| Author |
Message |
    
fringe
Citizen
Username: Fringe
Post Number: 305
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2004 - 8:15 am: |     |
Thursday night's workshop is worth a 2 hour investment in front of the TV to get a more accurate understanding of the gaming and political challenges being raised by Super H in what BOE members now openly acknowledge as his budget (what happened to the earlier talk of it being a BOE document?).
Noteworthy information:
* Property tax increases necessary to support the Max T&E budget = 3%
* Property tax increases to support the $4 million Separate proposal = 5% (As predicted and contrary to administration assertions at the Monday meeting, Super H was able to find an additional $1 million of items in the original T&E budget that could be placed on the SP)
* One of the new SP items is Elementary World Language teachers. See the original TRIAL BALLON thread for a discussion on them and a discussion on the budget impact of including them on a SP again (Note: this will be challenged).
* Another new item is Courtesy Busing for those Marshall-Jefferson and Seth Boyden students who live less than 2 miles from their schools. By NJ law, the District is not required to transport these students, but believes the ~$411,000 cost justifiable. What is equally interesting is the retention of ~$150,000 in South Mountain courtesy busing in the T&E budget. A cynic might opine that not putting this service at risk is done to ensure the votes of the South Orange BOSE members.
* Mr. Clifford raised the idea of the BOE putting some SP items back under the Max T&E budget and forcing Super H to come up other non-T&E items (like the Alternative Program at Montrose) for the SP. This was greeted with open hostility by Super H, who after realizing what he had said, finally condescended to note that if the BOE required it he would do so.
* Mr. Clifford, obviously not a world class poker player, also asked for Super H's plan for items rejected by the BOSE. After initially refusing to discuss even the possibility (supported by Latz), when confronted with the "pay for play" option on athletics, Super H lectured Clifford on the BOE's responsibility to convince local pols (read BOSE) on the necessity of every SP item.
* As noted in Clifford's question, the issue of the BOSE's ability to line item veto SP items also came up. After some dithering, the administration took the position that the BOSE does not have line item veto power, but is only able to lower the overall SP amount. This, too, will be challenged.
* Finally, the administration, sensitive to citizen cries for central office staff reduction is making the case that it has done so by eliminating 3 K-5 curriculum coordinators and the salary of the Special Ed director (rumor is that M Davenport will take over the duties - as she has nothing else to do but recruit for Seth Boyden). The fact that budget calls for hiring 3 building based personnel to replace the 3 positions being eliminated is not mentioned.
JTL
|
ladyrunner
Citizen
Username: Ladyrunner
Post Number: 16
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2004 - 9:04 am: | |
fringe,
Just a point of clarification. The supervisors are K-8 not K-5. The super eliminated all 4 K-8 supervisors and created one K-5 curriculum coordinator (different job) on the separate proposal.
The supervisors are NOT central office positions. They are members of the principals'association. They do not enjoy the benefits of central office.
So, nice try Super H. But you cut supervisors who support instruction and kept all the central office staff who support the super. |
Nohero
Citizen
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 2937
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2004 - 9:10 am: | |
It's interesting that a brand new comparative budget, including the items tagged for the "special proposal" vote, could be readied for the workshop last night - and the administration is unable to put timely information on its website for the public.
As for whether the Board of School Estimate can "line item veto" a budget - I always thought that they voted on dollar amounts only, because their job is to evaluate the tax impact. Program choices (as in what to fund and for how much) are the job of the Board of Education. By the way, as of the date and time of this post, information about the items branded as "special proposal"-worthy is not on the budget website:
http://www.somsd.k12.nj.us/finance/0405budgetlinks.htm
It's the same old thing every year though, isn't it. "Hey, gang, let's put things such as music instruction, sports, and other extracurriculars into the special proposal. They wouldn't dare vote it down." Of course, one of the reasons we seem to wind up in this game of "chicken" each year is the atrocious delay in the provision of real budget information. Just like last year, the Superintendent first delays the budget, and then refuses to provide our elected representatives on the BOE with enough information to make informed choices about the budget; instead, he presents his "take it or leave it" approach.
The Superintendent always seems to aim for the same programs. However, being "fiscally responsible" does not automatically mean that the cuts outlined by the Superintendent make any sense. In light of the dollars spent, and the number of student benefiting, maintaining the elementary school instrumental music program and language instruction are "fiscally responsible" things to do.
Oops, I'm sorry, that last paragraph is something I wrote here two years ago.
The targeting of music is always troubling. One of the reasons for the strong music program at Columbia, is the past strength of the programs at Maplewood Middle and South Orange Middle Schools. And, one of the reasons those programs have the level of participation that they do, is the existence of instrumental music instruction in the elementary grades. So, while cuts in instrumental music instruction in the elementary grades might seem to have an isolated and inconsequential effect to some BOE budget planners, there would in fact be a "ripple effect" throughout the school system. This fact means that this is a curriculum change, not just a budget issue. Presumably, the Superintendent can show how this impact on the curriculum was evaluated, with respect to inputs from the elementary school principals, the middle school principals, and the middle and high school music educators.
Oops, sorry again. That last paragraph is something I wrote here THREE years ago.
There seems to be a depressing sameness about the Superintendant's actions, from budget lateness, to special proposal shenanigans, to targeting worthwhile programs. I only hope that this post doesn't have to be recycled next year. |
Dad23
Citizen
Username: Dad23
Post Number: 55
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2004 - 9:37 am: | |
Nohero,
Didn't the BOE make better communication a district goal? And they still didn't hold him to it this year. Save your posts, you'll need them as long as Super H is here.
Now I'll recycle an old post.
Central Office Jobs:
Super $160,000+
Asst. Super Memoli $130,000+
Asst. Super Davenport $130,000+
Asst. Super Corino $120,000+
Director Barker $100,000+
Business Administrator Milanette $120,000+
Asst. Business Admin. Daquila $80,000+
Public Relations Levy $50,000+
And not a single cut. Cutting one position could get ladyrunner another supervisor or 2-3 teachers. |
ladyrunner
Citizen
Username: Ladyrunner
Post Number: 17
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2004 - 9:40 am: | |
I forgot to say that the K-8 supervisors were the ones supporting the grade 6 teachers during deleveling. So he cut all of them just as deleveling will happen.
Irreponsible. Hanging teachers out to dry while keeping central office heavily staffed.
|
C Bataille
Citizen
Username: Nakaille
Post Number: 1659
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2004 - 10:54 am: | |
The new state education budget calls for at least a 3% increase in aid for our local budget, possibly more but I haven't seen a breakdown town by town for Essex County. Does the budget proposal include this 3% or not? Would the 3% obviate a serious portion of the separate proposal?
Cathy |
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 4806
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2004 - 11:03 am: | |
We are in the 3% group. For SOMSD this amounts to around $160,000 which isn't very significant. This was in the Star Ledger yesterday.
Another interesting point is that Montclair, while only getting the same 3% increase, gets around $8 million in aid while we only get around $5.5 million in spite of a smaller school population in Montclair. I think this may be because they are in a lower District Factors Group than we are. The differences in state aid in districts such as Belleville and Bloomfield is even greater, again I suspect because of the DFG classification. |
soresident
Citizen
Username: Soresident
Post Number: 123
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2004 - 11:14 am: | |
One minor point. It's stated above that: "What is equally interesting is the retention of ~$150,000 in South Mountain courtesy busing in the T&E budget."
While this may technically be called "courtesy busing", I don't think this is a "choice" the district is making. My recollection is that this route was declared "hazardous" by the state a number of years ago, as, inter alia, there are no sidewalks from much of Newstead down to South Mountain School, and children would have to walk down a major county road (South Orange Ave). Accordingly, I believe the district is required to have busing in place for these students even if they live less than the usual mileage requirement away from South Mountain.
|
Reflective
Citizen
Username: Reflective
Post Number: 325
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2004 - 12:49 pm: | |
In light of last night's workshop, the following real example will show how a one year program in a Separate Proposal can inflate the Net T&E budget in all future years.
In 1997, The Resolving Conflicts Creatively Program (RCCP)was part of that year's Separate Proposal. $500,000 was approved to pay for training for teachers for the program for one year.
The following year, instead of being deleted, that $500,000 became part of the Net T&E, compounded by the 3% cap, and the $500,000 becomes $515,000 in the following year's budget. EVEN THOUGH THE RCCP TRAINING was ended.
Since 1997, this one time budget item has now funded $3,500,000 in additional spending.
In this way, one time budget items in the Separate Proposal become unidentified budget dollars and they are used by the Administration for a variety of purposes(unrelated to the original reason) such as salary increases, new programs and so on.
This is likely a key reason that the line item detail is hidden by the Administration for as long as possible. If the public became aware that supposedly one time budget allocations in the Separate Proposal became part of the regular budget in future years, thus grossly inflating our taxes there would be much more debate then there is now.
And this year's $4 million Separate Proposal contains at least $600,000 in one time or annual line items. If left in the $600,000 will grow by a factor of 1.03 each year in the future. EVEN THOUGH THE REASONS FOR THEIR INCLUSION ARE OVER. |
mellie
Citizen
Username: Mellie
Post Number: 415
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2004 - 1:18 pm: | |
I watched the TV show on Wed night.
Clearly Super H is in charge and the BOE are too tentative by far.
Funny that we found $500k net savings on maintenance this year because CAP pressure required it. What a pity it wasn't found 3 years ago so we the taxpayer could have benefitted. Message to Super H - one of your missions is to get the costs down because the taxpayer demands it; not because it helps you inflate the budget because of CAP constraints.
Is there a Finance Subcommittee of the BOE whose job it is to kick the tires (and then some) on this process ? If so I nominate Bethiel as chair and Latz and Gagnier need not attend.
Greg Bethiel (he was the dark haired guy in a suit right) - smart guy. Taking his views one step further -the entire budget should be analysed in multiple ways 6 months in advance.
For example - it is a good idea to lay out all the separate proposal items and reasons why before looking at Super Hs "examples" (PS examples at this late stage -how about specific well thought out options 2 months ago).
But the danger of that is that what if they added up to $12m -then we could decide tha none were needed and the budget could be $67m with a tax cut. And that would not be acceptable to Super H.
What Bethiel is really saying is (or ought to be):
-show me a summary line item budget for the last 5 years
-show me the drivers of all cost increases
-show me the budget split into T&E costs and non T&E costs.
-Focus on nailing down T&E; that will keep Super H honest about the add-ons and avoid the Stockholm, syndrome I observed whereby everyone is trying to help him figure out how to beat CAP and stick us with another $4m in tax- instead of beating H up on what is really needed, and then being spooked because music and athletics are thrown out as the sacrificial lambs
-looking at the schools as a revenue source
-demanding analyses that shows cost savings with no service cuts (eg maintenance outsourcing saves money with no service loss)
I think all of the above would make an excellent senior year project. |
fringe
Citizen
Username: Fringe
Post Number: 306
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, February 28, 2004 - 8:18 am: | |
Let's examine the South Mountain courtesy busing issue in the context of a larger point. A few years ago in another budget "crisis," courtesy busing was considered but rejected for reduction. Just so we're straight - courtesy busing is the transportation of students who live less than 2 miles from their K-8 school or 2.5 miles from their 9-12 school. These students are non-remote in NJDOE terminology.
NJDOE does make an exception for students deemed to live on "hazardous routes." As a result of the near elimination of the service, my recollection and those of District officials to whom I spoke, is that to avoid this possibility in the future, South Orange Village created an unfunded mandate on the District by declaring several courtesy routes as "hazardous."
No doubt there is some risk in crossing South Orange Ave and Scotland Road. But is it the District's ~$150,000 responsibility to mitigate it? Is this service more important than all of the co-curricular stipends (clubs, musicals, publications, etc.) or the athletic coaches that have been put into the Separate Proposal? "Dead Money" Clifford spoke the unspeakable at Thursday's workshop, by uttering the dreaded phrase, "Pay for play." If you don't know, you will, because in this budget season, it is quite likely that someone besides the District will end up paying for some part of the proposed budget.
The mechanics - essentially NJ law provides that any unfunded (rejected - which gets to the BOSE line item veto issue we'll save for another post) Separate Proposal items cannot come back into the budget for the following year unless paid for by an outside organization or person. Thus, if say, athletics were totally or partially cut, CHS could still field teams if the players, their parents or the Rotarians were willing to raise enough money for the costs involved. The same applies to courtesy busing. In fact, the NJDOE website FAQ specifically mentions that a district may charge for such service. The question - in this hypothetical, should the budget crisis be born by the athletes alone or should it be spread to all non-T&E items.
Super H was right - the District needs to have the discussion of what we truly value and what we believe to be nice-to-have but nonessential services. But it will take more than the artificial time frame into which he is trying to force it.
In a vacuum, the various constituencies will always claim their particular interest the most essential - but the real test is their financial commitment to a particular program/service if the majority consider it a Separate Proposal item. Will they then back a rejected item with their own dollars and/or perspiration - see the Ultimate Frisby Club.
As to South Mountain courtesy busing - my personal belief is that if South Orange believes it necessary - let the Village fund it.
JTL |
Reflective
Citizen
Username: Reflective
Post Number: 326
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 28, 2004 - 9:09 am: | |
To add a little more to Mellie's comments on BOE Member Betheil:
He stated that the school budget information provided didn't allow the matching of spending to the goals and priorities of the BOE.
And consequently, the budget process was flawed.
On the contrary, Chairman of the BOE's Finance Committee, Latz, said that he has discussed the budget with the CCR, the villagers, the Seth Boyden PTA among others and that they support the Board initiatives.
Mr Betheil felt otherwise, mentionning a large silent majority, for instance, posters on MOL, who seem to be sharply at odds with the current large budget process. Alot of information has been provided, but not the why's of the programs and whether the money has been well spent.
The BOE Finance Committee consists of three members: Latz, Frazer and Campbell. They have run the show and the other 6 members seem as lacking in detail as the rest of us.(Judging from their inane questions). |
mellie
Citizen
Username: Mellie
Post Number: 421
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, February 28, 2004 - 11:09 am: | |
Latz is on the Finance Ctte - for shame sir, for shame. |
doublea
Citizen
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 497
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 28, 2004 - 11:21 am: | |
I've suggested in the South Orange specific thread that maybe a non-binding referundum be placed on the November ballot asking our local representatives to take steps so that the voting public in South Orange can vote on the school budget (or really the separate questions) rather than the Board of School Estimate. Perhaps people in Maplewood might want to start exploring this. I'm not sure what steps have to be taken, but maybe we should start looking at it.
It seems that if the residents vote on the school budget, there might be a little more transparency. Certainly the posters on this board have asked more penetrating questions than the BOE or BOSE. |
C Bataille
Citizen
Username: Nakaille
Post Number: 1662
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, February 28, 2004 - 6:56 pm: | |
Unfortunately, state rules dictate the BOSE set-up for passing our school budget. It's in the regs regarding combined districts, I believe.
Cathy |
eliz
Citizen
Username: Eliz
Post Number: 717
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, February 28, 2004 - 7:46 pm: | |
While I loathe admin-heavy organizations I sometimes wonder if we would be better off to have both an Education Super and a Finance Super - both with equal standing. One who's job is to make the district the most outstanding educationally with the assets available and one who is is charged with constantly and continually looking for ways to rein in costs, secure extra funding and make the district more accountable to its constituents.
Horoshak may have his qualities but the budget process and communication is obviously not on the list. I report directly to my board and if I tried even some of these tactics I would be fired on the spot. |
Reflective
Citizen
Username: Reflective
Post Number: 327
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 29, 2004 - 10:41 am: | |
Eliz:
I have been thinking long and hard about the budget process, the delays, the padding, the misuse of funds, doubletalk, and program threats.
I am beginning to think of the BOE Finance Committee as the Enron 3. |
fringe
Citizen
Username: Fringe
Post Number: 307
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, February 29, 2004 - 4:40 pm: | |
Nothing prevents the BOE from placing a non-binding referendum on the school district ballot - after all it's when all the other districts vote on their budget.
Yes, I know there are deadlines prior to that, but the BOSE could vote to table their vote until after the referendum is tallied. What's the Commissioner going to do. Not approve the budget? |
peteglider
Citizen
Username: Peteglider
Post Number: 485
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, February 29, 2004 - 5:24 pm: | |
I live a few blocks from the Annex, so for my kids to walk -- might work.
BUT to expect a kindergartner or 1st grader to walk up SOuth Orange Ave, past the Newstead and The Top, then go down Glenview (which I don't believe has sidewalks) all the while crossing multiple very busy intersections is absurb.
I wouldn't walk it myself.
Also -- keep in mind because the Annex is a "program" not a school -- the kids need to be bused back and forth to participate in various "school" programs. Probably a lot cheaper then replicating staff and services at both locations anyway (is that included in the $150k? probably).
Lastly -- this isn't the "big" issue -- its the politics around the budget process. Obviously the taxpayers can't keep paying more ad infinatum -- if we had a straightforward way of looking at costs, and not worrying about how to fund/where to fund/how to stay within caps, etc. then we'd know the tradeoffs.
Pete
|
doublea
Citizen
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 500
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 29, 2004 - 6:08 pm: | |
I was really talking about changing the law, but Fringe's suggestion is interesting. By suggesting that the residents rather than the BOSE vote on the budget (or really the special questions) I don't mean to imply that the sp's would be turned down. Historically in N.J., particularly in our DFG or higher, special questions have been approved by the voters. It's just possible that there might be more transparency and accountability in our district if the voters rather than the BOSE voted on the budget.
Cetainly even just placing a non-binding referundum on the ballot in November to try to change the law might send a message to the BOSE that the public isn't happy with the "gaming" that goes on. |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page