Budget Committee Meeting

September 27, 2005

Monadnock Community Connections School, Keene, NH

Members present: Terry Clark, Gary Bednarski, Robert Mitchell, Normand Dion, Dick Bauries, Eric Stanley, Chair Jane Fortson, Thomas Parker, John Tommila, Robert Smith, Don Arguin, Karen Cota, Nancy Johnson, Neil Moriarty and Stephen Russell. Absent: Neal F. King.

Others Present: K. Dassau, Interim Superintendent, D. Hodgdon, Dir. of Curriculum and L. Biron, Business Manager.

J. Fortson called the meeting to order at 6:36 PM.

1. Approval of the August 23, 2005 Minutes: MOTION: J. Tommila MOVED to accept the August 23, 2005 Minutes as presented. SECOND: G. Bednarski. VOTE: 10.54/0/1.50/3.97. Motion passes.

2. Public Comment Period: Jan Ray Thompson asked the Budget Committee to listen to the good comments and hang on to them to see if a compromise could be reached.

J. Carnie commented on the fact that the MC2 budget presented has been consistently low and is not the actual cost of operations. He said that K. Carter’s figures do not reflect the actual cost of the operation. Stating that in order to determine the actual per pupil cost, the total cost of operations needs to be determined. He referenced the figure given last year from C. Cardine on the per pupil cost, stating that this is not a real figure because there are a lot of additional costs to run the school not included in the per pupil cost. J. Carnie passed out information to the Budget Committee on the vote on Warrant Article Ten and the MC2 budget. He feels that they need to identify all costs in order to calculate the per pupil cost.

M. Imon commented on the lack of a Facilities Manager and his concerns regarding the risk of losing the accreditation at the high school.

B. McCulley commented that there is a distinct difference between starting up costs and investing costs.

R. Bauries asked the administration what the erate is. L. Biron explained that it is a program for the phone bill in which school districts received part of the payment back to offset the budget. G. Bednarski asked from the information on C. Cardine’s chart what the per pupil cost at the high school was. The cost was $7254.74. J. Tommila commented that what J. Carnie presented was absolutely true.

2. MC2 Presentation by Kim Carter, MC2 Principal: K. Carter explained that she is not prepared to answer questions on the handout given by J. Carnie. She said that she would like to explain the program, the budget, the grants, and allow time for questions and answers. She presented the power point presentation which she had presented to the Board in 2003. She stated that a discussion on the per pupil cost needed to be had. She explained that everything they do at the school is based on 35 years of research. She would like to encourage every Budget Committee Member to become a panelist on a gateway. She explained that there is a lot of debate about if the school is too hard. They believe that every student should leave prepared and have the option to attend college. T. Parker asked K. Carter the criteria to attend the MC2 School. She explained the process. She said that a student may be asked to leave if they are not demonstrating any progress. If behavior is a problem, there is a whole due process. Some students have been asked to leave because of their behavior. T. Parker asked at what point is it decided that this program is successful in terms of going to college. K. Carter explained that they are just starting to receive the long-term test scores. We had the first student graduate who is now attending college. She said that out of the 39 students who had internships 25 % were offered summer jobs. K. Carter stated that in the next 5 to 10 years she would like to hit the enrollment target of 100 students. She explained that the school does not have PE so the students attend the YMCA and other places to meet the requirement. T. Parker asked what the down side would be of moving the program to the high school. K. Carter said that she could not think of anything off the top of her head except space. E. Stanley asked how K. Carter envisioned reaching the 100 student target. She explained that there is interest from students out of district and she has plans to speak to M.Young and J. Smith about the students at Monadnock. E. Stanley commented that the school has a perception of being special ed. K. Carter said that needs to be clarified, as that is not the case. T. Parker asked if the students do not do well in a classroom setting, how will they do in college. K. Carter explained that it is a relationship with an adult and that some of the students are attending classes at KSC. K. Carter explained that on Tuesday and Thursdays the students attend internships, while some of the students remain at the school. The staff is needed when the students are at the internships. The MC2 operating budget was passed out to the Budget Committee. She explained that the Choice grant pays $8,000.00 per student and $16,000.00 for spec. ed. students, and that the appropriated operating budget as of today is $459,149.00. The tuition revenue is $249,500.00. R. Bauries asked where that is located. K. Dassau explained that it shows up under the MS27. He said that he could show that information, but not the names of the students. K. Carter explained that the students do not use textbooks but rather technology. J. Fortson asked if the figure included the 2 teachers. K. Carter said no but it does include the 2 tutors. K. Carter commented on the grants and explained that she either helped write them. N. Johnson asked how many students from Monadnock and how many out of district attend the MC2 School. K. Dassau explained that it is very difficult to report. N. Johnson explained that she would like last years’ number. K. Dassau said that it is on the MS25. K. Carter explained that they had 23 out of district students and 20 from Monadnock, but that the number is one that changes as students come into or leave the program. G. Bednarski asked J. Carnie what number he is working with. J. Carnie said it was $626,000.00. G. Bednarski said that if you divide $626,000.00 by 40 students you get $15,500.00 per student cost. J. Carnie said that was top line cost, and that it is very misleading to say that the per student cost was $4,000.00. R. Mitchell commented that the program is interesting and innovating and would possibly like to see a committee look at everything that comes in and goes out. K. Dassau explained that information is on the auditor’s report for last year. The annual report also shows the information being asked for. R. Bauries asked to have D. Gurian explain the $4,000.00 per student figure she has given in a previous board meeting. D. Gurian said that the grant pays $8,000.00 per student and $ 16,000.00 for coded students. K. Dassau stated that the equation used for MC2 would need to be the same for the HS to have a fair comparison. He reminded the budget committee that D. Hodgdon has prepared a presentation on the choice grant. T. Clark commented on the fact that they are probably looking for the number if the grant was to go away and commented on the loss of students because of the fear of the school closing. N. Moriarty commented that if you want to write the grants be clear. R. Bauries referenced a conversation he had had previously with M. Sullivan and it was thought that Winchester was being used to get the grant. He also commented on the fact that the schools sending the student to another school keep the per pupil adequacy funds from the state. T. Parker wished to thank K. Carter and commented that after 4 years this is the first time they have received a good explanation. He said that it is too bad that the wrong information got out and hurt the school and the students. He stated however, that he finds it very difficult not to abide by the vote of the voters on Warrant Article Ten. He said that students need the best education not just adequate. K. Carter explained that the vans were purchased, with $2,000.00 balance remaining. Fuel, maintenance and insurance need to be accounted for; the vans are only used by SAU employees. G. Bednarski commented that there is only one year left of the grant and asked if anyone would like to close it before it is finished. He said that K. Carter is a very capable and reasonable woman and would like the school to be allowed to stay open until the grant runs out. He asked why on earth would you close it before the grant runs out? D. Arguin commented that people feel that they are cheated about the $8,000.00 rather than how the grant is helping the students. The revenue is the benefit to Monadnock.

3. Choice Grant Presentation by Dr. David Hodgdon, Director of Curriculum & Instruction: D. Hodgdon began his presentation by explaining the different programs supported by the grant. He passed out information contained in his power point presentation. D. Hodgdon explained that he was motivated to write the grant during vacation while typing at home. The motivation was to enable all students to be successful by providing more choices for students and a way to accomplish it. N. Moriarty asked about the right hand column of the hand out. D Hodgdon explained that it shows the actual partners and what is allocated to them. R. Bauries asked if Monadnock loses money. D. Gurian explained the process for the handling of tuition. J. Tommila asked about the indirect management in the SAU office. D. Hodgdon explained that 1 ½ % of the direct cost goes to D. Most’s office for taking care of the grant. D. Hodgdon explained the 5 areas he is responsible for. R. Bauries asked how much of the grant actually goes to the kids and D. Hodgdon said a significant amount. J. Carnie stated that he was not criticizing the program, further stating there had not been a contradiction to the numbers he handed out and that if you add them up they add up to D. Hodgdon’s figures. He commented that finally after 4 years we are getting the numbers. He would like to know the cost to the district if the grant goes away. D. Hodgdon explained that there are students going to other programs besides the MC2 program. J. Tommila asked where the district legally stands to discontinue the MC2 program. G. Bednarski said that the vote is not legally binding, but rather informative. K. Dassau read the mission statement. J. Tommila commented that the taxpayers legislative body voted not to support the school. K. Dassau explained that petitioned articles are advisory only. The district will not be sued but we need to assess how we can best serve the public. K. Dassau said that it is not his decision. J. Tommila asked if the Budget Committee needs a legal opinion. T. Parker asked if someone could come up with an RSA, he does not feel that it is advisory. MOTION: J. Tommila MOVED to ask the School Board to seek a legal opinion on whether or not Warrant Article Ten is binding. SECOND: T. Parker. DISCUSSION: N. Johnson commented on the lack of information regarding the MC2 program and said that it was the responsibility of the School Board to educate the public. Motion to amend: T. Clark MOVED to question whether it is legal to change a petitioned article and is the result of the outcome binding on the School Board and the Budget Committee. SECOND: N. Moriarty. DISCUSSION: R. Bauries commented that it was the School board that changed the wording. R. Bauries did say that you could change a petitioned article and explained Senate Bill 71 to the Budget Committee. B. McCulley is concerned that the question of the ability to change the article is opening a can of worms. He would simply like to know if the article presented before the voters was binding. Vote on the amendment: 12.28/.26/1.49/1.98. Amendment passes. Vote on the amended motion: Which reads as follows: To ask the School Board to seek a legal opinion on whether it was legal to change petitioned Warrant Article Ten MC2 and is the resulting outcome binding on the School Board and the Budget Committee: VOTE: 13.52/.26/.25/1.98. Motion passes.

5. Budget Committee Updates:

a. Default Budget Committee Report: J. Fortson informed the Budget Committee that some preliminary information has been sent to the members of the committee. The group will meet and discuss the information and format.

b. School Board Facilities Committee Report: K. Cota reported that the Facilities Committee received information from the CRC Committee on the promotion of the building project. They hired H.L. Turner for no more than $5,000.00 (from the HS Renovations account) to have them help find the additional 14 rooms. The report should be back in 2-3 weeks. The Board had a special meeting to review the bids on the septic system. They hired Lawrence Excavating and will pay Rob Hitchcock $2,000.00 to oversee the job. The Facilities Committee heard a report on the Accreditation from J Smith. They discussed the trees at Mt. Caesar. J. Tommila asked about the bidding process. K. Cota explained that 7 people picked up packets. J. Carnie asked if it was advertised. L. Biron was not sure. J. Tommila and R. Smith questioned the bidding process, as they knew of companies that would likely have been interested in bidding.

c. Budget Oversight Subcommittee Report: The budget oversight committee was slated to meet on September 28^th at the SAU building.

MOTION: G. Bednarski MOVED to postpone the other items on the agenda except the Public Comment Section by unanimous consent. SECOND: R. Smith. VOTE: Unanimous for those present.

6. Public Comment Period: P. Bauries commented that there was a vote not to support Warrant Article Ten. She commented on the fact that no one has suggested forming a committee on this issue and said that the School Board needs to get their act together.

M. Imon thanked the Budget Committee and said that there is a very clear distinction between MC2 and the MRPSOC Grant.

Jan Ray Thompson thanked members of the Budget Committee for their comments on the MC2 School. She said that it is the responsibility of the School Board and the Budget committee to educate the public about the MC2 School. She commented on an article in the Fitzwilliam paper and said that the public is looking for the opinion of the School Board and the Budget Committee.

There will be a work session on October 11, 2005 at MRHS. K. Dassau reported that it is the intention of the administration to get the budgets to the School Board and the Budget Committee by Oct. 4, 2005.

MOTION: G. Bednarski MOVED to adjourn the meeting at 10:36 PM by unanimous consent. SECOND: E. Stanley. VOTE: unanimous for those present.

Respectfully submitted,

Laura L. Aivaliotis

MRSD Recording Secretary