restored jobs?

Moderator: The Merrimack Volunteer Moderators

restored jobs?

Postby Nat Fairbanks » Wed May 09, 2007 1:19 pm

The Telegraph mentioned that the school board voted to restore two jobs last night but only specified one, the assistant principle. Does anyone know the other?

Thanks,
-Nat
Nat Fairbanks
 
Posts: 1020
Joined: Wed Nov 20, 2002 1:05 am
Location: Merrimack NH

Postby Davis Powell » Wed May 09, 2007 6:58 pm

It was the asst librarian @ MHS.
Davis Powell
 
Posts: 101
Joined: Sat Nov 23, 2002 3:12 pm

Postby Brian McCarthy » Thu May 10, 2007 5:25 am

Link to Telegraph Story (reg. required - try bugmenot.com if you are not)

http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbc ... /205100313
Brian McCarthy
 
Posts: 1347
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 8:12 am
Location: Merrimack, NH

Postby RD » Thu May 10, 2007 8:05 am

[quote]“It seems to me that the will of the town is to spend more money,â€
RD
 
Posts: 5689
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 3:49 pm

Postby Loweresttaxes » Thu May 10, 2007 8:15 am

Phew! Thank goodness. For a little while I thought all our kids were going to trun dumb and drop out. We can all rest easy now though. the retsoration of these jobs will secure a bright future for our children.
"AS FAR AS I'VE SEEN, HIS [Mahmoud Ahmadinejad] ONLY BITCH IS OUR DESIRE TO PREVENT HIS COUNTRY DEVELOPING NUCLEAR POWER." -Fitsy
Loweresttaxes
 
Posts: 1474
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 9:06 pm

Postby RBarnes » Thu May 10, 2007 10:52 am

Markwell and Jenn voted against the Ast. Principal even after the town approved the article? :shock:

I'm also a little surprised the board didn't put the music teacher back as that was one of the more discussed positions.

What was the point of Markwell's motion to delay it 2 weeks?
$DO || ! $DO ; try
try: command not found
User avatar
RBarnes
 
Posts: 6852
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2003 1:21 pm
Location: Merrimack

Postby Jeannine Stergios » Thu May 10, 2007 11:58 am

Rick Barnes

Why are you upset that Jenn and George voted against adding the positions? It was the original intent of the School Board. Weren't they simply sticking to their original vote? If the tax and spenders can go and change whatever they want then why bother having any boards? Why not just let them loose to bankrupt themselves? I notice some of the biggest tax and spenders in my neighborhood now have "For Sale" signs on their homes. I guess their work here is completed and it's time to go and run another town into the ground.

Personally, I'm glad Jenn and George voted the way they did. Not everyone in town was in favor of adding those back in. Just the usual "My kids - your wallet crowd" Which personally make me ill more and more lately. You'd think they were the only people on this planet who ever had kids to hear them go on. YUCK!!!
REPUBLICAN - BECAUSE NOT EVERYONE CAN BE ON WELFARE
Jeannine Stergios
 
Posts: 9306
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 6:36 pm
Location: Jessica Drive Merrimack

Postby RBarnes » Thu May 10, 2007 3:10 pm

Jeannine, the one I'm shocked about is the ast prin position. That was put up in an article and like it or not that article passed. Now you can argue that it passed due to low turn out or whatever other argument you want to make but the fact of the matter is it did pass so it should be supported by the board.
$DO || ! $DO ; try
try: command not found
User avatar
RBarnes
 
Posts: 6852
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2003 1:21 pm
Location: Merrimack

Postby Andy Sylvia » Sat May 12, 2007 9:10 pm

A reporter asked me about this decision today (he might get in trouble if I say which paper, so I won't go further), and we both agreed that it seemed like there was no point to the deliberative session due to this.

I mean, didn't we vote to restore all the positions due to the amendment? Did we just waste our time on Election Day?

I'm beginning to fear that the School Bud Com is going to just as toothless. If there's one thing I know from being on the Ethics Committee, it's toothless boards.
Andy Sylvia
 
Posts: 1869
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 9:34 pm

Postby Loweresttaxes » Sat May 12, 2007 10:05 pm

Andy are you an elected official with secret ties to the media that you will not reveal.

I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that.

I'm not sure that the people of merrimack would be comfortable with that.

I accept that on this forum calling republicans 'right wing' facists and 'haters' is par for the course. I accept that you're unable to see your own spew.

But...I'm not certain that you should have a cozy, secret relationship with members of the media.
"AS FAR AS I'VE SEEN, HIS [Mahmoud Ahmadinejad] ONLY BITCH IS OUR DESIRE TO PREVENT HIS COUNTRY DEVELOPING NUCLEAR POWER." -Fitsy
Loweresttaxes
 
Posts: 1474
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 9:06 pm

Postby Nat Fairbanks » Sun May 13, 2007 12:07 am

Andy Sylvia wrote:A reporter asked me about this decision today (he might get in trouble if I say which paper, so I won't go further), and we both agreed that it seemed like there was no point to the deliberative session due to this.

I mean, didn't we vote to restore all the positions due to the amendment? Did we just waste our time on Election Day?

No, at DS you (actually the majority of people who attended) voted to add ~700,000 to the bottom line of the budget. That gave the authority to the SB to spend that money as they saw fit. The petitioned warrant article that added back the Assistant Principle dealt with a specific job being added back in and would have been a much better way to address the other jobs as well.

Simply adjusting the bottom line budget at DS (even with some people at DS speaking to why they did so) has no bearing on how that money is spent.

-Nat
Nat Fairbanks
 
Posts: 1020
Joined: Wed Nov 20, 2002 1:05 am
Location: Merrimack NH

Postby Andy Sylvia » Sun May 13, 2007 8:24 am

Loweresttaxes wrote: Andy are you an elected official with secret ties to the media that you will not reveal.

I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that.

But...I'm not certain that you should have a cozy, secret relationship with members of the media.


Members of the media are human beings just like you or me. I know, I was a journalist once upon a time myself. And i'm not going to be party to helping a good and competent journalist lose their job, they've already got enough **** to deal with.

I will listen to anyone, but that doesn't mean i'm going to agree or even care what you have to say.

LT, you're a coward hiding behind an anonymous name You're also an attack dog not trying to build a consensus to solve problems that our community and nation faces, but a partisan trying to destablize discussion towards building that consensus.

I don't care if you don't feel comfortable. You don't deserve to feel comfortable after all of the lurkers on here you've made uncomfortable.

It's never too late to change your ways, but until then, enjoy your karma.




Loweresttaxes wrote:I'm not sure that the people of merrimack would be comfortable with that.


How would you know anything about the people or Merrimack? How do we even know you're a resident of Merrimack?

Don't talk to me about the people of Merrimack. I've lived here all my life, nobody knows where you live.
Andy Sylvia
 
Posts: 1869
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 9:34 pm

Postby Andy Sylvia » Sun May 13, 2007 8:27 am

Nat Fairbanks wrote:
Andy Sylvia wrote:A reporter asked me about this decision today (he might get in trouble if I say which paper, so I won't go further), and we both agreed that it seemed like there was no point to the deliberative session due to this.

I mean, didn't we vote to restore all the positions due to the amendment? Did we just waste our time on Election Day?

No, at DS you (actually the majority of people who attended) voted to add ~700,000 to the bottom line of the budget. That gave the authority to the SB to spend that money as they saw fit. The petitioned warrant article that added back the Assistant Principle dealt with a specific job being added back in and would have been a much better way to address the other jobs as well.

Simply adjusting the bottom line budget at DS (even with some people at DS speaking to why they did so) has no bearing on how that money is spent.

-Nat


That's my point, Nat.

Why did we even bother with the DS if the result was so inconsequential, and why aren't more people upset that the intentions of the people discussed at the DS are being ignored? I don't care if it's putting in more money or taking out money, the will of the people should be followed.
Andy Sylvia
 
Posts: 1869
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 9:34 pm

Postby RBarnes » Sun May 13, 2007 8:31 am

Andy Sylvia wrote:I mean, didn't we vote to restore all the positions due to the amendment? Did we just waste our time on Election Day?


Andy, 300 +/- people voted to toss thousands at the school board which the board said they did not want or near. The people on election day were left with no choice on the budget so many made it clear they felt they had no choice but to vote for the lower budget (which had the money the school board said they didn't need).

The article for the ast prin gave voters a clear cut choice. If all positions were asked for via articles and THAT passed then I'd have said add them all back in. But to have added all positions even when those who voted to add the money in said weren't ALL needed would have been completely irresponsible on the boards part.
$DO || ! $DO ; try
try: command not found
User avatar
RBarnes
 
Posts: 6852
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2003 1:21 pm
Location: Merrimack

Postby Andy Sylvia » Sun May 13, 2007 9:22 am

RBarnes wrote:
Andy Sylvia wrote:I mean, didn't we vote to restore all the positions due to the amendment? Did we just waste our time on Election Day?


Andy, 300 +/- people voted to toss thousands at the school board which the board said they did not want or near. The people on election day were left with no choice on the budget so many made it clear they felt they had no choice but to vote for the lower budget (which had the money the school board said they didn't need).

The article for the ast prin gave voters a clear cut choice. If all positions were asked for via articles and THAT passed then I'd have said add them all back in. But to have added all positions even when those who voted to add the money in said weren't ALL needed would have been completely irresponsible on the boards part.


Rick, then why did we even bother with the DS?

I've long said that Deliberative Sessions are horrible things, and this is just another example.

The average citizen will look at this example and lose faith in participating in our democracy since their voice only has "advisory" value. Even if it's a bad idea, if the people want something, and we live in a democracy, respresentative or direct, that's what should be done.

If we don't want democracy, fine, there wouldn't be a problem with ignoring the will of the people. Until then, it should be followed or we're just lying to ourselves.
Andy Sylvia
 
Posts: 1869
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 9:34 pm

Next

Return to School Topics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests

cron