Letter to the Editor: 'Budget Committee is a Waste of Time'

To the Editor:

Article 4 on the Merrimack School District Warrant aims to restructure governance of the school district. The article, if passed on April 8th, would abolish the 12 member School District Budget Committee and increase the School Board from 5 to 7 members in 2015. School Board Chairman Chris Ortega offered some reasons for his opposition to Article 4 in a recent letter to the editor where he states, "If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it." As Vice Chairman of the Budget Committee, I would submit that the school budget process IS broken and that this article, if passed, WILL fix it. I ask you to vote YES on Article 4 on Tuesday, April 8th.

First, the School Board is not compelled to change individual spending items under the current process. Although the Budget Committee rarely makes changes to the budget, when it does, it can only affect the bottom-line. One consequence of this limitation is that the School Board can ultimately thwart the will of the Budget Committee. One such example occurred just last year. Two roofing maintenance projects were cut from the budget by the School Board but the Budget Committee determined that the greater expense to taxpayers down the road outweighed the short term savings. As a result, the Budget Committee restored $385,920 to the budget in order to complete one of the two roofing projects. That decision was later ratified by voters yet the School Board still chose to delay the maintenance project and return the funds to taxpayers. This project will now be accomplished in a future year costing taxpayers more than it would have had the School Board used the funds provided by the Budget Committee. Does it make sense to retain a committee as a “second set of eyes” when its vote is so easily ignored by the School Board?

Mr. Ortega also cites the well-attended public hearing of 2010 as validation of the Budget Committee’s value to the community. What he fails to mention is that the reason so many residents came to the public hearing was because of several controversial cuts to teaching staff by the School Board. Residents came to the public hearing to vent their frustration and seek relief from the cuts. The Budget Committee members listened intently but they had no authority over staffing. It is a shame that these residents couldn’t talk directly to the body that does, the School Board, when the decisions were being made. If Article 4 is approved, the School Board would be required to hold the annual public hearing enabling voters to appeal issues like these in front of the governing body with the authority to act. It is not just a matter of attendance that makes a committee relevant but rather its ability to function effectively for the benefit of the residents. The residents at the 2010 public hearing received no satisfaction under the current process but things may have been different if the School Board had hosted the public hearing.

During my three years on the Budget Committee, I have analyzed each line item of the school budget multiple times. I have developed several years’ worth of trend data, produced charts and graphs, and disseminated that information publicly. The budget expenditures can roughly be broken down this way:  Salaries & Benefits (71%), Special Education (10%), Maintenance (5%), Transportation (3%), Everything Else (11%). The Budget Committee is not part of contract negotiations, which provide salaries and benefits, nor can it affect heavily regulated special education funding. At best, the Budget Committee can only impact less than 20% of the overall school budget. The School Board, on the other hand, has the authority and the means to affect 100% of the budget. Like the Town Council, the School Board should own the entire process up to the deliberative session.

Mr. Ortega also mentions the School Board’s 5-0 vote to not recommend Article 4. I would add that the Budget Committee also voted to not recommend Article 4 with a 6-2-3 vote. Before considering these recommendations, it is important to understand that these votes were only taken because legal counsel determined that Article 4 had an implied financial impact. The School Board and the Budget Committee are required by law to issue a recommendation for all financial articles. Because school board members receive a small stipend and because the Article increases the number of school board members, both bodies were required to vote. Despite those reasons, a quick review of the Budget Committee meeting minutes or the School Board minutes on this topic will find nary a mention of the financial impact of the article. Instead, members of both bodies used the vote as platform to advocate for their personal opinions on Article 4. I, along with two other members of the Budget Committee, abstained from the vote as I saw it as an inherent conflict of interest. Should the Budget Committee get to recommend whether or not it should continue to exist? Should the School Board recommendation against a measure that would dilute the power of its individual members be considered? Each person will have to decide what weight to give these recommendations but I think they are reflections of a bureaucracy that values the status quo.

Mr. Ortega also notes the new streamlined process that the School Board and Budget Committee have adopted. While the new process does indeed give the School Board more time with the budget, the compromise came at the expense of the Budget Committee’s time. Most Budget Committee members feel rushed by the new process and are frustrated by the School Board’s rejection of fully joint budget meetings between the two bodies. Because the School Board “owns” the administrators, it can effectively freeze out the Budget Committee by refusing to make them available for Budget Committee meetings.

As for increasing the School Board membership from 5 to 7 members, my opinions aren’t as strong. I think going from a 5-member Board of Selectmen to a 7-member Town Council has worked well on the town side and I think the School Board change would be equally positive. The School District budget is more than twice the town’s so it makes sense to include more representation on the Board. I do not see a downside to this change.

In short, the Budget Committee is a waste of time and effort for school administrators who are called to answer before the committee and for the citizens who serve diligently on the Committee. We would be better served to free up the twelve volunteers so that they could serve on one of the many other boards in town which are sorely in need of members. I ask that you consider joining me in voting YES on Article 4.

Gary G. Krupp
4 Ministerial Drive
Vice Chairman, Merrimack School Budget Committee