Do you have your tickets to the Amherst 250th Gala on Saturday Dec 5, 2009 from
6 pm to 1 am yet?

I'm going to Hastings to get mine today.  I'm told the facility -- UMass Campus
Center Auditorium -- wants a head count this Thursday!  So get your tickets now,
at Hastings or at the LSSE office in the Bangs Center, or on online:
http://tinyurl.com/250thgalaLSSE

Looking for more info?  Check out one of the other links, below -- and send them
along to your friends!  The more the merrier!

Yep, it's $50 each, but hey, a gala like this comes around every 50 years, at
best!!  And no, I don't dance, and yes, tuxedos are optional -- but *I'm*
planning on having Steven wear one:-)

Take care,
Alisa
avbrewer AT comcast dot net

http://www.amherst250.org/index.php?id=66

http://amherstma.gov/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=219

Amherst 250th Gala Tickets On Sale Now
Posted on 11/14/2009
An exciting year of 250th festivities is wrapping up on December 5th with
Amherst's 250th Gala Celebration, a black tie optional affair, being held at the
UMass Campus Center Auditorium. Community members are heartily encouraged to
"Dine and Dance through the Decades!"

Dubbed "the party of the century," this event will feature a cocktail reception;
an outstanding dinner; and dancing to musical hits from the 1920s through the
present.

The extremely popular Paris Band will play from the event's 6pm start through
10pm. Paris specializes in playing the biggest hits from the 1940s through
today. John Benedict, musicologist DJ, will then thru 1 a.m. spin more greatest
hits from the past century.

Gala attendees will dance to everything from the Charleston to the Twist to the
Hustle and beyond! "It should be a really fun evening no matter what your
musical taste," says Gala co-chair, Cinda Jones. "A mother-daughter dance duo
from UMass has agreed to demonstrate some great old classic dances like the
Charleston and the Lindy Hop!" "This is an evening to gather your friends and
demonstrate some old classics like the hustle and the robot" retorted Maureen
Raab, event Chair.

Tickets are for sale at Hastings, Leisure Services (at the Bangs Center) and
online at www.amherst250.org. Individual tickets cost $50 until Nov. 25; Nov. 26
and later tickets are $60. Tables for 8 and 10 people may be reserved.

Tickets are selling out fast, and the seat count is due before Thanksgiving, so
those desiring to attend are urged to reserve their tickets soon.

Dear Town Meeting Colleagues,

The town continues its 250th anniversary celebration in November—themed “teaching and learning”—with a special Cap and Gown./Town and Gown discussion  and a children’s theater event.  The activities, which are free and open to the public, are part of a year’s worth of commemorations marking the semiquincentennial of the town. Remaining events on the calendar include a grand gala, an installation art project and a lecture on the future of Amherst.

The details for remaining November’s events are as follows:

 Nov. 15, 3 p.m.—Children’s Readers Theater at Jones Library.

 Nov. 17, 4:30 to 6 p.m.—“Cap and Gown/Town and Gown,” a panel discussion of higher education in Amherst involving Frederick T. Griffiths, Joyce Hatch and Charles R. Longsworth and moderated by Lorna M. Peterson.  "Look Back and Wonder," Ernie Allen's film on the history of the University's African American Studies department, will be shown at 7pm

 A complete calendar of the years remaining events can be seen here

Thank you to all of our business and higher education partners who serve as generous sponsors and have made all of these events and programming possible. Please let these sponsors know that you appreciate their contributions to our community.

In December we will mark the end of a year of events commemorating its 250^th anniversary with a grand gala on Dec. 5 from 6 p.m. to 1 a.m. at the University of Massachusetts Campus Center. Tickets to the celebration—which cost $50 per person—are available now at A.J. Hastings (45 Pleasant St.) and Amherst Leisure Services (in the Bangs Community Center (70 Boltwood Walk) or online by clicking here

The price of admission includes a sumptuous banquet and then dancing to musical hits from the 1920s through today.  The band Paris! —which specializes in playing the biggest hits from the 1940s to the present—will play from 6 p.m. to 10 p.m. and then turn over the musical reins to John Benedict, musicologist DJ, who will spin more greatest hits from the past century from 10 p.m. to 1 a.m.  Revelers will be able to dance to everything from the Charleston to the Twist to the Hustle and more! It promises to be a fun evening no matter what your musical taste.

Attire for the celebration is black tie optional, and the gathering is open to anyone 21 and older. Tickets are limited, so get your seats now!

We look forward to Dancing through the Decades with you on December 5th.

Adrienne Terrizzi, Prct. 7

for the 250th Committee

H1N1 Immunization Clinic for Amherst kids & pregnant Amherst moms Wednesday
11-11-09 @ARMS 9 am - 1 pm

Check out one of the following links for more info:

http://amherstma.gov/

http://www.arps.org/

http://alisaforamherst.blogspot.com/




Alisa V. Brewer
avbrewer AT comcast DOT net

Colleagues,

Although Town Meeting has concluded, I still have questions regarding Article 9.
Since I wasn’t recognized to ask these questions during TM debate, I post them
to this list with the hopes that Planning Board members or others with insights
might try to answer them.

I have four questions, all related to concerns touched on in the debate, but
none fully answered as far as I’m concerned.

1) One of the arguments in favor of Article 9 was that it attempts to address
ambiguities in the bylaw reflected in the recent challenge to the Building
Commissioner’s ruling disallowing a medical office in the PRP district. It
seems to me, however, that the new definitions in the bylaw create some more
significant new ambiguities when a proposed practice is configured in a way
that it falls between these definitions.

Since medical offices are defined as including “no more than…three (3) principal
health care providers and two (2) other medical or dental professionals," while
group practices include “four (4) or more principal health care providers, and
three (3) or more "other medical or dental professionals," it seems there are a
number of ways that a practice could fall outside of either of these
definitions. First, since fractional FTEs are possible, one could have 3.5
“principal” providers and/or 2.5 “other” professionals, thus falling right
between the two definitions. Secondly, since there are two variables to be met
for each definition, you can have a situation where one variable fits one
definition while the second fits the other definition. This concern was raised
by Gerry Weiss, but the answers he received did not seem to address the problem
as I see it.

My question is: What should the Building Commissioner do when faced with such
situations? If I were a lawyer representing a medical practice with such a
configuration, I’d argue that if it doesn’t fit the full definition of the more
restricted “medical group practice” it should be allowed under “medical office.”
Neighbors, of course, will take the opposite position. I suspect the ZBA will
once again have to weigh in, and we will hear again about the complexity of our
zoning bylaw.

I wonder why the Planning Board didn’t address the problem of the fractional
FTE’s by starting the group practice definition from where the office
definition left off. That is to say, rather than defining the group practice as
“four or more” and “three or more” could have written “more than three” and more
than two.” I also wonder, regarding the problem of two variables, why they
didn’t make the definitions based on “principal” providers and “total”
providers (“principal” plus “others”) rather than “principal” and “other”.
Alternatively, they could have addressed this problem by using “or” rather than
“and” in the definition of group practice. (A practice is a group practice if
either variable exceeds the threshold, rather than, as it is written, if both
thresholds are exceeded.)

There seem to be similar ambiguities with the definition of Medical Center: “Two
(2) or more medical group practices, or an equivalent aggregation of medical
offices, operating in the same building or on the same property.” That
definition suggests that two medical offices on the same property would not be
big enough to qualify as a medical center (since that’s not equivalent to two
group practices) but what about three? or four? Do we count “principal” health
care providers, “other” providers, total providers, or some combination? It
seems there is plenty of room for disagreement here too.

I don’t understand how these definitions made it all the way through all the PB
hearings and meetings, and passed town meeting with such ambiguities in place.

2) My second question if more brief: Is this enforceable and who will enforce
it?

Normally, one has to either make physical changes to a property or have
significant changes in how it is used to move it from complying to
non-complying. However, under the new section 3.360 of our zoning bylaw, as we
amended it with Article 9, a medical practice could be approved and established
under special permit in either the PRP or R-VC district and then, by simply
hiring one additional medical professional, become non-complying. How will this
be monitored? Is there any officer of the town or appointed body that tracks the
number and type of employees in our local businesses? Do we want them to? How do
we protect the interests of neighborhoods that don’t want to see an office to
grow larger than allowed while avoiding putting unnecessary burdens on medical
practitioners by constantly asking them to document the number of professionals
working in their practice?

3) The PB report on Article 9 stated that “in an attempt to balance…conflicting
public concerns, under Article 9, only the smallest and least impactful medical
use category—“medical office”—is proposed to be permitted in the PRP District,
and only under a discretionary Special Permit.”

Here my question is: How much protection does this really provides for
neighborhoods? There are two parts to this.

First, as was suggested during the debate, it seems that multiple medical
offices, allowed in PRP and R-VC by special permit, could create as much or
more impact as the disallowed group practice or even perhaps a single medical
center. Given that, in a PRP, multiple buildings and properties share the same
driveways and routes of access, then allowing multiple medical offices in
abutting properties, as the bylaw now does, makes the prohibition of two or
more medical offices on a single property rather a meaningless protection.
Second, the protection provided by requiring a special permit is limited. Two
ZBA members with whom I have spoken assert that, once they approve one medical
office in a particular district, it is unlikely that they will have grounds to
block subsequent offices. In other words, permitting the “smallest and least
impactful” use opens the door to a larger and more “impactful” outcome.

4) Finally, the PB report makes the point that although “spurred by a specific
permit application in one PRP District, [Article 9’s] amendments are crafted to
operate in all zoning districts town-wide.” However, as Rob Crowner pointed out
during the debate, apart from allowing medical offices under SP in PRP and
R-VC, Article 9 otherwise treated all medical uses identically in all districts
(permitting them under SPR in five business districts and prohibiting them in
residential districts as well as light industry and farmland preservation
districts. By passing Article 11, creating the BN district, we established one
more variation, allowing both medical offices and group practices in that new
district.

My question: Is the Planning Board currently considering any further changes to
zoning that would differentiate the treatment of the three more intensive
medical uses, either allowing one or more uses in districts where not currently
allowed or by excluding one of the more intensive uses from any of the 5
districts where currently allowed?

I look forward to your thoughts

Jim Oldham, P5

Colleagues,

Although Town Meeting has concluded, I still have questions regarding Article 9.
Since I wasn’t recognized to ask these questions during TM debate, I post them
to this list with the hopes that Planning Board members or others with insights
might try to answer them.

I have four questions, all related to concerns touched on in the debate, but
none fully answered as far as I’m concerned.

1) One of the arguments in favor of Article 9 was that it attempts to address
ambiguities in the bylaw reflected in the recent challenge to the Building
Commissioner’s ruling disallowing a medical office in the PRP district. It
seems to me, however, that the new definitions in the bylaw create some more
significant new ambiguities when a proposed practice is configured in a way
that it falls between these definitions.

Since medical offices are defined as including “no more than…three (3) principal
health care providers and two (2) other medical or dental professionals," while
group practices include “four (4) or more principal health care providers, and
three (3) or more "other medical or dental professionals," it seems there are a
number of ways that a practice could fall outside of either of these
definitions. First, since fractional FTEs are possible, one could have 3.5
“principal” providers and/or 2.5 “other” professionals, thus falling right
between the two definitions. Secondly, since there are two variables to be met
for each definition, you can have a situation where one variable fits one
definition while the second fits the other definition. This concern was raised
by Gerry Weiss, but the answers he received did not seem to address the problem
as I see it.

My question is: What should the Building Commissioner do when faced with such
situations? If I were a lawyer representing a medical practice with such a
configuration, I’d argue that if it doesn’t fit the full definition of the more
restricted “medical group practice” it should be allowed under “medical office.”
Neighbors, of course, will take the opposite position. I suspect the ZBA will
once again have to weigh in, and we will hear again about the complexity of our
zoning bylaw.

I wonder why the Planning Board didn’t address the problem of the fractional
FTE’s by starting the group practice definition from where the office
definition left off. That is to say, rather than defining the group practice as
“four or more” and “three or more” could have written “more than three” and more
than two.” I also wonder, regarding the problem of two variables, why they
didn’t make the definitions based on “principal” providers and “total”
providers (“principal” plus “others”) rather than “principal” and “other”.
Alternatively, they could have addressed this problem by using “or” rather than
“and” in the definition of group practice. (A practice is a group practice if
either variable exceeds the threshold, rather than, as it is written, if both
thresholds are exceeded.)

There seem to be similar ambiguities with the definition of Medical Center: “Two
(2) or more medical group practices, or an equivalent aggregation of medical
offices, operating in the same building or on the same property.” That
definition suggests that two medical offices on the same property would not be
big enough to qualify as a medical center (since that’s not equivalent to two
group practices) but what about three? or four? Do we count “principal” health
care providers, “other” providers, total providers, or some combination? It
seems there is plenty of room for disagreement here too.

I don’t understand how these definitions made it all the way through all the PB
hearings and meetings, and passed town meeting with such ambiguities in place.

2) My second question if more brief: Is this enforceable and who will enforce
it?

Normally, one has to either make physical changes to a property or have
significant changes in how it is used to move it from complying to
non-complying. However, under the new section 3.360 of our zoning bylaw, as we
amended it with Article 9, a medical practice could be approved and established
under special permit in either the PRP or R-VC district and then, by simply
hiring one additional medical professional, become non-complying. How will this
be monitored? Is there any officer of the town or appointed body that tracks the
number and type of employees in our local businesses? Do we want them to? How do
we protect the interests of neighborhoods that don’t want to see an office to
grow larger than allowed while avoiding putting unnecessary burdens on medical
practitioners by constantly asking them to document the number of professionals
working in their practice?

3) The PB report on Article 9 stated that “in an attempt to balance…conflicting
public concerns, under Article 9, only the smallest and least impactful medical
use category—“medical office”—is proposed to be permitted in the PRP District,
and only under a discretionary Special Permit.”

Here my question is: How much protection does this really provides for
neighborhoods? There are two parts to this.

First, as was suggested during the debate, it seems that multiple medical
offices, allowed in PRP and R-VC by special permit, could create as much or
more impact as the disallowed group practice or even perhaps a single medical
center. Given that, in a PRP, multiple buildings and properties share the same
driveways and routes of access, then allowing multiple medical offices in
abutting properties, as the bylaw now does, makes the prohibition of two or
more medical offices on a single property rather a meaningless protection.
Second, the protection provided by requiring a special permit is limited. Two
ZBA members with whom I have spoken assert that, once they approve one medical
office in a particular district, it is unlikely that they will have grounds to
block subsequent offices. In other words, permitting the “smallest and least
impactful” use opens the door to a larger and more “impactful” outcome.

4) Finally, the PB report makes the point that although “spurred by a specific
permit application in one PRP District, [Article 9’s] amendments are crafted to
operate in all zoning districts town-wide.” However, as Rob Crowner pointed out
during the debate, apart from allowing medical offices under SP in PRP and
R-VC, Article 9 otherwise treated all medical uses identically in all districts
(permitting them under SPR in five business districts and prohibiting them in
residential districts as well as light industry and farmland preservation
districts. By passing Article 11, creating the BN district, we established one
more variation, allowing both medical offices and group practices in that new
district.

My question: Is the Planning Board currently considering any further changes to
zoning that would differentiate the treatment of the three more intensive
medical uses, either allowing one or more uses in districts where not currently
allowed or by excluding one of the more intensive uses from any of the 5
districts where currently allowed?

I look forward to your thoughts

Jim Oldham, P5

Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could have quorum and start at 7:30?  We've done
it recently, and we can do it again!

Remember that the 250th Parade slides start at 7 pm.  These images are
*separate* from the Official Amherst 250th Parade DVD done by Serio:

http://www.amherst250.org/index.php?id=65
http://seriovideo.com/comm/amherst250/amherst250th-02.htm

and ACTV's Official Amherst 250th Parade DVD:

http://www.actvamherst.com/Site/250th_Parade_DVD.html
http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=739836000652&ref=mf

(clearly, "official" is not yet trademarked:-)

Take care,
Alisa

Here's the link to tonight's motion sheet Session 2 http://www.amherstma.gov/DocumentView.aspx?DID=2827  .

Be sure to stop by the TMCC display of Town Meeting through the Years" in the main Auditorium lobby.

Town Meeting Coordinating Committee

Here's the link to tonight's motion sheet - http://www.amherstma.gov/DocumentView.aspx?DID=2822  .

Be sure to stop by the TMCC display of Town Meeting through the Years" in the main Auditorium lobby.

Town Meeting Coordinating Committee

Please  have Prof. Washington call me.
Isaac

--- On Fri, 10/30/09, vladimirmorales@... <vladimirmorales@...>
wrote:

> From: vladimirmorales@... <vladimirmorales@...>
> Subject: Re: [AmhTownMtg] Re: public input on schools and other issues
> To: amhersttownmeeting@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Friday, October 30, 2009, 4:58 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
>
>
>                   Issac
> , 
> GIve me a date, for Prof.
> Washington.
> Paz/Peace
> Vladimir
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Isaac BenEzra" <isaacbenezra@
> yahoo.com>
> To: amhersttownmeeting@ yahoogroups. com
> Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 4:36:24 PM GMT -05:00
> US/Canada Eastern
> Subject: Re: [AmhTownMtg] Re: public input on schools and
> other issues
>
>
>  
>
>
>
>
>
>                   I contacted your friend that was
> interested in a Conversations interview. As of now..no
> reply. Please follow up.
>
> Isaac
>
>
>
> --- On Thu, 10/29/09, vladimirmorales@
> comcast.net <vladimirmorales@
> comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > From: vladimirmorales@
> comcast.net <vladimirmorales@
> comcast.net>
>
> > Subject: Re: [AmhTownMtg] Re: public input on schools
> and other issues
>
> > To: amhersttownmeeting@
> yahoogroups. com
>
> > Cc: isaacbenezra@
> yahoo.com
>
> > Date: Thursday, October 29, 2009, 8:59 AM
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >  
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >                   Hola
>
> > Issac,
>
> > Right on target! But the question is "Why
>
> > are we here?" I have another thought.   Why
>
> > can't we arrange a series of forumsto address
>
> > what I believe is the "discord and
>
> > dissatisfaction" of the Amherst community?
>
> > Would anyone on this list be willing to help
>
> > coordinate such an
>
> > effort?  
>
> > Paz/Peace,
>
> > Vladimir MoralesPrct.
>
> > #6413-256-1344
>
> > Let me 
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
>
> > From: "Isaac BenEzra" <isaacbenezra@
>
> > yahoo.com>
>
> > To: amhersttownmeeting@ yahoogroups. com
>
> > Cc: isaacbenezra@ yahoo.com
>
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 7:01:40 PM GMT
> -05:00
>
> > US/Canada Eastern
>
> > Subject: Re: [AmhTownMtg] Re: public input on schools
> and
>
> > other issues
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >  
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >                   Hi Irv,
>
> >
>
> > Interesting exchange of views with Ms. Gelfand.
>
> >
>
> > Are you inferring that a committment to an over ride
> could
>
> > change the prospect of MM school closinng at this
> time?
>
> >
>
> > Would that result in keeping the Latino and Cambodia
>
> > community programs?
>
> >
>
> > If you mean what you suggest as a solution, I would
> be
>
> > happy to follow your leadership for an over ride
> locally,
>
> > coupled with working to address state and national
>
> > priorities. (Leave No Child Behind etc.)
>
> >
>
> > I view School Committee meetings on ACTV. You have a
> great
>
> > challenging job representing wonderful parents and
> their
>
> > children. Keep the faith.
>
> >
>
> > Fondly, Isaac
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > --- On Tue, 10/27/09, Irv Rhodes <rhodesamherst@
>
> > aol.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > From: Irv Rhodes <rhodesamherst@
>
> > aol.com>
>
> >
>
> > > Subject: [AmhTownMtg] Re: public input on schools
> and
>
> > other issues
>
> >
>
> > > To: sgelfan@rcn.
>
> > com, amhersttownmeeting@
>
> > yahoogroups. com
>
> >
>
> > > Date: Tuesday, October 27, 2009, 1:29 PM
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >  
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Stephanie, I
>
> >
>
> > > can assure that no matter if we cut every single
>
> >
>
> > > administrator in the Amherst Schools (except for
>
> > principles
>
> >
>
> > > and assistant principals) that the savings
> realized
>
> > would
>
> >
>
> > > not be sufficient to keep open Marks Meadow and
>
> > continue to
>
> >
>
> > > fund our schools now and in the future. You are
>
> > welcome to
>
> >
>
> > > look at all of the financial information
> available to
>
> > the
>
> >
>
> > > school committee and then draw your own
>
> >
>
> > > conclusions.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >  
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > I must say that it pains me greatly to hear
>
> >
>
> > > members of our community express anger,
> resentment,
>
> > pain,
>
> >
>
> > > frustration and a host of other emotions over
> the
>
> > perceived
>
> >
>
> > > inequities based on race, class and ethnicity
> present
>
> > in
>
> >
>
> > > Amherst. The comments that I have received from
> people
>
> > who
>
> >
>
> > > have characterized themselves as, Hispanic,
> African
>
> >
>
> > > American, White and who come from all economic
> strata,
>
> > all
>
> >
>
> > > say the same thing that Amherst has race and
> class
>
> > divisions
>
> >
>
> > > that color their perceptions of what goes on in
> the
>
> > town.
>
> >
>
> > > The wonder is that this situation goes on
> unabated by
>
> > time
>
> >
>
> > > and is seemingly immune to the passage of
> time. I
>
> > have
>
> >
>
> > > no answers and it appears that the Town has no
>
> > answers, but
>
> >
>
> > > that does not mean that we should not be
> vigorously
>
> > pursuing
>
> >
>
> > > answers.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Irv Rhodes
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > -----Original Message-----
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > From: sgelfan@rcn. com
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > To: Irv Rhodes <rhodesamherst@ aol.com>;
>
> >
>
> > > amhersttownmeeting@ yahoogroups. com
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Sent: Tue, Oct 27, 2009 11:48 am
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Subject: Re: public input on schools and other
> issues
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Irv, you wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > “Perhaps the good folks who want to keep Marks
>
> > Meadow
>
> >
>
> > > open and keep everything
>
> >
>
> > > else the same, so that the status quo is
> maintained
>
> > would
>
> >
>
> > > lead such an effort to
>
> >
>
> > > get this [override] on the ballot.”
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > I absolutely do not want to maintain the status
> quo.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > There are plenty of ways to keep Marks Meadow
> open
>
> > without
>
> >
>
> > > having an override,
>
> >
>
> > > just as there was no good reason to sell out the
>
> > lunch
>
> >
>
> > > ladies in order to
>
> >
>
> > > supposedly save $150,000 a few years back (while
>
> >
>
> > > simultaneously announcing a new
>
> >
>
> > > “Social Justice” curriculum.)
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > When our School Committee is willing, position
> by
>
> > position,
>
> >
>
> > > to find out how many
>
> >
>
> > > people are employed as teaching
> staff/administrator s,
>
> > but
>
> >
>
> > > do not actually teach
>
> >
>
> > > students, and then eliminate most of those
> positions,
>
> > our
>
> >
>
> > > schools will have
>
> >
>
> > > plenty of money, and the students and their
> teachers
>
> > will
>
> >
>
> > > be much better off.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > I am not talking about principals and assistant
>
> > principals,
>
> >
>
> > > I am referring to
>
> >
>
> > > all those other people, and there are lots, who
> do not
>
> > work
>
> >
>
> > > directly with
>
> >
>
> > > students, but have the ultimate authority over
> actual
>
> >
>
> > > teachers on how best to
>
> >
>
> > > “meet the needs” of students they have never
> met.
>
> > Many,
>
> >
>
> > > but not all, are listed
>
> >
>
> > > under “Special Education.”
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > This goes hand-in-hand with the intra-school
>
> > inequities,
>
> >
>
> > > based on race and
>
> >
>
> > > class, which begin in kindergarten and go
> through
>
> > high
>
> >
>
> > > school in Amherst.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >  Whether it be extra in-school tutoring or
> placement
>
> > into
>
> >
>
> > > more advanced classes,
>
> >
>
> > > the decision as to who gets what is often race-
> and
>
> >
>
> > > class-based, and is made by
>
> >
>
> > > someone other than the teachers who actually know
> the
>
> >
>
> > > students.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Since these inequities in learning opportunities
> start
>
> > in
>
> >
>
> > > the primary grades,
>
> >
>
> > > they are most effective in creating an
> “achievement
>
> >
>
> > > gap.”
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > These inequities are costing the school system
>
> > hundreds of
>
> >
>
> > > thousands of dollars,
>
> >
>
> > > and they will not be addressed by redistricting.
> If
>
> >
>
> > > anything, they will be more
>
> >
>
> > > intrenched, with new excuses for why poor
> children are
>
> > not
>
> >
>
> > > doing as well
>
> >
>
> > > academically as their more well-off peers.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Of course, then there will be people who will say
> the
>
> >
>
> > > school system  needs
>
> >
>
> > > another override to fund another $200,000 to fund
> a
>
> >
>
> > > “study” of the problem....
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Stephanie Gelfan
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Date:   Tue, 27 Oct 2009 10:18:34 -0400     4 of
> 1114
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > From:   Irv Rhodes <rhodesamherst@
>
> >
>
> > > aol.com>
>
> >
>
> > > Subject:    Re: public input on schools and
> other
>
> > issues
>
> >
>
> > > To: sgelfan@rcn. com
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Why not a monetary referendum, i.e. an over ride
> of
>
> > 5-6
>
> >
>
> > > million dollars so that
>
> >
>
> > > Marks Meadow could stay open provide the
> necessary
>
> > services
>
> >
>
> > > for the rest of the
>
> >
>
> > > Town and provide sufficient funding so that the
>
> > schools can
>
> >
>
> > > deliver a quality
>
> >
>
> > > education for all children and not have to make
>
> > drastic
>
> >
>
> > > budget cuts. Perhaps the
>
> >
>
> > > good folks who want to keep Marks Meadow open
> and
>
> > keep
>
> >
>
> > > everything else the same,
>
> >
>
> > > so that the status quo is maintained would lead
> such
>
> > an
>
> >
>
> > > effort to get this on
>
> >
>
> > > the ballot. If the citizens of Amherst approve
> the
>
> > override
>
> >
>
> > > then we would know
>
> >
>
> > > that they indeed are against closing Marks
> Meadow
>
> > (hence
>
> >
>
> > > against redistricting
>
> >
>
> > > ).
>
> >
>
> > > Irv Rhodes
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hi!
It serves no constructive purpose to respond to all people who have legitimate
concerns about major educational decisions by referring to them as "unaware of
the real financial crisis".
The Facilitation Committee appropriately provided an analysis: short and long
term. Without prejudice to possible solutions.
I am hearing some of those concerns. We are all in this together. I believe the
best outcome will materialize through a process that hears and listens to the
parents concerned.
Keep the faith.
Isaac
--- On Sat, 10/31/09, Anne and Chris Hoffmann <hoffmann.chris@...>
wrote:

> From: Anne and Chris Hoffmann <hoffmann.chris@...>
> Subject: Re: [!! SPAM]  Re: [AmhTownMtg] Re: public input on schools and other
issues
> To: amhersttownmeeting@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Saturday, October 31, 2009, 4:35 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Isaac BenEzra wrote:
>  
>
>
>   I was on the Facilitation committee. I do not recall
> factoring in
> the costs related to the closing of the MM school.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Isaac,
>
>
>
> Sorry if I complicated things by bringing up the
> Facilitation
> Committee. My purpose wasn't to imply that you folks
> had approved of,
> or even had been presented with, the possibility of closing
> Marks
> Meadow.
>
>
>
> It seems that there are a lot of people who still don't
> seem to believe
> that there is a real crisis, or if there is, that there
> must be some
> pretty painless changes we can make to preserve all the
> services we've
> been used to all these years. What I wanted to point out is
> that there
> was a committee of people from all across the spectrum of
> Amherst
> political thought who came together and agreed that: the
> crisis is
> real, it's huge, it's here now, and there are no
> simple solutions.
>
>
>
> [I'm still amazed by all the effort you guys put into
> this work and the
> quality of the report you produced, by the way. Fantastic
> job.]
>
>
>
> Chris Hoffmann/pct7
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

 

I was on the Facilitation committee. I do not recall factoring in the costs related to the closing of the MM school.

I was on the Facilitation committee. I do not recall factoring in the costs
related to the closing of the MM school.
Isaac

--- On Thu, 10/29/09, Chris and Anne Hoffmann <hoffmann.chris@...>
wrote:

> From: Chris and Anne Hoffmann <hoffmann.chris@...>
> Subject: Re: [AmhTownMtg] Re: public input on schools and other issues
> To: amhersttownmeeting@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Thursday, October 29, 2009, 10:38 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I'd also like to point out the incredibly depressing
> fact that even an
> override doesn't solve our budget crisis nor mean that
> it could bring
> in enough money to support Marks Meadow beyond an
> additional year or so.
>
>
>
> If you still haven't read the Facilitation of Community
> Choices report,
> you should. Check out the summary presentation here:
>
>
>
> http://www.amherstm
> a.gov/DocumentVi ew.aspx?DID= 1807
>
>
>
> In particular, look at the graph on page 11. Costs are
> rising faster
> than revenue. An override can immediately narrow the gap
> for a single
> year, but it doesn't change the fact that the projected
> revenue line
> increases more slowly than projected expenditures will and
> the deficit
> will continue to grow.
>
>
>
> As the report says on page 15 (emphasis added)
>
>
>
>
>
> An override of the Proposition 2 ˝ tax levy limit is
> the most direct
> and effective way to decrease the gap
>
> in revenue, in order to maintain services.  It is one
> of the few
> options under local control.  In all
>
> likelihood, however, one override alone would not solve
> the 5-year
> budget gap.
>
>
>
>
> Chris Hoffmann/pct 7
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I contacted your friend that was interested in a Conversations interview. As of
now..no reply. Please follow up.
Isaac

--- On Thu, 10/29/09, vladimirmorales@... <vladimirmorales@...>
wrote:

> From: vladimirmorales@... <vladimirmorales@...>
> Subject: Re: [AmhTownMtg] Re: public input on schools and other issues
> To: amhersttownmeeting@yahoogroups.com
> Cc: isaacbenezra@...
> Date: Thursday, October 29, 2009, 8:59 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
>
>
>                   Hola
> Issac,
> Right on target! But the question is "Why
> are we here?" I have another thought.   Why
> can't we arrange a series of forumsto address
> what I believe is the "discord and
> dissatisfaction" of the Amherst community?
> Would anyone on this list be willing to help
> coordinate such an
> effort?  
> Paz/Peace,
> Vladimir MoralesPrct.
> #6413-256-1344
> Let me 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Isaac BenEzra" <isaacbenezra@
> yahoo.com>
> To: amhersttownmeeting@ yahoogroups. com
> Cc: isaacbenezra@ yahoo.com
> Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 7:01:40 PM GMT -05:00
> US/Canada Eastern
> Subject: Re: [AmhTownMtg] Re: public input on schools and
> other issues
>
>
>  
>
>
>
>
>
>                   Hi Irv,
>
> Interesting exchange of views with Ms. Gelfand.
>
> Are you inferring that a committment to an over ride could
> change the prospect of MM school closinng at this time?
>
> Would that result in keeping the Latino and Cambodia
> community programs?
>
> If you mean what you suggest as a solution, I would be
> happy to follow your leadership for an over ride locally,
> coupled with working to address state and national
> priorities. (Leave No Child Behind etc.)
>
> I view School Committee meetings on ACTV. You have a great
> challenging job representing wonderful parents and their
> children. Keep the faith.
>
> Fondly, Isaac
>
>
>
> --- On Tue, 10/27/09, Irv Rhodes <rhodesamherst@
> aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > From: Irv Rhodes <rhodesamherst@
> aol.com>
>
> > Subject: [AmhTownMtg] Re: public input on schools and
> other issues
>
> > To: sgelfan@rcn.
> com, amhersttownmeeting@
> yahoogroups. com
>
> > Date: Tuesday, October 27, 2009, 1:29 PM
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >  
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Stephanie, I
>
> > can assure that no matter if we cut every single
>
> > administrator in the Amherst Schools (except for
> principles
>
> > and assistant principals) that the savings realized
> would
>
> > not be sufficient to keep open Marks Meadow and
> continue to
>
> > fund our schools now and in the future. You are
> welcome to
>
> > look at all of the financial information available to
> the
>
> > school committee and then draw your own
>
> > conclusions.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >  
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I must say that it pains me greatly to hear
>
> > members of our community express anger, resentment,
> pain,
>
> > frustration and a host of other emotions over the
> perceived
>
> > inequities based on race, class and ethnicity present
> in
>
> > Amherst. The comments that I have received from people
> who
>
> > have characterized themselves as, Hispanic, African
>
> > American, White and who come from all economic strata,
> all
>
> > say the same thing that Amherst has race and class
> divisions
>
> > that color their perceptions of what goes on in the
> town.
>
> > The wonder is that this situation goes on unabated by
> time
>
> > and is seemingly immune to the passage of time. I
> have
>
> > no answers and it appears that the Town has no
> answers, but
>
> > that does not mean that we should not be vigorously
> pursuing
>
> > answers.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Irv Rhodes
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > -----Original Message-----
>
> >
>
> > From: sgelfan@rcn. com
>
> >
>
> > To: Irv Rhodes <rhodesamherst@ aol.com>;
>
> > amhersttownmeeting@ yahoogroups. com
>
> >
>
> > Sent: Tue, Oct 27, 2009 11:48 am
>
> >
>
> > Subject: Re: public input on schools and other issues
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Irv, you wrote:
>
> >
>
> > “Perhaps the good folks who want to keep Marks
> Meadow
>
> > open and keep everything
>
> > else the same, so that the status quo is maintained
> would
>
> > lead such an effort to
>
> > get this [override] on the ballot.”
>
> >
>
> > I absolutely do not want to maintain the status quo.
>
> >
>
> > There are plenty of ways to keep Marks Meadow open
> without
>
> > having an override,
>
> > just as there was no good reason to sell out the
> lunch
>
> > ladies in order to
>
> > supposedly save $150,000 a few years back (while
>
> > simultaneously announcing a new
>
> > “Social Justice” curriculum.)
>
> >
>
> > When our School Committee is willing, position by
> position,
>
> > to find out how many
>
> > people are employed as teaching staff/administrator s,
> but
>
> > do not actually teach
>
> > students, and then eliminate most of those positions,
> our
>
> > schools will have
>
> > plenty of money, and the students and their teachers
> will
>
> > be much better off.
>
> >
>
> > I am not talking about principals and assistant
> principals,
>
> > I am referring to
>
> > all those other people, and there are lots, who do not
> work
>
> > directly with
>
> > students, but have the ultimate authority over actual
>
> > teachers on how best to
>
> > “meet the needs” of students they have never met.
> Many,
>
> > but not all, are listed
>
> > under “Special Education.”
>
> >
>
> > This goes hand-in-hand with the intra-school
> inequities,
>
> > based on race and
>
> > class, which begin in kindergarten and go through
> high
>
> > school in Amherst.
>
> >
>
> >  Whether it be extra in-school tutoring or placement
> into
>
> > more advanced classes,
>
> > the decision as to who gets what is often race- and
>
> > class-based, and is made by
>
> > someone other than the teachers who actually know the
>
> > students.
>
> >
>
> > Since these inequities in learning opportunities start
> in
>
> > the primary grades,
>
> > they are most effective in creating an “achievement
>
> > gap.”
>
> >
>
> > These inequities are costing the school system
> hundreds of
>
> > thousands of dollars,
>
> > and they will not be addressed by redistricting. If
>
> > anything, they will be more
>
> > intrenched, with new excuses for why poor children are
> not
>
> > doing as well
>
> > academically as their more well-off peers.
>
> >
>
> > Of course, then there will be people who will say the
>
> > school system  needs
>
> > another override to fund another $200,000 to fund a
>
> > “study” of the problem....
>
> >
>
> > Stephanie Gelfan
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Date:   Tue, 27 Oct 2009 10:18:34 -0400     4 of 1114
>
>
> > From:   Irv Rhodes <rhodesamherst@
>
> > aol.com>
>
> > Subject:    Re: public input on schools and other
> issues
>
> > To: sgelfan@rcn. com
>
> >
>
> > Why not a monetary referendum, i.e. an over ride of
> 5-6
>
> > million dollars so that
>
> > Marks Meadow could stay open provide the necessary
> services
>
> > for the rest of the
>
> > Town and provide sufficient funding so that the
> schools can
>
> > deliver a quality
>
> > education for all children and not have to make
> drastic
>
> > budget cuts. Perhaps the
>
> > good folks who want to keep Marks Meadow open and
> keep
>
> > everything else the same,
>
> > so that the status quo is maintained would lead such
> an
>
> > effort to get this on
>
> > the ballot. If the citizens of Amherst approve the
> override
>
> > then we would know
>
> > that they indeed are against closing Marks Meadow
> (hence
>
> > against redistricting
>
> > ).
>
> > Irv Rhodes
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

The following is an interesting article about how a slightly larger municipality
has fared under its mayor's plans to aggressively re-zone for more business:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/29/nyregion/29develop.html?th&emc=th

On 10/29/09, Alisa <leaveit6@...> wrote:
> Hello Town Meeting!
>
> Please note that there are several pieces of new information on the Zoning
> Articles coming up at Town Meeting next week posted on the Town website:
> http://amherstma.gov/index.aspx?nid=790
>
> (those lucky enough to attend last night's TMCC precinct meeting at Mark's
> Meadow got hardcopies:-)
>
> Please note that the Amended Motion sheets for Articles 9 & 11 help you
> figure out how the wording gets from what was printed on your warrant to the
> wording that is in the Planning Board report; the wording in the Planning
> Board reports for Articles 9 & 11 is *not* the motion, but rather the result
> of the motion.  Hope that makes sense!
>
> And also please note that Article 12 has a lot of paperwork:-) but nothing
> indicating the Planning Board vote or when the public hearing was held;
> Jonathan Tucker told the Select Board Monday night October 26, 2009 that the
> Planning Board vote on Article 12 was 7-0-1, and the hearing was October 21,
> 2009.  Stephanie O'Keeffe mentioned that she found that hearing coverage
> especially informative and encouraged us to watch it on demand at ACTV:
> http://204.213.244.104/Cablecast/Public/Show.aspx?ChannelID=3&ShowID=5204
>
> Take care,
> Alisa
>
> avbrewer@...
>
>


--
Rob Kusner
Professor of Mathematics
Director, Center for Geometry, Analysis, Numerics & Graphics (GANG)
University Massachusetts at Amherst
Amherst MA 01003
www.gang.umass.edu/~kusner

Experimental Mathematics (editorial board)
c/o A K Peters, Ltd.
5 Commonwealth Road, Suite 2C
Natick, MA 01760
www.expmath.org

Norwottuck Rail Trail Advisory Committee (chair)
Department of Conservation & Recreation
c/o Connecticut River Greenway State Park
136 Damon Road, Northampton MA 01060
www.mass.gov/dcr/parks/central/nwrt.htm

North Amherst Community Farm (co-president)
P.O.Box 9468, North Amherst MA 01059-9468
www.nacfonline.org

Select Board (29 March 2005 - 1 April 2008)
Town Hall, 4 Boltwood Avenue
Amherst MA 01002
www.amherstma.gov

NOTICE: This email is PRIVATE - it does not reflect the position of
the Town of Amherst,
the Massachusetts Department of Conservation & Recreation or the
University of Massachusetts (even though it might be better if it did
;-)

Thanks, Chris. The deficit as of last week's Four Boards meeting? FOUR MILLION. That's with Mark's Meadow closing and not restoring anything we've cut over the last few years, just bringing what we're doing now forward a year.

Thanks, Chris.  The deficit as of last week's Four Boards meeting?  FOUR
MILLION.  That's with Mark's Meadow closing and not restoring anything we've cut
over the last few years, just bringing what we're doing now forward a year.

FOUR MILLION

Alisa
avbrewer[at]comcast.net

--- In amhersttownmeeting@yahoogroups.com, Chris and Anne Hoffmann
<hoffmann.chris@...> wrote:
>
> I'd also like to point out the incredibly depressing fact that even an
> override doesn't solve our budget crisis nor mean that it could bring in
> enough money to support Marks Meadow beyond an additional year or so.
>
> If you still haven't read the Facilitation of Community Choices report,
> you should. Check out the summary presentation here:
>
> http://www.amherstma.gov/DocumentView.aspx?DID=1807
>
> In particular, look at the graph on page 11. Costs are rising faster
> than revenue. An override can immediately narrow the gap for a single
> year, but it doesn't change the fact that the projected revenue line
> increases more slowly than projected expenditures will and the deficit
> will continue to grow.
>
> As the report says on page 15 (emphasis added)
>
> >
> > An override of the Proposition 2 ˝ tax levy limit is the most direct
> > and effective way to decrease the gap
> > in revenue, in order to maintain services.  It is one of the few
> > options under local control.  In all
> > likelihood, however, *one override alone would not solve the 5-year
> > budget gap.*
>
> Chris Hoffmann/pct 7
>

An override of the Proposition 2 ½ tax levy limit is the most direct and effective way to decrease the gap
in revenue, in order to maintain services.  It is one of the few options under local control.  In all
likelihood, however, one override alone would not solve the 5-year budget gap.

Hello Town Meeting!

Please note that there are several pieces of new information on the Zoning
Articles coming up at Town Meeting next week posted on the Town website:
http://amherstma.gov/index.aspx?nid=790

(those lucky enough to attend last night's TMCC precinct meeting at Mark's
Meadow got hardcopies:-)

Please note that the Amended Motion sheets for Articles 9 & 11 help you figure
out how the wording gets from what was printed on your warrant to the wording
that is in the Planning Board report; the wording in the Planning Board reports
for Articles 9 & 11 is *not* the motion, but rather the result of the motion. 
Hope that makes sense!

And also please note that Article 12 has a lot of paperwork:-) but nothing
indicating the Planning Board vote or when the public hearing was held; Jonathan
Tucker told the Select Board Monday night October 26, 2009 that the Planning
Board vote on Article 12 was 7-0-1, and the hearing was October 21, 2009. 
Stephanie O'Keeffe mentioned that she found that hearing coverage especially
informative and encouraged us to watch it on demand at ACTV:
http://204.213.244.104/Cablecast/Public/Show.aspx?ChannelID=3&ShowID=5204

Take care,
Alisa

avbrewer@...

Hi Irv,
Interesting exchange of views with Ms. Gelfand.
Are you inferring that a committment to an over ride could change the prospect
of MM school closinng at this time?
Would that result in keeping the Latino and Cambodia community programs?
If you mean what you suggest as a solution, I would be happy to follow your
leadership for an over ride locally, coupled with working to address state and
national priorities. (Leave No Child Behind etc.)
I view School Committee meetings on ACTV. You have a great challenging job
representing wonderful parents and their children. Keep the faith.
Fondly, Isaac

--- On Tue, 10/27/09, Irv Rhodes <rhodesamherst@...> wrote:

> From: Irv Rhodes <rhodesamherst@...>
> Subject: [AmhTownMtg] Re: public input on schools and other issues
> To: sgelfan@..., amhersttownmeeting@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Tuesday, October 27, 2009, 1:29 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Stephanie, I
> can assure that no matter if we cut every single
> administrator in the Amherst Schools (except for principles
> and assistant principals) that the savings realized would
> not be sufficient to keep open Marks Meadow and continue to
> fund our schools now and in the future. You are welcome to
> look at all of the financial information available to the
> school committee and then draw your own
> conclusions.
>
>
>  
>
>
> I must say that it pains me greatly to hear
> members of our community express anger, resentment, pain,
> frustration and a host of other emotions over the perceived
> inequities based on race, class and ethnicity present in
> Amherst. The comments that I have received from people who
> have characterized themselves as, Hispanic, African
> American, White and who come from all economic strata, all
> say the same thing that Amherst has race and class divisions
> that color their perceptions of what goes on in the town.
> The wonder is that this situation goes on unabated by time
> and is seemingly immune to the passage of time. I have
> no answers and it appears that the Town has no answers, but
> that does not mean that we should not be vigorously pursuing
> answers.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Irv Rhodes
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: sgelfan@rcn. com
>
> To: Irv Rhodes <rhodesamherst@ aol.com>;
> amhersttownmeeting@ yahoogroups. com
>
> Sent: Tue, Oct 27, 2009 11:48 am
>
> Subject: Re: public input on schools and other issues
>
>
>
>
>
> Irv, you wrote:
>
> “Perhaps the good folks who want to keep Marks Meadow
> open and keep everything
> else the same, so that the status quo is maintained would
> lead such an effort to
> get this [override] on the ballot.”
>
> I absolutely do not want to maintain the status quo.
>
> There are plenty of ways to keep Marks Meadow open without
> having an override,
> just as there was no good reason to sell out the lunch
> ladies in order to
> supposedly save $150,000 a few years back (while
> simultaneously announcing a new
> “Social Justice” curriculum.)
>
> When our School Committee is willing, position by position,
> to find out how many
> people are employed as teaching staff/administrator s, but
> do not actually teach
> students, and then eliminate most of those positions, our
> schools will have
> plenty of money, and the students and their teachers will
> be much better off.
>
> I am not talking about principals and assistant principals,
> I am referring to
> all those other people, and there are lots, who do not work
> directly with
> students, but have the ultimate authority over actual
> teachers on how best to
> “meet the needs” of students they have never met. Many,
> but not all, are listed
> under “Special Education.”
>
> This goes hand-in-hand with the intra-school inequities,
> based on race and
> class, which begin in kindergarten and go through high
> school in Amherst.
>
>  Whether it be extra in-school tutoring or placement into
> more advanced classes,
> the decision as to who gets what is often race- and
> class-based, and is made by
> someone other than the teachers who actually know the
> students.
>
> Since these inequities in learning opportunities start in
> the primary grades,
> they are most effective in creating an “achievement
> gap.”
>
> These inequities are costing the school system hundreds of
> thousands of dollars,
> and they will not be addressed by redistricting. If
> anything, they will be more
> intrenched, with new excuses for why poor children are not
> doing as well
> academically as their more well-off peers.
>
> Of course, then there will be people who will say the
> school system  needs
> another override to fund another $200,000 to fund a
> “study” of the problem....
>
> Stephanie Gelfan
>
>
> Date:   Tue, 27 Oct 2009 10:18:34 -0400     4 of 1114
> From:   Irv Rhodes <rhodesamherst@
> aol.com>
> Subject:    Re: public input on schools and other issues
> To: sgelfan@rcn. com
>
> Why not a monetary referendum, i.e. an over ride of 5-6
> million dollars so that
> Marks Meadow could stay open provide the necessary services
> for the rest of the
> Town and provide sufficient funding so that the schools can
> deliver a quality
> education for all children and not have to make drastic
> budget cuts. Perhaps the
> good folks who want to keep Marks Meadow open and keep
> everything else the same,
> so that the status quo is maintained would lead such an
> effort to get this on
> the ballot. If the citizens of Amherst approve the override
> then we would know
> that they indeed are against closing Marks Meadow (hence
> against redistricting
> ).
> Irv Rhodes
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hi Irv,
Interesting exchange of views with Ms. Gelfand.
Are you inferring that a committment to an over ride could change the prospect
of MM school closinng at this time?
Would that result in keeping the Latino and Cambodia community programs?
If you mean what you suggest as a solution, I would be happy to follow your
leadership for an over ride locally, coupled with working to address state and
national priorities. (Leave No Child Behind etc.)
I view School Committee meetings on ACTV. You have a great challenging job
representing wonderful parents and their children. Keep the faith.
Fondly, Isaac

--- On Tue, 10/27/09, Irv Rhodes <rhodesamherst@...> wrote:

> From: Irv Rhodes <rhodesamherst@...>
> Subject: [AmhTownMtg] Re: public input on schools and other issues
> To: sgelfan@..., amhersttownmeeting@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Tuesday, October 27, 2009, 1:29 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Stephanie, I
> can assure that no matter if we cut every single
> administrator in the Amherst Schools (except for principles
> and assistant principals) that the savings realized would
> not be sufficient to keep open Marks Meadow and continue to
> fund our schools now and in the future. You are welcome to
> look at all of the financial information available to the
> school committee and then draw your own
> conclusions.
>
>
>  
>
>
> I must say that it pains me greatly to hear
> members of our community express anger, resentment, pain,
> frustration and a host of other emotions over the perceived
> inequities based on race, class and ethnicity present in
> Amherst. The comments that I have received from people who
> have characterized themselves as, Hispanic, African
> American, White and who come from all economic strata, all
> say the same thing that Amherst has race and class divisions
> that color their perceptions of what goes on in the town.
> The wonder is that this situation goes on unabated by time
> and is seemingly immune to the passage of time. I have
> no answers and it appears that the Town has no answers, but
> that does not mean that we should not be vigorously pursuing
> answers.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Irv Rhodes
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: sgelfan@rcn. com
>
> To: Irv Rhodes <rhodesamherst@ aol.com>;
> amhersttownmeeting@ yahoogroups. com
>
> Sent: Tue, Oct 27, 2009 11:48 am
>
> Subject: Re: public input on schools and other issues
>
>
>
>
>
> Irv, you wrote:
>
> “Perhaps the good folks who want to keep Marks Meadow
> open and keep everything
> else the same, so that the status quo is maintained would
> lead such an effort to
> get this [override] on the ballot.”
>
> I absolutely do not want to maintain the status quo.
>
> There are plenty of ways to keep Marks Meadow open without
> having an override,
> just as there was no good reason to sell out the lunch
> ladies in order to
> supposedly save $150,000 a few years back (while
> simultaneously announcing a new
> “Social Justice” curriculum.)
>
> When our School Committee is willing, position by position,
> to find out how many
> people are employed as teaching staff/administrator s, but
> do not actually teach
> students, and then eliminate most of those positions, our
> schools will have
> plenty of money, and the students and their teachers will
> be much better off.
>
> I am not talking about principals and assistant principals,
> I am referring to
> all those other people, and there are lots, who do not work
> directly with
> students, but have the ultimate authority over actual
> teachers on how best to
> “meet the needs” of students they have never met. Many,
> but not all, are listed
> under “Special Education.”
>
> This goes hand-in-hand with the intra-school inequities,
> based on race and
> class, which begin in kindergarten and go through high
> school in Amherst.
>
>  Whether it be extra in-school tutoring or placement into
> more advanced classes,
> the decision as to who gets what is often race- and
> class-based, and is made by
> someone other than the teachers who actually know the
> students.
>
> Since these inequities in learning opportunities start in
> the primary grades,
> they are most effective in creating an “achievement
> gap.”
>
> These inequities are costing the school system hundreds of
> thousands of dollars,
> and they will not be addressed by redistricting. If
> anything, they will be more
> intrenched, with new excuses for why poor children are not
> doing as well
> academically as their more well-off peers.
>
> Of course, then there will be people who will say the
> school system  needs
> another override to fund another $200,000 to fund a
> “study” of the problem....
>
> Stephanie Gelfan
>
>
> Date:   Tue, 27 Oct 2009 10:18:34 -0400     4 of 1114
> From:   Irv Rhodes <rhodesamherst@
> aol.com>
> Subject:    Re: public input on schools and other issues
> To: sgelfan@rcn. com
>
> Why not a monetary referendum, i.e. an over ride of 5-6
> million dollars so that
> Marks Meadow could stay open provide the necessary services
> for the rest of the
> Town and provide sufficient funding so that the schools can
> deliver a quality
> education for all children and not have to make drastic
> budget cuts. Perhaps the
> good folks who want to keep Marks Meadow open and keep
> everything else the same,
> so that the status quo is maintained would lead such an
> effort to get this on
> the ballot. If the citizens of Amherst approve the override
> then we would know
> that they indeed are against closing Marks Meadow (hence
> against redistricting
> ).
> Irv Rhodes
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hi Folks,

The Warrant Review, the Bus Tour, and tonight's Forum on Smart Growth will all be rebroadcast several times over the next week or two on ACTV Channel 17. See Program Schedule at http://www.actvamherst.com/Site/Program_Schedule.html  for air times.  They will also be available "On Demand" for viewing over the Internet.  See "Meetings on Demand" at http://www.actvamherst.com/Site/Meetings_on_Demand.html  .

We are fortunate to have this service recording Select Board, School Committee, Finance Committee, and Planning Board and other meetings.  Viewing these programs is an excellent way for our community to keep informed about Town Governance as well as for Town Meeting members to be better prepared for Town Meeting.

Reminder: the last Precinct Meeting for this Fall is TONIGHT at 7:00 pm in Marks Meadow School, Room 175. From main entrance go to the left. Go down the hall. Room 175 is the second to last room  on the right. This is a good chance to discuss the articles coming up next week and to share your knowledge about any of the articles with other TM members.  The public is always welcome at any of the Precinct Meetings.

ACTV Rebroadcasts are currently scheduled at the following times:

Town Meeting Bus Tour 10/18 - http://204.213.244.104/Cablecast/Public/Show.aspx?ChannelID=3&ShowID=5212
ShowID 5212   Length: 00:59:44
Watch Now mms://204.213.244.104/TRMSVOD/5212-1-bustourfall09.wmv
Schedule Information:
10/28/2009 at 2:00 PM

10/28/2009 at 3:00 PM

10/28/2009 at 4:00 PM

10/28/2009 at 5:00 PM

10/29/2009 at 7:30 AM

10/29/2009 at 8:15 PM


Warrant Review 10/14 - http://204.213.244.104/Cablecast/Public/Show.aspx?ChannelID=3&ShowID=5201
ShowID 5201   Length: 02:12:14
Schedule Information:
10/28/2009 at 7:30 AM

10/28/2009 at 6:35 PM

10/29/2009 at 8:30 AM

10/29/2009 at 6:00 PM

10/30/2009 at 8:30 AM

10/30/2009 at 6:00 PM

10/31/2009 at 8:30 AM

10/31/2009 at 6:00 PM

11/1/2009 at 8:30 AM

11/1/2009 at 6:00 PM


Informational Forum on Smart Growth: Town Meeting Committee 10/27 0 http://204.213.244.104/Cablecast/Public/Show.aspx?ChannelID=3&ShowID=5209
ShowID 5209   Length: 04:30:00
Schedule Information:
10/29/2009 at 3:30 PM

10/30/2009 at 3:30 PM

10/30/2009 at 8:30 PM

10/31/2009 at 3:30 PM

10/31/2009 at 8:30 PM

11/1/2009 at 3:30 PM

11/1/2009 at 8:30 PM

Town Meeting Coordinating Committee