Bob Barth responds to Tom B.

[This letter from Bob Barth arrived yesterday -- sorry for not posting it sooner. - Dean]

Please allow me to respond to the letter of 3/4/13 ORCR by Tom Bebbington directed to me re my letter of inquiry as to Mr. Piedmont’s beliefs re creationism and modern science.

The following is a letter to Foster's I have submitted by way of apology to Mr. Piedmont and his family and further explanation:

I wish to thank Carl Piedmont for his explanation that he believes in modern science and by inference in evolution over creationism.

I thought my questioning a candidate on some of his beliefs before voting was not an unreasonable thing to do. Feedback I have received, however, tells me I have vehemently defamed Mr. Piedmont and that I have misrepresented his character and personally attacked his family. Such was certainly not my intention and to any who feel I have offended I sincerely apologize, most particularly to Mr. Piedmont and his family.

That said, please allow me to clarify my initial concern:

Mr. Piedmont’s mention of Trinity International University disturbed not only me but others in the community if it was in any way an endorsement of the institution. The following are statements from its web site:

“Trinity International University holds to the doctrinal position of the Evangelical Free Church of America.” “We believe that God has spoken in the Scriptures, both Old and New Testaments, through the words of human authors. As the verbally inspired Word of God, the Bible is without error in the original writings, the complete revelation of His will for salvation, and the ultimate authority by which every realm of human knowledge and endeavor should be judged. Therefore, it is to be believed in all that it teaches, obeyed in all that it requires, and trusted in all that it promises.”

As one who has read both testaments from cover to cover I find this a rather scary and restrictive guideline in an institution of higher learning, and totally at odds with the teaching of modern science unless they simply ignore their “doctrinal position” (which hopefully they do). No, I would not vote for School Board anyone who espoused these doctrinal positions and I am fully satisfied that Mr. Piedmont renounces them and believes in rational thought and modern science.

I wish Mr Piedmont and his family only the best.

Robert L. Barth

Mr. Bebbington infers that TIU is not fundamentalist. The above-quoted doctrinal position from their own website could not be more fundamentalist.

My letter was meant to elicit positional information from a candidate for public office. I accused no one. I thought it possible that a parent sending one of his children to a given school might be in agreement with its “doctrinal position” and that could have a significant influence on how I vote. I am satisfied with Mr. Piedmont’s response to my inquiry that he believes in modern science and all that infers. Mr Piedmont volunteered the mention of TIU in his letter. I did not dig it out, but I did have some recollection of the school prior to checking it out. I do not understand how TIU reconciles their fundamentalist doctrinal position with the teaching of rational thought and science but that’s their problem.

Mr. Bebbinton subsequently takes issue with my statement that “I would defend without reservation any individual’s right to believe what he/she chooses, but that doesn’t mean I will respect or tolerate those beliefs.” He goes on: “and so, Mr. Barth, here is a question I hope you might address- a “red flag”, if you will. I would like to be informed as to your beliefs with respect to neo-Nazis, Klansmen, white nationalists, neo- anti-Confederates, racist skinheads, the “Patriot” movement, and other hate groups. Because, Mr. Barth, when you say you can’t “tolerate” the beliefs of others, as someone who has experienced anti-religious bigotry first-hand that is the kind of company that leaps to mind.”

Perhaps I misunderstand, but Mr. Bebbington seems to be making my case for me. I find the above mentioned groups and those who profess their ideologies despicable and I will not tolerate their beliefs. I would fight them tooth and nail. However, and though perhaps an irony, I believe it a key to our Democracy that one’s right to believe anything they wish, no matter how despicable must be defended. Yes, we are all selectively intolerant, and we should be especially when it comes to the hateful ideation of others. And we should always be questioning and willing to be questioned.

Reasoned discussion is constructive. Again, I apologize to anyone I may have offended. Such was certainly not my intent. My intent herein is to pour water on the fire, not fan the flames. I would hope that going forward every questioning of an individual is not interpreted as a personal attack.

Robert Barth, Lee

Board Members Turnbull, Lane, Butts Support Piedmont

Click to watch video of football board meeting

Board meeting summary:  Glen Miller gave a good presentation about adding football to ORHS.  It wouldn't cost the district a penny, and it's as safe as can be, to hear him tell it.  Athletic director Corey Parker was generally supportive but skeptical.  Krista tried to get it approved, but the board just approved a survey and vowed to revisit the question shortly.  Sue Caswell did a kick-ass job with the audit.  The controversial topics of tuition students and redividing the elementary schools were rescheduled for a special meeting March 13, the day after election day.  Krista said the old board would sit for that meeting. 

Dean Rubine and Steven Hershowitz, Kings Bay Boys Club, c 1969

Carl's Facebook Friends

Do facebook friendships count as endorsements?   Among candidate Carl Piedmont's facebook friends are three current Oyster River school board members.  That's 10% of his 30 facebook friends:

To my knowledge none of the other existing board members have expressed a preference in the upcoming school board race.   Presumably Tom Newkirk supports himself.   And remember people, you get to vote for two out of the three candidates.

Tom's website went away so I made him one.  Since Carl's is mentioned  a couple of times below, I'll point out here Kenny's is KennyRotner.wordpress.com.

Megan's email

I suppose you can't put that much weight into facebook friendships.  I once friended someone because otherwise they'd stalk me in person. Something more substantial is needed.   For example, this letter showed up in my inbox.  (Thanks people, and keep 'em coming.)

From: Megan Turnbull <email address omitted>
Date: Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 12:30 PM
Subject: Please support Carl Piedmont and his family in light of recent, personal attack in Fosters

Hello Friends and Community Members,

You may already know that Carl Piedmont is running for the Oyster River School Board. Like me, Carl is also a parishioner at the St. Thomas More Roman Catholic Church in Durham.

On March 2, 2013, Fosters published a letter by Dr. Robert Barth of Lee which suggested that Carl, if elected, may try to impose extreme Christian fundamentalism in our school curricula. The letter also suggests that Carl should reveal his personal religious beliefs in order to dispel Barth's concerns. This letter makes multiple false statements and assumptions based upon the fact that Carl's oldest son attends a Christian college. The implications seem to be fear mongering and are as as relevant as suggesting that because my father attended Fordham University (a Jesuit institution), I, too, may try to impose creationism and prayer into the Oyster River curricula. Moreover, the letter's statements fail to acknowledge that the Board does not determine curricula and individual member's power rests with a quorum of the Board voting in a scheduled meeting.

Yesterday, Carl issued a letter to Fosters responding to Barth. Both letters are attached below and may also be found on Carl's web site: www.carlpiedmont.com

Besides appearing in Fosters, the Barth letter is being shared widely in an apparent attempt to thwart Carl from being elected. As someone who has suffered personally from both slanderous and libelous attacks, I encourage you to support the Piedmont family. Many of us know Carl's youngest two children, Samantha and Al, as well as his wife Amy. Such letters hurt families and loved ones, never mind the broader ramifications this particular letter has on personal freedom of religion. Also, please reflect on the divisiveness such letters can cause in our community.

Please consider doing the following:

• Sending a short letter to the editor in Fosters expressing your disdain for what was stated in the Barth letter. This may be done via e-mail at: http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=FOSOPINION01
• Forwarding this e-mail to friends, neighbors, and fellow parishioners to help put an end to such personal attacks in our community
• E-mailing Carl through his web site to lend your support and encouragement to him and his family
• Liking Carl Piedmont on his 'Carl Piedmont for School Board' Facebook page

If you are still undecided about the election, I also ask that you consider voting for Carl on Tuesday, March 12. I believe Carl would represent the best interests of children and bring in a fresh perspective. When Carl approached me about running, I was surprised anyone would be up for the task considering the nastiness one must endure. Nevertheless, Carl has the perfect demeanor and personality for the job; he has demonstrated this already by handling the recent situation in a calm and rational manner. To learn more about Carl, visit: www.carlpiedmont.com

Lastly, without Carl in office, the School Board will be comprised primarily of Board members without children in our District. And I, Megan Turnbull, will be the sole Board member who is neither a doctor or spouse of a doctor.

Diversity of thought, broad community representation, and respect for our differences are all critical to ensure School Board efficacy.

Thank you and I hope you and your families have a great week back from the break.

Megan

Well, I don't think there's any doubt that's an endorsement.  And you see where I got the idea to look at Carl's facebook page.

I personally think Megan's characterization of Bob's letter as "fear mongering" is way off base.  As for demeanor, I thought Carl, Megan, and Tom B. have seriously overreacted, replying defensively to perfectly legitimate questions about the candidates beliefs about teaching creationism, etc. in school. Sometimes I think some of the outrage is less than sincere, but who knows?  Bob apologized, something Megan fails to mention.

As someone who shared Bob's letter, I certainly didn't do it to "thwart" Carl.  I honestly don't know which candidates were helped or hurt by posting the letters. I did it because I like it when people read my blog.  I did it because it said on OyC'mon that Carl asked me to post his reply (even though I've never found an email) and it made sense to print Bob's letter for context.  It was already in the newspaper, for pete's sake, which presumably has a bit more of a reach than ORCSDcleanslate.  ORCSDcleanslate was the first and maybe the only place you could read Bob's reply to Carl's reply.  Megan, you have my permission to forward it around.

You know, if you're going to be indignant because "the Barth letter is being shared widely in an apparent attempt to thwart Carl from being elected" the previous sentence of your endorsement of Carl probably shouldn't be "Both letters are attached below."

As for the board not determining curricula, it doesn't until it does.  There're plenty of examples in this country of school boards requiring schools "teach the controversy" or whatever the latest plan is to get hoo-ha taught in biology class.  Something similar went on in the NH State House last session as the Tea Party folks ran amok.  So of course it's a legitimate question whether a candidate is OK with this sort of thing. It's a legitimate question for Megan, whether or not her father went to Fordham (which anyway is a great school, and not a hotbed of the latest in Intelligent Design hooey).

The fact that a board member would need a majority of the board to do this sort of thing is not a reason not to ask the question.  It's a reason to ask the question of all board members and all candidates.  Are we going to stop asking our congressmen their views too?

All Megan could muster about Kenny is we don't need another doctor.   Yes, all that experience treating students and their families, learning about the problems of the community one patient at a time -- what good is that?  And after thirteen years at Oyster River schools his daughter just graduated, so Kenny has no skin in the game, right?   And the fact that he's been to more school board meetings than half the serving board while Carl just went to his first regular board meeting tonight -- never mind.

It occurs to me the seemingly-irrational doctor thing may be about football.  With all those doctors and doctor spouses on the board, football might be a harder sell.  Megan herself appeared to be waffling at the meeting between Krista's motion for full approval and the more modest motion that passed.  It was pretty obviously too soon to approve, but maybe Megan and Krista were thinking it has a better chance now than after the election.

I'm not sure what slanderous and libelous attacks Megan is referring to.  I've pretty much laid off her because I like her and she hasn't been running for anything since I've started paying attention.  But she's stepped into the fray now, so it's probably worth reminding everyone that she was the third amigo with Brackett and Kach.   To avoid libel, I'll just reprint a page from the court documents.

Now that I reread this, I see Megan did not always hold the view that "an individual member's power rests with a quorum of the Board voting in a scheduled meeting."

It's late and I still haven't gotten to the questions for the candidates.  Good night.

Breaking News: Jim Kach Endorses Carl Piedmont

In an odd email, the infamous former school board member Jim Kach has endorsed Carl Piedmont for school board.   Kinda.  Some questions spring to mind: Did Mr. Piedmont's crack campaign team seek that endorsement?   Was Kony already committed?  Is there some secret plan to boomerang off the coattails of Mr. Kach's 1953 to 822 reelection loss to the then largely unknown Ed Charle?

I'm going to assume Mr. Piedmont didn't seek out that endorsement. But I think we should use the endorsement as an occasion to ask the questions that had they been asked of Mr. Kach might have avoided a very trying period for the district.     That will be my next post.  Feel free to add a comment below with a question you'd like to ask the candidates.  I'll try to send out the questions in a day or so and see if I can get some replies.

On Jim Kach

I'm pretty surprised that Jim Kach and Henry Brackett are involved in this election cycle.   I would have thought they'd try to lay low for a while and let the voters forget about the disastrous tenure of then Chairman Brackett.  I personally was quite willing to avoid mentioning it ever again, as I mistakenly assumed there would be no reason to.

But here we go again.  Let me just sum up the past by saying that had the district known about Mr. Kach's propensity toward hateful, bigoted, and ignorant tweets as well as his plans to "starve the beast" and to replace the superintendent through illegal, secret meetings, we probably wouldn't have elected him.  But we did, and Mr. Kach's conspiring with then Chairman Brackett resulted in the board twice being found guilty of violating New Hampshire Right-To-Know laws.  The second judge imposed the maximum penalty available.  Shortly after, Mr. Kach and Mr. Brackett failed to win reelection.  I'm surprised Mr. Kach would want to even mention the word "superintendent" in a mass email for fear of stirring up this sordid past.

So I'm not really sure why an endorsement from Mr. Kach is the least bit desirable. I'm not sure the email should even be considered an endorsement. Mr. Piedmont's flyer is forwarded without comment.  But it's been a few days now and I think it's safe to assume Mr. Kach supports Mr. Piedmont.  Let's assume that subsequent emails containing Dr. Newkirk's and Dr. Rotner's campaign materials without comment will not be forthcoming from Mr. Kach.

The Genesis of F.O.R.E.

The odd part of the email,  the part composed by Mr. Kach, was entitled "The Genesis of F.O.R.E."  In Mr. Kach's creation myth, the 2005 superintendent search that resulted in Howard Colter being hired included two people, board member David Taylor and district parent Lorna Jacobson.  Apparently they, together with board member JoAnn Portalupi, spawned the evil F.O.R.E. (Friends of Oyster River Education, forenh.org) six years later when their hand-picked overlord Colter was thwarted  in his attempt to hire Justin Campbell as high school principal by the heroic board, including Messrs. Brackett and Kach.  F.O.R.E.'s plot for world domination includes providing child care on site so parents could attend important school board events. The horror!

The bulk of Mr. Kach's prose from his email

Mr. Kach glosses over the part where the job became open only after principal Laura Rogers quit in disgust over the political climate in the district.  He doesn't mention how the students marched in protest of the board's action.  I must have missed where he revealed that Justin Campbell was subsequently hired as principal of Hanover High, the number one ranked high school in the state. How he and the board then proceeded in illegally in secret toward a deal to pay Howard Coulter a full year salary and benefits not to work.  What about the subsequent controversies over tweets and illegal meetings and votes?  It sounds to me like it was a very appropriate time for concerned citizens to get organized and try to rein in the school board run amok.  I think Mr. Kach may be downplaying his own role in the formation and nurturing of F.O.R.E.

I'm not a member of F.O.R.E. so I can't speak authoritatively on their formation.  But this creation story seems pretty weak.  When I look at Mr. Kach's F.O.R.E. list, I see a group of people, many of them parents of current and past district students, who have been involved for a long time.  Some have served on the board at various times in the past.  They've served on committees.  They've always acted in what they thought was in the best interest of the district.

Kenny Rotner's on the list.   He's cared about the district for a long time.   He's been involved as a parent, as a doctor, and as a member of committees.  He's now found the time to serve on the board directly, and we will all be lucky to get him.

I don't really get the visceral hatred for F.O.R.E.  They didn't even endorse candidates in March 2012.   They didn't endorse Ed Charle over Jim Kach.  They didn't endorse Maria Barth over Henry Brackett.  That was me.  Where's my highlighter of hate?

What is this straw man about "firing" or "buy-out"? The facts are meticulously laid out in court documents.  The judge found that board members Kach, Brackett and Turnbull held secret, illegal meetings in which they interviewed and deliberated upon superintendent candidates for weeks without the authority of a legally passed motion of the board.  New Hampshire law requires elected bodies to do their work in public in most cases, and to publicly declare when non-public sessions are convened.

Nobody ever claimed that Howard Colter would have trouble getting another job.  No one knew he was done with this one because the deliberations were done illegally in secret.  Nobody ever claimed Howard Colter didn't like his severance deal -- it was a year of pay and benefits, for pete's sake, $185,000 if I recall.That's a 0.5% hit to your taxes as you paid for two superintendents in FY12.  Thank you Mr. Kach.  What do you call it if not a buy-out?

By the way, if you live in Lee, please vote for Scott Bugbee over Henry Brackett.  You'll be doing your part to keep the town from embarrassing itself by electing a two-time guilty Right-To-Know offender as selectman.    We'll probably save money on lawyers as well.

Back to the email.  What is with the creepy highlighting of the UNH employees in blue?  My wife's a UNH employee, and presumably not Mr. Kach's favorite person.   Lots of UNH employees live in the district, and many of those have kids in the schools.  But Mr. Kach seems to have a problem with all UNH employees involving themselves in the school district in which they live. Imagine educators taking an interest in local schools.   There must be something nefarious going on.

The quote, meaning "to appear rather than to be" is on the fireplace.

And finally the Cicero quote, "Esse quam videri" ("To be, rather than to seem").  It sounds existential, but it's usually interpreted as "to be good, rather than just to appear good."  It seems ironic in Mr. Kach's case, who neither was nor appeared very good during his board service.   But it does give me a chance to refer to Machiavelli's and Steven Colbert's version: "videri quam esse."  It really captures Colbert in three Latin words.

It also reminds me of Mr. Kach's foray into existentialism at a school board meeting at the height of the tweet controversy.  Mr. Kach invoked Sartre's pour soi / en soi distinction (i.e. he claimed he was being treated as an object), presumably casting my wife Ruth Sample in the role of the Other.   Ruth's also a Philosophy professor, and despite her Other concerns with Mr. Kach, she gave him high marks for using the terms correctly.  I'll have to try to dig out that video.

Please add your questions to the candidates in the comments below.  Broad theme: Questions to ask to help avoid the next Jim Kach on the school board.

Tom B. Uncovers Zionist Conspiracy

Tom B. over at Oyster River Community Resource inadvertently stumbled on our secret plan:

Just for a moment, let’s conduct a little thought experiment: if Barth published a letter demanding that a Jewish candidate provide reassurance that he would not use his elected position to advance the worldwide Zionist conspiracy, would our community not rise up in righteous indignation to condemn his anti-Semitism? 

I don't know how he did it, but he found us out.  I suppose we couldn't keep the secret forever. ORCSDcleanslate has issued the following statement.

for immediate release

ORCSDcleanslate is proud to announce step one of our plan for worldwide Zionist domination: the Yiddification of Oyster River. From now on it will be called Oy River. School lunch will be kasha, k'nishes, maybe a little stuffed cabbage. And it would kill you to call your mother? 

We read Oyster River Community Resource. We said oy gevalt, oy vey iz mir, and oh come on.  So from this day forward we will call it as OyC'mon. Mazel Tov.  

We will continue the rest of the statement in our native Yinglish. 

Tom, boychical, again with the fakakta blog? We're all futumult.  It takes a real meshuginah to kvetch that a mensch like Dr. Barth is a bigot.  Feh.  He's a doctor. Kina hura, his Zadie and Bubbie must be kvelling.  Eleben zien kopf.    And don't forget, his wife's a big macher.

You're all shpilkis, relax. Lose the shtickt and stop haken a tshenik.  With your shayna punim you shouldn't know from such tsuris. Come in, have a little nosh. Chopped liver, whitefish, some nova from Katz's. Eat, you look thin. Kina hura.

Bob Barth Responds to Carl Piedmont

[Submitted by Bob Barth about 4:30pm March 4.  You may read the exchange up to this point here and here.  I don't have a link to Seth Fiermonti's comment referred to below.   If it's public, please post a link in the comments. - Thanks, Dean.]

I wish to thank Carl Piedmont for his explanation that he believes in modern science and by inference in evolution over creationism.

I thought my questioning a candidate on some of his beliefs before voting was a not unreasonable thing to do. Seth Fiermonti tells me I have “vehemently defamed” Mr. Piedmont and Mr. Piedmont tells me I misrepresented his character and that I have personally attacked his family. Such was certainly not my intention and to any who feel I have offended I sincerely apologize.

That said, please allow me to clarify my initial concern:

Mr. Piedmont’s mention of Trinity International University disturbed not only me but others in the community if it was in any way an endorsement of the institution. The following are statements from its web site:

“Trinity International University holds to the doctrinal position of the Evangelical Free Church of America.” “We believe that God has spoken in the Scriptures, both Old and New Testaments, through the words of human authors. As the verbally inspired Word of God, the Bible is without error in the original writings, the complete revelation of His will for salvation, and the ultimate authority by which every realm of human knowledge and endeavor should be judged. Therefore, it is to be believed in all that it teaches, obeyed in all that it requires, and trusted in all that it promises.”

As one who has read both testaments from cover to cover I find this a rather scary and restrictive guideline in an institution of higher learning, and totally at odds with the teaching of modern science unless they simply ignore their “doctrinal position” (which hopefully they do). No, I would not vote for School Board anyone who espoused these doctrinal positions and I am fully satisfied that Mr. Piedmont renounces them and believes in rational thought and modern science.

I wish Mr Piedmont and his family only the best.

Robert L. Barth

Creationism Gets Raised In School Board Race

I read on oysterrivercommunity.blogspot.com that I've been asked to post Carl Piedmont's response to Dr. Bob Barth's editorial in Foster's. I don't see such a request in any of my various inboxes, but I will share the debate anyway.  Please send requests for posts to ORCSDcleanslate@gmail.com.

Candidates Kenny Rotner, Tom Newkirk and Carl Piedmont after the Candidates Forum

Creationism probably should have been brought up at the Candidates Forum, but it didn't occur to me.   When I first saw Bob's letter, I was actually raising the issue of creationism, among others, in a post responding to Jim Kach's endorsement of Mr. Piedmont.  But I'm going to put that aside for now and address the current controversy directly.

Dr. Bob Barth is the husband of School Board Chairman Maria Barth.   Here's his letter to the editor in Foster's:

To the editor: A letter in Foster’s, Feb 27, 2013 from Carl Piedmont, Madbury, announced he is running for the Oyster River School Board. His resume is mostly unremarkable, however, one item raised a red flag for me which I would hope Mr. Piedmont might address. He informs us a son attends Trinity International University, a faith-based evangelical institution whose entire curriculum is based on belief that the old and new Testaments represent historical and scientific fact without exception. Perhaps this choice of school was purely his son’s, but before I vote for someone who may be determining my grandchildren’s curriculum, I would like to be informed of his beliefs with respect to intelligent design, creationism, evolution, evidence for man-made global warming and perhaps science in general.

I would defend without reservation any individual’s right to believe whatever he/she chooses, but that doesn’t mean I will always respect or tolerate those beliefs. This is particularly true when determining whether or not to vote for a School Board member whose agenda might include the denial of rational thought, fact-based conclusions and most science, while espousing one of thousands of ancient mythologies designed to explain the natural world as does Trinity International University. I would have to suspect that a prime motive for anyone holding such beliefs to run for School Board would be to incorporate their ideation into the curriculum- a very scary thought.

Hopefully, Mr. Piedmont can assure us that in this instance such is not the case.

Robert L. Barth
Lee

I read Dr. Barth's letter as raising a concern, not making an accusation, so I think the Oyster River Community blog headline "Barth Acuses [sic] Candidate of Religious Bias; Piedmont responds" is untrue.  Perhaps they'll fix the veracity when they fix the typo.

Here's Mr. Piedmont's response, taken from Oyster River Community blog:

On March 2, 2013, Foster's Daily Democrat posted a Letter to the Editor entitled "More Information."  You may read the letter at: http://fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130302/GJOPINION_0102/130309889/-1/FOSOPINION

Below is my response to the misrepresentation of my character and personal attack on my family:

"Clarification for Robert Barth and Oyster River Community"

To the editor: I am Carl Piedmont, running for the Oyster River School Board. I would like to respond to a letter Robert Barth wrote questioning my motives for running for school board as it relates to my son attending Trinity International University (TIU). My son attends TIU on an athletic scholarship. TIU is Christian-based and teaches contemporary science topics including evolution.

First off, I am running because I want to serve in our community and believe in public schooling and giving children a top-notch education. I have four children, two of which are currently in the Oyster River system. Also, I was raised by teachers and respect and value the institution of education. I have 'skin in the game' and care about what happens in our schools.

As for my personal beliefs, my family belongs to the St. Thomas More Catholic parish in Durham. I believe in modern science and will not impose religious tenets into the curriculum as a school board member.  I will work together with my fellow board members to advocate for excellence in our schools and be fiscally prudent when spending our district funds.

I welcome Mr. Barth and others to learn more about me and contact me through my website: www.carlpiedmont.com

Carl Piedmont

Madbury

[Dr. Barth responds in the next post.]

I think Dr. Barth has already learned plenty from Mr. Piedmont's website.  I think Mr. Piedmont is similarly off base on Dr. Barth's intent.  I can't see anyplace where Dr. Barth attacked Mr. Piedmont's character or family.  Dr. Barth, and now presumably many voters in the district, would like clarification on Mr. Piedmont's views on creationism, especially on how his views might impact his decisions as a school board member.  These are perfectly fair questions, asked in a polite, deferential way. There was no reason to react defensively.  Mr. Piedmont's reaction concerns me because it hints at unnecessary rancor that may follow if he's elected.  But it's a sensitive issue, it appears the complaints about attacks aren't part of the newspaper letter, and this is probably Mr. Piedmont's first time running for anything, so I'm willing to let that one go. 

Mr. "Skin in the Game" did answer some of Dr. Barth's questions largely to my satisfaction.  Mr. Piedmont expressed his belief in modern science.  He said he would not impose religious tenets into the curriculum.  These are certainly positions that I think most voters in the district want to see in their school board members.  My lawyerly side tells me Mr. Piedmont left himself a bit of wiggle room, leaving open the door that sometime in the future he could claim intelligent design is modern science not a religious tenet.  But for now I think we can give him the benefit of the doubt here.

Dr. Barth also asked about Mr. Piedmont's "beliefs with respect to intelligent design, creationism, evolution, evidence for man-made global warming and perhaps science in general."  Are the candidate's personal beliefs relevant to his service on the board?  I think our experience with Mr. Kach show us that they are indeed.   So, I'm compiling a list of questions that I'll send around and try to get the candidates to answer.  I'm thinking of it as: Questions We Should Have Asked Jim Kach Before He Served.   Stay tuned, and feel free to suggest some questions in the comments.

- Dean

On Reserve Funds and Fund Balances

At the candidates forum I asked if the candidates supported Warrant Article 5, which creates a reserve fund, and if so, how would they decide how much of the unexpended fund balance to retain to add to the fund every year. The fund maxes out at 2.5% of "net assessment" whatever that is. I've been calling the article "permission to take a million dollars out of taxpayers pockets," but Chairman Barth informs me it's closer to $770,000.
 
Kenny Rotner and Tom Newkirk made apple-pie statements supporting the fund. Carl Piedmont declined to answer. Both Tom and Kenny parroted the board's line that if we had had the fund for this year, we could have used it to lessen the impact of the looming 4.6% FY14 tax increase.  (YouTube of Meet The Candidates Night, article 5 question.)

I like and support Tom and Kenny, and the board as a whole, but I think in this case they're misunderstanding what's going on. Inflation and cost-shifting from the government is only part of the reason your taxes are going up more than usual. The other part is that we've been using our fund balance like a reserve fund, spending it down to shave about 1.7% off your tax bill annually for the last three years.  That well has just about run dry.


No one answered the second part of the question, which was how the board should decide how much of the fund balance to give back to taxpayers versus how much to keep for the district in the reserve fund.   It's an important question because your taxes will directly increase by the amount the board decides to retain.  The only way a reserve fund can be used to lower your taxes is if they're raised first.

What's a fund balance?

Every year the taxpayers vote on the warrant to raise and appropriate money for schools.   The warrant only authorizes spending for the current year, and what's left unspent is called the fund balance.   Since there has been no reserve fund, the practice is to budget extra money just in case, which hopefully remains largely unspent.  This unspent money, the fund balance, is returned to the taxpayers, lowering next year's taxes. 

Currently our fund balance plays much the same role as a reserve fund would.  In fact it can be much larger than $770,000.  It was $2.2 million in June, 2010.  For the last three years we've been spending down our fund balance at the rate of about $650,000 (1.7% of the budget) per year.

In other words, the taxpayers of 2009 paid a total of 4 points (4% of the one-year budget) in extra taxes so the taxpayers from 2010 to 2013 could pay less.

Why was the fund balance so high in 2010?  Because the FY10 budget was overly conservative, overestimating expenses.  I saw a comment that the mistake came from overestimating insurance costs, but I'm not really sure.   Why did we gradually reduce the balance instead of doing it all in one year?  Beats me.  But presumably we could budget for a large fund balance on purpose if we like.

I dug out the fund balance numbers from the MS-26 forms the district files annually.


You can see how we've steadily been spending down our fund balance, and how that, even without the reduction in money from the federal and state governments, our taxes would go up more without that 1.7% wind at our backs.

The same thing happens with the reserve fund. If we spent it down and get another shock the next year, it obviously can't help. That's where we are now. If the goal is to smooth tax rates the fund should only be filled when rates are projected to be low. None of the candidates answered the question about when they thought the fund should be replenished.

I understand the need for the schools to have a rainy day fund. I'm just irked by the argument that I need to hand over taxes to the district now so that at some future date they can spend the money to "smooth out" my tax rate. I'd just as soon hang on to my money, thank you very much, and deal with the bumps as they come.

At this point I'm planning to vote YES on article 5, but I'm not all that happy about it.