Letter to the Editor: School Board Chairman Opposes Article 4

To the Editor:

"If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” Article 4 on the Merrimack School District Warrant, a petitioned article, aims to do just that. The article, if passed on April 8th, would immediately abolish the 12 member School District Budget Committee and increase the School Board from 5 to 7 members in 2015. I strongly ask for you to vote no on Article 4 on April 8th.

The petitioners have presented their reasons for proposing Article 4 in multiple public meetings but have provided no specifics regarding problems with past decisions or process in which this change would have made things for better.  Rather, here is what the petitioners say…

The petitioners point to recent years, in which public attendance at Budget Committee meetings has been low and modifications to the School Board approved budget have been minimal, as evidence of a redundant or irrelevant process. Rather than recognizing this as evidence of a process that is currently working well, the petitioners suggest removing this important review process in the formulation of a budget in excess of $65 million. The petitioners fail to recognize that it was less than 4 years ago that the Budget Committee meeting rooms were at capacity with hundreds of people in attendance to speak to proposed changes. Not every budget nor every meeting need be controversial.  Removing the Budget Committee now, simply because we are in a relatively quiet time is not prudent.

The petitioners note that when the Budget Committee does make changes, like a recent increase in funding for a roofing project, the School Board isn’t obligated to spend that money, as happened in that case. The petitioners point out that it isn’t really the Budget Committee’s budget therefore and that the process is simply masking whose it actually is. This logic fails to recognize the differences and the importance of each body. The School Board, as the petitioners correctly point out, is the governing body. As such, it has ultimate responsibility for the management of the School District over the course of the year and to live within the budget created by the Budget Committee. The Budget Committee is an appropriations committee not unlike the one in Congress, tasked once a year with the formulation of a prudent, reasonable budget. In the case of the roof, the School Board found, after the budget had been established, that there were going to be shortfalls in revenue and overruns could be mitigated if the roofing project were delayed and as such voted to not spend the additional money appropriated for that purpose. It isn’t that one body is more relevant than the next, rather each was playing its part in the system as intended.

The petitioners feel that the governing body, the School Board, doesn’t get enough time to work with the budget and that there is a high degree of redundancy in the School Board and Budget Committee reviews of the budget.  In this case, the petitioners have stated something that was true, two years ago, but no longer. Historically the School Board received administration’s proposed budget in the first week of December and by the first week of January had moved the budget to the Budget Committee. With a holiday week in that schedule, it was extremely rushed and there wasn’t a School Board member who didn’t wish they had more time with the budget. However, two years ago, after a petitioned warrant article to eliminate the Budget Committee closely failed, work was done by both bodies to improve the process. The School Board now takes until mid-January to deliberate over and move the budget to the Budget Committee. Additionally, both bodies’ processes have been streamlined to improve efficiency and expedite the process. While School Board members appreciate the petitioners’ advocacy on their behalf, not a single School Board member agrees that this is an issue as evidenced by their unanimous vote to not recommend this warrant article.

As for increasing the School Board from 5 to 7 members, the petitioners state that if the Budget Committee is to be removed that giving the sole authority for a budget of this size to only 5 members is risky and that the School Board should be increased to 7. They mathematically state, “7 is better than 5”. I contend that if this is true, then certainly “17 is better than 7”. In addition to the five School Board members, there are twelve dedicated members of the public, who volunteer their time, free of charge, for a term of three years to ensure that the school district budget is reasonable and appropriate for our children and the taxpayer.

The petitioners point to a diversity of opinion that will come to the School Board in having two extra members at the table. While this may be true, is it worth the risk of eliminating the Budget Committee? And is it necessarily true that diversity of opinion will naturally occur with the additional members? In the years since the town went from a 5-person Board of Selectmen to a 7-person Town Council, there have been multiple elections where Councilor seats have gone uncontested, while no School Board seat has. What choice or diversity of thought were the voters given at the polls with a single candidate?

In short, the warrant article was summed up best by a voter at Deliberative Session who said, "This article seems to be a solution looking for a problem." If we don’t know what problem this article is specifically trying to solve, what unintended consequences might it bring? I urge you to get out and vote on April 8th and strongly ask that you vote NO on ARTICLE 4.

Thank you,

Christopher S. Ortega

12 Olde Road

Chairman, Merrimack School Board