NOTTINGHAM BUDGET COMMITTEE MINUTES
JULY 13, 2006
PUBLIC SESSION
APPROVED BY THE COMMITTEE SEPTEMBER 28, 2006
PRESENT: ABSENT:
Mr. Chet Batchelder Mr. Bill Netishen (Excused)
Ms. Charlene Andersen Ms. Denise Blaha (Excused)
Mr. Michael Koester Mr. John Decker (Excused)
Mr. Philip Fernald Mr. Kurt Duprey
Ms. Gail Powell
Ms. Judy Doughty
Mr. Chris Mills
OTHERS PRESENT:
Mr. Hal Rafter, School Board
Ms. Kelly Tivnan, Budget Committee Secretary
Mr. Koester called the meeting to order at 7:08pm.
Mr. Koester welcomed the new members, Ms. Andersen and Mr. Mills, to the Budget Committee.
Mr. Koester talked about the Budget Committee schedule for the next few months. He said that he thought they should look at the calendar from the previous year and move their meetings ahead a week when they fell on the day after the School Board meeting. Ms. Powell said that the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Budget Committee should sit down with the Town Administrator and the School Board Chair to discuss the schedule before it was finalized. Mr. Koester suggested that the next Budget Committee meeting be on Thursday evening September 14, 2006. He also suggested tentatively scheduling a meeting for Thursday evening September 28, 2006.
Ms. Doughty made a motion that the Budget Committee meet on September 14, 2006. Ms. Andersen seconded the motion. The present members of the Budget Committee voted unanimously in favor of the motion. The motion passed 7-0.
Mr. Batchelder made a motion that the Budget Committee meet on September 28, 2006. Ms. Doughty seconded the motion. The present members of the Budget Committee voted unanimously in favor of the motion. The motion passed 7-0.
Mr. Koester said that the Budget Committee needed a representative to the Capital Improvement Plan Committee.
Ms. Doughty nominated Mr. Decker to be the Budget Committee representative to the Capital Improvement Plan Committee. Mr. Fernald seconded the motion. The present members of the Budget Committee voted unanimously in favor of the motion. The motion passed 7-0.
Mr. Koester said that the Budget Committee needed a Chair and a Vice-Chair. Mr. Batchelder noted that the Budget Committee had 4 members missing.
Mr. Batchelder made a motion that the Budget Committee delay electing officers until their meeting on September 14, 2006. Mr. Fernald seconded the motion. The present members of the Budget Committee voted unanimously in favor of the motion. The motion passed 7-0.
Mr. Koester said that the purpose for that night's meeting was to get feedback for the teachers and the School Board about the teacher contracts, to talk about what the Budget Committee needed from the School Board, and to talk about getting information.
Ms. Doughty said that the School Board had a focus group meeting to talk about the teacher contract. She said that the people who had commented said they wanted the contract to cost less money. She said that the people did not seem to be in favor of the retroactive clause. She said that there had been a discussion about longevity. She estimated that there had been about 19 people at the focus group meeting. Ms. Powell said that the School Board would take recommendations. She said that she would like copies of the report done by the facilitator for the Budget Committee. She said that people should not criticize if they did not participate in the process. She said that this was a serious situation. She said that the Budget Committee had supported the teacher contract 3 times. She
said that there should be changes when the School Board went to negotiate the next contract. She asked whether the Budget Committee could make changes that would help the School Board. She said that she wanted to have a summer meeting to discuss the schedule. She said that there were also some good things in the contract but they needed to address the entry level positions. Mr. Fernald said that people picked apart teacher pay but not town employee pay. He said that he had voted in favor of the teacher contract 3 times. Mr. Batchelder said that if the Budget Committee was going to support the teacher contract they needed the information sooner. Mr. Mills said he had heard suggestions that not much had been done with the pay for the lower levels. He said that Nottingham would need to replace teachers that would retire. He said that there would be a substantial difference in salary level between the retirees and their
replacements. Ms. Andersen said that there was always someone who did a counter analysis of proposed contracts and she said that it would help the voters if the information that was used for the counter analysis was addressed for the voters up front before the counter analysis were done. Ms. Powell said that she had gotten letters about the contract which contained wrong figures and wrong analysis. She said that if the Budget Committee publicized what they wanted they could correct wrong information that got out there. She said that the Budget Committee could have meetings with other groups to talk about managing the data but she said that the SAU was the gatekeeper of the information. She said that the public needed to be able to understand the format of the budget. She said that there needed to be guidelines for the SAU. She said that people got upset when they saw differing statistics. Mr. Rafter said that he thought the
professional negotiator had been a bust. He said that it had cost a lot of money and in his opinion it had not seemed to lend credibility to the contract. He said that he did not know if he would vote to have another professional negotiator. Mr. Koester wondered if the negotiator had come up with something better whether the teacher's union would have agreed with it. Mr. Batchelder said that the School Board needed to direct the professional negotiator by giving them parameters. Mr. Fernald asked whether the Budget Committee had recommended that the School Board use a professional negotiator. Mr. Rafter said yes. Mr. Fernald asked if Mr. Rafter would ignore the recommendation of the Budget Committee by voting against that. Mr. Rafter said that he might. He said that longevity had been an issue. He said that many letters had been written to the School Board. He said that lots of the letters had talked about the issue
of making the contract retroactive. He said that he thought the lower end of the salary scale had been addressed. He said that he thought that concern was a misperception which had come from a previous contract. He said that the School Board was not planning on negotiating during the summer. He said that they were looking at trying to have something ready for the March vote but he said that they did not know how long it would take. He said that it got more difficult to negotiate the contracts each time. Mr. Koester said that the town would be more likely to support the contract with a solid recommendation from the Budget Committee. He said that it would be to everyone's benefit for the Budget Committee to get information early. Ms. Powell said that the Budget Committee could ask for clear data and good analysis. She said that the Budget Committee spent a lot of time on the budget and understanding the contract. She said
that the Budget Committee needed to have the big picture. Ms. Doughty said that she had heard comments from people that the School Board needed to get more inventive with their contract negotiations. Ms. Powell said that the people needed to believe they were being heard. Ms. Doughty said that the School Board needed to put all the information out to the people and then they needed to anticipate the arguments against the contract. Ms. Anderson said that people wanted to know how things affected their own tax rates. Mr. Koester noted that the revaluation made that difficult. Mr. Mills said that the taxes would increase whether the proposed budget or the default budget was adopted. Mr. Koester said that in normal union vs. management contract discussions the two sides battled it out and one of them won. He said that in teacher union vs. School Board contract discussions there was a third party. He said that the members of the
Budget Committee represented the final veto, the voting public. He said that the Budget Committee made recommendations to the voting public. He asked whether the Budget Committee had ever voted against the teacher contract. Mr. Batchelder said that the Budget Committee had always supported the teacher contract as far as he could remember. Mr. Koester said that there was not a lot of exposure for the Budget Committee. He said that their credibility might not be as high because they always supported the contracts. Mr. Mills suggested that maybe a representative from the Budget Committee should be available at town meeting.
Ms. Doughty said that not a lot of people attended the Deliberative Session. She said that people were not informed voters and there was nothing the School Board or the Budget Committee could do about that. Ms. Powell asked if the Budget Committee could put together something like a flyer. Mr. Batchelder said that the Budget Committee could do something like that if they had the time. Ms. Andersen said that there needed to be a discussion between the Budget Committee, the School Board and the people who did the town newsletter. She wondered if there could be extra newsletters published in the weeks leading up to the vote. Mr. Koester suggested that the Budget Committee could piggyback on the School Board flyer. Ms. Powell said that there had been a slide show at the Deliberative Session with an
excellent overview of the budget. She said that someone had done a nice job on that and she would like to see it again. Mr. Koester said that it came down to how much input the Budget Committee could give in the process. He said that he had gone to the open forum where the School Board had asked for public input on the contract. He said that it had been a good eye opener for him. He said that the numbers were always confusing when they talked about step and track results. He said that he would like to see something like..'Here is what a teacher makes, Here is what they would make under the new contract, and this represents what percent of teachers in the school.' He said that taxpayers did not always see a lot of the big picture. He said that there would be training costs when the teachers left because of 3 failed contracts. Mr. Rafter said that not very many teachers had left. He said that the teachers had better salaries
than during a previous contract dispute a few years earlier. Mr. Koester suggested enticements for early retirement. He said that it might be time for the School Board to look seriously at that. Ms. Powell suggested that the Budget Committee could do a memo about the comments which had been discussed that night and it could be on the School Board agenda.
Ms. Powell made a motion that the Budget Committee do a memo summarizing their discussion for the School Board. Mr. Fernald seconded that motion. The present members of the Budget Committee voted unanimously in favor of the motion. The motion passed 7-0.
Ms. Powell said that she just wanted the Budget Committee to formalize their recommendations.
Ms. Doughty said that Pittsfield had been going through the same thing as Nottingham. She noted that the voters in Pittsfield had also rejected the proposed teacher contract more than once. She said that the teacher's union had the advantage. She said that there was not a lot of listening between the groups. She said that Nottingham was not alone in dealing with this issue. Mr. Rafter noted that 40% of the staff had not gotten a raise.
Mr. Koester asked how the Budget Committee would communicate to the School Board what they needed. Ms. Powell said that she would like the Budget Committee to split into groups and familiarize themselves with certain sections of the budget. Mr. Koester said that there were issues with the quality of the information sent from the SAU. He said that all information should be correct. He also said that he would like to receive more information in electronic form. Ms. Powell said that the information needed to be cleaned up to show the big picture.
Mr. Rafter said that the School Board could talk about the schedule and then they would talk to the Budget Committee about it.
Mr. Batchelder asked about the surplus. Mr. Rafter said that it was $135,000 as of June 22, 2006 and it would go up. Mr. Koester asked what line items were budgeted too high. Mr. Rafter said that he did not know that information off the top of his head.
Mr. Koester said that he thought the Budget Committee should consider electing an officer who was responsible for spearheading communication. Mr. Mills asked if Mr. Koester was thinking about communication to the general public or specific organizations. Mr. Koester said that he was thinking in terms of the general public.
Mr. Batchelder suggested that their next agenda should include discussion of RSA's and the powers and duties of the Budget Committee. He said that it would be good for new people and a good reminder for the other people about what the Budget Committee did and what authority they had.
Ms. Andersen said that it had been a great first meeting for her. Mr. Mills also said that he thought it had been a good idea for the Budget Committee to meet.
Mr. Batchelder said he just wanted to remind everyone that they should show up for the next meeting because the Budget Committee needed to hold an election of officers.
Ms. Doughty made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:55pm. Ms. Anderson seconded the motion. The present members of the Budget Committee voted unanimously in favor of the motion. The motion passed 7-0.
Respectfully submitted,
Kelly Tivnan
Budget Committee Secretary
| 
