This is a printer-friendly version of an article from Zip06.com.
01/15/2018 11:00 PMAfter the referendum to rebuild and renovate two of the district’s three elementary schools failed in September 2017, the Board of Education (BOE) has pushed ahead with the plan to contract to five schools, formally voting to close Island Avenue Elementary School and settling on a grade level configuration for the two middle schools. However, the state of the remaining facilities prompted calls from some board members for a new committee and sparked a lengthy discussion at the BOE meeting on Jan. 9.
The BOE currently has four committees—planning, policy, personnel, and finance—all of which are mandated under the board’s bylaws. The board does not currently have an independent facilities committee and facility needs generally fell under the purview of the planning committee.
At the Jan. 9 meeting, some board members made it clear they wanted to establish an independent facilities committee. The call for an additional committee resulted in a debate mainly along party lines (Democrats in favor and Republicans opposed) and raised questions over the charge of the potential new committee and how it might affect the other standing committees.
Board member Matt Parthasarthy (D) opened the discussion with a formal call for the committee.
“As a new board member, my goal on this board to ensure that we do the best that we can for the children of Madison as well as for the taxpayers who elected us—effectively the people that we work for,” he said. “Today we are discussing the need to create a new facilities committee to discuss the ongoing issue of repairs, maintenance, and new construction as appropriate to the various buildings that fall under the purview of this board.”
Parthasarthy said separating out facilities makes good practical sense and said he would be comfortable changing board bylaws to make this happen. BOE Chair Alison Keating (D) said as chair she has the power to call for the creation of an ad-hoc or standing committee without changing bylaws. She said she would like to see a standing committee created to review the referendum, engage with the public, and establish a plan for the long-term and short-term needs of the district facilities.
“My goal is to have a standing facilities committee sooner rather than later…I am interested in getting it created now to get the work started,” she said.
However, board members questioned if another committee was necessary seeing as the board is currently in the process of establishing a 10-year capital facilities plan with Colliers International that is expected by June of this year. Board member Katie Stein (D) said a facilities committee would be able to look at more than just capital projects and pointed out all of the research and projects that were identified during pre-referendum studies that still need to be addressed.
“The referendum failed, but that book [of projects] didn’t go away,” she said. “Yes that might mean there may be some shifting of responsibilities and I think that should be a welcome thing…This is like any other committee in that it has no power on its own. It is a subcommittee of nine of us. There are no actions to be taken that all nine of us wouldn’t vote on…”
Stein said the board has treaded lightly on facilities projects. Superintendent of Schools Tom Scarice said he advocated for a facilities committee four years ago, but, due to time constraints and the fact that many facilities responsibilities already fall under the planning committee, his request did not move forward. However, he said not having a committee did not affect how many projects were undertaken in the past several years.
“I’m sorry, but not having a committee is not what got us to this point,” he said. “The recession in 2008 halted every single capital project and there are people in this room who can attest to that. I don’t think a committee would have solved that problem in 2008.”
The main points of reluctance in forming another committee among board members centered on the scope of the committee and questions on the need for another committee.
“I think the burden of proof is on the people who would advocate for change and would vote for this committee,” said board member Galen Cawley (R). “I think you have brought it up and I don’t think you have proven the need for it. I am not clear on the scope or the term or the division of labor it would require.”
Board member Emily Rosenthal (D) echoed the point about the scope of the committee.
“I think we need to take a moment and have a really clear definition for what we are proposing because in my opinion I don’t want to vote for something tonight and tomorrow be like, ‘Wait, what are you doing and what is facilities doing?’” she said. “…I think we need to be thoughtful, just so we are all clear.”
The board voted 4-4 to bring the motion for a facilities committee forward to a vote. The final vote was not split along party lines and the tie ultimately defeated the motion. Board member Seth Klaskin (D) was not present.