by Ed Naile

Here is one of our “Captured Documents,” an email from the Souhegan School Board to parents of students they had email addresses for.

The message is strictly political and uses tax dollars to promote a political message at a cost to taxpayers who may hold a different opinion. That is known as Compelled Speech. The pivotal NH case is Derry Taxpayers vs. Derry.

The schools know better but try to get away with it every so often. This is a pretty open and shut example. Read it for yourself. When you come across something like this let us know so we can post it.

—–Original Message—–
From: Souhegan High School [mailto:Souhegan-HS@sau39.k12.nh.us]
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 7:59 AM
To: PIAM@sprise.com
Subject: Souhegan Parents

Dear Souhegan Parents,

For those folks who were unable to attend the Feb. 7 Souhegan Deliberative Session, the Souhegan Cooperative School Board (SCSB) would like to offer an overview of our budget presentation. These issues will be decided at the ballot box on March 8.

Article 1 is the election of new officers. Four candidates are running for two available seats on the Souhegan Cooperative School Board. Please take the time to educate yourself on these choices.

Article 2: The Operating Budget. The SCSB has worked very hard to present a fiscally sound budget, most of which includes items over which we have little or no input (i.e.: increases in special ed., staff health and dental benefits, & state retirement contribution). At the public hearing, several questions were raised about whether modest raises for our teachers and support staff should be included in the regular budget or separated out as a warrant article. After seeking opinions from multiple attorneys and the NH Dept. of Revenue Administration, the SCSB is confident that the proposed budget is proper and in the best interest of the district. We are in a different position than the Amherst School District in this regard: Souhegan’s teachers and support staffs are not unionized and our staffs have one-year agreements, not multi-year agreements. Additional questions were asked about what increases for the teachers/staff were included in the default. The default budget has been adjusted as specified in the state statute to include only previously agreed upon obligations such as career growth, continuing contract, and an annual step increase. It does not include the recently agreed upon increase to the teachers’ base salaries or to the step. With the majority of increases in the ’05-’06 budget beyond our control, we stand strongly behind this proposed budget and ask for your support by voting ‘YES’ to article 2 on March 8th.

*Projected tax increase for Amherst, $177/year for a house assessed at $300,000;

For Mont Vernon, $60/year for a house assessed at $300,000.

Article3: to establish an expendable trust to pay for unanticipated repair and maintenance of school facilities and equipment and for capital improvements. There was much discussion surrounding the dollar amount to be placed in the trust. This article sets up the trust fund with one dollar. Once established the SCSB can place additional funds in the fund each year, with the voters’ approval. We urge you to support this article as it is a way for us to be prepared for the long term needs of our facilities.

Article 4: School Lunch Program and Federal Funds. We have to submit this article annually to seek the voters’ approval to allow us to accept these funds for our free and reduced lunch program. This article is a formality, and has NO impact on the tax rate.

Article 5: A petition warrant article submitted by Lee Slocum, asking voters to approve voting on the SAU 39 budget as a separate warrant article. The SAU 39 budget is comprised almost entirely of the salaries of those individuals who work at our SAU , provide our three school districts with all the essential services required for each district’s daily operation. The Souhegan Board, the Souhegan Finance Committee, and the Amherst School District Ways & Means Committee oppose this petition article. After a careful review, these three citizen groups believe it is poorly conceived and full of flaws. In particular, there are glaring irregularities in the voting procedure which compromise fairness and impartiality of our voting system. We believe the current budget process is sound with many opportunities for public input. Therefore, we feel strongly that this article will not have the public benefit that the petitioners allege and could, in fact, have the opposite effect. It would hamper our ability to be efficient and cost effective, ultimately hurting all of our districts in terms of our ability to plan budgets. We urge everyone to become educated about this complicated issue and vote NO on Article 5.

Please come to the polls on March 8 and support Souhegan’s budget.

The Souhegan School Board

Janet Gaynor: Gaynje@aol.com
Jeanne Ludt: Jludt50@aol.com
Jan Phelps: jphelps@nhctc.edu
John Rizzi: jrizzi@adelphia.net
John Walsh: mvhilltop@adelphia.net
Steve Coughlan: swc@well.com
Phyllis Thomas: Phyllis.Thomas@adelphia.net