| Author |
Message |
    
J. Crohn
Citizen
Username: Jcrohn
Post Number: 962
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 8, 2004 - 10:23 am: |     |
Annettedepalma: "The entire budget process is proscribed by state law. Please refer me to the statute or regulation that mandates that one time budget items be dropped from the budget."
In the first place, you mean "prescribed," not "proscribed." The latter means "forbidden." The budget process is not "forbidden" by state law.
In the second place, the fact that the state apparently permits one-time budget items to be included in all future budgets (and compounded by tax rises every year) is hardly an argument that it's good local policy to take advantage of this largesse by not spelling out such sources of budget permitted under cap.
As things stand, it would appear that we see an automatic, permanent budget hike on the back of every one-time capital expenditure. What do you think this does to the administrative inclination to allocate for capital expenditures? I mean, if you're pretty sure your budget requirements will rise indefinitely, then why not spend as much as you can get away with now to pad the capped portion of the following years' budget?
Particularly when it is claimed that the fact that most school districts in NJ, not just ours, are unable to rein in rising costs illustrates the general impossibility of reining in rising costs, a state policy that encourages or permits unexamined budget growth across the board (if in fact that's what it does) must be questioned at the local level.
Likewise, a state policy of failing adequately to fund districts like ours must be questioned. But I think it's a given that most of us already want to see the state funding structure reformed.
Still, if we persist in comparing our budget policy to that of districts which also have not succeeded in slowing tax growth while continuing to deliver a high quality education, then what we're doing is presuming failure before we've tried something different from what all other districts that fail to rein in costs are doing.
Three members of the BOE, Jerry Clifford, Brian O'Leary, and Gregg Betheil, have endorsed taking a deep look at our budget and seeing if we can find ways to restructure it (not just mess about around the edges). O'Leary has been asking for this for years. Betheil has pointed out that the community must be led into a dialogue around its priorities and into making decisions for the collective good and the good of students. Clifford has been assiduous in asking after the rationale for every questionable separate proposal expenditure on the list.
I realize these guys are idealistic, but I support their efforts just as wholeheartedly as I support idealistic efforts to get the state funding structure changed.
So should everyone. And that means voting for candidates in the upcoming BOE election who will stand with them to demand absolute accountability and push for genuine public discourse about what and how much we're willing to pay for. |
annettedepalma
Citizen
Username: Annettedepalma
Post Number: 317
Registered: 11-2001
| | Posted on Monday, March 8, 2004 - 10:58 am: | |
Based on Reflective's comments, there is $3.4 mil of spending authority in this year's budget that shouldn't be there.
It's one thing to complain about the statutory procedure that permits a one time expense to be carried over as spending authority in prospective budgets. It's another thing to identify $3.4 mil in programs, services or staff that should be eliminated, which is why I asked Reflective the question 3 days ago.
If you are going to complain about the budget procedure that allows our current spending authority, you've got to take on the responsibility for cutting the budget equal to that amount. Go for it.
|
J. Crohn
Citizen
Username: Jcrohn
Post Number: 968
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 8, 2004 - 12:27 pm: | |
"It's one thing to complain about the statutory procedure that permits a one time expense to be carried over as spending authority in prospective budgets. It's another thing to identify $3.4 mil in programs, services or staff that should be eliminated, which is why I asked Reflective the question 3 days ago.'
Again, that requires a dialogue about what the public wishes to accomplish with its money (as well as what we are required by law to deliver). But we don't seem to get dialogue with this admin, only monologue. And so it's extremley difficult, apparently even for BOE members who would like to be good stewards of our interests, to approach your question.
Look at it this way: If I told you your househoild budget would necessarily be impacted every three years by the purchase of a new car, you might ask whether you really needed a new car every three years, and if you did, whether you could make do with a less expensive new car every three years, and if you couldn't, was there any way of creatively financing the new car every three years, and if that was not possible, whether it would be preferable to lease, and if that was too expensive...
...you might finally ask what the purpose of the car was. And then you might ask whether taking the train or carpooling might be cheaper while accomplishing the same good, or even whether you needed to get a job closer to home, from which you could ride your bike most of the year.
We need our admin to reconsider every purpose and every assumption about budgetary necessity, from the ground up. And the publc needs to weigh in on its priorities for the collective good. It may be that we can all be persuaded of the logic of paying more this year, if we see that we're getting our money's worth. But what about the 8% proposed for next year, and the year after that?
Sooner or later, some people simply won't be able to pay any more. Then what? |
annettedepalma
Citizen
Username: Annettedepalma
Post Number: 320
Registered: 11-2001
| | Posted on Monday, March 8, 2004 - 2:58 pm: | |
You are jumbling a number of arguments together.
Your example of my household budget is not analogous to the school district's budget because in it I have the complete freedom of whether, when, and what type of car to buy; the District does not enjoy the same freedom of choice in how it spends our money.
My experience with people fixated on blaming others for a "lack of dialogue" typically neither start and lead a dialogue themselves nor ever get to the merits of what they are complaining about. |
Diversity Man
Citizen
Username: Deadwhitemale
Post Number: 688
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, March 8, 2004 - 5:20 pm: | |
Holy matrimony, Batman, could it be that Annette DePalma is married to Board of Education member David Frazer?
harpo, should these family alliances/connections be made known to MOL readers?
DWM |
Reflective
Citizen
Username: Reflective
Post Number: 340
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 8, 2004 - 6:02 pm: | |
Thanking jcrohn for maintaining the dialogue during my absence.
I think the writer who used proscribed, and not prescribed, was merely suffering from a lack of sleep.
But the correction is important, less this responder be accused of not knowing the difference.
And DWM, aren't there other conflicting associations?
|
annettedepalma
Citizen
Username: Annettedepalma
Post Number: 321
Registered: 11-2001
| | Posted on Monday, March 8, 2004 - 6:13 pm: | |
DWM,
...and your point is...?
First my spelling, then my choice in men.
How about addressing the merits of the issue? What are the $3.4 mil in cuts you would make? |
J. Crohn
Citizen
Username: Jcrohn
Post Number: 970
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 8, 2004 - 6:47 pm: | |
"You are jumbling a number of arguments together."
I don't believe I am.
"the District does not enjoy the same freedom of choice in how it spends our money."
Obviously not, but it may enjoy more freedom of choice than you are allowing.
Just to take a case in point, last year's budget process yielded a lot of sturm und drang over whether the K-8 curriculum supervisors should be cut. It was argued by many teachers, angry over staff cuts, that the supervisors should have been eliminated instead. It was argued by the admin that the supervisors could not possibly be eliminated.
Last year the district made a choice not to cut the supervisors. This year the supervisors have been cut.
Now, perhaps there is some excellent reason the choice to cut the supervisors last year was not possible (a reason other than that the supervisors were at that point still needed to sell the 6th grade deleveling proposal). Or maybe, now that the supervisors are history, we will sorely regret their loss.
But perhaps there was more leeway last year than we were led to believe. Right or wrong, can you not see how taxpayers might wonder whether the supervisors were ever essential in the first place?
|
annettedepalma
Citizen
Username: Annettedepalma
Post Number: 322
Registered: 11-2001
| | Posted on Monday, March 8, 2004 - 7:22 pm: | |
Most people I know understand that "essential" is a fluid and relative concept.
About those $3.4mil in cuts. What should they be?
|
J. Crohn
Citizen
Username: Jcrohn
Post Number: 971
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 8, 2004 - 7:32 pm: | |
"First my spelling, then my choice in men."
Actually, that's pretty funny. |
Reflective
Citizen
Username: Reflective
Post Number: 342
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 8, 2004 - 8:30 pm: | |
annettedepalma and other interested readers
please see my response under Education Thread
State Budget- Law Regs and Interpretation |
Diversity Man
Citizen
Username: Deadwhitemale
Post Number: 689
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, March 8, 2004 - 8:37 pm: | |
I'm not criticizing your choice in men.
Just not identifying your relationship to a sitting member of the board of ed, who happens to be on the finance committee.
Since the teachers union contract depends on the fraudulent budget legerdemain, the next negotiation must be based upon what will be a reduced allotment.
Several million less.
And cry havoc, an honest havoc, for a change.
DWM
|
annettedepalma
Citizen
Username: Annettedepalma
Post Number: 325
Registered: 11-2001
| | Posted on Monday, March 8, 2004 - 8:41 pm: | |
You don't even identify yourself. |
annettedepalma
Citizen
Username: Annettedepalma
Post Number: 326
Registered: 11-2001
| | Posted on Monday, March 8, 2004 - 8:43 pm: | |
Oh, yeah. What staff, services and programs totalling $3.4 mil would you cut? |
mwsilva
Citizen
Username: Mwsilva
Post Number: 394
Registered: 5-2002
| | Posted on Monday, March 8, 2004 - 10:51 pm: | |
I would cut all bussing not mandated by law.
I would cut 15% of the current Admin staff, by headcount or by salary. (That includes Bonuses and other perks paid to Dr. H. and staff.)
I would set up a program where every child approved for special Ed. results in an equal cut in Admin. staff expense, heads or salary.
I would cut the expenses of the BOE by 15%, let them figure out how.
I would cut 8% of all teaching expense, staff or salary.
I would then cut programs that do not support reading, language, math; starting with music, gym, shop, and computers.
That should be about 4 Mill. or so.
|
harpo
Citizen
Username: Harpo
Post Number: 1342
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Monday, March 8, 2004 - 11:00 pm: | |
mwsilva,
Sports too? |
sbenois
Citizen
Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 10815
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Monday, March 8, 2004 - 11:05 pm: | |
BOE passed the full budget tonight including the entire Special Proposal.
Except for the pianos.
---> Brought to you by Sbenois Engineering LLC <-
Let's Go Royals
|
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 2169
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, March 8, 2004 - 11:12 pm: | |
quote:starting with music, gym, shop, and computers.
fine for cavemen. If you want to live in someplace where schools don't get funded, move to Alabama. You'll get to keep your precious dollars, though the trailer park clientele isn't as stimulating as the citizenry up here. |
John Davenport
Citizen
Username: Jjd
Post Number: 161
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 9, 2004 - 1:30 am: | |
Thanks for the update, Sbenois. We are relying on you for those pianos now...
And Annette can fairly assume that most readers of this board know of her relationship with David Fraser, member of the BOE. She posts in her own name; lots of other posters have many vested interests or relationships that they never identify, which even people who know them cannot connect to their posts, since they do not post in their own name! Nor should we assume that Annette always agrees with David! I don't think she should have to spell out her connections every time she wants to post anything. Give her a break! |
sac
Citizen
Username: Sac
Post Number: 1005
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 9, 2004 - 8:37 am: | |
If all the busing not required by law is cut, a very significant redistricting will probably be triggered. That would then probably result in additional "mandated by law" busing due to the very uneven distribution of children across the various neighborhoods. And when that happens, a far greater proportion of those being bused will be in that situation involuntarily. When a number of redistricting options were laid out about five years ago and resulted in the current situation (including the Seth Boyden Demonstration school and its associated busing), the situation chosen included the least amount of involuntary busing. So, you could probably reduce busing somewhat, but you couldn't cut it back to the cost levels indicated currently as "mandated" for this reason. |
J. Crohn
Citizen
Username: Jcrohn
Post Number: 982
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 9, 2004 - 12:10 pm: | |
Sac, these are sound points.
However, what might happen if the district extended the demonstration school concept district wide, to give every elementary school a unique character, and then permitted parents to choose each year the school(s) they wanted their kids to attend? (Yes, there would have to be a lottery in some cases.)
If something like this were tried, school choices would be largely voluntary, yet the admin could still control the racial balance and involuntary busing would perhaps be unnecessary.
|
xavier67
Citizen
Username: Xavier67
Post Number: 368
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 9, 2004 - 12:27 pm: | |
"However, what might happen if the district extended the demonstration school concept district wide, to give every elementary school a unique character, and then permitted parents to choose each year the school(s) they wanted their kids to attend? (Yes, there would have to be a lottery in some cases.)"
That's an intriguing idea. Are you saying this just off the top of your head, or have you given thoughts to it? If the latter, what other districts have opted for this approach (that you know of)? I'm all for giving parents and students more choices. |
J. Crohn
Citizen
Username: Jcrohn
Post Number: 985
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 9, 2004 - 12:43 pm: | |
I'm not really qualified at this point to think about it in depth, Xavier, but I'm sure others are.
I do believe Montclair has several "choice" schools, although I forget exactly how this is set up and I'm too lazy to look it up just now. If I recall right, some are traditional, one is based on a Montessori approach, one focuses on the sciences, one on the arts. Two of these may be middle schools, though, I forget.
The suggestion is not simply off the top of my head; I brought it up months ago in the context of wondering whether a pilot phonics program could be tried at one elementary school. Back then I suggested that different schools might try different approaches to reading instruction and the public allowed to decide where to send their kids. |
sac
Citizen
Username: Sac
Post Number: 1006
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 9, 2004 - 2:19 pm: | |
J Crohn - I'm sure that is an idea worthy of consideration, but generally such programs (like the Demonstration School program) do have to be supported by busing, so it would likely result in even more busing (with associated costs), albeit voluntary. |
J. Crohn
Citizen
Username: Jcrohn
Post Number: 987
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 9, 2004 - 3:20 pm: | |
Voluntary busing, privately contracted, could be paid for by the people who wished to use it.
"...programs (like the Demonstration School program) do have to be supported by busing..."
As a function of redistricting and incentives, yes, but if all schools in the district were opt-in, then all schools might be able to do without busing.
Of course, you could be right that busing would be needed in any event. Still, I think an argument could be made that if there were no busing provided by the district, the district would not have to provide busing to accommodate people who wished to send their kids to a particular school.
Then again, it might be possible for the district to provide subsidized busing or a transportation refund only for families who qualified on the basis of economic hardship (e.g., all who qualify for free and reduced lunches). (Who knows, that might already be required by law.)
Anyway, the gory details would have to be worked out by someone in authority with sufficient vision to see through major changes in the school district, and with access to far more information than I'm privy to. |
Montagnard
Citizen
Username: Montagnard
Post Number: 468
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 9, 2004 - 4:46 pm: | |
We can probably manage without computer rooms and the specialists required to maintain them.
In the long run, learning a musical instrument and the basics of a second language will be more valuable skills. |
Tom Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 2344
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 9, 2004 - 5:23 pm: | |
mwsilva, why do you propose linking special ed with administrative costs?
Tom Reingold the prissy-pants
There is nothing
|
sac
Citizen
Username: Sac
Post Number: 1007
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 9, 2004 - 7:01 pm: | |
J. Crohn - I have my doubts that you could sustain a "choice" program without a significant amount of busing. I think that the state would still require busing for the >2 mile kids and the district would have to address what to do for the 1-2 mile range that the current courtesy busing policy covers for SB and Marshall-Jeff. I believe that Montclair has a "choice" program for all of their Elementary Schools and that they have quite a lot of busing to support it. Does anyone know what their courtesy busing policy is exactly?
It isn't much of a choice if there is a costly bill for transportation involved. And that also leads to only a certain segment of the population being likely to "opt in" to schools farther away from their homes which could defeat the integration/diversity objectives of such a program. And if a significantly larger percentage of parents have to drive their children to school, that will exacerbate an already congested situation at each of the schools which impacts safety as well as parent/staff sanity. |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page