UPDATE May 5: The two probable cases of H1N1 (swine) flu sent from Amherst College to the CDC for testing have been confirmed. All possible cases of flu at the College have already been treated as if they did have H1N1, so no further preventive measures are being instituted by the College at this time and all students are apparently doing well.
*************************************************************************************
Probable cases of H1N1 (swine) flu reported at Amherst College late Thursday night, according to the official statement. In addition, six additional students with flu-like symptoms are being treated as suspected cases, including two new cases this morning. Fortunately, none of the cases are serious and the students are isolated and responding to treatment.
Because these cases at Amherst College have not yet been confirmed, they are not yet registered on the CDC H1N1 Surveillance web site which still lists Massachusetts with two confirmed cases (the Lowell cases). Only once cases are confirmed by one of the few laboratories capable of processing the samples are they reported as such.
Meanwhile, the U.S. labs processing the growing influx of samples from suspected cases are apparently unable to keep up with demand. Some areas already hit with the virus, including New York City, are now not testing all suspected cases but just treating them as if they were H1N1 (swine) flu. This enables timely treatment but will result in a underestimate of flu cases reported if only laboratory-confirmed cases are reported.
In Mexico, for example, according to the WHO, there have been 156 confirmed cases and 9 deaths. Compared to the 141 confirmed cases and 1 death in the U.S. Only looking at those numbers would lead someone to believe that the outbreak in the U.S. was almost as bad as the outbreak in Mexico. According to a variety of other reports, however, Mexico has seen over 2,000 cases of this flu with as many as 150 deaths and the country has essentially been shut down in an attempt to stem the tide of the disease.
A poll on MSNBC asks "if the swine flu strain spread to your town, would you be willing to stay home?" At this point, 69.8% of respondents said "Absolutely, if it would keep me and my family safe." I wonder if 69.8% of Amherst stayed home today...
Friday, May 1, 2009
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
No Numbers...
...just a message from our interim Superintendent Maria Geryk, read last night at the Regional School Committee meeting. According to her statement, no one in the administration will follow up on or act upon any comments posted anonymously on blogs. She did not give any specifics but did mention "some concerns" that had been raised in blog comments and wanted to let people know that anonymously posted concerns would not be investigated. Thus, as it might pertain to this blog, for example, those of you who have written in with comments concerning Building Blocks cannot expect any action to be taken based on your comments (or, presumably, the fact that I emailed the School Committee and Superintendent Geryk about said comments). Instead, she said the administration would welcome questions and concerns directly from the public.
Kathleen Anderson did ask our Superintendent why she is allowing staff members to complete an anonymous survey but is not following up on anonymous concerns by the general public. Superintendent Geryk clarified, saying that the staff members were only being asked to comment on the current budget process. In addition, members of the public were welcome to submit comments through the on-line suggestion box.
I checked the ARPS web site and there is the ability to submit anonymous comments about the budget. The form does ask for name and email address although it doesn't seem as if those fields are required for submission. I could not find any other anonymous suggestion box on the web site but imagine if people did submit non-budget-related concerns via this venue, they might be addressed. People with concerns can also email both the Superintendent (GerykM@arps.org) and the School Committee (schoolcommittee@arps.org) although that will not necessarily be anonymous.
Kathleen Anderson did ask our Superintendent why she is allowing staff members to complete an anonymous survey but is not following up on anonymous concerns by the general public. Superintendent Geryk clarified, saying that the staff members were only being asked to comment on the current budget process. In addition, members of the public were welcome to submit comments through the on-line suggestion box.
I checked the ARPS web site and there is the ability to submit anonymous comments about the budget. The form does ask for name and email address although it doesn't seem as if those fields are required for submission. I could not find any other anonymous suggestion box on the web site but imagine if people did submit non-budget-related concerns via this venue, they might be addressed. People with concerns can also email both the Superintendent (GerykM@arps.org) and the School Committee (schoolcommittee@arps.org) although that will not necessarily be anonymous.
Friday, April 24, 2009
$380,000
The amount of money above and beyond available CPA funds that Town Meeting is being asked to appropriate to purchase land/conservation restriction to preserve open space. Being new at reviewing the Warrant with a view toward having to vote on each article, I was initially confused about this item. In Article 20, part B in the section labeled 2) it states "raise, borrow and/or appropriate from available funds an additional $380,000 for the acquisition of said parcel of land and the conservation restriction, and to meet such appropriation with funds transferred and/or borrowed in accordance with M.G.L. c. 44B, the Community Preservation Act" This part B follows part A which states "To see if the Town will appropriate $150,000 from the Community Preservation Fund annual revenues or available funds for the purchase of land for open space purposes in South Amherst (Map 20D-51)."
After reading the very informative 2009 CPAC Report to Town Meeting, I understand more. The CPA fund will have $677,267 available in FY10. Of that amount, the CPAC is recommending the appropriation of $653,574 to be spent in FY10. $569,800 of that is requested in Warrant Articles 18, 19, and 20 Part A and another $83,774 goes to debt service on Plum Brook (still not available for play) and for the Town Hall masonry work. This report also contains helpful information that reminds us that 10% of new funds have to be spent each on affordable housing, historic preservation, and open space, has a map of the areas under consideration in Articles 19 and 20, and describes all projects in detail. It also mentions that Amherst only saw a 29% in matching funds from the Commonwealth in FY10. It does not, however, mention this additional $380,000.
Article 18 requests the appropriation of $344,800 from the Community Preservation Fund for a variety of projects, most of which fall under the category "historic preservation" and each project is described in the CPAC report. Article 19 requests the appropriation of $75,000 from the Community Preservation Fund for "the purchase of a Conservation Restriction in South Amherst(Map 23B, Parcel 45)."
The only related Article that is not well-defined is Article 20 which seems to require money from funds other than the Community Preservation Fund. Part B does go on to indicate possible methods of obtaining said money ("authorize the Treasurer, with the approval of the Select Board, to issue any bonds or notes that may be necessary for that purpose, as authorized by M.G.L. Chapter 44, or any other enabling authority"). I see that the April 27th Select Board meeting will include a discussion on their position on each of the articles and I look forward to the discussion of Article 20 so I can learn more.
After reading the very informative 2009 CPAC Report to Town Meeting, I understand more. The CPA fund will have $677,267 available in FY10. Of that amount, the CPAC is recommending the appropriation of $653,574 to be spent in FY10. $569,800 of that is requested in Warrant Articles 18, 19, and 20 Part A and another $83,774 goes to debt service on Plum Brook (still not available for play) and for the Town Hall masonry work. This report also contains helpful information that reminds us that 10% of new funds have to be spent each on affordable housing, historic preservation, and open space, has a map of the areas under consideration in Articles 19 and 20, and describes all projects in detail. It also mentions that Amherst only saw a 29% in matching funds from the Commonwealth in FY10. It does not, however, mention this additional $380,000.
Article 18 requests the appropriation of $344,800 from the Community Preservation Fund for a variety of projects, most of which fall under the category "historic preservation" and each project is described in the CPAC report. Article 19 requests the appropriation of $75,000 from the Community Preservation Fund for "the purchase of a Conservation Restriction in South Amherst(Map 23B, Parcel 45)."
The only related Article that is not well-defined is Article 20 which seems to require money from funds other than the Community Preservation Fund. Part B does go on to indicate possible methods of obtaining said money ("authorize the Treasurer, with the approval of the Select Board, to issue any bonds or notes that may be necessary for that purpose, as authorized by M.G.L. Chapter 44, or any other enabling authority"). I see that the April 27th Select Board meeting will include a discussion on their position on each of the articles and I look forward to the discussion of Article 20 so I can learn more.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
23,000
The number of daffodil bulbs planted in Amherst for the town's 250th anniversary celebration. Planted last fall, they are now blooming all around town and look amazing! This effort coordinated volunteers from UMass Stockbridge School of Agriculture, local landscapers, and many private citizens. Featured on the town common, parks, and countless other locations around town, the three varieties of daffodils planted are now brightening up the spring landscape. Of all the activities planned for the 250th anniversary celebration, this will be the one most available to all and the most long-lasting. Even if you don't have time to attend any of the anniversary talks, scavenger hunts, or even go to the parade, everyone in town will probably drive or walk by at least one patch of blooming daffodils this May. Poisonous to squirrels and chimpmunks--often known to eat other spring bulbs such as tulips--daffodils will continue to multiply and bloom every year unless they are dug up. Many of the daffodils planted in October will outlive the volunteers who planted them and some might even be around for the 300th anniversary celebration! That is what I call a great investment. Thank you, Dolly Jolly, for dreaming up this fantastic legacy!
Friday, April 17, 2009
$15,000
The housing/travel allowance granted to our new Superintendent, Alberto Rodriguez, in FY10 and FY11. Not only excessive given our budgetary problems, but also confusing. Does it take two years to move? Does it cost $30,000 to move from Miami to Amherst? Well, I looked into that.
Based on Dr. Rodriguez's evening presentation during his candidacy, I learned that he has two adult children. Given that, I figured that his move might be easier/cheaper than moving a family with younger children who had no choice but to move along with their parents. Picking an "average" home of 3 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms, I asked a few national relocation companies for quotes on moving from Miami to Amherst this June. The top figure so far? $7,664 This includes full packing by the moving company and insurance for replacement value of items. True, Dr. Rodriguez could be moving from a 5bd 4ba home to a 5bd 4ba home and his belongings could include a grand piano, but even so, I find it difficult to believe that it will cost him $15,000 to move. Or rather $30,000 over two years to complete said move.
I would like to hear more from the School Committee about the deliberation over this $15,000 add-on to his salary and how this $15,000 will be administered. Will he need to submit receipts to receive reimbursement for moving or will he just receive a lump sum per year? If he needs to submit receipts, exactly what will and will not be deemed acceptable? For example, if he and his wife dine every night at five-star restaurants on their drive up to Amherst, will we be reimbursing him for that? I would just like some answers.
I also want to point out that the lengthy "justification" of this salary and benefits package clearly states early on that "It does not make sense to compare former superintendent Hochman’s FY08 salary to the one negotiated with Dr. Rodriguez two years later," in order to justify the higher salary for Dr. Rodriguez (the subject for another post), yet later in the press release when discussing this $15,000 it states "This is about the same dollar amount that Dr. Hochman received in additional benefits." Why is it OK to compare to Dr. Hochman for the "additional benefits" yet not for the salary? I am hoping that the minutes of the relevant Executive Sessions of the School Committee are released soon so we can all have answers to these questions.
As it stands, Dr. Rodriguez will be earning $173,000 in FY10 and $178,530 in FY11 (assuming he receives the same 3.5% raise as his employees). I find it hard to justify these figures given the fact that our schools are facing potential closure, loss of valuable programs, and lay-offs of teachers.
Based on Dr. Rodriguez's evening presentation during his candidacy, I learned that he has two adult children. Given that, I figured that his move might be easier/cheaper than moving a family with younger children who had no choice but to move along with their parents. Picking an "average" home of 3 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms, I asked a few national relocation companies for quotes on moving from Miami to Amherst this June. The top figure so far? $7,664 This includes full packing by the moving company and insurance for replacement value of items. True, Dr. Rodriguez could be moving from a 5bd 4ba home to a 5bd 4ba home and his belongings could include a grand piano, but even so, I find it difficult to believe that it will cost him $15,000 to move. Or rather $30,000 over two years to complete said move.
I would like to hear more from the School Committee about the deliberation over this $15,000 add-on to his salary and how this $15,000 will be administered. Will he need to submit receipts to receive reimbursement for moving or will he just receive a lump sum per year? If he needs to submit receipts, exactly what will and will not be deemed acceptable? For example, if he and his wife dine every night at five-star restaurants on their drive up to Amherst, will we be reimbursing him for that? I would just like some answers.
I also want to point out that the lengthy "justification" of this salary and benefits package clearly states early on that "It does not make sense to compare former superintendent Hochman’s FY08 salary to the one negotiated with Dr. Rodriguez two years later," in order to justify the higher salary for Dr. Rodriguez (the subject for another post), yet later in the press release when discussing this $15,000 it states "This is about the same dollar amount that Dr. Hochman received in additional benefits." Why is it OK to compare to Dr. Hochman for the "additional benefits" yet not for the salary? I am hoping that the minutes of the relevant Executive Sessions of the School Committee are released soon so we can all have answers to these questions.
As it stands, Dr. Rodriguez will be earning $173,000 in FY10 and $178,530 in FY11 (assuming he receives the same 3.5% raise as his employees). I find it hard to justify these figures given the fact that our schools are facing potential closure, loss of valuable programs, and lay-offs of teachers.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Tier 3
According to ARPS Director of Finance and Operations Rob Detweiler, who works with budget numbers every day, Tier 3 funding (aka "worst case scenario") is the BEST our school districts can expect next fiscal year and the reality is probably even worse. For the Amherst elementary schools FY10 budget projections as of March 17, Tier 3 cuts mean reducing the budget by $1.9 million. Tier 2 cuts would reduce the budget by $1.3 million and Tier 1 cuts would reduce the budget by $800,000. Under this proposal, Tier 3 cuts would mean losing the instrumental music program, 7.2 FTE worth of intervention teachers, 6 FTE classroom teachers, after school homework clubs, the science coordinator, and many other programs and services. Even the proposed closing of Marks Meadow would only save ~$700,000 (without the cost of potentially moving the portables) and this closing, if approved by the School Committee, would not take effect until FY11. So some serious cuts are going to have to be made to our elementary schools in this upcoming fiscal year.
Despite this prediction of Tier 3, or worse, available revenue, our Regional School Committe on April 7, voted a Tier 1 level budget. Even though Rob Detweiler, at that meeting--before he had seen the meagre $62,502 awarded to Amherst-Pelham in Round 3 of the Governor's education stimulus program--also warned that, at that point, we were "just hovering above a Tier 3 budget." A Tier 1 budget at the regional level represents $1.3 million in cuts, a Tier 2 budget represents $1.7 million in cuts, and a Tier 3 budget represents $2.1 million in cuts.
If there is only enough revenue to support a Tier 3 budget, why did the Regional School Committee approve a Tier 1 budget?! Part of the reason may lie in the regional district agreement, whereby if three of the towns approve a budget, the fourth town is obliged to adopt that budget as well. And at the April 7 meeting, Shutesbury representative Marianne Jorgensen stated that Shutesbury planned to vote for the Tier 1 budget and the implication was that Pelham and Leverett were also prepared to do so. If that did happen, Amherst would then have to abide by that budget level.
Where does the Regional School Committee think the Tier 1 money is going to come from? The difference between a Tier 1 budget and a Tier 3 budget is $800,000. In other words, a lot of money. Perhaps the Regional School Committee is hoping that the town of Amherst (and potentially the other three towns) will move some of the money from the already-reduced municipal budget (i.e. police, fire, DPW, LSSE, etc) to the regional schools? Or that money will be moved from the already-reduced elementary school budget? Possibily they are hoping for a menu override to support the regional schools to be voted on in some sort of special election? Or that the Finance Committe and Town Meeting might approve the use of reserve funds to support this Tier 1 budget? I am not sure, but after the meeting last night when Rob Detweiler downgraded his estimate of available revenue to "Tier 3 or slightly above" to "possibly worse than Tier 3," that decision to vote the Tier 1 budget at the regional level seems even more ill-advised.
Despite this prediction of Tier 3, or worse, available revenue, our Regional School Committe on April 7, voted a Tier 1 level budget. Even though Rob Detweiler, at that meeting--before he had seen the meagre $62,502 awarded to Amherst-Pelham in Round 3 of the Governor's education stimulus program--also warned that, at that point, we were "just hovering above a Tier 3 budget." A Tier 1 budget at the regional level represents $1.3 million in cuts, a Tier 2 budget represents $1.7 million in cuts, and a Tier 3 budget represents $2.1 million in cuts.
If there is only enough revenue to support a Tier 3 budget, why did the Regional School Committee approve a Tier 1 budget?! Part of the reason may lie in the regional district agreement, whereby if three of the towns approve a budget, the fourth town is obliged to adopt that budget as well. And at the April 7 meeting, Shutesbury representative Marianne Jorgensen stated that Shutesbury planned to vote for the Tier 1 budget and the implication was that Pelham and Leverett were also prepared to do so. If that did happen, Amherst would then have to abide by that budget level.
Where does the Regional School Committee think the Tier 1 money is going to come from? The difference between a Tier 1 budget and a Tier 3 budget is $800,000. In other words, a lot of money. Perhaps the Regional School Committee is hoping that the town of Amherst (and potentially the other three towns) will move some of the money from the already-reduced municipal budget (i.e. police, fire, DPW, LSSE, etc) to the regional schools? Or that money will be moved from the already-reduced elementary school budget? Possibily they are hoping for a menu override to support the regional schools to be voted on in some sort of special election? Or that the Finance Committe and Town Meeting might approve the use of reserve funds to support this Tier 1 budget? I am not sure, but after the meeting last night when Rob Detweiler downgraded his estimate of available revenue to "Tier 3 or slightly above" to "possibly worse than Tier 3," that decision to vote the Tier 1 budget at the regional level seems even more ill-advised.
Friday, April 10, 2009
2002
Year in which Town Meeting first heard the proposal to fund soccer fields at Plum Brook Recreation Area off Potwine Road. Three separate votes at three Town Meetings were needed to approve the funding for the project...$500,000 of which was to be borrowed and repaid through Community Preservation Act funds. According to the Annual Town Report, in 2004, the Recreation Area received clearance for its plans from both the Amherst Conservation Commission and the Amherst Planning Board. Funding for Plum Brook was again hotly contested in 2005. A later referendum to rescind this funding source was rejected by Town Meeting on June 15, 2005 and later by voters in the September 27, 2005 election.
Initially projected to be completed by Spring 2006, by June 2006, the project had reached a "standstill" due to weather. At that point, LSSE Director Linda Chalfant predicted that the fields would be ready by Fall 2006. When our Town Manager, Larry Shaffer, arrived on the scene in July 2006, he set up weekly on-site meetings at Plum Brook and assigned the town engineer to oversee the project. Still not ready by summer 2007, delays were now blamed on inability to grow grass in time. By summer 2008, the grass was there but apparently crabgrass, so the new completion date was said to be Fall 2009. Also in 2008, a decision involving Newton raised the question of whether or not Amherst could legitimately use Community Preservation Act funds in this way, but ultimately, Town Counsel concluded that Amherst's use of CPA funds in this way was legitimate. Interestingly, the Bulletin article that covered this story on December 5, 2008 lists the project as "already complete." The Amherst Youth Soccer Association web site still optimistically proclaims "Work is progressing at Plum Brook. Fields are not expected to be ready for play until Spring of 2009."
It is now Spring 2009 and my daughter's soccer team, along with many others in town, will be playing their entire spring season on the road due to lack of fields in Amherst. That's right...fifteen games away. Oh, they are listed as the home team for seven of them, and for anyone interested in catching the girls at "home", the games will be played in Ludlow, East Longmeadow, Agawam, Wilbraham, Chicopee, and Belchertown.
Initially projected to be completed by Spring 2006, by June 2006, the project had reached a "standstill" due to weather. At that point, LSSE Director Linda Chalfant predicted that the fields would be ready by Fall 2006. When our Town Manager, Larry Shaffer, arrived on the scene in July 2006, he set up weekly on-site meetings at Plum Brook and assigned the town engineer to oversee the project. Still not ready by summer 2007, delays were now blamed on inability to grow grass in time. By summer 2008, the grass was there but apparently crabgrass, so the new completion date was said to be Fall 2009. Also in 2008, a decision involving Newton raised the question of whether or not Amherst could legitimately use Community Preservation Act funds in this way, but ultimately, Town Counsel concluded that Amherst's use of CPA funds in this way was legitimate. Interestingly, the Bulletin article that covered this story on December 5, 2008 lists the project as "already complete." The Amherst Youth Soccer Association web site still optimistically proclaims "Work is progressing at Plum Brook. Fields are not expected to be ready for play until Spring of 2009."
It is now Spring 2009 and my daughter's soccer team, along with many others in town, will be playing their entire spring season on the road due to lack of fields in Amherst. That's right...fifteen games away. Oh, they are listed as the home team for seven of them, and for anyone interested in catching the girls at "home", the games will be played in Ludlow, East Longmeadow, Agawam, Wilbraham, Chicopee, and Belchertown.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)