Hebron Dollars & Sense

OK, I'll try to get this thread started, though my mind is numb from the meeting. Basically, the BOE approved a motion: "To reduce the FY 2010-11 budget by $48,500 in the Kindergarten program and keep two full day classes in order to meet the needs of special education students." For me, this says that the 14 low-performing kids who are coming into the K program are more important than the significantly higher number of high-performing kids who are no longer going to be receiving the concentrated attention of a C and E teacher at Gilead Hill.

The supt. actually came right out and said: "If we don't meet adequate yearly progress for the special education children next year, we aren't going to be named a Blue Ribbon School again." Not those exact words, but that was the basic idea. Oh no, not a Blue Ribbon School? The horror! She also alluded to "dire consequences" if we do not meet AYP for those special ed. children. I am wondering just what those dire consequences are? To my knowledge, we don't receive any funding that would be contingent upon meeting the AYP of our special ed. children. Anyone who has any knowledge in this area, I'd love to be better informed.

The chair opened up the meeting by repeating the "no discussion with the board" rule, as well as the 3 minute rule. She was extremely pushy when one member of the public insisted upon finishing his prepared statement. However, when another member of the public went well past her alloted time (at least 3 minutes over), that was just dandy. The first person was against ADK, the second was for it. Go figure.

Lots of folks spoke, both for and against ADK.

I think it should be noted that one person who went over the time limit was very rude and combative. Where as others who went over time were members of the BOS and BOF . Just wanted everyone to have complete information. Just so people do know that Jane Dube was trying to keep order to the meeting being we are a civilized society.

Taxpayer wrote:


Believe it or not, it was over 7 minutes, so you're pretty close, it was 4 minutes over the allotted 3 minutes... the speaker against ADK stood his ground, even though it made some people uncomfortable. One important thing I remember him saying was "I paid $6,200 in taxes last year to have the privilege of speaking to you tonight, and if you hadn't stopped me, I would have been finished by now." And with that, he said 4 more sentences and was done. So I'm guesstimating, but I think his total speech (without the interruption by the Board Chair) would have been about 3 1/2 minutes, maybe 4 at a stretch.

The other speaker I was impressed with was from San Diego, and talked about how all day kindergarten is a given, and how San Diego is almost all Vietnamese and Chinese children who could read by 1st grade, while her child couldn't. I didn't get that logic. I also wondered if she would acknowledge that California is totally bankrupt, but she didn't. Years ago, when Governor Arnie tried to take on the teacher's unions, he got taken to the wood shed.

Do we really want to follow the nation's role model for the path to state bankruptcy? If you look at the recently passed Connecticut budget, with all the borrowing to cover deficits, we're well on our way.

Maybe it has to do with states whose name starts with the letter "C"... Colorado ain't doing so hot either these days! :>)

MeMMs wrote:


The lady who spoke 7 minutes (immediately after the person you claim was rude and combative) is not a member of any board or commission. She was a member of the general public. She was not shut down at 3 minutes; at 7 minutes, the chair asked her to conclude her comments, which she then did with 2 or 3 more sentences, depending on where you'd put the commas in the statements.

With the first speaker, he was not given notice to conclude his comments; he was told to stop totally. He was not allowed to conclude his statements. He only had four more sentences.

Just wanted everyone to have complete information. Just so people know....There were many people at the meeting.

Food for thought: wouldn't we be a more "civilized society" if all people were treated equally? Isn't that one of the reasons we're in the mess we're in right now... because not all speakers are treated equally? If there is a Board policy of 3 minutes, there is a Board policy of 3 minutes that should be applied to all. But frankly, I wanted to hear what the 7-minute speaker had to say. It was very interesting and I learned some things from her that were thought-provoking.

Who put who in a "combative, rude" situation? The one trying to provide some thoughts for consideration, or the chair who arbitrarily decides when and when not to implement the Board policy of 3 minutes?

This is why I have a REAL problem with the meeting tonight. I'm glad you brought up this topic. It clearly illustrates how open, transparent, and honest these meetings have been, and tonight was better, but still barely an exception to previous to meetings.

Aside from the exact length of each speakers' comments, and your opinion on the board's policy on length of public comments, and the discretion at which the board members enforced the policy - was there anything you'd like to share about the substance of the meeting and the decisions brought forth by the BOE?

The manner in which the decision was arrived at was unique. The administrative team did not present a number of options to choose from or guide the HBOE as I expected. The HBOE bounced things among them selves and off the superintendent. The Building Administrator from GHS was never consulted, and the Special ed director, even when most of the discussion centered around meeting needs of special ed students never spoke.