In the dark

September 27, 2024

Welcome back!

This mostly gloomy week is finally coming to a close, with the promise of sunshine ahead! Here’s what we have for you:

  1. Facilities Department Discussions Raise Questions About Management

  2. School Committees Take Different Approaches On SRO Staffing Challenges

  3. SudburyWeekly.com News Roundup

  4. Turning 18 before the Election?

  5. L-S Gets New Course Level Designations

Let’s get into it!

Facilities Department Discussions Raise Questions About Management

By Kevin LaHaise

When Sudbury's Combined Facilities Director, Sandra Duran, completed a discussion with the Sudbury Select Board on Tuesday, September 25, she left the board with a simple message about the future of her department serving both the Town and Sudbury Public Schools:

"We definitely have opportunities for continuing in a shared services model that is good for the town fiscally, and provides the best delivery of services. And it is my honor and hope that I continue to do that for both entities."

Duran spent the evening participating in both the Sudbury Public Schools (SPS) School Committee meeting and the Sudbury Select Board meeting. She joined the school committee meeting to present on the status of her work implementing the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) transition plan for SPS, as well as FY25 capital projects. Once she completed those presentations for SPS, she was a panelist for a conversation with the Select Board about the memorandum of agreement (MOA) that established her department in 2012. In a prior SPS meeting, the committee discussed the possibility of voting to terminate the agreement with the Town of Sudbury.

The crux of the MOA discussions in both meetings this week was to authorize the chairs of the SPS School Committee and the Select Board to join discussions with the SPS Superintendent and Sudbury Town Manager. Both bodies authorized their respective chairs to join those discussions, among other Town and school staff members.

Stymied?

While the upcoming discussions are expected to explore ways the MOA might be updated to resolve the concerns recently voiced by the SPS administration, the evening ended with more questions being raised about the SPS administration's managerial choices with regard to the Combined Facilities Department.

During the Select Board meeting, member Lisa Kouchakdjian asked if Duran had submitted a department plan, as required by the terms of the MOA. Duran confirmed that she had submitted one to SPS leadership soon after joining the Town roughly two years ago, but had yet to receive a response from SPS. (2:38:00)

“That document I created when I first got here and shared with Brad Crozier, the superintendent, and Don Sawyer, the Business Manager. I didn’t ever receive any feedback on it. But it exists in draft form. I did create it. It was something that I created immediately because I found that the structure that I had inherited had some real obstacles to being able to fulfill the MOA as it was written. So yes, it does exist. But it is not in practice because it was never adopted. It didn’t get past the Superintendent so it was not brought to the Town Manager.”

Duran was asked if there was an organizational chart that clearly outlined who reports to her, and she explained that she had a very clear chain of command on the Town side, but no such organizational chart existed on the SPS side. Duran responded: “I’ve never been presented with one from SPS, but there’s one for the Town for sure.”

That led into a conversation about how Duran is not given any visibility into how SPS uses (or doesn’t use) the shared electrician. While she reports to the Superintendent, the SPS maintenance department reports to the SPS Business Manager according to Duran. When the SPS maintenance department has electrical needs, they don’t go through Duran to access the Town electrician or to outsource to third party service providers. She also said that neither the Town nor SPS consistently use the ticketing system her department has established.

Kouchakdjian asked more broadly about oversight of capital and maintenance, and access to major equipment, as outlined in the job description of the Combined Facilities Director. Duran was frank in her response:

“You know it's kind of tough to share this in a public forum. But I would say that it's been quite a challenge for me, because my job description is very clear that I'm responsible for maintenance as well as capital improvements, but I've been told specifically that I cannot have anything to do with maintenance.”

Duran went on to outline her perceived challenges:

“And so it fits kind of hand in glove with capital. So I'm kind of operating somewhat blindly, because I have no records. I have no access to funds. I have no access to records. I have no access to vendors. I have no access to the building management system.”

She concluded with a broad statement about the MOA:

“But again, it's been a challenge with this particular structure. And I have recommended changes that have gone unheard and unimplemented.”

“I don’t know, Mary.”

Earlier in the evening, Duran was presenting on the ADA transition work completed in the schools. She emphasized that 173 out of 672 accessibility barriers had already been remedied by her department.

School Committee Vice Chair Meredith Gerson and member Mandy Sim asked if there was a plan/tracker for the ADA work at SPS, to which Duran said she had submitted one to SPS for this meeting. Superintendent Crozier noted that it was not put into the committee’s meeting packet. (1:46:00)

The omission appeared to be a simple oversight at first, but soon enough the committee learned that additional materials that Duran had submitted for the committee were not included in the packet.

SPS Superintendent Brad Crozier teed up the presentation on Fiscal Year 2025 capital projects, and proactively told the committee that Duran’s presentation was not included in the packet. He recommended holding off on a vote until the members received a copy and had a chance to review. Member Mary Stephens asked why it hadn’t been included and Superintendent Crozier offered a terse response:

"I don’t know, Mary.” (2:01:00)

Over the course of the two meetings it began to seem as though the school committee was not receiving complete or at least consistent information about the activities and oversight of the Combined Facilities Department from the SPS administration. In the previous discussion about the MOA on September 9, members also voiced a desire to see much more data and information than was provided by the administration for them to make a decision as significant as terminating the MOA.

In addition to the information that came out during the discussion that was simultaneously happening in the Select Board meeting on Tuesday, the Select Board meeting packet included materials that raised questions about prior statements made by the SPS administration.

In the September 9 meeting of the school committee the SPS Director of Business and Finance, Don Sawyer, claimed SPS had no visibility into the salaries of the shared facilities department staff: “We estimate what the salary is going to be for the following year. Even now I don’t know what their salaries are this year.”

But a year earlier, he told the committee that the salaries and raises were on a knowable schedule and that he need only call over to the Town to find out:

“It’s contractual however they have it set up for how many years of service and such. And what their pay grades are and levels and how they attain those.”

At the time, Sawyer indicated that he had called over to the Town to get the updated salary data for the shared staff (1:43:00), but still claimed SPS otherwise had no visibility or input into the salaries. That led then-Chair Silvia Nerssessian to describe the situation as “out of control.” (1:46:10)

On Tuesday, it became clear that SPS had at least some visibility and input. On page 56 of the Select Board packet for Tuesday’s meeting, the fully-executed 2022 offer letter to the Combined Facilities Director was made available. The salary and second year raise were outlined in the offer letter, which was signed by SPS Superintendent Brad Crozier.

Touch and Go

Select Board Members Charlie Russo and Janie Dretler cautioned the board and Town staff to handle this situation delicately on Tuesday night. Russo emphasized:

“You know, we don't want to be escalating things. Because I don't think that's the path to success. So I think that I fully support Jen's proposal to coordinate with the school committee chair and the superintendent and the town manager.”

He suggested starting with areas of agreement, and then earnestly working towards improvements in areas where there are shared goals:

“And how do we just, I think as Janie said at the beginning of the meeting… How do we examine this, admit to some flaws, and then kind of fix them and move forward to be better. That's kind of my hope.”

Dretler voiced support for honoring the original intent of the 2010 Town Meeting vote that created the combined facilities department, and highlighted some of the risks associated with the situation (2:31:36):

“I also just want to caution the board that there may be legal exposure that we're unknowingly walking into. There need to be guardrails put in place. And I hope that that would be communicated to the full board. Because again, we we need to be very careful of how this is addressed, and my hope is that only the terms of the contract are discussed in any private meeting, because this would be a private meeting that the public would not have insight into, nor would the Board… the remaining four members of the board.”

While there was broad agreement on both the Select Board and School Committee to proceed with MOA discussions, that may be the last the public hears about the situation for some time. Those meetings will be private, and are not subject to the Open Meeting Law.

That may be less transparent to the public than the discussions that have recently occurred among the Select Board and SPS School Committee, but it would provide a greater amount of privacy for the shared staff in the Combined Facilities Department, and perhaps an opportunity to deescalate the situation.

The group will have their work cut out for them either way. Town Manager Sheehan noted that the ballpark impact of a vote by SPS to terminate the MOA would be around $143,000 shifting from SPS to the Town budget. The Town would either need to absorb that in the FY26 budget, or make cuts, adding another challenge to the numerous budget challenges the Town Manager has repeatedly highlighted since being hired. The FY26 budget building process will commence very soon for both SPS and the Town of Sudbury, and the MOA requires six months notice of termination prior to the end of a fiscal year, which is in the middle of 2025. They’re all on the clock in more ways than one; like it or not.

School Committees Take Different Approaches On SRO Staffing Challenges

By Kevin LaHaise

On Tuesday, both the Sudbury Public Schools (SPS) School Committee and Lincoln-Sudbury (L-S) School Committee discussed possible letters to Town of Sudbury officials regarding the recently-reduced School Resource Officer (SRO) program. In the end, the committees opted to take different approaches.

As previously reported, the SRO program has been temporarily and significantly reduced due to staffing shortages in the Sudbury Police Department.

On Tuesday the L-S School Committee edited a letter to be sent to the Sudbury Select Board, Town Manager and Chief of Police voicing their appreciation and support of the SRO program, while requesting regular updates on efforts to resolve the staffing shortages and return the SRO program back to full capacity. (1:30:00)

The L-S School Committee voted unanimously to support the draft letter after some deliberation about the recipients, tone and key messages.

The SPS School Committee opted not to send a letter after discussing their role and purview. (2:14:40) Chair Nicole Burnard opened the topic by highlighting the fine line between the school committee’s role and the operational activities in other departments. During deliberation it was noted that the committee doesn’t sign the MOU with the Sudbury Police Department, which suggested that the program was an operational matter for the administration to handle.

Conversations about the SRO program were somewhat awkward in both committees. As was pointed out in the SPS School Committee meeting, it’s no secret that all members value school safety, the SRO program, and collaboration with the Sudbury Police Department. Given support for the program was virtually universal across the two committees, some members of each committee questioned what utility or impact a letter would actually have in helping to solve the staffing shortages.

L-S School Committee members Kevin Matthews and Maura Carty made claims that the staffing issues were related to funding and that the Sudbury Town Manager and Select Board had the authority to make staffing and recruiting decisions within the Sudbury Police Department. They did not provide a basis or any additional detail for those assertions. Member Lucy Maulsby pointed out that the L-S School Committee doesn’t actually know the root cause of the staffing shortages, which made it less clear to whom the committee might send a letter:

“It’s unclear to me why we are sending that to the Select Board and why the school committee is involved in negotiating thus with the Select Board rather than expressing our appreciation, and our appreciation to Ravi’s point, of the need to distribute resources, why we’re not expressing that to the Chief of Police?” (1:39:00)

Carty responded: “It’s really the Select Board and the Town Manager that are in charge of this and that they can…”

Maulsby interjected: “But they’re not making decisions about the asset reallocations of the police.”

Carty responded: “Well they can be.”

Matthews jumped in:

“If the force is down 7 out of 24, if that’s the right number. And let’s pretend it is. If there’s that kind of a force reduction, I don’t know how Chief Nix has any choice but to spread everyone a little thinner. And I don’t see how he’s responsible for that, the inability for the Town to fund those seven lines. Or to recruit those seven lines…”

There has been no “force reduction” in the Sudbury Police Department and Sudbury Weekly is unaware of any instance where Town officials claimed that the vacant positions are no longer funded in the budget. Police Chief Scott Nix is on record saying in August that he would soon be down seven officers (partially due to medical leave) on his 30-person force, not down 7 officers on a 24-person force. (6:50) No official statements have been issued regarding the cause of the other vacancies, or even if the number of vacancies is significantly higher or lower than the historic rolling average for the department.

Maulsby concluded:

“So is it a question of funding, or is it a question of some people being on leave, waiting for others to finish their training before coming online? I mean, could the Chair call to find out? The context of the letter in terms of what’s been discussed at the meeting doesn’t really make sense to me.”

On the SPS School Committee meeting, member Karyn Jones pointed out that a letter could be perceived as the SPS School Committee telling other departments how to run their operations, which she likened to telling a business owner how to run their own business. “I would never tell somebody how to run their business. Because it’s theirs. It’s their department. I would think it was odd if Chief Nix was writing us a letter on how to do ELA curriculum.” (2:31:00)

That argument seemed to sway the SPS School Committee, and their discussion ended with some levity from Vice Chair Meredith Gerson regarding getting other committees to stay in their lane, too. (2:35:00)

Whether it was discussed in open meeting or memorialized in a letter, the message coming from the two school committees is largely the same: the school committees are eager to see the SRO program brought back to full force. But their eagerness may not matter given the police staffing woes being reported across the state.

Police recruiting challenges are seemingly universal, and the Massachusetts State Police Academy has seen high levels of dropouts from the academy in recent years. Many dropouts claim the training program was too intense and some reportedly likened it to hazing. Just this week, news broke that a trainee died after sustaining reported broken teeth and a neck fracture during a boxing exercise.

The Town of Sudbury is currently in the midst of negotiations with the police union groups. If compensation packages make Sudbury less appealing than other municipalities for police officers, that may be something the Town can address in a new contract. But any such information is unlikely to become public information until an agreement is reached, and no comparative analysis with other towns has been shared publicly.

SudburyWeekly.com News Roundup

News

Events

Opinion

Turning 18 before the Election?

By the League of Women Voters of Sudbury

Citizens who will turn 18 on or before the Tuesday, Nov. 5 presidential election can pre-register to vote now so that they will be automatically registered and eligible to vote when they turn 18.

Many teens have been automatically pre-registered to vote when they applied for a learner’s permit or driver’s license at the Registry of Motor Vehicles. Teens who are not getting a driver’s license can pre-register to vote by downloading a registration form and returning it to the Town Clerk’s office, 322 Concord Rd., Sudbury.

Teens—and everyone else—can check their current voter registration status and, if necessary, register to vote at www.VoteinMA.com. Saturday, Oct. 26 is the voter registration deadline for the Nov. 5 presidential election; register online before midnight or at the Town Clerk’s office by 5 p.m.

For voters who have requested a mail ballot, the Town Clerk expects to receive ballots from the state around Oct. 7 and then will begin mailing ballots to voters.

The Sudbury League of Women Voters will record a candidates’ forum for the contested race for Sudbury’s State Representative between incumbent Carmine Gentile and Virginia Gardner in early October. District residents are urged to submit questions for that forum to [email protected] or LWV Sudbury, P. O. Box 338, Sudbury, MA 01776. The deadline for questions is 5 p.m. Wednesday, Oct. 2.

Answers to frequently-asked questions about voting are here.

L-S Gets New Course Level Designations

By Kevin LaHaise

In June Sudbury Weekly reported on an initiative at Lincoln-Sudbury Regional High School to standardize course level designations across departments and make them consistent with the Common App for college applications.

At the time, the high school had settled on three levels: college prep, honors and high honors. But there was more work to do… The departments had to sort through the program of studies and assign a level designation to each and every course.

As of Tuesday, September 27, that work has been completed according to Superintendent Andrew Stephens. He presented the results of that work at the L-S School Committee meeting. You can access the full presentation from the meeting agenda here.

With all the decisions having been made at this point, all that’s left to do is deploy the new levels through the program of studies and update student transcripts. There’s a little bit of nuance in that process since transcripts will need to be updated retroactively, but Stephens was optimistic about implementing all the changes this year. Committee members lauded the work that went into the initiative, which spanned multiple years, and thanked Stephens for his work on this matter since joining the district.

Parting Thoughts

Next week the main event is the Finance Committee meeting on Monday. They’ll be discussing the financial outlook of the Town with Town Manager Andy Sheehan.

Sheehan has been quite consistent with his communication to various boards and committees. The outlook isn’t cause for alarm according to Sheehan, but there are financial challenges in Sudbury’s future.

Sprinkle in the looming threat of SPS terminating the MOA that established the Combined Facilities Department, and the imminent results of a facilities assessment which is expected to highlight a long list of end-of-life equipment throughout town, and it seems inevitable that the Finance Committee will soon be a focal point for discussions about Sudbury’s future.

That committee has been hitting its stride since Town Meeting in May 2024. They’re looking to take a more proactive approach, and they’ve been refining that approach while being careful to stay within their role as a committee. The balancing act of ambition and discipline seems to be serving the committee well.

The liaison reports section of their agenda has highlighted the efforts of multiple members who closely follow the work of other committees and report back detailed updates to the full Finance Committee. And their deliberations regularly feature some of the most accessible introductions and explanations of municipal finance concepts that you’ll find anywhere.

Now, this may come as a surprise, but municipal finance isn’t exactly the most thrilling topic in the world.

Yet once you get through the municipal jargon you’ll find that it’s really just a discussion about what kind of town Sudbury is, and what kind of town it wants to be.

The Finance Committee meetings have also become a source of accurate, reliable financial information at a time when disinformation and misinformation seem to be rampant.

That’s some hefty volunteer work. But the benefits are clear. For anyone interested in what the years ahead might look like in Sudbury, the Finance Committee meetings have become “must-see-TV.”

Onward!