SAU 41 BOARD
A regular meeting of the SAU 41 Board was held on Tuesday, December 9, 2008 at 6:12 p.m. at the Hollis/Brookline Middle School Multi-Purpose Room.
Chairman James McCann presided:
Members of the Board Present: Susan Benz, Hollis School Board
William Beauregard, Hollis School Board
Tom Enright, Hollis/Brookline Coop.
Marcia Farwell, Brookline School Board
Maura Loftus, Hollis School Board
Wanda Meagher, Brookline School Board (arrived after roll taken)
Jim Murphy, Brookline School Board
James O’Shea, Hollis/Brookline Coop.
Dave Partridge, Brookline School Board
Steve Simons, Hollis/Brookline Coop.
Tom Solon, Hollis/Brookline Coop. (arrived after roll taken)
Janice Tremblay, Hollis/Brookline Coop.
Members of the Board Absent: Alison Haytayan, Hollis School Board
Fred Hubert, Hollis/Brookline Coop.
Beth Lukovits, Brookline School Board
Dan Peterson, Hollis/Brookline Coop.
Also in Attendance: Susan Superintendent Hodgdon, Superintendent of Schools
Ms. Duhamel Duhamel, Business Administrator
Bob Kelly, Director of Special Education
Carol Mace, Director of Curriculum
Rich Raymond, Network Administrator
MOTION BY MEMBER ENRIGHT THAT THE BOARD GO INTO NON-PUBLIC SESSION PURSUANT TO RSA 91-A:3 II (c) TO DISCUSS A MATTER, WHICH IF DISCUSSED IN PUBLIC, WOULD LIKELY AFFECT ADVERSELY THE REPUTATION OF A PERSON, OTHER THAN A MEMBER OF THE BODY OR AGENCY ITSELF
MOTION SECONDED BY MEMBER BENZ
A Viva Voce roll was conducted, which resulted as follows:
Yea: James McCann, Susan Benz, William Beauregard, Tom Enright, Marcia Farwell, Maura Loftus,
Jim Murphy, James O’Shea, Dave Partridge, Steve Simons, Janice Tremblay
The Board went into non-public session at 6:12 p.m.
MOTION BY MEMBER PARTRIDGE TO COME OUT OF NON-PUBLIC SESSION AND RETURN TO THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SAU 41 BOARD
MOTION SECONDED BY MEMBER BENZ
The Board came out of non-public session at 6:40 p.m.
Superintendent Hodgdon informed the board of the need to address Resolution 403B (tax deferred plan).
Ms. Duhamel informed the board the I.R.S. has changed the regulations regarding 403B. New regulations are due to go live January 1st. Have contracted with a third-party administrator (CPI) to address reporting requirements. If non-compliant, the I.R.S. would disallow the ability to offer tax deferred plan.
Administrator cost and a $12/month per plan participation fee is estimated at $500 (line item 10-2900-330-00-000001). Amount represents a placeholder as the number of participants is not known at this time. Ms. Duhamel spoke of the large volume of paperwork involved in a changeover of the administration of the plan. Would likely have to find a new vendor due to the volume of work involved in the changeover. Responding to the question of the plan being self-funded, suggested it would be difficult to change over to a self-funded plan prior to January 1st.
Mr. Murphy questioned whether the item is contractual. Ms. Duhamel commented that although it is not contractual, it is an important part of the benefit package. Stated, at the SAU level, employees participate in the 403B planning in lieu of social security. All employees working 20 hours/week or more are eligible to participate.
Chairman McCann questioned whether the budget is under-funded in this area given the unknown aspect of the number of participants both at the SAU and district levels, and was informed the level of participants at the district level does not appear to pose a concern.
Mr. Partridge suggested a hold be placed on new hires participating in the plan. Superintendent Hodgdon informed the board of the inclusion of this plan in the central office contracts. Ms. Duhamel expressed concern of discrimination if new hires were excluded from participating.
Mr. Murphy suggested the $12/month fee be levied out of payroll, and handled in-house rather than by a plan administrator. Ms. Duhamel felt handling it in this fashion would ease the burden of the January 1 deadline.
MOTION BY MEMBER MURPHY TO REQUIRE THAT PARTICIPANTS IN THE 403B PLAN FUND THE MONTHLY PARTICIPATION FEE THROUGH PAYROLL DEDUCTION EFFECTIVE JANUARY 2009
MOTION SECONDED BY MEMBER MEAGHER
Chairman McCann read the following Resolution into the record:
“Be it Resolved that the School Administrative Unit #41 403B plan set forth from the Plan Agreement, a copy of which is attached hereto, is hereby adopted. Resolved further that Dawna Duhamel is hereby authorized and instructed to execute said plan agreement for and on behalf of the organization.”
MOTION BY MEMBER FARWELL TO ACCEPT THE RESOLUTION FOR THE ADOPTION AND EXECUTION OF THE 403B PLAN
MOTION SECONDED BY MEMBER PARTRIDGE
Member Beauregard suggested a discussion needed to be added with regard to maintenance for the SAU building.
APPROVAL OF SCHOOL BOARD MINUTES
SAU 41 Board. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . November 10, 2008
Mr. Murphy stated he was incorrectly listed as being in attendance. Ms. Loftus stated Ms. Haytayan should have been recorded as absent. Ms. Tremblay stated the word “bare” on page 2 should be amended to read “bear”, a typo exists in the word “education” within the heading NESDEC Special Education on page 5, the word “date” in the second paragraph should be amended to read “data”, typo on page 7 in that the words “meeting meetings” should be amended to read “meeting minutes”.
MOTION BY MEMBER PARTRIDGE TO ACCEPT AND PLACE ON FILE THE MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 10, 2008 AS AMENDED
MOTION SECONDED BY MEMBER MEAGHER
Chairman McCann stated the Administrative Reports would be encompassed within the budget discussion.
PUBLIC COMMENTARY - None
A presentation on Project PROGRESS (Project Green Energy for our Schools) was provided to the board by Mr. Venu Rao and Mr. Frank Grossman (copy of presentation attached).
Mr. Rao informed the board vendor costs would be a set amount for the ten (10) year period, and would be paid through achieved savings. The project would only move forward if all applicable fees could be garnered from savings over that time period.
Savings would not necessarily be achieved through changing resources, but rather through conservation of resources. Member Partridge questioned how anticipated savings would be calculated in an instance where resources were altered, i.e., if the district were to move to fossil fuel and the savings plan were calculated without anticipation of such a change. Mr. Rao suggested such questions could be posed during a presentation by a chosen vendor. Mr. Grossman added cost savings above and beyond those anticipated by the plan and resulting from resource changes would be those of the district.
Mr. Rao cited the initial steps involved as; 1) feasibility study, 2) study results presented to board along with recommendation for proceeding, and presentation of vendor process. At that time, if the board wished to proceed, the next steps would be; 3) conduction of a preliminary energy audit and presentation of preliminary savings numbers (would require execution of a Letter of Intent). Next steps would be; 4) issuance of an RFP and contract award, 5) detailed energy audit, 6) Installation of energy conservation measures, and 7) support services.
Mr. Rao touched on the opportunity to take advantage of the School Modernization Plan being proposed by the incoming Administration (President-Elect). With the seating of the new Administration in January, he believes our school districts could be among the first to seek federal assistance with school infrastructure. Suggested the formation of a sub-committee with representation from all three boards and administration, to review alternate energy plans. Mr. Murphy suggested building administrators could be charged with taking the project to that stage.
When asked for a timeline, Mr. Grossman remarked steps 1-3 are likely to be a 2-month process, step 4 would be determined by the board, and steps 5-7 would be dependent upon the scope of work, however, likely to be 1 to 1 ½ years to completion. Is believed work can be performed year round.
The question arose as to what level the contracts would be executed at. Ms. Melinda Willis stated the districts are legally separate entities with regard to entering into contracts; however, the project could be managed at the SAU level.
Mr. Dennis Skay, Brookline, volunteer for Carbon Coalition for State of New Hampshire (an organization whose goal is to become independent of foreign fuel), informed the board the organization is in receipt of federal grant monies ($35,000 EPA) for the performance of energy audits. The money is from the EPA. The EPA wants communities to assess what is being spent. Their team in Washington would then take the information and come up with alternatives. Remarked if a company is willing to step forward to inform the towns of cost savings at no expense to the taxpayer, he is all for that. Stated there is money to perform audits. Said he has 12 engineers to help with an audit, and expects that number to triple. Feels the process is educational, and would like to involve students (from 5th grade on) in the research process.
MOTION BY MEMBER ENRIGHT THAT THE SAU INSTRUCT ADMINISTRATORS TO PROCEED WITH A FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT OF PRELIMINARY ENERGY AUDIT, INTERFACING WITH COMMUNITY ENERGY PEOPLE, AND THE BOARDS AS NECESSARY
MOTION SECONDED BY MEMBER MURPHY
FACILITIES/COOP STUDY UPDATE
Superintendent Hodgdon stated the COOP board has instructed her to charter a group to study the educational impact of the recommendations in the Facilities Study. Does not believe there was a timeframe involved with that, but would like to get started with what they see as long-term work that will involve both Hollis and Brookline.
PROPOSED FY10 BUDGET
Student Information System
Mr. Raymond reminded the board the WinSchool software currently utilized by the schools would no longer be supported as of August 10th. After review of several potential systems, the committee performing the reviews concluded PowerSchool to be the software of choice. PowerSchool has committed to providing free licensing for those students on WinSchool. Will charge $4.50 per student at High School on MMS. PowerSchool’s promotional price came in at $45,000, which represents a fifty percent (50%) reduction in cost. To lock in at this price, fifty percent (50%) of total reduced cost is required to be paid in this fiscal year (22,500). The length of time the promotional price will be offered is unknown.
Mr. Solon remarked; the COOP’s portion of the non-promotional price of $91,000 is slightly over $50,000. They cannot put that amount into next year’s budget. Would prefer to pay their portion of the promotional pricing (approximately $20,000) from this year’s budget. Asked if the remaining balance were to be paid after July 1st, would we be able to take delivery and implement soon enough to avoid paying fees on the current system. Mr. Raymond commented on the desire to run two systems for a period of a year due to the data conversion. When asked what the cost of running two systems would be, Mr. Raymond stated his belief the WinSchool support contract is a few thousand dollars and MMS is a little more expensive at around $5,000 a year.
Mr. Raymond was asked, if we were to take delivery this fiscal year, could the implementation take place this year so that it would be up and running on September 1st. He does not believe that could be done easily at the high school. Believes it could be done at the other buildings. To accomplish that, schedules would have to be built in the new system. They start building schedules in a few weeks’ time.
Across-district, the cost of support of PowerSchool is more expensive ($18,000) than the current system ($12,000). We presently host servers (6) in-house, which are 5-6 years old, and would require upgrades. The first year’s support cost is included in the $45,000 PowerSchool price.
Chairman McCann questioned whether it is feasible to get the program on board prior to August 10th. Mr. Raymond responded the middle and high schools have anticipated starting data conversion in the nest fiscal year for cut over in July of 2010. As timing is contingent upon available resources, pushing the conversion date forward may require the assistance of a consultant.
Mr. Solon questioned the cost savings that could be gained by implementing the system in July of this year thereby eliminating the need to continue with WinSchool beyond the August 10th date. Mr. Raymond responded the savings would be $12,000. However, PowerSchool would have to be up and running by the end of July. Mr. Murphy suggested approaching the vendor with an offer of full payment in this fiscal year provided implementation support and training are included in the price.
Mr. Beauregard suggested the issue of full payment being made from this year’s budget could be discussed at the Hollis School Board meeting the following night. Mr. Enright remarked a similar discussion could take place at the next COOP board meeting.
Superintendent Hodgdon provided the board with a proposal for the position of Assistant Director of Special Education (copy attached). The proposal outlined the need for the position (as detailed in the attached NESDEC Analysis) as well as the key duties and responsibilities both of the Assistant Director and the Director. Not reflected in the proposal are the day-to-day responsibilities or the exact job descriptions. One of the features of the roles and responsibilities is that the assistant director would have an elementary focus. Some of the areas the assistant director would be responsible for would be district driven as well as driven by the skill set of the person taking the position. It is anticipated the assistant director would also provide consultation for regular education teachers, which is a critical part to the first two bullets. Would also be involved in grant writing, parent outreach, budget preparation, and provide administrative support to principals, assistant principals, and coordinators.
The director would have a secondary focus, but would retain oversight of PK12 and would also be engaged in staff evaluation at both levels. Some of the areas the director would be addressing would be data tracking and analysis to provide the measures we need to know if the addition of the assistant director position would provide the benefits that would mitigate the costs represented in a new position. Also IEP review, analysis, and feedback. That bullet is shown because the director currently does not have time to take care of that particular endeavor, and as a result we don’t have a good sense of the IEPs we are writing, the compliance issues that come along with following the IEPs, or the opportunity to analyze the IEPs, i.e., are we providing too many services or too few. Really missing the opportunity to get our hands on some good data with regard to that particular function.
Mentioned professional development and training of staff is often done out of district. With a response to intervention and some of the other initiatives within all three districts, this particular function would also provide some much-needed assistance to the building budgets. Budget preparation also is a function of the director position as is administrative support for principals, assistant principals, and coordinators as well as for the assistant director.
Noted is that the director would maintain a flow of communication regarding issues and concerns around all three districts between himself and the assistant director to ensure both positions being aware of the current issues all districts are facing.
It is anticipated there would be workflow that would have enough flexibility so that if there were need for adjustments to the schedules of either of those positions, either due to high volume or because of critical issues that are confronting the district, that the adjustments could be made on a temporary basis so that the coverage is where it needs to be.
Ms. Meager questioned whether the creation of this position would eliminate the need for contractual hiring to address research associated with litigation. Mr. Kelley responded it would. He explained the initial legwork associated with litigation is the greatest consumer of time. Ms. Meager questioned whether the two positions would share an administrator. Mr. Kelley remarked that is what is anticipated.
Mr. Enright cited the concern of administrators with regard to coordinators being able to keep up with the anticipated out-of-district placements next year (15). The concern is with the coordinators being able to handle those placements and perform their other duties. Questioned who would be responsible for handling those placements at the secondary level. Mr. Kelley responded the effort would be a combination of his facilitation of a number of things in district and the involvement of administrative individuals handling out-of-districts. He could dedicate time to the out-of-district placements where they are looking to promote facilitating transitions to in district programming.
Mr. Enright remarked the COOP portion of the position is more than 50%, he had expected the position to handle out-of-district placements, and sees no value gained by the COOP. He would like to see the position handle all out-of-district placements. Would not want to have to hire another individual to handle their placements. Mr. Kelley suggested this is an area for discussion, but in terms of response interventions it is an important continuing effort to make in the districts particularly at the elementary levels. It is what the national and state trend is as well as what is conducive to developmental responsiveness. RTI programs are even more germane and more important for the students to progress at elementary levels. Perhaps the emphasis would be for the director to address elementary, someone else secondary, and predominantly take over all of the out-of-districts. Feels there would be less time required relative to elementary level RTI models.
Superintendent Hodgdon commented she sees addressing the issue as a combined effort. Although administrators at the COOP have said out-of-district placements are a large concern, she also understood, especially at the middle school level, having students coming into the middle school who are significantly behind because interventions have not been done at the younger level is as problematic. It drives the budget up in ways that skew the budget to the special education side. Feels the need, regardless of which positions do the work, to get a handle on the number of students identified and retained all the way up through middle school.
Mr. Kelley would like to do an analysis to determine if the position were to focus on all out-of-districts for all three schools, would there still be time remaining to do other things such as addressing the research associated with litigation, etc. He believes the answer would be yes. Feels all out-of-district management would not require a full time position. If the structure was re-addressed collaboratively across all three districts it could be taken care of. Remarked one directive to him and the Superintendent last month was for a cleaner differentiated cut as to the responsibilities of each position. Cited several models available for consideration.
Superintendent Hodgdon remarked the person coming in would need deep knowledge of programs within district as well as skill set with strong behavioral background to take on out-of-district placements immediately. Therefore, would be more effective initially managing in district work and gaining deep sense of programs in district so they could then use that knowledge when doing outside visits for comparisons. Believes we would quickly off load some of the out-of-district responsibilities for the two Hollis coordinators. Believes there to be a transition period where the person coming in gets to know the district and the needs of the district.
Mr. Beauregard questioned whether clear delineation of duties exists for case managers, special education coordinators, and the assistant director and director positions so that gains occur as a result of the added position. Superintendent Hodgdon suggested part of that is providing immediacy of communication that currently isn’t available. Principals at both of the Hollis schools spoke to her about being in wait mode while trying to resolve an issue because they can’t reach the director. The position would be an immediate benefit. Cited the impact for the coordinator at the primary level on the unknowns regarding the incoming students and their needs. Outreach on the part of the assistant director or the director would be beneficial.
Mr. Solon questioned what alternatives existed. Questioned why the resources would not be in the individual districts. Superintendent Hodgdon responded they looked at that as well as consultants. In terms of having the flexibility to address the needs of a particular district, it was more beneficial to have someone at the central office level doing that kind of coordination. When they looked at the possibility of district-by-district, found you miss out on some other things that the oversight and flexibility of central office provides. This alternative seemed to provide more for everybody.
Mr. Beauregard stated his uncertainty with how this position would affect the Hollis district, particularly with regard to how much work would be offloaded from the special education coordinator at the primary school. Mr. Kelley responded by stating that is a concern of all of the districts, and apportionment will be key.
MOTION BY MEMBER ENRIGHT TO SUPPORT THE POSITION OF ASSISTANT SPECIAL EDUCATION DIRECTOR AND TO ADD THE SUM OF $69,780 TO THE FY10 BUDGET
MOTION SECONDED BY MEMBER O’SHEA
MOTION BY MEMBER PARTRIDGE TO ENCUMBER THE SUM OF $31,286 FROM THE FY09 BUDGET CONTRACT SERVICES LINE ITEM THEREBY REDUCING THE AMOUNT REQUIRED IN THE FY10 BUDGET FOR THE POSITION OF ASSISTANT SPECIAL EDUCATION DIRECTOR TO $38,494
MOTION SECONDED BY MEMBER MEAGHER
ON THE QUESTION
Chris Hyde, Chairman Budget Committee, questioned where the encumbrance was coming from. Mr. Partridge responded it exists within this year’s budget under contracted services. Remarked the total cost of the position in future budgets will be $104,780. Commented on the process of adding a position to the SAU budget without a public hearing at the district level.
When asked what the increase would be related to the addition of the position, Ms. Duhamel remarked it would represent a net increase of 4.24%.
Maintenance of SAU Office
Ms. Duhamel provided the board members with a Facility Maintenance Repair Analysis (copy attached). The FY10 budget proposes a budgeted amount of $8,000. Ms. Duhamel stated the maintenance needs as being much higher than the budgeted amount. Noted the need for board input as to which maintenance items would be addressed.
Mr. Partridge cited his desire to have the knowledge of which items, such as window replacement, may be included in the energy saving plan prior to allocating maintenance funds. Mr. Enright remarked he would not support any additional allocation to maintenance. Believes there will be $33,000 to maintain the building over the next two years.
Several members expressed the feeling the furnace could be addressed first and items such as storm windows could be put on hold. Mr. Beauregard remarked a presentation and public hearing were conducted with the Budget Committee with regard to window replacement. If the intended purpose for expenditure of the funds were to change, another public hearing would need to be conducted re-stating the purpose of the expenditure.
Chris Hyde commented the furnace is likely to be another item that would be included in the energy plan, and, therefore, could be replaced at no immediate cost to the district if the district could delay the purchase. Mr. Beauregard stated the furnace is patched and the contractor believes it will last through the season.
It was the general consensus of the board to allocate the sum of $8,000 to maintenance in the FY10 budget. Mr. Beauregard explained, if the energy plan did not include items such as windows, then we would not be funding the expendable trust sufficiently to address all maintenance items.
Ms. Farwell questioned the radon mitigation. Ms. Duhamel stated there are elevated levels of radon in the building. Testing will be performed.
Budget Deliberations and Approval
Ms. Duhamel remarked the only changes in the budget from its distribution in November were the increase in revenue and the encumbrance of $31,200 in the Assistant Special Education Director position.
Mr. Partridge questioned why the merit increase pool went up by 40%. Ms. Duhamel explained the number is misleading. It does not go up by 40%. The budgeted numbers include a balance from increases that have yet to be paid out.
Mr. Beauregard stated there is roughly $30,000 (for 5 people) in the line items for travel and professional development. Ms. Duhamel stated the number is not representative of 5 people; there are clerical staff that travel as well. Mr. Beauregard remarked a comparison of the budget numbers from 2007 forward indicates a 29% in travel, a 49% increase in professional development, and a 26% increase in expendables. These are areas where the board has some discretion. Mr. Beauregard touched on ways of reducing costs in these areas such as video conferencing.
Mr. Murphy questioned the amount that is contractual. Felt it may be time for professional development to be the responsibility of the individual. Mr. Beauregard also noted, when staff is out of district for professional development, they are not available to the district.
Ms. Meagher stated the importance of professional development in an educational environment, however, agrees with seeking other ways of gaining the professional development, i.e., video conferencing, etc. Mr. Beauregard touched on the possibility of lessening expenses related to travel and lodging. Ms. Duhamel remarked she is not sure people are staying at hotels. At least not the case at the SAU level.
Superintendent Hodgdon added some of the travel is for attendance at monthly commissioner meetings, legal conferences, etc., but they are all in state. With regard to national conferences, the contracts call for one a year, but what they have done is send one person per year on a rotating basis. Mr. Beauregard remarked the SAU budget, in this area, is growing faster than the district budgets. The economy cannot support that.
Mr. Murphy suggested budgeted at the same level as FY07.
MOTION BY MEMBER MURPHY TO SET THE TOTAL FOR PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE FY10 BUDGET AT THE FY07 TOTAL BUDGETED AMOUNT
MOTION SECONDED BY MEMBER BEAUREGARD
ON THE QUESTION
Recommended reducing professional development budget for this year down to $9,296 (in half). Spoke of industries cutting capital expenses, travel budgets by 2/3, salary freezes, layoffs, etc. Suggested the line item for office substitutes could be brought down to last year’s budgeted number. Proposed zeroing out the line item for computer equipment, cutting the mowing maintenance line item by $1,500, zeroing out the line item for office hospitality, reducing expendable supplies by $1,000, and reducing the merit increase to 1% for the coming year with the possibility of reimbursement in later years.
In response to the suggested reduction in the line item for office substitutes, Ms. Duhamel stated the line item was overspent last year. Office substitutes are used to cover vacations, sick days, etc. Mr. Hyde had misunderstood expenses to date as being a full year’s accounting. When questioned on the dollar amount of $238 being cited as FY08 actual, Ms. Duhamel responded she would have to look into that.
The budgeted amount for computer equipment is meant to cover unexpected equipment or server repair. The mowing is a contracted service with some of the funding utilized for supplies.
Superintendent Hodgdon remarked the hospitality fund is utilized for teacher meetings. Ms. Duhamel remarked the expendable supplies line has historically been over spent, and includes paper, folders, and other raw materials for the entire office.
Ms. Farwell questioned whether the heat/oil maintenance line could be reduced. Mr. Hyde felt the current economy would dictate the demand on oil would be low for a while. Chairman McCann cited a difference between economic demand and crisis demand.
Mr. Enright suggested perhaps the board could instruct the Superintendent to remove $10,000 from the bottom line of the budget.
MOTION BY MEMBER MURPHY TO REDUCE THE MERIT INCREASE LINE ITEM TO AN AMOUNT REPRESENTING AN OVERALL INCREASE OF TWO PERCENT (2%)
MOTION SECONDED BY MEMBER BEAUREGARD
ON THE QUESTION
Mr. Enright questioned the level of increase for the merit pool in the Hollis district. Mr. Beauregard responded at first pass of the budget he believes it is at 3%. When asked what the teacher raises are, Mr. Beauregard remarked it is dependent on where the employee is on the schedule. Proposed for those off-step is 2.5%. Mr. Enright cited the COOP increase of 3%, and stated he does not value the central office people less than he values the rest of the employees. Ms. Farwell felt those who have higher salaries will receive a larger dollar increase. Mr. Partridge agreed those positions at the top of the chart cannot expect a 3% increase.
Mr. Murphy stated the opportunity has not occurred to discuss this at the district level, however, feels 2% is generous given the state of the economy.
(Mr. Solon not present at time of vote)
MOTION BY MEMBER FARWELL TO REDUCE THE LINE ITEM FOR HEAT/OIL MAINTENANCE (01-2620-624-00) BY TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS ($2,000)
MOTION SECONDED BY MEMBER PARTRIDGE
ON THE QUESTION
Ms. Duhamel expressed a concern that if all discretionary spending were reduced from the budget and the cost of heating increases there would be no discretionary funds that could be transferred to address an overage.
AMENDED MOTION BY MEMBER FARWELL TO REDUCE THE LINE ITEM FOR HEAT/OIL MAINTENANCE BY ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($1,000) AND INCREASE THE LINE ITEM FOR CONTINGENCY (01-2320-840-00) BY ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($1,000)
MOTION SECONDED BY MEMBER PARTRIDGE
MOTION BY MEMBER SIMONS TO APPROVE THE FY10 BUDGET AS AMENDED AT A DOLLAR AMOUNT TO BE RAISED OF ONE MILLION TWO HUNDRED SIXTY TWO THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED EIGHTY TWO DOLLARS ($1,262,882)
MOTION SECONDED BY MEMBER BEAUREGARD
The Public Hearing was declared open at 10:53 p.m. The following individuals offered testimony:
Mr. Hyde stated his appreciation for the efforts of the board; however, he would like to see an additional percentage reduced from the budget. Proposed the SAU budget be presented at each of the school district budget meetings and be put to a vote particularly given the addition of a position, and that the SAU board agree to abide by a majority vote of the three districts with regard to its passage.
Mr. Partridge commented passage of the budget is made by an informed decision based on the needs of the district, not a visual one based on the dollars spent. Went on to state the board is elected to make these decisions. Understanding the need for the position, he would not support the proposal particularly in regards to the position.
Mr. Hyde stated State RSA provides for an alternate method of informing the public and allowing the public to vote on the budget. Stated he may come before the board with a Petition Warrant Article in this regard.
Chairman McCann remarked, as this budget rolls into all three districts, isn’t it really a matter of the districts doing a better job communicating what the district budgets entail
Mr. Hyde remarked the reality is the board is approving the budget. Mr. Murphy stated he has no interest in supporting that proposal at this time. Mr. O’Shea stated his disappointment in hearing this for the first time at this point in the budget process.
Mr. Hyde reiterated his belief a 2% merit increase is too high.
Chairman McCann questioned whether any other member(s) of the public wished to address the board.
The public hearing was declared closed at 11:02 p.m.
(Ms. Farwell and Ms. Meagher were not present at time of vote).
SUPERINTENDENT GOAL SETTING – Evaluation Sub-Committee
MOTION BY MEMBER MURPHY TO ADJOURN
MOTION SECONDED BY MEMBER PARTRIDGE
The SAU 41 Board meeting of December 9, 2008 was adjourned at 11:03 p.m.
SAU Board Chair _________________________________________ Date: ______
Brookline School Board Chair_______________________________ Date: ______
Hollis School Board Chair __________________________________ Date: ______
H/B Coop Board Chair _____________________________________ Date: ______