Supt. Under Fire
At Hancock Meeting
By Martha Slater

Emotions ran high when Hancock voters gathered Tuesday evening at the Hancock Town Hall to cast a second vote on their school district budget.

The figure of $816,045 presented to the voters represented a reduction of $5,150 from the $821,195 budget warned at Town Meeting in March. Back then, that amount had to be voted on twice, since the first paper ballot resulted in a tie, and the second ended with the article being defeated 35-28. Thus, the April 29 meeting became necessary.

New school board member Rob Deering began by noting that, "When I got on the board, I thought there was a lot of cost cutting that could be done, but I found out that wasn’t so, as we have no real control over most of the items on the budget."

The fireworks began after selectboard member Jim Leno asked WNWSU Supt. Tim Mock what the savings would be if the school were not operating and the parents were allowed to tuition students wherever they wanted to.

Mock replied by distributing a handout showing a possible savings of $67,000, assuming a elementary tuition of $9,000.

The school board’s reaction to the handout was disbelief.

Board member Dan Perera rose to say that, "until five minutes ago, we hadn’t seen this news (the handout) and none of this was run by us before." He said he was at a loss as to how to react.

Mock apologized that the board had not seen the information prior to the meeting, but said the numbers were "confirmed by the WNWSU business manager."

Former school board member Don Crickard said he felt it was "clear that the supervisory union wants to close down our small school." He went on to dispute that the savings would actually be $67,000.

Mock replied that "in no way does the union want this school to close down."

Board Chair Upset

Visibly upset, school board chair Jesso-White said she felt that "this conversation initiated by Supt. Mock was inappropriate and out of place. We should have gone down this road at town meeting." She said the budget figure the board was bringing to voters that night was the result of their hard work to consider every option.

"Presenting this handout was irresponsible," she continued. "I am unhappy and very disappointed that this conversation is being forced at this meeting. We have never come before the voters without having considered what we were presenting."

Although several suggestions were made to table the vote and come back to reconsider the matter at another meeting, a motion to go ahead with a paper ballot was approved, resulting in a vote of 19 yes and 24 no.

"I think many people voted ‘no’ because they wanted to give the board more time to consider and review the information we got last night," Jesso-White told the Herald Wednesday. "I also believe the superintendent needs to be reminded that he works for the school boards in the union, and if an employee of mine had ambushed me like that, I would have fired him!

"As a school board member, I’m really struggling with how to move forward to benefit the town, but I don’t have trust or confidence in our superintendent any more, and I don’t know how to reconcile that."

In response, Mock told The Herald Wednesday that, "Jim Leno had asked me earlier in the week if there was any cost savings to closing the school and that sheet outlined a bare estimate. My only intent in giving out that information at last night’s meeting was to help people make a more informed decision.

"I made a mistake by not giving the board that information in advance," he admitted.

A new meeting to vote on the budget a third time will be warned after the Hancock board regroups and comes up with a new budget figure. They’ll get their first chance to do that when the joint Village School Board meets next Wednesday, May 7, following the Granville School’s budget re-vote meeting, which will take place earlier that evening at the Granville School.

Other Article Passed

The only other article on the warning, which passed on a voice vote, asked for authorization for the school board to apply for a loan "not to exceed $25,000" from the Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Program. This money would be used to comply with a state mandate for the school to make some changes in its water system.

Ian Schrauf, who represents the Vermont Rural Water Assoc. noted that the loan would actually be "forgiven" once the changes had been completed, and so there would not be any actual out-of-pocket expense to the town.