Archive for the 'Letter to the Editor' Category

It’s time to say ‘yes’

Published by admin on March 8, 2008 in Accreditation, Facility, Letter to the Editor, Teacher/Staff Contracts and Voting. 0 Comments

[From the Keene Sentinel Letters Page, Friday, March 7, 2008]

To The Sentinel:

The Monadnock Regional School District Facilities Committee, along with the district’s project manager and business manager, have spent the last year working hard on the district’s facilities needs.

The committee has completed a master plan for the middle/high school, followed the school board bidding policies and have completed projects at each of our schools on time and on budget.

This March we are asking our voters to again support maintenance-related articles.

There is one for district-wide special maintenance projects for $400,000 and one for roof replacement for $123,000.

These articles will provide for much-needed maintenance to our schools through out the district.

The roof article will continue the work that was approved last year. Last year’s roof replacement will be started when the weather breaks.

These maintenance articles are a work in progress that starts months before the vote.

After many meetings and discussions with principals and contractors, the project manager and the facilities committee create these articles.

It is always difficult to balance the facilities needs in the district with the overall cost of the warrant.

This year, the maintenance articles have been adjusted to give the voter choices and respect the need for the approval of the operating budget and the teachers’ and support-staff contracts.

These articles as presented have been approved by the district’s budget committee and school board.

It is extremely important that articles 1, 3 and 4 are approved this year.

Everyone knows that our accreditation status at the middle/high school has moved from warnings to probation.

Although one of the biggest issues is the facilities, another major area is the approval of the operating budget and the teachers’ and support-staff contract.

This is the year for the approval of Articles 1, 3 and 4. This will pave the way for the district to accomplish part of the accreditation and will be a major step in helping us with any future building plans.
Continue reading ‘It’s time to say ‘yes’’

The future depends on your vote

Published by admin on March 8, 2008 in Letter to the Editor and Voting. 1 Comment

[From the Keene Sentinel Letters Page, Friday, March 7, 2008]

 

To The Sentinel:

Last year I was honored to be the keynote speaker at the Monadnock Regional High School graduation ceremony for the class of 2007.

While much of my speech centered on the connections between life and Charms Blowpops (you had to be there), I did begin the dialogue with two personal, but in my mind, necessary points.

First, I commended those staff members that chose to attend the graduation ceremony even with the hostile environment that pervaded the district.

My second point dealt with the importance of being responsible and informed citizens.

Because the upcoming district vote on March 11 is closing fast, I would like to reemphasize these two points and hopefully add some clarity.
Continue reading ‘The future depends on your vote’

Your vote can support education

Published by admin on March 8, 2008 in Letter to the Editor, Richmond, Swanzey and Voting. 0 Comments

[From the Keene Sentinel Letters Page, Friday, March 7, 2008]

 

To The Sentinel:

Some thoughts regarding the Monadnock school district vote on March 11.

There are three points regarding the upcoming school district vote on the various warrant articles that I think should be considered.

The first relates to the need to consider how the vote on any of the warrant articles will impact facilitating our progress back to full accreditation of our high school.

Certainly a negative vote on most warrant articles, especially articles 1, 3 and 4, will ensure the loss of accreditation of the high school.

Those who dispute this point really don’t have a clear and realistic view of the situation.

A second point regards the extent to which the elective representatives to the school board and budget committee are committed to the ideal of providing a good public education for the youth of the district.

It is to be noted that for a number of years some members of the budget committee have been active members of the local taxpayers group.

This is a group that has been committed to denigrating and obstructing the school board’s attempts to enable and enhance the educational opportunities of the youth of the district. Unfortunately, a couple of current school board members have also indicated by their disruptive actions that they are sympathetic to this negative view of public education.

Beyond voting to support public education in the district by voting in favor of the various warrant articles, citizens of the district should be alert to inform themselves regarding the degree of positive commitment of their school board representatives to public education.

A very small minority has wasted a great deal of time in school board meetings on matters having little or no relation to the job we were elected to perform: overseeing the education of the youth of the district.

This leads to a third concern having to do with the warrant article by petition that advocates the elimination of the budget committee. It should be remembered that the budget committee came into being during a time when the school board representation was not based on proportional representation.

At that point, Swanzey, with close to 50 percent of the children in the schools of the district, had only two out of 10 representatives on the school board.

With the change to proportional representation, reflecting more accurately the population in the various district towns, the major concerns the budget committee was established to address tended to disappear.

It should be acknowledged that for the first time in five or more years, the budget committee and the school board were much closer to agreement this year on the major warrant articles.

However, it can be argued that this was due to a temporary shift in representation characterized by more than the usual pro-public education members on the committee. There is no guarantee this will continue.

There are a number of candidates for election to next year’s budget committee who are active anti public-education taxpayer group members. Maybe it is time to elect competent and committed pro-education advocates to the school board and let the budget committee disappear into the dustbin of history. The choice is yours.

WILLIAM FELTON
131 Eaton Road
Swanzey

Voters should approve contract

Published by admin on March 8, 2008 in Letter to the Editor, Richmond and Teacher/Staff Contracts. 0 Comments

[From the Keene Sentinel Letters Page, Saturday, March 8, 2008]

To The Sentinel:

I would like to respond to Mr. Neil Moriarity’s letter to the editor on Feb. 26.

I am not only a taxpayer in the Monadnock Regional School District, but I am also a teacher at Monadnock Regional High School.

Mr. Moriarity’s letter did not say that not only is he a taxpayer in the district, but he is also chairman of the budget committee.

Though Mr. Moriarity has the right and the obligation to bring up his concerns at the committee meetings, once the committee has voted (in a democratic matter), it is the obligation of all committee members to help implement the decisions of the committee.

I might point out that Mr. Moriarty was the only member of the budget committee who did not support the contract. Thus, in writing his letter to the editor Mr. Moriarity has abrogated his duties as a member and the chairman of the budget committee.
Continue reading ‘Voters should approve contract’

Articles will help our kids.

Published by admin on March 8, 2008 in Letter to the Editor, Teacher/Staff Contracts and Voting. 0 Comments

[From the Keene Sentinel Letters Page, Saturday, March 8, 2008]

To The Sentinel:

Many people in the Monadnock Regional School District are concerned about voting March 11.

As a Swanzey resident, I’d like to encourage voters to support warrant articles 1-13.

Personally, I feel it is important that we make the improvements that the warrant articles will make possible.

The improvements will make the schools safer, healthier and more serviceable.

I feel the result will be that future generations of students will be better prepared as fathers, mothers, doctors, nurses, ministers, teachers, community leaders, etc.

I hope residents will think of the many good benefits that will come as a result of voting “yes” for warrant articles 1-13.

DAVID PUTNAM JR.
753 Old Homestead Highway
Swanzey

The way forward

Published by admin on March 6, 2008 in Editorial, Letter to the Editor, School budget, Taxes and Voting. 1 Comment

[From the Keene Sentinel Letters Page]

To the residents and voters of the Monadnock Regional School District:

I would prefer to write this as your average citizen, but some of my information comes from being an elected Swanzey member of the district budget committee for the last two years.

I don’t claim to know everything, but I can make an intelligent assessment of where we stand as a district.

Once again it is time to make decisions about education. On March 11, your vote counts as a step forward for the future of the children of this district or another as a step backward toward the abyss of failed education.

Forward steps are: “yes” votes for the operating budget, teachers and support staff contracts and maintenance articles.

These are all positive steps toward a better future in this district.

Backward steps are: “no” votes for the above, not bothering to vote or believing the blather of the Monadnock School Taxpayers Association .

What does that group think?

With apologies to Jeff Foxworthy:

If you think that 200-year-old, one-room historic schoolhouses on the corner in the woods of Richmond would work just fine, you just might be a future member of the taxpayers association.

If readin’, writin’ and ’rithmetic is all you need to get by-, you just might be a future member of the taxpayers association.

If you are living in the past, blaming former administrators and board members long gone for all our woes, you just might be a future member of the taxpayers association.

If you are arrogant, rude, conceited and domineering and your moral compass has gone awry, you just might be a future member of the taxpayers association.

If you don’t believe that anyone but you is right, even when issues have been settled democratically, you just might be a future member of the taxpayers association.

If you want to see the district lose accreditation, teachers, support staff, administrators, new residents and any hope of a decent educational opportunity for your children and grandchildren, you just might be a future member of the taxpayers association.

You get the picture. Don’t let the taxpayers association scare you into believing that the administration, school board members, budget committee members, teachers and others are lying, deceitful, malicious, money-grubbing lunatics.

On March 11, vote for a positive change in our district.

Vote “yes” on articles 1, 3, 4, 13 and others that you feel help provide the education to which our kids are entitled.

Vote for the candidates in your town who best exemplify the type of adult you wish your child will become.

Read the articles. Understand the articles. Realize that negotiations are an intrinsic part of the democratic process.

Most importantly — vote March 11.

JIM ELLS
Member
Monadnock Budget Committee
P.O. Box 459
West Swanzey

Monadnock schools need support

Published by admin on March 6, 2008 in Letter to the Editor, School budget and Voting. 0 Comments

[From the Keene Sentinel Letters Page]

To The Sentinel:

I am writing to encourage residents of the Monadnock Regional School District to take the time to become informed about the issues that will be put before them on the March 11 ballot.

Warrant articles include funding for the proposed operating budget, employment contracts with teachers and with support staff, funding to continue with a facilities master plan and maintenance repairs, as well as to establish and support capital reserve funds.

The district administrators and principals have worked diligently to present an operating budget that will enable us to work toward reaching the educational goals of the district, including those needed to work toward New England Association of Schools and Colleges accreditation at the high school.

This is not an extravagant budget, rather it is one that includes those costs items necessary to run our district’s schools effectively and efficiently.

The teachers’ contract and the support staff contract provide for a modest wage increase coupled with an increase in the employee contribution for health insurance costs over the life of the contract.

The teachers’ contract includes the elimination of the often debated early retirement program.

Our district’s employees, like our taxpayers, are hardworking people. We entrust these individuals to be responsible for the education, care, safety and security of our children.

They are deserving of our support of the employment contracts that have been negotiated in good faith and that have gained the endorsement of our school board and budget committee.

As the principal of Monadnock Regional High School, I have the opportunity to work side by side with a large number of district employees. I am pleased to be part of the team that provides the educational and support services that our children deserve.

As the parent of a Monadnock Regional High School student and of a Monadnock Regional Middle School student, I am pleased with the educational opportunities that our children are provided.

Our district employees are outstanding role models for our children.

Whether it is in the classrooms, the hallways, or the variety of athletic and co curricular venues, I am proud of the work that my colleagues do for our children and for our district’s communities. They are truly dedicated individuals who have the best interest of our children in mind at all times.

Please join me in supporting the education of our children. Gather the information that you need to make an informed decision before you cast your vote on March 11.

JOSEPH E. SMITH
663 Old Homestead Highway
Swanzey

Teacher contract criticism is incorrect and off-base

Published by admin on March 6, 2008 in Letter to the Editor and Teacher/Staff Contracts. 0 Comments

[From the Keene Sentinel Letters Page]

Neil Moriarty, in his letter of Feb. 26, asked a great question:

Wouldn’t I like raises forever?

I very much would. Unfortunately, there’s no such thing, and there’s no such offering in the teachers’ contract he and his cohorts in the Monadnock Taxpayers Association are warring against.

His protestations aside, there’s nothing new about the evergreen clause in this teachers contract, it only means the provisions of this contract remain in effect until a new one supersedes it.

There are no “raises forever.”

Teachers receive a yearly step raise until they reach the limit set by their level of education, and then they are done. Keep in mind that in education, there are only two ways to advance: Stay for a long time, and gain more education.

A brand-new teacher walks into the job in the same position he or she will hold when he or she retires.

In any other career, there would be a ladder to climb, new positions to advance to, and new pay to come with it. Not in teaching, it’s the perfect definition of a dead-end job, made more so when obstructionists lie about it.

On many other points Moriarty seems similarly confused, and seems to mistakenly be putting forth a great deal of misinformation.

Unfortunately, people who don’t know better might become equally confused and think it’s the truth.

For example, early retirement ends with this contract; it will be phased out in the only way it can be — so those individuals who retired under its provisions have what they were promised. Voting “yes” on this contract is the only way to remove early retirement — something the taxpayers association asked for and received in negotiations.

The Sullivan lawsuit alluded to has been halted until the voters can decide if they really want one. Again, Moriarty must have been confused.

Moriarty imagines a savings of $850,000 on health care, which would be very nice, but is, again, not possible.

Health insurance rates change often, and the district continues to request bids from insurance carriers. From the bidding process this year more than $500,000 was saved compared to previous years, and it was done by following established procedures.

There are a number of factors that go into choosing a carrier, and it’s not simple. I can understand why Mr. Moriarty is befuddled by the process.

The truth is, teachers are paying a larger share of their health insurance. I believe this is something the taxpayers association asked for and would want.

Voting “no” on the contract means teachers continue to have early retirement and pay less on insurance.

Mr. Moriarty would claim this contract jeopardizes future teacher raises.

The primary things that put future contracts at risk are his actions and the actions, half-truths, and deceptions of the Monadnock Taxpayers Association. The information is very public and very available: kidsfirstmonadnock.com publishes accurate information relating to the truth, and so does morecoffeeplease.com (more disclosure: This is my site, so feel free to take it with a grain of salt).

The simple, plain truth is this: The Monadnock Regional School District is starved for funding.

Teachers are leaving, experienced teachers cannot be hired and new teachers are frozen at their starting salary and below what other districts pay. I would love for The Keene Sentinel to do some real investigation and really look into what’s happening and report it.

The situation is muddled by individuals with ulterior agendas, and it will take more than quoting people to find the truth.

But here’s a fact: The March 11 vote is vital. Citizens in a democracy have the duty to find the truth and to vote. Both need to happen to start addressing the problems in the district.

ROBERT J. HALE
12 West St.
Keene

Contracts are fair to everyone

Published by admin on March 6, 2008 in Letter to the Editor, School budget, Teacher/Staff Contracts and Voting. 0 Comments

[From The Keene Sentinel Letters Page]

I am writing to ask the voters of the Monadnock Regional School District to support both the teachers and support staff contracts when they cast their votes on March 11.

During the past two years, I have served on the negotiations committee for the Monadnock Regional School Board.

It was an eye-opening and thought-provoking experience and I have a new appreciation for the negotiations process. It has been said that if both sides leave the table unsatisfied the negotiation has been successful.

If that’s the measure then we were successful — no one got everything he wanted.

However, we did, I believe, reach two fair contract proposals — fair to our teachers and support staff personnel, and fair to the the taxpayers of the district.

So what exactly is fair? I believe most would agree that a property tax system that bills someone living in Troy more for a $200,000 house than it does in Fitzwilliam for the same house is not a fair system.

Or, is it fair when the federal government tells us we must “include” students with special needs in our schools, and then fails to fund that program for more than 30 years, costing our district millions of dollars?

Is it fair that a young person graduating college is paid less simply because she chose to work in the public sector as a teacher rather than using the same degree elsewhere where the annual salary could be $10,000 to $20,000 more?

All of us who vote — we are the employers — and we can do something to remedy this third inequity.

As stated earlier, I feel we have negotiated a very fair contract with our teachers and support staff personnel. Both groups have been without a contract for the past two school years.

They have received no raises during that time period. Both contracts will put our employees back on their correct salary level (step) over the next two years.

There will be no retroactive pay. In other words, they will not receive an increase in pay for the period July 1, 2006 to June 30, 2008.

New teachers (bachelors degree; no experience) currently start at $30,000 a year.

This starting salary will increase as follows: $30,600 in 2008-2009; $31,850 in 2009-2010; $33,100 in 2010-2011; $34,600 in 2011-2012.

This will allow us to stay competitive with the other school districts in the region. First-year paraprofessionals (aides) currently begin at $8.50 an hour. This hourly rate increases to $8.67 an hour in 2008-2009; $8.84 in 2009-2010; and $9.02 in 2010-2011.

Early retirement will go away. This was an idea with good intentions but it didn’t work well.

Early retirement works best in the private sector, where it is used to lower the number of employees quickly and when replacement employees are not being hired.

Eligibility and benefits will decrease over each of the next three years, then disappear completely on July 1, 2011. Early retirement is in the teachers’ contract only. Support staff personnel never had this benefit.

Currently, both employee groups are contributing 10 percent of the cost to purchase the Blue Choice Point of Service health insurance plan. If the two contracts pass in March, employee participation for health insurance will increase to 20 percent over the next three to four years.

The teacher contract is a four-year agreement.

The estimated cost of this contact is 5.29 percent in year one; 2.34 percent in year two; 2.97 percent in year three; and 3.13 percent in year four.

The overall four-year average percentage increase of the contract is 3.6 percent.

The support staff contract is a three-year contract. The estimated cost of this contract is 5.83 percent in year one; 4.39 percent in year two; and 2.48 percent increase in year three.

This summary by no means lists all the changes to the two contracts as space limitations do not allow it here.

However, these are the big ticket items, and those that have tended to be the most controversial. A more detailed explanation appears on the district Web site: www.mrsd.org, or I’d be happy to e-mail, fax, or mail anyone a copy.

Please vote “yes” for warrant articles 4 and 5. Both warrant articles are supported by the school board and the budget committee.

Our employees deserve our support.
GENE WHITE
Swanzey School Board Member
Spring Street
Swanzey

Contract benefits students most of all

Published by admin on February 28, 2008 in Letter to the Editor and Voting. 0 Comments

Letter to the Editor, Published in the Keene Sentinle Saturday, February 23, 2008

I am writing to ask for the support of the citizens of the Monadnock Regional School District as regards warrant article 4, also known as the teachers’ contract.

The negotiating teams of both the school board and the teachers’ union have worked long and hard to arrive at a four year contract that not only benefits both sides, but, more importantly, ultimately benefits the students of the district.

At multiple meetings, the public made it clear teachers would have to pay more for their health insurance and the early retirement system would have to go.
When the new contract is ratified, over the four years of the contract, teachers will pay a higher percentage of their health-care benefits and will be paying 20 percent of their health-care premium by the end of the contract.

As for early retirement: Three years after ratification, no teacher will be able to take early retirement. The new contract will save the district more than $3 million over the next seven years due to the sun-setting of early retirement.

Yes, the first year there is a slightly larger increase in salaries than in the ensuing three years. For the past two years the teachers in the district have not been kept at the proper step. The state requires that all teachers be placed on the correct step before new teachers can be hired at the correct step.

It is bringing the salaries in line that causes this slightly larger increase the first year. It is important to note this is not retroactive pay, it is just getting the teachers on the correct step.

If we wait another year for a contract, the amount of money needed to bring people up to the correct step will be even higher.

I believe I have shown how the contract benefits the teachers and the district, but as I stated in my first paragraph the contract most importantly benefits the students of the district.

A new contract will help attract topnotch teachers and will help retain the many excellent teachers already working in the district, both of which benefits the students.

Additionally, ratification of the new contract sends a message to the students and the community of the importance of an education.

I would also like to point out that if the new contract is not ratified, then the old contract will stay in effect. There is no third option.

If the contract is not ratified, teachers will continue to pay 10 percent of health-care costs and the early retirement system will not sunset while the cost of bringing teachers up to the correct step will continue to increase.

For the sake of disclosure, it should be noted that I am a teacher at Monadnock Regional High School.

However, I am also a resident of the Monadnock Regional School District and submit my thoughts as the latter.

ELLIOT KAPLAN
P.O. Box 7
Gilsum