| Author |
Message |
    
Reflective
Citizen
Username: Reflective
Post Number: 341
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 8, 2004 - 8:28 pm: |     |
On the piano thread, there has been discussion of how Separate Proposal one time only budgeted items are not deleted from the following year's T&E Budget and the dollars are not only carried forward into next years budget, but compounded at 3%.
Annettedepalma asked that I refer her to the Statute or Reg that that mandates one time budget items in the Separate Proposals be dropped from the budget. The Budget referred to is next year's T&E Budget.
Statelaw is silent on whether these one time expense items in the Separate Proposal either stay in, or are dropped from next year's T&E Budget. This decision has been left to the individual school district.
The final approvalof both the budget and the Separate Proposal is also subject to voter approval and in our unique situation,approval by the BOSE, our elected proxy, since we can't vote.
The State Statute describing the Educational Budget process is defined, altho vaguely. Please note that it has been subject to interpretation by the Assistant Commissioner for Finance. For Example, this Asst commissioner has recently ruled that items previously in a Separate Proposal may be included again in a Separate Proposal. Not law, but interpretation, and the taxpayer suffers increased taxes from this sleight of hand padding next year's T&E budget, without public review or even identification.
This padding process is not prohibited, nor is it allowed by law. The inclusion of these one time only items grossly distorts the intent of CEIFA.
Most believed that CEIFA was to limit growth. Because of the vagueness of CEIFA, a lack of understanding by the public (compounded by an ever shortening time frame) for public review and by our school district's stonewalling of legitimate public requestsfor budget information, we are facing continued inflated school property tax increases.
Jcrohn is correct that there should be questionning at the local level. Fortunately, this year has seen more interest and discussion on future tax impact due to Separate Proposal requests.
The padding or slush fund created by one time use only items only has given our Super and the BOE Finance Committee a significantly large behind the scenes method of discretionary spending. |
annettedepalma
Citizen
Username: Annettedepalma
Post Number: 324
Registered: 11-2001
| | Posted on Monday, March 8, 2004 - 8:38 pm: | |
So, Reflective, what staff, program and service cuts totalling $3.4 mil would you make? |
J. Crohn
Citizen
Username: Jcrohn
Post Number: 973
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 8, 2004 - 9:55 pm: | |
Annettedepalma: please direct us to the online (or other) listing of the entire schools budget by line item entry.
After the citizenry has had a reasonable period of time to review it, and some help from Board members or admin representatives in understanding the rationale for all expenditures, perhaps someone will be able to respond meaningfully to your hectoring. |
jfburch
Citizen
Username: Jfburch
Post Number: 1330
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Monday, March 8, 2004 - 10:53 pm: | |
You have of course been through the line item budgets and budget analyses, yes?
2004-05 Proposed Budget and supporting documents
http://www.somsd.k12.nj.us/finance/0405budgetlinks.htm
And the additional info here?
http://www.somsd.k12.nj.us/finance/financehome.htm
And the Budget 101 background?
http://www.somsd.k12.nj.us/finance/budget101home.htm |
harpo
Citizen
Username: Harpo
Post Number: 1340
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Monday, March 8, 2004 - 10:57 pm: | |
Hectoring! Johnny Carson isn't dead. He's posting on MOL. |
harpo
Citizen
Username: Harpo
Post Number: 1341
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Monday, March 8, 2004 - 10:58 pm: | |
Hectoring! Whooda thunk she'd object? Johnny Carson isn't dead. He's posting on MOL. |
annettedepalma
Citizen
Username: Annettedepalma
Post Number: 328
Registered: 11-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 9, 2004 - 7:34 am: | |
You've been railing about the budget and you haven't even read it. It's been publicly available for over a month and it's been on line for over three weeks.
I can't relate to your feeling "hectored." I'm not in the habit of blustering about documents I haven't bothered to read. |
J. Crohn
Citizen
Username: Jcrohn
Post Number: 976
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 9, 2004 - 10:25 am: | |
Harpo: Next time, try using the edit function. |
harpo
Citizen
Username: Harpo
Post Number: 1352
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 9, 2004 - 10:57 am: | |
Feeling hectored again? |
J. Crohn
Citizen
Username: Jcrohn
Post Number: 977
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 9, 2004 - 11:12 am: | |
Annette: "You've been railing about the budget and you haven't even read it. It's been publicly available for over a month and it's been on line for over three weeks."
In the first place, I readily confess to having not read the entire budget. It wasn't for lack of trying. Because the online budget was late in being posted and the public could not access it when it was first promised, I wasn't able to look it over before having to leave town to respond to a family emergency (which is ongoing). I've since read parts of the budget, and some of the supporting material, but it has not answered my rather modest questions about priorities.
In the second place, I have not been "railing against the budget." I have made specific complaints about the budget process. I've voiced doubts and specific inquiries about prioritizations--which you, Annette, seem unable to respond to.
Finally, I'm sorry, in challenging you to go over the line-item budget with its critics, to have given the impression that it hadn't been made publicly available. Of course it has. But the rationales for larger choices nevertheless require what I have asked for: adequate time in which questions about them can be debated and assistance from the admin in explaining their priorities. Understand: I am not only asking for justifications for specific expenditures. I am asking why objectives must be met in precisely the way they are being proposed to be met, at cost x. I am asking whether alternatives have been considered, and if so, what they are and why they have been judged untenable.
"I'm not in the habit of blustering about documents I haven't bothered to read."
I'm aware that you are not a member of the administration. But you have been extremely vociferous in defending its choices (or, as you view it, the lack of them). Given this, and because you have presumably studied the budget in detail and understand why it is entirely justified, one would expect you to be able to explain why $44,000 worth of pianos were (and now aren't) in the separate proposal, or why we needed the curriculum supervisors last year but we don't need them now.
Similarly, I trust you understand why J.T. Lamkin's suggestion to eliminate courtesy busing could not possibly be entertained, or why Reflective's concerns about the folding in of one-time capital expenses into the following year's budget are not worth addressing, or why none of John Davenport's suggested re-prioritizations of separate proposal items were worth discussing.
It's not that every budget skeptic here agrees wholeheartedly with every other, by the way. I have no firm opinion about the courtesy busing issue for instance, I could make a devil's advocate argument in favor of budget inflation by capital expenditure, and there are various other solutions I've seen proposed that I wouldn't endorse any more than you would. But you seem to be assuming a monolithic Naysayer who will refuse all attempts at discovering the rationales for the necessity of anything and everything. In the process, you come across as an uncritical supporter of any budget put forth.
I can't believe you don't draw the line on tax hike percentages somewhere. I can't believe you're not also curious, as many of us are, as to whether we might be able to profitably restructure our expenditures.
You claim that people who ask for a broader discussion are never willing to lead one. I am (and to a much greater extent, others are) attempting to do that, if you will cease your HECTORING. Asking over and over again which cuts "totalling $3.4 mil" should be made is not an honest stab at discourse, particularly since some people on this board have actually suggested specific cuts (most totalling less than 3.4 million--I think nearly all of us realize the entire figure can't be axed) and some of us have simply demanded justification for particular expenses.
***
Burch: Yes, the budget data have been available online, but they were not made available in time for a serious public review, let alone debate. That would have entailed more than a list of numbers in any case; as you know, the budget is large and the time frame for asking questions and getting answers about it was (evidently, by design) short.
Accordingly, although one BOE member offered to provide a copy of the budget to the SO CBAC (before it was online), we could not undertake a meaningful review in time to make an informed recommendation to our half of the BOSE. We were hampered in part by the fact that the deadlines for the municipal budget review coincided with the period in which we would have been expected to do a school budget review.
Assuming the group remains committed, we will look at the 2004 schools budget retrospectively, sometime this year, in preparation for a review of the 2005 budget. In order to do our job, however, we will probably have to ask that available data be provided to us much sooner, and that an admin or BOE representative (ideally, a member of the finance committee) volunteer to explain the documentation and answer detailed inquiries.
Meanwhile, I'm glad you spoke up, since you obviously have been poring over the budget in preparation for your BOE candidacy and, I presume, working over the details with the aid of Mr. Latz's expertise.
Why not make a stab at answering some of the questions and objections voiced here? You might actually persuade someone. |
jfburch
Citizen
Username: Jfburch
Post Number: 1331
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 9, 2004 - 11:47 am: | |
For the record, the only access I've had to Mr. Latz's budget expertise was at a PTA Budget 101 presentation, which was, unfortunately, very sparsely attended. It did allow me, however to get many of my questions addressed. Others have been answered by careful listening at BOE meetings and workshops.
I've been active on MOL long enough to know the odds of my actually persuading someone...and for obvious reasons, my time is limited, so my comments here will be as well.
I will participate in a formal MOL candidates' forum, and I'm sure these questions will come up at debates and coffees, so folks open to persuasion should be sure to attend.
Anyone who needs a coffee invitation can privateline me.
|
J. Crohn
Citizen
Username: Jcrohn
Post Number: 980
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 9, 2004 - 11:50 am: | |
"It did allow me, however to get many of my questions addressed. Others have been answered by careful listening at BOE meetings and workshops."
What were your questions and how were they answered? |
annettedepalma
Citizen
Username: Annettedepalma
Post Number: 330
Registered: 11-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 9, 2004 - 3:03 pm: | |
Let me make a suggestion. Get your copy of the budget, contact the administration, and ask all the questions and demand all the justifications you want.
Here’s a hint about prioritizations, generally: what’s in a budget is a priority, what’s not in a budget is not a priority. Does that give you a clue about what the administration’s priorities are? Of course, since you hadn’t read the entire budget, I still can’t see why you think you’re in a position to challenge anything. In case you didn’t know how it works: typically, it’s incumbent on a person making a challenge to explain how they would do it differently, not vice-versa, thus my repeated questions to you and others.
It’s interesting that you complain about the process, which you have not bothered to participate in, other than by venting on MOL. For all of its imperfections, nothing in the process has prevented you from participating or rallying others to rise up in revolt. Instead, you choose to toss around innuendo from the safety of your computer.
Your post assumes an awful lot about me and extrapolates quite a bit from my straightforward words. You are free to interpret and mangle what I say any way you like, just don’t expect me to participate in a conversation with you. And don’t kid yourself that you can challenge me.
|
J. Crohn
Citizen
Username: Jcrohn
Post Number: 988
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 9, 2004 - 3:39 pm: | |
"Here’s a hint about prioritizations, generally: what’s in a budget is a priority, what’s not in a budget is not a priority. Does that give you a clue about what the administration’s priorities are?"
That's very silly of you, Annette, not to mention unnecessarily insulting.
"Of course, since you hadn’t read the entire budget, I still can’t see why you think you’re in a position to challenge anything."
Like every other citizen in our community, I'm in a position to ask for a justification for anything I am being told I must pay for.
"In case you didn’t know how it works: typically, it’s incumbent on a person making a challenge to explain how they would do it differently, not vice-versa, thus my repeated questions to you and others."
The initial "challenge" is the budget itself, Annette, not any particular citizen's questions about it. If you don't wish to be asked why you defend a particular tax increase, then don't bloviate online about how not a penny of it can be avoided.
"It’s interesting that you complain about the process, which you have not bothered to participate in..."
Oh?
"Your post assumes an awful lot about me ..."
I haven't assumed much about you at all, Annette. It is you who have made uninformed assumptions about me.
"And don’t kid yourself that you can challenge me."
But I already have. So have others. When all you can respond with is overheated defensiveness, it's difficult to understand what you really think about anything. |
annettedepalma
Citizen
Username: Annettedepalma
Post Number: 331
Registered: 11-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 9, 2004 - 3:46 pm: | |
Actually, Jennifer, I've been reading your posts for quite some time, so I have an opinion of you based on your attitude and words to other people expressed in your voluminous writing.
When you answered my post to Reflective with your customary superior attitude, correcting my spelling, I think it was, I almost answered you:
"It's a good thing you live in this community. Otherwise there wouldn't be any smart people here."
I should have, and left it at that. And don't kid yourself that you can challenge me. Or get me overheated. |
annettedepalma
Citizen
Username: Annettedepalma
Post Number: 332
Registered: 11-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 9, 2004 - 3:47 pm: | |
Oh, yeah, Jennifer. About those cuts. What staff, programs and services totalling $3.4 mil would you cut?
Happy trails. |
J. Crohn
Citizen
Username: Jcrohn
Post Number: 989
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 9, 2004 - 4:35 pm: | |
(Uh...sounds pretty overheated to me.) |
Reflective
Citizen
Username: Reflective
Post Number: 344
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 9, 2004 - 5:33 pm: | |
The repeated demands to identify what should be cut out of the $3.4 million, my example, are irrelevant and miss the point of my posts and of others on this issue.
The purpose was to illustrate how a one-time use only budget item of $500,000 in a Separate Proposal has resulted in creating a total amount of $3.4 million. A one-time authorized budgeted item in 1997 for $500,000 in a Separate Proposal is now a $3.4 million discretionary fund amount used in multiple T&E line items. It is a budget fact and anyone asking , OK, where would you cut the budget to recover the $3.4 million, just doesn't get it.
The point is that the $500,000 was approved for for a one year, specific purpose. That $500,000 should not be in any way part of the following year's budget, compounded at 3%.
So we can't rectify what's been done, but we should darn sure stop this craziness starting now.
The current Separate Proposal contains a $250,000 one-time, one year budget item to upgrade the Telephone system. If implemented it will decrease the telephone budget by $50,000 annually. These are dollars well spent.
OR ARE THEY?
They are, only if they are part of the T&E Budget.
In the T&E Budget, in year 1, we will spend $250,000 as a capital expense and save $50,000 in telephone expenses. A net outflow of $200,000. In year 2, we will save $50,000 in telephone expenses and the $250,000 capital expense has been dropped from the T&E Budget. and the capital expense will not appear in the T&E Budget.
Unfortunately, the $250,000 is in the Separate Proposal, and therefore, in year 1 $250,000 is spent and $50,000 is saved. Now pay attention, because if you didn't understand this before you should now.
IN YEAR 2, the $50,000 saving remains, but the $250,000 has now become part of the regular T&E Budget, compounded at 3%, or $250,000 X 1.03 = $257,500. Instead of saving $50,000 on telephone expenses, the method our esteemed BOE Finance Committee has chosen has resulted in a net T&E Budget increase of $207,500.
In Year 3 the $257,500 will be compounded again by multiplying 1.03 and it becomes an additional
$265,225 in our T&E Budget.
The difference is that using the Separate Proposal creates discretionary funding under the max T&E umbrella which allows the administration to hide a variety of programs or services from the scrutiny of the public and the BOSE.
By combining the one-time use items in the Separate Proposals a significantly large slush fund which has allowed and will continue to allow, the admin to pursue its own agenda without public oversight.
Last night, Mr Bethiel addressed this problem indirectly by calling for the introduction of zero based budgeting within 2 years.
Let's hope that with three new members on the BOE
there will be a new BOE Finance Committee next year who will be less willing to use the smoke and mirror approach. |
Reflective
Citizen
Username: Reflective
Post Number: 345
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 9, 2004 - 5:37 pm: | |
The repeated demands to identify what should be cut out of the $3.4 million, my example, are irrelevant and miss the point of my posts and of others on this issue.
The purpose was to illustrate how a one-time use only budget item of $500,000 in a Separate Proposal has resulted in creating a total amount of $3.4 million. A one-time authorized budgeted item in 1997 for $500,000 in a Separate Proposal is now a $3.4 million discretionary fund amount used in multiple T&E line items. It is a budget fact and anyone asking , OK, where would you cut the budget to recover the $3.4 million, just doesn't get it.
The point is that the $500,000 was approved for for a one year, specific purpose. That $500,000 should not be in any way part of the following year's budget, compounded at 3%.
So we can't rectify what's been done, but we should darn sure stop this craziness starting now.
The current Separate Proposal contains a $250,000 one-time, one year budget item to upgrade the Telephone system. If implemented it will decrease the telephone budget by $50,000 annually. These are dollars well spent.
OR ARE THEY?
They are, only if they are part of the T&E Budget.
In the T&E Budget, in year 1, we will spend $250,000 as a capital expense and save $50,000 in telephone expenses. A net outflow of $200,000. In year 2, we will save $50,000 in telephone expenses and the $250,000 capital expense has been dropped from the T&E Budget. and the capital expense will not appear in the T&E Budget.
Unfortunately, the $250,000 is in the Separate Proposal, and therefore, in year 1 $250,000 is spent and $50,000 is saved. Now pay attention, because if you didn't understand this before you should now.
IN YEAR 2, the $50,000 saving remains, but the $250,000 has now become part of the regular T&E Budget, compounded at 3%, or $250,000 X 1.03 = $257,500. Instead of saving $50,000 on telephone expenses, the method our esteemed BOE Finance Committee has chosen has resulted in a net T&E Budget increase of $207,500.
In Year 3 the $257,500 will be compounded again by multiplying 1.03 and it becomes an additional
$265,225 in our T&E Budget.
The difference is that using the Separate Proposal creates discretionary funding under the max T&E umbrella which allows the administration to hide a variety of programs or services from the scrutiny of the public and the BOSE.
By combining the one-time use items in the Separate Proposals a significantly large slush fund which has allowed and will continue to allow, the admin to pursue its own agenda without public oversight.
Last night, Mr Bethiel addressed this problem indirectly by calling for the introduction of zero based budgeting within 2 years.
Let's hope that with three new members on the BOE
there will be a new BOE Finance Committee next year who will be less willing to use the smoke and mirror approach. |
Reflective
Citizen
Username: Reflective
Post Number: 347
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 8:03 pm: | |
Possibly the lack of followup by depalma suggests that she finally understands the mismanagement of public monies by the BOE's Finance Committee. In any event, no one has challenged the impact on our taxes, which have been described.
This year, we are faced with a Separate Proposal which is mostly due to a peak in contractural teacher salary increases which has used up most of the slush in the T&E Budget. And so, programs normally covered in the T&E Budget had to be put in a Separate Proposal and are at risk.
It would be alot easier on us taxpayers if we were part of an open budget process rather than one of partial and late disclosure. Improved communication, a goal of this BOE? Don't make me laugh.
Annette John Davenport, here is the final clarification.. Our BOE Finance committee is spending like a credit card, and incurring interest which must be paid back. However, the payments are being made by the taxpayers for foolish spur of the moment, poorly thought out
purchases.
|
Reflective
Citizen
Username: Reflective
Post Number: 348
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 8:03 pm: | |
Possibly the lack of followup by depalma suggests that she finally understands the mismanagement of public monies by the BOE's Finance Committee. In any event, no one has challenged the impact on our taxes, which have been described.
This year, we are faced with a Separate Proposal which is mostly due to a peak in contractural teacher salary increases which has used up most of the slush in the T&E Budget. And so, programs normally covered in the T&E Budget had to be put in a Separate Proposal and are at risk.
It would be alot easier on us taxpayers if we were part of an open budget process rather than one of partial and late disclosure. Improved communication, a goal of this BOE? Don't make me laugh.
Annette John Davenport, here is the final clarification.. Our BOE Finance committee is spending like a credit card, and incurring interest which must be paid back. However, the payments are being made by the taxpayers for foolish spur of the moment, poorly thought out
purchases.
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page