unanimously. We have had some mighty stormy discussions, some very close votes in Executive Session. I have found that the "intimacy" of Executive Session and the nature of the decisions we are limited to making allows for some very candid and wide-ranging consideration of the issues and their long-term impact.

You can usually tell by the looks on our faces where we stood on the decision when it is announced in public session.

Running For... (Length Warning!)

Summary Paragraph: In which Menin talks about the two ways to run for elective office, and asks you to remember that this is only his opinion. But he also points out that he's a goody two-shoes with a failing memory, which makes him less likely to lie or shade the truth because he wouldn't be able to keep his story straight.

When I first ran for School Committee in 2000, I had a negative reason for running; that is, I ran against the status quo. Four of us ran for 3 seats; I didn't run against them. I ran against the School Committee as it was then operating. Those of you have been in the community since the 90's may remember those days; a refresher for you if you don't remember or if you weren't here.

That School Committee was composed of bright, hardworking individuals who cared about the School system. It was proud of it's work to pass the High School override, It had, as a body, hired one Superintendent, Cappy Smith, but had also made it clear that Smith, who was a visionary in many ways, was not going to be rehired. Between the election and the inauguration of a new majority of School Committee members (three Committee members and a new Mayor) the outgoing School Committee felt the need to relieve the incoming majority of the responsibility of hiring a new Superintendent, and hired Mary Murray. This only reinforced the community perception of the School Committee as aloof, disinclined towards transparency, and controlling of the agenda. Oh, and the habit of making appointments as you headed out the door, tying the hands of the incoming elected officials, is really a hallmark of those particular folks. It has happened repeatedly over the past six years.

So I ran to change that. I ran against that. And although I didn't personalize it, I made it very clear that while the majority would rule, they would not have a silent minority to contend with.

I had garnered a reputation writing for the Undertoad, and through community activism, and I finished 3rd in a field of 4.

So I joined the School Committee as the only seated educator, with a chip on my shoulder, a Saul Alinsky orientation to institutional change, and a legal pad full of ideas. And while I wasted no time in offering critical feedback to procedures and Committee processes, it was always constructive- that is, if I said this didn't work, I'd always suggest something that might be an alternative.

Unexpectedly, I found myself working more closely with Dick Sullivan, who had run for similar reasons. We agreed to second one another's motions, and for the first time in years, were able to promote a dialogue within the Committee about a wide range of issues. There things we didn't agree on, but we always felt the community had the right to have everything deliberated in public session.

We moved from a single session of Public Comment to several, and we introduced Public Conversation, which encouraged people from the community to raise concerns with the Committee publicly in the form of a dialogue- you ask a question publicly, you get an answer publicly. The budget process acquired more structure, and connection with the School Improvement Plans as a way to ensure that we were moving forward with some feedback from the School community. More hearings were held, and more dialogue began to happen between the School Committee and the public at those hearings.

That School Committee deserves credit for creating what has turned out to be model approach to creating clear policies that mark the limits and responsibilities of the School Committee and the Superintendent.

But my strongest memories of the first two years were struggling to pry open process, ranging from budget creation to adoption, finding ways to do business openly and engage the community at every possible point, and simply running into 5-2 votes repeatedly on what I would call back then "thinking outside the box" proposals for changing the system to promote learning and capture efficiencies. I remember that the School Committee self-evaluation just prior to my joining had one question regarding Public Communications- "did we get the Newsletter out in a timely fashion."

To this day, I am still discovering information that might have affected my vote back then, had it made it's way all the way around the table. Information is the currency of politics. And it seems to me that it was hoarded during my early years, and dispensed in a miserly fashion.

At one point, the School Committee representative to the High School Building Committee had to be publicly reminded that their role was our representative to them, and not their rep to us; and that timely sharing of information regarding the progress or lack thereof was expected.

Not only was the School Committee distrusted, it seemingly had no insight into that fact, nor did it have any idea how to change that perception.

Over the last four years, there have been dramatic changes, in my opinion. Early votes on the School Committee felt to me orchestrated and pro forma, the outcomes predetermined, and the public debate limited to move things along. Now, while it may seem that we talk things to death, we have become the deliberative body the community deserves, and we are doing more due diligence about ideas and issues than at any time in my six years on the Committee.

We have made decisions over the past year alone that were never even allowed to be brought to the table as options to be explored; I remember my annual frustration at bringing ideas forward early in the school year, only to be told it was too soon to talk about them, and then bringing them back up during budget talks, only to be admonished that it was too late.

I have called that the tyranny of the agenda; it was exercised by the few to create a school system that reflected a passive, "insider" mentality.

But things began to change. The budget documents became more and more transparent every year. Budget hearings became longer, and more frequent, and much more animated with the opportunity for community input. Our budget choices, which were now limited to making cuts, were more painful for that, but it was the way the process should always have been conducted.

By the end of my first term, I still had a long list of things I wanted to see happen. And although I found myself consistently locking horns with the Superintendent about accountability issues, and curriculum decisions we were making that were driven by budget cuts, I felt there had been just enough changes in the status quo that I was now running for the SC, and not against it. I chose to run for the remainder of Vickie Pearson's term (two years), in part because I was very excited about the field running for the 3 available 4 year seats. In turns out that they were unopposed, and I drew an opponent in my race, which was fine.

I decided, as I had in my first race, I would't raise any money from the community to run, that I would self-finance. In the end, I was both in school taking Montessori training, and teaching during the day, so I had little time for traditional campaigning. My opponent was also managing the Mayoral race being made by Donna Holaday. For every sign she had, I had none. For every brochure, again, I had none.

I eked out a win, pretty much winning every ward. Later, when I asked people in the community why they thought I had succeeded, they told me that they didn't agree with me at times, but they felt I would reliably confront issues and could be counted upon to find ways to get the community involved in the decisions, whether that was through feedback or spending a lot of face-time out there, before and after meetings, or when I would meet people on the street. They saw me as reliably pushing for accountability throughout the school system.

I ran for the School Committee then, and not against my opponent, who, despite all her advantages, could simply not make a compelling case for my electoral removal, or for her own candidacy.

This year, much to my surprise, I am again running for School Committee. We have finally found the synergy that has been missing- a good balance of viewpoints, a visionary Superintendent, some very sharp and analytical minds, and a commitment to explore every idea from the point of view of it's affect on students.

There are three seats, six candidates. Good candidates. Four of them worked on the Override campaign, which I supported. They are all bright, energetic, and engaged. But the feedback I am getting from friends who have attended meet and greets, or met them door to door, is that they are running against the School Committee. We are indecisive, they say, or we have been slow to act. We can do better.

Of course we can, and we will. I have spent the last two years serving on a School Committee that didn't have the answers prior to the discussion; that as we agonize over each decision, it is happening in real time, without choreography, without back room chatter.

I feel my fellow candidates confuse jumping to conclusions without due diligence, or driving to a decision that is made before full deliberation, with indecisiveness.

There's an old Yiddish saying, one that seems apropos- "A goat has a beard, but that doesn't make it a Rabbi." One person's indecisiveness is another's insistence on due diligence.

In effect, their argument is throw the bums out; it is merely coincidence that I am the only bum running for re-election. And people wonder why I'm the only person since 1997 to run for re-election to the School Committee. In some ways, I don't blame them; I ran that way once as well.

Life isn't that simple. If you want to throw the bums out, you need to make sure that all those ejected are bums. You need to be sure that there is no value to re-electing a candidate who has six years experience, is a licensed educator with classroom experience, has lived through six budget cycles, worked with three Superintendents, fought against many of the cuts and the framework in which those cuts were being considered, pro-actively advocated reconfiguration six years before we were forced to do it. You need to make sure that this community is better off losing one of only two members who have sat at the negotiating table with the NTA. You need to make sure that the relationships established with elected officials outweigh those of former elected officials when it comes down to getting city and state money we need for the schools. That is called due diligence.

It's easy to paint with a wide brush; it covers a lot of things. In baseball and football, they have a saying, when you come to play, you leave it all on the field. You hold nothing back. That's how I've approached my responsibilities as a member of the School Committee. I leave it all on the table.

Finally, the surpassing irony is that several of my fellow candidates have sought and have the active support of the very people who were dominating the School Committee when I ran against the status quo six years ago. Talk about back to the future.

So it comes down to this. Either I have changed into a passive, co-opted, insider, who no longer fights stupid curriculum cuts and the misguided emphasis on buildings to the detriment of our academic programs; who mistrusts the public because they don't know as much as I do, or I'm still the same abrasive, creative, irreverent pain in the ass I have been for six years.

And I may have been a pain in the ass, but I have always been on the side of the kids, of accountability, of making hard decisions with an eye on the future; and I have a public record proving it. I don't think I've changed. Nor do I think I will.

I will support another override if and when it is needed, but I believe there are a number of things we can do as a community before we get there, and that we can lessen the burden on seniors when we do.

To repeat- the schools are in desperate need of an infusion of cash, quickly, for the '09 budget, but I'm an no longer convinced that putting all of our eggs in the override basket is the only way to go. Other options exist, and will require difficult decisions, ones we haven't really confronted yet. But they are there; and can be made by a community that isn't as polarized as we are now.

So look for consensus builders up and down the ballot this election day folks, and leave the ideologues on their soapboxes. We gonna need a lot of listeners and sanity in the next coupla years.

Oh, and in case anyone asks, people on both sides of the funding issue still think I'm a pain in the ass, so I must be doing something right.

A Hero Passes...

I was thinking the other day about a book I read a very long time ago, allegedly written by Mickey Mantle, about heroism. It was patterned after JFK's Profiles in Courage, but the part that stuck with me all my life was a special kind of heroism, the true moral compass, the heroism that happens all around us every day that doesn't glitter, or call attention to itself. The willingness to risk something of yourself financially, emotionally, reputation-wise, to do what you know to be the right thing. That kind of heroism happens all the time to people who wouldn't dream of equating it with heroism.

We've also really tortured the word mercilessly. Baseball players hit heroic home runs, movie stars save the world heroically; the idea of heroism has been cheapened by the culture. Why else would we even tolerate radio commentators calling Iraq veterans who are voicing their doubts on our Iraq policies "phony soldiers." Were they shooting fake bullets? Were their injuries cured by simply taking off the make up? My belief is that they served their country, as they were honor-bound to do, and their experience in doing so was an epiphany, something they never expected to realize- wrong place, wrong time. I thought going there to fight was heroic, while I opposed the reasons for intervening; but having done that and tried to tell America to look at what we are really accomplishing there-- now that is courage.

Lt. John Withers, because he was in the middle of pursuing a PhD, went into the Army in 1944 with a commission and the responsibility for commanding a group of men who literally traveled across the U.S. and Europe for deployment in segregated vehicles. The Lt., and his command were black, the army policy was segregation. And the soldiers in his command were given the stick end of the jobs- supplies,cleaning, cooking, digging graves.

Many of Withers' troops were illiterate; he taught them to read and write, and wrote letters for them. He was well-liked and respected.

After they had been at their station for several months, a soldier in his unit confessed to breaking an order. He told Withers that, despite the Army policy that there should be no contact with the survivors of any of the concentration camps, for fear of pestilence, his unit had taken in, and was hiding two survivors. They were sick, and hungry, and the arrangements made up to that point by the Allies for handling the situation amounted to little more than they had experienced in the camps. Withers, inclined to send the men back to the Refugee camp, asked to have the two men, affectionately named Peewee and Salamon by the soldiers who couldn't pronounce their real names, brought to him.

He saw the condition they were in, and countermanding orders and risking an honorable discharge, which would forfeit access to the G.I. Bill to finish his education, he agreed that keeping them and sustaining them until their health had returned was the right thing to do.

They spent a year with his unit, ducking higher command when there were inspections. All of the men developed great affection for one another.

An entire unit, and their commanding officer risked their careers to perform a simple act of decency. They never thought twice about it. I think I understand a little bit more about courage each time I hear these stories. Courage is when you don't believe you have a choice, the thing you need to do is so blatantly obvious.

Lt. Withers, Ph.D., passed away on Sunday. There is a lot more to this story, which was captured by the Wall Street Journal article to be found at this link:

http://isurvived.org/InTheNews/WSJ-folder/wsj-article-112503.html

My Great Aunt Salka Hilsenrath, my Great Uncle Shulim Hilsenrath, and my two cousins, Henik and Jumek; Great Uncle Jakob Rosenberg, my Great Aunt Heniah Rosenberg, and my other cousin Henik Rosenberg could easily have been the beneficiaries of the human decency so abundant in Lt. Withers and his unit, abundant despite their status as second class citizens and soldiers.

But as my personal research is beginning to reveal, and has been chronicled in an astonishing book called Lost, by Daniel Mendelsohn, they probably never made it much farther than the fields surrounding their small town, Stryj, where they were executed and tossed into mass graves they themselves dug.

About 1,100 people who fought in World War II die every day. Most of them, who struggled to find the words during their lives to talk about it, were heroes, or did heroic things that we will never hear about.

I always tell kids not to look for heroes in the movies or the comic books. Find them all around you, they are abundant, and blissfully ignorant that they are heroes. They are a 21 year old survivor of muscular dystrophy publicly confronting Mitt Romney on his opposition to medical use of marijuana, which was recommended by five of his treating physicians; they are Al Decie and Gloria Braunhardt, standing up for the environment against both government and corporations; they are the teacher who somehow finds a way to connect an autistic child to the world in a meaningful way; and that child, working against a stacked deck with support services, trying day after day to discover meaning and linkage with others, that child is my hero. Those are the moral values we should be teaching and showing in the Schools and on the School Committee.

David Bowie was right. We can be heroes. We need to be them, recognize them, and spend less time expecting them to be someone else.

FLASH: All Menin Signs Reported Stiil In Place

As of 9:30 PM, all Menin signs that are spread out across the City are all present and accounted for. The moratorium appears to be holding. I'll keep you updated.

Duck, it's another endorsement...

Open season on School Committee members. Big prize for bagging the only one who's run for re-election since 1997.

The Endorsements are coming in, folks...

As they arrive, I will be posting messages from some people who are supporting my campaign.

Actually, while I have been discovering more widespread support than I expected city-wide ("I may not always agree with you, but you've always fought for the kids, and given the politicians hell!"); these captioned endorsements are totally fabricated. They are make believe. In fact, I might not want the endorsement of some of these folks. But you have to admit they have some appeal.

Any press is...

A quick Thank you to Steve of the Daily News, who managed to capture just enough of my babbling to make sense in his article on political blogging in Newburyport.

The piece also directs you to three other active blogging sites; blogging meaning more along the lines of dialogue and reader participation. Those three others are listed in my neat sites column on the left of the page; they belong to Mary Baker Eaton, whose finger on the pulse of Newburyport is so accurate she should be a Nurse Practitioner; Ed Cameron, continually making sense out on Ward 4, and Tom Salemi, whose apolitical (so far) approach gives him a wide latitude of things to write about.

This is a brave new world, after all.

Sign of the times...

Well, another of my signs has walked off a front lawn. The sign stalker actually pulled it off the property of a family that was having a sleepover birthday party for their daughter at the time.

Again, I would remind the thief that the signs are recyclable. I would also remind the thief that you are a thief, or thieves, as the case may be. A special kind of thief. A coward, part of a group of people that have historically used the cover of night to make their particular kind of magic happen. You see, these kind of folks are afraid to speak truth to power, afraid to hear things they don't want to hear, and in fact, are so unfamiliar with the truth that they wouldn't recognize it if it bit them on the butt.

So two quick points. Every sign you take, I replace. And at some point, you'll either get served at your home or pulled over while driving through town because destroying the signs is destroying personal property, and stepping onto someone's lawn is trespassing, not that the rule of law matters much to y'all. It could happen very soon, as a matter of fact. Because those who have my signs are looking out for them. They didn't take them as a favor, they took them because they believe in the work I've done over six years.

So, why not show up at the Candidate Forum, Newburyport Public Library at 6:45 PM on the 30th. Then, you can return the signs, and tell me to my face exactly why you want to collect them.

And don't worry, Forum is scheduled at night. It shouldn't be any problem for you get out at night, should it?

Money, Part 2

Summary: Menin reveals 14 points he thinks will help the adults in the community get the ship of education unstuck from it's mooring between a rock and a hard place.

Without pre-empting the work of the Task Force on School Revenue, it is fair to say that they have framed the problem in a way that makes solving the funding problem easier to solve, on a short-term basis as well as long-term. We will see their ideas over coming months, some of those below may be reflected in the final set of deliverables, some may not.

After observing and participating in six budget draftings, two general elections, and an override campaign, I now believe any successful strategy to address the immediate needs of the schools, as well as the long term needs, must contain the following elements:


1. Project out School expenses for 3-5 years, so that revenue choices made can be applied towards predicted needs, academically & strategically.

2. Once expenses are projected, each budget submitted should reflect a commitment to student achievement as an over-arching priority.

3. Every budget submitted by the Superintendent for Committee and community consideration must be scoured for possible efficiencies that do not have a negative impact on student achievement.

4. The same strategy should be applied to the budgets of every City Department; the potential for open hearings with community feedback, as is the practice of the Schools, should be considered with other Departments.

5. As is the practice at the School Department, the City should freeze all budgets by October, requiring serious consideration in the payment of every subsequent expense. As a result, transfers within the Department budget could avert potential deficits in Departmental expenses. Significant surpluses could be identified to help other Departments offset deficits or allow for the implementation of new initiatives.

6. The City should attempt to reconcile all contracts with unions so they may be negotiated at the same time, reducing the "you got yours, I want mine" tendency that currently impedes progress. This will make possible the potential for much greater efficiencies and faster progress on areas such as benefits. Obviously, specific unions represent workers with specific contractual needs, but some common needs could be met more efficiently.

7. The City needs a clearinghouse for all potential grant proposals. Currently, each department does its own search, & writes its own grants, a remarkably inefficient system. If there was a clearinghouse responsible for triaging all federal, state and other grants available, and then moved them on to Departments to consider and/or apply for them, we increase access to funds available. Most communities triage grants out of Planning or Development.

8. Any future lobbying with regard to Chapter 70 reform must be highly strategic and surgical; in addition to lobbying for some wholesale changes in reimbursement rates, we must look at specific elements of the reimbursement package to see where simply shifting Newburyport from one category of reimbursement to another would result in additional funds. After five years of lobbying for wholesale Chapter 70 reform, it has finally arrived, and as a result, Newburyport is one of 33% of towns and cities in the Commonwealth could be getting less- significantly less- than the rest of the state. In short, the vaunted reforms have screwed us. Although this will be looked at closely by the Revenue Task Force as a long term goal, Dr. Ralph Orlando believes that it is possible that strategic changes could affect '09 and beyond. And I agree with Ralph.

9. Should the School Committee decide it will need to go to the taxpayers for additional funds over the short-term or long-term, the request should be absolutely specific as to dollar amount, how it will be spent; if it is at all possible to stipulate within the Override or Debt Exclusion that the money will in the future continue to be restricted for the designated funding it should be done.

10. The City and the School Committee should jointly agree on a long term plan to address non-building capital needs (technology, for example), and set aside budget money specifically to address those needs in a timely fashion.


11. The City and the School Committee should identify those items needed by the School (computers and other technology, upgrading HVAC systems for efficiencies, books and curriculum materials) that might become part of a Debt Exclusion.

12. In the event that the need for an override is clear, the City should enact abatement rules based on age and income levels that would exempt those qualifying from paying the additional taxes until their house is sold or the funds can be drawn out of their estate.

13. In the event that an override is needed, the School Committee should present to the community a clear picture of how the override items will be tied to a long-term vision of improving student achievement, restoring lost programs that can be delivered in a more efficient way, and promoting new, innovative, "best practices" initiatives.

14. Working with the City, the School Committee should help to identify potential and specific new sources of revenue that can be directed at the schools without increasing unduly the burden on the residents of Newburyport.


I'm still thinking, folks. There will be more on this to come.

Money, Part 1

Summary Paragraph: Part one of a series of posts in which Menin looks at the revenue problem experienced by the City and affecting the Schools, solutions we've tried, and solutions it will take to solve the problem.

After six years of declining funding, the schools are pretty threadbare, academically and physically.

While we can all agree on the effects, ranging from the loss of teachers and electives to the longer-term depressing of house values, I have to say thinking has evolved a great deal on the causes, and even more on potential solutions.

First, the City government has done pretty much everything we have asked of it over the past six years. The City Council has not, to my recollection cut any money from the school budget that it has received from the Mayor during my tenure on the School Committee; the School Committee has sent unbalanced budgets to the Mayor in 2 of the last 3 years; in four of the last six years, the Mayor has added some funds, but has not fully funded the recommended budget.

The problem is that even though the City has funded the Schools at more than the state requires it to, even that extra funding is not enough any more.

City growth isn't what it used to be; the assessments of private homes keep going up, at a rate faster than personal income, creating a widening gap between income and real property. That gap makes it increasingly difficult for people on fixed incomes to cope with additional taxes that would come with an override. That is a very real issue; as is the lack of affordable housing stock that would enable people who wanted to live out their lives in Newburyport to stay here.

In the crisis of last Spring, facing the trifecta (accumulated cuts of the previous five years had eroded academic programs to the tipping point, City growth was stagnant, and federal and state aid was not going to increase appreciably), the School Committee approved a major reconfiguration of the schools, which saved $750,000. It still left a structural deficit of more than $750,000 which the schools have had every year since 2004, when the state decided not to pay out the full Chapter 70 Funds it had committed to Newburyport.

The net result: Five years of cuts that weakened programs, virtually no new spending during that time to replace or update curriculum, and less federal money supporting schools despite the increase in meeting the unfunded mandates of No Child Left Behind.

Hoping to be able to make the most of the $750,000 in savings we gained from the reconfiguration, (a number we won't pull out of the budget again), and continue the momentum of overhauling the curriculum to bring it up to acceptable standards, we chose to go to the community to ask for an operating override in the Spring of this year. We believed that the only short-term solution to this crisis would be found in the community through an override. I believed that, and supported it.

It is also important to point out that our decision to go in the Spring was heavily influenced by Mayor Moak twice announcing at School Committee meetings that he was considering putting a debt exclusion on the ballot in November. We believed that competing with a general election, and a debt exclusion, the override would have no chance. Once we had committed to the Spring vote, the Mayor decided not to put a debt exclusion on the ballot this fall. It is also worth noting that two individuals who have been close advisors of Mayor Moak for a long time headed up the anti-override campaign.

The override failed for a variety of reasons. People felt the tax burden was already too much; people did not feel compelled to invest in the schools because they felt that they had no direct or vested interest in the schools; people felt that the school budget still had not gotten the scrutiny it deserved; people felt that "there are too many administrators and they get paid too much" (despite the recent state report that pointed out we lacked a sufficient number of administrators to manage the system effectively, and that the ones we had were spread too thin, and that our admin staff are at or below state median salaries); people didn't like the attitudes of those working for the override; and some people even felt they wouldn't vote for an override until the City itself showed a little more fiscal discipline in the budgets of other departments.

But it failed. The "Big Mo'" was lost, and the schools, though better off in some ways academically by the reconfiguration, remain in need.

... And Another Thing

While we're blaming the teachers for all of our budget woes, I thought you might find these articles informative:

http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/204961

and this one, too.

Working With the Enemy

also, this one.

"Why things don't seem to change."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/16/education/edlife/EDOBSTACL
.html?ex=1192686904&ei=1&en=b1ac6610bd7ea134

Let's keep faith, folks. We are in this as a community; students, teachers, parents and citizens; and we will find equitable solutions without pointing fingers or scapegoating anyone.

As any sociologist, economist, and planner will tell you after looking at Newburyport and it's struggles, the list starts with a lack of affordable housing, continues through a failure to maintain infra-structure, to pro-actively plan, allowing politicians to run divisive campaigns, to tolerate mediocrity on the municipal level and in the schools. And that is just a start.

But we have to start. That's what matters.
Anything is possible.

As The Boss says, "Show a little faith, there's magic in the night..."

Doing Some 'Splainin

Summary Paragraph: In which Menin discusses the budget process, the types of budget the Superintendent submits; tries to clear to fog a little about why if we are adding money into the budget every year are we cutting teachers and programs.

During the upcoming budget process, you will hear several terms tossed about. Although they seem the same, they are not, and represent very different concepts. So a brief explanation will help.

The School Committee has, over the past several years, asked the Superintendent to prepare a Level Services Budget as the first document we will work with. A Level Services budget is one that provides exactly the same services as last year, adds no additional programs, and reflects only the estimated cost increases to those items we know or can expect to increase. Those would include salary increases as contracted; additional Special Education costs (which are always speculative; you don't specifically know from year to year how many children will need services, and the depth of services they will need, all highly variable cost drivers); and finally operating costs like heat and electricity.

While the expense side of the budget has risen every year because of these three factors, the schools have not been funded with a Level Services budget in five years.

Once we have seen what it will cost to preserve exactly what we have from last year to the next, we then ask the Superintendent to prepare a Level Funded Budget. A level funded budget assumes that their will be no change in revenue from one year to the next, and absorbs all cost increases within the same bottom used the previous year. Our expectation when we ask the Superintendent to provide the School Committee with both kinds of budgets is that any kind of efficiencies that can be wrung out the system be done- whether that is finding a new consortium to order cheaper toilet paper from, or job-sharing.

This obviously requires cuts.

The School Committee has not, to my knowledge, had a Level Funded budget funded in five years. That means dramatic cuts, program cuts, reconfiguration.

In the past five years, it has been my experience that once we have received the Level Funded Budget, we proceed to public hearings. We listen to the recommendations of the Superintendent, which are informed by the Administrative Council (Principals and other administrative staff) which are in turn informed by each School Improvement Plan, and then we proceed to cut the budget to pieces to fit the revenue we expect to receive.

Let me reiterate for those who fell asleep during the first paragraph.

There are three major cost drivers affecting the Schools every year: contractual salary obligations, Special Education costs (about 25% of our budget serving about 10% of our student population), and energy costs.

In the last three years, we have experienced literally a 50% increase in health insurance costs.
In one year, we saw energy costs rise by over 50%. Our Schools are especially affected by those cost increases, as they are older, the Nock has building envelope problems that allow a lot of heat to escape, and our heating systems at the Nock and Bres are old and not particularly efficient.

All you need to do is look at your own phone bills, heating bills and grocery bills to know that you aren't talking any longer than you used to on the phone, you've turned your thermostat lower and you aren't eating any more than you did one or two years ago, but it costs more- significantly more for exactly what you got last year, or two years ago.

I am perfectly willing to engage in a discussion about teacher salaries, as a budget cost driver, and perhaps one we might have the most flexibility to address, but any analysis that asserts every penny of the "new money" pouring into the schools goes into funding salaries is very simplistic, divisive, and inaccurate.

A thorough analysis of the entire city budget will find that not only do the Schools and Library have among the best salary to overall budget percentages of all City departments, but that the increases in actual dollars experienced by the Schools to buy less service is not disproportionate to what has happened at every other City department.

Anyone can take figures out of context and make them say what you want.

Again, I am not saying that the salary schedule and format negotiated three years ago isn't a part of the increase in costs; but it is a part of them.

And by the way; even though I am a teacher, and have a drawer full of low-end pay-stubs to prove it, I was the only School Committee member to vote down the last contract.
At the time, I said it was painful for me to do so, but that I believed that the salary scale negotiated was mortgaging the future, and that when push came to shove, down the road, people would be pointing fingers at the teachers as the reason we were having financial problems.

Oh, yeah. You'll notice that we never talked about a Value-added or Restorative budget.
That's when you put money back in or shift it around to restore or rebuild programs, or fundamentally change curriculum direction. We have done one of those in six years. Last year, despite the cuts, we managed to put $60,000 in beefing up middle school math.

Come On, Folks

While I suspect I don't have a widespread problem here, I did want to note that two of my signs, on Low Street and Toppans Lane, have been repeatedly knocked over or taken.

Without even going into how immature and downright piffleheaded this kind of political games-playing is, I would ask my sign stalker to take note that if you are simply trashing my signs, I purposely chose the material they are printed on because it is recyclable.

So at least respect that.

And if you have an issue with me, my home phone is 978 499 3883. Since you seem to be out and about at night, I'm usually up until midnight, and I'm happy to discuss the issues you have with my candidacy. Although it would a much more useful conversation to talk about the needs of the schools, and my record of responding to, and often predicting those needs. I'm not Nostradamus, but after a six years you can get a pretty good handle on what y will look like when you cut x.

So, my friend, pick up the phone and call, so we can chat.

MCAS Results Are In

As of this morning, the results from the MCAS tests given last May have arrived at the Superintendent's office. I'll refrain from making any comments until his office has distributed them to the community; but I will remind readers of this caveat-- these scores were recorded after one year of leadership by Dr. Lyons and his administrative team, and their support of teacher/classroom solutions to problems he wanted teachers to analyze and respond to (the "bottom-up" approach, as opposed to "top down," or the ever popular "denial" approach).

The second caveat is that the scores reflect a system that had 37 more electives in the High School, 33 more staff, and $1,700,000 more in revenue than the one that opened for business last month.

More on this later.

An Argument Against Voter Apathy

If you're a film fan, you may have noticed that actor Richard Dreyfuss hasn't made any movies recently. That's because he has taken time out of his career to go over to Cambridge, England, and study for a degree in Civics.

Part of the responsibility our schools have is to teach the skills of civic engagement to students. Voter turnout decreases at a time when each decision made by our elected representatives becomes exponentially more important; the skill and the will to seek information and question assumptions becomes that much more critical.

Dreyfuss took time from his studies to emphasize the importance of this idea. Consider this a Position Statement from me.

http://www.americablog.com/2006/11/richard-dreyfuss-on-real-time-season.html

Here...There Part 2

Again, the disclaimer- the views expressed here do not represent those of any School Committee member other than myself, nor should they be construed as representing those of the School Committee as a whole. Or even a half. Nor a quarter. These are my opinions; any resemblance they may have with the facts should be more than coincidental, but they are still my opinions.

Summary Paragraph: In which Menin remembers how the road to hell was paved with good ambitions, how running from "the outside" lengthens the learning curve, and how an unusual partnership with Dick Sullivan began to make an impact.

It recently occurred to me that in the six years I have served on the School Committee, I have worked with 3 different Superintendents.

The first was Cappy Smith, who left before the terms of her contract were completed. I have only indirect knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the disaffection between the School Committee and her tenure. But I did work directly with her on several projects, most notably the Learning Enrichment Center at Kelleher Park; Dan McCarthy and I wrote several grants to get that project started; and he and I wrote a partnership grant with the schools and the Police Department to address alcohol usage in high school students.

In those experiences, I found her to be dynamic, a visionary, and an extraordinarily compassionate person.

On election night, as Dick Sullivan and I were sizing each other up and chatting (there is probably a height difference of 8 inches between us), we made an agreement for going forward. Having watched School Committee meetings for some time, and seeing how our predecessors Bert Reed and Amy Wallace struggled to raise issues for discussion, we agreed that regardless of content, we would second any motion each of us brought to the floor, whether or not we would ultimately vote for it.

That solved the problem of the tyranny of the agenda, and forced the Committee as a whole to dispose of issues it had not really dealt with before. A small, but significant movement towards transparency.

Between the November election, and the swearing in of the new School Committee, the outgoing School Committee selected Assistant Superintendent Mary Murray as the next Superintendent.

I had run for School Committee as an activist, a critic of what I saw was a School Committee that lacked transparency in process and lacked accountability to the community. The Committee I joined was in the middle of some very interesting projects, notably converting literally hundreds of school, administrative and School Committee policies into three simple manuals using the Carver model. The High School reconstruction project was underway.

At that time, the School Committee operated as a Committee of the whole; they had done away with all sub-committees. I was initially told this was in accordance with the Carver model, but I never found that recommendation in Carver's book.

The net result was a "fluid" agenda, an inability to process information before the meeting (we were getting our packets the day before the meeting), and no chance to get additional information before voting thus requiring that we make what felt to me to be uninformed votes or not fully informed votes.

As a result, I tended to become very skeptical of the process, and more inquisitive regarding the information I felt I needed to cast an informed vote. In other words, to quote one of my peers at the time, I became "a real pain in the ass." I recognize that my persistence created tension on the Committee; no one likes to have their recommendations and proposals questioned. Conversely, no one in their right mind wants to make votes on items affecting the quality of education if all the needed information isn't provided by the time the vote is taken.

My notes and meeting minutes of those first two years on the Committee reflect a strong focus on buildings. The High School. A new West-end Elementary School. Other building needs. And policy; a lot of dialogue about policy. Curriculum and student achievement were part of the Superintendent's report, and things always seemed to be going along well, or if they weren't we had a plan to correct them.

In my second year on the School Committee, the state, without warning, reduced their aid to the Schools by $750,000. At the same time, the state recreated Curriculum frameworks to reflect the goals of the No Child Left Behind Act; which was funded at 15% of it's estimated cost to implement. That year, the State also took back all subsidies for non-SpEd transportation.

At the Superintendent's recommendation (although this was not by the unanimous consent of the School Committee), we remained committed to a one size fits all approach to curriculum, the Committee would not look at realignment or reconfiguration of the schools as a cost savings mechanism.

Instead, we pursued two strategies. The first was to turn to the City for additional funds, which the City provided within it's ability to do so. The second was to look at keeping program frameworks intact while chipping away at their innards. The theory was that when happy days returned, and they were just around the corner, it would be easy to simply reconstitute the programs around the bare bones that were left. Also, the crisis did not compel the Superintendent, nor the School Committee as a whole, to consider leveling students (creating an approach to academics that meets kids where they are, and doesn't assume that one approach, one size fits all). I was teaching at the time, and became increasingly disenchanted and vocal about this approach by my second year.

In hindsight, simply shrinking programs without seriously evaluating their value, effectiveness and the impact they would have in their skeletal state was just this side of stupid.

At this time, had I keeled over in the middle of a School Committee meeting in the middle of one of my tirades against these unenlightened practices, I'm sure my peers would have chipped in to have the following carved on my tombstone: "Try thinking your way outside of this box!"

No outside of the box ideas made it off the table, no real thinking about reorganizing the schools to create efficiencies was done. As I remember the Cowardly Lion's preparation for his audience with the Great and Powerful Oz, it was just "snip snip here and snip snip there."

Fees were introduced for athletics, student activities and busing.

Next: Oops.

How We Got Here From There... Part 1 (Length Warning)

Even before the summary paragraph, I need to offer the following disclaimer. The opinions contained in this, like all posts, are my own. They don't reflect those of the any other School Committee member, nor are they intended to reflect the opinion of the School Committee as a whole. And in many ways, that may have been the community's loss.

Summary Paragraph: In which Menin explains the difference between deliberative due diligence and the perception of indecisiveness, the difference between making lousy decisions based on the lack of information from making real decisions that are informed; and he further shares some interesting and perspectives on the role the School Committee and the previous School Administration played in overseeing the erosion of academic standards; this is done in a series of postings.

At the last School Committee Meeting, we had two items on the agenda that were of particular importance to the immediate (1-5 year) future of the Schools. These were creating a set of School Committee goals for the year, and creating the framework in which some key cost savings could be taken in next year's budget. Since my natural inclination has always been open the process and cast a wide net for ideas, and since there is a reality that should the two incumbents sitting on the School Committee (the Mayor and myself) not be re-elected, there would be a new majority on the Committee, I suggested that we find a way to specifically include all five other School Committee candidates in the dialogue; and that any decision of the magnitude of busing only to the letter of the law could be explored, vetted and left for the new School Committee to choose; that we should not tie their hands.

I also pointed out that traditionally, these items would be raised for discussion in February and March of the budget process. This Superintendent's aggressive approach to budget prep, which moved the entire process up by four months, was something I have advocated for for six years. In reality, the projected time for making these decisions is early to mid-January.

After the meeting, one of the SC candidates, in passing, expressed extreme frustration to me that "You guys should just make a decision, you never make decisions," and moved on before I could respond. I tend not to like that form of communication; I call it "hit and run." I lump it with "sandbagging," and prosecutorial questioning.

As one of my wiser peers on the Committee pointed out to me, it is easy to confuse jumping to a conclusion with making a decision.

I spent a lot of years, in my opinion, serving on School Committees that jumped to conclusions, resulting in lousy, uninformed decisions that we are paying the price for now.

School Committees that accepted Administrative opinions, virtually unobstructed by any genuine research or not rooted in even the simplest conversation with teachers or the community as due diligence.

School Committees which, in my opinion, made decisions with an almost Bush-like lack of curiosity. My biggest anxiety in those days was that I would fail to ask "the follow-up" question. In the past, I was the founding Executive Director of the National Association of Consumer Attorneys, and learned the old legal maxim that you should never ask a witness a question you don't know the answer to.

Asking questions, something I did frequently, to the literally eye-rolling annoyance (somebody check the old tapes of the School Committee meetings) of several sitting at the dais, was usually the only way to get at exactly what the hell was happening. Information was not exactly presented fully and voluntarily. Probably just one of those operating style differences between me and them.

What the School Committee, and the Superintendent and the Mayors did not ever realize, I think, was that I knew the answers to 90% of the questions I asked. I had made the phone calls, talked with people affected, looked at numbers. Questions about accountability, about alternative ways to achieve academic goals, about cost savings, about the impact of the decisions we were making a year out.

The answers I received at meetings to my questions often astounded me in their creativity and lack of substantive information. That is why my anxiety about the follow-up question became nearly overwhelming. I felt like I was able to get my foot in the door, but not open it up enough to reveal what the hell was really happening. I used to describe School Committee meetings like being a dentist with a morning full of teeth extractions to do.

I remember dozens of meetings where Dick Sullivan and I would step out into the corridor just before the gavel to compare notes on items that would suddenly appear on the agenda.

I guess the word I would use to describe that operating style as "argumentative." It was the Andy Warhol approach; usually Dick Sullivan and I, and later Steve Coles would get our 15 minutes on the soapbox, and the vote would proceed, usually resulting in a 5-2 or 4-3 carry for the Administration position.

The School Committee is now a deliberative body. We may be way behind in figuring out how to consistently communicate outside of meetings, but inside the meetings we want to hear every opinion, examine the issue thoroughly, get as much feedback from the room as possible. It isn't efficient. It isn't exactly entertaining, despite my occasional irreverent remarks. But it sure beats the hell out of the way we did business before. By a mile. That was the river, this is the sea.

So my suggestion to those bright, active and committed folks who are also running for School Committee is suck it up and get used to it. Virtually every "rushed" decision I have participated in over the last six years has, well, not redounded to our benefit or credit. You see, those were decisions that often had a somewhat obscured political vitality animating them.

You will be asked to deliberate, to provide due diligence that is real and measurable and related to the overall goal of student achievement.

I'm the only one in the race who has a record to run on, and it clearly marks out a series of positions I took, often to the open disgust of my peers, that consistently argued for transparency, all cards on the table, honest assessment of what we were doing. The School Committee rule book points out that once the School Committee makes a decision, it reflects an action taken by the Committee as a whole, and it is in poor form to go out and piss and moan about it. But go see where I stood on some of the more poorly planned cost reductions we were asked to approve over the last six years- cutting theater at the Middle School, the Brown Kelley Principal merger, the fight to get Algebra added to the 8th grade and the attempt to declare it a failure without ever evaluating it, the need to adjust our teaching and curriculum to support kids where they were challenged, and challenge those who were bored (you know, the opposite of the one size fits all approach).

I began asking about reconfiguring the schools because of the potential for better use of assets and for the enhanced impact it would have on the ability of teachers to teach and learners to learn six years ago.

That wasn't a popular idea back then; it may not even be now. But I had studied it, lived it as a teacher, and felt it had a lot to commend itself academically and fiscally.

Sheesh. After five years of happy talk, no problem here, we've got a plan but... talk, I've been happy as a pig in mud that we are finally facing our responsibilities as a School Committee and an administration, and eventually as a community, honestly, deliberately, respectfully and thoughtfully. Despite the forecast for hurricane strength winds for the next few years, I want to return to the School Committee, and am excited to see new energy part of that equation.

This School Committee made more decisions in this last year, with better planning and far more due diligence, and with a focus on the future, than I experienced in the past five, despite my almost comic efforts to punch for that. That is called leadership. It is the synergy of a visionary administrator and a School Committee that is just now beginning to grow into the deliberative and diligent body it should have been years ago.

You see, friends. Schools are not a thing, a budget item. They are really an ongoing public dialogue, about where we've been, who we are, and where we want to go. A dialogue, as I pointed out when the first School Committee I served on introduced the perfect Superintendent candidate after a world-wide search, goes both ways. You speak, they listen. They speak, you listen. Anything else is a monologue.

And I think we've all seen where monologues get us.
And the conversation, if we are lucky never ends.

Just because I never seemed to be on exactly the same page as nearly everybody else doesn't mean I stopped reading the book. Now that it's a bestseller, that's very cool, because it provides a common language for dialogue and common set of metrics for accountability. And over the past six years, I've made a lot of notes in the margins.

Oh yeah, there's an election...

Summary Paragraph: In which Menin shamelessly plugs his own Re-election efforts, and broadly hints at ways people can help. Seekers of subtlety be warned, you won't find any here.

Well, I can assure you that regardless of the outcome, there will be no Committee to Re-Elect Menin, no Treasurer, no fancy brochures. I got me some signs, and I would be delighted to loan them out to folks who are interested in posting them in somewhat conspicuous places. And to those of you have donated to my campaign, thank you from the bottom of my heart. And the kids at the new Molin Playground thank you as well. We are running this campaign on the cheap.

A story:

When Isadora Duncan toured the new Soviet Union just after the revolution, she was asked if she would join with the Russian people in this grand new experiment. Duncan, who was more pragmatic than she was given credit for, asked if she would be able to dance. It was, after all, her reason to live.

"What do you mean, dance? We're building a nation here. Who has time to dance?"

To which Duncan replied simply "If I can't dance, I don't want to be part of your Revolution."

The point of the story is this. I tend to be irreverent at times. Sometimes it works for others, sometimes it doesn't. But always gives me a moment where I can pause, step back from a problem, realize solutions are possible, and keep myself balanced. I believe over the past six years I've worked as hard as any other School Committee member; I've also decided that taking the issues seriously doesn't always mean that I have to take myself seriously. In fact, some of my best thinking occurs when I realize I don't have a solution.

If I can't laugh, I don't want to be part of the political dialogue.

I can't help it. There's a cultural basis for it; the tribe has a gene that links tears and laughter; sometimes you gotta laugh to stop from crying. It is what keeps you going when hope fades, and miracles are on back-order.

So if I offend anyone, please understand that it was mostly unintentional; and much of the humor comes at my own expense.

Oh yeah, the election.

I have signs. I've just designed a very cheesy brochure, listing the trials and triumphs of my first six years on the School Committee, and what I hope to see happen in the next four. I'll be handing these out on my Ward walks- I will be out in Ward 6 this week, working my way like Sherman on a march through Newburyport to the sea. My kids will join me on some of these jaunts, so if you have something, um, loud or vulgar to say, we can step out into the backyard.
And it is OK to slam doors in my face; I grew up in tenements and apartment houses where door-slamming was a competitive sport. I never won, but I never got my toes caught in one, either.

My goal is to listen, gather ideas, share ideas, explain and inform. In all six years, I have regrets about several votes I took, but only because I later discovered that information critical to particular issue didn't make it all the way around the table before the roll was called.

And I'll leave a cheesy brochure in you mailbox if you aren't home. A word of advice- don't let them sit out in the rain- the ink will run.

If anyone is interested in hosting a meet and greet, or a coffee at your house or in your neighbors driveway, I'd love to work them in as well. I am especially interested in speaking to people who have genuine concerns about the schools, or don't feel that they have a stake in the system. Although preaching to the converted is less stressful, my preference has always been to work with groups that hold different perspectives than mine.

Finally, I may also be doing some strategic visibility over the next month. My plan to do it at Walmart didn't work out when I realized it wasn't in Newburyport; but if I can round up the usual suspects, it might make for a fun morning. I'll provide the fixings for somors if someone brings a grill and a permit.

Revenue Task Force Update

The Task Force, now chaired by Brenda Reffett, has had two meetings, and has broken into small groups exploring areas of potential revenue; short-term and long-term.

Without pre-empting the channels of communication, I can say that we have have forwarded two reccommendations to the Mayor encouraging immediate action; hopefully one will yield some short-term revenue savings this year, and the other will normalize a process for identifying a range of funds as they become available year-round and into the future. Expect more specificity when the Task Forces reports out to the School Committee on November 5th.

Stay tuned. The discussions have been very creative and "stimulating," to quote Task Force Member Dr. Ralph Orlando, who is a urologist. I'll leave that without any further editorial comment.

Why Am I the Only School Committee Member in Six Years...

to seek re-election?

Summary Paragraph: Menin justifies why he is running for re-election, despite spending five of the last six years listening to the sound of one hand clapping (his own), and tries to clarify some confusion in the community.

After spending six years on the School Committee, eviscerating core curriculum in a desperate effort to keep some credibility in Newburyport Schools, of fighting to make more open and transparent every process, every nuance of our education system that we can legally illuminate; after cutting teachers and classes that I know have made a profound impact on the lives of all of our children, and (selfishly) my own; why would I run for re-election?

After pushing the School Committee and the community for six years to look at reconfiguring our school system to more accurately reflect research-based understandings we have about how kids learn and develop, only to have a catastrophic budget calamity force that change as painfully as possible; why would I run for re-election?

As the elbows start flying, I sense some confusion out there in the community, as well as frustration. I understand that. This past year, the schools, under Dr. Lyons, have taken a giant step towards accountability and credibility. I watched the former ignored, and the latter damaged in five years of moronic cuts and a lack of coherent planning, of a $20,000,000 "corporation" lurching from crisis to crisis, substituting inequity for decision-making. It always angered and frustrated me; when Dick Sullivan left the School Committee I worried that while he and I didn't agree on some things, I had lost the other voice for change on the Committee.

Yet, I'm running for re-election. It ain't the money, folks. Nor the prestige.

Confused?

Do not confuse my commitment to building community through dialogue, finding common ground, and using my training as an educator to look at the system we have built and see what it can be, and not what it has become; please do not confuse that with indecisiveness. Not after this past school year.

Do not confuse my commitment to find ways that folks who have lived here for generations, and people who have lived here for two years can identify shared goals; don't confuse that with cowardice, paralysis, or a fear of reaching out across boundaries to find common ground.

And do not, if you have spent even one-tenth of the literally more than a thousand hours I have spent trying to improve this school system for all of our kids, from High Street to Kelleher Park, consider that my time has passed.

In fact, it is just beginning.

As I talk to people, and listen to some of the good people running for School Committee, essentially the issues are being framed thusly:

We can make better decisions.
We can make faster decisions.
We can at least make decisions.
The School Committee never does anything.
There is too much process.

As much as people tried initially to tiptoe around it, this election is being framed in some ways by the other candidates, and perhaps some in the community (although I haven't run into it yet as a thought that hasn't been planted, especially in Ward 5) as a referendum on the School Committee. Or inaction by that governing body. Or on wasted potential. Or about a School Committee that allegedly holds itself aloof and cannot communicate with the community.

Funny. That's exactly why I ran six years ago. But that isn't why I'm running now.

I'm running for re-election because finally, after five years of administrative mediocrity, (in my opinion), of only being allowed to lob ideas in from the outside, of five years of "happy talk" and "everything is fine" and "don't worry about the test scores we have a plan"; finally we have an administrator who gets it. And he has hired a team that gets it. And he, and they, and all of us will be accountable to the kids, and the community. And that is exactly what I hoped for six years ago. And spent six very long years of my life fighting for.

Yeah, the School Committee has a lot to learn about communicating ideas to the community. Being without steady cable TV coverage for more than a year has hurt. A rushed campaign to pass an override, spurred in part because the School Committee believed the Mayor when he said at School Committee meetings he was thinking of putting a debt exclusion on the November ballot didn't help. And that was despite the extraordinary efforts of some of the very same people running in this election.

The DOR Educational Quality Assessment report arrived prior to the decision to seek an override. It validated the entry report submitted by Dr. Lyons virtually point by point in identifying the critical needs in our schools, and left us with two choices-- reconfigure the Schools to achieve both educational and financial goals, and move quickly to reorganize the school curriculum to get going on the required changes. And find some new revenue, quickly, to take advantage of the reconfiguration. The override lost. No, actually, the community lost; a community that has always supported education in the six years of my service on the School Committee, as measured by the City Council consistently providing more revenues to the schools than it was legally obligated to.

The problem, simply, is even that is not enough to prepare our students to succeed in this new age.

So I thought about running, before I decided. A lot. About the impact on my family. On whether I could remain focused on my singular purpose-- ensuring that the schools meet the educational needs of every child where they are- supporting those in need of support, challenging those in need of challenging.

I decided to run again.

But I'm not going to change. I'll always express my opinion; I will always opt for the sloppiness of finding more ways to include people in the public dialogue that is education. You may not agree with me, but you'll always know where I stand. I'll keep asking questions. I'll keep questioning answers. The stakes are very high.

I am, admittedly, a process guy. I think it is important to hear from everyone, just in case
my ideas, well, stink. I'll admit it, I'm a sucker for a juicy, creative idea that honors learning and challenges kids.

So let the wild rumpus begin, I'm still going to play by the rules I set for myself.
I'm not running down an opponent. I'm not using e-mail lists to keep the network humming.
I'm not accepting donations to run. Give me money, and I'll just give it to the schools.
No fancy brochure, just a self-designed slightly cheesy one that might end up on your doorstep. If you get one, bring it inside quick, or the ink will run in the rain.

I bought signs this year. And I'm walking and listening

And if the community decides it has had enough of me, or that the other candidates are more compelling, I accept that, and remain grateful for having had the opportunity to serve.

But I'll sure miss boring the crap out of the community every other Monday night.