The Dramatic October 5 BOS Meeting

Last night’s Board of Selectman’s meeting is certainly worth the watch.  Forty citizens observed it in person and regardless of their position on the withdrawal issue, it is doubtful anyone’s blood pressure was the same leaving town hall as it was entering.

Mark Sherwood spoke at public comment opposing withdrawal from Timberlane and the continued expense for legal opinion on the matter. He asked that the BOS not endorse any minority report that may come forward. His was the only public comment. The audience then sat patiently while the board reviewed a number of budgets during their regular business.

When the agenda item requested by Jon Goldman came up, “Discussion regarding previous letter to Dept. of Education regarding Minority Committee,” Mr. Goldman asked for a citizen’s letter submitted to the board by Greg Kulicki be read. Mr. Sherwood did so. Then I was permitted to read my letter also submitted to the BOS and partly in response to Mr. Kulicki’s letter. After this, Selectman Buco read her own comment which got some heckles from the audience.  Ms. Buco asked the Selectmen to put a preliminary presentation of the minority report on the next agenda (October 19) before deciding whether or not to support submitting a minority report to the Board of Education.

Then Mr. Goldman made a motion to send a letter to the Board of Education telling them that the minority committee has been disbanded and that the town is in concurrence with the district’s conclusion that withdrawal is not feasible or suitable. Clapping ensued. Chairman Devine then said he did not agree with Mr. Goldman and that he would not entertain a second. Mr. Goldman objected. Mr. Devine held fast. Mr. Goldman called to adjourn the meeting to contact legal. Mr. Devine adjourned the meeting.

Mr. Kulicki’s letter is read one hour into the proceedings at 1:00:00.

Advertisements

32 Comments

Filed under Sandown Issues

32 responses to “The Dramatic October 5 BOS Meeting

  1. Cathy

    The law does actually allow the Town a minority report if they feel the RSA committee’s report is not fair or if it is biased as Jon Goldman admitted it may be. Again, Jon Goldman abusing his position to push he personal opinion on the Town. He does not know the research done by Cindy Buco and admittedly does not care to know. He states clearly “ … and *** I *** am not in favor of withdrawal”. Jon would prefer to leave the fate of the Town in the districts hands. I am not sure why Jon isn’t a SB representative vs a Town Selectman; he clearly is not respecting the WA vote or the right afforded the Town under RSA 195:25.
    Jon Goldman provided “his” interpretation of the law. His opinion is the minority report can only favor withdrawal.
    Jon Goldman:
    The study has been completed or is being completed by the district. There is an argument that that study may or may not be fair or it may be biased . We didn’t write the state law and ***it may not be fair and it may be biased*** but again we didn’t write the state law, that is the state law and the state law was written very plainly to allow the minority, allow the town to submit a minority report in favor of withdrawal and *** I *** am not in favor of withdrawal.
    And I know that the 700 people – we talked about that – but they are getting their study or they got their study and they are welcome to go to the public hearing October 13 and hear the rationale from the district committee as to why the district committee doesn’t feel it is suitable or feasible. I appreciate Mrs. Buco work she has done a tremendous amount of work – more work than I will ever probably know. But realistically we notified the BOE the we created the withdrawal study committee and to expect a report unless we, they hear from us otherwise . at a minimum I would like to make a motion that we send a letter to the BOE advising them that we have disbanded the Sandown minority report committee.
    And I will go a step further I would like to see that letter also state that we are in concurrence with the district committee and that we do not believe that withdrawal is feasible or suitable.

    Cathy

    • Jon Goldman

      Ms. Gorman,

      I just would like to correct an incorrect statement or two that you have made.

      Are you saying as a member of the BOS I, nor any other member don’t have a right to make motions, or we just can’t make motions you don’t agree with?

      Do you think the Chair has a right to not even ask for a second on a legally made motion? That was a disservice to the towns people, if the motion had been made and seconded, and passed then it would be legal. If it did not get a second, or did not get the required votes to pass then the results would still be legal, but the process would not have been struck down by a true abuse of power.

      You may think I am pushing my personal agenda on the townspeople, but I am representing the towns people, my constituents, hundreds of them who have spoken out against possible withdrawal. At least I tried to make a legal motion, the right way, through legal channels, was Mr. Devine pushing his personal agenda by not asking for a second, not abiding by his duty as the Chairman to run a fair meeting?

      1. You state that I “admitted” the withdrawal study report may be unfair and unbiased. That is incorrect, I stated there was an argument that the report may not be fair or it may be biased. I further went on to say it may not be fair, and it may be biased. At no point did I say the report was unfair, or biased.

      2. You go on to state that I am “clearly not representing the WA vote or the right afforded the town under RSA 195:25. I will speak to both of those points seperatley:

      2A. The warrant article asked for a study to be done, and it was done and is being completed by the Study committee as prescribed by RSA. If people do not feel it was fair, or it was biased they need to address that with the school board, or the study committee itself. So the warrant article vote, is being carried out as prescribed by RSA, there is/was a study completed, and the district committee voted withdrawal to be not suitable, and not feasible.

      2B. I have pasted the relevant portion of RSA 195:25 below, please explain to me where it allows for the Town (Sandown) that originally requested the withdrawal study, to submit anything other than a report that disagrees with a vote of not Suitable and Feasible by the Study Committee?

      ” If the committee determines that withdrawal is not feasible or suitable, the town which voted to undertake the study may submit a minority report at the same time as the committee report is filed with the state board of education. If the committee report does not include a withdrawal plan, the minority report may include a withdrawal plan prepared in accordance RSA 195:26. If the state board approves a withdrawal plan, whether submitted by the committee or by minority report, the plan shall be submitted to the voters of the cooperative school district in accordance with RSA 195:29.”

      I am not going to get into a back and forth with you via Mrs. Green’s blog, but wanted to correct some misleading statements that you had made.

  2. MJ

    ‘Again, Jon Goldman abusing his position to push he personal opinion on the Town’……..what????!! He asked for a vote, Ms Buco and the Chair expressed their opposing positions just as firmly as Mr Goldman….that’s how the process works!!…And a vote up or down could have followed but instead the BOS sat there mutely instead of insisting the process proceed and challenging a chair who has NO authority to refuse to allow/accept a 2nd no matter how many times he claims he does!!

    • Cathy

      Jon motioned for a vote after he stated:

      – *** I *** am not in favor of withdrawal
      – that the study ***may not be fair and it may be biased***
      – The town could attend the “district” public hearing for “their” rationale
      – I appreciate Mrs. Buco work she has done a tremendous amount of work – more work than I will ever probably know

      How is Jon representing the Town of Sandown? He admits ignorance to any data Cindy Buco has and wants to share with the BOS yet he knows it is not feasible or suitable. His responsibility is to ensure the Town is represented in this process, to ensure the town is aware of all options that may be available to them and not to obstruct the process.

      The BOS was warned this was the next step based on John Sherman (Plaistow Selectman and Majority Committee member) making the suggestion at a committee meeting. Both I and another concerned citizen told them that John Sherman stated: good job having the minority committee disbanded but you did not go far enough – you need to get the BOS to vote against submitting a minority report. So is Jon Goldman acting on behalf of himself? Is he acting on behalf of the Majority Committee?

      A handful of Sandown voters want this stopped in it’s tracks – most voted against the WA so they had their say. They should now be allowed to manipulate the process? Do election results no longer matter? Because what I am seeing is if you do not like the outcome of an election, a minority can band together and apply pressure and get their way – to heck with the majority vote.

      This is a dangerous road to travel and Jon Goldman is leading the way. [Edited at request of CG]

      • Paul

        All he did was move to write a letter which is well within his right to do. If no other persons agreed they could fail to second the motion. If the second goes through, the rest can vote it down. The only position that was “abused” was the chairperson’s. Mr Devine should be removed.
        I am not even taking a position on the subject at hand. But to watch the video and conclude anything other than Mr Devine abusing power, power that he really does not have, is ludicrous. It also makes people wonder about back room deals….

      • Cathy

        I agree it does make people wonder about back room deals. Although I’m sure we would differ regarding what deals are being made.

  3. MJ

    Jon Goldman expressed his opinion on how he interprets the RSA, and the vote for the study (having been done)….You and others happen to disagree, which is your right, no more or less than his, both sides got to speak, but neither side is assured that their position or interpretation is THE correct one unless/until it’s ruled that way, legally, IMO….Leaving that aside, to pretend that he doesn’t have the right as a member of the BOS to make a motion and ask for a vote based on his beliefs flies in the face of the democratic process!!….He didn’t demand all follow his view (as the chair person seems to be doing!) he simply asked to be heard ,which I advocate for always, all sides should be heard, I heartily disagree with those who want to squelch opposing views and passionately defend “the underdog” whenever possible…but to claim he’s “abusing” his position by dissenting from the CP or the chair but not even acknowledge the folly of abuse that followed is akin to turning a blind eye to a house on fire, IMO

  4. Concerned Sandown Parent

    Isn’t this the kind of stuff that Nancy Steenson does to you all the time? How’s it okay for Devine to do it? Stifling discussion is about as un-American as it gets. What’s he afraid of?

  5. Cathy

    Jon Goldman posts his response to my post here, to a FB page I do not belong. He parses words and spins. Jon Goldman knows exactly that the Town has a right under the law to submit a minority report and he wants to take right away IMO.
    He is the one that motioned to disband the minority committee and although it passed, when the vote was addressed the following meeting one Selectman stated he would not vote the same if the vote came before him again. No one wanted to put this before the Board for another vote which could have certainly occurred.

    Now it is Jon Goldman is again motioning for the BOS to commit to not submitting a minority report. On what basis? Why is he trying to limit the Town’s options?

    He can speak to hundreds of people and when the report goes before the BOS for review he could vote against submission to the BOE. But to try to obstruct the process completely, and by a [potential] vote of 3 nullify the vote of 699 people (~ 70% majority) who took the time to vote in March, is not his role as Selectman.
    Read this carefully – I think he confirms my points.
    1) I never said you stated it was unfair and biased – you said “and may be unfair and May be biased” as you admit in your response. Either you admit you don’t know if it’s unfair or biased or you’re admitting their is a possibility it “may not be fair and may be biased” . Point being you do not know and you don’t want to know

    2) the law allows for the town to submit their own report as the district and municipality are separate entities. The Town is not limited by the committee’s outcome/vote. That is the entire point of the law/minority report.
    Many who voted want the information to come before the BOS so the Residents, who do care, can be well informed of their options BEFORE it is determined if the town should submit a minority report.

    I personally do not think you stayed above the fray – I think you relished in the chaos you perpetuated.

    Jon’s post on Citizens against FB page:

    The below post was posted to my page as well as Mrs. Greens blog. I have stayed out the fray since the Minority Committee was disbanded, but wanted to make sure this post was out there.
    Ms. Gorman,
    I just would like to correct an incorrect statement or two that you have made.
    Are you saying as a member of the BOS I, nor any other member don’t have a right to make motions, or we just can’t make motions you don’t agree with?
    Do you think the Chair has a right to not even ask for a second on a legally made motion? That was a disservice to the towns people, if the motion had been made and seconded, and passed then it would be legal. If it did not get a second, or did not get the required votes to pass then the results would still be legal, but the process would not have been struck down by a true abuse of power.
    You may think I am pushing my personal agenda on the townspeople, but I am representing the towns people, my constituents, hundreds of them who have spoken out against possible withdrawal. At least I tried to make a legal motion, the right way, through legal channels, was Mr. Devine pushing his personal agenda by not asking for a second, not abiding by his duty as the Chairman to run a fair meeting?
    1. You state that I “admitted” the withdrawal study report may be unfair and unbiased. That is incorrect, I stated there was an argument that the report may not be fair or it may be biased. I further went on to say it may not be fair, and it may be biased. At no point did I say the report was unfair, or biased.
    2. You go on to state that I am “clearly not representing the WA vote or the right afforded the town under RSA 195:25. I will speak to both of those points seperatley:
    2A. The warrant article asked for a study to be done, and it was done and is being completed by the Study committee as prescribed by RSA. If people do not feel it was fair, or it was biased they need to address that with the school board, or the study committee itself. So the warrant article vote, is being carried out as prescribed by RSA, there is/was a study completed, and the district committee voted withdrawal to be not suitable, and not feasible.
    2B. I have pasted the relevant portion of RSA 195:25 below, please explain to me where it allows for the Town (Sandown) that originally requested the withdrawal study, to submit anything other than a report that disagrees with a vote of not Suitable and Feasible by the Study Committee?
    ” If the committee determines that withdrawal is not feasible or suitable, the town which voted to undertake the study may submit a minority report at the same time as the committee report is filed with the state board of education. If the committee report does not include a withdrawal plan, the minority report may include a withdrawal plan prepared in accordance RSA 195:26. If the state board approves a withdrawal plan, whether submitted by the committee or by minority report, the plan shall be submitted to the voters of the cooperative school district in accordance with RSA 195:29.”
    I am not going to get into a back and forth with you via Mrs. Green’s blog, but wanted to correct some misleading statements that you had made.

  6. Curt Springer

    Donna you would have been all over Nancy Steenson if she had refused to ask for a second on a motion you made. Yet you give Jim Devine a pass. Why is that?

  7. Kate Winter

    Ms. Green, I’m curious about your thoughts on the way the meeting ended. Are you supportive of the chairman’s stance to not entertain a second? I have seen you treated in a similarly poor fashion by your fellow school board members and the SB chair; are you disappointed that those tactics were used by the BOS chair in this setting? While I disagree with you and your position on this particular matter, I think of you as someone who values rules and open discussion, and who often has valid issues with the way things are done at the district; do you see Mr. Devine’s behavior last night as undermining what you fight for at the district level?

    • Kate,
      Thank you for that thoughtful and well-expressed comment. This is a battle that is going to have to be waged without my voice one way or the other. With a few exceptions, where were the outraged voices now so exercised about Mr. Devine supporting me when the school budget committee tried to censure me on completely bogus grounds – or when the school board did in fact censure me simply because they didn’t like opinions expressed on my blog? Or when the SAU filed a groundless police report against me? Or when I’ve had to pay out of my own pocket countless times for public information? Or just last meeting when I rose on a point of personal privilege and Mrs. Steenson cut off the cable broadcast without actually imposing a recess? What about how unfairly Arthur Green was shut down at school Deliberative in February?
      All of the procedural irregularities I have endured have had one end in mind, and that is to shut me up. Mr. Goldman’s intention is to shut up further public discussion of withdrawal. Mr. Devine’s action in the end resulted in more discussion of the withdrawal issue rather than less. I am neither going to defend nor criticize Mr. Devine in this situation.

      • All of those things you list as having been done to you were all done using the process described in Robert’Smith Rules. None of it was done by a single member imposing their will on the group, as was done Monday by Jim Devine.

        FTR, you were not censured simply because of a difference of opinion as you state above.

        Regarding your claim to a “point of personal privilege,” no such thing exists. There is a question of personal privilege and the guidelines for it are very strict. None of them applied at our last meeting.

      • Not censured for a difference of opinion? The censure letter was full of nothing but examples of differences of opinion.

        A question of Personal Privilege is a standard parliamentary rule and recognized by Robert’s Rules. It is sheer semantics to say a “point of privilege” doesn’t exist when a “question of privilege” clearly does.
        This is from Robert’s Rules Online, Fourth edition http://www.rulesonline.com/rror-03.htm [Emphasis mine.]

        Questions of Privilege. Questions relating to the rights and privileges of the assembly, or to any of its members, take precedence of all other motions except the three preceding relating to adjournment and recess, to which they yield. If the question is one requiring immediate action it may interrupt a member’s speech; as, for example, when, from any cause, a report that is being read cannot be heard in a part of the hall. But if it is not of such urgency it should not interrupt a member after he has commenced his speech. Before a member has commenced speaking, even though he has been assigned the floor, it is in order for another member to raise a question of privilege. When a member rises for this purpose he should not wait to be recognized, but immediately on rising should say, “Mr. Chairman,” — and when he catches the chairman’s eye, should add, “I rise to a question of privilege affecting the assembly,” or “I rise to a question of personal privilege.” The chair directs him to state his question. and then decides whether it is one of privilege or not. From this decision any two members may appeal. The chair may decide it to be a question of privilege, but not of sufficient urgency to justify interrupting the speaker. In such a case the speaker should be allowed to continue, and, when he has finished, the chair should immediately assign the floor to the member who raised the question of privilege to make his motion if one is necessary. Whenever his motion is made and stated, it becomes the immediately pending question and is open to debate and amendment and the application of all the other subsidiary motions just as any main motion. Its high privilege extends only to giving it the right to consideration in preference to any other question except one relating to adjournment or recess, and, in cases of great urgency, the right to interrupt a member while speaking. It cannot interrupt voting or verifying a vote. As soon as the question of privilege is disposed of, the business is resumed exactly where it was interrupted; if a member had the floor at the time the question of privilege was raised, the chair assigns him the floor again.

        Questions of privilege may relate to the privileges of the assembly or only of a member, the former having the precedence if the two come into competition. Questions of personal privilege must relate to one as a member of the assembly, or else relate to charges against his character which, if true, would incapacitate him for membership. Questions like the following relate to the privileges of the assembly: those relating to the organization of the assembly; or to the comfort of its members, as the heating, lighting, ventilation, etc., of the hall, and freedom from noise and other disturbance; or to the conduct of its officers or employees; or to the punishing of a member for disorderly conduct or other offence; or to the conduct of reporters for the press, or to the accuracy of published reports of proceedings.

      • What was the basis for your question of privilege?

    • FTR, we follow Roberts Rules at the School Board and I have never seen any Chair deny the opportunity for a second to any motion, including Donna’s. Donna has every right to use Robert’s Rules to protect her rights as a School Board member in our meetings, and she has justifiably.

      Many times Donna’s motions simply aren’t seconded after the Chair asks for a second, that’s a different story.

  8. Curt Springer

    The town has no right to submit a minority report. That’s a bad interpretation of a poorly written law.

  9. Cathy

    The Chair is not obligated to request a second. Jim Devine stated his position in no uncertain terms. Any Selectman could have said they seconded the motion and that would have overridden the Chair’s position; no Selectman seconded the motion.
    Jon Goldman, when he did not get a second, called for adjournment and the meeting was adjourned.

  10. Jim Buckley

    For me, this all boils down to a matter of trust. I do not trust the administration. I do not trust the School Board. I also do not trust the results that come out of the majority committee. None of the above have the concerns of the taxpayer even in the back of their minds. For this reason alone, we need a minority committee to give us information that we can make a decision on.

  11. Jason B. Grosky

    Cathy,
    You say this as though there is any shred of truth behind your comment:

    Says Cathy Gorman – “I agree it does make people wonder about back room deals. Although I’m sure we would differ regarding what deals are being made.”

    So Cathy, please give up the goods here. What backroom deal was made? Between whom, and who gained what? Please share the details of your informed knowledge.
    If you have nothing, then please pipe down, avoid the garbage and stick to the facts.

    – JBG

  12. Jon Goldman

    Ms. Gorman,

    I’m pretty sure I stated my position in “no uncertain terms” as you say Mr. Devine did.Does he have any more right to state his position than I do? In fact, I have been the only one who has “stated my opinion” throughout this entire issue, and have stuck to my convictions which is what I was elected to do.

    You also said “The law does actually allow the Town a minority report if they feel the RSA committee’s report is not fair or if it is biased as Jon Goldman admitted it may be.” (I did not admit it was, or may be, I did say there was an argument [not from me] that it may be)

    I specifically asked you to tell me where in the RSA allows for this? I even went so far as to post the RSA for your convenience, again I will post the relevant portion below:
    ” If the committee determines that withdrawal is not feasible or suitable, the town which voted to undertake the study may submit a minority report…”

    So, I will ask again, where does the RSA allow for the Town that initiated the study to submit a report for any other reason than to dissent on a vote of Not Suitable and Not Feasible by the RSA compelled committee?

    You also allude to a backroom deal, please I am interested to see you expand more upon that, what backroom deals are you alluding to, or do you have knowledge of? I would imagine a backroom deal would be a violation of the Town Ethics Policy, to which Mr. Devine blatantly violated as well. So I am curious as to what backroom deals you are aware of?

    PS. Although I enjoy a healthy debate, I will not comment any further in this forum.

    • JC

      Jon Goldman, you did not get a second and then you motioned to end the mtg. You seem to flip flop a lot . You signed the F&S petition as part of the 20 signatures. As a candidate, did you not read the WA w/ RSA to understand what you were signing.

      At the Feb 6th 2014 Deliberative as seen on Vimeo http://vimeo.com/86187592 beginning around 1:29:29. During the discussion of Article 2 – Operating Budget, you voted in favor of Mr. Green’s motion to change the amount of the proposed budget to $64,000,000, a decrease of $2,452,054 (as seen beginning around 1:52:00).

      This yr then flip flopped to a written position of., ” Jon Goldman … that is a fair question, and let me say this; I don’t think a budget committee of 9 people made 3.5 million dollars worth of cuts in an entire budget season. I don’t believe deliberative session should be the place to make drastic, district altering cuts of such potential severe consequence. Proposed cuts this drastic, being proposed at the deliberative session, only allow those in attendance to vote on the motion. Although last year and this year have and will had much higher attendance than normal. I don’t think it’s right to all a small number of voters to make such a large decision on behalf of the voters. Something like this should be either handled through the budgeting process, or via petition warrant article so that all voters have an opportunity to make an informed decision, not a heat of the moment quick decision. I applaud you and those who are active for seeking out this information ahead of time so you can make an informed decision. We aren’t talking about $50,000 for this program or that program. $3,5 million dollars cut at deliberative session would drastically alter the district and potentially spin it sideways to the point it would take years to recover. If we take the proposed $68….million dollar budget and reduce $3.5 million dollars from it that leaves a 64 and a half million dollar budget. Just in increased retirement, employment expenses and the increases in general costs of doing business the next year the budget would be up 4-5% just for “mandatory” types of expenses. This leaves no room to “

    • JC

      One more pertaining to pointing out flip flop of your stuck to convictions throughout this process per your written verbatim words :

      Jon Goldman
      August 11 · Sandown, NH · Edited
      This post is in response to Mr. Peter Bealo’s recent post on Support Timberlane, I have posted it on my Selectman FB page but recognize not everyone follows that:
      I’d post this response to Support Timberlane but I’m unable to as I was banned from their site almost at its inception. I’d like to point out the following:
      1. Mr. Green approached the BOS Selectman last night during public comment as is anyone’s right. He outlined a brief presentation on a 30 something page power point. He mentioned at the beginning, and I confirmed at the end that he was not there on behalf of any committee, he was a “citizen volunteer.” Mr. Green was not representing either committee and made a brief presentation. There were no other questions or dialogue between he or the BOS.
      2. Mr. Bealo is partially correct when he stated the BOS “refused” to meet with the majority committee. Their correspondence was discussed last night. My point in not wanting to meet with them is this…they were charged by a vote of the people of Sandown, and authorized by an RSA to study the Feasibility and Suitability of Sandown withdrawing from the district. They have not completed the study, or made a decision on the suitability or feasibility of such. ***********When they have completed their work I would welcome a meeting and discussion with them, and I would welcome the same from the minority committee, when the work is done. *********
      The BOS have no authority to waive an RSA which compels the study committee to study this subject. I raised that concern and the other Selectman agreed with me.
      Further although I appreciate Mr. Greens work on this matter, his presentation is not valid in my mind until and if it is vetted and rebutted ( if needed) by either committee. So I and no one else is taking it as “gospel” as Mr. Bealo indicates. It is not posted on the town website, and I would strongly object if it was as it is not an official work product of either committee.
      Once the work has been completed all parties should be able to see it and decide how to proceed. I’m not in favor of withdrawal, I’m in favor of making the SB and Supt. accountable. ******Both Committees should carry out their charges and present their findings at the end, not at the beginning phases to try and scare anyone with a 6.3 million dollar number.********

    • Cathy

      I only stated the town is allowed a minority report and YOU would prefer to take that option away from them because YOU don’t want to withdraw:

      RSA 195:25

      If the determined that withdrawal is not feasible or suitable, the town which voted to undertake the study may submit a minority report at the same time as the committee report is filed with the state board of education.

      You stated there are some who feel the study may not be fair and may be biased. You went on to say: It may not be fair and it may be biased. Those people can go to the public meeting and voice their concerns (paraphrase).
      Why as a Selectman would you try to force the only option for your constituents is to have to go to the district? You should have ran for SB.

  13. JC

    Jon Goldman you state. I’m pretty sure I stated my position in “no uncertain terms” as you say Mr. Devine did.Does he have any more right to state his position than I do? In fact, I have been the only one who has “stated my opinion” throughout this entire issue, and have stuck to my convictions which is what I was elected to do.

    At the May 11th SBOS, your concern was w/ the potential of the study to effect the instillation of sprinkler system ONLY, not the study itself.

    108 Motion passes unanimously. 109
    110
    111 Selectman Goldman said that he received a phone call from a concerned
    112 resident in regards to the school budget process. He stated at one of the
    113 School Board meetings it was discussed that the sprinkler system at Sandown
    114 North would be put in this year with the surplus monies from last year’s
    115 budget. The concerned resident is asking the BOS what is being done about
    116 this and if the sprinklers are being installed or not. She feels they are not
    117 going to get installed because of the feasibility study. Selectman Goldman said
    118 at this point the assumption is that the sprinklers are not going to be installed
    119 because of the potential of Sandown pulling out of the district. He said while
    120 he was looking into this he found that Danville went to the School Board
    121 because they have concerns as far as money coming out of surplus to pay for
    122 items within the budget. He is bringing this to the BOS to get their opinion.
    123 Selectwoman Buco asked if the building meets the standards of the Dept. of
    124 Education without the sprinkler system. She also said that only a study is
    125 being conducted at this time and even if Sandown decided to leave the district
    126 it wouldn’t be or several years. She said there is a safety concern now, as far
    127 as she is concerned the sprinklers should be put in now as it is just a study
    128 that is being done. She also said that if Sandown does decide to leave the
    129 district this is something that could be negotiated at that time and would be
    130 part of the withdrawal recommendation. Arthur Green and Cathy Gorman
    131 came to the table to speak on this behalf. Arthur said that back on December
    132 23, 2014 the Budget Committee was assured by the administrator that the
    133 sprinkler system would be installed whether or not it was appropriated in the
    134 2015/16 budget. He said they were told it would be done either with money
    135 from the budget or money from surplus. Arthur continued to say that had the
    136 School Budget not made that assurance to the Budget Committee, he feels the
    137 Budget Committee probably would not have cut that money out of the budget
    138 proposal. Cathy Gorman stated that residents should not be asking the BOS if
    139 the sprinkler system is going to be put in and paid for. She said the residents
    140 should be going to their elected Town School Board representatives for that
    141 information. Cathy also said this is a requirement by law and if the study is
    142 completed and Sandown decides not to pull out of the district then the Town
    143 is liable for that cost as they are still in the district. She said if Sandown does
    144 withdraw from the district then it may be part of the negotiations but it is the

  14. MJ

    “What was the basis for your question of privilege?”…..Ummmm wait, I thought you said it didn’t exist?? Just like the time you shouted down others over a member NOT being able to change/reconsider his vote, only to be wrong —but don’t let the truth get in the way of your posturing for the audience and lord knows they’ll never be a public admission of error much less an apology!!

    “FTR, we follow Roberts Rules at the School Board:—-no, you claim to, but more often than not only when it’s convenient and very frequently are in error. The SB chair usually has to ask someone else when/what/how a motion is needed or Roberts Rules apply! But rather than keeping order, and treating all members with respect, I guess a free for all then cutting off the cameras is the preferred “order”!!

    Why not say “let’s look it up?” rather than the shouting over others, mocking laughs and facetious laughing???….It’s quite hypocritical to pretend you have knowledge you clearly don’t possess, while criticizing others for lack of knowledge and decorum, when behaving so poorly yourself!!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s