Kevin Cunningham for Belmont

“One must steer, not talk.” – Seneca

The crisis that we all feared has come at last.

The Belmont Schools have become unsustainable and are well on their way to sinking irretrievably unless we immediately develop and implement a long-term plan, one that will involve significant action by the leadership and the collaboration of the entire community. Over the past few years, with the best of intentions – and with a remarkable ability to work efficiently with scarce resources – the schools have focused on addressing near-term budgets only. That is no longer enough. We need a long-term plan, and we need it now.

Is it still possible to keep this ship from crashing on the rocks?

I think so. Here’s what we’ll need to do:

— Create a clear and credible multi-year plan for addressing the problems. The plan must include real innovation, not mere preservation. This means seriously looking at such options as virtual education, consolidation/regionalization, intense lobbying at the state and federal level, community/business sponsorships, and other approaches hitherto put aside.

— Immediately and substantially reduce any cost drivers we can. In collective bargaining, we must strive to significantly reduce the rates at which salaries and benefits increase, perhaps introducing a freeze for some period while we stabilize the finances. Regarding SPED costs and other drivers, we must do everything we can to ensure that we are getting the most cost-effective quality services for our money.

— Live within our means. We must plan for and execute budgets responsibly and realistically, considering not only the current year but the long term, and facing the fact that Proposition 2 1/2 is not going away. “Hoping for an override” is not a plan – it might even be an avoidance of responsibility. Overrides may be necessary, but the schools must earn them by addressing the real problems. The efficient management of existing resources – at which the schools have excelled – is now insufficient to justify the taxpayer’s trust.

— Engage the whole community. We must welcome all perspectives and ideas with civility and gratitude, seeking to discover – and honor – the contributions that even the most irascible contributors are trying to make. Any solution to the problems we face will ultimately involve the entire community, so let’s work together.

— Restore the School Committee’s credibility through action. This goes beyond public relations or “communication”: only significant efforts that demonstrate resolution, forward-thinking, and good stewardship of the taxpayers’ money will change perceptions – and the reality underlying these perceptions. Yes, we really have to change how we do things.

I am running for School Committee to make sure that these goals are accomplished.

Why me? I have a life-long commitment to education, not only as parent of three children in the Belmont schools but in my professional life as a consultant to small businesses and educational institutions looking for efficiencies. I have degrees from MIT (Psychology) and Harvard (Education), I’ve developed curricula and taught thousands of people, I’m a trained mediator and a board member of the Foundation for Belmont Education.

It’s time for the School Committee to take the wheel and steer – to openly discuss policies and set and execute long-term goals. Now is the time to ensure fiscal responsibility, transparency – and yes, educational excellence.

Please vote for me on April 4. Let’s get this ship on course.

For more information about me, my ideas, my campaign – or to donate or volunteer – please visit Cunningham4Belmont.org, call me at (617) 489-4881, or email me at kcunning@alum.mit.edu.

Thank you.

Kevin Cunningham, Town Meeting Member from Precinct 4, lives on Chandler Street.

Our teachers are great.

They’re also employees of the town – and we are in the midst of an unprecedented fiscal crisis.

The School Committee and its professional negotiator are in the throes of an intense process of negotiating changes to the current contracts with the various cohorts of workers in the School Department. (The school staff are divided into five groups represented by different unions; the teachers are just one.)

During the coming years, when the new contracts will be in effect, there is no reason to believe that the economic conditions of the town will improve significantly. Certainly any improvements will be nowhere near the scale needed to offset the forces that are driving costs up at rates far exceeding inflation (SPED costs, health benefit increases – and employee compensation). Since passing annual overrides is improbable in the current environment (even the passage of a single override is questionable), we’ll have to live within the constraints of Proposition 2 1/2.

The negotiated salaries should be correspondingly frugal. Here are some suggested goals:

— Skip salary increases in FY12 – i.e., effectively agree to a wage freeze for the first year.

— For teachers, significantly reduce and restructure the “steps” and “lanes” – the built-in increases in compensation that reward experience and professional education – to result in much smaller increases over time, appropriate to the economic climate and supporting the rebalancing we need in the short term. “Steps” – increases given for each year in the system – should be significantly flattened. For example, a teacher with a Bachelor’s degree, in the system for 7 years, is currently set to receive a “step” increase of about $2,150 – that’s 3.7% (by no means the most extreme case). In the new contract, all “step” sizes should be reduced radically. I have even heard suggestions that the average rate should be cut to 0% for the duration of this next contract. I’m not going that far – just cutting last year’s rate to a third would give a $715 step size in the case cited, a 1.2% salary increase – still generous given the times. How about 0.75% or 0.5% average as a goal? (In practice, it isn’t as easy as flattening the scales across the board, because mathematically that would imply salary cuts, which I’m not necessarily proposing – for teachers anyway. A little bit of clever “grandfathering” could be used to make the changes equitable.) The “lane” upgrades – changes in the reference scale when a teacher gains a higher professional degree – should be similarly condensed.

— Unless the financial picture changes drastically, give no COLA awards during the whole contract period.

These are starting points for adjusting compensation. If more can be agreed to, so much the better. Benefits, a separate negotiation, should similarly be reexamined: should employees’ HMO contributions increase from the current 20%? Is a copay of $15 really fair in these times?

Changes like these would go a long way to improving the sustainability of our schools, and the credibility of our school leaders.

Naturally, there will be an uproar at any change. But the alternative is pretty obvious: letting go of more of our staff, mortally compromising the educational mission of the schools, and leaving a greatly reduced quality of life for those who survive the cut (in the form of of dramatically increased class sizes, elimination of professional development support, etc.)

Some may say the above changes don’t go far enough. I think they’re fair and respectful.

Yes, they’ll hurt.

But we’re all hurting.

Kevin Cunningham, Town Meeting Member from Precinct 4, lives on Chandler Street.

[NOTE: This article originally appeared in the Belmont Citizen-Herald, February 8, 2011. Click here to view the original posting, and view the user comments.]

I could use some advice.

Last year at this time, I ran for a vacant seat on the School Committee. I came in third, but I met a number of people, made a good showing in terms of votes, and think I made a difference in the discourse, which was what I was trying to do in the first place.

This year’s elections are coming around and I find the landscape appreciably changed, not necessarily for the better. In January, I vaguely considered whether I should run again, but given a very busy work schedule and other considerations, I put the thought aside, turned my civic energies to starting a series of articles on town topics, and thought little more of running for office until the other day. That’s when a member of a key committee in town pointedly approached me, made introductions, acknowledged me for my recent articles, and urged me with some intensity to “please run for School Committee.” Without prompting, this person added something to the effect that, “I think the current strategy the School Committee is using to fund the schools might ruin our whole school system.”

Thus catalyzed by a fellow citizen’s request that I at least consider trying to serve the town again, and with a set of arguments of my own for how things could be done more effectively, I find the question once more arising: should I run?

My “Yes” list includes:

— I believe I could add something to the School Committee.

— I have heard a good deal of dissatisfaction with the current School Committee. Some of this is mere grousing, but some are valid critiques that have not been heard. I am committed that all voices are heard.

— I might actually win this year. There are factions who are looking explicitly for an alternative to the status quo.

— Regardless of whether or not I win, the incumbents currently stand unopposed. My candidacy would force them to defend their records, clarify their intentions for the future, and debate issues which would otherwise be left unexplored. In this sense, I could help assure a more democratic process.

On my “No” list:

— I might actually win this year – I’m quite busy professionally and I’m well aware (indeed, stand in awe) of the many hours that members of most town committees contribute in their selfless service to the town. Do I really have the time? This will be a key factor to my decision – perhaps a deal-breaker.

— I do not like to appear opposed to people that I have absolutely no animosity toward. Last year, I was pleased at how collegial the election process was – all the candidates were on equal footing, with no incumbents to “oppose.” This year has a very different dynamic. I know both Ann Rittenburg and Laurie Graham personally and I have no interest in placing myself in opposition to them. But my presence in the election would inherently threaten their current roles.

Fine, I’ll need to weigh these and other factors. The decision of course is mine.

But I could also use some feedback from you. Would you like me to run? What advice would you give me? What could/should I bring to the School Committee table? What in general are your observations about the School Committee at this time?

Please post remarks to this column here or on the Belmont Citizen-Herald Website, or send comments to kcunning123@gmail.com if you prefer privacy.

Thanks ahead of time.

Kevin Cunningham, Town Meeting member from Precinct 4, lives on Chandler Street.

[NOTE: This article originally appeared in the Belmont Citizen-Herald, February 4, 2011. Click here to view the original posting and the user comments.]

There is something missing from the discussions I have heard regarding the best options for the town: these arguments proceed as if a reasonable solution, reasonably agreed upon, can be handed over to agents who will execute it reasonably. However, even assuming we could reach consensus, there is widespread doubt about the ability and willingness of the “powers that be” to proceed appropriately if so entrusted. In other words, with a few exceptions, the town leadership now has deep credibility issues. This undermines their ability to enlist the community at large behind them, even where what they say is reasonable.

I want to suggest some basic moves that I think are necessary to begin to repair the huge credibility problems that the town’s recognized leaders face. Without addressing this gap, the town’s agents can only limp along with the most meager accomplishments and support.

Some will rise up to defend these “honest public servants” who have “devoted so much of their time and effort to serve this community,” etc. But this is not personal: It is about public perception, which has a real significance on garnering support for initiatives, and it needs to be fixed if we’re to move forward. I speak now not to tear down these leaders; on the contrary, I want them – and the town – to succeed.

What, then, are some key actions the “powers that be” can perform that would help them earn back the public’s trust? Here are several:

— Clearly repudiate the efforts to construct a new library. Almost everyone in town knows that proceeding would be the inappropriate decision. To let the discussion continue as if it is even in the realm of possibility suggests that those in leadership positions cannot think straight, or stand up for what they know is right. It’s polite to let different opinions be heard, but it cuts away the town leaders’ credibility for them to not repudiate the plan – or similar grandiose building plans – when given the opportunity. (Never mind that planning for a new library uses up brainpower and good will for something that has no future).

— Make huge – game-changing – impacts in the salary/benefit negotiations this year, notably with the teachers and school staff. Without such changes, the agents of the town charged with the negotiations lose any credit for being reasonable stewards of the town’s money. This is true even if such negotiations are impossible for technical or legal reasons. “Giving 6 to 8 percent raises to the public sector while the private sector is getting laid-off is obscene” is emotionally irrefutable, regardless of the reality underlying it. And by the way, if significant changes in reimbursement and benefits are impossible, it’s not really a “negotiation,” is it? To pretend so itself loses said “negotiators” credibility.

— Make public all information on the Belmont Municipal Light Department substation project. The fact that Selectman Ralph Jones had to order a new report on the project (after the publicity nightmare of the “$5 million error”) de facto illustrates that the whole story has not been told. It is not clear that a new station is necessary; the arguments for it are one-sided and – with the reduction of credibility – increasingly unconvincing.

Who can trust anything said on the matter now without full disclosure?

You surely know of other areas where transparent, bold action illustrating fiscal and moral responsibility would help rebuild the credibility of the “powers that be.”

What would make your list?

Kevin Cunningham, Town Meeting member from Precinct 4, lives on Chandler Street.

[NOTE: This article originally appeared in the Belmont Citizen-Herald, January 31, 2011. Click here to view the original posting, and the many user comments.]

Having attended the School Department’s recent budget presentation, I was at first rent with sadness and a sense of helplessness. My heart sank as I thought about the loss of basic programs like music and art.

But my primary experience – the one that I left with, and which has only increased with time – is of intense irritation. Yes, this presentation, this whole exercise and its aftermath, irks me.

I have now seen a number of yearly budget presentations. These have all followed the same rhetorical pattern. “A level-services budget will be difficult,” we are told somberly, “but an available-funds budget would be a catastrophe. We are heading over the cliff unless the town finally pulls together to fund these core services…” (I think that fairly represents the line of argument put forward each year – with varying degrees of “drama” – for as far back as I’ve been attentive to this issue).

So, why my vexation, rather than, say, sadness?

First, the dichotomy between the “level-services budget” and the “available-funds budget” is a false one. If option B was “the bad choice” each year for however many years it’s been now – and each year we’ve chosen option B – then by definition we’re already way over the cliff. To suggest that a level-services budget would be “acceptable” while the available-funds budget would be a disaster is fatuous: both alternatives are cataclysmic.

But realizing this and trying to address the root problems – somehow we avoid this once again. Apparently it would not serve the storyline the town inevitably gravitates toward. So we go down the well-worn paths another time …

A large part of this annual pageant – I am speaking anthropologically – includes certain all-too-predictable community responses:

— On one side, tax-strained citizens argue that the budget presentation is a skewed tale painted in a specific way to evoke “fear and pity.” Some go further and say it’s a deliberate put-up job, cynically orchestrated by venal administrators to hoodwink the School Committee and the public into giving more money (some even hold the School Committee knowingly complicit in this game). “No Proposition 2 1/2 overrides,” they swear.

— Meanwhile, agitated droves of chronically-concerned parents find themselves reeling in horror from the apocalyptic picture now post-traumatically replaying in their minds. At first there is some talk about different ways to shore up funds and address concerns, but the sheer scale of the shortfall – and the apparent inability to directly address whatever the root causes of the problem are assumed to be – eventually causes a more precise and streamlined (if desperate) response: “We must have an override or all is lost.”
Swallows return to Capistrano, the town performs its annual wringing of hands.

This heartbreaking, repetitious spectacle is concerning because it prevents innovative concerted problem-solving. The town is replaying an old script, and reaching the old useless conclusions. The choice between override and non-override is false: neither option solves the root problems. Townspeople spend their precious energy wrangling with each other (“Restore art,” “No, save the elementary libraries,” “Down with all overrides” …) instead of working together to solve the core issues.

So yes, I am vexed that we enter this budget cycle with the same old story being replayed.

Aren’t you tired of it too?

Kevin Cunningham, Town Meeting member from Precinct 4, lives on Chandler Street.

I’m Kevin Cunningham, a resident and Town Meeting member from Belmont, MA.

This site is devoted to my efforts in the public arena to help our town.

Currently (March 2011), I am seeking membership on the Belmont School Committee. Forthcoming articles will focus primarily on that, but no doubt I will have occasional articles on other Town issues, or broader topics.

If I can be of service, please feel free to contact me at kcunning@alum.mit.edu or (617) 229-5081.