While selectmen cut their own stipends in half...
School Board members vote themselves 300% raises, annual increases
Board also proposes spending on custodial uniforms, upgrading school signs and more...running amok again with taxpayer dollars?
December 1, 2006 

GOFFSTOWN -  Earlier this week, two local residents were perusing minutes from some of the school board's recent  meetings when they happened upon a few items in those minutes they felt needed to be brought to the immediate attention of all Goffstown taxpayers.  So they contacted the Goffstown Residents Association, and we subsequently researched those meeting minutes ourselves.

Our conclusions?  Hold onto your wallets, fellow taxpayers.  The school district is reaching for them once again.

At the October 2nd, 2006 meeting of the Goffstown School Board, members voted by a 4-2 margin to effectively triple their annual stipends.  In addition, they also approved a built-in increase in those stipends of 5% annually.  

Did we miss something?  Have our tax rates actually been going down lately and not skyrocketing?

The school board's action came just three weeks before the Goffstown Board of Selectmen, in a public and civic-minded acknowledgment of our ever-increasing tax rate, voted to do just the opposite by cutting their own stipends in half (Phil D'Avanza and Bruce Hunter notwithstanding of course).

Not so for the school board apparently.

To wit, the following is taken directly from the minutes of the October 2, 2006 school board meeting:

But wait - it gets better (or, rather, worse).  This is also from the minutes of that same October 2, 2006 meeting:

Ok, got all that?  At this October 2nd meeting, the board voted to triple their stipends, add regular annual increases, and at the same meeting voted to accept an $8,289 bid for a sign at the new kindergarten.  Now...

Fast-forward two weeks...

At their next meeting of October 16th, the board apparently "discovered" excess funds in their budget, and rather than keep the best interests of Goffstown's already overburdened taxpayers in mind and exercise fiscal responsibility, they decided that $8,289 for a sign in front of the new kindergarten was suddenly inadequate.  In lieu, with these unspent taxpayer monies, they then proposed not only to upgrade the kindergarten sign, but also those at Bartlett Elementary and Goffstown High School.  The total cost?  $26,000 ... for signage.

The additional cost to taxpayers?  From the board's point of view there is none, as we taxpayers have already given them the monies they claimed they needed to run the school district at the last Town vote.  But in fact, their proposal is to spend an additional $17,711.00 of that money which we taxpayers put them in control of - a meaningless figure to a board whose history of fiscal recklessness is well known - simply because they already have the money. 

Again, to wit, read these minutes take directly from that October 16, 2006 school board meeting:

Now, fast-forward three more weeks...

As seen below, school board member Scott Gross apparently felt that the maintenance staff at various school district buildings needed to be more easily identifiable.  From a perspective of security, this need is certainly understandable.  So during the school board meeting of November 6th, Gross moved to add $1,500 to next year's budget for uniforms for the district's maintenance staff.

Then, board member Sara Ann Sarette proposed a much simpler - and less expensive - solution: the use of identification badges such as those currently in use by the district's teachers.

But Gross, seeming to prefer the idea of seeing the district's maintenance personnel all marching in a row in neat, clean uniforms, simply amended his motion to seek the SAU's approval before adding the uniforms cost to the budget.  And the board passed it.

The following is taken directly from the minutes of the November 6, 2006 school board meeting:

A Pattern Emerges

In our view, there is a discernable pattern in the three aforementioned instances: that is, to spend whatever money is available whether there is a need to do so or not.  

We also took notice that Mr. Gross figured prominently in all three instances:  1) He supported the proposed raise in stipends and built-in annual increases, 2) he requested the board consider purchasing a more expensive sign for the kindergarten than had been previously approved, and 3) he ignored the more sensible and inexpensive solution of using simple ID badges for the custodial staff, sticking to his motion for $1,500 in next year's budget for uniforms or shirts.

Less than 1% budget increase?

Recently, this same school board proudly announced that their recommended budget for next year included an increase of less than 1% (see Union Leader article).  But what is misleading in their trumpeted claims is that their proposed budget does not include additional increases that are sure to result from the ongoing contract negotiations with the teachers association and assistants.  Those contracts, if consummated in time, may appear separately on the ballot next March. Or not.

As such, realistically, the school budget increase will no doubt be substantially higher than the "less-than-1%" the board is claiming it will be.

Running amok

What in blazes is wrong with these people?  Isn't the charge of all elected officials to serve the very citizenship who elected them?  And in so doing, isn't it reasonable to expect that these elected officials would not only do their utmost to avoid squandering unused taxpayer monies, but indeed put forth their very best efforts to squeeze every cent out of every dollar we provide them?

If an elected official's constituency is told that $X are needed for that official to perform the duties and discharge the responsibilities that he or she was elected for, doesn't that constituency have the right to expect that if the bill for those services comes in under budget, those savings would be passed back to the very taxpayers who are writing the check in the first place?  With their actions, the school board is, effectively, continuing their well-known pattern of spending every dime we give them whether the expenditure is called for or not.

There is no argument that when considering the district's $33M+ budget, the figures above may seem meaningless to some.  But they are symptomatic of an overall trend - that of running amok with an overblown budget -, and when applying this trend to the entire budget, one can only imagine how much of the taxpayer's money has already been wasted, and how much more will have a match lit to it in years to come. 

We don't know about you, but most of us at the GRA are still reeling over the tax bill we're all going to be paying on Monday.  And the worst is yet to come.  The Goffstown Residents Association urges all residents to make their feelings known.  Below please find contact information on all current school board members (note that three seats on the board will be open in March).  DO NOT HESITATE to contact them - YOU put them in office, and as such have a right to get answers to your questions.  

Current Goffstown School Board Membership