Archive

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

The MRSD Budget: What it means for you

Published by rmitchell on March 6, 2008 in School budget, Taxes and Voting. 3 Comments

How will the 2008 school budget will affect you?

Would you like to support the schools but worry about the tax impact? Have you read the recent letter to the editor claiming that taxes are going up 27.22% and that school spending is out of control? If so, read on. This could be the most important document you read before the election.

The information below lays out exactly how much the school district proposes to spend on its operating budget and other warrant articles, how much money will need to be raised from taxes, and how that breaks down for your town.

It also explains how some of the percentage increases you see out there can be misleading and why factors outside of the school’s control have added to the bottom line costs for taxpayers this year. Bottom line: If everything passes, the school’s spending will only increase by 6% this year. That includes the operating budget, teacher and staff contracts - the works.

Armed with a better understanding of what money must be raised and where it goes, you should be in a good position to make a decision. Passing a budget is an important first step toward maintaining our Middle/High School’s accreditation.

Q: How much is the proposed increase in the MRSD operating budget?
The proposed MRSD operating budget for 2008 is $31,852.333. It represents an increase of 2.96% - less than the rate of inflation for last year. The actual amount of the increase is $909,470.

Q: How much will spending increase if all warrant articles pass?
If all articles on the warrant pass the total increase in spending will come to about 6%.

There are several other warrants that will affect spending. These include the operating budget, the teacher and staff contracts and a warrant article to fund the roof repairs on several buildings. The proposed total of all of the spending on the warrant articles comes to $35,143,639.

Q: How much money must be raised from property taxes to pay for that?
If the operating budget and all warrant articles pass, the amount to be raised from taxes for the 2008/2009 school year will increase by 13.92%.

Q: How can a 6% increase in spending result in a 13.92% increase in the total amount of money that needs to be raised through taxes?
Clearly it’s not excessive school spending. This number is called the total amount to apportion and is equal to total expenses less revenues (grants) and state aid to education. The change is expressed as a percentage: To get it you divide the 2008 amount by the 2007 amount.

Three factors are at work here. Both revenue and state aid are down. The increase also reflects the tax impact of voters’ decision last fall to allow Surry to withdraw from the district. That’s not extra spending but a reapportionment of the costs Surry used to pay. Here is the breakdown:

  • The biggest chunk of the increase (more than half) comes from a large, one-time surplus that taxpayers benefitted from in their 2007 tax bill. As a result, tax bills went down dramatically last year. How dramatically? Sullivan’s school tax bill went down 23%. Gilsum’s went down 27%. Surry’s went down 36% (shown in the Tax Rate Impact table below, 2007/2008 column). This year that one-time surplus went away. Most of the surplus was associated with special education, a mostly unfunded mandate over which the district has little control. Unfortunately, the special education aid revenues are unpredictable. Last year revenues exceeded what was expected by $2.1 million. This year funding dropped back to normal levels. And costs went up.
  • 1.16% of the increase is required to make up for a reduction in state “adequacy” aid for Monadnock district towns. MRSD taxpayers are getting less back this year from the State of New Hampshire’s statewide property tax.
  • 4% of the total increase has nothing to do with this year’s budgets at all. It is the result of the voters’ decision last fall to allow Surry to withdraw from the school district. Surry’s withdrawal does not substantially change the cost of running the school district (the financial benefits of closing the Surry Elementary School were taken a few years ago.) The remaining towns in the district must now pick up Surry’s share of the costs.
  • The school budget and warrant articles make up the remainder.

Q: How much will this afffect the tax rate?
The overall tax rate for next year will rise 27.22% over the current year’s numbers. However, this number is a bit misleading. Read on.

Q: If the amount to be raised from taxes is up 13.92%, why would the tax rate go up by 27.22%?
Estimates can be calculated in different ways to imply different things. Last year taxpayers saw a huge decrease in the tax rate due to a one time increase in revenues. This year that support goes away. That makes this year’s budgets look larger.

The 27.22% number is skewed upward by the fact that taxpayers saw a huge one-time reduction in taxes in the 2007/2008 school budget year. If your taxes went down by 23% last year and the surplus goes away in the 2008/2009 school year, you start the year with a 23% increase even for a flat budget. This is what makes this year’s percentages appear much larger.

Here is a simple example of how percentages are skewed. Let’s say that last year’s budget was $100. Then someone gives you a one-time rebate (surplus) of $25. The total budget drops to $75.

In the next year, your budget costs return to normal. The budget increases by $25. If you look at the normal budget ($25 divided by the original $100 budget), the increase was 25%. But if you use the actual budget amount after the rebate as the basis the increase is a whopping 66% ($125 - $75 = $50 increase. $50/$75 you actually paid last year = 66%).

In this way, looking at the percentage increase of the 2008 tax rate over the 2007 numbers exaggerates the overall impact.

A more accurate way to look at the percentage increases would be to look at the average increase over the past two years. (See the two year average column in the table below).

Table 1

(Note: Roxbury’s percentage increase appears larger because it received a credit over the past two years to compensate for a previous overassessment. Those credits do not carry forward this year, making Roxbury’s increase appear proportionally larger.)

Q: Why do the tax rate changes vary so much between towns?
To determine what each town will pay one must calculate the estimated tax rate for each town. To know that you need to know how much of the total amount the district needs to be raised from taxes will be billed to your town (called apportionment).

It’s not an even split: Your town’s apportionment is based 50% on the number of students your town sends (called average daily membership, or ADM) and 50% on property valuations. Even small amounts in the ADM and valuation numbers can vastly change the tax rates for every town. The differences in tax rate change from one town to another can be substantial, as the wide variation in percentage increases/decreases for a given year show. These increases are often blamed on “out of control” spending but have nothing to do with spending. They have to do with how costs are apportioned between the towns.

Small changes in ADM or valuations can result in large changes in how costs are apportioned. Both the ADM and valuation numbers are set by the state. The school district has the preliminary valuation numbers but is still waiting for the ADM numbers to come in. The final assessed values as of April 1st will come from the state some time after that date. Therefore, the numbers below use ADM and valuation numbers that are a best estimates by the district, as are any other projections you might see from other sources.

Q: So what is the total bottom line impact?

Let’s look at Fitzwilliam as an example. In the chart above you’ll see that the district projects that Fitzwilliam’s tax rate for 2008 will increase by 26.3%. That comes to $3.19 per $1,000 in valuation over what residents paid in the current, 2007 school year (when the one-time surplus reduced taxes). That’s an increase of $638 on a house valued at $200,000, assuming that everything passes.

But don’t forget that Fitzwilliam taxpayers saw their tax rate decrease by 16.34% in the current year. The two-year average increase is 5.66%, or just 2.83% per year. If you factor out the tax impact of the Surry withdrawal (4%), which is not part of this budget cycle but something voters approved last year, the increase related to school revenues and budgets increased 1.66%, or an average of .83% a year for the last two years.

Here is how those numbers translate into real dollar tax increases for each year. 2007 is the current tax year (2007/2008). The 2008 tax year coming up (2008/2009 school year), when the surplus disappeared.

table-2.jpg

Again, the total increase in tax rates does not reflect a large increase in spending by the district. These numbers reflect a moderate increase in expenditures, a large decrease in revenues, decreased state aid, and a 4% increase due to the Surry withdrawal. The huge surplus last year makes the increase look larger. Because the surplus was a one-time event, the increase over two years provides a more reasonable view of the trend over time.

Are taxes going go to up? Yes. But in the big picture, the overall increase isn’t as large as voters may have been lead to believe. And it’s certainly not due to runaway spending.

Given the scope of the issues that need to be addressed at the schools, the fact that the school has suffered five years of default budgets and two years of not funding a teacher or staff contract, is a 2.96% operating budget increase and a 6% overall increase in spending for all warrant articles - including teacher and staff contracts - too much to ask?

Make your decision at the polls on March 11.

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

Budget committee is unnecessary

Published by Michael Hoefer on February 28, 2008 in Letter to the Editor, Richmond, School budget and Voting. 0 Comments

(Letter to the editor in support of Article 13 published by the Keene Sentinel February 23, 2008)

With the serious issues facing the Monadnock Regional School District, it is important that we are organized for success.

This is the reason why I and 56 other voters concerned about the future of our district submitted a petition to eliminate the controversial Monadnock budget committee.

It is time to return full budget responsibility to the school board, where it belongs.

Many voters who have attended budget committee meetings have become disenchanted with what they have seen, especially in this past year.

Perhaps that’s why our petition gathered more signatures than any of the 11 other petition articles submitted in the last four years.

A separately-elected budget committee is not required by law.

In fact, a majority of school districts (including many regional and even larger districts) instead give the school board the full accountability and responsibility for governance.

Only the school board has the authority to fine-tune the individual line items of the budget.

Only the school board is adequately equipped, informed, and empowered to balance educational needs with the financial support available from the communities they represent.

Perhaps in some districts budget committees can work, but in ours, as well documented in the pages of The Sentinel, the committee has been a divisive group, more often than not at odds with itself as well as with the school board.

Voters who presume the budget committee helps build budgets and balances the education needs of children against the needs of taxpayers would be wrong.

Its primary function has been to cut budgets after the fact, rather than to help build them from the ground up. It cuts based on arbitrary measures, such as the rate of inflation, without regard to unique circumstances or needs. Those cuts tend to be sweeping, with little regard given for what can be cut to meet the revised bottom line number. That task is somewhat dismissively left to the school board to “figure it out.”

Today it takes 30 elected officials to staff the budget committee and school board. That’s 15 too many. In many district towns, it is difficult to find even one person to run for a school position, let alone finding two. It’s not uncommon to find an unopposed or write-in candidate who is elected due to a lack of competition.

Eliminating the budget committee would help reduce this problem and encourage competition for school board seats.

Let’s end the divisiveness that has plagued the Monadnock district, give the school board the tools needed to lead our district, and let our administrators focus on educational leadership.

Please join me in voting to rescind the budget committee by voting “yes” on article 13.

MICHAEL HOEFER
30 Honey Hill Road
Richmond

Legal challenge costs taxpayers money

Published by admin on February 21, 2008 in Lawsuits and Taxes. 0 Comments

 

The Monadnock Taxpayer’s Association’s core group of agitators is at it again, this time filing a complaint in Concord that’s racking up legal bills for the Monadnock Regional School District - and your taxes are paying for it. It seems that every time one turns around, this group is either threatening legal action for one thing or going to court for another. Will it never end?

According to a story in yesterday’s Sentinel, “Richard Bauries — of the watchdog citizens’ group The Monadnock School Taxpayers Association — said he had instigated the action because of concerns about the warrant’s wording.”

At least one taxpayer is fed up. He connected with KFM today to express his frustration.

“That’s not the way you save money for the taxpayers,” he said. “What’s going on with these people? They are causing unnecessary expense for the district, arguing about whether the word ‘evergreen’ was used one day and not the day before. It’s just absurd.”

Is this a good use of your taxpayer dollars? Decide for yourself. Read the Keene Sentinel article here. Read The Sentinel’s brief history of this mess here. We’ve also pasted both below for you.

Add your comments and let us know what you think.

********

Content © 2008 SentinelSource.com. Used with permission.

Wednesday, February 20, 2008

Monadnock legal battle keeps going
Wording of vote is latest divisive issue

Anika Clark
Sentinel Staff

Wednesday, February 20, 2008

SWANZEY CENTER — After facing numerous lawsuits in recent months, the Monadnock Regional School District is again being eyed by state officials.

Assistant N.H. Attorney General James W. Kennedy recently began examining the warrant district residents will consider at the election in March — specifically, he said, the part that deals with the teachers’ contracts.

“We’re conducting an inquiry regarding a complaint that came in last week regarding whether or not the correct process was followed concerning the notice of the warrant article,” said Kennedy, who covers all election-enforcement issues in the state.

The N.H. Attorney General’s Office did not disclose who filed the complaint against the district. But in a voicemail message to The Sentinel Tuesday night, Richard Bauries — of the watchdog citizens’ group The Monadnock School Taxpayers Association — said he had instigated the action because of concerns about the warrant’s wording.

his latest dispute is about an “evergreen” clause included in the proposed teachers’ contract. It ensures that after the contract expires in 2012, annual pay raises would continue while a new agreement is negotiated.

An evergreen clause is a provision that extends the term of a contract beyond its primary expiration date.

The school board supported this proposed contract in November and, at a meeting on Jan. 8, approved the wording of the article that will appear on this year’s ballot.

But school board member James I. Carnie of Richmond recently cried foul because the words “evergreen clause” weren’t included in the warrant language at that time.

These words did not appear in the warrant article until the public budget hearing on Jan. 10, according to school board Chairman Colline Dreyfuss and the district’s attorney, Paul L. Apple.

At a Feb. 5 school board meeting, Carnie questioned how the change occurred, asked who was answerable to it, and said it could be grounds for resignation, according to meeting minutes.

However, before board members approved the warrant language on Jan. 8, Dreyfuss told them the evergreen clause was part of the proposed contract, according to meeting minutes.

Regardless, the school board attempted to nip the issue in the bud Tuesday night by re-approving the article for the teachers’ contract — evergreen clause and all.

Carnie, who was not present at Tuesday’s meeting, drew suspicion as the driving force behind Kennedy’s inquiry because he had recently threatened to contact the Attorney General’s Office on the matter.

However, in a voicemail message to The Sentinel Tuesday night, Bauries, referring to himself in the third-person, said, “It was Mr. Bauries who took Mr. Carnie with me to the Attorney General’s Office.”

The trip to the Attorney General’s Office, Bauries said, was part of a multi-stop trip to Concord that included stops at the Department of Revenue Administration, the N.H. Retirement System, the state Supreme Court library and the Secretary of State’s Office.

Bauries charged that school board members had approved the contract with only an overview of what it entailed.

His wife, Patricia Bauries, added that while the public was told at the Jan. 10 public hearing that the board supported the contract warrant article, the board had actually voted to support something different.

“They approved one thing — what they believed to be one thing — and it was another,” she said.

School board member Douglas Lyman of Troy called the glitch a “clerical oversight” and said Tuesday’s re-approval would allow the board to get back to the business of education.

Still, at Tuesday night’s meeting school board member Jonathan Kenyon of Swanzey lamented the lingering negative effects repeated litigation could have on voters’ trust in their elected officials.

In e-mails to The Sentinel, school board members such as Karen Cota of Roxbury and Eugene White of Swanzey, have also charged members of the Taxpayers Association with trying to sabotage the contract.

But Bauries showed no sign of letting up.

Despite Apple’s belief the school board’s re-approval would appease the Attorney General’s Office, Bauries said the matter could wind up in Cheshire County Superior Court.

In the meantime, Apple said, legal fees are piling up, with this latest action alone costing the district thousands of dollars.

“You guys are getting to a point where … you might want to consider hiring an on-staff lawyer,” he told board members. “You’ve got enough to keep yourselves busy.”

Anika Clark can be reached at 352-1234, extension 1432, or aclark@keenesentinel.com.

Evergreen clause source of dispute in past

Wednesday, February 20, 2008

SWANZEY CENTER — The latest inquiry by the Attorney General’s office isn’t the first time the evergreen clause has come into dispute in the Monadnock Regional School District.

The clause, which is a provision that extends the term of a contract beyond its primary expiration date, was originally included in the 2003-06 teachers’ contract that voters approved.

But last March, the Public Employee Labor Relations Board ruled the clause unenforceable, arguing that Monadnock residents weren’t properly notified of it in the 2003 warrant.

The meaning of that decision has became a source of confusion during this new contract cycle.

Some school board members assumed the labor relations board’s ruling axed the evergreen clause from the 2003-06 contract.

“When you have a contract and something through either litigation or through a ruling of a government entity is removed from that contract or declared unenforceable, it’s no longer in the contract,” said Troy school board representative Douglas Lyman.

But attorney Paul L. Apple said the clause never actually went away.

“It’s still a clause in the contract. It’s just unenforceable,” he said.

The importance of this distinction?

Based on this logic, if school board members assumed the clause was gone because it wasn’t listed as a “change” between the old and new contracts, they were wrong.

— Anika Clark

Vision vs. Decay: Our Public Schools Blind Sided by Denial

Published by admin on February 17, 2008 in Facility and Richmond. 0 Comments

By: Pete Majoy, Richmond, NH

Churchill said that “We make a living by what we get. We make a life by what we give.” Had he lived in the Monadnock Region, my guess is that he would have looked in the eye of each and every purportedly over taxed troll and reminded them that time and tide have run out on their fiscal excuse for inaction regarding Monadnock Regional High School and Junior High/Middle School.

Materialism runs two parallel courses. On the one hand, many of the “haves” guard their precious wealth with disdain for the public sphere, the oft referred to “commons” like our public schools, our parks, our forests, lakes, streams and ponds, and anything that smacks of taxation to protect, upgrade and improve this fundamental treasure trove which we all share in common…or should. They snort the over used and many socially dysfunctional tenets of “fiscal conservatism”, i.e., the selfish “penny wise and a pound foolish” withdrawal from social responsibility while investing in only themselves, private enterprise, and the stock market.

On the other hand, many of the “have-nots”, often those who “have” but pose as “have-nots”, define the needs which the “commons” require be met as unfair trespassing on their skinny wallets. Both groups are “takers” or what Churchill refers to as those who “get”. There is no vision here, no capacity to see the big picture, no real care for the future, just an implosion of selfishness masked as fiscal responsibility and purported concern for the real “have nots” whom, in principal, they don’t support in the first place. Ultimately, both monied tribes refuse to “make a life by what we give.”

Yes, the property tax is distorted, unfair, and unjust. In its actual monetary attack on residents, like everything else, it is less taxing on the rich and more taxing on the poor. Playing the “fiscal conservative” card gives the appearance of protecting all rungs of the economic ladder from unfair demands on income….or so it is supposed to appear that way, but such is not the case. Often, they attack the “welfare state” but turn a blind eye at “corporate welfare”, those tax benefits which never “trickle down” significantly past the upper crusters.

Had the “giving” mentality won the day ten years ago over the “taking” paroxysms of fear, a new school could have been built for far less than it will cost to build this year. Make no mistake about it, a new MRHS Senior/Junior High/Middle school complex must, repeat, must, be built. Every year that we delay investing in this centerpiece of our culture and our commons, we up the ante necessary for its construction. This is a tale of fiscal barbarism, denial, and total absence of the necessary vision required for our towns to remain vibrant, proud, and responsible. True fiscal conservatism would stop the shenanigans and invest immediately in a new school and by doing so stave off any further necessary cost to town residents.

This is what one School Board member termed a “watershed year.” For sure it is the year of the proverbial “crossroads” and “fork in the road”. Much hangs in the balance:

  1. voter support for the school budget will immediately move MRHS in the direction of re-accreditation
  2. in turn, it will move voters closer to approval of the cost for a new high school/junior high/middle school complex
  3. both of these, part of what is needed externally for re-accreditation, will have immediate economic dividends
    1. purchases and sales of houses will begin to climb out of the economic slump that has gripped that market
    2. the growing negative perception of the future of the Monadnock Schools will cease, and families will not hesitate to move here simply because our towns have been voluntarily extricated from a destructive fiscal conservancy to a wisdom based fiscal conservancy that plans for the future
    3. all of this has positive effects on local businesses

Those residents who cannot afford an increase in their property tax, and they are in the minority but should, nevertheless, be respected, must not use their need as an excuse for opposing a long overdue new school. Why? The towns that send their sons and daughters to MRHS must not be shortchanged by the nearsightedness created by economic struggle or that struggle will multiply itself geometrically as the region falls deeper into economic stagnation which will effect them disproportionately. Those local tax payer groups formed to oppose the school budget are not serving anyone’s wallet or purse. They are using the economic pain a segment of residents experience to spread pain over a larger segment of the population. In effect, all they are doing is spreading economic fatalism for all.

This does not mean that a hard hearted survival-of-the-fittest approach to elderly property owners on fixed incomes or younger property owners with families struggling to make mortgage and tax payments must be adopted. Every legal and good neighbor policy must be used to address this. For example, in addition to the tax relief forms available at the Town Office, there could/should be a neighborly attempt to collect funds for struggling folk to help offset any increase in property tax directly caused by the construction of the new educational complex. In addition, the complex itself should be envisioned as a structure that houses services to the elderly. Perhaps there would be a doctor’s office where local MD’s have revolving office hours closer to their elderly patients as well as to students. There should be a day care center. A small police station can house one or two local officers for whom the school would be their beat. Why not a small restaurant and gift shop? In other words, the new school complex would truly be a richer meeting place for the entire local community.

What, then, should the new educational complex be? First and foremost, it must be a green/sustainable school. Our energy dependence on oil, our dependence on both oil/coal based electricity and heat must shift very quickly. While the up front cost for a green and sustainable school is a bit more expensive, the yearly monetary savings generated by such a school will quickly pay for the increased cost and from that point on save the tax payer a significant amount of money simply because of very large reductions in energy costs. In Hinesburg, Vermont, NRG Systems built a brand new manufacturing and office facility of 46,000 square feet according to state of the art green building standards. The up front cost was $13.81 per square foot, approximately 8.21% more expensive than not building green. It is expected that the extra costs will be paid for within 5 years because of the energy savings (www.nrgsystems.com/press/index.php?tid=226).

Furthermore, a school built according to green principles will have the following per square foot financial benefits:

  • $9/sq.ft. in energy use
  • $1/sq.ft. in emissions
  • $1 sq./ft. in water and wastewater
  • $49/sq.ft. in increased earnings
  • $3/sq.ft. in Asthma reduction
  • $5/sq.ft. in cold and flu reduction
  • $4/sq.ft. in teacher retention
  • $2/sq.ft. in employment impact

The total benefit is $74/sq.ft. When measured against the $3/sq.ft average increase in cost for building green schools, the net financial benefit is $71/sq.foot (www.cape-e.com/spotlight/index.cfm?Page=1&NewsID=34196). Even if one measured this benefit against the larger sq/ft cost for the new NRG facility mentioned above, the net fiscal benefit would still be huge.

There must be a long range vision that combines fiscal wisdom with the building of a brand new green/sustainable school. The time has arrived where both are eminently compatible. To move in any other direction is to shift into reverse. Such a shift could only spell the swift decay of our small towns and impose on the region a sad and lamentable heritage for all who live here, especially our youth. We can do the right thing. We can come together and “make a life by what we give” to our youngsters and to all folk who really care about the future of our towns, or we can retreat into a form of denial that we are responsible for the decay of our schools and the consequent decay of our towns.

Interview: A conversation with NEASC’s Janet Allison on Monadnock’s Probationary Status

Published by admin on February 12, 2008 in Accreditation. 0 Comments

Technically, it wasn’t the New England Association of Schools and Colleges (NEASC) that placed the Monadnock Regional Middle/High School on probationary status last year. It was the Commission on Public Secondary Schools (CPSS), the branch of NEASC that accredits public schools throughout New England. That group consists of education professionals from all over New England who understand the realities of trying to run a school district, not ivory tower types, says Janet Allison, deputy director at CPSS. In this exclusive interview with Kids First Monadnock, Allison explains how the Monadnock Regional School District got to this point, what it will take to retain its certification, and the consequences of inaction.

What is NEASC and CPSS?
We are one of six regional educational accrediting associations in the country. We’re private, nonprofit, voluntary and participatory. Within the association there are six commissions. The Commission on Public Secondary Schools accredits about 660 public high schools and middle high schools in New England.

The commission itself is made up of 26 New England educators from throughout the six states, with at least three from each state. These folks work voluntarily for us. It is the commission that makes the vast majority of decisions about a school’s accreditation.

What does it mean to have an accredited school?
Accreditation means that a school is meeting a set of standards. Those are practitioner based, and they are written by New England educators.
There are three major phases in our decennial cycle. We monitor the schools throughout the ten-year cycle, some more often than others due to accreditation issues they may have.

In year eight of the cycle the school develops a self study. In year 10 the school hosts a visiting committee of peers for 10 days. They write a report based on their findings. Then they use the school self study. Once the [evaluation] report is in final form it becomes an action plan for the follow up process. That is what the commission monitors.

What happens when a school is found to be deficient in some way?
Let’s say that in visiting committee report there are 50 recommendations. Within five years the commission expects that the school will have made reasonable progress and will be close to completing all of them.Every school must submit a two-year report and a five-year report. For each recommendation they must report the extent to which each has been resolved.

If there are some adverse actions such as warning or probation the school will be monitored more closely and the commission will ask for some special progress reports.

What are common misconceptions about accreditation?
Many times they think we are the state department of education. People don’t really know who we are. People often see us as a regulatory organization, which we’re not.

They also see us as a group who are not practitioners. All of us have experience in the schools.

They often think that we as an association are telling them how to fix or remedy the issues. We never do that. We say, “How are you going to remedy the situation?” You need to demonstrate that you’re making reasonable progress.

Last year NEASC placed Monadnock Regional Middle School/High School on probation. Before that it was on warning status. Why can’t we just keep sliding by?
You can’t slide by this time. Once you’re on probation the monitoring is more frequent. There’s only one step beyond probation and that’s termination.

How important is having accredited schools to families moving into a community? To property values?
People are very interested when they are looking to move. The first thing they want to know is the price of the house. What do you think the next thing is that they ask?

“Tell us about the schools.”

Realtors will tell you that it is a factor. The perceived quality of the school has a direct correlation with real estate property values. If there are accreditation issues that are significant, and particularly if a school’s membership is terminated, that has a huge impact.

What happens next at Monadnock?
The school will remain on probation until all of the identified issues have been resolved. Whatever you’re going to do, everything has to be finished before the school is removed from that adverse action.

Who ultimately decides whether Monadnock’s accreditation is terminated?
The commission decides. The 26 public school educators who serve on that commission.

How many other New England schools are on probation today?
On our Web site there is a [probation] roster that identifies all member schools that are on probation. We have almost 670 schools and we usually have no more than 22 to 25 on probation. The vast majority do not get to that point.

Have any other New Hampshire schools had their accreditation terminated?
It is very unusual for schools to lose their accreditation …but it does happen. Every public high school in southern New England is accredited.

In New Hampshire, Thayer High School lost its accreditation and they closed the school. That is the only situation I can think of where the school actually closed.

We had Thayer, then Littleton a few years later. Before Thayer we had Stevens High School in Claremont. They were terminated.

NEASC cited a lack of public support in its review of the High School. What lead the review committee to come to that conclusion?
It’s based primarily on financial support. Part of our visit protocol insists that for any statements made there have to be three sources of evidence. Read passage on page 47 of the Evaluation Report. They heard common messages from four groups plus the self study.

Monadnock hasn’t passed a budget in five of the last six years. We haven’t had a teacher or staff contract in two years. If the budget and teacher contracts were to fail to pass again this year, what affect would that have on our efforts to retain accreditation?
The principal has to report any substantive changes to us within 60 days of the occurrence, if the changes have a negative impact on the schools or programs. If the budget does not pass or is reduced….and has a negative impact, the commission will monitor that. They might even come visit the school.

Monadnock recently completed a master plan for dealing with deficiencies in the High School/Middle School facility. The fixes will be expensive. If a plan is set before voters in 2009 and it is defeated, could that lead to a loss of accreditation?
Potentially it could, but I can’t say that definitively. I cannot project what [the commission] would do. At some point however, the issues will have to be resolved.

What happens if Monadnock’s accreditation is terminated?
To become a member again the school has to provide evidence that is has resolved all of the issues for which it was terminated. Littleton resolved its issues. It did a major renovation, and addition project. It became a candidate, did a self study and just had a visiting committee this fall.

They struggled as community to get support, but they got it.

That’s always the most puzzling thing to me is that usually when [loss of accreditation] happens, suddenly people rally and say now maybe we’ve got to do something.

***