Following a recount, a warrant article on the Hudson School District ballot earlier this month has now officially passed.
Warrant Article 3, concerned a tentative collective bargaining agreement between the Hudson School Board and AFSCME. Voters were asked whether they approved ratifying the contract.
The School Board had voted 5-0 to recommend the tentative agreement. The Budget Committee voted 5-4 in favor of the article.
The warrant article read, in part:
“Collective Bargaining Agreement between the Hudson School Board and AFSCME. Shall the Hudson School District vote to approve the cost items in the collective bargaining agreement reached between AFSCME Local 1906 for the Hudson School District Principals, Assistant Principals, Special Education Coordinators, School Counselors, Dean of Academics, Department Heads, School Psychologist, Director(s) of School Counseling, Athletics, Career and Technical Education and Music, and the Hudson School Board, which calls for the following increases in salaries and benefits at the current staffing levels over the amount paid in the prior fiscal year:
2026–2027: $235,082
2027–2028: $(69,800)
2028–2029: $223,251
and to further raise and appropriate $235,082 for the upcoming fiscal year, such sum representing the additional costs attributable to the increase in salaries and benefits required by the new agreement that would be paid at current staffing levels?”
The estimated tax rate impact was listed as five cents in year one, zero in year two, and four cents in year three.
Based on the original election results, the warrant article appeared to fail by a vote of 1,368 to 1,364.
School District Moderator Paul Inderbitzen explained that the Board of Recount reconvened after it was determined that some ballots were missing.
He noted that in past years, ballot sorting was easier because school and town ballots were printed on different colored paper. However, with the new tabulators, all ballots were printed on white paper to accommodate the machines, making it more difficult to distinguish between town and school ballots.
Inderbitzen said the recount was suspended until March 23 after 10 additional ballots were found in a different box that night, five “yes” and five “no.”
On Friday morning, he and the District Clerk went through all of the town ballots and located one more missing ballot.
After the full recount, the final tally was: 1,368 yes, 1,359 no, and 60 blanks.
“The article passed on recount,” Inderbitzen announced.
He noted that recount swings are not unusual. “We had a recount for the school years ago where a measure won by one, and then on the recount it lost by one,” he said. “Those things happen. That’s what the recount does.”
During the meeting, resident Randy Brownrigg raised a concern that citizens were not involved in the recount process.
“No citizens were involved,” he said.
Inderbitzen clarified that state law specifies the clerk, moderator, and school board as the official Board of Recount. He added that sworn ballot clerks were brought in to assist, working in five teams of two, ensuring every ballot was reviewed by two people.
“We did it according to what the law says,” he said.
It was also noted that the recount held the previous Thursday was open to the public, and several residents did attend.
