"$24,500+ of legal bills for one month's warrants. No wonder they claim to need an override. "

And that's on top of all the other accumulating legal bills, hiding who knows what in that compost heap called the Melrose School District.

Stop the silly arguing over GM, who by the way, didn't campaign or waste his time in the superficial campaign activities that Melrose pols do because he was busy doing real work analyzing the real issues here and sticking up for all of the true Patriots here who have nothing better to do than take cheap shots.

Well, GM always says we need to regionalize our schools, that is one of his platforms. I am not exactly sure how this would be implemented - is Wakefield really going to give up its superintendent, school committee, and administration to merge with us? Would we do it either? Sounds like a great idea for a talking point, and GM certainly harps on it often enough - but I don't know exactly how it could be implemented.

Dear Platform - please forgive my insolence but just because you can't think of a way to implement such policies - doesn't mean there is no way to do it! With creative, cooperative, intelligent, honest, and sincere efforts put to this task, any problem can be solved. It seesm that our Mayor has implemented similar regional agreements in the areas of public health and veterans services and the educational system should definitely be looked at to see where we could realize financial savings and better utilize existing resources - we have to get out of this mindset where creative thinking and problem solving pertains only to certain areas of city government.

The health departments and VA are much lower hanging fruit- what are their budgets, how many people in these departments - 1 or 2? To combine school systems would be giving up control of over $60 million dollars - over half of any town's general budget - and to say it is easy or doable is a stretch. Very few systems regionalize - and the ones that do are very small - not the size of any of the systems of our neighbors, which are all much larger. If it was easy more systems would be doing it. I find it annoying when GM throws it out there like it is so easy - and if only the SC and admin would listen to him, it would have been done yesterday.

Dozens of cities and towns in the DC suburbs regionalize schools, fire and police. Fairfax and Montgomery schools are some of the highest performing systems in the country and pay their teachers very well.

Why would Wakefield, or any other city or town for that matter, be willing to enter into an agreement with Melrose, given the deplorable state of our system? Only a fool would even consider it at this point. Some other time? Perhaps, but not until Melrose gets it's house in order, if it ever does.

It is not just DC that regionalize their school systems - it happens all over the US. Most systems outside of Mass have far fewer, much larger, schools which saves on administration costs (much easier to manage 1 large elementary school than 6 small ones). However, this in not the case in Mass, where communities have typically held firm to their own local services and schools. I am not saying the mass system is better (although maybe it is, since Mass has the best educational outcomes in the country), but I am saying that is the way it is here - and that attempts at regionalization have failed in other communities that have tried it. Mostly, only small, rural communities have been able to regionalize. So to make regionalization in Melrose seem "easy" or "doable" and to throw it out as an easy solution to our budget problems at every SC meeting is misleading.

Not an apt comparison at all. Fairfax (#4) and Montgomery (#10) counties, along with 4 others in VA and MD, are all listed among the top 10 wealthiest counties in America. Home to lots of overpaid federal government workers and contractors.

Which is why Dover-Sherborn Regional works, but Swampscott-Lynn Regional would not.

Agree that Fed workers are getting too many benefits on taxpayers backs..just like Ma state and city workers get too many benefits on taxpayers backs....Melrose taxpayers are ripped off paying BOA health insurance and they aren't even "true workers" who deserve "benefits".....RD bought them for his 26% raise....thus they authorize the OVERRIDE vote ....NO....not ethical or fair .... VOTING NO on the Override...

How do so many parents in the district come to the conclusion that there is effective management by this administration overall currently?

If school employees violated any laws or attempted coverups, they should pay their own legal bills - not the taxpayers. Otherwise the citizens get doubly harmed - by the act itself and in paying for the coverup. If the supt. or other admins didn't follow the law, her legal fees should come out of the salary she gets paid. Otherwise she is getting paid when she fails to do her job properly and taxpayers pay her again for her legal fees. Taxpayers shouldn't have to pay her salary when she does'nt follow the law.

My understanding is the $24,000 plus in legal bills is for just one reporting cycle. The actual bill for this is going to end up being a whole lot more than that. The SC will no doubt attempt to convince us that this amount is not solely expenses for just the Federal matter (it probably isn't - it also probably includes expenses in dealing with the open meeting law violations), but if you're expecting the SC to provide an accounting of the actual expenses in dealing with the Federal matter, you probably shouldn't hold your breath. Not a bad deal for the lawyers - first, give really crappy legal advice, then rake in the fees for defending the results of your crappy legal advice.

So what do they call 100 lawyers on the bottom of the ocean? A good start.

Yes, there is a an article written by the MA DESE as to the reasons why school consolidation has seen so much resistance in Massachusetts. It is here:
http://www.doe.mass.edu/research/reports/2009/11consolidation.pdf.

And this article was written in 2009 - when the economy was crashing and school districts were cutting back due to budget issues - there was never more of an incentive as there was then to consolidate services and budgets. If it couldn't be done then, I am not sure how it can be done now. It is not the solution to our budget issues.

What the heck are you talking about....back in 2009....there was a hugh stimulus bill passed by congress when Obama became president! Every government group got money and especially education. All government agencies expanded and some - big time! Just take a close look at the department of education in Washington - they had plenty of money over the years to come up with "Common Core" - you know that Washington derived education, bureauracy ladden initiative!

The situation is much worse now with federal dollars drying up...no more stimulus money, state dollars are being reduced each year, while salaries of education staff, admin, and teachers, along with bloated benefts and mostly unfunded retirements accounts, are putting pressure on city budgets! It certainly does not take a brain surgeon to figure that something has to change in this equation - it is certainly time to look at some sort of regionalization of some part of the education system - and it better be started soon!

I agree MFD. You made a strong case for the override. You have convinced me I am voting yes!

I really hope that was a facetious comment. An override won't address the bloat, it will only add to it. Yes, Myron is a blowhard, but every once in a while he gets something right - law of averages maybe. The school system already spends about 70% of total revenue. They just soaked us for 5 mil for a bond for "renovations", and now they want this override, which in case you haven't figured it out yet, is forever. Please tell me your comment was a facetious reaction to Myron's hot air.

Just a quick reply to the last two posters: I agree that I am opinionated, have opinions about most issues, and am not afraid to voice my opinions given that we live in a free and open society - thank god! If some of you think that it makes me a blowhard - so be it! Unlike many who are part of the "silent majority", I intend to have my opinions heard - then others can decided whether my comments have merit or not.

Kudos to MFD for expressing his views openly. He and Patricia Wright are the only two on this message board to sign their name. You can count on one hand the people in Melrose with enough courage to express their opinions publicly.

Many need to post anonymously to protect their families from illegal intimidation and retaliatory tactics of the current school administration and their legal counsel. Expect more of this institutionalized corruption in the near future and don't expect the DOR's Civil Rights investigation to change this behavior long term.

Perhaps not, but the accompanying civil suit might.

On Nov. 3, the city of Melrose will vote on whether to enact a property tax override. It is what it is.

This is right at the heart of the dysfunction in Melrose. From the start of this mayor's term he has surrounded himself only with those who tell him what he wants to hear. He has legal counsel that has provided truly wrong "guidance" over many issues. Same with School Committee, who hired the attorney that the Boston Schools had fired, and has kept this one in place all this time, despite many hundreds of thousands of dollars in "settlements" over the past 13 years for highly questionable cases. The taxpayers are largely kept in the dark on all of it, on the grounds (mostly specious) of "Personnel" or "Student Confidentiality" though anyone with half a brain can see that a lot of other issues that have nothing to do with personnel or students are being concealed as well. It's clear after reading the Secretary of State's recent ruling on the illegal "redactions" of the School Committee and Superintendent Taymore (done in total contempt of the laws they know only too well) that these officials are willing to risk everything (including many taxpayer dollars) in order to protect themselves, regardless of whether it's legal or not, and more importantly that they have employed their fleet of attorneys to shore up their specious claims. This means that they get to double-dip: get paid for giving (bad) advice and then get paid again for defending the bad actions, which certainly works for them and most certainly hurts every taxpayer in Melrose.

Here's an idea: someone with a bit of know-how (or better yet, one of those (spineless wonders) on the BOA who are currently or have been city solicitors themselves) could research the possibility of filing legal malpractice against those attorneys who have given overtly wrong (and even illegal) "advice" to any of the city's boards leading to findings against the city.

A city solicitor giving bad or incompetent advice is one thing. Using the position to threat and intimidate civilian complainants who bring forth violations by teachers and administrators in order to scare them off is illegal and a violation of Mass Bar Rules.

If this is true (and not doubting your account!), you should file a formal complaint with the MA Board of Bar Overseers. This should happen!

Citizen is right. This would be a violation of Rule 3.4 para(h):

A member of the bar shall not present, participate in presenting, or threaten to present criminal or disciplinary charges solely to obtain an advantage in a private civil matter;

Comment

[1] The procedure of the adversary system contemplates that the evidence in a case is to be marshalled competitively by the contending parties. Fair competition in the adversary system is secured by prohibitions against destruction or concealment of evidence, improperly influencing witnesses, obstructive tactics in discovery procedure, and the like.

[2] Documents and other items of evidence are often essential to establish a claim or defense. Subject to evidentiary privileges, the right of an opposing party, including the government, to obtain evidence through discovery or subpoena is an important procedural right. The exercise of that right can be frustrated if relevant material is altered, concealed or destroyed. Applicable law in many jurisdictions makes it an offense to destroy material for purpose of impairing its availability in a pending proceeding or one whose commencement can be foreseen. Falsifying evidence is also generally a criminal offense. Paragraph (a) applies to evidentiary material generally, including computerized information