BARRE — Tempers flared as a last-ditch bid to boost the just-adopted spending request voters in the Barre Unified Union School District will be asked to approve in March flamed out for procedural reasons Wednesday night.
Less than a week after narrowly adopting a budget that reflects a 1.5% spending increase, approving the warning for the district’s annual Town Meeting Day elections wasn’t the formality it might have been.
Instead, the special session with the shorter-than-usual agenda rekindled a debate about the $54 million budget proposal recently recommended by the finance committee and approved by the board in the absence of Chair Sonya Spaulding last week. That vote was 4-3.
It was, 4-3, again Wednesday night as board members narrowly approved the warning for the March elections. This time Spaulding was present and School Director Alice Farrell, who ran last week’s meeting in her absence, supplied the consequential fourth vote.
Spaulding, who only casts tie-breaking votes in her capacity as board chair, didn’t participate in the decision, though she said she would have voted with the minority last week and again Wednesday night.
Farrell, who didn’t vote last week while serving as acting chair, said had Spaulding been present, she would have supported the spending plan recommended by the finance committee and not the more expensive alternative proposed by school administrators. Farrell joined board members Tim Boltin, Nancy Leclerc, Paul Malone in voting to approve the Town Meeting Day warning.
The 4-3 vote would have been 5-3 if School Director Terry Reil had been present when Spaulding called the roll. Reil attended the virtual meeting but left briefly due to a conflict and returned shortly after the decision had been made.
Reil was present earlier on when School Director Giuliano Cecchinelli sought to revive an administrative budget proposal that reflected a spending increase of $2.35 million, or just under 5%.
Cecchinelli noted Spaulding wasn’t able to attend last week’s meeting and Farrell didn’t participate in the important budget vote. He wondered whether the results might have been different if both had participated.
They wouldn’t have, Cecchinelli learned after he was advised his proposal to alter the budget figure set last week amounted to a motion to reconsider and, under Robert’s Rules of Order, required the consent of someone who voted with the majority.
None of the four — Boltin, Leclerc, Malone and Reil — expressed interest in revisiting last week’s decision, one that was again roundly criticized and questioned by a mix of citizens, district employees and some board members.
The board’s decision to ignore the advice of school administrators and limit the spending increase it is requesting this year was widely panned Wednesday night.
Martha Blaisdell, a local resident and school counselor, described it as “disheartening and frustrating.” Business Manager Lisa Perreault called it “unrealistic,” and Spaulding suggested it was “unreasonable.”
Rep. Peter Anthony, D-Barre, was among those who urged the board to rethink what he viewed as a shortsighted decision.
Anthony reiterated his support for the budget proposed by Superintendent Chris Hennessey and his belief that the district would be wise, given the range of uncertainties it is facing, not to cut the budget too close to the bone.
While some individuals have pointed to back-to-back seven-figure surpluses, Anthony said a healthy fund balance was better than the alternative and, at a minimum, voters should be given the opportunity to spend more than the 1.5% reflected in the board’s budget request.
“I really think the voters have to have a chance to turn something down that is … on the optimistic side … supporting the schools, students and the administration,” he said.
Leslie Walz, a retired school nurse and former board member, agreed, echoing a sentiment expressed last week by Barre Mayor Jake Hemmerick.
“I am voting the budget down, and I’m voting that down not because I want it lowered, I want it raised,” she said.
Barring a change, former board member and current city councilor Emel Cambel said she couldn’t support the school spending proposal, either.
“I, too, will vote down the budget at this point,” she said. “It needs to be higher.”
That was the prevailing view of those who attended a meeting that was only called to approve ballot language reflecting decisions that had already been made.
The hour-long session morphed into more than that, and before it was over School Director Sarah Pregent said she was appalled by what she viewed as an irresponsible decision made without basic information.
“Has anybody actually seen this budget?” asked Pregent, who didn’t try to hide her disdain for a decision that precipitated her abrupt exit from last week’s board meeting.
“I don’t know how we can actually be voting on a budget that we haven’t actually seen,” she added.
Pregent, who serves on the finance committee, but missed the meeting when members agreed to recommend a 1.5% increase and directed administrators to prepare a budget that reflected the additional reduction.
That still hasn’t happened, and Pregent argued the board was voting blind.
“We can’t just take what we spent this year, add 1.5% to it and call it our budget, it doesn’t work that way,” she said.
Pregent’s pointed critique prompted pushback from Malone, who said the committee was comfortable that a 1.5% increase would be adequate given the district’s spending history and was waiting for administrators to work out the details.
At one point, Malone referred back to the board “norms,” which are read at the beginning of every meeting and was troubled by his perception that one — “honoring the decisions of the board” — was being treated as optional.
“I feel like we have a decision that’s been made, you don’t like the decision, but therefore you’re not going to honor what that majority board decision is,” he said. “I don’t know why we have these norms if we can pick and choose what we want.”
“Lovely,” Pregent replied. “I’m all for honoring the decisions of the board. You guys won. Congratulations. I’m not putting my name on that warning — that is my right.”
Malone told Pregent he didn’t appreciate the sarcasm.
Jason Derner, director of the district’s alternative program for special needs students, went on a rant that prompted Hennessey to instruct him to stop even as Leclerc said he’d crossed the line.
Derner, who earlier in the evening challenged what he described as a flawed process for arriving at a budget figure, described the decision as a “power play,” accused Malone of smirking, while suggesting he didn’t appreciate the work the district is doing with special needs students at its Allen Street facility.
“I’m calling you out, I am, and if that costs me my job I don’t care, because if I walk away from that job, you’re going to lose every single person in that (program),” Derner told Malone as Hennessey, Leclerc and Malone interjected.
“Hey, Jason, Jason,” Hennessey said.
“That’s enough,” Leclerc said.
“That was way too much,” Malone added, before Spaulding shut him down, thanked Derner for his comment, and entertained a motion to adjourn.
david.delcore @timesargus.com
