Nottingham School Board Meeting September 21, 2022

Transgender books in the school library? Was Warrant Article #24 legal and enforceable? Is the School Board competent to negotiate with the teacher’s union? Will the School Board cap the budget?

Transgender Issues

Budget Committee member Michael Kelly said that he was looking at the school library website and saw that it “was very proud to announce that they have transgender books, and I have heard from some other parents in some other school districts that these are very sexually explicit. So, as a parent of young kids, I was pretty concerned. Has anyone been able to review the books that are in the library?”

The response was that this had not been done, and the board was not aware of books in the school library on that topic. If there are specific books of concern one can write to the School Board’s email address. Michael Kelly then requested a list of books in the library so that he could review them. In the meantime, the board would look into the issue.

[If there is anything about this on the school library website I was unable to find it; although I looked at the website three days after the meeting happened. The library website does have a search feature. I did a search on “transgender” and got two hits: Lily and Dunkin and Pet. According to the book descriptions, these books contain transgender characters.]

Michael Kelly then asked if any part of the school’s curriculum addressed transgenderism. The board said they had investigated that issue and that there is nothing on that issue but “acceptance and understanding across the board as overarching values.”

Follow-up on Requiring Contract Negotiation Meetings to be Public

Budget Committee member Tom Butkiewicz addressed the School Board regarding the School Board’s response to his presentation at the last meeting concerning 2022 Warrant Article #24, about making negotiations with the teachers union public, saying, “as I understand it what you guys came up with is that you’re essentially going to give us a statement after every meeting…. Is that … like meeting minutes?” The response was that at the negotiation meeting held the prior day there had been agreement between the parties to issue a statement following each negotiation meeting concerning the “nuts and bolts of what we talked about” and “the goal of the next meeting.”

Tom Butkiewicz asked if the public had been allowed to attend that meeting. The answer was no, and that these meetings have in the past never been public. Tom Butkiewicz responded, “your hands should be tied. The voters already ruled in and said that these negotiation meetings need to be open to the public…. It sounds like you guys are just going ahead and having these meetings without announcing the time and place to the public or allowing the public in there.” The response was that the School Board was bound by existing rules about the negotiation meetings. In addition, the warrant article did not appear on the school ballot. While this may seem like a technicality, it’s substantive. It means that the article was never reviewed by the School Board’s council and never discussed at the School Deliberative Session. Consequently, there’s never been a public discussion of the negotiation rules the School Board is hemmed in by. RSA 91-a specifically excludes collective bargaining meetings from being made public. Further, the town cannot require the NTA and NEA to follow rules the town sets.

Tom Butkiewicz responded, “I was warned in advance that you guys might try to say that you might consider the warrant article to be advisory, so it was specifically worded to say that it directs the School Board to do it, so that you know that it is directing you to do something, not advising you that we would like you to do something….” “I have been told that you guys have weaseled out things in the past that way.” He went on to dispute the interpretation of RSA 91-and of the warrant article, claiming that the warrant article was legal. The response was that the School Board’s attorney has told the board that “petitioned warrant articles are by nature advisory” and that both parties to a negotiation must agree on the rules for the negotiation.

Tom Butkiewicz asked, “if all petition warrant articles are advisory, then what power does the voters of this town actually have?” The response was that the verb “direct” in warrant articles did not mean “direct to do” but to “direct to consider” and that it was the School Board, who are the elected representatives of the town who are to make the decision. The School Board’s attorney will be providing a written legal opinion. Tom Butkiewicz requested that the attorney also advise about “what wording can we put on a warrant article that would actually allow the voters to have some actual sway.” He was told that the NH department of revenue administration had jurisdiction over the matter and that he should inquire there.

Tom Butkiewicz returned to the issue of the warrant article not having been placed on the school ballot, saying he “gave the warrant article to the town’s clerk who’s running the election…. It was left up to the election officials [what ballot to put the warrant article on].” He was told that to ensure that a warrant article involving the school appears on the school ballot that the petition should be given to the school’s clerk. [See related prior article about errors in the 2022 ballot.]

Tom Butkiewicz asked if the warrant article were to go through the process of appearing on the school ballot, “would you still get to be able to say that you consider it advisory? We don’t know that you guys negotiate with the taxpayers’ best interests….” “For all we know … the union walks in and says ‘these are our demands’ and you guys go, ‘oh, yeah, the taxpayers can cover that no problem.’” “How do we know you’re not in there drinking Dunkin Doughnuts coffee?” The response was that the board negotiates in good faith and that’s what they were elected to do. Tom Butkiewicz replied that he did not think that the negotiations were “getting a good deal for the people of Nottingham” and he was seeing no evidence that there “was any hard negotiation.” He asked whether the School Board “ever hired a professional negotiator … to actually negotiate? Or is it left up to random School Board people?” He was told that the school superintendent and legal counsel were involved in negotiations, and the negotiations were done in good faith. Tom Butkiewicz asked if anyone involved “actually had any training in negotiations?” The response was that training was provided to board members when they join the board.

Follow-up on 4% Budget Cap

Budget Committee member Michael Kelly brought up 2022 Warrant Article #26, placing a 4% cap on recommended budgets, which he asserted applies to both the school and the town. [This was an unresolved issue at the September 1 Budget Committee meeting.] The response was that the School Board had reviewed the Budget Committee’s discussion on the issue. The School Board understands that the Budget Committee is empowered to recommend budgets based on whatever criteria it chooses, and that it anticipates that the Budget Committee will impose a 4% cap on the school budget. Consequently, the board currently plans to present a budget that does not exceed that cap, but in saying so it was not committing itself to instituting this cap.

Watch the video: