Viewing 13 posts - 1 through 13 (of 13 total)
  • Author
  • #19921
    Rich Girard

    HSB Chair McHugh says purpose of the meeting is to discuss whether or not Hooksett students that start in MHT schools can finish in MHT schools.

    Can they? She’s heard different responses. Am I speaking to the Superintendent or to others? I don’t want to be rude, just clear.

    Rich Girard

    Livingston: This is something you’d like to see happen?

    McHugh, yes. It would be unfortunate for students to start and not be able to finish.

    D Liv: We’d liketo gather your requests and information so we can make those decisions. Ambrogi, Connors nodding. So we can have discussion about where you’re coming from. I see your contract currently goes to 2018, right? Yes…So what are you asking, that they be able to go for the next 10 years?

    Connors: asks question I can’t hear…

    McHugh: So, we want to know whether any student who is enrolled as of 2018, regardless of their year, can finish in MHT schools.

    D Liv: In speaking with the Mayor as Chair of the board, I didn’t feel like I could give that answer, that it belonged to the board.

    Ambrogi: Issue wasn’t discussed when we made the agreement. We can amend the agreement to allow that, so long as payment will continue with the students.

    Connors: We need to decide whether or not this should be part of the negotiation as per the agreement by 6/2016 or make a decision on our board about that.

    Boilard: This could affect our assignment of students.

    Ambrogi: I think this agreement contemplated starting another round of negotiations in general, not on specific points. There could be students that are in limbo (or something like that)

    Berry: That’s what we’re trying determine. We have an 8th grade class that’s not sure it will be able to finish in Manchester if it starts in Manchester.

    Gatsas: I think we should hear everything that Hooksett wants. I look at this litany and it seems they want to reopen an agreement that’s just a year old.

    Rich Girard

    McHugh: No, that’s not what we’re trying to do. We’re just trying to know determine whether or not kids that start that can finish.

    Connors/Ambrogi in audible…Staub asking about timelines.

    Hooksett reacts, saying that they will be making assignment decisions very soon. High school fair in September. Kids should know whether or not they can graduate if they’re class of ’19 when contract expires in ’18. Chucky wants to avoid “I don’t know answer,” says it won’t encourage people to choose Manchester (he’s right)

    Also questions about what tuition would be in the years beyond the contract.

    Staub: A year ago, there was a lot of uncertainty about whether we’d be phasing out kids or continuing the relationship.

    Rich Girard

    Staub seems to have a handle on what Hooksett’s looking for.

    Ambrogi: Implicit in the language is that if beyond 18, Hooksett wants to send kids to MHT, our board would probably like to be under a new agreement. I see no reason why we wouldn’t entertain something that would address the period of time you’re concerned about, but that we’d want to negotiate a new agreement beyond that so we don’t have patchwork.

    McHugh. yes…and that’s why we want look at the length of a future contract.

    Stewart: What’s Hooksett looking for? A year ago, we spent a lot of time getting out of a contract, now it’s looking like you want to get back into one. What’s Hooksett want?

    McHugh: probably 5 years with renewable 5 year periods.

    Stewart: What guarantees does the city get? Are you looking to send a specific number or is it simply open among the options?

    McHugh, we have to give you a number by 12/1. It’s not fair to commit kids who might want to go elsewhere or to have a bunch of kids show up on your doorstep unannounced.

    Berry: We’re trying to figure out what’s best for us, feeling our way around. We’re not sure exactly what it looks like, yet because we’re evaluating our options.

    Rich Girard

    Ambrogi: Elaborates on Stewart’s question. If Hooksett wants us as an option and there’s no predictability in the numbers, we’d have to determine whether or not that’s in our best interest.

    Stewart: Has whiplash. A year ago, you guys wanted out of a long term contract, now it looks like you want to get back into one. Make no mistake, we want your students.

    McHugh: No, we want Manchester as an option with a guarantee that kids who want to finish can finish.

    Ambrogi: Not sure that’s in the city’s best interests.

    Connors: Something aobut changes we’re making, new programs, plans, redistricting. Lots of variables.

    Ambrogi bak on her point.

    Rich Girard

    Ambrogi: Elaborates on Stewart’s question. If Hooksett wants us as an option and there’s no predictability in the numbers, we’d have to determine whether or not that’s in our best interest.

    Stewart: Has whiplash. A year ago, you guys wanted out of a long term contract, now it looks like you want to get back into one. Make no mistake, we want your students.

    McHugh: No, we want Manchester as an option with a guarantee that kids who want to finish can finish.

    Ambrogi: Not sure that’s in the city’s best interests.

    Connors: Something aobut changes we’re making, new programs, plans, redistricting. Lots of variables.

    Ambrogi bak on her point.

    Rich Girard

    Livingston: Let’s look at this a little differently. Let’s look at our contract…so, if we met at this time of year and did an MOU for the students that are going forward to come to Manchester, like a rolling agreement where we’re adding an incoming class each year and discuss what that tuition might look like so we can address both communities concerns.

    McHugh: Are you adding a number to that?

    D Liv, I didn’t add a number. Can we figure this out so that it’s a benefit for your kids and for us so that each year you understand it and we understand it?

    McHugh: Well, it has to be mutually beneficial or why have the contract.

    Connors: We could do an MOU for each incoming class until we renegotiate the master contract…seems to get agreement.

    Staub: Do you have any long term contracts?

    McHugh: We have 5 year contracts with the MOU schools and are negotiating a 1 year extension with Pinkerton.

    Gatsas: So you’re negotiating with Pinkerton now?

    McHugh: Yes and hoping to do a longer term one.

    Gatsas sayssomething that I couldn’t hear, but McHugh’s facial reaction was interesting…kinda stumped.

    Chucky: Our intent was to begin discssions that would address some short term issues, or a short tmer issue, beginnning a highschool transition for our 8th graders and we need to be able to tell them if they can finish in Manchester. I think we also want to jump start the negotiations to come up with a long term agreement now so that we’re not waiting until 2016. We will be negotiating with Pinkerton and we’d like to have those negotiations contemporaneously, not get one done than the other.

    Rich Girard

    Connors: Are you looking to send all of your kids to Pinkerton at some point in the future? Or, do you want to send them back to Manchester at some point? Or, do you want these multiple options to continue. That’s something that we need to discuss in negotiations.

    McHugh: Our goal really is to figure out now what to do with our 8th graders. our short term goal is to nail down whether or not the class of ’19 can complete their schooling in Manchester.

    Stewart asks about Pinkerton deal. McHugh says that that agreement and all MOU agreements guarantee that all students that start can finish. We want the same from Manchester.

    Ambrogi: I thnk we could do that subject to coming to temrs on the tuition.

    Connors: Says something that basically echoes Ambrogi…

    Stewart: Does Pinkerton tell you what their tuition is going to be 4 years from now?

    McHugh: No, we’ll be charged what it costs divided by the number of students.

    Stewart: Do you want a guarantee they can finish or a guarantee on the tuition?

    McHugh: Our main concern is that because we have 8th grade students that are looking to pick a high school, we want them to be able to finish in Manchester if they choose Manchester.

    Connors: Would it be acceptable to say we’ll guarantee they can finish without telling you what the tuition will be?

    They want to be able to have both…but admit they don’t have that in other contracts.

    Boilard: Or at least know what the formula you’ll use will be…(reasonable)

    Gatsas: What’s Pinkerton’s tuition now? 10,600 and change. so, it’ll take us 3 years to catch up to what Pinkerton’s tuition is now?

    Rich Girard

    Ambrogi: There seems to be a simple fix here…but I couldn’t hear it. Something about okay, they can stay and figure out the tuition.

    Chucky says maybe he should send the MOUs to Liv because they provide the they can stay language and have the tuition calculations.

    Gatsas: How much do you pay for MOU schools?

    Chucky: It’s based Pinkerton’s original estimate was. We won’t pay above that. Parents have to make up the difference.

    Gatsas: We’re charging 10,2 and you’re paying everybody else 10,700. I think that’s important.

    Chucky: I just want to send the MOU language to liv.

    Gatsas: That’s $300 more per student next year than paying Manchester.

    Connors: You’ll send that info to D Liv and we’ll look at it and have recommendations for our board.

    back and forth…Ambrogi: We’re agreeable to negotiating this piece of it.

    Rich Girard

    Now talking about whether or not kids can go to Central, West or MST. Concerned that MHT might require all kids go to West. Wants it to remain as is…kids on West side of river got to West, kinds on East side going to Central.

    Liv: you wouldn’t be open to kids choosing where they want to go?

    Chucky: Transportation nightmare to have to pick up the whole town to go to both schools.

    Stewart: concerned about availability at one school or another.

    McHugh, never been a problem, should’t be now. you’ve got plenty of capacity at Central or West.

    Connors: Do we need to address this now? Don’t see it in the contract.

    McHugh: Parents are concerned.

    Connors: ??

    Chucky: It was in the previous contract (correct.) Have some families that are as loyal to West as others are to Central. We want to continue what has been the practice in 2003.

    Gatsas: My concern is that STEAM ahead is starting at West. At some point, I would believe that Hooksett parents on the East side of the river might look at that and want to go to West.

    McHugh: That’s a decision that’s always rested with your Superintendent, not us. The rule has always been east/west because of transportation nightmare. In the past, students who wanted to go elsewhere would have to get permission from your superintendent.

    Gatsas: So, you want our superintendent to be the bad person who has to say no, you can’t go?

    McHugh: No, if this program at West is great, I would think you’d want them to go there.

    Livingston: didn’t catch it, but it was an objection.

    Chucky: Let’s not make this bigger than it is. Just because someone who wants to go to West doesn’t mean they’ll be in STEAM. We’re not talking about this for assignment. It’s akin to a statutory reassignment. There’s usually a very specific reason and the building principals have to agree and so does the Super. It’s very specific. ROTC example in city

    Rich Girard

    Data: Is Manchester willing to continue to work with sub committee for data purposes?

    Ambrogi/Connors; We invited Hooksett and Candia to end representatives to C&I. We’ve been looking at a lot of data. you’re welcome to send a representative to consistently sit with us.

    McHugh: Used to sit on coordination, had rep on renovation committee and C&I and Athletics in the past.

    Ambrogi: I’m chair of athletics, I’m not opposed to having representative come to our committee.

    Rich Girard

    McHugh: speaking of sub committees, there used to be high school committees…

    Gatsas: We reinstated it 4 years ago and nobody showed up. Chucky’s face goes blank.

    Connors: Maybe the 2 superintendents could get together on that.


    Gatsas: We started them back up after we were accused of not following the contract and then nobody from Hooksett showed up.

    Rich Girard

    Next Steps:

    Gatsas; Chucky needs to send the MOUs. We won’t meet the deadline for your first or second meetings. We may meet in late August or early Sept. at the latest. We have a lot of things to discuss and it seems like you’ve been talking about this for a long time.

    McHugh: it’s been an ongoing discussion about our options. Primary concern is surety for the 8th grade class so parents know what’s going on. We’re looking to continue our partnership with Manchester.

    Gatsas: I can see why given the tuition rate differences…(

    McHugh: giving history of her students, two communities.

    Gatsas: What I don’t understand is why anybody would think that we’d turn away a tuition paying student?

    Boilard, we don’t think it’s going to happen, but it’s not addressed in the contract.

    Gatsas: what guarantee do we have that Hooksett won’t pull its students because of another agreement with another community.

    McHugh: Well, we wouldn’t do that.

    Gatsas: Right and neither would we…moves to adjourn.

    Chucky: Would feel bad we adjourned now. We had a short term goal and had hoped that as part of the next steps would be to schedule additional meetings and develop a framework for negotiations on the longer term issues. We’ve made overatures to Manchester and are hoping to work well together.

    Ambrogi: I think getting a smaller agreement under our belt will be proof that we’re working well together.

    Hooksett pressing for a date…easier to schedule it while we’re all here as opposed having each super having to try to arrange it…

    Set for 6 PM on Wednesday 9/17

    Now gatsas gets second on motion to adjourn from Berry.

Viewing 13 posts - 1 through 13 (of 13 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.