25% health/dental increase: Interlakes Schools

[fatlazyless]

For any local Meredith, Center Harbor & Sandwich property tax payers, policy wonks, or parents with kids in their local school system, here's a Citizen article worth reading.

Apparently, the cost of insuring the teachers and staff at the schools for health and dental is looking to increase by 25%. And at the same time, there's a 14% increase in the contribution to state retirement funds. Plus, a 4% boost in school employee salaries.

Trying to figure out where to make cuts in the overall schools programs and budget to accomodate these large increases is what's being discussed. The goal of the Inter-Lakes School Board is to keep the increase for the coming 2010-2011 budget down to an increase of 1.25%. How the heck they will be able to accomplish that is a good question?

www.citizen.com click on News, January 19, 2010, by Ron Tunning

The Inter-Lakes School Board will be addressing the school administration's recommendations at its' next meeting to be held 6:30-pm Tuesday January 26, at the Humiston Building, Main St. Meredith, next to the Meredith Library. The public is invited to offer input.

[ishoot308]

Does not seem too bad considering Athem just hit my company for a 41% increase on health insurance alone! Still waiting to hear how much dental is going up!

Dan

[gokart-mozart]

"Trying to figure out where to make cuts in the overall schools programs and budget to accomodate these large increases is what's being discussed"

Simple.

Cut nothing, covered employees pay the difference.

Problem solved. What's wrong with these people?

[BroadHopper]

The problem is the union negotiated with the town so that the union members do not pay the difference, the town do. The towns needs to get out of this contract. In the private sector, the employees pay the difference, not the employers.

[VitaBene]

Unfunded Pension and Health Insurance Liabilities for our public retirees will be one of the greatest challenges facing us fiscally unless true reform is brought about.

[Argie's Wife]

Originally Posted by gokart-mozart

"Trying to figure out where to make cuts in the overall schools programs and budget to accomodate these large increases is what's being discussed"

Simple.

Cut nothing, covered employees pay the difference.

Problem solved. What's wrong with these people?

Nothing wrong with people.

But the teachers' contract, as negotiated by the school board and teachers' association, and approved by the voters does NOT include that kind of increase. Teaching contracts come up every 2 to 3 years for re-negoiation and that would be a good time to put some language into the contract for such a thing, assuming both parties (school board and teachers' association) agree... and the voters approve the new contract.

Getting out of the budget would most likely cost more in the long-run and I would wager this was looked into but the idea dismissed because - again - it was the will of the voters that the current contract was approved, at whatever time it was passed. I will assume that the contract passed back when we were a fat and happy nation, just a little over a year ago...

However, health insurance providers and dental insurance providers could be changed. I would hope the business office (SAU office) looking into alternative providers before presenting their budget.

Our district has frozen their budget for two years in a row and returned money to the town each year in unencumbered funds. The budget up for approval by voters this year (for the 2010-2011 school year) is level funded from the previous year. The default budget for 2010-2011 is MORE than the requested operating budget. In other words, if the budget gets voted down and the school has to run on a default budget, then they will have MORE money for the year than if the budget has passed. Go figure.

[fatlazyless]

After poking around on google, here's a little info concerning something that's different between School Administrative Unit #72 (includes Argie's Wife's hometown of Alton & a couple other nearby towns) and SAU #3, Meredith k-12, Centre Harbor k-12, Sandwich k-12, and Ashland elementary k-8.

SAU-3 is a SCHOOL MEETING district and makes its spending decisions with an annual school district meeting, to be held this year on Wednesday, March 3, 2010.

SAU-72 is a SCHOOL ELECTION district and makes its' spending decisions with an annual school district election.

By virtue of having a school election, SAU-72 knows very well that their warrant articles will be scrutinized on a written election ballot. Interestingly, I believe that SAU-72 now has a warrant article on the upcoming March town election ballot to eliminate their SB-2 style of voting and return to the old style of school meeting voting. Why do they want to do that?

The voters of the SAU-72 towns passed a school SB-2 vote and therefore school spending is determined by individual warrant articles on the annual school district election day ballot.

Meredith voters have the opportunity to attend the annual SAU-3 school district meeting and vote with a show of hands. It is somewhat similar to the Meredith town meeting and it is held in the Interlakes High School.

The spending decisions for SAU-3 are decided by those who choose to attend the annual school district meeting, and that is certainly and most likely people who have an interest in their local school. (Read: parents of students)

[Argie's Wife]

By virtue of having a school election, SAU-72 knows very well that their warrant articles will be scrutinized on a written election ballot. Interestingly, I believe that SAU-72 now has a warrant article on the upcoming March town election ballot to eliminate their SB-2 style of voting and return to the old style of school meeting voting. Why do they want to do that?

I respectfully ask you to quote your source and check the date. I'm very involved with the school and town meetings. There is no such article on the Warrant. I have a copy of all the Warrant articles, as presented, at the January 12, 2010 public hearing of the school budget.

Personally, I wish they would do just that - I am no fan of SB-2 and feel it has more short-comings than long-suits. But there's NO WAY it will go away unless the voters approve it. I thought it was a good thing when it was presented - in practice, it's not that wonderful...

The spending decisions for SAU-3 are decided by those who choose to attend the annual school district meeting, and that is certainly and most likely people who have an interest in their local school. (Read: parents of students)

That logic can swing either way - both "the school people" and "the naysayers" can attend a meeting and vote in whichever way they prefer. The more the merrier!

Trust me when I say that there's not that many parents of students involved to this degree - I wish that was not the case. I wish more parents were involved and more should be done by the towns and schools to facilitate parent involvement - such as educating voters about absentee ballots, having the local PTA or the Nation Honor Society at the high school or whathaveyou provide free babysitting so that single parents or both parents can attend a deliberative session or town meeting, memos to parents about the deliberative sessions (both town and school) or town meeting should go home to them... and so on.

However, after having been in a situation where Argie and I both worked away from home, full-time, and had horrible commutes, with both boys in daycare, I can sympathize with the parents who just can't make it to these types of meetings - I get it.

[gokart-mozart]

"But the teachers' contract, as negotiated by the school board and teachers' association, and approved by the voters does NOT include that kind of increase."

TS.

That was then, this is now. All these municipal "contracts" are invalid anyway, since neither the executive branch nor the courts set tax rates.

[twoplustwo]

...it's the insurance companies and the entire health care industry from the pharmies to the hospitals to their affiliated doctor's offices screwing us for every dime they can. They are the root of this evil. If LRGH can afford to knock 20% off of every bill paid on the day of service, why can't they just charge less to begin with? Why will they take a UCR of $50 from the insurance company then charge someone without insurance $85 for the same service? If a treatment is worth $50, then charge everyone $50 for it.

[Argie's Wife]

Originally Posted by gokart-mozart

"But the teachers' contract, as negotiated by the school board and teachers' association, and approved by the voters does NOT include that kind of increase."

TS.

That was then, this is now. All these municipal "contracts" are invalid anyway, since neither the executive branch nor the courts set tax rates.

Uh, nope. That's now. Here and now. Period.

Try to challenge a contact that's been passed by the voters (or NOT passed) and see how far you get. You cannot just change a contract that's been passed by the voters because an unforeseen expense came up. You CAN re-negoiate the contract for the next round OR amend a contract and hold a special hearing with a vote (ballot) taken afterwards - but that costs money, too. It can be changed by a special hearing and vote - again - as decided by either a majority vote or two-thirds vote - depending on the type of warrant article that is presented. (A teachers' contract would be a majorty vote, I believe.)

Of course the courts don't set the tax rates - how silly is that - but they do have to uphold the intent of the voters, as they interpret the warrant articles presented at the time of voting. That's the process, my friend.

[fatlazyless]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

And at the same time, there's a 14% increase in the contribution to state retirement funds.

I believe that last June 2009 the state legislature passed a rule attached to a new law that will lower state aid from 35% to 25%. Over the next three years, state contributions to cities & towns for their employee pensions will decline from 35 to 30 to 25%. Maybe, that is what's driving this 14% Meredith pension cost increase?

One thing that I do not understand; the state has no say what-so-ever how much cities & towns pay their employees, so why should the state be responsible for paying 35% of their pension costs?

[Rattlesnake Guy]

My private sector experience is when the rate goes up after your best negotiations, our company pays about half of the increase and the employee pays about half. Sometimes we might increase our deductibles or shop for a new insurance company to find a more competitive rate. We remind ourselves that our rates are partly driven by our usage of the services. If we use less, our rates go up less.

[fatlazyless]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

Plus, a 4% boost in school employee salaries.

Unemployment statewide here in New Hampshire rose up to 7.0% for December 2009, a new high, and the outlook is definately gloomy. For many NH residents, unemployment is a catastrophe!

So where does the money come from to pay for all these increases at the local school?

[BroadHopper]

Wall Street Journal reports 41% of the labor force have been effected by the recession. They are unemployed, underemployed (working pt instead ft) or working with reduced salary. A figure that politicians refuse to acknowledged by increasing taxes and fees.

Many employees in the private sector did not get COLA last year and have paid more into their benefits. Yet the unions refuse to follow the norm.

The retail trade and hospitality industry reports that many members have seen sales down as much as 40% and more. This coincide with the above employment report. I know a number of hospitality companies that reduce their full time staff to part time. Instead of lay off.

[HUH]

This is the insurance companies reacting to the current administrations push for nationalized HC. Just as the banks cranked up rates to recover whatever they could before being strangled.. so go the insurance companies. Thanks Mr O bama

[fatlazyless]

Today's www.laconiadailysun.com, January 27, has a front page article on last night's Interlakes School Board meeting.

"Faced with reality of cut I-L board decides +2.78% is low enough"

The news article at the start of this thread from the Citizen by Ron Tunning reports the School Board proposed to keep the increase to +1.25%. So, after one meeting that was held at the elementary school library last night due to a large turn-out of about 100 people, probably all very concerned and articulate parents, it is now an increase of +2.78% for the next fiscal school year of 2010-2011.......budda-bing......k-ching......(olde cash register sounds here) !

There you go, no surprises here, property taxes going up, up, & away!

per/student spending

Center Harbor: $19,800

Meredith ......... 15,200

Sandwich ........ 17,200

(source: www.citizen.com Jan 27, & a follow-up, Jan 28, Ron Tunning article)

"Inter-Lakes board gets earful on budget cuts" 1/27

"Meredith: I-L board restores administration cuts" 1/28

WWW.laconiadailysun.com Jan 28

"Inter Lakes board hoping irate voters will restore cuts" by Adam Drapcho

[ishoot308]

Originally Posted by HUH

This is the insurance companies reacting to the current administrations push for nationalized HC. Just as the banks cranked up rates to recover whatever they could before being strangled.. so go the insurance companies. Thanks Mr O bama

You are 100% correct!! We were told straight out by our insurance carrier that due to the impending tax on insurance carriers and certain plans by the Obama administration these costs were being forwarded to you know who!! In our instance the increase for health insurance for someone on the family plan is $532.00 per month!!!