Staffing Info Denied: Sandown Representation Ignored

This is an email Arthur Green sent to the entire Budget Committee this morning:

 

Mr. Grosky,

At the Dec. 11 Budget Committee meeting, members were invited to submit questions for response in time for the Dec. 23 committee deliberation, with a deadline for submission of Dec. 14 at 7 pm.

Please explain in writing why none of the questions I submitted (attached) were answered.  Specifically:

• Were my questions forwarded to the administration?
• Did the administration acknowledge the questions and provide a reason for declining to answer?
• Since we agreed as a committee that you would be the point of contact for these questions, did you take any steps to protect my rights as a member to get a response to these questions?
• If there was no intention to answer my questions, why was I not informed of this in advance so that I could offer reasons for needing the information in before the final committee meeting?

This matter concerns not only my individual role as a committee member, but also the Sandown residents whose representation on the committee is being thwarted by denial of information.

I am prepared to accept that question 5 (attached) was substantially dealt with at the Dec. 18 School Board meeting, although it would have been appropriate to acknowledge the question and refer to that SB discussion.

I await your response.

Arthur Green

Email sent Dec. 14, 2014

From: Arthur Green
Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2014 5:45 PM
To: Jason B. Grosky
Cc: Dennis Heffernan ; Cathleen Gorman ; tom.geary@me.com ; Tony Cantone ; Gregory Spero ; Michelle O’Neil ; Richard Blair ; Josh Horns

Subject: Information requests in support of budget deliberations

1. The 2014/15 A12B staffing report shows 688.4 Full-Time Equivalent employees.  Can you confirm that these positions are all staffed, or does this report include vacant positions?
2. The 2013/14 A12B report shows 694.9 Full-Time Equivalent employees.  Can you confirm that these positions were all staffed, or did this report include vacant positions?
3. As part of the district response to Right To Know requests in January, you provided an FTE breakdown which included staffing at the District lever (not associated with a specific school) of 30.1 FTEs in 2013/14 and 31.1 in 2014/15.
   • Are these positions part of Timberlane (as opposed to SAU) staffing/payroll?
   • Are these positions covered by a separate filing to the NH DOE?  If so, can you please provide those filings covering the years from 2007/08 to 2014/15?
   • If not covered by DOE filings, can you confirm the 2013/14 number?
4. As part of the district response to Right To Know requests in January you provided a Staff Count breakdown which laid out the budgeted staff plan for 2014/15 as it would eventually be presented in the Annual Report – forecasting 740 staff.  Is this still valid as the staff headcount plan for 2014/15?  If not, can you provide your current staff headcount plan for 2014/15.
5. The 2015/16 Grade 4 and Grade 5 enrollment for Sandown has been variously forecast:
   • 145 (NESDEC 2014 report)
   • 148 (Sandown North budget presentation)
   • 135 (oral discussion at Dec. 11 Budcom meeting)
   • The lower figure would be consistent with a need for 6 additional classes in Sandown North, while the larger forecasts might require 8 additional classes.  What is the district’s planning assumption for this?  Is the difference related to relocation of the district-wide special-ed program?
6. At the Timberlane School Board meeting on Oct. 16, you stated that forecast enrollment for next year is down by 40 from the current year.  Given this year’s enrollment of 3,773, that would lead to a 2015/16 enrollment of 3,733.As we are all aware, the NESDEC forecast for 2015/16 is 3,613, a decrease of 160 from this year.The NESDEC forecast is generally considered to be highly accurate.  For example, this year’s enrollment of 3,773 is just 9 students different from the NESDEC forecast in their previous year report.If the district is using a forecast other than the NESDEC number, can you provide the source of this alternative, the rationale for using this alternative rather than the NESDEC number, and the methodology by which the number of 3,733 was obtained?

UPDATE (Dec 29, 12:30PM):   Mr. Grosky replied to the email that he did forward Mr. Green’s questions to the administration, and was under the impression that the questions had been answered.  He promised to look into the matter.