A. OPENING

PRESENT: Crockett, Edwards, Hackett, Pohl, Rizzo, Rowe, Small-Miller, Stafford

ABSENT: Huyler

ALSO PRESENT: Superintendent of Schools Ouellette, Director of Student Support Services Tait, Director of Business and Operations Brooks, Director of Human Resources Libby

A.1. Call to Order
Mr. Rizzo called the Budget Workshop to order at 7:00 p.m.

A.2. Pledge of Allegiance
Mr. Rizzo led the Pledge of Allegiance.

B. Approval of Budget Workshop Minutes of May 10, 2006

MOVED: Pohl/Stafford s.v. The Board approved the Budget Workshop Minutes of May 10, 2006, as distributed, with one abstention. 5/0/1.

C. Public Comments
Chairman of the Town Human Relations Commission, Mr. Sweeney, thanked the Board for the opportunity to address them. He referred to his email of the previous day, addressed to the Chairman of the Board, regarding the Race Relations Seminar Course at the High School. He thanked the Board for their decision, taken one year ago, to upgrade the course and bring back to it a 60% full-time professional. Their Commission had been told that was to upgrade the quality of the instructional program offered to 9th grade on the all-important subject of inter-ethnic group relations. As everyone was already aware, the Community had an unforgettable wake-up call in January 2004, when there were some bitter antagonisms between certain factions. One of the considerations of his Commission was that they proactively moved to address and resolve those issues. Naturally, the school system was the ideal place to do so. The Commission thought that the commitment the Board had made was both fruitful and worthwhile, and they recognized with the reduction in the proposed budget, the Board was under pressure to find some savings. Mr. Sweeney had been authorized by his Commission to come before the Board asking, firstly, that they preserve the upgrade; secondly, comment with respect to the long-term. It was his understanding that, currently, classroom space at Manchester High School was very limited. It was believed a remedy was in the works, with the expansion of the physical plant at the high school. The Commission hoped, when the classroom scarcity problem was alleviated in the near future, that the Board would be able to clearly see its way to upgrading the course and increase the availability to more students. Currently the program was only available to approximately 50% of grade 9 enrollment. His Commission thought the Program was valuable in meeting a compelling social need in the community.

Mr. Sweeney reiterated that, while recognizing the Board had budgetary pressures where they might have to consider cutting back on some programs, they do not take any negative action with this program.

D. Opening Remarks
Mr. Rizzo opened the Budget Meeting by turning the meeting over to Dr. Ouellette.

E. Budget Discussion
Dr. Ouellette reminded the Board they now had additional information, in response to questions taken at the previous Budget Workshop, regarding the re-allocation of staff to elementary schools. Attorney Libby would comment on student programs, if requested.

The meeting was then turned over to Ms. Brooks, Director of Business and Operations, and Dr. Gejda, K-12, Math/Science Technology Supervisor. Ms. Brooks gave a PowerPoint Presentation on the Educational Technology Budget, setting out some possible reductions and choices for the Board to move in the direction of purchasing/ leasing technology.

At the previous Budget Workshop, the Board asked Ms. Brooks to address the reduction of $325,000 in the Educational Technology Budget. Dr. Gejda and Ms. Brooks had worked together to provide the information.

The district technology request was grounded in the District Technology Plan; Educational Technology Template, Technology Graduation Requirement, and the NCLB Grade 8 Technology Competency that was coming.

Additional resources were a Planned Acquisition and Replacement Plan - to be formally introduced in June; District-wide Technology Audit - to be performed in the fall. Additionally, the District Committee was going to review the request and district needs to prioritize the list.

The facts on technology were that 1200 out of 1600 district computers were more than five years old and running older software - that was 75%; servers were running library software and were seven years old; student data and report card programs needed to be upgraded and implemented. K-12 there were some serious technology needs in the district, not only in the immediate future but also beyond that.

The information was pulled to make a student/computer ratio comparison with the State. The district was 4.9; the State 4.0. Most of these were not high/moderate power computers. Only 66% of them were. This figure did not accurately reflect the age of the computers. At the middle school, there were three students per computer, just shy of the 3.3 at the State. However, only 47% of these computers were high/moderate power. Manchester High School has 2.5 computers per student; quite a bit lower than the State, with 3.2. However, Manchester High School, as of 05/06, had the largest number of computers (70%), over five years old.

Ms. Brooks questioned how a replacement plan could be established. Computers could be purchased, or leased. $500,000 had been put into the budget this year, as it was felt that this was just a little over half a percent over budget, to bring the computers up to standard. It was not just hardware that was needed; it was upgrading of software and peripherals. Upgrading of servers was needed. The $500,000 was not just to purchase computers.

Ms. Brooks had looked into lease-purchase financing. This was similar to taking out a bank loan, except it would be through a financing company. $325,000 - to be paid back in three years, with an advance of $112,651 - based on an approximate rate of 12%. Three year's interest on this would amount to $12, 953, bringing our request up to the $500,000 with the $175,000 currently in the budget. However, the lease-purchase annual payment was to be made in advance, meaning that in FY /07 the Board would have to pay $112,651, plus the $175,000 in the budget. Payments could also be taken out over five years, reducing it to $70,300.

In order to only have to fund $175,000 in FY /07, we would need to put the payments in arrears, meaning no payment would be due in FY /07; the first payment being due in FY /08. This increased the annual payment to $117,246 and increased the interest to $26,740.00. Ms. Brooks hated the thought of spending $26,000 in interest to get $325,000. There was a way to do it, if it became necessary.

If the Board wanted to take the entire $500,000 in lease-purchase financing, this could be done with a payback in three years of approximately $172,000. This would be paid in advance, so the $175,000 in the budget would be the first payment on financing $500,000. Interest payment on that would be approximately $18,000.

The Board could also pay back the $500,000; first payment to be made in arrears; annual payment now increasing to over $180,000, and the interest getting close to $41,000.

Ms. Brooks was aware the Board was seeking her recommendation and she would recommend that they needed a policy of putting a certain percentage in the budget every year, similar to policy 3510; .25% of the budget would be approximately $250,000. This would, at least, have a continuum of purchase. A purchase of $250,000 every year would purchase hardware, software and keep us current in technology.

Ms. Brooks stated that Dr.Gejda needed to purchase the Pinnacle Software for $160,000. If the pilot were purchased next year for $35,000, money would still be needed the following year to finish that pilot. The $375,000 would use up most of that.

Ms. Brooks recommended lease-purchasing $500,000, with payments in advance, so the $175,000 next year would be the first payment, reducing interest charges. This would allow the Board to buy all the technology for $500,000, but leaving the concern that no new technology could be purchased until 2010. This might not get us to where we need to be.

F. Questions and Answers
Ms. Hackett asked Ms. Brooks to repeat her recommendation. Ms. Brooks responded "If we took the $500,000 and lease-purchased it, we would have to pay $175,000 approximately each year, i.e., FY /07; FY /08, FY/09/. FY 2010 would be the first year we would be able to make another purchase." Mr. Rizzo said that would assume the Board did not increase the $175,000 in FY /07, /08 and assuming we spent $175,000 every year. Ms. Brooks agreed, but it would allow the $175,000 to be purchased this year.

Ms. Hackett asked if we adopted a 3510 policy, running parallel with the lease-purchase, if that would that be an addition. Ms. Brooks said that it would.

Ms. Brooks and Dr. Gejda had established some district priorities, on the premise that they only had $175,000. Pay $35,000 towards the pilot of the data and grading software, to be piloted at Manchester High School; replace the OS X Server software. This would allow the purchase of $100,000 of hardware - approximately one hundred and twenty-five computers - over fifty in schools, which were not too many computers; purchase two servers and allow $25,000 for peripherals (printers, projectors, digital cameras, etc.) If they got $500,000 this year they would be able to purchase the entire Pinnacle Software. The high school would still be used as a pilot the first year. It would not be introduced to the middle schools and the elementary schools until the following year. The OS X Server software was still needed. Two servers K-8 were needed. $200,000 for hardware, allowing for the purchase of two hundred and fifty computers. Peripherals of $65,000 and software upgrades $25,000. This would use up the $500,000 until FY 2010, unless a 3510 type policy was introduced to continue the following year with additional monies.

Ms. Hackett requested Ms.Brooks revert to slide #13 of her presentation, which detailed her recommendation to the Board. The recommendation was worded as follows: "My recommendation would be $500,000; financed for three years. This is on the low end of the estimate, based on 3.8% interest; the payments would be $518,486."

Mr. Edwards asked if this would allow for the provision of every item outlined, and Ms. Brooks confirmed that this was the case.

Mr. Edwards expressed his support for the recommendation, and asked for reassurance that the software would be used for many years. It was sensible to spread the expense for the software over the years it was being utilized. He saw it as a capital purchase. The two hundred and fifty computers would go further across fifteen schools, and he understood that we would be committing future Boards. On looking at the interest payments over the three years, one was looking at $6,000 per year in interest. Six thousand dollars sounded like a lot of money, but not compared to an $88 million budget. He said there had been precedents for this in the past. Because we were behind he thought the decision should be made this year. He surmised that some of the computers, which needed replacing, had come off an earlier lease.

Mr. Edwards was in favor of the 3510 Policy, although he was unsure about the percentages. That needed to be discussed at a later date. He did not want the Board to be flushed with technology money every year, at the expense of other programming items. With 3510, there was nothing to say that the Board could not spend more on maintenance, if necessary. The same would be true for computers. It would be his inclination to be conservative with the percentages.

Ms. Hackett wanted it to be understood that if the Board were to develop a 3510 Policy it would not be before Fiscal Year /08. She asked how many servers we currently had, as she recalled that earlier in the presentation a reference had been made to that. Dr. Gejda responded that each school had a server, and the Library's software was being automatically run off that server. Ms. Hackett wanted to know if this was the Board's property, or if it was shared. Dr. Gejda did not think so. Perhaps, with the educational service. We did share some business servers, but that was distinctly different to what was needed to support the teachers and students in the classroom.

Ms. Hackett expressed appreciation for the various leasing options and realistic numbers, quoted by Dr. Gejda and Ms. Brooks. They were meaningful and convincing and provided really good and viable options for the Board to consider. She queried if the 3510 Policy should go to the Personnel & Finance Committee for advice on how to get started on the proposal. Ms. Brooks thought that Committee could have a good discussion on the percentage, and precisely what $175,000 would purchase. The Board really needed to know the exact total; then work out the percentage each year. Ms.Hackett wanted to know if that was how Ms. Brooks had worked out her recommendation of .25% and was told that was the case.

Mr. Stafford questioned the recommendation (p.12) that the Board buy the whole Pinnacle software for $195,000, even though it was not going to use it, except as a pilot at the High School. Ms. Brooks said that purchasing the entire software package would be a capital purchase of the software. She hoped what they were doing would be implementing the high school, and then six months ahead, introduce it to the middle school, as the entire software package would be purchased. Mr. Stafford asked what would happen if we just purchased the pilot and six months onwards a new edition came out. Would Ms. Brooks be in a position to move with that situation?

Ms. Brooks thought an upgrade would be allowed.

Mr. Pohl thanked Ms. Brooks and Dr.Gejda for all their hard work. He affirmed his absolute support for technology; terming it "a have to!" He referred to the fact that the entire outlay - minus a policy - would provide all new computers in this fiscal year, but put us in the position of no purchasing again for three years. For us to stay on the edge of technology, might an alternative not be to upgrade, or replace a certain amount each year? Are we that far behind that we have to do this all at once? From personal experience, Mr. Pohl knew that only a few weeks after purchasing a computer, advanced models were already in the stores. It was vitally important, keeping in mind the interests of our children, that they are given the tools to keep abreast of information technology.

Ms. Brooks replied that if we only did the $500,000 in the next three years, we would probably be right back where we started. We need $1 million for technology to cover the needs in three years; something continuous - a commitment each year; for whatever dollar amount. For planning, we needed to know we could depend on that money coming in. Unfortunately, we were not just talking about hardware. We had allowed our equipment to become out-dated. Even though they had been nursed along, when we do buy new computers, software was not compatible and we ended up with two or three different versions of software. She believed that the entire amount had been taken out of the budget the previous year. Prior to that, budgets were frozen very early in the year and money earmarked for technology was not used. On a daily basis, computers were 'dying', but it was more expensive to repair them than to purchase new ones. Two or three years ago, used computers were purchased, and they aged even faster.

Dr. Gejda remarked that the program was not calling for any 'bells and whistles'. It simply looked toward providing basic literacy competence for students. As students matured, at the secondary level, there might be other equipment accessible. Wonderful things were going on in the Media and Technology Education Departments at the high school. Generally those would be termed special areas and required grants.

Dr. Gejda stated, for example, projectors at the elementary schools were purchased in the year 2000. Fortunately, the cost had been substantially reduced since then. Bulbs for these were very expensive. She said what they were really discussing was "Workhorse Technology" to be used daily in the classroom.

Mr. Crockett wanted to know where we would stand today, technologically speaking, if we could not add any technology until 2010. What was the ballpark? How would our technology be rated in the school system? Dr. Gejda thought probably between 2000/2003. As already stated, 70% of our computers were approximately five years, or older. We had been maintaining a steady course by enabling the aging computers to still function.

Mr. Crockett asked what would happen if we took no action at all. Would we be devastated next year? "Would the system still work and the education of our children continue?" He thought it would not be world shattering if we did not purchase until 2010, as we would probably still be able to run our computers. Dr. Gejda disagreed. She was worried about machines that might not make it through the next couple of years.

Dr. Gejda said new information concerning the coming year was that all 8th graders had to illustrate a certain level of competency. In the past, this had not been mandatory.

Mr. Crockett asked Dr.Gejda to enlighten him as to specifics. Dr. Gejda said they had piloted an integrated activity in the Social Studies class, where the Language Arts teachers had developed an activity whereby students were studying American History; the States; online research in a particular State and then to develop a coin for it. This had to be presented in a certain way, using technology.

Mr. Crockett knew of situations where schools were just operating via servers. Was that something that had been researched? Would we be better off, ten or fifteen years from now, if we were to go that route? Dr. Gejda said it had been discussed but the cost was prohibitive. It would be a wonderful way to go, if the Board could afford it.
Dr. Gejda said they could begin developing something like that for the Board's consideration. Mr. Crockett's opinion was "If we are going to do it, let's do it right!"
Mr. Crockett said perhaps we should put the three years in and get up to speed now; looking to the future to see if this was the other way to go. Even though it was costly, it might be worth it over time. Dr. Gejda pointed out that the cost of technology also improved through time, and it could, eventually, work out to be more economical in the long run.

Ms. Brooks clarified for Mr. Rizzo that spending $175,000 a year, for the next three years, would allow us buy $500,000 worth of computer equipment - two hundred and fifty computers. Also, if we were to lease/purchase all of equipment in October of 2006, we would not be able, with $175,000 in our budget every year, to pay for this lease, or buy any additional computers for the next three years.

Mr. Rizzo thought that, although it was all right to buy two hundred and fifty computers, by the time they are paid for they would already be three years old, bringing us back full circle. Meanwhile, we had not added inventory each year. It would be his intention to buy two hundred and fifty computers every year but that might be unrealistic. The Board needed to adopt the practice of purchasing 'x' number of computers every single year, lease/purchase might be the idea. However, that would still not solve the problem of aging computers. His idea was that every single year we did something. The lease/purchase would allow us to get all these computers in at one time, but unless more money was put into the budget every year we would not be adding computers for another three years. $175,000 does not sound enough; $500,000, our original request might be too much. There ought to be a figure in between, the point being that every year the inventory is replenished.

Mr. Rizzo appreciated that, although the financing was creative, it would not really meet the needs. He thought we were trading one problem for another. We could not commit future Boards to picking up the slack. Next year we should probably put in $350,000, the $175,000 that we are leasing now; then another $175,000 lease. Our efforts have to be beefed up. This is a very key component of our curriculum, and two hundred and fifty computers a year would eventually get us there, but if it were just for this year it would not do the job. It had to be understood that next year there needed to be another $250,000, and so on.

Mr. Edwards recognized that the Board did not want to have a vast number of old computers in our buildings. We had between 1200/1600 computers today. If we wanted to have an average of three years, then we had to have a five-year cycle, e.g., replace three hundred computers every year. The Board was reminded that the life of a computer was relative to the price. He pointed out that in this particular lease there was a line item of almost $200,000 for a huge capital software purchase. It was assumed that we would not necessarily incur this expenditure every single year. If we did not need to buy the Pinnacle Software this year, we could spend $200,000 on computers and buy five hundred desktop computers in the year where we spent $175,000 on a $500,000 lease.

From Mr. Edwards's perspective, the way to do this would be to take the administration's recommendation for this year; recognize the fact that it would not do what we wanted, i.e., catch up and replace our old hardware with newer, and lower the average age of our fleet of computers. After we caught up, put a system in place to ensure that as computers aged, they come off line and are replaced with newer computers, making them the same average age. He reiterated the Board could accomplish this by accepting the recommended purchases this year, then work out the 3510 of technology in general. We could probably work through the idea that over the next three years we might have in the policy a certain amount of money for the life of the lease.

Ms. Hackett thought there were a lot of different ways to tackle the situation and looked forward to discussing these at the Personnel & Finance Committee. What had to be considered was the immediate benefit to be reaped by making the investment, and the fact that we were, from year one, improving the quality of educational services provided to our students. Having enough computers to go around was promising and exciting. She was unsure what the Board could have, but Mr. Edwards had made the point as to whether we try to do a 'catch up' the first three years, or have an established percentage with a 'catch up' provision. If the policy permitted spending a maximum, or up to a cap, in the first three years, we would be well placed at the end of the third year.

The thought had occurred to Mr. Stafford that the Board kept a Grant Writer in the budget. There were technology grants out there, which might conceivably provide the Board with a new source to increase the amount of money available. He expressed his appreciation for all the helpful information provided to the Board since the previous Budget Workshop.

Dr. Gejda confirmed that in the past we had benefited from grants, although these had mainly been used for professional development and teacher quality improvement. The Board was probably already aware that we already had some Perkins Grants with which to purchase some technology.

Dr. Gejda said they had the good fortune, as part of the district-wide team, to have a new member from the Special Education Department serving as an Assistant Technology Adviser to them. Provision had been made for children who could not address the curriculum, because of reading or writing difficulties, so they could also be achievers.

Dr. Ouellette stated that the Board wanted staff to be successful, as well as students. Dr. Gejda might want to stress to the Board, the importance of professional development needed in district, on a continuous basis. If she wanted to elaborate, the Board would have to strongly consider looking at that in the budget in order to keep our staff current. Dr. Gejda told Dr. Ouellette that there were educational coaches in each building who served as a liaison, to helping with the needs assessment. Each Principal was also aware of the levels of technology needed in each building.

Mr. Rizzo said the administration had provided the Board with an option in response to questions posed at the previous Budget Meeting, as to how they could acquire additional computer equipment, while still spending the same reduced budget amount of $175,000. The Board also had expressed an interest in pursuing a 3510-type policy to apply to the acquisition of computer equipment. He thought that would be a good step forward. It was not so much a question of how much money we were spending. Rather, it was what we were getting for our money. The lease/purchase option would allow us to increase the number of our computers, but spread out the payments. Then we could deal with how much money we were going to spend in future through our policy decision. That was progress!

Dr. Gejda's response to that was that the Board would gather information from each building, with respect to professional development, as well as hardware and software. Also, an Acquisition & Replacement Plan would be made available to the Board. In the fall, the Board would have two very good sources of information for their use. Mr. Rizzo was pleased to learn this because the Committee needed as much guidance as possible.

Mr. Rizzo asked for questions from the Board on aspects of the budget, other than technology, which had been discussed at some length.

Mr. Edwards apologized for his absence from the previous Budget Meeting because of a conflict. His question centered on a document, which had been tabled, that dealt with class sizes/changes in number of classrooms. It set out enrolments, by school, in various grades. Was this a projection for next fall? Attorney Libby agreed it was the projected enrollment for each year.

Mr. Edwards talked, specifically, about Nathan Hale 4th grade projection for next year. According to the chart, that was the only grade, in the only school, with twenty-four, or more, children. He asked Board members to recollect the decision they made last year or the year before, to collapse three classrooms into two, when this particular group at Nathan Hale was in 2nd grade. The enrollment had become twenty-four/five students in a class and that was for the bulk of the 2nd grade. We were now looking at a projection of twenty-four children in classrooms in 4th grade. To recap, students had been transferred out of Nathan Hale because some parents thought the class size had climbed too high. Mr. Stafford wondered if anyone had an inkling of how these students had progressed. Did the Board need to maybe think of catching up by breaking this class into three, instead of two? Attorney Libby could not answer the question but said it could be looked into. Third and fourth grades, this year and next, as they moved along, would share a class-size reduction full time Paraprofessional, who would divide time between classes, and provide additional help to children that might need individual help - specifically because of the large class size. Mr. Edwards appreciated this fact, which had been included in the budgetary concerns in the year the classroom had been collapsed. He recollected that the difference between the cost of having two classrooms, plus the Paraprofessional, and three classroom teachers, was $25,000. $25,000 was going to be saved over two years, making a total of $50,000, but at what cost? Would parents and students look at the records and see a negative effect? Should they be getting more help than they were receiving?
Dr. Ouellette thought this information could be provided, in a report to the Board.

Mr. Edwards said the question remaining was "If we are not going to do something about it at budget time, when would it be done? Dr. Ouellette said the Board could ask for an adjustment in the budget. Mr. Edwards said that, retrospectively, if children had been done a disservice, the Board ought to right matters by reflecting this in the budget.

Ms. Hackett said she appreciated the concerns Mr. Edwards had. There was latitude to provide add a teacher, particularly after October of the school year, when enrollment counts had to be furnished to the State. Attorney Libby said they actually tried to adopt this before October so that, in the eventuality of a very large class, a teacher would have to be added. Adjustments were always a factor. Mr. Edwards thought this was a key factor. Dr. Ouellette described the situation as a balancing act and asked Attorney Libby to follow up.

Mr. Rizzo quoted his general rule of thumb "any class size, kindergarten, first and second - no more than twenty; no fewer than fifteen. Between 4 and 5 - no fewer than twenty; no more than twenty-five." We appeared to be doing that, with the exception of this particular grade. If a child was able to be in a classroom - kindergarten, first and second grade, in a small class, they were more readily prepared to cope with a larger number of students in a classroom in third, fourth and fifth grades. This assessment originated from educators in the system, and all were in agreement. He agreed with Mr. Edwards and Mrs. Hackett that the Board should look at the situation.

Dr. Ouellette said this would be an 'added' in the budget, but Ms. Hackett said her idea had been to simply keep an eye on it and find out more precisely what the Board was dealing with. Dr. Ouellette agreed either that, or bringing it up as another line item at the next Budget Workshop.

Mr. Crockett brought up the subject of Manchester High School. If he understood correctly, we were going from a less than a 1, to a full time A.D, an assistant A.D. and a full time secretary. He did not think the Board needed to make this leap, especially when there was the possibility that a teacher might be needed in Nathan Hale. Other A.D.'s are doing this as a full-time job and share a secretary. He could see waste in that proposal which could go to freeing up some funds. Things appeared to be operating well as they were at present. By going to two and a quarter, we would not be gaining that much for the students or athletes. He did not see the need for a full time secretary, and this should be looked into. Ms. Brooks said the secretary was not a new hire - it would be a transfer; the position carried with it additional duties. Attorney Libby said student activities would likely share the secretary.

Dr. Ouellette wanted to know if Ms. Hackett wished the Board to reconsider the matter. Ms. Hackett was of the opinion that since the subject had been brought up they would definitely need more information. Ms. Brooks suggested Mr. Sierakowski as the best person to answer any questions. Ms. Hackett suggested that Mr. Sierakowski should be invited to the next Budget Workshop.

Dr. Ouellette reminded the Board that they would have to set a special meeting to adopt the Budget before June 8th and take that into consideration at their next meeting.

Mr. Pohl had a question concerning computers. Was he correct in his understanding that the consent of the Board had been given to ask the Superintendent to include the recommendation made by Ms. Brooks into the proposed budget for the $500,000?

Ms. Brooks responded that the $175,000 would be transferred into a lease/purchase, rather than to Program Improvement.

Mr. Rizzo confirmed that the Board was not required to take any action because there were no additional funds. The funds would be used differently.

Mr. Pohl requested that the Board place an item "Financing through Bonding" on their regular Board meeting agenda for discussion of items that the Building Committee had cut from the renovations packet on Bennet.

Ms. Hackett informed Mr. Pohl that the agenda for the next meeting had already been set. A motion could be made to add the item, requiring a two-thirds vote from the members.

Dr. Ouellette pointed out that the mechanics of doing this could be further discussed. The Administration would be looking for direction from the Board and some more information, prior to the meeting. Mr. Rizzo suggested to Mr. Pohl that he pursue the matter, through the Chair. The agenda could be modified, either at the meeting, or beforehand.

Mr. Pohl inquired if a discussion on the Bennet project, or the Accelerated Middle School was already included in the agenda. He was told by Dr. Ouellette that, from a personnel perspective, administration was not prepared to talk about referendum or bond issues at this time. Board members would be receiving a Building & Sites Committee update. The matter could be discussed after that.

Ms. Hackett recognized that Mr. Pohl raised the issue because of the deadline involved. Mr. Pohl, reflecting on previous referendums, was aware that the Board of Directors had to act at their July meeting in order to have an additional referendum in November.

Mr. Rizzo said he would endeavor to see that the matter was placed on the agenda.

G. Public Comments
Mr. Tom Stringfellow's comments:
Noted from the Educational Technology Report that equipment is expensive.
Hoped the Board would come up with cost-effective plan to benefit all the students;
Bennet School: Hoped when students transferred to Illing, they would blend in successfully;
Praised Presentation by Board of Education dealing with diversity in education, test scores, and other related issues;
Recommended reading on subject of Educational Technology, "My Child's Not Learning to Read in School! What can I Do?
Christine Hale, Dr. Zelig Dolinsky, Copyright 2005
ISBN 1-59113-781-0.

Mr. Woodson Caine, 4 Norman Street, said he was very excited about the proposal put forward by Ms. Brooks for technology. He commented on the yardstick being used in the two Budget Workshops. His opinion was that age, in itself, was not a major issue. It was the capacity of the unit and its application. He referred to a computer dating from 1999/2000, which runs Microsoft and Office 2000 efficiently. He realized that it had limitations but it should be borne in mind that five years was not the "be all, and end all', in terms of defining obsolescence. The real issue was "what are we trying to run on this computer?" A 5-year old computer was suspect, but that did not mean it should be the first thing to go out the door. Age did not define usefulness, or uselessness.

Mr. Rizzo thanked everyone for coming to the second Budget Workshop. The next Budget Workshop would be held on Wednesday, May 24th in Robertson School at 7:00 p.m.

MOTION: Edwards/Rizzo s.v. Manchester Board of Education unanimously approved to adjourn at 8:30 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Michael Rizzo, Secretary
Manchester Board of Education