Creative Commons Chuck Kollars' Town of Ipswich
Chuck Kollars' Personal Home Page

Funding Ipswich Public Schools

In the past funding of my local public schools particularly concerned me, especially as funding has been in nontrivial trouble for several years. Some of what I learned may be of use to others in the future, so I've recorded it here. The information presented here is less detailed than before simply because I haven't been as deeply involved in the minutiae as I once was. You can skip to particular sections of interest (or of course you can read linearly).

(Along with how to pay for it is the question of what will be taught. My concerns in this area focused on the overly regimented and counter productive MCAS Test [particularly requiring it to graduate].)


What Is A "Fiscal Year"?

A "fiscal year" is any twelve-month-long period used for budgeting and accounting. It's often convenient to choose a period that's different from a "calendar year" (January through December). Any twelve months is fine, so long as it's used consistently every year. "Fiscal year" is often abbreviated FY and is referred to by the last two digits of the year in which it ends. So for example July 2012-June 2013 would be referred to as FY13.

Government budgeting in Massachusetts —including funding of public schools— is done on a July-through-June "fiscal year". Other events are meshed with this schedule. For example, Ipswich's Spring Town Meeting occurs only a few weeks before the beginning of the "fiscal year" in July. The July-June fiscal year works quite well for public schools, as an entire school year fits neatly inside a single budget year (with no complicated overlaps or carryforwards).


Is School Money Being Spent Wisely?

Summary

While "waste, fraud, and abuse" is a common generic problem in many school districts, it does not seem to be relevant to the particular case of the Ipswich school district. The school district's "Central Office" employs only a handful of people. Teachers talk directly to principals who talk directly to the superintendent; there are no other administrative or managerial layers. As a parent volunteer I had difficulties in scrounging up "routine" supplies like rubber bands, manila folders, blank CDs, and even cellophane tape. It was obvious to me there was no waste where supplies were concerned. And the most frequent gating factor for an activity was where to find an adult with time to provide supervision. Teachers and staff were stretched very thin.

Personnel costs (salaries, health insurance, retirement benefits, etc.) are approximately 85% of our schools budget. To retain both personnel and academic programs and also to provide all mandated services means all cuts have to come out of a small portion (10%-15%) of the total school budget. This is difficult.

For quite a number of years Ipswich schools have had a tradition of whenever cuts were necessary protecting direct student contact (i.e. classroom teachers) while eliminating supervisory, administrative and coordinator resources. When cuts are necessary, this is a very sensible policy; but it can't continue forever. Teachers deprived of all fallback, coordination, resources, and rejuvenation will eventually collapse. The schools look good on the surface but are in fact hollow. What's necessary in lean times does not point the direction to take all the time.

Ipswich schools funding might have continued as it was without being a dire problem if state aid hadn't been reduced for several years, even though state aid pays only about 15% of the cost of our schools with the lion's share of about 85% generated locally. (Further, it seems that Ipswich doesn't currently get its "fair share" of state aid due to a quirk in the state's Chapter 70 formula which heavily penalizes Ipswich for funding its schools well decades ago.) The good part of shifting the tax burden from the state to the town is there's even more local control of what money is collected and how it's spent. But the bad part is such a shift also changes the kind of taxation: less income tax and sales tax, and more property tax. Retirees who live on small fixed incomes and don't buy much largely escape income tax and sales tax, but are often hit significantly by property tax. One terminology calls this a shift from "progressive" taxation to "regressive" taxation. In Massachusetts shifting the tax burden from state to local brings the side effect of shifting it onto individuals who are not part of the economy.

The shortage of funds is because there really is a problem rather than because those entrusted to manage the situation were careless.

How Does Our Per-Pupil Expenditure Compare To Surrounding Communities?

A comparison of overall ("integrated") per pupil expenditure as calculated by the state Department of Education —which is a measure of the true cost of education in different school districts— shows that the costs of Ipswich schools are almost at the bottom of those in surrounding communities. Ipswich schools provide education at a relatively low cost. (This comparison table ends with 2002-03 simply because later costs for surrounding communities were not yet easily available at the time this table was created.)

Per Pupil Expenditure Comparison
(highest at top, lowest at bottom)
Cost Per Pupil Over All Grades
(combined Regular and Special Education)
Town2000-012001-022002-03
Manchester
(Manchester/Essex)		$8,479$9,233$10,513
Essex
(Manchester/Essex)		$8,479$9,233$10,513
Newburyport$8,357$8,754$9,276
Andover$7,935$8,220$9,252
Middleton
(Masconomet secondary)		$7,650$7,916$8,646
Boxford
(Masconomet secondary)		$7,075$7,955$8,644
Swampscott$7,315$7,601$8,430
Topsfield
(Masconomet secondary)		$6,860$7,932$8,317
Rockport$7,898$8,467$8,290
Hamilton
(Hamilton/Wenham)		$7,657$7,721$8,028
Wenham
(Hamilton/Wenham)		$7,657$7,721$8,028
Marblehead$7,259$8,094$7,853
Lynnfield$7,137$7,338$7,662
North Andover$6,389$7,062$7,584
Gloucester$7,304$7,759$7,420
Ipswich$6,813$6,817$7,314
Newbury
(Triton)		$6,767$6,592$6,863
Rowley
(Triton)		$6,767$6,592$6,863
Salisbury
(Triton)		$6,767$6,592$6,863
Georgetown$6,474$6,548$6,800

(Almost all numbers in the above table are simply copied from the state DOE accounting reports. Numbers for Boxford, Middleton, and Topsfield however had to be calculated becase each town has its own elementary schools while they share the Masconomet secondary school.)


Local Property Taxes

Overview

Local property taxes in Ipswich have risen significantly over what they were several years ago mainly because of recent projects (new school building, new library extension, remodeled town hall) and the Open Space bond. At the same time, property prices (especially "waterfront") have soared because of easier access to growing Boston (for example long-time residents of Great Neck are being priced out of their homes). As a result, some of our residents on fixed incomes are having a hard time making ends meet. (Even though they're higher than they were several years ago, local property taxes in Ipswich are still not as high as in many surrounding communities.) Ipswich town government is very aware of the voices of stretched voters and is very skeptical about all spending.

How Do Our Taxes Compare To Surrounding Communities?

The following tables are for FY04 because complete numbers for later years were not yet easily available when this table was created. A more detailed comparison of local property taxes is also available if you want to know more than this sketch tells.

Property tax rates have generally dropped in the past few years to compensate for property valuations going up. So a comparison of local property tax rates in surrounding towns shows that the tax rate in Ipswich is currently quite low. (The comparison of average tax bills in the next table may be more meaningful since the tax rate bounces around quite a bit as properties are reassessed and as communities grow.)

Local Property Tax Rate Comparison
(highest rate at top, lowest at bottom)
TownTax Rate
Newburyport1.429%
Hamilton1.248%
Gloucester (*)1.232%
Boxford1.227%
Topsfield1.220%
Georgetown1.210%
Rowley1.136%
Danvers (*)1.092%
Essex1.019%
Wenham0.975%
Ipswich0.954%
Rockport0.878%
Newbury0.862%

(*) This town has different tax rates for residential and for commercial. The residential tax rate is shown.


A comparison of average local property tax bills in surrounding towns shows that Ipswich taxes are in the lower middle of the range. Of course, recent Ipswich property tax bills reflect several projects (school building, library extension, town hall remodelling) as well as expenditures to date under the Open Space bond, all of which were begun in good economic times and may not reflect Ipswich's current fiscal priorities.

Since these numbers are for FY04, parcel valuations —including the average residential parcel valuation for Ipswich— differ from current valuations. A more detailed comparison of local property taxes is also available if you want to know more than this sketch tells.

Average Local Residential Property Tax Bill Comparison
(highest bill at top, lowest at bottom)
TownAverage Residential
Parcel Valuation		Average Single
Family Tax Bill
Boxford$513,225$6,297
Wenham$537,529$6,230
Topsfield$487,405$5,946
Hamilton$442,646$5,524
Newburyport$291,493$4,165
Essex$400,496$4,081
Rockport$459,570$4,035
Ipswich$418,780$3,995
Gloucester (*)$408,780$3,928
Danvers (*)$352,031$3,844
Rowley$331,076$3,761
Georgetown$354,411$3,456
Newbury$389,594$3,358

(*) This town has different tax rates for residential and for commercial.


Must Senior Citizens Pay Too?

Taxes that seem typical to family-aged adults may seem outrageous to senior citizens living on fixed incomes, partly because the value of a dollar has changed slowly but inexorably over time. A dollar's worth of goods in 1962 —near the time senior citizens paid their first tax bill— now costs $5.31. Because a dollar isn't what it used to be, property valuations and taxes have risen steeply. Tax bills in current dollars can place an unfair burden on someone whose retirement income is based on their old wage dollars that were stretched much less.

Advocacy cannot overcome a large number of negative votes from a frightened group who votes heavily. Parents should help an elderly neighbor investigate the 41C (pronounced forty-one see) property tax reduction (or senior citizens should call the Assessor's office at Town Hall themselves). In many specific cases they'll be able to mitigate the unfairness. (Senior citizens should also investigate the "circuit breaker" state income tax deduction.) These reductions may allow senior citizens to vote for better support for Ipswich schools without themselves becoming the target of an outrageously high tax burden.

It might seem counter-intuitive to increase school funding by reducing the local tax base. How will aiding a senior to get their 41C property tax reduction help the schools? By reducing the tax liability of the senior, their fear of an override is reduced, perhaps even to the point of eliminating one negative vote. And the contact may give parents the opportunity to get their senior to view their kids more like grandkids than pests.


What Is "The Feoffees Of The Grammer School" And Can It Fund Our Schools?

The Little Neck area of Ipswich is an (approximately) 350 year old land trust which benefits our schools. The trust owns all the land (but not most of the buildings) on Little Neck (reachable by going through Great Neck and past Pavilion Beach).

The trust was initiated by the will of William Paine with the words "unto the free scoole of Ipswitch the little neck of land at Ipswitch knowne as Jeferry's neck, the which is to be and remaine to the benefitt of the said scoole ... for ever as I have formerly intended and therefore for the sayd land not to be sould nor wasted." A decade previously, the state legislature had commanded each town to provide a school, but Ipswich town meeting had never properly funded their school. So William Paine's bequest may have been an example of an "elite" person using their wealth to force the rest of the town in a particular direction.

Because of the Little Neck trust, it would seem that, unlike most towns, the Ipswich public schools have another source of funding besides local and state taxes. However, there has been a longstanding fear that the state would simply deduct the proceeds of the trust before it sent any state tax monies, so the net to Ipswich schools would be the same despite the trust. Although this hasn't actually happened so far, the fear has been realistic. In particular this fear may partly "explain" the very low trust proceeds in the latter half of the last century.

The trust's terms have been clarified and updated several times with the cooperation of the state legislature, and are in the process of being updated again for the first time in many decades. This time the update should go through the Massachusetts Probate Court.

This trust is often called "The Feoffees of the Grammar School" or just "The Feoffees". Feoffee is an antique word that would probably be rendered as "trustee" today. Although originally the Feoffees had a separate existence and managed many things besides the land trust, they now look after only the Little Neck trust, so nowadays "the Little Neck trust" and "the Feoffees of the Grammar School" mean the same thing.

Over a century ago the Little Neck property was subdivided into lots, and has since been managed as a "summer colony". Most of its houses are occupied only in the summer by people from other towns. The arrangement was similar to the old Conomo Point in Essex. This was a sensible arrangement, with Ipswich using what it had (great seascapes) to get what it needed (cash). The fact all the land was owned by a single rather odd trust became nothing more than a quaint legal anomaly. The trust didn't generate very much money (at least for the last generation) for Ipswich Schools or even for the Town of Ipswich.

Regular property taxes are collected on Little Neck properties (the trust does not exempt the properties from paying taxes). The Feoffees have severely discouraged most year-round residence (probably mostly because of inadequate waste disposal; Little Neck is a barely-permeable hard rock formation). As a result of being mainly a "summer colony", Little Neck sent almost no students to Ipswich public schools. In the past property tax income from homes without students has benefitted Ipswich schools significantly; in fact some might even say that sometimes the property tax income counted more than any Feoffees contribution.

Through the years cash contributions from the Feoffees (but not the property taxes) have been earmarked for a specific purpose and have been "off book" so they were not used to cut local taxes (nor deducted from state aid payments, which was a real and realistic fear). This tradition was enshrined in earlier drafts of the next update of the trust, which specified that its monies be used for "enhancement". Whether or not such a restriction will be explicitly included in the final language of the next update of the trust is an open question. With the agreement of the Feoffees, sometimes during an "emergency" Feoffees monies have been folded into the regular school budget rather than used for enhancement; in fact that's partly how Ipswich schools have survived the past few years as well as they have. But such use is of somewhat dubious legality, certainly frowned on, and most definitely cannot be counted on. Any school district budget item that's "moved to Feoffees" and not moved back the very next year is effectively being set up for sudden discontinuance in the future.

Feoffees contributions have varied widely over the years: several grants to individual projects, a single grant to the whole school district, small amounts, very small amounts, and in some cases no contribution at all or a contribution directly to the town's General Fund. The total amounts of these Feoffees contributions were consistently very small for many decades, raising the question of what rents should be charged for Little Neck residency. (Here's a listing of the supposed exact amounts of yearly Feoffee contributions - note that some suspect this listing is not entirely accurate.)

There were conflicting views on what level of price/rents for Little Neck residency benefitted Ipswich the most. Considering only the interests of schoolchildren, the price/rents should be as high as possible to maximize trust income. Yet considering the broader interests of the whole town, price/rents shouldn't be so high that only the ultra-rich can live there or that residents have almost no contact with the rest of Ipswich. For example, the restrictions against year-round residency have meant almost no students for Ipswich schools from Little Neck, but the cost of managing Little Neck as a "summer colony" has been virtually no involvement by those residents with the town of Ipswich.

The Feoffees started both to raise property rents to current market values and to make regular contributions to the school district in the mid nineties. Even so, the initial contributions were small -typically $25,000 or $50,000- because the trust had to cover its previous large capital expenditures (for example for a wharf or dock shared by the Little Neck residents). In recent years when the Feoffees were no longer limited by their previous capital expenditures, they contributed more than $250,000 per year to the school district.

The strenuous efforts to collect "market rate" rents, combined with skyrocketing waterfront property values, eventually resulted in a Little Neck renters' revolt or strike, and subsequent lawsuits and disagreements over the future structure of the Feoffees. (At the same time, the "lack of transparency" of the current Feoffees organization was seriously questioned.) As a result, the Feoffees were unable to contribute any money at all to Ipswich schools during the school year 2007-2008 or indeed at any time during 2008 or 2009. (Some of the delayed moneys were loaned to the schools by the town.)

Although the amounts may seem large, they're really small in comparison to the total school budget. Even if they weren't restricted to "enhancement" items, they wouldn't be enough to solve Ipswich schools funding problems. So yes the Little Neck land trust has helped significantly with funding Ipswich schools. But there are restrictions on how the monies are spent ...and even if there were no restrictions, the amount wouldn't come anywhere close to meeting the total need.

Current Feoffees Issues

After having been nearly forgotten for several years, a new wave of interest in —and approbation of— The Feoffees began in the 80's and rose in the 90's. Despite widespread feelings the status quo should simply be left alone, a resolution to investigate the trust in detail was passed at the April 2001 Ipswich Town Meeting.

That resolution can be considered the beginning of the process of periodic updating of the terms of the trust. The rather detailed results of that investigation of the Feoffees provide thorough background information, and should be studied by anyone interested in learning more about The Feoffees (even though a few of its findings are no longer completely current). Some have characterized efforts to update the terms of the trust as "setting aside" the intentions of William Paine or "breaking the will". This characterization is wrong (it over-interprets a few secondary words in the will and misses the main point); all efforts have been to simply update the trust mechanism while scrupulously maintaining William Paine's original intentions (to say the same thing another way, efforts attempt to retain the "spirit" of the will). Also, whatever is decided must ultimately be sanctioned by the Massachusetts Probate Court; nobody in Ipswich can just unilaterally "do whatever they wish".

Several other concerns arose at about the same time as updating of the trust was being considered. The most important of these were uproar about inadequate Feoffees contributions, and questions about the future of Little Neck as a summer colony now that Essex is divesting itself of the similar Conomo Point and waterfront property values have skyrocketed and the current Little Neck occupants have refused to pay the latest rents. All these concerns have coalesced into what's become just one problem - "The Feoffees". Here's one proposed draft of new trust language (note while this draft is readily available on the web, it's several years old and may not be current or completely reflect current issues).

As all these concerns have been considered, three issues have come to the fore:

  1. Secrecy of the Feoffees Should citizens be able to access all the details of what The Feoffees have decided and how, or should they simply accept "trust me"? And, how should Feoffees be selected in the first place?

    Morally it would seem the Feoffees would obviously be as transparent as possible to the citizens of Ipswich. The Feoffees have nevertheless continued to hew to —and even increase— the secrecy which was typical many decades ago. (The author of this webpage does not understand why this is happening and cannot offer any explanations.) Legally the Feoffees have stoutly maintained (contrary to some legal opinions) they are a "private trust" and so not subject to public visibility requirements such as the Open Meeting Law. The federal tax status of the trust (the Feoffees use the town's tax id number and do not have their own) does not strongly suggest one way or the other if The Feoffees can really be legally classified as a private trust.

    Currently feoffees are appointed for "life" (like Supreme Court justices). Currently feoffees choose their own replacement. And currently The Feoffees need never consult with any elected body.

    For most of the past 80 years in Feoffees meetings there have been only the four votes of the Feoffees themselves. Recently in most Feoffees meetings there have been seven votes, as the three most senior Ipswich selectemen have also begun participating, as provided by the legislature in a previous update of the trust. This participation provides a bit of visibility into what the Feoffees are doing (but not "why"), and a little bit of accountability (but not much). It seems reasonable to guess that in any vote for more transparency, the three selectmen vote "yes" but are outvoted by the four Feoffees all voting "no". Resolution of access to Feoffees proceedings will probably require either a lengthy and expensive lawsuit to compel Feoffees behavior, or a complete reorganization of the trust (which may result from the periodic updating of the terms of the trust). Resolution of the method of selecting Feoffees will probably require a complete reorganization of the trust.

  2. Converting land trust to money trust The original will makes clear (with phrases like "remain to the benefit of the school") the intention the trust last "for ever" and hence never be "wasted" (dissipated). Nowadays we'd express this something like "don't touch the principal". The will expressed this idea with an old phrase to the effect that "the land should never be sold". An over-literal interpretation of a few words in the original will could unnecessarily stifle the option of converting a "land trust" to a "money trust".

    A money trust was not even a possibility back in the 1660's, as the idea of an interest-bearing cash investment was uncommon, and no one had ever even heard of a mortgage. Nowadays, a money trust would be much easier to manage openly, not place such heavy burdens on the individual Feoffees, be less susceptible to possible future problems, and likely generate significantly more cash for Ipswich's schools. The public officials who will help decide the future of The Feoffees —including the Massachusetts Probate Court— are more attuned to the correct interpretation of old terms and phrases, and will likely not fall victim to this over-literal interpretation of the original will.

    An agreement in principle was reached in December 2008 to sell Little Neck to its tenants, but that sale was never finalized (perhaps because economic difficulties blocked mortgage financing), and the offer (especially the price) was later completely rescinded. More attempts are likely. An open question is whether The Feoffees can hold only money (necessitating every resident obtain a mortgage privately), or The Feoffees may in some cases hold the mortgage itself rather than its cash value.

    One way or another, in the near future the trust will likely be converted from a land trust to a money trust, and the restriction against year-round residency will probably eventually disappear. The Feoffees will become investors managing the proceeds from the sale of the property, rather than landlords. Given a reasonable rate of return, a money trust can be expected to contribute somewhere in the ballpark of 1 million dollars to the schools most years, (Proceeds from a money trust will probably be significantly higher than proceeds from a land trust, since doing a really good job of being such a large landlord requires way too much time and effort.)

  3. Very low payments suggest irresponsibility The unquestioned existence and history of some ridiculously low payments by The Feoffees to Ipswich schools, and the possible irresponsibility of some past Feoffees, has been widely publicized by a steady drumbeat of Letters to the Editor over many years. (Even the accuracy of the few scraps of accounting that are publicly available has been questioned.)

    What's less clear just from quickly scanning these letters is this stopped long ago; it is not a recent or current problem. There has been no suspected irresponsible setting of rents by The Feoffees for well over a decade. The statute of limitations on possibly reprehensible behavior by some Feoffees has clearly run out. Some of these suspect Feoffees can't even explain their actions any more as they're now dead.

    The best way to ensure such low contributions never happen again (at least not without adequate explanation to the general public) seems to be simply to vastly increase the openness of The Feoffees (the issue of Feoffees "openness" is point #1 above).


State School Funding Aid

Schools are paid for mostly by local property taxes, but not entirely. Reimbursements from the State of Massachusetts are also important. This money is called "State Aid" or "Chapter 70" and is typically over a tenth of a total school budget. The exact amount of state aid to each town is calculated by a very complicated formula and announced each year via "Cherry Sheets".

In Ipswich, the procedure has always been to combine school (Chapter 70) and town state aid, then re-split the money 60% for the town and 40% for the schools. Doing so provides both our town and our schools a bit of a buffer against any possible dramatic fluctuations in only some parts of state aid. (The 60/40 split does not include the state's financial assistance toward paying the bond for the new school building.)

In the past the state of Massachusetts also offered very liberal financial assistance for the construction of new school buildings. This assistance was later considerably restricted because the state was going broke spending money for things different from what it had expected. The new school building in Ipswich though was launched before the state program changed, so significant financial assistance is still being provided under the old rules.

The formula by which the exact amount of state aid is calculated is called the "Chapter 70 Formula" and originated in the Education Reform Act (ERA) in 1993. It includes some historical factors that arguably aren't as important as they once were. The formula is exceedingly complicated, so it's difficult to tell exactly what's going on. Any change in the formula would affect the finances of every school in the whole state, and because of all the unforeseen side effects would likely cause more problems than it solved, so changes have not been encouraged. (The whole situation calls into doubt the wisdom of having created such a complicated formula in the first place...)

In any case, for reasons which are arguably not reasonable (nor even fully understood), Ipswich gets several hundred dollars less per pupil in state aid than surrounding towns such as Hamilton and Wenham. One probable explanation for this is Ipswich is viewed as being able to afford to pay more for education (particularly because its taxpayer contribution to education was higher than surrounding towns in 1993 - which may have been an anomaly even back then, and is certainly neither true nor reasonable any more. Another probable explanatio for this is the formula has been tweaked over the years and is now most definitely slanted toward "urban" communities at the expense of "suburban" communities such as Ipswich.

In the future, Ipswich might team up with other "suburban" communities to lobby for a change in the Chapter 70 Formula. (Although our state representatives worked on this problem for several years, it eventually became very clear that Ipswich alone didn't have the legislative clout to force a change. Teaming up with other towns now seems the only way forward.) Because the state bureaucracy moves so slowly, any such effort would take several years. Any attempt that expected to see tangible results at the end of only one year is bound to fail (and is a waste of time); only a multi-year effort has any chance of succeeding. Whether or not it's "fair", funding of Ipswich schools in the short term will be a purely local matter to be decided by the town of Ipswich itself.


Public Advocacy

My experience is that effective advocacy is necessary to make any modifications to school funding that involve taxes or an election in the Town of Ipswich. If advocacy is insufficient, the proposed modification will fail, and this failure will set up the expectation of further failures in the future.

Legal Formalities

For every proposed modification involving an election, there should be a locally registered coordinating organization. According to Massachusetts state law, that umbrella organization must

These formalities are quite simple, requiring only a little thought and a few minutes. But don't try to fudge them, as doing so can cause a lot of trouble including significant fines and possibly even nullification of election results. If in doubt, err on the safe side by registering.

Although Parent Teacher Organizations will probably be deeply involved in override advocacy, and even though "Municipal Ballot Question Committee" officers may also be significant PTO members, to avoid running afoul of state campaign finance laws the PTO should not itself be the coordinating organization. The "Municipal Ballot Question Committee" should always

All-Out Advocacy Provided By Parent-Teacher Organizations

In the past, the Parent-Teacher Organizations in the Town of Ipswich have been overly reluctant to "get involved in politics". But even though an election is involved, any campaign (such as an override election) is really about parents advocating for their kids, not about "politics". The State of Massachusetts does more than just permit Parent-Teacher Organizations to advocate for overrides - it expects and even encourages it. Most likely past over-squeamishness was based on a misunderstanding of some historical events and the complexity of the regulations. Parent-Teacher Organization advocacy is too important to completely forego just to stay as far away as possible from any penalty.

The State of Massachusetts fully expects PTOs to be deeply involved in advocating for an override (albeit within fairly detailed restrictions, due mostly to close interpretation of the state's campaign finance law). Sending home a flyer with every student is generally not allowed because it almost inevitably involves using a public resource (in particular teachers' time) to influence an election. (Note this interpretation has changed recently; less current information may incorrectly suggest a different course of action.) It makes no difference that no mailing list nor postage nor use of a school copying machine is involved. It may be simplest to steer completely clear of anything that might be interpreted as "use of public resources for political purposes" by distributing all materials via mail, email, social networking, websites, and other media that don't involve teachers touching the material at all.

The State of Massachusetts provides a lot of legal advice in this area. Particularly intriguing are the recent Advisory Opinion AO-07-03 which is summarized 'School officials may use automated phone system to advise parents of the date of an election and also to encourage them to vote. Extreme care should be taken to avoid any comment regarding the merits of a ballot question or any appearance of advocacy.' and the paragraph in Interpretive Bulletin IB-91-01 that says 'In addition, public resources may be used to distribute information that simply advises voters of an upcoming vote, such as a notice of the time, date and place of a municipal election. In addition, such information may urge people to vote, and provide information about how to register to vote. Also, such information may include a brief neutral title describing the ballot question, and the text of the ballot question. Extreme care should be taken to avoid any appearance of advocacy. For example, the title "school expansion project" would be appropriate. On the other hand, titles which would not be appropriate include "ballot question relating to need for school expansion," or "ballot question addressing school overcrowding problem."'

Advocacy References

Rather than attempt to provide detailed legal interpretations and advice on this rather complex subject, here are some original materials which you can peruse yourself. Almost all these materials are written for non-professional readers; you don't need a law degree to make use of them.


Some Other Sources of Information

Location: N42 40.86' W070 50.35'
 (North America> USA> Massachusetts> Boston> North Shore> Ipswich)
Time: UTC-5 (USA Eastern Time Zone)
 (UTC-4 summertime --"daylight savings time")
Email comments to Chuck Kollars

 
All content on this Personal Website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), Some Rights Reserved unless otherwise noted, are available to anyone for re-use (reproduction, modification, derivation, distribution, etc.) for any non-commercial purpose under a Creative Commons License.