Atkinson / Plaistow Republican Committee

The Governor of New Hampshire. The Attorney General. The Secretary of State. The Rockingham County Sheriff.

What do these positions have in common?

Their reported salaries are all lower than the $165,000 starting salary Timberlane's School Board approved for its superintendent.

And that's just his starting salary in 2024, before contractual raises and benefits.

Here's the question: How does our School Board determine what taxpayers should be paying, and what results are we getting for that investment?

When taxpayers are expected to fund these decisions, they deserve more than explanations about why everything costs more. They deserve measurable results, responsible budgeting, and accountability.

The School Board negotiates the contracts. Taxpayers pay the bills.

Something to think about as Question 2 approaches.

💰 LET'S TALK ABOUT HOW TIMBERLANE SPENDS YOUR TAX DOLLARS.

While residents struggle with rising property taxes, take a look at what the Timberlane School Board agreed to provide Superintendent Justin Krieger.

These aren't rumors. These provisions are written into his employment contract.

💵 SALARY AND GUARANTEED RAISES

His contract started at $165,000 annually, with yearly increases ranging from 2.5% to 5%, plus the possibility of additional merit raises.

🏥 100% DISTRICT-PAID HEALTH INSURANCE

The district pays his health insurance premiums. He also receives other insurance benefits under the agreement.

💰 ADDITIONAL RETIREMENT MONEY

On top of applicable retirement benefits, the district contributes another 4% of his salary to a 403(b) retirement account.

📱 $3,000 FOR A PHONE AND DRIVING

The contract provides $1,500 annually for cellphone reimbursement and another $1,500 for in-district mileage.

🏖️ PAID TIME OFF AND VACATION PAYOUTS

He receives paid leave benefits, additional vacation days around holiday breaks, and payment for eligible unused vacation time.

💸 NINE MONTHS OF SEVERANCE

If the district terminates him without cause under the applicable contract provision, he can receive nine months of salary. Based on his original salary alone, that's $123,750.

📈 AUTOMATIC CONTRACT EXTENSION

The agreement includes an automatic one-year extension unless the Board takes specified action by the contractual deadline.

And here's another provision worth discussing: The contract states that failure to meet annual performance objectives does not, by itself, constitute cause for termination.

NOW, HERE'S WHAT TAXPAYERS NEED TO REMEMBER.

This is what YOUR elected School Board agreed to. These are the salary increases, benefits, protections, and financial commitments they approved on behalf of taxpayers.

The superintendent didn't approve his own contract. Your School Board did.

So here's a question worth asking:

When the School Board negotiated this contract, whose financial interests were they protecting—the taxpayers who fund it or the superintendent who benefits from it?

And what measurable benefits are taxpayers receiving in return?

This is exactly the kind of spending decision that deserves scrutiny in the debate over Question 2 and the proposed tax cap.

A tax cap would not erase existing contracts, but the debate raises an important question about how much financial discretion the School Board should have over future budgets.

READ THE CONTRACT. ASK QUESTIONS. HOLD YOUR ELECTED SCHOOL BOARD ACCOUNTABLE.

Let’s talk about real downshifting.

🔹 When health insurance rates spike, do the unions fight it, or just demand more money from taxpayers? (I thought collective bargaining was something they were so good at.)

🔹 When state and federal mandates turn public schools into publicly-funded healthcare centers, do the infinity school unions use their political power to push back, or do they just demand more money from taxpayers?

🔹 When school boards think everything from preschool to European field trips should be “free,” do they cut from somewhere else or just demand more money from taxpayers?

This is the real downshifting taking place. And, as always, it’s shifted onto the backs of taxpayers.

Your school district, not Concord, is the reason your property taxes are sky high.

Vote Yes on 2!

A “rich” family who uses the EFA program costs taxpayers $5,000, and their local public school still receives 100% of their local property taxes.

A “rich” family who sends their kid to public school costs taxpayers $25,000.

A “rich” family who sends their kid, who is on an IEP, to public school costs taxpayers $50,000 to $100,000.

The entire, statewide EFA program costs less Timberlane’s budget. If you ended the entire EFA program tomorrow, it would not make any difference in your school’s budget or your property taxes.

The arguments against the EFA program have nothing to do with property taxes or school funding. The liberal rage against school choice and letting state money follow the child is based on their relentless campaign against “rich” people (which just means “people who have more than I do”), and their deep need to control everyone around them.

Public education is their religion, and they want to protect it at any and all costs.

You have every right and duty to protect your finances from the infinite appetite govt has for your money.

You have every right and duty to choose what’s best for your children.

Until you force them to start fixing an obviously broken system, they will force you to keep paying for it.

Yes on 2 is the easiest choice ever. It slows the yearly property tax spikes, makes the increases more predictable and finally forces school admins and unions to focus on real solutions instead of “downshifting” all the problems to taxpayers.

Vote Yes on 2!

No one cares more about your bank account than you. Vote yes on question 2. It is time we get a handle on out of control government spending.