| Author |
Message |
    
Fringe
| | Posted on Sunday, January 28, 2001 - 10:01 am: |     |
Back when the News-Record still retained some degree of objectivity, the then managing editor, Anthony Puglisi, published a personal opinion,
labeled as COMMENTARY, about the SO-M budget process. His thoughts are just as valid today - if not more so.
News-Record
6 January 1995
In the scope of forming budgets and property taxes, the taxpayers can never catch a break. No matter how hard we try to hold the line on
spending, elected officials will find way to put money back in the budget.
This is not really a piece of earthshattering news, but it is true nonetheless.
...
During the review process which occurs over the next several months, the Board of Education makes tough decisions to reduce the budget, the Citizens Budget Advisory Committee makes tougher recommendations on where to cut the budget and the Board of School Estimate, which sets the [property] tax levy for the school budget makes the toughest decision on where to cut the budget.
It's a tough decision because of the balancing act elected officials have to play between holding the line on taxes and providing the best
possible education for children of the ommunity. ...
At the time I didn't know it, but now I understand. All the while the Board of School Estimate members were looking for areas to cut, they were pessimistic the cuts would be maintained. They were right.
...
[The] Board of School Estimate saw $800,000 added back into the [previous] school budget last month because the Board of Education had to adjust the budget due to "unanticipated expenses."
...
All legitimate spending, but still a sham.
Despite the efforts of the Board of School Estimate, the school budget rose from $48 million to $48.9 million [2/3rds of the 2001-2002 budget] - after the budget approval process was supposedly over.
...
The public does not need to dig deeper into its pockets, however, because no new taxes will be levied. In order to pay for the increase, money from the free balance, or surplus, will be used ...
Still, there is a sham in the budget review process because the budget approved by the Board of School Estimate should be final. If there are other expenditures or "unanticipated expenses," however legitimate they are, they should come from within the approved budget.
Utilizing only the money approved the Board of School Estimate would force the school board to spend within its means and make the tough choices about what are necessary programs and which are luxury items.
While many programs are worthwhile, the district has to draw the line at what is essential and what it can do without. In recent years this
process of adjusting the budget has become more commonplace. It is a bad fiscal precedent to set. "Redoing" the budget does not lend itself to responsible spending practices; it gives administrators an escape valve if things don't go heir way.
In this time of shrinking state aid and an increasing burden on property taxpayers, the district should live within its bounds and use any surplus funds as a means of tax relief.
Shortly after Mr. Puglisi wrote the above, New Jersey enacted legislation that sought to address some of the issues raised by limiting the amount of revenues a school district could raise, and therefore the amount it could spend. The legislation has been refined several times with
additional enactments to close loopholes used by the districts to circumvent the intent of the law. One of these allows the public, or in
SO-M's case, the Board of School Estimate, to raise and, therefore, spend in excess of the legal revenue "cap" by approving a special question or separate proposal for specific items. But the loophole identified by Mr. Puglisi,
paying for unbudgeted items using "unanticipated expenditures", remains open and a prime funding mechanism in this district.
[continued] |
Fringe
| | Posted on Sunday, January 28, 2001 - 10:01 am: | |
The 2001-2002 Proposed Preliminary Budget introduced at the last board meeting is nothing more than a political statement and call to action for interest groups to address the $4.1 million shortfall between district expenditures and the amount that can be raised under the "cap" (we want to spend more than the state allows). It will have changed greatly by the time the Board of
School Estimate votes on it in March. But it is worth studying the proposed eliminations because they show the priorities of the current
school board and administration.
First, consider what isn't to be eliminated or reduced. They are obviously the most important to the district leaders. Such positions and
programs as the Public Relations Director, athletics, and the Media Maven were considered so essential that there is no evidence they were considered for elimination or reduction.
Next in line of priority are primarily senior staff and planning positions that have come and gone in previous "tough" budgets. The board
and administration think enough of these folks and their $1.6 million in salaries that a special question already has been recommended to save them from the pitiless state axe.
Then come the programs to be pared, but not eliminated. Items such as the Seth Boyden courtesy busing, more computers, some building repairs and unspecified stipends were scaled back. [Are the middle school musical stipends at risk?]
Last on the priority list come the special programs including: in-school suspension, Alternative School, the CHS practical arts department and the 4th & 5th grade instrumental music. The board has left the fate of these programs to their champions in the community
- a cynical approach that is more dangerous this year given the cost focus brought on by the
revaluation exercise.
The special interests should not be disheartened, however. Any student of this school board knows, most members would not hesitate to raise property taxes to any level to maintain the social agenda. Among the board watchers there is little doubt that few of these staff or programs will end up on the cutting room floor.
Mr. Puglisi would note that, even after taking $1
million out of the "free balance" last Monday to cover such "unanticipated expenditures" in the 2000-2001 budget as additional staffing, consultants and unplanned Seth Boyden busing and relocation expenses, there is still $2.3 million in that slush fund (that the Maplewood Township Committee can't get at) to miraculously resurrect those that have little or unorganized support with which to pressure the
Board of School Estimate.
In his last year as superintendent, Dr. Lieber said that the district budget had reached a point that it is no longer sustainable by the district tax base. Although there has been near unanimous agreement by the school board, administration and Board of School Estimate, the only
concrete action that has been taken was to hire a lobbiest this year - a move so successful that SO-M was one of the few districts in New Jersey
not to see an increase in state aid. And property taxes for education continue to climb higher than anticipated by the state through the use of special questions and "free balance" funding.
Puglisi had it right. As long as the school board and administration have free use of the "free balance" there is little incentive for them to
take more aggressive measures to address the underlying funding problem. Until the reserve is gone and the residents have the right to vote on the budget, it will remain a document with a shelf-life that expires the minute it is adopted by the Board of School Estimate - and no one is accountable.
JTL |
Alidah
| | Posted on Sunday, January 28, 2001 - 9:05 pm: | |
I think the state is right not to give increased funds to a school system whose citizens cannot vote on the budget. Also, if we need money so badly, why are we able to come up with the funds for a lobbyist? |
Tracks
| | Posted on Monday, January 29, 2001 - 11:08 am: | |
Alidah: It was the state who made the rules about voting on the budget. A lobbyist is pocket change compared to what we should be getting and last year proved to be money well spent. |
Alidah
| | Posted on Monday, January 29, 2001 - 10:07 pm: | |
Tracks: I was under the impression that we didn't vote on the budget because it was a joint system with SO and a joint committee voted on the budget.
I also understood that we are one of a handful of towns in this state (Princeton is one of the other ones) that don't vote on our school budgets.
I'd love to know otherwise! Please tell me more. |
Tracks
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 30, 2001 - 9:47 am: | |
The state made the rules for when towns share school systems. We are one of a few that does not vote on the budget. However, I am not sure the results would be dramatically different anyway. The school budget which is incredibly large does not appear to have a lot of waste. It seems the real problem is the administration staff does not do a very efficient job.
The real problem anyway is that very few people vote in the BOE elections and that seems to give the BOE the idea that they can do what they want and spend moeny anyway that want. |
Ktsigkap
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 30, 2001 - 10:38 pm: | |
I am sorry that I don't get the News Record any longer and missed this whole article on the suggested cuts for the school budget. Glad I have this board to get the news. Can someone post, and maybe it's here, when the next BOE meeting is and where the entire budget is posted? I have been extremely concerned after I moved here over the lack of extracurricular activities. I am not from NJ, but from a suburb of Chicago. My fondest memories of school were band, cheerleading, dance, and drama. And yes being involved in all that I was an honor student and went on to get my BS. I moved to Maplewood because many of my friends from work recommended it. However, I now question my decision. I have 2 children in Clinton. The teachers are good teachers. They are both in band. However, I completely disagree with the curriculum. Getting a notice sent home that the next 2 weeks the class will focus on taking the next standardized test is ridiculous! If we want to measure the true intelligence of our students, you test them randomly, on the material they should know for their grade. The obsession in this town and state on test scores is killing the system.
I would like to see the complete budget. How much $ is spent on copies of unnecessary worksheets sent home for homework? How much is spent on those top 5% gifted students? Don't get me wrong, I don't want to eliminate special instruction for the gifted or the at risk. But what I have heard and seen, it is the average student who gets C and B's, plays in the band and goes to Drama that gets the short end of the stick in this town. |
Alidah
| | Posted on Thursday, February 1, 2001 - 10:16 pm: | |
I heard the other night that our school district received 1.5 million in aid from the state!
Thanks for the info , Tracks.
Now if I could only figure out what the school board candidates are talking about when they run. There is a subtext and I haven't figured it out yet. |
|