As I write this column, the state does not yet have a FY’16 budget and we have no official word regarding the promised mitigation funding of $630,000 to offset the district’s financial loss from Worthington’s withdrawal. In addition, the lawsuit to stop Worthington from withdrawing from Gateway remains in progress and anyone may now see the various filings from both the defendants and the plaintiffs, as it is now public record. Should the plaintiffs win or get an injunction against Worthington leaving, then the district would need to revisit the budget as there would then be seven towns in the district rather than the six the current budget is based upon.
In the meantime, we have a one-twelfth budget that was set by the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) as required by law. The current monthly budget has been set by the DESE at one-twelfth of the budget adopted by the school committee and voted down by the towns. As the budget amount is identical to what was requested by the school committee, and DESE is working under the assumption that due to the Worthington legislation the district is only comprised of six towns, the town assessments as certified by the district’s treasurer are currently valid and in place until and unless the school committee adopts another budget that the towns then approve said budget.
At this time, the school committee has requested a 15-day extension to the timeline for adopting and returning a budget for town consideration, with the idea that during this time the district will receive confirmation regarding the mitigation funding. Should the funding be provided to the district in the amount of $630,000 (the number certified by DESE as being our net operating ‘shortfall’ for FY’16 due to Worthington’s withdrawal) then Blandford and Huntington Selectboards would have to decide whether to hold another town meeting to re-approve amounts voted at their annual town meeting. Should the selectboards decide not to hold a special town meeting for this purpose, then the towns will have been deemed to approve the existing budget; towns do not have to vote again if the school committee changes their assessments to levels at, or below, what the towns have already approved. In Blandford’s case, the new assessment with mitigation would be equal to what was voted on at the annual town meeting (despite opposition from the finance committee and selectboard) and for Huntington, the new assessment with mitigation funding would be less than the amount approved at their annual town meeting (with the support of Huntington’s finance committee and selectboard).
If the district does not receive mitigation funding, then the school committee will be required to establish another budget. The ‘new’ budget, by law, may be less than, the same, or more than the last budget that was not approved by the towns. If the school committee does not set a new budget, it would automatically return the original FY’16 budget to the towns for reconsideration with potential changes to assessments based upon changes in state funding for education.
Much credit has to be provided to the school committee for their measured response to these unknowns and for continuing to do their best to move the district forward, despite the unknowns and the myriad pressures being brought to bear on the committee from various constituencies.
