By TIMOTHY LA ROCHE
[email protected]
ol, a special education paraprofessional at SHS, an administrator at SHS, a secretary at SHS, a school psychologist and a curriculum coordinator.
Earlier drafts also included cuts to several more teaching positions and a crisis counselor, but McGoodwin said he restored those positions following public showing in their support.
SAU 6 administrators shared the proposed budget with school principals and staff who might be affected earlier this week, McGoodwin said. Administrators received several requests for work references from staff who are not affected, he said, indicating that the possible reductions are a source of tension in the schools.
“This move creates instability,” McGoodwin said. “There is fallout from that. We value our staff, we try to hire the best and support the best. But when they feel that there is some instability, they start to look elsewhere.”
Also included are reductions to athletics, fuel, supplies textbooks, transportation, maintenance and technology. Of the total $2 million in reductions needed, $850,660 — about 48 percent — comes from district wide reductions in technology.
Administrators proposed an draft budget at the Dec. 20 board meeting that included a $328,000 net reduction from the current operating budget. Coupled with collective bargaining increases and reductions in state aid, the district proposed a $1.7 million decrease from the current operational budget to achieve the figure.
After the proposed budget had already been accepted at the Dec. 20 meeting, board members approved the collective bargaining agreement for the Sugar River Education Association to include a net $307,153 increase in salaries and benefits for teachers in 2018 and a $387,770 increase in 2019.
Most school districts in the state approve the collective bargaining increases as a separate warrant article from the main budget, meaning that the increases are not reflected in main budget figures.
However, a New Hampshire Supreme Court judgement ruled that the Claremont School District must incorporate the collective bargaining agreement into the main budget.
On Jan. 3, the board approved the budget with a net $328,000 decrease. But after incorporating the SREA agreement into the budget, district administrators had to account for the collective bargaining increases by finding more reductions than initially slated.
Despite concerns that the additional cuts would be reflected in further personnel reductions, the proposed budget distributes much of the reductions across more than 100 line items.
Upon seeing the finalized budget proposal for the first time at Wednesday’s meeting, several school board members expressed some dissatisfaction with the at-times tense budgeting. Process. School board member Michael Petrin said that the earlier staff cuts seemed like “doom and gloom” scenario proposed by administrators to sway the board away from making any reductions.
“I wish this process could have gone better,” Petrin said.
The proposed budget will advance to a Feb. 7 deliberative session at which registered voters can propose changes before it moves to a town meeting vote in March. If the proposed budget does not pass by ballot, a $35,111,787 default budget will go into effect.
As your daily newspaper, we are committed to providing you with important local news coverage for Sullivan County and the surrounding areas.