Latest news with #localControl
Yahoo
27-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Holyoke schools, union at odds over ‘exit assurances' during transition to local control
HOLYOKE — As Holyoke Public Schools prepare to resume local control next week, the Holyoke Teachers Association says that state receivership interference will linger. Holyoke schools are set to exit 10 years of state oversight and control on July 1, with supports in place from the state Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. These so-called 'exit assurances" will last for period of up to two years to guide the district's transition back to local control. The teachers' union is not happy about it. 'The bottom line is district and city leadership have continued to tell us they want teachers to have full collective bargaining rights, but their actions have not backed this up,' Nick Cream, president of the union, said Tuesday. 'If they truly believe that, then they should allow us to bargain over all aspects of the contract and not limit our negotiations based on what is in the exit assurances.' Jacqueline Reis, a spokesperson for the department, said the features of the turnaround plan that remain in place will help teachers receive the professional development they need. 'This is the first time a district has exited receivership, and these measures will help give students, staff and district leaders more certainty and stability in important areas like early literacy and multilingual communications,' Reis said Friday. The features that remain in place include ensuring that students have a high-quality early literacy plan; district families, including families who speak languages other than English, have the opportunity for two-way communication with the district; students and teachers have the teaching and learning time they need; and educators have the opportunity to be rewarded for excellent work, she said. Holyoke educators have collective bargaining rights, save for exceptions outlined in the exit assurances, she said. Those exceptions give the superintendent significant power over various aspects of school operations, including deciding school days and schedule; hiring, filling vacancies and laying off teachers; and grievances, which will go through a specific dispute resolution procedure. Cream said that they believe full local control means having complete collective bargaining rights. He expressed concerns the assurances allow Anthony Soto, superintendent and receiver, to control key aspects of their contract proposals. That contradicts the union's goals, which is to bargain for scheduling and the length of the school day, among other aspects. Soto, who will become interim superintendent starting July 1, said the district and the state are aligned in the belief that Holyoke's teachers deserve a fair and equitable contract, regardless of governance structure. Even under receivership, the district consistently made revisions to its turnaround plan in response to union feedback — and that spirit of collaboration continues, he said. Soto said the Department of Education engaged with the School Committee, the receiver, district leadership, and representatives from both the Massachusetts Teachers Association and Holyoke Teachers Association before finalizing the exit assurances. 'DESE's effort to balance all voices was vital in ensuring a smooth and responsible transition back to local governance,' Soto said. Mayor Joshua Garcia said he's 'not sure where this thought that teachers are not able to bargain is coming from.' 'While the exit assurances focus on four key areas of collective bargaining, they do not restrict the union's ability to present full proposals,' he said. 'The School Committee and I remain committed to reviewing all proposals in good faith, always keeping the best interests of our students at the forefront of every decision.' Holyoke schools serve about 4,800 students in preschool through grade 12 and had been chronically underperforming since 2015. In October, then acting Commissioner Russell D. Johnston announced his provisional decision to upgrade Holyoke schools from its chronically underperforming status. Read the original article on MassLive.
CBS News
12-06-2025
- Business
- CBS News
Home rule special election questioned by Colorado county voters, as well as developer backing
Debate over home rule in Douglas County is heating up, with residents set to vote on the matter in less than two weeks. A special election will ask voters if they want the county to create their own home rule charter and who should serve on a charter commission. If voters say yes to home rule in the special election, the commission will craft a charter that will be voted on in November. CBS County leaders say that charter could free the county from strict state laws and increase local control over things such as taxes, gun laws and immigration enforcement. Douglas County residents should already have received their special election ballots. That June 24 election is costing the county about $500,000, and many are asking why it needed to happen so quickly. "I've never seen such backlash across party lines in the county," said Barrett Roth, a Douglas County resident. "If you rush, we don't have time to ask questions of the people that matter and can influence our votes." When Barrett Roth first heard about home rule, he wasn't sure how to feel. "I think, like everyone else, I was kind of shocked, and had to learn a lot about it," Roth said. And learn more he did. Reading through campaign finance reports, Roth found the "Yes on Local Control" campaign had received $110,000 in donations. Westside Property Investment Company, the developer behind Dawson Trails, contributed $10,000. Ventana Capital, which has numerous projects underway in the county, contributed $50,000, far surpassing any previously recorded donation under their name. Ventana is also involved in litigation with the city of Castle Pines over the city council's denial of a proposed McDonald's. "Why would a land developer be interested in home rule? If it's for all these liberal versus conservative policies, it's clearly for a land grab," Roth said. CBS Colorado reached out to both companies to ask why they supported the campaign. Westside had "no comment," and Ventana did not respond. "There are four committees that are set up in favor of home rule. I actually don't know all these people. So I don't know," County Commissioner George Teal told CBS Colorado. "We will have greater control of how we set the tax base for businesses under home rule. Maybe that's their interest." Teal says he doesn't know why the developers support home rule, but that the charter could give the county more local control over zoning and exempt them from some state development statutes. "We're pursuing home rule to put ourselves in a legal position here, as a legal entity of the state of Colorado, to have more local control," Teal said. "When you talk about public safety, you talk about having more control over our taxes and being able to lower taxes when we want to as we need to. And then when it comes to being able to work with other government agencies, home rule gives us far greater control with how we interact with other levels of government here in America." Other donors to the pro home rule campaign include "The Cundy Harbor Irrevocable Trust," which contributed $50,000, Teal's wife Laura Teal, who contributed $100, and Laura Tonner, who contributed $100. Tonner is married to Sean Tonner of Renewable Water Resources, the water developer behind a controversial plan to bring water from the San Luis Valley to Douglas County. On the other side, "Stop the Power Grab", a group opposing home rule, has received a total of $30,000 from hundreds of donors, including local Democratic politicians. Roth is a member of the group. He feels the promises being made about home rule are misleading. Metropolitan State University of Denver professor Dr. Robert Preuhs previously told CBS Colorado home rule does grant more policy-making authority to counties, but it may not be so easy to disregard state laws. Legal battles may ensue after controversial decisions to determine whether the matter is truly a local or a state concern. "The county commissioners will tell you that home rule will allow them to supersede state law," Roth said. "They've talked about how they can pass laws on gun safety, on abortion rights, on plastic bag fees, and try to battle the state. Well, the battles will take place in court." "As long as it is not a matter dealt with in state law, the home rule county does have the ability to legislate," Teal said. Roth feels home rule will waste taxpayer money on legal battles and the special election. "We're going to have an election in November 2025, so just in a few months, they could have placed it on the ballot for free in just a few months," Roth said. "But, instead, they're rushing it over the summer to the tune of $500,000 of taxpayer money. That's real money." "Right now, the cost of the election is coming in at just under $500,000," Teal said. "Average cost of a home in Douglas County is $800,000, so for less than the average cost of a home here in the county, we get to chart our own course and have that legal mechanism under the state constitution for complete local control." Roth was also upset to receive a white book from the county on the home rule measure that did not include an opposing viewpoint. "They're essentially putting out campaign literature on taxpayer dime," Roth said. The county says they have pro-con statements on their home rule webpage. "I do think home rule is the right thing to do, and I certainly encourage everyone to vote yes," Teal said. As the election draws near, tensions are running high over the county's future. "Often, the community feels very divided. If you talk to people, they feel pretty united that this is being rushed," Roth said. "It's a waste of money. It's something no one asked for, and I do think it's going to fail pretty substantially." One week before the special election, the county will hold one last town hall to answer any remaining questions. The town hall will be online at 6 p.m. June 17. Saturday, a "No Kings" protest held in Castle Rock will also protest the home rule initiative locally.
Gizmodo
11-06-2025
- Politics
- Gizmodo
Trump Says He Wants FEMA Eliminated After Hurricane Season
President Donald Trump has been talking for months about his desire to eliminate FEMA, the federal agency tasked with responding to natural disasters. But until now, we didn't really know when he planned to pull the trigger on such a ridiculous plan. Well, now it looks like Trump wants to make it happen after the current hurricane season, which started this month and ends in November. 'We want to wean off of FEMA and we want to bring it down to the state level,' Trump said from the Oval Office. 'The FEMA thing has not been a very successful experiment. Very, very expensive and it doesn't get the job done.' Kristi Noem, the Secretary of Homeland Security, said, 'We all know from the past that FEMA has failed thousands, if not millions, of people. And President Trump does not want to see that continue into the future. So this agency fundamentally needs to go away as it exists.' Noem went on to say that she expects there to be 'high activity' in the next 'several months' when it comes to emergencies, referring to hurricanes, though the press conference at the White House was ostensibly about wildfires and forest management. Trump has been criticizing FEMA since his 2024 presidential campaign and putting those ideas into action since at least Jan. 22, just two days into his second term. The president said, 'I think FEMA is not good,' and promised to wind down the agency. Trump insists that it's all about local control, and this will allow him to allocate money to states individually, but that's obviously a huge problem. Presidents shouldn't be allowed to pick and choose which states get money on a whim, doling out more money to Republican governors who support them while holding back money from Democratic governors who may oppose their policies. Now is a perfect time to see how that weaponization of aid money can have devastating consequences, as Trump goes to war with the city of Los Angeles and California Governor Gavin Newsom over anti-ICE protests. FEMA has never been considered the agency that should be first on the ground during a disaster, but federal help has always been considered crucial for recovery. And Trump has already shifted a lot of financial responsibility to the states as he winds down the agency. As Bloomberg notes, the White House has already frozen more than $1 billion in grants to fund FEMA disaster mitigation strategies and attempted to freeze $2.2 billion more. Trump explained on Tuesday how he recently gave $71 million 'to a certain state' despite the fact that they wanted $120 million. Trump appeared to be talking about the $71 million sent to Missouri after the recent severe storms and tornadoes there in April and May. Missouri's governor, Mike Kehoe, is a Republican, and he released a statement Monday saying the state appreciated Trump and was 'grateful for the President's leadership.' It's obvious where this is all headed. Trump wants to set up a system where those who show fealty get money, and those who don't will have funds withheld. That's not how the U.S. system is supposed to operate, but it's clearly where we're headed.
New York Times
06-06-2025
- Politics
- New York Times
New Yorkers Can't Remove Mayors for Misconduct. That Could Change Soon.
After Mayor Eric Adams of New York City was indicted last year on federal corruption charges, he faced steady calls for his resignation or removal. He did not resign. And Gov. Kathy Hochul, the only person in New York empowered to force a mayor to leave office, declined to begin removal proceedings. Now a group of city officials want to create another legal option to kick a mayor out of office. A Charter Revision Commission, created last year by the City Council, will recommend on Friday that voters be presented with a ballot question to decide whether the Council should be granted the power to begin removal proceedings. Danielle Castaldi-Micca, the panel's executive director, said in an interview that the city had a 'pretty traumatic year' and there was 'frustration among the public about the existing means of removing the mayor.' 'There isn't a means of local control over this,' she said. 'What we're looking at is creating a means of local control, and there is a high bar because there should be a high bar.' She said the process would only be used in 'extraordinary circumstances' when a mayor had been accused of wrongdoing. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
