Inter-Lakes voters reject measure to fund meals for all students

MEREDITH — Inter-Lakes School District voters decided not to fund a breakfast and lunch program for every student following a spirited debate at the district meeting on March 4.

Article 8, which was not recommended by the school board 2-4, was a petitioned article brought forth by Sandwich resident Adam Drapcho. It asked district voters to raise $727,250 to provide meals at no cost to all students.

Drapcho said Superintendent Mary Moriarty and Business Administrator Ashley Dolloff assisted him in setting the cost figure, which he said is what it would take to feed every student breakfast and lunch daily. He told voters this was almost surely an over-estimate, and said participation would likely be about half of that amount.

“How this would work is students would go down to the cafeteria for breakfast, and if they were hungry, they’d take a meal,” Drapcho said. “Same goes for lunch. And at the end of the day, the district would reimburse the vendor for the amount of meals served. If there is money leftover in the account, it would be returned to the board as unexpended funds.”

Drapcho stressed voting for the article wouldn’t ensure spending the total. It would only be spent if every student took breakfast and lunch every day.

He also said the final clause in the article is important, as it instructs the school board to add funding for subsequent budgets.

“I included that in this article, because I wanted the intention to be clear that this was going to be a lasting change,” Drapcho said. “However, due to state law, we can’t bind the actions of future school boards, so that part of the warrant article would be advisory only.”

Drapcho said food insecurity is the simple answer to why he petitioned the article. At the end of the year, the school board has to find money to pay any negative balances families have been unable to pay. It has been as much as $11,000 per year, and is rising.

“I think we can all expect that that trend will not change,” Drapcho said. “As a parent of school-aged children, I can understand how those debts have been accumulating.”

The cost of feeding children through food service amounts to about $1,000 per year, per student.

Drapcho noted if there is a "no" vote on the article, it doesn’t mean the community doesn’t have to spend that money. He said this is the cost to pay for children to eat, and if it isn’t paid for by taxpayers, it is paid by parents.

“The pressure on young families is real, and it’s growing, and can force them to make difficult decisions,” Drapcho said.

He said the article is the “best opportunity to put your money where your mouth is.”

Sandwich resident Rachel Bartlett wondered if there was potential for unnecessary expenditures. She asked whether other district processes have been looked at, to provide a more fiscally-responsible way to support feeding students who need it and aren’t currently taking advantage of existing programs.

She said the Governor Wentworth School District increased the amount to 300% of the federal poverty rate to expand the free and reduced lunch program to more families, which she said could be an opportunity to help families who are struggling.

“I absolutely agree with providing support where it is needed, but I wonder if the way this is written incurs additional expenses,” Bartlett said.

Center Harbor resident Jocelyn Judge asked the school board why they didn't support it, and Chair Charley Hanson, of Center Harbor, said he was one of four who did not support it. He said the premise is something he can agree with, but “to go with a shotgun approach and just throw a bunch of money at it wasn’t appropriate.”

“It wouldn’t be responsible,” Hanson said. “We’re already looking at ways that we might reach that prudent ground.”

Board member Edward Twaddell, of Meredith, did not support of the article, and said he can’t get behind asking taxpayers working on a fixed income to feed children whose parents are capable of doing so themselves.

Vice Chair Duncan Porter-Zuckerman, of Sandwich, acknowledged food insecurity is a serious issue, but thinks the article goes beyond that.

“I would support other programs that address food insecurity,” he said.

Meredith resident Richard Juve said this might be the most important article to vote on, and said he supports it, because of the large number of “unidentified young people” who come to school hungry, and may feel stigma.

“There’s an assumption here that all children eat, and eat well at home,” Juve said. “That is not the case.”

Meredith resident Sarah Love has two students in the district, and talked about the article with her family and friends. In an informal tally, every one voted in favor of free lunch. She said food is a basic right, and a hungry child can’t fully access their education.

“Let’s be the kind of community that ensures no child has to learn on an empty stomach,” Love said.

Nancy Long, of Meredith, said she is part of a private, nonprofit charitable group, and is “more than in favor” of funding snacks every day to elementary school students through her organization. She did not support the article, because through her work with Got Lunch! she has seen it improperly used.

“I have seen situations where people who did not need the use of Got Lunch! receive them anyway,” Long said.

Drapcho said following the meeting he has been discussing the issue with school board members, and hopes to have an article back on the warrant at the 2027 district meeting.

Voters approved all other articles on the warrant, including the teachers union agreement of $458,794 in Article 3, and the operating budget of $37.3 million, in Article 5.

Also approved was Article 6, funding for permanent field lights, with $132,837 through taxation, after the rest was raised through donations.

Article 7 asked the district to become an open-enrollment school district, and admit one student from outside the district, and establish that no student is eligible to seek open enrollment outside the district.

Article 9, also by petition, asked the district to call on legislators to protect taxpayers by requiring the Education Freedom Account program to provide fiscal and educational performance reports comparable to those required of public schools, and limit eligibility to families with demonstrated financial need.