SAD63 - June 4 Meeting - A Shell Game for voters

After reading the packet on the 2009-2010 Proposed School Budget mailed out by the (Interim) Superintendent of Schools and the Chairman of the School Board - and the procedures that will be in place for the June 4th "vote" at the Holbrook School, I'm fairly sure the entire procedure will be a waste of time for voters/taxpayers to attend. This change of position is based on big and small reasons but the bottom line remains the same. The document fails to present sufficient information to the average (or even fairly informed) voter to follow the "rules" of the June 4th process. Nor should we need to. The sum total is what the taxpayers will have to pay and that is the only question we should be addressing.

How the School Board figures out a sum total of what the taxpayers can afford - what the economic times will enable the people to pay - is the Board's responsibility. And it's high time the Board started driving the train instead of being the caboose.

Why the Proposed Budget Format fails to provide the voters with the necessary information to "play by the rules" of the June 4th Vote.

In reality two different formats are used in the district to track budgeted and spent funds in the various categories listed in Annual (actual) and Proposed Budgets. The actual budget's Statement of Operations' expenditures are tracked by a contracted firm which documents how much money has been budgeted for the year (and spent monthly and year-to-date). The voters are not provided with this information. This information is only provided to the Board's Budget & Finance Committee and members of the Citizens Advisory Committee.

However, the information from the contracted firm did not correspond to the Proposed Budget when it was presented by the Business Manager when the Citizens' Advisory Budget & Finance Committee met in May. (And even that report was months late.) And one member's spread sheet showed close to $1,000,000 of unaccounted for money. No satisfactory explanation for this was received. Similar issues regarding the lack of comparative budgets were presented at the Public Hearing on May 13.

There is a more than capable computer system in the district's Central Office that could have provided more than adequate explanations for these issues - issues that would never existed if accountability and clarity had been a priority for the past five years. But here we are with a budget that has increased by over $600,000 in the past four years.

Bottom Line: If people are expected to believe the numbers are valid, the formats and reporting procedures should be consistent. Otherwise it's apples and oranges. Right now there's plenty of room for doubt.

Information only discussed at the School Board meetings (and not footnoted on the Proposed Budget) clearly indicate that some of the costs included in this Proposed Budget are either (1) one-time only costs, (2) were included in high school tuition costs based on factors that have now changed and therefore the costs are no longer valid, (3) merit increases or raises that other school districts or areas of employment have recognized need to be deferred during these economic times, and (4) include salaries that are seriously inflated. Last, but certainly not least, non-teaching contracts due to expire in 2010 should not be extended for three years (which will happen if this budget is approved) when the district may be consolidating thereby making these positions redundant (possible duplicates of other positions which may come with consolidation). The last thing we need is to be paying off long-term contracts for people we are no longer employing.

Now - according to the next to the last page of the mailing, entitled "Warrant for Annual Budget Meeting", the voters will be required to vote section by section "what sum the Directors will be allowed to expend for..." each section. And then the Board is recommending the amount the Business Manager and the Interim Superintendent worked up. I personally do not believe any group of voters in the collective towns of Clifton, Eddington and Holden are capable of defining any specific amount for any of the identified sections. AND, I have no doubt at all that the Business Manager will adamantly argue/defend the amount in the Proposed Budget.

I do not think that is our problem.

I think, if the Moderator would allow, we should attempt to START the discussion at the conclusion, if you will, by addressing Article 16 FIRST. Article 16 is where the sum total of the Proposed Budget is listed - $9,474,920 (which is $229,053 more than the budget was for 2008-2009). Then we, the voters, can recommend the Directors be allowed to expend no more than $9,248,961 for 2009-2010 (the same amount as was authorized for 2008-2009). We can state that it is up to the Directors to allocate that amount, but no more, throughout the sections as they decide and deem necessary. Period.

If that motion were made, seconded and passed, the meeting could end then and there.

Otherwise, I think the entire meeting would/will be a waste of time and we can either go home (or forget going at all). Either way, I think we should be sure to VOTE AGAINST the current Proposed Budget of $9,474,920 and VOTE that THAT AMOUNT IS TOO HIGH. You need to vote on BOTH ISSUES at the ballot - at your Town Office on June 9th.

We have people in all three towns who have lost their jobs, have lost hours, are loosing their health insurance, have homes in foreclosure because of job losses or reduced disability pay, are having a difficult time keeping food on the table for their families, wonder how they are going to pay for heating oil this coming winter or how they are going to clothe their children for school. They can hardly afford to have their rent go up because their landlords are going to have an increase in property taxes - or have property taxes go up themselves when they are barely getting by. In Clifton and Eddington there is a large contingent of retired people living on fixed incomes. Those living on Social Security are receiving ZERO cost of living increases this year AND next year.

Homestead Exemptions are being reduced and the State share back to local towns is also being reduced which is going to force towns to increase the Mill rate just to keep the towns running. Now we have a School Board that seems to think it doesn't need to pay any attention to this. Well it does! Board Directors were elected by these same people who are having the problems listed above. Board Directors need to be accountable to them no less than to the families with children in the schools and to be planning for the 2010-2011 fiscal year when the State is planning to cut another $70 million from education. It's time to get real, people. There is no more money.