Now is the time for a hard, cold realty check in SAD 4

To the Editor;

The SAD 4 district budget meeting that was held on May 26 in Guilford was a donnybrook — an all-out fight between the teachers and their relatives and associates versus the school committee and administration. The teachers in the crowd were protesting the cutting of teaching positions and the giving of raises to all the non-master contract staff while the board was holding out for a budget that already exceeded last year’s budget by assessment increases of 14 to 19.5 percent for each of the towns in the district in just one year.

The net result was that, after many votes on just one article, the pro-teachers’ group added back over $78,000 to the instructional line with the clear hope of returning the cut positions and later voted to offset this with a significant cut of $100,000 to the system’s administration, the intent of getting even being clear. Later they also cut the amount needed for the Director of Instruction position. This all ultimately served the taxpayers by decreasing their assessment increases on average 3 percentage points, leaving the new assessment increases still at an astronomical range of 11 to 16.4 percent — way above any amount that the taxpayers can afford.

There are important points to be made on the actions of the voters who showed up. First of all, the voters cannot make the board either create or cut positions. It is the school committee’s call and it needs to make it. It is the board’s responsibility to clean up the budget that the voters to this point have decreased. If the school committee truly cut the positions because the system does not have the student population to support it, then it needs to hang to the cuts. The teachers are protected by their own master contract that has what is known as reduction-in-force language and if the school committee has met it clearly and cleanly then, surely, even the teachers would have to admit there is a direct need to reduce employees as student numbers continue to decrease. If the school committee should end up with the money, it should just acknowledge and track its presence and save it for next year to roll forward as fund balance, for I fear that next year will be worse than this.

Secondly, the teachers have the capacity to help with the financial crisis. They have a master contract that they could reopen and offer savings. The teachers, while complaining about other raises, are getting their own of 2.5 percent-plus step increases plus 85 percent of the 8.5 percent increase in their health insurance, which is a very good one. If the association (which is a union) declines to help, then it can stop whining about position cuts and raises for other people. Fair is fair. The point is that both entities assumed the taxpayers had deep pockets when these raises were either negotiated or given.

There are other savings within the current year’s budget. One citizen hit on that point. The board knows there is practically a whole special ed director’s salary and insurance that is unexpended; there is the $30K built in for a spec ed outside placement; there is money left in contingency, despite the statement that the administration is covering the breakfast program with it. Find these pockets of money that create positive fund balance and use them.

Given that most of the budget is tied up in people, then there has to be a reckoning of fewer staff. Positions of head of transportation and head of maintenance can be cut down and creatively redesigned to cover peak times of coverage. We are dealing with two buildings where there used to be eight. Granted there is a size difference, but some of that has to be offset somehow.

Look at not buying a new bus this year. We will feel it next year, but do we really need a new bus every year? Redesign some bus routes.

Cut back in technology. Negotiate hard with the current classified staff in their currently open contract. Move forward and cut the position of Director of Instruction. Get a grip on how serious the problem is.

The problem here is that for a number of years now the school board and administration have carried on a position of arrogance and unconcern in building a budget. I sat on the board for four budget cycles and always voted against a budget that I thought was out of control; and they were less desperate than the current one. Not once in those four budget cycles did I see relevant evidence of the improvement of instruction and I haven’t seen it since then.

The bottom line is the taxpayers can no longer afford these increases and the system can make no claim of improvement that would warrant the taxpayers’ support. I urge the taxpayers to vote ‘No’ on the school budget on June 14. It is time for a hard, cold reality check for the school system. It is time for a hard, cold reality check for the citizens of the district as their taxes shoot up in unheard-of percentages.

A crisis has been a number of years coming, but it is here. Another several hundred thousand needs to be cut off the assessments for FY 2017. We must not and cannot continue to pay for increases that are not backed by real systemic improvement. Make your vote count.

Ann B. Bridge
Parkman