UNAPPROVED

SAU #28 WORKSHOP MEETING

August 2, 2006

Minutes

 

Pelham Board Members Present

Mr. Michael Conrad, Mrs. Cindy Kyzer

Mrs. Eleanor Burton, Mrs. Linda Mahoney Mr. Bruce Couture

 

Windham Board Members Present

Mr. Bruce Anderson, Mrs. Beverly Donovan, Mrs. Beth Valentine

Mrs. Barbara Coish, Mr. Galen Stearns

 

Superintendent

Dr. Elaine Cutler

 

Business Administrator

Mr. Brian Gallagher

 

Assistant Superintendent

Mrs. Roxanne Wilson

 

SAU#28 Attorney

Gordon Graham, Esquire

 

 

 

Bruce Anderson called the Joint-Workshop Meeting of SAU#28 to order at 7:02 p.m.  After introductions, Mr. Anderson explained the reason why this joint meeting was taking place.  He stated that at this point in time, both school boards have agreed to begin an investigation into the process of withdrawing from the shared SAU #28. 

 

Attorney Gordon Graham was invited to attend this meeting to explain the process of disbanding the SAU under Title XV Education Chapter RSA 194-C.  Mr. Graham outlined the dissolution process by explaining that such dissolution would take place in stages. Step one would be to hold a public hearing for members of the withdrawing community.  This would be followed by a town election, if agreed upon by said town, a committee would be formed to prepare a detailed plan for dissolution which would be then be presented to the State Department of Education.  Mr. Graham noted that either/or both towns can create their own committee to study and prepare a plan for withdrawal. 

 

The duties of said committee are clearly outlined in the RSA 194C-2 report.  Mr. Graham also stated that the State Department of Education is extremely interested in the fiscal and asset division part of the plan.  The states biggest concern is with the fiscal analysis and impact on the district being left behind, along with how assets are distributed. 

 

If a community agrees to the exploration via an elected committee, then the report/plan of said committee would have to be sent to the State Department of Education for their approval or disapproval.  Attorney Graham noted that the state does not have veto power.  They can only agree or disagree with recommendations.  A 3/5 majority vote is needed by a community for approval.    

 

Many questions were asked of Attorney Graham by both school boards.  They included but were not limited to:  when a planning committee makes a recommendation for withdrawal and voters reject it, is a new committee formed right away to explore other options; if a vote by a community has a negative action, then a new study committee cannot be formed for two years.  The timeframe that a planning committee may take to come up with a withdrawal analysis is usually one year or less. 

 

Bruce Anderson would like to get financial impact information and advice from the Superintendent and Business Administrator.  Eleanor Burton inquired if the Superintendent would be on both committees if two were formed.  It was noted that yes she would be involved with both formed committees.  Roxanne Wilson noted that in her experience with a similar town withdrawal situation, the most important information that a planning committee needs to develop is the projected enrollment numbers, fiscal analysis and asset division information.

 

Mark Brockmeier, a Windham resident, was present to suggest to both school boards that they perhaps look into hiring another Assistant Superintendent instead of disbanding.  He feels that once a committee is officially formed, both towns could be headed down a slippery slope.  Bruce Anderson explained to Mr. Brockmeier the reasoning behind the exploration of a SAU split in the future.  Explanations included the huge growth of both Pelham and Windham since the opening of the SAU#28 back in 1970.  At that time, both towns were small enough to require only one Superintendent.  At this time and looking toward the future of both towns, the demands that are placed on a shared Superintendent are great.  The Windham School Board feels that they want one Superintendent to focus on the needs of just Windham.  He also noted that Pelham would soon be faced with a new high school situation that would require more time on the part of the Superintendent.  It was also stated that Business Administrator, Brian Gallagher, is responsible for managing a considerable amount of money for both districts. 

 

Linda Mahoney stated that Pelham and Windham are both in a unique situation in that they are the only two towns in the State of New Hampshire with a shared enrollment of over 2,000 students still sharing an SAU.  She noted that it is clear that both towns are large enough to support their own SAU.  Mrs. Mahoney stated that both districts are trying to plan for the future of their towns by addressing issues beforehand. 

 

Ken Dunn, moderator for Pelham, questioned if financial information from the planning committees final report, would be on the ballot article.  It was noted by Attorney Graham, that all financial information would be explained at the deliberative session held before an intended election. 

 

Beverly Donovan questioned whether the first step should be to ask the community if they want the school board to look into exploring the dissolution process.  Bruce Anderson wished to know if both boards would consider a subcommittee at this time to explore options. 

 

Michael Conrad questioned if this would be placed on a Petition Warrant Article anyway by a member of the public.  Both boards felt that it would be placed on one or both towns’ ballots as a Petition Warrant Article in March, 2007. 

 

Both School Boards, along with Dr. Cutler, agreed to discuss the possibility of beginning an exploration process with regard to dissolution and then report back to each other in September, 2006.  Both school boards would feel more comfortable with some financial facts outlined for them

 

Bruce Anderson noted that this would be an opportunity for both boards to understand in detail why the SAU#28 is or is not viable.  It would allow both Pelham and Windham to understand their future needs and desires. 

 

Beth Valentine agreed with the need for a subcommittee to be formed soon, because both towns only meet together two (2) times per year.  Getting information from a casual subcommittee would be a wise thing to do.

 

Motion to Adjourn the Joint Workshop Meeting was made by Barbara Coish with a 2nd by Michael Conrad at 8:09 p.m.

 

These minutes are in draft form and have not yet been approved by the School Boards.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

Diane Figaro