Opening Night | 2019 Annual Town Meeting

We're in Margery Milne Battin Hall of Isaac Harris Cary Memorial Building. We'll continue meeting here every Monday and Wednesday evening, except during public school vacation week, until all business has been concluded.

2019 Town Warrant is HERE.
MOTIONS dated 3/25/2019 is HERE; MOTIONS by Article Number, HERE.
Articles with MOTIONS, Reports, and Presentations, HERE.

Recommended Budget and Financing Plan (The Brown Book) is HERE.
Report of the Appropriation Committee (AC) is HERE.
Report of the Capital Expenditures Committee (CEC) is HERE.

Expected schedule tonight:

• Article 2: Elect Deputy Moderator (Barry Orenstein)
• DATE CERTAIN: Article 30—Reduce/Ban Polystyrene Materials (Citizen Article)
• DATE CERTAIN: Article 31—Reduce/Ban Single-use Plastic Straws and Stirrers (Citizen Article)
• Article 3: Cary Lecture Series
• Article 32: Capital Expenditures Committee-related Provisions (To petition the Massachusetts General Court to enact specific legislation concerning the Town's CEC -- see p.14 of the Warrant)
• Article 35: Amend Article III of Chapter 118 (Citizen Article)
• Article 36: Outcomes-based Approach to Town Building Projects (Citizen Article)

Updating ensues once Town Moderator (TMod) gavels the Call to Order 

7:30 PM TMod has called the Meeting to Order.
Opening Ceremony kicks off with "Yankee Doodle" played by the Joseph Diamond Fife & Drum Corps. Minutemen Flag Corps places flags of Lexington and United States to our National Anthem by the fifes and drums.

Brief recess. State Representative Michelle Ciccolo is introduced, honors graduating seniors from Lexington High School (LHS) and from Minuteman Regional Vocational Technical High School (MM), being acknowledged for their character, perseverance, resilience, and accomplishments.

Meeting called back to order.

The Meeting is now open on Article 2: Election of Deputy Moderator (DMod), Barry Orenstein. This is in the event of TMod recusal, absence, disability, etc., according to Section 118-11 of the Code of the Town of Lexington.
MOTION passes unanimously.

TMod's introductory remarks and instructions for Members designed to keep order, decorum.

Article 30—Reduce/Ban Polystyrene Materials (Citizen Article) and Article 31—Reduce/Ban Single-use Plastic Straws and Stirrers (Citizen Article) are now open.
TMMs approve taking the two Articles out of order.
Presentation by Lexington Green Teams members and Girl Scouts Troop #65411 is HERE.
Board of Selectmen (BoS): Unanimous support of both Articles
School Committee (SC): Unanimous support of both Articles
Conservation Commission: Unanimous support of both Articles
Commission on Disability: Unanimous on Article 31 only; no position taken on Article 30
Sustainable Lexington: Unanimous support of both Articles
Chamber of Commerce: In full support of Article 31; applaud the concept of Article 30, members are concerned of the economic impact of passage of Article 30, as a result, no position on Article 30
Questions:
TMM/P7: Forks, spoons, plates included?
A: Felt these two items at this time
TMM: Open to Amendment?
TMod: Formal process
TMM/P3: In favor of concept. Concern of unintended consequences...Art.30 -- what about computers with Styrofoam for shipping?
A: Definitions are included, only food serviceware are listed, not packing materials
TMM: Juice boxes have straws?
A: Only prevent the actual sale of plastic straw, not juice being sold.
Citizen Mic: Professor of biodegradables...really consider the environmental impact all over the world, not only Lexington. Fully support both Articles.
TMM/P2 YES Mic: TY to LPS Green Teams and Girl Scouts. Feels good to move along on single use plastice
TMM/P1: Is Town planning to regulate compostable plastic?
A: Bylaws defines
CitizenMic: We have to take responsibility. Plastice are an eyesore and a danger.
Amendment to Art.31: to include forks, spoons, plates is outside of the scope of the warrant TMod will not allow amendment
CALL the Question -- Close debate?
Yes: 104
No: 57
Abstain: 2
Motion PASSES | DEBATE is closed
Final comments to maker of MOTION
Vote on Article 30
YES: 159
NO: 2
ABSTAIN: 3
MOTION PASSES
Vote on Article 31
YES: 160
NO: 1
ABSTAIN: 3
MOTION PASSES

Meeting now open on Article 3: Cary Lecture Series
Motion to receive Report and place on file -- unanimous
Rita Goldberg, Chair and TMM/P2, with the presentation.
BoS: unanimous
Voice Vote of TM on Article 3: Passes

MOTION to take Article 32 out of order
Passes
Meeting now open on Article 32: Capital Expenditures Committee-related Provisions (To petition the Massachusetts General Court to enact specific legislation concerning the Town's CEC -- see p.14 of the Warrant)
David Kantor, CEC, with the presentation HERE
BoS: Unanimous
Appropriation Committee (AC): Unanimous
CEC: Unanimous
SC: Unanimous
No Questions
Vote of TM
YES: 151
NO: 1
ABSTAIN: 1
MOTION CARRIES

MOTION to take Article 35 out of order
TMM: Voice Vote passes
Meeting now open on Article 35: Amend Article III of Chapter 118 (Citizen Article)
Matthew Daggett, TMM/P2 with the presentation HERE
BoS: Unanimous support
AC: did not take a position
CEC: Unanimously opposed
SC: 4-1 (abstention)
Planning Board (PB): 4-1 to approve

NOmic/TMMP6: a lot of unintended consequences
YESmic/TMMP4: Not a frequent occurance, but has happened., not intended to suppress debate. 10 mins is arbitrary, some opportunity for some discussion. A good corrective for an infrequent problem
Q/TMMP8: If no debate?
A: In that case now there is clear direction to TMod about what to do.
Q/TMMP3: If person calls the Q before 10 minutes?
A: Motion to Call the Q is a subsidiary motion, gets 10 mins
Q: 10 mins?
A: Yes. Subject to discretion of TMod
Q/TMMP8: Redundant?
A: TMod has no expectation for how much debate to proceed, expectation
NOmic TMMP1: If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Q/TMMP6: Powers of TMod? Town Counsel?
Town Counsel: TMod retains discretion. provides guidance
YESmic/TMMP8: when it comes up, I want to be able to ask questions
NOmic/TMMP7
Q/TMMP8: Does it apply to this TM?
Town Counsel: must be approved by AG
Q/TMMP6: Minimum or maximum?
A: Minimum
Q/TMMP5: calls the Q
Voice Vote: Passes; Debate is closed
Final comments to maker of Motion
Vote of TMM on Article 35:
YES: 88
NO: 65
ABSTAIN: 6
MOTION PASSES

Meeting is now open on Article 36: Outcomes-based Approach to Town Building Projects (Citizen Article)
Dan Voss, Sustainable Lexington, with the presentation HERE.
BoS: Unanimous support
SC: Unanimous support
AC: No position
CEC: Unanimous support
Q/TMMP7: The Team to determine the policies?
A: Yes
YES: TMM/P2
CitizenMic: Sustainable Lexington voted unanimously to support
YES: TMM/P6, PBC Member (Permanent Building Committee)
Q/TMMP5: What, if any, changes to project sites?
A: Article requesting the BoS and SC, PBC and Facilities Department to develop policies. Objective is to follow a framework for measuring outcomes; gathering more info at the front-end.
Q/TMMP2: Impact on residential?
A: No impact
Q/TMMP2: Amend?
TMod: It is within scope of Warrant. Come up if you want to make it.
Proposed Amendment would have no binding authority, no motion to amend
No further Qs
No Final comments
Vote of TM on Article 36:
YES: 142
NO: 0
ABSTAIN: 2
MOTION PASSES

Meeting adjourned at 10:22 PM until 7:30 PM on Wednesday, March 27
⸻

Image credit: Presentation slide, Town of Lexington 2019 Annual Town Meeting ~ mas

2017 Annual Town Meeting Continues Tonight, Monday, April 3

We're in Battin Hall in the Cary Memorial Building
1605 Massachusetts Avenue, Lexington
Articles, Reports, and Presentations to Date
Live-blogging to commence once we are in session.

7:30 PM
Madam Moderator has gavelled us in and we're in session.
Updating as we go.

Tribute to Senator Ken Donnelly of Arlington, who passed away yesterday due to complications from brain cancer. Moment of silence.
Checking electronic voting devices.

Article 19 - Getting to Net Zero To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate a sum of money necessary to hire consultants to provide advice and analysis to the Getting to Net Zero Task Force and Town staff, determine whether the money shall be provided by the tax levy, by transfer from available funds or by any combination of these methods, or to act in any other manner in relation thereto. (Inserted by the Board of Selectmen at the request of the Sustainable Lexington Committee)

• Funds Requested: $40,000 
Description: The Getting to Net Zero Task Force is exploring the possibility of reducing our buildings' emissions to net zero over the next 25 to 35 years. Lexington's buildings are currently responsible for 66% of Lexington's greenhouse gas emissions. The task force is composed of a broad range of stakeholders including local buisinesses, commercial and residential property owners, subject matter experts, Town staff, and appropriate Town committee members. The task force, with the assistance of consultants, will develop strategies, plans and recommendations to achieve an annual balance of zero greenhouse gas emissions from building operations for approval by the Town.

Selectman Pato moves the MOTION
Asks to recognize Mark Sandeen of Sustainable Lexington

Board of Selectmen (BOS): Unanimous
Appropriation Committee (AC): 7-2
Citizen mic: Asks TM to take the next step by continuing to fund the Getting to Net Zero Task Force; if we are not part of the solution, we are part of the problem
YES mic: TMM urges colleagues to support
Q: Wants to know the progress, if any, on renewables
Mark Sandeen: We just got notified that we are approved
Q: Wants concrete examples of how this Task Force will implement change
Sandeen: Running "Lexington Energy Challenge" - based on info that will implement specific programs for each type of building (historic, residential, commercial, etc). Currently building to "LEED Silver". Will impact new Hastings Elementary School, Fire Sation, Police. Looking to "green" our electrical supply. These all play together.
Q: Money for replacing windows in Monroe - how can this help with that?
Sandeen: I would suggest that this is a historic building, perhaps wait for the CPA Article to come up.
Requires simple majority
YES -148
NO - 4
Abstain - 3
MOTION CARRIES

Article 18 - Visitors Center (Citizen Article) To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate a sum of money for planning, constructing, originally equipping and furnishing a new Visitors Center, or for planning, remodeling, reconstructing and making extraordinary repairs to the existing Visitors Center, and for the payment of all other costs incidental and related thereto; determine whether the money shall be provided by the tax levy, by transfer from avialable funds, by borrowing, or by any combination of these methods; or act in any other manner in relation thereof. (Inserted by Dawn McKenna and 9 or more registered voters)

• Funds Requested: $100,000
• Description: The Visitors Center was built over 50 years ago for the Battle of Lexington Bicentennial visitors. It is the information gateway for tourists, residents, newcomers, and corporations considering locating in Lexington. Last year, 120,000 people entered the building, making it one of the most heavily used buildings in Lexington; they spent $190,000 in the shop underwriting the cost of operations. Lexington collects $1.4 million in annual hotel and meals taxes. The building has become outdated and is not fully accessible. When originally built, it was staffed by the Chamber of Commerce. Today the Town occupies, manages, and staffs the Visitors Center. it has become the hub of the Liberty Ride. Many who use the Minuteman Commuter Bikeway benefit from the facility as well. As we approach the 250th Anniversary of the Battle of Lexington, and implement the Battle Green Masterplan, this article would fund the design and construction of a 21st century Visitors Center providing new economic growth opportunities.

Dawn McKenna for the MOTION

Asks to recognize Jon Himmel, Tourism Committee (also on Permanent Building Committee)

Jon Himmel: Money for Design Process, specifically Schematic Design and Design Development, followed by Value Engineering, BOS review. Project is not eligible for CPA funding.
Asks to recognize Fred Johnson, Tourism Committee
Johnson: Lexington has Untapped Potential. 4th most visited community in Massachusetts. Lexington Hotels have had visitors from over 40 countries. Tourism creates jobs - 744 in Lexington. Need a 21st c Visitor Center.
Asks to recognize Dawn McKenna
McKenna: Building is inadequate in many ways. Unwelcoming. To piggy back on the previous presentation, it's an energy hog. Not fully accessible. Urges support.

BOS: 3-2
AC: 9-0
CEC: In favor of the project at funding level for schematic design; Jill Hai Chair, asks to AMEND the appropriation to $21,000 instead of $100,000 (by a CEC vote of 4-1)

• MOTION to AMEND:
• McKenna - Opposed to this MOTION
• BOS: 3-2 in Support
• Selectman Kelly speaks in Opposition to the AMENDMENT
• AC: 0-9 in Opposition
• Citizen mic: Lexington Historical Society wants to see the project completed, which is what we voted to do
• Q: Do the members of BOS support and oppose in the same ways?
• Barry: No - different people.
• Q: Timing of this project a concern?
• McKenna: Want to be ready to come forward at STM this fall and not wait until next year's ATM.
• NO mic: We have waited a long time to do anything to the VIsitors Center
• YES mic: CEC is in favor of updating the Visitors Center, but TM doesn't know what the total cost will be, which is why we want the project to come back to TM to evaluate the dollar scope, not go to the BOS for a decision
• Citizen mic: Jim Shaw, Vice Chair of Chamber of Commerce, we support the original MOTION and vote no on this AMENDMENT
• NO mic: I have seen so many projects come before TM and get approved. This structure is needed
• YES mic: Support this AMENDMENT, stick to the process.
• Q: for CEC - policy to require all docs be approved at the same itme?
• CEC: No. our practice has been to approve in three phases, but is not policy
• NO mic: We have an obligation to provide good facilities. Time is of the essence
• Q: If it passes, will BOS be in support of the AMENDED MOTION
• BOS: It would be 4-1
• YES - 82
• NO - 69
• Abstain - 3
• AMENDMENT CARRIES

AMENDED MAIN MOTION open for discussion
Q: Applaud the passion and persistence of Tourism Committee. What is the thinking on "pre-fabricated solutions"? and What about swing space?
McKenna: On pre-fabs - those decisions would come during the schematic phase. Swing space - three steps forward, two steps back; need to clarify. We don't know.AC: 8-0 in support of the new MOTION (one is absent)
YES mic: Jerry Michelson for Center Business - in support
Q: Is Economic Dev Director
Melissa Tintocollis: Have been learning a lot about the visitor-based economy. I understand Tourism is to have a vital center we need foot traffic and visitor spending. Tourism does that.
MOVES the QUESTION
by VOICE VOTE: the Ayes have it to close debate and take the vote
YES - 150
NO - 6
Abstain - 2
MOTION CARRIES


Article 2 - Community Preservation Committee - to receive the report of the CPC and place on file.
VOTE taken by VOICE VOTE: the MOTION passes and the report is placed on file.

Marilyn Fenollosa, Chair of CPC, speaks to the report

Article 10 - Community Preservation 2018 Operating Budget and CPA Projects (except 10-h) To see if the Town will vote to act on the report of the Community Preservation Committee on the FY2018 Community Preservation budget and, pursuant to the recommendations of the Community Preservation Committee, to appropriate from the Community Preservation Fund, or to reserve amounts in the Community Preservation Fund for future appropriations; for the debt servcice on previously authorized financing; for adiminstrative expenses of the Community Preservation Committee for FY2018; for the acquisition, creation, and preservation and, if acquired with Community Preservation Act Funds the rehabilitation or restoration of open space; for the acquisition, creation, preservation, and rehabilitation and restoration of recreational land; for the acquisition, preservation, rehabilitation and restoration of historic resources; and through the acquisition, creation, preservation and support and, if acquired with Community Preservation Act funds, the restoration or rehabilitation of community housing; including, in all cases, rehabilitation or restoration that constitutes capital improvements or extrordinary repairs to make assets functional for their intended use; and to determine whether the money shall be provided by the tax levy, or from estimated CPA surcharges and the estimated State match and supplement for the upcoming fiscal year, by available funds in the CP Fund, from transfer from other available funds, by borrowing, or by any combination of these methods or act in any other manner in relation thereto. (Inserted by the Board of Selectmen at the request of the Community Preservation Committee)

• Funds Requested:
• a) Interpretive Signage Project - $38,400
• b) Parker's Revenge Interpretive and Public Education Signage & Displays - $41,350
• c) Greeley Village Rear Door and Porch Supplemental Request - $56,712
• d) Affordable Units Preservation - Pine Grove Village/Judges Road - $1,048,000
• e) Willard's Woods and Wright Farm Meadow Preservation - $40,480
• f) Cotton Farm Conservation Area Improvements - $301,300
• g) Wright Farm Supplemental Funds - $37,900
• h) Stone Building Feasibility Study - $25,000 (to be taken up at ATM on Wednesday, April 5)
• i) Munroe School Window Restoration - $620,000
• j) Center Streetscape Improvements - (recommend IP)
• k) Community Center Sidewalk - $220,000 (recommend IP)
• l) Park Improvements - Athletic Fields - $125,000
• m) Town Pool Renovation - $1,620,000 COSTS are TBD - pulling out until ATM on Wednesday, April 12
• n) Park and Playground Improvements - $60,000
• o) CPA Debt Service - $2,404,259
• p) Administrative Budget - $150,000
• Description: This Article requests that Community Preservation funds and other funds, as necessary, be appropriated for the projects recommended b y the Community Preservation Committee, the debt service on previously authorized projects, and for administrative costs.
• Parts to pull:
• 10-h wed 4/5
• 10-m wed 4/12
• 10-j,k IP
• BOS: Unanimous on all aspects
• AC: Unanimous in Support
• CEC: Unanimous in Support
• YES - 145
• NO - 0 
• Abstain - 3
• MOTION CARRIES to put in the above buckets
• 10-c Greeley Village Rear Door and Porch Supplemental Request - $56,712 (presentation and discussion for all parts follow)
• requires simple majority
• YES - 149
• NO - 0
• Abstain - 2
• Approved
• 10-a Interpretive Signage Project - $38,400
• requires simple majority
• YES - 154
• NO - 0
• Abstain - 3 
• Approved
• 10-b Parker's Revenge Interpretive and Public Education Signage & Displays - $41,350
• requires simple majority
• YES - 119
• NO - 26
• Abstain - 5
• Approved
• 10-d Affordable Units Preservation - Pine Grove Village/Judges Road - $1,048,000
• Planning Board (PB): Supports this part, and all parts, of Article 10
• requires 2/3 majority
• YES - 146
• NO - 1
• Abstain - 3
• Approved

• 10-e Willard's Woods and Wright Farm Meadow Preservation - $40,480
• requires simple majority
• YES - 137
• NO - 1
• Abstain - 3
• Approved

• 10-f Cotton Farm Conservation Area Improvements - $301,300
• requires simple majority
• YES - 109
• NO - 23
• Abstain - 9 
• Approved
• MOTION to take up 10-g tonight
• VOICE VOTE - TM does not approve
• TM will take up remaining parts of Article 10 this Wednesday

MOTION to ADJOURN until Wednesday, April 5

We are adjourned

10:35 PM

And that's a wrap!

- - -

Appropriation Committee Report

Capital Expenditures Committee Report
About Town Meeting

2017 Annual Town Meeting, 7:15 PM

About to get underway. Live blogging, updating as we go.

Town Moderator calls Town Meeting to order; into immediate recess for Diversity Award Presentation.

7:15 PM LPS Diversity Award Presentation
Superintendent Mary Czajkowski announces Tammy Darling, a social studies teacher at LHS as this year's award recipient. Among other things and good work, Tammy revived the "Race and Gender" course this year.
We will remain in recess for a few minutes.
Tonight's Town Meeting (TM) Agenda was prepared by the Town Moderator, in consultation with staff, boards and committees, article sponsors.
* This post is not an official record of the Annual Town Meeting proceedings; it is offered as information to interested persons by a member of Town Meeting.
And we're back in session.
Testing our electronic voting devices.

Article 2 - Capital Expenditures Committee Report: Receive the report of the CEC.
Unanimous - the report is received and placed on file.
Jill Hai, CEC Chair, speaks to the report's highlights.

Article 20 - Harbell Street Acceptance: To see if the Town will vote to establish as a Town way and accept the layout of as a Town way Harbell Street from Paul Revere Road a distance of 645 feel, more or less, to the end of Harbell Street, as laid out by the Selectmen and to take by eminent domain, purchase or otherwise acquire any fee, easement, or other interest in land necessary therefor; and raise and appropriate money for the construction of said street and for land acquisition; determine whether the money shall be provided in the tax levy, by transfer from available funds, by borrowing, or by any combination of these methods; or act in any other manner in relation thereto. (Inserted by the Board of Selectmen)

• Funds requested: $147,000
• Description: This article has been requested by residents of Harbell Street to have the street brought up to Town standards and accepted by the Town. The total cost of bringing the street up to Town standards will be borne by the residents through the assessment of betterments.

Requires 2/3 vote

Selectmen are unanimous

Appropriation Committee is unanimously in support

CEC approves with a vote 4-1

Yes-139

No - 2

Abstain - 3

MOTION CARRIES 

Article 17 - Hastings School Replacement Design: To see if the Town will vote to appropriate, borrow or transfer from available funds, any amount of money, to be expended under the direction of the Permanent Building Committee [PBC], for the costs for the Design Development phase of the detailed design relating to the Marie Hastings Elementary School located at 7 Crosby Road, in Lexington, which school facility shall have an anticipated useful life as an educational facility for the instruction of school children of at least 50 years and for which the Town may be eligible for a school construction grant from the Massachusetts School Building Authotrity (MSBA). The MSBA's grant program is a non-entitlement, discretionary program based on need, as determined by the MSBA, and any costs the Town incurs in connection with the Design Development phase in excess of any grant approved by and received from the MSBA shall be the sole responsibility of the Town; or act in any other manner in relation thereto. (Inserted by the Board of Selectmen at the request of the School Committee).

• Funds Requested: $720,000
• Description: This funding will allow the design work for the Hastings School project to continue through the design development phase. While the appropriation is for $720,000, a partial reimbursement from the MSBA will bring the Town's costs closer to $540,000. It is anticipated that financing for the completion of design work and construction will be requested at a Fall 2017 Special Town Meeting (STM).

Director of Public Facilities, Pat Goddard makes a presentation.
School Committee Member, Jessie Steigerwald presents the report of the School Committee. The report is accepted and placed on file.
Selectmen: Unanimously in support
Appropriation Committee (AC): 9-0 in support
CEC: 5-0 in support
Question: Many sustainability features, can we revisit solar?
Goddard: It will be solar ready, infrastructure, the Town will get a better contract if we wait for the solar panels after the building is complete.
Question: What is the process?
Godard: Anticipate we will occupy in February 2020; will put out an RFP in spring of 2020
Q: What is to become of the "old" school after complete
Goddard: the site is constrained, We will demolish the building.
Q: I applaud building a new school. Have heard over $100M in debt and haven't addressed a "7th elementary school".
Goddard: The appropriation two years ago, we looked at multiple options for building school capacity and why we need a replacement for Hastings.
Q: What options, as to materials, do we have?
Goddard: The Permanent Building Committee is responsible for this and there is ongoing process as to what those choices are and will ultimately be chosen.
Q: Are there risks with this investment?
Goddard: MSBA has agreed to share in the cost of the study. If they don't approve the project scope, or the Town doesn't approve the scope
Lamb: Also risk of the Override Exclusion not passing.
Requires 2/3 vote
Yes - 155
No - 0
MOTION CARRIES
Abstain - 1

Article 15 - School Capital Projects and Equipment: To see if the Town will vote to appropriate a sum of money to purchase additional equipment, furniture and systems for the schools, and to maintain and upgrade the schools'technology systems; determine whether the money shall be provided by the tax levy, by transfer from available funds, by borrowing, or by any combination of these methods; or act in any other maner in relation thereto. (Inserted by the School Committee)

• Funds Requested: $1,454,900
• Description: For a description of the proposed projects, see Section XI: Captial Investment section of the FY2018 Town Manager's Preliminary Budget and Financing Plan.

Ian Daley presents need for new capital is primarily for MCAS 2.0

Selectmen: Unanimous

AC: Unanimous

CEC: Unanimous

Q: Ipads for middle school students - what's the life expectancy?
Daley: 5-6 years
Q: a bit of a concern, obsolete in a few years. Have we looked into renting?
Daley: We do evaluate that. Focus on Chromebooks, 3 yr life expectancy.
Q: How to chromebooks stand up?
Daley: we are confident they fulfill the needs of schools. We willcontinue to evaluate
Comment: We should continue to look into leasing equipment
Q: "Unfunded Mandate" WRT MCAS testing...what kind to money is the State requiring from us to put the test online.
Daley: $142,000 at the elementary level
Q: Unfunded mandates for testing - for all communities?
Daley: We are not unique
Q: Per unit cost for interactive whiteboards?
Daley: I don't have an exact unit cost in fron of me, they are throughout the district; use of tech being integrated in curriculum
Q about Ipads vs. chromebooks, something about the touch vs keyboards
Daley: We're constantly evaluating what works best for students
Q: Does the school dept currently have a furniture plan across all schools?
Daley: We're in the midst of that process for a 5-yr plan.
Requires 2/3 vote
Yes - 153
No - 0
Abstain - 2
MOTION CARRIES

Article 16 - Public Facilities Capital Projects: To see if the Town will vote to appropriate a sum of money for capital improvements, renovations, including new construction to public facilities for:

• School Building Envelopes and Systems Program;
• - Lexington High School Air Conditioning – Teacher Planning Offices and Library;
• Municipal Building Envelopes and Systems;
• Public Facilities Mechanical/Electrical System Replacements;
• - LHS Security Evaluation and Upgrade;
• - LHS Guidance Space Mining;
• - LHS Nurse Office and Treatment Space; and

Votes to be taken separately:

• Public Facilities Bid Documents
• Parking Lot for Community Center

and determine whether the money shall be provided by the tax levy, by transfer from available funds, including enterprise funds, by borrowing, or by any combination of these methods; to determine if the Town will authorize the Selectmen to apply for, accept, expend and borrow in anticipation of State aid for such capital improvements; or act in any other manner in relation thereto. (Inserted by the Board of Selectmen)

• Funds Requested: $3,098,439
• Description: For a description of the proposed projects, see Section XI: Captial Investment section of the FY2018 Town Manager's Preliminary Budget and Financing Plan.

Selectmen Kelly presents the Article.

Pat Goddard presents the four LHS items.

Report of Selectmen is received and placed on file.
School Committee (SC): Unanimously Support for the relevant parts
CEC: Unanimous for the relevant parts
AC: Unanimous for the relevant parts
Q about a vision for a new high school (understand all of these band-aids)
Superintendent Czajkowski: We have a new principal coming and will work together on a vision for a new High School, but we need space for students to be treated by Guidance, Nurse, now.
Requires 2/3
Yes - 158
No - 0
Abstain - 1
MOTION CARRIES

Votes taken separately:

• Public Facilities Bid Documents

Selectmen: Unanimously Supports
CEC: Unanimously Supports
AC: Supports 6-1-1
Community Center Program Advisory Committee: Unanimously Supports
Requires 2/3 Majority
Q: If the Gym were done alone, how much of the $6M would that make up?
Pat Goddard (PG): Not a lot of cost; when we get into the next phase we can detail that
Q: What's the distance between the two buildings?
PG: About 250 feet. Also looking to make a vehicle connection.
Q: The expectation is that there will be a walkway. Currently proposing substantial parking. Will there be direct access to the Pelham property?
PG: That's part of the plan; we will evaluate further in the next phase.
Q: There are access issues for pedestrians crossing Marrett Road - - does the scope include an eval of the entire site? Pelham, Marrett, both for vehicles and pedestrians?
PG: We will be doing a traffic study.
YES mic: Support for families to do activities together.
Q: right now we have gyms in all of the schools, not being used after school hours. Why aren't they used?
PG: They are universally booked every evening weeknights November-June. Estabrook gym is utilized by the Recreational Dept.
YES mic: Standing here in support for additional funding is needed for our clear understanding of costs.
Now someone is standing at the NO mic.
NO mic: If Pelham enrollment continues to rise, we will need more space. Plus, a new Fire Station, and a new Hastings School - overrides and increasing taxes make this a hard case to support at this time.
YES mic: We're talking about somethng that we need, not nice to have. Gym and kitchen are on the must have list.
Q: Vintage of this building and the wisdom of investing in this building (references PCBs); what is the pinch point in abatement costs to make it acceptable?
PG: The estimate incudes abatement for abestos and PCBs; EPA has updated their regulations to include caulk and masonry, which is less invasive now.
YES mic: Voting YES, was on the ad hoc committee that recommended to the Selectmen. Remind that this is an $117,000 appropriation to study and get more information.
Q: Kitchen being converted to professional kitchen? Could it be rented out as a function hall space, private & individuals?
PG: Yes, we're looking to updgrade to a professional
YES mic: I don't find this an easy vote, there are good arguments on both sides. I rise now because I hope we approve the funding and hope we will think through the next steps for funding and that approving this funding now does not commit anyone with questions to approve ultimate funding of the project.
MOTION to CALL the Question
Passes by voice vote
Simple majority vote

Yes - 126
No - 18
Abstain - 14

MOTION CARRIES

Continuing with Votes taken separately

• Parking Lot for Community Center

Town Manager, Carl Valente presents expansion of 20 spaces at Community Center. Trying to accomplish 4 things with this deal: 1). to take ownership of the parking spaces; 2). very close to having an agreement with the Scottish Rite for a sidewalk; 3). agreed to putting up a sign identifying our Community Center at their entrance; 4). two-way access to the Community Center
Selectmen: Unanimous
AC: Unanimous
CEC: Unanimous
Q: How do you come by the $425K for a new parking lot, already paved?
CV: It was expensive parking to construct, due to drainage (~$300K)
Q: Why wasn't this parking lot purchased with the original deal?
CV: It wasn't a parking lot as part of the original deal - it was pine trees. Additional parking has emerged as an issue since the CC opened 20 months ago.
Q: What is the "agreement"?
CV: We have an agreement that we can each use the other's parking when needed for events.
Q: This is an appropriation for the parking lot only, not other 3 parts, correct?
CV: Correct
YES mic: I'm supporting since we've made a major investment in this campus and also wouldn't like the parking lot to be sold to another entity that isn't the Town.
Q: Do you know on average what percentage of users are not Lexington residents
CV refers to staff person of CC (apologies, I do not know her name): About 6,000 memberships, fewer than 20% are not Lexington residents.
Q: Could we limit parking to Lexington residents?
CV staff person: We could.
YES mic: We should think not in terms of "residents"; we should think in terms of "community".
Q: According to Zoning Bylaw, what is the demand for this lot?
CV: Can't answer
Q: Perhaps the Planning board?
CV: Pat Goddard reminded me that we needed 90 spaces as part of the building purchase.
Requires 2/3 Majority vote
Yes - 136
No - 9
Abstain - 6

MOTION CARRIES

Article 21 - Post Employment Insurance Liability Fund: To see if the Town will vote to appropriate a sum of money to the Town of Lexington Post Retirement Insurance Liability Fund, as established by Chapter 317 of the Acts of 2002; determine whether the money shall be provided by the tax levy, by transfer from available funds, including enterprise funds, or by any combintion of these methods; or act in any other manner in relation thereto. (Inserted by the Board of Selectmen)

• Funds Requested: $1,842,895
• Description: This article will allow the Town to continue to fund its unfunded liability for post-employment benefits for Town of Lexington retirees. Beginning with the FY2007 audit, the Town was required to disclose this liability. In preparation for funding this liability, Town Meeting voted to request special legislation to establish a trust fund for this purpose. This special legislation was approved in 2002.

Selectmen: 4 in support-1 recusal

AC: support

Simple Majority vote

Yes - 126

No - 8

Abstain - 5

MOTION CARRIES

Article 27 - Prior Years’ Unpaid Bills: To see if the Town will vote to appropriate a sum of money from the Debt Service Stabilization Fund to offset the FY2018 debt service of the bond dated February 1, 2003 issued for additions and renovations to the Lexington High School, Clarke Middle School, and Diamond Middle School, as refunded with bonds dated December 8, 2011; or act in any other manner in relation thereto. (Inserted by the Board of Selectmen)

• Funds Requested: 
• Description: This is an annual article to request funds to pay bills after the close of the fiscal year in which the goods were received or the services performed and for which no money was encumbered.

MOTION to Indefinitely Postpone carries unanimously

Article 24 - Specified Stabilization Funds: To see if the Town will vote to create, amend, rename, and/or appropriate sums of money to and from Stabilization Funds in accordance with Section 5B of Chapter 40 of the Massachusetts General Laws for the purposed of: (a) Section 135 Zoning By-Law, (b) Traffic Mitigation, (c) Transportation Demand Management/Public Transportation, (d) School Bus Transportation; (e) Special Education, (f) Center Improvement District; (g) Debt Service, (h) Transportation Management Overlay District, (i) Capital; (j) Payment in Lieu of Parking; and (k) Avalon Bay School Enrollent Mitigation Fund and determine whether the money shall be provided by the Tax levy, by transfer from available funds, or by any combination of these methods; or act in any other manner in relation thereto. (Inserted by the Board of Selectmen)

• Funds Requested: $7,690,398
• Description: This article proposed to establish and/or fund Stabilization Funds for specific purposes and to appropriate funds therefrom. Money in those funds may be invested and the interest may then become a part of the particular fund. These funds may later be appropriated for the specific designated purpose, by a two-thirds vote of an Annual or Special Town Meeting , for any lawful purpose.

Requires 2/3 Majority Vote
Selectmen: Supports
AC: Supports
CEC: Supports
Yes - 142
No - 1
Abstain - 1
MOTION CARRIES

Article 30 - Retirement COLA Base for Retirees: To see if the Town will vote to raise the base amount upon which cost of living adjustments are calculated for retirees from $13,000 to $14,000 as authorized by Section 103(j) of Chapter 32 of the Massachusetts General Laws, or act in any other manner in relation thereto. (Inserted by the Board of Selectmen at the Request of the Retirement Board)

• Description: This article requests Town Meeting to approve the acceptance by the Retirement Board of a $1,000 increase in the maximum base amount upon which a retiree's cost-of-living adjustment is calculated.

Once passed, this increase cannot be retracted.
Selectmen: Unanimously with one recusal
AC: Majority 6-2-1 abstention
Question about the structure of the COLA; follow up on the "actuarial table".
Bob Cunha, Retirement Board: worked with the Assistant Town Manager (who is on the Retirement Board).
Question as to why 3% and not CPI
Bob Cunha, Retirement Board: a number of factors taken into consideration, includig impact on Town, sustainability, etc.
Impacts ~350 retirees.
YES mic: We're voting on giving 350 of our retirees an additional $30 /year. I see no reason why we should not vote to approve.
NO mic: Convinced by the minority opinion; this is not frugal. Wait until full amoritazation is reached.
YES mic: A question of finances; our former employees are hoping for a small increase.
Q: Are pension benefits not part of collective bargaining?
CV: The are set by State law.
Requires Simple Majority Vote
Yes - 100
No - 30
Abstain - 8
MOTION CARRIES
We are adjourned until Monday, April 3, 2017, 7:30 PM

10:30 PM that's a wrap

- - -

Appropriation Committee Report

About Town Meeting

Town Meeting in Lexington

Town Meeting Members Association (TMMA) Code of Ethics

Exploring Options for Parents: Innovation & Alternatives in Schooling

So, Nathan and I are tag-teaming the concurrent sessions - he's attending the session "Beyond the Test", which he thought appropriate for "the student", hence, this session for "the parent". Live-blogging, updating as we go

The panel is moderated by Paige Kowalski of the Data Quality Campaign. Panelists: Todd Ziebarth, National Alliance for Public Charter Schools; Robin Lake, Center for Reinventing Public Education; Todd Mann, Magnet Schools of America 

Todd Z: National Alliance for Public Charter Schools is an advocacy organization for public charter schools here in DC, represent on The Hill, partner with states (just began connecting with Kentucky, the 44th state about to enact charter schools). Lots of myths around public charter schools. Many think they are private entities.

Robin: research and policy center, we're different in that we try to stay grounded in "effective schools and effective classrooms". Biggest myth: charter schools take money away from district schools.

Todd M: magnet schools were begun to give parents a choice to send their students to reduce racial isolation in the early 70s, as an alternative to forced school busing.

Paige: Choice in DCPS, includes charters and traditional public schools; common application for all schools. Evidence in what we know about charters - what works? What evidence do we have that they make sense?

Robin: Very hard to give you a picture of charter schools at the national view because each school and state is different. Online charters have across the board not worked well. Boston: quality is a non-negotiable.

Todd Z: get data about their own context (City or State), try to match up across country, other states and cities/towns.

Todd M: impact of magnet schools on student performance, achievement, positive

Paige: What would "Choice 2.0" look like?

Todd M: the emphasis on accountability.

Robin: As we continue to push forward on accountability, need to see ways authorizers can encourage risk-taking beyond the test

Todd Z: Market-driven choice taught us that parent choice is a good thing but an insufficient thing for implementing quality. Need more quality options.

Paige: We can have a hard time getting our heads around choice in rural settings. How can we improve?

Todd Z: People think charters are only for urban districts. 45% are in rural and suburban areas, which tells me that parents want options.

Ohio: grateful to hear comments about rural settings; concern is revenue (tax incentives for businesses...) what's the longevity and stability of options for the life of the child? (great question)

Robin: many options are home grown; can be a retention strategy
Todd Z: vast majority of charters open in rural areas are opened by teachers and parents living in those communities


Massachusetts: Ballot initiative defeated 2:1 on expanding charters (November 2016); big reason they lost because of draw on public school resources and no public oversight. What method will we use to determine parent demand for options?

Todd M: Values
Paige: Programming; parents
Todd Z: Survey data always shows parents want options; a variety of ways 

Paige: What next steps people can take back to their states?

Todd Z: It depends. In some states, like MA, SBE is the authorizer. Maintain a focus on quality. Applications. People may be over-correcting for bad decisions of the past. 
Robin: Do some really good listening to parents, think about what options are missing from your environment.
Todd M: Do your research. Look at ways Magnet Schools can be used.
Paige: SBEs all have a role to play and parents need access to public information.

End.

#NASBE16: Helping All Teachers Improve Their Practice Through Sound Policy

Live blogging

Thomas Toch, Center on the Future of American Education
Rachel Wise, Nebraska State Board of Education, Chair
Robert Hull, NASBE (facilitator)

Hull: Student success depends upon recruiting, preparing, developing, and supporting great teachers.

Toch: Traditional teacher evaluation was a drive-by; annual visits by a principal with a checklist, looking for clean classrooms and quiet students--superficial exercises that didn't focus directly on the quality of teacher instruction, much less student learning. No incentives to thoughtfully compare teacher performances. Most school districts didn't do them. Nearly every teacher received satisfactory rating; virtually no one fired for under-performance. Absence of meaningful measures of teacher quality made rewarding talent and other steps to strengthen the profession nearly impossible to implement. Incentives eliminated in ESSA.

Toch: More comprehensive teacher eval systems have launched several important improvements in public ed:

• Elevating instruction - clearer teaching standards; ending teacher isolation/sparking discussions about what good teaching is; forcing school leaders to prioritize classrooms over cafeterias
• Removing lower performers - in some school districts, removing teachers for underperformance for first time ever, through dismissal and voluntary attrition
• Beyond "bad apples" - states and school districts increasingly prioritizing ways to help teachers improve their practice - "can't fire our way to a stronger teaching force"
• Smarter staffing decisions - using data to manage human capital systems more effectively
• Foundation for new roles, responsibilities - tapping highly-rated teachers to be peer evaluators, mentors, lead teachers--new roles that give teachers more pay and higher status; career ladders
• Raising student achievement - early evidence from places with comprehensive reforms in place the longest is encouraging (cites DC, Tennessee, Cincinnati)

Good eval system includes: Multiple measures - CR observations, student surveys, certain achievement results. Evaluation Data Drives Smarter HR Decisions:

• DCPS discovered teachers hired by May are 20% more effective
• Teachers can sign up to visit top teachers in other schools in their subject areas and grade levels (in DC, teachers can sign up online to do this)
• Instructional coaches, curriculum committee members, etc., drawn from ranks of top-rated teachers
• A sound basis for paying top teachers up to $125K per year (Admin, $180K/year)
• Target recruitment at higher ed institutions that produce the most top teachers

Many of the new evaluation systems are in early stages and are far from perfect. Challenges (not surprising, given pace/scale of reform to a core element of educational enterprise):

• Technical problems - especially with student achievement measures
• Lack of infrastructure - rubrics, systems design, evaluator training, data systems, etc
• Costs - more comprehensive systems are more expensive
• Teacher morale - speed, early "bad aples", focus, student test scores

Emerging infrastructure in DC:

• Simpler rubrics
• Multiple measures/reduced role for student achievement
• Stronger eval/teacher training
• Efficiency through differentiated observations
• Better evaluator feedback/stronger links to professinal improvement (Common Core)
• Teacher morale is rising

Upshot:

• Complex policy change at the heart of the edu enterprise is a long-term proposition; can't happen overnight
• no eval system is perfect
• but, you can't help people improve if you don't know what needs improving--even if measuring teacher performance is an inexact science
• hard-learned lessons of recent years; building on progress since 2009--staying the course is in the best interest of student and teachers

Rachel Wise on what's been going on in Nebraska through AQuESTT: Accountability for a Quality Educational System, Today and Tomorrow

• Quality, not blame or shame
• Beyond assessment and student performance as sole measures
• Focusing on investments that we know matter in student success
• Establishing a "Theory of Action" rather than a measure in isolation
• Building a system to support and help teachers
• Focusing on growth and improvement
• Working collaboratively to support/improve the whole 

AQuESTT: Two-Pronged Approach to Analysis

• Raw Classification
• Traditional metrics of student achievement such as assessment, graduation rates, participation
• No quantitative metrics associated with staff evaluation
• Evidence Based Analysis
• Qualitative analysis based on implementation of best practives and needs of support and technical assistance in the six tenets of AQuESTT
• "School-level evidence" of the implementation of a formal staff eal process aligned to the Nebraska Teacher and Principal Performance Framework
• "School-level Evidence" of an annual professional learning plan that supports continuous improvement

Virginia Q: Sorry to see this session at the very end with so few people...very valuable convo/presentation Toch: one does not want to make blanket statements. Fairfax is a rigorous district.

Connecticut Q: Trying to work out a multiple stakeholder system student performance place an important part - if not test scores, what? Toch: thoughtful Q. Research I've seen suggests that VAM (as opposed to perfomance scores=snapshot, inherently unfair to teachers), imperfect as it is, is considered by researchers that are predictive of teachers success with their students; combined with multiple observations is a vastly improved system. Wise: We're blessed in NE - we're small enough and know each other. Our teachers are coming along with the process; evolution with teachers at the table, not necessarily the union

And - that's a wrap! See you all in Atlanta next year #NASBE17

#NASBE16: Stakeholder Engagement Under ESSA

Live blogging

Moderated by Abigail Potts, project manager at NASBE

Potts: Stakeholder engagement - federal requirement under ESSA. Work under ESSA is daunting: Early childhood education;
Teacher requitment, preparedness; Privacy
All just the tip of the iceberg
Perception: state DoEs will engage for a time, check the box.
Experience with states is they are taking very seriously.

Chris Hofman, Rachel Man, Teach Plus
Ben Rarick, Washington State Board of Education Executive Director
Dr. Randy Watson, Kansas Commissioner of Education

Hofman: Will talk about our own research and experiences
Man: Found 5 major challenges:
1. Identifying stakeholders and engaging a broader voice
2. Overcoming time and resource constraints
3. Educating stakeholders
4. Organizing stakeholder feedback and incorporating feedback
5. Planning for future engagement

Man & Hofman: Key take-aways from the above challenges:

• Use networks you have to build relationships with previously unreached groups; allow your groups to be dynamic adding stakeholders as necessary
• Difficult to find time and resources to meet all stakeholders F2F meetings are best but difficult to schedule (Vermont did this very well); partner with local biz to provide food for meetings (Alaska did this) due to limited manpower, resources in SEAs
• Are we using friendly language (not jargon); clarifying misconceptions; structuring meeting times to maximize to get at the heart of issues - - know when to go broad and specific, balancing is beneficial (Florida did this well with their surveys - they created 9 different surveys with links to specific parts of ESSA)
• Not all feedback will be incorporated in the plan, still provide meaningful engagement. Can provide the feedback to the public, to know where everyone is, taking that and synthesizing into actionable steps (Pennsylvania did this - providing a report and organizing into very clear steps)
• Planning for long-term engagement; maintaining coalitions of support - - needs to become the norm, so need to be thinking about this as much as possible. 

Common Challenges in Stakeholder Engagement (The view from the other side):

1. Meaningful engagement vs. checking a box
2. Transparency
3. Adequate representation of ALL stakeholder groups

Rarick: ESSA - Ensuring Meaningful Stakeholder Engagement
There's a big difference between engaging people and having a meeting. Stakeholder engagement, especially as far as implementing ESSA is concerned, should be something that has a positive impact on students. Jotted a set of questions to ensure we are not just attending a bunch of meetings, but engaging on important questions; acknowledge that the process was a collaborative process with the SBE. Held 7 forums across the state. Six primary themes emerged:

1. supporting all students
2. supporting all students, part 2
3. challenging academic standards and academic assessments
4. accountability, support, and improvement for schools (not as defined by the state assessment...)
5. supporting excellent educators
6. consultation and coordination

ESSA Focus Groups:

• statewoie MAAC-tribal compact schools
• library/media state organization
• pasco-latino coalition
• charter schools
• tribal leaders
• private schools
• WA school attorney's organization
• migrant education conference with parents and students

ESSA Workgroup structure:

• accountability system
• learning and teaching
• student assessment system
• school and district improvement
• effective educators
• ELLs
• fiscal
• report card
• parent and community involvement
• early childhood education
• students with disabilities
• federal programs

Decision to do engagement on the front end and the back end. Subtle elitism creeps out and that's unhealthy. Tendency to see some comments as "oddball", not relevant; your first instinct to dismiss, but you're learning how people are interacting with this law. There is real value to be had out of those comments. Commitment is the take-away:

• Commitment to involving stakeholders on the front end of the plan development
• Commitment to deeper engagemnet with focus groups
• Commitment to travel
• Commitment to combine forces among entities that have overlapping or related state authorities
• Commitment to engage and get feedback both in person and through tele-town hall/webinar mechanisms

- Parents can't show up at 2:00 in the afternoon
- Break into small groups at tables to mitigate repeating same 30 comments
- Don't know how you can do this without traveling

Watson: Update from Kansas - Kansas CAN. Shout out to the five Kansas SBEs here at this conference. Are we going to manage? Or are we going to lead? The law will give us the framework to do it and we chose to lead to listen. 20 different community locations with over 1,800 participants. Three key questions of all:

• What are the skills, attributes, and abilities of a successful 24-year-old Kansan?
• What is K-12's role in developing this successful Kansan, and how would we measure success?
• What is higher education's role in developing this successful Kansan, and how would we measure success?

Watson: We allowed no one to speak at a podium - engaged in small groups. Also had an Online presence for those who could not make any location of the listening tour. Didn't have very good turnout from business, so asked Chamber to engage biz and went out on 7 more tours just for them. Then, went back out to all in 10 locations across the state and said:

• Here's what we heard from you all, did we get it right?
• Two Board retreats.
• New Vision launched in the fall of 2015 at the KSDE Annual Conference.

Defining Success (it's how we value):

• Academic preparation
• Cognitive preparation
• Technical skills
• Employability skills and
• Civic engagement and giving back to others

State Outcomes (handout):

• Kindergarten readiness
• Individual plan of study focused on career interest
• High school graduation rates
• Post secondary completion/attendance
• Social/emotional growth measured locally (teachers need that info to drive, state doesn't need it)

Q & A
Potts: I think I'll kick it off with ability to reach a diverse group of stakeholders - those who have not been heard. How would you recommend closing that gap? Watson: We have some inherent advantages to students and families of color. We had to adjust and visit at different times. Not just from people who are organized. It's not easy. Keep trying. Rarick: Standard approach - flyers, same people, same times...established networks. Need to be intentional. Reach leaders within different networks, partnerships. Man: There's a second part - once you're at the table, is your voice really being heard or are you just checking the box? Hard to ensure you're really doing that. Key is to touch back with stakeholders to ask if there's anything to change to improve engagement. Rarick: It's really hard work. Really hard. We were energized by those who took pride in designing the process. Watson: Teacher voice is so important. We took former Kansas Teachers of the Year, put them together in teams of 3, went out over the summer; created a voxer group to engage.

Potts: Pre-plan and After-plan. Gets difficult for a time. It's more than just listening. Using feedback to make decisions. Any advice about informing the decisionmaking process and being open and transparent? Rarick: Define what success is. If definition is that you walked out of every engagement feeling thrilled, then you're missing something and didn't engage very well. Watson: We're asking Kansas to fundamentally change school, meaning I have to change the agency b/c so much is about compliance. Engaging voice, implementing plan. Important. Not there yet. Hofman: Not all decisions will be based on points of advocacy, but feel your voice has been heard. Rarick: One of the messages: "Geez, thanks for engaging us...? Why did it take a federal law to engage with us...?" Now, how are we going to sustain?

Nebraska Q: Perception is that the decision has already been made. Watson: We asked very open-ended questions, then followed up to ask, "did we hear you correctly?"

Washington Q: What happens to the state office? It is compliance oriented? How does it change? Watson: Maybe I'll talk about that in Atlanta next year [at NASBE Annual Conference]. Expanded convos.

Massachusetts Q: Clarify that your Voxer group was just for Teachers of the Year? Watson: No. Created three groups: Teachers; Superintendents; Administrators. They can discuss among themselves when they have time b/c they have very little time to meet together.

Nebraska Q: Private and Public colleges to participate?? How did you do that?? Watson: Yes. You ask.

And - that's a wrap!