Tomorrow, Tuesday 2/3/15, is the ORCSD Deliberative Session. It's a real election. As usual, it's 7pm in the ORHS auditorium. A majority of voters at the Deliberative Session can amend the existing warrant articles (also known as the ballot questions). You must be eligible to vote in one of the three towns to be given a voting card at the DS. For the first time last year, like most elections in New Hampshire there was same-day registration at the DS. So if you can legally vote in any of the three towns (i.e. you're a US citizen at least 18 who lives in the district) you can show up at the DS, register if needed, and vote. It's best to bring ID (and proof of address like a utility bill if you need to register), but you don't have to.
The law restricts the possible amendments. Typically an amendment will change the amount of money to be raised and appropriated by an article. A person proposing to amend an amount can state how they intend any additional money to be spent, but even if the amendment passes the board is not bound by the intention. It is not permissible to amend wording required by law or to change a warrant article from its original purpose. (Though I'm pretty sure zeroing out the funding is permissible, which presumably changes the purpose.) The default budget (the budget we likely get if the main budget article fails to pass) cannot be amended.
The Deliberative Session is an incredible part of New Hampshire democracy where a single voter who shows up wields enormous influence. Usually around 120 voters show up, so it takes around 60 votes to modify the budget. So please come by the DS -- your vote really counts.
After the DS the articles still have to be approved by the voters on election day Tuesday, March 10, 2015 to take effect. Typically 1500 to 3000 people vote in our March election.
I believe it only takes 25 signatures for citizens to get a warrant article onto the ballot. For the current year, the deadline to get those petitions in has already passed.
Here is the full warrant to be voted on. It's from the agenda of the 1/21/15 board meeting and doesn't reflect a couple of minor changes made at that meeting.
Articles 1 and 2 elect the moderator and school board members. Since only one person filed to run in each town race, the school board election is essentially over. These articles cannot be modified at the deliberative session.
Article 3 is shaping up to be the most controversial question in this election. It asks the voters to approve a $1.7M bond and to spend $2M revamping the athletic fields at the high school. $0.3M has already been fundraised -- the board struck "privately" from the explanation as the funds are a mixture of privately raised funds (around $250K) and funds voted by past boards ($50K). The plan is to fundraise another $300K for extras like dugouts and lighting. $300K also seems to be the amount of interest paid over the life of the bond. The field bond raises the budget an average of 0.5% annually for 10 years. It's structured so the payment in the initial year is low, the maximum payment is in the second or third year and then the payments taper off. Passage requires a 60% supermajority of YES voters.
Here's the plan:
Almost no one has spoken out against the field at school board meetings. This is apparently going to change at the Deliberative Session. Most of the resistance in the community to the project comes from the artificial turf field within the track. The main worry appears that the turf field is made spongy by adding crumbs of ground-up tires. The claim is that turf fields get much hotter than the air on hot days and the tires give off toxins. Former board member Ann Wright seems to be leading the resistance to the turf field. She has been calling attention to this report of goalies getting cancer. Principal Todd Allen, the main proponent of the field, cites EPA reports stating the fields are safe.[Added Tuesday] Ann Wright sent me an email after I wrote the above reminding me her objections were broader than just the tire crumbs. I'm sorry about the misstatement, Ann. She reminded me of the letter she sent around detailing her concerns. She says at DS she plans to attempt to amend Article 3 by reducing the amount to $1,150,000, which she says is the amount needed for a natural turf (grass) field. I am not sure if the amount she is referring to is the $2M appropriation or the $1.7M bond.
[Added Tuesday] I just did a quick search of my own and found that an alternative to tire crumb fill exists -- it's made out of ground Nike sneakers and in this case cost an additional $20,000 (HuffPo, USA Today). As far as I can tell there are no studies examining the safety of this alternative fill, but the claim is that sneakers have already been extensively tested for harmful chemicals.
I haven't decided how I'll vote yet, at the DS or in March. Similar warrant articles have failed three times before (in 2006, 2007 and 2008 I believe). Given the 60% hurdle, any significant resistance in the community will likely result in another failure of the field warrant to pass.
Here are some recent election results (percent YES). 2012: Sustainability 64%, Main Budget 56% 2013: Sustainability 60%, Reserve Fund 67%, Main Budget 62% 2014: Moh Café 71%, Barrington tuitioning: 84%, Main Budget 66%. From these I think 60% sure seems possible.
Articles 4 and 5 ask the voters to approve the bus driver and paraprofessional contracts. Three years ago both these groups accepted near-zero raises. Those successful negotiations (from the taxpayers' perspective) led to some management problems: hiring bus drivers is difficult because our starting salary is so low compared to nearby districts, and new paras are being hired at larger salaries than experienced ones already working for us. The current contracts correct these problems and I support them. Voters at the deliberative session are not allowed to modify negotiated contracts.
Article 6 asks the voters to approve a benefit stabilization fund and fund it with $200,000. This is somewhat similar to the reserve fund that the voters approved two years ago. The idea this time is the board will collect extra tax from you in regular years, and use it to smooth out future tax hikes caused by benefit increases in the future. For example, a few years ago the state shifted around $600,000 of retirement contributions to the district, an increase to the budget of around 1.5% annually. If this fund existed then and had $300,000 in it, the board could have used the money so the increase was only 0.75% the first year, with the full 1.5% impact hitting the second and subsequent years. Similarly, the state just shifted another $250,000 of annual retirement contributions to the district this cycle.
I don't know if anyone is planning on modifying this article at DS. I'm currently inclined to vote NO on the article in March. I'm starting not to like these various pots of money the district collects. They each have particular covenants that restrict how and when they can be funded and spent. Their overarching idea is to tax people now so they can be taxed less later. I'd rather hang on to my money, thank you very much, and pay out the taxes when they're needed. (The district has a practice of using the health insurance line as a stealth reserve fund, which is questionable if intentional, but does have the advantage of not having the restrictions that generally come with these other funds.)
Article 7 is the complete budget. The district somewhat relaxed their tough inflation cap they've kept on the operating budget the last four or five years. This year the cap is 3% compared to a 1.8% inflation rate, the difference being just about the amount of found money spent on the Moharimet Cafeteria. (I've written more about recent budgets here.)
I'm going to support the board on the budget, meaning I'm going to vote YES on March 10, and likely NO to any changes proposed at the DS. I have not heard of anyone planning to propose amendments.
Note that a NO victory on March 10 activates the default budget as a replacement for the operating budget (fund 10). This cuts about $600,000 (1.5%) out of the budget. It's always a bit confusing -- the warrant article wording, prescribed by law, makes it seem like the default budget replaces the total budget, but it doesn't.
That's it for now. I hope to see everyone at the Deliberative Session tomorrow.
No comments:
Post a Comment