We Met the Candidates

Meet the Candidates Night could have been done in 40 minutes.  It took three times longer because the answer to each question was repeated three times as the candidates repeatedly agreed with each other.

Carl Piedmont

I finally met Carl Piedmont (www.carlpiedmont.com). Nice guy. He's a salesman from Madbury with two children in the district. I'm sure he and his wife are really proud of the way his children were there supporting him, dressed so nicely and sitting so respectfully through the meeting.

I went in to the meeting worrying that Mr. Piedmont was Jim Kach redux.  Rumor had it he was recruited by board member Megan Turnball.   I suppose you can't really be sure, but Mr. Piedmont seems quite reasonable.  Like many of us he moved to the district because of the schools.  I think he understands that if the quality of the schools were to decline, everyone's property values would fall.  Not to mention the effect on his children's future.

So, I welcome Mr. Piedmont's participation.   His website says "Running for the School Board is something I have thought about for some time since arriving into the area. "  I admired Mr. Piedmont's willingness to say he didn't know and pass on answering questions.  But it does indicate that Mr. Piedmont hasn't been sitting at home "for some time" watching DCAT intently, in preparation for his Candidate's Night debut.  But he's here now, and I hope he continues to participate in school district even if he's not elected.  He could join some committees, and maybe in a year or two he'd be ready to serve on the board.  

I told him I was supporting his opponents.  He took the news well.  I said I'd be willing to reconsider if he would make large cash donations to the district.   That doesn't seem like it's going to happen, so I'm sticking with Kenny and Tom.

It does seem that one faction of our formerly bitterly divided community might be more inclined toward Kenny Rotner while the other toward Carl Piedmont.   (We're still a little divided, but it's much less bitter.)   Given the closeness of the vote in the Deliberative Session, this may turn out to be a close race.

Marijuana

I thought the starkest contrast between the candidates came in the question about marijuana.  Carl Perkins repeated "zero tolerance" several times.   Tom Newkirk came out against police dogs sniffing lockers.   Kenny Rotner stressed the problem was larger than just the school, indicating that some approaches to suppressing use at the school would simply shift the use to other, even more problematic places.  No one mentioned the nationwide trend toward increasing liberalization of marijuana laws, which made the discussion rather incomplete to me.

Enrollment and Tuition 

Much of the discussion centered on declining enrollment and tuition students.  Probably the best stuff was Kenny Rotner's concerns and suggestions about integrating a large number of tuition students into our community.  Tom Newkirk made the important point that any town with a large number of tuition students in the district should be given a non-voting seat on the board.

I'm going to make two geeky math points about cost per student that seem obvious to me, but appear to be widely disputed in the community.  They both have to do with the fact that there's just alot of overhead opening the doors for four schools, before you add any teachers or students.

First, on declining enrollment.   As enrollment declines, the overhead means that cost per student increases, even if you cut teachers in proportion to the decline.   But the total cost still decreases, and thus the burden on the taxpayers decreases.   So taxpayers, be happy about declining enrollment -- fewer students to educate means your taxes will go down.  They just don't go down as fast as they would if there was no overhead.

Second, on tuition.   There is a complaint that the tuition rates are set below the district's cost per student.   Doesn't that mean we're losing money with every tuition student?   No.  Besides the apples and oranges problem (tuition doesn't include food service or transportation) there's the issue of overhead.   Imagine (I'm simplifying to make the math easier, but the story is something like what I'm telling) that it costs $30 M for everything except teachers and $8 M in teachers for 2000 students.   The cost per student in this story is $19,000 ($38M/2000).  But we make money if we charge $12,000 tuition because our marginal cost per student is $4,000 ($8M / 2000).  Each tuition student in this story saves the taxpayers $8,000.

Henry Brackett

I have to take issue with something that Tom Newkirk said, words to the effect that no one appreciated what the previous board had accomplished.   On Election Day in 2012, I thanked the outgoing board and listed many of the same accomplishments Tom mentioned today.

But the good stuff doesn't cancel out the generally awful tenure of Chairman Henry Brackett that the district had to endure until last March.   Despite his spectacular failure as school board chairman, Mr. Brackett is running for Selectman in Lee.  This troubles me deeply, because it means I'm going to have to go back on my word, and again write about the tweets and lawsuits.

Let me just say that in addition to dividing the community by supporting the evil tweeter Jim Kach, Chairman Brackett was found guilty of violating the Right To Know Laws by two New Hampshire courts.   The second time, the harshest penalty available was imposed.  The main concern was secret meetings and secret votes for superintendent hiring and firing.   Citizens of Lee, I'm supporting Scott Bugbee for Lee Selectman, and I urge you to do the same.   Anyone thinking of voting for Henry Brackett should be sure to read my essay from last year first.

Conclusion

Carl Piedmont seems like a decent guy and may eventually be ready to serve on the school board, but for now I'm sticking with my decision to support Kenny Rotner and Tom Newkirk.

Meet the Candidates, tonight, 2/20 7pm ORHS

It's Meet the Candidates night at the high school tonight, 7pm.   I hope to see everyone there.

There are three candidates running for the two at-large seats, and voters in the district get to vote for two on Election Day, Tuesday, March 12, 2012.

I'm supporting Kenny Rotner and Tom Newkirk this time around.

Kenny has a website at kennyrotner.wordpress.com.

Tom's website at tomnewkirk.wordpress.com so far seems unchanged from last year.  Tom served out the remainder of Ann Wright's term this year, and is now running for a full three year term.

Carl Peidmont didn't have a website up yet for ORCSD that I could find.   A quick search reveals pages at facebook, LinkedIn, 123people and MyLife.  I'm sure we'll find out what he stands for tonight.

Update:  Mr. Piedmont gave me his card at the event tonight listing his website as www.carlpiedmont.com.

Budget Unchanged in Contentious Deliberative Session

All warrant articles approved by the school board were left unamended in last night's deliberative session.  They will appear on the ballot Tuesday March 12, 2013 as is.  This was exactly the result we were hoping for.   I want to thank everyone for coming out.

I warned that a group of cutters might show up at the session.   That's kinda what happened.  Former board member Jim Kach and former chairman Henry Brackett were there.   All their usual supporters were there too.  (Except Roger Speidel, who I really miss.)   I was surprised they had come out, as they really hadn't been a big presence at school board meetings lately.

I called Ruth, who sent out the word we needed more votes.  Incredibly, as you'll see, the people who responded made all the difference.  I tried lamely to round up some votes from the basketball game across the hall.

Paul Gasowski , Sustainability Committee, speaks

For some reason, the focus of the meeting was Article 4, the Sustainability Committee.  I didn't expect that.  Probably because I'm a huge Paul Gasowski fan.

Bill Hall spoke strongly against the Sustainability Committee allowing students work to on the school's air conditioning. What?  He seemed pretty worked up about it.   Do I really need to say that the Sustainability Committee, an advisory committee to the school board, has neither plans nor authority to do this?

What Paul was saying was that the energy audit of the high school, the one that the Sustainability Committee proposed and paid for, recommended an overhaul that would save an incredible $91,000 annually in fuel.  And not dump an extra zilllion tons of CO2 into the air either.  The board and the superintendent followed through and we all reaped the benefits.  Congratulations to Paul and the committee - you did it without picking up a wrench.  

The discussion went on for a long time.  The $15,000 was attacked.   The $20,000 for coaches was really attacked.   "Why couldn't these be volunteer positions?"  "Shouldn't this money be used for real education, like math and science?"

What was odd was that people were speaking against the article at length, but no one was making amendments.   The moderator gamely reminded us that the purpose of the meeting was to consider amendments.  That regular school board meetings are a good venue for public comments.   Good points.  Nonetheless, the speakers continued to rail without proposing anything.

Former board member Jocelyn O'Quinn kept coming to the podium to ask for a secret ballot.   The problem was there was no amendment to vote on.    The moderator told her to come back later.

Board member Krista Butts reminded us that the point was to make amendments.   Today we just decide what goes on the ballot.

Someone proposes removing the $20,000 in stipends.   Finally, a real amendment.

Jocelyn O'Quinn is now first in line to speak, ahead of David Taylor and Henry Brackett.  Ms. O'Quinn asks again for a secret ballot.

The moderator asks, "are you calling the question?"  Ms. O'Quinn, non plussed, assents.  The moderator snaps into action.

He explains that calling the question requires a 2/3 vote to end discussion.   "Raise your card if you're in favor of calling the question."

There's confusion.  Ms. O'Quinn doesn't seem like she meant to end discussion.   Too late.  The vote goes forward.

It's close.  Mr. Brackett, waiting in line to speak, votes to cut off discussion.  The moderator has to count votes.   This requires an elaborate procedure of counting pink cards in each of six sections of the auditorium.  Oops, one more time around for "NO".  This takes a good 15 minutes.   Everyone would have been long done speaking by now.

It passes!  It actually exceeded the 2/3 margin.  The question is called.

"What about a secret ballot?" asks you know who.

This necessitated a little conference between the moderator and the district's lawyer.   She was making a writing gesture.  John Collins had already told me five signatures are needed for a secret ballot.

The moderator, who thought he was being clever getting Ms. O'Quinn to call the question, ended up wasting lots of time.   But he was just getting started on the time wasting.   Now he says, "You need five signatures.  I'll wait a couple of minutes."

Why couldn't we get a moderator who'd say, "You have not met the requirements for a secret ballot, so we will do this in public.  All in favor of the amendment raise your cards." ?

I can appreciate that a secret ballot makes it easier to vote against the committee that's standing on stage right in front of you.   But I don't think the district is under any obligation to give legal advice to citizens, especially those who want things that drag the meeting out longer.   If you care, look up the rules before the meeting starts.    Or do what I did and sit with John Collins, David Taylor and Stephanie Adams, which is way better than the Internet.

No.  Gotta have a secret ballot.  This takes another fifteen minutes.  Then they had to count.   More waiting. The result: 58 YES, 60 NO.  The amendment fails!  Those extra votes Ruth rounded up made the difference.

Now the moderator makes his third mistake.   He tries to move to the next article without allowing further amendments or discussion, or even the vote that ends consideration of Article 4.   John Parsons reads him the riot act.

It's pretty late and people are leaving by now.   We haven't even gotten to Article 6.    I missed most of the discussion of Article 5, but it looked like it survived unamended without any trouble. Which is really odd, because Article 5 is basically permission for the district to take $1 million extra out of taxpayers' pockets for a rainy day.  Chairman Barth stressed how the fund could be used to lower taxes in years like this when non-tax revenue is reduced.

Article 6 is the big enchilada, in which we appropriate $38.8 million to pay for schools. It was voted through unamended with no discussion.

Why spend two hours on $20,000 and then let $1 million and $38.8 million slide by?  Beats me.   Probably because "sustainability" sounds like "hippie talk."   I think Paul even mentioned Boulder and Palo Alto.  Bill Hall didn't like all this marijuana around one little bit.  What?  Jim Kach came out for composting.

Kenny Rotner, candidate for school board, was working the crowd.  Tom Newkirk was of course on stage with the rest of the board.  Nobody I asked seemed to know who Carl Piedmont was.   I shouted his name a couple of times, figuring he'd be at the meeting.  Nothing.

Thanks everybody for coming out and enduring this unnecessarily tedious meeting.  Your votes really made a difference.   It looks like we have a real race on our hands in March.  Stay tuned.


Update 2/7:  I've been thinking about it for a couple of days, and it occurs to me that those I called "cutters" above were at the meeting for the same reason I was: to be there to vote against changes to the board's budget.   They were presumably more worried about increases, but they weren't there to propose significant cuts.   Similarly, I was more worried about cuts, but I had already posted I would vote against any increases as well.   Underlying what seemed to be a contentious meeting was widespread support for the board's work.   The school board and administration have managed to unite what was a year ago a very divided community.  All in all, a remarkable accomplishment.

Deliberative Session this Tuesday, 2/5 7pm. Come Out and Vote!

Hi everybody.  Dean here.  It's been a while since I've posted, but it's time to jump back in.

Come to the Deliberative Session Tuesday -- It's Important to Vote

The district website has these important dates:

Each year, appropriating taxes for schools involves the public voting on two different days.  The first is the deliberative session, called "Annual School District Meeting - Session I" above.  It's the meeting where any citizen in the district can propose changing the amount of tax to be appropriated.   The proposals are immediately voted on and may be approved by a majority of registered voters present at the meeting.   The second day of voting comes on Election Day, March 12th, 2013.  On that day, the budget (as revised at the deliberative session) is approved or disapproved.   School board members are also voted on then -- this time two at-large school board members will be selected by the voters.

You, gentle reader, should attend the deliberative session this Tuesday.   It's an election day (really just an hour or two) in which very few people tend to show up.   It means that whoever does make the effort to show up, especially with a group, has tremendous power to make sweeping changes to our schools.

I think the proposed budget is fine just how it is, so I want you to come to the meeting and vote with me against any changes.

I don't know of anyone in the district who doesn't think taxes are too high.  We all support the efforts of the board and superintendent to cut expenses and raise non-tax revenue.    But drastic cuts to school funding, besides being awful for our kids and our future, hurt property values right away.   Most of your neighbors probably moved to Oyster River because of the schools.  So I supported the board when they declined to make further cuts, which they believe would lessen education.

I went to the district presentation on the budget, and the meeting at Lee Town Hall about it.   From those I didn't get the impression that there was a big groundswell of opposition to the budget.   Almost no one showed up to the Lee and Durham meetings.  I heard Madbury had a nice turnout and respectful meeting.   

If there's a plan out there for tax cutters to show up en masse at the deliberative session, they're being pretty stealthy about it.   Nonetheless, it will be our own fault if enough of us don't bother to attend the deliberative session to turn back any such showing.

Unlike most election days in New Hampshire, there is no same day registration at the deliberative session.  But if you're already a registered voter from Lee, Durham or Madbury, you are encouraged to attend the deliberative session this Tuesday, 7pm at the High School.    We need your vote.   

The Warrant Articles

The deliberative session only determines the amounts on the various warrant articles.  The warrant articles themselves have to be approved by the voters on election day, March 12th.  

Here's what the warrant articles approved by the school board look like.  Article 6, appropriating $38.8 million, is of course the focus:

Click to enlarge

The default budget (what we get if NO on Article 6 wins on March 12) is about $270,000 (0.6%) less than the budget proposed by the board.   You can't change the default budget at the deliberative session -- its calculated according to the law from parts of the previous year's budget updated to reflect contractual agreements in effect.   Even if the general fund was zeroed out at the deliberative session, the presumably large number of citizens who thought that having schools was a good idea could vote NO on article 6 in March so the default budget would be in effect next year.  But I'm hoping the budget remains unchanged at the deliberative session so we can all vote YES in March.

Why Support the School Board's Budget?

By asking you to vote NO on everything at the deliberative session, I'm asking for the warrant articles as approved by the school board to be left unchanged.  Then I will ask the voters on March 12th to vote YES on each of these articles.  I am asking you to support the school board's budget.

Why?  The short answer is that the administration and the school board made a valiant effort to produce a flat budget -- one that spends the same amount in FY2014 as in the current school year, FY2013.   They saved money through a retirement incentive, health care costs that will be lower than expected, and fuel savings due to a deftly accomplished overhaul of the high school HVAC and lighting.   Nonetheless the budget proposed is not flat.  It represents a 1.6% increase in spending over last year, and I believe an average of 4.6% increase in taxes.  

Why the increases?  First let's consider the 1.6%.  One point to note is inflation is running about 1.7% this year, so in real terms, this is indeed a flat budget.   About $400,000 of the increased expenses (over 1% of our budget) is the result of the state shifting retirement expenses to the district. Hopefully with the recent election that kind of cost shifting will wane, but this particular expense is probably here to stay.  The district is also spending heavily on capital expenses that are badly needed.   Though the temptation may be to try to put those off when money is tight, the board is acting responsibly here by carefully prioritizing so as to not let things go until there's a crisis and an even more expensive repair.  The members should be commended for this.

The difference between the spending increase (1.6%) and the tax increase (4.6%) is the result of reductions in non-tax revenue.   There was about a $200,000 (0.5%)  reduction in direct state aid to towns for schools.   We expect to lose another $200,000 (0.5%) in federal Title I grants, for which we no longer qualify.  And we had a fund balance (the amount of money left over at the end of the year) of over two million a few years ago that we've been gradually spending down, about $700,000 (1.8%) that didn't need to be new taxes this year.   That particular party has ended, thus the money needs to come from new taxes next year.   In fact, if we pass Article 5, we may start retaining our fund balance for a few years, which would probably add 0.5% to 1%  to taxes for a few years until we reach the 2.5% fund balance retention limit (about $1 million for us, I think). I'm sure I'll write more about that in a subsequent post.

Anyway, the board and administration did a heroic job of cutting, but were unable to cut fast enough to keep up with reduced government support.   The Tea Party madness has largely subsided, so I don't think we'll keep seeing such big cuts from the state and the federal governments in the near future.  It's worth noting the state's shifting of retirement funding to districts, part of the Tea Party program of cutting of state taxes, ends up raising taxes for most NH residents, as the burden gets shifted from state funds (which include taxes on tourists, etc.) to local property tax.

The board is considering increasing revenue in the future (mostly from more tuition students) and will continue to watch costs, while keeping the quality of education up.  I'm supporting them, and I urge you to as well.

School Board Election News

This past Friday was the deadline to file to run for the two at-large school board seats.  All the candidates will be listed on the ballot in a single multiple-choice question.  Everyone in the district may vote for two.   The top two vote-getters win three year terms.

Stephanie Adams was kind enough to send me the candidate list, which appeared in the Durham Friday Update:

• Thomas Newkirk (Durham)
• Carl Piedmont (Madbury)
• Kenneth Rotner (Durham) 

Tom Newkirk won in a landslide last year, and served out the remainder of Ann Wright's term after she resigned last January.  He's done a great job.  ORCSDcleanslate, meaning me, supported Tom last time, and I again support Tom for his reelection to a full three-year term.   Kenny Rotner also has the full support of ORCSDcleanslate.    Kenny is a local M.D., and a frequent presence and commenter at board meetings.

I don't know anything about Mr. Piedmont.  I don't think I've ever met him at a board meeting.  I do want to wish him luck and thank him for running.  His candidacy makes the election a real race.   I look forward to learning what he has to offer in the weeks to come.

I wish to extend an open invitation to all the candidates:  Anything you send me (ORCSDcleanslate@gmail.com), I will post as-is here on ORCSDcleanslate.org.  

Further Reading

For now the important take-away is: come to the deliberative session on Tuesday and support the board by voting NO on any proposed changes to the warrant articles.   If you want to study up, you might start here:

This is the budget presentation that Superintendent Morse and Business Administrator Caswell have been presenting this past month.

The Advisory Budget Committee's excellent report has lots of great detail, especially the graphs at the end.  My personal request to the committee is to extend some of the graphs more into the past, for additional historical perspective, but I do appreciate that that's a lot of work.

Mike McClurken's report on the district is full of information.   He recently started a website that has a link to his report.   Here's an older pdf version.

Here is the letter and information FORE posted on the deliberative session.

Here's the proposed budget off the district's website.

The district website budget information,  forenh.org and oysterrivercommunity.blogspot.com are good places to check for district budget news.

There's so much more to say, but this is probably more than you can take before the deliberative session on Tuesday.   See you there.

State Shifts $500,000 in Retirement Costs to Oyster River

I'll get to a roundup eventually, but in the meantime read the story about the quick and competent reaction of Oyster River High School students and staff that saved the life of a shop teacher who collapsed.   At the recent board meeting, a very emotional Principal Todd Allen told us how proud he was of everyone. -- Dean

At the school board meeting on September 19, 2012, Superintendent Morse and Business Administrator Caswell announced that the district would have an additional $500,000 expense in FY14.  The money is the increase in the employer's contribution to the state employees' retirement system.     This brings to $1.2 Millon that amount that needs to be cut for the FY14 dollar amount to remain the same as FY13.   (Actually, the figure is larger  -- there's another 1% cut needed to offset the ending of the spending down of the fund balance.  And there are some large capital expenses in our future.  I'm going to ignore both of these for the rest of this post.)    A flat (zero dollar increase) budget has been our goal since last May, when the board directed the superintendent to prepare a budget with "level funding".

Previously, the business administrator had announced that achieving a flat budget would entail $700,000 in cuts to offset contracted increases net of savings (see the budget section of the last roundup).    This was in line with inflation, which is running at 1.5% to 2% (1.75% of $38.3M = $670,000).    With the announcement of the new retirement expense, the superintendent's job just got $500,000 more difficult. While new revenue and additional non-staff savings might help some, it is likely that $1.2M in cuts will result in a large layoff of staff.    (Here's an article on how Exeter is affected by the new retirement costs.)

The increased costs appear to be the result of the state eliminating their contribution to state employee retirement plans.    The  current rates have the district contributing 9.09% of teachers' salary and the state 4.88%.   The new rates (released on September 11, 2012) have the district contributing 14.16% and the state zero.   In other words, the state shifted a cost equal to about 5% of teachers' salary to the district.

The contribution is divided into 82.5% pension and 17.5% medical subsidy.  I'm no expert on the retirement system, but I believe this medical subsidy has nothing to do with the care teachers get while their employed.   It's for their retirement or their beneficiaries.   I've been referring to it all as retirement costs, and I think that's pretty accurate.

[Math check:  Working backwards, $500,000 / 5% = $10M salary.   We often hear 80% of our $38.3M budget is personnel, so that's $30 M.  Obviously not all of the $30M is for teachers, and not all of that is salary, but I'm not totally sure how to reconcile these.   It's probably more complicated than I understand.]

I've largely avoided party politics on this blog, but to the extent bills are proposed and laws passed that affect our district and public education in general in New Hampshire, it's relevant here.  The current state legislature really doesn't like public education.   They have passed a bunch of laws: vouchers, empowering parents to dictate curriculum, cost shifting to local districts, halving the support to state colleges, and more.   Each of these laws weakens public education in its own way.    Bill Duncan at Defending New Hampshire Public Education has done an excellent job keeping track of the dozens of education-related bills percolating through the New Hampshire legislature.

Republicans hold veto-proof super-majorities in both the NH house and senate.  They are dominated by the Tea Party folks who were swept into office in November, 2010.   It's hard to come to any conclusion other than these Republicans are harmful to public education.  I'm voting for Democrats on November 6th, 44 days from now.   If I lived in District 3, I'd enthusiastically vote for Bill Duncan for Executive Council.

Back to ORCSD.    Superintendent Morse reported that only one teacher so far has opted for the retirement incentives approved by the board.    I believe he said that the guild has requested that the offer be kept open through the end of October, which he agreed to do.   I'm sure the teachers, like everyone else in the community, want to see how the school board reacts when confronted with the prospect of large layoffs for a flat budget.   I'm not sure they'll find out by the end of October.

The board and the district have begun work on the FY14 budget, which covers July 2013 through June 2014.   Over the next few months, the board will make its decisions and produce a budget for the public's approval.   The public gets to vote on modifying the proposed FY14 budget at the deliberative session in February 2013.   The final budget goes to the voters for approval on election day in March 2013.

Tax Cap threat in the public file, click to enlarge.

There's still ample opportunity to express your opinion before the deliberative session.   You might consider writing a letter to the board.   For example, you might threaten to organize a campaign to impose a district tax cap if taxes look like they'll increase too much.   You could express your regret that you failed to support the lawbreaking board members in their efforts to cut costs more deeply before they lost reelection in a landslide.   You could call the 0.4% added by the taxpayers during the deliberative session a "large add back" while neglecting the fact that the budget passed by your board of cutters increased taxes by 3%. But one of your neighbors already beat you to it (see right).

I don't agree with Mr. McClurken about tax caps, and if the possibility gets more real I will certainly delve into why I think a tax cap is a terrible idea.  But I do very much appreciate Mr. McClurken's detailed and informative report.   Here's a version from last spring.  I look forward to the update.

Maybe threatening letters aren't your style.   Come to a school board meeting and make your feelings about teacher layoffs and program cuts known.   You might express your concern that deep cuts will impact school quality, test scores, and ultimately property values.   You might think keeping taxes down, programs up, and teachers employed by accepting Newmarket tuition students is a good idea.   You might think it's a good idea to raise revenue by expanding the day care and charging for full day Kindergarten.  You might have a brand new great idea.  There are plenty of chances to get involved between now and the deliberative session, so don't be shy.

- Dean

ORCSD Tri-Monthly Roundup - May, June & July 2012

I haven't gotten around to posting a monthly roundup in a while, so I'm going to summarize the last three months here.

Did You Know?

Did you know that school board meetings since March 2011 are available for free on iTunes?  The video quality leaves much to be desired, but they're useful nonetheless.  Start here.

Did you know that the 14 top-ranked students to graduate ORHS this year were girls?   I'm looking forward to a report on why the boys seem to be underperforming.

Did you know that efforts to get a world-language teacher have apparently been thwarted for a second year in a row?  This time the problem was a snafu that prevented the Confucius Institute from obtaining a visa for the teacher to come to the US.

Did you know the Oyster River Middle School Jazz Band played at the historic Portsmouth Music Hall?   Congratulations on a great gig in an awesome venue.

The New Administration Starts Work

July is the beginning of the new school year, at least as far as the district administration and staff are concerned.    There has been a marked turnover of personnel in the administration.    Interim superintendent Lee Levesque is gone, as are his deputies Directors of Instruction Phyllis Schlichter and Danielle Bolduc.   Director of Food Service Andrea Tran has resigned.   Mast Way Principal Kris Gallo has departed as well.   I thank them all for their incredible service to the district, and wish them well in their new endeavors.   Luckily we'll still see Danielle and Andrea around, as they're both parents of Mast Way second graders.

The new team started on July 1.  Dr. James Morse took the reigns as superintendent.  Catherine Plourde, ORCSD's Special Education Coordinator for Elementary Schools (and PEP, I think), has been promoted to Director of Special Services.  Carolyn Eastman is the new Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment.    The titles have changed, but the division of labor is about the same as between Dr. Schlicter and Ms. Bolduc.   As predicted, Carrie Vaich has been hired as the new principal of Mast Way.    I'd like to welcome them all to their new positions in the district, and wish them all good luck.   Superintendent Morse will search for a new Director of Food Service, and one of Director Plourde's first tasks will be to find a replacement for her old job.

The new team (including the three continuing principals) was in attendance for the recent July 18th board meeting.   In what seemed to me two very good signs, the meeting adjourned by 8:15 pm and included the return of the second round of public comments.   This 1.25 hour meeting was a nice contrast to the first ORCSD board meeting I ever attended, one year ago this week, which ran almost three hours. 

The President Stops By

In a wonderful honor for the district, President Barack Obama campaigned at Oyster River High School on  June 25th.  In his speech, the president thanked Principal Todd Allen for hosting him.   Like many others, I had a ticket but failed to get in due to the overflowing crowds.   After his speech, the president stopped at the UNH Dairy Bar and bought a round of ice cream for some lucky patrons.


There was a bit of a kerfuffle when the town of Durham failed to get the campaign to pay the town expenses associated with the visit.   Town leaders hastily scheduled a meeting to consider "disinviting" the president (somewhat oddly, as they were not the ones who initially invited him) and were rescued from the ensuing embarrassment by an anonymous $20,000 donation.   Right-to-Know requests (including one from the Koch-Brothers-funded Americans for Prosperity) have been unsuccessful in determining the identity of the generous citizen, described by the town administrator as "a longtime Durham resident who had moved out of town some time ago, then moved back, and had the means to offer such a donation."  I have to believe that description doesn't fit too many people, but I'll leave the speculation to others.   (Update 7/30: Foster's reports the total cost to Durham as $13,000.)

Enrollment Predicted To Fall

The Long Term Planning Committee reported on their enrollment projections at the May 2 board meeting.   They forecast a decline of 400 students (20%) over the next 10 years.    They reported that NESDEC (New England School Development Council) projects we'll have a 300 student (15%) reduction over the same period.  The loss is skewed toward elementary and middle schools; elementary school enrollment is predicted to fall an incredible 35% over 10 years while high school enrollment is projected to decline only 6% (8% if tuition students are excluded).     Interestingly, the LRPC predicts an increase in district enrollment for the coming school year.  It's not clear that increase will actually materialize as the LRPC predicted 73 incoming first graders to Mast Way but as of May 16 only 46 had enrolled.  (I hear it's up to three classes now, but I don't have an exact count.)  Low kindergarten enrollment at Mast Way this year has resulted in the wonderful teacher Trisha Hall being reassigned to Moharimet. 


The reported causes of the overall decline include a statewide trend, a decline of residents of prime childbearing age (25-39) in the district and policies of the towns that discourage residential development.   The tax burden was not explicitly mentioned, but it likely plays a role in the decline of the childbearing demographic.   A rather hard to read version of the LRPC's report is available starting on page 21 of the meeting agenda; a more readable PowerPoint version is here.


Superintendent Levesque reported on May 16 that he initiated talks with Newmarket to explore accepting 280 high school tuition students.   Talks with Deerfield were mentioned as well.  Neither possibility was included in the LRPC projections presented at the previous meeting.

A report on full day kindergarten is included in the May 2 agenda, though I cannot recall a presentation at the meeting.   The report is dated June 2008, and mentions a projection from the LRPC for an increase in K-4 enrollment to 754 in 2017-2018.  The LRPC now projects a decrease to 555 for that, which tells you something about forecasting.   The report touts the benefits of full day K, and how various towns in the area are moving in that direction.  One board member suggested the possibility of beginning by charging tuition for the extra half day, increasing revenue to the district while providing a day care alternative to parents.  The board discussed exploring full day K further at a future meeting.

Facilities

At the May 2 meeting, the scary structural problems with the high school reported in January by Acadia Engineers & Constructors (AEC) that had a board member asking if we should evacuate were reviewed by Foley, Buhl, Roberts and Associates and turn out not to be all that serious after all.  Why the two consultants reached such opposite conclusions I do not know.


At the May 16 meeting, Siemens reported the overhaul of the high school HVAC system was proceeding very well.   Due to the more efficient use of fuel, the deft capturing of available incentives, and a fair amount of equipment that Siemens has given to us free of charge, the project is expected to pay for itself in an astounding 1.1 years.


At the June 20 meeting, needed capital improvements of $800,000 for roofing and $70,000 for paving and sealing were discussed.   I believe this is in addition to the $4,000,000 of improvements discussed in April.  It's not clear to me how much of this maintenance is included in the regular operating budget.


I was concerned about continuing our relationship with Aramark after the maintenance problems with the high school HVAC were discovered last year.   But we've signed a much more comprehensive contract, and they really seemed to have stepped up and brought the management of the facilities to a very professional level.   They have gone beyond what the contract called for in a number of ways .  Thanks Mr. Cherry and Aramark.

The 2013-2014 Budget

In a report at the May 16 meeting, Business Administrator Sue Caswell estimated that if staffing were to remain constant, costs in the 2013-2014 school year (the next budget to be approved) would increase around $700,000 mostly due to mandated raises in collective bargaining agreements.  In the rest of this section I will express dollars as percentages of our current $38.3M budget.   So $700,000 is 1.8%, calculated as 2.6% for raises in salary and benefits minus 0.8% in unspecified savings in operating expenses (partly fuel, I guess). [Since salaries and benefits make up about 75% of the $38.3M, what I called 2.6% represents about a 3.5% raise to an employee.]   I understood Ms. Caswell to say this estimate did not include raises for non-bargaining-unit employees or contracts that need to be renegotiated this year, namely ORESPA (custodians and secretaries) and ORAA (administrators). 


Ms. Caswell further estimated that compared to a budget where spending is unchanged, an additional 1% would need to be cut for taxes to remain unchanged.  My understanding is that for the past few years we have been slowly spending down our fund balance.  The fund balance is the cushion that lets us deal with expenses beyond what was budgeted for.   The reduction in fund balance over a year results in spendable money that did not have to be collected in taxes that year.   However, after this year the fund balance will be at a level where it would be imprudent to reduce it further, so we can no longer perform this trick, thus the 1%.   There are other differences between money spent and taxes appropriated, namely non-tax revenue (tuition, state and federal grants, school meal income, etc.), but I believe those were assumed to be largely unchanged for this estimate.

The board voted to ask the administration to produce a flat budget, that is, a budget in which we spend the same amount in 2013-2014 as in 2012-2013.  (The minutes say level funding is a two year goal, which I'll assume means flat in both 2013-2014 and 2014-2015.)   This really means cutting 1.8% to offset the union raises, and I'll guess at most 1% for other cost increases.   We're aiming at a nominal increase in spending of zero dollars, so most of the cuts are going to offset inflation.    Even if such a budget was ultimately approved, taxes would still need to rise 1% due to the flattening of the fund balance, and may go up or down from there depending on changes to the non-tax revenue.

I think the above figures refer only to the operating budget.   Another issue is capital expenses, which come out of separate fund (but ultimately from mostly the same taxpayers).   Based on a report from architect Gary Goudreau, I've previously estimated that we need to spend about 1.75% per year to do necessary capital improvements.   Adding the aforementioned roofing and paving over the same six year period, brings it to 2.1% annually.   If we wanted to keep to total spending flat, this 2.1% would need to be offset further cuts.  It may be possible to spend down the existing capital improvement fund so that some or all this 2.1% would not have to be appropriated as taxes in March 2013, akin to what we'd been doing with the fund balance.


As I hope I've made obvious, there's much I'm not sure about here, so take this section with a grain of salt.   I'll try to do more homework, and feel free to straighten me out with some comments.   As I get more certain, I'll update the wording here.

At the May 2 meeting, the board approved a new, more restrictive charge to the ABC somewhat similar to the one I suggested in the April Roundup.

A letter from the Lee Selectmen reminding the school board that taxes are high was distributed at the May 16 meeting.   I'm sure the ORCSD board is too polite to remind the town governments that the superior school system is a major reason why property values remain high, that the school board has a larger constituency than each town, a larger budget than each town, is fully aware they are spending the taxpayers' money, is intimately familiar with the enrollment projections, and that each member takes his or her responsibilities very seriously.

Transportation Report

At the June 6 meeting, the ORSCD Transfinder Committee made some recommendations on how to improve the bus system.   You may recall that Transfinder is the company whose software we use to optimize bus routes.  The company also offers consulting, and the district engaged them last year to produce a report which I can no longer seem to find.   On January 4, 2012 the report was presented to the board and the ORCSD Transfinder Committee was formed to follow up on the report's recommendations.

The report suggested that middle and high school students within a mile of school could walk or bike.  (State law allows for a two mile radius.)  We already do this for some addresses.   The committee explored possible walking routes and found that many were unsafe due to the lack of sidewalks, crosswalks, stoplights, streetlights, and driver visibility on curvy, tree-lined roads.   A similar finding applies to bus stops.  The committee had some recommendations to improve safety along some routes to increase the number of walkers, but largely felt that transportation director Huppe had done a good job in maximizing walking given current conditions.   Elementary students are given door-to-door service, which was felt to be appropriate.

The committee explored increasing the time between bells at the various schools to allow for fewer, longer routes, increasing efficiency.   The tradeoff is that some students would end up being on the bus for over 40 minutes each way, which is obviously less than ideal.

A survey estimated middle and high school ridership at 56% of students.    The ridership decreases as the students get older.   The main reasons students gave for not riding the bus were that they live too close, it was not convenient for afterschool activities, it takes too long, it requires waking up earlier, and they had no friends on the bus.

The bus fleet was also examined by the committee.   There is one 18 and one 21 year old bus still in use -- since 2004 they are spares used mainly in sport season.     15 of our 34 buses are over 10 years old.   The current district plan is to purchase two or three buses a year (at $80,000 a pop) until all are under 10 years old.  By my math this plan cannot succeed.  Even if all the buses in the fleet were already under 10 years old, an average of 3.4 new buses per year would be required to keep it that way.

Incredibly, despite the age of the fleet, the district was given a commendation by the New Hampshire School Transportation Association for passing 100% of state police inspections.   I think at the meeting it was said we were the only district in the state to receive such a commendation.   Congratulations to Lisa Huppe, her staff, John's Auto Repair, and Kustra's Auto Body.

Well, that about wraps it up for now.   I left out the discussion of the Common Core, which would have made this update an even more effective cure for insomnia than it already is.   We have some exciting and controversial budget battles in our future, so enjoy the summer calm while it lasts, and stay tuned.

- Dean

Mast Way Principal Search Nears Completion

Principal Carrie Vaich at Mast Way

Two principal candidates visited Mast Way on Tuesday, June 12.   Each spent 45 minutes meeting with teachers and 45 minutes meeting with parents.  Outgoing interim superintendent Levesque and incoming superintendent Morse were in attendance.


Rumor has it that Carrie Vaich has emerged as the leading candidate for the position.   Ms. Vaich is currently the principal of Winthrop Elementary School in Hamilton, Mass.   She lives in Barrington.  A quick Internet search finds she was job searching last year too. She told parents she hoped she would serve as Mast Way principal for many years and that she did not intend to use the position as a stepping stone in her career.


I think it's pretty likely that she'll be offered and will accept the position, so let me be the first to welcome her to Oyster River.  I commend both superintendents for filling the rash of administrative openings so well and so quickly.


Here is the information the Mast Way PTO provided the parents about Principal Vaich.    Thanks, Sarah and Sarah.  The scribbles and crinkles are my contribution.

While it would be desirable to hire a permanent principal next week, it is by no means essential. Hiring an interim principal and continuing the search over the next year remains a possibility.   After the superintendent salary controversy, I'm encouraging prudence and a return to more typical (meaning lower) salaries for all new hires.

I'm going to skip naming the other candidate to visit Mast Way.   Next time maybe you'll go to the meeting yourself.


Today was the last day of school.   The PTO hosted a going away party for Kris Gallo.   We all wish Kris the best of luck as principal of the brand new Christa McAuliffe Elementary School in Concord, NH.

The PTO dedicates a plaque honoring Principal Gallo

Mrs. Burke's first grade class invites Principal Gallo to breakfast

I haven't gotten my act together to get a monthly roundup out for May, so let me just congratulate Catherine Plourde as the new Director of Special Services (basically taking over for Phyllis Schlichter) and Carolyn Eastman as Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment (taking over for Danielle Bolduc).   It looks likely the entire team will be in place when Dr. James Morse takes over on July 1.   (Friday night update:  I'm wrong about no more hiring -- I just heard about another major resignation that will be announced at the Wednesday board meeting.)


- Dean Rubine, Lee