MBR battle continues

WINSTED — The school district officially opened Thursday, Sept. 1, but the Board of Selectmen and the Winchester Board of Education continue to fight over the school district’s minimum budget requirement (MBR) for school year 2011-12.Town voters passed a budget in late May that set education funding at $18,600,000, which is $1,449,466 below the state-set MBR.Earlier in August, Brian Mahoney, chief financial officer for the state Department of Education, wrote a letter to both the selectmen and the town that indicated the town is not compliant with the MBR.On Monday, Aug. 22, the Board of Selectmen voted to have Town Attorney Kevin Nelligan draft a letter challenging the department’s findings.In the letter, which was written and sent to the department on Wednesday, Aug. 24, Nelligan outlined four reasons why the selectmen believe that the town can meet the MBR.Nelligan requests that Mahoney incorporate the four points into the MBR calculation.The first point Nelligan makes is that the town has experienced a declining school enrollment, which was already factored into the MBR calculation with a reduction of $211,079.“However, the town believes a further reduction of $568,366 is warranted,” Nelligan wrote in his letter. “The town’s Board of Education closed the seventh- and eighth-grade program and contracted with The Gilbert School to provide the services previously supplied by the town. The Board of Education budget demonstrates savings of $568,366 from the consolidation.”In his second point, Nelligan wrote that the town should receive financial credit for closing a school building, even though the Board of Education voted in late April not to close a school building.“The capacity for [all three town-owned school buildings] is 1,836 and the enrollment for the town [in school year 2011-12] is 669,” Nelligan wrote in his letter. “When the decision was made to close the seventh and eighth grade and outsource the education to The Gilbert School, the Board of Education publicly indicated that one of the schools would be closed. The budget presented to the town voters reflected the anticipated savings from a school closing.”Nelligan wrote that the savings in closing Batcheller School would be $548,414 and the savings in closing Pearson School would be $764,618.“The town is asking that credit be given for these documented savings,” Nelligan wrote.The third point Nelligan made in his letter is that the town will be paying approximately $151,512 for asbestos remediation at Pearson School.“These funds are from the town’s capital account and are fully attributable to taxpayer funds,” Nelligan wrote.The final point Nelligan made in his letter is that the town will make special appropriations for the benefit of the Board of Education to deal with any excess costs of special education.“A payment in the prior fiscal year was $987,000 and a similar payment is expected this [fiscal] year,” Nelligan wrote in his letter.In response to both the special selectmen’s meeting and Nelligan’s letter, on Friday, Aug 26, Superintendent of Schools Thomas Danehy sent a mass email to more than 60 residents, mainly to parents of school district children.“Our school funding is a major issue and I would like for all of you to have eyes wide open as the year begins,” Danehy wrote in his email. “Dire education consequences [will] result from a budget of $18,600,000; class sizes average 45 [students] mid-year, no physical education, art or music [classes], teacher contract violations in class size and planning time, reductions in special education services and numerous other cuts to make up the $1.3 million shortfall.”Attached to his email, Danehy sent a copy of a letter he sent to Mahoney, which is a response to the letter Nelligan sent.“Regretfully, I must report that I do not expect that the town will provide funding at [the required MBR] level,” Danehy wrote in his letter. “Know that our system is in dire need of adequate funding after several years of zero or very low percentage increases which have rendered our district operating on a bare bones funding pattern. Our students, parents, teachers and staff deserve to start the school year knowing that their teacher in June will be the same one they had on the first day of school.”Danehy then explained the same points he made in his email to parents.“Underfunding will also trigger a chain of events … including mid-year teacher and staff layoffs, inadequate or no supplies and instructional resources to students and a learning environment devoid of essentials to allow for effective teaching and learning to occur,” Danehy wrote in his letter.Danehy then took issue with the way the town has taken funds from the state, specifically excess cost payments, and placed them in the town’s fund balance.“[The town] did not include excess cost payments as part of the town appropriation in 2008-09, 2010-11, and does not include them in 2011-12,” Danehy wrote in his letter. “If excess cost payments were not included for the 2008-09 and 2010-11 school years they cannot be credited to the town’s appropriation for MBR calculations.”Danehy finished his letter by urging a decision from Mahoney.“The statute is the law and elected officials should obey the law regardless of whether they agree with the law,” Danehy wrote in his letter. “We live in a society governed by law. Beyond that there is no indication that the state will not impose a $2,716,298 penalty [for not funding the MBR].”