BCS Board Members Explain Their No Votes

by Thaddeus Flint
On December 13, 2011, residents of the Berlin School District went to the polls and approved by a substantial margin a $6.8 million capital project to fix up its aging schools. The tally was 307 “yes” and 173 “no.” A bond for $5 million would need to be floated as a means of financing the project, though a large part of the expenditure was expected to be reimbursed by State aid.
[private]That bond has yet to exist. By State law a 2/3rds majority of the School Board is required for such an authorization. On March 23 the first vote was taken.  Voting in favor of the resolution were Board President Gina Goodermote and Board Members Rachel Finney, James Willis and Frank Zwack. In opposition were John Nash, Beverly Stewart and Alan Webster Jr. That vote has now been taken six times with largely the same results. Sometimes a Board member is absent, but still the super majority has never been achieved, the fifth voter never found. The project cannot go forward in its entirety.
At the May 30 meeting of the Board, after the vote failed once again, Dr Stephen Young, the District’s Superintendent of Schools, proposed that a special meeting take place in the hopes that a break through might be achieved and that one, two or even all three of the hold out NO voters might be enticed to change their stance. The meeting itself was agreed to by the Board, but its proposed date of June 13 is still being discussed.
While the Board tries to agree on a date for this meeting, the Eastwick Press asked the three holdout NO voting Board members, John Nash, Beverly Stewart and Alan Webster Jr. for greater insight into their positions which are seemingly at odds with such a large number of the residents of the District which they represent.
Objections To Procedure
One shared reason that Nash, Stewart and Webster have for their positions is the way the project was put together. After years of discussion as to what the District’s “footprint” should look like, including a seemingly endless study by the Leadership Advisory Committee (LAC), nothing very concrete had really been achieved and no concrete had ever been poured. Goodermote and Willis, along with Young who had only been in the District a few months, decided not to wait around any longer and took it upon themselves to put together a plan in a few months. The project was presented to the entire Board, the first time Nash and Webster were even hearing of it, in September by Richard Peckham of the architectural Firm CS Arch.
“This referendum was created behind closed doors by President Goodermote and Vice President Willis with no knowledge or input from the rest of the Board. In addition, Mr. Willis was putting this referendum together in his very first weeks on the Board with absolutely no fiscal training,” wrote Stewart. “At our first meeting of the year, Goodermote appointed members of the Board to subcommittees to work on District issues. This included appointing Board members to a facilities committee to review building issues. Yet the Board officers and Superintendent didn’t even invite, let alone inform, all of the committee members to the meetings where a $7 million dollar project was created. While this issue alone would certainly not be the reason I would not support this bond, it does raise concerns on the District’s lack of transparency, not only with the taxpayers but with the entire Board. When there is no discussion in public or with the Board members then I have to wonder what has been hidden.”
According to Nash, “Boards of Education are made up of seven members for a reason. When two BOE members formulate a plan and the other five are not given the opportunity to participate (whether they want to or not) you take away their elected right to participate in the process for the constituents they represent. Some of the issues could have been resolved if the entire Board had played a role in the development of this current building plan. I will not deny that work needs to be done at BES. What work and on what timeline is more the question. Board leadership that conducts business in this way is sure to create more problems than if they include others in the process.”
Webster stated that given “the development of a $7 million bond referendum last September behind ‘closed doors,’ with only two BOE Members (one of whom hadn’t even received his state-mandated fiscal training) and a first time Superintendent who had only been on the job for three weeks, it is unfortunate that the December 2011 bond referendum even occurred.”
No RFPs
Nash also took issue with CS Arch. “The architectural firm involved with this District for many years presented a building plan that lacks imagination and any consideration of sustainability. I feel an RFP [Request for Proposal] should have been sent out to see if other firms could submit a proposal that has better ideas as to how we can do more as a District to consider and reduce the impact this District has on the environment,” wrote Nash. “To be able to consider multiple plans is always better. CS Arch has had a number of opportunities to put together a building plan for our District and has failed. Why not give someone else a chance? Their plan also lacks the foresight in showing how it will fit into the next phase which will be coming five years from now.”
Not A Long Term Plan
“The BOE President, Superintendent and Architects repeatedly state this is Phase 1,” agreed Webster. “However, no parameters for Phase 2 have been presented, even in a simplistic outline.”
Stewart also feels that the project fails to account for the long term. “The items listed in the referendum all need to be fixed, but what about the rest of it? This referendum will use up all of our State aid allowable for the next 5 years in the Berlin Elementary building. The original estimate for work to be completed there was $15,568,355. We are spending just under $4 million in this referendum. What will we do when other things fail and we have no State aid available? When this happens, and it is not if but when, the taxpayers will pay 100% of the bill,” she wrote.
Misleading Finances
Webster stated that should the plan exceed the $6.825 million estimated, as plans often do, “A tax levy burden [will] be placed upon the taxpayers.” Webster cites Board minutes from October 18, 2011 to support this statement. “The Goodermote/Willis Referendum 0% tax levy misleads the public,” he added.
Stewart backs this point up. “During the advertisement of this project the taxpayers were told it would be no cost to them. This is not something that we could guarantee,” she wrote. “Prior to the referendum we did not have the State aid locked in, and we still don’t know what the bond rate will be. We have already taken almost $2 million of your [taxpayer] money, and according to the resolution passed, anything not covered will come from the taxpayers.”
“We need to have public discussion on the financial sustainability of BCSD,” pointed out Webster, who also cites the District’s “salaries increasing over 3% a year, spiraling health and retirement benefit costs and financial aid cuts and/or stagnation from the State and federal government,” as a the earmarks of a worrisome future.
Nash pointed out that with the current leadership, “It currently costs $20,000 to educate a student in this District” and yet “we are ranked 74th out of 85 districts in the region. We have a graduation rate of 70%. This same leadership has brought us to this point in time where our teachers compared to those 84 districts are ranked 13th in regard to total compensation package!” wrote Nash. “Until there is a leadership change in the Berlin Central School District we are destined to continue in this direction.”
Were the project at hand to go forward, competent leadership would be vital, according to Stewart. “We need to appoint a qualified individual to be in charge of this project, preferably someone with no ties to our District. We have been unable to properly handle small $100,000 projects or even the day to day business of the District, so handing over a $7 million dollar project is a bit unsettling,” she wrote. This would be critical when it comes to procurement policies and how the project was advertised and put out to bid. “I believe we need a more robust policy so that proper bids are received and that the most qualified person at the lowest price is awarded the job. I believe this has historically been an issue with our District, and before moving forward to spend $7 million it needs to be corrected,” stated Stewart.
Nash would prefer to see an entirely different project altogether. “I am now favoring the one campus model at Cherry Plain. This option would require a one time project and investment for the taxpayer unlike the multiple projects it will take to resolve all the issues that exist at Berlin Elementary,” he wrote. At any rate, Nash feels the input of the residents and their Towns to be vital in developing a project of such scale and importance. “Two years ago the LAC was created and worked hard to develop a survey to give the taxpayers an opportunity to decide the footprint of the District,” wrote Nash. However, “our current Board President abolished the LAC after a number of community members spent many hours developing an unbiased survey to help resolve that issue.”
What Will Not Be Fixed
All three Board members are also concerned with what the project will or will not fix. Stewart wrote that “at Berlin Elementary School we are no longer going to replace the entire roof which needed to be done 5 years ago. Instead we will fix part of the roof and hope it holds up until another referendum goes up to vote. The water issues at BES will still need to be addressed, and the septic system needs to be upgraded. We have millions more to put into this building, but you don’t hear anyone telling you about that. When I asked about the second phase of the project I was told we can do mini-projects to take care of the rest. I am guessing they are referring to the $100,000 projects we can do annually. So at this rate, the renovations at BES will be completed in 115 years. This is not a long term sustainable plan. We need to look at the present but also to the future to make sure our decisions now will support the District for years to come.”
For Webster environmental sustainability was glaringly absent in the plan. “Wind, solar and geothermal energy was not included in the plan,” he said. Nash agreed, adding “to replace an oil fired heating system with a heating system that is not going to reduce the District’s carbon footprint is shortsighted.”
Bond Passage Is Doubtful But There Is Time
In the end it would appear doubtful the fifth vote will ever be found, at least in the near future. “I have opposed this plan from the beginning and feel changing my vote at this point in time would be hypocritical,” wrote Nash. “I have come to the conclusion that there are many reasons for my voting NO to funding the building project. I can assure you we will go forward to create a better plan to improve the learning environment for the children if compromise is possible with the current BOE leadership.”
“I believe that the BCSD needs an academic and financial renaissance. However this bond referendum
continues the tradition of failed policy and mismanagement of BCSD,” said Webster.
Stewart pointed out that the Board does, though, have more time to possibly come to a consensus. “I don’t think the public understands that the issue relating to the bond approval is not even holding up the project. The Board needs to vote on this by July of 2013. So this does give us time to sit down and iron out our differences and communicate not only with each other but with the taxpayers.” Stewart added, “Some of the issues at hand could be addressed and settled if the Board President were willing to listen to input from others and allow a democratic process to take place.”
This might not happen until July, when new Board Member Katie Fiske takes outgoing Rachel Finney’s place. At that time new Board officers will be chosen. “With the significant issues in transparency, honesty and a clear lack of understanding in school law, I will under no circumstance give my support for this project with the current Board officers in place,” stated Stewart.[/private]