Budget Committee Meeting

                                                        

                                                               January 11, 2006 REV:A

                                 Monadnock Regional MS/HS Cafeteria, Swanzey, NH

 

Members present: Dick Bauries, Jane Fortson, Robert Smith, Chair Neil Moriarty, John Tommila, Stephen Russell, Robert Mitchell, Eric Stanley, James Ells, Tom Parker, Jonathan Kenyon, Don Arguin, Normand Dion, George Tremblay and Andy Bueckner. 

Administrators Present: K. Dassau, Superintendent, D. Hodgdon, Assistant Superintendent, T. Warner, Dir. of Technology and K. Chambers, Business Manager.

Principals Present: M. Young, K. Craig, J. Smith, D. Mousette, S. Rashid, B. Tatro and K. Carter.

 

N. Moriarty opened the Public Hearing at 7:00 PM.

 

PUBLIC HEARING: N. Moriarty would encourage the public to stay for the entire meeting. He explained that the Budget Committee has never deleted textbooks from the budget. He wished to thank J. Fortson and K. Chambers for the work on the budget. He explained that a Budget Committee Member would read an article and the public could then comment on it. All comments are through the chair with no debate back and forth. The Budget Committee, the administration, the principals and the School Board introduced themselves to the public. 

 

J. Kenyon read Article One: R. Mitchell commented on an email that he had received from N. Moriarty. He felt that the email expressed an opinion on early retirement. He would ask that the letter be read into the public minutes.

 

K. Cota thanked the Budget Committee for all the work that they do. She believes that the budget is conservative and that the administration and principals have listened to the public. The administration is doing a great job. She commented on the fact that some Budget Committee Members are pushing for the default budget. We need to educate our children. She would also ask that the committee support the health and safety article, the gym article and the roof article. The buildings are in bad shape.

 

T. Aho gave the history on early retirement and explained that he was very involved in the contract issue, as a selectmen, and still knew nothing about it at the time. He commented that the 2002-2003 contract re-instituted the early retirement. He said that no where did it say a 7 year deal. He gave a figure of $700,000.00 a year for the full boat. He said that this would reek havoc on the voters. He said that he could see year after year no contract because of this issue.

 

E. Kaplan gave figures on the opposite side of the issue and they did not add up to 4 million-dollars.

 

J. Ells explained that the letter R. Mitchell was referring to was from N. Moriarty not Upton and Hatfield. J. Ells asked N. Moriarty to read the letter to the public. He commented that the letter was advancing N. Moriarty’s own agenda and not in the best interest of the Budget Committee or the taxpayers.

 

J. Carnie commented on the fact that the early retirement is a very complex issue. The question is if the taxpayers were adequately warned. We have received a written response from the attorney but he felt that there is a misconception. The School Board and the administration need to show the public when they were warned. He said that there could be a total of 35 teachers at any one time collecting this benefit. This could cripple the district. The Budget Committee has an obligation to the taxpayers to be sure that it was adequately warned and if not they need to do something about it.

 

K. Dassau commented that the budget had been approved by the School Board and that the 4.79% increase was reasonable. The principals have met, agreed and supported the budget that would affect an adequate education. The Budget Committee asked for a legal opinion on early retirement whether they like it or not. He commented that an email to members is one thing but replying to the chair and having conversation could be construed as a meeting. K. Dassau read the opinion from Attorney Apple. The early retirement is a contractual obligation. He commented that the budget including all the warrants is a 6.2% increase. N. Moriarty commented on the email saying that he gathered the comments that had been said at Tuesday’s meeting. K. Dassau would challenge the Budget Committee on N. Moriarty’s direct quote saying that the committee has to decide if they were adequately warned. N. Moriarty’s opinion is contrary to the opinion of the lawyer. The Union could very well file an unfair labor law and the child of the district would be affected if the $400,000.00 were to be removed from the budget.

 

C. Dreyfuss commented that she read the email and she felt that the Budget Committee should not be the judge and jury. If Budget Committee Members do not agree with the opinion than let the courts decide. The School Board approved the Choice Programs and members on the Budget Committee had asked for some of them. The 4.79% increase is reasonable and she hopes that the Budget Committee would support it as well as the warrant articles.

 

D. Arguin commented about the yellow fliers that came out last year and would probably be sent out this year regardless of what the Budget Committee might vote. Seven years ago the early retirement issue and last year the default budget with comments that the voters got it right. Every year there is an issue. Why not vote the budget proposed by the Board. We have a legal opinion that some do not like. He said that he is satisfied and we need to move on. He commented on the early dismissal, which is seldom used. He commented on the fact that teachers have to stay longer if a parent is not here in time to pick up their child. He also commented on the email and wished it to be in the minutes as a public record.

 

J. Ells said that with all due respect to J. Carnie, we need to move on with the early retirement issue. We have an opinion from the lawyer.

 

K. Dassau explained that early dismissal would be discussed under Article Three.

 

J. Kenyon explained that the percentage of the increase is less than the percentage the Budget Committee accepted last year. He said that you could not have a percentage and expect the education to be adjusted to that number. The School Board and the Budget Committee voted to support Choice Programs. At the end of the day whatever we do will impact thousands of students.

 

M. Haffer said that he supports education. He commented we are adjusting the deck chairs as the titanic sinks. He informed the committee that his group would be handing out fliers that would be supporting education.

 

D. Connell commented that we all want what is best for our children but our paychecks can only go so far. We need to think of the middle class and we need to have the early retirement taken out.

 

A.    Randall would urge the Budget Committee to support the proposed budget and see the importance of the contracts.

 

J. Derosier explained that her children had been given a wonderful education at Monadnock. We all have constraints on our budgets at home but the teachers do as well. We need to show respect the teachers and honor the contracts.

 

R. Mitchell he said that it is painful to see what has happened in our schools. Consolidating the Northern Schools and Gilsum’s budget practically level funded. In Gilsum the increases are contracts, benefits and special education. There has been no increase in the other areas. How much longer can they keep this up?

 

J. Craig thanked the principals and the teachers. He said that this district has some real challenges. This district is not at AYP. He said that the budget increase seems small to him. He asked what the plan is to add more resources to make the goal of AYP.

 

Jan Ray Thompson commented in support of the Choice Programs. She commented that the school is in jeopardy of loosing their accreditation and many colleges won’t consider anyone from this school. She asked that the School Board and the Budget Committee support the numbers.

 

W. Jays a student from MC2 commented that his sister dropped out of high school and is making more money than the average teacher. He asked that the budget be looked at in order that the students could excel.

 

J. Smith reported that the NEASC Report would be available on Tuesday. He read the recommendation from the committee.

 

R. Mitchell read Article Two: D. Connell asked if this article included pay raises for the SAU administration. K. Dassau explained that it is a pool of money at 4%. It would be for 6 administrators and 13 support staff members. The SAU Board has instructed the Superintendent to give a bigger portion of the money to the support staff.

 

J. Kenyon started to explain the inadequacy in education at the state level but N. Moriarty made him sit down.

 

J. Ells read Article Three: J. Kenyon commented that the article is a 2-year agreement not a 1 year as stated. K. Dassau commented about early dismissal. He explained that early dismissal would affect 126 paraprofessionals. He said that P. Apple and M. Gaul reviewed the early dismissal in the contract. The early dismissal occurred 2 years ago. When there is a delay the teachers do not get paid.

 

D. Arguin read Article Four: C. Dreyfuss commented on the hidden cost that R. Bauries referred to for the facilities analysis. She commented that the NEASC has asked for it. You need to know what the building looks like and what the needs are. NHSBA is asking the School Boards to look at the safety related issues, which the Facilities Committee has looked at.

 

D. Connell asked if Articles Three, Four and Five could be bonded. N. Moriarty said that you could not switch it to a bond.

 

P. Bauries commented on the $80,000.00 for a facilities master plan and in Article Ten the Board is asking for $200,000.00 for architectural and engineering plans. P. Bauries commented on the fact that the Board had $60,000.00 previously to use for plans. She asked if those same plans could be used. N. Moriarty commented that the wording in Article Ten should be different.

 

K. Cota explained that they did use $60,000.00 for the modernization of the high school. This is a new Facilities Committee. A Budget Committee Member suggested Article Ten. Article Four and Article Five have no tax impact. She explained that the new committee has worked hard and the $80,000.00 is a necessity. If it is not approved this would hurt the district.

 

N. Moriarty commented that he hopes that the Facilities Committee is right about taking the money out of the capitol reserve. He said that the voters always support maintenance articles.

 

S. Russell read Article Five: K. Cota explained that the Facilities Committee looked at the most severe areas on the roofs. They would like to repair the dripping wet roofs. There is no tax impact. She asked that the Budget Committee support the article.

 

A. Bueckner read Article Six: K. Cota explained that this article is to take care of the gym from the top down. They decided to take care of the health and safety items not cosmetic items such as the ceiling.

 

R. Smith read Article Seven: N. Moriarty commented that this money is also to replace the money used for the stage rigging.

 

N. Dion read Article Eight: N. Moriarty commented that this is a safety net for Special Ed. The balance is now $50,000.00. A balance of $250,000.00 or $300,000.00 is what they would like to have.

 

R. Bauries read Article Nine: N. Moriarty explained that this amount is the school’s portion for the Reverse 911.

 

N. Moriarty read Article Ten: J. Fortson explained that this article was her suggestion. She believes that they need to get going on a building project. She put the School Board to task on Article Four and Five because the funds were coming from the capitol reserve. She totally supports Article Four and Five. They are needed.

 

T. Parker read Article Twelve: No comments.

 

J. Tommila read Article Thirteen: It was noted that Roxbury was accidentally eliminates from this article.

 

G. Tremblay read Article Fourteen: No comments.

 

E. Stanley read Article Fifteen: No comments.

 

MOTION: T. Parker MOVED to close the Public Hearing. SECOND: J. Ells. VOTE: 15.262/0/0/.0738.

 

Budget Committee Agenda:

1.   Minutes of November 28, 2006: MOTION: J. Fortson MOVED to accept the Nov. 28, 2006 Minutes as presented. SECOND: E. Stanley. VOTE: 15.262/0/0/0.738. Motion passes.

2.   Minutes of December 11, 2006: MOTION: J. Fortson MOVED to accept the Dec. 11, 2006 Minutes as presented. SECOND: R. Bauries. VOTE: 15.262/0/0/0.738. Motion passes.

 

N. Dion commented on the issue of information going home with the children through the school. He commented on the “Notes from Betty”. K. Dassau commented that he did not see this information as offensive. He had no problem with it. He said that B. Tatro handled it in a reasonable manner. J. Fortson commented that this information came home in her son’s backpack. She said that she felt it was bias and offensive.

 

Budget Oversight:

2a. MRSD Monthly Expense Report: K. Chambers explained that a couple of schools would have over expenditures largely due to special ed. but not exclusive. All the towns have set their tax rates and the funds from the towns are coming in on schedule. The status of assets report is very healthy.

2b. Major Transfers: K. Chambers reported that there are no major transfers.

2c. Major Expense for next month: K. Chambers reported that the stage rigging and the sludge build up have been repaired. There are a few items left on the current project list.

 

3.   Discuss/ vote on FY 2007-2008 Warrant Articles:

3a. Default Operating Budget: T. Parker explained the default budget to the audience. He explained that it is a requirement and can not be changed at the Deliberative Session. He thanked J. Fortson and K. Chambers for their work on the default. They are proposing a default budget in the amount of $30,930,125.00. That is a $586,200.00 increase. J. Fortson explained that electric, disposable and heating remain open. They are included in the presented proposal. She would like a motion from the committee to accept her additions. MOTION: D. Arguin MOVED to leave the electric, bottle gas and fuel oil increases in the proposed default budget. SECOND: E. Stanley DISCUSSION: D. Arguin commented that this is pretty cut and dry. T. Parker commented that the disposable services are not added to the default. J. Fortson commented that she felt that those items should be added to the default but felt there should be a discussion from the committee. VOTE: 14-yes. Motion passes. S. Russell commented that this budget is 1 million-dollars less than what the School Board has proposed. T. Parker explained that statutes govern the default budget. This is a fall back budget. S. Russell explained that there is nothing written that says the default has to be less than the budget. T. Parker explained that by padding the budget we could have trouble in the long run, legally. J. Fortson explained that building of the default budget. The special ed. is added. The administration explained that it is part of the IEP and it is contractual. The legal expenses are an estimate by K. Chambers. MOTION: D. Arguin MOVED to keep the additional $45,000.00 for legal fees in the proposed default budget. SECOND: J. Ells. VOTE: 15-yes. Motion passes. T. Warner explained that there should be an increase of $5700.00 in the default for support for the software programs. MOTION: N. Moriarty MOVED to add an additional $5700.00 for software support. SECOND: R. Bauries. DISCUSSION: T. Warner explained that the software came with a two-year maintenance plan and this is the third year and needs to be added. It is a contractual obligation. VOTE: 15-yes. Motion passes. MOTION: R. Bauries MOVED to reduce the default in the amount of $131,579.00 for the retiree pay and to leave $25,000.00 for legal expenses. SECOND: N. Moriarty DISCUSSION: R. Bauries commented that it is going to be such a hard thing for the teachers to get their contracts as long as the early retirement is in there. He explained that the auditor said that the long-term liability is $950,000.00. D. Arguin asked for a point of order and asked if this was appropriate for the default budget. J. Kenyon explained that they looked at the early retirement in negotiations. This is very unpopular with the public. It is not appropriate to remove $131,579.00 from the budget. It doesn’t make sense to have a group sue you to get an answer on a legal opinion. Taking it out is easy putting it back is more difficult. P. Apple gave his opinion a lot of people disagree. J. Ells commented that we have a legal opinion. The Budget Committee does not have the right to take it out because we do not like the opinion. S. Russell said that he is happy with the legal opinion. He would applaud the teachers for a good contract to present to the district. N. Moriarty believes that we should vote on this. K. Chambers explained that the $131,579.00 is not all early retirement and they may want to amend the motion. K. Dassau commented that the motion for a legal opinion came from the Budget Committee. The legal costs are significant. The Budget Committee is hired to budget not negotiate with the teachers. J. Ells commented we do not have a choice it is a legal opinion. R. Mitchell commented that this contract was negotiated in good faith. The Budget Committee has no authority to remove a line. We can only remove an amount. If we remove the amount it could have a significant effect on programs. He does not feel that it is worth it. MOTION: D. Arguin MOVED to call the question. VOTE: 5.433/7.351/2.476/0.738. Motion fails. T. Parker asked K. Chambers for the figures. MOTION: R. Bauries MOVED to reduce the default budget by $214,686.00 for the early retirement. SECOND: N. Moriarty. DISCUSSION: The total amount of retirement is $372,968.00, $133,282.00 is for regular retirement and $239,686.00 is for the early retirement minus the $25,000.00 to be left in for the legal fees. C. Dreyfuss commented that the figure was more than what is in the default. N. Moriarty explained the numbers. T. Parker as chair would remove the motion off the floor. By reducing the default in that amount it would take a program away. He said that you could not reduce a contractual item. N. Moriarty would challenge the decision of the chair. S. Russell commented that the Chair N. Moriarty is out of order. MOTION: N. Moriarty MOVED to challenge the chair on his ruling on the early retirement motion. SECOND: R. Bauries. VOTE: 11.677/2.415/1.170/0.738. Motion passes. (The motion supported the chair’s ruling). MOTION: N. Moriarty MOVED the default budget in the amount of $30,930,125.00 plus the $5700.00 requested by T. Warner for a total of $30,935,825.00. SECOND: J. Ells. VOTE: 14.258/0/0/1.908. (J. Tommila missing from the vote). Motion passes. J. Tommila returns.     

3b.Operating Budget Article One: MOTION: J. Ells MOVED to increase the proposed operating budget to a 6% increase and to work with the principals to use the additional money to buy text books, to prioritize and to have the School Board honor this request. SECOND: S. Russell. DISCUSSION: R. Bauries asked for the figure for the MC2 Program. The figure is $697,743.00. MOTION: R. Bauries MOVED to amend the motion and reduce the budget by $357,743.00 which is the amount to fund MC2 minus two trailers in the amount of $80,000.00 and $13,000.00 for 20 students which totals $340,000.00. He commented that the budget is for 45 students and we do not have that amount. SECOND: N. Moriarty. DISCUSSION: It was commented that Article One should have been discussed and we should have voted on a number. S. Russell commented that he would not support to reduce the budget. It is not right to tell the administration what programs need to go. MC2 does not belong in the high school. R. Bauries commented that they need to do a little homework. J. Ells would like to see Article One voted on first and then R. Bauries amendment. J. Kenyon explained that $80,000.00 would not be enough for 2 trailers. He asked what teachers and administrators would use to run the program and with what funding. This amendment makes no sense. MOTION: R. Smith MOVED to accept Article One in the amount of $31,850,989.00 which is the amount proposed and to have the School Board and the Budget Committee unite on this amount. SECOND: A. Bueckner. DISCUSSION: Comments were made about supporting the School Board’s budget. MOTION: T. Parker MOVED to call the question. VOTE: 15.262/0/0/0.738. Motion passes. R. Bauries, N. Moriarty, J. Ells and S. Russell all withdraw their amendments and seconds. VOTE on the motion to accept Article One as proposed by the School Board in the amount of $31,850,989.00: 15.012/0/0/0.988. Motion passes. (J. Kenyon was missing from vote). J. Kenyon returned.

 

Article Two: MOTION: S. Russell MOVED to accept Article Two as proposed. SECOND: R. Smith. DISCUSSION: R. Bauries asked what the SAU default budget was. K. Chambers explained that the default is $1,733,117.00. VOTE: 15.266/0/0/0.738. Motion passes.

 

Article Three: MOTION: J. Ells MOVED to accept Article Three as proposed by the School Board. SECOND: S. Russell. DISCUSSION: K. Chambers explained that the actual salary increase for the first year is 8.8% and the second year overall is 7.75%. K. Chambers explained how she came up with the percentage. R. Bauries commented that the 2% share on health care is unacceptable. He said that he could not support this. J. Kenyon explained that if the share were increased members of the support staff would be loosing money. The figure was a mutually agreed solution. A. Bueckner asked K. Chambers if the 8.8% were net or gross. K. Chambers explained that it was gross. K. Chambers explained that the figure is a 7.4% increase with the insurance savings and the 2nd year it is a 6% increase with the insurance savings. R. Mitchell commented that it hurts the district to have this drag out. We are going in the right direction. He would support this article. N. Moriarty said that he could not support this article. He said that the support staff deserves the raises but the insurance thing bothers him. VOTE: 6.700/7.392/1.170/0.738. Motion fails.

 

Article Four: MOTION: T. Parker MOVED to accept Article Four as proposed by the School Board. SECOND: R. Mitchell. DISCUSSON: T. Parker said that he would accept Article Four but regrets that it is coming out of the capitol reserve. J. Ells commented that the School Board was afraid that if the Article were defeated they would not be able to do the work until another vote the next year. J. Kenyon explained that the Finance Committee recommended the financing. It is too important to let it fail. J. Fortson said that she was disappointed in the fact the funds are coming out of the capitol reserve. E. Stanley commented that if it fails it fails. He hopes that someone goes to the Deliberative Session and changes this article. MOTION: R. Mitchell MOVED to move the question. VOTE: 10.794/2.053/2.415/0.738. Motion passes. VOTE: 12.847/0/2.415/0.738. Motion passes.

 

Article Five: MOTION: T. Parker MOVED to accept Article Five as proposed by the School Board. SECOND: D. Arguin. DISCUSSION: D. Arguin commented on the fact that it was coming out of the capitol reserve but these items need to get done. The hand was forced to do it this way. He would support this article. N. Moriarty would support the intent but not the source of funding. R. Bauries would question the source of funds as well. He said that the Facilities Committee has done an outstanding job. These items need to be done. VOTE: 12.847/0/2.415/0.738. Motion passes.

 

Article Six: MOTION: G. Tremblay MOVED to accept Article Six as proposed by the School Board. SECOND: R. Smith. VOTE: 15.262/0/0/0.738. Motion passes.

 

Article Seven: MOTION: J. Tommila MOVED to accept Article Seven as proposed by the School Board. SECOND: G. Tremblay. VOTE: 15.262/0/0/0.738. Motion passes.

 

Article Eight: MOTION: E. Stanley MOVED to accept Article Eight as proposed by the School Board. SECOND: J. Fortson. VOTE: 14.190/1.072/0/0.738. Motion passes.

 

Article Nine: MOTION: J. Kenyon MOVED to accept Article Nine as proposed by the School Board. SECOND: R. Smith VOTE: 14.092/0/1.170/0.738. Motion passes.

 

Article Ten: MOTION: J. Ells MOVED to accept Article Ten as proposed by the School Board. SECOND: J. Kenyon. DISCUSSION: J. Tommila would like to amend the motion to read $205,000.00 and T. Parker would like to second but it is a School Board article and can not be changed until the Deliberative Session. VOTE: 12.952/0/2.310/0.738. Motion passes.

 

Article Eleven: MOTION: J. Ells MOVED to accept Article Eleven as proposed. SECOND: R. Bauries. VOTE: 7.035/4.902/3.325/0.738.

 

4. Set next month’s agenda:

 

5. N. Dion commented on the early retirement and asked that there be some kind of compromise.

 

6. Superintendent’s Comments: He commented on the hard work done by the Budget Committee and the fact that Surry has not had a position all year. He commented on the fact that the teachers and the support staff have been working without a contract for two years. He commented on the fact that there needs to be a resolution on the N. Moriarty comments. He commented that people have commented to him about the Chair of the Budget Committee calling the superintendent Kenny. N. Moriarty said that he meant no disrespect.

7. Chair Comments:

 

8. Public Comments: None.

 

9. MOTION: J. Ells MOVED to adjourn the meeting at 11:20 PM. SECOND: R. Mitchell. VOTE: Unanimous for those present.

 

Respectfully submitted, 

 

Laura L. Aivaliotis

MRSD Recording secretary