Alton confused about JMA with Barnstead

Ongoing confusion about the Joint Maintenance Agreement (JMA) that governs Prospect Mountain High School (PMHS) for the Alton and Barnstead school districts got people attending the Alton School District’s Deliberative Town Meeting Session Saturday involved in a debate that lasted more than three hours.

The disputed issue revolved around the third and final year of a negotiated contract between the Prospect Mountain Teachers Association — the teacher's union — and the combined school boards, but the principals involved went to the heart of the two-town agreement that is unlike any other in the state.

The conflict came to light when the crowd of about 100 people at the gathering began discussing the first major issue on the agenda, which was the district’s operating budget. The town’s Budget Committee recommendation, which includes the costs of operating the K-8 Alton Central School (ACS) and about half the costs of operating PMHS, totaled $10,915,992. In case the appropriation request fails to win a majority approval of election day, a default budget of $$10,984,971 — which is basically last year’s budget plus any contractual obligations — was included in the article. (The Alton School Board had originally asked for about $70,000 more than the Budget Committee’s suggestion.)

Resident Carol Locke moved to have the operating budget figure raised to $11,041,811, a number that she said would include about $56,000 in estimated salary and benefit increases the PMHS teachers were due in the final of their three-year contract.

School officials responded by reporting that the state’s Department of Revenue Administration (DRA) had recently recommended that the contract costs be separated from the operating budget. In fact, Board Vice-Chairman Loring Carr had recently taken the thought a step further when — acting as a private citizen — he recently gathered signatures for a petitioned warrant article that had the teachers’ contract figure listed separately.

“I support the teachers contract,” Carr told the crowd in the PMHS auditorium. “I don’t see why it would not pass. It’s a good deal for the town. But voters have a right to have their say. The two issues shouldn’t be commingled.”

School Board member Terri Noyes said both the combined Alton-Barnstead JMA School Board and the Alton School Board had originally voted to have the salary increases in the operating budget. But the Alton School Board yielded to the DRA’s recommendation when it received via an e-mail prior to its last meeting.

That news annoyed some people, who said the Alton Board should have presented the budget it wanted, instead of yielding to the state agency.

“If you voted for the money to be in there, why was it taken out?” resident Locke asked Noyes.

“There was no vote taken (at the last meeting),” Noyes replied. “I guess it was just the consensus of the board (to follow the DRA’s recommendation).”

“But now it looks like the article (proposed by Vice-Chairman Carr) was supported by the whole School Board,” Locke said.

Locke noted that the teachers’ contract increases were incorporated last year in the district’s operating budget — on the single line for PMHS’s costs — and there was no problem at that time.

Vice-Chairman Carr said the two items were separated at the Barnstead School District meeting last year, and the DRA was now recommending that it be done that way in Alton.

Some residents were concerned that having the operating budget over $11-million might cause it to be turned down by voters on March 14. Others said that without the $55,000 in the operating budget, the teachers might not get paid their negotiated increases.

Some asked whether there would be funds in the budget to pay for the pay increases if the voters say "no" to the proposed budget and the default budget is brought into effect.

School Board members — and some district officials — gave different answers to the question.

Vice-Chairman Carr said the default budget did not include the increases and other school officials agreed with him.

But Noyes said the funds to pay the increases would be found in the default budget.

Whoever had the right answer, there would be a problem if the district appeared to “break faith” with the union in a year when negotiations were scheduled to begin on a new contract, according to Locke. “We need to make sure we don’t get into a labor disruption so we’re not spending money on lawyers, we’re spending it on the children,” she said.

Mike Folan, president of the Prospect Mountain Teachers Association, questioned whether the Alton School Board had the right to overturn the earlier decision by the joint Alton-Barnstead board.

“Did the JMA School Board vote on putting the teachers contract in the operating budget?” he asked.

“Yes,” board member Noyes replied.

“And the Alton School Board removed it,” Folan said. “Is that legal?”

Vice-Chairman Carr responded that while the JMA board operates PMHS, each separate district has the sole power to raise and appropriate funds.

“So can the Alton School Board overrule the JMA board?” Folan said. “Can the Alton School Board change a line item in the Prospect Mountain budget?”

Carr paused for a few moments before answering. “That’s one question that will end up in court,” he said finally.

After the discussion continued for some time, the audience finally voted to support Locke’s amendment to increase the school district’s operating budget to $11,041,811.

However the language in the article was also altered so that if the budget passed, the separate $55,000 article — which was aimed at covering the teachers’ pay and benefit increases — would be invalid.

At the opening of the meeting, Carr read a short “state of the school district” address written by Chairman Cyndey Johnson, who was unable to attend the meeting.

Johnson noted that the town was still growing and the Alton School Board was looking at ways that growth might impact space at ACS. The board recently hired the New England School Development Council (NESDEC), a consulting firm based in Massachusetts, to study the community and its continuing educational needs. Representatives from the organization would be meeting with town officials and volunteers soon, and a public hearing regarding the study would be scheduled soon afterwards, according to the chairman.

Voters attending the deliberative session allowed several articles related to the space needs at ACS to go onto the ballot exactly as presented. One involves $50,000 that could be used for architectural and engineering fees that could be required for a new building or major renovations to ACS. Another asks for $200,000 to be put in a capital reserve fund to help pay for land that could be needed for a new building.

The gathering also okayed three articles related to PMHS. The first was for $89,750 to pay for the purchase and installation of bleachers for the main athletic fields. The second was to spend $55,126 for unanticipated utility costs. The third asks for $7,500 that would be used to pay for two exterior security cameras at the school. All three numbers represent half the cost of the items, as Barnstead will pick up the other half.

In all three cases, the funds would only be appropriated if voters in both the Alton and Barnstead School Districts approved the measures next month.