Thursday, December 14,
2006
Wayland Town
Building
School Committee Conference
Room
Attendees
HSBC members: Lea Anderson, Josh Bekenstein, Dianne
Bladon, Steve Breit, Jim Howard, Fred Knight, David Lash, Cindy Lombardo, Eric
Sheffels, Jennifer Steel
Absent: Brian Chase, Mary Lentz, Joe
Lewin, Karen Talentino, Steve Tise
Ex Officio
members: Gary
Burton, Bob Gordon
Call to order – HSBC Chairman, Lea Anderson,
called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m.
Review of HSBC Communications
Effort – Dianne
presented the work that was done during 2004. HMFH and Turner produced design phase
documentation that was technical and detailed. The HSBC produced White Papers,
executive summaries, fact sheets, FAQs (frequently asked questions), a mailer,
and a story board display. The HSBC
also reviewed materials for accuracy used by the ballot question
committee.
Dianne
reviewed the communications channels of the 2004 effort. There were five tours of WHS and
forums. Some HSBC members met with
newspaper editors and provided suggestions for stories. The HSBC provided special columns,
meeting summaries, and meeting notices that were published without revision by
the local press. The HSBC sent a
letter to community organizations offering to meet with their membership and
asking them to publicize forums.
Members of the HSBC met with PTOs, Senior Center
attendees, and the Wayland Business Association. Direct mail was used once in
distribution of the informational piece sent to every house in town. The HSBC also communicated through the
website, WayCam, and the landfill.
Review of 2005 Town-wide Survey –
The HSBC
conducted a survey in the summer of 2005 to gather information about voter
attitudes and opinions following the defeat of the proposed design project for
WHS. Dianne reported that 7,921
surveys were mailed to registered voters and that 2,075 were returned – a 26%
response. She reminded the group
that the surveys were not a random sample and came from respondents who were
self-motivated to return the survey.
Therefore it cannot be assumed that survey respondents are representative
of all active voters. It is also
not predictive and cannot establish causation. It can provide general trends and
tendencies only. The survey was
designed, conducted, and analyzed by volunteers.
The
survey responses were demographically representative of active voters with small
variations in voter age and home assessment. There was found to be a significant
over-representation of project non-supporters or “no” voters (38% response rate
for non-supporters compared with 29% response rate for supporters). The survey results were quite polarized,
with project supporters and non-supporters taking opposing viewpoints. Non-supporters usually felt more
strongly than supporters.
67% of
respondents said that state aid was too risky and slightly more said not to
proceed with construction until aid is guaranteed.
Regarding need, project size, and
scope:
- 65% said the facility is not adequate
- 97% said that education is highly important
- 55% said that the program may suffer if facility not
addressed
- 88% said that health/safety is important
- 70% said that the scope could be reduced with no
effect
Regarding
cost:
- 32% were not sure or did not answer
- 23% thought the cost would be 25% more than the highest HSBC/Fincom
estimate
- Cost may not have been well understood
Support
for future cost:
- Opinion on adequacy of WHS was the biggest determiner of willingness to
spend in the future
Regarding construction approach
(renovate vs. build new) and the HSBC, non-supporters were very negative (90%
not comfortable with approach and 70% not comfortable with the HSBC) and
supporters were very positive (88% and 80 % respectively). About 1/3 had no opinion or
answer.
Dianne
reported that the issues of greatest concern were:
- Maintaining the quality of educational program and academic
spaces
- Code compliance
- Size and scope of project
- Cost of project
- State reimbursement
- More study on approach
Issues
where respondents were divided, but polarized:
- Reduction of fine arts spaces
- Construction approach (renovate vs. build new)
- Comfort with the HSBC
- Effect on the educational program if needs not
addressed
The HSBC
had a lengthy discussion following the survey review. Comments were:
- According to the survey,
respondents received information from newspapers (75%), friends (64%), HSBC
mailer (61%), warrant (48%), and HSBC forums (48%), e-mail newsletter (44%)
phone call from a group (36%), Web sites (28%), other mailer
(25%).
- HSBC was surprised by the loss at the polls.
- Despite all our effort to communicate, most did not fully understand
scope and complexity.
- From a new member’s
perspective, gut feeling is what really matters. Started out opposed to
an “excessive” design. Changed opinion after tour of
WHS. The changes in use,
deterioration of the facility, and the educational program needs were
obvious. Felt something needed to
be done, but was not comfortable with the financials and uncertainty of state
aid. Reacted
negatively to architectural drawings. Wanted to be convinced
that the project had been trimmed down to the fundamental needs of an
educational system.
- From another new member –
gained enthusiasm at a tour when he saw that the science facilities looked
identical to his days in school.
Buildings have a lifetime.
He was surprised by the small size of classrooms and safety code
violations.
- Benchmarking is important, but
complicated to understand. We need
to boil the information down to a few simple points.
- While the HSBC’s role is
limited in counting votes, the work needs to be done so that there are no
surprises.
- Our role is not only to
educate, but to draw more from the community, so that it is more “we” than
“they” defining the project.
- The group reached a unanimous
conclusion after starting out far apart on the approach. We ended up recommending demolition and
starting over.
- How did we become a
“them”? The group sat in a room and
came up with a recommendation instead of a groundswell bubbling
up.
- Is there a way to engage the
public more this time around? Can
we get out to community groups?
Communications Strategy Going
Forward – Dianne
started the discussion by suggesting that it is important to get “air time”, to
get people’s attention. She
proposed:
- Preparing for April Town
Meeting by providing information about the ballot question and TM
article.
- Soliciting input on community
priorities and concerns, potential directions or
solutions.
- Providing information on
current conditions and the new design process dictated by the State (as it
unfolds)
She
proposed that we do all we did last time plus more outreach to community
organizations.
The
group then suggested also doing the following things:
- Improve web site design
- Approach news organizations for “equal” time
- Develop an open web forum – post questions and draft
responses
- Provide less detailed information – develop a few key messages
- Have state officials conduct forums; enlist help of elected
reps.
- Approach organizations for outreach sooner rather than
later
- Refute incorrect allegations; ask to have all HSBC members put on
distribution lists
Discussion
ensued:
- We should develop a short
presentation and handout for small group meetings that includes an update on
conditions at WHS and MSBA process.
- We need to reach the point where we can
say “As we all know, something has to be done....”
- What part of losing accreditation will
people not understand?
- All that matters is the state defining
an enrollment, square footage per student and cost per sf,
- There are many more channels than were
available in 2004. Last time the
HSBC invited the community to attend many events; next time HSBC will be able to
push the information out to the community so there is much less effort required
on the part of the public.
- Grass roots can
work.
- School Committee, not the HSBC should
push for the warrant article in the spring.
- HSBC must articulate the message and
define how that money will be spent.
Remind voters that most of it is contingent on the state giving us the go
ahead.
- Message should stress current conditions
- the risk of losing accreditation, health and safety code violations, falling
concrete, etc.
- Should we ask different groups to attend
HSBC meetings and participate in the discussion?
- Try to remind people about
meetings.
- HSBC will read the NEASC Report and
letter from the Division of Occupational Safety.
- Eric will update group on cost analysis
developed at his company.
- HSBC will think about topics for small
group work.
- HSBC will meet at WHS from now on in
classrooms. Fred will arrange
taping.
- Fred and Lea will figure out how to
enlarge list serve distribution to town departments and
organizations.
Motion – A motion was made by Josh
Bekenstein and seconded by Steve Breit to approve the minutes of HSBC meeting
#42 held on Thursday, Nov. 30, 2006.
Vote – The motion was approved
unanimously - 10 in favor, 0 opposed.
Comments and questions from observers: There were no comments,
Adjournment – The HSBC adjourned at 9:50
p.m.
Observers: Janet Correia, Lisa
Valone