UPDATED: The following statement by School Committee William Hayner was left with the committee secretary on Thursday, Dec. 10, after the committee voted, 6-1, to proceed with contract negotiations with Superintendent Kathleen Bodie. Hayner voted “no.” The statement refers to attached documents provided to the School Committee.
I came onto this committee almost five years ago with the intent to help bring back the public confidence to the School System. I have been fortunate in working with a group of people including the superintendent who have always been collegial and hard working.
Many things have changed for the positive but my confidence in the superintendent is lacking.
I vote in the negative to renew the superintendent’s contract for the following reasons:
1. The superintendent has knowingly violated the School Committee policies, GCB, GCBA, GCBB, and GCBC when she gave principals salary increases and without School Committee approval. These increases are beyond those approved by the committee. The superintendent also negotiated new contracts and additional compensation without committee approval. (See attached copies of policies)
2. The superintendent has failed to protect the system from litigation by not providing the statutory language on suspension in the Elementary Student Handbook for over a year. (See attached copy of pdf) or go to https://www.arlington.kl2.ma.us/eforms/parent_forms/Elementary_Handbook.pdf
3. The superintendent has not provided accurate information to the committee so that the committee can act in the best interest of the students and the town:
The superintendent, when asked about the possibility of using the Gibbs School during the consideration of renewing leases two years ago, told the committee it would require updates that would be prohibitive in costs. This past year the architect hired stated that the building is in excellent condition. If this was known, the committee would probably have authorized a year to year lease and would have mitigated some of the current issues.
The superintendent was asked by members to contact local realtors regarding enrollment increases several years ago. This was not done. The rational [sic] to do this was stated in Dr. McKibben’s report. If this was done, we would have been working on this issue two years ago.
The superintendent was asked about the viability of placing modular units at Stratton, in the initial discussions on renovation. The committee was told that it was not feasible. Something happened this past summer and within 48 hours, we went from multiple modular units at 3-4 sites to all being placed at Stratton.
4. The superintendent has not taken responsibility for her actions and misinformed the community regarding the space issues at Thompson by not providing a complete set of facts when asked why there is overcrowding. (See ACMi on demand 1:41:00 of the Town Hall meeting Sept. 24, 2014)
The superintendent responded to MSBA’s concern that Arlington wanted a smaller Thompson School in a letter dated May 24, 2011. She stated that “the TSBC, Thompson School Building Committee, determined the overall building square footage that needed to be reduced to meet budget.” The superintendent knowingly misinformed the town on 9/24 when she said that the reduction was caused by MSBA. (See attached letter from Superintendent to MSBA dated May 24, 2011) [This letter is published in full, below.]
5. Issues that are brought to the superintendent are not dealt with in a professional manner. One must bring it [sic] out issues during a public secession [sic] and continually seek the answer in order to have them resolved, e.g. Hardy playground repair has been an ongoing problem for several years.
If a member of the public comes to the committee when they don’t get a response from the superintendent, they are often marginalized by the superintendent.
Real or not the perception is that if you complain you will be subject to retaliation.
Full text of May 24, 2011, letter from Superintendent Bodie to John Jumpe, Massachusetts School Building Authority
Re: Thompson Elementary School, Arlington
I am writing to respond to the concerns raised at our recent meeting on May 18, 2011. As we mentioned, the Town of Arlington is very pleased to report the recent unanimous vote at Town Meeting in support of the Thompson Elementary reconstruction project. Prior to Town Meeting and after the MSBA Board meeting on February 9, 2011, Arlington’s Finance Committee and Capital Committee finalized their determination of what would be a fiscally responsible budget for the Thompson project. They agreed that the project budget needed to be an amount that would not require an additional debt exclusion override vote, which they deemed would not pass in these tough economic times (an override was passed in 2000 for the rebuild or renovation of four Arlington elementary schools, including Thompson Elementary). The Chair of the Capital Committee met with the Thompson School Building Committee (TSBC) and strongly recommended that the project budget be capped at $20,000,000.
Based on this budgetary mandate, the TSBC determined the overall building square footage that needed to be reduced to meet the budget. The School Department worked with the design team to make the required reductions. Your first concern was whether or not these reductions would in any way inhibit educational program delivery. I can assure you that they will not. We approached the reductions by first reviewing the program spaces at our other elementary schools and comparing them to the proposed Thompson program. Based on the other schools, it was determined that a general classroom could be reduced from 950 to 900 square feet and remain within MSBA guidelines, while being comparable to other Arlington elementary schools. Both the gymnasium and library spaces were also reduced to a size similar to other Arlington schools. The gymnasium was reduced from 6,000 to 3,200 square feet, making it slightly larger than the existing gymnasium. The library was reduced from 2,380 to 1,800 square feet, which is nearly double the current library space. The music classroom has remained the recommended 1,200 square feet, but has been combined with the platform space. The resource room was reduced from 500 to 300 square feet, which is an acceptable size for the program and matches its current size.
All other reductions were taken from non-educational spaces (storage, administration, and central kitchen). Again, we took great care in determining the best way to make these reductions so as to not hinder the educational program in any way.
At our May 18 meeting, you aptly pointed out that these space reductions brought the overall size of the proposed building (57,396 SF) closer to the size of the existing school building (57,481 SF). The question was raised as to whether it would be appropriate to renovate the existing school rather than construct a new building. You and your team reviewed this comparison on a cost per square foot basis and noted that renovation of the existing building would require some small additions for an elevator and other program spaces, with the total area close to 7,000 SF. Again, you aptly noted that the existing school building’s square footage includes approximately 3,500 square feet of un-programmable basement space, which, in part, is why the overall renovated building and additions would be approximately 64,550 SF larger than the new construction option. You noted three outcomes of the renovation/addition option: (l) we would be saving the existing building; (2) the school department would have a larger building; and, (3) the larger renovated/addition building would equal the cost of a new building since it costs less per square foot to renovate than to build new. The rough calculation by your team was a construction cost of $16M, similar to the cost established for new construction.
In response to this important question, the TSBC again reviewed the options and weighed the advantages and disadvantages of new vs. renovation/addition and we offer the following conclusions:
1. The renovation/addition option does not afford the possibility to disperse special education spaces appropriately to meet the needs of students and teachers. Lack of adjacency to regular education classrooms, as is the current situation, results in excessive student and teacher time spent during the school day traveling between spaces and minimizes the interaction and communication between teachers of different disciplines. The new construction option provides for appropriate program adjacencies, which would enhance functionality, be approvable by DESE, and is educationally sound.
2. The school site is quite small at just three acres. The current school building fills approximately half of the school property. The proposal to expand the building footprint with additions would further diminish the open space. The existing site has little or no space for amenities such as play structures, adequate drop-off areas, or parking. The new construction option would allow for a compact building footprint with a three-story classroom wing. It would enable the site to be developed with play structures, student gardens, and appropriate circulation and parking. Additionally, the Town’s Traffic Advisory Committee (TAC) has assessed the different building options. They concluded that the new construction option with its smaller footprint was highly preferable from a traffic and safety perspective.
3. The construction of a new school building on this small site in a dense residential neighborhood would allow for an ideal building orientation both in regard to solar control (the ability to harvest daylight, which has been shown to be effective in improving learning environments) and with respect to the building’s impact on its neighbors.
4. New construction is less risky than renovation because it eliminates potential costly “unknowns” that may be found during renovation of the existing structure.
5. A renovated/addition building would result in a larger, more inefficient building, which would cost the Town more in annual operating costs for the next 50 plus years.
6. While a renovated building would include all new building systems, roofs, windows, and interior finishes, the building’s structure, exterior walls, and foundations would still be greater than 50 years old after the taxpayers had spent millions of dollars on this project. Our concern for the Thompson project with regard to structure is the wet basement condition (noted in SOl). There is a watercourse that runs underneath the site and through the neighborhood (nearby neighbors have wet basements as well). This problem would be a costly to “fix”. It was not specifically factored into the previous renovation costs (the renovation! addition option proposed during the feasibility study in which this wing of the building was demolished with only the classroom wing renovated). The proposed new construction would not have a basement.
Given the reasons noted above, the TSBC believes the best approach for Arlington, the School Department, and the Thompson community and its students is to construct a new Thompson Elementary School. We are on track to complete the Schematic Design documents in one week and to proceed through the design and construction phases in a timely manner in order to open the new school in September 2013. We are excited about this prospect and very pleased to be working with MSBA as a partner in this effort. We appreciate your thoughtful approach and hope that you feel we have responded in kind. Please contact me with any further questions or concerns you may have.
This statement and one supporting document were published Wednesday, Dec. 16, 2015. The statement was updated Dec. 16, to add the date of the ACMi meeting.
