Monthly Archives: September 2014

Staffing Case Study

Guest Contribution by Arthur Green

We are going to be hearing a lot about staffing and enrollment this budget season.

A quick case study may help sort out the spin from the reality. For no reason in particular, let’s turn our gaze on Danville Elementary School

The most recent complete staffing and enrollment figures available from the NH Department of Education (DOE) are for the last academic year, 2013/14, so we will focus on that year.  Here’s the DOE link to this information: Danville.

Total enrollment was 300 (again, that is for 2013/14).

I’m going to focus on grades 1-5, because the NH DOE excludes the Kindergarten and pre-K enrollment and teachers from the student/teacher calculation.

Let’s look at class size first.

Grade Students Classes Average Max Class Size
1 54 3 18.0 20
2 49 3 16.3 20
3 26 2 13.0 23
4 60 3 20.0 26
5 56 3 18.7 26
Total 245 14 17.5


The Maximum Class Size column is based on Timberlane district policy IIB.  We can see that the 26 Third Grade students exceeded the max size for that grade level by 3 students, resulting in 2 Third Grade classes with  13 students each.  For the Fifth Grade group, the 56 students could have been organized into 2 classes of 28, but this would have exceeded policy at that grade level by 2 students per class.  As a result, we see 3 Fifth Grade classes with an average size of 19 students each.

Staffing is reported by the district for each school.  Here’s an example of the Danville A12B 2013-14.  The numbers are “Full-Time Equivalent” staff… not an employee headcount, but rather a sum of all the full- time plus part-time hours.  For example, we see 6.5 administrative /other support staff, which could be made up of 5 full-time staff plus 3 half-timers. In other words, there could be 8 staff members, but 6.5 “Full-Time Equivalent” staff.  The district’s staffing report is broken down by Male/Female teachers, and is not summed, so I am going to regroup the information and add subtotals and totals below.  Trust me, this blur of numbers becomes interesting very soon.

Danville Staffing Table 2013-14

Student/Teacher Ratio

Student/teacher ratio as calculated by NH DOE excludes Kindergarten and pre-K students and their teachers.   The number of students at Danville in grades 1-5 is 245.  The highlighted staff above – 25.3 full time equivalents —  are the grade 1-5 teachers for both regular and special ed.

245 students in grades 1-5 divided by 25.3 regular and special ed teachers gives a ratio of 9.7 Students per Teacher.

The NH DOE does not report a student/teacher ratio by individual school.  The individual school numbers are aggregated to give the district’s student/teacher ratio.  For Timberlane last year, that ratio was 11.3.Danville’s 9.7 means Danville has fewer students per teacher than the district average.

In Danville,  the average class size of 17.5 students coexists with a student/teacher ratio of 9.7, because there are 25.3 teachers and only 14 classes.  Of course there are reasons there are more teachers than classes… Special Ed, music, phys ed. etc.

It is also interesting to note that the 300 students at this school are supported by a total staff of 67.1 adults in all roles.. an overall ratio of 4.5 students for each adult.  Also, setting aside administrative and support staff there are a total of 56 educators and instructional aides taking care of the needs of the 300 students, a ratio of 5.4 students per educator.  These are not metrics tracked by the NH DOE.

Of course no analysis would be complete without a look back.  This blog has been using the 2007/08 year as our comparison point because that was the district’s recent peak enrollment.  In the academic year 07/08, (just seven years ago!) Danville had 409 students of whom 363 were in grades 1-5.

This means enrollment has fallen by 26.6% overall, but in grades 1-5 it is down by an astonishing 32.5%.

The staffing matrix for 2007/08 looked like this:

Danville Staffing Table 2007-08

From 2013/2014, staffing is down 8.5% (73.7 FTEs declining to 67.1) .  Interestingly, all of the staffing decrease is in the teachers.  Numbers for admin, support, and instructional aides have hardly changed.  The decrease in teachers is 14.8% (29.7 FTEs declining to 25.3).

The student/teacher ratio for that year:

363 students in grades 1-5, divided by 29.7 regular and special ed teachers gives a ratio of 12.2 students per teacher.

The change in student teach ratio from 12.2 in 2007/08 to 9.7 in 2013/14 tells us that the drop in enrollment was bigger than the reduction in teaching staff.

The reduction of overall staff by 8.5% compared to a reduction of overall enrollment by 26.6% shows in a nutshell that the district is not engaging seriously with the long term trend of declining enrollment.


The purpose of this analysis is not to single out Danville Elementary School for criticism.  If anything, Danville shows more responsiveness to declining enrollment than the district as whole, which has almost the same FTE staffing number in 2013/14 as it had in 2007/08 (District staffing was 697.5 FTEs in 2007/08, and 694.9 FTEs in 2013/14, while enrollment was down 16%).  The purpose is to put the numbers in the familiar context of a specific institution.

Enrollment numbers are as of October 1 every year, so we should have the Timberlane figures for the 2014/15 soon.  Staffing is reported officially by the district to the NH DOE in mid-Oct, which means we should have access to those numbers no later than  the third week of the month.



Filed under Sandown Issues

Per Pupil Costs Rocket!

                                                    Guest contribution by Arthur Green

The 2013/14 Timberlane budget was advertised as a modest 3.2% increase compared to the previous year. This spin ignored the fact that enrollment was decreasing at the same time.  From 2012/13 to 2013/14, enrollment dropped about 150 students, or -3.6%.  (4,072 to 3,924)

We have pointed out that this will affect per-pupil costs.  Timberlane likes to say that its per-pupil cost is $13,329, which is below the state average of $13,459.  However, these figures are 2 years old.. and there have been 2 years of substantial budget increases in Timeberlane since then.

We have been forecasting that the per-pupil cost for 2013/14 at Timberlane would be $14,233.  Now the district has reported its official per-pupil cost to the NH Department of Education, and it turns out our forecast was too cautious.  The district’s number is $14,414, an 8.1% increase in a single year. (This information is from the MS-25 form submitted to the Department of Education and recently posted on the Timberlane Budget Committee website.)

The NH DOE will not publish its statewide 2013/14   per-pupil cost average for several months, so Timberlane will be able to continue to advertise the outdated $13,329 (as it does in the district Report Card) on the grounds that the statewide comparison point is not yet available.

Residents and taxpayers should keep in mind that as enrollment declines, even a flat budget means more resources available for the smaller student body, and more money spent per pupil.


Filed under Budget 2014-2015

Security Video: Do You See any Harassment?

This is the so-called incident that got me so-called banned from the SAU without the so-called written permission of the Superintendent. You will see that it complies exactly with my narrative posted on my blog on July 24 :  “Target Acquired!”

Just so you don’t think your file is not playing properly, please note that there is no audio with this recording. Most security recordings do not have audio as I understand it.

Huge thanks to a follower for converting the file into a playable form and posting it to YouTube so that all could view it.


Filed under Pinocchio Academy, Sandown Issues, School Board Behavior


Stay tuned….  I’ll be picking up the video on a thumb drive this afternoon and will post it to YouTube later today.  It will be linked from here when it is done.

Thank you to Rich Girard, John Lyscars and others who requested the video also.  Biggest thanks to Attorney Richard J. Lehmann of Douglas, Leonard & Garvey, P.C. in Concord who made it happen.

UPDATE:  The file that was released is a .avi imm4 type file that is not read by ordinary MAC or PC media programs.  Right now neither I nor anyone I have reached out to can read the file that was provided.  Neither can anyone convert it to another format.

Just as soon as the file can be played, I will record it and post it here.

Here is a link to the file on Google Drive for any who wish to try their hand:



Filed under Sandown Issues

Press Weighs in on Lawyer’s Letters

Attorney Richard Lehmann’s letters have made quite a stir in the press.

Rich Girard, radio commentator, was first off the mark devoting an hour to the controversy at Timberlane.  You can listen to his September 19th segment here:

Girard on Timberlane Sept. 19, 2014

Rich’s outrage is absolutely well founded.  I’ll be going on Rich’s show on Monday morning, Sept. 22, 2014 starting around 6 am.

The Union Leader’s story said: “She [Green] was issued a formal censure for violating open meeting laws and posting ‘disrespectful, inappropriate’ messages on a personal blog.” This sentence gives the reader the impression that the accusations in the censure letter were proven fact.  They are not and I dispute them.

Union Leader article Sept. 19, 2014

I do not believe I have violated any Open Meeting laws.  Writing to a quorum of a board is not a crime in New Hampshire. Furthermore, my blog is about Timberlane school district issues and is both accurate and professional.  Before moving to New Hampshire, I was previously a freelance writer with a number of respected publications.  (I was, for instance, the Canadian stringer for the Economist‘s Finance and Economics section for two years.)  The superintendent and my school board peers simply don’t like what I say so they discredit it as inaccurate and disrespectful when it is simply truthful or a fair expression of opinion.

The press has also reported that the letter of censure detailed 60 examples of inaccuracies in my blog.  The letter in fact pointed out 16 quotes and did not state what was inaccurate or otherwise objectionable about them.  I stand by every single word I have written. See these quotes for yourself.

Here is the letter of censure in its entirety: Letter of Censure Aug 28

The Eagle Tribune did a much better job of reporting the story, though it, too, reported inaccurately about the censure letter when the reporter wrote: “Last month School Board Chairman Nancy Steenson wrote Green a letter, outlining about 60 specific blog entries she said were inaccurate.”  The Eagle Trib’s James Niedzinski  did an otherwise outstanding job on a complicated subject with a long history and he has my thanks.

Here is the Eagle Tribune story:  Board Member Stirs the Pot

UPDATE:  Sept. 22, 2014:  Listen to Rich Girard interview me at the crack of dawn:  Girard interviews Green     Thank you, Rich!


Leave a comment

Filed under Budget 2014-2015, DELIBERATIVE 2014, Expenditures, Fill-time Kindergarten, My censure, Non-public session abuse, Right to Know issues, School Board Behavior, Spanish Consultant Contract, Taxes

Green Turns Spotlight on Police

This is a letter written on my behalf by Attorney Richard J. Lehmann to Lt. William Baldwin of the Plaistow Police Department. This letter is practically a work of art and I am hugely grateful to have such an outstanding lawyer on my side.

baldwin letter


Filed under My censure, Pinocchio Academy, Sandown Issues, School Board Behavior

Green Pushes Back with Legal Letter

Today Attorney Richard J. Lehmann sent a letter on my behalf to Dr. Metzler concerning issues under the Right to Know law.  The letter takes issue with the non-public session that was held to discuss Mrs. Metzler’s consultant contract, and the poor disclosure concerning the decision to award the contract.  It calls for this contract to be rescinded.  The letter also challenges the restriction put on my access to the SAU building by Superintendent Metzler whereby I am required to obtain written permission from the superintendent to enter the SAU office to inspect public documents.  I am  also demanding (for the second time) the release of the security video of the so-called “incident” on July 24th between me and the superintendent’s executive assistant, Cathy Belcher,  a video which I want to clear my name.  Other issues are mentioned as well.

Enjoy the read.  Tomorrow I will post the letter Attorney Lehmann sent to Plaistow Police Officer, Lt. Baldwin, who is supposedly investigating the case.





Filed under Sandown Issues

Budget Law Fudge – #1

This is the first in a four part series detailing the Timberlane Regional School District’s failure to comply with NH budget law in fiscal year 2013-2014, the year that ended on June 30, 2014.  This information has been complied by Arthur Green, Timberlane Budget Committee member.   Our goal is to prevent future non-compliance and to show taxpayers that our school board needs to exercise more oversight over the financial affairs of the district. These laws exist for a reason and that is to protect and honor the taxpayers’ wishes.

Fudge #1:  Expenditures on Zero Appropriated Lines

RSA 32:8 says that no school board shall pay or incur expenditure for any purpose for which no appropriation has been made. “Purpose” is defined (in RSA 32:3 V) as a line on the budget as presented to Town Meeting. This means that when a line item has a zero, no money can be spent on that line item description.  Three budget lines with no appropriation in the 2013/14 budget did end up having expenditures.  These were:

  • Budget line 1600 115 Alternative/Continuing Education / Office Salaries –

Amount appropriated: $0;   Amount expended to June 30: $6,348.

  • Budget line 2620 441 Operating Buildings Services / Rental Land and Buildings –

Amount appropriated: $0;    Amount expended to June 30: $34,785.

  • Budget line 2660 737 Security Services / Replacement Equipment –

Amount appropriated: $0;    Amount expended to June 30: $55,791.

The total amount at issue is $96,924.

During the Sept. 11, 2014 Budget Committee meeting, Mr. Stokinger mentioned the school board approval of the new portables, (the second item on our list) as justification for the expenditure. Mr. Stokinger should know that by law, (RSA 32:11) no expenditure can be made on a zero appropriated line without written application to the commissioner of education and only with the budget committee’s majority approval.  No such procedure took place for any of those three expenditures.  The district’s position on this as expressed in an email to Mr. Green from Mr. Stokinger, is that the budget is bottom line and that the budget as a whole was not overexpended.

The School Board and administration are fond of using the word ‘respect’.  Respect for the taxpayers, the law, and the democratic process would be to honor the taxpayer’s “NO” on these zero-appropriated lines.


UPDATE Sept. 22, 2014.   Here is a NH Superior Court decision supporting our argument that budget lines at the level approved by voters is the level of detail to which budget laws apply.  We learned about this 8/28/2014 ruling in early Sept. I mistakenly said initially that it was a NH Supreme Court decision.  That was my error.

Belknap Court Ruling 29082014 on Legislators right over commissioners on budget Aug, 2014 (1)




Filed under Expenditures, Pinocchio Academy, School Board Behavior, School Board Issues

Chairman Undermines Agreed Budget Committee Process

Here is an email exchange between Timberlane Budget Committee member, Cathy Gorman, and the chair of the committee, Diane Rothwell. This correspondence took place on September 15, 2014.  Ms. Gorman cites the Vimeo recording timestamps to prove that the budget committee had agreed at a previous meeting in April that they would be systematically interviewing department heads in a process similar to that taken by town budget committees.  You will note that the chairman’s response to this is to deny the agreement and attempt to rewrite history.  As taxpayers, you should be wondering what would motivate a chairman to reply in such a fashion. You should also note that Mrs. Rothwell doesn’t know her own committee’s by-laws which state that a special meeting can be called anytime at the request of three committee members.
Dear Mrs Rothwell,
(.PDF attached also) 
I would like the committee to reconsider the request for an additional meeting to following the facility tour on 25SEP2014. The agenda would be limited to 1 agenda item: Budget Process. This would allow us to put the process in writing. If you would kindly confirm we will be following the process outlined below based on BudCom consensus and motions from the 10APR2014 BudCom meeting then we could forgo a meeting on 25SEP2014.
On 10APR2014 we discussed in some detail the process the BudCom would like to follow for the 2015-2016 session. NOTE: I am paraphrasing but feel free to review the verbatim language; I have included time stamps that are “approximate”.
The discussion regarding the budget process started at 1:36;43 and ended for all intents and purposes ~ 2:54 – approximately 1.5 hours of how we wanted the budget presented and how we would go about generating and approving a budget (highlights are listed at the end of this correspondence)
~ Vimeo time stamp 2:42:10: Mrs Rothwell – I think there is a consensus that what we are looking at is administrators come to present at our meetings – time stamp:2:42:24: is that correct? (consensus) OK
~2:42:33: Mr Stokinger – starting in OCT14 [we will] sit down here [BudCom meetings] with the departments and schools
Mr Grosky: would like to have documents in advance
Ms Gorman: having documents 1 week in advance in order to review and pose questions throughout that week for any clarifications or information we would want presented regarding a particular budget
Mrs Rothwell: we would meet with the department heads and make motion to adjust the budget once we have the entire budget
~2:44: Mr Cantone: is that process written down
Mrs Rothwell: there is no process
Based on the entire discussion I would like to confirm with the BudCom the following was agreed to and is how we are moving forward since I got the impression we were back at square one when our 11SEP14 meeting adjourned. The 10APR2014 consensus was as follows:
Budget process agreed to by the BudCom:
·         The Chair and the Administration will to generate the OCT14 agendas for the department heads to come before the BudCom to discuss/defend their budget as needed
·         Appropriate personnel  will be scheduled for 30 minutes each to discuss their budget and answer BudCom questions
·         The BudCom will receive the budgets 1 week in advance along with supporting documentation for increases will be provided
o   Regarding increased line items – Supporting notes will also be included in the budget
·         The BudCom will make motions to increase or decrease line items once the entire budget is available
o   Motions to increase or decrease should be entertained during the meeting with the department heads
Note: acknowledgement by the Chair to the entire committee is NOT a violation of the RTK RSA 91-a since this is what was discussed during public meeting. This email must go into the correspondence folder so it is available to the public and I will comment at our next BudCom meeting during BudCom members updates that this email was sent to the entire committee for confirmation only (in lieu of an additional meeting) of the decisions of the 10APR2014 meeting regarding the budget process. 
Supporting this process is the Vimeo starting at 1:36:43 and ending ~ 2:54:00
At (~) 1:36:43 discussion begins and I am paraphrasing – please confirm via vimeo
At ~ 1:41 Superintendent Metzler – we are certainly open to suggestions {for the budget process] … we can do it however you want
~ 1:47 Madam Chair – I want to discuss how we want the budget first presented to us by the administrators
Mrs. O’Neil discussed the Bedford school budget process
~ 1:52:10 Ms Gorman discussed the Sandown [town] budget processes a model for the TRSD budget process
~ 1:53 Mr Heffernan agreed with Ms Gorman; stated Plaistow budget is managed the same way. Mr Heffernan goes on to say haing the appropriate people before us to be able to ask specific questions was helpful … and having the budget beforehand, review and come to the meeting with questions was more productive
~ 2:40 :17 Mrs. O’Neil – I think we are going back to the old model where we are having presenters come here … rather than the 10,000 ft view
~2:45 Madam Chair: I think there is a consensus that what we are looking at is administrators come to present at our meetings – time stamp:2:42:24: is that correct? (consensus) OK
~2:42:33 Mr Stokinger – 2:42:33: Mr Stokinger – starting in OCT14 [we will] sit down here [BudCom meetings] with the departments and schools
Mr Grosky: would like to have documents in advance
Ms Gorman: having documents 1 week in advance in order to review and pose questions throughout that week for any clarifications or information we would want presented regarding a particular budget
Mrs Rothwell: we would meet with the department heads and make motion to adjust the budget once we have the entire budget
~2:44: Mr Cantone: is that process written down
Mrs Rothwell: there is no process
~2:48:58 Mr Blair made a motion that the Chair work with the Administration to generate the agendas for the department heads  –  passed unanimously
Mr Heffernan requested having the details [of increases/modifications] with the budget and included in the budget
Ms Gorman requested the budget in excel and was told it is not possible with the financial platform. % change from for line items year to year was requested
(Please note: somewhere during this conversation Mrs ONeil said “sounds like we are going back to the old [School BudCom] process. I did not document the time stamp])
Primary conversation ended ~ 2:54
Kind regards,

Mr. Stokinger is working with administrators to set up meeting presentations with principals, and directors.
The committee voted down the request to have an additional meeting on September 25th.   If you feel there should be an additional meeting you may bring it up again for a vote at the next meeting.  I don’t believe we can do it any other way unless there is an emergency that needs to be dealt with.  I can only foresee that to happen with the school board, not the budget committee.
There were some requests discussed at earlier meetings but no consensus or vote on the issues requested or discussed.
I believe a committee member is going to present a detailed list of the process the budget committee has used in the past which has worked very well.  I know the complaint has always been there is not a process which is not true just not the one you want.

Mrs Rothwell,
 I am rereading your email response: I am not sure who requested this as an agenda item for our next meeting nor do I know which “committee member” will be presenting a process from a previous BudCom. I do hope however with the limited time we have during the limited number of meetings scheduled, we are not going to go through yet another process after we spent an 1.5 hour on 10APR2014 deciding on “this” committee’s budget process. We agreed to our path forward and you were responsible to work with Mr. Stokinger to schedule department heads to come in and present their budget – not give a presentation.
There was consensus to no more power point presentations. There was concensus we would receive the budgets in advance. There was consensus we would come prepared to the meetings to ask questions of the department heads. This is a very simple process that works well for the Town of Sandown, Plaistow and Danville; as Mrs O’Neil stated during the 10APR2014 meeting it is also how this School BudCom used to prepare the budget and conduct their meetings.
If there was any thought of having this as an agenda item it should have appeared on the 11SEP2014 agenda as I did on 31JUL2014 (see below). I certainly hope we are not going to waste any additional time “not” reviewing the the 2015-16 budget. If anyone wants to review what we decided on they can watch the 10APR14 vimeo.


Filed under Budget 2014-2015, Budget Committee, Pinocchio Academy, The Mushroom Farm

School Budget Committee: Everything but the Budget

Last night’s school budget committee meeting was a disappointing display, but a revealing one.  Like school board meetings, substantive issues are kept off the agenda despite members’ agenda requests.  This may sound radical and insulting, but I believe that agendas are deliberately kept to insubstantial issues so,  with a budget committee in chaos and a school board dwelling on irrelevancies, the administration can run the show.

Last night Mr. Cantone, new Budcom member from Plaistow, expressed frustration that so much of the discussion consisted of arguments that would be settled or moot if there were an established process in place.  Mrs. Rothwell, the chairman, replied that there used to be a process but now members want more information. That was a  most candid statement.  The process has long been a giant rubber stamp.  Now some members from Sandown aren’t happy with that and want more financial information in a form they can actually analyse and study.

For the third time, Ms. Gorman from Sandown spoke about the need to have all budget information delivered in live spreadsheets so it can be parsed at will – and as is the case with all town budget committee practices.  Arthur Green moved to have monthly expenditure reports provided in live spreadsheet format. In a 3 -7 vote, the motion was defeated with some saying that expenditures weren’t the committee’s business and others saying a live spreadsheet is not a good idea.  Either way, the committee as a whole, for whatever reason, voted to keep themselves ignorant and powerless. I excuse the new members because they don’t yet know how little useful information they will ultimately receive, but the members past their first year know better.

Even Michelle O’Neil of Danville expressed frustration with the absence of budget work going on at the meeting. She should be asking the chair why the agenda was as thin as Gulag gruel.  On July 31 Mr. Green requested numerous budget related issues be added to the September 11th agenda:

  • that the committee receive monthly financial reports;
  • discussion of comparative district information gathered by Mr. Green;
  • notice to change the by-laws to allow more meetings throughout the spring and summer;
  • discussion of segregating the budgeting for full-time kindergarten.

Mr. Green also endorsed  Ms. Gorman’s request to examine current email policy and Mr. Grosky’s request to discuss a report on overexpenditures in 2013-2014.

Without explanation, only Mr. Grosky’s agenda request was included on the agenda.  This is the same old game the school board plays with their agendas…..dissident members and their constitutents’ concerns are frozen out of the agenda

67 million dollars are at stake here.  There are just five precious meetings left (with a sixth scheduled for Dec. 23 which will inevitably be cancelled).  A majority last night also defeated a motion to add another meeting to the schedule. There is no way possible the committee will be able to interview the necessary department heads as they discussed doing in the spring meeting .  Schedules for interviews haven’t even been made or circulated.  Surprised?  I predict the next meeting will be taken up with arguing about whether or not to have department heads in and if so, who.

A Budget Committee floundering without direction – unwilling to add meetings, unwilling to demand the very basic spreadsheet tools that are required to do any serious budget analysis, unwilling to stick to decisions made in previous meetings and accepting of vacuous agendas that shut out the requests of some hard-working committee members,  this is what you have and it does not work to the taxpayer’s advantage. The Sandown reps, Gorman and Green, are doing their best and a few others can be excused for being new –my first year was a total loss — but the majority should be keenly aware that they are not doing what the taxpayers of this district expect.

In the good news department, Arthur Green will be presenting a Town Hall on the forthcoming school budget on Dec. 7, 2014 at Sandown Town Hall. There you will be able to see the presentation on comparable school districts, their budgets and academic results – all with less money than we extract from our district taxpayers every year.  It will be even more explosive than what we revealed at last year’s Deliberative Session.

Also last night,Chairman  Diane Rothwell announced her resignation from the budget committee effective September 29th.  She is a kind-hearted person with a long association with the district and I wish her well in her move.  Now it is time for some new, independent-minded leadership to take command of this perennially ineffectual committee that has collectively sunk into irrelevancy.

In case I haven’t yet proven my point, here is the next School Board agenda – an agenda so light and superfluous it could waft away in a cold draft.  There should be, but isn’t, an item about the unanticipated extra return of surplus from HealthTrust that we’ve learned will be coming this month on top of the $400,000 we’ve already received. The only issue of substance will be the policy discussion where the Policy Committee will drive through objectionable changes to two policies – one to the now famous policy DBJ about transfers of appropriations changing from $5,000 to a whopping $25,000, and a vendor relations policy aimed squarely at me for calling the auditor to find out why our annual report was 7 months late.

Regular Meeting – 7:30 PM

**The Board will meet from 7-7:30 pm for an appreciation reception for Michael

Mascola who recently tendered his resignation from the School Board effective

September 30th.**


1. Call to Order – Chair

2. Roll Call – Clerk

3. Pledge of Allegiance

4. Approval of Minutes

a. August 28, 2014

b. September 4, 2014

5. Delegations or Individuals

6. Current Business

a. Germany Trip Presentation* – INFORMATIONAL (15 minutes)

b. Donation/ExxonMobil – ACTION (5 minutes)

c. Policies – ACTION (10 minutes)

d. Summer Programs* – INFORMATIONAL (15 minutes)

e. NHSBA Resolutions – INFORMATIONAL/ACTION (10 minutes)

7. Administrator’s Report

a. Update on School Activities – INFORMATIONAL

8. Personnel Report

9. Committee Report/Reports of the School Board

10.Correspondence Folder

11.Vendor and Payroll Registers

12.Other Business

a. Non-public (if needed)

13.Future Dates





Leave a comment

Filed under Budget 2014-2015, Budget Committee, Expenditures, Fill-time Kindergarten, School Board Functioning, The Mushroom Farm