Look For the 2012 Hamilton-Wenham Free Press

The 2012 Hamilton-Wenham Free Press will be delivered shortly to all residences in both towns. The Free Press is a complimentary newspaper provided by Citizens For Fiscal Responsibility, aka Enough Is Enough.  The paper includes timely information regarding upcoming issues for the Annual Town Meetings, political commentary, local community projects, property tax charts and data for the North Shore and more.  There's even a tasty chili recipe!

This year the paper has expanded from eight pages to twelve as more and more citizens have written articles of interest about the goings on and important issues in our towns.

Contributors this year include:

Terrill Jennings, Julianna Kallas, William Dery, Edwin Howard, Jack Lawrence, Kerry Mackin, Bruce Wadleigh, Robert Sica, Leigh Keyser, James Kent, Betty Gray, Lee Fremont, David Thompson, Joseph Palermino, Bob Gray, Rick Mitchell, Jay Burnham and Ron Powell.

Be sure to look for this year's Free Press in your mailbox and read what your friends and neighbors and thoughtful citizens have to say about the two great towns we are so very fortunate to live in.

Enjoy!

School Audits Demand Immediate Attention & Action

This week, the Boston Globe ran an article in the NORTH section about how $1.6 million in the Hamilton-Wenham Regional School District (HWRSD) financial accounts was "found" by a newly hired financial accounting firm.

The findings came as little or no surprise to many town officials, taxpayers, parents and especially to Enough Is Enough (EiE), the fiscal watchdog group that was formed three years ago in Hamilton and Wenham to stave off the school district's process of "budgeting by overrides" which resulted in burdening residents of Hamilton and Wenham with two of the highest property tax rates on the North Shore.

According to the article this was the third time in the past year that the HWRSD was found to have significantly more money that had been indicated.

One of the other two cases involved funding that the HWRSD allegedly needed in order to pay for a new boiler for the Cutler School.  Faced with the urgency and need as expressed by the School Committee (SC) that no funds were available, voters, along with support from EiE, overwhelming approved bonding at both Town Meetings to help pay for the project.  Now we are told that the funding was unnecessary and that the district paid $794,000 for the heating system out of existing funds.  The question now is whether the SC will continue to seek the bond approved by the voters FOR THE BOILER and attempt to divert those funds to other projects…such as work on the High School auditorium…a project that was previously rejected by the voters.

According to the Globe article, SC chairman Alexa McGloughan praised the work of the new financial accounting firm, stating "I think we have finally cracked the code on how to demystify school accounting" and that she felt that new accounting practices would lead to better efficiency.

Enough Is Enough has responded by saying it wishes that Ms. McGloughan felt the same way about the thorough and lengthy (400 pages) and complete OPERATIONAL AUDIT REPORT that was completed last year after having been overwhelmingly approved by voters in both towns.  That report clearly supported a previous report (The Blue Ribbon Report) that found that the HWRSD costs nearly $2 million more per year than comparable school districts.

The difference with the OPERATIONAL AUDIT is that it clearly paved the way for correction of the school cost discrepancies with specific recommendations.  Unfortunately, the SC and district have failed to implement the audit's numerous COST-SAVING recommendations and initiatives, choosing instead to implement the few COST ENHANCING initiatives from the report.

This failure to improve the efficiency of our school district, after being handed a $90k Operational Audit roadmap, is unacceptable.  Combine that unwillingness to act on the Operational Audit with the recent financial audit which uncovered $1.6 million, and according to EiE, "that suggests better efficiency is not, as suggested within the article, a primary concern of the School Committee".

"You're going to create a better budget going forward if you know where you're coming from," McGloughan stated.

I believe that should be a naturally true statement and hope that the SC will not continue to ignore the cost reducing recommendations of the Operational Audit when preparing their budget.  It's been more than a year since the Operational Audit was unveiled.  It's time to implement many of the recommendations that until now have been ignored... ignored similarly to the financial accounting that  recently uncovered the $1.6 million.

QUESTION: Does anyone else wonder much we paid to have the new accounting firm straighten out the books and in so doing find the $1.6 million?  Talk around town is that the firm spent more than 200 hours on the project.

This Is the Truth...These Are The Facts.

To borrow a quote from my friend Barbara Anderson...

"There are two kinds of people, from various perspectives, reading this column: 1. People who want to know the truth; and 2. People who would rather not know until it's too late."

This week's blog article explores the belief that the Hamilton-Wenham Regional School Committee is a liability to our towns, our residents AND our schools. Their budgeting ineptitude, autonomy and arrogance for at least the last 10 years has resulted in a property tax rate that is one of the highest on the North Shore and a school district reputation that is in steep decline.

Follow along for a minute to see how the School Committee's many poor decisions have resulted in the unfortunate position we now find ourselves in.  Here are the facts:

School override after school override (aka: "overandoverrides"). Since 2001 the school district has demanded nine Proposition 2.5 overrides. Eight have been granted. The cumulative cost to the taxpayers for those eight overrides = $43,970,000.  "Budgeting by Override" never was a sound accounting process and was most certainly unsustainable.

Loss of property values. The overrides have resulted in Hamilton and Wenham having two of the highest property tax rates on the North Shore. This means that many home buyers are circumventing Hamilton and Wenham in favor or surrounding communities, many with equally good schools. The end result is a significant loss of value in your home and your equity.

Highest per pupil cost.  Two independent reports have concluded that residents in Hamilton and Wenham pay about $2,000 more per pupil in our school district than in peer school districts.

Blue Ribbon Report on school district costs. The Blue Ribbon report, and a subsequent update to the report, indicated that our school district costs residents $2 - $4 million more per year than comparable school districts in Massachusetts.

School Superintendent departure. In a move some have called "fleeing from a sinking ship", former School Superintendent Marinel McGrath resigned and took a position in Andover, MA. Her assistant superintendent and business manager, Paul Sysmanski, also departed... moving first to Billerica and then over to Andover to join with McGrath again.

New School Superintendent. In a rush to replace McGrath, despite calls to slow down and seek an interim superintendent, the School Committee unanimously approved the hiring of Dr. Raleigh Buchanan and granted him a three-year contract at a significantly higher salary than that of his previous position as Superintendent in Haverhill.  Residents were told that we needed to offer a high salary in order to attract the best candidates.

School Operational Audit. Hamilton and Wenham voters overwhelmingly supported funding an Operational Audit of the School District to determine what was wrong and where efficiencies could be found. The audit report suggests that savings of up to $15 million over 5 years are possible and offers 125 financial recommendations. The School Committee has all but ignored the cost-saving recommendations and has focused solely on implementing the cost-enhancing recommendations. The School Committee has resolutely claimed the audit is "flawed"...EXCEPT when it supports their agenda of additional spending.

2012 School Budget Season. The School committee's WORKING FINANCE GROUP, after determination that the 2011 district budget was OVER-FUNDED by more than $1 million, recommended a so-called "give back" to the towns of $350k.

The School Committee refusal. The School Committee ignored their own WORKING FINANCE COMMITTEE'S recommendation and voted to give nothing back to the towns... Nothing.  Zip.  How's that for "compromise"?

The School Committee violates the Open Meeting Law. The School Committee was forced to admit they violated the State's Open Meeting Law on numerous occasions during the budget season, despite, as their attorney stated, all members having been trained in procedures and processes of the law.

Towns boards seek return of unspent funds. Town officials (ALL members of both Boards of Selectmen and Finance and Advisory Committees of BOTH towns) requested the School District return $500k in unspent taxpayer funds (half).  They cited additional approved state funding of $120k and a Latin teacher salary ($77k) with no Latin teacher. Recognizing that the district was OVER-FUNDED by more than $1 million in 2011, the Selectmen and FinCom members felt that requesting only the return of $500k represented an extremely fair compromise proposal.

The School Committee's refuses. Again...No willingness whatsoever to compromise.

School budget rejected by voters. Voters at the Hamilton Annual Town Meeting approved the motion to give back $500k to the taxpayers and rejected the School Committee's budget, requiring the School Committee to certify a new budget and resubmit it for consideration.

School Superintendent reviews delayed. For various reasons, the yearly reviews of the Superintendent of Schools were delayed repeatedly until AFTER both Town Meetings were over.  Once they were released, it became abundantly clear that the School Committee had been on a collision course with Dr. Buchanan.

Another School Superintendent departs. Less than one year into his three year contract Dr. Buchanan abruptly resigned claiming "irreconcilable differences" with the School Committee, the result of scathing reviews by most members of that committee...the same committee that unanimously and emotionally approved his hiring one year ago. (Cost to the district to buy out his contract: $115,000.00)

Middle/High School Principal moves on. Matt Fox accepts a job as Middle School Principal in Marblehead.

Another School Principal looks to move on.  Winthrop School principal Carrie Vaich sought a new position and was named a finalist in Newburyport and at the Rollinsford Grade School in NH.  After Newburyport chose the other candidate, she chose to remain in Hamilton.

School Committee incumbents are voted out of office. All three open positions on the School Committee are won by new candidates...sending a clear message, one would think.

A School District in trouble.  We now have no Middle School principal, no High School principal and no full time Superintendent (Peter Gray, thankfully, is serving as acting superintendent...for the time being.)

School Budget "re-certification". As a result of the Hamilton Town Meeting vote, the School Committee certified a new budget, this time with only a $300k "give back" instead of the $500k approved by the voters and recommended by town officials.  The SC has referred to this amount as a "compromise proposal"...suggesting that the STARTING POINT was $500k, instead of $1 million, which is the ACTUAL OVER-FUNDED AMOUNT.  This means Hamilton will have to hold a Special Town Meeting later this month and incur the additional COSTS, INCONVENIENCE and ANGER of the residents.

This last decision was perhaps the most unfortunate and misguided act yet by the HWRSD School Committee. A significant opportunity was lost by the blindness of all but two committee members (newly elected members, I would point out).  Had they not been so blind, they surely would have understood that most of the divisiveness, the mistrust, and the angst of the residents of Hamilton and Wenham could have been eliminated had they simply agreed to what the majority of COMBINED VOTERS OF BOTH TOWNS expressed at the two May Town Meetings: Give us back just HALF of our unspent tax funds.  Half...that's all we're asking for.

The truth... there it is.  The facts...there they are.

As Barbara's quote at the beginning of this article stated, it may be too late for those of you who do not want to know the truth.

But I sincerely hope it's not.

Please plan to attend the Special Town Meeting on June 27th at the Winthrop School at 7:00 PM and let your voices, and your votes, be heard again. 

Vote NO to the proposed school budget at the Special Town Meeting.

Thank you.

4 Reasons Why The School Committee's "Compromise Solution" is NOT

I thought about titling this blog: "Hello?...Wake Up!"  I may still.  Or perhaps I'll just insert the wake up notices wherever I feel they are appropriate.

But I digress...the main issue of this blog concerns the results of the Hamilton-Wenham Regional School Committee's (SC) meeting of June 9.  It was at that meeting that the SC voted to "re-certify" the school district budget as a result of voter opposition to their original budget at the Hamilton Annual Town Meeting in May.

You may recall that the 2011 school district budget was OVER-FUNDED by more than $1 million and as a result, by unanimous consent of both Hamilton and Wenham's Boards of Selectmen and Finance Committees, the 2012 school budget approved at the Hamilton Town Meeting required a "give back" (or reduction from the towns) of $500k from the district, or just half of the unspent funds.  Sounds like a fair and reasonable compromise, right?

Unfortunately, the School Committee has now (once again) chosen to defy our town officials and the taxpayers by choosing to certify a new budget with only a $300k give back.

They are calling it a "compromise solution".  Here are just 4 things to consider regarding the SC's so-called "compromise solution":

1.  This spring, the SC's Working Finance Group voted to give back $350k to the taxpayers for OVER-FUNDING the 2011 school budget.  The lone dissenting vote on that committee came from SC member Richard Boroff who was subsequently trounced at the polls in a re-election bid.  (Hello?...Wake up!)  The Finance Working Group's recommendation was ignored by the full School Committee who chose instead to keep the $350k...without any kind of compromise.

2.  Both Hamilton and Wenham's Boards of Selectmen and Finance Committees originally voted to accept the $350k figure recommended by the Finance Working Group until it was discovered that the state would be providing an additional $120,000 in funding AND it was discovered that the 2012 school budget included, among other things, a salary for a non-existent Latin teacher (approximately $77,000).  At that point, all the same town officials then voted to increase the amount of the give back to $500k, again unanimously.  (Hello?...Wake Up!)

3.  The School Committee had the opportunity to end this entire issue had they agreed to give back half of the taxpayers' unspent funds.  If they had agreed to the $500k, we would be done.  It would be over.  No more Special Town Meetings.  No more arguments and fighting over what rightfully BELONGS to the taxpayers.  But instead, the SC has once again arrogantly chosen to go to battle and burden the residents of our towns with more expense, inconvenience and angst.  (Hello?...Wake Up!)

4.  Lastly, $300k is simply NOT a "compromise solution".  The SC may like the sound of that, but it's a misnomer.  You see, when it was shown that the school district had been OVER-FUNDED by $1 million in fiscal year 2011 and the Towns asked for just half of that amount to be returned...THAT was a compromise solution.

The $300k figure agreed to by the SC this week "compromises" the actual compromise solution, which is simply to give back half of what was overcharged to the taxpayers.  (Hello?...Wake Up!)

$500k is the compromise solution.  Even a third grade math student could figure that one out.

******************

UPDATE: 6/14/11: The following is an excerpt from a white paper provided by the Hamilton Board of Selectmen and the Finance Committee days before Hamilton's Annual Town Meeting in May.  It seems appropriate to revisit the statement as we head into another Town Meeting, faced with the same issue:

"At the risk of oversimplifying, the entire question of which approach to support could be boiled down to one question: do voters/taxpayers want to put money into the District's E&D fund for either potential problems in FY12 or for expenses in FY13, or do voters/taxpayers want to keep the money in their own pockets and fund the District as needed based on the merits of those needs as they arise?  The FinComs and BoS of both towns believe that voters/taxpayers would prefer the latter."

*******************

I want to personally offer thanks and kudos to SC vice-chairman Roger Kubel and new SC member Bill Dery for eloquently expressing what I have attempted to communicate above and for trying to make the other members of the SC understand what the real, and fair, compromise solution is.  It appears however that the remaining incumbent members learned little from the Hamilton Town Meeting's voter's wishes regarding the original budget OR the election results on their own board.  (Hello?...Wake Up!)

Loss of Confidence is Claim for School Superintendent Dismissal in Hamilton/Wenham

Heads were spinning and reality seemed off balance this past week in Hamilton and Wenham when the School Committee abruptly announced that the employment of School Superintendent Dr. Raleigh Buchanan was being terminated...less than one year into a three-year contract.

The principal reason?...Loss of Confidence.

LOSS OF CONFIDENCE is a term often used as grounds for termination of an employee.  Loss of confidence arising from fraud or willful breach of trust by an employee is generally seen as a just cause for termination.

Ordinary breach should not suffice.  It should be willful and without justifiable excuse and should be supported by substantial evidence, not merely by the whims or caprice of the employer.

For her part, School Committee member Dacia Rubel took great pains to justify her long and disparaging performance review of Dr. Buchanan.  Her review was 10 times longer than any other board member's review of the Superintendent.  As someone with a law degree (not currently practicing), Ms. Rubel surely knew the term "loss of confidence" and how to use it in order to justify her desire to see Dr. Buchanan removed from his position as School Superintendent.

I counted the term "loss of confidence" no less than eleven times in her evaluation survey.  Considering her harsh analysis of Dr. Buchanan's performance, once would have sufficed.

But wait.  There are other legal terms that may bear consideration in this instance, such as:

"Wrongful Termination" or "Wrongful Discharge" and most notably "Constructive Dismissal".

Definition: CONSTRUCTIVE DISMISSAL: forcing of resignation of employee: action taken by an employer intended to make continuing in a job intolerable for an unwanted employee, thus forcing the employee to resign.

All we heard after the Executive Session last Thursday night right was a statement issued by the School Committee's attorney, Naomi Stonberg:

"Parties have had a frank conversation about the employment relationship between the Hamilton/Wenham Regional School District and Superintendent Raleigh Buchanan.  They have agreed that their mutual interests will be best served by bringing the relationship to a conclusion.  There will be no further comments until a final agreement has been reached."

Despite stating "there will be no further comments...", the School Committee issued a statement on Monday ostensibly to clarify the reasoning for that Executive Session meeting.  They claimed that it was Dr. Buchanan who requested the meeting and that his performance reviews were not discussed.  Surely they would not have us believe that the reviews had nothing to do with Dr. Buchanan's asking to meet in Executive Session.  It would be naive to suggest such a thing.

Obviously the meeting was called by Dr. Buchanan as a direct result of the negative performance reviews of most of the School Committee members, in particular Ms. Rubel's - she is clearly the leading spokesperson - and  I would suggest that Dr. Buchanan may have felt no choice but to "resign" for reasons imposed by the School Committee.

And that sounds a lot like "Constructive Dismissal".

We'll know more soon, but in the interim there are lots of comments on The Patch and an editorial in the Salem News [click here] for you to review.

When Is An Override NOT An Override?

Several readers of this blog have asked me to print the statement which I had the honor to deliver on behalf of Enough Is Enough at the Hamilton Town Meeting, in support of an amendment to the School Committee's proposed budget.  Here it is:

**********************

Good Morning fellow residents…I come before you today to speak on behalf of Enough Is Enough.

We support the proposed amendment before you.

QUESTION:...When is an override NOT an override? We suggest it’s when a budget includes funds that are not needed. This year the School committee is demanding $500k MORE than our Finance Committee and our Board of Selectmen and our Town Manager unanimously agree the school’s need.

If you think about it, bloating the school budget by $½ million is quite clever. You see, the last time the School Committee asked for an override, it was denied by the voters. And despite claims to the contrary, the sky did not fall in. That last attempt at an unneeded override was for $1.2 million. I say “unneeded” because the schools got along just fine without it. In fact… even without that $1.2 million, services remained in place, teachers were not laid off…AND this past year the district ended up with a SURPLUS of over $1 million. A SURPLUS!

Today, rather than risk being denied another override by already overburdened taxpayers, the School Committee has simply added unneeded funding into their budget. Don’t be fooled by this ploy. It’s tantamount to an override… but disguised as a budget. At least a real override is for a specific purpose. This unneeded $500k is for things that “may” or “could” or “might” happen…....possibly.

All we have heard over the past few weeks from the School Committee and their budget supporters has been non-specific rhetoric, such as:

QUOTE: “We can’t rule out POSSIBLE service cuts and teacher cuts.”

QUOTE: “It’s POSSIBLE that the E&D account may not be large enough to cover UNEXPECTED expenses.”

(B/T/W…one veteran member of the SC has stated that the E & D balance would be one of the highest amounts he has seen in 19 years on the committee.)

QUOTE: “Anytime you take money away you put things AT RISK.”

QUOTE: “We COULD be faced with revenue shortfalls”

QUOTE: And this is my personal favorite: “It’s difficult to IMAGINE what services might be cut.” YES, it is. It surely is.

That’s a whole lot of innuendo… a lot of “could’s” and “might’s” and “maybe’s” and “possibly’s”. On the other hand, here are some FACTS we would like you to consider:

FACT: The Blue Ribbon Committee (remember them?) came to the conclusion that our school district outspends comparable school districts by between $2 and $4 million a year. As did the Department of Education.

FACT: An expert and detailed independent Operational Audit came to the same conclusion in a four hundred page report.

FACT: The district administration’s original budget, supported by a majority of the members of the School Committee's Working Finance Sub-Committee, was for $350,000 LESS than what the School Committee is demanding from you today.

FACT: Since that time we now know that an additional $120,000 in state funds will be available to the schools.

FACT: The School Committee’s budget ALSO includes salary compensation ($77,000) for a Latin teacher…but there is NO Latin teacher.

I could go on, but in the interest of time and in conclusion, we ask you to consider the following 3 things as you prepare to vote on this important issue:

1. Since 2001, our towns have funded 8 school overrides that have cost the taxpayers $43,947,000 over that 10 year period.

2. With over $1 million in EXCESS funding left over from LAST year, it is fair and appropriate to ask the school district to return a portion of those unspent funds to the taxpayers. This year the Town of Hamilton mistakenly over-charged the taxpayers $275,000. The Selectmen, with the support of the Fincom, did the right thing and immediately voted to return it to you, not keep it in a reserve fund as the schools are demanding. The school district owes you the same courtesy and respect your Selectmen provided you when they “gave back” your money. And although the chairman of the School Committee has publicly referred to the $500,000 as (quote) “our money”, it is NOT their money…it’s yours.

If UNEXPECTED costs are incurred, we suggest the district use the other $500,000 in unspent fiscal year 2011 funds… and if need be, include the $77,000 salary of the non-existent LATIN TEACHER.

3. Lastly, it’s no secret that Hamilton’s property tax rate is one of the highest in Massachusetts, the direct result of unchecked and spiraling school spending. As a Realtor, I can assure you that such a high property tax rate diminishes your home’s market value and your equity…as well as your ability to sell should you need to. If you want to reverse this trend, you need to vote to approve the amendment before you.

Please join me and EiE’s members and supporters… along with ALL the Selectmen and Finance Committee members and our Town Manager… and cast your vote to APPROVE this amendment.

It is right… and it is fair… and it DOES NOT and WILL not result in diminished educational services for our children.

Don’t approve another unnecessary override… cleverly hidden inside the School Committee’s proposed budget.

Please vote YES... in favor of this amendment.

Thank you.

*******************************

The motion passed 181 to 128.  Congratulations to those who supported the Town budget, as amended.

UPDATE: Posted 5/22/2011: By now you have likely heard that the School Committee has abruptly TERMINATED the employment of Superintendent Dr. Raleigh Buchanan.  It makes you wonder about the "unexpected" expenses they touted at Town Meetings earlier this month in support of keeping the over-funded $500k of unspent taxpayer's money.  Also, does anyone else sense that they deliberately waited until AFTER Town Meetings were over to announce their reveiw of Dr. Buchanan...which in turn led to this unfortunate event?

Update: Things You Need To Know About The School Committee

Recently I posted an article on this blog titled: THERE'S A NEW GROUP IN HAMILTON & WENHAM (Enough Is NEVER Enough)

At the end of that posting, I added:

Question: If 8 out of 9 School Committee members were present at this meeting, shouldn't it have been posted as something other that a Finance Working Group meeting?  Smells a little like a violation of the Open Meeting Laws.  Anyone care to comment?

Fortunately, at least one resident did care and he looked into the issue and properly filed a complaint.  The attorney for the Hamilton-Wenham Regional School Committee researched the claim and had this to say:

"The School District recognizes that it violated the Open Meeting Law because a quorum of the full School Committee attended and deliberated at the Finance Working Group subcommittee meetings and a meeting of the School Committee was not posted in accordance with M.G.L Chapter 30A, Section 20."

As it turns out, the School Committee received training on the Open Meeting Law in July, 2010.  Their willingness to simply ignore the law and hold unposted School Committee meetings in which the new (contested) budget was discussed and deliberated and straw votes were taken is unexcusable as well as unlawful and shows that the lack of transparency within the School Committee is alive and well.  If not for this single citizen's complaint, the unlawful behavior would surely have continued.  If you wondered why the recent SC meeting, in which the new school budget was voted, appeared so well rehearsed and pre-determined... well, now you know.  The vote was rehearsed and pre-determined...unlawfully!

Read more about School Committee issues at The Hamilton-Wenham Patch.
Read more about School Committee issues at The Boston Globe, North Section.
Read more about the School Committee issues at The Hamilton-Wenham Chronicle.

Most of you will recall that the topic of TRUST was mentioned by several speakers at last year's Town Meetings in Hamilton and Wenham and it was reported in the Salem News by the late Steve Landwehr.  We were assured by the School Committee that trust would be restored and transparency created.

Obviously, that is simply not the case.  The only way to begin to break the arrogant behavior of this committee and restore trust is to vote out all incumbents running for re-election to the School Committee.  That will be a good start.  A beginning.

Here are a few other things to consider before you cast your vote:

• $300,000 was "found" in the HWRSD kindergarten account.
• $70,000 was "found" in the school choice account.
• $121,000 was "found" in the Medicaid account.
• $110,000 was "given back" to the teachers after they had agreed to one day without pay as part of their salary negotiations.
• $350,000 budgeted for unemployment was never needed or used.
• An extra $120,000 is available through Chapter 70 that was not included in the new school budget.
• There is a salary for a Latin teacher included in the new budget...but there is NO Latin teacher.

The Selectmen and Fincoms of both Hamilton and Wenham have voted to approve the School budget LESS $500,000.  Even with that, the new budget is $1 million MORE than what was spent last year.  That's not what I call "level funded", as the SC claims.

TRUST is earned... not demanded.  Vote wisely.


Update 5/6/2011: At this week's scheduled public meeting, the Chairman of the School Committee read a letter written by their attorney admitting that they had violated the Open Meeting Law on numerous occasions.  Shamefully, NO APOLOGY was proferred.  The chairman stated that "in the context of the new Open Meeting Law" what they did was a violation.  Actually, in the context of the old Open Meeting Law what they did was a violation as well, so let's not blame it on changes to the Open Meeting Law.

There's A New Group In Hamilton & Wenham

You've all heard of the citizen taxpayer watchdog group known as Enough Is Enough (EiE) right?

They're the ones that successfully ended the previous addiction to school overrides in Hamilton and Wenham and also drew overwhelming support from voters in both towns for an Operational Audit of the school district that is still being debated and considered by the School Committee (SC) and the towns.

Well, it appears there is a new group in town, known as Enough Is NEVER Enough (EiNE).

Who are these people?  You know them as the Hamilton-Wenham School Committee and their actions this past week and at last night's school budget vote is nothing less than appalling.

To his credit, school committee member Don Gallant, one of the three members on the Finance Working Group, had this to say at the opening of the discussion on whether or not to vote for a level funded school budget, less $350,000:

Gallant: "The Finance Working Group had another meeting on Monday...this past Monday night...in which 8 of the 9 school committee members were there. (*See note below) By a 2 to 1 vote...Ann (Minois) and myself in favor, and Richard (Boroff) not in favor...we passed this budget as our recommended budget to the full school committee.  This budget includes the (so-called) $350,000 give back to the towns.  For a variety of reasons we did tax too much for this current year."

He went on to say: "In my 19 years (on the SC) this is one of the highest amounts of money left in the Excess & Deficiency account."

The lone NO vote on the the Finance Working Group, Richard Boroff, had this to say:

Boroff: "I don't see any reason to give it back.  If it's a give back, it would be a give back for a political reason only and it does not make sound educational sense to me.  I've been around long enough to see the district get screwed when it tried to help out the towns do something and I'm not willing to put that foot forward."

How about putting that same foot in your mouth, Mr. Boroff?  Can you believe this guy?  He must be vying to serve as president of the new Enough Is NEVER Enough group.  But wait, there's more:

Boroff: "In all those 8 years (that I have been on the SC), the school district has taken a hit.  Every single one, except for one year.  On the other hand, the towns have funded or increased their funding and refused funding to us at times.  And one time it was a minuscule override...it was about $250k or $260k override which failed on the first go round, and we refused to accept that and went for the same thing.  It was an insult.  A very big insult."

A very big insult?  Really?  Then consider this...

It's insulting to suggest that any override is "minuscule".  In the case of the override Mr. Boroff refers to, the year was 2006 and the amount was $203,000...that year.  In 2007 it was another $203,000.  And again in 2008, 2009, 2010... and again this year...and again without end, because overrides are added to the tax levy and go on FOREVER.  So that's $1,218,000 since the override was approved in 2006.  I don't think anyone but Mr. Boroff would call that a "minuscule" amount.

Now let's go back to the first Boroff quote above where he says, ever so politely:

Boroff: "I've been around long enough to see the district get screwed..."

Is that what you call eight Proposition 2.5 overrides for the district since 2001?  Overrides whose cumulative total, over the past 10 years, adds up to $43,947,000.00.  Overrides that cost the taxpayers nearly $7 million every year going forward?  And that's NOT including the 2.5% tacked on each year to that amount by the towns.  I think it's the taxpayers that got, in Mr. Boroff's words...."screwed".

But I digress.  Let's get back to the Enough Is NEVER Enough group.

At one point in the meeting John McWane, chairman of the Hamilton Finance Committee, got up and asked a few enlightening questions:

McWane: "It is my understanding that initially you had proposed a Latin teacher.  Is that still in the budget?"

Alexa McCloughan (SC chairman): "The funding for the Latin teacher is still in the budget.  It is doubtful that we will have Latin."

McWane: "So you don't have the teacher in, but you do have the money?"

Alexa: "Correct.  We have the money in."

McWane: "Which is a little odd to me.  It seems to me that if you take something out of the budget...if you take a position out..."

Alexa (interrupting): "It's in our instructional line."

McWane: "Right.  I'm just saying that typically when you take a position out, you also take the money out.  But I guess that's not your practice."

Alexa (nodding): "That's not the case."

And finally...perhaps the most obvious exchange of the night indicating the birth of Enough is NEVER Enough:

McWane: "We should be clear that your budget, in terms of what you spend for the schools would not change under either scenario (with or without the give back).  Is that correct?"

Alexa: "Correct."

McWane: "And it's up a million dollars over last year...over the current year"

Alexa: "Uh huh."

WcWane: "Okay.  So what we're really discussing is the $350k and the question is: Should it go to your E&D...or should it go to the taxpayers' pockets.  Is that correct?"

Alexa: "Yes."

WcWane: "Okay.  I just want to make that clear."

So there you have it folks.  Please join me in welcoming the new group: Enough Is NEVER Enough.

...but remind them at Town Meeting and the polls that in Hamilton and Wenham, Enough IS Enough.

******************
*Question: If 8 out of 9 school committee members were present at this meeting, shouldn't it have been posted as something other that a Finance Working Group meeting?  Smells a little like a violation of the Open Meeting Laws.  Anyone care to comment?

Update 5/6/2011: click here to read what happened.

"We don't know where the money is."

So stated Hamilton Selectman Jennifer Scuteri during a meeting of the HWRSD Operational Audit Committee on February 9th.  Her answer was in response to a question posed by resident George LaMontagne about a section of the audit report that said that only about $200,000 out of yearly budget of approximately $600,000 for maintenance was actually spent on maintenance...for years.  Mr. LaMontagne simply wanted to know what happened to the remaining $400,000 per year.

This does not seem to be an unreasonable request considering that over a period of years we are talking about more than $1 million.

Here are some other comments from that meeting regarding the question of the unaccountable funds from the maintenance budget:

Molly Martins (Wenham Selectman): "It may be that the information does not exist in a format that's discernible."

Jennifer Scuteri: "I think everybody is just acknowledging that at best we know that $200k was spent.  Um, there's no good record keeping.  We don't know where the rest of the money went.  And going forward, I think there's going to be more transparency."

Roger Kuebel (Wenham Finance Committee, to Mr. LaMontagne): "Are you concerned that there was fraud?"

George LaMontagne: "I can't answer that Roger.  We don't know."

Molly Martins: "The coulda, shoulda, would haves...and we know they weren't doing it well.  That became evident.  I think most people knew it, and it became documented in the report.  That confirmed what many people believed."

Jennifer Scuteri: "I feel a little bit like it's just an acknowledgment that there was bad accounting and we don't know where the money is...There's no way she (we) can track it...it's not by school.  It's not by what was done."


Does anyone else other than George LaMontagne want to know what happened to that missing (yearly) $300k to $400k?

While the new school administration has thus far proven to be open, caring, transparent and competent,  it would appear the question of the missing funds is something the audit committee would rather forget about and trust that it will not happen again.  After all, they imply, what good will it do to know where the money went?  We need to move forward, they suggest, and not dwell on the past.

To that, I say "BULL PUCKY".

Over the past 13 years, because of ten Proposition 2.5 overrides for the schools, the taxpayers in Hamilton and Wenham have cumulatively paid more than $40 million (in override costs only) to the HWRSD.  As most of you know, the overrides became part of the tax levy so taxpayers are burdened with those costs again and again, each and every year.  And now certain officials are hoping you will simply forget about a measly $1+ million or so and "look forward, not back."

You know, as in...

SWEEP IT UNDER THE RUG

The taxpayers of Hamilton and Wenham deserve more.  They authorized $90,000 for the operational audit.  They deserve an answer to Mr. LaMontagne's question.  Only then can Roger Kuebel's question be answered.  Only then can they be assured that it will not happen again.  Only then will those responsible for what appears to have been excessive and abusive spending, and deviations from accepted practices, be held accountable.  That's what the taxpayers expect and deserve.

Perhaps James Thurber said it best:

"Let us not look back in anger, nor forward in fear, but around in awareness."

QUESTION: What has 399 pages and...

124 recommendations?

ANSWER: The Operational Audit Report on the Hamilton/Wenham Regional School District (HWRSD).

You can read the entire report online at: http://www.hamiltonma.gov/Pages/finalreport.pdf

Additionally, there will be a joint meeting of the two towns on January 27th at the Bessie Buker Elementary School in Wenham in the Multi-Purpose Room at 7:00 PM for a presentation by Linda Recio, president of Evergreen Solutions, the firm that performed the operational audit.

Please take some time off from shovelling snow and review this report and come to the meeting with any questions you may have.

And come early...I expect attendance will be high.

Best regards,

Jay

How Do You Like It Now?

The fiscal watchdog group Enough Is Enough (EiE) in Hamilton and Wenham has released an amendment to their motion calling for an operational audit of the Hamilton/Wenham Regional School District (HWRSD)...to be presented to the voters in Wenham and Hamilton at their respective Town Meetings.

[click here to view the amendment]

When EiE's original citizen's petition warrant article was published, the HWRSD rushed to their attorney for an opinion of whether or not the article was allowable and enforceable. Their attorney's opinion was that it was NOT enforceable as it applied to the "requirement" that if audited, the school committee (SC) had to implement the recommendations of the audit firm. The HWRSD then announced that EiE's proposal was "illegal", a suggestion that represents spin at its worst. There is a distinct difference between "unenforceable" and "illegal". The suggestion that EiE was somehow attempting to "break the law" is clearly ridiculous.

Nonetheless, EiE then made attempts to reach common ground and compromise with the SC, but they received no response from that committee. So EiE forged ahead without a reply and have now made public their amended motion that addresses the issues raised by the HWRSD attorney (cause for his complaint has been eliminated), as well as other issues expressed by the SC.

The amended motion should put to rest all the concerns previously expressed by the SC...except for two: the funding for the operational audit and the SCOPE of the audit. Those issues have been fully discussed and justified here on this blog, other blogs and in the local newspapers so I see no point in beating that dead horse again.

Which brings to point one final question... Will the SC finally accept the will of the citizens and the reasonable and rational changes proposed by EiE's compromise amendment? Or will they simply find something else to object to and attempt to place additional roadblocks in the way of an initiative designed to make our schools more efficient and effective? Will they try to water it down and propose support only for a "mini" audit, or "audit-light" that will serve no other purpose than to waste additional taxpayer dollars on a restricted and SC controlled review of limited portions of the district school system and would inevitably result in failure to solve the district's problems at money management?

I guess we'll find out at Town Meeting.

Make a positive difference...

Attend Town Meeting and VOTE YES for the operational audit.

Wenham: May 1st at the Buker School

Hamilton: May 8th at the High School

The "Final Word"

Compliments of The Informed Hamilton Blog:

http://tinyurl.com/23tjkup

Seize the Day

School Superintendent States Support of Operational Audit

On Thursday, March 18, Hamilton Town Clerk Jane Wetson certified that a citizen's petition had the necessary 10% of the town's registered voter signatures, thereby qualifying it to be placed as an article on the warrant for the Annual Town Meetings...in both Hamilton and Wenham.

Because the petition calls for an amendment to the Regional School District Agreement, 10% of the registered voter's signatures, of EITHER town, was required. That number of signatures was 570 in Hamilton. As it turned out, the total number collected in Hamilton and Wenham exceeded 850.

By now, most know that the petition calls for an Operational Audit of the regional school district by an outside, unbiased, third-party company, to be determined by the Boards of Selectmen (BoS) of the two towns.

You can read more about the issue on this blog in articles below this one.

Here are a few new items regarding this initiative...

1. Some have asked why the amendment calls for the school district operating fund to pay for the audit. In fact, the current superintendent has indicated that she supports such an audit but that she feels the district should not pay for it. The answer is simple...the schools already do not pay for anything - the TAXPAYERS do. So whether the funding is in the school budget, or the town budget - you, the taxpayers of Hamilton and Wenham, pay the bill. So it does not matter which pocket it comes from, it's the same pair of pants.



2. School Committee member Don Gallant recently stated, "I find it difficult for a public entity to fund its own audit. My concern is if you had an operational audit and they came in with a, more or less, favorable report, it would look a little fishy because you were the one who paid for the report."
   
   But hold on a minute...
   
   Isn't that EXACTLY what the school district did when it paid nearly $45 thousand for a study and report by the New England Association of Schools and Colleges (NEASC)? The proposed amendment language of the citizen's petition eliminates Mr. Gallant's concern by granting the authority of who to hire to the Boards of Selectmen, not the school committee or administration.
   
   
3. The most often asked question is "How much is it going to cost?" That will depend upon what firm the selectmen choose to perform the operational audit. The tax watchdog group Enough Is Enough (EiE) has been in contact with one firm, MGT of America, that specializes in exactly this kind of audit and they have said the cost would likely be $75k to $95k for a complete and thorough examination, including specific recommendations for improvement and savings.
   
   You can view the company's website by [clicking here].
   
   School districts where MGT has performed audits have noted experiencing savings of from several times the cost of the audit to millions of dollars over the years, resulting from MGT recommendations that the schools implemented. Judging from the wide discrepancy of the costs of our school district compared to our "cohort" districts (estimated at $2 to $4 million more a year in Hamilton/Wenham) brought to light by the Blue Ribbon Committee (BRC) recently, it seems clear that an operational audit is overwhelmingly needed here.



4. Which brings me to my final point...There are those that would argue that the BRC has already shown us where we need to cut costs...that we need to simply look to the comparison schools to find the answers. Not according to Alexa McCloughan, vice-chairman of the School committee, who (Boston Globe North: 3/11/10) said that while the results of the study are interesting, jumping to the conclusion that Hamilton-Wenham could be remade in the image of another district would be an oversimplification and that closer observation of any community yields significant differences.

I agree with Ms. McCloughan. That is precisely why the HWRSD needs an operational audit of its own so its own values and philosophies, systems and processes, personnel and practices can be properly...and locally...evaluated and recommendations made to improve the delivery of services and save costs.

Even school superintendent McGrath admits supporting an operational audit.

Dr. McGrath publicly stated at the school committee meeting on 3/11/10:

"From the very first meeting, at every single
BRC meeting...Don (Gallant, SC member)

and I both said, 'Come on in! Come in

and do an operational audit.' I'm getting

rather tired of seeing it in print that

we are opposing an operational audit,

because that is NOT the case."

So there you have it. The school administration and the residents want the same thing - an operational audit that will improve our school district...for everyone. This should be cause not only for celebration but also for overwhelming support and passage of the request at both Town Meetings.

Vote YES for this amendment to the Regional School District Agreement at the Annual Town Meetings in May and let's get started.

Wenham's Annual Town Meeting is Saturday, May 1.

Hamilton's Annual Town Meeting is Saturday, May 8.

800+ Sign Petition in Support of Operational Audit

About a month ago I reported here that the grassroots tax group Enough Is Enough (EiE) was circulating a Citizen's Petition requesting an Operational Audit of the Hamilton/Wenham Regional School District (HWRSD). Within three weeks of that announcement the group had the required number of signatures to submit their request as an article for the Town Meeting warrants in both Hamilton and Wenham.

In fact, the total number of voter signatures required was 570 and the group gathered over 800...in just three weeks!

That's a testament not only to those that collected so many signatures in so little time, but also to the overwhelming support that this initiative has in both towns.

And why wouldn't it have that kind of support?

You will recall that two weeks after EiE began collecting signatures, the Blue Ribbon Committee (BRC) reported an update of data and information that spotlighted an alarming disparity between what we pay to the HWRSD and what similar/comparable school districts are costing. A Salem News article stated that our school district spends nearly $3.5 million dollars more than the comparable districts...without the benefit of higher educational test scoring from our students.

That knowledge is cause for grave concern and clearly supports and justifies the need for the operational audit. EiE has sought support for this study for more than a year and has tried repeatedly and unsuccessfully to obtain information from the school department in order to find out where and how funding is being directed and spent in our school district. The school department's steadfast reluctance to provide the requested information left EiE no other choice than to seek the requested amendment to the Regional School District Agreement requiring an operational audit.

Fortunately, there has never been a more opportune time to perform this kind of audit. Changes within the school administration could likely result in savings to fund such an audit. School districts contacted by EiE that performed operational audits have positive testimonials about recommendations that were provided by the auditors and spoke of savings of millions of dollars...many times the original cost of their audits. Savings have been found in areas never considered by the school committees and new "best practice" systems and processes have been implemented that have been proven highly effective.

This is an initiative that should be welcomed and embraced by all. It is not punishment. It is an acknowledgement that professional, trained, experienced, outside, third party experts are better able discern solutions to our problems than those that, despite their best intentions, have caused the cost of our kids' education to soar beyond reason...without the benefit of enhanced educational excellence.

In other words, higher costs have NOT been shown to equal better education.

The amendment request for the operational audit will be voted upon at each individual Town Meeting. Wenham's meeting is on Saturday, May 1st, and Hamilton's is the following Saturday, May 8th. Be sure to attend and vote YES.

This amendment gives the residents real authority and stronger accountability.

It's about time for that.

To view a copy of the Citizen's Petition:
[CLICK HERE]

Aspiring to Excellence in Our Schools

The Annual Town Meetings for Hamilton and Wenham are scheduled for May 8th and May 1st respectively. With a winter coat of white still on the ground and more in the forecast, it may seem as though May is a long way away.

Not really, when you consider the time and effort that goes into preparing articles for the warrant, the budgets from the various departments and, of course, the school district budget which is currently in it's preliminary stage. To spice things up, there is also a new teacher contract that is currently being negotiated.

And let's not forget any citizen's petitions that may be working their way onto the warrant for a vote at the Annual Town Meetings.

Which brings me to the topic of this blog...

The citizen's tax-watchdog group Enough Is Enough (EiE) has prepared and is currently obtaining signatures for a petition requesting an amendment to the the Regional School District Agreement. According to that agreement, any such change request must be signed by at least 10% of the registered voters in EITHER of the member towns (not both). At this time that means 571 registered voter signatures in Hamilton... or 270 in Wenham.

The petition is requesting an amendment to the district agreement that would allow for an operational audit to be conducted within 6 months of approval and within every 5 years following that initial audit.

This is an initiative that is long overdue. Here is a link to a recent Salem News report about how the HWRSD significantly outspends comparable school systems: [Click Here]


FEATURES and BENEFITS of an Operational Audit:

• An operational audit is not to be confused with a financial audit. An operational audit's purpose is to appraise the effectiveness and efficiency of an entire organization...in this case the Hamilton/Wenham Regional School District (HWRSD). The entire HWRSD operations would be analyzed, including appraisal of structure, controls, procedures and processes. Recommendations to improve performance and save costs would result from such an audit.
  
• An Operational Audit should provide at least three deliverables:
  

1. Value-driven recommendations that would enhance the HWRSD's efficiency and ability to achieve specific and long range objectives and cut costs.
   
2. A clear road map of how to manage the change process during the implementation of those recommendations.
   
3. The ability to recognize the need for change in the future, coupled with the ability to do it right the first time.

Some of you will recall that last September I posted a poll asking how many readers supported the concept of an operational audit of the HWRSD and I announced the results here.

89% of all respondents voted YES to such an audit and since that time even more residents have embraced the idea, including parents, teachers, town employees and even some selectmen. Even the Blue Ribbon Committee (BRC) recommended a somewhat limited operational audit (SPED only). And now, with updated information from select members of the BRC about to be made public, it is the right time to consider and vote on this amendment at Town Meeting.

Over the next few weeks you are likely to encounter volunteers asking for your support, and signature, to place this request on the town meeting warrants so that voters can decide collectively at town meeting whether to approve the audit...or not. You are welcome to place comments here on this blog if you wish.

Your signature on the citizen's petition is not a "yea" or "nay" vote on the initiative...It simply guarantees that the article will make it to Town Meeting where open discussion can take place and the outcome decided by the majority of registered voters present.

To view a copy of the requested amendment: [CLICK HERE]

IN OTHER NEWS...
Many leaders seem to be
abandoning the Hamilton/Wenham School District

School superintendent Marinel McGrath has accepted the job of superintendent of schools for Andover, MA.

Assistant superintendent Paul Syzmanski has accepted the position of school business manager in Billerica.

Philip Conrad, associate principal at Miles River Middle School and Hamilton-Wenham Regional High School is leaving to go to Rockport.


And there are currently only two candidates for the three positions available on the School Committee.

Can you say "Abandon Ship!"?

Also... The SOS group is promoting what they refer to as the "Fair Share" initiative for the schools, demanding that the towns give the schools a minimum of 2.5 % increase (plus .05% from new growth) every year.

One might argue that giving the schools more than $40 million in cumulative override funding over the past 11 years was a "Fair Share".

What would you call the increase in school funding of 9.8% two years ago, if not a "Fair Share"? (Maybe taxpayers should demand a refund?)

Wouldn't you call the average increase in school funding of 5.6% a year over the past 10 years a "Fair Share"?

For more details about this issue [click here]

How about a "Fair Shake" for taxpayers for a change?

Lastly, the Education Fund group recently sponsored a "feasability" study on rebuilding the auditorium at the high school. The architectural firm Dore & Whittier presented two options before a meeting of the School Committee.

Option #1: $6.7 million

Option #2: $8.8 million

I'm not sure, but I get the sense that neither option is particularly palatable to the taxpayers, or even the School Committee for that matter, during this fragile economic period. But thanks should be extended to the Ed Fund folks for paying for the study and for giving us something nice to dream about. Too bad we could not have purchased the North Shore Music Theatre, which was just sold on February 3rd for only $3.6 million. That probably would have been more "feasible", even if you threw in the cost of bussing students there for rehearsals.

FUZZY MATH at Hamilton/Wenham School Department

The following is a letter from Enough Is Enough to the taxpayer-residents of Hamilton and Wenham:

It’s been a year since Enough is Enough (EIE), a citizens group promoting fiscal responsibility, asked for an operational audit of our schools. Our thinking was that this was an idea that all sides could agree upon, a way to get an expert, independent, outside look at how we could improve school operational efficiencies. We were dismayed when the idea was repeatedly ignored, confused and ultimately rejected by the school committee, the “Blue Ribbon Committee,” and even selectmen who claim they have no authority to ask the schools to entertain such an audit.

Last spring, EIE awakened citizens and defeated a capital debt exclusion override at Hamilton town meeting. The school district had been ignoring long-standing maintenance issues with our school buildings (a requirement under the two towns’ regional school agreement). A few school committee members publicly apologized for not making sure that the maintenance money budgeted was actually spent on maintenance issues. The school committee pressed forward with a capital debt exclusion override that addressed maintenance items that should have been completed with budgeted money and added many additional “wish list” items that went far beyond maintenance issues. EIE attempted to make a compromise that it could support: i.e. - limiting the town meeting article to health and safety items only, but this approach was rejected. As a result, the capital debt exclusion override went down to defeat.

The Hamilton-Wenham Regional School Committee and school support groups promised a more open process to explain to voters why a large capital debt exclusion override was needed, despite the fact that the schools had ten operational real estate tax overrides in past years and had not spent the money budgeted in their maintenance expense line item. EIE looked forward to the promise of more openness, but this never happened. Instead, EIE had to make many requests under the Massachusetts Public Records Law (MPRL) (M. G. L. Chapter 66, Section 10), which is very similar to the Federal Freedom of Information Act in an attempt to find out what was going on with maintenance in the schools. Request after request was met with partial non-specific responses. Instead of telling us what the schools did and did not spend money on, they gave EIE numbers that conflicted with school published reports to the community, along with vague expenditures on maintenance and “special projects”. Overall maintenance expenditures provided were far below those budgeted. When challenged, we were told that the schools do not maintain “budget versus actual reports”. We were appalled that either school accounting is not being done in accordance to acceptable practices or we were not being told the truth. “Fuzzy math” and obscuring the facts about maintenance, as well as other school expenditures, must come to an end.

The following are the results of our analysis of maintenance expense data obtained from the HWRSD:

A publication called " HWRSD Annual Report 2007- 2008 provided by HWRSD via mail to all citizens indicated that $461,103 was spent for maintenance during FY2007 and $459,067 was spent for maintenance during FY2008.

It should also be noted that the HWRSD budgeted dollars for maintenance for FY2007 was $650,559; and likewise, the budgeted dollars for maintenance for FY2008 was $676,377. This budget information was also provided by the HWRSD via the MPRL request made by EiE.

When EIE received the Massachusetts Public Records Law info from the HWRSD Administration the FY2007 actual maintenance dollars spent were $402,504 and included $49,136 for special projects, undefined. This leaves $58,599 unspent for the period from one set of data to the other set of data and a big question mark as to the purpose of the special projects.

Likewise, the FY2008 actual maintenance dollars spent were $380,726 and included $71,391 for special projects, again undefined. This leaves $78,341 unspent for the FY2008 period from one set of data to the other set of data and a big question mark as to the purpose of the special projects.

Clearly, there is a significant difference between the data provided in the HWRSD Annual Report versus the data provided to EiE by HWRSD Administration per the MPRL request. What data (of any data provided) is correct?

The largest variance of all is the FY2007 maintenance expense budget of $650,559 versus the maintenance actual 0f $402,504 which equals a variance of $248,055 less than the approved budget number of $650,559. Also the FY2008 maintenance budget of $676,377 versus the maintenance actual of $380,726, which equals a variance of $295,651 less than the approved budget number of $676,377.

A similar situation exists within the MPRL data received from HWRSD for FY2009 maintenance budget versus actual. The budget was $583,786 and total actual dollars spent were $469,353 which included $81,853 for special projects, undefined. The total variance between budget versus actual spent was $114,433.

For the three years discussed above (FY2007, FY2008 and FY2009) the total approved maintenance budget dollars were $1,910,722 and of that total, $658,139 were not spent for maintenance; and of the $1,252,583 dollars spent $202,380 were spent for special projects, undefined.

Where was the $658,139 spent if not spent on much needed maintenance?

Whatever the truth, EIE cautions the public to think hard when deciding if you trust the schools with another attempt at a very large capital debt exclusion override. Without the kind of openness that the taxpayers deserve, along with public discussion and debate, the numbers are nearly meaningless. The schools, because of regional school laws, and unlike our towns, do not have to spend money allocated in their yearly budget to the line item approved. It is clear from what we have learned that funds budgeted for maintenance were never spent and/or spent in ways that may not have been related to maintenance of school buildings.

It is in everyone’s interest to have safe and healthy schools. It is also in everyone’s interest to have a school committee that demands that citizens’ questions are answered in an open and forthright manner. The Hamilton-Wenham Regional School is a public school, funded by the public, and citizens have the right to know that their money is being spent in a fiscally responsible manner in the best interests of our children. We call once again for an independent outside operating audit that focuses on all aspects of school operations. Without this independent oversight, citizens should not be giving more money to the school system. We cannot rely on hope that they will use the money as appropriated, when this clearly has not been the case up until now.

(Please let us know your opinion by voting in the poll that is posted at the top left corner of this blog.)

Sincerely,

Enough is Enough

Robert Sica
James Kent
Elizabeth Dunbar
Edwin Howard
Warren Gray
Bruce Wadleigh
George LaMontagne
Jay Burnham