News Archives 08/19/04 Reading Advocate 08/19/04 - Letter: Committee is creating the space crunch - Members of the Reading School Commitee are not alone in perpetuating this "school construction charade." Many of those most responsible for the current fabricated "space crunch" have either left town or are not currently serving on public committees. A variety of individuals have involved themselves in this conspiracy to exploit and mislead the Reading public. There is a great deal of money at stake and many people "in the know" are benefitting at the expense of Reading taxpayers, parents and children. It's all about the money. Do and take what you want until somebody stops you - it's the Reading way! Minutes from the 06/15/04 school committee meeting in which hundreds of thousands of dollars were moved out of the Reading FY'04 school budget and into Reading school construction project accounts. July 19, 2004 email from Town Treasurer Beth Klepeis to Linda Phillips detailing "School Department Merit Pay and Vacation Buyback for Administrators." 08/12/04 Daily Times Chronicle 07/27/04 - Killam parents voice displeasure with fourth grade class sizes - Why can't Reading school officials give Killam parents what they want? Even with Barrows offline, ample space exists at the middle schools to solve the current problems (as has been done in the past). However, to admit that extra space exists anywhere in the district is to also admit that Reading school officials and adminstrators have misrepresented and continue to mispresent Reading enrollment and space needs. Why do some Reading school committee members continue to promote the illusion that Reading enrollment is rising? It is not. As predicted in 1997, Reading school enrollment is dropping. Even after implementing parent-paid all-day kindergarten, plenty of extra space still exists in the district, even with Barrows offline. This is why current renovations (RMHS, Barrows) reflect a reduction of the size of the school buildings (but not a reduction in the cost). The current "crisis" at Killam has been created by school officials to squeeze Killam parents and generate support for the future renovation of the school and / or a new operational override for the funding of new teachers. So hold on to your wallets, taxpayers! Once Wood End, The New High School and Barrows are completed, Killam is next. There's still a lot more money to be made from Reading school construction projects!Reading officials have already moved hundreds of thousands of dollars from the Reading FY'04 school budget (regular ed and special ed accounts) into school construction project accounts (an alarming and highly questionable practice). Yet, Reading school officials still claim that they can't afford to add a teacher to Killam or provide busing to redistribute kindergartners to space readily available in other parts of the district. They can. They just choose not to. Class Size Under the Harutunian Administration, small class sizes were promoted to agitate parents and gain popular support for school construction projects.In 1997, Birch Meadow kindergarten parents were actually advocating for higher 5th grade class sizes. The parents wanted to free up a classroom that would enable their kindergarten children to stay at Birch Meadow (see 1997 Reading Chronicle article)! At that time, Principal Richard Davidson stated that Reading had bussed kindergarteners outside their neighborhoods for 25-30 years. He even told parents at one meeting that "nothing the parents say tonight will change my decision for next year." To accommodate addtional students being bussed to Barrows, two portables were moved from Killam to Barrows. The RISE Preschool program was also moved from Killam to the High School. In 1997, after the RISE Preschool and the portables were moved, Killam had 24 classrooms, 5 small resource rooms, for 611 students (see 1998 Killam school wiring plan). Today, Killam uses that same space for only 557 students. Where have all Killam's previous resource rooms gone? In 1998, ample space existed for special education students and students with IEPs. At least five rooms existed, meeting the needs of these children. Why can't 557 students now use the same space once occupied by 611? 1998 Killam school wiring plan - contradicts administrative claims about existing Killam space. Reading Enrollment Actuals, October 1997 - Peak year for Killam. 1997 Reading Chronicle article - compare with Reading officials' current position on busing. 2000 Inventory of Existing Elementary School Space - submitted to SBA in March 2000. 08/05/04 Eagle Tribune 07/18/04 - There should be a price to pay for violating the open meeting law - by Taylor Armerding. 07/12/04 Attorney Naomi Stoneberg's 06/14/04 Presentation to the Reading School Committee (.mp3, 19.0 MB) - Hear Attorney Stoneberg explain rules of conduct and operation that members of the Reading School Committee violate on a regular basis. Although during former Superintendent Harutunian's reign violations were even more flagrant and frequent, the public records / open meeting law games have, unfortunately, continued with the current administration. This is not surprising. If school officials know nobody is going to hold them accountable for their actions, why should they obey the law? Note the pointed questions from some committee members. Remember that Attorney Stoneberg is giving opinions based upon the limited information and context provided by the school committee. At this meeting, did members accurately present their "issues" to Attorney Stoneberg? More to come. 06/25/04 The Hypocrisy of Pete Dahl - School committee member Pete Dahl, "stunned" that Reading student directory information is public information, willingly participated in the 1997-1998 Birch Meadow Family Directory. In 1997, parents signed forms allowing their information to be included in the directories. Times have changed. Currently, this information is automatically considered school directory information unless parents specifically request their information to be excluded. See Department of Education 603 CMR 23.07 (4) (a).Access to school directory information = increased political power in Reading, Massachusetts. School committee election teams and override campaign committees (C.A.R.E., Building Pride etc.) have used (with school officials' blessing) directory information to support pro-administration committee candidates, influence Town Meeting and promote the interests of architectural firms and special-interest groups. Over the years, directory information has enabled Reading school officials and their supporters to organize and mass-manipulate hundreds (if not, thousands) of Reading parents. While directories of student / parent information are readily available to those political action groups who support the agendas of school officials and administrators, these same directories are not available to the "opposition." Making this information available to the entire public would put everyone on a more level playing field. Former Superintendent Harry Harutunian obstructed certain parents' access to the directories by misrepresenting their information requests. At one public meeting, Harutunian produced doctored permission forms (with the check-off box whited out) and claimed that the forms were proof that the parents were shamefully seeking personal, private information about children. In reality, the parents were requesting the same directory information readily available to Harutunian's pet political action groups. Predictably, the Reading School Committee played along with the deception.History is repeating itself. Now that Killam parents want to use the directory to learn about the school system and communicate with other parents whose interests somehow conflict with the objectives of the current Reading School Committee, Pete Dahl doesn't think these parents should have access to the same information he had access to in 1997. Superintendent Schettini and other members of the school committee apparently agree. Dahl found the idea of student directories to be perfectly acceptable in 1997, when he signed up to include his family in the 1997-98 Birch Meadow Family Directory. Yet, in 2004, he is "stunned" by the idea that such lists even exist. Listen to Pete Dahl (acting surprised and suffering from selective memory loss) at a recent 06/14/04 School Commitee Meeting when he is informed by attorney Naomi Stoneberg that school directories are public information: "I am stunned to the point where I wouldn't even.. I would ask the Superintendent never to comply with that request. Just think about this. In a school system you could publish to someone who, who wanted to go after in a kidnapping situation - maybe it's their own child they don't have custody of. What do they want? They want to know everyone in the third grade. So I can, I know exactly what teacher they're in. I request the information and it comes to me." Read pages from the 1997-1998 Birch Meadow Family Directory [.pdf, 108 KB].Download the 1997 sign-up form [.pdf, 23.3 KB] for the Birch Meadow Family Directory. Listen to the student directory discussion [.mp3 download, 1.17 MB] from the 06/14/04 school committee meeting. 06/10/04 Reading Advocate 06/10/04 - RMHS earns renewed accreditation, praise - "The high school sought to renew accreditation by the NEASC, a nationally recognized, voluntary, non-governmental accrediting agency. According to NEASC documents, 'a school which earns accreditation can assure local citizens that its programs, procedures, and facilities have been submitted to the scrutiny of professional educators and have been deemed worthwhile and appropriate for the students served.'" When Superintendent Harutunian and his special interest friends were selling the RMHS "renovation" to voters, the school supposedly faced major accreditation problems due to the deplorable condition of the building. Listen to the misinformation-filled, scare-tactic override video used in 2003 to promote the Flansburgh Associates / Building Pride agenda - Ken Tucci "Yes" override video audio [.mp3, 7.09 MB].Now, in 2004, under the leadership of a new superintendent, the school is fine? The school hasn't been "renovated" yet. Before the override was passed, citizens were led to believe that conditions in the building were deplorable but now its "ok" for students to inhabit the same building for the next four years... during construction.. and there are no accreditation problems. How convenient. Again... the NEASC reports what school administrators submit to the NEASC. If an administrator wants to scare the public with the threat of "losing accreditation," the administrator can report conditions that warrant the NEASC to declare that the school is in danger of "losing accreditation." Conversely, if an administrator wants to lead to public into believing everything is "ok," the administrator reports favorable conditions. 06/01/04 Boston Globe North 05/27/04 - Warning is wake-up call for high school - Continuing problems with TLT Construction (the firm contracted to "renovate" RMHS). "A warning this month by the New England Association of Schools & Colleges has prompted school officials to accelerate academic and building upgrades at Gloucester High School......Building construction problems and air quality issues have been of concern since the school was renovated in the mid-1990s. Since then, the city has sued the project's contractor, TLT Construction Corp. of Wakefield, and the building's architects, Drummey, Rosane, Anderson Inc. of Newton Centre, citing 'hundreds' of problems with the work, said Linda Lowe, the city's general counsel. The lawsuits are still active. While the city spent $1.5 million in 1999 to fix ventilation problems in classrooms, and to repair the auditorium's roof, Sullivan still maintains a checklist of problem areas that he wants fixed. Inside the administration's offices, and the school library, the fresh air ventilation system does not work, causing mold to grow. In the field house, the plastic floor has warped in places, and one section of the track has been replaced by wood. Leaks are also a constant problem, with rain trickling into the auditorium, cafeteria, and the automotive tech shop. 'Every time it rains, we dance around the water leaks,' said auto instructor Dennis Martin, who pointed to leaks in the building's roof, skylights, and water pipes."Sure hope Reading doesn't end up with a "new" high school like this one. In 1997, Reading appropriated $1.8 million to deal with problems at RMHS similar to those now being addressed at Gloucester High School. While it is difficult to determine where and how Reading's money was actually spent, repairs occurred and the problems were dealt with. Since 1995, new roofing has also been installed in several areas of RMHS. Now all of those repairs are going to be torn down, along with most of the historic, structurally sound building.. and replaced with a new TLT structure of questionable quality. Reading citizens will hope for the best but.. TLT has a history of problems. Reading Memorial High School may have been neglected and badly-maintained by the Harutunian administration but at least "every time it rains," we don't have to "dance around the water leaks."...and, before anyone writes about it, the cause of the "flooding" in the Pride / Flansburgh Associates / Ken Tucci override video actually was a defective valve [.pdf download, 14.4 KB], not pipes continually bursting in the walls of Reading Memorial High School (as Harutunian often claimed). A 01/30/03 memo to Superintendent Harutunian from Maintenance Director Domenic Cacciapouti revealed that "the malfunction of the valves in the English and Math Department was due to the deterioration of the valves and hard water." Newburyport Daily News 05/22/04 - Triton school board: We broke the law - "Members of the Triton Regional School Committee admitted yesterday that they had privately offered the superintendent's job to Sandra Halloran in December -- six months before the board publicly voted to give the job to her.The committee's actions are a violation of the state's Open Meeting Law, a law that requires city and town boards to conduct the majority of their discussions and decisions in public."Massachusetts' Open Meeting Law is a joke. School officials know this. School administrators know this. Open Meeting Law is rarely enforced and the consequences violators face are... laughable. Presently, the rewards for opportunistic school officials and administrators who can successfully conduct public business in secret FAR outweigh the risks. If State officials (the D.A.'s) do not take the Open Meeting Law seriously, why should anyone? 05/13/04 Globe Northwest 05/13/04 - School Chief earns marks of distinction - Communities saddled with inept, manipulative school administrators (whose primary objective is to further their own interests under the guise of "doing it for the children") should know about Superintendent Ronald Fitzgerald. For 28 years, as leader of the Minuteman Regional Vocational / Technical School District, Mr. Fitzgerald has dedicated himself to meeting the evolving needs of students and their communities, successfully integrating solid academic achievement with vocational and technical skills. Contrary to the impression some of Reading's "politically correct" minority expressed at Town Meeting, 92% of students who graduate from Superintendent Fitzgerald's technology / science programs go on to higher education. Since local administrators want to retain students in the local high schools (maintaining enrollment numbers), parents often are kept in the dark about the opportunities available to their children in public vocational / technical schools (paid for by the Town). Visit the Minuteman Regional High School web-site. Read about Minuteman.See a list of Vocational / Technical Schools in Massachusetts. 05/09/04 Ron Mini of "Quarterbacks" - Have you seen his show on RCTV? Informed residents love this guy! Today, Ron spoke out about the drug problems at RMHS, informed the public about a developer's plans for the downtown property formerly occupied by Johnson's Hardware etc... and urged citizens to attend a planning board meeting at Coolidge Middle School on May 10th.Ron wants more Reading citizens to ask questions and take an active interest in what is going on in the community. Who can argue with that? 05/08/04 Yahoo News 05/08/04 - Lawyers Warned About Becoming Defendants - "...jurors understood what it meant to cook the books and professionals' role in protecting the schemes. "It's no Robin Hood story ... middle America is getting filched. ... Jurors and judges know if professionals did their jobs, it would all come to a screeching halt.""...jurors have a way of cutting through technical arguments and getting down to basics ... you don't steal, you don't cheat and you do your job." 05/07/04 Advocacy Group - The Unofficial Plano Independent School District School Page - Another website dedicated to providing useful information and exposing waste in their public schools. Citizens of Plano, Texas have been dealing with problems for years (see information on the Delphi Technique). 04/30/04 Questions about Gas Heating at Town Meeting - The decision to convert the Reading schools to gas energy was made long before Superintendent Schettini was hired.Citizens who want to know why Reading is committed to changing all of its schools to gas energy at a time when natural gas prices are soaring should direct their questions to former Reading Superintendent Harutunian (North Andover Public Schools, 978-794-1503) and former Reading School Committee member Susan Cavicchi (who resigned from the committee on June 30, 2003 and has since moved away from Reading).The authorization of a signed "sales agreement" is believed to have been one of Harutunian's last acts in Reading before departing for his new job in North Andover (Keyspan Energy 06/16/03 letter to Harutunian). The full, signed contractual agreement between the gas company and the Reading Public Schools is one of many Harutunian-era public documents that have yet to be released. 04/25/04 Boston Globe 04/25/04 - Sick day policy called threat to fiscal health - "Paying retirees for unused days seen as squandering funds."What kinds of buyback provisions do the contracts of school superintendents and administrators contain? According to this Globe article, one retiring assistant principal in Lowell received $64,518 "as part of a sick-time buyback program." 04/15/04 Reading Advocate 04/15/04 - Schools adjust funding [.pdf, 17.2 KB] - "Funds earmarked for furniture, library books and educational technology will be temporarily reduced in order to keep the Reading Memorial High School renovation project on track, School Committee officials decided Monday night. The committee voted to engage TLT Construction Corporation of Wakefield as general contractor for the renovation, at a cost of $44,492,700, approximately two percent higher than pre-bid estimates." Toxics Action Center, 1997 Dirty Dozen Awards - TLT Construction Corporation of Wakefield's Rotten Apple Award [.pdf, 197 KB] - "One construction company stands out... as the cause of a long and growing list of health and safety problems at schools across the Commonweath: TLT Construction Corporation, a company which specializes in public projects, and is in fact one of the most aggressive school contractors in the Commonwealth. While its low bids win contracts for the company, children and school staff are paying the price." Newton Tab, 1997 - TLT among state's "Dirty Dozen" [.pdf, 200 KB] - "...Matt Wilson of the Toxics Action Center presented a Rotten Apple Award to TLT 'to highlight the threat that its work poses to students, teachers... and their own workers.' He called for TLT to pay more attention and put more resources into health and safety, for a reexamination of the state's low-bid law and for municipalities to aggressively oversee renovations at schools and other public buildings." Daily Times Chronicle 09/03/97 - Parker Middle School Contractor nominated to 'Dirty Dozen' list [.pdf, 42.4 KB] - "During construction at the Parker Middle School, there was a fire at the site, and after the flames were extinguished a portion of the building collapsed." Newburyport Daily News 02/21/97 - A profile of TLT: An aggressive but sometimes troubled builder [.pdf, 87.6 KB] - "TLT's reputation is marred by reports of missed deadlines, unsafe work conditions and air quality problems that have coincided with projects at local schools." 04/01/04 Massachusetts Department of Public Health - February, 2000 RMHS Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) Report [.pdf, 1.55 MB] - This State report on Reading Memorial High School reveals the true causes of many of the building's alleged "problems." This report, from a November 1999 site visit, includes some very simple and cost-effective solutions and, unfortunately, was suppressed by the Harutunian administration. Details from the report were also omitted from Flansburgh Associates' RMHS Feasibility Study. Accompanying DPH officials on their November 17 assessment visit were Jane Fiore (Reading Health Department), Frank Orlando, RMHS Principal, Herbert Marden, RMHS custodian and Richard Barrett, Reading Schools Facilities Manager.After investing over $2 million in 1998 in heating system upgrades and a new roof at RMHS (built in 1953 with 1970s addition), Reading taxpayers now are throwing it all away (with the State's blessing). Reading is demolishing the structurally sound high school to fix poor housekeeping issues and heat fluxuations in 3 classrooms. Why IS RMHS going to be torn down and replaced with a new $58+ million structure? Who benefits?Did the Reading Building Committee and "Building Pride" folks know about this IAQ report when they misrepresented conditions at the high school and campaigned to tear it down and replace it? Note (at the end of the DPH report) the scathing 11/24/99 DPH letter to Reading Assistant Fire Chief Jack Mooney regarding hazardous chemical storage at RMHS. Was this situation ever corrected? Are the "volatile organic compounds" still improperly stored there?If your house is a dirty mess, don't clean it or put things away; tear it down!! It's the Reading way! 03/26/04 NECN News 03/26/04 - School chief, others indicted for alleged fraud - "A Middlesex grand jury indicted Fred Foresteire, the district's superintendent since 1989, along with five corporations and 10 other people on charges related to alleged bid-rigging schemes in the Everett Public Schools. The grand jury returned a total of 41 indictments, Attorney General Thomas Reilly announced Friday.Sixty-three contracts worth more than $552,000 were illegally obtained, according to Reilly, who is investigating the case with state Inspector General Gregory Sullivan. The indictments allege that contracts were steered to certain contractors outside the competitive bidding process. Sullivan said Foresteire and the other ten people created fictional competition "out of whole cloth" for their own gain.'Bid rigging... is a cynical effort by people to line their pockets at the expense of the public,' he said. 'When public employees use their official positions for personal gain, the integrity of the entire system is undermined.'" Does this sound familiar? Is it only a matter of time before the truth about bid processes, maintenance contracts and questionable school construction deals in Reading goes mainstream? The Ten Taxpayer Complaint (by 22 Reading Taxpayers) revealed that Reading failed to follow State bid laws (designer selection statutes) in hiring the architectural firm Flansburgh & Associates for two elementary school projects. "Reilly's office said Foresteire was charged with one count of receiving stolen property on allegations that he had two $1,200 air conditioners purchased with Everett school funds, installed in his home." If A.G. Reilly's office can indict Fred Foresteire for air conditioners, they can surely investigate the many longstanding allegations of wrongdoing that have been made against former Reading Superintendent Harutunian. Did school employees use school funds to work on the Superintendent's private home? Whatever happened to the $1.8 million in maintenance funds appropriated in 1997 to to address RMHS mechanical, structural, safety and accreditation issues? Why do school committees directed by Harutunian have a habit of repeatedly violating open meeting laws? Why was Flansburgh & Associates allowed to prematurely work, under an illegal "time and materials" contract from January to August 2000, on full design services for Reading elementary schools? Who benefitted? Who benefitted from the misrepresentation of Reading student enrollment data? Concerning Harutunian, there are many, many unanswered questions... and a need for serious investigation. When State authorities do not hold school administrators accountable for their actions, it sets a bad example, encourages other administrators to disregard laws and "the integrity of the entire system is undermined." 03/21/04 Boston Globe Magazine 03/21/04 - Schoolhouse Rocked - "No longer just for religious fundamentalists, home schooling has gone main stream, especially in Massachusetts." 03/18/04 Boxford Tri-Town Transcript 03/18/04 - Masco candidates at glance - It's interesting to hear what some administrators will say when they're looking for a new job. During his interview for the Masconomet Regional School District Superintendency, Reading Associate Superintendent Dennis Richards insisted he had extensive experience in administration, beyond curriculum, because Reading has no Personnel Director, no Business Manager and no Technology Director. According to Richards, he and the Superintendent "do it all." Richards neglected to mention some of the unique "business arrangements" that exist in Reading. For example, since 1991, Town Treasurer Beth Klepeis and her husband, Town Accountant Richard Foley, have been overseeing Reading's school finances. In 1996, Harutunian further expanded Klepeis and Foley's involvment in the school budget. In the name of “efficiency,” Klepeis and Foley, two Town employees who should have been part of the Town's “checks and balances” over the School Department, were placed under the control of and answerable to the Superintendent.Joe Cain has been listed as Reading's technology specialist since 1996. Think about Mr. Cain's duties. Doesn't he basically do the job of a technology director?Also, following former Superintendent Harutunian's arrival in 1995, several new administrative positions were created in the central office and numerous secretaries were promoted to the level of "administrative assistants." Some of these positions include the Administrative Assistant for Personnel and Administrative Assistant for Finance. In recent years, top Reading school administrators have often complained about not having a business manager. However, in reality, they have had an extensive administrative / finance support system in place.Read about the people who really "do it all" in Harutunian's 1996 reorganization plan. 03/16/04 Search for Public School Information - National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) - A resource for concerned taxpayers to evaluate their Town's school expenditures. Compare school systems and per-pupil expenditures in your own district, including construction costs and the interest on school debts. According to the NCES, from 1999 - 2000, Reading spent $8,900 per pupil. Based on revenues reported, Reading had an additional $41 per pupil available but failed to use the money.Including State and Federal revenue sources, the total revenue of the Reading Schools for 1999 - 2000 was actually $37,489,000!! Are these the same numbers Reading school officials have been reporting to the public? According to Reading Town / School Department documents, the official School Budget that year (1999 - 2000) was only $24,953, 916...To find this information, input Reading, Massachusetts on the search page.. click on a school... click on "district information" and then click "show all." 03/03/04 Eagle Tribune 03/03/04 - North Andover's school chief insists he's open, responsive - When North Andover School Committee member Darlene Rose Torosian resigned Friday, "she called Harutunian a manipulative leader who controls the information the School Commiteee and the public receive and brushes issues under the rug to keep a grip on his power." That sounds about right... "Harutunian said he has 'no idea' why Torosian and the Web site authors have interpreted his behavior that way. 'I have a strong leadership style, and sometimes when things don't go the way people want them to be, sometimes they lash out,' he said. 'I honestly do not know. I'm speculating.'" Documentation doesn't lie. History is repeating itself in North Andover. 03/02/04 Reading Advocate 02/05/04 - John Russo: Why I did not run for school committee [.pdf, 15.0 KB]. "I liked giving a voice to those in the community who paid taxes but had no voice on the committee. I really liked challenging the status quo.""I especially didn't like the fact that not one person in this community, except for Tim Kaldas, accepted my many offers of debates for school issues.""I didn't like the new 'freedom of speech rule' (I called it the 'Russo gag rule') that the committee designed for me. I could not talk about my agenda items unless the majority of the School Commitee members agreed. The people's voice that I represented was being restricted." "Finally what tipped the scale was my realization that I could achieve essentially the same results as I have with much less time by doing it another way. At each School Committee meeting there is an opportunity for any citizen in Readng to speak. At this time I will have even more freedom to speak than as a School Committee member!""The School Commitee has been my best experience in democracy (and lack thereof), community activism and consensus building. I look forward to continue working for the students' and community's best interest." Vote for Linda Phillips Tuesday, March 2, 2004 at the Hawkes Field House! ...and read her advertisment [.pdf, 42.5 KB] which appeared in the Reading Advocate. Linda Phillips' campaign doesn't have the backing of millionaires or an army of prideful supporters but she does geninuely care about the education of children, responsible school spending and has demonstrated through her involvment over the past four years that, if elected, she WILL advocate for the best interests of the community (and not special interest groups). Perhaps this is part of the reason Lisa Gibbs is now being run against her. Many of the people engineering Gibbs' campaign are the same prideful individuals responsible for recent overrides, abuses of authority, wasteful school spending and manipulative misinformation campaigns. New to the affairs of the Reading Schools and a self-described "team player," Lisa Gibbs is not expected to challenge the status quo or curb school spending.The pride / school lobby / special interest group agenda demands that Linda Phillips not be elected to the Reading School Committee. The powers-that-be simply do not want to have to deal with someone who, as a school official, will ask hard questions, fight corruption and seek to hold school officials accountable. There are simply too many influential people feeding at the trough. Reading used to be a good place to live. People of all ages were valued equally and money didn't always control the community. There was also a time when good people respected the democratic process and didn't turn a blind eye to adults bullying and intimidating others. It's a shame. 02/19/04 Requested Link - Superintendent Schettini's Recommended Budget, FY 2005 02/18/04 Requested Information - Agreement Between Reading School Committee and Reading Teachers Association [.pdf, 1.70 MB], Effective: September 1, 2002 / Expiring: August 31, 2005. 02/11/04 According to comments made by Reading's Town Treasurer, Beth Klepeis, at a Selectmen's meeting Februrary 3rd, taxes for the average homeowner will increase $400 next fiscal year (July 1 '04 to June 30 '05) in order to make payments on the $35 Million the Town has borrowed to begin construction of the New High School this spring. The Town of Reading still needs to borrow an additional $20+ million to fund the construction of the school and, when this happens, the cost to Reading taxpayers will be larger still. Funding from the State still isn't coming (or guaranteed). Tax bills, usually sent out around the holidays, will soon reflect the latest tax increases. Reading's average house value is now up from $355K in '03 to $391.4 for FY '04 while the average tax assessment has risen 17%. The average taxpayer's tax increase for this current year of $550 was due to the recent $4.5 million override plus other tax increases allowed under Proposition 2 1/2. 02/04/04 Boston Globe 01/12/04 - Send A Message to Bullies [22.7 KB] - "We all witness bullying every day." "I loved it because I knew I wouldn't get bullied if I bullied someone else. I loved yelling at people so they would be scared of me and never, like, do anything." Adults can be bullies too. BullyOnline.org is an excellent resource for victims of bullying; the organization has made a detailed study of the psychology of those who habitually threaten and intimidate other people. "The serial bully is an adult on the outside but a child on the inside; he or she is like a child who has never grown up. One suspects that the bully is emotionally retarded and has a level of emotional development equivalent to a five-year-old, or less. The bully wants to enjoy the benefits of living in the adult world, but is unable and unwilling to accept the responsibilities that go with enjoying the benefits of the adult world. In short, the bully has never learnt to accept responsibility for their behaviour." Who in Reading, past and present, fit the profile of a serial bully? 01/06/04 We're on the list! We're on the list! But what does that mean??? Reading School Construction projects' current positions on the FY 2004 School Building Assistance reimbursement list [.pdf, 113 KB]. At position # 414, Reading ("Memorial" designation deleted) High School joins the 420 hopeful, yet-to-be-funded school projects on the School Building Assistance (SBA) combined list of Category A, B, and C projects. This list is in addition to the hundreds of school construction projects the State already is in varying stages of 20 year payback, some up to 90% reimbursement. Although the Reading High School project cost was filed with SBA at $57+ million, the projected 57% reimbursement only applies to $47 million of the project costs. Also, any reimbursement will be contingent upon annual legislative funding levels. With RHS sixth from the bottom of the waiting list before a twenty-year payback can even begin, Reading taxpayers may be forced to pay this bill on their own for many years and, possibly, the complete $57+ million for the entire project, plus interest. This fiscal burden was NOT included in the project sold to Reading taxpayers. Voters were misinformed about the scope, cost, and funding of the proposal as well as the state of the existing school building. When and if the high school "addition / renovation" as it is currently proposed is completed, Reading will have a terraced parking area extending down from the top of the hill, replacing the soon-to-be demolished structurally sound Reading Memorial High School. A new, significantly smaller school will rise out of the low lying area at the bottom of the hill near the Field House (where the water table is only 5 feet below the surface). For $57 million, Reading will have less space, an inferior school structure and reduce its student building capacity from 2000 to 1400. Reading is a community of contradictions. The Town Finance Committee is currently circulating a questionnaire [.pdf, 33.1 KB] "to solicit residents' opinions" on how to deal with the current fiscal crisis including such novel ideas as selling naming rights for public spaces to the highest bidders and "a resort in Reading" featuring "casino gambling" (another special legislation assignment for State Rep. Jones?). At the same time, Reading is destroying its historic memorial high school into which millions of dollars have been invested over the past 5 years, including roof and heating system replacements. Reading Memorial High School needed proper maintenance, care and renovation, not destruction. Instead, opportunistic individuals have taken advantage of the situation and the complete lack of State oversight of school construction projects. Foxes are watching the hen house and wolves are protecting the sheep! Millions of taxpayer dollars have been wasted and will continue to be wasted if Reading Memorial High School is torn down and destroyed. Irreplaceable excess community space within the RMHS structure will be lost. Reading also has a new 5th elementary school under construction, a project sold to the taxpayers using inflated enrollment projections and low-balled cost estimates (of running a 5th elementary school). Some believe that a NEW OVERRIDE is being planned for this coming spring to cover additional school operating expenses.Since the 400 elementary students Reading administrators insisted were coming actually are not coming, the Barrows Elementary renovation / addition project has been redesigned a third time, bringing Flansburgh Associates even more money. This time the plan is to completely gut and further reduce the student capacity of the existing Alice Barrows Elementary school. The waste and unnecessary burden on taxpayers apparently is without end. Voters need to realize that current tax bills do not include any of the $57+ million high school project costs. The full costs of Reading's elementary school projects also have not yet been accounted for. The higher than projected increases due to elementary projects apparent in Dec. 2003 tax bills are only the beginning!!! Outside of regular taxes, Reading water and sewer fees soon will also increase, incorporating roughly $1.5 million for the design of the new water treatment plant and $3.18 million for hookup to MWRA. While increasing numbers of those responsible for creating this mess are jumping ship, selling their homes and moving out, those who remain in the Town of Reading will be forced to deal with an overwhelming financial burden. As long as the good, honest people who live in this town continue to do nothing to stop this craziness, the financial crisis the Town of Reading now faces will continue to spiral out of control. 12/04/03 There Is No Guarantee of State funding for the Reading Memorial High School Project - A 12/03/03 letter from the Department of Education to Reading Superintendent Patrick Schettini [.pdf, 42 KB] reiterates what some in Reading have known for years: even if the Commissioner of Education determines the high school project meets all program requirements, placement on a waiting list does not constitute a guarantee of project funding. (603 CMR 38.10 (8) [.pdf, 146 KB] "Any applicant with a project on the waiting list may commence construction prior to the grant award but does so at its own risk. Only a grant award provides a funding commitment by the Commonwealth. The Board will award grants to projects on the waiting list as funding authorization is available." As the 12/03/03 letter to Superintendent Schettini explains, "when the project's priority ranking places it within the available SBA grant authorization for a given fiscal year, the Department will present your grant application to the Board of Education for consideration."Reading has never been guaranteed state funding! With declining enrollment, structurally sound buildings and an excess of school space, Reading does not meet any of the criteria listed in Chapt. 70B Section 8 [.pdf, 88.7 KB] or Commissioner Driscoll's 4/04/03 memo outlining seven categories [.pdf, 199 KB] for priority ranking! The facts, however, have not stopped local Reading officials and community organizers from misrepresenting State requirements and the true status of building projects and their funding sources. Prior to Reading's rushed 02/25/03 override vote, Reading's former Superintendent, local officials and school committee members repeatedly assured voters that Reading would not proceed with the school projects unless state funding was guaranteed. Now, those same local officials are silent about the fact Reading taxpayers may have to foot the entire bill for the project. How many other school systems are as foolish and shortsighted as Reading? How many other communities are willing to pay $57+ million to tear down a structurally sound high school and endure an excessive "renovation / addition" process, ultimately to reduce the capacity of their high school from 2000 students to 1400 students?Who benefits? 11/17/03 Lawrence Eagle Tribune 11/17/03 - DA Probes Complaint of Closed Meeting - Do "birds of a feather flock together?" Hopefully, Lawrence Superintendent Wilfredo Laboy (member, Board of Directors, Greater Lawrence Educational Collaborative) has not been getting advice on Open Meeting Law from former Reading Superintendent of Schools (and GLEC Chairman) Harry Harutunian. During Harutunian's reign, the Reading School Committee regularly listed ALL (not one or two at a time... all) "nine exceptions" as reasons to hold closed-door, executive session meetings. Suspicious "five-minute breaks" and off-camera discussions were commonplace and citizens frequently filed complaints with the Middlesex District Attorney's office (who ignored them). Minutes of Harutunian-era executive session meetings were withheld from the public for years, long after their "reasons" for secrecy had passed (and some minutes are still unreleased! see past News entries, Harry Harutunian, Open Meeting Law). The Essex County DA is different; they can and do investigate murders and OML violations at the same time. 10/30/03 Boston Globe 10/30/03 - Per pupil cost: $5,300; MCAS scores: priceless - "I attribute the success first and foremost to our very competent teaching staff," says North 10/29/03 Site Boring Data is Bad News for the RMHS New High School Project - See Sept. 9, 2003 Geotechnical Engineering Report by Weber Engineering Associates, LLC and Flansburgh & Associates' March 4, 2003 draft of their “final” Reading Memorial High School Schematic Design report which includes site utilities report by Judith Nitsch Engineering, Inc. based upon an August 2002 site visit. Architect Flansburgh & Associates failed to obtain the contracted number of site borings by Dec. 2002, attributed at the time to their inability to locate site utilities (Judith Nitsch's 2002 report, in which site utilities have already been located via an August site visit, refutes Flansburgh's "explanation" here). Bidders for the final architect design contract were only given a March 4, 2003 “draft” of the final report, in spite of the fact that, by contract, Flansburgh and Associates was supposed to have produced a $50,000 Final Schematic Design report before the January, 2003 Town Meeting and the Special February Election. Neither Reading's former Superintendent nor the Reading School Committee held Flansburgh & Associates accountable for not producing this report in a timely manner (and the final version of this report STILL has yet to be discussed in public!!). Reading taxpayers voted for the RMHS question #1 debt exclusion based upon inadequate, incomplete and in many instances, misleading and / or incorrect information. Although Design Partnership of Cambridge, Inc. is now the Final Design architect for the RMHS project, Flansburgh & Associates still remains the architect for the elementary school projects. Based upon Flansburgh's past performances in Reading, their competency to continue with the elementary projects is questionable at best.A Sept. 9, 2003 Geotechnical Engineering Report by Weber Engineering Associates, LLC raises serious concerns about cost and feasibility of building the RMHS and field house additions in a low lying area. Test borings now reveal the potential need for 24 hour “dewatering” of the site, since the water table is only 4 feet down, even during the dry season. Also of concern are conditions conducive for mold growth in the structure. Do Reading citizens really want to spend $54-57+ million to build a new high school structure on land that is essentially a swamp? Are Reading taxpayers prepared to take on the added cost of paying to continually pump water from its foundation 24 hours, 7 days a week?As the historic book on Reading history “At Wood End” explains (pages 103 and 227), the high school was originally built on the hill for reasons of common sense. Reading residents of the past would find it laughable that ANYONE, let alone school officials and architects (who should know better), would think of building a school on a former sawmill’s wetlands. Also see page 5-29 of Strekalovsky and Hoit's Second Feasibility Study, April 13, 2000 space needs study [.pdf download, 6.30 MB]: "The typography of the site suggests that the proper location for a new high school is in the location of the existing building" on the hill! 11/07/03 Wall Street Journal 11/07/03 - Expectations May Alter Outcomes Far More Than We Realize - "Seventy-six years on, scientists have documented the power of expectations, not only of lab researchers but also of teachers, athletic coaches, judges and work supervisors." 11/04/03 Wall Street Journal 10/15/03 - A Thirties Revelation: Rich People Who Steal Are Criminals, Too - "There are usually many victims over a long period of time. The thief and victim almost never come face to face. The crimes are complex and difficult even for other business executives to understand." 12/02/03 CTNOW 12/02/03 - Feds Eyeing Lake House - Hey, does this sound familiar to anyone? Well, at least in Connecticut it's clearly not OK to have public employees work on one's home... 10/24/03 Newton Tab 10/15/03 - It's all about scare tactics [.pdf, 87.3 KB] - In Reading, it's all about Pride: Reading Pride, Building Pride... PEP. Newton and Reading have a lot in common, complete with influential, manipulative lobby groups working hand-in-hand with school committee members and officials. Unfortunately, Reading does not have an informed, organized Taxpayers Association.
10/21/03 05/19/98 Reading Chronicle article: The longer the system has the kid... the dumber the kid! [.pdf, 127 KB] 10/09/03 The cost of the High School Renovation Project WAS misrepresented to Reading voters. On May 28, 2003, then Reading School Superintendent Harry Harutunian and Design Partnership of Cambridge submitted a $57,164,063 high school "renovation" project to the Department of Education School Building Assistance for reimbursement approval (see 05/28/03 submission to SBA for the RMHS project). Of that, $1,193,700 is for the RISE program area and $55,970,363 for the high school. The actual cost of the approximately $54 million "solution to everything" project sold to Reading voters (see Building Pride's door to door propaganda flier) during the February 2003 Special Election is really expected to be at least approximately $57 million--and rising. How can this be? Prior to Reading's (very rushed) February Special Election, Reading voters were repeatedly told by school officials and special interest groups that the project was approximately $54 million dollars.. This new $57 million project total does not include the cost of replacing the district maintenance office and the district SPED office or renovating the Superintendent's Office (which will be 100 percent funded by Reading taxpayers with no State reimbursement). Back in February, Flansburgh Associates insisted that the RISE program was reimbursible (it's not). The added cost to the Town of Reading for new athletic fields and synthetic fields (Flansburgh's estimate: $4,000,000) has yet to be released to the public. According to SBA audit procedures, fields and bleachers also are not reimbursible. The Reading School Committee has already acknowledged (in writing to SBA) their understanding that State reimbursement may never come and the Town of Reading may have to foot the bill for the entire high school "renovation" project, originally $54 million ($103,000,000 with interest). What will be the total cost with interest on a $57+ million project? Those responsible for the inconsistency in the price of the RMHS project submitted to SBA ($57+ million) and what the Reading public was told prior to the February Special Election ($54.3+ million) insisted that a specific project amount could not be included in the ballot question. In January 13, 2003, Town Meeting voted and approved a specific amount of money, $54,305,000, "to be expended at the direction of the school committee, to pay costs of making extraordinary repairs and/or additions to Reading Memorial High School at 62 Oakland Road, including the payment of all engineering and architectural fees and the payment of all other expenses incidental and related to this project" (Special Town Meeting, 01/13/03, Article 5). Yet, the RMHS project was submitted for $57 million. What else has been kept secret from Reading voters? Why was Reading's own Town Treasurer Beth Klepeis not aware that the project was submitted for $57+ million?? The creative accounting and misrepresentation continues... See 05/28/03 submission to SBA for the RMHS project, Building Pride's 02/15/03 FAQ, release 8 and the 05/27/03 Department of Education's Cost Estimate and Plan for Financing Form F, signed by Town Treasurer Beth Klepeis, claiming that the total project cost would be $54,304,945. 10/03/03 Reading's most recent contract (signed in July 2003) with Design Partnership of Cambridge ($4,600,000 for work to be done regarding the RMHS renovation project) surfaced only after it was requested by a member of the school committee. Having never seen, discussed or voted on the contract, Mr. Russo asked that the contract be presented to him. He was concerned that the present architect may be moving foward without a signed contract. During former School Superintendent Harutunian's tenure in Reading, there was no signed contract for the new elementary school feasibility study. Neither Superintendent Harutunian nor School Building Committee Chairman Russell Graham could produce the signed contract for the Strekalovsky and Hoit feasibility study of Reading Memorial High School, the second of four feasibility studies done for this high school project. Strekalovsky and Hoit provided 7 options (some actually reasonable) at a cost of $35,000 -- a bargain compared with Flansburgh & Associates' over $400,000 price tag for the third high school feasibility study. 10/01/03 The Reading School Committee approves $980,000 for architects Design Partnership of Cambridge's Final Design Development phase of the ($54.9+ million / $103+ million with interest) Reading Memorial High School "renovation" project. Design Partnership has already received $400,000 for the partial design development phase, in spite of the fact that the initial schematic plan has yet to be approved by SBA and the RMHS project is not yet on the state funding list. At last night's meeting, Mr. Phil Vaccaro, Reading Athletic Director and Coordinator of Extra Curricular Activities, pointed out that the new design (like many previous designs) significantly reduces and does not replace existing athletic facilities. It is good that Mr. Vaccaro is now speaking openly about his concerns. Why did he not, however, feel free to express these concerns during the time the (now defunct) Building Committee was planning this fiasco? Why did Mr. Vaccaro and others not speak out about this while Superintendent Harutunian was in charge? How could these serious deficiencies go unquestioned for so long? Were people unwilling to criticize the project because they were too frightened or intimidated by school officials? Did some believe their jobs, salary increases and / or bonuses would be in jeopardy if they did not remain silent? Does anyone remember former Superintendent Harry Harutunian (now in North Andover) and RMHS Principal Frank Orlando assuring the Building Committee and the public that this project was going to solve Reading Memorial High School's problems? Unfortunately, this RMHS "renovation" project is looking less and less like the long-term "once and for all" solution Harry Harutunian and others promised the public only a few months ago. With each new plan, taxpayers are paying more and more for less and less... Even some of the early, discarded RMHS building options make more sense now than the plans revealed at last night's School Committee meeting. Not convinced? Take a second glance at any of the plans presented by architects Strekalovsky and Hoit, Inc. in the Feasibility section of this site. Strekalovsky and Hoit, Inc. RMHS Option C1 [.pdf, 1.32 MB download] Pages from Strekalovsky and Hoit's April 13, 2000 Space Needs Study [.pdf, 102 KB download] 09/22/03 Reading Advocate, 06/20/02 - "Risky Behavior" survey finds smoking, depression on the rise - While special interest groups and school officials have embraced the demolition of Reading Memorial High School, a new building will not resolve inherent problems with school administration, curriculum or risky student behaviors. What has been done in the past year to address the glaring needs of the student population??? People in Reading want to believe that if millions are spent on flashy new schools, their children's emotional, social and academic problems will disappear. It's far easier to rally around costly, unecessary building projects than to acknowledge and deal with the deeper issues that plague our public school system. 09/21/03 New Delphi Technique article added: Are You Being Delphied? - The goal of the Delphi technique is to lead a targeted group of people to a predetermined outcome, while giving the illusion of taking public input and under the pretext of being accountable to the public... 09/19/03 Three excellent Reading Advocate letters from 09/11/03 that, for whatever reason, mysteriously did not actually appear on the www.townline.com/reading web-site until today: Letter:
Says Voters did not have all the facts - As Reading further commits
to the $54.9 million (+ $48 million in interest) "renovation"
of Reading Memorial High School, keep a few facts in mind... (Globe
version) 09/18/03 Lawrence Eagle Tribune 09/18/03 - Does anyone know who I am? - Same game, different community. The homework passes, the pins, the interviews, the epic classroom visit marathons... the same insatiable need for recognition (under the guise of striving to be accessible to the public). "...Dann Nicolosi and Harmony Lu, both 13, said it seemed like Harutunian was trying too hard to be funny. 'I thought the gesture of him coming in to present himself was good,' Harmony said, 'but it seemed like he was trying to be too buddy-buddy with us when he was a strange man coming into our classroom.'" Out of the mouths of babes... 09/11/03 North Andover Citizen 09/11/03 - Communications to go through Superintendent - Reading history continues to repeat itself in North Andover. Former Reading Superintendent Harutunian's unofficial practice of tightly controlling communications and (mis)information from his central office has now resurfaced as official North Andover policy. Control of information is (and has been) an essential part of Harutunian's "management" style, tactics and his assertion that such a policy "is not one he has worked with before" is wholly untrue. North Andover school principals and secretaries... you'll get used to playing solitaire on your computer and having little to do but distribute notices and (mis)information delivered to you from the central office. "Bureaucracies work by controlling information. They can handle challenges that go through the 'proper channels.' Publicity undermines their power over information and reaches a constituency they cannot control." See the Delphi Technique, Harry Harutunian 08/30/02 Divide and conquer, beginning with the youngest, most impressionable and most trusting members of the community. The following audio files provide a rare look into Superintendent Harutunian's private administrative meetings with Reading preschool parents, one of the Superintendent's favored methods for gathering sympathy and support for himself and his school spending programs. Many parents who attended these meetings anticipated information and reassurances about their child's upcoming kindergarten experience. Instead, they encountered indoctrination sessions that played loose and fast with the truth but offered very little verifiable, factual information. Preschool parents, new to the school system, were extremely vulnerable to his misinformation and "scare tactics." At this March 2002 meeting, Harutunian plays the role of a community organizer, urging citizens to take control of their town and organize to pass overrides. He disparages parents with older children and community members who do not favor increases in school spending and / or oppose the supposed "pro-education" agenda. He labels and marginalizes his political opponents, twisting facts, fabricating stories and referring to his critics (who, in reality, are simply trying to hold him accountable for his actions) as "knuckleheads." Through it all, Harutunian displays a false modesty and humility that belies his arrogant and manipulative nature. The audio of the meeting survives in two parts... part A and part B. Currently, the following .mp3 files are available for download (right-click, "Save Target As" to download the files): harutunian_03_02_pre_school_parents_a_48kbs.mp3
Harutunian_03_02_pre_school_parents_b_48kbs.mp3 And.. for a limited time... higher quality .mp3s (larger in file size but somewhat easier on the ears). harutunian_03_02_pre_school_parents_a_96kbs.mp3 harutunian_03_02_pre_school_parents_b_96kbs.mp3 Get to (preschool) parents while they still trust you, before they know any better and before your critics and political opponents. The hearts and minds of preschool parents are very precious to Harry Harutunian. If he can successfully influence, organize and control preschool parents in North Andover (as he did in Reading), he will likely enjoy their consistent, unquestioning support (and votes) for many years to come. Friends in North Andover.. please note that these recordings are textbook, "classic" examples of the Delphi Technique in action. "The reality is that" Harry Harutunian should be ashamed for employing such tactics against the public. If only they were not so effective... 08/25/03 Design Partnership of Cambridge architects unveil plans for Reading Memorial High School at 08/25/03 Reading School Committee meeting Wow. The current plans for the $54 million ($103+ million, with interest) new high school look a lot like the old high school... only smaller.. and less accessible? The existing Reading Memorial High School structure is looking better and better and better with each passing design revision. It's time to admit that Reading's building committee, school committee, school administrators, hired architects and citizens have done a terrible job with this project. Plan after plan, study after study, Reading taxpayers will never be reimbursed for the hundreds of thousands of dollars (perhaps even millions of dollars) handed to the three previous architects (and, especially, Flansburgh Associates) during the early stages of this high school "renovation" fiasco. Now, citizens are faced with everchanging "renovation" plans (what was the plan that people actually voted on and approved??? Oops, it wasn't a plan, it was just a Flansburgh sketch...), an enormous, rising price tag and a plethora (an excess) of apparently incompetent and / or unconcerned individuals (with vested interests?) running the show. In spite of what many school officials and interested parties would have the public believe, Reading will not likely see any reimbursement money from the State for a very, very long time (if ever). Breaking a promise they made to the community, Reading school officials are choosing to continue with the new high school project with or without reimbursement. The waste and misrepresentation continues... For further information on what local and state officials in Massachusetts knew about changes in school reimbursement (and when), please see the Massachusetts Board of Education minutes located on the DOE web site: Jan. 22, 2002 (p.1 - 5), Feb. 26, 2002 (p. 39 - 42) and Feb. 25, 2003 (p.3). 08/15/03 A May 16, 2003 letter from former Superintendent Harry Harutunian (filed with Reading Memorial High School Project SBA/Dept. of Ed application) reveals that Reading is actually ranked 55 out of the 63 additional Building Projects SBA anticipates submitted this year. The RMHS project is ranked 55, after the 300+ school projects already on the regular reimbursement list that have yet to receive any State funding. Harutunian's letter is essentially an attempt to justify higher placement for Reading's project on the SBA list by fabricating non-existent accreditation issues. Also referenced is a 05/15/03 memo from New England Commission on Schools and Colleges (a non-profit organization, NOT a Federal or State regulatory commission) Assistant Director Janet Allison. Her memo lists conditions pointed out to her by RMHS Principal Frank Orlando and retiring Facilities Director Dom Cacciapuoti during a tour of RMHS May 6, 2003. Allison notes that she in no way considers herself "an expert in the area of school facilities." Money has already been raised or appropriated for many of the alleged problems pointed out to her during her "walk-through" (See the projects FAQ section and Flansburgh's own 10/08/02 Existing Conditions Report in the section of this site devoted to feasibility studies for more details). Have school officials severely downplayed the level of technology at RMHS in order to better "qualify" the school for its impending renovation / demolition? Where have the thousands of dollars donated to the Reading Technology Fund actually been spent? What about the network wiring and installations? Were the schools' $50,000 (each) Gateway wireless mobile labs conveniently locked away in a closet somewhere during Janet Allison's accreditation visit??? "Principal Frank Orlando reports that the first of the Gateway wireless mobile labs is up and running in the Social Studies Department. The lab is fully networked and includes digital image projection and print capability. Implementation and training have gone smoothly. This mobile lab adds an exciting dimension to historical research. "We're able to do things in the classroom that were unthinkable a month ago," says history teacher Dave Blanchard. Thanks to your generosity, a second lab will be up and running in the English Department before the end of the school year." (April 7, 2003 RMHS Library Media site) Comparing the level of technology known to exist within the school with the level technology school officials are currently reporting for purposes of accreditation, one might wonder how much information about the facility was actually shown to Janet Allison while she conducted her evaluation. Harutunian's 05/16/03 letter with the 05/15/03 Janet Allison memo [.pdf download, 154 KB] 08/05/03 SBA reduces by 1% the grandfathered grant payments on projects currently being funded (July 24, 2003 FY'04 State Budget Update, Revised 7/28/03). Because the legislature hasn't funded SBA due to other budget restraints and priorities, a reduction already is occurring in the Cherry Sheet reimbursements. According to the update, it appears Reading will receive reduced payments on the already completed Parker, Coolidge, Joshua Eaton and Birch Meadow renovations. Those who insisted SBA never reneged on payments were wrong; it's already happened. 08/04/03 School Committee votes 5-1 to proceed with Reading Memorial High School demolition / renovation / addition project in spite of warnings from School Building Assistance (SBA) that partial reimbursement may come years from now, if ever. SBA advisories require school systems that proceed with projects to sign statements acknowledging that they may have to foot the entire cost of the project (SBA 05/31/02 Administrative Advisory 02-2). In addition, the night before the Feb.25, 2003 special election School Committee took a vote not to move forward with a non reimbursable project. Dissenting School Committee member John Russo explained that voters were sold the project through an implied understanding that Reading would be reimbursed 53-58% over a 20 year payment period beginning within 7 years. The State emphasizes that there are no guarantees that either scenario will come to pass. Here, Russo would not support a resolution potentially holding the community responsible for the full cost of the project ($103+ million, with interest) (.mp3 audio, 794 KB, Spadafora reading 08-04-03 School Committee Motion re: SBA Advisory 02-2 and Russo's response). Russo is mindful of the SBA Feb. 11, 2003 Administrative Advisory 03-1 that states "Placement on the waiting list is not a guarantee of future state funding." Massachusetts Board of Ed 02/25/03 Board in Brief minutes reiterate that funding is not a guarantee.Commissioner Driscoll stated that School Building Assistance is now a $5.5 billion program and it would take 17 years and another $5 billion to reach all the projects on the current waiting list (as of February 2003). That sum did not include the RMHS project or the other school projects legislators forced onto the reimbursement list after the April 2003 moratorium. This 17 year estimate was well known by school administrators far in advance of the Board of Education meeting which "just happened to occur" on the same day of Reading's townwide special election to fund the RMHS project. Coincidence? Hardly. Purposeful deceit? Probably. Listen to Town Treasurer Beth Klepeis' current "take" on how Reading should hope to finance the new school, the Barrows renovation and proposed $54.9 million Reading Memorial High School demolition/renovation/addition. Klepeis mentions that the elementary school projects joined the State reimbursement list in 1998; realize that these projects were actually voted by the Board of Education onto the reimbursement list in 2000 (Klepeis 08/04/03 School Committee .mp3 audio, 3.09 MB). 07/27/03 Lawrence Eagle Tribune, 07/27/03, New school chief looks to community like a hungry wolf looks to a flock of sheep! [.pdf download, 87 KB] - More messages to lull the citizens of North Andover into a false sense of security. This time around, Harutunian isn't even creative enough to deviate from the same tactics he used eight years ago to deceive citizens of Reading. New to the job and without his usual support structure, Harry Harutunian is waiting, playing the part of the concerned community leader while sizing up the people of North Andover. He needs to conduct interviews to determine who the major players are in town politics and how they may relate to his agenda (control and power). As in Reading, those who help him will be rewarded (for as long as they're useful) and those who question and oppose him shut out of the educational process. 07/23/03 S.J. Services' new cleaning contract. In spite of regular complaints to Building Maintenance regarding the deplorable work of the current cleaning service contracted for Town Buildings, another three year contract for S.J. Services, Inc. was recommended to School Committee and voted June 17, 2003 (Harutunian 06/23/03 memo including municipal custodial services request / municipal complaint letter). Nowhere in the recommendation does Harutunian comment on the quality of the company's past services (06/13/03 Harutunian custodial services bids and recommendation). Police Chief Silva, Elderly Services Administrator Pamela Brown and Library Director Kimberly Lynn, under the impression that the contract would end June 30, 2003, wrote a June 19, 2003 letter to Town Manager Hechenbleikner (copied the Head of Building Mainenance, Board of Selectmen, Superintendent of Schools and Finance Committee Chair) detailing their concerns with S.J. Services past performance and suggesting that an arrangement using inhouse custodians would be a preferable alternative. Oversight of maintenance of Town Buildings was given to the School Department in 1998. The three year contract with J.S. Services, Inc. was signed by Harutunian June 26, 2003 (ignoring the June 19, 2003 municipal complaint letter) and forwarded to the cleaning company which has not, as of July 14, 2003, returned it signed to the Town (apparently J.S. Services, Inc. have been working without a contract). Would a reasonable school superintendent, concerned about the welfare of the community he was leaving (on June 30th) and fully aware of the history of this cleaning company, still sign a contract on June 26, 2003? S.J. services' contract is representative of many of Harutunian's questionable actions over the years, recommendations that defy logic when considering the best long-term interests of the community. 07/08/03 Special 30 Year Bond Legislation for Reading - House Bill 3900 (2 pg.) has now reached Senate Committee. This legislation, specific to Reading, would allow the Town to issue a 30-year bond (rather than the 20 year borrowing limit allowed for Massachusetts school projects) for the $54+ million high school demolition / renovation / addition project. Bill 3900 also specifies that the increase in interest costs for the additional 10 year borrowing period "will be totally borne by the Town of Reading." School Building Assistance reimbursement will only be paid on 20 years of interest, if ever. This is NOT the 30 year "easy payment deal" Town Meeting members believed they were supporting in April 2003 when they voted an instructional motion to direct the Selectmen to seek 30 year bonding legislation (Camille Anthony, 04/04/03 Town Meeting bond motion). Town Meeting members also did not realize that they were seeking 30 year bonding for "any other projects subsidiary or incidental" to the high school renovation and construction. Also, House Bill 3900 does not mention the DEMOLITION (of the entire 1953 school and sections of the 1970s addition). At the April 2003 Town Meeting, Reading Treasurer Beth Klepeis described the total cost of the $54+ million high school project with interest at a staggering $103 million. Yes, if the Senate passes House Bill 3900 as currently worded this project is going to cost Reading taxpayers even more. Despite herculean efforts by local legislators to circumvent Department of Education (DOE) priority categories and get the ineligible Reading Memorial High School project on a reimbursement list, the priority categories still will be used to rank the placement of the RMHS project on the priority list (Jones / Romney 06/24/03 letter, Section 668, Conference Committee report on H. 4004). Reading Memorial High School is a structurally sound school. Its current capacity will actually be reduced during this demolition / renovation / addition (from 2000 students down to 1400). The excessive Reading Memorial High School project cannot compare with urgent needs of other communities. Some version of the ever-changing RMHS plans may be "on the list " but, as legislators admit, Reading's 20 year reimbursement payback of a percentage of the project may not start for 15 to 20 years, if ever. This comes as no surprise. Town Meeting Member Fred Van Magness's presentation at January 2003 Town Meeting [.mp3 audio] predicted the lengthy wait for reimbursement and impact of long-term borrowing. Nobody listened. Instead officials looked to the legislature to sanction a "smoke and mirrors" approach to financing excessive school projects that the Town cannot afford. Sec. 668, passed by both the House and Senate, places 35 additional projects on the reimbursement "list" without meeting Dept. of Education School Building Assistance (SBA) requirements. Any "promise" that was broken (Jones / Romney 06/24/03 letter) was to the communities that halted school project work in Spring 2003 based upon SBA / DOE advisories that money was not available and communities should be prepared to foot the entire school project costs themselves. Unlike Reading, where voters were asked to fund an estimated cost of the high school project based upon feasibility studies and vague sketches, Burlington spent $1.3 million on detailed renovation designs for their Marshall Simonds and Wildwood school projects, providing the voters with reliable specifics for their upcoming townwide May 3 vote to approve the debt exclusion. Because word received from DOE April 4 indicated that funding would not be available and Burlington had not been included on "the list," Burlington Selectmen canceled the May 3 townwide debt exclusion vote. Meanwhile, Reading hadn't even signed a contract for the high school final design architect but proceeded with the project at Rep. Jones' recommendation, despite the April 4 DOE advisory and previous advisories cautioning communities against spending money on design work. If anyone should be irate that the State broke promises, it is communities like Burlington that acted upon what the State was telling them about funding availability. Burlington believed there was no State "funding mechanism at this point" and that Burlington would have to find "$45 million to spend" on their own (Globe NorthWest 02/27/03, 45m school construction plan advances, Globe NorthWest 04/17/03, School rehab is placed on hold). Communities with political pull (like Reading) ignored the advisories, misrepresented their projects, and continued to spend tax dollars on design work on ineligible projects, confident that they would circumvent the process. With passage of Section 668, billions more in school projects have been placed on "the list" with no State oversight as to the quality, need, or eligibility for the projects. State "checks and balances"on those 35 school projects have been legislatively removed. Meanwhile, the total cost to Reading of borrowing for 30 years as proposed in House Bill 3900, 10 of those years without State reimbursement on the interest costs for the RMHS project, has yet to be revealed to the public. Some say Reading voters "have spoken." More likely, voters have been deceived and had little or no idea what they were actually supporting at the rushed Special Election for the high school school project in February 2003. Perhaps now, after receipt of their most recent tax bill (which does not even include the high school project!), some voters have a clue. 07/01/03 Welcome Patrick Schettini to the position of Superintendent of Schools in Reading, Massachusetts! Hopefully he will bring a breath of fresh air to the town of Reading, along with honesty, intelligence, integrity, tolerance and a genuine respect and concern for the children and citizens of the community. Now is the time to conduct an impartial, independent, outside forensic audit of the Reading School Department. Only an extensive, comprehensive investigation (similar to that experienced by the Reading Municipal Light Department) can insure that the Schettini administration will not be tainted by the questionable actions and practices of the past. 06/17/03 Boston Globe 06/17/03 (A16 Editorial), A Good Building Faces Demolition, "Reading Memorial High was among the first large high schools built in the state after World War II. Yet, Reading's Historic Commission did not even weigh in on the high school's historic value before the February election funding the (new high) school because it did not want to 'influence' the vote." Massachusetts Public School Buildings - An Endangered Resource [.pdf document, 974 KB] 06/13/03 The Deception Continues: The Reading Historical Commission's Role In The RMHS Demolition / Renovation / Addition Project According to minutes released to Town Hall June 10, the Reading Historical Commission moved on May 22, 2003 to "approve the sending of the letter" stating that they are "not aware of any historical or architectural significance of the high school at this time." Minutes (approved or in draft form) of the Historical Commission's February 4, March 11, April 10, May 6,and May 27, 2003 meetings, including discussions of the historic significance of RMHS, still have not been made available to the public in spite of requests. Why delay the release of these minutes? The Historical Commission's May 22, 2003 letter (to be included in the Department of Education RMHS June 2003 application) references only "additions and renovations" and does not mention the planned demolition of the entire original 1953 high school and a significant portion of the 1970s addition. Current Reading Memorial High School plans have also changed from the additions and renovations presented to Town Meeting in January and approved by the voters in February 2003 (See 06/04/03 news entry below). Reading Historical Commission Materials: minutes for Jan. 9, April 1, May 22, 2003, 05/22/03 letter to architect Keith Hoffses, Historical Commission letter to Design Partnership of Cambridge for DOE application [.pdf, 129 KB]. Although some officials, deceptive individuals, manipulative special interest groups and misinformed citizens would like (us all) to believe otherwise, many neglected and poorly maintained sections of Reading Memorial High School scheduled for demolition (when basic care and renovation is all that is needed) have historic significance. 06/06/03 "(Harutunian) will be leaving Reading on June 30 and should be proud he has led the town into over $60 million dollars in debt, not to mention the interest on the debt and the added property tax burden to those taxpayers he leaves behind. He now heads off to North Andover leaving behind the Reading taxpayers, their children and grandchildren who must pay the debt for years to come." - Town Meeting Member Gerry MacDonald, in a 05/06/03 Advocate letter regarding Harutunian's "self testimony to his successful stewardship during his tenure (Harutunian's 05/12/03 letter to Town Meeting Members)." 06/04/03 New plans for RMHS and Barrows elementary projects: the 05/27/03 Design Partnership of Cambridge version of RMHS (Reading Memorial High School) demolition / renovation / addition project was approved by Reading School Committee Tuesday 05/27/03 for submittal to the Department of Education School Building Assistance (SBA). This latest version differs markedly from the Flansburgh & Associates RMHS plans submitted to SBA on December 1, 2002 and the Flansburgh $54 million Option 3 version approved by the January 2003 Town Meeting and the voters in February 2003. Like the recently "renovated" Parker Middle School, nearly all RMHS classrooms, including the science labs, will have only one egress (doorway), raising serious safety concerns if the sole egress were to be blocked. The new high school plans call for conversion to gas heat. A new, different design by Flansburgh & Associates has surfaced for the Barrows Elementary School. Changes include extensive reconfiguring of existing space, a new media wing that eliminates the circle drive entrance, inadequate parking and a maze of convoluted routes for handicapped students to reach core facilities. This 05/21/03 Barrows Additions and Alterations version, along with its 05/22/03 site plan, differs greatly from the Spring 2000 Barrows plans approved by SBA and the January 2003 revised plans used to persuade voters in February 2003 to approve an additional $2.5 million for the two elementary projects. The layout of the Barrows School "as is" shines in comparison to these everchanging Flansburgh versions. What is the real goal here: to meet the needs of the Town of Reading or to create increasingly complex and costly designs for the benefit of Flansburgh Associates? Since the Reading School Building Committee dissolved itself at the April 2003 Town Meeting and no public session School Committee discussions have occurred during the development of these latest school plans, exactly who has been overseeing and authorizing these changes? How many other communities, like Reading, conduct the business of overseeing multi-million dollar school projects completely behind closed doors? Indeed, as contractors forge ahead with the unnecessary new elementary school off Sunset Rock/ Dividence Rd., one might also wonder how those plans have changed since SBA put it "on the list." One can only imagine... 05/30/03 After interviewing the three finalist candidates for the school superintendent position on May 29 and 30, the Reading School Committee voted to continue to consider candidates Patrick Schettini and Patricia Ruane. Some School Committee members will go on site visits next week. 05/27/03 Superintendent Search Report [.mp3 audio, 3.21 MB download] Superintendent Search Committee Chairman Carol Grimm describes the closed door process the School Committee Subcommittee followed to arrive at the three finalist candidates: Reading Associate Superintendent Dennis Richards, former Lexington Superintendent Patricia Ruane and Natick Assistant Superintendent Patrick Schettini (formerly Assist. Principal at Reading Memorial High School). Not only did the Reading Superintendent Search Committee create the "policy" and process they followed as they went along but, from Chairman Grimm's description, that process appears to have been in direct conflict with existing Open Meeting Law. Regarding Search Processes and Executive Sessions, the Middlesex District Attorney's Open Meeting Law Guidelines" August 1993, p. 34: "...an executive session may be permitted during the preliminary stages, prior to selection of semi-finalists, under exe |
