| Author | Message | ||
     bobk Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 4864 Registered: 5-2001 |
Ffof, I said our DFG and below. Millburn is above our DFG.  | ||
| birdbrain Citizen Username: Birdbrain Post Number: 28 Registered: 2-2003 |
Frank Fighera wrote re: the piano > The point is $16,000 is no where near too much for an instrument that might give thousands of kids enjoyment and an education of the classics, or that might help produce an Elton John > Is this an arguement for or against the piano? --- David Wren-Hardin amygdala17@yahoo.com Thousands of years ago the Egyptians worshipped cats as gods. Cats have never forgotten this. | ||
| J. Crohn Citizen Username: Jcrohn Post Number: 944 Registered: 3-2003 |
"A good piano is a once in a lifetime purchase. Once." For families and most musicians, yes. For institutions, not hardly. Every college department of music in the country sells off its studio pianos every few years. The sales are facilitated by piano retailers, who I believe provide tuning and maintenance agreements on the replacement instruments schools purchase. Performance pianos are replaced less frequently, but not just "once in a lifetime". Our high school probably does not require, nor would we wish to have to insure, a grand of such quality that we would wish to keep it indefinitely. But all this is really beside the point. The point is whether one can trust data provided in a budget document that offers specific figures without specific rationales to go with them. I.e., how do we know we need a $16K auditorium piano? Maybe we only need a $10K piano. Or maybe we really need a $25K piano. Who can say? What, in fact, are the standards by which one ought to judge such a request? The need to have equipment and facilities comparable to wealthier districts'? There are two more problems with attempting to read this year's budget proposal as revealing of anything specific. The first (as I understand it) is that the schools budget is not a binding line-item budget. In other words, a specific figure may be budgeted for a specific expense, but there is no requirement that all the money budgeted must actually be spent on what it is intended for. To some extent, '$16,000 for a piano' could mean anything--say, $5K for a crappy grand and $11K for image consulting services. Apart from salaries (more or less), we do not know exactly what the district's money gets spent on unless we are provided that information for years past. Second, the issue of allocations for things like pianos becomes more complicated when one figures that capital expenditures are often financed with loans. If the district needs new pianos, it may be necessary to raise money this year to cover a downpayment, but are we being asked to pay the entire cost of pianos this year, or the principal on a loan, or the principal plus interest over x number of years? If it is required that we budget in a single year for an expense paid for over time, then is this really the year that eight pianos must be purchased, or could we buy two each year and reduce the immediate tax impact? If the schools budget requires $28,000 to replace seven classroom pianos plus another $16,000 for a performance piano, does that $44,000 include service agreements? If we replace instruments, would our costs not be offset somewhat by sales of our used pianos? Where would that income figure in the budget--or is the $44K cited a net cost to replace pianos after the sale of the old ones? If we expect to buy new pianos on credit rather than paying for them outright, will allocated funds after downpayment be used for things other than pianos during the life of the loans? I guess if you want to have money to spend without accounting for it publicly (or to chop from a proposed budget without necessarily losing what you want to buy with it), you could do worse than to say you need $44,000 for eight pianos you're not going to have to pay off for ten years or whatever... Before some hysteric gets hysterical, I'm not claiming it to be a fact that this year's budget proposal portends any special shenanigans; I really have no idea. But there is too little info provided, and because the public should be expected to be suspicious of a 9 percent hike, any paucity of information is not reassuring. It looks bad. Finally: in defense of the admin, new pianos is located at the bottom of its list of budget priorities (category D). Unfortunately, it's hard for any of us to know how to judge this prioritization, either. What's more important, $44K for pianos or $400K for athletic program and "cocurricular program" stipends (category A)? Who can say? Does anyone know which athletic programs we're talking about, or which co-curricular programs, or where the money will go if halfway through next year some personnel in those areas are laid off due to lower than expected enrollment? | ||
| xavier67 Citizen Username: Xavier67 Post Number: 362 Registered: 6-2002 |
Jennifer: Well said. In principle, I agree with you 100% that, in the spirit of public accountability and community education, the Admin should make every effort to line item the budget and include detailed information about them. They should also take the time, at every opportunity, to explain and sell the budget, in all its glory, to us stressed taxpayers. In practice, however, I know how difficult it is to put together, present and manage a budget that will meet your client/audience's demands. In my line of work (film and TV production), I work with budgets every day. I have to spend at least 15% of my time dealing with budgets (putting it together, explaining it, adjusting it, managing it, defending it, moving money around, etc.) I wish it were less than 15% but that's just how it is. I spend the other 85% of my time on the creative side. The more demand that's placed on me to work on the budget (explaining it, adjusting it, managing it, defending it, etc.), the less time I have to work on the creative side, which means the QUALITY of what's on the screen will suffer accordingly. Obviously, I do what I have to keep the money people happy (i.e., convince them I'm not squandering their money). But I also make it clear to them that the more time I spend on the budget, the less time I get to work on the creative side. It's really their choice. Likewise, since it's our money the taxpayers of Maplewood/SO also have a choice on how we want our Admin to do their job. Obviously, it all comes down to trust and respect. (Philosophically speaking, don't all of us want accountability all the time? Whether the proposed budget increase is 9%, 3%, or 15%? I know I do.) Many of us who have lost trust and respect for the current Admin want more justification for their decisions, above and beyond what other residents feel are necessary to maintain a system of accountability. That's our choice. But we should bear in mind there is a price to pay. P.S.--There's a slight contradiction in they way some folks have called for a reduction in central office staff yet also wants more information (i.e, time and work) from the Admin. Just an observation. | ||
| Reflective Citizen Username: Reflective Post Number: 332 Registered: 3-2003 |
X67 As has been pointed out over the past several weeks, school budget info used to be released in early January leading to a 3 month review process and Q & A by the public. It is now down to less than one month. In addition, the School Citizens Budget Advisory Committee of Maplewood (School CBAC) a non-partisan volunteer group used to be able to work almost collaboratively with the school finance staff to gather info, analyze it and make presentations to the Board of School Estimate. This was very helpful because the BOSE as Township Committee members just don't have the time to come up to speed on school budget issues. Of course under Super H and Latz the School CBAC has had to fight to get any meaningful info at all. J Crohn gave a great example of smoke and mirrors above in the piano example. Several days ago, I gave an example of how $500,000 for a one time use (and in a separate proposal) in '97, has grown to an unidentifiable sum of $3.4 million in the current regular budget. X67 - what is the $3.4 million used for now and why X67, is a one time-use only budget item amount (for 1997 only) of $500,000 still in the budget, compounded to a $3.4 million sum, funded by taxpayers? Last - X67, so glad you work carefully with budgets, but you do so likely on a project by project basis. Note Well: this school board crew is accountable for public funds, mine and yours, and their accountability is even higher than Enron and Worldcom. Both of which obscured the books by hiding specifics on expenses, not revenue, just like our school district. Except for Doublea who suggested to Rosen, a member of the SO BOSE, that he read my $500,000 example, no one, not Latz, Super H, their Attorney, nor The School BOE Finance Committee-Latz, Campbell and Frazer have commented on my post. No one has said it isn't a correct representation of how the school budget is inflated year by year causing a sharp rise in property taxes. This process is very flawed and needs immediate public disclosure. Campbell isn't re-running for the Board of Ed , maybe he senses some sharp questionning about the budget process at debates. | ||
| Diversity Man Citizen Username: Deadwhitemale Post Number: 676 Registered: 5-2001 |
Your point directs our attention to the fact that the monies must in millions of dollars go into paying the expenses agreed to in the last teachers contract, which obviously includes tapping the [permanent, floating] one-time-only slush fund. This cozy arrangement is probably state wide, and the partners love it, because the unions have not been heard to complain, and no one runs a campaign for election to a board of election pointing out the ugly truth. So, who negotiated for our district for the last contract? DWM | ||
| annettedepalma Citizen Username: Annettedepalma Post Number: 312 Registered: 11-2001 |
OK, reflective, I'll take the bait. If you don't believe this $3.4mil is properly in the budget, tell us what cuts totalling $3.4mil you would make this year. | ||
| mwsilva Citizen Username: Mwsilva Post Number: 393 Registered: 5-2002 |
I would remove about 1/3 of Dr. H's Admin staff, the extra bussing programs, and I would work to make the schools stop wasting energy, as in the form of heat and A/C. (I've seen A/C systems running at the schools in July.) I'd also look hard at this Alt. School program. Then I'd like to look at why our kids do not have school books for Lit. | ||
| John Davenport Citizen Username: Jjd Post Number: 145 Registered: 2-2003 |
What is this $3.4 million again? I am interested in where that fits into the regular budget. There must be some description for it? This example does concern me. However, let me respond to SBenois's original post. I have no idea what piano we need, or what they cost (being a musical illiterate in a town of Mozarts...). $16,000 seems a bit steep, although the cost for storing instruments at the middle and high schools was more surprising (but doubtless that can be explained). Two things I do know for certain: (1) the Music director for our district is very good, and I think with even a meager amount of the resources he desperately needs, he can do great things. (2) In a town of Mozarts, zeroing out elementary music is just intolerable; it seems so desperate that I can't stand thinking how many people it (combined with other reductions in enrichment) will drive away into private schools. So I cannot agree that the entire separate proposal should be killed. However, I do agree that, although the Super made more administrative cuts than I imagined he would, more can be found (and SBenois mentioned a good one...). I note also the item for K-5 Supr Curric & Instr in Category A, the highest priority. The Television Studio upgrade in Category D is a lot more important than this administrative position, in my judgment, and would really help one of the jewels of our high school. There are more such examples, but that gives you the flavor of my view. However, the BOSE cannot cut anything not in the separate proposal, at least not without negotiating for a different separate proposal with other items, like the Alternative High school. | ||
| Reflective Citizen Username: Reflective Post Number: 334 Registered: 3-2003 |
Annettedepalma: Great attempt at a straw dog, but you know that my example of the $3.4 million currently in the budget is due to a one time training expense of $500,000 incurred in 1997. (Just ask Frazer or Latz, as you know them very well). The correct explanation to you is that the one time budgeted item for $500,000 (RCCP training)should have been dropped from the following year's budget. Instead it was added to the regular budget in the amount of $500,000 plus 3% (The cap). John Davenport - this means that a one time only approved budget item of $500,000, became $515,000 in the following year's regular T&E budget. It became an unidentified slush fund and an unbudgeted, unidentified tax burden on residents. This use of this $515,000 could fund new programs, salaries, almost anything in fact,and this increase, de facto, passes beneath the radar of any public scrutiny. This, in my opinion, is why the BOE delays and withholds financial information. It becomes very difficult for the BOSE and other interested public to review and understand line item realty. Last -to JD, I wouldn't oppose monies included in a separate proposal to show BOE meetings live. But, I would demand that the monies not be part of the following year's regular T&E budget. | ||
| annettedepalma Citizen Username: Annettedepalma Post Number: 313 Registered: 11-2001 |
Reflective, 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. | ||
| Reflective Citizen Username: Reflective Post Number: 335 Registered: 3-2003 |
Anndep Thought you might wait until late Sat nite to post. I will have more to say tomorrow on the State law and its interpretation. For now, I will only say that if our dear Board of Ed are hiding behind that glib statement, we will all see how that excuse plays in the light of day No one has refuted my examples of Expense Hiding ( the same smoke and mirrors got Enron and Worldcom executives indicted) and it's clear that to me and a growing number of others, that tax increases based on one time only approved funds and which are used for undisclosed uses are WRONG. Especially when the BOE Finance committee deliberately, in my opinion, withholds detail information, preventing public review and discussion. This is another reason why the Bd of Education gets an F on its goal to promote communication. And you know what, even if state law were to allow this, it's wrong and at best our local BOE Finance shouldn't allow taxes to be artificially increased annually and worse compounded by 3% each year. By the way, neither should our Board of School Estimate, -Profeta, Grodman, Pettis and the alternate Huemor. If they don't understand the impact on taxes they should admit it, and if they do, their opposition to the Separate Proposal should be shouted from the top of Town Hall. This is a grievious misuse of public funds. | ||
| John Davenport Citizen Username: Jjd Post Number: 151 Registered: 2-2003 |
Dear Reflective: I'm too rushed at the moment to look through the last full budget to see if I can find this $3.4 million that you are questioning, and sorry that I seemed to have missed your earlier explanation of this (I was offline for a little while). I understood that a $0.5 million training item has been retained in the regular budget, and while this is not negligible, I suppose it might be a justifiable amount (if I knew what this training was for). But how did this become $3.4 million? That is the part I am not grasping. I'm not questioning your veracity, but just asking for more details. Are there other items you believe are hidden in the main budget? The salaries of all staff are certainly public, at least. Looking for more details before Monday's big vote, if possible.... John Davenport | ||
| John Davenport Citizen Username: Jjd Post Number: 152 Registered: 2-2003 |
PS I heard thru the grapevine that the new piano purchases have been taken out of the separate proposal, and the administration is also looking to avoid those not inconsiderable costs associated with storing student instruments at the middle schools, and high schools. I hope they succeed in finding a creative solution to this logistical issue, and that we (especially SBenois?) can help organize a major fundraiser through SOMEF to help purchase those pianos! The middle school bands today sounded better than many high school bands I've heard, and our students and their brilliant and dedicated music teachers certainly deserve some new pianos! | ||
| sbenois Citizen Username: Sbenois Post Number: 10812 Registered: 10-2001  |
Can they take Marilyn Davenport out of the budget? ---> Brought to you by Sbenois Engineering LLC <- Let's Go Royals | ||
| sac Citizen Username: Sac Post Number: 1000 Registered: 5-2001 |
I don't quite understand why storing instruments is costly. My kid's violin (along with a lot of others) is in a locked closet in Maplewood Middle School, that gets unlocked by the teachers at certain times to allow access. I don't really see a revenue-generating alternative use for that closet and it certainly isn't suited to use as a classroom. There is no security guard. ... so where is the cost? (I'm sure I must be missing something, but I need some help to understand.) | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 2160 Registered: 5-2001  |
This whole thread is nonsense. You can't touch a Bosendorfer for that. Look on e-bay -- there's a 100-year old one for sale with a starting bid -- starting -- at $24,000. Not to mention that no responsible person with a music background would advocate turning school kids loose on an instrument like that. It's like buying a cyclotron for the science class. Somebody is blowing smoke here, and that doesn't help in analyzing a budget. A creative alternative to storing instruments? Sheesh, if kids were hauling their 'cellos and tubas home every night somebody would be clamoring for a creative alternative to that. Have you actually BEEN in the space where they store instruments? At SOMS, it's in a passageway between the bandroom and the music dept. offices. | ||
| J. Crohn Citizen Username: Jcrohn Post Number: 956 Registered: 3-2003 |
Tom: No one is seriously advocating buying a B'dorfer, not even the admin. | ||
| annettedepalma Citizen Username: Annettedepalma Post Number: 315 Registered: 11-2001 |
Reflective, I'm still waiting for what you have to say about state law and its interpretation. | ||
| Reflective Citizen Username: Reflective Post Number: 339 Registered: 3-2003 |
Have you waiting up all night for me to post? Later....  |
