ORCSD Clean Slate

Gelsey, Day Win, Elementary Project Fails, Budget Passes

noreply@blogger.com (Dean Rubine) — Wed, 11 Mar 2026 03:56:00 +0000

Incumbents Giana Gelsey and Denise Day were reelected to the Oyster River School Board, with 33.2% and 24.7% of the vote respectively in this five way race. Day's name did not appear on the ballot; she ran a write-in campaign. Congratulations Giana and Denise.

Newcomer Colin Blake-Butler came in third with 20.4% of the vote. That's a very good showing in this tough field; I expect if he perseveres, Blake-Butler will be elected to the board in the next couple of years.

The $62.4M budget passed with 63.1% of the vote; the last time support was lower was 2015.

The $10M Expansion/Renovation of the Elementary School failed with 49.3% of the vote; 60% was required for passage.

Turnout was at least 3021 voters, relatively high for the district.

Al Howland was elected Moderator, congratulations Al.

The board-recommend warrant articles for ORPaSS, ORESPA, Facilities Fund, Special Education Fund, and a $0 appropriation for Open Enrollment all passed.

The Citizen petitions all failed, despite YES circled on the report below. It also says the Tax Cap article required 60% to pass per RSA 32:5-c1, which was not mentioned on the ballot.

For the first time, the district reported the result by town. Lee voters, who are paying local ed taxes at an apparent rate much higher than the other towns, were notably grumpy, favoring Blake-Butler over Day and Gelsey, and with majorities voting NO on the Facilities/Solar Array, and YES on the citizen petitions for a statutory budget committee, ending retention of fund balance, a tax cap and performance audit.

The 58% support for the $10M Elementary Project in Durham and Madbury falls short of the required 60%, and with only 34% YES in Lee, the project failed to even achieve a majority in the district.

-----------------

I tried looking into if and why taxes are hitting so much harder in Lee, but didn't figure it totally out. Looking at the current year (FY26), we have Durham : Lee : Madbury equalized real-estate valuation 57.8% : 29.1% : 13.1% and student counts 46.4% : 36.8% : 16.8%. We see that Lee has 37% of the students in the district but they are supported by only 29% of the real estate; similarly Madbury has 17% of the students supported by 13% of the real estate. The coop agreement splits half the bill in proportional to valuation and half in proportion to number of students, so Madbury and Lee pay at a higher rate than Durham. In the past, the state adequacy aid went a long way to bringing taxes back to where they'd be if the district were one large town (so split proportional to property values alone).

If, for the current year we divide the percentage of the bill (before state aid) by the percentage of the real estate, we get Durham: 52.1/57.8=90.1%, Lee 33.0/29.1=113%, Madbury 14.9/13.1=113.7%. If we do a similar calculation after state aid is applied, we get Durham (23.4/43.2)/.578=93.7%, Lee (13.6/43.2)/.291=108.2%, Madbury (6.2/43.2)/13.1=109.6%. So we conclude this year, Lee and Madbury folks were paying a rate about 15% higher than Durham folks. That's part of the deal that was made to start the co-op: the towns with more students have to pay more.

The conclusion assumes the equalization ratios are correct. The equalization ratio for a town is the number used to equalize real estate valuations across towns. It is basically the ratio of assessed value to market value in the town; below 100 indicates the assessments are below market value. If you're just splitting up taxes within a town, this doesn't matter, but it matters a great deal in cooperative school districts, because it's the equalized valuation of the town (assessed value divided by equalization ratio) that's used in the Co-op apportionment calculation.

I had thought the equalization ratios of the three towns were about the same, making the millages comparable, but the latest report (2024) has Durham 77.6, Lee 72.6, Madbury 64.1, or relative to Durham, Lee 72.6/77.6=93.6%, Madbury 64.1/77.6=82.6%.

To convert a millage that is applied to your assessed value to an 'equalized millage' across towns, we multiply it by the equalization ratio. That gives what the millage would be if the assessed value equaled the imputed market value. We can calculate 'equalized millages' as Durham .776*(.92+10.79)=9.09, Lee .726*(.85+18.29)=13.90, Madbury .641*(.91+11.77)=8.13, so now it appears in the new budget that Madbury is getting a bargain, 11% less than Durham, and Lee pays at a rate 53% over Durham. That swing in Madbury doesn't make much sense to me, but I'm out of time for this, uncle!

I could not find the numbers the district uses to estimate the millages for FY27, what we just voted on.

Board Member Heather Smith had some ideas about Lee taxes; I'll include her facebook comments on the Community Discussion Page here; hope that's OK, thanks Heather.

Hi Dean. Part 2. It's not a mistake that the board looks at the total tax impact (state tax + local tax). We do that on purpose to understand the total impact to the taxpayers. TL;DR – it’s a feature, not a bug.

This comes out of a discussion of how the state funds education. On a per town basis, the state will determine how much adequacy aid each town gets by calculating the number of students (specifically, the average daily membership) at a rate of $4,351/student. Funds get added based on free and reduced lunch, special education, and English language learner populations. That sets up how much the state should provide for an adequate education. For FY27, that's around $4M for Durham, $3.5M for Lee, and $1.6M for Madbury. (I'm using round numbers).

Then comes the Statewide Education Property Tax (SWEPT). The state raises around $364M for education in state-wide property taxes. These taxes are raised locally and kept locally, but they are “state” taxes. This tax is determined based on each town's equalized value (EV) proportion of the total state’s value. For FY27, Durham is paying $2.4M, Lee is $1M, and Madbury is $500K in SWEPT. This is higher for Durham and lower for Madbury and Lee compared to FY26.

The state subtracts the SWEPT from the adequacy aid to determine how much they owe you in grant. Lee and Madbury also get additional grant funds for fiscal capacity disparity aid and hold harmless grants. On a town basis, it breaks down:

Total grant = SWEPT (aka money you are paying) + Adequacy Grant (aka money the state pays)

D: $4.0M (total) = $2.4M (SWEPT) + $1.6M (Adequacy)

L: $4.2M (total) = $1.0M (SWEPT) + $3.2M (Adequacy)

M: $1.7M (total) = $462K (SWEPT) + $1.3M (adequacy)

So, in terms of the numbers you published in estimated tax impact.

Durham’s SWEPT from $1.06 to $1.18 (+11.3%); local tax from $10.79 to $11.59 (+7.4%); total of $11.85 to $12.77 (+7.8%).

Lee’s SWEPT from $1.57 to $1.43 (-8.9%); local tax from $18.39 to $19.28 (+4.8%); total of $19.96 to $20.71 (+3.8%)

Madbury’s SWEPT from $0.99 to $0.95 (-4.0%); local tax from $11.77 to $12.72 (+8.1%); total of $12.76 to $13.67 (+7.1%)

This starts a whole conversation about how the towns assess and the assessed value. This is an area where I know a little but am going to get out over my skis pretty fast. (1) Depending on how long it has been since a town has done a reevaluation, the millages can look out of whack. Durham's millage was estimated at $19.36 in 2023 and came in at $12.97 due to the reevaluation that happened. The money the district asked for was exactly the same. The value of the properties was now more, so the millage decreased. This is where the "my piece of my town's pie" conversation starts to happen, if your property went up more or less relative to the town as a whole, so your taxes went up or down as a result. Throw in the relative value of commercial versus residential and it can get messy fast. Madbury went through a reevaluation recently. They were up at around $21 for their millage in 2024 and it's $13 something now. I believe Lee is due pretty soon, and that's why the millages look out of whack. (2) I did a back of the envelope calculation by looking at the assessed value from the Lee assessor's website for a few houses in Lee built around the same time and purchased around the same time as mine. Using an average cost per square foot and average cost per acre, I determined a rough assessed value for my house if it were in Lee. Then, I applied the tax rates and ended up just about the same in terms of school tax liability (about $200 cheaper in Lee). Not 100% scientific, but gives a flavor for how this plays out in reality, depending on when a town updates their assessed values.

--------------------

Please enjoy this spreadsheet history of the district, covering the time I've been paying attention, followed by detailed election results. I typed those in; corrections welcome.

Durham / Todd Selig posted the following, which I've included for the wording of the warrant. Thanks Durham / Todd.

OYSTER RIVER COOPERATIVE SCHOOL DISTRICT UNOFFICIAL RESULTS - Durham, Lee and Madbury Combined Ballots from all three precincts.

Article 1:

For School Moderator (1 year) (Vote for not more than one)

Allan Howland - 2408

Article 2:

For School Board-At-Large (3 years) (Vote for not more than two)

William A. Howard - 473

Colin Blake-Butler - 989

Elizabeth S. Copley - 575

Giana Gelsey - 1607

Denise Day - 1195

Article 3: Mast Way/Moharimet Renovation Expansion Project

Shall the District raise and appropriate the sum of $9,827,000 (gross budget) to finance renovations and additions at both elementary schools to include additional classrooms, expanding a cafeteria, and creating appropriate spaces to deliver services to students (the "Project"); and authorize the issuance of not more than $9,827,000 of bonds or notes in accordance with the Municipal Finance Act (RSA 33); and authorize the School Board to issue and negotiate such bonds or notes and to determine the dates, maturities, interest rate, and other details of such bonds or notes; and authorize the School Board to accept on behalf of the District any federal, state, or private funds that may become available to fund the Project and use such funds toward the Project or to reduce the amount of bonds or notes issued for the Project; and further to raise and appropriate the sum of $245,675 for the initial debt service payment due during the fiscal year? The School Board recommends this Article (3/5 ballot vote required)

Yes - 1490

No - 1531

Article 4: Operating Budget

The average cost-per-pupil for the preceding year as calculated in accordance with RSA 189:75,I(a) is $24,268. ELA Proficiency: 75%; Math Proficiency: 65%; Science Proficiency: 61%

Shall the District raise and appropriate as an operating budget, not including appropriations by special warrant article and other appropriations voted separately, the amount set forth on the budget posted with the warrant or as amended by vote of the first session, for the purposes set forth therein, totaling $62,365,067? Should this article be defeated, the operating budget shall be $60,463,982 (Default Budget) which is the same as last year with certain adjustments required by previous action of the District or by law; or the District may hold one special meeting in accordance with RSA 40:13, X and XVI to take up the issue of the revised operating budget only. The School Board recommends this appropriation. (Majority vote required)

Note:

Fund 10 = $60,183,022 (regular operating budget); Fund 21 = $1,432,045 (expenditures from food service revenues); Fund 22 = $645,000 (expenditures from federal/special revenues); Fund 23 = $105,000 (expenditures from pass through funds).

Yes - 1897

No - 1110

Article 5: Approval of the ORPaSS CBA

Shall the District vote to approve within the provisions of New Hampshire RSA 273-A:3 the cost items included in the collective bargaining agreement reached between the Oyster River Paraeducators and Support Staff and the Oyster River School Board which calls for the following increases in salaries and benefits at the current staffing levels:

2026-2027 - $543,972

2027-2028 - $577,025

2028-2029 - $176,733

and further to raise and appropriate the sum of $543,972 for the 2026-2027 fiscal year, such sum representing the additional costs attributable to the increases in salaries and benefits required by the new agreement over those that would be paid at current staffing levels? The School Board recommends this appropriation (Majority vote required)

Yes - 2214

No - 791

Article 6: Approval of the ORESPA CBA

Shall the District vote to approve within the provisions of New Hampshire RSA 273-A:3 the cost items included in the collective bargaining agreement reached between the Oyster River Office Educational Support Personnel Association and the Oyster River School Board which calls for the following increases in salaries and benefits at the current staffing levels:

2026-2027 - $213,498

2027-2028 - $104,826

2028-2029 - $106,852

and further to raise and appropriate the sum of $213,498 for the 2026-2027 fiscal year, such sum representing the additional costs attributable to the increases in salaries and benefits required by the new agreement over those that would be paid at current staffing levels? The School Board recommends this appropriation (Majority vote required)

Yes - 2266

No - 677

Article 7: Facilities Trust Fund

Shall the District vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $125,000 to be added to the Facilities Development, Maintenance and Replacement Expendable Trust Fund which was established in March of 2017? This sum to come from June 30 fund balance available for transfer on July 1. The School Board recommends this appropriation No amounts to be raised from taxation. (Majority vote required)

Yes - 2079

No - 900

Article 8: Special Education Trust

Shall the District vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $125,000 to be added to the Special Education Expendable Trust Fund which was established in March of 1999? This sum to come from June 30 fund balance available for transfer on July 1. The School Board recommends this appropriation No amounts to be raised from taxation. (Majority vote required)

Yes - 2331

No - 643

Article 9: Open Enrollment

To see if the School District will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $0 for the purpose of funding the estimated tuition of School District students who attend open enrollment schools/programs located outside of the Oyster River Cooperative School District in accordance with RSA 194-D. The School Board recommends this appropriation (Majority vote required)

Yes - 2131

No - 795

Article 10: Petition Warrant Article

Shall the provisions of RSA 32:14 through 32:24 (Budget Committee) be adopted by the Oyster River Cooperative School District, as provided by RSA 195:12-a? The School Board does not recommend this article.

Yes - 1002

No - 1882

Article 11: Petition Warrant Article

To see if the Oyster River Cooperative School District will vote to rescind the authority previously adopted regarding the retention of year-end unassigned general funds as provided by RSA 198:4-b, II. If adopted this article mandates that any unassigned general fund balance remaining at the end of the fiscal year be used to reduce the District tax rate. The School Board does not recommend this article.

Yes - 1164

No - 1765

Article 12: Petition Warrant Article

Shall the Oyster River Cooperative School District adopt the provisions of RSA 32:5-b and implement a tax cap whereby the School Board or Budget Committee shall not submit a recommended budget that increases the amount to be raised by the local taxes by more than 15% above the amount raised in taxes the previous fiscal year? This cap may be overridden by a 3/5 majority vote of the legislative body. The School Board does not recommend this article.

Yes - 1246

No - 1698

Article 13: Petition Warrant Article

To see if the Oyster River Cooperative School District will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $100 for the purpose of hiring an independent auditing firm to conduct a performance audit of the School District Administration. The School Board does not recommend this article.

Yes - 1230

No - 1724

Guide to the 2026 ORCSD Election

noreply@blogger.com (Dean Rubine) — Sun, 08 Mar 2026 18:20:00 +0000

This is my annual voting guide to the ORCSD election. I'll try to clearly delineate my opinion in italics from the objective information. The pasted images come from the district and town websites.

TL;DR: I'm voting for Giana Gelsey and writing in Denise Day for school board. I am voting YES on all the school board recommended articles, including the elementary school expansions, articles 3 through 9. I am voting NO on the four citizen petitions, articles 10 through 13.

Voting Mechanics
Durham's summary of voter registration

Election Day is Tuesday March 10, 2026. If you're a US citizen at least 18 years of age who lives in Lee, Madbury or Durham (including UNH students who live in the district), you can do same day registration on election day at your town's polling place and vote. Even if you've never voted or registered to vote in New Hampshire before, you can vote Tuesday. NH got rid of the affidavit system that allowed you to register and/or vote without proper documentation. Proofs of identity, age, citizenship and domicile MUST be presented to register to vote. Click here for an explanation of the requirements to register to vote under the new law. A passport or birth certificate, driver's license and a utility bill or government check with your address would be good documentation for a same-day registrant to have. Already registered voters just need a state photo ID.

Your election day polling place and voting times depend on where you live:

Durham: Oyster River High School 7:00 a.m. – 7:00 p.m.

Lee: Public Safety Complex 7:00 a.m. – 7:00 p.m.

Madbury: Town Hall 11:00 a.m. – 7:00 p.m. Madbury also has a genuine town meeting, 7 pm at Madbury Town Hall, where they vote on the majority of their warrant articles, but the school district stuff is in the daytime election.

The Issues

The issue this year, as I suppose it is pretty much every year, is money. Local ed taxes are going up, in the 6 to 9 percent range, depending on your town. Some of this is the COVID inflation slowly working its way through the system. The elementary school expansion is also a big issue, not impacting taxes much this year, but will cost the taxpayers $10M plus interest over the life of the bond if approved.

The School District Ballot

As always, voters in each town are given identical school district ballots. Let's briefly go through the ballot questions, also known as the warrant articles. There are 13 this year, including four citizen petitions, so I'll try not to stretch this out too much.

Article 1: Elect Moderator

Former School Board Chair Michael Williams has been moderator since March, 2023, and presumably would have continued to be elected for as long as he cared to run. Michael did an excellent job at deliberative session this year, and throughout his tenure. Thank you for your service.

This was a surprise. It looks like former board member and current State Rep Al Howland will be elected moderator. Al has real political power that he demonstrated at the last Deliberative Session, moving the successful amendment that increased the proposed school budget by $519K. He will no longer be able to wield that power as moderator, as he will need to impartially run the Deliberative Session instead. The moderator also has duties on election day, and in the past has run the Candidates' Forum.

I'm voting for Al Howland for moderator -- there's one choice, take your pick.

Article 2: Elect two school board members

Article 2 elects two at-large school board members to three year terms. At-large means the members can come from any of the three towns. The incumbents are Denise Day, who's served on the board for the last twelve years, including a stint as chair, and Giana Gelsey, completing her first three year term of service on the board.

Please see my previous post, where I go through the positions of the candidates, all except write-in candidate Denise Day. Day was intending to retire and did not file to run or participate in the candidates' forum. According to her, there was a groundswell of public opinion asking her to run, over concerns with candidates Howard, Blake-Butler and Copley.

Day answered the questions from the candidates' forum here. My summary of Day's accomplishment's: Chair when the board was awarded 2023 School Board of the Year by the New Hampshire School Boards Association (NHSBA). Key leader overseeing the development and construction of the new, LEED Gold certified middle school. Champion of the expansion of world language and competency-based learning. Played a central role in hiring many district administrators, including the new superintendent. Served on the Policy Committee, Wellness Committee, Long Range Planning Committee, and Manifest Review Committee.

I'm voting for incumbents Denise Day (write-in) and Giana Gelsey. The other candidates have serious flaws, so I am going with the proven records of the incumbents.

I especially admire Gelsey's advocacy against the various state attacks on public education, including her spearheading the board's resolution against the "chilling effect on teaching" of the state's divisive concepts law (RSA 354-A:31-34), as well as her opposition to reduced teacher probation periods and removing mandatory criminal background checks. Also exemplary was her service on the Wellness Committee, and her working with the public regarding COVID response and the candidate forums. She is a strong booster of increasing mental health resources for students and for improving the school calendar to allow more time for AP test preparation. She has a long history of service even before joining the board, and I am certain she will continue to strongly advocate for our students and teachers.

My third choice was Colin Blake-Butler. Since he was part of the group of community members that presented citizen petitions to impose a statutory budget committee (which he has publicly stated he does not support with a now deeper understanding of its risks) and a tax cap (under the idea it would move items from the take it or leave it proposed budget into their own warrant articles where the funds would have to be used for what they were approved by the voters for) it was natural for some to conclude that he was aligned with the Republicans against public education, who have used the same RSA's with other intentions.

But it's certainly possible to fully support public education and still want to have the district run more efficiently and burn through fewer tax dollars. That's what most of us want, and that's where I believe Blake-Butler is. Like many of us, his family moved to the district largely for the schools, making it implausible to me that he wants to make public school worse.

That said, it is very clear that Blake-Butler is new to all this, and he has made significant lapses in preparation and errors in judgement in his campaign. One way that is obvious is that he now opposes some of the very articles he participated in creating and publicly championed at Deliberative Session. I can give him partial credit for accepting his errors, but this is just bad preparation.

Perhaps his most egregious error in judgement was who he chose to associate with when creating and presenting these citizen warrant articles. These folks have demonstrated their opposition to public schools. That's fine, it's a free country, but that is not a position I would want to associate with, nor do I want it in my school board candidates. There's a new facebook group that I won't link to but is relatively easy to access, where the very people he stood with at Deliberative Session are attacking Giana Gelsey in ugly terms. I only had to look for a minute to find one of them call her an "entitled creep," and there were references to "left wing nut job."

Of course the president has made this sort of rhetoric commonplace, but it is not civics I desire. Again, folks are free to say whatever they want about candidates and elected officials. But the objects of their derision are not distant representatives in Washington. These are our neighbors who do these jobs, who volunteer their time and effort to serve without pay, often at substantial personal cost. I would hope the citizenry would treat them with the respect they deserve. Not because the rules say so, but because we all need to live together in these small towns, and sowing hate and division is not good and not right.

I've seen the attacks on Giana; they're ugly but politics ain't beanbag. What really made me angry today is that I learned the attacks extend to bullying her children. This is totally out of line.

Blake-Butler needs to denounce the haters, to loudly and publicly say he does not want the votes of people who bully our neighbors who serve, and their children. As these folks are still actively supporting Blake-Butler, he clearly has not done that, and as such he does not deserve our votes this time around.

EDIT: 8:15pm 3/9 Sorry, been traveling with a broken phone all day. Back now. I'm told that some have interpreted my post like I've accused Colin Blake-Butler of bullying. That was never my intention, and I apologize to Colin and the community for that impression. I've left the text above untouched so we can all go back and judge. Colin has denounced the haters like I asked; thank you Colin. I like Colin, and I think we've both learned a lot these past few weeks. I'll include this screenshot Colin sent me where Giana Gelsey confirms that Colin is not a bully. I'm am going to add this as a comment everywhere I shared my post.

My next choice would be William Howard, who says many things I agree with, especially getting back to a focus on STEM education. I am passing this time, because last year he filed to run and then failed to participate. I believe there was no explanation offered; at least I failed to record one in my blog. This year he appeared at the candidates' forum, but I have not seen any other sign of a campaign or participation in the community discussion online.

The final candidate, Elizabeth Copley, seems like a fine person, but at the candidates' forum gave no indication she had any familiarity with the issues facing Oyster River schools, nor have I seen any sign of her campaign or participation in discussion since.

Article 3: $10M elementary schools, renovation and expansion

I've been on vacation and didn't get a chance to dive into the expansion plans and costs like I wanted to. Here's a link to the district's site about the project; the DS slides are also informative. 60% YES is required for passage. Historically the district voters have supported this sort of thing, but 60% is tough and there are a lot of folks upset about the tax increases this year, so I think it will be close.

I don't find these estimated millage increases as helpful as others seem to; personally I prefer a percentage. The current local ed tax rates are Durham $10.79, Lee $18.29 and Madbury $11.77, so the principal+interest millages represent local ed increases of 2.9% Durham, 3.2% in Lee and 3.1% in Madbury. These are based on the assumption of a 10 year loan at 3.4%.

I was happy when the district got rid of the two pre-fab classrooms that were costing taxpayers I think $20K each per year; I would have been less so had it occurred to me that this meant a $10M cost down the line. Unfortunately, the modular classrooms are no longer a viable solution for a number of reasons.

I'm voting YES because I can afford the taxes and do not want to be a grumpy old man unwilling to fund adequate schools for other people's children. I can certainly understand how other folks' calculations may be different. The effect on taxes this year will be small, but a ten year loan will increase taxes over $1.1M per year.

The district argues that the space is needed, and if we delay the costs will always go up. That may be true in nominal dollars, but I am far from certain that it is true in real dollars. Interest rates change. That said, I believe that an increase in the real cost of the project is probably likely for the next few years. The district also argues that replanning for a smaller project will result in another significant expenditure before construction begins; my opinion is that is probably true but shouldn't stop us if that's the direction the community wants to go in.

I've heard reports of 'Vote no on 3' signs appearing next to Gelsey and Day signs, even on private property without permission. This is apparently intended to mislead voters into believing that Gelsey and Day do not support the elementary school project; of course they have both expressed strong support for the project. Again this willingness to violate the rules is disheartening and in my opinion should definitely not be rewarded. Curiously these signs have the same treasurer listed on them as a new, slick website promising information in the district. You're not going to get a link from me; it's currently devoid of content anyway. I'd be interested in knowing who is behind these.

Article 4: $62.4M budget

Article 4 is the budget appropriation of $62.4M, That number was $58.0M last year and $38.4M in 2012, when I started paying attention. The appropriation is $60.5M if NO wins (and there's no revote), a significant 3% less.

Current year apportionment calculation

The actual number proposed by the school board was $61.8M, and included $519K savings from layoffs of two teachers, three interventionist and a nurse. That money was added back at the Deliberative Session by the voters present with an amendment brought forward by Al Howland, and seconded by Colin Blake-Butler. Blake-Butler also stated during the candidates' forum that he was involved in the drafting of the amendment that was brought forward.

I voted YES to that to restore the interventionists -- I've been MATHCOUNTS co-coach since 2019 and I've observed some decline in performance lately. Personally, I thought the planned nurse and teacher layoffs were well-reasoned management decisions that do not need to be undone.

Assuming this passes, it's still up to the board what to do with the extra money, if anything.

The teachers agreed to a five year contract with small raises right before COVID hit, and the ensuing inflation has brought salaries down sometimes to below market rates. The new contract makes this up over a few years; we see that here.

[EDIT: Board member Smith tells me that the district now gets the actual price when budgeting health care, so no future savings there. Thanks, Heather, and sorry about the mistake, everybody. ] Health insurance is a bit of a district slush fund. The budget is based on a guaranteed maximum provided a year ahead of time; usually costs come in lower, giving the district some appropriated funds to spend on whatever it wants.

These are the millage increases if all the board-recommended articles pass (including the elementary expansion), before the addition of $519K. I couldn't find a chart that reflected the $519K. It's a mistake for the district includes the state tax line; they don't have any control over it, though of course we all have to pay it. Calculating the increase relative to the current local ed line, I get Durham .92/10.79=8.5%, Lee .85/18.29=4.6% and Madbury .91/11.77=7.7%. I'm going to assume the other board-recommended warrant articles add up to about $519K, so we can use these numbers as the approximate impact of this article alone.

I'm voting YES. The budget's always passed since I've been paying attention; I'm guessing it will this year as well.

This got long and needs to go out now, so I will speed through the remaining articles.

Article 5: ORPaSS

This article asks us to approve the contract with ORPaSS, the paras and support staff. The district never tells us the base for these things, so it is difficult to calculate the percentage increase.

We need these folks, so I'm voting YES.

Article 6: ORESPA

ORESPA are the maintenance staff, custodians, secretaries, and similar positions.

I'm voting YES.

Article 7: Middle School Solar Array Fund

This is the fund to purchase the middle school solar array. I think we're pretty close to paying this off, but you'll have to look at last year's post to see when that happens.

I'm voting YES.

Article 8: Special Ed Trust

This fund is an emergency fund for when the district is hit with unexpected special education expenses.

I'm voting YES.

Article 9: Open Enrollment

Open Enrollment is the idea that students can go to any school in the state (if there's space), with the student's school district of residence footing most of the tuition; there's a big expansion under consideration in Concord. The district thinks by explicitly appropriating $0 for Open Enrollment, they cannot be forced to pay tuition for students attempting to access it.

I'm voting YES.

These are the four citizen petitions brought by a group which includes candidate Blake-Butler. Anyone can get a warrant article on the ballot with the signatures of 25 district voters. We're an SB-2 district, which means the articles have to survive the Deliberative Session before the wider citizenry gets to vote.

Article 10: Statutory Budget Committee

The SBC is essentially a second school board that basically exists to fight with the real school board. There is no real way to separate budget considerations from all the other factors that go into a working school; almost every decision has a budgetary component. This article is basically a way to defund public education; I'm voting NO.

It's been pointed out to me that Colin Blake-Butler has also publicly stated he will be voting no too.

Article 11: End Fund Balance Retention

The fund balance is the unspent money at year end. As we can see from the warrant, many questions ask the voters to divert fund balance into various funds. In the district, we have approved a rule that allows the board to retain up to 5% of the appropriated funds in a contingency fund without a warrant article. If YES wins here, that power will end, and any funds not explicitly diverted by warrant article will be returned to the towns, where it is used to lessen the impact of next year's taxes.

I'm voting NO. The contingency fund allows the board to lessen the impact of large budget increases.

Article 12: Tax Cap

A tax cap restricts the amount the school can budget for. This particular article was neutered at Deliberative Session by changing the cap to a 15% increase from the previous year, which is of course very large, and bigger than any increase I've seen in the last 15 years. The original article capped the increase at the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U).

It's largely symbolic; I'm voting NO.

Comment from Colin Blake-Butler: I'm a no vote too at this time as I don't see any value with these extra rules in the rule book. This comes back to my earlier "edit" idea to push budget items into their own warrant articles just like we have in Lee. I like that model a lot. I hate I have to choose yes on all the budget items even if I don't agree with many. I don't like the take it or leave it. I get that tax caps can be weaponized. I would personally like to find another way urge for more warrant articles as individual budget items.

Article 13: Performance Audit

This article was changed at Deliberative Session to appropriate $100 for a performance audit, instead of the original $60K. I was a bit disappointed by that; I don't see the harm in letting an independent set of eyes review the district operations; those sorts of audits usually find some relatively painless savings.

I might have voted for this in its original form, but now I am voting NO. The board is free to initiate this without a vote.

Extra

Phew, that was pretty long. Here I'll mention that in Lee I'm voting for Rebecca Hawthorne, and I hope everyone else does too.

This Saturday, ORMS competes in the NH State MATHCOUNTS competition, go Bobcats! Krista Butts and I are coaches.

2026 ORCSD School Board Candidates Forum Summary

noreply@blogger.com (Dean Rubine) — Thu, 05 Mar 2026 21:33:00 +0000

Election Day is this Tuesday, March 10. I watched the candidates' forum; it took me a few times to stay awake to the end. Here's the link:

Let's start with the bios of the candidates, which I've summarized from their initial introduction. I'll follow this with a summary of the candidates positions. I'll try to keep it unbiased until the end when I'll tell you who I'm voting for; feel free to skip that part.

William Howard

30 year residence of Durham, 1996. 3 children attended ORCSD K-8. Two boys played football at St Thomas Aquinas. Retired professional engineer, worked for US government and Waste Management. Supporter of STEM education. US needs to train the next generation of engineers.

Giana Gelsey (facebook)

From Madbury. School board member the last three years. Children at the middle school & high school. Works in Biological and Geological Sciences. In the district 10 years, ORPP, LRPC, Moharimet PTO chair, Madbury Resource Board. Community Organizing, COVID school board forums. Students first, public education advocate, Strategic planning committee, Sustainability Committee, Wellness Committee. New Hampshire Schoolboard Association delegate for three years. Clear and honest. Looks forward to a second term on the school board.

Elizabeth Copley

Raised in Wilton CT. Wilton HS. Marketing at Franklin Pierce. In Lee for 24 years, loves it. Lots of experience working with Board of Education, father was a member, fundraised, built a stadium. Parents live in Kittery, got on the board of ed there. Kids first. Taught Skiing in VT 16-20 and NH. Only taught kids, every weekend, every season. Interested in tracking school expenditures, assuring the budget money is used in the most cost effective way, maintaining the high standard of quality education. "Wilton HS was highest accredited school in New England, Oyster River can be the same."

Colin Blake-Butler (facebook)

Resident of NH since 2010, from upstate NY. Met his wife Rebecca; moved to Oyster River in 2020. Rebecca is a speech pathologist; two kids in OR schools. 20 years in IT, Cybersecurity and Data Analytics. Solution architect of Minecast (?). Work involves making complex systems more efficient, secure accessible and transparent for the users. Analyzing AI systems; "I believe understanding these tools is vital for how we prepare students."

Late addition: Denise Day

School board member for 12 years, including a stint as chair. From her facebook post:

Hello, after encouragement from many people, I am moving forward with a write-in campaign for a seat on the Oyster River School Board. Our district is facing many challenges, and I believe that my 12 years of experience on the Board will be helpful in addressing these issues. I ask for your vote on March 10.

That was too much work. I'm on vacation right now. Let's try this. I annotated the transcript with the speaker names and asked Gemini to summarize each candidate. I tried to remove things that did not accord with what I heard at the forum. Here's the lightly edited result:

Colin Blake-Butler

Platform/Inspiration: Focuses on bringing his professional skills in IT, Cybersecurity, and Data Analytics to the board, emphasizing proactive transparency and ensuring every dollar spent is linked to student success. He aims to build stronger relationships across the ecosystem (educators, parents, students).
Student/Teacher Input: Advocates for implementing anonymous digital surveys for both students and staff to gather real-time, empirical data on the learning environment. Supports building site-based management teams for teachers to collect and relay feedback.
Academics/Extracurriculars: Believes true balance requires intentionality and developing the whole person. Plans to find efficiencies in administrative overhead and back office costs to reinvest money directly into vibrant student programs.
Open Enrollment: Believes the district should only participate if data proves it is a net positive, with a transparent cost impact model to ensure local families are not subsidizing outside students.
Biggest Challenge: Preparing students for a world rapidly changing due to AI and digital connectivity. Proposes balancing high-tech tools with high-touch human support, ensuring technical literacy while protecting social and emotional foundations.
Performance Audit: "You can't manage what you can't measure." Would use a district scorecard with criteria like academic growth, administrative efficiency, staff retention, and fiscal transparency.
Staffing Budget: Seconded the $519K budget rise at the deliberative session. Will focus on data-driven decision-making.

Giana Gelsey

Platform/Inspiration: An incumbent running for a second term, driven by a belief in public service and a deep value for the community. She is a huge public education advocate, looking at everything through the lens of "students first." She wants to continue to fight against the "unprecedented attack on public schools" and emphasizes that public school is a public good essential for democracy.
Student/Teacher Input: Considers student input "incredibly valuable" for multiple points of view. Highly values the school board's student delegate and encourages students to use their student government and attend public comment. Notes that teacher input is somewhat limited by "guild agreements" (contracts) and procedures.
Academics/Extracurriculars: Believes the district does a "decent job" but sees room for improvement. Advocates for looking for budget efficiencies to fund expensive co-curricular activities like robotics and musical instruments. Suggests working on fundraising to equalize funding for more expensive sports (hockey, football, swim).
Open Enrollment: Does not support mandatory open enrollment as currently proposed at the state level. Points to New Hampshire's tax structure and chronic lack of adequate state funding as issues. Argues that current bills are not detailed enough to allow for proper district planning regarding cost, special education, and transportation.
Biggest Challenge: The challenges to public education at the federal, state, and local level (funding, teacher retention) and the rapidly changing environment (AI, mental health challenges, climate change). The solution is to teach students to be lifelong learners with critical thinking, analysis, and flexibility to adapt to the future.
Performance Audit: Believes the School Board effectively is a "continual audit" of the system through its policy work and annual review of the superintendent. Criteria for evaluation include student outcomes (academic, social, emotional), and staff satisfaction (continued education, compensation, belonging).
Staffing Budget: Expresses fiscal concern about the added $519,000, noting it is about a 0.5% tax rate increase. Is more concerned about the risk of the budget failing at the final vote, which would lead to a default budget with $1.4 million in cuts to programs, staff, and administration.

Elizabeth Copley

Platform/Inspiration: Her passion is helping the children, ensuring they have better futures, are prepared, and have their "own special thinking and not be told what to think." She has experience working with the Board of Education through her father's involvement and fundraising efforts. She is interested in tracking school expenditures to ensure budget money is used cost-effectively and maintaining a high standard of quality education.
Student/Teacher Input: Believes people should be able to call, text, or email her directly.
Academics/Extracurriculars: States she does not have enough information on how well the district balances these areas, though she observes they "got ahead on the football" and the school has "adequate, if not good, sports and all that."
Open Enrollment: Believes kids should be able to go to different schools but recognizes the cost must be studied, as classroom size is important. If there is room and "it doesn't cost the school anything," it should happen, as Oyster River is a "better District" than some others nearby.
Biggest Challenge: Returning back to basics, such as teaching kids to write in script, make change, and balance a checkbook. Advocates for business classes and teaching entrepreneurship so students can adapt to the changing world.
Performance Audit: Supports the audit, stating, "More eyes on it will be better for all." Agrees that having more people involved is a good idea.
Staffing Budget: No clear comment on the $519,000 addition, but her interest in tracking expenditures suggests a fiscal focus.

William Howard

Platform/Inspiration: Sees running as an opportunity to provide public service back to the community where he has lived for 30 years. He has a background as a retired professional engineer and is a strong advocate and supporter of STEM education. He wants to put greater emphasis on the importance of classroom instruction and the human interaction between teachers and students. He also wants to ensure public dollars are spent on public education and not siphoned off by political groups.
Student/Teacher Input: A strong believer in promoting the interaction between teachers and students and directing more resources there. Believes students should have input on curriculum content, but the final determination is for the professionals/educators. Supports "whatever means" can be developed for student input.
Academics/Extracurriculars: Based on his experience with his own children, he believes the district has a "pretty good balance" in its support for academics, sports, arts (theater), and extracurriculars (robotics). While there is always room for improvement, he thinks overall the district has "done a good job."
Open Enrollment: Believes the district needs to "consider meeting its own needs first"—ensuring adequate resources for its resident students—before evaluating if there are sufficient supplemental resources to accommodate enrollment from outside the district.
Biggest Challenge: Offering a course of instruction with a balance between classroom learning and experiential learning (like co-op programs in engineering). He is concerned that in the digital age, students must be able to independently critically think and use the machine (AI) as a tool, rather than relying on it to do their thinking for them.
Performance Audit: Not in favor of a third-party audit, believing it is the role of the School Board to continually monitor performance. Would evaluate effectiveness by comparing standardized test performance, graduation rate, and college enrollment, and by comparing dollars spent to academic achievement attained using available state-level data.
Staffing Budget: Agrees with the override, stating, "if the taxpayers want to do that, so be it." He believes that if the people speak and want to spend the additional money for education, he doesn't have a problem with it, as they are paying the bill.

My opinions

That ends the unbiased part. If anyone cares, I'm voting for Giana Gelsey and for Denise Day, who we have to write in. Both are excellent and well-known. There's some false crap on the net about Giana that I won't repeat but you should definitely ignore. I would have voted for Colin Blake-Butler if Denise hadn't entered.

As for the others, Elizabeth Copley seemed clueless in the candidates forum, and William Howard got on the ballot last year and then never showed up, which gives me pause.

SDGA NH Senate Scorecard

EDIT 3/6: Candidate Blake-Butler and his cohorts organized the petition to add four citizen warrant articles to the ballot. A few days ago Loren Selig posted that two of the citizen warrant articles, the tax cap and statutory budget committee, align closely with proposed text from the School District Governance Association of NH (SDGA). SDGA is a big supporters of Republican legislators and former Education Commissioner Frank Edelblut, who are all actively hostile to public education in our state.

As far as I can tell, Blake-Butler's intentions toward our district are good and honorable. It's now clear that he and his group are not associated with the SDGA in any formal way, and borrowed language from existing SB-2 districts. Loren has since removed her post.

In the previous version of this paragraph (see inset) I tried not to say Blake-Butler was associated with SDGA, just that the language is similar, which makes him appear to be siding with folks active hostile to public education. The district is touchy about these folks after the Kach/Brackett fiasco back in 2011 and 2012, the genesis of this blog.

[END EDIT]

Free advice to the candidates: if you don't win this time around, just keep trying; sooner or later almost everyone who perseveres gets elected.

Please comment or send me correction or updates, like facebook pages for the other candidates, which I was unable to find.

ORCSD FY27 Budget Increased $519K in Agonizing Deliberative Session

noreply@blogger.com (Dean Rubine) — Wed, 04 Feb 2026 20:49:00 +0000

School board proposed cuts

At the ORCSD Deliberative Session yesterday, ORMS math interventionist and former board member Krista Butts* gave an impassioned appeal to undo the board's proposed cut of the three interventionists, and Amanda Hassan (?) argued against the nurse cut. In response, the citizens overwhelmingly approved State Rep and former board member Al Howland's motion to increase the proposed $61.8M budget by $519K.

The amended budget and a dozen other warrant articles will be voted on by the citizenry of the three towns on election day, Tuesday, March 10, 2026. Should the budget pass as it always has, the board is free to do what it wants with the extra money, including just giving it back to the taxpayers at the end of the school year.

Estimated tax impact (not including the $519K increase)

My understanding is the administration was laying off the two teachers because they no longer needed them, due to the changes in the number of students at each grade. The students aren't really going anywhere and the class size guidelines have not changed, so the district will just hire new teachers for the grades that need them. This is a big part of what we pay the district administration to do. While the board should give due weight to the relatively clear intent of the voters at DS, they are still obligated to run the district in a responsible manner. We'll see what happens.

It took four and a half hours to go through most of the 13 warrant articles (ballot questions), including four added by citizen petition. Attempts were made to amend five of the warrant articles, three successfully: Article 4 (operating budget) was amended to add $519K, Citizen Petition Article 12 was amended to make the proposed tax cap 15%, more like a tax ten-gallon hat, and Citizen Petition Article 13 (performance audit) was amended to appropriate only $100.

The queue for Durham voters went around the room

We knew it was going to be a long meeting when it took about 45 minutes to check in all the Durham folks. I have no idea why the attendees were so disproportionately from Durham. I initially guessed maybe they were angry about their taxes going up. Perhaps they were erroneously told there would be snacks. They turned out to be most of the substantial majorities that voted for more spending by the district, and voted against the various attempts to restrict spending in the district. [That's my glib characterization of the four citizen petition articles, perhaps mistaken: please see Colin Butler's* comment below.]

Kenneth Stuff moved to amend Article 3, the $9.5M elementary school construction project bond, with an amendment changing the bond amount to $3.9M. [Although it was not very clearly presented at the DS, the proposers had a justification for this number, also detailed in Colin Butler's comment below.] The board implied if it passed, this would waste the half million dollars already spent on planning, and at minimum delay the project, perhaps forever. Colin Butler had the requisite five signatures for a secret ballot, which took forever to cast, collect and count; that would be nice to fix. The amendment failed with 42 (15%) in favor and 237 (85%) against. I'm having flashbacks to the similar fate I suffered at the 2022 DS.

Citizen Petitioners

Articles 10 through 13 are the four citizen petitions, presented by a group of four people: Rita Mason, Eric Mason, Daniel Day, and Colin Butler. Kenneth Stuff and Peter Johnson also commented in support.

Daniel Day is son of board member and former chair Denise Day, who is retiring after 12 years of service, thanks Denise! I fondly remember then recent graduate Daniel Day from a school board meeting around 13 years ago where he said he'd be fired from his job had he tweeted the stuff board member Kach had.

A few of the amendments were by the proposers to fix defects in the language to accord with state law. Those were uniformly thwarted by the voters, presumably on the theory that an article cannot be enacted even if passed if it does not obey state law. It was a tough crowd; the group learned the hard way to do their homework and get the wording right the first time.

Amendments passed effectively neutering Article 12 (tax cap) and Article 13 (performance audit). Article 10 (statutory budget committee) remains intact. Article 11 (end retaining of fund balance) attempts to end the power the voters granted to the board to divert some appropriated but unspent money at school year end into various funds. Instead, if passed, the unspent funds will be used to offset next year's taxes. This was one of the articles where the voters prevented a language fix; not sure of the consequences if it passes.

The presenting group was not uniformly against all spending; Mr. Butler was the one who seconded the motion to add back the $519K.

Kudos to moderator Michael Williams, who did an excellent job keeping this unwieldy meeting moving forward. One suggestion: while counting secret ballots in public, it is best not to have one of the counters appearing to stick a few in her pocket. These turned out to be non-ballots in the ballot box, voter cards of frustrated voters who had apparently fled in search of a shorter meeting. Still, appearance is important.

The district is playing some games as well. Article 9 asks the voters to raise and appropriate $0 for funding ORCSD Open Enrollment. The money would be used to pay tuition for students from the district to attend other schools. The district believes the $0 appropriation will prevent the state from imposing the cost on us later.

The meeting began with a presentation of the Distinguished Service Award. Congratulations to 2026 ORCSD Distinguished Service Award winner Daniel Couture, who was honored for his many years of volunteer service with our ORCSD F.I.R.S.T. Robotics program.

This is the first time I've written about the district since last March, so let's not stretch it out. Future topics include: the school board election, the elementary school project, the budget, the various contracts and funds, and the four citizen petitions. No need to do it all today; I've have another meeting report to write, for my actual job. Talk to you all soon.

*Full disclosure: (1) Krista Butts and I are the ORMS MATHCOUNTS co-coaches; the Seacoast Regional Competition is at UNH this Saturday, go Bobcats! (2) I've exchanged a few texts with Colin Butler about what I thought about the warrant articles and DS procedures, as I would be happy to with anyone interested in participating in our school governance.

References:

Warrant as proposed

District Handout at DS

District Slides at DS

YouTube of DS

Elementary School Project

I asked Colin Butler to comment on this article. He shared it with Daniel Day who straightened me out when I said he worked for Rite Aid; sorry about that, Daniel, I've corrected the post. Colin also helped me with some names, which I've incorporated above. He further replied:

To provide some context on the $3.9M figure: it wasn't an arbitrary number intended to stall the project. The analysis utilized a 'Total Impacted Square Footage' methodology (encompassing demolition, construction, and renovation) to establish a baseline cost per building. This base rate was then applied to specific functional areas, including classrooms, the cafeteria, and 'art on a cart' spaces. The objective was to quantify the project’s original scope prior to its expansion by the administration. Notably, this figure aligns closely with the baseline estimates previously cited by Dr. Morse during the June 5, 2024 Meeting. While this high-level calculation differs from a construction firm's detailed line-item build-up, it serves as a directionally accurate benchmark for the initial project scale.

For what it’s worth, none of the articles were intended to be anti-spending. On the contrary, they were designed to promote smarter spending and more disciplined decision-making utilizing the same tools that now higher-ranked NH SB2 districts and $60M organizations use as standard practice. We aimed to make that distinction clear in our presentation and slide; however, I'll take the note that the "group is not uniformly against all spending" as feedback that we need to be much more effective in communicating that nuance. If you have any suggestions as to how we can do that I'd love to hear them!

Article 13: The district’s actions were equally questionable. Legally, the district does not have the authority to unilaterally cherry-pick portions of a petitioned warrant article. We were denied our right to have the article restored to the original language authorized by the signers, which undermines the very purpose of the petition process.

Thank you for the extensive comment, Mr. Butler. - Dean

Heather Smith, Renee Bennett, Sean Harrison elected to ORCSD School Board

noreply@blogger.com (ORCSDcleanslate) — Wed, 12 Mar 2025 02:13:00 +0000

In an unsurprising result, Renee Beauregard Bennett was elected to the Lee school board seat, Heather Smith was reelected to an at-large seat, and newcomer Sean Harrison won the remaining at-large seat. Moderator Michael Williams was reelected. Congratulations to you all.

YES won on all school district questions, including the $58M budget appropriation and the $531K architect fee; congratulations to the District.

The rather large budget passed with 68% support, down from the usual 75%, but hardly a citizen revolt despite some grumbling.

Thanks to wonderful outgoing member Brian Cisneros for his 8 years of service on the board.

Please enjoy this spreadsheet history of district elections that covers the time I've been paying attention.

Thanks to Todd Selig for these unofficial results; I've added the percentages.

SCHOOL DISTRICT UNOFFICIAL RESULTS (Durham, Lee, and Madbury Combined Ballots from all three precincts.)

ARTICLE 1:

For Moderator (1 Year) (Vote for not more than one)

Michael Williams - 1541

ARTICLE 2:

For School Board - Lee (2 years) (Vote for not more than one)

Renee Beauregard Bennett - 1401

For School Board - At-Large (3 Years) (Vote for not more than two)

Nancy Smith 510 18.7%

Sean Harrison 947 34.8%

William Howard 190 7.0%

Heather D. Smith 1078 39.6%

ARTICLE 3:

Shall the District raise and appropriate as an operating budget, not including appropriations by special warrant article and other appropriations voted separately, the amount set forth on the budget posted with the warrant or as amended by vote of the first session, for the purposes set forth therein, totaling $58,002,091? Should this article be defeated, the operating budget shall be $57,478,995 (Default Budget) which is the same as last year with certain adjustments required by previous action of the District or by law; or the District may hold one special meeting in accordance with RSA 40:13, X, and XVI to take up the issue of the revised operating budget only. The School Board recommends this appropriation. (Majority vote required)

Note: Fund 10 = $56,002,463 (regular operating budget); Fund 21 = $1,249,628 (expenditures from food service revenues); Fund 22 = $645,000 (expenditures from federal/special revenues); Fund 23 = $105,000 (expenditures from pass through funds).

YES 1168 67.9%

NO 551 32.1%

ARTICLE 4:

Shall the District vote to approve within the provisions of New Hampshire RSA 273-A:3 the cost items included in the collective bargaining agreement reached between the Oyster River Teacher's Guild and the Oyster River School Board which calls for the following increases in salaries and benefits at the current staffing levels:

2025-2026 $1,141,204

2026-2027 $1,055,526

2027-2028 $1,226,536

and further to raise and appropriate the sum of $1,141,204 for the 2025-2026 fiscal year, such sum representing the additional costs attributable to the increases in salaries and benefits required by the new agreement over those that would be paid at current staffing levels? The School Board recommends this appropriation. (Majority vote required)

YES 1335 75.4%

NO 435 24.3%

ARTICLE 5:

To see if the District will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $530,922 for architectural and engineering fees for the expansion and renovations at Moharimet Elementary and Mast Way Elementary schools. The School Board recommends this appropriation. (Majority vote required)

YES 1062 60.1%

NO 705 39.9%

ARTICLE 6:

Shall the District vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $125,000 to be added to the Facilities Development, Maintenance, and Replacement Expendable Trust Fund which was established in March of 2017? This sum to come from June 30 fund balance available for transer on July 1. The School Board recommends this appropriation. No amounts to be raised from taxation. (Majority vote required)

YES 1334 75.7%

NO 428 24.3%

ARTICLE 7:

Shall the District vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $125,000 to be added to the Artificial Turf Replacement Expendable Trust Fund which was established in March of 2024? This sum to come from June 30 fund balance available for transfer on July 1. The school Board recommends this appropriation. No amounts t be raised from taxation. (Majority vote required)

YES 1144 65.1%

NO 613 34.9%

Total ORCSD votes cast today: 1825

$( 5x - 5y+10)^2 = 2 (3x-4y + 6)^2$

$\dfrac{( x - y+2)^2}{1^2+(-1)^2} = \dfrac{ (4x-3y + 1)^2}{4^2+ (-3)^2}$

$( 5x - 5y+10)^2 = 2 (3x-4y + 6)^2$

$\dfrac{( x - y+2)^2}{1^2+(-1)^2} = \dfrac{ (4x-3y + 1)^2}{4^2+ (-3)^2}$

$( 5x - 5y+10)^2 = 2 (3x-4y + 6)^2$

$\dfrac{( x - y+2)^2}{1^2+(-1)^2} = \dfrac{ (4x-3y + 1)^2}{4^2+ (-3)^2}$

Guide to the March 2025 Oyster River School District Election

noreply@blogger.com (ORCSDcleanslate) — Tue, 11 Mar 2025 07:40:00 +0000

It's election day! This is my annual voting guide to the ORCSD election. I promised myself I wouldn't just post around election day, and now I've procrastinated for a year to the point that very few people will see this before the election.

I'll try to clearly delineate my opinion in italics from the factual information.

TL;DR: I'm not that sure this year, because I haven't been paying that close attention, but I'm voting for Heather Smith and Sean Harrison in the contested school board race, and YES on everything but article 5, the $531K for architects making plans to mod the elementary schools.

Voting Mechanics

Election Day is Tuesday March 11, 2025. If you're a US citizen at least 18 years of age who lives in Lee, Madbury or Durham (including UNH students who live in the district), you can do same day registration on election day at your town's polling place and vote. Even if you've never voted or registered to vote in New Hampshire before, you can vote Tuesday. Until recently, you could show up without ID and sign affidavits, but now, according to Lee's website: "Proofs of identity, age, citizenship and domicile MUST be presented to register to vote. Click here for an explanation of the requirements to register to vote under the new law." A passport or birth certificate, driver's license and a utility bill or government check with your address would be good documentation for a same-day registrant to have. Already registered voters just need a state photo ID.

Your election day polling place and voting times depend on where you live:

Durham: Oyster River High School 7:00 a.m. – 7:00 p.m.

Lee: Public Safety Complex 7:00 a.m. – 7:00 p.m.

The Issues

This year the issues are the large budget increase, the controversial teachers' contract, the pricey Moharimet extension and Mast Way renovation (with a down payment on the ballot), the Trump administration ordering DEI programs such as ours ended, and the possible end of our Department of Education funding, and of course the consequence on taxes. We'll talk about them as they pop up below.

The School District Ballot

As always, voters in each town are given identical school district ballots. Let's briefly go through the ballot questions, also known as the warrant articles.

Article 1 elects the moderator. Former Chair of the school board, Michael Williams, has been doing a great job as moderator, and no one else wants the job, so I'm voting for Michael.

Over a one year term, the moderator generally works two days. The moderator runs the Deliberative Session in February and oversees the school district election and ballot counting in March. Michael has added a third task: moderator of Meet the Candidates night.

The moderator's goal is an unbiased election process in accordance with New Hampshire law. The Town Meeting and School Meeting Handbook, mostly instructions for moderators, runs 101 pages. It says moderators have two year terms; I don't know why ours has a one year term.

Article 2 is the school board member vote. The ORCSD school board consists of three town-specific seats, one each for Durham, Lee and Madbury, which is held by an eligible voter from the specific town, and four at-large seats, each open to candidates from all three towns. Terms are three years. Voters in all three towns get to vote on all members, including the town-specific ones.

This year we choose two at-large school board members for a three year term and fill the Lee school board seat for a two year term.

Renee Beauregard Bennett is an Assistant Superintendent at SAU 16, Exeter. After she failed to win election last March, she was appointed to the board to fill an at-large seat that then member (now chair) Matt Bacon resigned from after he won the Madbury seat last year. She is now running unopposed for the Lee seat. I'm voting for Renee Bennett.

The Lee seat was vacated when current member Brian Cisneros decided to resign. Brian has served in the Lee seat since he was appointed in June 2017. He was just reelected last year. Thank you for your 8 years of service, Brian.

The real race is four people running for the two at-large seats.

Heather Smith is the incumbent, up for reelection after her first three year term. Back then I was initially skeptical as I had never seen anyone who wanted the position so much. But that's Heather -- very enthusiastic, very competent, very hard working, always with the students' best interests at heart. I'm voting for Heather Smith.

I don't know the other candidates. I'll try to gather information. There's very little out there. I can't find candidate facebook sites (except for Harrison) or articles or questionnaires. The main source of information is Candidates Night. I made an auto-transcript and labeled the speakers. I haven't wrestled it into English, but you may be able to skim through that faster than watching the 95 minute forum. I'll jot down a few tidbits.

Nancy Smith - from Madbury. "Principal and music teacher, 5 grandchildren in the district." "I have a desire to protect the district the next few years as things become tumultuous with our government."

I couldn't find anything about Nancy Smith running for school board, the school she worked or works at, or the instrument she plays. She mentioned MATHCOUNTS at the middle school as one of the programs she liked a couple of times, which I appreciate -- I've been the volunteer co-coach for five or six years. ORMS came in first at the Seacoast Regional Meet last month; state meet Saturday!

Sean Harrison - Durham, 2 children, 1 graduated, 1 still in school. Job: Risk Mitigation and Compliance. "I believe in public education." "...policy changes that are coming down from the state or the federal government, whatever they are, we adapt but we don't get distracted, we still stay on it so that when the kids come through those school doors they're provided the best opportunity, the best learning environment they can possibly have, and we support the staff that provides that to them."

He's gotten it together enough to produce a candidate facebook site and I even saw some signs out there in the real world. They're full color, with an apple. They're not the single color signs that subtly convey Yankee frugality.

William Howard - did not participate.

This isn't much information upon which to make a decision between these three. Rule out Howard; we don't know anything about him. Either of the others appear fine. Neither of them knows all that much about the issues like DEI at ORCSD. Smith surprisingly knew about Andrew Smith's (no relation) work here back in 2017, though she seemed to think he was district staff, not just a consultant. She did know he sadly died. But she thought we should hire someone to continue the work; i.e. she didn't appear to know the district has a DEIJ Director, Rachel Blansett. So I'm left to choose between a MATHCOUNTS shoutout and the minimum competency demonstrated by getting a facebook page together. I want to go with MATHCOUNTS lady but it looks like Harrison made much more of an effort to run, indicating he'd work hard. Politically, I'll guess they're both on the left, Harrison more centrist. As of now, 2:30 am on election day, I'm leaning toward Harrison.

Article 3 is the giant budget appropriation. One interesting measure is the difference between the operating budget and the default budget, $58M vs $57.48M, $523K, less than one percent. That means a NO win won't have much effect on your taxes -- it would be a mostly symbolic victory. It would however be a huge symbol; in my entire time watching ORCSD politics, for the budget YES always wins in Oyster River, usually by 50 points.

Here's some history: In 2020, this read $47.5M, 2021: 50.2M, 2022: 52.2M, 2023: 53.2M: 2024: 56.2M now $58.0M. That's 5% over last year, 4% annual inflation over the five years. School inflation generally runs higher than the 2.3% general inflation we'd gotten used to. This doesn't seem burn-it-all-down terrible; in fact it's hard to see the spike in inflation in 2022. This doesn't include the spending below.

I'm voting YES, but I'm grumpy about it. The truth is, inflation hits schools like everywhere else.

It's 3AM; let's just include the district's information about the major drivers and the tax increase:

If we believe these numbers, we're looking at (assuming everything passes) at 13.81/12.73=8.4% increase in Durham, 19.72/18.16=8.6% increase in Lee and 22.67/21.34=6.2% increase in Madbury. Ouch.

There's plenty of spending to talk about, but let's just move on.

Article 4 is the teacher's guild contract, a $1.14M increase this year. It's hard to get a straight answer on what the baseline being paid to teachers is (including taxes, benefits, etc. ) that we're voting to increase. They used to report the percentage increase; but we get nothing here. I got a few different numbers when I asked at Deliberative Session this year.

Oyster River used to be at the high end of the market, paying teachers well. I think what happened is that the teachers negotiated their contract in November, 2019, assuming the last three decades of 2 - 2.5% annual inflation would continue. They negotiated a five year deal of raises of around that magnitude that was approved in March, 2020. Then COVID hit, and we got a bout of inflation 2021 - 2023. Suddenly those raises weren't looking so good. The five years has elapsed, so it's time to get teacher pay back up to market rates, which looks like it happens more gradually than I would have expected.

I gathered a fair amount of gossip about the contract negotiations that I'm not going to report. I'm voting YES.

Back in 2014, we expanded the Moharimet multipurpose space to the property line. It cost $570K to do the entire project! A YES win here means we're paying that just for a year of architectural services this time around, to generate images like the one below. The project will probably cost five or ten times that.

I miss the days of the prefab classrooms at $20K a year. Enrollments are down from those days, enough that the board thought they could safely get rid of the prefabs a few years ago. Enrollment isn't really projected to increase, but space is still tight because we want so many programs. I'm feeling grumpy. I may vote NO.

This is a payment toward buying the middle school solar array, same as the last few years. It's a good deal for the taxpayers to own the array. I'm voting YES. "No amounts to be raised from taxation" is the usual boilerplate lie.

The district realized it needs to buy two new turf fields every decade or so, so it puts away money in this account. I'm voting YES.

See everybody at the polls on Tuesday.

Ickes, Cisneros and Bacon Win

noreply@blogger.com (Dean Rubine) — Wed, 13 Mar 2024 03:40:00 +0000

Newcomer Kelly Ickes won Durham's town-specific school board seat, incumbent Brian Cisneros won Lee's seat, and member Matt Bacon won Madbury's seat in today's election. Michael Williams remains moderator; he ran unopposed. Congratulations to all the winners.

YES won on all school district questions, including the $56.2M budget appropriation; congratulations to the District.

Thanks to wonderful outgoing members Tom Newkirk and Dan Klein for their 11 years and 9 years of service on the board, respectively.

The election of Matt Bacon to Madbury's seat means that he will resign the at-large seat he currently holds. The board has the duty to appoint someone for the remaining year of Bacon's at-large term; my guess is they will appoint the next-highest vote getter, Renee Beauregard-Bennett from Lee.

Though Madbury's results are still not in, Lee's own Erik Johnson (D) appears to have won the special election for state representative from Lee/Dover/Madbury. Congratulations, Erik! The state house currently leans slightly Republican, but the majority is really determined by who shows up at the legislature on any particular voting day (Fosters, Union Leader).

I'm still on vacation with a terrible Internet connection, so I'm just going to paste the results here (thanks Todd Selig) and finish this post when I get home tomorrow.

[Edit 3/16] It's been a few days. I'll update in my district history in spreadsheet form and calculate percentages. I'm not sure what if anything was the overall issue in this election; let's say inflation.

SCHOOL DISTRICT UNOFFICIAL RESULTS (Durham, Lee, and Madbury Combined Ballots from all three precincts.)

ARTICLE 1:

For Moderator (1 Year) (Vote for not more than one)

Michael Williams - 1525 ELECTED

ARTICLE 2:

For School Board - Lee (3 years) (Vote for not more than one)

Renee Beauregard Bennett - 347 25.6%

Rebecca Blake - 285 21.0%

Brian Cisneros - 726 53.5% ELECTED

For School Board - Durham (3 Years) (Vote for not more than one)

Jason Kolligs - 82 6.1%

Stephanie Pitts - 210 15.6%

Andrea Chan - 142 10.5%

John Colwell - 158 11.7%

Kelly Ickes - 754 56.0% ELECTED

For School Board - Madbury (3 Years) (Vote for not more than one)

Matt Bacon - 369 87.4% ELECTED

Others - 53 12.6%

ARTICLE 3:

Shall the District raise and appropriate as an operating budget, not including appropriations by special warrant article and other appropriations voted separately, the amount set forth on the budget posted with the warrant or as amended by vote of the first session, for the purposes set forth therein, totaling $56,248,037. Should this article be defeated, the operating budget shall be $55,929,305 (Default Budget) which is the same as last year with certain adjustments required by previous action of the District or by law; or the District may hold one special meeting in accordance with RSA 40:1 3, X, and XVI to take up the issue of the revised operating budget only. The School Board recommends this appropriation. (Majority vote required)

Note: Fund 10 = $54,415,352 (regular operating budget); Fund 21 = $1,191,685 (expenditures from food service revenues); Fund 22 = $600,000 (expenditures from federal/special revenues); Fund 23 = $41,000 (expenditures from pass through funds).

YES - 1208 74.4% PASSED

NO - 415 23.1%

ARTICLE 4:

Shall the District vote to approve within the provisions of New Hampshire RSA 273-A:3 the cost items included in the collective bargaining agreement reached between the Oyster River Intervention and Tutors Association and the Oyster River School Board which calls for the following increases in salaries and benefits at the current staffing levels:

2024-2025 $139,846.63

2025-2026 $ 35,219.00

2026-2027 $ 18,695.59

and further to raise and appropriate the sum of $139,846.63 for the 2024-2025 fiscal year, such sum representing the additional costs attributable to the increases in salaries and benefits required by the new agreement over those that would be paid at current staffing levels? The School Board recommends this appropriation. (Majority vote required)

YES - 1367 76.9% PASSED

NO - 411 23.1%

ARTICLE 5:

Shall the District vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $125,000 to be added to the Facilities Development, Maintenance, and Replacement Trust which was established in March of 2017.This sum to come from June 30 fund balance available for transfer on July 1. The School Board recommends this appropriation. (Majority vote required) No amounts to be raised from taxation.

YES - 1408 92.3% PASSED

NO - 118 7.7%

ARTICLE 6:

Shall the District establish an Artificial Turf Field Replacement Expendable Trust Fund under the provisions of RSA I98:20-c,for replacing the District's Artificial Athletics Turf Fields, and raise and appropriate up to $125,000 for this purpose with such amount to be funded from the year-end undesignated fund balance, and further, to name the School Board as agents to expend from the Artificial Turf Field Replacement Trust. (Majority vote required)

YES - 1036 59.6% PASSED

NO - 701 40.4%

ARTICLE 7:

Shall the District establish a non-lapsing Athletic Field Revolving Fund in accordance with RSA 194:3-c to be funded by receipts from the use of the District's athletic fields for the purpose of maintaining and replacing the athletic fields. Further to raise and appropriate the sum of one dollar($1.00). Withdrawals from the revolving fund will be made on an annual basis as needed. (Majority vote required)

YES - 1252 72.0% PASSED

NO - 487 28.0%

Total ORCSD votes cast today: 1890

The Race Is On, But You Wouldn't Know It

noreply@blogger.com (Dean Rubine) — Mon, 04 Mar 2024 16:57:00 +0000

[EDIT 3/9] The Candidates Forum on Thursday night implied that Andrea Chan and Rebecca Blake weren't running -- at least they weren't announced as candidates. Watch the forum here; it starts around 56 minutes in. There's also a piece in Fosters.

I'm on vacation, so this will be my only post before election day. Here are last year's voting instructions; no guarantee that they'll apply this year.

Election Day, Tuesday, March 12, 2024

There are contested school board elections on March 12. Vote at your usual polling place; same day registration is available.

The campaigns seem silent; at least I haven't seen any sign of them online or driving around. There's a students' candidate forum scheduled for 6pm, March 7 in the ORHS auditorium. I haven't seen any commitment to making it available online, and there's a very spotty history of timely posting of Candidates Night videos because the district tries to remain at arms length, but hopefully Alex is on it and we'll get to see something before election day. Sometimes the PTOs, the teachers' guild or Oyster River Equity put out voting information; I haven't seen any of that yet, but be on the lookout.

The ORCSD board consists of seven members: four at-large seats and three town-specific seats, one each from Durham, Lee and Madbury. You must reside in the town to hold the town-specific seat, even though voters from all three towns get to vote for or against you. School board terms are three years.

No one asked me this year, so I didn't give anyone my usual free advice for a contested race. I'll give it here for everyone; it's mostly too late for this cycle: (1) buy 100 coroplastic signs with stands, nothing fancy, last name in large, readable letters, (2) make a facebook page and post things to it, (3) maybe team up with another candidate and do a mailer, (4) make a sign with your name on it for Candidates Night, and (5) talk to voters at the transfer stations.

The Candidates

This year it's the three town-specific seats that are up for election. Here are the candidates; I'll feed the names into facebook and link to any school-board specific pages that come up. It looks like Seacoast Online / Portsmouth Herald is doing candidate stories; I've found four so far, all dated February 22, so that may be it. I'll include those links as well. Add to the free advice: (6) when the Portsmouth Herald asks questions, answer them.

Durham:

Andrea Chan (no online candidate information found)

John Colwell (Seacoast Online)

Kelly Ickes (Seacoast Online)

Jason Kolligs (facebook)

Stephanie Pitts (Seacoast Online, facebook)

Lee:

Renee Beauregard-Bennett (no online candidate information found)

Rebecca Blake (no online candidate information found)

Brian Cisneros (Seacoast Online, facebook)

Madbury: No candidate signed up

Of this list, I only know Brian Cisneros. Let's see what information we can gather from publicly available sources. I don't know these people so these are my best guess; it's possible I've found someone else with the same name. Candidates, if you prefer I remove your photo or use a different image or bio, please comment below. I'll try to keep this section unbiased and tell you who I'm voting for at the end.

DURHAM CANDIDATES

Andrea Chan

Andrea Chan appears to be the proprietor of Andrea Chan Photography, specializing in children's photography. I didn't find any additional biographical information on Ms. Chan.

John Colwell

Mr. Colwell has a bachelor of science in chemical engineering, a bachelor of arts in German language, and is an engineer for a battery materials startup. He moved to Durham in 2022, and he has a second grader and a soon to be kindergartener in the district. This is his first time running for any office.

Kelly Ickes

According to her LinkedIn page, Ms. Ickes is an experienced leader and program manager with a diverse background developing team members and running education assessment programs, skilled in client management, staff development, program evaluation, program management, and project management. She has no current employer listed, but had a 5.5 year stint as Director of Content Development-Accessibility at Cognia after 14 years at Measured Progress, and as a special education teacher before that.

Members are no longer allowed to endorse, but long-time chair and current holder of the Durham seat Tom Newkirk tells me that he served with Ms. Ickes on the superintendent search committee, and that she has kids in the district and has been active in PTO. Tom says her background in educational assessment makes her a "good fit."

Jason 'Jabo' Kolligs

Kudos to Mr. Kolligs, who's gotten it together enough to create a candidate facebook page. He hasn't really posted much on it yet. We don't get a bio, just an image with some emblems and words. From the image we can infer a wife, five kids and a doggie. We also get among his publicly available personal photos a "proud to be a Libertarian." Libertarians / Free Staters were notoriously responsible for the chaos in Croydon’s schools a few year ago.

Stephanie Pitts

Ms. Pitts has a bachelors of science in environmental management, and lists her occupation as safety manager. She has no previous political or civic experience. She gave a pithy answer in her Seacoast Online piece, which I'll just quote here:

What would be your top three priorities if you are elected? 1. Ensure quality education is provided for all students, based on scientific principles and proven methods for education content and delivery. 2. Ensure public schools remain truly public and free from bias of politics, religion, or other cultural pressures. 3. Improve/ensure student safety at all educational levels from both internal and external threats (teacher/administrative screening, visitor policies, threats and violence, etc.).

LEE CANDIDATES

Renee Beauregard-Bennett

Dr. Renee Beauregard-Bennett doesn't seem to have created a candidate page, but from her personal facebook page we find out that she's been Assistant Superintendent/Director of Student Services at SAU 16, Exeter Region Cooperative School District, since 2015. That's an excellent credential for a school board member. Before that she lists special education at Dover Area School District.

She's a local: Dover Senior High, UNH Political Science class of 2002, masters from Keene State and a doctorate of Education from New England College.

Rebecca Blake

I didn't find much relevant information about Rebecca Blake; judging from her publicly available facebook photos she has two school-aged children and a nice smile.

[Edit 3/5] I got a message from James Lolano that Ms. Blake is a para at Mast Way who told him she has decided to keep her job rather than seek a board seat. She apparently was unable to withdraw in time to stay off the ballot. I have no reason to doubt Mr. Lolano, and RSA 671:18 indeed says district employees cannot serve on their district's board. I didn't find Ms. Blake listed in the district employee directory, so I cannot verify her district employment. She is or was co-president of the Mast Way PTO.

Brian Cisneros

Brian Cisneros is the incumbent Lee representative; he's served seven years in the seat. His day job is as Business Administrator for SAU 1, ConVal (Contoocook Valley) School District. That's a recent change; he was Business Administrator for SAU 61, Farmington for many years. Brian applied for the ORCSD BA job last year, and appeared to be the front-runner, but the board ultimately chose Amy Ransom.

MADBURY

No one filed to run for Madbury's seat, so the winner will be determined by write in votes. I've been told the plan is to ask folks to write in current at-large school board member Matt Bacon. The plan makes sense.

I think of the district as a seven slice pizza, four for Durham, two for Lee and one for Madbury. That's approximately the ratio of total property values of the towns, and of students from each town. So if we were after some ideal of proportional representation, we'd have four reps from Durham, two from Lee and one from Madbury. We currently have three reps from Madbury on the board, which is a bit lopsided. Basically everyone from Madbury who wants to be on the school board already is. After nine years of service, member Dan Klein is not seeking reelection for the Madbury seat.

The write-in plan rebalances the board a bit. Matt gets elected to the Madbury seat and resigns his at-large seat; the board is then free to appoint someone (presumably not from Madbury) for the remaining year of Matt's at-large term. I suppose it's a good bet the board will pick one of the candidates that didn't win, perhaps from among the second placers. That at-large seat will be on the ballot at the March, 2025 election.

It's very rare that there's some dispute in the district that pits the towns against each other, so the towns of the members and the at-large/town-specific distinction matter very little in practice. The main difference is when an at-large seat is vacated, the school board gets to appoint a replacement to serve until the next election, but when a town-specific seat is vacated, the town gets to choose the replacement.

Who I'm voting for

This is the biased part of the post, where I give my opinion. This year it's pretty uninformed; feel free to stop reading now. I'm away for a week so I'm going to vote absentee in the next day or two if I can.

I don't know who to vote for for the Durham seat.

For Lee, I'm going to vote for Brian Cisneros, who's always done a great job. Dr. Beauregard-Bennett seems like a great candidate as well, and I'd be more inclined to consider her had I seen any effort at campaigning.

For Madbury, of course I'm writing in Matt Bacon.

I'm voting YES on the remaining questions; please see my Guide to the ORCSD 2024 Deliberative Session for a bit more detail on the ballot. I suppose I should report that the warrant was unchanged at deliberate session. Two people thanked me for asking the questions I did, and three others told me I could have asked them at the budget hearing or budget workshop and not bothered the good folks at DS.

A cursory search didn't turn up a Guild or Equity questionnaire or anything from the PTOs; please let me know if I've missed anything and I'll add it here.

[Edit 3/6] Rumor Report

I'm hearing rumors that: Andrea Chan and Rebecca Black want to withdraw but it's too late to get off the ballot. It's only rumors at this point, but sometimes that's all we get. I'm leaving town in a couple of hours, so you all will have to sort this out yourself. Candidates, if you disagree with anything, please comment below and I will incorporate your words.

ORCSD Deliberative Session Tuesday February 6, 2024

noreply@blogger.com (Dean Rubine) — Mon, 05 Feb 2024 08:27:00 +0000

Last year I promised myself I wouldn't only post around election time, and yet here we are. I'm not even a district parent anymore, as my boy graduated in June. I'm still the middle school MATHCOUNTS co-coach with Ms. Gehling, and I was the NH state MATHCOUNTS coach this year. On Saturday Oyster River made it into the state MATHCOUNTS finals, which are slated for March 9.

I'm probably like a lot of people and haven't been paying too much attention to the school district lately. Let's take this opportunity to catch up together. There's of course been plenty of news in the intervening year, including a new superintendent who'll start in July. It's after midnight on Monday morning so let's just focus on the immediate future, Tuesday's Deliberative Session. I'll make it easy on myself and just watch and comment on the Budget Hearing video, pasting in screenshots as we go. I'll skip the self-congratulatory introduction, which will just get me angry.

Tax Impact

Most people reading are probably more concerned about their taxes going up than the details of the Deliberative Session and the warrant, so let's start there. We're given two tables:

I think the historical millages in the table add the local and state education lines, which is misleading as the district budget only affects the local ed line, but I'm too tired to worry about it. The Durham millage isn't helpful either; we want to use these as a proxy for how much our taxes will go up, so they should give us a pro-forma number when there's a town-wide reassessment.

We calculate the estimated school tax increase in Durham as .40/13.35=3.0%, in Lee as .82/15.32=5.4% and in Madbury as .97/19.20=5.1%.

If you're wondering why your tax bill hurts more in December than July, it's because there's not enough time from the election in March to calculate taxes to be collected in July, so July's bill is always half of the previous year's taxes. Then the December tax bills are calculated to make up the total appropriated by the voters in March, so all the increase lands there.

Deliberative Session Tuesday February 6, 2024, 7pm, Oyster River Middle School

The ORCSD Deliberative Session is Tuesday February 6th, 7pm, at the new ORMS recital hall (1 Coe Dr, Durham) for the second time. It will be Superintendent Morse's last DS as superintendent.

What's a Deliberative Session?

As I always say, the Deliberative Session is a real election where the citizenry gets to amend the budget. It's the vestige of the traditional NH town meeting. Unlike most NH elections, same day registration is usually not available at DS. So you need to be already registered to vote in one of the three towns to be given a voting card at DS. There is no provision for remote voting -- to vote at DS you must attend.

Attendance at DS varies between around 25 voters in bad weather to around 200 voters when there's a controversial issue. It's worth showing up just to keep a small group of renegades from cutting the budget in half, like what happened in Croydon. That's not likely to happen here because the voters can always choose the default budget on election day.

The purpose of the Deliberative Session is to give the voters an opportunity to amend the warrant articles before they're voted on. Some articles, such as negotiated contracts, cannot be amended. Some, like the main budget, can. A majority of voters at DS can change those numbers, overriding the judgement of the board. Then on election day (March 12, 2024), the voters get to vote each possibly amended warrant article up or down.

Each warrant article (except the ones that elect people) is read at DS, then explained by a board member. Voters can then line up at the podium, and when it's your turn you can ask questions that the panel, which includes the board, the superintendent, business administrator, district lawyer, maybe others, will attempt to answer. You're free to make a speech, but if your speech doesn't propose an amendment or comment on an already proposed amendment, you might want to think twice about making it. The safest amendments, in the sense you may be sure they are allowed and will survive a court challenge, are changes to the budget numbers.

Note from by John Parsons, used with permission; thanks John: I'd like to add an observation to this statement you included: "You're free to make a speech, but if your speech doesn't propose an amendment or comment on an already proposed amendment, you might want to think twice about making it." I second that, but I'll be more blunt about it. The moderators at district meeting have generally been patient over the years with speakers veering, usually on purpose, off-topic to make points unrelated to the article/amendment at hand. Technically speaking, all comments are supposed to directly address the specific topic under discussion. Please, everyone, stay on topic. Leave your rants to the 'any other business' portion of the meeting near the end.

The Warrant

The Warrant is the name for the ballot, and Warrant Article is the name for a ballot question. The warrant articles are the subject of the Deliberative Session, so let's go through them.

Oh my, this is asking to appropriate $56.2M from taxpayers, up 5.7% from $53.2M in this article last year. That's a lot, but it's good to see that it's only $319K (0.6%) above the $55.9M default budget (what we get if NO wins). YES always wins in Oyster River, and the closeness of these numbers is one indicator that the board is doing a good job in these difficult inflationary times. In any case, there's not much savings in a NO win this year, making a NO campaign difficult.

YES or NO is a concern for election day in March; at the DS any voter may propose an amendment to change the top line number. They're free to give a speech about what to cut if the amendment is approved, but the board has wide discretion and doesn't have to listen to anything but the number. If the number is lowered below the default budget (which cannot be changed), the usual YES voters could organize a vote NO campaign and then at least get the default budget.

Here we see the board adopted a goal near the high end of its usual increases, which is perhaps expected as they attempt to keep up with the recent inflation. As for expenses, we got a nasty health insurance increase. The 15.1% is a `guaranteed maximum' for budgeting; often the actual number comes in less and the district gets to use the difference as a slush fund. The next five aren't a surprise; these are contracts negotiated in previous years. That includes the middle school bond; the $583K is the first payment of a second bond.

The Utilities number represents actual inflation. The mental health counselor was hired to cover the increasing demand in our post-COVID world. Music teacher Andrea von Oeyen has built Oyster River's strings program into a reported 260 students, which I think means an incredible 12% of Oyster River students are currently getting string instrument lessons through the school. The budget includes an additional strings teacher to share the load.

The two new positions account for $237K of the $319K difference between the default budget and the proposed budget; I don't know about the rest.

It's getting late so I better move this along. If you haven't seen ORITA before, it's because the Oyster River Intervention and Tutors Association is a new union. I believe they're paraprofessionals, so I'm not sure why they're not part of ORPaSS. We have the usual exasperating lack of context: no indication of how many tutors we're talking about, no report of the associated expenses for total wages, benefits, FICA, etc. We're told the large number this upcoming year is due to the addition of health care for these folks. There's no amending negotiated contracts, but maybe we can get some answers at DS.

Note from Krista Butts, used with permission; thanks Krista: ORITA is not paraprofessionals, they are the interventionists and speech and language assistants (people who teach speech and language but aren’t specialists.) These are teachers, most are fully certified, that have been getting paid an hourly rate just above paraeducators and are designing curriculum for up to 7 different classes a day. The majority of their classes are made up of kids who don’t meet benchmark or classroom expectations but do not qualify for an IEP.

This is the middle school solar array fund. The school has the option to buy the solar array after seven years. This article first appeared in 2021 so this will be the fourth year. It's a good move financially to buy the array, so to that end we put away $125K every year.

The fund balance is the unspent money at the end of the year. The boilerplate `No amounts to be raised from taxation' is misleading. What really happened is this money was already raised from taxation in March, 2023 so doesn't need to be added to the March, 2024 total. Unspent funds that are not diverted by a warrant article like this offset the following year's taxes, so however it's phrased, passing this article extracts an additional $125K from the citizenry.

This fund is new. The district now owns two turf fields, with the older high school field (built in summer 2016 at a cost of $2.3M) needing major maintenance. The $125K is not a one-time expense; this is expected to be a recurring article that annually puts away what is presumably the estimated annual cost to maintain two turf fields. The life of a field is 10 to 13 years, so I don't think the math works out here; in 13 years we'll have collected $1.625M, not enough for one field, let alone two. Then again, I can imagine the installation costing more the first time than subsequent times.

It was Dr. Bob Barth who back in 2015 successfully worked to get the board to pay an additional $260K for safer, more expensive fill rather than tire crumb for the turf field, citing cancer concerns. Bob sadly passed away in November, 2023. Rest in peace, Bob, you were a model to us all. Bob is survived by his wife, former school board chair Maria Barth, and his children and grandchildren.

Even though it's funded from the fund balance, surprisingly the article is missing the boilerplate about `no amounts...' (at least on this slide). The amount may be amended at DS.

This is yet another fund dedicated to maintaining the fields. This fund is used to park the rent collected from renting out the athletic fields. It's a nice idea, almost certain to pass.

There's not much here to amend at DS; you could change the dollar to a penny, I suppose. My view of these funds is that they almost always contain money that would otherwise be in the pockets of taxpayers. That's true here; without this fund the receipts go into the operating account, where they add to the fund balance and offset next year's taxes. Now that I'm a grumpy old man and no longer a district parent, I'm inclined to believe that the money is better off with taxpayers. But I can see how it makes sense for the district to try to fill some coffers by stashing away unspent money, in order to ease the pain of the shocks that will inevitably occur.

Revenue

This is an ominous warrant, because in addition to a large increase in the operating budget, we see a trend of new warrant articles that aren't one-time expenses, but are intended to be annual appropriations. We see how the warrant asks for money to be added to various funds this year. The warrant doesn't explicitly indicate that the opposite is happening as well: taxes are being lowered by withdrawals from other funds. That gets us to the subject of revenue.

The warrant is about expenses, but of course the taxpayers are on the hook for expenses minus revenue. In the world of municipal accounting, withdrawing savings to pay for expenses counts as revenue, which is a bit of magical thinking. There are some actual revenue increases on this list: the increase in tuition income and in interest income. School Nutrition revenue is a wash with additional School Nutrition expenses. The rest are withdrawals from funds (and retained fund balance, otherwise unspent money this year). These withdrawals achieve a one-time reduction of a recurring cost, so have the effect of shifting some of the tax increase to the following budget year.

It's 3:40 am so this will have to be it. See you all tomorrow (Tuesday) at the Deliberative Session.

Day, Gelsey and Newkirk elected to ORCSD Board

noreply@blogger.com (Dean Rubine) — Wed, 29 Mar 2023 05:12:00 +0000

Congratulations to Denise Day, Giana Gelsey and Tom Newkirk, all elected to the Oyster River School Board. Congratulations to former Chair Michael Williams, now elected moderator. Congratulations to the school district for successful passage of the budget, with 75% voting YES, and for passage of the solar array set-aside.

There's nothing at all surprising in these results. All the candidates ran for uncontested seats.

Tom Newkirk's term is only one year. It's the remainder of Yusi Turell's term, who resigned from the Durham seat. Tom is returning after a one year absence, as he decided not to seek reelection in March 2022. Before that, Tom served ten years on the board, seven as chair.

This will be Denise Day's fourth three year term. She is probably the favorite to be Chair this year, having served as Vice Chair under Chair Williams. Picking a Chair is the board's first job.

This is Giana Gelsey's first term on the board, after falling short last year.

In Lee, incumbent selectman Scott Bugbee bested newcomer Erik Johnson by 23 votes, 299 to 276. Deb Schanda and Katrina Rusteika won the hotly contested Lee Library Trustee race. Congratulations to all the winners.

Here are the school district results; thanks to Todd Selig and Durham Friday Updates.

SCHOOL DISTRICT UNOFFICIAL RESULTS (Durham, Lee, and Madbury Combined Ballots from all three precincts.)

ARTICLE 1:

For Moderator (1 Year) (Vote for not more than one)

Michael Williams - 1081 ELECTED

ARTICLE 2:

For School Board At-Large (3 years) (Vote for not more than two)

Giana Gelsey - 925 ELECTED
Denise Day - 972 ELECTED

ARTICLE 2:

For School Board Durham (1 year) (Vote for not more than one)

Tom Newkirk - 1064 ELECTED

ARTICLE 3:

Shall the District raise and appropriate as an operating budget, not including appropriations by special warrant article and other appropriations voted separately, the amount set forth on the budget posted with the warrant or as amended by vote of the first session, for the purposes set forth therein, totaling $53,211,098. Should this article be defeated, the operating budget shall be $52,953,910 (Default Budget) which is the same as last year with certain adjustments required by previous action of the District or by law; or the District may hold one special meeting in accordance with RSA 40:13, X, and XVI to take up the issue of the revised operating budget only. The School Board recommends this appropriation. (Majority vote required)

Note:
Fund 10 = $51,679,884 (regular operating budget); Fund 21 = $890,214 (expenditures from food service revenues); Fund 22 = $600,000 (expenditures from federal/special revenues); Fund 23 = $41,000 (expenditures from pass through funds).

YES - 894 74.7% PASSED
NO - 303 25.3%

ARTICLE 4:

Shall the District raise and appropriate the sum of $125,000 to be added to the Facilities Department, Maintenance and Replacement Trust which was established in March of 2017. This sum to come from the June 30 fund balance available for transfer on July 1. The School Board recommends this appropriation. (Majority vote required). No amounts to be raised from taxation.

YES - 985 82.1% PASSED
NO - 215 17.9%

Total ORCSD votes cast today: 1273

Voting Guide to the 2023 Oyster River Cooperative School District Election, Tuesday March 28 [was 14]

noreply@blogger.com (Dean Rubine) — Mon, 13 Mar 2023 02:35:00 +0000

Breaking News: [3/13] Weather forecasts have delayed municipal elections in the three towns to Tuesday, March 28, 2023.

This is my annual voting guide to the ORCSD election. Election Day is Tuesday March 14 28, 2023. I usually try to remain unbiased up until a certain point in the guide, but this time there's not much choice on the ballot, so I won't bother to be coy.

TL;DR: The Oyster River school district election is pretty boring this year, with no contested seats and no controversial ballot questions. I'm voting for Tom Newkirk, Denise Day and Giana Gelsey for school board; they're the three candidates for the three available seats, so they're all virtually certain to win. I'm voting YES on both warrant articles, which are the $53.2M budget and a $125K set-aside to purchase the middle school solar array in a few years.

I'm also voting for current chair Michael Williams for district moderator. I incorrectly reported in a previous post that the moderator seat was contested; sorry about that. Long time moderator Rick Laughton has decided not to seek reelection.

In Lee, I'm voting for newcomer Erik Johnson over long time incumbent Scott Bugbee. I've got nothing against Scott, who I've supported in the past, but given Lee skews about two to one Democrats versus Republicans, I think we should have some Democrats in power at the top for a change. I know Erik is a good Democrat, and that Scott ran for State Rep as a Republican in 2020 (and lost).

Voting Mechanics

If you're a US citizen at least 18 years of age who lives in Lee, Madbury or Durham (including UNH students who live in the district), you can just show up on Tuesday at your town's polling place and vote. Like almost all elections in New Hampshire, same day registration is available. So even if you've never voted or registered to vote in New Hampshire before, you can vote Tuesday. It's easier if everyone brings a state photo ID and if new registrants also bring proof of address (a utility bill), but under New Hampshire's voter ID law you can vote even if you don't bring those by signing affidavit forms at the polls.

New Rule: Under a 2022 law that has been challenged in court but I think remains in effect, affidavit ballots have become provisional; voters must follow up with proper documentation within 7 days or their ballot will not count.

Your election day polling place and voting times depend on where you live:

Durham: Oyster River High School 7:00 a.m. – 7:00 p.m.

Lee: Public Safety Complex 7:00 a.m. – 7:00 p.m. Recent elections have been at Mast Way but this one says the Lee Safety Complex.

Madbury: Town Hall 11:00 a.m. – 7:00 p.m. Madbury also has a genuine town meeting, 7 pm at Madbury Town Hall [sorry, this incorrectly said Moharimet for a few hours], where they vote on the majority of their warrant articles, but the school district stuff is in the daytime Town Hall election. 7 pm Town Hall appears to be a change; in the past they'd start at 7:30 at the elementary school.

The School District Ballot

As always, voters in each town are given identical school district ballots. Let's briefly go through the ballot questions, also known as the warrant articles.

Article 1 elects the moderator. The current Chair of the school board, Michael Williams, has decided not to seek reelection for school board. Instead he's running unopposed for moderator. For the first time in decades, Rick Laughton won't be seeking the position. Thank you Rick for your many years of service as moderator. Thank you Michael for your years of service on the board, and good luck in your new role.

Over a one year term, the moderator generally works two days. The moderator runs the Deliberative Session in February and oversees the school district election and ballot counting in March. The moderator's goal is an unbiased election process in accordance with New Hampshire law. The Town Meeting and School Meeting Handbook, mostly instructions for moderators, runs 101 pages. It says moderators have two year terms; I'm not sure why ours has a one year term.

Article 2 chooses two at-large school board members for a three year term and one Durham specific school board member for a one year term. Three seats up for election, three candidates, no drama. Congratulations, Giana, Denise and Tom.

As a whole, the ORCSD school board consists of three town-specific seats, one each for Durham, Lee and Madbury, which is held by an eligible voter from the specific town, and four at-large seats, each open to candidates from all three towns.

The one year term is the remainder of board member Yusi Turrell's term; Yusi resigned effective March 3. Thank you for your service, Yusi.

Given the lack of a real race, it doesn't seem the candidates did much campaigning, nor did the usual institutions do their usual thing. I didn't see a questionnaire from the Teacher's Guild or from any other groups. Usually one of the PTOs hosts a Meet the Candidates night, lately a virtual debate, but I didn't see anything like that either. Just because the election isn't contested doesn't mean we should skip the annual discussion of district issues with the school board candidates.

Denise Day and Tom Newkirk are well known, having both served on the board the past decade, Tom as chair for most of that. Tom didn't seek reelection when his term expired in 2022, but he's back now. Denise has been vice-chair, and with Chair Williams not seeking reelection, Denise is probably the favorite to become chair in March. (The first act of the new board is to elect a chair.) You can read all about Tom and Denise in pasts posts here going back to 2012, too many to link to.

Giana's less well known, but she's been on the Moharimet PTO for a while and ran last year; again, check out past posts here for more details. Her campaign facebook page from last year doesn't seem available anymore. I enthusiastically endorsed her last year, and I'm even more enthusiastic now that she's going to serve on the board.

Article 3 asks the voters if the district can spend $53.21 million in 23/24.

If NO wins we get the default budget of $52.95 M, a decrease of $260K or 0.5%. NO never wins in Oyster River.

This year the main issue was the reduction is state aid to towns. The aid had been increased during the pandemic, but those boosts have been wound down. The district generally tries to keep the tax impact (increases in expenses minus revenue) at 3%. In reaction to the reduction in aid, the board chose to cap the increase in expenses at 1.5%.

Other issues include the new payments for the middle school bond and the end of the high school renovation bond. Here are some relevant slides from the Deliberative Session, which left the school board proposed budget unamended.

23/24 changes in state education aid to towns

Change in Education Property Tax Rates

I have a couple of issues with how the district reports taxes. First of all, they include the State Education Tax line, which is the money the state collects, then doles out as adequacy aid. The district has no control over this line. It is interesting in that the burden is intended to be the same fraction of property value on all owners across the state; the difference in the numbers in each town reflect the difference between the actual appraised values and the equalized appraised values, where the appraised numbers are equalized (made comparable across towns) by considering recent real estate sales.

Second, the district reports the rate, but not the percentage increase, which is probably what most people think about. Let's compute them as Durham 1.27/(19.36-1.27) = +7.0%, Lee .63/(15.71-.63)=+4.2%, Madbury .97/(19.54-.97)=+5.2%. You can see why they might not want to put those numbers on a slide. I think a better calculation wouldn't include the State Education Tax line, which would probably increase these percentages.

Third is the line about changes in valuation. Much of the time that doesn't matter; if everyone's assessment doubled in one town, the millage would half and nobody's taxes would be any different. It does matter when Durham (it's generally just Durham) adds new taxable real estate to its rolls. This spreads the Durham burden among more property, lowering the millage and tax each owner pays. The effect turns out to be only half as good as it sounds, as the cooperative agreement then increases Durham's proportion of the half of the bill that's allocated proportional to property values.

That reminds me I didn't really explain how the budget works; here's what I wrote last year:

These budget numbers are total expenses, only part of the fiscal story as far as the taxpayers are concerned. There's also an estimated revenue side, with large items being expected tuition income and scheduled withdrawals from trust funds. It's the difference between expected expenses and expected revenue that's apportioned between the towns. Half the bill is proportional to the number of students in town, half proportional to the equalized town valuations (i.e. the total taxable property in each town). Then the state puts its finger on the scale by granting each town adequacy aid according to a formula. What's left in each town is billed to the property owners, the Local Education Tax millage being the total asked of the town divided by the total assessed value of the taxable property in town. The adequacy aid comes from the State Education Tax line, which is the same rate for every property owner in the state (the millage is equalized to reflect different assessment styles between towns).

Yes it's complicated, and there are still many more details I haven't mentioned you can read about here. The bottom line is the board really only controls expenses minus revenue, which they usually do a good job keeping to a 3%+ year on year increase, lately even while shoehorning in an entire $50M middle school . After expenses minus revenue is determined, the apportionment formula and the state aid takes over, with changes generally falling harder on one town than the other two and pissing folks off.

I should do an in depth dive into the history of the coop apportionment in Oyster River, but eleven pm on Sunday before Tuesday election day isn't a good time to start that project.

Anyway, I'm voting YES. For as long as I've been paying attention, for the budget article YES always wins in Oyster River.

Article 4 puts $125K aside for the eventual purchase of the middle school solar array. This article has appeared on the ballot the last few years. There's the usual boilerplate fib about "No amounts to be raised from taxation." That means that this money is to be taken from the fund balance, which is the unspent money appropriated last March. So it was raised from taxation, just not this year. I'm voting YES.

Lee. I try not to spend too much time on Lee in this blog, but like I said above, I'm strongly supporting newcomer Democrat Erik Johnson over long time Republican incumbent Scott Bugbee.

See everybody at the polls on Tuesday.

Day, Gelsey, Newkirk unopposed for school board

noreply@blogger.com (Dean Rubine) — Fri, 03 Feb 2023 23:48:00 +0000

Three Candidates File For Three Board Seats

The filing period for municipal elections is over as of 5pm today, and we have our candidates for school board.

There are two at-large seats up for reelection. The two winners serve three year terms. At-large means the candidates may come from any of the three towns. Two candidates filed: Denise Day, who has served on the board for the last nine years, and Giana Gelsey, who ran and lost last year.

The Durham seat is also up for election. A candidate must reside in Durham to run for the seat, though voters from all three towns get to vote in the election. The term is only one year, the remainder of Member Yusi Turell's term, who has resigned. Only one candidate filed for the seat: Tom Newkirk. Tom served on the board for 10 years, starting in 2012, seven of those as chair. Tom chose not to seek reelection in March, 2022; he gave himself last year off.

Though the possibility of a write-in campaign exists, in the past whenever we've had as many candidates as seats on the ballot, they've always all won. So allow me be the first to congratulate Denise Day, Giana Gelsey and Tom Newkirk for their likely election to the ORCSD board. Congratulations, and thank you for your service.

I should mention that someone filed to run for school board today and withdrew later today. Since they're not running, I'll preserve their privacy and not mention their name. I will say that this person also volunteered to serve when Member Kenny Rotner passed away in 2018, but was not then appointed. If I had to guess I'd say this person was somewhat reluctant to serve this time, but commendably stepped up when it appeared the seat might not be filled, and honorably withdrew when Giana Gelsey filed and the person saw their service was not necessary. I want to thank them for their willingness to serve. If you're out there, please let me know if you want me to tell folks your name.

Chair Williams Likely to Become Moderator

[EDIT: 2/9/23 I learned at the Deliberative Session that Rick Laughton decided not to run for moderator. Sorry for the error, folks.]

~~Two Candidates Run for Moderator~~

~~We have a real race for moderator. As usual Rick Laughton filed; he's been the only moderator I've ever known~~.

In a surprising development, current School Board Chair Michael Williams filed to run for moderator. I was sad when Michael decided not to run for school board again. I'm glad he's staying involved in the district.

The main function of the moderator is to run the Deliberative Session in February. The 2023 DS is coming up on Tuesday, February 7, 7pm in the ORMS Recital Hall. It's a real election where a majority of the voters in attendance get to amend the proposed budget. The various questions on the possibly amended budget get approved or denied on election day in March.

I have also seen the moderator running around on election day, though I'm not exactly sure what their job is then.

Selectboard Race in Lee

I try not to spend too much time on Lee in this blog, but I'll relay important news when I get it. Unofficially I hear there are two candidates for the Lee Selectboard seat, incumbent Scott Bugbee and newcomer Erik Johnson.

The Lee Deliberative Session is tomorrow (Saturday) 9 am. I won't be there because I co-coach the ORMS Mathcounts team, which is competing in the Seacoast Regional Mathcounts Competition tomorrow morning at UNH. With any luck we'll advance to the State Competition in March.

I'll see you at the ORCSD Deliberative Session on Tuesday. Stay warm, everybody.

Three School Board Seats Up, Deliberative Session Tuesday Feb 7

noreply@blogger.com (Dean Rubine) — Tue, 31 Jan 2023 18:27:00 +0000

Three Board Seats Up for Election

Greetings, fellow denizens of Oyster River. I'm sorry to only write around election time, but that's how it works out some years. Better late than never, I suppose.

It's not too late to run for school board. There are three open seats, two at-large seats with a three year term, and the Durham seat, with a one year term this time. You need to file in person at the SAU office by 5pm this Friday 2/3/2023. (That link only talks about two open seats; the district should fix that.)

The three school board seats are divided into two races: at-large and Durham. The two largest vote getters for the at-large seats are elected.

It's not too late to run for moderator either, but for as long as I've been paying attention Rick Laughton always runs unopposed.

A few people have asked me about running for school board, but as of noon 1/31 only two people have filed to run. Vice Chair Denise Day is running for her fourth term at-large, as she was first elected in March, 2014.

Surprisingly, former Chair Tom Newkirk has filed to run for the Durham seat. Welcome back Tom! Tom was the T in T.E.A.M. back in 2012, one of the four candidates of the clean slate that gave this blog its name.

We still need one more candidate to file for at-large in order to fill all the seats. Go for it; you know you want to. If someone wants details on what's involved in running, please feel free to contact me.

Deliberative Session, Tuesday February 7

Draft Warrant
click to enlarge

The ORCSD Deliberative Session is Tuesday February 7th, 7pm. For the first time, it's at the new ORMS recital hall. As I always say, it's a real election where the citizenry gets to amend the budget. It's the vestige of the traditional NH town meeting. Unlike most NH elections, same day registration is usually not available at DS. So you need to be already registered to vote in one of the towns to be given a voting card at DS. There is no provision for remote voting -- to vote at DS you must attend.

Each warrant article (except the ones that elect people) is read at DS, then explained by a board member. Many, such as negotiated contracts, cannot be amended. Some, like the main budget, can. A majority of voters at DS can change those numbers, overriding the judgement of the board. On election day in March the voters get to vote each possibly amended warrant article up or down.

This year the warrant is short. Article 3 is the budget, 52.3 million dollars. If NO wins, we get the default budget, which is $257K (0.5%) less. NO on the budget never wins in Oyster River. Article 4 asks to divert $125K to the fund to buy the middle school solar array. There's the usual fib about "no amount from taxation" -- it really means they got this money through taxation last March and they're not giving it back.

At the Deliberative Session, the only real amendments that make sense are to change these budget numbers. It's too late to petition to add a warrant article; the deadline was Jan 10, 2023.

Attendance at DS varies between around 25 voters in bad weather to around 150 voters when there's a controversial issue. It's worth showing up just to keep a small group of renegades from cutting the budget in half, like what happened in Croydon. (That's not likely happen here because the voters can always choose the default budget on election day.) See you there.

Board Member Yusi Turell Resigns

We had a surprise before Christmas when board member Yusi Turell resigned, effective March 3, 2023. She stated she was going back to graduate school to complete her Ph.D. She didn't take my advice to "just say no to grad school."

Yusi's conscientious announcement before the filing period allows her seat to appear on the ballot this term, avoiding a board-appointed candidate serving for a partial year, which happens to be how Yusi herself began her board service. Yusi is currently serving in the Durham town-specific seat. There's one year left in her term, so the winner of the Durham seat in March will only serve that one year before the seat goes up for election again in March, 2024 for a full three year term.

Yusi was first appointed in September, 2020 to take over member Kenny Rotner's seat, who had sadly passed away the previous month. I supported Yusi's appointment enthusiastically. Much like Kenny, Yusi was often the conscience of the district, concerned with any negative impacts on any stakeholders as a result of board decisions. While Yusi and I didn't always agree over the ensuing years, I know she always acted in the best interest of the district.

Yusi Turell Resigns

I'd say her major accomplishments were getting a DEIJ Coordinator for the district and expanding World Languages, especially Mandarin, as well as leading the board's COVID response. I see I'm mostly repeating her resignation letter, which I'll just include here; please click to enlarge.

Thank you very much for your service in these difficult times, Yusi, and good luck with graduate school and all your future endeavors.

Board Chair Michael Williams Retires

In another surprise, this one after Christmas, Chair Michael Williams, whose seat is up for reelection this year, announced he won't seek another term on the school board. Michael has served six years, two as chair. He ran for board and lost in March 2014, was first elected to the board in March, 2017, elected Vice Chair in March 2020, and first elected Chair in March, 2021, when Chair Tom Newkirk decided not to run for chair again.

I've always been a big fan of Michael's. He has an analytic, engineering mind that I can identify with. I can usually count on him to ask the question I've been shouting at the screen. In general he's always taken my writing seriously, reaching out to correct my many mistakes, which I appreciate. I'll miss him.

I was dubious that he'd make a good Chair. He'd always been a bit of an iconoclast, the 1 in a number of 6-1 votes. I thought that rebellious streak wouldn't be compatible with being chair. But I was wrong. Michael is an excellent chair, keeping the board running smoothly under his leadership in a controversial time. I'm sorry to see him go.

His accomplishments as chair are numerous, including guiding the district through COVID, hiring DEIJ and Communication administrators, building the new middle school, and new programs like MTSS (suicide prevention). I think Michael was responsible for the slick and slightly risky plan to finance the new school. It involved two loans spaced over time; fortunately the district locked both interest rates in below 2% I believe, getting done before the recent rate hikes.

Car Charging at ORMS

In December Chair Williams complained that the $900K spread between the proposed budget and default budget seemed too big. Business Administrator Sue Caswell pushed back, attributing the increase to the high school loan being paid off. That number persisted for a while, but now it's down to $257K. I missed why, but it seems Michael was right.

Michael and I had a little fracas last year when I reported a rumor that the electric car chargers at the middle school would be free. Michael denied that, and I accepted his denial. It turns out the rumor may be correct after all; please see the superintendent's memo on the right. I don't think this has been voted on yet; in that year old post Michael promised a NO vote.

Thank you very much for your service, Michael, and good luck with all your future endeavors.

Business Administrator Sue Caswell Retires
Sue Caswell Resigns

Speaking of Sue Caswell, she too announced her resignation in January. It's been expected for a while that both she and Superintendent Morse would retire this year or the next; the end of an era. Her resignation letter (right) enumerates a number of accomplishments.

Sue's work is always outstanding. We went from having many issues in our annual audit before Sue was in charge, to getting a clean audit report for many years in a row at this point. She recently supervised the move to Tyler financial software for the district, a major project that just started producing the payroll in January. (Coincidentally, the Town of Lee is in the process of abandoning Tyler for another vendor.)

Sue's always been kind to me, taking the time to respond to my inquiries and straightening me out when I go off the deep end on some district finance topic. She started at Oyster River about the same time I started paying attention, so I've never known any other Business Administrator in the district. I was fortunate to be on the finance subcommittee of the strategic plan committee years ago, which was very well run by Sue, and, IMHO, produced a report that put those other subcommittees to shame. I'll miss her.

Thank you for your service and good luck in the future, Sue.

Nutrition Director Doris Demers Retires

Doris Demers Resigns

Continuing the exodus of board and administrators, Nutrition Director Demers is resigning as well. Doris accomplished many things in her tenure with us. I especially liked her inclusion of fresh, locally sourced food in the menus. There's also the creation and management of the district's End 68 Hours of Hunger program, where food insecure students are discreetly sent home with a backpack of food (and sometimes other items) on Fridays.

Doris was responsible for making free lunch to available to any child during the last few summers, and for arranging for the delivery of meals (free to those eligible, I recall) to homes during the pandemic.

She successfully oversaw the expansion of the Moharimet cafeteria, the upgrade of the Mast Way facilities, and the construction of facilities in the new Middle School.

I'll miss you Doris. Good luck in the future.

We can all catch some of Doris's cooking at the ORHS Sustainability Club's Community Dinner of locally sourced food this Thursday, Feb 2, 5:30 pm at ORHS. I'll see you all there.

High School Students Engage in Risky Behavior

That's not exactly news, is it? What's new is we have the latest preliminary Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) results. It's always shocking to read these things. The preliminary results lack the context of the aggregated state results for comparison, so we'll just gawk. This one is dated November 2021, so I think reflects the state pretty deep into the pandemic.

The news on substance use is good, or at least improving. The small silver lining of the disruption caused by a global pandemic, I suppose.

I think "down 16%" on the slide actually means down 16 points, i.e. the 2019 number is 20.9% + 16% = 37%. So this is a pretty huge decline.

The slides in the packet lack some of the numbers I recall hearing at the meeting. Here's a link to the actual preliminary report. The percentages reported are of the students who answered the question; some questions are widely answered while others aren't; check the report for details.

The sexual and dating violence numbers were particularly disturbing, with 5.2% of ORHS students, including 10.3% of seniors, reporting they had been "physically forced to have sexual intercourse when they did not want to." That sure sounds like rape to me. 39 of the 46 yes respondents were female.

Similarly depressing numbers were: 4.9% of (overwhelmingly female) students report being coerced into sexual behavior with someone at least five years older. 10.9% of (overwhelmingly female) students (81 total) including 15.3% of seniors report experiencing sexual violence last year. 28.2% of students, including 40.1% (!) of female students, reported someone they were going out with tried to purposely control them or emotionally hurt them.

14.8% of students reported making a suicide plan, and 6.9% of students reported attempting suicide last year, with 45.5% reporting they rarely or never sought help when depressed. Wow.

43.4% report texting or emailing while driving -- stop that! 11% of students reported carrying a weapon, 2.2% reported carrying a weapon in school the last 30 days. 4.0% report being threatened with a weapon at school last year. 16.3% report being bullied on school property, 18.4% report being bullied online.

35% of students reported that most of the time their mental health was not good. 4.3% reported their basic needs were not met by adults in their household.

There's more; check out the report.

Spelling Flame

I'm about to engage in the lowest form of internet comment, the spelling flame, frowned upon since at least the early eighties. Unfortunately I think it's warranted as it was an early press release of our new Communications Specialist Gen Brown, hired in August for $70K + benefits, about $100K annually paid by the district taxpayers.

I really wanted to leave it alone. Due to a glitch I can't seem to fix, I no longer get these emails. This release was first pointed out to me November 23. I saw a facebook post about it a few days later, and I thought for sure it was embarrassing enough that the district would fix it. I procrastinated as long as I could, but here we are two months later and we're still proudly trumpeting the 2022 Excellence Trough Equity Conference [sic] including a student from Oyster River Regional High School [sic]. For the kind of money we're paying, we need to insist our schools are referred to by their correct names.

It's quite an innovative education strategy. In lieu of actual instruction, students just need to drink from the ORCSD Trough of Excellence.

Oyster River Students drink from the Trough of Excellence

This is going to get me in trouble like the DEIJ Coordinator stuff last year, isn't it? Speaking of which...

As predicted, our DEIJ Coordinator Rachel Blansett spent the first term on a needs assessment, and forming relationships. It's nice to have a job that often includes lunch. Additionally, the superintendent points out, Coordinator Blansett has presented to the NH state legislature and other groups around the state. She has some fun professional development planned for her second term; here's the summary slide:

I see a "this work" -- time to drink! See you all at the Deliberative session Tuesday, February 7.

Coordinator Blansett Appears on Video

noreply@blogger.com (Dean Rubine) — Fri, 17 Jun 2022 18:07:00 +0000

ORCSD DEIJ Coordinator Rachael Blansett and Superintendent Jim Morse

Happy last day of school and happy Juneteenth! This post was mostly written Wednesday night after the board meeting. At the time, the meeting video was no longer available. I held off running this post then because Yusi asked me to run her essay, and this is essentially a response to that. I'm just going to post this now, without going through the posted meeting video again to pull out exact quotes.

I decided Yusi was right and I was wrong about the SPED cut. I'm really sorry about that. Please see my full apology near the end. - Dean

Coordinator Blansett Appears on Video

Newly appointed ORCSD DEIJ Coordinator Rachael Blansett was expected to be at tonight's board meeting. Instead of an in-person appearance, board watchers were treated to the following video in which Coordinator Blansett was interviewed by Superintendent Jim Morse.

When I listened to the board meeting live, it had distant, reverberant sound for this video and the public comments which followed, sound which I found mostly unintelligible. This video has fine sound; hopefully the board meeting sound can be straightened out before that meeting is uploaded [it was].

The community has been roiled in a controversy about the position [posts: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7], mostly stemming from Rachael's podcast 2 Happy Heauxes. The podcast contains content which shocked many community members; please see the previous posts for details. The interview gets to the issue of Rachael's podcast at the 5:00 mark.

JM: Rachael, you produced some podcasts that have caught our district population's attention, Can you talk to us about when they were created and what their intent was? I know that part of what's caused our community's attention is the language specifically that can come across as coarse and vulgar. Would you address those?
RB: Definitely. The concerns are valid and I'm happy to address the question. Just to give a little context, the podcast was created by me and my best friend. It was after we were graduating graduate school and embarking on our professional journey in our careers. It not only served as a way for us to maintain our relationship and connection with one another, but I think the other piece was that we really wanted to provide a space and a platform to talk about the racialized experiences that we had as black women within academia, within life and within our profession. So we've been really trying to use it as a platform to raise awareness and hold different dialogues and discussions around these different topics that impact the black community, specifically black women. So speaking from our own lived experiences, but also inviting different guests and different folks within our own networks to engage in this dialogue to learn more. As with any form of media and content, it's not for everyone.
JM: ... I think the biggest concern that I'm hearing Rachael is that you would bring that kind of language or those types of podcasts into this school district. Can you address that?
RB: No, absolutely not, and as I said this was a personal and creative outlet....We started the podcast back in grad school, and that's no longer where we're at, so from here on out we will not be doing the podcast anymore.

I appreciate Rachael saying "the concerns are valid." This all seems like a pretty good outcome. The offending podcasts are gone. Rachael won't use that language in ORCSD. We all live happily ever after once the current tire fire burns itself out.

I'll note the superintendent pretty much avoided the difficult issues. Vulgarity is bad, but it was the disparagement and apparent bigotry that was more shocking to people, and that wasn't addressed at all here. Similarly, there was some discussion about how the word "queer" had been reappropriated (successfully given they're using it in TV show names), but nothing about the more controversial "hoe" or "heaux."

As one podcast listener told me, “what struck me was that the whole purpose was a kind of chummy expression of anti-white sentiment. I mean that was the purpose of the hour.” To minimize the concerns that many people have expressed about this content sounds a lot like dismissing it as “locker room talk.” Some of our mostly white district might not be that inclined to welcome someone who appears to dislike white people, which isn't unreasonable. I believe this still needs to be addressed.

A public comment pointed out that "back in grad school, and that's no longer where we're at" is a bit disingenuous given the last podcast episode appeared two weeks ago. Well, it was two pretty eventful weeks. For the record, it appears Ms. Blansett finished grad school in 2018, and there are 34 podcasts in the series, which began in 2019 and the last one was indeed posted a couple of weeks ago. Many people have downloaded and listened to them. The podcasts were scrubbed from the Internet a week or so ago; exactly why is undisclosed.

The district added a new DEIJ page to its website. It includes the relevant page of the strategic plan, a list of relevant committees and their members, the job description, stuff about the hiring process and a FAQ. This might have gone a long way toward providing transparency around the position had it not just gone live today, two weeks after the position had been filled. Better late than never, I suppose.

Yusi calls me and Ruth out!

By now it's pretty clear how this unfolded. On paper and in person, Rachael was the best candidate to emerge from the hiring process. The superintendent says he never looks at social media for district hires to avoid finding facts he's legally not supposed to know. I believe him. Member Yusi Turell stated the board knew all about the podcasts. So by the time the offer was made, the district, including the superintendent, knew all about the controversial content, but decided to go forward anyway, eyes wide open. What I don't get is why there was no plan to address right then the controversy that had already started.

My opinion is it's a mistake to avoid looking at a candidate's internet presence, especially in a very public position, because it erupts into scandals like this. It was a bad decision to offer Rachael the position once the controversial content was revealed. Finally, given the choice to hire, it was bad not to attempt to immediately address the controversy that had already erupted.

Are podcasts even social media? If you ask me, they're pretty much just media, modern day radio. We wouldn't ignore a candidate's very public TV appearances, so we probably need to redraw the line here.

Yusi agrees that the district's roll-out of the position was bungled. She stated [I'll use her written post for quotes]:

How much healthier for our community, and for Ms. Blansett, if administration had immediately released a press release at her hire, with a photo that matched the job at hand? Instead, an article from the high school student magazine, written by a student and using a photo grabbed online, was sent to the Town of Durham’s Friday Update – causing some to think that the administration and Ms. Blansett had selected this photo as a message for Oyster River – and certainly distracting from everything else Ms. Blansett brings.

As online concerns grew, the district should have sent a clear message to squelch speculation, something like:

“The administration and School Board were fully aware of the podcast prior to hiring Ms. Blansett.
“We hired Ms. Blansett for her full self and we stand by our decision. We do not ask Ms. Blansett to disavow how she expressed her version of the messy, sometimes angry, sometimes hopeful feelings that we all feel at times (but especially when we’re on the receiving end of bias and discrimination). We know that we cannot claim to want a DEIJ Coordinator who speaks and listens with experience, knowledge, and nuance – while also insisting that their whole life fit in a small box of what we deem ‘polite.’
“Ms. Blansett will not continue her podcast as an Oyster River employee. We support her choice, recognizing that society needs both provocateurs and healers in order to change – but that it is near-impossible for one person to hold both public personas, without confusion, at the same time.”

I agree the roll-out was bad and the controversy was predictable, as Yusi said. It was also avoidable, as Yusi also said, but probably only by choosing a different candidate. In my opinion the real problem was the board forgot how to play hot potato: (1) don't pick it up, and (2) pass it on. Despite all of Rachael's good qualities, the controversial podcasts made her a hot potato, guaranteed to embroil the district in the current controversy. The district picked it up and didn't pass it on. Controversy ensued and we're all worse off as a result. Hopefully we get through the pain to the good part and it will have all been worth it.

Frankly what happened makes the entire political left look bad. We're making true the conspiracies theories of liberals executing secret plans to spend tax dollars to indoctrinate children with questionable dogma. Given the precarious state of democracy in this country, we really don't want to make that impression right now.

As for the photo in the Mouth of the River piece being "grabbed online," it was Rachael's official photo for the NH Listens fellowship she currently holds, not a random photo. I won't rehearse the content of the shirt again, especially now that it's been swapped out for something more acceptable. I just think we'd all have been so much better off if all this internet scrubbing took place before Rachael's name was announced, rather than after a month of scandal.

After throwing the superintendent under the bus about the roll-out (without mentioning his name, so I'm reading between the lines here), Member Turell goes on to criticize Ruth and me, saying:

In contrast, I’ve observed that a few members of our community are intentionally spreading rumor and fanning flames online .One such falsehood is that the DEIJ hire cannibalized $50k from special education, a message that drives a wedge between DEIJ and special education. (I will respond to this and a few other claims in the comments.)

Ruth and Dean, I know that this process and documentation for the DEIJ Coordinator have not been how you personally would have gone about it. We have learned from some of your points, including better transparency. But the fact is, you weren’t the ones rolling up your sleeves over the past 5 months or 5 years to make the district more inclusive and to support teachers in this area. Your approach was not the one that the Board approved after much discussion, or that the community supported. You reached out the day before the Deliberative Session and tried to cram. At what point does misunderstanding from late arrival, turn into willful ignorance, turn into intentional harm and sabotage?

I want to start my response to this by saying I welcome Member Turell's criticism, and I harbor no ill will toward her because of it. I'm a big boy playing in the public sphere, and comments like this, and much worse, are part of the deal. She could have mentioned my name at the board meeting but she didn't, because she's nice. She had expressed her concerns to me privately when the previous post went out, but I declined to make changes for reasons I'm about to get into. I guess she felt the need to go public, which is fine. I enthusiastically supported Yusi for the board and I consider her my friend. I hope she still feels the same.

That said, I disagree with Member Turell's criticisms and I stand by my comments. All but one, anyway, which was an error on my part, not willful ignorance.

As for "intentionally spreading rumor," I have been known to post a rumor or two, usually because it's the only information available, and which I try to clearly label as rumor. But around this DEIJ issue I've tried to stick to district meetings, documents and publicly available sources on the internet. Every reader is free to click the links to verify the accuracy of my claims. I am eager to correct inaccuracies as soon as I learn about them. I'm going to do it below.

Regarding "fanning flames online," I'd argue that it was the controversial choice of finalist candidate that ignited the flame and the subsequent hiring of said candidate was the fanning. I publicized the controversial stuff because I thought it was important for the community to see what we were getting into. This blog was started in 2012 because a board member was making racist and sexist tweets. I'm not going to ignore similar stories just because they're coming from my political side. The plan the DEIJ boosters seem to prefer was to keep it all secret until Rachael's hiring was a done deal. I had to attend two meetings at 5:45 pm just to learn the names of the candidates! I still haven't figured out the names of all the committees that were working on the issue.

12/1 minutes
click to enlarge

As for "your approach was not the one that the Board approved after much discussion, or that the community supported," I contend that there wasn't nearly enough public discussion about the position. From the December 1 minutes (right) we see some of the board agreed with that. There were suggestions to use the time for a public forum, a public survey and to tighten up the job description. There was a close 3-4 vote for the half-time solution before the full time solution, at a cost of an addition $50,000, was chosen 6-1. One wonders if member Cisneros, who voted NO both times, regrets not making a strategic YES vote for the half-time option.

From my perch it appears the board and district knew they wanted this position and didn't much care how the public felt. I've been hearing from a number of folks who say they don't like the controversial content, but they don't want to become a target by voicing their concerns. I have to agree that it's not much fun being a target. The touchy topic means the board should have worked extra hard to discern actual public opinion, instead of glossing over it.

Yusi gets hurtful with, "You reached out the day before the Deliberative Session and tried to cram. At what point does misunderstanding from late arrival, turn into willful ignorance, turn into intentional harm and sabotage?"

I've watched every board meeting since 2011, most in person, so I hardly think "late arrival" applies to me. As for Ruth, she learned of the issue when she did, despite the lackluster communication from the district, and immediately sprung into action. Most of us don't have time to follow every move the district makes, trusting the board to make reasonable decisions, but Ruth was hardly late. The board decided to put the position in the budget, and Ruth was there in time for Deliberative Session when the voters can undo the decision. Despite the district's communication failures, I publicised Rachael's podcasts a few days after her name was very quietly released. That was a week or two before the candidate was chosen, plenty of time for the board to consider the podcasts in their decision. There's no sabotage here. What there is, in my opinion, is the professional misjudgement of the board attempting to underplay or choosing to ignore the candidate's obviously divisive internet presence.

I should point out that I was the first person in the district to publicly express my support for Rachael before she was hired, and perhaps the only one to do it in a widely distributed post or article. I chose her over the other candidate because she was obviously much more fun. I wondered then if the controversial stuff was too controversial for the district. The ensuing firestorm on facebook confirmed to me that it was.

Let's get to the issue of the linkage between the $50K of Special Education funding and the full year DEIJ position. Yusi was very insistent here, so I went back and watched the December 1, 2021 meeting a third time. Member Howland clearly links the special education funding to the DEIJ coordinator position. At 1:10:10, Al says "in order to fund the DEIJ position for the full year you would have to use the $50,000 that Catherine [Special Education Director Catherine Plourde] has yet to tell us if it actually exists." This was the option eventually chosen, and where I got the strong impression of the linkage.

But Yusi is correct. In the discussion which followed, the superintendent and special education director did describe the $50,000 being cut from the special education budget in a way that made it pretty clear they were going to cut it no matter which option was chosen. I'm guessing the first couple of times I heard I was upset about the cut and was assuming what they said was spin to justify cut so they could have their full year DEIJ position. Member Cisneros was skeptical of the cut as well. But now I have to admit that the summary in the minutes, "Dr. Morse noted that $50,000 came out of the contracted services account since those contracted services will not be needed the following year," is a fair interpretation of the discussion.

So I need to apologize here. I'm sorry Yusi, board, district and community. I wasn't late, willfully ignorant, or completely mistaken, but I did misinterpret the full discussion and I drew the wrong conclusion about the full year DEIJ Coordinator funding being linked to the $50,000 cut in Special Education. I will endeavor to be more careful in the future.

Excerpt of MLK's Letter from a Birmingham Jail

Let me close by addressing Yusi's use of Martin Luther King 's Letter from a Birmingham Jail, which refers to the refusal of white moderates to participate in civil disobedience against Jim Crow. I suppose I'm the bad white moderate "more devoted to order than justice" in this story, versus Yusi, the hero who is presumably taking "direct action." I'm not sure slipping a controversial candidate in under the radar is what MLK had in mind, but I'm willing to learn.

In this case, we were not forced to choose between order and justice. The district tried to complete the hire of a controversial candidate before the public noticed, and then the boosters tried to bully the citizens into not complaining about mess that resulted. That's not just, and it definitely wasn't order. The district needs to strive for transparency and accountability.

At this point in time, before Coordinator Blansett has done any work at ORCSD, we need to recognize that we're pretty much all worse off than we were a few weeks ago. It didn't have to be this way. We see various attempts to shift the blame, but we all share it, myself included.

Member Turell on the DEIJ Coordinator

noreply@blogger.com (Dean Rubine) — Thu, 16 Jun 2022 14:22:00 +0000

Rachael Blansett, New ORCSD DEIJ Coordinator

Board Member Yusi Turell asked me to run the following piece, which I am happy to do. I'll be responding soon, so please stay tuned. Thanks for the essay, Yusi. I've tried to post it as it was sent, with only minor formatting edits and some edits Yusi sent me. Yusi has continued the piece in the comments, so please check them out too. - Dean

Guest blog by Yusi Turell, School Board Member

[This is an expanded version of my statement at the June 15th School Board meeting, which was condensed in the interest of time. It reflects my personal opinion and not necessarily that of the ORCSD School Board. I appreciate Dean publishing this even though I criticize his and Ruth’s approach (not by name during the Board meeting).]

Ms. Rachael Blansett will begin the new role of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Justice (DEIJ) coordinator on August 1, 2022. The need for this role emerged from 5+ years of stakeholder discussion and a widely recognized need for a consistent, skillful, and age-appropriate approach to related topics in curriculum and instruction across the district (as outlined at the Feb. 8th Deliberative Session). Ms. Blansett currently serves as the inaugural Diversity & Inclusion Fellow at College of the Atlantic (Maine) and Sterling College (Vermont), after earning an M.Ed. in Student Affairs and a B.S. in Communications. She consults with Mount Desert Island Regional (K-12) School System in culture and curriculum. Ms. Blansett brings significant, transferrable experience in collaborating with staff and faculty to create equitable environments for teaching and support and to develop strong, sustainable, and inclusive communities.

The Oyster River Clean Slate blog and resulting Facebook comments have trumpeted one aspect of Ms. Blansett’s experience: her co-hosting of the podcast, ‘2 Happy Heauxes.’ (Ms. Blansett has since made the podcast unavailable online and said she will stop producing it.) Some might say this focus is sensationalistic and disproportionate to her spotless professional resume and ORCSD interviews. Others have scoured the episodes and screen shots, wondering if they reveal that Ms. Blansett is unsuitable for a job in K-12 education.

I was one of 15 people on the interview committee. After our six-interview marathon on May 3rd late at night after the two finalists were selected, I searched their names online. As you can imagine, I was surprised by the podcast and some of its episode titles. For example, one episode is provocatively titled, ‘Wh*te People Are Not Okay: The Panel.’ (It turns out this is a group of the co-hosts’ white friends in cross-cultural conversation about hygiene, food & cooking, music & dance, allyship, and more.) It took a lot of time and brain- & heart-energy to listen to many episodes, to think “why are the co-hosts saying this,” to unpack why it was uncomfortable for me, and finally to consider what all this could say about her character and how it might translate to her job in Oyster River.

“A fish doesn’t know that it’s wet.” When we are swimming in a dominant culture – and we don’t even realize that our societal systems are pushing others to conform – it can be jarring to hear those normative expectations explicitly named. When we ourselves are working hard to avoid language or actions that disparage or harm marginalized groups, it can be jarring to read or hear language that points out these differences, especially through comedy.

Others will have different interpretations and take-aways. For me, while I grew to dread the inevitable online firestorm, I also grew to appreciate the depths of what Ms. Blansett could bring to Oyster River in these turbulent times. Ms. Blansett is a candidate and human who both encompasses, and is larger than, her podcasts. She is a first-generation college student who brings additional socioeconomic diversity to our leadership team. She has developed trainings on dismantling classism and ableism and on the relationship between social and environmental justice. She grew up in East Detroit, served as a resident director in Berkeley, CA, and received stellar reviews for her DEIJ work with majority-white colleges in Maine and Vermont. I personally have spent four hours with Ms. Blansett. Her interviews show her to be personable, analytical, and informed and nuanced in complex topics – someone who asks good questions and responds thoughtfully. Her references are glowing. We are lucky to have her and will be lucky to keep her.

District Communication

Despite having the right person in the right job, over the past two weeks I have been dismayed how district communication has handled this predictable and mostly avoidable controversy.

How much healthier for our community, and for Ms. Blansett, if administration had immediately released a press release at her hire, with a photo that matched the job at hand? Instead, an article from the high school student magazine, written by a student and using a photo grabbed online, was sent to the Town of Durham’s Friday Update – causing some to think that the administration and Ms. Blansett had selected this photo as a message for Oyster River – and certainly distracting from everything else Ms. Blansett brings.

As online concerns grew, the district should have sent a clear message to squelch speculation, something like:

“The administration and School Board were fully aware of the podcast prior to hiring Ms. Blansett.
“We hired Ms. Blansett for her full self and we stand by our decision. We do not ask Ms. Blansett to disavow how she expressed her version of the messy, sometimes angry, sometimes hopeful feelings that we all feel at times (but especially when we’re on the receiving end of bias and discrimination). We know that we cannot claim to want a DEIJ Coordinator who speaks and listens with experience, knowledge, and nuance – while also insisting that their whole life fit in a small box of what we deem ‘polite.’
“Ms. Blansett will not continue her podcast as an Oyster River employee. We support her choice, recognizing that society needs both provocateurs and healers in order to change – but that it is near-impossible for one person to hold both public personas, without confusion, at the same time.”

These three points, proactively messaged, would have helped our community make sense of seemingly contradictory information about Ms. Blansett. Instead, the district waited until this evening to react. (I applaud the new DEIJ website, still under development but long overdue.)

At this point, my concern is not that we will somehow turn our back on this hire; it is about what happens next. My heart aches for the DEIJ Committee members or other courageous allies who may have been blindsided by the podcast-related firestorm – a result of the vacuum in district communication. All this was avoidable. And it's still fixable if we assemble a diverse team to think deeply about what Ms. Blansett, teachers, and the community need to heal and move forward.

One final note. Clearly, I am critical of the administration’s communication to date. The bumpiness in introducing Ms. Blansett is one of the reasons that her job is needed in the first place! Nevertheless, I staunchly support the administration’s intent and am not going to let this drive a wedge between us.

Community Communication

In contrast, I’ve observed that a few members of our community are intentionally spreading rumor and fanning flames online .One such falsehood is that the DEIJ hire cannibalized $50k from special education, a message that drives a wedge between DEIJ and special education. (I will respond to this and a few other claims in the comments.)

Ruth and Dean, I know that this process and documentation for the DEIJ Coordinator have not been how you personally would have gone about it. We have learned from some of your points, including better transparency. But the fact is, you weren’t the ones rolling up your sleeves over the past 5 months or 5 years to make the district more inclusive and to support teachers in this area. Your approach was not the one that the Board approved after much discussion, or that the community supported. You reached out the day before the Deliberative Session and tried to cram. At what point does misunderstanding from late arrival, turn into willful ignorance, turn into intentional harm and sabotage?

What is the highest and best use of our community’s considerable energy and credentials? How do we all choose daily to avoid becoming the ‘white moderate’ that Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. warned us against (“more devoted to ‘order’ than to justice…”)?

In Closing

Dr. Morse has said, “we must give [Ms. Blansett] the gift of time to get to know us and for the district to get to know her.” ORCSD hired Ms. Blansett to help us have rich conversations that won’t always have us all agreeing with each other. Rather, they rather invite us – and especially Oyster River educators – to understand more ‘layers of the onion,’ so they can better prepare our children to thrive in an diverse world. I welcome Ms. Blansett as a professional resource on our school administrative team and in our community.

[Member Turell further elaborates on the issues in the comments below. - Dean]

DEIJ Coordinator Controversy Continues

noreply@blogger.com (Dean Rubine) — Tue, 14 Jun 2022 01:22:00 +0000

Congratulations again to Rachael Blansett, ORCSD's first DEIJ Coordinator. The board approved the superintendent's nomination at the June 1 meeting, and Ms. Blansett accepted the position a few days later. The superintendent has said that Rachael plans to attend the Wednesday, June 15 board meeting, 7 pm in the ORHS library, and will officially start work on August 1st.

The controversy around her candidacy began about two weeks prior to approval, when her name was announced and, among other things, I publicized her podcast 2 Happy Heauxes within the district. Probably due to the ensuing controversy, the 2 Happy Heauxes website has recently been password protected and all the episodes, formerly available on the site as well as from various podcast distributors and soundcloud, have been scrubbed from the Internet. This is the kind of thing one generally does before seeking employment, but better late than never I suppose. The rumor is some Oyster River folks downloaded all the podcasts before the purge.

The position was controversial even before the candidate was announced. I rewatched the Demember 1, 2021 board meeting where the decision was made. Incredibly, the board made almost all the objections my wife Ruth Sample later made: The budget is too tight this year, the job description is too vague, consultants would be preferable, the position would embroil ORCSD in scandal, the public should be surveyed and allowed to vote on the position, etc. I was reminded that $50K of the money for the position comes from the Special Education Speech, Audiology and Vision Services budget. Are some students not going to get their hearing or vision addressed because we're paying for a DEIJ Coordinator?

Ruth made the case against creating a new, expensive administrative position in February, adding that the process that led to the position was not transparent and that a needs assessment was not done. There's also an inconsistency about whether consultants were hired before deciding we needed a full time post, with some board members claiming yes, and the superintendent saying no consultants were hired.

Back to Rachael. With all the sites related to 2 Happy Heauxes down, I can only access various items folks have posted from Rachael's website. Let's include a few for the record from the Community Discussion Group for Durham, Lee and Madbury on facebook.

In this first example we see language that would be likely be inappropriate to use with students. Had this remained accessible, the students would likely ask about it, but with the scrubbing that possibility is lessened now.

Here we're getting into slightly questionable territory (in exactly what sense are white people not OK?), but it seems like all good fun.

It's this list, from Season 1 Episode 1, that's probably the most concerning:

Now I'm no DEIJ Coordinator, but there's no doubt that if White was changed to Black here, the title and a few of these items would be condemned as outright racist statements. When the DEIJ coordinator gets here, she can explain why it's not racist in its original form. I look forward to that explanation.

My wife Ruth Sample sent email to the board and superintendent about this list, stating:

Her advice that “wh*te” women should “WASH YOUR FUCKING LEGS” and to “Do your baby’s hair, bitch” (among other fascinating pieces of advice) is bigoted, offensive, and vulgar. I would say it is “inappropriate” except that “inappropriate” is when one uses the salad fork for shrimp, or when one wears crocs to a funeral. It is racist, divisive, and the very opposite of what DEIJ aspires to. It is completely at odds with K-12 education. It is disqualifying.

Ruth is obviously a much better writer than I am. The district and board are pretty much sticking their collective heads in the sand. Superintendent Morse stated in an email to Ruth:

The district does not audit social media accounts as our lawyers discourage this practice as we may come across information that is a violation of federal and state law that we have no business knowing, such as one’s religion, sexual orientation, marital status, age, or disability that could potentially be used to discriminate against a candidate.

That's a scandal right there. The district doesn't look at candidates' social media?!? That seems like HR malpractice. Plus the superintendent didn't seem to be all that concerned about avoiding litigation when he previously stated that it was the Rachael's "lived experience" that made her preferable to those with actual "K-12 experience" which seems to imply he knew something about her sexual orientation and her race when we made the offer, which he obviously did.

Members of the board knew about Rachael's social media; several had commented on my May 17 post shortly after it was published. Even if Dr. Morse didn't do a google search, anyone who looked at my post saw the results of Google searches on the two finalists. The board and superintendent discussed the hire for 30 minutes in non-public session on June 1. Surely the subject of Ms. Blansett's social media must have been touched upon.

Chair Williams replied to Ruth, stating:

Voters overwhelmingly supported the budget adding the DEIJ coordinator position both at the Deliberative Session in February and at school district elections in March. Voters, the School Board, and Administration are generally aligned on the direction the district is moving.

The chair is telling us there's nothing to see here. A large number of folks on facebook have expressed surprise, saying they knew nothing about the position, and are truly shocked when they learn of Rachael's online content. District communications still need some work. I personally think the vote at Deliberative Session or on election day might have gone a little differently had the voters known that the candidate to be chosen publicly advises white women to “WASH YOUR FUCKING LEGS.”

The chair added:

State law in New Hampshire (RSA 98-E) and district policy GCR, GCB, and GBI protect the private freedom to speech of school district employees. Oyster River Policy (GBEB) as well as the NH DOE codes of Conduct and Ethics include standards for educational professionals (including administrators) when in contact with students, other staff members, and parent/community members in their responsibilities for the district. I have full confidence that Ms. Blansett will build positive relationships with staff, students, and families in alignment with these policies. If it was used in our schools, the content that you are concerned about from Ms. Blansett’s social media presence could likely violate district policy. I don’t expect that to happen.

That's a bit convoluted. Why would we hire someone as a district leader whose social media content would violate school policy if used in school?

I've been a big supporter of the board and most of the members over the past decade, but I still speak up when I think they've erred. This was a totally unforced error, embroiling the district in a scandal that could have easily been avoided by choosing a less controversial candidate. I honestly thought when the 2 Happy Heauxes stuff arose the district would just say oops and look at other candidates, but that wasn't to be.

I'm a liberal Democrat that's supportive of DEIJ, but the way this process has played out really concerns me. I don't think I'm alone. We'll see if there's any public concern voiced at Wednesday's school board meeting (7pm 6/15 ORHS library).

New Dress Code Proposed

The students have produced a draft dress code. The impetus was an email I can't track down when students were returning after being remote that warned students about the dress code. I'm guessing it was similar to the one that went out to students in a May 14, 2022 email:

Proper School Attire

The nice weather is here, and we are seeing some attire that is not school appropriate. Please review:

Students are expected to adhere to standards of cleanliness and dress that are compatible with a safe and respectful school learning environment. School administrators have the authority to impose restrictions when, in their judgment, a student’s dress disrupts the educational process or poses a threat to health or safety.

Overtly sexual clothing (which includes clothing which, by its brevity, shortness, looseness or tightness, is sexually explicit), clothing that is distracting to students and teachers, or any apparel which by being worn at certain times or places or which through word or design is demeaning or discourteous shall not be allowed. Specific guidelines to keep in mind are “all of your outerwear must cover your underwear” and tops and dresses must have over the shoulder straps and fully cover the midriff (waist) area. Students who violate the school dress code will be held in the main office until more suitable clothing is found and will be expected to make up missed class time in detention.

Clothing and Other Items- No references to drugs, alcohol, tobacco, sexual activity, or illegal acts are allowed. The school administration has the authority to prohibit other logos, pictures or messages which they determine to be in violation of the Board’s nondiscrimination or harassment policies, or disruptive to the school’s learning environment.

This is the language from the student handbook, though the underlining and boldface are exclusive to the email. One wonders if Coordinator Blansett's shirt in the photo would pass muster.

This dress code is all pretty much fiction. Somebody made up these words, and they've been blindly carried forward. That quoted text doesn't appear to come from another document. It's not the dress code adopted by the school board. It's not from an R-document produced by the administration to comply with the district's policy -- that R-doc doesn't exist.

Here's the actual dress code policy JICA in its entirety, adopted in the 1990s and still governing:

The students produced the following draft to replace this (click to enlarge):

I was writing up the DEIJ stuff and not really paying attention to the dress code presentation by the students. I perked up when I heard that visible bra straps were no longer a violation. I used to wonder about that when I was in high school. The actual language isn't as clear as I'd like:

Students Cannot Wear:

• Visible underwear (straps of undergarments worn under clothing are not a violation)

Exposed nipples are not allowed. The policy is gender neutral -- this applies to everyone.

Todd Allen named interim superintendent of Newmarket School District

In other news, former ORCSD Assistant Superintendent and ORHS Principal Todd Allen was named Interim Superintendent of Newmarket School District. Three administrators, the superintendent, assistant superintendent and a principal, all left around the same time, but there doesn't appear to be any scandal.

Allen retired from Oyster River last year. If he really wanted the big chair, he could have stuck around, as Superintendent Morse's retirement is on the horizon, In fact, Todd can still apply when the time comes.

Rachael Blansett Named First ORCSD DEIJ Coordinator

noreply@blogger.com (Dean Rubine) — Thu, 02 Jun 2022 02:31:00 +0000

Rachael Blansett, New ORCSD DEIJ Coordinator.

Congratulations to Rachael Blansett (pronouns she/her), who was chosen tonight as Oyster River's first Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Justice Coordinator. The board deliberated in non-public session for 30 minutes before unanimously approving Rachael to the position. Assuming she accepts, Ms. Blansett will attend the next board meeting, June 15, and officially start August 1.

Rachael identifies as a "black/bi-racial, queer, femme social justice educator." She has a Master of Education in Student Affairs from Iowa State. Since August 2021 she's been employed jointly by Sterling College (Bar Harbor, Maine) and College of the Atlantic (Craftsbury Common, Vermont) at a salary of $53-$57K. She'll be offered at least $95K by ORCSD, about a 75% increase.

Rachael and her friend have a podcast named 2 Happy Heaxes that's a bit shocking to some Oyster River folks, easily making her the more controversial candidate. I originally used that word in the title here, which offended some folks so I've changed it. I just wanted to get the discussion going, and that seems to have worked.

The board asked some questions in public before the non-public session. Member Smith praised Racheal's concern for "educational accessibility." Member Turell praised Rachael's experience "designing DEIJ specific curricula, like leading workshops or discussions about implicit bias or different lenses on this work" but was concerned with "her relative lack of experience in K-12 system and especially working directly with faculty on something that's not DEIJ focused but rather weaving DEIJ through an existing history or math or art curriculum." The superintendent replied, "In terms of her relative lack of K-12 experience, we could have focused in on K-12 experience, but based on the candidates we had we would have lost completely the lived experience."

I found this exchange telling. The superintendent appears to be saying we wouldn't get a member of a marginalized group if we insist on actual K-12 experience, and we're prioritizing the former. (The possibility of not hiring anyone this round was not mentioned.) And I’d agree with Yusi that workshop or discussion prep is very different than experience with classroom curricula.

The superintendent added, "She's going to define this role in the upcoming year, The greatest gift Oyster River can give her is a strong understanding of who we are. [...] So we need somebody who not just supports the teachers, but who understands those student concerns, and is able to hear the students, but also help the teachers address those issues. I feel she will grow to be a powerful leader...She has the potential to be an incredible leader. I know that she has the potential to support our staff and students."

My concern here is by putting the onus of defining the position on Ms. Blansett, we're making it harder for her to succeed.

I reviewed some of the publicly available material in the last post. For now, let's look at her bio for her current job and the recent podcast titles on her site. Click the images to enlarge.

Rachel Blansett's Bio from College of the Atlantic

Racheal Blansett's recent podcasts

We may be wading into some controversial waters. I don't know if Rachael plans to continue her podcast. The question mark in the original title of this post was my concern about how the role will unfold, and whether Rachael will be indeed happy in the position. Much will depend on the community reaction; I was surprised that there were no public comments at the board meeting,

I am totally impressed with the graphic art of these thumbnails.

The superintendent chose Rachael Blansett over the other finalist, Lu Ferrell (pronouns they/them). Dr. Morse said Rachael was the overwhelming choice of teachers, with only one expressing a preference for "the other candidate". I heard the students also expressed a preference for Rachael, as did I.

Rachael is also a New Hampshire Listens / UNH Carsey School of Public Policy Fellow. I don't know if that's a paid position, or if Rachael will continue to hold that title while employed at ORCSD. There's some controversy that New Hampshire Listens facilitated the rather secretive process that resulted in a recommendation to add a DEIJ Coordinator, that was ultimately filled by a New Hampshire Listens Fellow. Board Member Turell is also employed by the Carsey School, in a different area.

My existing concern was that the district was too small to support such a position, that maybe the DEIJ coordinator should be shared across several districts, like Rachael's current job. We now see a related concern, that just posting a large salary doesn't guarantee we'll get the experience, both lived and in the classroom, that we desire. We probably could have hired Rachael for a fair bit less.

Good luck, DEIJ Coordinator Blansett. I wish you success in your new role.

[EDIT: 6/2/22] Be sure to check out the ORHS student magazine Mouth of the River article by Zoe Selig on the new DEIJ coordinator.

Two Finalists Vie for DEIJ Coordinator

noreply@blogger.com (Dean Rubine) — Tue, 17 May 2022 05:52:00 +0000

Lu Ferrell (left) and Rachael Blansett
Finalists for ORCSD DEIJ Coordinator

Distributed information, click to enlarge

The two finalists for Oyster River's Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Justice Coordinator (draft job description) are Lu Ferrell and Rachael Blansett. They did full day tours and interviews Monday 5/10 and Wednesday 5/12 respectively, including 45 minutes to meet the community.

TL;DR: Rachael identifies as a "black/bi-racial, queer, femme social justice educator" while Lu is more circumspect, offering "intersectional DEIJ professional" who serves on "the Transgender Policy and Climate Committee and the Queer Professional Development Working Group." I think Lu has more experience overall. Rachael seems much more fun than Lu, so if it was up to me, I'd choose Rachael easily.

Neither has any experience in primary or secondary education, or much curriculum experience, which the superintendent has indicated is the primary component of the job. They had similar qualifications and similar ideas as to what the job may entail (lots of relationship building, which I guess means lunch). Both have Masters of Education degrees in Student Affairs. They're both currently New Hampshire Listen Fellows. I'll guess landing a job that pays "$95,00[sic] - $105,000 with exceptional benefits" represents a pretty big bump for either of them. Rachael is probably the more controversial of the two, with her podcast 2 Happy Heauxes and their alter-egos, "two bitter bitches," bound to raise some eyebrows.

The two finalists were selected by the fifteen member DEIJ Coordinator Hiring Committee of parents, students, teachers and administrators. There were forty-two applications, eighteen complete with video and essay components. Six candidates were brought in for interviews, and Lu and Rachael were the selected finalists. Superintendent Morse will recommend a candidate to the board, who then vote on final approval. I didn't see it on the May 18 agenda.

I attended the Community sessions to meet the DEIJ Coordinator finalists on Monday and Wednesday. I was late both times for the 5:45-6:30 meetings. I missed most of the candidates' statements, but was there for the questions and some "informal time." I jotted down a few notes which I'll share after reviewing the publicly available information.

We can start with the distributed summaries, included above. I presume these blurbs were prepared by ORCSD from some source material, so, except for the final quotes, cannot be considered writing samples from the candidates. I also presume the candidates provided graduation dates, which are sadly lacking here. Just reviewing these I'd take away that Lu has more experience and a somewhat broader focus than Rachael, who seems more focused on racism.

Both are fellows of New Hampshire Listens/Carsey School @ UNH. Lu told me that being a Fellow was a paid contract position. I didn't get an answer as to how one becomes a fellow. New Hampshire Listens was central in facilitating the meetings that led to a recommendation to hire a DEIJ Coordinator. Board Member Turell, an enthusiastic supporter of the position, is also employed by the Carsey School, in an unrelated capacity (solar power financing, I believe). The appearance of a conflict of interest has been pointed out by some community members. I've always believed Member Turell consistently acts in the best interest of the Oyster River School District, and I have no reason to believe otherwise here.

Let's try Google. Just the front page search results offer interesting portraits (click to enlarge).

Lu Ferrell, pronouns they/them, selected links:

Lu Ferrell

https://carsey.unh.edu/person/lu-ferrell

https://northeastextensionlgbtqsymposium.com/speaker/lu-ferrell/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/luferrell/

https://tnhdigital.com/19789/news/unh-celebrates-national-coming-out-week/

https://www.lgbtcampus.org/index.php?option=com_ccboard&view=postlist&forum=9&topic=756&Itemid=

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=191573385837187

Rachael Blansett, pronouns she/her, selected links:

Rachael Blansett

https://www.linkedin.com/in/rachael-blansett-7573ab72/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/rachael-blansett-7573ab72/ Are You Down With the Cause?

https://www.linkedin.com/in/rachael-blansett-7573ab72 White Tears In the Classroom

https://www.coa.edu/live/profiles/4219-rachael-a-blansett/templates/details/staff.php

https://www.2happyheauxes.com/thecreators

https://www.sterlingcollege.edu/blog/rachael-blansett-appointed-diversity-inclusion-fellow/

https://rachaelblansett.wordpress.com/personal-mission-statement/

https://vtdigger.org/press_release/sterling-college-and-college-of-the-atlantic-appoint-rachael-blansett-to-the-position-of-diversity-inclusion-fellow/

Rachael's podcasts aren't that exciting, but some of the language is probably not what Oyster River parents want their Oyster River children to hear. I presume it isn't the language Rachael would use with students, but the students are bound to find the podcasts sooner rather than later, so it's gonna come up.

I've been making slow progress on this post since last Wednesday. It's time for me to just summarize my notes and get this out.

Last Monday, at Lu Ferrell's session, I asked what were we to infer given only women ORCSD administrators (Filippone, Noe) and board members (Turrell, Day, Smith) showed up for the community session. On Wednesday Chair Williams attended Rachel Blansett's session, modestly introducing himself as a district parent and board member.

Lu Ferrell is on the cutting edge of verbing nouns, using "misgendered" and "microaggressed." Lu admits, "this work is hard to measure." [Lu shares our superintendent's penchant for the phrase "this work."] Lu's conception of the role includes: professional development for staff, empowering students, utilizing my UNH connections and getting DEIJ in the strategic plan. Lu says it's a misconception that DEIJ is only for marginalized students. "No, it's for all students."

Rachael Blansett lists five areas of qualification: race, gender, sexuality, ability and class. For the role, Rachael mentions building relationships, gathering contexts, professional development opportunities for faculty, student support, syllabus/lesson plan audits, determining gaps, needs, priorities, getting to know the community, and getting known. If hired, Rachel plans to work on getting up to speed on early education (primary grades).

That's all I have. It looks like one way or another, we're getting a DEIJ Coordinator. I saw some language where the superintendent can choose not to hire this year if he thinks no candidate is sufficiently qualified. But it's probably more likely we're getting one of these two as DEIJ coordinator. I hope it's Rachael.

Matt Bacon and Heather Smith Elected to ORCSD Board

noreply@blogger.com (Dean Rubine) — Wed, 09 Mar 2022 03:32:00 +0000

Newly elected ORCSD Board Members Matt Bacon and Heather Smith

Congratulations to Matt Bacon of Madbury and Heather Smith of Durham, both elected to at-large seats with three year terms on the Oyster River School Board. They replace venerable members Tom Newkirk and Al Howland, both of whom chose not to seek reelection after 10 years of service on the board.

It was a hotly contested race with five well qualified candidates. There was record turnout of 3313 voters. Of the 4963 votes cast (each voter gets two votes but not everyone uses both) Bacon received 27.1% and Smith received 25.5%. Next was Giana Gelsey of Madbury with 19.8%, followed closely by Debra Harmon of Lee with 18% and Marie D'Agostino of Lee with 9%.

It appears about 72% of the voters were in Durham. Typically that number would be 55%-60%. That's estimated from the individual town turnout numbers, but there likely were some folks showing up for the Durham dam vote who didn't bother to vote for school board.

All the school district ballot questions passed, including the budget with 76% voting YES, the negotiated contracts with the ORESPA and ORPaSS and the solar array fund set aside, for a total appropriation of $52.5M. The budget includes $130,000 for the new DEIJ coordinator position, one of the main issues in the race.

My analysis: Smith won by working the hardest, wanting it the most, and general excellence. Bacon won because he's the nicest guy in the room. Gelsey, the most progressive candidate and the candidate I most strongly endorsed, failed to win enough public support for her platform of challenging Concord's attacks on public education in the state. Harmon might have pulled it out, but her support was centered in Lee and she caught an unlucky break with the turnout in Durham. Former school board chair and school business administrator D'Agostino was the most qualified candidate, but couldn't overcome her lack of engagement with the district to date.

Bacon and Smith were both endorsed by school board chair Michael Williams, setting a questionable precedent in Oyster River. Member Cisneros got in the game as well, endorsing Harmon and D'Agostino.

In Lee, Rebecca Hawthorne beat incumbent Cary Brown 438 to 193, which is 69.4% versus 30.6%. All Lee ballot questions passed as well. Congratulations Rebecca; we're looking forward to great things.

[EDIT: I had a rant here about selectmen loitering in the polling place but it turns out they're either allowed or required to be there. I apologize for the accusation, selectmen. I still don't think elected folks whose names are on the ballot in contested races should be hanging around near the booths or the counting machine, even if they are legally permitted or obligated to be present in some capacity. Thanks to Michael Rury, who was kind enough to point out to me that under RSA 652:14 "selectman" is one of the officially designated election officers. In fact, Part 2 Article 32 of the NH constitution requires the selectboard to be present for state elections, and this is carried over to municipal elections as well. I still think there's something not right here that should be changed.]

In Durham the dam referendum failed by a three to one margin, meaning the dam will be removed per the initial town council decision. The dam controversy caused the disproportionate turnout in Durham, 2365 voters compared to the average of 1081.

Turnout in Lee was 709, 22% of registered voters, compared to 758 in 2021 and 1220 in 2020 (when the Middle School was on the ballot). Turnout is estimated at at least 221 voters in Madbury (maximum number to vote on any question) or at least 3313-2365-709=239, ORCSD minus Durham minus Lee.

[That 239 may be exact, if the turnout numbers include ORCSD ballots that were handed to a voter who didn't mark it at all, meaning every voter. Except I bet if you just returned your town absentee ballot and didn't return your school district absentee ballot, you're probably in the town turnout but not ORCSD's. If you returned both, even if one was blank, you're in both counts. Just guessing here.]

Please enjoy this spreadsheet summary of the recent district election history, followed by the detailed unofficial results for which I thank Todd Selig and Durham Friday Updates. I fixed a couple of minor errors and added the percentages myself.

SCHOOL DISTRICT UNOFFICIAL RESULTS (Durham, Lee, and Madbury Combined Ballots from all three precincts.)

ARTICLE 1:

For Moderator (Vote for not more than one)

Richard Laughton 2530 ELECTED
Write-in 10

ARTICLE 2:

For School Board At-Large (Vote for not more than two)

Matthew Bacon 1343 27.1% ELECTED
Heather Smith 1268 25.5% ELECTED
Giana Gelsey 985 19.8%
Debra Harmon 893 18.0%
Marie Therese D'Agostino 449 9.0%

Write-in 25 0.5%

(Percentages of the 4963 total votes cast.)

ARTICLE 3:

Shall the District raise and appropriate as an operating budget, not including appropriations by special warrant article and other appropriations voted separately, the amount set forth on the budget posted with the warrant or as amended by vote of the first session, for the purposes set forth therein, totaling $52,133,325.

Should this article be defeated, the operating budget shall be $51,721,541 (Default Budget) which is the same as last year with certain adjustments required by previous action of the District or by law; or the District may hold one special meeting in accordance with RSA 40:13, X, and XVI to take up the issue of the revised operating budget only. The School Board recommends this appropriation. (Majority vote required)

Note: Fund 10 = $50,668,275 (regular operating budget); Fund 21 = $824,050 (expenditures from food service revenues); Fund 22 = $600,000 (expenditures from federal/special revenues); Fund 23 = $41,000 (expenditures from pass through funds).

YES 2205 76.2% PASSED
NO 689 23.8%

ARTICLE 4:

Shall the District vote to approve within the provisions of New Hampshire RSA 273-A:3 the cost items included in the collective bargaining agreement reached between the Oyster River Educational Support Personnel Association and the Oyster River School Board which calls for the following increases in salaries and benefits at the current staffing levels:

2022 - 2023 $86,981
2023 - 2024 $75,527
2024 - 2025 $77,505
2025 - 2026 $81,588

and further to raise and appropriate the sum of $86,981 for the 2022-2023 fiscal year, such sum representing the additional costs attributable to the increases in salaries and benefits required by the new agreement over those that would be paid at current staffing levels? The School Board recommends this appropriation. (Majority vote required).

YES 2501 82.3% PASSED
NO 537 17.7%

ARTICLE 5:

Shall the District vote to approve within the provisions of New Hampshire RSA 273-A:3 the cost items included in the collective bargaining agreement reached between the Oyster River Para-Educators and Support Staff and the Oyster River School Board which calls for the following increases in salaries and benefits at the current staffing levels:

2022 - 2023 $183,009
2023 - 2024 $131,958
2024 - 2025 $136,126
2025 - 2026 $157,347

and further to raise and appropriate the sum of $183,009 for the 2022-2023 fiscal year, such sum representing the additional costs attributable to the increases in salaries and benefits required by the new agreement over those that would be paid at current staffing levels? The School Board recommends this appropriation. (Majority vote required).

YES 2481 81.6% PASSED
NO 559 18.4%

ARTICLE 6:

Shall the District vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $125,000 to be added to the Facilities Development, Maintenance, and Replacement Trust which was established in March of 2017. This sum to come from June 30 fund balance available for transfer on July 1. The School Board recommends this appropriation. (Majority vote required). No amounts to be raised from taxation.

YES 2509 83.2% PASSED
NO 508 16.8%

Total ORCSD votes cast today: 3313

School Board Members Put Foot on Scale on Election Eve!

noreply@blogger.com (Dean Rubine) — Tue, 08 Mar 2022 01:59:00 +0000

Voting Guide

Before I get into the news, if you just want to know how to vote or where to access information on the candidates, please see my last post:

Voting Guide to the Tuesday, March 8, 2022 Oyster River Cooperative School District Election.

The guide is unbiased until the end where I tell you my picks: Giana Gelsey and Matt Bacon for School Board, YES on the all the questions, and for Lee Select Board, the wonderful Rebecca Hawthorne over the Trump-adjacent incumbent Cary Brown. Durham folks, you're on your own with the dam.

Two Board Members Endorse Candidates

In a surprising and arguably unseemly election eve development, Chair Michael Williams and Member Brian Cisneros, acting as individual citizens not board members, have each endorsed two candidates, collectively endorsing everyone except Giana Gelsey. The last board member endorsing a candidate I noted in this blog was March 5, 2013's Breaking News: Jim Kach Endorses Carl Piedmont, so not the best footsteps guys. [EDIT: Actually Mr. Kach was an ex board member at the time, so not then crossing this particular line, sorry.] Since the gloves are off I'm not going to link to either endorsement until after the election.

Candidate Giana Gelsey

The endorsements came after my strong endorsement yesterday (Sunday) of Ms. Gelsey, who I described as "a bold, progressive voice in the mold of previous school board members Maria Barth, Kenny Rotner and Ann Wright."

Despite there being five candidates for two open seats in this time of political turmoil, except for some technical difficulties the race has been pretty uneventful. OK, I'll say it: it's been boring. All five candidates have run positive races, are extremely qualified, and have the best interests of the district at heart, so whatever happens at the polls tomorrow, the community can't lose.

Though the candidates are behaving very well, two board members have decided to put their thumb on the scale with endorsements. This is of course perfectly legal; they're citizens like everyone else. While it's common in more partisan contexts, it's been mostly avoided in Oyster River School Board races. I don't know if there are policies that speak to the issue. One thing is for sure; come next meeting Brian or Michael or both will be looking across the table at someone they didn't endorse -- awkward.

My guess is the two members would prefer not to push back against attacks on public education by the governor and legislature, the position most closely associated with Ms. Gelsey.

A search of the minutes shows some other reasons why Brian might not be partial to Ms. Gelsey. [EDIT: I see on my phone these images are unreadable unless you magnify; in this first Ms. Gelsey calls out Member Cisneros for misspeaking about COVID and asks him to "recant and apologize."]

There's also this disagreement on saying the Pledge of Allegiance, Brian in favor, Giana against (along with the rest of the board -- there was no second of Brian's motion):

Ms. Gelsey apparently did not endear herself to some board members when she organized a petition of over 200 community members to call for mask mandates in accordance with science at the beginning of the school year. Despite being restricted to 90 seconds each, they read it to the board:

[interposed comments removed]

I don't know why anyone at the board table wouldn't want to hear this support from the rational, science-believing folks, especially after some of the less than polite anti-mask comments. I was sure cheering them on from home -- finally voices of reason at the podium.

Sure Giana Gelsey is a troublemaker. But it's good trouble, the kind we all give lip service to supporting. Tomorrow we get to back it up with our vote.

Voting Guide to the Tuesday, March 8, 2022 Oyster River Cooperative School District Election

noreply@blogger.com (Dean Rubine) — Sun, 06 Mar 2022 09:01:00 +0000

Election Day Tuesday March 8, 2022

Election Day is this coming Tuesday.

This is my annual guide to the March 8, 2022 Oyster River Cooperative School District election. I will keep this guide unbiased until the Dean's Ballot section, where I tell you who I am and am not voting for and why. In this unbiased part I will endeavor to provide links to all the information out there to help you make your own decision so you don't have to read that far.

In addition to the ORCSD ballot, your town is having municipal elections; click for sample ballots (Durham, Lee, Madbury). Election day evening Madbury also has a town meeting.

There's late breaking news at School Board Members Put Foot on Scale on Election Eve!

Voting Mechanics

There are new rules (Durham, Lee) that prevent absentee ballots from being returned in person on election day, so be sure to get your absentee ballot in by 5pm Monday. It may not be too late to obtain an absentee ballot from your Town Clerk and vote it on Monday; they're still saying it's OK to check the disability box on the absentee ballot application form if you have pandemic concerns.

Your election day polling place and voting times depend on where you live:

Durham: Oyster River High School 7:00 a.m. – 7:00 p.m.

Lee: Public Safety Complex 7:00 a.m. – 7:00 p.m. Lee is requesting voters mask up. Note that at the Deliberative Session the moderator mistakenly said Lee was voting at the transfer station like last year, and that mistake has been repeated a couple times that I've seen since then.

Madbury: Town Hall 11:00 a.m. – 7:00 p.m. [EDIT: I had 7:30, sorry.] Madbury also has a genuine town meeting, 7:30pm at Moharimet, where they vote on the majority of their warrant articles, but the school district stuff is in the daytime Town Hall election.

The School District Ballot

As always, voters in each town are given identical school district ballots. Let's briefly go through the ballot questions, also known as the warrant articles. For more information, please see my previous few posts and the recently released SAU 5 Annual Report 2022.

Article 1 elects the moderator. It's always Rick Laughton. His family is a bit of an Oyster River dynasty. His mother in law was beloved citizen and former school board chair Shirley Thompson (rest in peace) and I thought his daughter Jessica Laughton was District Clerk [EDIT: I'm told she resigned as District Clerk]. This year the ballot says the clerk is Sue Caswell, which is odd as Ms. Caswell already has a job as our business administrator.

Article 2 chooses two at-large school board members. The top two vote getters of the five candidates win a three year term on the board. The Oyster River board consists of three town-specific seats, one each for Durham, Lee and Madbury, which is held by an eligible voter from the specific town, and four at-large seats, each open to candidates from all three towns.

Here's a quick recap of where to find just about all the information available on the candidates.

Facebook candidate pages: Matt Bacon, Marie D'Agostino (none known), Giana Gelsey, Debra Harmon, Heather Smith.

Candidate Bios are on the district website, and there are three different candidate questionnaires, by Foster's (Yahoo reran it), The Oyster River Teacher's Guild and Oyster River Equity and Justice, a local group unaffiliated with the district.

There are videos of two events: The February 15, 2022 Candidates Night hosted by the Moharimet PTO and the March 3, 2022 Candidates Forum hosted by the ORHS Debate Team, i.e. students. For a deeper dive, there's also Heather Smith's 30 minute Long Range Planning Committee report from Wednesday's board meeting and Debra Harmon's September 30, 2020 Interview for a board seat appointment.

Finally here are recent posts on this blog: Information Overload, We met the candidates, Budget Unchanged at Edifying Deliberative Session, Board Member Turell Defends DEIJ Coordinator Position, Ruth Sample Argues Against ORCSD's Proposed DEIJ Coordinator Position and The Race Is On.

OK, let's continue with the ballot. Article 3 asks the voters if the district can spend $52.1 million. The other three articles add $400K for a total of $52.5M. That's a lot of dollars.

If NO wins we get the default budget of $51.7 M, a decrease of $400K or 0.8%. NO never wins in Oyster River, especially this budget which includes the popular DEIJ Coordinator position.

These budget numbers are total expenses, only part of the fiscal story as far as the taxpayers are concerned. There's also an estimated revenue side, with large items being expected tuition income and scheduled withdrawals from trust funds. It's the difference between expected expenses ($52.5M assuming all articles pass) and expected revenue that's apportioned between the towns. Half the bill is proportional to the number of students in town, half proportional to the equalized town valuations (i.e. the total taxable property in each town). Then the state puts its finger on the scale by granting each town adequacy aid according to a formula. What's left in each town is billed to the property owners, the Local Education Tax millage being the total asked of the town divided by the total assessed value of the taxable property in town. The adequacy aid comes from the State Education Tax line, which is the same rate for every property owner in the state (the millage is equalized to reflect different assessment styles between towns).

Yes it's complicated, and there are still many more details I haven't mentioned you can read about here. The bottom line is the board really only controls expenses minus revenue, which they usually do a good job keeping to a 3%+ year on year increase, lately even while shoehorning in an entire $50M middle school . After expenses minus revenue is determined, the apportionment formula and the state aid takes over, generally falling harder on one town than the other two and pissing folks off.

I've been meaning to write about the spending this budget and I guess this is it. It will probably degenerate into a rant so I'm going to label this part as BIASED OPINION.

This year the board went a little bit crazy on spending. They approved a 4.1% increase (compared to a more usual 3.25%) and then took an additional $900K from reserve funds, 1.7%, for a total spending increase of 5.8% [No, see below]. (Plus there's another $596K, 1.1%, spending mentioned below).

EDIT: 3/7 Chair Michael Williams thoughtfully responded to this post. I'll call him Michael here since he's responding as an individual, not in his role as chair. Thanks Michael.

Michael makes some excellent points, and I will attempt correct things accordingly, responding in italics, excerpting Michael's responses as needed. Here we go.

This is my mistake, sorry about that folks. It's not really for the reason specified; I know and I hope I've made it clear the $900K counts as revenue. It's a odd municipal quirk -- taxes collected in previous years that were unspent and put in the bank in reserve funds are called revenue when withdrawn, because they appear on the income side of the ledger.

My mistake was not accounting for the fact that they played the same game last year, using I think $500K of trust fund money to reduce taxes.

What's the emergency?

Michael points out "emergency" is a misnomer; in statutes it's called a contingency fund. I know it's there for the board to use to smooth out the tax hikes, but if they're going to call it an emergency fund, I'm going to ask "what's the emergency?" when they use it. The emergency is people get mad at the board and district when taxes go up too fast.

Here's their list of big ticket expenses driving up the budget.

I complained about this slide the first time and they added the numbers at the bottom. Curiously, there is this item "Capital Account" which doesn't really seem like an expense, and it doesn't have a number; it presumably refers to the $900K they're employing so the taxpayers don't revolt [No, see below]. This is about $2M of annual spending, 4%, that rolls forward forever. We're left to wonder what happens next year without these trust fund boosts.

Clarification: What’s the Capital Account? The Capital Account that is referred to in the Deliberative Session budget slides and the CleanSlate post is really the capital spending line in the budget. It’s called an “account” sometimes because the categories in the budget are called General Ledger Account numbers. It’s not a separate account like a bank account. The capital spending (outside of finishing the new middle school fields, parking, and landscaping) totals $940,000 for 2022-2023.

Thanks Michael. I don't think it's too much to ask to put the amount after the description for every item. I know $940,000 is scary to put on a slide but what are we to think when numbers are left off slides?

There were things I expected but didn't see here -- a couple of Mandarin teachers and $500K for Tennis Courts; those are probably in the current year. The good citizens of Oyster River would have heard all about spending concerns at Deliberative Session if they hadn't voted to call the question.

We see some new positions even though the enrollment is not growing, but it's all pretty regular until the last two items. I can't find in the minutes where they decided two additional custodians were necessary to take care of our brand new state of the art building (it's before 9/2021; I'll keep looking). The new building literally isn't sustainable if the taxpayers can't afford to keep it open. Is this the emergency?

In Lee the Select Board is looking under sofas for change trying to tamp down tax increases; they cut the Sustainability Committee budget from $500 to $0, for an example I'm personally aware of. But the new school needs two additional custodians. It's incongruous.

There's an additional $596K of contingency funds from the middle school coming in under budget that they spent on bus block heaters they forgot they needed and middle school furniture and playground equipment they cut -- apparently $49.8M is not guaranteed to buy a fully furnished middle school, but might just be enough to cover it. There wasn't a single breath where anyone uttered something like, "maybe we don't need to take $500K from the emergency fund now" or "let's give the taxpayers a break."

Michael and I aren't disagreeing here. This money was meant for the middle school; I know that. What I want the board to remember is they don't really represent the students, the teachers or the administrators; they represent us citizens as a whole who are paying the bills. They don't have to do anything different; just acknowledge that we're out here, that every time they raise taxes some of the folks they represent have to work a little harder just to stay in the district.

Then there's the DEIJ Coordinator, which I've made myself unpopular by complaining about. But I persist. I'm not against DEIJ; I just hate paying retail. Manchester got their 3 year experiment with a Chief Equity Officer funded via private donations. Is there really a DEIJ emergency in town that requires this expenditure of $130K this year? And did I understand that this doesn't include the retirement benefit? I can't find any of it in the budget.

The precipitating incident in 2017 is rumored to be more nuanced than initially reported, where the purportedly racist boy was suffering from behavioral/mental health issues, making it more a Special Education Department problem than a DEIJ Coordinator problem. (The district keeps these incidents confidential so all we get is rumors.)

What I really object to is rap sessions outside the Right-to-Know boundaries which suddenly result in a $130K annual expense we all have to bear. In contrast, we just wrapped up the Regional Compost Working Group (Durham, Lee, ORCSD & UNH) where we had public meetings with posted agendas and minutes because we thought in the end it might result in recommendations of public expenditures of maybe at most $30K annually on a relatively non-controversial topic. To my knowledge nothing like that is posted from the DEIJ committee.

Let's get to the tax rates.

Overall the big increase ended up a pretty average increase by the time it reached the taxpayer, and there it mostly landed on Durham; pretty much the luck of the draw with the apportionment formula and the state aid. Durham grows its taxable property base more aggressively than the other towns which is a double edged sword: the millage in town is lowered as the amount billed to the town is split over more property value, but with a lag of a year or two the increased valuation works its way into the apportionment formula, where half the bill is split proportionally to the towns' property value, increasing Durham's share. We may be seeing that rebound here; I haven't tried to figure it out.

The presentation is an improvement over previous years when I don't think we got the percentages, which I find easier to understand than the naked millages. There was a part that struck me as disingenuous where Member Cisneros tried to downplay the predicted increases by pointing out last year the Lee Local School Tax millage was predicted at $24.19 and came in at $15.18. That was not some magical miracle of taxes coming in lower than expected in Lee, but the result of a town-wide reassessment which raised the average valuation in Lee 56%. Just raising everyone's assessment by a constant factor doesn't change anyone's tax bill, even though the millage does decrease by the same factor, as Member Cisneros surely knows from his day job as a school business administrator. There's nothing here pointing to a failure of the prediction, which really just tries to predict how much your taxes will go up in the guise of a millage. To determine prediction accuracy would require a more detailed look. (In Lee the reassessment seems unfortunately to have disproportionately raised values on the lowest valued properties in town, making it harder on the least well off among us.)

END BIASED OPINION. I'm griping in the hopes it will change things, but I'm not suggesting anyone vote NO on the budget.

Article 4 asks us to vote on the negotiated agreement with ORESPA, the Oyster River Educational Support Personnel Association, the collective bargaining unit for the Secretaries and Custodians. I'm not sure if the figures, which are the aggregate annual raises, include the two new custodians; probably not due to the phrase "current staffing levels". My pet peeve is we're generally asked to vote on these numbers without any context like the number of employees covered and their current aggregate wages, benefits, FICA and other costs. I'm not going to try to figure it out today. This is a four year contract; up from the usual three.

Article 5 asks us to approve the ORPaSS, Oyster River Para-Educators and Support Staff, raises. I asked at Deliberative Session and Business Administrator Caswell said the $183K was a 5% raise for 84 staff. I think the board was OK with this raise because we're trying to keep our pay competitive in these difficult-to-hire, low-unemployment times.

There was a question on Candidates Night about cutting the budget to get paras a living wage. I don't know that they don't have one; what they do have is American Federation of Teachers union representation that sent around this mailer urging us to vote for the article, unfortunately repeating the wrong Lee polling location.

Article 6 appropriates $125,000 to put away toward the eventual purchase of the middle school solar array. The "no amounts to be raised from taxation" is a boilerplate fib; they mean no money from the current warrant. The fund balance is the unspent money at the end of the year; it's of course money that was raised from the taxpayers with last year's warrant. But if we didn't put it aside as asked for here, it would lower this year's taxes. So we end this unbiased part with a fib.

I must say I was more enthusiastic about the middle school solar array before I heard a rumor that they're just giving away the power to charge folks' electric cars under it. It's like they never miss an opportunity to hurt the taxpayers. I need to verify this one before I officially gripe about it.

Correction: I am not aware of any proposal to provide free electric vehicle charging for private vehicles at the new ORMS. Apparently there is “a rumor that they’re just giving away the power to charge folks’ electric cars under it” per Clean Slate. I will vote against any proposal like that. I have to admit that the line Dean wrote after that about fiscal irresponsibility stung a little. But Dean is entitled to his opinion.

I'm sorry, Michael. I shouldn't have said anything before I verified but a few people have mentioned it to me. I take it all back. Thanks for the clarification. Let's call this rumor: FALSE.

Thanks again for responding, Michael.

Dean's Ballot

This is the BIASED part where I tell you who and what I'm voting for. Let's dispense with the easy stuff: In Article 1 I'm voting for Rick Laughton for Moderator, and I'm voting YES on all the questions. I griped about the spending but overall it's a pretty good budget and I support it and the board that produced it. I won't belabor the other ballot questions. That leaves the school board.

Before I tell you my choices I want to say just how lucky we are to have five candidates, each of whom would bring a wealth of experience and unique strengths to the board table, and each of whom just wants to work for the best interests of the district. The district will be well served by whichever two win.

I probably don't say enough that I'm Dean Rubine, Lee resident, district parent and ORMS Mathcounts coach. I've been a school board gadfly since I got involved in 2011 when Tea Partiers had taken over the ORCSD school board and started acting badly. We've had a good ten year run with very little of that, though during the pandemic public comments at school board meetings have sometimes become a bit, uh, boisterous. Hopefully that abates now that the mask mandate is lifted.

Those formerly fringe Tea Party activists have donned their MAGA caps and teamed up with some Free Staters to become the mainstream of the Republican party, currently in complete control in Concord. They're getting elected to school boards and passing laws taking away money from public education to put toward private school and meddling in the curriculum, like the latest law preventing the teaching of divisive concepts.

I normally leave partisan politics out of this blog, because it usually doesn't enter in to school district affairs. But now, after a decade of radical right gains, it's clear that what I believe is the side of good, well-funded public education where we trust the teachers rather than the politicians to make curriculum decisions, is seriously under threat. This is the fight of our times. My main concern is to choose school board members willing to forcefully get into the fight on the side of good.

Of the candidates, there's only one that's made it clear that's she'll passionately defend public schools against such attacks. That's Giana Gelsey, who I strongly support for ORCSD board. She's a bold progressive voice, perhaps in the mold of previous school board members Maria Barth, Kenny Rotner, and going back a bit, Ann Wright. Of the five, it's Giana with the activist experience, the practiced courage not to shrink from these fights. I see the other candidates, and maybe most of the existing board members, more inclined to not rock the boat and just acquiesce to the government's edicts simply because the school district is essentially part of the government.

It's not just going against Concord when appropriate; it's clear Ms. Gelsey has enough skepticism and experience to seek out the downsides that lurk in every policy, who it hurts, no matter how good the intentions are behind it, and she won't shy away from raising the issue. The board won't always choose to make a change, but it will be great to hear Giana making the case. Giana's experience as a biologist is particularly useful these days as well.

The other thing I can mention is that Ms. Gelsey ran the most successful Candidates Night last year that the district has seen in years. It was hosted by the elementary PTOs, with Ms. Gelsey chair of the Moharimet PTO. It ran two nights, with Ms. Gelsey hosting five candidates the first night. According to my report, 53 folks watched on Zoom with a similar number on facebook live. Questions were widely solicited beforehand, and the live audience was also able to ask questions via chat. There were essentially no technical problems beyond reminding folks to unmute. You wouldn't think that was that impressive, but it's an outsized success compared to the two live streams this year which both which had awful technical problems and did not afford any audience interaction, and to a decade of Candidates Nights with just me, or on a good year, maybe 10 people in the audience, with the video record often lost or posted too late.

The criticism I've heard of Ms. Gelsey is she doesn't listen. I certainly haven't found that; in my interactions with her she's been an active listener, probing to understand the other party's position, not just waiting to respond. But she will strongly state her own view when appropriate, which might make some people think she doesn't listen, but it's of course a different thing, and admirable.

I should probably make it clear that neither Ms. Gelsey nor any of the candidates share my belief that committing to a DEIJ Coordinator administrative level position is premature; they all are fully supportive of the DEIJ Coordinator position.

I try to put myself out there, reaching out to the candidates, loitering in the back of school board meetings, that kind of thing. I've made myself a bit of a pariah, which is helpful here. It's easy to talk about inclusion and listening to all sides; it's a bit harder to walk up and start the conversation. I thought Debra Harmon might try to say a few words to me at the last board meeting, but she didn't.

Heather Smith did say a couple of words to me at the meeting , indicating the LRPC might adopt my public comment to report true two standard deviation error ranges, which are the typical 95% wide confidence intervals, instead of the 50% wide mean absolute deviations they currently report (meaning, as our illustrious school board chair Williams pointed out, half the time the observed error will be outside the predicted bounds). I've made a similar comment at many past board meetings after the LRPC presentation; they've been doing it this rather shameless way forever. One way I suggested to fix their report was to just multiply the reported mean absolute deviation by 2.5; fun fact: the exact factor is √(2π). It probably makes more sense to estimate the standard deviation directly (then multiply by 2).

I geeked out there for a minute. My second vote goes to Matt Bacon. As a National Guardsman there's no doubt about his courage. I don't really know Matt, but talking to folks, it's clear he's running for school board to be of service to the community, a way of giving back just as he did in the National Guard. I don't really see him rocking the boat; Matt's superpower is his people skills. He was the only one of the candidates to really try to connect with me at the meeting. He asked me about my visual aid for Archimedes' calculation of the area of a parabola section. He immediately said he did badly in calculus, probably true but also I think very much in his self-deprecating style, which is disarming. I was of course ready to do fifty minutes on the topic, happily going on about weighing parabolas against triangles. I see Matt as playing the role of mediator, bringing disparate people and views together. Matt, working with Giana, was also part of the crew in the only successful Candidates Night in recent memory.

All the candidates have excellent, relevant experience in their past. Matt's is as a National Guard member, a high school paraeducator, Moharimet PTO, ORYA coach and Madbury Zoning Board chair. He at least answered questions about his political affiliation, which is Undeclared, so doesn't tell us all that much. More helpfully he added his family and he are all vaccinated, he believes in science, critical thinking, the climate crisis is real, and not banning books. Me too.

My third choice was Heather Smith. It was really hard for me to choose between Heather and Matt; both would and will make great board members. I'm partial to folks with Ph.D.s like Heather; I have one myself, as does my wife. It's clear Heather wants the job badly, more than I've seen anyone want it. She's like the graphic she produced: very impressive and appealing but ultimately a bit hard to read. I liked her support for sustainability, but then in the next sentence she spun it into not overworking the staff, which is important but do we have to call everything sustainability? She mentioned "pain points" several times, which I thought was some DEIJ jargon but really comes from marketing: learn your customer's "pain points" and tailor your pitch to show how your product or service alleviates them. She also referred to using $900K of trust fund money to lower taxes a "creative way to manage expenses," which shocked me (Candidates Night again). Going back to the ATM to get more money to continue the party is not managing expenses -- it's the opposite.

My next choice is Debra Harmon. Ms. Harmon is clearly excellent at listening and then seriously considering and addressing any situations posed to her. For any sort of event or project I would feel confident that I could specify to Ms. Harmon what I wanted and she would carefully listen and faithfully carry it out. While that is a great skill in a school board member, I would hope for something deeper -- not just accepting the problem as presented, but asking what's really going on before diving into action. It's there I thought Ms. Harmon fell short of the other candidates. An example was the question about what to cut to give paras a livable wage, where Ms. Harmon accepted the question at face value rather than asking if it's really true and if so, if cutting was the best solution.

My last choice is Marie D'Agostino. It's remarkable because Ms. D'Agostino is incredibly well qualified, with lots of relevant former experience as a school board chair, school business administrator, insurance executive and more. I just thought that despite this awesome resume, she didn't seem particularly engaged with Oyster River. Maybe I missed it, but I don't recall Ms. D'Agostino ever attending an Oyster River board meeting or other event or making a public comment. She repeatedly refers to the district as ORSD, which shows a certain disengagement; we're Oyster River Cooperative School District, consistently abbreviated ORCSD. As far as I can tell, Ms. D'Agostino did not create any web presence, which further reinforces this impression of non-involvement with the district. We already happen to have a working NH school business administrator on the board, Brian Cisneros.

Let me illustrate the candidates using the responses to the DEIJ question from Candidates Night, which seems to be my issue this year. The question was something like: What objective metrics would you use to evaluate the performance of the DEIJ coordinator?

Ms. D'Agostino focused on the job description, saying to develop metrics out of that, but not specifying any, saying the position was an opportunity to bring the community together. Ms. Gelsey addressed the question head on, referring to the job description and explicitly indicating the hiring of a more diverse staff as a metric, utilizing metrics already afforded by our existing programs, like MTSS, and collecting student and teacher responses. Mr. Bacon made the quite reasonable suggestion that the board sit down with the coordinator to set goals which are then used for evaluation. Ms. Smith wanted to "have conversations" with teachers, staff and students that utilized the DEIJ Coordinator about their "relationship" with the coordinator, but admitted we might not see measurable outcomes that first year. Ms. Harmon wanted the job description narrowed and the position evaluated annually to assure we're meeting the goals we set.

This was a question that should be answered head on. Ms. Gelsey did that; the others less so. None of the candidates mentioned what would be part of my answer: The superintendent was insisting the DEIJ Coordinator's main role would be in supporting curriculum changes; presumably teachers could be surveyed to determine the number and depth of the curriculum changes.

It's 4 am and I've been writing this post for two days, so it's clearly time to wrap up. In the confirmation bias department, I see in the photo Ms. Gelsey and Mr. Bacon are still wearing their masks now that they're optional; probably wise given the current 2% positivity rate. I too am partial to The Expanse and Snow Crash, though my favorite is the lesser known The Diamond Age.

Town Stuff

There's a real race for Select Board in Lee, with long time incumbent Cary Brown (no candidate site known) running against district parent Rebecca Hawthorne. I am thrilled be supporting Ms. Hawthorne. With her full color signs and the mailer I got, she is definitely raising the campaign game around here.

I like Cary; he's a nice, grandfatherly fellow with cool hobbies and interesting stories. On the downside, he'll occasionally post some pretty Trumpy thing that leaves me wondering how he's selectperson in a town that went for Biden around 2 to 1. Hopefully after Tuesday I won't have to wonder that any more. If Ms. Hawthorne is elected, it will truly be the dawn of something new in Lee, with Ms. Hawthorne joining likely ally Selectperson Kasper for a majority on the three person board. I forsee great stuff ahead for Lee.

Rebecca Hawthorne was already my hero as Mast Way PTO chair, for her role in the very successful Candidates Night last year, with a great turnout, wide audience participation and no technical issues.

I would extol the virtues of Ms. Hawthorne more here but it's late so instead I'll just point you to her facebook candidate page and tell you this crazy story I heard about Lee's Candidates Night, which happened at the same time as the ORCSD Candidate Forum with the ORHS Debate Club, which I was watching, so this is secondhand. There's no recording posted of the Lee event, and there probably won't ever be.

Lee Candidates Night was a virtual event on Zoom, hosted by the Lee Library, who may not be the most tech savvy folks. Apparently the candidates were still in the introductions when the open event was Zoom Bombed by four or five trolls, who apparently had prepared scripts detailing anatomical, uh, details. The Library flailed around, eventually ending and restarting the meeting. Only candidate Hawthorne returned to the meeting. Rumor has it selectperson Brown got in his car and drove to the library when the first Zoom ended, which was a nice idea except that the library was empty because everyone had Zoomed in from their homes. Ms. Hawthorne had the night to herself, but it seems we're not likely to ever see it.

In other town news, Durham has the Mill Pond Dam removal vote that will likely increase turnout there. I'm glad I'm from Lee so I don't have to figure out which way to vote on that one, and I'm real glad I didn't buy Mill Pond Center when we were looking for a house 15 years ago.

See everybody at the polls on Tuesday.

Information Overload, Candidate Forum Tonight

noreply@blogger.com (Dean Rubine) — Thu, 03 Mar 2022 19:06:00 +0000

Upcoming Events

Municipal Election Day is this Tuesday, March 8, 2022. I'll put out my usual ORCSD election guide this weekend; let's focus on the five candidates for two ORCSD school board seats here. I won't be shy about telling you who I am and am not voting for when I figure it out, hopefully soon. But in this post I will strive to deliver neutral, unbiased information.

Thursday March 3 (tonight as I write this), 7 pm, though they've been a bit cagey about the time, the ORHS Debate Club is hosting the ORCSD School Board Candidates' Forum at the high school. I don't think it's open to the public in person, but we can watch it. It will be recorded and streamed by the district's professional staff, so I don't expect any technical problems.

Information Released

After Candidates Night on February 15 there was a two week lull where there wasn't much happening in the ORCSD school board election (but I did complete my 14th RPM Challenge). That all changed in the last couple of days, with an avalanche of information released as the various questionnaires that the candidates have responded to have been published and the district responded to community calls for information.

Let's start with the district website publishing candidate bios. The district proper has an ethical and legal obligation to stay out of the election campaign, which is annoying as it's the obvious place to look for election information. That's why Candidates Night was historically run by the District Clerk, who is not involved in district administration, and the last two years by the PTOs.

But the district thought the step of posting photos and statements submitted by the candidates was ok (and that allowed me to make the above image). It's also OK for the students to get involved, so be sure to tune into tonight's forum. And of course, this is my part to help get information out to the wider community.

The candidates are constantly updating their facebook pages, so here they are again: Matt Bacon, Marie D'Agostino (no candidate web presence known), Giana Gelsey, Debra Harmon, and Heather Smith.

The video from Candidates' Night has been published. I said I'd review it and update the bios in the last post, but with all the new, candidate-authored information out now it's a lower priority.

Foster's has published an article and candidate questionnaire. Yahoo picked it up, and I think it won't be behind a paywall there.

The Oyster River Teacher's Guild published their annual ORCSD ORTG SCHOOL BOARD CANDIDATE QUESTIONAIRE 2022. Some of the candidates have reproduced their answers on facebook, perhaps because the paragraph formatting seems to have been lost on the guild's grid; I saw Gelsey, Harmon and Smith.

Oyster River Equity and Justice published their questionnaire as well. I believe the OREJ is not affiliated with the school district; it's a community group supporting DEIJ issues. Frankly I'm a little hazy about the names, history, authority and membership of the various DEIJ committees and organizations that seem to be operating; I'll try to brush up.

Phew. That's all the new candidate information until the forum tonight. I urge everyone to watch.

Tom Newkirk and Al Howland Say Goodbye

Last night was Tom and Al's last school board meeting, after ten years of service (YouTube). The board and administration all had kinds words praising Tom and Al. I was watching at home but when I realized it was Tom and Al's last, I went to the meeting in person, first time in almost two years. Unfortunately there were no hor d'oeuvres for the occasion, but it was wonderful to be there nonetheless. I definitely need to write a longer tribute to these two, but that will have to wait until after the election.

It was great to see everyone. I finally met Principal Noe. Three candidates were present: Heather Smith, who presented the Long Range Planning Committee enrollment predictions, Matt Bacon and Debra Harmon. Masks were optional so it was interesting to see who was masked. At the table, only member Cisneros did not wear a mask. Among the candidates, Heather and Matt were masked, Debra was not.

While making a public comment thanking Tom and Al, I got to brag about my Mathcounts middle schoolers, 7 of which passed the hurdle of the chapter competition and will compete in the state competition at the end of this month. I taught middle schoolers calculus on the first day of the new school; here's my visual aid for Archimedes' Quadrature of the Parabola.

We met the candidates

noreply@blogger.com (Dean Rubine) — Sun, 20 Feb 2022 17:23:00 +0000

Moderator Michelle Hannon (left)
and Candidate Marie D'Agostino
on Candidates Night

Tuesday was the 2022 ORCSD School Board Candidates Night, this year hosted by the ORMS PTO.

I've been waiting for the video to be posted so I can watch it again and share the link. As happens pretty much every year, my hopes are dashed (but not last year, which went great). It's been five days and still no video. So we're left to my memory and some scrawled notes on the introductions. We're told the video will be posted; when it surfaces we'll see how I did. [Posted here; updating contents on 3/5/2022]

Unlike last year, the Teams format did not permit the audience to ask questions or make comments in the chat. There was also no indication of how many viewers were watching; maybe someone involved can let us know.

The production had technical difficulties. The moderator, ORMS PTO co-chair Michelle Hannon, was perfectly audible when reading the questions, but it was often difficult for me to hear the words of the candidates. For the first few minutes it was just the reverberating room and the masks that muffled the audio. Then a loud fan kicked in to add some white noise to make it all a semi-intelligible exercise in frustration. Eventually even the computer couldn't take it anymore and crashed. When they came back a few minutes later the candidate audio was working great, though the moderator's audio had gotten worse.

They had to work pretty hard to mess it up this bad. I thought we'd get the usual Teams meeting, where all that's required for preparation is sending out Teams invite emails. Everyone is alone in their own space, masks off, a device with camera and mic up close and personal, perfectly audible, name under their image, with the occasional noise problem rectified with a request for non-speakers to mute. But on Tuesday they decided to tease us with a hybrid live/Teams event, cancel the live part that day, but still have the candidates together in person in a large, echoey room, masks on, with professional video cameras on tripods presumably being switched by a director. It didn't seem like the mics were close to the candidates, but one was sure picking up fan wind noise.

I've griped enough; on to the content. The candidates were given an opportunity to introduce themselves and then the first question was something like "what unique skills would you bring to the school board?"; I'll combine them; here's what the candidates said.

Matt Bacon (facebook) is the parent of five children. He has been a paraprofessional at a high school. He served in the National Guard, and serves in the Madbury PTO and as an ORYA coach, and on Madbury Zoning Board. Matt would bring his strong people skills and his ability to work with and listen to people with other opinions.

Marie D'Agostino (no candidate web presence known) has lived in Lee sixteen years. She was a former member and chair of the Newmarket School Board. She has 3 grown children and 7 grandchildren, 18 months to 18 years. Masters in Business Administration and Human Resources. She's "semi-retired", consultant for Municipal Resources Inc., having worked as a school district business administrator in Kensington, Somersworth and (I think she said) Wakefield. She's worked for Primex (insurance) as director of finance and human resources. Expert in School Risk Management. Open and closed schools, built schools, oversaw renovations. She oversaw the creation of SAU 101 out of SAU 64. Marie would bring her business administrator and school board experience in budgeting, negotiation and personnel.

Giana Gelsey (facebook) is the parent of a 4th and 7th grader. She serves as Moharimet PTO chair, on ORTV, the ORCSD Long Range Planning Committee, and the Madbury Water Resources Board. She puts her heart and soul and strong principles into everything she does. She listens carefully to all -- every voice counts. She supports the district's DEIJ work. Giana would bring a strong science background and an understanding of different perspectives, having lived in Mississippi, Texas, Arizona, Minnesota and New Hampshire.

Debra Harmon (facebook) has been in Lee 21 years, and has sent three children through the schools. She has volunteered all 21 years, active in Cub Scouts, Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Otters, other activities and GO VOTE. She has coordinated many events at Mast Way. Debra would bring her wide people and problem solving skills gained as a tour guide and a Delta Airline flight attendant for 22 years. EDIT: A comment below says I've failed here to convey the full scope of Ms. Harmon's introduction and service, for which I apologize. It adds Ms. Harmon was a Girl Scout Troop Leader (4 years) and ORMS PTO Treasurer for 4 years; please see the full comment below. [I've edited the introduction a second time after watching the video.]

Heather Smith (facebook) has two children in the schools, in first and fifth grade. She is a Senior Water Engineer. She's chair of ORCSD's Long Range Planning Committee, and member and former chair of the Moharimet PTO, and serves on Chess Club, First Lego, Destination Imagination, Otters board, UNH Ocean Engineering External Advisory Board, and as an ORYA coach. Heather would bring her unique curiosity, love of asking questions, love of digging down and understanding problems and coming up with solutions.

We've reached the end of my notes, where I couldn't hear much anyway and thought I'd just try again with the video when it was posted. So much for that plan; I'll sit here and see what I can remember about some questions.

The candidates were asked something like: Paraprofessionals in the district do not make a living wage. What would you cut in the budget to remedy this?

My answer would have been to reject the premises: I don't know that paraprofessionals aren't paid a living wage -- I'd have to find out. I also don't know that if there was an issue, that cutting the budget would be the only way to address it. What I do know is that every few years, including this year as reflected in Warrant Article 5, the district sits down with ORPaSS (The Oyster River Paraprofessionals and Support Staff), a genuine union presumably quite able to powerfully represent its members' positions, and they mutually agree to a contract that both sides generally claim to be pretty happy with. I vaguely recall back in the wake of the 2008 financial crash ORPaSS took a low raise to help out the district, while more recently the district has been willing to pay higher wages to remain competitive in order to continue to attract the best personnel.

As to not knowing the wage of paraprofessionals, one of my pet peeves with the board is when they present the negotiated contracts with the various bargaining units like ORPaSS, they only tell us the amount of the aggregate annual raise. That's the number we're asked to vote on. Some context, like the number of workers covered, their total wages and other costs (FICA, benefits, etc.) and total annual hours, would be very useful in actually evaluating the numbers we're being asked to vote on. A similar comment goes for the tax rate increases presented as well.

OK, enough of my answer, what of the candidates? Most candidates wisely didn't take the bait of this softball gotcha question. Ms. Gelsey began by saying a budget is a balance, which is exactly right. Most of the rest answered in similar vein, with I believe only Ms. Harmon taking the bait and addressing cuts.

I know, my recollection here isn't very helpful. Frankly that was my impression of the entire event -- the questions were not really designed to differentiate the candidates, so now their answers all blend together in my head.

There were other questions: Superintendent Morse will retire soon; what qualities should we look for in a new superintendent? Most of the candidates took the opportunity to praise Dr. Morse and expressed hope we could find someone with similar qualities. Ms. D'Agostino offered that this was a difficult time to hire as (I think she said) 18 other school districts in the area were also looking to hire a superintendent.

There was an expected question about the process of ending the masking requirement in district buildings. This was during the difficult to hear part, I think; I can't remember much if any of the answers. Ms. Gelsey said there was a committee that evaluated the data weekly and reported to the board; the masks would become optional when various COVID thresholds were met. I think it was Mr. Bacon who said we should continually revisit the thresholds in light of changing information.

I think there was another question about working with people with differing views. Unsurprising, the candidates invariably thought this was a good idea and would endeavor to do so if elected.

Clearly I'm not having much luck recalling Candidates Night. I guess it's that "awful Zoom call" nightmare I just want to put out of my mind. If the video is posted, I may revisit and expand this.

The word is that the Teacher's Guild has done a questionnaire which hopefully will differentiate the candidates a bit more than Candidates Night. We'll talk about that, and about spending in the district, soon, so stay tuned.

[EDIT 3/5/2020: I went through the released video with the improved sound and updated the introduction and unique skill answers. I may further update.]

Tuesday is Candidates Night, Budget Unchanged at Edifying Deliberative Session

noreply@blogger.com (Dean Rubine) — Mon, 14 Feb 2022 17:40:00 +0000

The Candidates are on Facebook

It looks like this year's school board race will, like last year, take place largely on Facebook. Hmmm.

Here's a list of links to the candidate facebook pages.

Matt Bacon https://www.facebook.com/Matt-Bacon-Oyster-River-School-Board-111888801405648

Giana Gelsey https://www.facebook.com/Giana-Gelsey-Oyster-River-School-Board-111653044766731

Heather Smith https://www.facebook.com/Heather-Smith-Candidate-for-Oyster-River-School-Board-101776459105333/

Debbie Harmon https://www.facebook.com/DHarmon4ORCSD

Marie-Therese D'Agostino [no web presence found as of afternoon 2/13]

Candidates Night is this Tuesday, February 15

They don't seem to be advertising it very much, but Candidates Night is scheduled for this Tuesday, 6 pm, February 15. That's six pm, dinner hour. Not sure why they're starting so early.

Candidates Night is the only formally scheduled event for candidates on the election calendar, besides election day I suppose. It used to be moderated by the District Clerk, with the PTOs supplying snacks. Sometimes I'd be the only audience to show up. There was a tradition where the district would make an substantial effort to record video of the event, which then never seemed to get posted by election day.

This year it's hosted by the Middle School PTO. The elementary PTOs did a great job hosting a virtual meeting last year, so I guess that they decided to continue that. It was spread over two nights last year, with a pretty big attendance -- around 50 folks on Zoom and a similar amount on Facebook Live, neither of which we're using this year.

It's right here on the school board meeting schedule.There's contradictory information on the Middle School PTO's facebook page.

Apparently there will be an actual live event at the middle school. At least that's the recent announcement, made Friday evening, 2/11/22, and still current on noon Monday 2/14.

UPDATE 4pm 2/15: Due to a room change the meeting is virtual only.

Click here 6 pm Tuesday February 15 2022 for the Candidates Night Teams meeting (Teams is Microsoft's version of Zoom).

Last year they solicited questions from the public ahead of time. There was also an opportunity to put your questions in the chat during the event.

This year they're running out of time to advertise and solicit questions. They solicited questions on the various ORCSD Facebook PTO pages on February 5, which I didn't see even though I think I subscribe. In any case they really should cast a wider net, so please ask your question here.

February 15th is pretty early in the race, three weeks before election day. Last year they pushed the virtual meeting to about two weeks before the election day, which I thought worked pretty well.

Kristin Forselius wins the 2022 Oyster River Distinguished Service Award

Congratulations to Kristin Forselius, this year's receiver of the Oyster River Distinguished Service Award. Former Chair and outgoing school board member Tom Newkirk presented the award to Ms. Forselius at Tuesday's Deliberative Session. Tom cited Kristin's work on the Oyster River DEIJ Community Group, the DEIJ Coordinating Committee, the ORMS Diversity Club, Project Graduation, Community book groups, and reviving the ORHS First Robotics Club.

Budget Unchanged at Edifying Deliberative Session

It was a well-attended Deliberative Session on Tuesday (video), with at least 184 voters in attendance. An attempt to amend Article 3 (the $52.1M budget) to remove the DEIJ Coordinator position and $100,000 from the budget failed by a vote of 21 in favor, 163 against. No other amendments were moved, so the warrant will be presented to the voters on Election Day March 8 unchanged from what the school board approved in January.

Ruth Sample at the 2022
ORCSD Deliberative Session

It was my wife Ruth Sample who made the motion to remove the position, and I seconded it. It's painful to commit social suicide in front of the entire community, but it is enlightening.

Ruth wasn't convinced the DEIJ Coordinator position was well-defined or justified. Like many folks, she hadn't been paying much attention to the school board until a couple of days before the Deliberative Session. She did her usual thorough job researching the issue, reviewing the November 18 Budget Workshop and the February 2 school board meeting among other stuff. She wrote it up and I posted it the afternoon of the Deliberative Session. She made it very clear she very much supports DEIJ work in the district, but thought the coordinator position was unjustified and premature.

I tried to talk her out of it. I wanted to focus on the spending. I knew coming out against the DEIJ coordinator position was touching the third rail in this town. But Ruth persisted, and if there's one thing I've learned in my years, it's Ruth is usually right about most things (Happy Valentine Day, honey!). So I agreed to help, drafting the amendment in writing (future amenders take note) and a request for a secret ballot on the amendment, the idea being that some folks might be more likely to vote in favor of the amendment in secret, as it's a touchy issue.

Article 3 was presented by board members Brian Cisneros and Yusi Turell, with Yusi specifically focusing on justifying the DEIJ Coordinator position. Then the floor was opened and Ruth bravely went to the podium to propose her amendment: to remove $100,000 of the $130,000 budget for the DEIJ Coordinator from the budget and use the remaining $30,000 for consultants to help come up with an actionable plane. (Technically, if passed, all the amendment would have done is alter the budget; it's up to the board to carry out the intent of the vote or not.) There was silence and no second forthcoming, so I seconded it -- I couldn't leave Ruth hanging. She then proceeded to request a secret ballot in writing, signed by five Oyster River voters.

I expected people to speak forcefully in favor of the DEIJ Coordinator position, which they did. What I did not expect was a frontal assault on that underpinning of American democracy, the secret ballot. This was from what I assume was a room mostly full of progressives. Coming into the event I'd have assumed they were on the pro-democracy team.

International Law re
Secret Ballots

One person asked, incredibly, if there's any way to "counter" the secret ballot request, maybe by getting more than five signatures. A bold legal idea indeed, gaining applause from the crowd. Alas, it was ruled against by the district lawyer advising the moderator. Democracy prevails.

Another person asked, even more incredibly, if we could just have a "non-binding" show of hands before the secret ballot. Just between us, as it were. The lawyer again appeared to rule that having a public show of hands was against the spirit of the secret ballot that had been lawfully sought. Again the mob was thwarted, but democracy lived to fight another day.

I'm not naming these folks because they're good people who I like and hope to continue to be friendly and cordial with in the future. But perhaps a little self reflection is in order. I'll guess the motivation for attempting to thwart the secret ballot is to identify the DEIJ dissenters among us, perhaps to subject them to future scorn. Democracy is tough; the scorners will have to settle for just me and Ruth.

As to the substance of Ruth's objection, Peter Taubman, retired New York high school teacher and professor, offered, "I find it astonishing in 2022 we are actually debating a position that over that past thirty years has been taken for granted in not only public schools in New York, but some of the best public schools in New Hampshire, and I will tell you, in every single prep school in the Northeast."

We shouldn't even debate? Can't we ask if the DEIJ problems in Oyster River are on a scale equal to those in a New York City school? Of course they aren't. The average NYC public school is under 20% white and serves a much more socioeconomically challenged population than Oyster River. Can't we ask if the size of the school system should impact the decision to create a new position? Of course it must.

The New Hampshire districts with DEIJ positions include Exeter and Manchester. Oyster River has about 2200 students carried by $2.5B in equalized taxable property value. Manchester has around 9000 students carried by $12.9B of property. Exeter Coop has 4500 students and a $9.9B value. (If I read this report correctly where we seem to have to add up the coop and the individual towns of SAU 16: 3.6 coop + 2.6 Ex + .8 Br + .4 EK + .5 KE + .3 NF + 1.7 St. Not sure about this.) So at the same salary, Oyster River's cost per student for the position is twice Exeter's, and four times Manchester's. The burden of the position on Oyster River taxpayers is four times as much as in Exeter and five times as much as in Manchester. We probably wouldn't expect a school district with 400 students to employ a full time DEIJ Coordinator or Chief Equity Officer -- where is the line? It's clear there's plenty to debate.

We heard the claim at various times that we've had plenty of consultants; that we need someone to coordinate acting on their advice. (This seems like an admission that once we hire a DEIJ Coordinator, we can look forward to a future with even more DEIJ consultants.) Contrary to the story, Superintendent Morse recently told Ruth that paid consultants were not used to produce the report that suggested the position. Ruth read the report, which apparently doesn't really recommend the ORCSD DEIJ Coordinator position either. I'm not going to publish that report because as far as I can tell it's not (yet?) a public report.

In fact the whole process seems rather non-transparent. The committee is a "superintendent's committee" which seems to exempt it from public meetings and recorded minutes. It seems to exempt it from being mentioned on the district website as well. I can appreciate the need for secrecy in these HB2 divisive-concept times, but we also have Right-To-Know Laws. In fact, the board probably should tread very carefully: they're still operating under an injunction to obey the RTK law under threat of contempt of court. The increased scrutiny was a result of the bad board in 2011 being found guilty of violating RTK twice.

As for what a report produced with a consultant might look like, Ruth offers this example, UNH's response to a professor (seemingly abetted by his wife) sexually preying on students that came to light in the media. It includes dozens of action items, each one assigned to a particular person at UNH, with a description, expected completion date and current status.

Most of the DEIJ Coordinator-type job descriptions don't detail what is meant by DEIJ or which "affinity groups" are unincluded victims of injustice intended to be helped. But board member Turell did so in her slide, which I appreciate. Certainly we need to recognize that every time taxes go up, it's harder for those socioeconomically challenged to remain in town. Driving out the people we intended to serve -- that's one way to solve the problem, I suppose.

Anyway, I do want to give the community props for good meeting form -- we had almost 200 people in attendance, two in-order, properly formed motions to call the question (both of which succeeded in getting 2/3), in addition to Ruth's amendment in writing and a properly executed secret ballot request. It's almost like we know what we're doing.

[I want to write more about the spending in the district, but I better post this much before Candidates Night is over. - Dean]

Board Member Turell Defends DEIJ Coordinator Position

noreply@blogger.com (Dean Rubine) — Fri, 11 Feb 2022 20:06:00 +0000

[Board Member Yusi Turell sent me the following essay for publication here. It appears she added an introduction to her presentation notes for the Deliberative Session on Tuesday. Thanks Yusi. I'll write more about the Deliberative Session and the School Board race soon.]

Thank you to everyone who braved the wintery roads to attend Tuesday’s Deliberative Session. All warrant articles passed, including the 2022-23 budget as presented, and there was overwhelming support for the DEIJ Coordinator position. The warrant articles will be presented to all Durham, Lee, and Madbury voters in the March 8 municipal elections.

For loyal readers of the ORCSD Clean Slate blog (I include myself!) who weren’t able to attend the Deliberative Session or view the full recording, I wanted to share how the DEIJ position was introduced on Tuesday. No new information here - just another way to access the information and a response in the ‘official blog record’ to Dr. Sample’s recent guest essay.

DEIJ Presentation

2022 ORCSD Deliberative Session

[That's supposed to start at Yusi's presentation at 13:23; if not please click here - Dean]

Here is the text of the DEIJ Coordinator introduction:

DEIJ stands for Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Justice. It reflects that we live in an increasingly diverse country and community, which is a strength to be celebrated. It reflects that all children in our schools, and all people inside and outside of our schools, have the right to safety and belonging - and the right to see themselves represented in what and how they are learning. As a district, Oyster River has had a longstanding commitment to supporting ALL students.

We have policies on transgender rights and anti-racism, and our sustainability policy highlights the intersections between social, environmental, and economic justice. Our special education program has a $10-million budget and a dedicated director who was recognized as this year’s NH Special Education Administrator of the Year.
Over the past 5 years, we have worked with consultants to provide DEIJ-related trainings and to recommend how the district can improve our work in this area.
We have held a number of community forums that have been well-attended.
Individual teachers have updated their curricula to include more diverse perspectives and build students’ critical thinking skills, and taken steps to ensure all students feel welcome and seen. This is despite NH legislation that threatens teachers’ livelihoods if they teach about so-called ‘divisive concepts.’

Despite this progress, as a district, we have hit our limit in the expertise and capacity necessary to do this work skillfully and consistently. Dr. Morse likens this situation to one we faced with technology ten years ago. Ten years ago, early adopting teachers and principals who were into technology supported and taught it. It was a ‘hit or miss’ approach, some classes used and taught technology while others did not. It was not until the district supported a comprehensive and systemic approach, inclusive of tech support and tech integration, that we could guarantee the skills students were taught at each grade level.

Likewise, we currently have a ‘hit or miss’ approach to DEIJ. Some teachers are doing amazing work. The primary role of the DEIJ Coordinator will be to work with our educators to develop best practices for curriculum and instruction, as well as support compassionate, equitable policies and practices. This work is consistent with our Vision of a Graduate and our strategic priorities of a Multi-Tiered System of Support (MTSS) and Socio-Emotional Learning (SEL). It is also what we heard from the many teachers, students, and parents who wrote in or shared their experiences - and how, despite good intent, we were falling short of our commitment to support every student. Beyond consultants - who deliver a training or write a report then leave - we need a member of the district team who can build trust and relationships and be available to support situations as they unfold.

By design, this is an integrated position. We are not carving off a separate DEIJ fiefdom, we are ensuring that administrators and faculty have extra expertise and capacity to meet their goals. We already have an Assistant Superintendent who oversees K-12 curriculum and instruction, but she needs support to integrate DEIJ skillfully. Similarly, our special education director, Catherine Plourde, has noted the critical overlaps between DEIJ challenges and mental and emotional health. Because this is an integrated position, the indicators we will use to measure the success of this role will be similar to how our administration is evaluated currently - e.g., MTSS metrics and academic achievement especially with historically marginalized groups; the Youth Risk Behavior Survey and other data on SEL; the development of vertically aligned K-12 competencies; and so on.

I know there will be other questions in the discussion, so will turn back to Brian.

ORCSD Clean Slate

Gelsey, Day Win, Elementary Project Fails, Budget Passes

Guide to the 2026 ORCSD Election

2026 ORCSD School Board Candidates Forum Summary

ORCSD FY27 Budget Increased $519K in Agonizing Deliberative Session

Heather Smith, Renee Bennett, Sean Harrison elected to ORCSD School Board

Guide to the March 2025 Oyster River School District Election

I'm voting YES, but I'm grumpy about it. The truth is, inflation hits schools like everywhere else.

Ickes, Cisneros and Bacon Win

The Race Is On, But You Wouldn't Know It

ORCSD Deliberative Session Tuesday February 6, 2024

Day, Gelsey and Newkirk elected to ORCSD Board

Voting Guide to the 2023 Oyster River Cooperative School District Election, Tuesday March 28 [was 14]

Day, Gelsey, Newkirk unopposed for school board

Three School Board Seats Up, Deliberative Session Tuesday Feb 7

Three Board Seats Up for Election

Deliberative Session, Tuesday February 7

Draft Warrantclick to enlarge

Board Member Yusi Turell Resigns

Board Chair Michael Williams Retires

Business Administrator Sue Caswell RetiresSue Caswell Resigns

Nutrition Director Doris Demers Retires

High School Students Engage in Risky Behavior

Spelling Flame

Coordinator Blansett Appears on Video

Member Turell on the DEIJ Coordinator

DEIJ Coordinator Controversy Continues

Rachael Blansett Named First ORCSD DEIJ Coordinator

Two Finalists Vie for DEIJ Coordinator

Matt Bacon and Heather Smith Elected to ORCSD Board

School Board Members Put Foot on Scale on Election Eve!

Voting Guide to the Tuesday, March 8, 2022 Oyster River Cooperative School District Election

Information Overload, Candidate Forum Tonight

We met the candidates

Tuesday is Candidates Night, Budget Unchanged at Edifying Deliberative Session

Board Member Turell Defends DEIJ Coordinator Position

Draft Warrant
click to enlarge

Business Administrator Sue Caswell Retires
Sue Caswell Resigns