 432. And we will pause when a quorum of the U32 board appears. And just call that meeting to order once there's a quorum. We're getting there. There's three. We need one more. We need one more. So how do we want to begin? I thought maybe we could do introductions. That would be fine. Let me start over here. So I'm Steve Luck. I'm a board member from East Montpelier. I'm Darcy Coleman-Graves, board member from East Montpelier. I'm Ruben Bennett, board member from East Montpelier. Lady Johnson, board member from East Montpelier. Oh, Wendy. This is Lisa who's our board secretary. And I'm majoring in McGeev and the middle sex representative of the U32 school board. Scott Thompson, the college representative of the U32. Chris Leopold. He'll ask me to attend the meeting today at your request to advise you. Thank you for doing so. Welcome to the superintendent schools. Carl Whitkey. Well, what's the rectity of the U32 board? Go ahead, Stephen. Why don't we introduce people back there? I'm Stephen Melton, head of the principal of U32. Hi, Alicia. Like for the pencil, East Montpelier. Well, Baker, I'm a member of the Dodie school board. Kyle Landis-Marinella, just resident of LSEX. Dave Kelly. Dave Warren's Romney parent. I'm Dylan, BPR. Ryan Pelleotero, Romney. Are we expecting the Romney board? Yes, we do. We have two members and they were willing to help them share the cost. Okay. They said they're working. I think it's coming as well, Brian. Just text it and say you can't make it out. You can't make it out. So I've ordered you had questions. I wanted to ask Chris about operational and budget concerns. I hope I paraphrase this right because I know these very two years, this spring was the same motion about and teacher contracts and the current situation. We're in with... So where we are with opposing budgets, you may want to give us a little bit more than that. I'm wondering, since we have an East Montpelier form and we're waiting for some others, I have what may be an East Montpelier specific question, although I think it would relate to you, 32. We're not a party to the lawsuit. If there was an injunction or a stake, how would that affect us since we're not a party to the lawsuit? You don't have to be affected, a party to the lawsuit to be affected by the lawsuit. If my understanding is that Judge Mello has issued a decision today, I received a telephone call on my way here. I haven't seen the decision. I've been told that he did not grant the injunction. Other than that, I have no additional information about it. But if he were to grant an injunction, an injunction would enjoin the state board order from going forward in the context of the unified district in that context. He could have given a narrow injunction and permitted planning to happen, or he could have given an injunction where he prohibited any activity going forward relative to the unified districts. And I just suggested it because it related to our town program. So I assume you're up to speed on where Washington Central is right now. I know where the unified district stands. I have a sense from talking to Bill about where the respective town districts are in the context of the budget processes and where U32 is, and also with respect to the issuing of contracts. And it's my understanding that the portion of the transition board has been sworn in. But not all members in the transition board have begun to engage in any transitional activities as of today. So if you said that it's your understanding that the judge has issued his ruling, how long will that take to be public? Should that be tomorrow, later today, tomorrow? Mr. Kelly may know more than I do, but because I'm not representing any parties involved in that case, I would think the decision is public, and I would assume that perhaps by later tonight you may be able to access electronic copies either via Vermont Digger or other means online. I think it's already on Digger. There you go. So from our perspective, Steve actually put it best on Saturday. We're wanting to make sure that we operate the school. The school is operational. We're basically trying to protect the operation of our schools. And so given all of the vagaries that we find ourselves swirling around in, there are a couple of pretty particular questions. One is around the operational budget for next year and what our possibilities and responsibilities for that are. And the other is around the teacher contracts and what our responsibilities and possibilities are there. And if anybody would like to jump in and summarize better or modify what I'm saying, please feel free to. I just say we need budgets, one way or the other. We need to be able to issue teacher contracts. Right, because that one has, I perhaps arguably more pressure behind it because my understanding is that by May 15th, April 15th, sorry, that contract basically has to be signed, sealed and delivered. And so I think we're all feeling a little overwhelmed because I'll speak for myself. I'm looking down the barrel of an 87.5% potential budget and I'm trying to figure out how that works with signing a teacher contract and personnel is the single biggest expense in any school district. So where does that put us? Let me say at the outset that irrespective of the litigation, I think that the districts in Washington Central would probably feel some anxiousness anyway just because it's the timeline from the State Board issuing an order on November 30th for the districts to become operational, the unified districts to become operational by July 1 is a pretty ambitious timeline in terms of the amount of work that needs to be done and in planning for operations and transition. There are a few of the unified districts in the state unified through the volunteering merger program that had a similar timeline but the majority of districts have had almost a year or in some cases almost two years of transition planning for them to go through what ostensibly you would have had seven months to go through. So let me first deal with the issue of staff and I'll provide you some information. I think ultimately the decisions that you make are the decisions of each of the boards and I'll also include the transition board. There's some language in the State Board order and the articles of agreement that empower the transition board to do some work that I think falls beyond what was initially envisioned. First, a number of the districts, unified districts that went through the voluntary merger program the forming districts or the town school districts and the union high school district went ahead and issued contracts in the spring of their merger year and if you did that and nothing held up the unified union those employment contracts would be the responsibility of the new unified district on July 1 unless there's a court order ruling that the State Board order is unconstitutional or illegal in some respects. So either you can issue those individual employment agreements and then they would be assumed by the unified district or you can issue those contracts and if there's a court order or some other action that might take place a delay by the State Board of Education by the State Legislature for example those individuals would still be employed by you and things would go forward seamlessly in that respect. Conversely a decision could be made conceivably by your transition board and there's some, as I said there's some language in the articles of agreement that empower them to do some things beyond the purely transitional responsibility before a new board is situated. So one, I think you have authority to issue those employment contracts. I think if you decide to do that you may want to include either a memo with each contract to the individual teacher. So are you saying that the individual boards have the authority? I think that the individuals know the individual boards have that authority. And as I said, you know under the voluntary mergers town school boards have done this to issue a memorandum that explains the basis of the contract you might want to wait close to April 15th before you do that to see if there's any more information either from the State Legislature or from the litigation which may shed more light on this and I think that's important to provide that, excuse me, that opportunity. And secondly, you may also want to consider putting some language on the contract that further advises the teacher of the nature of the offering and at that point I would use the best information that you have available again depending on what's happening with the legislature or with the litigation. So would anything further need to be done with a merger to transition those or is it just automatically assumed those contracts or are they just assumed by the merge district? So if the merge district becomes operational on July 1 as it's supposed to do under the State Board order those contracts are automatically assumed by the new district. There's no further action that's required. I won't go into a lot of history but ten years ago the section dealing with merged school districts used to require a study committee to make a decision about how you were going to staff the school whether you were going to hire new teachers were you going to just hire the teachers you already had what were you going to do and that section is no longer law and so you assume the responsibility for the educators that are under contract whether they're teachers whether they're administrators or support staff or employees if they have an employment agreement as of July 1 that becomes the responsibility of that unified district. Could I explore that same course up a little further? Do you want to pause them? We still don't have them. Oh you don't. Thank you though. So I'll frame it under existing law with a budget that fails by voters and I won't say I'm sure it's likely that there's been a situation where as of April 15th when contracts are supposed to be at least for our customers issued a budget hasn't been approved and that situation typically would contracts be issued for the existing staff or for the staff that was budgeted for in the budget that failed? I would tell you it depends on the reason the budget failed and it depends on the school board there are some school boards in the state that when a budget fails they will identify a very small number of potential reduction enforces if they're going to cut the staff and then propose a budget there are also school boards in the state that will take a budget back to the voters with either no cut or very modest non-staff cuts in them. I think in my experience the general philosophy that most boards have is to not totally rethink the staffing of the school at that point but to make very, very selective cuts if any in staffing when the budget fails I don't want to say every circumstance is unique they are but I'd say that's sort of the general sense that I have from interacting with boards about how they look at what happens after a budget's failed I think what and I can't speak for everyone but I think what concerns our board is if a budget isn't in place and I won't get the date right sometime late spring then you operate under the 87.5% of the existing need so if it becomes likely because of the time frame that we're going to have to operate at least initially under that budget it's trying to balance what's prudent on offering contracts and the knowledge of I'll say it this way I would fully expect a budget that sometime is going to be passed and it's not going to be anywhere near 87.5% but it becomes for me as a board member a bit of a juggling guessing match where I know you're not going to tell us how much risk to assume but helping us make our decision on what's the risk we might assume am I making myself understood? You are I guess I'll throw in a little bit of a monkey wrench to that Oh, thank you The 87% is state statute as it applies to the East Fund purely your school district or as it applies to U32 if the new district starts out the year without a budget I think there's a valid legal question about whether or not that 87% limitation applies to them because it's based on spending the prior year I've suggested that I think that the state needs to address that issue and they ought to address it in a uniform way for all school districts that are in a similar circumstance as you are right now and I think it's an area where the agency needs to weigh in and perhaps get a formal opinion from the Attorney General's office rather than rely on the opinion of different school attorneys around the state I think that it's a different circumstance than it would be for each of you Arguably you can say, okay let's take the cumulative total of all the budgets within Washington Central and the new district could borrow up to 87% of those There's also a good argument that that shouldn't bind the new district either So I think there's a need for some communication about that issue both probably within the boards that are grappling with it as well as I think also a role to be communicating with the agency of education And I guess my question is if we want our local budgets for a vote on April 9th and then subsequently we're told we have to merge and so we have to vote on the unified budget Does that work? What happens to that original Yeah It does in the context that if there is not a court order let's say by July 1 ruling that the state board order is illegal or unconstitutional or alternately there is an order from the court ruling that the state board order is legal and is constitutional By operation of the state board order the town school districts and U32 under your articles of agreement sees educational operations and the new district assumes responsibility for all educational operations as of July 1 And if we are not able to vote a budget in by that time because of the timing of all of this for the unified district So I think one just as at the outset if you look at take a calendar right now by the time Washington Central is able to hold an organizational meeting and then warrant an election for school directors who can warrant a budget I think it's theoretically possible that you could have a budget by July 1 but it would literally mean that boards have to make decisions at the earliest possible moment that they can make decisions and also that the warnings are published and posted and that the publishing in particular works just perfectly and smoothly to enable that to happen I mean it requires that type of lockstep movement So it's possible but the fact that you don't the fact that you don't have a budget when you back up and go back to so let's assume there was no litigation you could still be in a scenario where on July 1 you wouldn't have a budget in place because let's say the voters on April 20th at the first annual meeting of the district didn't approve a budget and that the board either warned a second budget or the board took a month to evaluate why did that budget go down and what do we need to do about it excuse me and wasn't able to warrant a second budget vote until July 5th so it's under a voluntary merger situation you could still have a scenario where a new district would not have a warned legally adopted budget on July 1 and that's when you get into the authorization that a school board has authority to borrow funds in anticipation of revenue so maybe my question may almost be more for Bill but operationally if we find ourselves in what feels like a more and more likely scenario right that we're going to run into this July 1 deadline do we do we operate at 87.5% on day one or do we operate on or can we operate on some sort of assumption of risk basically that we're going to do something better than 87.5% at some point before we run out of 87.5% but I just heard him say that the 87.5% for the union district doesn't make sense I understand but but I think the question is what it does that's what you're asking so I tend to I want to be very methodical and I want to play okay what's the worst case scenario and how do we walk through the worst case scenario so in my mind the worst case scenario which we're trudging toward is that we find ourselves on July 1 without a past budget maybe we have past local budgets and maybe that's and maybe there's a question there maybe that's a way to hedge our bets so the first question is would that hedge our bets like if we have passed the U32 budget and we have passed an East Montpelier budget and we've passed a callous and everybody's passed their budgets it sounds like that might protect from that 87.5% position come July 1 presuming that they pass it may lend some support to that I would need to check Rutland Northeast did a voluntary merger on a very tight timeline a couple of years ago and it may have been through their articles of agreement that their articles of agreement specifically provided that town budgets they were envisioning that the town school districts would be voting on budgets because of their tight timeline the merger vote wasn't until late January or February and they had warned I believe they had warned tight town budgets before that their articles of agreement may have provided that town pass school budgets that year would constitute in combination the budget for the newly formed district and I can check on that for you with and get back to Bill and if that's the case advise you of that alternately I can I'll find out whether or not they did something in presenting their budget to create that basis for them so I'll check that out so that brings me back to the operational question which is on July 1 are we operating at we can only spend 87.5% per day for argument's sake of what we would ordinarily have done or is our bucket of money that we can basically run the school until March so that's the decision the board needs to make I can tell you that you kind of got it correct you can run it 100% and Laura's calculated roughly that somewhere to March within March of 2020 to April, early April there would be we would run out of money somewhere in that area but those would be decisions the board would have to make you could cut down expenses too and try to prolong that time period right it's a cash flow issue trying to determine what level of panic we need to be dealing here if we started the year with the 87% limit can we then hold the budget vote after July 1 to come up with a new budget that supersedes that 87% yes yes I mean let me go back again because I want to just so you understand I think it helps reinforce it if this was a voluntary merger and your budget was defeated you have a legal obligation to keep voting until you're able to establish a budget and the same thing is true here so that if you don't have a budget on July 1 because of the timeline you still have an obligation to establish a budget and the expectation would be that you're going to vote in early July to establish a budget for the district and once that budget is established that supersedes any spending plan that you may have imposed upon yourselves so what I'm hearing is that July 1 we need not necessarily panic if we get to October it's stuck in a mess of not getting anywhere then we should start to be pretty concerned about what we're doing probably we'll be much more concerned earlier than that but have any districts under forced merger to your knowledge completed this work on time? so I believe there have been five organizational meetings that were adjourned before the meeting was concluded I believe that in LaMoyle South they're operating on a dual track they are districts in LaMoyle South are part of one of the lawsuits against the AOE state board the dual track is that they have conducted their organizational meeting they've had a transitional board and they are continuing to plan so they're planning for the worst they're planning for the unified district so that in the event that the litigation isn't successful they're in a position to go forward to the unified district alternately if litigation isn't successful or is successful they're in a position where the two districts are able to proceed there so what is the downside for us of warning our local budgets on April 9th? at this point I think the downside is that you may have confusion with some of your voters but I think candidly since the state board order and in some litigation I think that there's been confusion with voters and part of the population anyway about all this so I don't at this point I think it's probably a prudent thing to do but I think that you need to make a decision about that obviously if if judge mellow rules that the state board order is valid and the legislation is valid you know you're any town passed or U32 approved budget at that point forgetting the circumstance that I talked about with Northeast that action would on June 30th become void without having to do anything else like not having to rescind it in some way? correct you wouldn't have to rescind it so there's legal precedent part of the other thing is because of the way the state funding works under a current funding system you know it's very different than things worth 35 years ago you're not passing your budget and then going to your town offices and telling them how much money they have to raise to support your local budget that information is communicated to the AOE, the AOE does their calculations they send them to the tax department to the various respective municipalities so presumably at some level unless there's an order from Judge Mello to the contrary you know the state is going to say oh we can't raise money for town school district A because on June 30th they're supposed to go out of existence and there's no court order that says that doesn't happen that's probably the other clear nuance to understand in this is that there'll be a role that the state's going to play in this in the context of raising communicating the revenue that needs to be raised through the education funding system to support the various budgets but Brian has a question so let's say that the teacher contracts are issued on April 15th and then a budget fails and the only way to pass a budget is to alter staffing basically alter the contracts what position will that put whether it's individual school boards or a unified school board at that point at this point the unified board I don't think is going to be either the transition board and there's not going to be a unified board in place by April 15th so I don't think that they're going to be able to make staffing decisions so staffing decisions I think realistically unless there's some joint conversation about it, staffing decisions are going to be made by the town school boards and in a voluntary merger you know those are sort of made in consultation with each other anyway it's not divorced if the budget needs to be cut you're not going to be able to touch personnel right unless candidly you go to your association and you essentially have a dialogue with them at some level between now and April 15th and either seek to one extend the date based on these extending or extenuating circumstances or alternately talk to them about some other mechanism but it's there are districts in the state forget about mergers there are districts in the state where they're on an annual basis they don't necessarily know when they vote their rift date is either before they vote or it's very shortly after so there are a couple of districts in the state that have annual meetings and they're issuing contracts about April 1st and so when they vote on the budget they've fundamentally already made a decision about staffing levels and made a decision that if they have to cut their budget it's going to come either out of non-personnel costs or to the extent they're going to cut personnel costs it's going to be on the basis of not replacing individuals who have resigned or left your employment if that situation happened where we could use the capital funds to offset that for the year your fund balance from 2018 or your anticipated fund balance June of 19 which one the 19 you could you'd have to ask your voters for approval to do that if it's the town school districts understand that again assuming that assuming that the new district commences educational operations on July 1 there's no court order and there's no postponement from the legislature on July 1 the new district assumes all of your fund balances and your assets and so if you have a fund balance for this year that's going to become their fund balance this is what I'm hearing as a board member um boards can issue contracts well we have to issue contracts in the year 15 we can issue contracts based on what we think the budget's going to be and if that becomes the budget then everything's fine the budget comes in less than that we've already hired the people we assume the risk of we need to find savings in other than personnel costs that's correct I think that's the question was what's the risk in proposing budgets right now I think that's probably the risk at the same time we clearly point out you're going to have to issue contracts on April 15th anyway so do you do that with a budget plan in mind or are you doing it without regard to what the budget plan might be so there's a risk but there's a risk in doing nothing so for Lori and Bill when you're thinking about the Merb's district budget are you basically taking the six school budgets now and putting them together yes we are that's what the executive committee instructed us back in August to do so we're still following that plan which to me makes sense this year to do that I mean that's what it's ultimately up to a Merge Board to determine what the budget is but the executive community back in August said we can have one that does individual and one that would put all the budgets together and we would advise you I know the U32 meeting is on Wednesday so we're ready to tell you what percentages staffing costs our fixed costs and all of that so you know that information and can have a clear and have clear figures on what those because that's kind of where Ruben's going so I know the next question which is so how much are all the staffing costs how much are the fixed costs what percentage is that of this year's current budget and we were, Lori and I were looking at those this morning we know we need to dial them in more than we have them right now because we literally were just doing calculator on the table so we want to get a little bit clearer with all that right because I'm just sort of thinking ahead if we pass local budgets and this Merge District goes through and we pass a Merge budget and if that one passes we're all set if it doesn't pass then we have more to play with because it's a bigger budget and more people it's just as tight though and try not to editorialize but I'm going to editorialize on that one Bill, the history of passing the seven budgets or six budgets is how often have they been voted down when they've been voted individually recently recently since I've been here there's only been one and that was Berlin's for the full budget and five years ago lawyer six was when we had to have the two vote because they were over the expenditure in Berlin and so the second part of that budget failed but then came back both of them came back pretty quickly they came back on the next vote and minor cuts the history was pretty positive as far as voters supporting I would ask I just like to underscore the interest in the Rutland scenario that you were talking about because as you know our situation is rather volatile and the forced merger is not wildly popular so it's not impossible that we would have a situation where the individual school budgets were passed and then if we were to unveil a merge budget that it might be voted down just out of spite so if we were able to actually have have it set up so that the individual budgets would just carry over automatically that might be a I can't believe I'm saying this that might be a benefit for the merged district I just underscore my note about getting that but that would still need to be voted on as an article from by the towns right because it's an adjustment to the default articles so the towns would have to vote on because they're going to pass a vote one way or another right you would have to conclude that I'm just saying that if there's spitefulness there it might be yeah I mean so my question is so we're pretty sure that we're passed all of the deadlines for having a transitional board and a functioning WCUUSD district on July 1 but the law says that as of July 1 the unified union district is in effect is that correct that's correct so let me back up presumably there's no stay right it's not correct it's the state board order and the state board order was issued pursuant to a law but you're not going to find that in state statute it's in the state board order and your articles of agreement but barring some legal injunction or the stay the washington central unified union school district entity exists as of July 1 even though it's not organized it's just not fully operational and on July 1 it becomes fully operational whether it's organized or not and it becomes correct and it becomes solely responsible for the education of the students in washington central and the fact that it might not have a budget would be the same as if a town folded their budget down and couldn't get one passed until after July 1 correct the only difference in that regard is just the issue about does that 87% apply so I'm hearing that we should issue contracts on April 15 and I'm hearing that we should warn our local budgets I don't think we have anything to lose it's not precisely what I I'm hearing it's up to us if we want to assume the risk to issue local contracts I can speak as an individual I am but that means the board is assuming a risk that we could find ourselves in a situation where our personnel costs exceed what we thought they were going to want the budget and I think those are board discussions I don't think we need legal advice to do that and I what I would say I heard on the local budgets is there's nothing to preclude it the risk is just potentially generating more confusion and then it would just be up to each board if we're comfortable more that's a discussion that we don't need legal counsel for it's just is the board are we concerned enough or not concerned enough and then warn and hold a local board I'm not hearing anything that's from legal advice that there's any huge risk if we there's no legal risk would that be a fair statement if we warned each one peel your local budget and the town voted on it and if it stayed if we had the unified union it went away it just went away I think you're correct the only thing I'd like to add is I do think there's a risk in no one issuing contracts I mean I think that oh right in the U32 board the issue contracts for the transitional board needs to say we have to do this we believe that we have the authority to do it under the articles of agreement in the absence of anyone else being able to meet this contractual deadline and I and if we do get to the point where we present the full budget it's the combined vote total not by town right so it's if one town nobody, everyone in the town voted it down it would still be based on the overall vote but also just to be clear even if it's not co-mingled it still is the aggregate vote of the district it's not like presenting articles of agreement where each individual community has to approve the articles or something else it's the total votes cast that's what I thought it functions the same way U32 does now I assume so I thought so it's my understanding I just wanted to make sure one question there's nothing with regard to school finance that's comparable to like the federal anti-deficiency act where if you go over the appropriation you're personally strong up by your thumbs so under Vermont law it's generally school boards have been recognized as having the authority to over expend their budget I think it's not a decision that any board takes lightly and it's usually based on highly unusual circumstances as opposed to we just wanted to to build a law to build a law I have a question that's not necessarily exactly in the parameters of the discussions that's around hiring is that you guys okay with me asking if you're paying for part of this I guess I'm watching the clock three more minutes or four more minutes hopefully it's a quick question so we're in the process of finding the principle and if there is no stay if the merger goes through how does that work in terms of sort of offering the approving the hire offering the contractor the principle who has that authority would it be with the local board if it's operating still within the up to June 30th or does that fall to the authority of the new district what's the timeline that the the board's on right now we're going for a first to second week of April I'll just quickly go back to the distinction I have in drawing if it was a voluntary merger it would be done by the board of the new merge district and it probably would be done in consultation with with your board but it would be done together I think in the circumstances that you have I think it would be difficult for that to happen relative to the timeline that you're talking about to involve the transition board you certainly could be some consultation and communication about them one could question your issuing a contract for next year again I think based on the circumstances it would appear reasonable how's everybody feeling do you like to have our questions answered and see what looks like consensus I'll get back to Bill with that other information thank you that's Chris to put it in just a minute sure thanks thank you very much I know that we're going to have a small discussion just about next steps because the other three boards had a chance to talk about a warning I need to run to get up to help with their meeting tonight at 6 o'clock information Lisa will stay here for the new minutes for you and Lori probably stay five minutes we risk the confusion and mourn a local budget and the explanation to the community is we want to be able to have parallel tracks operating concurrently and despite the recent if that's in fact accurate the legislature could still take some actions so we're at the point now where we understand enough and we want to add your bets and we want to have parallel tracks now when it can be warned just because of things lately I think there should be we can tentatively pick but we have to be mindful of what the town clerk is going to do for pallids and all that stuff I think April 5th is exactly 30 days from tomorrow I think that would be and do we think it's fair to ask Rosie to do that I'm wondering other towns are going for that day that might make sense all I'm trying to do is be mindful of the town clerk April 5th is a Friday but you need to have an opportunity for absentee ballots to be distributed and the absentee ballots to be returned you need to have time for the ballots to be printed so is April 5th even Friday the other boards so there would be an assumption based on the other boards that you could legally get ballots printed and distributed and absentee ballots and meeting all the requirements of the law they're ahead of us though they've been doing this work already so I think none of them have done it yet none of them have I'm just trying to be mindful we can say whatever we want but can the town we don't want to say let's want a meeting for April 9th and the town office says we can't get ballots printed and distributed and meet the requirements let's ask Rosie she thinks that's feasible and we'll be in a warned meeting anyway no we're in a warned meeting already so the decision could be made tomorrow I don't think I will but I think I hear that we agree that it's proof and if the other boards are looking at April 9th it would make sense informally that that's what we would approach Rosie with tomorrow Rosie being a panel clerk approach Rosie with tomorrow just to say this is what we would like to do is there enough time to get ballots printed and properly distribute whatever has to happen and assuming that she says yes then we go with that vote on the 9th because in my mind what that covers is the legislature because the senate could say we agree with the house and we're going to do a one year delay that's the case and we'll need a local budget and is there also going to have to be a vote on article agreement yeah but that can happen and that can happen the same time as we vote I think we can as we vote in the board because I think what we talked about on Saturday is that the transition can warn the meeting about the articles right the transition on the board is going to be a vote on articles of agreement in April 9th I'm just saying there's going to be more voting going down potentially there'll be more than one vote I meant that the transitional board can warn a meeting potentially at the same time as the vote for the board particularly if we're hearing other boards you're not hearing me so we have after the injunction or the ruling on the injunction we have to then schedule the meeting for the organizational meeting for the board no the transition board doesn't it's not us warns right so somebody the we is collective here we have to have that meeting again the organizational meeting we have to vote on the rest of those items that's correct following that the transition board will then warn a meeting for the election of the WU whatever board the unified board the potential is there to vote for the articles of agreement the same time as that vote for the transition the UU board that's what I'm saying there's just going to be a lot of voting going on then there's going to be then there's going to be a vote so anyway I had two things one I think we go with a local vote despite if what we hear is accurate and it will become common knowledge I think my stance is there's still doubt because the Senate is just taking it up therefore we want to pursue the parallel tracks so we're covered either way the other thing and we've heard I would say from legal and from bill I'm comfortable issuing contracts because I want to avoid staff morale problems I agree but I would say it would be prudent to ask Bill to hold off until the first week in April or closer to the 15th than earlier I know in years past they've been issued fairly soon after budgets have passed and that's been the administration's preference I think it would be prudent to ask for the contracts but that they that we hold off a bit on and we have a communication with the staff to say we're just trying to be prudent that's our expectation that this is what you know that we're going to hire based on what our proposed budget is oh hell we could just issue them anyway I mean for me regardless of what direction this goes and I know that the concern that Scott voiced but I'm still confident as a board member that our communities are going to support our schools I am too and to me I would rather risk having to make non-personnel cuts because we're operating on a lower budget than issue a whole lot of rifts or not issue contracts and create the turmoil within our staff I'd rather support our staff and take and then as a board have to bite the bullet on how we're going to pay for it if there's a low budget to me and I think this is what we were communicating at the Saturday meeting we want to support our school our school is our staff and I think we need to take a stance to say we're going to issue contracts and those contracts will have to be honored and if there are budget consequences we'll have to meet those budget requirements outside of staff I agree with what you're saying the only thing I'll say is we need to actively engage that merged budget number because that merged budget number is going to be a bigger number than they've ever seen before and to me that might cause concern for members of the community and we just need to be active to explain that it is the merged budget and the effective rate of the taxes is not it's based on what's already going to be by each town and we'll be there for some of our enrolled voters so I just want to make sure we're actively I don't disagree, we're not there yet the community can be educated that if there's a unified union there's going to be one budget and it'll be everything clumped together and how that's clumped together and what the exact number is isn't truly known we anticipate that it will resemble everything clumped together can I ask what you're envisioning it reminded to look like in the past it's always been on town meeting and you've done such a nice job presenting and explaining and answering questions about the budget I'm just wondering how depth you went in or you're planning to do that tomorrow we're doing that tomorrow we did that on Saturday exactly the same as it's been in the past so you know I think frankly what just operationally weren't holding a vote a month later than when the presentation was done that's great will we still be able to use the school for that vote or will we oh yes it's the efficient, okay I didn't have to use that it's not a question although the fifth is that that's a fright that would be a lot easier I think it might suggest Rubin since they won't be there it might make sense to have that discussion with Rosie warn the school board part and have that discussion immediately you could prep her ahead of time look we're going to ask you this I don't know if that even needs to be asked if it's just it would be good to have confirmation prior or at the very beginning or prior to the school board presentation tomorrow at town meeting that Rosie says April 9th is doable so much more needs tonight I don't know if they could so then it's just then you could accurately share that with the community instead of we think we're going to do it on the night from more if the question was asking Rosie said yeah that's doable if that's what you want we can do it then you can announce to the community that we're going to warn this and then it can be a discussion what I would suggest is have a good idea of that yes this is going to be warned it's very plausible there will be additional votes additional meetings we know for sure now that whatever the hell we want whatever the heck you want to call it the one that was adjourned now needs to be warned and reconvened is that the correct needs to be reconvened and see where that goes and then if that goes through the steps just prep the community that there's going to be more coming down the road if nothing else the board will have to be reconvened in all likelihood so we just have as much specific information as can be shared with the community and if there is no specific information I'm really cautious just to say we don't know we're working as hard as we can to get the information cannot answer that question sorry information on the the drill don't speculate don't guess say we don't know here's what we do know so since the state issues that warning for the organizational meeting are we in a hiring pattern until they do that or just build somebody that will be Matt and Bill and the executive committee it's not East Montpelier Elementary School Board I understand that the contracts also brings it back to the focus on the school and our staff versus all the other noise that's been out there and there's been a lack of it's about the kids it's about our schools and that issue in the contract shows our commitment to we're going to make it work no matter what comes down from what court or from where I would just political situation we're in whenever it's you I think we just need to be really really mindful how we say things and I don't think we want to frame it around we care about kids and then therefore if you're not doing what we're doing you don't care about kids that's the way it's and what I'm saying is frame it around we support we support our school and our staff to know that we're going to hire and I'm not saying that people are saying it's not about the kids I'm saying that the focus hasn't been on the school and the kids and it should and we want to focus on the school and make sure it's operational and running and we fully expect to issue contracts that kind of a thing to say for what we have control over this is what we anticipate and the community hears it and the staff hears it and here's our intent that's why a major reason we want to meet with a lawyer we didn't hear anything legally that precludes us from doing it it's fair to share that there's some risk but we're complete as a board we expect we're going to be comfortable taking that risk because we want our staff to hear loud and clear we support the work that they've been doing all the way up to improving math we support the work they've been doing and we're going to figure out a way to do it at least by issuing contracts we can do that and that assures the staff and that assures that there's classroom teachers and everything that needs to happen that will mean a lot because we don't want people out there looking for a job because they're worried about that we have a great staff we just have to we need to understand that we're the ones taking the risk not personally but as a board then we we've got to operate at 87% we've got to operate at 87% and the cuts don't come from personnel that's the way it's going to be but like I said I don't even worst case scenario I don't think that's what we'd be faced with I agree okay anybody else have any further discussion 938 we started 933 I would have to I know we're anxious but I would have one more suggestion that communication to the community be formalized and communication to the staff be formalized okay but as the lawyer recommended that there be a memo to go with the contract I don't think it's kind of whip it off in 30 minutes I think it has to be very thoughtful well written so I don't I know I'm happy to do you think something like that would be consistent across the schools if there was a memo that went with contracts from I don't want to wait to go across the schools going to require time will the contracts don't come out until April you wanted a memo to go to staff before then you were talking about a memo with the contracts is what the attorney said but you're talking about something different I'm talking about something sooner saying that we support you something along that line could that not just come from Alicia in a staff meeting it's we're saying that not Alicia should be our words last night was that this meeting was happening this evening I can be very brief and not I can just get them a summary of it and then if you want to send something later I think that would go a long way so there's value there if the board makes a statement for them to know now I think you should tell them the conversation could just be there'll be a formal memo coming with or prior to the contract and that would give an opportunity if there was going to be something across if different districts wanted to issue a similar thing people did need to go on right worrying about their jobs I mean that was their reality when they left I just mean the contracts haven't been issued they wouldn't have come this early so but still I mean well are we telling Alicia we're going to issue contracts based on our proposed budget that's what we're saying I hear that clearly because of that people would have already known they would have already been wondering whether the budget would pass on town meeting if they were Bill and I would have had conversations with staff in December if they were in question that would have already happened so we're authorizing to tell the staff that our plan is for everyone taking the contract we'll receive a contract based on the so I'm at the risk of pulling us into the weeds again that makes me wonder if we want to wait till April 15th or if we just issue typically that's done across the issue by Bill and do we need a budget to be voted on by the town so the contract no we're in this case no that's where we're in the but you will have had a budget voted on by April 15th on the 9th if we are able to hold it on the 9th we would know by then so we'll know tomorrow morning whether it's feasible to have a vote before we need to agree to the okay no we don't need to vote it on a budget to issue contracts for today that whole timeline will work out for East Montpelier our intention is to issue contracts because there still might not be a contract it might go away in the middle of June and there will be a new budget what we're saying is without a budget we're going to offer contracts and then we'll figure out how to pay for it which brings me back to my question about whether we okay I think the sense of a group is pretty clear if we were in agreement that we were going to go to a unified union I'm looking to you Scott if everyone's okay if Scott has specific input but if there wasn't a problem and there wasn't disagreement it's not a problem it's a disagreement there wasn't disagreement it's likely there wouldn't be a budget vote until late April early May and we have to issue contracts on April 15 we would be issuing contracts about a budget so although in the past there's typically been a budget approved if we issue contracts they're valid contracts they've got a job and it's up to the board to figure out how to pay for it but I think what you've heard clearly here is East Montpelier board intends to offer contracts to those people that were expecting contracts if it presents a budget problem it's our responsibility to sort it out we don't have to figure it out big sense for us just fully understand what we've told the nation a really big harvest we're going to issue contracts does anybody else have anything more before we adjourn so I will ask that we adjourn at 6.56 5.56