Special Meeting for State Chapter 70 Appropriation

Video Recording: Northampton Open Media – 7/31/24 School Committee

---

Mayor Gina-Louise Sciarra:  This is a special meeting, so there is no public comment. There is only one item on the agenda. I thank you all for coming together so quickly for this special meeting. The only item on the agenda is discussion and possible vote on appropriated money from the city based on the final state budget, in the amount of $192,400.

I want to make sure that I give some very sincere thanks to our state legislators, Senator Comerford and Representative Sabadosa, for fighting for this per-pupil increase and to the Governor,  for accepting it out of conference and signing it in with the budget. It is a big  increase from what she had in her budget. It is, I think, another indication of just the pleading that came from districts all across the Commonwealth to the State for desperately needed more state aid to schools in this really incredibly challenging budgeting time that schools are having across the state.

The state budget now includes $104 per student in Chapter 70 aid. We had to base the FY25  city budget on the Governor’s budget, which as I said, was was much lower at $30 per student because that was what was available at the time we were creating the budget. This additional amount represents the difference between the two, so a $74 per-student increase. For the Northampton Public Schools, this is for both districts so the Northampton public schools, that amounts to as I said $192,400. For Smith Voke, it is $8,806. The City Council just about an hour ago, voted to authorize this as a supplemental appropriation to both districts. So again, this additional appropriation is $192,000 for fiscal year FY25, which has already started for NPS. I don’t know if – Dr. Bonner you have anything to add.

Dr. Portia Bonner: No, except, well yes, I just want to again reiterate thank you to our Senator Comerford, as well as our Representative Sabadosa, and the work that was done. Especially Senator Comerford, in terms of her work with Ways and Means. It was very, very helpful. This has been a very difficult budget season for us, and this amount will assist us with being able to hopefully restoring some of the positions this evening so I look forward to our conversation tonight. 

Gwen Agna:  I just had a question about whether this now will be every year, or if it has to be passed every year. Do you know?

Mayor Gina-Louise Sciarra:  So that is a good question. I just got a similar question by the Council. I don’t think it’s a guarantee every year. I do hope maybe it will set a different baseline, but you know, every year we’re going to  go through the same process where the governor is going to start with the cherry sheet with her amount, and then the House, and then the Senate, and then they’ll go to conference. So, that is a very good question. But this was clearly-  their intention this year to get more funding directly into districts, so I hope they can keep it up. As you know, Senator Comerford has put together a task force to, as she says, “crack open Chapter 70” and really look at it. Hopefully, we can see some other good things in our future.

Aline Davis:  Would you kind of clarify the difference between this money, and the Smith Voke? I don’t want to say “versus,” but – vs. the difference between Northampton Public Schools, the rest of the public schools? So the $192k, I shouldn’t be thinking about the $192,400? I keep going back and forth – should I be thinking about the per pupil or the whole chunk?

Mayor Gina-Louise Sciarra: SO the per pupil amounts to $192,400 for NPS and that is what we should be focussed on here tonight.

Ann Hennessey:  I have a budget question. I think this would be for Dr. Bonner.  Can I do that now? That’s why I’m here, right? Dr. Bonner,  looking over this budget I was looking at the English teacher at the high school. In the budget, I estimate you have about $65,000. If that position is reinstated, is that correct?

Dr. Portia Bonner: That is correct. That’s the current salary for that individual.

Ann Hennessey:  The only thing that wasn’t consistent for me—and maybe I’m looking at the wrong thing—is that I was looking at the 7 English teachers on the Northampton High School budget, and the lowest-paid was $77,000, and then it went for this year to zero for this year. I assume that was the position that was laid off. 

Dr. Portia Bonner:  So, I’m going to have Bobbie speak to that.

Mayor Gina-Louise Sciarra:  Before Bobby speaks, I just want to note that Member Ghazey is here. Cassie, could you please note it in the minutes and also make her a co-host?

Bobbie Jones: Can everyone hear me? Yes? Great. I’m keeping my camera off just to be on the safe side and to ensure that I have a good connection. If you’re looking at the FY24 amount, which is, I believe, $77,644, there was a newer person in place for FY25, and that person was at that  lower salary. So, it’s the lowest salary there that went out.

Ann Hennessey:  I’m sorry. I hope you don’t mind if I clarify this further. It looked like the $77,000 was from this past academic year, and then for next year, that line of $77,000 went to zero, 

Bobbie Jones:  Correct.  So, in FY24, we budgeted $77,644, and we may have had a change in employment that brought in a person at a lower amount.

Ann Hennessey:  Great. That makes a lot of sense. Thank you very much.

Video Time Stamp:  18:03 

Gwen Agna:  This is another budget question. I was looking at the line in the Principal’s requests for the BCBA at Ryan Road, and it set a 0.2 for $13,152. Then, in the district priorities, there’s the Ryan Road BCBA increase from 0.8 to 1, which is a lesser amount—$10,272. Is that partly because it would be a new person, too, or do you see what I mean, Bobbie?

Bobbie Jones:  Yep, that was my error. I should have changed them all, and I only changed it on the one when I recalculated. So it should be the lesser amount.

Gwen Agna:  So for both the Principal request and the district, it’s $ 10,272. Correct?   Oh, that’s okay. I just wanted to make sure, and it’s great that it’s a lower number. Thank you.

Kerry LaBounty:  I have two questions in a similar fashion. For the Adjustment Counselor position, my understanding is that the position is sort of maxed out at that number. Are we budgeting that to be safe at the $71,644, or how are we to think about that? In the same way that we budgeted for the English teacher, but it came in lower, I’m just trying to make sure I understand what dollars we want to think about there.

Dr. Portia Bonner:  All right, Bobbie, do you want to speak to the number that you selected for that position?

Bobbie Jones:  Yep. So, that was a range that we did, and most of the Adjustment Counselors are generally speaking at a minimum of CAGS. I took a medium step, like a step seven—Master’s plus 30 and CAGS. So, I did the $71,644 at the CAGS level, because I think there are only one or two district-wide that are less than a CAGS.

Dr. Portia Bonner:  Bobbie, could you explain just to the public what CAGS means, please?

Bobbie Jones:  So, we have columns within the contract. You have your Bachelor’s, your Master’s, Master’s plus 30 credits, and then Master’s plus 60 credits, and or your CAGS, which is a separate, advanced degree. The last column is the PhD. Most of our Adjustment Counselors and Psychologists are at either the KAGS or the Master’s plus 60, which is the same in the column, or also the PhD level.

Kerry LaBounty:  Thanks. My other question was, again, sort of on the English teacher. They came in at $65,762. If that person was brought back, it would actually be closer to 70 as we’re thinking about our numbers, because if we bring the same person back, they would then move up, at all. I just want to make sure I understand what numbers we’re actually dealing with.

Bobbie Jones:  Right. With that, actually, with the Adjustment Counselor, that was a retirement, so it will be a new hire. That’s a guesstimate, so to speak. But with the English teacher, it was an actual person, so I used their actual salary.

Kerry LaBounty:  But next year, it would be different, correct?

Bobbie Jones:  It would be the same for next year, meaning FY26?

Kerry LaBounty:  No, so you used the 65k. I thought that was the base, so I thought there would be an increase to that. But saying now…

Bobbie Jones:  Okay, correct. 

Video Time Stamp: 22:37

Michael Stein:  Thanks. I just wanted to let our audience know that part of what we’re discussing, which wasn’t linked on the agenda, is a spreadsheet which has four different columns with various choices on how to spend some of this money. 

The first column is actually a list of the restoration suggestions that Member Serafy-Cox presented at our meeting last week. The second is a list of restoration suggestions from Member Miller. This includes a Ryan Road paraprofessional at $34,819, a JSS classroom teacher at $55,760, a JFK World Language teacher at $75,030, an NHS English teacher at $65,762, and an NHS Adjustment Counselor at $71,644. The total FTE on this list is five, and the total amount is $303,015.

There is also a list of principal requests. There is nothing listed for Bridge Street School. For Leeds, it says Library Paraprofessional .5 at $18,470, First-grade Paraprofessional at $36,941, and a 0.5 Math Interventionist at $42,801. Ryan Road Library Paraprofessional at 0.5 for  $18,470. Ryan Road BCBA increased from .8 to 1, that is a .2 FTE  increase of $13,152. JSS classroom teacher Second grade one FTE at $55,760, First-grade Paraprofessional at $36,941. JFK Special Education teacher is $65,762. There’s a line that says $3,000 to $4,000 for i-Ready Math support. 4,000 .NHS Adjustment Counselor is $71,644. The total of that column of Principal requests is 6.7 FTE positions,  $363,941.

Then there is a district priorities list which includes the Ryan Road BCBA from .8 to 1 with an .2 increase of $10,272. This was the earlier question about the discrepancy. That figure seems to be the correct figure. JFK Reading Interventionist of 0.5 at $44,722. JFK Math Interventionist of one at $65,762. An NHS Adjustment Counselor of 1 FTE is $71,644. That totals 2.7 FTE and $192,400.

This is in addition to the last past budget, I think from June 26. These are the figures and documents the Committee is discussing and asking questions about. 

Mayor Gina-Louise Sciarra:  Thank you. Okay, um, let’s see. Oh, um, Dr. Bonner, did you have something you wanted to add? 

Dr. Portia Bonner:  Yes, I just wanted to let the public know that many of our administrative staff are on vacation this week. This great news that was just released,  we had only a couple of days to get our thoughts together and produce the document that Member Stein just read from. But I wanted to say that Bridge Street School Principal did not have the opportunity to weigh in. She is on vacation, so I did not put anything in there for her because I did not want to be accused of just selecting something in terms of priorities for her. But I am so sure that she would have submitted something along with the rest of the Principals and Directors. I just wanted to let the public know. 

Video Time Stamp: 27:20

Ann Hennessey:  This was a quick thing I wanted to point out. My understanding was about the Bridge Street Principal, but also, the Principals would want all of them. These were just like Ben Taglieri; which one would you take? I’ll take the Adjustment Counselor. It wasn’t that he didn’t want the English teacher; it was just that he had one of two to pick. So, right, yes, thank you. I see you’re nodding your head, Dr. Bonner. 

Dr. Portia Bonner:  Absolutely. I have to tell you, this is why I caution when there’s a request for Principals to have  to lift up and make a selection and a choice. They want all of their positions, but then they have to prioritize based on the needs that they know about their building. That was a very hard decision coming into a district for the High School principal. So, thank you for bringing that up, Member Hennessey.

Gwen Agna:  That was actually what I was going to say, that I’m sure Principal Taglieri would put both those on there, but it’s one. I just wanted to confirm that. I also, first, sorry I didn’t do it at the beginning, but I really appreciated having all this information for our meeting today. Dr. Bonner, it really helped a lot for us to be able to study it and be reminded of what Member Serafyi-Cox said and also what Member Miller said, and that  the Principal requests and the District. So, I really feel like we came to this meeting well prepared. Thank you.

Emily Serafy-Cox:  Yeah, thank you. Dr. Bonner, I’m curious if you could talk a little bit about the added Special Education teacher at JFK. It looks like it’s the exact same amount as the Math Interventionist, and so I’m curious;  it sounds like the Special Education teacher is perhaps more important right now at JFK than the math interventionist?

Dr. Portia Bonner:  So, this is a request that was really new to us, and I don’t know what caused that. Our new Director will actually be starting tomorrow, and I will have him review the numbers. It’s a possibility that there could be movement of some of our Special Education staff in terms of making sure that all of the grids are covered and that we are appropriately addressing all IEPs for our students with special needs. So, that is a question, and that wasn’t a full conversation that I had with the Principal. But I will say that knowing the performance and what is entering sixth grade and knowing the actual performance of what’s occurring at JFK—knowing that this is a cohort…the Covid cohort that we’re still addressing some of the learning loss—the recommendation is really the Reading Interventionist, making that person whole and restoring the Math Interventionist.

Emily Serafy-Cox:  I think you addressed this just a little bit at the end of your answer, but I see there is a .5 Reading Interventionist for JFK that are on the District priorities but not the Principal requests, and I don’t remember that from the list of cuts before. So, is that an addition as well?

Dr. Portia Bonner:  So, that’s originally, the request was a decision between restoring the 0.5 FTE 504 coordinator or having a Reading Interventionist at 0.5. So, this recommendation would actually make that position full-time. Does that clarify?

Emily Serafy-Cox:  So, it’s using the money that would have been listed before as the 504 Coordinator, right?

Dr. Portia Bonner:  Correct. And if you go back to some of our conversations—I can’t remember the dates because there have been so many meetings, so I don’t want to call the wrong date—but remember when I did a comparison, and I said it was ’to be determined’ for the restoration of a 0.5 position at the middle school?  We’ve kind of been going back and forth in terms of what the Principal is recommending. They do need some assistance there, we know that.

Emily Serafy-Cox:  So the 0.5 that was baked into the budget before was brought to a 0.5, and this would be an addition to make it full-time.

Dr. Portia Bonner:  Yes, okay, correct. Thank you.

Michael Stein:  I’m interested to hear everything my colleagues have been sharing and the questions they’ve been asking. I think it’s great. I’m glad we had some information to wrestle with before our meeting today, and some sort of clearly laid out options, needs, and priorities. I think the hard thing for all of us is that this budget, you know we’re stuck with, is going to hurt a lot of kids. Losing, I think 22 positions can’t do anything BUT do that, and we’re faced with a very small additional amount from the state of $192,400 as the only possibility to address a wide swath of needs. 

And so what’s difficult for me, and probably for the rest of you, is trying to weigh what the most important need is that should be addressed by that money. For myself, I think I’m most concerned across the district with the least advantaged students, who are going to be disproportionately affected by this budget. The students that don’t have resources to get private tutoring, or to go to private school, or to access other things, and I’m struggling with trying to figure out how to map that concern onto where we spend $192,400? When we need to spend a lot more.

So I’m not really sure. The Adjustment Counselor does stand out to me as a place where people are not going to be able to access help elsewhere. As Pediatricians point people toward their high school Adjustment Counselor, and we don’t have one?  It’s a significant problem. I’m very concerned about Reading and Math intervention at pretty much every level of our schools. I don’t know where the biggest needs are and the most disadvantaged students are impacted?  So it’s hard to say if JFK clearly has some stuff, but we haven’t had much discussion of the previous screening scores or the current iReady scores. In the past couple of years, this would have been done in the Curriculum and Learning Subcommittee. I know we’re not really doing that kind of work anymore, but it would be great to really understand with some data where the most marginalized in our system are concentrated and affected because – I don’t know how to map these things, and I don’t think we have the data or analysis to really inform us. I think we have a lot of intuition and information from our educators and administrators, but it’s just really hard. It;s really really hard and I know you’re all struggling with this too. 

I raise all of this because I’m hoping that maybe the way for us to sort this out this evening, is to come to some sort of consensus about the values (you know this was brought up before) what are the values and philosophy we’re trying to adhere to when we allocate this money? Then, how do we figure out, based on that, where  best to allocate it as a group. So, that’s how I’d like us to proceed. I’d like us to look,  my own perspective is that we need to look for the need, and the need that falls disproportionately on those who don’t have any other resources besides public school. I look forward to hearing what you all think. 

Video Time Stamp: 36:43

Mayor Gina-Louise Sciarra:  Dr. Bonner, do you have anything you can share regarding using that metric?

Dr. Portia Bonner:  Unfortunately, I’m not at my office to pull up that data but we as a district, we look at our data. We look at our iReady and our benchmarks, we look at our MCAS data as well. At JFK, particularly in ELA  as well in Math, performance is underperforming. Several students are not reading at grade level or could be two grades behind. There are those who are not meeting the standards for Math as well. We can also see this, as I said, on our MCAS data. These are the areas in which have been highlighted in our strategic planning. Some of the objectives and goals that we’re focusing on, as well as identifying certain cohorts of students who are underperforming compared to their peers in the building, as well as statewide. We have that data, we look at that data, and we use that data to make decisions and that is how the district priorities came to be.

For me to do an actual presentation tonight to pull up that data, I am not prepared to do that for you. But, I would be glad to share that information next Thursday during my Superintendent’s report. It will be in alignment with our strategic goals that I’ll be sharing as well. We do have that data, so I just wanted to point that out – that that is the data that not only educators, but your administrators are looking at to make these decisions.

Gwen Agna:  I’d like to make a correction, I think, from Member Stein talked about the Curriculum and Instruction Committee that looked at data. There hasn’t been a Curriculum and Instruction Committee until my last term, when it was formed.  We didn’t speak about the data in our Curriculum and Instruction. We did a lot of talking about the different curriculum initiatives that were happening, we talked about restorative practice, we had lots of information about what was going on in the district, but an actual review of the data did not occur. And that’s okay. I think that my experience in the district has been that there has been a general presentation, often by the Curriculum Coordinator, for us all. I think we need to have that data, and I think it is important for us to have it as a whole. And that was one of the concerns I had about our Curriculum and Instruction Committee was that some things would be presented, and then I didn’t know if we would be able to bring them to the whole. I’m happy to think about how we can hear this data. If you’re going to do that next month, Dr. Bonner, that would be great. But it hadn’t been something we did in the Curriculum and Instruction Committee. Thank you.

Video Time Stamp:  40:18 

Mayor Gina-Louise Sciarra: Ok, Thank you, Member La Bounty. Then, Member Stein.

Kerry LaBounty:  I want to say that I appreciated member (inaudible) comments about the data. I do think that’s very important. I think that both knowing what principals want in their schools but also what the students need to achieve some of the basic things that help in learning in an ongoing way strike me as really important. 

I struggled a lot. I feel like the adjustment counselor to me stood out as something that I would absolutely vote for. I think that that’s really important. I went back and forth on the English teacher because I also believe that  you know I didn’t know until recently that there would be, you know, shifting around of who’s teaching what.  But that is also very core for high school students. And I deem sort of from the past from what I can see, is that the high school has tended to not to get the extra things because we tend to put it in the younger grades. But this is also some of our last chance to get to some of these students and to be able to help them to be ready. 

So, I struggled with that. However, in thinking about the data and hearing, I have heard a little bit about how we are behind,  we are not to the level we need to be, the interventionists that JFK seem a place that we might want to invest in. Now, that does not add up to 192; we’re about $4,000 short. But that might be something we would still want to propose. So, I guess I could be,  my mind could be changed around those things, but those are sort of  the things I’m thinking about: the adjustment counselor and perhaps we need to do the interventionists at JFK.

Mayor Gina-Louise Sciarra: Okay, thank you, Member Stein then Member Hennessey.

Michael Stein: Yeah, I’m glad to hear that the strategic planning is looking at the data, but it’s not something that the committee has had access to or presentations on. As we make budget decisions, it would be incredibly helpful if we did. I do remember a number of areas that the curriculum and learning subcommittee did  look at data whether it was around standards-based grading or exit interviews. There’s  a lot of different types of data, and I’m happy to do that work as a full committee. But, it would be useful if we used our subcommittee time to sort of get into the weeds in some of these core issues, from my perspective.

We will run into the question of whether or not something is a major curriculum change, and that we don’t have the purview to actually talk about it. But I do think it’s very important for us to have conversations about the data that we do have. One thing I’m particularly interested in is not only the MCAS and i-Ready and Aimsweb data and where that aligns, but also where the poverty rate aligns among our schools and other profiles of our students that we know about.

Because as I mentioned before, in a situation where we are facing endless cuts, the impact on our students is going to disproportionately fall on those who have no other resources. And, because of that, I want to prioritize them. I know people think I’m speaking hyperbole when I say all these cuts, but even if we get this override to pass, we’re only going to get about 40% of that. And when you do some simple math on the contracts for next year, and the steps, and the transportation increase, we’re likely going to have to cut more positions. And that’s going to  continue into the future and means we also can’t add additional features, right? 

And we also haven’t gotten any updates on what IEPs have been added since we made this budget, and I do wonder how many more service grids are we going to be able to meet, etc. So, we are in a long-term austerity situation, and in a long-term austerity situation, you need to do more and more data analysis to get the most you can out of the very limited resources you have with a guiding philosophy on what values you want to show.

So, I’d love for us all to do that. I would love to get regular updates on whatever it is that the strategic planning committee is doing. I would love to get greater access to presentations on the data. I am very curious about how we look at continuity across earlier screening tools we had. We had Aimsweb; my understanding is we had to move away from it because it wasn’t meeting the state’s standards, and that’s why we adopted I-Ready.

Video Time Stamp: 45:37

Michael Stein: Well, how do we compare across those two years, and how do we understand what i-Ready is telling us? I would love to know these things, and I hope that in the coming months we can have some of these conversations.

Mayor Gina-Louise Sciarra: Member Hennessey

Ann Hennessey: Okay, thank you. I guess I have three things. One is I do think starting soon, as a committee, we need to start our budget discussion for next year. Right, like and I happen to be on the curriculum committee, but I think a lot of the stuff that should be presented needs to be presented, whether it’s in October 1st. How many IEPS do we have? How many students do we have? Let’s look at the poverty level and all these other standardized tests. We need to be grappling with those issues soon.

Number two, in this day, night, whatever it is night, I’d love to hear everyone’s thinking about where they want the $192,000 restored because, I mean, I just want to say nothing is wrong, right. We want all the cuts, we want all the positions, so I’m sure our thinking, I’m interested in how people are thinking about it. I appreciate Member Stein and LaBounty talking about what they were thinking, so that’s my second thing. 

Then, I’m going to say what I was thinking, which is I was pretty clear—I’m very clear about the adjustment counselor for the reasons that both Member Stein and LaBounty stated. I think it’s really important. So, that’s number one. I wasn’t aware until today that it was the Director of Special Education who put the special education position and I appreciate Member Serafy-Cox for saying that because then that puts for me that might be a significant need. So that would be something  and the interventionist at the middle school level, when I look, I know standardized tests scores are one thing , but it seems like with both a change in leadership and that grade level, those might be great positions to restore. However, I really agree with Member LaBounty about the English teacher. I think it’s the class sizes and the need there is  great. In the history of our district, we’ve continued to let the high school take some hits, so that’s my thinking, and I’m looking forward to hearing from everyone else.

Mayor Gina-Louise Sciarra: Thank you. Member Miller, do you have your hand up? 

Margaret Miller: Yes? 

Mayor Gina-Louise Sciarra: Okay, I’m going to go to you since you haven’t spoken yet.

Margaret Miller: Ok, so I’ve already expressed a little bit of my opinion that’s on the spreadsheet; however, I  wanted to comment on a couple of things. Member Stein had mentioned how are we going to reach our most challenged students, and I want to speak to the importance of class size. And, I just want to emphasize reinstating classroom teachers whenever possible to reduce class size, especially Jackson Street second grade. I believe that that’s a very important grade in which to reduce class size, and I am concerned about the many students that would not be getting sufficient attention in a class size of 25. So, that’s an emphasis for me.

The other thing about being more equitable is the adjustment counselor at the high school. And that is because we already know that the other adjustment counselors are specifically for students with special needs. There are many many students that do not have IEPs but have great emotional needs, and as a therapist in the community, I know firsthand how important it is for there to be someone in the school that is responsive to all students. And, it’s essential.

Video Time Stamp:  50:11

Margaret Miller: So, I’m speaking to that position. I actually didn’t include this, but I do agree about the importance of the math and literacy interventionists because I believe they reach a lot of students that  need something extra but may not be on an IEP. So, those are my extra additions that I wanted to emphasize in addition to what I’ve already put down and that you’ve already seen. Thank you. 

Mayor Gina-Louise Sciarra: Thank you, Member Miller. I’m going to go to Member Ghazey. 

Holly Ghazey: Thank you. I have to agree with the adjustment counselor at the high school. I think that the high school has been short-shrifted for a long time, and I think that’s critical. I do agree with—I’m sort of torn between the JFK reading interventionist and math interventionists, which are key to, sort of,  helping kids who aren’t on IEPs yet stay off of IEPs, not get referred, and bring them back up. So, that is, to me, such important work—catching up those ones that are falling way behind before they get referred. However, Member Miller makes a very convincing argument about class size, and so that classroom teacher at Jackson, I think,  is also one. You know, I have too many to fit the money that we have, but those right now are my priorities. 

Mayor Gina-Louise Sciarra: Thank you. I’ll go to Member Davis. 

Aline Davis: Thank you. Just as Member Ghazey just said, I have too many to fit the money that we have. Probably all of us do. But what I have written down, and then I go back and forth, but I’ll just go down what I wrote,  are the JFK interventionists. And, I wrote reading and/or math—ideally both. I have great concerns about those kids. The adjustment counselor at the high school, I think, is a critical thing to gain back if at all possible. The Jackson Street School grade two class to make that a much more reasonable size. But I also have the English teacher at the high school. Those four continue to rise to the top. 

I think it’s really compelling, all of the arguments and comments that I’ve gotten from constituents and that we’ve all discussed in our meetings about the high school. A really really large English class also can be difficult for an older student as well, even though it’s extraordinarily difficult for a kid in second grade and the teacher. But right now, those are my competing four priorities.   Thanks.

Video Time Stamp: 54:40

Mayor Gina-Louise Sciarra: Thank you.  Member Szerafy-Cox 

Emily Szerafy-Cox: Yeah, thanks. I’ve been kind of trying to track a little bit what folks are saying. I hear a lot of consensus around the adjustment counselor, so I think that is a shoo-in. I also have heard a lot of consensus around that we have more positions that we want to restore than fit the money. 

I know that the full package that I made a motion for last week was not palatable for the majority of the committee, but I wonder if there are, as you said – as most of you said, there were some pieces of it that you would support. I’m wondering if there are some pieces of that that we could add into this. I remember Superintendent Bonner mentioning that the dual enrollment was serving more students than the Gateway to College, so that might be a cut that would feel – again, more palatable. None of these are good cuts. And as I was doing my own priorities, I am thinking about the schools that  I haven’t heard as much about in this conversation: Ryan Road, Leeds, Bridge Street.

As I was looking at what the priorities were from the principals – and of course with the knowledge that the Bridge Street School principal could not weigh in in time for this meeting – also want there to be some restoration at those schools. So I have some math that I did, as I am wont to do, and I have a motion if folks feel ready for that. 

Margaret says no. I saw your physical hand up before, Margaret. I don’t know if – did you have a chance to speak since you had your physical hand up? Okay, good. All right, well, I will hold off on my motion since folks don’t feel ready for that. But.

Mayor Gina-Louise Sciarra:  Member Agna – oh wait—

Gwen Agna: I’ll defer to Dr. Bonner if she has – yeah.

Dr.  Bonner: Just a quick input on behalf of Bridge Street School: they too, in their second-grade classes, have the same numbers as Jackson Street. I just want to definitely put that out there if you’re looking at the restoration of an elementary school teacher.[there was a pause here that looked like maybe a skip or blip]…that entails.

Mayor Gina-Louise Sciarra: Thank you. So, Member Agna?

Gwen Agna:  I was just going to say that at our meeting last week, it was pretty glaringly obvious that Leeds was the one with the discrepancy in terms of equity when we listed out the cuts at each elementary school. And I know there’s been criticism about the advocacy for Jackson Street, but now I think the table has turned, and I think that there is a concern when I heard those numbers. And I can’t pull them up right now, unfortunately, but it was pretty glaring. I think we all noticed how inequitable it was, which is why – I saw the inequity at Jackson Street before, and it just seemed like that was flipped a bit. So I would love to hear about equity across the elementary schools.

And I agree with you, Member Szerafy-Cox, that there are places still that are not listed, and I find it very difficult to even start to bring them up, because I think we did already, but I am in a position myself, as a former educator, thinking about our year ahead that  could be seen as a year without a curriculum director or a year without a family engagement coordinator, or something that – and I really, honestly – I respect the superintendent and how central office needs to be run, and I would never suggest either of those to be permanent – to be permanently taken off of our staffing. I think we have to—we’re too short in central office. However, this year being so difficult, I wonder if we want to consider those again that you brought up – I think, Member Szerafy-Cox, in your list before. So I’m just putting it out there, and that’s why I’m glad that we’re not doing a motion yet, because I think we need to think about some other things in our budgeting. Thank you.

Video Time Stamp 1:00:51

Mayor Gina-Louise Sciarra: Okay, thank you. Dr. Bonner, is your hand up again to respond? 

Dr.  Bonner:  No, I’m sorry, I didn’t take it down from the last time. Let me take it down. I’m just going to wait until everyone has spoken, I’m just…

Well, Mayor, if I may, tomorrow’s August 1st, and you took a vote last week in terms of not making any more changes. So now we’re having that same discussion again, where we have – school opens on the 28th of August. We have to put things in place for people to have their assignments. We need to get things out to parents. We actually just sent out information to parents in terms of elementary classroom assignments and everything. So we are at the last hour, and to make those significant changes is— I know you’re going to do what you need to do, but we’re revisiting, we’re going back to  decisions in which you’ve taken votes on, as opposed to moving forward and looking at the dollars that we are presenting this evening in terms of an opportunity to restore positions that you talked about. I’m just concerned that we are being indecisive on the votes that we’ve made, and we’re going backwards, and we’re not  moving forward to making decisions in terms of how we’re going to move tonight.

I also want to point out that we’re looking at only one year. Next year, we already know what the target is: 3%. We don’t know what the risks are if the override does not pass. We also don’t know what the new contract will say. So I question in terms of some of the decisions that are being made this evening. And that’s all I have to say. I will lower my hand. Sorry. Thank you.

Mayor Gina-Louise Sciarra: Thank you. Okay, Member Ghazey?

Video Time Stamp: 1:03:09

Holly Ghazey: Uh, yeah, I wanted to ask Dr. Bonner:  with regard to the English teacher. Did I hear correctly that there is declining enrollment in the high school? And does that affect—does that make an English teacher – I know that that English teacher, although new, has got many, many fans, and many kids are feeling inspired and motivated to learn under that teacher. However, if we’re thinking about student-facing positions, if there is declining enrollment in the high school, maybe that’s not the place to put an English teacher.

With regard to the Leeds situation, looking at their thing – of those – the library paraprofessional, the first-grade paraprofessional, or the math interventionist.  I think the math interventionist is, to my mind, especially if we do not have for a while a curriculum director… I’m sort of feeling similar to the superintendent with regards to… we tend to rehash our decisions. And  if we don’t like them, there’s, you know, in later meetings, that’s why we move forward very slowly is that we’re always second-guessing ourselves. And me too! What with the standard-based grading or the – which was it that I was thinking about? I didn’t write it down. Oh! The time switch at the high school. Those types of decisions. We’re always relooking at them, like how math is being taught at different levels in the same class, and that sort of thing. So that was my question about whether – is there declining enrollment, Dr. Bonner.

Dr.  Bonner: Okay, so right now the numbers are as follows for the high school: 9th grade, there are 161 students enrolled. 10th grade: 246. Grade 11: 224. Grade 12:  228, giving a total of 859 students enrolled in the high school. I’m told that grade 9 – historically there’s low enrollment in 9th grade until school opens. But, I mean, we are in August. Many students have selected where they’re attending school by now, but we still – you know, the number is fluid. It’s fluid all the time, but that is a low number. 161 students for the 9th grade class.

Holly Ghazey: Thank you. 

Dr.  Bonner: You’re welcome. 

Mayor Gina-Louise Sciarra: Member Miller, I see you. Ok, go ahead.

Margaret Miller:  Oh, okay. I just wanted to adjust what I was saying before based on hearing what you just said, Dr. Bonner, about Bridge Street. If I had to make a terrible choice, I would rather see elementary school teachers reinstated because I think that will make a bigger difference if it lowers class sizes for all elementary schools, even before they get to JFK. I really want an interventionist at JFK, but if I have to make terrible choices, my preference is elementary school teachers because they are the ones that are first dealing with them, teaching them to read and do math. If I have to make a terrible choice, that would be it, and yes, I would like a JFK interventionist

I had mentioned earlier, on the spreadsheet – a World Language teacher, right now that feels like too much of a bonus, so I’d rather have an interventionist at JFK. If I have to lose a teacher. But anyway, that’s my only adjustment. Thank you. Sorry.

Video Time Stamp: 1:08:35

Mayor Gina-Louise Sciarra: Okay. It’s okay. Thank you. Okay, Member Stein.

Member Stein: Thanks. I had two questions, actually three questions. The first is a question about how we allocate Title I dollars across the district. I’m curious if we allot them by student to each elementary school. I’m just wondering what the fiscal mapping is of the Title I support that we get and how it then flows and is represented in the reading supports and interventions that we’re able to provide, and is it mapped. So that’s one question.

The second question is about class sizes at the high school. I’ve seen a number of different things. I’m hearing 28 to 30 students in many classes. I’m wondering what the class size is at the high school.

And then the third thing is we had talked at our first meeting of the strategic planning kickoff by the school committee last fall about the need to do demographic research. Without any money, we couldn’t actually hire anyone to do demographic planning for our future. But I’m wondering, listening to this number of 161 for 9th grade, how we’re supposed to understand that figure. Is it a population bubble? You see pretty mirrored numbers for seniors and juniors, you’ve got 20 more sophomores, and then a lot less freshmen. What explains it? What information do we have to consider? So if we’re going to make a plan for next year, but we know that the 8th grade class likely looks a certain way, or the 7th grade class, what are we using to actually make projections? And how much are we attributing this decrease in enrollment to the budget austerity? I mean, we’re getting a lot of emails from folks saying, “if I don’t get X, we’re  going private,” or running into people on the street who tell me similar things. 

I just want to urge us, as we go forward, to continue doing some work to use data and tools to make sense of the numbers that are presented to us so we can plan better. And the last thing I want to say before I hopefully get some answers to those questions is that I don’t think we’re revisiting decisions we’ve made. I don’t really think last week we had a real conversation. I’m really heartened that this week many members have come with sharpened pencils and clearly having done a lot of reading and thinking about what positions they want to advocate for and how they think this additional money should be used. And even rethinking, maybe for the first time, some of those questions that were raised last week. And I think that’s great. I’d rather us get here tonight than not at all.

But to remind everyone, we voted for a level service budget back in April, 8 to 1. And we waited until the 11th hour to find out what we were actually going to get. So, we’re at the whims of forces beyond our control, and I don’t think it’s accurate to say that we made a bunch of decisions that we’re now going back on. We passed a budget of what we were given for a dollar figure based on what we were told we could do, and then we had one truncated conversation about different choices we might make, and now, here for the first time, we’re discussing this increase. So we’ve never discussed these increased dollars. So to say that we’re revisiting something when this is the first time we’ve discussed the new funding source just isn’t accurate.

I think our problem more is that we don’t actually follow up on some of our commitments and things that the committee has focused on, or keep track of them. Whether it’s standard-based rating, whether it’s the math questions, whether it is exit interviews—which we voted on and supposedly were supposed to be already happening—or if it is around a second survey on start time. We commit to a lot of things that we just don’t actually do, but that’s different from not revisiting  – than revisiting our decisions. 

That’s my two cents. So I’m hoping to get an answer on the class sizes at NHS;  what sort of demographic projection work is being done by the strategic planning committee or should be done by this committee;  and how is our Title I money disbursed to the elementary schools?

Dr.  Bonner: Okay, Chair. So the first question pertaining Title I funding: that is a federal formula that we use, that’s based upon low-income students, and that’s what dictates the amount of funding that goes to each of the schools. 

The second is the class sizes at the high school. I cannot give you those actual numbers because they are actually still finalizing the class sizes, but when I speak to the high school principal, if you would like to actually see those numbers I will ask him to prepare that document for you. 

In terms of the demographic research – so just to remind everyone what strategic planning – what the premise of  the leadership team as well as the planning team. Their job was literally to identify our intentional focus for the next five years. And within that, they have come up with five objectives, which I’m going to share all of this come next Thursday when we have our full meeting. Within those objectives, there are initiatives and expected outcomes. One of those pieces is to do a demographic study. It’s not really just a demographic study; it is a enrollment projection study, along with looking at the city’s data on housing and families that are childbearing ages, and so on. So, there will be a triangulation of all of that data put together to give us enrollment projections.

But when it comes to the projections which we made during what has been the tradition in this district in terms of projecting those transitional grades going from middle school to high school, there’s a couple of components that is considered. First, we consider the number or potential percentage of students returning to our district who left us during the middle school years or who may have gone to private or charter schools but are returning to go to the high school. The second piece is that we also must consider those students who will be going out, for instance, who might be going to Smith Voc. So I will tell you that currently, right now, Smith Voc’s numbers for Northampton are up. There are approximately 35 students on our roll who will be attending the ninth grade class.

So that’s a significant change. And there are many, many other choices. You’ve got Pioneer Valley; there’s other choices that students are making. So, those are – all those things are considered when we make those projections. So the numbers I just quoted to you now is coming from what’s in our database right now, and it was just refreshed today. These numbers may change by the end of the week. It’s a fluid thing. We have students who sign up and students who withdraw.

I am glad to hear that you are cognizant of the needs of the district, Member Stein, when it comes to doing a demographic study, but that is a component that is actually in the Strategic Plan that will be planned. You might be concerned that we’re not considering these things, but this is the year for planning on those things that will cost money to get done. We haven’t missed the gamut of saying what we are going to do this year. There are things that we’re going to put in place that will prepare us that if there is a cost to actually meeting that initiative or that objective, that we will plan accordingly in the next fiscal year’s budget. But right now, we are okay in terms of strategic planning because it is a continuous planning year. There are some things that we have in place that will not be costs because it’s really about knowledge base and gathering of information and data. So that’s where we are right now. So the only piece that I could not directly answer for you is the actual class sizes at the high school.

Michael Stein: Great. Just one follow-up question. I appreciate the insight; it’s really interesting to hear about the Smith voke numbers too. And the question is, what I hear you saying is you’re confirming that our current budget and our current practices are allocating those Title I dollars in accordance with the federal guidelines. Is that correct? 

Dr.  Bonner: That is what should be done by our Director of Curriculum, who writes those grants and is monitored by the business office. So, yes, that has been the practice.

Michael Stein: Okay, just to be clear, I’m hearing “should” and “practice.” 

Dr.  Bonner: No, that is our practice and that is what has been done in terms of the Director of Curriculum, who writes the grant and is monitored by the business office. And conversation—

Member Stein: Oh, and I’m asking you – 

Dr.  Bonner: Oh let me finish – 

Michael Stein: You just interrupted me. [inaudible] my question. My question to you is can you confirm that that is what’s happening with this year’s budget?

Video Time Stamp: 1:19:30

Dr. Portia Bonner: So, considering that we are writing the Title I  grant as we speak, right now, that is what will be happening with this budget. We have already considered the numbers of the salaried people who are in those budgets. With consideration of their increases that will be in there and the portions of which we can put into those grants. And it will be done accordingly to the percentage of students that are in those buildings. Yes. I will confirm that – because that is going to be the practice that we will continue – with the person who will be writing the grant. 

Michael Stein: Thank you. Just lastly, I am concerned that next year, when we are in the same budget situation, we will not have money, like we didn’t have this year, to do a demographic study. And so I’m not sure what planning we’re going to do, where we’re not going to be faced with adding – removing an interventionist, or a special education teacher, or a paraeducator, and decide that we’re going to spend money on a demographic study. So I just want to say it now,  because next spring, when we talk about this again, you know – we had this conversation last year when we reinstated the position of a technology specialist here – oh, not technology specialist, I’m sorry – digital literacy coordinator to a director position. The conversation last fall was what happens if we increase it by 0.5 and then we have to make other cuts. Well, we’re back in that situation, and we’re going to  have the same conversations again. I look forward to reminding you all at that point. It’s super frustrating to continue to be on this merry-go-round. Thank you.

Mayor Gina-Louise Sciarra: Okay, I’ll just note – so Dr. Bonner and I were both today at a.Smith Voc  strategic planning retreat,  and it was noted there that interest in vocational education is up across the state – I assume the country; we were just talking about the state – so there’s a movement towards more kids enrolling in that kind of education, so that might be a trend we continue to see.   Okay, Member Hennessey.

Ann Hennessey: Okay, two things. I noted from a January meeting that we were expecting a lower enrollment coming in. I looked this up the other night: 175—I’m sorry, 163 – kids in eighth grade at JFK, 238 in ninth grade, 204 in seventh grade. That’s this academic year. And I looked at a couple of other districts, and there’s a dip this year. I don’t know across the country, but I do remember in January that was a concern I had because it did seem, anecdotally,  a lot of people were considering Smith Voc also. So  I’m not surprised with the 161, given that we have an eighth grade of 163. Obviously, kids come in, so that’s just that. That’s number one.

Number two: I’m not asking to get off this meeting at all. I’m sorry, I’m getting off this page. I just would hope that we could at least agree or vote on the $192,400. And then if we want to move forward with other things – just so we have those priorities out. I’m willing to stay and, you know – for me –  talk about anything else, but I hope that – I know we’re not full – but if we could,  at some point soon, have that first discussion [inaudible] $192,400. So that’s all I am saying. No questions.

Mayor Gina-Louise Sciarra: Okay, thank you. Member Agna.

Video Time Stamp 1:23:40

Gwen Agna: Well, correct me if I’m wrong, but I recall that we always got demographic information from the census department or the planning department—I can’t remember what it was—but we were always looking to project enrollment for sure. And  also we were able to get some of the demographics about needs and where people were going to be living and stuff. So I don’t know if we’re going to need to spend money; I think we may have the capability within our city and our departments to do that. 

And I agree with you, Member Hennessey, that we need to make a decision about this money. I also – and this came up at our meeting last week – I don’t recall that we had a definitive answer, except in that it was seen as something we would prefer not doing because of possible emergencies coming up. But I feel an obligation, given the kinds of constituent feedback that I’ve received and maybe others have received, that  the special education revolving fund possibility that is out there. And – is Charlene here? –  I am not suggesting that we delve into it necessarily, but I think the public needs to know more definitively than we were able to say last week at our meeting about it. And that’s it. Thank you.

Mayor Gina-Louise Sciarra: Thank you. Yes, Director Nardi is here and could go over the special education stabilization fund if that would be helpful. And she just turned on her camera. 

Video Time Stamp: 1:25:34

Director Nardi: Hi, good evening, everyone. Could you remind me exactly what your questions are related to the fund? Like how it works or how it was set up? 

Gwen Agna: Well, what happened at our meeting last week was that—if I’m correct in remembering – Member Serafy-Coz? Did you? I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but it came up about using some of those funds to get us out of this situation now. And the answer was, this was a fund to anticipate emergencies when we get kids to move  in who may need an out-of-district program. And I understand that completely, having experienced that myself in our schools. But I just wanted to know, so that – with the public here – what the thinking is about that. 

Director Nardi: So, I would agree. The fund is to support the special education operating costs, matching the incoming recurring revenue of Medicaid funds, so that’s one piece of this fund. The second piece is for unanticipated or unforeseen special education costs, so that you can stable your budget for that year. And then it gives the administration a chance to figure out how those funds going forward are going to impact the budget for the following year. 

The concern, as we talked about before, is if you use all the funds that we’ve supported now, you again have the hole, and how is it going to be filled? We tried to set this up so, long term, the budget is stable from those unforeseen costs. 

So, again, this was the mayor’s idea. It has been suggested, you know, the stabilization, but  a creative way outside of the box to support the budget and to keep it from being unstable for special education costs. So I do not recommend, you know, and it wasn’t intended, to solve a recurring problem for this year. It was intended to support special education costs across – for a sustainable amount of time. Does that help? 

Gwen Agna: Thank you.

Mayor Gina-Louise Sciarra: Okay, thank you, Member Serafy-Cox.

Emily Serafy-Cox: Checking on the temperature. I’ve still got a motion. Are people ready for it? Gwen’s ready, two thumbs up, but I saw – 

Kerry LaBounty: I need one minute. I need one minute. I want to ask a couple of things first. 

Emily Serafy-Cox: Okay, I’ll take my hand down and then put it back up. 

Mayor Gina-Louise Sciarra: Okay, then, Member LaBounty. 

Video Time Stamp: 1:28:27

Kerry LaBounty: Okay, thanks. I wanted to follow up on Gwen’s question. Because I guess what would be helpful to understand about the special education fund is why that number. Is it based on data that says we’ve had four kids that come in and thus we need to do that? Is it a general number? Because I think that’s part of the question that people have, is why couldn’t that number be $400,000 versus $600,000 versus $800,000? And so, if we don’t know what it’s based on, then it’s hard to just say yes, we absolutely need it at that number. So I guess if somebody – if that could be explained, I think that would be helpful. That’s one of my things. I have a couple of others, but go ahead.

Director Nardi: So, I think you’re talking about the cap for $350,000 for the year. 

Kerry LaBounty: Yeah, I think. And the money was set aside with $800,000. I forget, there was – 

Director Nardi: Yeah, so the $800,000 was based on what was in the special ed – was in our undesignated fund balance. But also, there is a cap on how much that can be in that stabilization fund. And if we exceeded or if we got to the cap, then you wouldn’t be able to add anymore.  And this year, for instance, in 2009, you’re expecting Medicaid money to come in, that will be transferred – after certified free cash, or free cash is certified, we will have an order to move that money into the stabilization fund. And because by statute there’s a limit, we didn’t want to bring you all the way to the cap, because then there would be nothing going in; there would just be money coming out. So, we wanted it to kind of be so money’s coming in, money’s going out, and you’re, you know, over the time. So the 800,000 brought you up closer to the cap, which I’m sorry I don’t have that off the top of my head. I can look for that. It was in the order. It’s a percentage of the— is it the percentage of the levy? I gotta look. 

Kerry LaBounty: But we could use those – the Medicaid dollars wouldn’t necessarily have to go into… I guess I’m just trying to figure out…

Director Nardi: So – 

Kerry LaBounty: [inaudible] totally understand the flow [inaudible] it’s helpful – 

Director Nardi: Right, so the Medicaid dollars were always in the city budget; those always stayed with the city. So now we are returning them back to you— not back to you, but to the school. So in the past, the school applied for those funds, and they became a general fund revenue for the city. So this was a way for us to give them back to you.

Kerry LaBounty: Okay, all right, thank you. My second thing was that I heard what Member Agna was saying about the idea of like, well, what if we did something for one year? My concern is, I think that what Member Stein is saying is that next year’s not going to be any better. So how do we get it back? How do we put things in that we take out for those one years? Though  I like that idea— like, oh, could we use that money for something? My fear is that, how do we ride that in a way because, you know, you have concerns about some things that we would take out. So that’s my concern about that, like how do we ride that, and make that not be… put ourselves even further behind?

And then my last question is, and this goes to Emily’s hand going up, which is: do people— because I think I heard similar to what Member Seafy-Cox was saying about there’s some things we’re pretty clear on, I think,  that I think we want. There’s others, it’s kind of all over. So I’m wondering if the appetite is to do sort of one thing at a time that adds us up to the dollar figure we have, or do you want to do it as “this is the package we have”? Because I think we’ll have trouble coming to an agreement on the package idea, whereas I think we might have better luck starting with the things we know and then adding. So that’s my sort of question to the group. And, you know, as Member Serafy-Cox  is thinking about making a motion, how would we want to do that? So I bring that up. 

Emily Serafy-Cox: I was just going to say,  it sounds like you want to make a motion.

Video Time Stamp: 1:33:19

Mayor Gina-Louise Sciarra: Okay, Member Stein.

Michael Stein:  I just wanted to speak a little bit to the Special Education Stability Fund. I want to start by way of an analogy. I’m a parent, and I have a child who has reading difficulty and I could get them tutoring, but instead – I’ve got this other child who one day might need some other help. So, instead of paying for the child I know has the problem now, I’m going to put all that money in a savings account, so hopefully someday, in case my other child has a need, we’re gonna be able to use it. And I’m going to use some tax-deferred 529 plan – I’m gonna put the maximum amount into that plan. I’m just going to let it sit there in case I need it someday, and my other child with the needs right now – they’re  just gonna have to deal with it. This is an absurd choice. No one would make this choice as a parent or caregiver. And this is exactly the choice we made when we set up the Special Education Stabilization Fund. We have current needs now, but the only solution that this administration seems to know is stocking cash away and putting up invisible fences. These funds are designed only for unexpected costs, and yet somehow we’re using it to filter a $200,000 reimbursement to us every year for recurring costs, and then we have other money that we could use for extraordinary costs. But you’re only allowed to fund this thing up to 2% of net school spending. This year, that’s like, I don’t know, something like $840,000. So, when you start the fund, you start it off pretty much maxed out. What are we thinking? It doesn’t make any sense. And then we’re going to take $200,000 – and we’re gonna get  another $205,000 and put it in.  And then all the tailings that we’re going to have are also going to get dumped in there, except there won’t be enough room. So the rest of those tailings will go where? Maybe to free cash, to be certified for something else.

 In June, we paid for our unexpected costs by transferring money, and it wasn’t $800,000 worth of costs. It doesn’t mean some years you wouldn’t have it, but the basis of setting this up has not taken into account any historical data about unanticipated and unbudgeted costs. It was ridiculous from the beginning, and it also seems like a way to have the City Council have control some funds the school could theoretically have access to, because we have to allow – they have to vote on whatever motion we pass. Now, by law, we can use this money for any lawful purpose regardless of the language and the stipulations that are put into place. There are legal limits that are imposed from outside, such as how much can go into the fund, period – only 2% of net school spending in any year – and some stuff about withdrawals, but everything else is just choices that we’ve made and imposed on ourselves. And it’s absurd. We’re sitting here desperate to fill basic positions, and we’ve locked up $800,000 for potential needs in the future. We have left the kid that needs tutoring to fend for themselves in the hopes that someday, if someone moves in, we might be able to take care of them. It just – it makes no sense. I’d encourage you all to consider passing a motion to appropriate some of that money to deal with some of our current needs, and if the City Council decides no, the City Council decides no. Just like our budget. They want to hear about our budget; they want to hear about our needs. Whatever. We set up this structure. We gave them control. We locked up all this money. It made no sense then, and it makes no sense now. I’d encourage you all to think about it.

Lastly, I just reiterate that we can use that money, like every stabilization fund, for any legal purpose. The only things in our way are the limits we put on ourselves and continue to abide by. 

Mayor Gina-Louise Sciarra: I want to just  reiterate one more time that this fund was set up in a way so that it can be sustainable, so that each year there can be an appropriation – yeah, you can do that all you want, Mike – there can be an appropriation, and then if there are emergency costs, which do happen, that that is  a source of funding for that that can be used. So – 

Michael Stein: This year, this year we used something like [inaudible]

Mayor Gina-Louise Sciarra: No, I’m not taking your interruptions, no.  Mike. 

Michael Stein: This year, we transfer $35,000, and we’re going to replenish $800,000? 

Mayor Gina-Louise Sciarra: Member Stein, you’re out of order. 

Michael Stein: I am.

Mayor Gina-Louise Sciarra: Member Stein, you’re out of order. Member—uh, can I go to – Member Serafy-Cox, may I go to Member Davis first, and then I’ll go back to you? Member Davis.

Video Time Stamp: 1:38:26

Aline Davis: Thanks. Back a couple of topics ago, when we talked about— I guess it was Member La Bounty—the item-by-item versus the package. I would opt for the item-by-item, because – I know just speaking for myself was – made it difficult for me.   And in getting temperature of things, I guess would want to reiterate, wherever possible I will be focusing on the counselor at the high school and any full classroom teacher that we can get back in front of children. And the last thing is – I would want to submit that I don’t see the stabilization fund as absurd because I think these emergencies actually happen. They actually happen. That’s where this whole idea came from. I don’t think that anybody in Northampton Public Schools is leaving a child to fend for themselves. And one can’t judge what a family might do – how a family might budget their money. There are people that save up for stuff that they have a good feeling is coming down the road. People do save up for stuff that they see – they see something big that might be happening, let me save up for it.  So I think it was a wise idea.

Mayor Gina-Louise Sciarra: Member Serafy-Cox, I apologize. I see Member Miller’s hand up. May I go to her?  Go ahead, Member Miller.

Margaret Miller: It’s very quick. Before Member Serafy-Cox makes her motion, I just wanted to agree with Member Davis. My only objection last time was that it was the entire package. I would rather do it position by position rather than a whole package. So that’s just my comment before you do it.  Before you make a motion. Okay? That’s enough. 

Video Time Stamp 1:40:50

Emily Serafy-Cox: I don’t – so I’m really confused about this. How do you balance a budget if you’re not gonna have it as a package? Item by item— that was a thing I was confused about last week, too. I suggested this amount of cuts and this amount of restorations, and they equaled each other. If I went item by item, it wouldn’t – they don’t all – like, I [inaudible] this exact amount here and I can restore this exact – we can’t to it that way, because if I’m cutting $30,000 from Gateway to College, there’s not an exact $30,000 that I can restore somewhere else. It kind of has to be a package in that way. Clearly, we have a larger chunk of money that we’re dealing with tonight, so I guess we could go item by item a little bit that way? I mean – make a motion if you understand this better than I do. I’m just trying to wrap my head around it, and I’m not succeeding. So if you have something else, please – otherwise, I was going to try. I don’t know.

Mayor Gina-Louise Sciarra: Okay, Dr. Bonner, do you have…?

Dr. Portia Bonner: If I could ask the chair to make – if someone could make a motion for the adjustment counselor, which seems to be a consensus of the group, and then that will give us a balance of what remains. 

Mayor Gina-Louise Sciarra: Would someone like to make that motion?

Video Time Stamp:  1:42:48

Ann Hennessey: I move that we restore the adjustment counselor position at the high school. 

Gwen Agna: I second it.

Mayor Gina-Louise Sciarra: The motion is made by Member Hennessey and seconded by Member Agna.  Were you going to give us an updated number, Dr. Bonner, or did you want to do a roll call vote?

Dr. Portia Bonner: Did you want to do a roll call vote?

Mayor Gina-Louise Sciarra: Oh, sure. Okay. Cassie – any discussion on that? The hands that are up give me head shakes—no? Okay. Cassie, roll call, please.  Oh, we can’t hear you, Cassie. Oh, can you not –

(Technical Issues Addressed, then Roll Call)

Cassie:

Member Ghazey?

Yes.

Member Serafy-Cox?

Yes.

Member Stein?

Yes.

Member Hennessey?

Yes.

Member Miller?

Yes.

Member LaBounty?

Yes.

Member Agna?

Yes.

Member Davis?

Yes.

Mayor Sciarra?

Yes.

All in favor.

Mayor Gina-Louise Sciarra: Okay, thank you.

Dr.  Bonner: Okay, so Mayor that leaves us with $120,756 remaining. Bobbie, you can check my numbers there.

Bobbie Jones: I did. I concur.

Mayor Gina-Louise Sciarra: Member LaBounty?

Kerry LaBounty: I was going to suggest that the next – that the way we do it – you’re right, Member Serafy-Cox, that in general you need to kind of have something, because otherwise, by the time you get to your other thing, it might not have money left. 

So – I have not done my math yet, so I need to decide what –  but people I think suggesting that someone make a motion around the things they find that’s going to fit within that budget dollar. Because you’re right, it’s never going to be exact, and  it’s going to go like this [up and down hand gesture]. But either you make a motion for the two things or three things that you’re gonna restore with that money and then we move and do it like that. Because we also don’t have in writing the things that Member Serafy-Cox suggested deleting. So, it’s this air math right now. So what we do have in front of us is what we could probably work on. That’s my suggestion—I need to do my math first.

Mayor Gina-Louise Sciarra: Member Davis?

Video Time Stamp 1:46:35

Aline Davis: I have a question regarding the – we talked about the Jackson Street second-grade teacher position. And then I was reminded about the other schools and the efforts to make it equitable. I believe it was Leeds that had –  that also had the potential for 25- 

Member Miller: No, it’s Bridge Street. 

Aline Davis: Right. Ok. Because certainly the equity piece is important. I have here the number for Jackson Street Grade 2 at $55,760. I believe that’s what I had written down from one of those charts. If it’s just two second-grades? But I wanted to confirm that we’re talking only about two second-grades – then that could add up to what remains. But I wanted to make sure that I was accurate about two classes versus all of the elementary schools.  That’s all I wanted to say. I didn’t know what people thought of that.

Dr.  Bonner: So just a clarification, so grade two at Jackson Street, there are currently two second grade classes. One is at 24 and  the second one is at  25, so there’s a total of 49 students. It’s right at the threshold. The same at Bridge Street. Two classes, same numbers: 25 and  24. 

Aline Davis: So I guess the question would be: is it possible, with that remaining – after reinstating the school adjustment counselor – would it be possible to make a third second grade class in those two schools so that the class sizes would be smaller? That’s an idea. 

Dr.  Bonner: Ok. So, Bobbie, can you check those numbers? One I believe would be a reinstatement, because there were – one is a reinstatement at Jackson Street, and Bridge Street would be a new position. 

Bobbie Jones: That’s correct. So I just did the quick math. I would use probably a Masters Step 7 for the Bridge Street School, which would be the additional position. That would be at $65,762. Along with the Jackson Street, that would be $55,760. That would leave us short by $766, which we could absorb, depending on how – you know, that number could come in above; it could come in below, depending on the hired person. But that would work.  Did you all hear me? 

Mayor Gina-Louise Sciarra: Yes.

Bobbie Jones: Okay, just making sure. 

Mayor Gina-Louise Sciarra: So, Member Serafy-Cox, do you want to go?

Video Time Stamp: 1:54:46

Emily Serafy-Cox: Yeah. I’m nervous about doing this one by one for another reason. When you make one decision here and one decision here, it’s easy to – every time, you know, we go to another position, yeah – of course that position needs to be restored!  But part of the reason we look at it as a package is to see the equity implications, to remind ourselves of the balanced priorities. Because if we were to go next to second grade classrooms, what becomes of the interventionists at JFK that the superintendent talked about needing badly? What happens to the English teacher that several of you talked about needing badly?

So if really it’s an issue of not having the numbers in front of our eyes, then, I have a spreadsheet that – I can share on my screen. The math is easy to calculate on a spreadsheet. And so I – there are ways to solve these problems without needing to go through one by one. That was going to be my motion. If y’all want to keep going with this, then we can. I’m just – I’m worried.

Mayor Gina-Louise Sciarra: Ok. Dr. Bonner?

Dr.  Bonner: Just a question, that – is Member Davis going to make a motion to what she just suggested?

Aline Davis: Well, I heard a – to me, my perception was a really long silence after I made those two ideas. I said what do people think; maybe I was supposed to say it in a motion way. But I guess in answer to your question, Dr. Bonner, is that I wanted to say,  Member Serafy-Cox, that the reason – you know, when we talked about voting on the package this last time, was I strongly disagreed with the going into the stabilization fund, and that was part of the package. The other things I might have been able to work with. And so with this we’re talking about such little wiggle room with the money. And that’s assuming that we don’t talk about the cuts that you had proposed last time. Right now, we’re only talking about that hundred ninety-two, right? We haven’t added into – yeah, but if we cut. So when we kind of went around as Member Hennessey had suggested of like, where do people stand, I mean I know that all of these are competing horrible things that we already acknowledged. I strongly also would like to have the English teacher reinstated. But I had to pick for the sake of this hundred and twenty that’s left, that Dr. Bonner mentioned, and so the class size in the elementary school was the crummy choice that I made. But I’m not gonna make a motion if – 

Michael Stein: I just want to raise a quick point of – 

Aline Davis: I’m not, I’m – excuse me. I’m not quite done.  I’m not quite done.

Michael Stein: I’m raising a point of order. I’m raising a point of order. The point of order is a question for the parliamentarian and the chair. So it is very strange that the superintendent is being recognized out of queue and is asking for motions. She’s not a member of the body. Usually, when we go to the superintendent as a non-member of the body, it’s to clarify questions about information that are up for debate. It just feels very weird that now we’ve had two instances where motions have been asked for by the superintendent. And in this case, one was asked for from someone that’s finished speaking, a member who didn’t make a motion, and then the queue is skipped and the superintendent only asked her if she was going to make a motion. It’s just very strange procedurally, and I’m wondering what the rules say about this. I’ve never seen this happen before.

Mayor Gina-Louise Sciarra: I would disagree. I remember the former superintendent trying to direct the committee and help them move forward many times. It’s not unusual at all, and it also used to be par for the course that after – that the superintendent’s opinion would be asked on all things.  Member Serafy- Cox, I don’t know if you have anything to add.

Emily Serafy-Cox: I mean, I took it as Dr. Bonner clarifying if there was a motion on the floor, but that was just my read of it. 

Mayor Gina-Louise Sciarra: We can—oh, sorry, were you finishing your thought on that?

Emily Serafy-Cox: I was trying to figure out if I had further thought on it. I just would like somebody to make a motion, and that’s all.

Mayor Gina-Louise Sciarra: Okay. I’m going to go back to Member Davis, who was interrupted. 

Aline Davis: I mainly just wanted to just put out there that we have very little money left after the counselor restoration vote, and I was suggesting the two second grades. I, admittedly, did not make a motion, but I heard a long silence, so I’m interpreting that as I just put it out there as a suggestion, and I would be happy to hear from somebody else that’s ready to –  they want to make a motion.

Video Time Stamp: 1:57:14

Mayor Gina-Louise Sciarra: Okay. Thank you, Member Davis. Sorry, I muted myself. Dr. Bonner, is there something that you wanted to add? 

Dr. Portia Bonner: Uh, no. 

Mayor Gina-Louise Sciarra: Okay, thank you. Okay,  I’m going to go to Member Hennessey, Member LeBounty, and then Member Agna. 

Ann Hennessey: Thanks. Thank you. Um, so as Member LaBounty said last week, you know, we just went through this training for MASC and talked about budgeting. And, you know, both of us came out thinking we’re not going to go through this line item. I appreciate this, though. I find it really interesting, but I think what we’re running into right now is exactly what we should run into. We’re all hearing from our different constituents with different ideas. We have different ideas and different priorities. I said it before; I don’t think anyone’s wrong. Like, every restoration would be correct. It’s just how we’re looking at it. 

Some of us are educators; some of us were educators. But, you know, I’m doing my best to look at the whole thing. Ultimately – this is my oven, excuse me – but ultimately, you know, I feel like we make a recommendation. We had consensus around the adjustment counselor. I don’t like –  I love you, Member Davis – you know, I wouldn’t have voted for that. I get it, though, and if it came up, I’d be like, okay, well, that’s what happened. I like special ed and the reading interventionist. I think I heard Member LaBounty say something else. We’re going to have different ideas, so it is going to be impossible. And I feel like this is where—and I know people disagree with me. I know your arguments; no one has to, you know, say that. I really do understand it – I think our job here is to do our due diligence, listen to our constituents, do a lot of thinking, and looking, reading, and making our position known. And then the superintendent, if we don’t have a consensus at everything, has to make that decision, or we’re not going to do it. 

And I think for the $192,400, we then could have another discussion about whether we want to restore something or cut something, and then what can happen after. But I don’t think we’re gonna – I don’t hear a consensus on this, and so, for me, it is about saying all these are good. if we restore them – the superintendent heard our arguments. If we want to reiterate something or perhaps more strongly advocate for something, maybe that’s what we can do. And it’s okay if people don’t want to do that, also. But to me, I think we’re going to be running into stuff. 

And then the last thing I want to say, I do think – we all – not all of us, some of us, and I will put myself in this too – need to watch how we’re speaking to each other. I’m sure other people are hearing from the community about this. I’m not calling anyone out; I just think we’re in a meeting, talking about really hard things that we feel really, really emotionally about. We’re parents; some of us have kids in the system. It’s really hard, and if you’re a teacher, it’s worse – not worse; it’s really hard, too. These are emotional times. I think we need to – I want to, Ann Hennessey, bring a little bit more kindness to this discussion because it’s hard. Dr. Bonner has a very difficult job; we have a very difficult job. Mayor, everyone here—no one wants to make a bad decision. And this is a very difficult budget. It is awful.    And so that’s my statement. 

Mayor Gina-Louise Sciarra: Thank you. Member LaBounty.

Kerry LaBounty: I have to agree with Member Hennessey on that. I do think that we’re making a recommendation. We have lots of opinions. I think the reason that I want to deal with the $192,000 is because I have not seen the spreadsheet that was proposed, that goes along with the adds and deletes, and I don’t think it’s appropriate to ask us to vote on something I have not seen. It’s only been verbal. And I have to say, at the last meeting, I felt a little blindsided because I was being asked to make big decisions on something I had never seen and only heard. So I  said I’m not going to do that again. So I don’t want to vote on a package I have not seen the pros and cons of, and haven’t had a chance to sort of look at this. I agree with Member Davis; I didn’t agree with some of it. There was lots I did, and if there had maybe been opportunity for us to discuss it in more detail in a way we could present a different package, perhaps I would have done it. But I couldn’t do it, and so I was really unhappy about that, actually.

So, I actually will make a motion: that we accept the district priorities as they are presented, which add up to the $192, 400, and that we don’t have consent – well, that’s my motion. My motion is that we accept and put forth the district priorities that are set here for the $192,400. 

Gwen Agna: I second it. 

Mayor Gina-Louise Sciarra: The motion is made by Member LaBounty and seconded by Member Agna. Member Agna, did you want to speak to it? 

Holly Ghazey: Um, heat the oven [inaudible] on a sheet pan – 

Gwen Agna: Oh, we can hear you – Holly. We can hear you. 

Mayor Gina-Louise Sciarra: I muted her. 

Gwen Agna: Okay, great. I was going to make that same motion. Member LaBounty, thank you for doing it. 

Mayor Gina-Louise Sciarra: Okay, thank you. Member Stein, to the motion? 

Michael Stein: Yes, I didn’t know if Member Agna was willing to offer a friendly amendment based on what you said earlier to add back additional positions using the special education stabilization fund or by making some of the other cuts we talked about. 

Gwen Agna: I’m not prepared to do that right now. Thank you. 

Mayor Gina-Louise Sciarra: Member Miller.

Margaret Miller: This is a question for the parliamentarian. There’s a motion on the floor, so I guess that means that we’re not able to make another motion. Is that correct? 

Emily Serafy-Cox: You can make an amendment to the motion that is on the floor, either by friendly amendment or by moving an amendment. Yes.

Margaret Miller: Okay. Well, first, just point of discussion. I just wanted to say that the spreadsheet that was sent by email to all of us was simply Member Serafy-Cox’s suggestions, my suggestions, the district’s priorities. That was all in a spreadsheet that was sent to us by email, and those were only – for example, for me – my suggestions. They were not a motion, obviously. 

So, I’m going to make a friendly amendment to the last motion on the floor. I would like to –  my friendly amendment is  not to designate grade levels, but to simply say I would amend that the elementary schools that have class sizes of close to 25 receive – have another position added, whether it’s a reinstatement or a new position. The amendment would be that the elementary school classroom teachers would be the priority. 

Kerry LaBounty: Do I have to accept that or not? 

Emily Serafy-Cox: You have to decide whether or not to accept it. 

Kerry LaBounty: I’m declining. 

Mayor Gina-Louise Sciarra: Okay, so the motion is still on the floor. 

Ann Hennessey: Member LaBounty, can you repeat the amendment one more time?  I’m sorry – your motion.

Kerry LaBounty: My motion was to accept the suggestions listed out in the district priority budget that was presented to us in the spreadsheet. 

Ann Hennessey: Thank you.

Video Time Stamp: 2:06:59

Mayor Gina-Louise Sciarra: Member Stein, to the motion?

Michael Stein:  Yeah, I’d offer a friendly amendment to Member LaBounty to amend the motion to not include the adjustment counselor, which was already passed. Even though I would kind of hope if we voted on it twice, we’d get two, but the math won’t add up, so – 

Kerry LaBounty: Thank you. I accept that friendly amendment, yes.

Mayor Gina-Louise Sciarra: Okay, any further discussion on the motion? Seeing none, roll call, please, Cassie.

Cassie:

Member Serafy-Cox? 

No.

Member Stein? 

No.

Member Hennessey? 

Yes.

Member Miller? 

No.

Member LaBounty? 

Yes.

Member Agna? 

Yes.

Member Davis? 

Yes.

Mayor Sciarra? 

Yes.

Member Ghazey? 

Yes.

One second. 

Three Nos, and one, two, three, six Yes. 

Mayor Gina-Louise Sciarra: Okay, so the motion carries.  There are no further items on the agenda. So then the last thing to do would be, is there a motion to adjourn?

Meeting Adjourned