The Bottom Line on the Manchester Board of Education's Budget Vote

Everyone loves to save money. 

I painstakingly review my finances every paycheck to decide where my money is going, how I can cut back and how I can put together meaningful savings for those things that a young couple hopes to achieve. 

There are some cuts that are no-brainers, like making coffee at home instead of stopping at Starbucks or Dunkin' Donuts on the way to work (estimated savings: approximately $20/week) and bringing lunch (estimated savings: approximatel $50/week). 

Even in my desperate attempt to save money, I know that cutting back on big ticket - yet necessary items - would be foolish. 

For instance, I could have saved $500 by not doing some maintenance on my car recently but I would have ran the risk of ruining my car beyond repair and then having to buy a new one OR I could resist going to the doctor for regular check-ups since those co-pays add up but I could then be faced with a very expensive healthcare emergency down the road. 

My point is: while saving money is great, we can't risk focusing on the wrong things and be negligent of the bigger picture, which is why I supported a 2.28 percent increase in the Manchester Board of Education budget this week.

Let me backtrack to when we started Budget Workshops in January: the was a 2.78 percent increase from last year, which he felt maintained the level of education our students are currently receiving to making it slightly better. I felt that that was an important question to ask of him to determine if we were doing what was right by our students. Every decision I make as a Board member is rooted ultimately in how does this affect our kids? Does it make their education better? 

The original budget proposal had Nathan Hale as operational, but as the budget process progressed it was clear that of the students to keep Nathan Hale online given its facilities issues. With the reduction of Nathan Hale and the subsequent pre-K program that was created to racially balance our district, we had a reduction of just over $900,000 and were down to a 1.78 percent increase.

When the Superintendent originally calculated his budget, he stated that he was hoping to get to somewhere around 2.5% given the economic times but that there were still critical items that had been left off his proposed budget including additional monies for capital repair and another $410,000 in educational programming.

In our final budget session, it was clear that Nathan Hale was coming offline for the 2012-13 school year, but what did that mean to the budget? Several ideas were presented for putting money back into the budget including: pre-K, an increase to the capital repairs, and for educational programming. Pre-K was no longer an option with Nathan Hale being offline due to lack of space so we were left with examining capital repairs and educational programming.

There was some concern on the Board that an investment in capital repairs may be futile based on the formation of the joint committee to come up with a longterm plan for our district, which prompted me to ask Dr. Kisiel if he could have $200,000 from his educational priorities that did not find their way into our budget what would they be? Without missing a beat, he said that would add a Grade 1 teacher and three tutors to our roster. 

After a brief recess, it looked like there may not be support for both capital repairs AND educational programming but there may be support of one or another. It dawned on me that when Dr. Kisiel originally presented his budget that he wanted to be close to 2.5 percent increase for the integrity of our education while being mindful of our taxpayers. I wanted to know that if his original budget did not have Nathan Hale online if he would have asked for a 1.78 percent increase, to which he replied that he would have been somewhere between where we are now and where we were weeks ago and he would have increased capital repairs and educational programming line items. I believe the Board came to a very strong compromise of investing in more capital repairs AND educational programming by putting $400,000 back into our budget.   

It was clear to me that the Superintedent's intentions would have been to include additional monies for educational programming and capital repairs if he originally presented the budget without Nathan Hale online. I defer to his good judgment and his year's of experience in determining what our students need. As Board of Education Chairman Chris Pattacini said "[We] are not educators (aside from Ms. Walton) and must defer to the educators on their recommendations for budget priorities."

In good conscience, I could not have supported only a 1.78 percent increase in the budget knowing that it did not put more money into capital repairs given the recent facilities assessment and meaningful education programming that would reduce class size and serve our students better.  As a Board member, I feel we are charged with providing the best education possible for every student by providing outstanding teachers, programs, services AND facilities that enable every student to achieve their maximum potential. 

It is clear that we cannot afford to be penny wise and pound foolish with our schools. I feel that the budget recommendation the Board of Education passed 8-1 was responsible for both our students and taxpayers of our community.