| Author |
Message |
    
John Davenport
Citizen
Username: Jjd
Post Number: 159
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 7, 2004 - 10:37 pm: |     |
Tomorrow (Monday) is the Board meeting where this crucial question will probably be decided, and since I cannot be there, I thought I'd post my opinion online (without the benefit of hearing the debate and discussion in the meeting though...). I am using the Separate Proposal document of 2/27/04, copied off the website on 3/5, but I understand that it may have changed since then.
These are tough time. We cannot endure repeated 8% increases. So not everything in the Separate Proposal can pass. Profeta has apparently said that 5% is the limit. I think we may be unable to get away with less than 6% without doing serious damage to our programs, and the attractiveness of our district to people we really want to keep from leaving for private schools. So let me address the items.
There are some things I would like to see in the Separate Proposal that are not there, but rather in the main budget, and hence not touchable by the BOSE. On this one point, I agree with Lamkin's and Nathenson's recent News-Record editorial (on everything else, I disagree with them, but I'll leave that for a separate thread). For one thing, I think the position of Assistant Superintendent for Elementary and Middle School Education should be on the table, as perhaps should be the positions of a couple confidential secretaries, and the money that Peter H. is now spending on a PR consultant. I think the BOSE could legitimately negotiate on these items by telling the BOE that it will approve more items on the separate proposal if these 3 administrative staff and 1 consultant are cut.
Now to the items on the separate proposal. Within Category A, the administration's highest priority, I would urge the Board to take out the item for K-5 Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction. Unfortunately, I think we simply cannot afford this position any longer. I think other things are a higher priority (see below). I am less sure about the importance of the Academic Trainer position in Category A. I did not put it on my list, but that is only because I don't know what it is for. The Thin Client and Telephone updates will make our computer and phone systems more efficient and require less maintainence. Since they will pay for themselves in a year, and for themselves many times over after several years, they should not even be counted towards the 5% limit, or whatever limit the BOSE sets for the separate proposal. Ideally, the administration would put these items in the regular budget, in place the of the 3 administrative staff positions and 1 consultant that I noted should be cut.
Beyond these items on the Separate Proposal, my priorities would be as follows, in rough order of importance:
1. Special Education CST (Cat A). We need this in house.
2. Three high school teachers (to improve electives and avoid students having two free periods) (Cat.B/D)
3. Security equipment and overtime (Cat. B)
4. Project Ahead in non-Title I schools (Cat. C) [Hopefully this will no longer be needed after the LA curriculum changes next year!]
5. Two elementary music teachers (Cat. B)
5. Four elementary world language teachers (Cat. C)
6. Custodial Supervisor (Cat A). We'll need him to manage the outsourcing of the custodial work.
7. Two middle school social workers (Cat A & B). [One is an absolute minimum, but I don't think we can really do with less than two]
8. Stipends -- Athletics Programs (Cat A)
9. Stipends -- cocurricular programs (Cat B)
10. Elementary Enrichment (Cat. C)
11. Two security guards (Cat. D)
12. Television Studio Upgrade (Cat. D)
13. Update CAD lab at high school (Cat. D)
14. Tech Facilitator (Cat. B)
15. Computers in Middle schools and high school (Cat. D and B)
16. Salary maintenance (Cat. B)
17. Breakfast program supervision overtime (Cat. B)
These would be my priorities, and I've included everything that I think it would be very bad for the district to cut. We will have to hold a fundraiser for the pianos, and find some other way of paying for the community use custodial services.
Good luck to the Board on dealing with this difficult problem, and I hope that this priority list is of some help. |
Ed May
Citizen
Username: Edmay
Post Number: 1985
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Monday, March 8, 2004 - 12:28 am: | |
Speaking for myself, the entire Special Question should be voted down. Let me say that again: THE ENTIRE SPECIAL QUESTION must be voted down! The BOE already gets all of last year's budget plus 3%. By definition, anything necessary for 'thorough and efficient' education should already be in the regular budget. That is what the budget is for. Every year the previous year's Special Question (Separate Proposal) Amount gets rolled into the next year's regular budget. If this year's Special Question is voted into law that dollar amount times 3% times 3 % times 3 % ad nauseum will be in the budget forever. This is a fact that the BOE does not advertise! This year's Special Question includes allegedly 'one time nonrecurring items' which are not. It would take an hour to explain all the reasons why the Special Question should be voted down. Don't get me started. Personally I would not even give the BOE the 3% 'COLA'. I would like to see them live on 95% of last year's budget for a start. And make my taxes go down! If the Special Question is voted in then my taxes go up at least 5% and that is before any increases that are in the remaining 40% of the Maplewood Budget. Every dollar in the Special Question Budget is a dollar that we won't have in the rest of Maplewood's budget. I call for - when the time comes - the Maplewood BOSE members Fred, Ian, and Ken to "Just Say No" to the Special Question, for if they do vote "No" it can't happen. If they do not understand why they must vote NO I will meet them anytime anywhere to explain. This a one great chance for the Maplewood TC to 'hold the line' on taxes. And please don't ask how could I be so callous as to be 'against' this item or that item in the special question. That misrepresents the real question. How can $82,000,000.00 Not be enough to educate the legitimate students in SO-M! I say cut out the fat in the overhead and admin. Tell the BOE to learn to live on the regular budget. And by the way the Special Question was originally intended to be used only in emergencies. A couple of years ago the Maplewood BOSE members had the courage to vote NO on the special question and I applaud them for that. This is the biggest Special Question ever and it is intentionally loaded with 'sacred cows' so that we the people - already overburdened with taxes - look like ogres when we say "we can't take it any more". Stop driving people out of their homes with uncounscionable increases in property taxes. Just vote No on the Special Question. Don't fall into the trap of trying to line veto the Special Question. If there is anything in the Special Question necessary for 'thorough and efficient' education it would be in the regular budget, and if not then shame on the crafters of the budgets! Don't tell me the budget is efficient when there is no accountability and we are still educating students with no right to be educated by our tax dollars. Since we the Citizens can't vote on the School Budget and the BOE is clearly irresponsible we must rely on the 3 BOSE members from Maplewood to make sure that ultimate hard decision is made and that they - all 3 - vote 100% totally No on the Special Question. And if I wasn't clear in what I am saying THE SPECIAL QUESTION MUST BE VOTED DOWN BY THE BOARD OF SCHOOL ESTIMATE IN WHOM THE FINAL POWER RESTS!
Am I a voice crying in the wilderness?
Ed May |
Nohero
Citizen
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 2995
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Monday, March 8, 2004 - 8:40 am: | |
Mr. May, one step at a time. You properly note that the Administration has put "sacred cows", as you call them, into the separate proposal. But, the details of the separate proposal have not been finalized yet. So, the first step is to challenge the BOE to stop putting essential programs on the line in the separate proposal, which the Superintendent does year after year.
And while I agree, the budget as a whole is a big number, it's made up of a lot of little numbers (okay, some not so little). It's unfortunate that, despite promises to make it otherwise, the community is witnessing another last-minute school budget pageant. |
LibraryLady(ncjanow)
Citizen
Username: Librarylady
Post Number: 1274
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, March 8, 2004 - 8:45 am: | |
THE SPECIAL QUESTION MUST BE VOTED DOWN BY THE BOARD OF SCHOOL ESTIMATE IN WHOM THE FINAL POWER RESTS!
Not so Ed. Even if the BOSE votes down the special question, the administration can appeal to the Count Superintendent, who can then override the rejection. Rejections ALWAYS get overridden!
Nancy Chiller Janow
On a coffee break..or something like it. |
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 4908
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, March 8, 2004 - 8:58 am: | |
Rejections of the regular budget get overturned. The overturning of Special Question items is much less certain. If the County Board automatically approved Special Question budgets there would be no cap at all.
There seems to be a question if the BOSE can exercise line item vetos or not. Although Super H by setting priority classifications seems to be giving in on this point. |
Nohero
Citizen
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 2996
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Monday, March 8, 2004 - 9:04 am: | |
I thought the "priority classifications" were a tool for reducing the size of the separate proposal, for the Board of Education discussions.
The Board of School Estimate votes on dollar amounts only. They don't choose programs, eliminate programs, or otherwise decide what actually gets funded. So, while I suppose they could vote on a lower amount, it is still the responsibility of the Board of Education to decide on what gets funded, and for how much. |
ladyrunner
Citizen
Username: Ladyrunner
Post Number: 18
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 8, 2004 - 9:05 am: | |
I think the separate proposal should be voted down entirely. We can all see that the superintendent is hiding unnecessary items in the regular budget (T&E?), and he has never shown any willingness to live without his disproportionately large central office staff. On the contrary, he has added positions while cutting teachers and people who support teachers (asst. principals, supervisors).
If the separate proposal is denied, I think the superintendent will do some quick rearranging. Some things on the separate proposal would suddenly find a spot in the regular budget. I also think that denying the separate proposal will be the only way to send this man a message that he is not the only decision maker in the two towns. He has effectively gotten the BOE to work for him, and he knows it. It can not seem like the BOSE works for him, too. Every system needs its checks and balances, and he really needs to be checked.
As for the many requests to cut the assistant superintendent for elem. and middle school education position, keep dreaming. He loves his bloated central office staff, and he would never do anything that reflected poorly on Marilyn Davenport. Even if she kept a job in the change, cutting her position would still make her look bad. And he won't stand for that. But please, let's keep asking for the cut.
The BOE has never denied him anything. He even got his poorly planned grade 6 deleveling through. They never say no to him, and that has increased his arrogance. It is unlikely (impossible) that the BOE will suddenly change direction and require him to put non-essential items on the separate proposal.
Denying the separate proposal would not damage the district. Keeping all those central office positions will damage the district, and he has to be forced to make changes there. As long as there is a separate proposal, he will keep his central office posse.
SAY NO TO THE SEPARATE PROPOSAL.
|
Nohero
Citizen
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 2998
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Monday, March 8, 2004 - 9:14 am: | |
Rejected separate proposal items don't go back into the regular budget. That's why the Administration is playing these games. |
J. Crohn
Citizen
Username: Jcrohn
Post Number: 963
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 8, 2004 - 10:31 am: | |
Nohero, I may be mistaken, but I think the law on that was changed this year. |
fringe
Citizen
Username: Fringe
Post Number: 316
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, March 8, 2004 - 10:57 am: | |
So far the ostrich approach has allowed the district to muddle through the budget crisis of the last several years - but as the Separate Proposal mechanism plays a larger and larger role, the conflict between the towns (BOSE) and District is bound to increase as Super H/BOE play chicken with popular programs.
All interested parties would benefit from a read of CEIFA and the corresponding regulations. But consider this,
The BOE has taken the position, rightly or wrongly, that the BOSE can only address the amount of the Separate Proposal - not the actual items. If the BOSE should agree to this interpretation and fund only $2 million of the ~$3.6 million, it is the BOE who will determine how to assign the money. It is possible that all items will be retained at a lower amount and sources from outside the district used to make-up all or part of the difference. This could include user fees, voluntary contributions, contributions from the towns or charitable donations.
Should an item be strickened by the BOE, it can only be resurected through outside contributions - the District cannot directly fund the item from taxes or "Free Balance" later in the year as Super H found out at the cost of several thousand dollars the last time a Separate Proposal was rejected.
Apparently many agree that new methods of funding education must be found. The question is whether we can wait for Gadot(?) in Trenton or must take our future into our own hands. I'll post our N-R piece in hopes of hearing the funding ideas of others.
JTL |
ladyrunner
Citizen
Username: Ladyrunner
Post Number: 19
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 8, 2004 - 10:57 am: | |
If the superintendent knows in advance that the separate proposal will be rejected, he will make adjustments before all the legal strings get attached.
If he would keep his 3 assistant superintendents, director of assessment and planning, business administrator, assistant business administrator, AND his communications coordinator while cutting some items on the separate proposal, he is more arrogant than I thought. |
Nohero
Citizen
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 2999
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Monday, March 8, 2004 - 11:19 am: | |
Whether the Board of School Estimate can "line item" specific expenditures, or just dollar amounts, the end result could be the elimination of programs in the separate proposal. If the separate proposal is rejected in its entirety, items in there cannot go back into the regular budget.
The NJ Education Department regulation on separate proposals (N.J.A.C. 6A:23-8.5) states at paragraph (e): "[P]roposed expenditures which are rejected by the local voters and which are not restored by the local governing body or bodies, or rejections by a board of school estimate, are final and application for restoration ... is prohibited." Then, at paragraph (f) it states: "A district board of education shall not modify the base budget to execute such purposes pursuant to [paragraph (e)]", the only exception being if there is a donation or contribution from an external source.
That's why the game, of putting beloved and beneficial programs in the separate proposal, is called "chicken". |
fringe
Citizen
Username: Fringe
Post Number: 319
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, March 8, 2004 - 11:53 am: | |
"unless they are paid for from an external source."
This opens a wide variety options to Super H/BOE. The reason they have not suggested outside funding yet is that such funding cannot be used to build the next year's T&E budget before adjustments. Example -
The Separate Proposal contains ~$250,000 for phase II of the telephone system. If passed, the 2005-06 Max T&E budget allowed before adjustments (and every subsequent budget)will include $250,000 compounded at 3% even though the equipment was a one-time purchase in 2004-05. According to the testimony, phone expenses will decrease ~$50,000 per year, but the amount of taxes the district will be allowed to raise to keep other items under the Max T&E protective umbrella will increase by ~$250,000 per year compounded at 3%.
Now the zinger - let's say the phone system is rejected, but then the money necessary is provided from an external source. In 2005-06 the district would still realize the $50,000 expense savings, but would not be able to increase the Max T&E budget before adjustments. And no future budgets would be increased either.
This gets down to who do you trust. is it better for the voters/BOSE to have a greater say in the school budget, or should Super H/BOE be given greater discretion?
Sadly we have not heard from the candidates on this and other budget topics. Is it lack of familiarity with the process, or a desire to keep the electorate guessing?
|
Crazyguggenheim
Citizen
Username: Crazyguggenheim
Post Number: 534
Registered: 2-2002
| | Posted on Monday, March 8, 2004 - 12:11 pm: | |
Call me crazy, but this sounds like a course I took once called Highway Robbery 101.
Call me crazy |
Ed May
Citizen
Username: Edmay
Post Number: 1986
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Monday, March 8, 2004 - 11:51 pm: | |
Fringe
I saw Maplewood Mayor Fred Profeta and Town Committman Ken Pettis at the BOE Meeting tonight. I had to leave early and do not know if they later spoke at the meeting or if they will post on this thread (I hope they do) but at least they were witness to the dronings and moanings that went on at this BOE meeting. [The BOE meetings are way less exciting than the Maplewood T C Meetings, in my opinion.] By the way I am more firm in my opinion than ever:
THE SPECIAL QUESTION MUST BE VOTED DOWN!
Ed May |
Nohero
Citizen
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 3004
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Monday, March 8, 2004 - 11:57 pm: | |
Well, Mayor Profeta spoke, but that's best left to another thread on another day.
While there may be some visceral appeal to voting against the separate proposal in its entirety, it would be a good idea for the BOE to set forth what it finally did adopt, and for the debate to move on from there. |
John Davenport
Citizen
Username: Jjd
Post Number: 160
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 9, 2004 - 1:20 am: | |
Quickly, since it is very late,
1. Nohero is entirely right (as usual). These items cannot be restored if rejected from the separate proposal. Thus Ladyrunner was wrong when she said "If the separate proposal is denied, I think the superintendent will do some quick rearranging. Some things on the separate proposal would suddenly find a spot in the regular budget." There is virtually no way for this to happen. Ladyrunner, you also said "I also think that denying the separate proposal will be the only way to send this man a message that he is not the only decision maker in the two towns." I respectfully disagree. The way to teach Peter H. that lesson is to elect Bennett, Crawford, and Little in the school board election. Don't sacrifice our kids to teach the Super this lesson.
2. To Ed May: respectfully, I think you are as wrong on this as wrong could be (much stronger words come to mind...) After all my editorials, has it still not occured to you that if the sort of items to which I gave priority in my list are all cut, then quite apart from our children's educational losses, we will certainly drive away more of the demographic that we most need to keep in our schools to stabilize them in the next few years? And if this happens, others will follow the exodus, and the district pass forever beyond the brink? Are you just unable to face the simple reality that if this happens, your property values, along with ours will simply plumment? Try taking a third off the value of your home, or more, and weigh this against paying for a 6% school tax increase rather than a 3% tax increase (that is, compare a third of your home's value against annual separate proposals of 3-4%). You will quickly see where the lesser of two evils lies. So even from the typical narrowly self-interested perspective of the Republican party, logic is just not on your side!
3. Mr. Lamkin, if you think this district is ever going to charge paying families and exclude those who cannot pay for the important parts of our educational system listed in my priorities, then you must be dreaming (again, stronger words come to mind...). It will be a cold day in hell before the majority of Maplewoodians think that these programs -- which you doubtless took for granted when you were in school -- such as elementary foreign language, music, enrichment, high school sports, etc. should be reserved for the rich! But I will address other fallacies in your N-R editorial separately.
4. May and others, exactly what fat remains in the administration that I did not address? I am very keen to hear details on this. I suggested cutting Marilyn's position, and a couple confidential secretaries. Corino's position is not really a new position, since it replaces in a different job title the old Director of Human Resources position, which was apparently cut some years ago to get rid of the person filling it, and then done by an adjunct administrator who came out of retirement for the maximum of two years (ergo, we had to fill that position this year). So what exactly would you cut out of the administration beyond what I proposed, without preventing them from being able to do their job, including providing timelier budgets?
There is no easy escape from our dilemma. I don't blame people for still looking for easy outs, but I do blame them for denying reality when it comes to important decisions. |
fringe
Citizen
Username: Fringe
Post Number: 321
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 9, 2004 - 8:43 am: | |
While we'll be glad to trade some jabs, especially if the fallacies contained above are repeated, we're more interested in solutions to the budget crisis other than the 7+% yearly property tax hike that the BOE has fallen into. If you've thoughts, we'd like to see them.
JTL |
John Davenport
Citizen
Username: Jjd
Post Number: 181
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 28, 2004 - 10:23 pm: | |
My thoughts are: find $1 million in cuts from the T&E budget however we can: central administration, alternative high school, etc. Then put $1 million of the highest priorities in the Separate Proposal (see my list at the start of this thread) back into the T&E budget. Then fund the rest of these priorities in the Separate Proposal up to a 5.5% total tax increase. I would say that this is just a bit above inflation for this sector.
Sorry, it appears on another thread that the average high school parent is already paying around $350 in user fees. So there seems to be little evidence that this method will raise any significant new money for the district. I do applaud you for trying to come up with new ideas, though. |
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 169
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Monday, March 29, 2004 - 12:00 am: | |
John Davenport,
WRT your comment about the average family already paying $350.00, in user fees, I have to wonder: does the average family have children involved in fencing, soccer and lacrosse?
BTW, I would note that the BOE has pulled athletic & co-curricular stipends out of the separate proposal. Although the BOE has added non-essential programs, like courtesy bussing for the Jefferson-Marshall and Seth Boyden students to the Separate Proposal. (Courtesy bussing for the S.O. and S.O. Annex children has been, and remains, in the nearly untouchable base budget.
Food for thought.
TomR. |
fringe
Citizen
Username: Fringe
Post Number: 343
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, March 29, 2004 - 8:06 am: | |
It's true that the fencing team collects a fee of about $200 from each of its roughly 140 members. My sources indicate that much of it goes towards the program. The families also pay for their own uniforms and equipment. In addition most of the six or seven coaches are volunteers. Finally, it is arguably the most successful of CHS' sports programs in terms of competitive and individual success. No argument from me that it is worthy of emulation.
The fees for the other sports mentioned cover little of the program costs. At least half go to the awards dinner at season's end. As the parents have little financial input into the program, they also have little say into how it is run and who the coaches are. Check the records of these teams and the overall (not individual) level of satisfaction with their operation. My suspicion is that at least in some sports, parents would be happy to pay more for the input and outcomes enjoyed by the fencers.
Finally, the CHS enrollment is roughly 2,000 students. The sports mentioned encompass about 200 individuals - many in two or three of the sports identified. |
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 5057
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, March 29, 2004 - 8:30 am: | |
I think the county made SOMSD put the stipends back because only athletic stipends were put in the separate proposal.
I am a little uncomfortable with really heavy user fees because they may preclude less affluent students from participating, although often as far as soccer and lacrosse are concerned it is often the more affluent who fail to pay.
|
Nohero
Citizen
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 3113
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Monday, March 29, 2004 - 5:05 pm: | |
No matter what your opinion may be on these issues, the next few days are when the decisions will be made (from the BOE Online Agenda):- Tonight @ 7:00 p.m. - Approve 2004-05 School District Budget for Submission to the Board of School Estimate; Approve Separate Question for the 2004-05 School Year Budget to be Presented to the Board of School Estimate.
- Tomorrow - The Board of School Estimate will hold a Public Hearing on Tuesday evening, March 30, 2004 at 7:00 pm in the District Meeting Room, 525 Academy Street , Maplewood , NJ . Action will be taken to levy the 2004-05 school tax.
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page