Article 16 Regional Agreement Assessment

From: Michael Hussin (Pelham SC Chair)
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 11:54 PM
To: Select Board
Cc: Kathleen Anderson (Amherst SC); Elaine L. Brighty (Regional SC
Chair); Maureen Ecclestone (Pelham SC); Michael Katz (Leverett SC); Sonia Correa Pope (Amherst SC); Tracy Farnham (Pelham SC); Andrew Churchill (Chair, Amherst SC); Marianne Jorgensen (Shutesbury SC); Westmoreland, Debbie; Brewer, Alisa
Subject: Pelham and Regional School budget

Dear All,

Below you will find two letters both written by me tho' at different times of the day! Forgive any repetitiveness!

May 30, 2007

I am dismayed at the tone expressed towards Pelham and its citizens
(and indirectly towards it's school committee and town boards) in Ms.
Greeney's letter to the Gazette this morning. While the letter may be
trying to explain the difficulties Amherst and our regional school system is
facing it unfortunately comes across as hostile and condescending. While
things in Pelham may have appeared somewhat confusing at times let me
try to explain what is in fact clear. Pelham residents had a long and
well-debated discussion about the implications of their vote at the Annual Town Meeting on May 5 and voted overwhelmingly to support the 3% budget proposed by their school committee. This was in no way understood by the voters to be simply a 'preliminary' meeting.

Due to other matters in the organizing of Pelham's warrant and town budget another Special Town meeting is planned for June 13. This is to finalize the details of the remaining town budget items as the Select Board wanted to wait and see if further funds might become available from the state. Yes, each line item will be voted again at this meeting but no one should be under any illusions. A formal vote has already been taken and the sentiments of the voters were very clearly expressed. Nothing has changed as a far as the school committee's support of this vote. Again, the citizens of Pelham and it's school board do understand and appreciate Amherst's concerns. I am sure we will be mindful again of these concerns. Still, I must express my disappointment and confusion at the language and attitude expressed in this letter.

Far from building the sense of community and cooperation
needed to find what is best for our schools and our children, the use of
such aggressive phrases as using 'the nuclear option' as well as the
overall threatening tone leads down the road to an unnecessarily adversarial relationship. It also seems presumptuous at best for a single board member to declare, "Amherst does not want to use this 'nuclear option' and vote down the per pupil assessment method ", as if this board member is the town. This is harsh rhetoric I'm sure not all the members of Amherst Town Meeting share. I also trust this does not reflect the sentiment of the rest of the Amherst Select Board.

We are all trying to make the best of a very difficult, trying situation and do the right thing for our kids and our communities. Everyone deserves to be treated with care, consideration, and respect.
Thank you for all the work and time I know each one of you puts in,
Michael Hussin
Chair
Pelham School Committee


Re: any misunderstanding about Pelham's approval of the 3% budget for
the regional schools:

On May 5th at the official annual town meeting the 3% increase for the
regional schools was approved overwhelmingly, as was the regional
assessment method and the school committee's elementary school budget
request. However, the rest of the town budget was level funded , as was
suggested by the the select board, pending any new information about
more funds being made available from the state. the select board had
already picked a date for a second, Special Town Meeting to be held
June 13th to vote on the rest of the budget. This would of course
include voting a second time on the already approved regional school
budget. While it is technically true that the budget ,including the
schools budget ,is not "over till its over", the same numbers already
passed by an overwhelming majority for the schools, including the 3%
for the region, will be brought forward again. This time those same
numbers, voted and passed, will be proposed not just by the school
committee but by the select board as well.

It is also true that any number could be lowered on the floor of the
second special town meeting, but the town did vote and approve the 3%.
The main point is that the May town meeting was indeed the official
Annual Town Meeting . The issues of the regional budget and the
situation in Amherst with all the possibilities and implications
regarding the assessment method were discussed and debated at length.
The town voted as it did. Those same proposals will be brought forward
again. The school committee has not changed its position regarding its
request for the 3% budget and the town select board has moved from a
'level' funded request for the schools to proposing the same numbers
passed on May 5. That is how it currently stands.
M