This article is the final installment associated with the budget meeting on May 14. The first installment of the article can be found by clicking here.

The Taxpayer and Financial Perspective

The significant question that continued to populate my thoughts … How did we get here? It was clear that the strategy of the School Department was to orchestrate several acts to deliver “theater”; that was clear to the taxpayers and residents.

Several residents approached the podium to discuss the situation. Many questions and thoughts were provided:

• Why did the School Committee and Department leadership allow a $28K expenditure to be the focal point of the budget discussion?
• For an expenditure of only .07% of the budget request? Not even a rounding error!
• Why did the proceeding require galvanizing students to passionately discuss an expenditure that is a rounding error?
• Why did the Department eliminate the issue by finding a small expenditure to offset retaining this important educator?

The Climax

Toward the end of the session, something amazing and purposeful occurred. Two students returned to the podium with interesting and mature thoughts. One student (at the 3:11:05) asked the Superintendent whether the funds for the electronic hall pass system at the high school, that she said was not used, could be re-allocated to re-hire the music teacher. The student asked the perfect analytical, financial and operational question that should have been asked by SPS management and the School Committee. Unfortunately, the response was to “look at the rationale” of the system and did not have any information at the time. Have we heard any thoughts from SPS since the hearing? No.

The Finale

It was amazing to hear the students’ questions. Their transformation occurred in front of the eyes of the audience, Council and School Department by asking … a) listening and processing to the financial questions that the taxpayers asked and b) formulating questions that should have been asked before the “play”. Cheers to those students!!

There is another definition for the word theater. It is … a play or other activity or presentation considered in terms of its dramatic quality.

Which definition accurately describes the strategy from that budget meeting? Do the residents and taxpayers of the Town deserve better? Less theater? More true transparency? More objective, factual analysis in presentations and reporting?

Demanding a quality education and government services for an efficient cost? Managing our government and educational operations with a fiduciary mindset … as if they were spending their own money instead of spending taxpayer money carelessly.

Most importantly, directly linking expenditures to the outcomes of a quality education and delivery of municipal services. Not just asking for funds to maintain budgets instead of quality services and education.

The simple answer? We should not eliminate the theater programs in SPS. Support all components of a quality education delivered efficiently; that is important!

Nor should we eliminate the Town Council. Until the School Committee has full taxation and collection authority, the Town Council remains at the fiduciary for that responsibility. If SPS wants authority over their own budgetary revenue, then submit the appropriate legislation and be accountable directly to the public as such.

Until then, it is my hope that SPS eliminate the second definition of theater.

Kenneth J. Sousa, PhD