The response from Mayor Wu and Boston Public Schools Superintendent Mary Skipper’s announcement on Nov. 17 that they would close three schools and reconfigure another three after the 2027-2028 school year was loud and immediate. In addition to wide coverage by the press, parents, local experts, and the Boston Teachers Union all responded. At the School Committee meeting on Nov. 19, parents and staff called for their school not to close and committee members criticized BPS’s decision-making.
But, the response was neither loud nor immediate in the Boston City Council chamber. Despite an enormous amount of action around school closures and BPS long-term facilities plan in the 2024-2025 term, the council is poised to have not held a single stand-alone hearing on either issue during the entire term.
There are two hearing orders in front of the council to review proposed closures and the long-term facilities plan, each of which was offered months ago. But, the powerful councillors who filed them – Council President Ruthzee Louijeune and Council Vice President Brian Worrell – have not scheduled a hearing. Thanks to the Council’s written and unwritten rules, they are allowed to do that.
Worrell proposed Docket #0235 – “To examine Boston Public Schools’ closures for 2026-27 and its long-term facilities last January as a late-file at the very first council meeting of the year. Louijuene proposed Docket #0694 – “On the creation of a Boston School Building Authority” – in March and said she offered it because BPS was operating “without a coherent plan” to build new schools.
Rule 15 prevents councillors from filing new dockets “concerning the same or similar subjects” as previous ones. Louijeune has repeatedly invoked it to prevent councillors from filing new legislation. This rule means that since Worrell filed his school closure docket at the first meeting of the year, no other similar docket can be filed. The same goes for Louijeune’s docket.
Under council rules and custom, the councillor who filed the docket is in charge of scheduling the hearing on it. Council Rule 23 says any councillor who offered a filing can work with the Chair of the Committee to whom it was assigned to tget a hearing scheduled. But the unwritten rule says a docket’s lead sponsor is solely responsible for working with the Committee Chair to schedule and organize a hearing.
What does all this add up to? The reason that the council has not had a stand-alone hearing on school closures and BPS long-term facilities plan is because Worrell and Louijeune haven’t organized them yet.
Fortunately, this is an oversight that Louijeune and Worrell can easily correct: These same rules allow them to schedule a hearing. They will have to act fast, though: the School Committee is scheduled to vote on the latest school closure and merger plan on Dec. 17.
Gregory Maynard is executive director of the Boston Policy Institute.
