BRISTOL — An attempt to introduce a compromise ahead of an anticipated budget showdown exposed the serious rift that has developed among members of the Newfound Area School Board amidst expressions of deep taxpayer dissatisfaction.
Board Chair Jeff Levesque of Groton characterized the three-option suggestion, aimed at returning decisions on large capital expenditures to the voters, as a “temper tantrum” on the part of Vincent Paul Migliore of Bridgewater.
Sharon Klapyk of Danbury joined the criticism, saying, “I’m calling your tantrum a lack of professional ethics.”
Both called Migliore out for changing his position on a board policy which states that, once the board has made a decision, each member must stand behind that decision, regardless of his personal views.
Migliore said the reason he changed his mind was the way things had played out this year after former school administrator Archie Auger of Bristol questioned the inclusion of money for a one-time expenditure in the following year’s default budget.
The school board had exploited a provision of RSA 40:13 that allows the board to define what constitutes a “one-time expenditure” to say Auger’s $800,000 amendment the previous year to provide money for the repair the high school roof — a project identified in the district’s capital improvement plan — was not a stand-alone project but part of ongoing maintenance, allowing the board to place capital projects in the default budget in subsequent years.
Auger said he had made it clear that his budget amendment to override the district’s tax cap was intended as a one-time expenditure to address a critical need, and he pointed out that the school district did not adopt the capital improvement plan until after that school district meeting. There had been no public hearing on the CIP, so voters had not had the chance to weigh in, he said.
Auger did not notice that the administration had included $712,300 for capital improvements in this year’s default budget until after the deliberative session, and asked the school board to reconsider its action before it went to a ballot vote.
Migliore supported holding a special school board meeting to address Auger’s concerns, but Levesque said the matter could wait until the next regular meeting.
When they subsequently cast their ballots, voters defeated the proposed budget, which put the disputed default budget into effect.
It would not be until several meetings later that Levesque put the discussion about the default budget on the agenda, and by then residents of the member towns were angry, saying the board had made them distrustful and that if they did not reconsider, it would have consequences when it came time to vote on the next year’s budget. They also threatened legal action because of the precedent the board’s action was setting.
Capital Improvement Project plans are established as guidelines to address needs over a period of years in such a way that it will not cause spikes in the tax rate. Yet, traditionally, during the budget process, those priorities may shift to take into account changing circumstances, and not all items on the plan are funded. By making the capital expenditures part of the default budget, it is the school board, and not the voters, who are deciding what gets funded.
Migliore pressed Levesque to call for a special school district meeting to address the budget dispute as a way of heading off a potential lawsuit. The Official Ballot Act gives SB2 communities that option as an alternative to imposing a default budget, but Levesque refused to do that. Other school board members also doubled down, saying the school district attorney said they were within the law to put the capital items in the default budget.
With a special meeting out of the question, Migliore attempted to introduce a policy change that would set a threshold for capital expenditures: Capital projects exceeding a certain amount would be placed on the warrant for voters to decide. Levesque finally allowed Migliore to make a formal request of the board at the Oct. 9 meeting, then labeled the presentation a “temper tantrum.”
The Options
Migliore, who previously objected to attempts to “get around” the tax cap, suggested doing just that with his first option. Using a chart, he explained that the school board could build a budget within the tax cap that did not include capital expenditures of $25,000 or more. By not including those large expenditures in their budget proposal, the board would be able to address more of the academic needs of the school district, he said, and not risk having voters reject it and end up with a default budget that, because of recent changes in the law, is likely to be significantly less.
To address the pressing capital needs identified in the capital improvement plan, Migliore proposed that board members as individual taxpayers could propose amendments on the floor of the deliberative session — just as Auger had for the high school roof — to increase the budget beyond the tax cap. As a board, they are prohibited from proposing spending beyond the cap, but as members of the public, they can ask for an override.
That proposal, Migliore said, would allow them to seek the funding they need while also returning to the voters the decision on how much to spend.
As another option for the board to consider, Migliore asked that the policy committee review his proposal a new board policy: “Any and all expenditures deemed in any way to be an expenditure of capital for the planned maintenance, improvement, one-time expense, or for an otherwise newly established purpose in the Newfound Area School District in excess of $24,999.00 shall be presented in a formal warrant article for consideration of, and a vote by those registered voters attending its next Deliberative Session to be placed on the Official Ballot.”
Migliore said that, because of the long delay in allowing him to make that proposal, there was little time for the committee to review and adopt the policy. He therefore had a third option for a parallel track while the policy committee did its review: He would be submitting a petitioned warrant article to do the same thing.
That remark prompted Levesque and Klapyk to challenge Migliore’s ethics.
“If you don’t agree with it, you don’t have to vote that way,” Migliore responded. “I’m proposing a solution that I think the school board should consider.”
“It sounds to me as if you’ve given up any pretense of working with the board,” Levesque said.
“I brought it to your attention in March that we could fix the default budget situation, and you chose not to. The gamble you made was lost,” Migliore said.
“So you’re saying this was my fault?” Levesque responded.
Christine Davol of New Hampton, chair of the policy committee, said she would take the policy to the committee for review.
Sue Cheney of Alexandria, also serving on the policy committee, said her fear is that, because they are under a tax-cap budget, the capital items would get defeated.
Klapyk pointed out that the school district’s history has shown that voters will not support building projects in the outlying towns. By putting in separate warrant articles that allow the voters to decide what gets funded, towns like Danbury would likely fail to get projects funded.
A separate discussion supported her claim. The school board is preparing to negotiate a renewal of the lease agreement with the Bridgewater-Hebron School. Those two towns had formed a separate village district to build a new school after district voters had repeatedly turned down building projects aimed at addressing crowded classrooms. The village district built and maintains its own school, in Bridgewater, and leases the space to the Newfound Area School District for $1 per year.
Despite all of the rancor expressed earlier, when it came time to make decisions, the school board unanimously approved a motion to send Migliore’s policy proposal to the committee for review.
