By Patrick Adrian
vtreporter @eagletimes.com
CONCORD — Despite lingering concerns about how funding will be apportioned between the remaining towns in the Fall Mountain School District should Charlestown leave, the New Hampshire Board of Education said Thursday that it will not require the Fall Mountain Withdrawal Study Committee to provide a possible formula.
In a second discussion of the Charlestown withdrawal plan, the New Hampshire Board of Education returned the plan to the committee again, this time to include more details about unanswered liability apportionments such as contractual sick-time back pay to teachers and the educational impact for Fall Mountain should Charlestown leave.
But after a nonpublic session to consult with their attorney, the New Hampshire Board of Education said it will not require the withdrawal committee to provide a formula for how the remaining cooperative would apportion funding without Charlestown.
Board Chair Andrew Cline explained that while state statute requires withdrawal plans to include a method of apportioning funds between the remaining cooperative, the board has never required that be “a precise mathematical formula.”
“The plan does provide a method,” Cline said. “It’s not a formula, but it’s a method. I think we will run into problems if we set a standard for saying that a method for apportionment has to be a mathematical formula.”
The challenge of reapportioning
Both supporters and opponents to the withdrawal plan agree about the difficulty to reapportion the district’s budget between the four remaining towns if Charlestown departs.
Fall Mountain arguably has the most complicated apportioning system of any cooperative district in New Hampshire, employing eight funding components and varying formulas. At least two of those components — more than 10% of the district budget — would be unusable should one town withdraw, according to Fall Mountain Finance Director Jim Fenn.
According to the withdrawal plan, “unless the Articles of Agreement are amended by the School District, the apportionment formula would remain the same.” All parties, including the New Hampshire Board of Education, concur that the remaining towns will need to amend the formulas.
However, the articles of agreement do not contain a plan for the district’s governance or financial apportionment should one town withdraw, or what to do should the remaining communities be unable to agree to the new terms.
“What happens in the event that an amendment doesn’t go through?” Fall Mountain Attorney Gordon Graham asked. “The complex of the current apportionment is exceptional. This isn’t your normal run-of-the-mill apportionment.”
Cline told the committee that while the board won’t require the plan to show new formulas, including new formulas in the plan might make the plan more compelling for the voters.
The committee will return to work to discuss a plan for at least four outstanding liabilities: sick time back pay for teachers; retirement costs; and computers and technology in Charlestown schools and renovations to Charlestown school buildings, that were paid for by the district.
Additionally, the plan must describe the composition of the new school board with four districts.
The board also said the committee must remove a line from the plan that says, “the makeup of the school board following withdrawal will be determined by the Secretary of State and the Attorney General in the first year, unless the Articles of Agreement are amended.”
Cline said that the committee lacks the authority to contract two state officers without asking them, or if those officers could do so legally.
The next New Hampshire Board of Education meeting is scheduled for Thursday, Jan. 9, 2020.
As your daily newspaper, we are committed to providing you with important local news coverage for Sullivan County and the surrounding areas.