Letter to the Editor: Vote Yes on School Warrant Article 4

To the Editor:

In a recent article published by the Nashua Telegraph, Merrimack School Board Chairman Chris Ortega was quoted accordingly:

"The petitioners fail to recognize that it was less than four years ago that Budget Committee meeting rooms were at capacity with hundreds of people in attendance to speak to proposed changes," Ortega said.

Quite the opposite is true of petitioners. It is a situation precisely like the one referenced which reinforced collective interests in proposing Article #4. 

During budget discussions in winter 2010, the School District Budget Committee had, as it always does, an appointed School Board Liaison at their table. That year, the committee allowed two additional School Board members to provide testimony in regards to staffing cuts they did not personally support. This precipitated public comments from the remaining School Board members alongside numerous community members in attendance. With every School Board member ultimately present and weighing in anew, the process effectively ceased to be the model of “independent” review many find attractive. That is flawed.

Despite warrant articles designed to restore staffing cuts, changes were not made by either the Budget Committee or the voters to the School District’s operating budget for 2010/11.

Many petitioners believe the premise of a budget committee is inherently flawed. As a governing body, that consensus of 12 can only make recommendations and amend the bottom line; nothing more. 

One valuable exercise they undertake is breakout subcommittee work conducted with the various School District departments; work the School Board does not similarly perform. Such subcommittee work belongs in the Board’s hands. With the elimination of the Budget Committee, the Board would have all of December, January and February to publicly roll out and review the proposed budget much more comprehensively. Were they to review not more than two departments per meeting, they could capably do so in December and January with time in February for a public hearing and budget deliberations. The public would then provide their input where it foremost belongs: before the governing body which actually makes policy and has tangible influence over the budget. 

Some believe creating a seven-member School Board is unwise or requires additional depth of planning. Many Article #4 petitioners would actually be content either way. When a similar article designed to eliminate the Budget Committee narrowly failed in 2012 (16 votes), author Tim Tenhave received significant feedback suggesting voters would have supported the measure if School Board membership were increased to seven, more akin to modifications made when the Merrimack Charter Commission concluded a seven-member Town Council was best suited to replace the existing five-member Board of Selectmen. Petitioners fully understand and respect that opinions will vary regarding this proposed membership modification, but believe Merrimack voters have the right to weigh in accordingly. In fact, it may well be more conducive for the Board to undertake the aforementioned departmental subcommittee budget reviews with seven members than five.  

Proposing the elimination of the School District Budget Committee was by no means taken lightly either now, back in 2012, or even when the Charter Commission originally recommended eliminating the Town Budget Committee. In fact, much consideration, research and input has gone into it. The School District Budget Committee was first created by means of a warrant article. In the eight seasons since, it has not yielded significant additional insight into or changes to the District’s budget.

Merrimack voters are strongly encouraged to vote in favor of Article #4 on Tuesday, April 8th. Respectfully,

Tracy Bull
Gary Krupp
Roy Swonger
Tim Tenhave
Jody Vaillancourt
    Merrimack