 budgets can be voted on by whom and who has that authority to present it to which electorate. And the reason I say it could be the middle sex electorate, it could be the merge district or something else. I'm trying not to make any assumptions here, but that you need to think about all these issues as a board. And so that at the last meeting, from talking with Chris Leopold and with Emily Simmons at the agency of education, and none of them would say they have a solid opinion on this right now, is that the motion that was approved by the electorate at the district organization meeting had an event certain and not a date certain. And so is there opinion that since it didn't have a date certain, that there would need to be a warning, a rewarning of the organizational meeting. And it's not clear by whom. I have not had the AOE come back to me, I've asked them the question, because in the original articles for the original meeting, it was done by the secretary, I haven't heard anything more back on that I've asked the question officially have not received anything back. And then after that, there is a 30 to 40 day waiting period for the election of the merge board. And then from there from when the merge board seats, there's a 30 to 40 day warning period that needs to be there for the election of the Washington Central Unified School District budget. If you took all those days, and this was as a February 22, when we had 129 days, and you assumed that by March 15, there would be a ruling of the board. That's a big assumption. That's why I got started there at the bottom. That's when I started counting that the earliest that there could be an election for and this is really like, election, merge board sits, recommends budget, adopts warning next day, go. I mean, it's that tight. We're at June 18 for a budget vote. If there's an no local election, you have 30 day 30 to 40 days to warn an election, and then have a budget vote. And the last bullet that's there, and this is the one I say that it's not fair to have it on the local side, because it's not on the merge side, it's true, it would be true for the merge budget as well. There's always a 30 day period for petitioning to challenge any election. So you should take that off and strike out the total from 60 to 70 days and it should say 30 to 40 days. I believe that you can make that decision on your own, you can make that decision with advice of counsel. It's up to you as a board. I've said this to East Montpelier and to you 32 already, and I'll be talking to Worcester tomorrow night about the reason I haven't talked to callus in Berlin yet is because they have worn budgets to be voted on a town meeting. They will then have to deal with the question of if the budget is adopted, is it is an authorized budget to go to AOE? And because what this all does, what this all goes, the long play on all this is access to cash that the school district has to meet payroll. And that's after July one after July one. Well, actually, every teacher has a contract from September one through August 31. And that's based on the Pat on the fiscal year that that so let me just say it this way. If you were hired this past summer, your official starting date was September 1, 2018. And we have all the cash to pay everyone all the way through August 31. What for people that are year round employees such as myself, that cash isn't there it ends June 30. So it's on a year round contract. So what we're looking at is what are the cash reserves within the entities? And when do we start having access to cash? That is the next fiscal year. There's a statute that says if you do not have an adopted budget, that you are allowed to borrow up to 87% of the previous year's budget. So it's borrow say that number again, you have up to 80 set you're allowed to borrow up to 87% of the previous year's budget and until there is an adopted budget. Once it's adopted, does it apply retroactively? Yeah, well, it does reply. That's your budget. So whatever it is. I don't know if I can really answer that first about retroactive because you'll be we would be running on an 87% budget. The board could be a borrowing. It's not it's not the expenditure budget is the revenue. Okay, so it doesn't mean you're only funding 80% 87% of the programming. That's a that's a decision the board with the board would have to make. Do you want to do you want to take the risk of maybe spending at 95% but knowing you only have 87% of your cash. And this is why you have to look at cash reserves. So we're getting we're getting into a conversation about risk tolerance that the board would want to take and starting to look at that and say so. Because the question that comes into this and this is the last part on the bottom of this is that your master agreement says that by April 15, you must present contracts to teachers or they're not locked into their positions. And if there are any risks, you must must let teachers know before April 15. Now in our budget here at Rumney, we don't have any risks. There are some in some other schools. But you would be signing on the contracts that you know, we what I don't have for you tonight and I purposely didn't bring it because it would be a discussion that I'd want to have at a next meeting after you heard advice or at that meeting to say, So how much is 13% of the budget? How much are our human resources are salary and benefits obligations? You know, is that 50% of the budget in my sitting here right now? I think that's about 65 to 70% of the budget. You know, you have some fixed costs for these buildings. You've got a bond debt you've got to pay you've got to pay the energy to keep it going. You know, so there's some fixed costs and I would bring you what those percentages are we're looking at all that Laurie's been doing some quick calculations on like what do we have to have to have the building run? And then what are the things either by statute we don't have to have. Well really by statute we don't have to have so you as a board could look at those where you want to make choices. And so I think that you should be advised about what pieces of that statute and the question that you 32 asked Monday night, which I think is a really good one, which is how do you get to a budget? How do we get to presenting a budget to whomever? That's what we want to know is how do we do it? Not what can't we do? That's the question that's been forwarded on you 32. Well, I want to tell you this. I'm going to say this next part about what you 32 and East Montpelier did. It's not trying to push you in one way or another. They talked about I presented the names of these are the folks that have given you advice through the act 46 process. I really like Dorothy's question. She was still here. That's why I asked for this because I'd like to know what the total legal fees are. But you've had advice from Scott Cameron from his firm. You've had advice from Paul Giuliani. You've had advice from Pietro Lynn and you've had advice from Chris Leopold. The Articles of Agreement Committee selected Chris Leopold as they were presented with those names. You also are signed on to the lawsuit with David Kelly, Charlie Merriam, Innis McGinnon, who are representing you there. So those any of those folks could be represent you. It could counsel you on this or someone else. I mean, there are two other school attorneys that I know in the state that do work for schools. It's not just the act 46. They've got to be aware of master agreements. They've got to be aware of the fiduciary statutes and know those as well because it's going to be an intersection of all these different pieces. So what would we be getting counseling on specifically? Just because it seems to me that if we have contractual obligations to let teachers know by April 15th, and we don't have a decision from the judge on junction, and we don't know whether there's going to be a united budget or not, that we have to take a budgeting step to present a budget to the election. And if it becomes a nullity, because something else has happened and we're merged unit, that that will just that wouldn't be an effective budget. But are they going to advise us on not presenting a budget or when to present a budget? Or I think those are all questions you should ask the attorney and I don't feel to be the person to. But I mean, I don't think we need to move forward without presenting a budget to the electric by July one in some capacity. I mean, if it's not going to be a unified district doing it, I think we will take steps to do that from a local perspective, because we'd still be going entity, right? Yeah, I don't know Chris, I just don't I have gotten to the place where I don't feel I can advise you anymore as your superintendent on those pieces and that I should recommend that you talk to people who know the law better than I do. So I have three questions. The first one is this meeting that we're having now wasn't warned for 30 days. It was an emergency meeting because we needed to discuss this. So this meeting today? Yeah, right. I'm right. Yeah, but I'm thinking it's not emergency. It only needs to be worn for 24 hours. And it's a special meeting, a special meeting. So I guess I'm confused. Maybe because I don't know the specifics of what constitutes a special meeting or an emergency meeting or those things of why. So can I get the court ruled we couldn't call it a special meeting. So not call it a special meeting but have it be a special meeting. Okay, so this is a difference. You're talking we're talking about school board meeting. That's what we're in right now. A school district meeting is something different. Okay. So a school district me where any of the electorate can come and vote. That requires a 30 to 40 day. Because people need to vote. So you're talking about a voting component to the meeting that requires that 30 to 40 any school district meeting, it would be a special school district meeting because you'll have an annual school district meeting that happens on a date certain every year usually town meeting day for our towns. But when you have a any district meeting, you must warn it. Okay. 30 to 40 days. Yeah. Yeah. And so right now that follow up to no, I don't need to go. Okay, these are good clarity. Good clarity. So because I see the first and the third bullet as being election related. The second one is not so I'm just I'm curious what that is election related. They're already there would all be articles presented to the electorate. So yeah, I'm sorry, I was thinking was the seating of the board. It is electing the board members. Yep. Totally remember what I meant. My second question about a draft budget. So you have a budget that you you didn't. I don't think you approved it. I don't have an answer for it. We did. We didn't want it on it. We didn't warn it for town meeting. Yeah. Right. So one concern I have would be so there's a piece of me that things in the budget that the majority of the board members voted on there were no risks. There were no cuts. So in other words, in terms of cost of 15. At first it seems like that wouldn't be a problem. But well, it's the warning because the town hasn't voted on right. So and so if the town voted down our budget, and we had already issued teacher contracts, that would be a problem. Well, I think for me, if we were to pass a budget, that was a vote on a budget. What authority would that budget have in regards to the operation that was sort of required to be operating under given the state mandate of a merger? So I don't know what budget would take precedent or there are what would our budget mean anything even if our town voted on it? Would the state pay the month that pay us the money for that budget? Because would it consider it to be a valid budget? I think we depend on whether a state was issued or not. Because if stays not issued, then a merger will happen by July 1. And then it would be a unified budget. If a stay is issued, then the merger is halted. And we continue on as an entity because we would not then be dissolved on June 30 of 2019. This way, I would see that those things into place. So if we presented a budget to the town, and the town approved it, and there was no stay and merged, and that budget would be nullity because we would not have the authority to this entity, this legal, you know, municipality would not have the authority to borrow the money. It would be superseded by a unified budget. So I think there's no harm in, you know, other than people coming out and voting and the cost of the vote to actually warning and having a vote on a budget. On April 9 or on another time? April 9 or how before I just give you before June 30, or actually, probably before May 30. So if there's, you know, need for April 15, and we have to hope that it's passed. So can I just give you a little bit more? So you 32 talked about that on Monday. And they asked me to prepare them a warning that had them for April 9. To look at their meeting on, they're going to meet next Monday. They have a meeting. East Montpelier has a meeting there. I'm in a joint meeting to meet with Chris Leopold. They've decided that. They will then on March 6, there's a U32 meeting, which I will bring them a warning. And they can decide whether to accept it and have that posted. To meet April 9. It's a 30 days prior is March 11, March 10, 10th, 11. So they're gonna, you know, we're I'm trying to say to folks in the reason why in the last week I was saying, the first week of March could get busy because I could see us all saying, Hey, let's have everyone. And this is one of the things Scott Thompson said, totally agree with it. We're going to have one election, especially one that's going on all five towns, we should try to get all the elections. And that's not me saying which way I feel about this is just saying, I agree with that sentiment. So we have to drop a warning. And in you, this group already said April 9 was a possibility. So you said that that's why I referenced that we would need to get you a warning which we can do. It's a couple hours worth of work because as Chris, you know, from being on the executive committee, the executive committee told us back in August to have two tracks open all the time. We're ready to go. We can go either way. It's just really producing the warning on paper that we need this group to come together at another meeting to approve that warning so then it could get posted. Okay. The other piece I would let you know is that our practice has been with teacher contracts. Because we've had such a good fortune in Washington Central that budgets are approved on town meeting. We usually as soon as they're approved start getting into budget creation. And so that's why I said I would have a question for you as a board. I don't need an answer tonight, but I would somewhere before April 15 about where would you want to authorize contracts to be signed and handed out? Because with or without a budget, I think I heard Allison or I heard someone ask just now. I just wanted to clear the procedure that we usually do which is once the budgets adopted, we go into budget creation mode. We only have one time that we've gone through a point where we didn't have a budget. While I was here and that was with Berlin and we had it. We had the budget adoption afterwards. I don't recall if we did layers of agreement or layers of intent, I should say, versus contracts. I'd have to go back and research that. Is there a difference in terms of the binding nature? Yes, the letter intent is not as binding as a contract. Okay, so it's based on future action, which is passing the budget. Well, it's based on your intent at that moment is to work there. But if something better comes along, your intention is usually done when there isn't a master agreement approved on April 15. So that that's usually that's been our history of using it is using it. Well, like we don't have the master agreement finished. So without knowing the master agreement, it's hard to set up what our contracts are going to be with teachers. And so, Allison, you haven't had a chance to ask me. I just I feel foolish for saying this, but I just want to make sure that I understand unprocessed. Lot the digest. So on the merge side, we don't have an entity because articles were not adopted. So we not because articles, we didn't conclude the district organizational meeting. Okay. But articles also were not adopted. Correct. Well, we have draft articles that are given to us by the State Board. Alright, so we don't have an entity for the merged district. So we, we have to create the district first before we can pass a budget within the district. We have to have an elected board first before because the elected board is the only one that has the authority to present a budget to the voters. Can we elect a board for a district that hasn't been formed? So you don't have authority from the voters yet because the district organizational meeting has been adjourned to have a method to to elect that board. Right. So we have no entity, which means we have no board, which means we can't vote on a budget. And our timeline is becoming very tight for being able to deal with that on per year, a little description here. On the remedy side, we're okay if our town approves our budget on April 9. But if they don't, then I don't really understand what happens out of that case. And I mean, I guess it's just we can't we can't agree to the teacher contracts. And then we don't really know what's happening with the state giving us money. But are there other issues that I'm missing? We can issue teachers contract. It's a risk issue as to whether we'll have the money to pay for it. Right. So it's it's kind of a risk, risk tolerance analysis of, you know, because we even without a budget, we are authorized by statute to borrow up to 87% of the current budget amount to fund next year. And so that there would be money to pay the contracts, but we'd be dealing with an 80 if a budget was never passed, we'd be dealing with an 87% of the current budget. But if budget is then passed, you know, goes so what happens if we break the contract, what what is the ramification of us breaking the contract by not being able to pay an employee. Yeah, you have to pay them regardless, you don't have to offer them a job, you have to pay them. But if we went over our 87% and we did not have the money to pay them. So you'd be in deficit spending. And you would have to make up that money on the next year's prior budget. So schools that have not have gone into deficit spending were I have I have the fortune of never having to do that but talking to superintendents who have the next year say they spent they were in deficit 100. Let's just use the number $100,000. The next year's budget $100,000 had to go to pay off the deficit. Okay, can we get is it possible to get close to a figure on what interest costs we would be paying on our 87% and what other fees would be associated with that if we don't pass a budget so that we can display to voters the financial ramification of not passing our budget. So do you see what I'm saying? It's not that easy. But if we if we don't if there's no budget, past April 9th, for if it's Romney or whatever day it is in the merge organization. So this is what I don't know, Alison right now. And of course, the ruling on the injunction would really help us. I don't know if this is why I think you need legal counsel. Frankly, because I don't have the answer for this. If you if the Romney, if the middle cycle electric comes out and adopts a Romney budget, right? I don't know if that's an allowable budget or not. Right. And I don't know, I just don't know. And I'm not trying to I'm not trying to push us one way or another. I'm just trying to tell you what I don't know. And I think and use a board need to make these decisions about what you want to do. And that's why I bring you this issue. So under what circumstances would it not be an allowable budget? Because I don't know. Yeah, I just don't know what there's kind of a there's I mean, if we if we have a right to stay, it would absolutely be an allowable budget, right? It would allow a budget. And it is the same budget that we were going to present to the like we didn't increase anything. If it's a you mean if it's a budget that we already adopted, and just presented that if the say is denied, and we have an adopted budget, I think I mean, that would be effective. That would just it would be effective because we would be the ongoing authority to present a budget that could vote on it. And there'd be no superseding unified. I've asked I've asked this of Will's sending at the Secretary of State's office. He doesn't know the answer. So I wonder if the articles of agreement, could there be an article that year one each town just votes on their own budget? I think that's specifically not allowed. I think that does go against against what was the unified nature of the Okay, so my third I think we have some people out here. So David Lawrence, I just wanted to say I see all where you were going with that, Alison, and I like that. I think it's relevant, because I'm not entirely sure I understand it, but the paraphrase what I just heard from Bill was, essentially, is if the budget is not passed, we can fund at 80% percent. If the merger is stayed and doesn't go through, that's the budget we would then have to be working on. No, no, because you can always pass a budget that would then supersede that can always I mean, if you have to have another special, if you don't pass it on meeting day, you're gonna have to then call another meeting to pass a budget whatever day, it won't be time meeting this year, because we didn't want it right. But whatever day it's voted on, if it's voted down, we'll come back to revise it and then warn it again, present it again to the because of the confusion around this, that should be explained. Yeah. Kyle, I guess it seems pretty straightforward to me that if we don't warn a local budget, there are various scenarios, like if the court stays the state board order in which we end up in 87% on July 1. There's no scenario in which we get to run on the budget you want on July 1. If you don't warn it before then, if we warn it, we vote on it. I'm quite confident our community is gonna vote in favor of it. But at least there's a chance it gets passed. And I think a very good chance. And then on July one, we're fine. We have the full budget. There's a chance the agency event says, Oh, no, that's not valid because you were supposed to merge. But remember, in this scenario, the court has said no agency, you're wrong, you're not allowed. And so good luck to the state agency if it tries to do that to us. And, you know, they work for us were verminers. And the idea they would do that to 40 different districts. We're not alone in this. I don't think that's very likely. But regardless, even if it is a chance, at least this gives us a path if we vote on our budget, actually, having the budget we want on July one in the merger scenario. I don't have a budget question for say, but a logistical question that may have already covered. But in terms of the teacher's contracts within the next year, if we do merge, I'm assuming but just want to verbally make sure those contracts are honored. Yes. Yeah, so that's a good point. I didn't say that. But any it's in the Articles of Agreement that we've been handed by the state that any contract that signed on to before June 30, the new if we do merge, we have to be honored. So that's, that that's part of the perplexing part of all this is. And I truly believe it's a board decision to make this gets into risk tolerance. And this is when the board should be really in on these decisions is to what level do you want to make commitments? And to what level? When do you want to do the budget? I, I don't I mean, I just don't have a lot of answers. And so I think you have to make decisions as a board. I sorry, I don't. So for me, I think having a budget worn for some time in April before, like, after our April 9 meeting, so we can give information. So maybe April 10, but before April 15, I think makes sense. But I think the board needs to vote again, because we voted with the numbers being that we were going to be unified. And it does change in terms of the threshold. We say that again, I don't think we did actually my mic, because because if we voted when it was unified, we would not be over the cap. And we voted knowing we're gonna be over the cap because we're standing alone. I would, as your superintendent, I'd want to bring some, can I just say this? I want to bring back the budget to you so you can see it. Numbers have changed. As I've been telling you, equalized Pupils positively for a Romney. Yes. By equalized pupils, they finally got locked like last week, which is almost two and a half months after when they usually get locked. So no longer in the zone. No, you're in the penalty, but just barely. And I don't remember I don't ask me to like because I just don't try to remember this stuff. Sorry. I just stopped trying to remember things. I will bring you your budget and have you look at that and then adopt a warning, I think is something you should do. But I think you should do that with full knowledge on the table, instead of just trying to remember it. The same point there's probably you'll have I mean, you'll have two new board members. So if there's an informational meeting, I think it would be helpful if those board members had some information on the budget and had had a vote. In terms of the risk question, my opinion is I don't maybe I'm being super naive or optimistic. I just don't see the issue with borrowing 87%. It gets us through the summer. I just can't imagine that a year from now, we still won't have a budget. I'm regardless of if I mean, if the judge never rules between now and July 1st, I guess that would be my one thing of not knowing then what would happen. But I just don't see I mean, 87% of this years is not 87% of the one that we were looking to adopt, but it's a difference of 3%. I guess I just I don't see it 13%. You said 3%. Right. The increase, you mean? Well, the difference between the talking about the increase. I'm talking about the increase from this year's budget. So it's 87% of this year's budget. We had a 3% increase for next year. So it's not. So we have just so but even so. So could we borrow? Do we get access? I'm sorry, let me make words here. We can borrow up to 87%. But is there some sort of time limit on that? Can we only borrow a month at a time? You borrow it until Okay, it sounds like they'd only lend us 87% on a month. It's gonna be 13% come at the end. Right. Okay. I mean, one of the things that we have done as a calculation was, okay, if we had to use all of our all of our allocated fund balances and all our different funds across the SU and the 87% we know we'd run out of money about April 1 to April 10 next year. Okay. And how Okay, so that's helpful because I just so that. But I feel like we also need to know how much it's going to cost us. I mean, I think it is well, it's the big cost is actually what you're going to lose in revenue. This district on arbitrage across the supervisory. I don't have the number in my head for Romney. I'm sorry, because Lauren ever talking about this for two days ago is about what's that word you just said? arbitrage. We're allowed to take what happens is the voters give you authority to borrow money in lieu of taxes. So we borrow money. In the state of Vermont, you're allowed to reinvest that money. We actually borrow at a lower rate than we invest that. So we make money off of the the money investment, we make quite a bit of money off and you get it in revenue and it cancels out your taxes. In the whole s you right now, it's about $325,000 that we make in revenue between the difference of what we're charged for the interest and what we invest at. So you know, that would be that's a you know, we that's across all entities. That's a budget. If you looked at the whole thing around $30 million, that's what it is. So how can we find out some sort of idea like on a month if you don't approve the budget if we if we wait to we're two months late, how much is that going to cost us if we're six months late? So I can't tell you the bottom line. What I can tell you is how much that would change you in interest. But I can't tell you what it would because I don't know what the final budget's going to be. You see, I see your question differently. I see it this way, Allison. What would it cost us and loss of revenue of interest? Right, or extra cross in interest because we have to pay for interest to borrow the money, but we can't reinvest it. Right. What's that cost that I can answer for you. I can't tell you what's going to cost you overall. You see how the question is different. I think so. But I guess I feel like we need to somehow be able to present why I would like to know for myself and then to our voters like what does this mean? This is a you know, an idea of what this is going to cost if we don't. But there is no if we don't we don't have control like we're not deciding. I'm saying that I think it may motivate people like that would that may change it. Well, to even potentially approve whether or not we create a W. I keep calling it W Cust in my mind. I should and you just find some other name for that district. The new district like like people need to know like okay, we cannot do this. But what is this actually going to cost us? What is what is your risk if you are making this decision to not create this district and not create not then elect a board for that district and not create a budget for that district and also for middle sex on April 9th, if that's the date we use, what does this mean? Because we have gone over our penalty although apparently less than we did previously. But that may significantly affect what some people think about voting for the budget. I don't think we've never we haven't been in the penalty in many years. I don't think ever. Oh, go ahead. I don't think I'm sorry. I would just echo that when you're talking about your capacity for risk, I think you should be very aware that voting for the budget is a red line for many voters, you know, and continuing to increase the budget during times of uncertainty is a bit of a red line. So when you're dealing with your capacity for risk, we should probably have a few questions. Yeah, please. So to the 87% in the interest that we would get charged, would that be charged on our existing in our existing 2020 budget? Yes. So we would then be paying our budget would increase. No, because so let's think of this as two ways. I just want to be really clear about when we use the word budget, within a budget, the voters approve an expenditure budget. Okay. So what you you already have an expense in your expenditure budget for borrowing money. Okay. So that probably wouldn't change much. I mean, we could argue about 10% usually about what we can borrow money at. You have a revenue budget that the voters don't approve. That revenue budget, the expenditure budget was built on understanding what you think the best understanding of the revenues would be. What you would lose is the interest income on the reinvesting of that money that was taken out in lieu of taxes. So let's say it was $50,000 for Romney, really clear here, there's just a shot in the dark, you would lose that $50,000 of revenue or part there or part there up, right? Chris is right on it until once you get an approved budget until you're going to start then taking that money and invest in it. But you can't when you have access to the 87. It doesn't mean we can go get arbitrage on it. That could be 5,010. Who knows what it could be. But two months ago when we were painstakingly trying to figure out how to reduce $30,000 in the budget to get us below the threshold, which we never did is that's less money than that we have to offer against the threshold. Sorry, is it a double dip? Were you asking if it was a double dipping? If we pay interest, do we then also pay the penalty on it? Was that your question or no? No, I just didn't know if it increased, if it would increase where we are in the penalty zone. So let's say I understand it's changed, but before we were around 30,000 and would our payments on those on that interest would that increase at 35,000? I have the same question, but I don't know what the answer was based on what we just said. I think, yeah, I think Bill's saying you guys just lost me in the question. So you're gonna have to re ask it to me. I think Bill answered it to me. He's talking about the don't look at it. We have a we have an expense budget. And so there's a line item about borrowing interest there. And that should that will be captured in there where the loss is is the money coming in to offset the expenses. And that's really where yeah, we budget when we build your budget, we budget for a greater revenue than an expenditure on interest. Okay, other two other questions. And I can't remember one of them. But the other one was, let's, let's assume that there is not a stay. And we are forced to merge. What does that mean for for a budget and contracts for even if we are just simply making a recommendation of a budget to the new board. If we're talking 92 120 days from March 15. That's way beyond April 15. So we're dealing with the same. I guess it's the same question we've been talking about, but with less you have less you have less room for time, because you have to accomplish more steps to get to presenting a budget. With the merge with with the merger now, it would be a longer period of time to potentially be borrowing forward. It depends. I mean, given this timeline, you have a budget by July 1. If everything fell into place. But we you have those multiple steps to get there, though, which we don't have here right here. You know, we were able to warn a budget and presented to the town. But again, if the stay was denied and the merge was going forward, or any town budget here would be nullity, because we would not have the authority after July one, right? 2019 is my assumption. The that would be then the merge. You know, you know, I don't see a downside of actually warning a budget vote for April 9. It's just basically, I think, taking protective steps in the event that a stay is issued. And if it is, then the budget vote would not be effective. I don't think because you'd have a different entity. So I don't see a downside to actually warning a budget. And, you know, maybe revisiting it and then warning it and then having a vote. So Bill, do you think the number changed from what we voted on the actual budget amount? Should they look at it again and revoke? Or should that be the number that is warned? Okay, my difference being the next remedy meeting is scheduled for March 14. Yeah, no, we'd have to have me before March 14. So we need to have me. That's one of the things I'm going to say was me sounds like if the gap toward the penalties on his diminished, it sounds like significantly down. It's down. I just don't remember, Chris. You know, might be able to be really honest. To what? Well, just finesse it a little bit more to get it under the zone. Right. Yeah. I mean, we never, we never, when we give you penalty zones that were during budget process, it's lorries in mind and data from the Agency of Education's best estimate. No, I never knew that ever gets solid. And that's why it changes. And you said it could change up until July. Right. Is what I understood, right? That's exactly what I said. And that's where I was going again, just to make sure it's clear. You know, we have, we have the numbers we have now and we'll, we'll get them to you. And then you might want to do that. But I, you know, my recommendation to you in going that route is saying we need to have a board meeting by Friday the 8th of March. Okay. Is there, so I know both youth 32 and East Montpelier are going to engage in a conversation with an attorney. What's, what specifically are they trying to get answers to? They're asking how they can continue operation of their school and protect teacher contracts and present a budget to an electorate. They specifically didn't say which one they said we'd like to know how we can present a budget. That was the question. Floor was there. So I think I got that right. Floor, that was conversation. So did you, did you, East Montpelier board have a sense that they could not present a budget right now? Well, there's a lot of risk involved with it. So we could present, and I'm speaking for myself, we can present a budget and think our chances in April. But what we want to know is how do we have the only reason to look for a lawyer is like in the absence of a transitional board, and haven't been told by the state that 49 is the law right now and not accepting our current governance. How do we stay in compliance? You know, how do we don't have the answer? You know, it's everything is really mighty. And I'm actually going to read it. Even Scott, I had a big research today and he said, given the possibility of a decision by the judge, not to issue a preliminary injunction, how in the meantime, may we prepare for an eventual merger both in compliance with statute and in absence of a transitional board? That's Scott. Okay. So it's just very, it's super simple. Yeah, I explained to him because he didn't feel the same way about hiring a lawyer and we are in a conversation. And, you know, and then we arrive both at the same place and I can show you. You know, that's that's all, you know, that's the only way is not to spend more money. It is just because we don't have the backup of the lawyer is just we as four members saying this is what this is what we're doing. We are interpreting the law for and neither of us are, you know, you are a lawyer, but none of us are a lawyer. So all we want to do it is do it is do it right. And they might say, you know, what, you can present your I don't even know I don't even know my point of bringing it to you as as a superintendent as a recommendation is not to say that you should do it or you shouldn't do it is to say, I want you to make a determination as a board and you can it's fine with me if you say as a board, we don't want to consult with someone. That's fine. If you say you do, that's fine. I just I know I have to bring you issues and you need to make decisions. And you're going to make the best ones you can say just one more thing. The other thing that we struggled with was that even if we if you said 200, we would be doing it for less either because right now I think you're right, you're right. There's more you 32 free smart. There's more, there's more you 32 right now. So we would have been passing a budget for less than half our population, let's say, and then still have to come around again. So I think as whatever we are right now are five, six districts. At the end, we all have common outcomes, common contracts. So they have recently hired a lawyer to just get one opinion was to, you know, how do we do this right to honor those, you know, they just had this huge invitation for a year or whatever you know, we can do what's right. When are you meeting with your attorney Monday? So what day? Fourth or fourth or third? Couldn't we designate a board member to go? Yeah, I think if we're going to do we shouldn't all the board members should hear it, I think, as it just as a matter of course. And I'm not going to tell you what to do. No, I don't think so. Couple of things. So one, this school board heads hired attorneys. And just you know, Charlie's America, Charlie Merriman is no longer on the 46 case. But David Kelly and Inez McGill and our attorneys on the appeal of the State Board's order and all of this, how do you prepare for the different outcomes? I think falls within the realm of that. And so they're a free resource that this board has. It sounds like what Scott was talking about was a question about how do you move forward towards merger and merger happening by July 1 if there's not a stay? That's a separate question from the one you asked about to actually need opinion on is anyone actually questioning whether we can warn our local budget? And I have not heard that being question. That seems like kind of a silly thing to ask a lawyer about because it seems we've got two districts that are doing it. We've got districts and other parts of the state that are doing it. And so I don't think that's actually in doubt. And the other thing with any time you're wondering, can you or can't you? An important question is, who's going to complain? And so I mean, you know, this is the doctrine of standing. Like, are you actually injured? You can't go to court or do anything if you're not injured. And I don't see an injury to us warning our local board. We've talked about potential injury, if we end up on the 87% path, haven't had a local board, a local budget voted on by July 1. So maybe those questions should be separate. One is, you go forward on the local budget. That seems pretty straightforward. And Scott's question about how do you prepare in the absence of organizational meeting is a separate one. And my opinion is that, and as in David, there are the cheapest and best resources on that. Others would have different. And so we're not the only union that is going through litigation right now, right? No, there's like 30 or 40 times. So what are they doing? Very different though, is that we we basically stopped any type of process from happening. And so and so the only ones that have done that? Can I just augment that? You're right there, Kyle. Most of them, except for Inesburg, from what I know, and I can be wrong, have set a date to come back. So you adjourn to a date. So they don't have an extra 3040 days on the timeline of the merger. What I what I understand and I can be wrong is that Inesburg, Richford are in the same place we are, they adjourn to something else besides a date, which requires a 30 an extra 30 or 40 days of warning. So instead of having 90 to 120 days, they have 60 to 90 days. And I'll just also add my answer to Scott's question of how do we prepare for this merger in the absence of organizational meeting going forward is that's for the state to figure out, they're the ones doing this to us against our will. And it's a bunch of districts, and they're going to have to figure it out. And there's all sorts of political ramifications if they don't. And so I don't think we have to worry about that piece of it. You know, I actually do think we have to worry about that. And you know, I'm not in favor of this merger. But there are legal processes and entities that are in place now. We're trying to, you know, the anti merger folks are trying to stop it. But unless if Judge Mellon never doesn't issue a decision by July one, you know, something that a legal action will happen. And you know, he's I think he's pretty clear about knowing that that's the deadline because he kept saying when do I have to rule by. And you know, folks would say, Well, at least by June 30, I think it's what they said, but sooner because of all these other pieces that have to happen before then. So, you know, I don't think that saying the state has to figure it out is an answer because something will happen. And there's and what will be is we won't have a budget potentially. But you do have the 87% ability to borrow, but that entity has to be up and going in order to borrow because again, has to have an entity to do the borrowing. But I agree with you completely. We should go forward that nothing stops us from warning and, you know, having a vote on the local budget, which is, you know, the run the budget now, and probably should proceed along that seven. I don't think we need the lawyer to tell us that we can do that. And, you know, I guess, you know, we should certainly, I think we should participate in this conference just to you and folks have to say. But, you know, I think the we've heard a lot about divided opinions, even amongst the attorneys, no one has come down with it. Oh, this is the way it clearly reads. It's, you know, you have different options. So I think we had enough discussion. So I'm with everybody on voting. I'm calling the question on voting on the local school budget. I don't think we've really, I don't think we have any decision or plan as to what to do regarding our merged budget. And I don't know if there's any way or mechanism for contacting the other schools who are in the same position and sending a letter to the state, the Agents of Education demanding a plan to go forward in the situations that we're in. I feel like they should be the ones to tell us because I think it's a terrible plan that we ask some lawyer and then we get into a situation where we're actually standing there holding, you know, we are accountable. We have the checkbook and we have not been told what to do. That just feels like I can't even comprehend how that can be. But Well, the difficulty with that is that you're going to the state and they're going to be getting their lawyer to say what you should be doing. And they haven't always been right. So it's just a lawyer in some situation is going to be giving advice and it hasn't always been clear and correct. And then the judge could vote against that. I think I'm not wrong in what I'm saying. The state has told us what to do. Well, they've told us to Pat to merge. Yeah. And so and so it's, you know, it's our communities that disrupted that and our decision to do that. But so, I mean, we've we've essentially put ourselves in this position. And I don't think we can expect the state to change to change their position in order to accommodate, you know, us. My my biggest concern, I'm fine with warning about my biggest concern is really trying to better understand this whole 87% and the ramifications. I mean, there's a lot of livelihoods that sort of are on the balance of this. And just what what type of confidence level are we sending to our teachers and and families with kids here about what we're going to be able to do for next school year. Okay, so I propose that we agree to have a meeting on Thursday, March 7th to reorganize because we'll have new board members then and then reconsider the budget and then warn a meeting for April 9th to consider a budget. I'd also suggest that any board members who want to go on Monday to listen to any council do so with the understanding that it would be a collectively shared cost and it's not free advice costs. Yeah, I know that. Well, that's why you there too. And each month they're putting their motion. They would share the cost for folks that have said they want to be there for the advice. Do we know how much the advice costs? 250 bucks an hour. I don't know if it's 250, but it's probably about 250 bucks an hour. It's 250 for our executive session or I don't see if the board gets to choose and there are seven reasons as you I think you know this Kyle but I just for everyone else there's seven reasons to go into executive session. It receiving blanket legal advice is not one of them. It has to be for a specific purpose user around real estate or personnel or negotiating anybody. Yeah, right. So, I mean, I don't mind 250 an hour and sharing it. Like, say that it's three hours. That's 250. We should just pay our share. That's not classy at all. So I don't mind our share for Monday's meeting. I would agree to pay our share for Monday's meeting to send somebody maybe I'll just make this emotion that I make a motion that we designate a board member to go on Monday that we split the cost currently in three ways with you 32 and East Montpelier. And whoever else may show up. Exactly. So that's going to be so I guess that's my motion. So I would you accept the friendly amendment? Yes. Because the cost doesn't change no matter how many board members go. Meaning that's 250 an hour. If you have 10, 250. Yeah. So whoever wants to go can go. Is my friendly amendment. But we just should have at least one. Yes. So I would just tell you as your superintendent, just and just to protect you, I would warn it for a Monday meeting just so you have it warned. It's fine. You've got it shown up. And I don't see a problem. Yeah. Okay. It needs a second. Okay. So then in the discussion, I just want to say I wouldn't feel comfortable voting beyond the Monday night meeting. If the board needed further counsel, I would want the new board members to decide that on the night. Your motion is clear and specific to that meeting alone. Okay. Any other discussion? All in favor? All right. All right. And I'll move now that we scheduled a meeting for March 7th, Thursday at 6 o'clock. Do you want to do 5.30? It used to be 5.30. A voting schedule made it, so I had to do 6. Oh, yeah, 5.30. And a discussion to 5.30. Sorry, wait, wait, what day? March 7th, Thursday. Do you mean 6? This is for... Sounds like 6, it's still needed. So, yeah, 6 is for me, too. Is it what? 6 p.m. is... I mean, I won't be able to be here at 5.30. Okay. Marry me, I won't either. So just do 6. 6 o'clock. Okay. I will just tell you that just because we might be running 4 or 5 board meetings, so between Laurie and myself, we're covering these because they're budget-related. Okay. We'll just... You'll know who's going to be there. I just wanted four more in everybody that were trying to cover things fast. Well, at our last budget discussion meeting back in January, I think it was, you mentioned that there was an audit being done on services, support services, or something of that nature. Was Director of Student Services working with our special educators? Yes, they did talk. Okay. It wasn't like a... It wasn't a review. What I'm curious about is, we're... Have things... Has that process impacted? Impacted. Could that have any impact on... It did to a point where the teachers gave the... They said we'd like the administrators to make any recommendations on changes in the staffing. We don't feel comfortable doing it ourselves. I was actually pretty shocked. So, do we vote yet? We vote it. We don't. Okay. So, my... Well, my motion to schedule a meeting for Thursday... Oh, do we need to vote on a meeting? You know what? You don't need to. We don't know. Okay. So, we're just going to... We'll do it. By your policy, you have the authority to call for a meeting. Okay. And then we'll deal with... We'll have budget numbers by when? Bill? We'll have them. You know, we have the budget... We have the budget numbers now. It's just a question of publishing. So, there's going to be the scheduled meetings on Saturday and Monday. Yeah. Can we have them by then? So, I have to give you your old numbers, because Lori is actually off tomorrow and Friday. Okay. So, I don't have a way... I mean, I do, but I don't trust myself without Lori double-checking what I would do for her of recalculating everything. So, I have your original stuff that was in January, and I have you for those meetings. I can have that. For the meeting on the 9th, I will have your the changes that have happened, you know, for penalty. Okay. For August... For March 7th. Well, it's on, I don't think... March 7th? March 7th. Sorry. March 7th. Thank you. Sorry. We could get that on least a day. For Monday. Oh, no. I can do that. I just can't do it. Literally, Lori's on... She started today and she said, I'm not back until Monday. Okay. Yeah. So, I just can't do anything before Monday. Okay. That I can do it myself, but I want someone else to check it. Any more discussion on 2.1? Okay. So, we move on to 2.2, which is the principal search committee process. So, when is the meeting on Monday where lawyers are being... Oh, yeah. It's 4.30 at U32. The auditorium? The auditorium? No, 1.28. 1.28. Okay. Can 1.20... Can 1.20 just guarantee to be there? Chris, you'll be there for sure. This is room 128? Yeah. It's usually U32 board meeting. Okay. So, principal search committee and so, Brian, thank you for your email. I think it was very helpful. And so, I'd like to open the discussion that we have gotten applications. Yep. And have there been Ms. Carly gotten... She's got a lot of people asking to be on the committee. Okay. So, what I think we want to reconfirm is composition of the committee. Yeah. Can I just... Let me just say this. Sure. Carly's been letting people know that we're figuring it out. Okay. And we'll get back to him as soon as we can. Same with it. The candidates have been told that in to hold certain dates in March right now and that because of a vacation and this has happened in other principal hearings because of this long February break that, you know, this is when you'll be notified by and I can get that timeline out to everybody. You know, we had a, as I said in the letter that I put out that Chris and I had gone over was that March 11th would be forums and then the next week would be interviews. There would be a good committee who come together hopefully on the 15th, which is that Friday, to look at resumes. We call people. That's what we've done this before with principal candidates to say, hey, we're going to call you this day. It's only three or four days to the interview, but we will let you know four weeks in advance when you might have an interview. So please save that date. Okay. And we did that with all candidates. Okay. So they have that timeline. So the committee been composed of four teaching staff, including one para, one special ed representative, two community members and two board members. And in light of the, and I would propose that the teaching staff self-select who they want to be on the committee. I know this may be concerned about voices being drowned out. I think in my view, respecting staff to self-select as a rather than impose a selection process is the way to go for me. In terms of community members, I think the board could select the community members to serve on the, and just as we'll self-select interested board members, the two serve on the committee as well. Any ideas about that? I have a comment. Sure. Brian was very kind and wrote an email with his thoughts. I was very surprised to get the email from you and Bill about stating that the board had contracted with someone. It seems to me that it was a process violation because I believe that we met in January and all five board members were in agreement that we did not want to hire a consultant to do this work. That we all five agreed that the director of curriculum did an above board job at the process last year. We had no complaints and we would feel very comfortable delegating the process. If something had changed, it seems like it should have come back to the board for a decision, particularly before communicating out that the board had contracted with someone and further knowing that there's been a lot of discussion just in terms of our board makeup having this one issue that we all pretty passionately felt and gave ample time for discussion and we all came back saying no we did not want to hire someone. It was really hard for me to then see that we had indeed hired someone and we hadn't had the chance to vote on it or even really discuss it. I know it's discussed a little bit at the February meeting. I haven't seen those minutes but I do not believe that there was any type of emotion. So that is definitely one concern I have and the makeup did shift a little from our discussion, but it sounds like now you're saying two community members. So that's... Yeah, and I have to apologize for the makeup. So let me let me confess and apologize because there was a shift in terms of the curriculum director being able to serve and they should have come back to the board. So it was my error and I apologize for that. So that and that that was made clear during the February meeting. Is there an option bill for any administrator in the Supervisory Union to lead this for us? Maybe another principal, assistant principal. There were, you had people who were trained in facilitation. I don't know if anybody who we like do that work that they could take on. No, it can be tasked. It has in other issues it's tasked to other principals at times to do things like this. I always try to get as neutral as possible, frankly, and that's why I suggested to Chris to have Laurie Singer who was a former principal in Washington Central well before I was here well regarded. I was given her name by a couple other people that I just thought that that was a good way to go and let, you know, I've been saying to Chris the whole time my biggest goal is to bring Rummy in the middle sex community together and I wanted to do that. It's still my first goal. And by the time we got the email from Brian I did call bill and contract had not been signed. Okay. But you know the error had been made. So just we're not reaching a contract just to at least Yeah, no, no, Laurie was very gracious about it when I talked. And so in terms of the process moving forward, are you still interested, are you still interested? I could so I completely understand Bill wanting it neutral. I think that so my my first preference would be central office or somebody within the supervisory union. If nobody within that were willing to do it. Yes, I would still volunteer my time so that we would not pay. But I would be really clear about what I would be able to offer and see if the board was interested. So first you want to do that now so that we well so first do you think that you could find somebody within the SU that would be willing to do the process? It's that last part that you say I can always direct someone to do something. I try not to ever do that because that especially in a hiring process because they need to be in a good place to do that. Right. I have not gone out beyond Kelly and Jen to ask them to ask someone else if they would be willing to do it. I would have to do that and I can do that. But I don't know the answers to those questions right now. So what if Bill did that by the ninth meeting the meet by the meeting on March 9th. I screwed it up for you. And then at least you know if you have somebody and then I could come to the new board as a non-board member and say in terms of process you know what my skills are what I what time I would be able to commit in the way that I would do the process. Does that make sense? Yep. Is the timeline. And I was going to say to you and you and I haven't had a chance to talk about this but if you were to do it and I said this to Chris I said you know all the resources that we have for all the hiring processes all those are there and Carlin being our HR coordinator she's you know she's ready to go to support whoever's doing it and that's where she was for Laura she had already started setting that stuff up. So I'm just wondering is Jen out of the country or something? Because she did great last time and was totally neutral and you know she she works for us we're already paying for her why wouldn't she do it again? I'm trying to I need to protect the confidence of some of my employees and Jen just doesn't feel comfortable doing it again for running. And so the you know with that development it seemed that it would have been better to have someone who's more comfortable championing the process. Chris I have some thoughts on the not on the makeup itself but sort of how the process how the you mean select? Yes is that I would I would actually suggest that I think it's the teacher self-select I would suggest that the consultant select the community members to be a part of it and I'd also suggest that we I don't know if we can well I guess we can structure however we want but as again as an opportunity to bring voices to the table is that people that served in the last process not being eligible to serve on this process now an issue with the board depending on what board members want to serve on it but that may be a problem with the staff some staff that talked to me just come up talked to me when I've been in the school well they're going to self-select right I understand that but there there are some staff that that were in it last time that would like to be in it this time and there are some that would like to be in said don't think they should be this time over last time but that if we set a blanket note anyone that was last time you may have few people that do and I don't know I have not I've literally not looked at the list I've asked carlin I don't want to see good I'm glad there's a lot of people have asked I just don't know who's on that I would tell you that in the past of making up staff committees it pretty much has been a self-selection but it's been a self-selection around segments to make sure you represent the school so you wouldn't have everyone from for instance from the k pre-k through first second grade representing everyone in the school so you have the cross-section of the school you have a teacher's from the unified arts you have a teacher's from the intermediate elementary you have one from the primary elementary you know use and you say okay so yeah I think a blanket no previous experience can do it this time there's another good idea I will tell you that I am not going to well I don't know what was on it last time I will tell you that I'm not going to put in for this search committee so that's the board member as a board member yeah so you know that will open it up I think because it was me and I think we're on the last part oh she was going that's right who's who's oh carol, check carol so it will be uh two new board members from the committee I just wonder I well we're not we're not selecting tonight but no I know that I was going to say that it has nothing to do with the board members in terms of the community members do does anyone so Bill you don't know who's in for the community members do any of you know who's in there for the community members as of right now I know folks who have expressed interest I don't know who's on the list though yeah I mean I I mean could it be a rant I just I hear what you're saying about not having people that did it before and then are there bias playing into choosing the community members can you have it randomly I agree I think it should be ran now I think everybody should have a timeline and a way to apply for it so far there's really not been communication that's told people if you want to be on the committee do this so I'd like a time that we make it very clear what they do give them a deadline and then randomly select from the people who have expressed interest it just seems like the fair is potentially the way that then it doesn't fall on anyone bias and the teachers could have you know they have their way of doing it but that could be one option for them if they can yeah that sounds fine to me pick out of essentially pick out of hat right yeah whoever's names on the list and pick out of hat what which is I said it's more electronic now but yeah well needn't be I mean um okay any other do we have to talk anymore about the yeah so can I just ask a process what can I ask you a process about that sure just so we get everything figured out does the board want to do that do you want Carla to do that as your HR coordinator to pick the two people how do you want that done do you want to bring you all the names and do that you know do it I would I would say that yeah that's fine we have some other names of people that have written the Romney school board that want their names so I think I think what what Caroline says there needs to be another announcement I agree and so that's like how do we do that I just write another we put another letter out in front porch form you're clarifying that letter I'll say just want to clarify and then again as I said in that letter you need to let Carla know by March and so you will the central office is going to do that we'll get on that okay and you'll do you'll email everybody on the school directory yeah and from porch yeah yeah yeah the I.C. directory and these two names these people wish to be on the list they sent emails to the Romney school board okay can you just email me those okay you have them to the person who takes them to you both is great what's the what's your name Carla I'm going to get our last name spelling correct so just give me a little bit all right so we're gonna get encourage people from the community to apply and then I would say by next uh Friday March 8th and we'll be we'll be clear you don't have to reapply if you've already put in yeah it's right yeah that's what I'm gonna say I'm gonna say if you've already sent your email and if you've already emailed Carla okay so we're done with that next up is act 46 last week Brian racist yeah my my point actually or my reasons for bringing this up may be moot based on something that I heard earlier because I wanted to raise the concerns around Charmander and his comments towards Matthew DeGroote and propose that we put forth a resolution asking for him to be removed from the legal rep legal team that's representing us in their schools but it sounds like perhaps he's done that that has happened can you just he's stuck aside I got an email from Inez what's Inez is that we go we go we go in saying the Charles Merriman thanking him for his work but he's no longer working on the appeal I came out Monday I want to say last week I think I noticed was valid with the court on Monday okay yeah so I think that's that's already occurred so then the article was inaccurate um actually I think the article in the newspaper mentioned that I thought oh I didn't see that was the edited it really okay yeah no he uh that it maybe didn't make it into the article um but but it has occurred to you and all of that the email that you forwarded from Vermont Digger yeah it's I didn't understand where I had stemmed from oh I I don't know myself actually um okay any further business any more public comment okay we stand adjourned at uh seven twenty nine