By Polly Mikula
A motion to save all unified arts (UA) programs and positions in Mountain Views School Distict passed in a tiebreaker vote Monday night, Dec. 16. Ryan Townsend from Bridgewater made the motion, with seven district board representatives voting for and seven voting against. The chair of the board, Keri Bristow of Woodstock, cast the tiebreaking vote in favor of saving all UA from budget cut considerations.
“I think it’s worth the exploration,” Bristow said after casting her vote. “We have to make cuts responsibly.”
The district serves about 995 students preK-12 from Barnard, Bridgewater, Killington, Pomfret, Plymouth, Reading and Woodstock.
The proposed savings of $450,000 from UA programs was to come from cutting $350,000 of district elementary school UA programs and $98,000 at the middle/high school (the Latin program, which has about 50 students enrolled or 12% of the high school student body).
Unified arts refers to art, music, world languages, STEM, makerspace and library programs.
There was a large community effort supporting saving the UA programs, which put pressure on the district board. Supporters spoke in the public comment portion of the previous board meeting, Dec. 2, for over an hour making their case, then wrote a letter than garnered almost 200 signatures. Many were at the meeting Dec. 16 planning to make their case again, but the passage of the motion to save UA prior to public comment, made that unnecessary.
Cost of saving UA
The motion put the entire $450,000 back in the budget without mandating, or even specifying, the administration to look into any specific additional cuts. The $450,000 would put the district in the penalty phase such that it would have to raise $850,000 to cover those costs (all spending in the penalty threshold have to raise $2 for every $1 spent).
The board waffled on how to move forward after passing the motion to save UA — whether different cuts ought to be presented to the board or if the budget should be presented to the voters as is with the UA $450,000 added back in.
“I’m confused as to what you’re actually asking us to do,” said Finance Director Jim Fenn. “Are you asking us to cut $850,000 but none of it comes from UA to get another threshold? Or are you telling us to increase the budget by $450,000 then it looks good?”
“The only motion voted on is: stay away from UA,” summarized Ben Ford, board vice chair and finance committee chair. “Individual board members have expressed interest in other cuts, but those have been left for discussion … No one’s prepared to say, I propose that we pass a budget that cuts x, y or z.”
Board member Josh Linton, from Plymonth, abstained from voting on the UA motion saying he was hoping for a more nuanced path. “What if we made it our goal to not make as many cuts to UA. To try to get the the budget to right below penalty base, and then try to restore as much UA as we can… We’ve heard them say that they don’t want UA cut. However, we also have a number that says we go above this number we start paying two for one, $2 for every $1, which doesn’t make sense economically.”
Sam DiNatale of Woodstock, voted against the motion explaining: “I think that blanket saying that we’re not cutting anything from UA now has left our administrators to make bigger cuts elsewhere and we don’t know what that looks like. I would have been more comfortable with … less cuts to the UA, and that’s why I voted nay, was because I wanted it to be more more equitable.”
Townsend who made the motion “not to make cuts to any of the Unified Art programs,” later clarified that he expected the administration to find other cuts to keep the district under the penalty phase. “All I’m doing by this motion is making sure if there are cuts to the UA is the last damn option we go down … we might still have to make those cuts to avoid the penalty once we get everything down at the bottom line without UA on the books. Like, if you guys come back to me say, ‘Hey, we don’t find any other place to make a cut. This is what it will cost us.’ We can make a motion to accept cuts to UA to keep under the penalty phase,” he said.
Many other board members weighed in expressing concern over passing a budget that puts the district into the penalty phase.
“I wanted to provide some context… how big of a deal is the penalty phase?” Ford asked rhetorically Monday night. “In terms of the other pieces of the puzzle — the yield or the ADM or penalty threshold — it’s not the most significant. In fact, it’s relatively minor, in terms of impact,” he explained showing charts with the tax rate fluctuating only a few percentage points in five different scenarios (see charts).
Courtesy Ben Ford
Three scenarios for the MVSU FY26 budget show how tax rates would be affected in each district town. The chart above shows the tax impact to the budget with the cost of the united arts back in with no additional cuts.
The state determines the estimate for property yield per long term weighted average daily membership (LTWADM) but that number can fluctuate depending on approved budgets through June, Fenn noted.
The penalty phase — calculated as 118% of average statewide budgets — can also fluctuate as those budgets come in. Lower statewide budgets, lower the average, which then lowers the penalty threshold.
Due to updated calculations in LTWADM and penalty phase, last week, the district budget was over additional $408,000 into the penalty phase, Ford reported, noting that the Legislative session has not yet begun, and further changes are expected once it convenes. Last year, a projected 19% increase was reduced to $14% by the Legislature. This year, the projection is 5.9% with many new legislatures voted in to address rising costs.
“I guess where I kind of land is our administration and principals have done a lot of quality work. There’s been some great thought, I think we should still make a healthy set of cuts, right? But do it kind of with an eye towards recognizing that penalty phase isn’t necessarily the worst thing,” Ford said.
Public weighs in
About two dozen citizens attended the district meeting in person Monday night, Dec. 16, with another 60 attending via Zoom. Those that spoke were all in support of preserving the educational quality and frequency of programing throughout the district.
Jim Haff, of Killington, a former district board member, kicked off the public comment portion of the meeting after the board had completed its agenda. “Whichever way you voted, you’re here to put a budget in front of the town’s people that’s the best, as Ryan said, for the students. I think the messaging is bad regarding discussions of the penalty phase. The focus should be on a flat tax rate compared to the prior year,” Haff said. “Ben said that the vote last year for the budget passed two to one. The folks like the education that’s in this school district, the more you keep cutting, the more people are going to leave… You’ve made cuts with incentives for staff resigning. That’s a one year cost… of $150,000. So I really do believe that the way you should be going here is … no cuts, bring the $450K back. That’s what I think you should do. And I think you would have the budget passing even in Killington this year.”
Dillon Benros, of Woodstock agreed, “I wanted to second Jim’s comment, to stick with adding the $450K back in and put it up for the vote… cutting programs is not the right direction to maintain a higher ranking school system.”
Jessica Kirby, of Woodstock, added: “If we want to talk about equity, we need to think about what’s going to happen if we keep making these cuts? People are worried about leaving because of taxes, and I fully understand that’s a real concern, but families are so going to leave if these cuts continue and they’re going to move or put these kids in other schools, and then our cost per pupil is going to go up even more,” she said.
Sarah Reiter from Pomfret, said, “I recommend all considered cuts be considered against the backdrop of weather and to what extent these cuts will have a negative impact on the whole child education. And I would love to see that as part of the analysis as we consider cuts going forward.”
Sarit Werner, of Woodstock, encouraged the board to consider the larger implication for the future of the district schools, particularly its middle and high school.
“I think it’s important to consider what the future of Woodstock, middle school/high school looks like. The building is the second worst in the state, if we cut our programming now so that we’re not offering a better education than other schools, and the state moves forward with its ‘fewer and newer’ proposal, why should or would the state elect to keep Woodstock? Keeping our status as a third best public high school in the state is crucial, and that designation includes UA and all the extra program opportunities.”
Next steps
“So on January 6, are we going to come and we’re going to have one option and we’re going to vote up or down? Or are we going to have like three options, or a la cart… is it possible for the administration to look at any further cuts between now and Jan. 6?” asked Anna Sessa, of Reading.
“I took notes on all the proposals and I’m going to provide those to Ben,” said Superintendent Sherry Sousa. “I think it’s in the hands of the finance committee and the principals to come up with a recommendation for the next board meeting,” she said adding that with only four working days left in the week before holiday vacations, the amount of new budgeting work possible before Jan. 6 is limited.
If a budget is passed by the district board on Jan. 6, it will be sent to the seven district towns to be included on their Town Meeting Day ballots. If the board doesn’t pass a budget on Jan. 6, it could require pushing the district budget vote back requiring a special vote in all district towns.
