2025 School Deliberative Session
All warrant articles moved to ballot as written.
All of the warrant articles were moved to the ballot as written. However, an advisory motion passed, requesting that the Budget Committee reconsider its negative recommendation, on a 5 to 5 vote, of Warrant Article #4 to increase the salary and benefits for the school’s paraprofessionals.
Several proposed amendments to warrant articles failed.
One was to amend Warrant Article #4 to make clear that the proposed additional spending each year compounded upon the increased spending of the prior year. Another attempted amendment to Warrant Article #4 was to insert language saying that the collective bargaining agreement was not negotiated in accordance with a previous warrant article passed by the town calling for making the negotiations transparent to the public.
An amendment to zero out the funding for Warrant Article #7, to replace the school’s pottery kiln, failed.
There were several problems with the audio/video recording. Audio of much of the beginning of the deliberative session was not captured. Once this was corrected, much of the recording was hard to hear.
Watch the video:
Now that I'm re-watching this sessions, I find it concerning that one member of the Budget Committee didn't recommend Warrant Article #8. Especially considering that by law, we are required to provide special education services. This fund ensures that Nottingham School has the necessary resources to meet these legal obligations without creating unexpected financial strain in the future. Refusing to plan ahead for special education needs doesn’t change our responsibility—it only makes it harder to meet it when the time comes.
This vote also makes me question the judgment of that one Budget Committee member. If even legally required services don’t receive their full support, what other essential student needs might they oppose? Does anyone know who that was?
I remember the warrant about having the collective bargaining agreement made transparent for the public (I think done in public might have been the wording...) but as I recall, that was declared illegal and therefore unenforceable. Does anyone else remember it that way?