Smithfield drivers and parents warn that unified transportation deal risks jobs and local knowledge

Denise Howard, a Smithfield bus driver of 26 years, urged the school committee to reconsider a proposed unified transportation arrangement with Lincoln and 1st Student, saying the plan is not a "merger" but "a takeover" that was decided without adequate transparency and that could cost local employees their livelihoods.

"We did not ask for this. We did not vote for this. We were not included in the discussion that led to this decision," Howard said during an extended public-comment period, adding that projected savings of roughly $280,000 over the initial three-year term do not justify the risks to continuity and local relationships.

Several other commenters — including a union-affiliated speaker who identified himself as Matt Tavy — echoed concerns about seniority, noting that if drivers are merged into a single seniority list under a different employer or yard, long-serving Smithfield drivers could be bumped by more-senior employees from Lincoln. Tavy said bargaining and member ratification remain unresolved and warned of labor instability during any transition.

The district's attorney cautioned that some contract terms are constrained by the municipal RFP and bidding process. "Once a bid is awarded, contracts negotiated with private bidders such as 1st Student must comply with the RFP," the attorney said, adding that the district cannot unilaterally override collective-bargaining agreements (CBAs) that govern a vendor's employees.

Speakers pressed the committee on specifics often controlled by the vendor: who will be assigned to Smithfield routes, whether separate yards and seniority lists can be preserved, and how long hires and background checks will take. Public commenters proposed possible mitigations — including separate yards or explicit contractual language to retain local drivers on Smithfield routes — but the attorney and staff said the district's ability to mandate those details is limited by existing procurement rules and the terms bidders reply to in the RFP.

Committee members and staff acknowledged the concerns and said they would seek to minimize disruptions, but did not announce a formal change in course during the meeting. The item remains in discussion; no final board action on awarding or approving a vendor contract was recorded during the session.

What happens next: the committee continues review of the procurement timeline and the proposed MOU with Lincoln; staff said they will keep monitoring the transition and work with legal counsel and stakeholders to try to mitigate potential harms to local employees.