CHARLESTON — The March 2009 Charleston Town Meeting came in like a lamb on Tuesday morning, but before long transformed itself into something more closely resembling a lion. The calm and orderly crowd efficiently disposed of the business of electing West Charleston resident Spencer Phillips as moderator, and then in quick succession, elected all town officers without opposition.
Notable among these was the election of Dean Bennett to the select board.
“Is that your Dean?” a member of the audience jibed to Jeanine Bennett, town clerk, who quickly clarified that there was no conflict of interest involved in the nomination of her husband to the office. Friendly laughter greeted her response. Mr. Bennett assumes the seat vacated by Sherm Allen, who served 18 years in that post before stepping down.
From there, voters moved to open the annual school meeting, and without opposition, elected Laura Becerra of East Charleston to the school board. She replaces Bill McMaster, who chose not to seek re-election.
Without further ado, the voters swiftly passed the $1,569,800 school budget, in spite of the 4.5 percent increase over last year’s budget. Results of the paper ballot revealed that of 103 votes cast, the budget had passed by just one, 52 to 51. Eyebrows were raised around the room, and one person was overheard to say, “If you think your vote doesn’t matter, think again.”
A shift in mood began to reveal itself as voters turned to a $5,000 request to fund after-school and summer programming that had been previously supported by the 21st Century Grant. Principal Audra Rastonis explained the request would cover costs of staffing tutorial, enrichment and recreational activities for Charleston’s students.
The request was defeated by 57 votes as voters were not convinced of the need for such an opportunity.
Soon thereafter, Jean Wilson of East Charleston raised her hand to request a recount of the school budget vote. Moderator Phillips ordered that a recount could occur, and that was undertaken amidst a whirl of commentary by the assembled.
Shortly, Mr. Phillips returned to the podium to announce the surprising results of the recount, a 52-52 tie. While no one questioned where the additional vote had come from, this outcome did require revisiting the article to resolve the question. Would the voters approve the request by the school board or would they not? While many were disgruntled by the prospect, the turn of events revealed the realities the board had to face in developing the budget.
To a request for an explanation of how the school board had arrived at the requested amount, School Director Nancy Tessier tartly replied, “It was quite a puzzle to me no one asked the first time. I want to make sure you get this — 3.9 percent of the 4.5 percent increase is in the negotiated teachers’ salary increase. It doesn’t take a mathematician to figure out what’s left.”
What was left was a 0.6 percent increase to cover increased costs in electricity, diesel fuel for buses, and other operational costs. Ms. Tessier went on to explain that the budget reflected a decrease in two paraprofessional positions, no new books for the library and no new equipment for classrooms.
“The children are not profiting from this budget,” she said.
School Director Jason Brueck added that the board had decided not to implement full-day kindergarten, leaving Charleston one of the few schools in the district that does not offer what will soon be a state mandate for full-day kindergarten in every Vermont town. Further, he informed the crowd, Charleston’s per pupil costs remain below the statewide average for per pupil spending.
His explanation did not appear to satisfy many in the audience. Ken Frizzell declared, “It’s high time the school board goes back to the table and renegotiate the contract with the teachers.”
Ms. Tessier replied that the current contract is not renegotiable, but agreed to “bring the message back” to the next negotiation session.
Peter Moskovites offered that he “did not think a fair representation of cost increases” had been provided, noting that there was a $43,000 increase in special education costs over last year’s budget.
When questioned about that increase, Bill McMaster responded that individual special needs were required to be met by trained professionals, not as some questioned, by paraprofessionals.
Mr. Moskovites jumped in again to add that, given that reality, the real dollar amount of increase in the budget, leaving out teacher salaries and increased special ed costs, was more like $24,000 to cover increases in overall operational costs.
West Charleston resident Pat Austin followed, by asking the crowd, “Is there anyone here who’s paying less for anything this year?”
“I don’t think we should be talking about decreasing teacher salaries,” he added. “We lost one good teacher and soccer coach last year because he could make better money somewhere else.”
Mr. Austin said he didn’t want to see any other teachers lost to better paying school districts.
Also under fire were the services of the full-time guidance counselor, who received praise from Principal Rastonis for the transition plan she has devised to reverse an increased drop-out rate by Charleston students in high school.
Some voters argued this was the responsibility of the high school guidance department. Jason Brueck, however, noted the high school had cut a counseling position, leaving three counselors to each serve the needs of about 400 students. He implied it would be worth it to the town to ensure that Charleston students receive the support necessary to complete their high school education.
One voter spoke to the increases in special education costs that have been passed down to the state from the federal government over the years.
“Many people in this room have been voting for the party that has been responsible for the funding shift. I’m ashamed that there will be no full-time kindergarten next year, that we’ll be the only school in the district without it. It’s time we stopped punishing our children to save a few pennies on the tax bill.”
What felt like a cliffhanger as voters shuffled through the line to cast their ballots was resolved when the budget was passed again, 60 to 53. As the meeting adjourned for lunch, Dan Whipple of West Charleston rose to request that the voters thank Sherm Allen for his many years of service to the town as selectman, to which the voters positively responded.
Upon their return from a luncheon provided by the parents’ association, the voters turned their attention to the town budget, which was promptly amended to reflect that state aid to town roads had not been included in the original request.
In response to a unanimous voice vote to accept the amended lesser figure of $417,684.36, Spencer Phillips quipped, “Great! We all want to pay less taxes. There’s something for the newspaper.”
The budget was passed by a margin of 65 to 44 votes. A debate over a $20,000 request for road equipment quickly fizzled when it was discovered an amendment to transfer money from another line item would require voters to raise an additional $13,000.
With a lone exception, requests for appropriations for community service providers sailed through on a voice vote, including one for $37,131 for the Charleston Volunteer Fire Department.
The exception came in a request for $800 by the NorthWoods Stewardship Center to support the Youth Conservation Corps, which has hired 60 Charleston youths since 1995.
Ken Frizzell challenged the request, saying since they were a tax-exempt organization, why should the town give them any money?
But voters learned that although the stewardship center has applied for tax-exempt status as an educational institution, it does not currently have tax-exempt status and pays taxes to the town of Charleston.
Seven voters endorsed a request for a paper ballot, resulting in a favorable outcome by a margin of 54 to 31.
The meeting appeared to be wrapping up when the question came up of where Charleston voters stood on the statewide debate on whether Vermont Yankee should be permitted to operate beyond the cutoff date of March 12, 2012.
Ken Frizzell rose to insist that the article was not the business of the town and should not be considered. Others rose to the defense of the discussion on the article, saying as Amanda Letourneau eloquently did, “What better place is there to consider a question like this, when you have everyone gathered together?”
The pros and cons flew back and forth, with many differing opinions and positions expressed. The bottom line as far as Charleston voters was revealed by the results of a paper ballots with 41 votes against providing the extension and 32 in favor.
Under other business lister Larry Hosford asked whether the town should continue to bargain with Tom Worth over his asking price of $210,000 to purchase his gravel pit on the Ten Mile Square Road in East Charleston.
Opinion ranged widely as to the viability of the purchase, but when it was finally disclosed that any vote on the topic would be nonbinding, the voters unanimously agreed the selectmen should continue to consider the purchase option at their discretion. With that, the meeting was duly adjourned and voters scattered to the March breezes.
Towns 
