For School Board:
Jocelyn O’Quinn
Henry Brackett
Mark Townsend
For Durham Town Council:
Neil Niman
Diana Carroll
Robin Mower
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Please remember to VOTE!
Well, there is normal turnout this year despite the good weather. As of ~noon, there were approximately 650 votes cast in Durham. Most candidates were standing outside holding signs and greeting voters. Please support the candidates and come out to vote. It doesn't take too long.
Also, please comment on how you think the vote will go tonight or on anything else this election day...
Also, please comment on how you think the vote will go tonight or on anything else this election day...
Saturday, March 7, 2009
Can't we all get along?
This is an open letter from Mark Townsend - School Board candidate from Madbury:
Tonight I received an email from a supporter, forwarding an email that was distributed earlier today in our school district. The email informed voters “that if Brian Banafato were to win, the choice of who represents Madbury would be decided by the school board.”
First let me respond by saying - I respect that this person has opinion. We are a Democratic society that values freedom of speech. I do not agree with the method or opinion expressed, but I do respect that they have a different opinion.
I do not believe that Brian has any knowledge of this action. He’s a good person, and I respect his decision to withdraw from the race.
I have been working to earn your votes.
At the Oyster River High School this week, the six candidates answered questions from the “Citizenship Education” class and ORHS Chapter of the National Honor Society. As the sole uncontested candidate - I let our students know that I am still making every effort as if it were a contested race, I work to “EARN” everything in life. That is an important lesson I was taught and a lesson I wanted to demonstrate to our youth.
Work hard and earn respect.
If you haven’t had the chance to meet or talk with me, I urge you to reach out and contact me. I’ll gladly take the time to listen to you - as I have with many voters in our district.
Let Madbury choose its representative, fairly and without prejudice.
I ask for your support on March 10th.
Thank you,
-Mark
Do you want to choose Madbury’s representative or let the school board decide?
Please vote for Mark Townsend on March 10th.
Tonight I received an email from a supporter, forwarding an email that was distributed earlier today in our school district. The email informed voters “that if Brian Banafato were to win, the choice of who represents Madbury would be decided by the school board.”
First let me respond by saying - I respect that this person has opinion. We are a Democratic society that values freedom of speech. I do not agree with the method or opinion expressed, but I do respect that they have a different opinion.
I do not believe that Brian has any knowledge of this action. He’s a good person, and I respect his decision to withdraw from the race.
I have been working to earn your votes.
At the Oyster River High School this week, the six candidates answered questions from the “Citizenship Education” class and ORHS Chapter of the National Honor Society. As the sole uncontested candidate - I let our students know that I am still making every effort as if it were a contested race, I work to “EARN” everything in life. That is an important lesson I was taught and a lesson I wanted to demonstrate to our youth.
Work hard and earn respect.
If you haven’t had the chance to meet or talk with me, I urge you to reach out and contact me. I’ll gladly take the time to listen to you - as I have with many voters in our district.
Let Madbury choose its representative, fairly and without prejudice.
I ask for your support on March 10th.
Thank you,
-Mark
Do you want to choose Madbury’s representative or let the school board decide?
Please vote for Mark Townsend on March 10th.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
O'Quinn, Brackett and Townsend for School Board
On March 10th, the Oyster River School District will vote for new School Board members. I endorse Jocelyn O'Quinn (Durham), Henry Brackett (Lee) and Mark Townsend (Madbury) in this election.
These three candidates support greater accountability, communication and transparency in the Oyster River School District. In a competitive global economy, challenged by economic recession, we need competent representation to make every dollar count and to strive for academic excellence.
Recently the Oyster River School District has been questioned for not obtaining multiple bids on large projects, neglecting to vote on contracts and awarding large salary increases with multi-year terms contracts to the District's Superintendent and Business Administrator. The time is now for a change. We cannot afford wasteful spending in today's economy. Moreover, we should not spend valuable tax dollars that detract from vital, academic priorities.
The Oyster River District tradition for excellence needs to be renewed. Elect O'Quinn, Brackett and Townsend on March 10th.
These three candidates support greater accountability, communication and transparency in the Oyster River School District. In a competitive global economy, challenged by economic recession, we need competent representation to make every dollar count and to strive for academic excellence.
Recently the Oyster River School District has been questioned for not obtaining multiple bids on large projects, neglecting to vote on contracts and awarding large salary increases with multi-year terms contracts to the District's Superintendent and Business Administrator. The time is now for a change. We cannot afford wasteful spending in today's economy. Moreover, we should not spend valuable tax dollars that detract from vital, academic priorities.
The Oyster River District tradition for excellence needs to be renewed. Elect O'Quinn, Brackett and Townsend on March 10th.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Yes We Can...er....Maybe Not?
Fosters Article published Mar 2, 2009
It's déjà vu for Durham
While the faces sitting in front of the camera and behind the table change a bit each year, the issues don't.
During a recent Durham Town Council candidates forum, five candidates seeking three seats put their best faces forward.
On the issue of development: Durham needs it, but just where in town is still the debate.
On the character of the community: It must be protected.
On the cost of living in Durham: Too high for too many.
On relations with the University of New Hampshire: Need work.
On the future of Durham: It must move forward.
All of the above could and often have been said or written of Durham over the past four or five decades.
Why? Because Durham is a community divided, even though many won't admit it.
What most do agree on, however, is that Durham is a beautiful community with a solid school system.
But there are two rubs.
One is the University of New Hampshire. The other is the tax rate.
The story has been told over the years of homes that are gorgeous from the outside, but barely furnished inside. Whether that is true today, it has been the case on and off in the past.
Then there are the candidate forums, like the recent one, bemoaning that young families and retirees are being forced out of town because of the taxes they must shoulder.
Whether the university is a burden or a benefit is always on the debate table. Sometimes UNH is a thorn in the side of taxpayers. At other times the university is a "best bud."
The bottom line is that Durham is an expensive community in which to live, raise a family and retire. Based on current and past candidate forums, there is no reason to think that will change. soon. Those who seek to dramatically grow the tax base are in a Mexican standoff with those who like Durham they way it is and are willing to pay the price.
It's a bit like the Democrats and Republicans in Congress. Whomever is in the majority at the moment gets to push a bit in their direction, but never gets very far before losing power.
As for UNH, every political debate season promises to renew talks with a new or relatively new university president. But results are few and far between.
Are there issues, if tackled properly, that could move things along to affordability and ease relations with UNH?
The consensus over the years has been "yes, we can." But then the will wanes and local taxes rise. When this happens a new crop of candidates files into forum chambers as election time nears to repeat what newbie candidates before them have said many times.
Don't misunderstand. Durham's fate is not sealed, and there is no intent to badmouth anyone. But it would be nice if someone who spoke out during one of these forums about real change stood a chance of getting elected. That's dynamic change. That's grab-the-bull-by-the-horns change. Without being partisan, perhaps an Obama type at the local level is what Durham needs.
But there is a sense that this kind of candidate scares Durham voters into playing it safe. The result is that Durham gets safe candidates and as a result nothing much changes — taxes remain high and, fair or not, UNH remains a punching bag.
It's déjà vu for Durham
While the faces sitting in front of the camera and behind the table change a bit each year, the issues don't.
During a recent Durham Town Council candidates forum, five candidates seeking three seats put their best faces forward.
On the issue of development: Durham needs it, but just where in town is still the debate.
On the character of the community: It must be protected.
On the cost of living in Durham: Too high for too many.
On relations with the University of New Hampshire: Need work.
On the future of Durham: It must move forward.
All of the above could and often have been said or written of Durham over the past four or five decades.
Why? Because Durham is a community divided, even though many won't admit it.
What most do agree on, however, is that Durham is a beautiful community with a solid school system.
But there are two rubs.
One is the University of New Hampshire. The other is the tax rate.
The story has been told over the years of homes that are gorgeous from the outside, but barely furnished inside. Whether that is true today, it has been the case on and off in the past.
Then there are the candidate forums, like the recent one, bemoaning that young families and retirees are being forced out of town because of the taxes they must shoulder.
Whether the university is a burden or a benefit is always on the debate table. Sometimes UNH is a thorn in the side of taxpayers. At other times the university is a "best bud."
The bottom line is that Durham is an expensive community in which to live, raise a family and retire. Based on current and past candidate forums, there is no reason to think that will change. soon. Those who seek to dramatically grow the tax base are in a Mexican standoff with those who like Durham they way it is and are willing to pay the price.
It's a bit like the Democrats and Republicans in Congress. Whomever is in the majority at the moment gets to push a bit in their direction, but never gets very far before losing power.
As for UNH, every political debate season promises to renew talks with a new or relatively new university president. But results are few and far between.
Are there issues, if tackled properly, that could move things along to affordability and ease relations with UNH?
The consensus over the years has been "yes, we can." But then the will wanes and local taxes rise. When this happens a new crop of candidates files into forum chambers as election time nears to repeat what newbie candidates before them have said many times.
Don't misunderstand. Durham's fate is not sealed, and there is no intent to badmouth anyone. But it would be nice if someone who spoke out during one of these forums about real change stood a chance of getting elected. That's dynamic change. That's grab-the-bull-by-the-horns change. Without being partisan, perhaps an Obama type at the local level is what Durham needs.
But there is a sense that this kind of candidate scares Durham voters into playing it safe. The result is that Durham gets safe candidates and as a result nothing much changes — taxes remain high and, fair or not, UNH remains a punching bag.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Regional Superintendent Salary Info
While teachers are being laid off, Oyster River School District Superintendent salary tops the charts!
Teachers, para-professionals and service workers are being laid off in our district while top paid administrators in our district are receiving an average increase of ~4%!
Join the discussion and make a comment!
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Administration Contracts and School Restructuring
This topic is a placeholder for community members to weigh in regarding the current restructuring going on in the schools. What some people may not understand are the following:
1. Over 20 staff positions are being eliminated. Many of these are direct student facing employees.
2. While our superintendent has just been awarded a new 3 year contract with a ~4% pay RAISE, this restructuring plan has/will be carried out with his proposal and wishes.
3. In addition, our business administrator has been UPGRADED to a 3 year contract as well (previous 8 years were one year contracts) this past December during the severe economic recession WITHOUT involvement from the school board. This position is the ONLY OTHER position along with the superintendent to have a 3 year contract! Coincidentally, the superintendent proposed and recommended this contract change
4. Both superintendent and business administrator are guaranteed a minimum 2.75% pay increases each of the three years.
5. The school board approved 5-2 to enter in the contract with the superintendent WITHOUT properly deliberating or having any written performance evaluation even though it was requested by one school board member.
If you were/are a teacher/staff member in this district, how does the above make you feel? How can you trust that administration and board members are doing the right thing by YOU?!
If you are a resident, how does this affect taxpayer money and overall quality of education for our children? If we are awarding pay raises and guaranteed employment as well as renewals without looking at performance evaluations in administration SAU levels, how can our teachers get the needed resources and budget dollars to directly improve our children's education?
It is this author's opinion that the school board and more intently, the superintendent enact a pay freeze and pay reduction for all administrators/high level staff immediately. I DO SUPPORT fair and equitable pay for our teachers. This is about administration...not teachers!
1. Over 20 staff positions are being eliminated. Many of these are direct student facing employees.
2. While our superintendent has just been awarded a new 3 year contract with a ~4% pay RAISE, this restructuring plan has/will be carried out with his proposal and wishes.
3. In addition, our business administrator has been UPGRADED to a 3 year contract as well (previous 8 years were one year contracts) this past December during the severe economic recession WITHOUT involvement from the school board. This position is the ONLY OTHER position along with the superintendent to have a 3 year contract! Coincidentally, the superintendent proposed and recommended this contract change
4. Both superintendent and business administrator are guaranteed a minimum 2.75% pay increases each of the three years.
5. The school board approved 5-2 to enter in the contract with the superintendent WITHOUT properly deliberating or having any written performance evaluation even though it was requested by one school board member.
If you were/are a teacher/staff member in this district, how does the above make you feel? How can you trust that administration and board members are doing the right thing by YOU?!
If you are a resident, how does this affect taxpayer money and overall quality of education for our children? If we are awarding pay raises and guaranteed employment as well as renewals without looking at performance evaluations in administration SAU levels, how can our teachers get the needed resources and budget dollars to directly improve our children's education?
It is this author's opinion that the school board and more intently, the superintendent enact a pay freeze and pay reduction for all administrators/high level staff immediately. I DO SUPPORT fair and equitable pay for our teachers. This is about administration...not teachers!
School Board Article in Fosters
Board reviews, revotes, approves key contracts
By AARON SANBORN
asanbornfosters.com
asanborn@fosters.com
Thursday, February 12, 2009
DURHAM — Despite the legitimacy of the new three-year contracts awarded to the Oyster River School District superintendent and business administrator being called into question, the board again discussed both and approved them Wednesday night.
The public outcry caused some School Board members to question the board's process of having approved the contracts in the first place, resulting in the new vote during Wednesday's board meeting.
Both contracts, which included 3.5 percent pay raises for both Superintendent Howard Colter and Business Administrator Blaine Cox, were originally signed by School Board Chair JoAnn Portalupi, but by no other School Board member.
Durham resident Megan Turnbull questioned whether the board followed proper procedure in November by deliberating the contracts and voting on them. She said meeting minutes from multiple November meetings only mentioned the board finalizing details of Colter's contract and discussing a personnel matter regarding Cox. None of those minutes referenced deliberation or a final vote on the contracts, she said.
"How should this be interpreted?" she asked. "We know Ms. Portalupi signed Mr. Cox's contract on Dec. 3, yet I cannot locate any meeting notes supporting plans to 'finalize the contract' or vote on the contract."
In regards to Colter's contract, the meeting minutes only said that the board voted 7-0 to finalize the details of Colter's contract.
"How should this be read?" she asked. "The board voted to finalize Howard's contract in order to finalize it in the future, or to go ahead and sign it? This needs to be clarified because my interpretation is of the former, not the later, yet, Ms. Portalupi executed this contract on Dec. 10."
Turnbull said she put in multiple Right-to-Know requests seeking to get minutes that referenced deliberation and a vote on the contracts, but only received two e-mails stating the board would reply in greater detail after Wednesday night's meeting.
Other members of the public also demanded the contracts be deliberated in public.
Portalupi said the 7-0 vote to finalize the details of Colter's contract on Nov. 5 in nonpublic session was the night the board approved the contract. Portalupi signed the contract a month later.
"To finalize details of a contract means we're in agreement," she said.
Portalupi said while the board usually votes on the superintendent's contract, it doesn't vote on the contracts of other administrators, like Cox. Instead, it lets Colter have the final say on that.
On Nov. 12, Portalupi said the board listened to Colter's recommendation of signing Cox to a three-year contract and giving him a 3.5 percent raise, but no vote was taken.
"My sense was that at the end of the meeting we agreed with the superintendent's recommendation," she said.
However, two board members said they were confused by the process in approving both contracts and said the language of the minutes didn't reflect them being approved.
Board member Jennifer Rief said she had asked to see a review of Colter during the Nov. 5 meeting and didn't realize the vote to finalize Colter's contract was the "approval" vote.
"How can I commit to a new contract when I've only worked with the superintendent for six months," she said. "I was under the impression we were still in the process of deliberating the contract."
Board Member Kim Clark also said she was under the impression that more deliberation would follow the Nov. 5 meeting.
Because of the conflict within the board, the board decided to once again deliberate and vote on both contracts. The board deliberated in nonpublic session for about 15 minutes and voted in public. The board voted 5-2 to approve Colter's contract with Rief and Clark voting against it.
The board then voted 5-1-1 to approve Cox's contract, with Rief voting against it and Clark abstaining.
Concerns were also raised about the term length of the contracts and the wage increases.
"The right thing to do is to nullify the contracts and revise them with a salary freeze for 2009-2010 and for one-year limits," Turnbull said. "Considering the current economic climate and what other school districts are doing across the country, it is appropriate to freeze our central office administrators' salaries and limit their terms to one year."
Portalupi said the multiyear contracts were necessary to ensure stable leadership in the district and also noted that other districts were looking to hire Cox.
Cox's base salary is now $96,153 and Colter's is $131,435.
By AARON SANBORN
asanbornfosters.com
asanborn@fosters.com
Thursday, February 12, 2009
DURHAM — Despite the legitimacy of the new three-year contracts awarded to the Oyster River School District superintendent and business administrator being called into question, the board again discussed both and approved them Wednesday night.
The public outcry caused some School Board members to question the board's process of having approved the contracts in the first place, resulting in the new vote during Wednesday's board meeting.
Both contracts, which included 3.5 percent pay raises for both Superintendent Howard Colter and Business Administrator Blaine Cox, were originally signed by School Board Chair JoAnn Portalupi, but by no other School Board member.
Durham resident Megan Turnbull questioned whether the board followed proper procedure in November by deliberating the contracts and voting on them. She said meeting minutes from multiple November meetings only mentioned the board finalizing details of Colter's contract and discussing a personnel matter regarding Cox. None of those minutes referenced deliberation or a final vote on the contracts, she said.
"How should this be interpreted?" she asked. "We know Ms. Portalupi signed Mr. Cox's contract on Dec. 3, yet I cannot locate any meeting notes supporting plans to 'finalize the contract' or vote on the contract."
In regards to Colter's contract, the meeting minutes only said that the board voted 7-0 to finalize the details of Colter's contract.
"How should this be read?" she asked. "The board voted to finalize Howard's contract in order to finalize it in the future, or to go ahead and sign it? This needs to be clarified because my interpretation is of the former, not the later, yet, Ms. Portalupi executed this contract on Dec. 10."
Turnbull said she put in multiple Right-to-Know requests seeking to get minutes that referenced deliberation and a vote on the contracts, but only received two e-mails stating the board would reply in greater detail after Wednesday night's meeting.
Other members of the public also demanded the contracts be deliberated in public.
Portalupi said the 7-0 vote to finalize the details of Colter's contract on Nov. 5 in nonpublic session was the night the board approved the contract. Portalupi signed the contract a month later.
"To finalize details of a contract means we're in agreement," she said.
Portalupi said while the board usually votes on the superintendent's contract, it doesn't vote on the contracts of other administrators, like Cox. Instead, it lets Colter have the final say on that.
On Nov. 12, Portalupi said the board listened to Colter's recommendation of signing Cox to a three-year contract and giving him a 3.5 percent raise, but no vote was taken.
"My sense was that at the end of the meeting we agreed with the superintendent's recommendation," she said.
However, two board members said they were confused by the process in approving both contracts and said the language of the minutes didn't reflect them being approved.
Board member Jennifer Rief said she had asked to see a review of Colter during the Nov. 5 meeting and didn't realize the vote to finalize Colter's contract was the "approval" vote.
"How can I commit to a new contract when I've only worked with the superintendent for six months," she said. "I was under the impression we were still in the process of deliberating the contract."
Board Member Kim Clark also said she was under the impression that more deliberation would follow the Nov. 5 meeting.
Because of the conflict within the board, the board decided to once again deliberate and vote on both contracts. The board deliberated in nonpublic session for about 15 minutes and voted in public. The board voted 5-2 to approve Colter's contract with Rief and Clark voting against it.
The board then voted 5-1-1 to approve Cox's contract, with Rief voting against it and Clark abstaining.
Concerns were also raised about the term length of the contracts and the wage increases.
"The right thing to do is to nullify the contracts and revise them with a salary freeze for 2009-2010 and for one-year limits," Turnbull said. "Considering the current economic climate and what other school districts are doing across the country, it is appropriate to freeze our central office administrators' salaries and limit their terms to one year."
Portalupi said the multiyear contracts were necessary to ensure stable leadership in the district and also noted that other districts were looking to hire Cox.
Cox's base salary is now $96,153 and Colter's is $131,435.
Monday, February 9, 2009
Jocelyn O'Quinn For School Board...
This is a public letter from a member of the community running for school board. This blog will accept all letters and comments from all running candidates who wish to publicly write something. Please write to oysterrivercommunity@gmail.com:
Hello,
My name is Jocelyn O’Quinn and I am running for the open Durham school board position in the upcoming election on March 10. As some of you know, I’m not a politician. I’m a mother of two pre-school age children, a community volunteer, a Durham landlord and a business development professional.
My husband and I moved here six years ago because of the Oyster River Cooperative School District. We believe strongly in the public school system and we know that schools succeed only with the support of an engaged community. After attending school board meetings over the last year, I believe that I have the analytical, planning and consensus building skills necessary to improve the quality of education in our district.
If elected, I plan to work to improve our schools through adopting a strategic, academic roadmap that focuses on preparing our students to meet the growing challenges of a global economy. Only through the use of a strategic plan will we be able to adopt academic initiatives that result in positive outcomes for our students and the most return on investment for the community.
Academic excellence has long been a hallmark of the Oyster River Cooperative School District. Our schools are filled with dedicated teachers and supported by an active community. The time has come to leverage that support and if elected, I’ll work to enlist UNH, local businesses and citizens to enhance our curriculum in innovative ways.
And finally, if elected, I’ll work to provide you with the communication, transparency and accountability that you need to support our school district.
Please vote for me on March 10 and join me in ensuring that we provide our students and teachers with the support they need to be successful in the 21st century.
Sincerely,
Jocelyn O’Quinn
Durham, NH
Hello,
My name is Jocelyn O’Quinn and I am running for the open Durham school board position in the upcoming election on March 10. As some of you know, I’m not a politician. I’m a mother of two pre-school age children, a community volunteer, a Durham landlord and a business development professional.
My husband and I moved here six years ago because of the Oyster River Cooperative School District. We believe strongly in the public school system and we know that schools succeed only with the support of an engaged community. After attending school board meetings over the last year, I believe that I have the analytical, planning and consensus building skills necessary to improve the quality of education in our district.
If elected, I plan to work to improve our schools through adopting a strategic, academic roadmap that focuses on preparing our students to meet the growing challenges of a global economy. Only through the use of a strategic plan will we be able to adopt academic initiatives that result in positive outcomes for our students and the most return on investment for the community.
Academic excellence has long been a hallmark of the Oyster River Cooperative School District. Our schools are filled with dedicated teachers and supported by an active community. The time has come to leverage that support and if elected, I’ll work to enlist UNH, local businesses and citizens to enhance our curriculum in innovative ways.
And finally, if elected, I’ll work to provide you with the communication, transparency and accountability that you need to support our school district.
Please vote for me on March 10 and join me in ensuring that we provide our students and teachers with the support they need to be successful in the 21st century.
Sincerely,
Jocelyn O’Quinn
Durham, NH
Friday, February 6, 2009
Post Deliberative Session: Getting Ready for March 10th
This past Tuesday's School Board Deliberative Session did not produce the turn out many expected. The snow and cold seemed to keep many at home. Nevertheless, folks like myself came before the Board to ask questions and raise concerns.
We were touched by a mother who stepped before the Board, with baby in tow, to tell the Board how she will not be able to give her child an Oyster River education because she had been laid off and would have to sell her house as a result. Others expressed concerns surrounding the District's bidding process, planned restructuring and raises for the central office administration. We asked questions about the Board's process to assure fair and prudent spending as well as for greater justification for the proposed warrant articles. One gentleman pointed out how our per pupil spending will be close to $20,000 per pupil; a figure comparable to many college tuition rates.
Indeed, we live in tough economic times, yet does the Board really understand the financial impacts our community faces? Is the Board truly spending every dollar wisely? Are the District priorities clear? Again, what do we value and how should we best spend our tax dollars in order to give our children an education that prepares them well for the future?
As we look in the upcoming School Board election, let's ask our School Board candidates how they would do things differently. How will they strive for greater accountability, communication and transparency? How will they strive toward academic excellence in our District?
Please share your ideas and concerns. I hope that this blog will become a useful forum to help all of us become educated on the issues and familiar with the candidates prior to the March 10th election.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)