Weather for Brattleboro, VT:
Overcast, fog53.6 °F
By DonInGuilford | Thu, February 21 2013
Did anyone notice, or, rather not notice, the local media coverage of the Feb. 12 BUHS District #6 Annual Meeting? By the way this is a meeting of all the voters in the 5 towns making up the district, something like 16,000 voters or so, typically attended by 1% of them or fewer.
WTSA mentioned it next day, but they have an inside track: The Moderator of the meeting is Tim Johnson of WTSA, using the personna of his real name as a Vernon resident. I don't know if The Commons covered it? Their deadline wouldn't have worked for the issue that came out on Weds. 13th, & I haven't yet seen this week's issue. Even iBrattleboro missed it.
Most glaringly, however, the Reformer, which a week earlier ran a screaming front page banner headline about the Brattleboro Finance Commttee recommending Brattleboro voters attend en masse and vote against the budget, has not as of today, ten days later, even mentioned that the meeting took place.
Remarkably, this non-covered meeting votes on a budget of some 27 million bucks.
In case you're wondering whether it took place at all, yup, it did; I was there, with about 100 other citizens. Democracy in action!
Comments | 12
Just waiting for a report by someone who attended
" Even iBrattleboro missed it."
Not anymore. We were waiting for a story by someone who went to the meeting. Thanks for bringing it up. : )
We have members of the Finance Committee, the School Board, and parents of kids in schools who use the site. Perhaps they'd like to add more details.
I attended. There was some
I attended. There was some discussion about the Guilford elementary school sending students to BAMS. Dick DeGray stood and said that the school merger had been decided after this year's budget had been written, then made a motion for the funds that would have come to the school for the Guilford students to instead be returned to the taxpayers. There wasn't any discussion, and it passed by 4 votes with most of the school board opposing it. At least I think that's what happened. I was quite confused. Does anyone know if this means that BAMS has to fold in however many Guilford students without any additional funding?
Guilford will vote on Town
Guilford will vote on Town Meeting day whether we want to send our 7th and 8th grade students to BAMS. If we decide to send them, we will be paying BAMS $225,750. Because this has not yet been voted on, this money was not included in the BAMS budget. It's my understanding that what Dick DeGray's amendment did was to say the $225,750 would be applied to reduce the BAMS budget.
Guilford Students at BAMS
So if this is true and complete, that $225,750 will reduce the BAMS budget and not be available to fund the incorporation of the Guilford students into the school, i.e. hire the additional teachers and staff needed.
I don't believe additional
I don't believe additional teachers and staff are going to be needed for the 21 additional students.
When I questioned the
When I questioned the Reformer on the 17th as to why there had been no report in the paper this was their response:
Brattleboro Reformer (official site) We have a bad habit of sometimes previewing events such as these and, if everything passes as expected, putting off coverage (because all the information was included in the preview). We'll try and get something in the paper this week. ---TD---
the lease?
Before the meeting, I saw a notice that the skatepark lease would also be on the agenda. Did that come up?
I believe it was on the
I believe it was on the agenda for the Brattleboro Town School Board. I don't think it was on the BUHS Annual Meeting agenda.
Thanks!
Ahh, that may have been it. That would make more sense.
More on BUHS meeting
Thanks to those who posted in response to my original item. I also contacted the Reformer just to be sure I somehow hadn't missed it, & the fellow who answered me said it hadn't, & he didn't know much else about why it hadn't been covered.
It is true that the budget passed as presented. (Not news, I guess, but wouldn't the press want to inform the public anyhow? Oh, well....)
No, no skatepark mention but not sure why it would have been as it's not even near BUHS.
And yes, the one oddity of the evening was the item about Guilford. To answer the question that was brought up: Yes, first of all, the Guilford voters haven't yet voted on sending their 7 & 8 grades to BAMS -- this will be voted on at Town District Meeting on Town Mtg Day Mar 5. It has been explained to Guilford voters that BAMS is apparently able to absorb the projected 21 students from Guilford -- who would be attending next year if this passes -- without having to hire any additional staff. The reasons I believe are both that BAMS has a lower student population now and also that Guilford has very few kids in the current 6th & 7th grades.
The Guilford School Board negotiated with the BUHS Board a "cap" for each of the next 4 years for tuition if this happens, and so the highest possible amount Guilford would pay next year is a known figure, & it was that money that Mr. DeGray made the subject of what he called his "motion" -- there was actually a motion already on the floor, so what the Moderator interpreted it as was an amendment.
I myself was still sitting there trying to figure out what, parliamentary, was happening when the item came to a vote & passed, narrowly as someone has pointed out. I've been thinking about it since then & have talked to a number of people about it but we'll leave that for another time.
But the immediate fact is as one of the previous posters stated: The BUHS (including the BAMS) budget was already set by the time Guilford made its tuition agreement. So that possible revenue is, and logically so, not included in the budget that was passed on Feb 12.
"another time . . ."
Thanks, Don. I'll look forward to your further ruminations on this subject.
BUHS Meeting Finally Makes Reformer!
Big news this Saturday morning, well, small news, really, when you see the article: Today's paper finally acknowledges that the BUHS District 6 Annual Meeting did happen. The meeting, as you likely know, was back on February 12, eleven days ago. The story is on Page 8. The fact that there is no byline confirms that the newspaper failed to send an actual reporter to cover the meeting. The piece appears to have been assembled after the fact -- possibly from the minutes -- and, rather oddly, with quotes from WSESU business manager Jim Kane. Jim is an important and popular figure to those of us who have served on local school boards, as he has an impressive command of the complexities of school finances which is very valuable. But one might have expected the contact person to have been, say, the BUHS Board Chair, Mr. Woodworth.
Oddly, one has to read about 2/3 of the way into the piece finally to learn what date the meeting was held. Maybe they hoped most readers wouldn't quite notice that the article is running about 10 days after it should have.
There are the inevitable Reformerisms: "bond principle" for example. But at least the basic facts are covered.
The DeGray amendment is given quick treatment.
I'm still reluctant to make comment on my concerns about it, as I hate to do the can of worms thing.