To those that claim the newest fad to hit NH in education, the International Baccalaureate Programme, is all about education, I say look at the facts. This posting, by a writer who is in FAVOR of IB, glowingly reports of its main raison d'etre:

The IB combines high academic standards with a powerful humanist purpose. Its mission statement speaks of developing “inquiring, knowledgeable and caring young people who help to create a better and more peaceful world through intercultural understanding and respect.”

"But Doug--It'll also help our kids be more competititve when it comes to getting into college. Sure, maybe they teach peace and all that, but surely it's a small piece of the overall programme." Maybe you think so, but that's not how the cheerleader/blogger views it:

Because the IB’s mission is centered on changing the world, it is constantly learning and changing itself.

See? And you thought your kids were going to school to learn readin', writin', and 'rithmetic...

Posted by Doug at 11:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In my earlier post, I really liked what Paul Blandford had to say:

“Maybe they’re just not learning what they need to learn,” said Blandford.

as I discussed the NECAP scores for Gilford (pretty much only average at best; dismal results based on what we budget for the SAU).  Certainly, the School Board was rather unhappy as well (as well I believe they should be).  He also said:

But Board Member Paul Blandford said the students might be taking their cues from teachers. “I think it goes beyond the students to the staff taking it seriously. It’s extremely disappointing. We do not want to be average.”

Again, we had both Dr. DiMinico and Ken Wiswell on MTNP and both of them, if I can summarize it balanced, are against this "high stakes" testing. Certainly, this belief is being held counter to that of the Board.

Then this in the Citizen this past Tuesday on the front page:

"Disheartening" and "alarming" are how the School Board is characterizing results from a statewide survey delving into the behaviors undertaken by high school students.

The Youth Risk Behavior Survey was taken last year by 439 Gilford High School students and what the results found is, as school nurse Meg Jenkins said, "There is a tremendous amount of alcohol and drug use among students." Jenkins pulled out 13 key statistics to outline the problem areas for the School Board and in all but two of these areas the statistics in Gilford were up from years past and every area was well above state averages.

This is not new information - when my kids were at Gilford High, stories abounded about behaviors described above.  In my opinion, I'm glad that the survey was done and that the results are being publicized.  Terry has a good take on this here.

However - serious question here - is it the fault of the school system?  My SHORT answer - only if the staff is modeling this behavior (or showing attitudes / philosophies that would seem to condone such behavior) for the students to see, thus giving an implicit "this is ok".

Is it truly up to the school system to fix this?  No, not in my opinion.  It is up to the parents to be responsible for their children.  And part of the article says such:

"We feel it really is a community-wide issue, a family issue," explained Jenkins.

School Board member Margo Weeks honed in on the family involvement, saying: "If someone doesn't notice something is seriously amiss then something is seriously wrong."

She, along with Jenkins, noted that there may be a wide range of problems at home that could be enabling these types of behaviors and, by in large, the results say parents and the community need to get involved.

Given that the problem is widespread, this would involve a lot of parents, right? Well, only 30 parents showed up for the forum they held later on. 

NOW, here's the part that the school system has to fix, when everything is considered.... 

Continue reading "Did anyone else notice this?" »

Posted by Skip at 09:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I posted here about the most recent Gilford NECAP results here (2006 results here).  My comments on the recent results were:

I am almost all but sure that the following will be absolutely raise a few hackles, but since this is an opinion blog, I'll oblige.  Given the numbers, somebody's gotta step up and speak out.  What's that's obnoxious Liberal phrase - "speaking truth to power"? 

• I'm just dying to hear what the explanations are going to be for the Reading fiasco.  After all 87 or 120 are not just the "challenged" few.
• When is "more time" enough, and when is "more resources" enough?"
  

When is it time for results?  Is it time for "taxpayers pay for performance"?

If it were just a few, one could say "students".  A few more, "uninvolved parents" or "unable to enforce discipline".  Time to add another......

To say that I was underwhelmed at reading the scores when they were released is to be kind.  I looked at our results, looked at the overall state results, and then when I remembered what the Gilford SAU Budget was vs the State average was, well I was not a happy camper (we spend about  $17,329/student).  That said....

Our unofficial motto is "spank'em when they're wrong and thank'em when they're right"!  Here, I may have been a bit rough on Paul Blandford, as he helped, with his own words, to prove a point on Right To Know requests.  But, you've heard the phrase "from zero to hero"? 

Now, give the man a ceegaarr!

“Maybe they’re just not learning what they need to learn,” said Blandford. 

Yup, looks like the Gilford School Board finally lost its patience, too, given the recent NECAP scores.  I do remember using the word "accountability" several times on Saturday when Dr. DiMinico and Ken Wiswell were on MTNP.

Now, I was not there at the School Board meeting.  I bet it was not taped (but you can BET I'm going to be looking for THOSE minutes!).  Thus, I can only go by what was in the paper - so I shall!  From the Daily Sun (pages 1 and 9, I'm only quoting the "relevant" parts):

Gilford board very disappointed with ‘average’ state assessment scores

GILFORD — The message from the School Board was clear: average is not good enough for Gilford students. The message was a reaction of the board last night as it reviewed results from the elementary and middle school’s New England Common Assessment Program (NECAP) tests, administered in October 2007.

 [snip]

NECAP scores fall within one of four categories: level four is “proficient with distinction”, level three is “profi cient”, level two is “partially profi cient”, and level one is for “substantially below proficient”.

Elementary School Principal Sandra McGonagle began the presentation of the NECAP results, reminding the board that the state Department of Education has set the goal of all students scoring profi cient or better in all categories by the year 2014. As such, she said “we always have an eye towards improvement.”

Really?  Can you show a graph (or did you) of how well we've had continuous improvements in the scores ? 

I scoured the Annual Report Card (not listed on the SAU web page that I could see found it!  ) that was sent out. 

• I saw the great (really!) dropout rate percentage. 
• I saw that Suspensions are up (could be a good thing, as that means discipline standards are being raised.  Or bad, in that Zero Based Tolerance silliness is reigning supreme). 
• I wonder that with the financial demographics of Gilford, why so many kids are getting Free & Reduced Lunches?
  
• I noticed that the State average SAT scores are consistently BETTER than Gilford's.
• I saw that the NECAP scores were nothing to write home about (actually, only every other student would be proficient in doing so)  
  

But I digress....a tad

Looking at the results of the tests, though, board members failed to see such improvements. The scores for Gilford’s students in grades three through eight hovered within a few points of the state averages, which is just where board members have seen scores in previous years.

“I’m disappointed,” said Board Member Derek Tomlinson. “I expect that we’re going to be above state average.” He noted that the district has dedicated a good deal of time and resources lately to improve the scores.

Superintendent Paul DeMinico shared with Tomlinson’s disappointment. “We shouldn’t be average,” he said, especially considering the demographics of Gilford. “We should a leap, by a good size, beyond the state.”

Glad I'm not the only one.

Tomlinson said, “I feel like we’re doing a lot but I don’t see the data coming out.” He wondered if teachers had the time they needed to apply the results from previous tests to their curriculum planning. “How much time to they really have?”

Board Member Kurt Webber said he wasn’t sure if students were taking the tests as seriously as the board does.

But Board Member Paul Blandford said the students might be taking their cues from teachers. “I think it goes beyond the students to the staff taking it seriously. It’s extremely disappointing. We do not want to be average.”

I'm not convinced that the major reason for low scores is that the students are not taking the test seriously.  That's a cop out, and perhaps laying blame at the wrong feet.

I think Paul has it right on target again (and YES, I VOTED for him!) and here's why.  If it is just a single year, or happening sporadically, looking at the class of kids is justifiable - teachers have said (and I agree, having been a member of some) that some classes are bright, some not, some good and some are very ill behaved.  You could blame the kids - but only partly and only some of the time.  You DO have to look at who is managing that class!

But long term results that don't meet the community's standards?  The only things that cannot be ruled out are curriculum... 

...and the people who teach that curriculum.

McGonagle said the staff has been “working as hard as we can to make sure [improvement] happens.” The school has taken such steps as giving students bagels and fruit on testing days, giving pep talks to impress the importance of the tests, and asking parents to send students to bed early on nights before tests.

I think that these efforts may be a tad misguided....let's see, what could it be?  Oh Yeah:

“Maybe they’re just not learning what they need to learn,” said Blandford.

Question: if the kids are being taught the fundamentals, tested on the fundamentals, and then corrected on those fundamentals, then shouldn't they fundamentally be able to score well on the NECAPS?  So what does it say when the scores are not "well"?

Certainly, what has been the process so far for years isn't working.....empirical evidence is proving that out.

The data may be similar to last year in result, but Middle School Principal Jim Kemmerer said the format and specificity of the reports is better and more useful than in years past. He said the results show teachers exactly which students are having trouble and with what types of questions. He said a teacher can quickly see if all students got the same question correct, and if many got it wrong, the teacher can see what wrong answers were given. “We’re for the first time getting really good data,” he said. He also noted “Middle school students take the test seriously, but they do get test-weary.”

I'm getting tired of the "blame the students" game - it seems like the School Board is losing it's patience with this too.  While reviewing test results to locate curriculum / teaching "holes" is fine, there's still a problem:

Why weren't our students being taught from the get-go with respect to demonstrably provable curriculum and methodologies? 

I keep hearing (and seeing the in the SAU Report card) how Highly Qualified our Teachers are.  Thus, THE QUESTION that HAS to be asked, given the simple results requested (and no small boasting of the Report Card of how well Qualified our teachers are) is:

where, then, are the above average results? 

I hope this question is at the forefront of the teacher contract negotiations - after all, they are the adults in the room doing the teaching and should be held responsible for the results (or lack thereof). 

Perhaps the district could take steps to give students reason to take it more seriously, Board Member Margo Weeks said, such as making the results part of a student’s permanent record, or holding a contest wherein the grade that had the most improvement would be rewarded. High School Principal Ken Wiswell said he already was thinking along those lines, and would present some of those ideas at the April 7 board meeting, along with the High School’s results.

How about a competition between the teachers
for the best classes relative to the State Averages? 

Hey, School Board members - can you find it in your budget to reward merit pay for this?

Naw, I know, the Teachers Union will never buy into it......but it was a thought..... 

Posted by Skip at 07:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Two “Grok” Thumbs Up

It is time for the SAU offices be located in SAU buildings, and the timing is right for this.  The need for the space is decreasing and will be decreasing over the next few years as enrollments go down and the accompanying need for teacher staff goes down.  Up to five or six classrooms will become available over the next few years.

Much has been said (a lot of kvetching on what I hear from some of the union folks) negative to this.  The BudComm Recommended it, and from the overall space needs of the Town, it makes a lot of sense for fairly short money.

Note:  The SAU had another Warrant for $50K outstanding before this was presented.  Upon the request of the BudComm, it was pulled and this brought forward.  We complemented the SAU for working with the BudComm on this. 

ARTICLE IV            Gilford School District Administration Offices Relocation

To see if the school district will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of Fifty Eight ThousandDollars, ($58,000) for the cost to relocate the Gilford School District Administration Offices tothe Gilford Elementary School. This expense is to be funded from the June 30 unreserved fundbalance (surplus) available for transfer on July 1. This is a special warrant article. (Majority vote required)

School Board: Recommended              Budget Committee: Recommended

Principle: The SAU Administration belongs in an SAU building.  With decreasing student enrollment and needs, it makes sense to move them to the Elementary School.  The money requested is far less than moving to other quarters (such as the soon-to-be old library)

Posted by Skip at 09:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

No secret - I am in favor of printing the employee salaries in the Town Annual Report for both the Town and SAU employees.  My feeling is that since taxpayers are paying the freight, they are entitled to see the manifest.

The argument has been - hey, why make it easy for taxpayers?  They can come in and do a Right To Know anytime they want to get the information.

This proves the argument:

Blandford questioned the need to publicize the information at all, since the public has access to it through making a formal Right-to-Know request for the information.

As it stands now the district keeps track of who makes Right-to-Know requests in town and what information they are seeking.

Blandford said that should the information be printed in the town's annual report, the district would lose their monitoring "control."

I have, in the past, requested employee data from both the Town and the SAU under Right To Know requests and posted it on GilfordGrok.  I have already done the request for both the Town and the SAU for this year and will most likely post it again. 

For someone like me, this is not a big deal.  I care not a whit who thinks what when I do so and use that data.  People may like it, or they may not.  I believe that I am doing the right thing by taxpayers when I do so.

The above statement by Mr. Blandford is very chilling, in my opinion.  It is one thing to accept an RTK request and then file it....I have no problem with that.  What his statements say, however, is that "we are watching you".  Face it, this kills most folks willingness to stick their necks out.  For those of us who have made the decision to make local politics what we do, well, it comes with the territory (and even then, there are those that do not wish the limelight).  For a regular Joe Sixpack, this is a move that could be fraught with terror.  Like the idea or not, many of not most parents will not put their kids in danger of retribution. 

The Budget Committee, in a letter to both the School Board and Board of Selectmen, said was that it was important for the voters to have the information when deciding issue of the budget. This rational particularly applies when voting teacher contracts up or down.

Thus, why NOT make it easier for taxpayers to make decisions that affect their wallets?

"The reality is that the (the School Board and Budget Committee) that are making the decisions have the information, so the people that need to know, know," said Weeks.

With all due respect, Ms. Weeks is wrong.  True, it is up to the School Board to conduct their contract agreements (directly or through proxies), thus, they need the information.  The BudComm needs the information so that we can, to the best of our ability, make a recommendation to the voters - THE legislative body in Gilford.

However, it is the VOTERS / TAXPAYERS  that actually make the decision.  It is they that will vote to accept the teachers contract (and the police contract).  Thus they NEED this information to vote correctly, not according to my notions, not to the notions of the School Board or to the employees, but to the  needs and notions of the taxpayers.  And that is all that counts.

The legality of publishing such information was questioned, however teacher salaries, the names associated, and a dollar amount attributed to the benefits being given are public information subject to the New Hampshire's Right-to-Know law.

During the debates of the BudComms, I have heard the conflation of public vs private employees data.  For those who earn (and they do earn it) their pay from the taxpayers, it is public.  The argument has been made that since the private sector does not, neither should we print the public data (trying to make the two sectors equivalent).  They are not, nor should they be.

Simply put - if you do not wish your data to be publicly available, go work in the private sector.  One works where they do by choice - it is not by entitlement or by someone forcing it upon you.

The board directed Superintendent Paul DeMinico to send along the information the teachers union, discuss it with district leadership staff, and consult the Board of Selectmen on how they will proceed in printing the town employee side of things.

On another note, I wonder at the rhetoric passed by the School Board that we, the Budget Committee, should have butted out of their business last year during the football and health insurance kerfuffles.  They said that they were elected to make the decisions - we should not stray into their policies (I disagree, as anything with a $ attached to it IS the perview of the BudComm). 

Yet, I review the Citizen's article and wonder - so why are they now "sharing" the letter, that they have to get input from their leadership / admins and the teachers' union?

This tells me that it is only expedient to insist on their decision making rights when they want, and then not when convenient.

"This is the public sector," DeMinico explained to the board.

Posted by Skip at 09:38 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Today's (8/22/07) Citizen reported that the Gilford School Board has decided to better fall follow the Right To Know Law - RSA 91:

The Gilford School Board is pledging to modify the procedure it follows for going into nonpublic session after being challenged by the news media.

I'm quite sure that the dustup of the Moultonborough Study Committee and Derek Tomlinson and Sue Allen may have added to the  "push" to change their process, but I bet it was the Meadows Advisory Committee where Sue Allen was challenged by the Citizen reporter  ("I'll give you a letter.") that sealed this deal.  Often when flashlights are used and questions asked, processes change.

School Board Chair Sue Allen and Superintendent Paul DeMinico made the pledge during Monday's School Board meeting. Allen said that, in the future, given the added focus on the state's Right-to-Know law, the board would be sure disclose the reasons for entering into nonpublic session, counter to what occurred at its last meeting.

[snip]

But Attorney Paul Fitzgerald, who represents a number of local school boards, including Laconia, said that boards must give a reason for the nonpublic session, whether it be by citing a letter that corresponds to an exemption or simply paraphrasing the exception itself.

"The vote has to specifically identify the reason under the Right-to-Know law to enter into nonpublic session," said Fitzgerald.

It should make no difference what that business may be.  It may well put officials in a bad light, reflect badly on a policy, whip up public opinion or anger over a bad decision, or tick off friends or spoil future activities. But that's why they were elected - to make the hard decisions in public.

It may be a late decision, but I appreciate it - thank you. 

Posted by Skip at 07:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Both the Steamer and the Citizen covered the latest meeting of the Meadows Advisory Committee (a sub-committee of the Gilford School Board).  Once again, the Right To Know and the GSB School Board seemingly were close to butting heads, as two applicants were being considered for open slots on the MAC.

With all of the brouhaha swirling around the GSB - Moultonborough meeting, one would have thought that the GSB would have had the thought "let's not even come close to that line that marks controversy and non-controversal.  Let's just play by the rules."

The Citizen reported:

Four members of the committee were set to meet with the only two applicants for the positions on Wednesday night. Prior to commencing the meeting in the Town Hall conference room, School Board Chair and Meadows committee member Sue Allen took committee chair Tim Drew aside and informed him that the group had the option of entering into nonpublic session for the interviews, though she informed him he might consider keeping the proceedings open

Excellent!  Open and transparent.  What local government needs to be optimally effective (doesn't hurt on the PR side either).

Oops, maybe not quite so fast:

Allen maintained that the Meadows committee had the right to enter into nonpublic session if it chose to do so, adding that the decision would require a roll-call vote.

When The Citizen pointed out to Allen that the committee would have to cite what provision under RSA 91-A would allow the group to enter into nonpublic session, she responded by saying, "I'll give you a letter."

Accountability.  That all this is about.  Doing things the right way, the proper way, the best way.

I'm not talking about making mistakes...everyone and every board will make one from time to time.  But when considering contracts, inter-town meetings,  and now this, one cannot just chalk this up to a simple mistake or misunderstanding.  While Dr. DiMinico later defended the GSB's possible decision to go into non-public session, the Steamer article noted that the Selectmen routinely conducted their interviews in public session.  So did the BudComm!

During the discussion, Allen and Derek Tomlinson, who was filling in for Paul Blandford on the committee, stated their support for remaining in open public session. Tomlinson went as far as to say that, if the candidates wanted to be on a public board, they should get used to the limelight.

The slogan at the 'Grok is to spank'em when they're wrong and thank'em when they're right.  In this case, the THANK YOU (really!  Really not meant sarcastically!). 

When one wishes to serve, that is the atmosphere and the environment for all to expect.  IMHO, non-public meetings should be kept to a minimum if at all possible.

That said, I do have to add the following: 

Continue reading "Getting slapped around" »

Posted by Skip at 09:13 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I noticed this is the Wednesday (8/15) in the Laconia Daily Sun at the end of the headline article “Laconia High underclassmen to be confined to campus for lunch”. The part that struck me was this:

Como se dice “detention?

My high school and college Spanish is quite rusty (now, sigh, about 30 years in the past), but I believe it means

How do you say “detention” in Spanish?

The text of the article is:

Based on advice from the School Board association, the board added language to the Student Rights and Responsibilities policy, which was given a first reading at the board meeting. The new language states that the Parent-Student Handbook “will be made available in another language or presented orally upon request.”

Oh boy – this could get expensive. Are they opening up a Pandora's box such that like large cities, the School Board will be spending lots of taxpayer money for not a whole lot of reason? Sure, it sounds nice and all, but are they committing other peoples' money, for example, for an Urdu translation in case that comes up? After all, do it for one, the fairness police will say, you gotta do it for all!

And let me throw this out – the question that should be asked often but some cringe and others snarl when it is uttered “what's the cost / benefit ratio for this? In other words, can you “real world” justify this?

I guess my 'real world' example is over at Lowe's. If they really wanted to be dual language, they picked the wrong one – it should have been French! Really, out of entire population of the Lakes Region, how many Spanish-only customers are there really?

I think Scott Vachon, the lone School Board member to be openly against this, may have a lonely time of it....

I'll see what the School Board Association has to say on this (as it was cited in the article)....let's see if it has been firewalled so that the “masses” can't get in.

Hey, since our taxes pay for the SAU, and the Gilford School Board has members, you think that they'll lend me a username and password for a while in case it is?

Naw, didn't think so....

Posted by Skip at 08:31 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

What the heck is going on with all these School Boards? First Gilford's seems to want to do things steathily, Laconia's Pandor's box of translations, and now the Winnisquam one has riled up folks (Laconia Sun, Thurs, 8/16):

The Northfield Education Committee, an official town board appointed by the Board of Selectmen earlier this year, is urging voters in the Winnisquam School District to turn thumbs down on a proposed teachers contract that will [be] presented to voters of the Northfield-Sanbornton-Tilton school district at a special district meeting this coming Wednesday night.

Actually, let's cut to the chase as to why. Ken Gorrell, a smart and well grounded conservative, is the Chair of the NEC. He had this to say, as the School Board has apparently screwed up in negotiating with the teachers union and then performing badly in having the voters have their say on the contract. In essence, with 3 tries at it, they've messed up each time. And now want a free pass – essentially asking the court and taxpayers “please do not hold us accountable for messing up – just give us the money for this messed up contract. After all, it's for the teachers (strike out) children.”

This is a case of actions have consequences. Or really, the lack of actions have consequences – major ones. Not only is it costing the taxpayers additional time and money to have the special election, one also has to remember that the WRSB fought really hard against the establishment of the NEC which will hold them accountable.

Gee, just as from the Moultonborough tape I was given, it seems that the MSC members don't think that the Moultonborough taxpayers need a Budget Committee either? I may be wrong, but weren't many on that committee not in favor of it? Just as our own Scott Laliberte disparaged our present Gilford BudComm?

Is there something that School Board members have to sign – get elected and behave badly? After all, Ken takes the WRSB to task for spending $200,000 of excess money that could have been returned to the taxpayers. Which would have been the right thing to do, as that money does come from the taxpayers! It seems that the lure of available money distorts many – if it is there, it has to be spent!

The school board is showing a complete disregard for the fiscal health of the town. They went ahead and spent those excess funds on non-budgeted items knowing full well that they'd be going to (Belknap County Superior Court) claiming there was an emergency to told [sic – hold?] a special district meeting for ask just for additional monies.”

Spend it steathily, and then go back to the trough some more!  I really liked what Ken had to say here:

Gorrell indicated he's also concerned when he hears people say that the district's teachers are 'hard-working and deserve a raise”.

“It's not an issue of whether teachers deserve a raise or whether our teachers are hardworking,” he said. “I work in the private sector all the time and I'm surrounded by people who are hard-working and deserve a raise. But it depends on the health of the company. Teachers are the only people who seem to expect a raise every year. They have much better retirement plans than most people in the private sector and they have much better health care plans than most people in the private sector”.

I agree - it isn't just a case of the employees deserving a raise but the financial wherewithal of the entity granting the raise. In the private sector, it is based on a number of things, including the profitability (or management's perception of future profitability, the skill sets of employees, the replacement cost of skill-sets, and the product direction of the company).

All I seem to hear from our School Board is “to retain our teachers, we HAVE to pay them more – it costs so much to train new ones” as if that was a mantra that is brand new to us in the private sector.

I wonder if the WRSB heard his words. Heck, I hope our School Board heard him too. But I think that is the case for another post, don't you?

Posted by Skip at 08:25 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Life has been overscheduled lately, and I'm just starting to catch up with all of what I've missed.  One of those items was a quote from Derek Tomlinson in the Citizen:

"I didn't want to be hassled and questioned by those people," said Tomlinson after both he and Allen explained that they came to the meeting on tight schedules. "It turned out to be a circus and I didn't want to be apart of a circus."

Gee, "those people"? Not a very nice opinion from Derek on the folks from Moultonborough! 

Oh, and the "It turned out to be a circus and I didn't want to be apart of a circus" part? Well, I can assure Derek that there was no circus at the meeting.  In fact, I wonder how he could catagorize it as such - he wasn't even there!  But I do believe that he did have a hand in the proceedings, even if only by his absence.

But just to make it complete, the 'Grok will attempt to oblige!

Posted by Skip at 03:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Printed in the Citizen on Friday, August 10, 2007 here

Editor, The Citizen: The Gilford School Board has now communicated their displeasure with Cutter Mitchell's reporting of the Moultonborough Study Committee's official and posted visit to Gilford and their abortive time with GSB members Sue Allen and Derek Tomlinson. I'm surprised that The Citizen has not put the GSB letter online to help support their reporter. Is the GSB is trying to give a spin to the story as they are outright attacking the poor reporter who pretty much got it right? Is pressure being applied? The problem is that their accounting does not jive with mine at GilfordGrok. com or the video, which can be watched at GilfordGrok. com. It is important that reporting be correct; however, attempting spin compromises the spinner.

The GSB has started the process of killing the messenger. Their concern is with "closed door meeting," by discrediting Cutter, it moves the focus away from the GSB members. Although I may now already be in that same category as Mitchell (football and insurance anyone?), I can say that Cutter's articles come closer to reality than the spin.

They state that another meeting was in progress when they arrived. If they had bothered to enter and ask, they would have learned that we were just killing time with Q-and-A until their arrival. No, they refused to enter because of the presence of the cameras, and likely, the presence of Doug and I. They made their irritation known of the cameras well known and left.

They cannot contest and their letter ignores, however, that we in the Kitchen were led to believe by Jerry Hopkins that no one else was invited to the meeting with Sue and Derek — the video makes it quite clear.

That is the essence of a closed-door meeting — limited participation; a physically "open" door or not. Thus, their claim that "no other people chose to attend" is false. The MSC chair did not have the right to split an official meeting into private meetings on his own say so with an MSC quorum present. Like it or not, the GSB representatives seemingly have aided the MSC Chair to skirt the Right-to-Know law.

In fact, this action, in violation of the spirit of the RTK law, has been deemed sufficiently severe by the Moultonborough Selectmen, upon review of the eyewitness accounts and video, to instruct Mr. Hopkins to meet with the town counsel under the observation of two selectmen and have the RTK law explained to him. They are also making sure that official meeting postings will be done to a more stringent standard as well. Having the Police Chief resign from the MSC also speaks volumes.

Oh, the new GSB website? Taxpayers have been paying for one at gilford.k12.nh.us; why not make better use of the one you have so we don't have to pay for another one.

Skip Murphy
Gilford

Posted by Skip at 02:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

"So I'll
Send it in a letter baby
Write it on the wall
That's the way I like it
Losing all control
Send it in a letter baby
Then you'll understand"

Prior to commencing the meeting in the Town Hall conference room, School Board Chair and Meadows committee member Sue Allen took committee chair Tim Drew aside and informed him that the group had the option of entering into nonpublic session for the interviews, though she informed him he might consider keeping the proceedings open.

.

Allen maintained that the Meadows committee had the right to enter into nonpublic session if it chose to do so, adding that the decision would require a roll-call vote.

.

When The Citizen pointed out to Allen that the committee would have to cite what provision under RSA 91-A would allow the group to enter into nonpublic session, she responded by saying, "I'll give you a letter."

The Meadows subcommittee of the Gilford School Board drew back from plans to conduct interviews for two open positions in nonpublic session, potentially avoiding another very real encounter with New Hampshire's Right-To-Know law.

Posted by Doug at 09:12 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (1)

Well, I have certainly said plenty about the meeting conducted when the Moultonborough Study Committee ("the committee to trash the idea of having a budget committee") here, here, here, here, here, and here.  Doug has put up actual video of Scott Laliberte's testimony to the MSC that seemingly has a different accounting of the Gilford BudComm than what has actually transpired here and the MSC visit here.

Well, we finally have an accounting from the School Board's view of this in a written Letter to the Editor in the Laconia Daily Sun and a Community Commentary in the Citizen.

Please note - the Sun is not online, so the link is just to their website.  The Citizen generally has most Gilford articles on line, but I haven't given a complete URL to the actual article because....well, it isn't online.  I'm not sure why, by am kinda surprised as certainly they broke the story.  Certainly, the Gilford School Board is trying to give a spin  on the story as they are outright attacking the poor reporter who pretty much got it right.  Is pressure being applied?

I've posted my accounting.  The videotape proves that he does from both Doug's camera and the videotape from the Moultonborough citizen, Hollis Austin.  Both have offered complete, unedited copies of the Moultonborough - Gilford vist - you can decide for yourself.

Why do I say that?  Well, let's  see what the School Board is saying:

Continue reading "Moultonborough Study Committee - Hearing from the School Board" »

Posted by Skip at 12:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

"We wish to set the facts straight and to convey in no uncertain terms that the Gilford School Board has in the past and continues to fully comply with the public's right-to-know and, furthermore, contests any assertion that it has conducted a "closed door meeting" contrary to the state's Right-to-Know law."

Sue Allen and Derek Tomlinson arrived at the Gillford Town Hall kitchen as previously agreed, and when finding a full room and what appeared to be a meeting with some members of the Gilford budget committee, they waited in an open conference room upstairs for any representative of the Moultonboro study committee. When Jerry Hopkins entered, they met with him with the doors open. No other people chose to attend.

"When we finished with the Selectmen, we went downstairs to meet with the School Board members. Since we had 2 people set up to record the meeting, the members of the Gilford School Board would not meet with us."

"We had arranged to meet at 6 p.m. with Gilford School Board Members Sue Allen and Derek Tomlinson (hereinafter: host) in the kitchen downstairs in the same building [town hall Gilford]. Six people followed us downstairs, two from Moultonboro, two from Gilford and two reporters. Our hosts arrived but refused to enter the room with the Gilford Budget Committee Members, two cameras and the press. They indicated that they would speak with our group, but did not wish to speak in the presence of the cameras and others present. If our group left with them to find another location, we could not deny the inclusion of the Moultonboro contingent. So it was suggested that the group divide with less than a quorum speaking with our host and the remaining majority with the other people."

What are Derek and Sue so afraid of? 

Posted by Doug at 01:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (1)

Last night, the 'Grok went to the MAC meeting and was pleasantly surprised by the number of people that showed up at the Middle School Library – and the School Board had put out a lot of chairs expecting a crowd. It was not a standing room only situation, but more than I thought would have shown up.

While Sue Allen started the meeting and members of the MAC added to the discourse (i.e., Tim Drew is the Chair of the MAC along with Sue Allen, Dave Pinkham, Dick Dumais, Steve Guyer, Herb Green, and Joe Wernig – Paul Fluet is the engineer), it was the questioning from the crowd that set the pace for the evening. And, given Sue's repeated assertions that there will be more meetings, I imagine that questioning will be a big part of those meetings as well.

Sue Allen started the meeting and then Paul Fluet started describing the preliminary plans for the area. Most of the objections and questioning came on the topic of “where's the water going to go?” Most of the folks that came are residents in the area – long term residents who have seen the ravages of what Gilford Brook has done.

Sue gave a short history of the project, which started in 2004. The essence of the project, she said, was to provide the children of Gilmanton AND Gilford more recreational area. Now they have something than can be reacted to - a conceptual plan. Lots of time has been put into it and they are looking for the community's input. They wanted to provide equity across all user groups and equal access for all. They want to follow all federal, state, and local laws and regulations (er, do they really have a choice in this?). They also, as a goal, to keep the area looking as much like like a working farm as possible (as Andy Howe pointed out, what working farm has bleachers out in the fields?). They wish to maximize the use but minimize the impact of the project.

The MAC also believes that there has to be three main elements to a successful:

Continue reading "Meadows Advisory Committee" »

Posted by Skip at 06:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Continue reading "Promises, Promises!" »

Posted by Terry S. at 12:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

From the Laconia Daily Sun, 2/2/07, the article dealing with the SAU Deliberative Session;

Thomlinson pointed out that once the bottom line budget figure is adopted, the School Board has the authority to transfer funds between accounts and if the appropriations are not restored, could chose to fund both the health insurance and football program, assuming the money is available.  He said that this was among the reasons that the board resisted proposing a separate warrant article to fund the football program, explaining that if the article failed, the program could not be funded by transferring funds. 

Perhaps I see this a bit too cynically, or perhaps not cynically enough.  Essentially, as the School Board Chair, Derek Thomlinson has basically stated that no matter what the BudComm did, not matter what happened at the SAU Deliberative Session, and no matter what happens at the March vote, the School Board will do what it wants to do.

Does anyone else see this?  And noticed that no one else has commented on it?

We have heard from Phil Arel at both Deliberative Sessions that the BudComm is "out of touch".  Yet, doesn't anyone else see the dichotomy with what the BudComm is being accused of, and what the School Board has said it WILL do?

The voters at the Deliberative Session overrode the BudComm.  That is what voting is all about, and the SB2 process worked.  According to the RSA, the BudComm could change its recommendation as the budget amount had been changed.  We therefore changed our recommendation.

However, the most important thing is what the majority of ALL of the voters think come March 13. 

Yet, Mr. Thomlinson has effectively stated that it didn't matter what the BudComm did, it wouldn't have mattered if the monies hadn't been put back in during the Deliberative Session, nor what the voters do in March.  

In essence, if I read the paper correctly, the School Board will do what it wants.  Period.

Thus, even if the voters vote down the amended budget in March, do you think the School Board will listen to the voters?

If not, will Mr. Arel state that it is really the School Board is out of touch with the voters?

Posted by Skip at 07:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Doug at 11:40 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I was very excited to see the headlines of the Laconia Daily Sun regarding the Gilford School Board’s decision to request funding for the football program. I read anxiously to finally find the answer to the question that never gets answered. What has changed with the football program?  After reading the article, it seems painfully obvious that the community is not going to get any logical explanation for this request.

.

School board member Margo Weeks dragged out the good old stand by of “safety concerns” which is a complete affront to all the dedicated coaches and support staff that currently do an outstanding job fielding teams under the safest conditions. Aside from the insult to the Friends of Football, the assertion that safety is somehow improved if the school were to control the sport is completely absurd! It has long since been proven that simply adding money to a government controlled program doesn’t improve the quality of the program. In fact most evidence supports just the opposite effect.

.

At least the other board members were more honest about their reasons. Simply put; because they can. It isn’t a secret that governing bodies are sovereign and they are not bound by previous decisions, they really can do what they want. It doesn’t matter what was said yesterday, today is a different day. This form of governing is certainly legal but definitely raises concerns of credibility. I mean it’s not like these board members descended from a different planet and joined the school board. Wasn’t it Kurt Webber that led the presentation a few short years ago for the football program? Why is he now claiming ignorance???

.

I believe that the Friends of Football are getting a bad rap here. The reality is that the school is simply taking the program away from them. After all, the school did refuse “free” bleaches that were offered by the Friends of Football. It was also the school that accepted the “free” weight room and then dramatically limited its use to the football team. It was also the school that insisted that the once volunteer coaching staff receive a stipend. Most of these dedicated individuals had no interest in getting paid. They were simply qualified football coaches that wanted to give something back to the sport and community they love.

.

I realize that the education industrial complex struggles with the concept of volunteering for free but it does happen (until they get involved). These are the same people that took a volunteer parent who wished to be a helpful aid for teachers and gave them a salary, benefits and a title called “Para-educator”. Now this group of once willing and able (free) volunteers is on the verge of possibly forming a union to demand higher wages and benefits.

.

This is a clear pattern of deceit and it doesn’t take a genius to see where the Gilford sports program is headed. Now the school board is even telling us they can lie to us with immunity and have done so in the past. It is clear that this board could care less what we think by denying us a warrant article (that was promised) to vote on.

.

These ruling elites are feeling quite comfortable in their arrogance today but the public should remind them that the former budget committee once felt that way too!

.
Terry Stewart

Gilford

Posted by Doug at 06:57 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

If you couldn't tell from the newspaper articles, I'm with Doug on this one.  Yes, I think that football is a great program and I was glad to see that it started up as a private activity with private funding.  In fact, my younger son was on the high school team.  He was one of those kids that didn't fit the other sports and never would have gone out for any of them.  Unfortunately, he was sidelined by a knee injury and was unable to play more than a few games.

However, as a member of the Budget Committee, I did vote against funding it via taxpayer money even though "it would hurt the children by taking away a program that they love".

My thoughts on that phrase "...it would hurt the children..."?  Nonsense and balderdash!   Let's review:

• The program was started privately by the Gilford Friends of Football (GFoF)
  
• The program was funded privately by the GFoF
• Permission was granted to use the Meadows property as long as it was maintained privately (see a pattern here?) by the GFoF
• The program was extended over the last few years from the high school level, down to the middle school, and I believe now with flag football, to the younger ages (please let me know if I have this wrong!).
• In order to play other high schools governed by the NHIAA, the School Board had to bless the program, even though it was still a "club" level sport.  This was done at an October 2003 meeting of the School Board, according to Saturday's Daily Sun.

Now, I remember the statements made at the time that the program would never be funded by taxpayer money.  Saturday's Sun makes it absolutely clear:

Greg Dickinson (former president of the sold Village Bank and Trust) "I'll make the commitment that so long as I'm alive we'll fund this outside of the taxpayer".

School Board member (at the time) Kevin Hayes made the motion that contained 4 provisions (paraphrased from the same article):

• One person from the Gilford Friends of Football would be the liason to the athletic director
• Cost would be covered by the GFoF 
• The GFoF had to submit a 5 year plan for the program and the budgeting of it.

And the money provision:

• Any future money item with regard to football must be put before the voters on the school warrant. 

First questions first (it is amazing how often that phrase can be used, huh?) 

OK, who has that five year plan?

I would think that the GFoF would have this.  I also would think, since it was one of the provisos of the blessing of the School Board, that the School Board has it.  Time to cough up a copy.  

Note: Given the way that the School Board has handled this situation already by ignoring their own official mandate, I REALLY hope that we get an unmodified version of it.  Am I speaking ahead of malfeasance?  Not really, just human nature - remember what YOU did when you got caught with your hand in Mom's cookie jar?

Further, who do we hold accountable? 

Continue reading "More on the Football Follies" »

Posted by Skip at 10:18 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Q: How do you know a Gilford [politician] [bureaucrat] [special-interest water carrier] is being untruthful?

A: When they tell us that their [insert scheme du-jour here] "won't EVER cost the taxpayers a dime."

...Thomlinson, the chairman of the School Board, stressed that the funding for football amounted to 0.08 percent of the high school budget. He said that the board considered drafting a warrant article, but reached a "concensus decision" that because the sum was relatively small and offset by other revenues as a warrant article could be confusing to voters.

Tomlinson said the reason the School Board chose to include the program in its budget is because members felt a warrant article might be confusing for taxpayers who already must vote on a number of warrant articles, explaining that they might inadvertently vote against the measure.

And now, ladies and gentlemen, comes the next FREE GIFT: A BRAND NEW LIBRARY!

Posted by Doug at 09:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Parallels, anyone? 

From the Union Leader, 7/31/06 (yeah, just playing catch up).

Check the big checks: Board keeps overpaying administrators

MANCHESTER’S SCHOOL BOARD continues to waste money on needlessly high administrator pay.

Last week the board replaced former Chief Financial Officer Bill Sanders with Karen DeFrancis, the district’s assistant business administrator. So far, so good. DeFrancis is widely respected, and it was nice to see the board promote a good candidate from within. However, there is the matter of her pay.

DeFrancis was making about $73,000 a year as assistant business administrator. With no justification whatsoever, the school board gave her a $12,000 a year raise along with her new job title.

Standard city practice is to give a 10 percent raise for a promotion to a higher position. That would have put DeFrancis at just under $81,000 a year. The board gave her $85,000. It did not have to, it just did.

This comes after the board twice approved needlessly expensive no-bid contracts for former Parkside principal Amanda Lecaroz that together cost the district $100,000.

And those contracts came after the board gave former CFO Sanders a $13,000 raise and Student Services Director Karen Burkush a $12,000 raise with another $2,500 upon completion of her doctorate degree — both unjustifiably large.

The majority on the board has yet to realize that it is not playing with Monopoly money. Each of these dollars was taxed away from Manchester residents, and the board has a duty to spend them efficiently.

Mayor Frank Guinta, a fan of new Business Administrator Karen DeFrancis, voted against her hire last week. He wanted her in the job, but the salary was too high, he said. Maybe one day he’ll have enough similarly frugal allies on the board to stop this kind of needless giveaway of taxpayer dollars.

Posted by Skip at 04:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

1. Gilford public employees get paid the most
2. and that doesn't include an almost free ride in benefits?