BARRE — With early voting underway, the Barre Unified School Board’s backward budget process just entered a fresh phase — one where the goal will be identifying “mutually agreed upon reductions” in hopes of restoring some, if not most, of the cuts belatedly and reluctantly proposed by school administrators.
The budget’s $54 million bottom line, which is printed on ballots now available in Barre and Barre Town, won’t change as a result of the exercise launched by the finance committee Thursday night. Neither will the 1.5% spending increase the committee recommended and the board subsequently approved on the strength of a 4-3 vote last month.
Those numbers have fueled calls from some on the board and some in the community to reject the budget proposal they have characterized as everything from “embarrassing” to “woefully inadequate.”
Those calls got louder when school administrators finally provided a list of additional budget reductions — roughly $1.6 million in all — they said would be needed to operate the district’s pre-K-12 system within the bounds of the board-approved budget.
The list of cuts, some more controversial than others, was presented more than a month after it was first requested by the committee — a fact some individuals complained wasted valuable time, created unnecessary angst, and deferred a discussion that should have occurred before the board adopted the budget.
School Director Paul Malone was one of them.
Malone complained administrators ignored the committee’s clear request for a budget that reflected the 1.5% spending increase, in favor of presenting one that would have trimmed what was then a nearly 6.7% spending increase to just under 5%.
“It was a full month before we got this, and then it went into shock value,” Malone said of the proposed cuts. “I wonder if we would even be sitting here if we had that (sooner)?”
School Director Sarah Pregent pushed back. She noted administrators delivered a budget that essentially split the difference between board members comfortable with the 6.7% increase and those who favored a budget that reflected an increase of 2% or less.
At the time, Pregent said Malone was publicly prodding the divided board to meet somewhere in the middle and his suggestion — 5% — was reflected in the proposal administrators provided on Jan. 6.
Malone recalled his frustrating attempts to broker a compromise, but suggested his position shifted based on the finance committee’s subsequent discussions. At a minimum, he said administrators should have provided the board with a budget that reflected the committee’s recommendation and could have supplied the 5% alternative as well. That, he said, wouldn’t have hurt and might have framed a discussion that didn’t happen this year, but historically has.
Andrea Poulin, the board’s long-time secretary, said the information now available should have been provided sooner, and the fact that it wasn’t was, in her view, “unacceptable and inexcusable.”
“It’s never happened in the past,” said Poulin, who has been taking minutes at Barre board meetings for 16 years.
Poulin went further, noting that not only did the board not have the specifics behind the finance committee’s recommendation, but it was also mistakenly advised the deadline for adopting the budget was 10 days earlier than it actually was.
That rushed a process that was devoid of detail and created a situation where people are starting to vote without knowing what will or won’t be in the budget.
In some respects, it doesn’t matter, because the budget’s bottom line isn’t changing, and those who say they’ll vote against it because that number is too low were beating that drum before the latest round of reductions were released. However, the specifics could influence some, which makes it all the more awkward that conversation just started.
Board Chair Sonya Spaulding offered a different perspective.
“In my opinion, the way to have a budget that everyone can agree with is to ask the administration for their recommendation and they present to you what they can live with,” she said, suggesting that is what happened and a majority of the board balked.
Spaulding, who this week publicly lobbied voters to reject the budget approved by a majority of her board, pinned the blame for rising tension on the committee.
“It feels to me like the ... finance committee doesn’t trust the administration,” she said. “That’s how it feels to me.”
“That’s your opinion,” replied School Director Nancy Leclerc, who chairs the committee.
Though nothing is final, the committee made some headway, and Leclerc said she hoped to have a more concrete list of “mutually agreed upon reductions” to present to the board when it meets on Thursday.
Pregent, who missed the Jan. 3 meeting during which the committee agreed to recommend the 1.5% increase and voted against that proposal at the board’s Jan. 12 meeting, kicked off the conversation.
Pregent said she’d flagged just over $150,000 in budget reductions that could be achieved without cutting anything.
Most of that money — $91,000 — is tied to principle and interest associated with a lighting upgrade at Spaulding High School. Once a legitimate expense, the board has since agreed to pay off that project in its entirety using surplus funds now available, but the money was still included in the latest draft of the budget.
Based on current interest rates, Pregent said she felt comfortable suggesting reducing $15,000 in interest associated with a revenue anticipation note, and $15,000 in property insurance tied to the fact the Central Vermont Career Center is its own its own district.
Pregent said she’d vetted those numbers with Business Manager Lisa Perreault. In addition to the $121,000, Pregent suggested the board could save another $30,000 by opting not to fill a vacant part-time position for the J-ROTC program at Spaulding High School.
Pregent said that list of reductions could allow the board to restore some of the cuts proposed by administrators. She suggested restoring $45,000 associated with school resource officers’ positions at elementary schools in Barre and Barre Town, following through with plans to invest $5,000 in security cameras at each of the three schools, and $25,000 for bus monitors. She said half of the money tied to a proposal to eliminate athletics and co-curricular activities — a total of $130,000 — could be restored.
Malone and School Director Terry Reil had longer lists of proposals that largely targeted line items that have historically been over-budgeted and underspent.
All agreed to submit their ideas in writing to Perreault, while Malone suggested the $15,000 for the security cameras arguably qualified as a capital expense that could be paid for using the district’s capital reserve fund.
Malone said he was optimistic the line-by-line review would yield savings that would restore many of the cuts administrators reluctantly recommended. The list included seven positions, including the one held by Communications Director Josh Allen, who Leclerc said she understood had given his notice and is leaving the district.
david.delcore @timesargus.com
