GilfordGrok

Boy, I go away for vacation for a few days and the paper is just full of news of the School Board.  From the Citizen (8/15):

As the summer ends and the start of the 2008 budget season is set to begin, many of the Gilford School District's employee contracts have been signed following a unanimous vote of the School Board.

Meeting minutes from the June 22 School Board off-site retreat reveal that Superintendent Paul DeMinico and Chair Sue Allen had been authorized by a motion from board member Paul Blandford and seconded by Kurt Webber, "to place staff under contract during the summer months."

I had noticed this while reviewing the minutes for the School Board because of the Moultonborough "kerfuffle".  And since the normal minutes only referenced this retreat, I had to go back and request that retreat's minutes separately (which was promptly delivered).

While staff contracts do not fall within the purview of the budget committee, some committee members nevertheless were upset about the contract process.

"I'd rather have them do the contracts after they present their budget proposal [to the budget committee]," said Doug Lambert. "I find it to be just another means our elected School Board uses to avoid the limelight."

Superintendent Paul DeMinico explained that many of the contracts awarded were for district teaching positions. There was, however, a one-year administrative contract that Allen and DeMinico entered into on behalf of the School Board.

And that Admin contract was for who?  And what is it costing the taxpayers?

[snip]

Last summer, the School Board renewed almost all of the administrative contracts, including DeMinico's five-year, $125,000-per-year contract without bringing it to a regular meeting.

This is my problem with how business is done - The BudComm does not negotiate individual contracts, that is true.  However, some of these contracts do put the taxpayers on the hook for a considerable sum of money...such as the good Dr. DeMinico.  Over the lifetime of the contract, a round number three quarters of a million dollars.

No, the BudComm does not set policy, but it is responsible to the citizens for oversight of the monies spent on their behalf to run the Town.  It is hard to have that oversight when contracts are discussed, drawn up, signed and completed, when the BudComm is not in session.  So when School Board complains that "the BudComm is haggling and hassling over nickel and dimes", remember that when most of their budget has deliberately been locked up in contracts (which by state statute prevents BudComms statewide from reviewing contracts that are in force) before the budget season starts.

After all, the School Board could, if they so desired, work with the BudComm on these issues.

With regard to the criticism of the process, DeMinico pointed out that the budget committee has no say in district employee contracts, as the committee's authority rests with the bottom-line budget figures. He added that most of the contracts had already been budgeted so they would not cause an overexpenditure of the already-short default budget that is $140,000 less than the School Board had recommended.

"Traditionally, the budget committee has not been involved with the ratification of these things," explained DeMinico.

That one word says it all.  Why?  The only entity that has control over the process is the School Board. As long as they wish to run their operations in a different way, "Traditionally" will be the word for the ages.  Only the School Board can choose to open the process up either in conjunction with BudComm or with the taxpayers.

 

Lambert said that much of this concern came out of the way in which the School Board had entered into the five-year contract with DeMinico. Others on the committee, including the chair, expressed similar concerns. Their objections had less to do with the dollar amount of the contract than with the lack of publicity given to the transaction.

"The School Board could simply choose to do the contracts at another time," Lambert said.

"It sort of ties your hands, because more and more of the budget is fixed," said Budget Committee Chair Dick Hickok, explaining that the underlying problem is committing to spending through contractual obligations that his committee has not seen.

[snip]

However, he said, something along the lines of a contract committee that would review the contracts throughout town might be a good idea.

Hickok said a Gilford citizen had made that suggestion, pointing out that other towns have similar committees.

Lambert, who recently was re- elected to serve a three-year term on the budget committee, said he is in favor of such a committee, which might be formed as a subcommittee of the full budget committee.

Lambert said that, at the very least, he hopes that, in the future, the contracts and the process behind them, are completed in a more open process.

This would be a good thing to have, and I would be in favor of this.

Allen did not return a call seeking comment on the issue.

And why am I not surprised?

A move by the town could affect the process. The Gilford Board of Selectmen recently discussed changing the town's fiscal year from a calendar-year schedule to one running from July 1 through June 30. That would put both the town and school on the same budget cycle and might allow the budget committee to discuss pending contracts before the money is committed.

Hickok said such a move would be beneficial for all involved.

This could be a good thing for the taxpayers.....