Do we need an IT MOU?

At this week's Select Board meeting there was a discussion of a "draft" website content policy for use with the new town website.  This policy developed by the Town Manager was an attempt to jump start operation of the website and included responsibilities for a designated "webmaster" and as well as guidelines for allowing non-govt. "links" on the website.  Below is a videotape of this discussion (courtesy of LCTV). 

As you can see by watching the above video clip, the Select Board and Town Manager haven't got a clue as to how to operate an effective town government website.

While I would agree with Mr. Aseltine that the title “webmaster” is little outdated (maybe not with his exact quote: "not this millennium"), there are certainly reasons to have someone who is responsible for the overall content and appearance of the website, who provides guidelines to individual contributors on content requirements and style of writing and maintains various functions (including allowable links) for the website.  This person also develops and provides specifications for new features that will be added to the website.  A better title might be Site Manager rather than Webmaster.

Mr. Aseltine believes that "distributed management" is a much better model to operate the website than a Site Manager or webmaster approach.  I say that the current website condition is proof enough that this model will not work very well. Distributed management means no one has overall accountability for the operation and performance of the website.

Kevin Warenda, the town's IT Director has stated that the town website development is now complete... including some "limited" employee training for posting of information on the website.  As far as Mr. Warenda is concerned, developing and maintaining content for the town website is not an IT function... this responsibility belongs to town government. 

Where does the town website go from here?  

It's looking more and more like there is need for another MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) between Town Government and the School Dept to work out the responsibilities for operation of the town website.  Let's hope not... it took more than 5 years (+ many long hours of effort) to develop the recently approved MOU for maintenance.

We are now approaching the one year anniversary of the town website reorganization.  Let's hope that Longmeadow residents do not have to wait too much longer to get the town website functioning at expected level. 

Thank you Paul Santaniello

for setting the record straight -one more time.

At last night's Select Board meeting (July 5, 2011) there was a discussion of a new website policy proposed by Town Manager Robin Crosbie involving the addition of non-government links to the new town website.

At the beginning of this discussion, Mr. Santaniello highlighted that last year's demise of the town website was "all about links".  It was a visible link on the home page of www.Longmeadow.org to this blog- LongmeadowBuzz that was the centerpoint of the controversy.  This link had been visible for 2½ years on the town website and was outlined clearly as "personal opinion"- not official town government policy.  It was only after a strongly worded blog post criticizing the School Building Committee and its leadership appeared that there was any real issue.  The link to the Buzz blog was removed immediately after a request was made by the Town Manager.

During this discussion, the former Select Board chairman, Rob Aseltine launched his "revisionist history" account of what had happened.  He indicated that lack of functionality and use of outdated technology was the primary reason for the dismissal of the town webmaster- not the link to the Buzz blog....  A quick sampling of the archived video clips on this blog will easily show this statement to be completely erroneous.

Below is a video clip from last night's meeting (courtesy of LCTV) with this discussion.

Here we go again!

From the Longmeadow School Department website…

“On Monday, June 14, 2010, the School Committee approved the revised FY11 School Department budget.  The approved budget reflects the budget voted during the annual Town Meeting.”

Last year, the new School Superintendent’s salary was finalized on March 30, 2010 (see contract details) yet the FY11 school department budget provided to town voters for the May Annual Town Meeting showed a line item of $135,000 even though the actual contract salary at the time was $155,000. This was a 25% increase over the $123,600 paid to the retiring school superintendent and 55% higher than the Town Manager.

Since by Massachusetts General Law the ATM approves only the TOTAL School Dept budget, changing this salary line was perfectly legal.  However, in a Buzz post last year on this subject I asked the following question:

Why were town voters mislead by the School Committee as to the new superintendent’s salary particularly given a budget that was achieved in part with a new teachers contract having a 0.0% COLA?

There was no answer from the School Committee.

_______________________________________________________

The current salary situation for our town employees has not changed very much since last year…

For the past two years (FY10 AND FY11), Longmeadow School Dept employees received a 0% Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA).  Just recently, the vast majority of school department employees accepted a one year contract (FY12) with a 1% increase in total salaries.  The details are a bit more complicated for Unit A (teachers) given that this was not a COLA nor an across-the-board salary increase but rather an additional salary step was added which benefited only those teachers who had already reached step 15.  The majority of teachers in Unit A (steps 15 and below) did receive salary step increases for both FY10 and FY11 (+ FY12) of ~ 2.8% each year (see previous Buzz post for further explanation).

Unofficial word is that Longmeadow Firefighters have agreed to a 0% COLA for FY10, FY11 and FY12.

Other town employees (DPW, police, et al) have been working without a contract for the past two years but appear to be headed toward a 1% COLA increase for FY12 (with 0% for FY10 and FY11) based upon public comments made at the special town meeting and recent Select Board meetings.  No official contract settlements have been announced.

On June 27, the Longmeadow School Committee met to finalize the FY12 budget.  Gwen Bruns, chair of the SC Financial Sub Committee explained a number of FY12 budget line item changes/ transfers prior to the required School Committee approval.  Below is a video clip of the explanation…

A lack of clarity of the explanation presented by Ms Bruns suggests that there was some intent to disguise some of the line item particulars that were involved…. 

For those not able to decipher them from Ms. Bruns explanation, here are some additional details.

-       The salary of the newly appointed Asst. Superintendent will be $99.5K- an increase of $14.6K (+17.2%) vs. the FY11 salary of previous Asst. Superintendent ($84.9K) who recently resigned.  The Asst. Superintendent’s salary is now equivalent to the salary of our Town Manager.

-       The salary for our IT Director was increased to $90K- an increase of $10K (+12.5%) from FY11.

-       The salaries of two elementary school principals (Wolf Swamp + Center School) were each increased by $6.5K ( + 8%).

It’s important to note that the Town Manager's Budget Report had targeted each of the above salary increases as being outside the budget instructions. The Town Manager rescinded the amounts from the total School Department budget that was presented and approved at the Annual Town Meeting.

At the June 27 meeting the SC voted to utilize additional revenues to fund targeted administrative salary increases that effectively superseded the Town Manager's budget instructions and the Annual Town Meeting vote.   

Nothing illegal about what took place… 

It's just not what we expect from our elected officials from the point of transparency and responsible actions during difficult financial times.

Future IT Spending- Can we afford it?

After listening to the recent School Committee and Select Board presentations by Kevin Warenda, Longmeadow’s IT Director, I have become concerned about the future level of IT spending.  Between 2007 and the Fall of 2013 when the new high school is opened, Longmeadow will have spent over $2 million on IT related infrastructure not counting any new programs that will be implemented.

Below are video clips of Mr. Warenda’s remarks at the June 13 School Committee and June 20 Select Board meetings (courtesy of LCTV).

Here are some highlights that I extracted from these presentations…

• A large portion of current IT infrastructure- both town and school related is in dire straits and needs to be replaced.  Many of these IT related resources are either past life expectancy or are no longer covered by vendor tech support and are likely to fail unexpectedly and have possible disastrous consequences in the next few years if not resolved soon.  This infrastructure includes network servers, computers and software and in a number of cases involves town and school mission critical systems.
  
  
• There is a strong need to upgrade the computer technology available in classrooms at all levels.  The State of Massachusetts is now recommending that school districts plan to upgrade available computer resources to meet a 1:1 student/ computer ratio by 2015.  Longmeadow currently has 1350 student + staff computers- many of which are 3-5 years old and not capable of multimedia applications and do not utilize the latest software programs.   Mr. Warenda indicates that we will need to almost triple the number of school related computers (-->3500 -4000!) during the next few years.  In addition, we should be prepare to replace computers on a 3-5 year timetable.

 Mr. Warenda proposed the following SC/SB expenditures..

1. Upgrade town and school servers and implement new disaster recovery and backup plans for mission critical information.
   Timing: Now       Cost: $107.5K
   (School share = $50K, Town share = $57.5K)
   
2. Sign up for a Microsoft Enterprise License which will allow all school computers to be upgraded to the latest software versions.  However, this license is limited to school district computers and will not include town computers, annual cost = $16K  
3. Implement programs to reduce student/computer ratio by purchasing IPad computers for use with mobile learning labs at the 6 district schools.  First year cost = $59K- a portion of future costs will be paid by LEEF, PTO and other grants.  This is the first step toward meeting the 1:1 student/ computer ratio guideline.
   
4. Expand the existing wireless network to allow for significantly increased computer access. Cost was not specified.

Below is a summary of town/ school IT Capital Expenditures for the past 4 years (including the above) totaling $857K.

 

 [click here to enlarge]

I also reviewed the FFE (Furniture, Fixtures and Equipment) estimates for the new high school project and found a total of $1.2 million of computer related items (not including computer related furniture).  Here is a link to this documentation.

I think that Mr. Warenda has done a good job of critiquing our town’s IT infrastructure and putting a plan together to remedy the shortcomings.  Some missing pieces include a detailed view of staff needs to support the planned IT expansion.  The proposed increase in the number of school + town computers and network infrastructure will likely require increased staff training, IT support and a significant increase in staff or outside resources.

Our town has many other needs that will require significant outflows of taxpayer dollars.  The latest spending request from our IT Director comes only 5 weeks after our annual town meeting for items that were clearly identified earlier in the year and could have been voted on at the ATM.  The IT consolidation that occurred on January 1, 2011 has essentially disconnected prioritization of IT projects and resource needs from the rest of our town’s capital needs.

At their June 13 meeting the School Committee simply transferred unspent money from various line items for the latest $50K expenditure and the Select Board used unspent monies to fund their $57.5K  portion of the IT infrastructure upgrade.  All of this money would normally have reverted to free cash at the end of the fiscal year on June 30 and become available for other uses at the Fall Special Town Meeting and beyond.

From these recent events, it certainly looks like this approach of bypassing town meeting has become a new funding mechanism for our growing IT capital needs.

I am a great believer in the value of technology in our schools and the business world.  However, we cannot afford to spend for IT infrastructure at these high levels and simply ignore our other needs as a town.

I would like to see the Capital Planning Committee include IT spending as they look at the entire town’s capital needs so we can spend our limited financial resources wisely.

Let's Help Our Neighbors

Residents of Longmeadow were spared last Wednesday when an EF-3 tornado created a 39 mile long path of destruction through Western Massachusetts. Many of us know friends that were affected and feel relatively helpless to reduce the misery and disruptions of life that was created.

Below is a clip from the American Red Cross about their efforts during the aftermath of this devastation.

It is great to have organizations like the American Red Cross to help people put their lives back together. 

If you haven't already done so, I ask each of you TODAY to make a donation of whatever you can afford to help the American Red Cross complete its mission.

You can also help by making a contribution at the Red Cross website , or call 1-800-RED-CROSS.

You may also mail a check to:

American Red Cross Pioneer Valley Chapter
506 Cottage St.
Springfield, MA 01104

New Town Website is Officially Launched

Earlier this month a decision was made by the Select Board to launch the new official town website at www.Longmeadow.org recognizing that there were still significant shortcomings.  Here is short video clip of this SB discussion (courtesy of LCTV).



This new redesigned website is a big disappointment for town residents given the missing and/or outdated information, bad links, etc.  Only within the last week has outdated information been removed from the homepage and more timely news added.  At this point the town website's functionality and usefulness are significantly less than that for the pre-July 2010 time period.

An example...
Where is the School Building Committee's new HS project cost information (bid information + Guaranteed Maximum Price) obtained earlier this month?   It was posted here on the Longmeadow Buzz blog (New High School Project Bids) but not posted on the "new" town website .

It's taken more than 10 months to "redesign" the www.longmeadow.org website using recommendations developed by the Website Task Force.  This group appointed by the Town Manager made a specific recommendation that the town adopt a "WordPress" CMS (content management system) platform because it was free and easy to manage at virtually no cost to the town. (I guess you get what you pay for it.)

During the past 10 months I benchmarked and posted here on the Buzz blog what other towns have done to develop and maintain their websites (including some cost estimates) but my suggestions and recommendations were not followed by the Website Task Force. 

Here are links to those earlier posts...

Roadmap to a New Website
The Cost of Technology
The Cost of Technology- Part II

Where is the new Longmeadow website?

The Select Board's decision this month to re-establish the previously dissolved Website Task Force and ask it to develop a set of policy guidelines as to who can post what on the town website indicates we are still a long time away from having an effective town website.

I would think that Kevin Warenda- Longmeadow's new Director of Technology (Schools + Town Government) and his IT group should have the primary responsibility for developing and maintaining the town website including the policy decisions about posting guidelines but this does not appear to be the case.  Comments by Ms. Swanson and Ms. Crosbie at the end of the above SB discussion are somewhat encouraging when they asked about the Select Board commitment of additional $$$ resources to improve the website from its current state.  Hopefully, IT related support for the town website does not take on the same complexion as the long standing school/ town government maintenance issue.

I encourage town residents to send their comments about the need to improve our town website to all Select Board members.

Here are their email addresses:
Robert Aseltine- raseltine@longmeadow.org
Robert Barkett- rbarkett@longmeadow.org
Paul Santaniello- psantaniello@longmeadow.org
Mark Gold- mgold@longmeadow.org
Christine Swanson- cswanson@longmeadow.org

Longmeadow's Oldest Resident Dies at Age 109

Vivian Maxine (Pickering) Henschke, 109, of Longmeadow, died on May 26, 2011 at the Julian J. Leavitt Jewish Nursing Home in Longmeadow, MA.

Read the full obituary in the Springfield Republican.






On January 23rd, 2003, Vivian Henschke was presented the Longmeadow Gold Cane as the town’s oldest citizen. In a tradition that dates back to 1909, Selectman Gerard Nolet presented Mrs. Henschke with the cane, with Rep. Mary Rogeness in attendance.

Bob Lezinski wrote an excellent article (click to read) about Ms. Henschke for the Longmeadow Chronicles- a feature originally found on the town website but now the archives have been relocated to the new town website at www.LongmeadowMA.org.

New Longmeadow HS Project Bids

This morning there was an article in the Springfield Newspaper announcing that the construction bids for the new Easthampton HS were $3 million lower than expectations ($30 million vs. $33 million - a savings to taxpayers of ~ 9%.  This is similar to the savings achieved for the new Minnechaug HS and was attributed to the favorable bidding environment.

You might ask...

What is the situation with the new Longmeadow HS project?

In a unrelatively unpublicized event, the new Longmeadow HS project bids were finalized at a School Building Committee meeting on May 12. As far as I know there has been no public notice or discussion of these results except during the end of the May 16 Select Board meeting when Mr. Barkett and Ms. Swanson (SBC co-chairs) provided a brief verbal project update (click here to view LCTV video, watch segment at the end of SB meeting).

Question: Given that this SBC meeting took place almost two weeks ago why has this GMP information not been made public?

For those taxpayers who are interested, here are the details that I have learned....

The project Guaranteed Maximum Price- GMP (construction only) is $63.7 million + $14.7 million of soft costs (feasibility study + admin + architecture/ engineering + furnishings/ finish/ equipment + contingency costs) for a total of $78.4 million- ~$88K less than originally estimated and approved by Longmeadow voters.

Below is table of the individual components for the $14.7 million of soft costs.

Included with this price tag are 4 "add alternates" or "add-ons" to the original project scope. These add alternates (not in the original project scope) include an upgrade of the swimming pool area (diving board + floor tile), addition of an electromechanical lift mechanism for the auditorium stage (vs. original manual hydraulic system), an outside enclosed storage area, and an "exterior environmental gardenscape". Total estimates (quoted at the 1/05/11 SBC meeting) for these add alternates were $665K.

Included with the the above "soft costs" are ~ $4 million of project contingency monies that will be used to resolve unforeseen project problems. Unless some of this money is not used and then later reallocated, there will be no synthetic turf installed as part of the high school project.

Longmeadow elected to use a Construction Manager at Risk (CMAR) approach which provided a higher MSBA project reimbursement rate (+1.0% ?). Gilbane was approved as the project CMAR so there was no large number of "general contractors" bidding for the overall project... Gilbane was already selected.

In the October - March 2011 time period Gilbane, the project architect (OMR) and the project manager (JLA) were involved in developing the final design + bid specification package. Gilbane/ JLA developed 3 sets of estimates (1 internal + 2 external sources) to use for comparing with actual bids on project components such as steel structure, electrical, plumbing, etc.

The project bid specifications (including basic assumptions) were then issued and various contractors submitted bids for the individual components of the project. At the SBC meeting on April 28 it was announced that there were few  bidders on certain project components (in some cases only one bid) and the bids were high so the bid deadline was extended.

After the extended bid deadline passed, Gilbane selected the best ones and develop the Guaranteed Maximum Price or GMP. Gilbane (CMAR) is responsible for delivering the project building construction for $63.7 million which as I indicated in my comments above include 4 add alternates. Any savings in construction costs will benefit the individual contractors (steel structure, etc.). Overruns will be absorbed by the individual contractors. Gilbane is being paid a fee for managing the project.

If the project runs into some unforeseen problems such as rock, asbestos removal, etc. that are not included with the original bid specs, the additional $4.0 million in the $14.7 million in other project costs will be used. Over that, the town has to ante up for overruns- without MSBA reimbursement.

I believe the reason for the lack of publicity is that the SBC promised that if the project was quickly approved by town voters that a "good" bidding environment (from Longmeadow's point of view) would reap significant financial benefits. The SBC was able to include 4 add alternates to the original project scope without going above $78 million but this was much less than originally anticipated.

Annual Town Meeting

The Annual Town Meeting will be held tomorrow night (Tuesday, May 10) at 7 PM at Longmeadow High School gymnasium. 

All town residents should plan to attend this important meeting. The Town Meeting warrant booklet contains detailed FY12 budget information + the 26 articles under consideration with explanations.

This year's annual town meeting warrant includes articles for approval of the FY2012 town budget for $54.2 million, capital spending on road and other infrastructure repairs, Information Technologies capital requests and renewal of the Community Preservation Act.

I hope to see you there!

Living History- A New LCTV Series

 

Living History is a new LCTV series where hostess Kathy Grady interviews Longmeadow residents who have lived in town for over 50 years. These longtime town residents share their childhood and early adult memories of Longmeadow. The first two interviews are Guy D'Antonio and Linda Abrams. Click here to view a short video containing clips from these first two interviews.

Living History is broadcast on Tuesday evenings at 6:30 PM and Wednesday mornings at 9:30 AM on LCTV Channel 12.