This is a printer-friendly version of an article from Zip06.com.

Does Not Benefit Students

Kirk Carr’s March 8 letter “Needless and Callous” began with, “On Feb. 28, Clinton’s Board of Selectmen met and all but rubber stamped the Board of Education’s [BOE] $36 million budget, trimming a mere $76,500 from their capital budget.”

Mr. Carr failed to mention that I made a motion to reduce the BOE operating budget by $957,505. Selectman Carol Walter seconded the motion, which failed by a 2-to-3 vote. I then moved to cut the capital budget by $76,500. Carol Walter also seconded this motion, which passed 5-to-0. Had my first motion passed, the BOE budget request would have been reduced to this year’s budget.

Why did I do this? In reviewing their, budget I was stunned to see the high salaries and benefits afforded to the system’s management and administrative staff. In spite of generous salaries and the town’s poor financial condition, 13 were given a new, three-year contract with 2.2 percent increases in each of the three years. This generous contract benefits the highest-paid personnel in the system while enrollment shrinks. In addition, several administrators receive, in addition to their pensions, personal annuities that supplement retirement pensions at an annual cost to taxpayers of $81,300.

Providing generous compensation does not benefit students. In fact, you could argue that it shrinks the funds available for actual education. Know also that spending has no correlation to student performance.

Also be aware that the BOE runs substantial surpluses each year in spite of rumored year-end spending binges. A surplus means you are over-taxed. The BOE needs to take seriously the closing of Pierson. If we don’t shrink the BOE budget, it will never do it. And last, it’s the BOE that rubber-stamped its budget, making no reductions to the superintendent’s budget request.

Selectman Phil Sengle (R)

Clinton