Keene Sentinel – The voters already had their say
To The Sentinel:
The Monadnock Regional School District will hold a special vote for a teachers contract on Sept. 9.
The March 11, warrant article for a teachers contract was defeated by the district voters.
The school board, administration and teachers union could have included a warrant article asking for a second vote if the teachers contract was not approved.
They chose not to do this and therefore the next district vote would be March 2009.
Instead, they choose to petition the court and ask for an emergency vote. This time, the voters had to rely on one judge to deem whether this new vote was indeed an emergency.
It is interesting to know that Senator Molly Kelly, and Governor Lynch, both Democrats, had an invitation from the Chairman of the school board to view the middle/high school without the full school board being aware of the visit.
Soon after, the district petitioned the court for an emergency vote.
The judge hearing such cases in Cheshire County comes from a liberal, activist Democratic law firm, and was appointed to the court by Governor Lynch in October 2007.
Questions come to mind. Why the semi-secret meeting at the school with no minutes recorded, and when the public asked questions about the visit, the school board refused any answers?
Why was the Republican state representative not invited?
And if it was an emergency, why did the court take from June 12 to July 14 to issue a ruling?
There were three interveners to this petition, Sullivan, Fitzwilliam and the Monadnock Schools Taxpayers Association (MSTA), all arguing against any emergency.
After the ruling, there were five motions of reconsideration, and injunctive relief based on legislative RSAs for notice requirements to the public.
The court choose to go forth with a special meeting stating only that there was an emergency.
The taxpayers association totally disagrees with the decision, but the court must be respected.
If you the voters believe that the vote on Sept. 9 is truly an emergency, consider what you are basing your decision on.
Could it be teachers attending class with Home Depot aprons on? Could it be the teachers intimidating students to have parents vote for a new contract or the teacher will be out of a job?
Perhaps it was the Friday sick out when 29 teachers refused to come to school.
Was it the posters the students were allowed to make during class time in support of teachers, and then encouraged and permitted to go outside and picket while teachers watched? It seems like it’s all about the teachers.
The school board tells you the new contract is different then the March 2008 teachers contract that voters did not approve.
Not so.
For starters, early retirement does not end. You the taxpayer are obligated until 2016 in funding it. The town of Sullivan has a pending litigation in Superior Court due to be heard the second week of September.
The town is challenging the legality of teachers early retirement, which has been going on since 2001. Five to seven teachers a year are allowed to receive up to $25,00 to stay home, away from school.
This all is funded for by you the taxpayer for seven years.
And you never were warned.
The school board and administration would like you to pass this new version of the teachers contract on Sept 9. That would mute the Sullivan court case and you the taxpayer are the loser.
As the wife of the president of the Monadnock Schools Taxpayers Association, I know that Mr. Bauries takes constant abuse regarding the issues when he and other association members take a stand. Most come from people remaining anonymous in their assaults. You may disagree with his position, but no one can question his facts. He does his homework and documents the information.
There is no emergency. Teachers are getting a paycheck.
They still get 90 percent of their health care paid for by you the taxpayer.
They get the summer off. And remember, this is the same union that refused to allow the district to change health care carriers, which would have saved you the taxpayer $850,000 a year.
At what point does the district March 2008 “no” vote count? You decide, as for me I stand by the recommendation of the taxpayers association in voting “no” on this contract.
PATRICIA BAURIES
Swanzey
###
Note: If everything Mrs. Bauries states in this letter is true (and we have no reason to believe it isn’t) then there may have been a blatant violation of RSA 659:44-a which concerns Electioneering by Public Employees.
RSA 659:44-a reads:
_ No public employee, as defined in RSA 273-A:1, IX, shall electioneer while in the performance of his or her official duties or use government property, including, but not limited to, telephones, facsimile machines, vehicles, and computers, for electioneering. For the purposes of this section, “electioneer” means to act in any way specifically designed to influence the vote of a voter on any question or office. Any person who violates this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
RSA 273-A:1, IX and X read as follows:
IX. “Public employee” means any person employed by a public employer
except:
_ (a) Persons elected by popular vote;
_ (b) Persons appointed to office by the chief executive or legislative body of the public employer;
_ (c) Persons whose duties imply a confidential relationship to the public employer; or
_ (d) Persons in a probationary or temporary status, or employed seasonally, irregularly or on call.
For the purposes of this chapter, however, no employee shall be determined to be in a probationary status who shall have been employed for more than 12 months or who has an individual contract with his employer, nor shall any employee be determined to be in a temporary status solely by reason of the source of funding of the position in which he is employed.
_ X. “Public employer” means the state and any political subdivision thereof, the judicial branch of the state, any quasi-public corporation, council, commission, agency or authority, and the state university system.