This is my annual voting guide to the ORCSD election. I'll try to clearly delineate my opinion in italics from the objective information. The pasted images come from the district and town websites.
TL;DR: I'm voting for Giana Gelsey and writing in Denise Day for school board. I am voting YES on all the school board recommended articles, including the elementary school expansions, articles 3 through 9. I am voting NO on the four citizen petitions, articles 10 through 13.
Voting Mechanics
 |
| Durham's summary of voter registration |
Election Day is Tuesday March 10, 2026. If you're a US citizen at least 18 years of age who lives in Lee, Madbury or Durham (including UNH students who live in the district), you can do same day registration on election day at your town's polling place and vote. Even if you've never voted or registered to vote in New Hampshire before, you can vote Tuesday. NH got rid of the affidavit system that allowed you to register and/or vote without proper documentation. Proofs of identity, age, citizenship and domicile MUST be presented to register to vote. Click here for an explanation of the requirements to register to vote under the new law. A passport or birth certificate, driver's license and a utility bill or government check with your address would be good documentation for a same-day registrant to have. Already registered voters just need a state photo ID.
Your election day polling place and voting times depend on where you live:
Durham: Oyster River High School 7:00 a.m. – 7:00 p.m.
Lee: Public Safety Complex 7:00 a.m. – 7:00 p.m.
Madbury: Town Hall 11:00 a.m. – 7:00 p.m. Madbury also has a genuine town meeting, 7 pm at Madbury Town Hall, where they vote on the majority of their warrant articles, but the school district stuff is in the daytime election.
As always, voters in each town are given identical school district ballots. Let's briefly go through the ballot questions, also known as the warrant articles. There are 13 this year, including four citizen petitions, so I'll try not to stretch this out too much.
The Issues
The issue this year, as I suppose it is pretty much every year, is money. Local ed taxes are going up, in the 6 to 9 percent range, depending on your town. Some of this is the COVID inflation slowly working its way through the system. The elementary school expansion is also a big issue, not impacting taxes much this year, but will cost the taxpayers $10M plus interest over the life of the bond if approved.
The School District Ballot
Article 1: Elect Moderator
This was a surprise. It looks like former board member and current State Rep Al Howland will be elected moderator. Al has real political power that he demonstrated at the last Deliberative Session, moving the successful amendment that increased the proposed school budget by $519K. He will no longer be able to wield that power as moderator, as he will need to impartially run the Deliberative Session instead. The moderator also has duties on election day, and in the past has run the Candidates' Forum.
I'm voting for Al Howland for moderator -- there's one choice, take your pick.
Article 2: Elect two school board members
Article 2 elects two at-large school board members to three year terms. At-large means the members can come from any of the three towns. The incumbents are Denise Day, who's served on the board for the last twelve years, including a stint as chair, and Giana Gelsey, completing her first three year term of service on the board.
Please see my previous post, where I go through the positions of the candidates, all except write-in candidate Denise Day. Day was intending to retire and did not file to run or participate in the candidates' forum. According to her, there was a groundswell of public opinion asking her to run, over concerns with candidates Howard, Blake-Butler and Copley.
Day answered the questions from the candidates' forum here. My summary of Day's accomplishment's: Chair when the board was awarded 2023 School Board of the Year by the New Hampshire School Boards Association (NHSBA). Key leader overseeing the development and construction of the new, LEED Gold certified middle school. Champion of the expansion of world language and competency-based learning. Played a central role in hiring many district administrators, including the new superintendent. Served on the Policy Committee, Wellness Committee, Long Range Planning Committee, and Manifest Review Committee.
I'm voting for incumbents Denise Day (write-in) and Giana Gelsey. The other candidates have serious flaws, so I am going with the proven records of the incumbents. I especially admire Gelsey's advocacy against the various state attacks on public education, including her spearheading the board's resolution against the "chilling effect on teaching" of the state's divisive concepts law (RSA 354-A:31-34), as well as her opposition to reduced teacher probation periods and removing mandatory criminal background checks. Also exemplary was her service on the Wellness Committee, and her working with the public regarding COVID response and the candidate forums. She is a strong booster of increasing mental health resources for students and for improving the school calendar to allow more time for AP test preparation. She has a long history of service even before joining the board, and I am certain she will continue to strongly advocate for our students and teachers.
I've been on vacation and didn't get a chance to dive into the expansion plans and costs like I wanted to. Here's a link to the district's site about the project; the DS slides are also informative. 60% YES is required for passage. Historically the district voters have supported this sort of thing, but 60% is tough and there are a lot of folks upset about the tax increases this year, so I think it will be close.
I don't find these estimated millage increases as helpful as others seem to; personally I prefer a percentage. The current local ed tax rates are Durham $10.79, Lee $18.29 and Madbury $11.77, so the principal+interest millages represent local ed increases of 2.9% Durham, 3.2% in Lee and 3.1% in Madbury. These are based on the assumption of a 10 year loan at 3.4%.
I was happy when the district got rid of the two pre-fab classrooms that were costing taxpayers I think $20K each per year; I would have been less so had it occurred to me that this meant a $10M cost down the line. Unfortunately, the modular classrooms are no longer a viable solution for a number of reasons.
Article 4 is the budget appropriation of $62.4M, That number was $58.0M last year and $38.4M in 2012, when I started paying attention. The appropriation is $60.5M if NO wins (and there's no revote), a significant 3% less.
The actual number proposed by the school board was $61.8M, and included $519K savings from layoffs of two teachers, three interventionist and a nurse. That money was added back at the Deliberative Session by the voters present with an amendment brought forward by Al Howland, and seconded by Colin Blake-Butler. Blake-Butler also stated during the candidates' forum that he was involved in the drafting of the amendment that was brought forward. I voted YES to that to restore the interventionists -- I've been MATHCOUNTS co-coach since 2019 and I've observed some decline in performance lately. Personally, I thought the planned nurse and teacher layoffs were well-reasoned management decisions that do not need to be undone. Assuming this passes, it's still up to the board what to do with the extra money, if anything.
The teachers agreed to a five year contract with small raises right before COVID hit, and the ensuing inflation has brought salaries down sometimes to below market rates. The new contract makes this up over a few years; we see that here. Health insurance is a bit of a district slush fund. The budget is based on a guaranteed maximum provided a year ahead of time; usually costs come in lower, giving the district some appropriated funds to spend on whatever it wants.
This article asks us to approve the contract with ORPaSS, the paras and support staff. The district never tells us the base for these things, so it is difficult to calculate the percentage increase.
My third choice was Colin Blake-Butler. Since he was part of the group of community members that presented citizen petitions to impose a statutory budget committee (which he has publicly stated he does not support with a now deeper understanding of its risks) and a tax cap (under the idea it would move items from the take it or leave it proposed budget into their own warrant articles where the funds would have to be used for what they were approved by the voters for) it was natural for some to conclude that he was aligned with the Republicans against public education, who have used the same RSA's with other intentions.
But it's certainly possible to fully support public education and still want to have the district run more efficiently and burn through fewer tax dollars. That's what most of us want, and that's where I believe Blake-Butler is. Like many of us, his family moved to the district largely for the schools, making it implausible to me that he wants to make public school worse.
That said, it is very clear that Blake-Butler is new to all this, and he has made significant lapses in preparation and errors in judgement in his campaign. One way that is obvious is that he now opposes some of the very articles he participated in creating and publicly championed at Deliberative Session. I can give him partial credit for accepting his errors, but this is just bad preparation.
Perhaps his most egregious error in judgement was who he chose to associate with when creating and presenting these citizen warrant articles. These folks have demonstrated their opposition to public schools. That's fine, it's a free country, but that is not a position I would want to associate with, nor do I want it in my school board candidates. There's a new facebook group that I won't link to but is relatively easy to access, where the very people he stood with at Deliberative Session are attacking Giana Gelsey in ugly terms. I only had to look for a minute to find one of them call her an "entitled creep," and there were references to "left wing nut job."
Of course the president has made this sort of rhetoric commonplace, but it is not civics I desire. Again, folks are free to say whatever they want about candidates and elected officials. But the objects of their derision are not distant representatives in Washington. These are our neighbors who do these jobs, who volunteer their time and effort to serve without pay, often at substantial personal cost. I would hope the citizenry would treat them with the respect they deserve. Not because the rules say so, but because we all need to live together in these small towns, and sowing hate and division is not good and not right.
I've seen the attacks on Giana; they're ugly but politics ain't beanball. What really made me angry today is that I learned the attacks extend to bullying her children. This is totally out of line.
Blake-Butler needs to denounce the haters, to loudly and publicly say he does not want the votes of people who bully our neighbors who serve, and their children. As these folks are still actively supporting Blake-Butler, he clearly has not done that, and as such he does not deserve our votes this time around.
My next choice would be William Howard, who says many things I agree with, especially getting back to a focus on STEM education. I am passing this time, because last year he filed to run and then failed to participate. I believe there was no explanation offered; at least I failed to record one in my blog. This year he appeared at the candidates' forum, but I have not seen any other sign of a campaign or participation in the community discussion online.
The final candidate, Elizabeth Copley, seems like a fine person, but at the candidates' forum gave no indication she had any familiarity with the issues facing Oyster River schools, nor have I seen any sign of her campaign or participation in discussion since.
Article 3: $10M elementary schools, renovation and expansion
 |
I've been on vacation and didn't get a chance to dive into the expansion plans and costs like I wanted to. Here's a link to the district's site about the project; the DS slides are also informative. 60% YES is required for passage. Historically the district voters have supported this sort of thing, but 60% is tough and there are a lot of folks upset about the tax increases this year, so I think it will be close.
I was happy when the district got rid of the two pre-fab classrooms that were costing taxpayers I think $20K each per year; I would have been less so had it occurred to me that this meant a $10M cost down the line. Unfortunately, the modular classrooms are no longer a viable solution for a number of reasons.
I'm voting YES because I can afford the taxes and do not want to be a grumpy old man unwilling to fund adequate schools for other people's children. I can certainly understand how other folks' calculations may be different. The effect on taxes this year will be small, but a ten year loan will increase taxes over $1.1M per year.
The district argues that the space is needed, and if we delay the costs will always go up. That may be true in nominal dollars, but I am far from certain that it is true in real dollars. Interest rates change. That said, I believe that an increase in the real cost of the project is probably likely for the next few years. The district also argues that replanning for a smaller project will result in another significant expenditure before construction begins; my opinion is that is probably true but shouldn't stop us if that's the direction the community wants to go in.
I've heard reports of 'Vote no on 3' signs appearing next to Gelsey and Day signs, even on private property without permission. This is apparently intended to mislead voters into believing that Gelsey and Day do not support the elementary school project; of course they have both expressed strong support for the project. Again this willingness to violate the rules is disheartening and in my opinion should definitely not be rewarded. Curiously these signs have the same treasurer listed on them as a new, slick website promising information in the district. You're not going to get a link from me; it's currently devoid of content anyway. I'd be interested in knowing who is behind these.
Article 4: $62.4M budget
 |
| Current year apportionment calculation |
These are the millage increases if all the board-recommended articles pass (including the elementary expansion), before the addition of $519K. I couldn't find a chart that reflected the $519K. It's a mistake for the district includes the state tax line; they don't have any control over it, though of course we all have to pay it. Calculating the increase relative to the current local ed line, I get Durham .92/10.79=8.5%, Lee .85/18.29=4.6% and Madbury .91/11.77=7.7%. I'm going to assume the other board-recommended warrant articles add up to about $519K, so we can use these numbers as the approximate impact of this article alone.
I'm voting YES. The budget's always passed since I've been paying attention; I'm guessing it will this year as well.
I'm voting YES. The budget's always passed since I've been paying attention; I'm guessing it will this year as well.
This got long and needs to go out now, so I will speed through the remaining articles.
Article 5: ORPaSS
This article asks us to approve the contract with ORPaSS, the paras and support staff. The district never tells us the base for these things, so it is difficult to calculate the percentage increase.
We need these folks, so I'm voting YES.
Article 6: ORESPA
ORESPA are the maintenance staff, custodians, secretaries, and similar positions.
I'm voting YES.
Article 7: Middle School Solar Array Fund
This is the fund to purchase the middle school solar array. I think we're pretty close to paying this off, but you'll have to look at last year's post to see when that happens.
I'm voting YES.
Article 8: Special Ed Trust
This fund is an emergency fund for when the district is hit with unexpected special education expenses.
I'm voting YES.
Article 9: Open Enrollment
Open Enrollment is the idea that students can go to any school in the state (if there's space), with the student's school district of residence footing most of the tuition; there's a big expansion under consideration in Concord. The district thinks by explicitly appropriating $0 for Open Enrollment, they cannot be forced to pay tuition for students attempting to access it.
I'm voting YES.
These are the four citizen petitions brought by a group which includes candidate Blake-Butler. Anyone can get a warrant article on the ballot with the signatures of 25 district voters. We're an SB-2 district, which means the articles have to survive the Deliberative Session before the wider citizenry gets to vote.
Article 10: Statutory Budget Committee
Article 10 asks the voters to approve a Statutory Budget Committee, elected by voters. If approved, the SBC would have jurisdiction over the budget presented to the voters. There's a 10% rule, meaning the voters cannot increase the SBC recommended budget more than 10%.
The SBC is essentially a second school board that basically exists to fight with the real school board. There is no real way to separate budget considerations from all the other factors that go into a working school; almost every decision has a budgetary component. This article is basically a way to defund public education; I'm voting NO.
It's been pointed out to me that Colin Blake-Butler has also publicly stated he will be voting no too.
Article 11: End Fund Balance Retention
The fund balance is the unspent money at year end. As we can see from the warrant, many questions ask the voters to divert fund balance into various funds. In the district, we have approved a rule that allows the board to retain up to 5% of the appropriated funds in a contingency fund without a warrant article. If YES wins here, that power will end, and any funds not explicitly diverted by warrant article will be returned to the towns, where it is used to lessen the impact of next year's taxes.
I'm voting NO. The contingency fund allows the board to lessen the impact of large budget increases.
Article 12: Tax Cap
A tax cap restricts the amount the school can budget for. This particular article was neutered at Deliberative Session by changing the cap to a 15% increase from the previous year, which is of course very large, and bigger than any increase I've seen in the last 15 years. The original article capped the increase at the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U).
It's largely symbolic; I'm voting NO.
Comment from Colin Blake-Butler: I'm a no vote too at this time as I don't see any value with these extra rules in the rule book. This comes back to my earlier "edit" idea to push budget items into their own warrant articles just like we have in Lee. I like that model a lot. I hate I have to choose yes on all the budget items even if I don't agree with many. I don't like the take it or leave it. I get that tax caps can be weaponized. I would personally like to find another way urge for more warrant articles as individual budget items.
Article 13: Performance Audit
This article was changed at Deliberative Session to appropriate $100 for a performance audit, instead of the original $60K. I was a bit disappointed by that; I don't see the harm in letting an independent set of eyes review the district operations; those sorts of audits usually find some relatively painless savings.
I might have voted for this in its original form, but now I am voting NO. The board is free to initiate this without a vote.
Extra
Phew, that was pretty long. Here I'll mention that in Lee I'm voting for Rebecca Hawthorne, and I hope everyone else does too.
This Saturday, ORMS competes in the NH State MATHCOUNTS competition, go Bobcats! Krista Butts and I are coaches.
No comments:
Post a Comment