Did the Aldermen sanction to put an Override to voters?
It will be predictable that the morally bankrupt Aldermen who take UNEARNED taxpayer monies will have to approve an Override. They owe Dolan for manipulating a legal loophole to pay their family health insurance in exchange for approving his 26% raise. Tramontozzi performed as commanded on the Alcohol Advisory Group. He might have regrets when the "legally drunk" patrons of the new wine bar going in blocks from his house cause accidents on Franklin Street. Melrose politics are a farce.

Speaking of politically farcical Melrose politics. Why is the MCAS Results meeting scheduled at 5:30?
Folks are still commuting home and/or trying to get dinner together. Is the poor scheduling/timing a deliberate attempt to silence people? One wonders?

Of course it is a deliberate scheduling choice. They don't want an engaged public. A dumb unengaged one is how things were allowed to get like this. This is all a purposeful manipulation of the electorate, which was already pretty sad in Melrose. They win, the kids lose, and few care.

And you wonder why people feel cynical and why I'll keep repeating VOTING NO ON THE OVERRIDE !!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'll be voting Yes on the override. Melrose schools have done very well by my family.

you are in the "MINORITY"

I would definitely vote yes. It would be an interesting vote. This board definitely doesn't reflect the opinion of most Melrosians - think of the last school committee election with GM in last place or the Mayor's popularity in elections versus the general opinion of him on this message board. I actually haven't heard of anyone in our government saying they were going to put an override on the ballot (although the annoying poster on this board feels the need to vote against it on every single thread - very pointless). But it would be great to have a vote just so that we can tell once or for all what the rest of Melrose thinks on this issue (and again, the opinion on this board doesn't count because it is actually very wrong most of the time).

Has anyone asked CKK if she supports an override? She's the chair of the finance committee now, correct? I know the MM posters have close ties to her and I'd be interested on her opinion, as I do respect her opinions a lot

I know Ms. CKK personally and she believes it is not a matter of money but of leadership and management. This should not be surprising given her knowledge of the issues, the people involved in the administration, and an understanding of education principals and philosophy. Perhaps you may want to take some guidance from her on this matter of any potential override discussion.

I will vote yes too. And I would keep voting yes to every override until our per pupil spending is on par with other communities--then we will be able to tell whether or not it is a matter of leadership or spending. Last time I checked, Melrose was ranked 296th out of 322 communities in pps (see Boston Globe article from January 2014, http://www.boston.com/yourtown/specials/snapshot/massachusetts_snapshot_pupil_costs_2011_2012/). And I do understand that we have increased the funding to the schools in the last few years, but we had such a long way to go that we are probably still ranked in the bottom third of school system PPS, and I would be more than happy to pay more in taxes to give the school system better resources to work with.

That Globe article doesn't reflect what the School Committee voted (3 times without ever seeing the darn thing) to approve in a new teacher's contract. This new contract certainly wasn't the 1% that the mayor told us. It was far, far more (even up to 25% increase in the steps/lanes for the first three years for a new teacher!). That contract and all that went with it definitely removes any legitimate argument about per pupil spending. That isn't relevant anymore, nor was it ever the real reason things are so bad now.

Have fun with your override circus. It has no relevance to the real problems. If that sort of activity makes you feel like you are doing your civic duty, so be it. Just don't be deluded into thinking it will have a shred of relevance when it comes to addressing the mess you have allowed your district to become.

So provide me with the actual data that proves that the recent school budget increases have put us on par with other communities regarding pps.

So what, exactly, would an override pay for? If your pitch is that you need an override to increase the salaries of all the "wonderful" educators in this district, you override supporters will be laughed out of town. In the history of the state, there has never been a district that passed an override for the sole purpose of increasing the salaries of municipal employees, and it certainly won't happen in a district like this where so many of these employees are substandard. No one in their right mind would get involved in something like that.

So what will the override pay for? Additional administrators? More teachers? Take a look at some of the disastrous recent hires, and ask yourself, do I want to give more money to the same people who hired teacher X, who can't even manage to present coherently at Open House? Or do you want to give more money to the administrators that are responsible for teacher Y who calls in sick all the time and shows up late, or teacher Z who refuses to use Aspen, or teacher B who doesn't seem to be following any curriculum and is giving out A's for just showing up?

Specifically, what will this override money be used for?

So the override supporters posting here are voting yes, but they don't even know what they are voting for? All this override talk, yet no one has been able to articulate why we need an override?

I will be curious to see who will be the face of this override....I think a lot of the local pols will back away from supporting it when they get feedback from their constituents. I think when they officially announce their campaign, the override supporters will be surprised at the blowback they will receive, especially from their fellow parents.

These override supporters are as silly as the school committee that voted for a teacher's contract they hadn't even seen. I hope they get this dog onto the ballot and get the reality shock they obviously need when they find out that they are laughing stocks by the general population, which may be relatively silent but is nowhere near as willing to buy the propaganda as they are.

My apologies for not responding right away - seemingly unlike the serial posters on this site, I actually have a job so I can't respond within 2 seconds to any thread.

As I said before, the number 1 reason I would vote for an override to have the per pupil spending in Melrose on par with other communities. I am not saying we need to be in the top 10 school districts in pps, but the top 150 would be nice. Show me the data where we are in this range with the recent budget increases, I don't think we are even near that range.

I think the override should continue to go to higher teacher salaries. I know, you all discuss the "massive" salary increase in this year's teacher contract. However, looking at where the teachers were starting from--Melrose ranked 318th out of 328 communities in teacher pay? We would need a massive 22% pay increase across the board just to get us back to the median state salary. Better pay would attract and retain better teachers under any administration. So show me the data that our teachers are getting paid as much as their peers in other communities.

Here is the Patch article from May of this year to which I refer.
http://patch.com/massachusetts/melrose/melrose-teachers-paid-less-than-peers#.VCHbJk1OV00

The highest and lowest average teacher salaries in Massachusetts:
1. Concord-Carlisle, $95,947
2. Lincoln-Sudbury, 94,087
3. Sherborn, $91,848
4. Worcester, $91,504
5. Dover-Sherborn, $89,600
Median: $69,000
318. Melrose, $53,569
326. New Salem-Wendell, $50,899
327. Petersham, $50,462
328. Florida, $35,497

Other things I would like to see an override used for? I would like to hire more teachers to reduce the class sizes. I would like to be able to fund text books in the general fund rather than having to bond them. I would like to fund a full upgrade of our technology systems in all schools rather than asking the PTO to fund computers. I would like to upgrade the facilities in the high school and upgrade the aging elementary schools. I would like to reduce the school athletic fees. There is a laundry list of things I would be more than happy to fund via an override.

Bust mostly, I would like our pps spending, and our teacher salaries, on par with other communities. I would like our school system to have appropriate resources just like other communities. That is why I would support an override.

Did someone say "wine bar"?

"We would need a massive 22% pay increase across the board just to get us back to the median state salary."

Oh, okay - so with the 26% they just got they are now 4% above the median. Therefore, not one more red cent until they show some quantifiable results.

When I was in high school (not all that long ago) Melrose High was in the top 50 in the state. We didn't have crazy spending, we had a quality staff of teachers educating us and giving a ****. This issue has nothing to do with Money, I mean for christ sakes over half the cities budget goes towards "education." We need better educators, not overrides or more spending.

You don't actually believe the hype on this board? The current teacher budget is what, $16 million dollars. If the teachers got a 26% pay increase across the board that would be an increase of $4,160,000 alone in this year's budget. What was the actual increase in in the teacher's pay line item of this year's budget? No I am sure, even with the pay raise, that the teachers of Melrose will still be at the low end in the pay scale for MA communities.

Hype this - it's a 3 year contract with salary, steps, and incentives. Not all in one year. Totals almost 26% over time for almost all.

Well, looked at the 2014 School Budget for teachers salaries (not all salaries), and here is the budget increase per school and the total from 2013 versus 2014.

Salary 2013 Salary 2014 % Change
Hoover $672,573 $697,500 3.7%
Horace Mann $633,555 $653,341 3%
Lincoln $989,821 $979,982 -1.00%
Roosevelt $1,054,499 $1,085,426 2.93%
Winthrop $1,028,996 $1,019,017 -0.98%
MVMMS $2,054,724 $2,079,792 1.22%
HS $2,056,633 $2,151,389 4.60%

Total $8,490,801 $8,666,447 2%

Not exactly 26% or even 1/3 of 26% (if you spread it over 3 years) which would be 8.6%. It is a 2% increase. Stop over hyping the new contract (or give me the actual numbers to support your 26%)

What a joke! You've got me laughing so hard my sides hurt. If you're going to spin something, at least make an effort to make it believable. Salary budgets don't give you contractual pay rates, dummy! But of course you already knew that, didn't you? Override my a$$!

And how do you expect to pay for a pay raise if it isn't in the budget?

And why don't you show me the math on how all teachers are going to make 26% more in 3 years if you are so much smarter? I am very interested on how you derived this number that gets thrown around this board so often.

Please stop. I'm about to wet my pants! According to you Lincoln and Winthrop teachers must have gotten pay cuts!

Look up the post from MFD where he did provide the math. I'm not your researcher.

So I looked at my numbers again and saw that the numbers above were comparing the 2013 to the 2014 budget. So here are the new budget numbers, comparing the 2014 budget to the 2015 budget (that incorporates the new teacher's contract).

School: 2014 budget/2015 budget
Hoover: $697,500/$758,716
Horace Mann: $653,341/$683,012
Lincoln: $979,982/$993,135
Roosevelt: $1,085,426/ $1,129,407
Winthrop: $1,019,017/$1,106,504
MVMMS: $2,921,160/ $3,126,279
HS: $3,365,058 $3,387,043

Total $10,721,484 $11,184,096 4%

I am drawing the numbers from the budget here: http://1i8brn1xoauz1pwsvo1ktb7vb1q.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/FY15-DRAFT-Budget-v2.pdf

So it looks like a 4% increase was budgeted for this year. This is a total of $462,612.

This is better then the previous year (a 2% increase), but still not close to the 8.6% needed annually for the 26% number that has been thrown around. I do believe that MFD backtracked at one point when he was asked to prove the 26% increase, but I am certainly not looking through a million threads to find it. So I am hoping that he will show us the math on the 26% again, because the FY 15 school budget is not that figure right now.

So Melrose has one of the lowest PPS averages. Why is that when we already pay higher taxes than a lot of communities? Obviously, the money is not being spent/managed correctly. Those of you in favor of an override really think it's going to fix things?

As far as MCAS, maybe they scheduled it early so no one would know that as a result of the scores, Melrose is now a level 3 school system, which is not a good thing.

It's actually 4.245%, but who's counting, right? For the last time (hopefully) - you cannot calculate a contractual increase simply by looking at a salary line item in a budget. That line includes no bennies, doesn't indicate future rates or steps, and doesn't specify staffing. Suppose they didn't fund five positions at, say, $55000? That raises your percentage to 6.437%, or 19.31% over three years. Your conclusions are nonsense.

Do you recall offhand what the Mayor said over and over again what the increase was? He said 1%. He also said the contract was almost exactly the same as the prior one. Override my a$$.

Folks...go back to the records and documents from last year when you have time and you will see that the Mayor found 2 million dollars from the city side of the budget to give the schools for the increase in salary steps for teachers over the 3 years which amounted to 23 to 26% salary increases over 3 years for a majority of teachers. They got their big salary increase as well as their 1% COLA. Comparing the new salary steps for each teacher to the old ones will give you the accurate comparison and the true numbers which don't lie. But I do know that some of you are just too lazy to do this.

Also looking at per pupil expenditures will not give you the full picture of a communities commitment to their schools since a community like Westford spends similar PPL expenditures as Melrose yet their student outcomes are superior to ours and why? You figure it out because our school committee has not yet figured it out!

"Also looking at per pupil expenditures will not give you the full picture of a communities commitment to their schools since a community like Westford spends similar PPL expenditures as Melrose yet their student outcomes are superior to ours and why? You figure it out because our school committee has not yet figured it out!"

The figures from Westford vs Melrose were 2012 comparisons. After the full implementation (with all the perks) of the new teacher's contract and figuring in the $40,000 just gifted to the superintendent for her non-union administrators plus her sizable raise ($5,000 plus % perks), Melrose will be well beyond what a town like Westford in per pupil spending. Westford far outperformed Melrose to start with. Now it's much worse. And Westford doesn't have a Level 3 School!

The mayor said it was a %5 million raise for the teachers.

Yes, he actually did say something like that (meaning over 5 years). He may have meant total not raise, though, but the 5 million dollar figure was definitely what he said.

The PPS calculation is a very simple one, the state simply divides the overall school budget by the number of students. It does not consider the many variables that effect that number. One particularly relevant to Melrose is teacher experience. Given the teacher/administrator turnover in Melrose it is likely the case that our teacher age/experience is younger/less than our neighbors. This will artificially deflate the PPS number since teacher salaries are the biggest driver of the school budget. It doesn't mean we do not have fair salaries just that many teachers are at the bottom of the pay scale based on their experience.
Winchester's PPS is about $800 more than Melrose. I would gladly vote for an override to bridge that gap if anyone could promise that it would raise the quality of the Melrose schools to those in Winchester. I doubt that is the case.

Oh, grow up. You don't even have a fundamental grasp of math or reality. That number is the AVERAGE teacher salary. Of course our average is going to be low, we had massive teacher turnover, particularly at the high school when Dan Richards got rid of about a dozen teachers. New teachers come in at a lower step, which makes our "average" look artificially low. If you want to compare districts, you need to compare contracts; starting salaries, step raises, and also benefits. When you do that, suddenly Melrose is NOT out of line with surrounding districts.

And you can't seriously compare Dover/Sherborn and Lincoln/Sudbury to Melrose...you must be a transplant to Massachusetts. These are some of the wealthiest towns in Mass, with the highest per capita income and real estate that is double and triple what we pay here; most real estate in those towns is well over a million. You didn't pay Dover prices for your home, and you don't pay Dover taxes, so don't act surprised that you can't afford Dover teachers; who, by the way, start as a step 1 B at $46,534; not that far off from us. The salaries are so high because their steps extend higher and they have more veteran teachers.

And don't compare Melrose to an urban district....those districts get a huge amount of state and federal funds, they are the winners in the state funding formula. And any teacher in Melrose could leave tomorrow and get a job in any nearby urban district and make considerably more money, but they don't. Working conditions are bad, and the burnout rate is high. Working in Melrose is a cake walk compared to working in Boston.

Class size in the elementary schools are mid to low 20's, they are not overcrowded. Text books are becoming obsolete, everything will be digital soon. As a sports parent, our athletic fees are in line with other districts.

Upgrading facilities is another matter....if you want a debt exclusion to rebuild the Winthrop, make that a separate proposal, and voters will consider that on its own merit. But your "laundry list" is unfocused, and unrealistic, the work of a naïve elementary parent who has no idea what the real educational needs of the district are. The district will not get a blank check from the voters....the voters will ask specifically how much is needed, and exactly what it will be spent on. The fact that you are "voting yes" before you even know what you will be paying for tells me all I need to know about the override supporters.

override should only be used for capital expenditure and physical plant such as renovations at older elementary schools and continuing renovations at MHS. Although I have kids in the system I would not vote for an override for salaries, only for buildings and equipment.

Maybe because Westford has an income 33% higher than Melrose.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/04/29/upshot/money-race-and-success-how-your-school-district-compares.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0

This is an interesting little chart.

A 33% difference in income is not enough to justify the performance difference between these school districts. Here is a hint that might help explain the difference: admin/teacher stability, policy transparency, and competent senior administration staff.

Westford has one of the largest percentages enrolled in the public HS at 97% (3% at private or parochial). Melrose HS enrollment is only 87%, Keep in mind MVCS is considered "public". If you factor out MVCS students from Melrose, enrollment at Melrose HS (vs. private/parochial/charter) is closer to 80%.

When 20% of students leave the district the performance is going to drop. You could also argue for the most part that these are "top" students - students with engaged families and/or the higher income.

So why do these 20% leave? Because the budget is not used correctly. The academics and the teachers at the HS level are not good enough. It becomes a negative cycle.

Start by not accepting "pretty good". Invest money wisely by hiring a firm like McKinsey to analyze the school budget. Clean house. Begin again.