| Author |
Message |
    
Tom Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 2441
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 2:29 pm: |     |
Jon, if I'm reading between your lines correctly, protecting our property values for selfish reasons, ends up doing good by our community. Is that about right?
Tom Reingold the prissy-pants
There is nothing
|
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 4995
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 2:52 pm: | |
A few points:
First, I think that most people are willing to accept up to a 5% total school tax increase.
Second, the Marshall/Jefferson pairing is no longer really needed for racial balance. The balance can be obtained with redistricting within one mile of Jefferson school. Back during the last redistricting debate this was a bone of contention if I remember correctly.
Third, if middle and upper middle income parents want their child to go to the Demonstration School they should be able to find a way to get the kid or kids there. The elimination of free bussing doesn't really effect the kids living in the Seth Boyden District.
Forth, the BOE and the administration uses the same tactics year after year after year. They threaten language, music and enrichment programs unless the BOSE agrees to their budget.
Fifth, the Super has set up various categories for the special questions. It isn't, or doesn't appear to be, an all or nothing approach.
|
ffof
Citizen
Username: Ffof
Post Number: 2066
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 3:06 pm: | |
bobest- as much as I'd like to go along with you, unfortunately, re Jefferson, the sending area that was drawn around the school way back then was shrunk to a ridiculous size - and it is at this point in time probably 95%white. You could probably "scoop" up some kids (of color) if you drew some cockamamie circle around the school that would go through the Clinton district - maybe. Anyway you slice it, those families would not get the feeling that they were sending their kids to a neighborhood school.
And from a diversity standpoint, the end result, as sac said, "would not be consistent with our community values."
|
sac
Citizen
Username: Sac
Post Number: 1023
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 3:06 pm: | |
Re Marshall-Jeff pairing - I don't know about racial balance, but there is a big population balance issue. There just aren't enough kids in the Jefferson area to fill the school, so that would necessitate some redistricting right there.
Re Demonstration school - If parents can't or won't pay for transportation, then they may just move their kids back to their zoned schools. There are significant logistics involved for many families in getting their child to a school all the way across town. In any case, as I mentioned earlier, it will be much harder to get new transfers in succeeding years. If you don't get enough transfers then you have to go back to the redistricting drawing board.
Were you here during the last redistricting? If so, then you might remember how unpleasant it was and also that the other choices on the table involved even more involuntary moving kids around (sometimes with busing involved.) I don't think that the demographics that led to those choices have changed all that much in the intervening years. The establishment of the Demonstration School and its success in attracting transfers was key to the ultimate redistricting choices that were made. That is the concern (not the impact or non-impact on kids in the Seth Boyden zone.)
|
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 4997
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 3:38 pm: | |
Heck, we were here for the redistricting and we were here when the Marshal/Jefferson pairing was originally done.
My recollection is that in the last redistricting the Board and Admin proposed doing away with the pairing, but parents protested. This, incidentally, is just the opposite of the reaction when the pairing was set up in the early 1980s. Go figure.  At this point I believe kids from east of Boyden are districted to Marshal/Jefferson as well.
My impression is that the vast majority of the students whose families have opted them into Seth Boyden are in a position to either pay for the busing, drive the chilren to school or have their Nanny drive the kids to school.
|
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 162
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 3:58 pm: | |
Dana, et. al.,
The problem for many of us is the manner in which the BOE has put together its budget proposal, which appears to be almost under a cone of silence.
You specifically mention:
Social workers at Seth Boyden and Clinton;
Elementary enrichment instructors;
Project Ahead at Tuscan, Marshall/Jefferson and South Mountain; and
Live language instruction
Each of these four items, as well as five FTE Technology Facilitators, were funded last year unser the 2003-04 Separate Proposal to the tune of $958,655.00.
They were funded via a Separate Proposal because the BOE claimed the programs and services couldn't be provided within the constraints of its Thorough and Efficient ("T&E") Budget.
OK. We gave the BOE the money last year, as well as an additional $313,500.00, for other items in the '03-04 Separate Proposal.
Under the procedures utilized by the BOE in preparing its current '04-05 budget proposal, The BOE takes the $958,655.00, we gave them last year for the above five programs, adds another three percent to that amount (as allowed) and uses the resulting $987,414.65, as part of its base '04-05 T&E budget.
Still OK. They're allowed to do this. (Its really not OK with me, but I accept that I can't always get what I want).
Now this is where I get confused, or maybe just annoyed.
The BOE proposed a '04-05 T&E budget of $76,547,676.00, which includes the $987,414.65, we gave them last year for five specific programs.
Now it gets really good.
On top of this $76,547,676.00, T&E budget proposal, the BOE is seeking an additional $3,280,371.00, via its '04-05 Separate Proposal.
For those of you who didn't see this comming, here's the coup de gras.
Of that $3,280,371.00, Separate Proposal, $735,280.00, is specifically designated for:
Social workers at Seth Boyden and Clinton;
Elementary enrichment instructors;
Project Ahead at Tuscan, Marshall/Jefferson and South Mountain;
Live language instruction; and
a Technology Facilitator.
It is my current understanding that the requested $735,280.00, is not to hire additional personnel, but to pay the positions which we funded last year through a Separate Proposal, and for which the money has been rolled over into the '04-05 T&E budget plus three percent (the $987,414.65, previously discussed). (The info for the Technology Facilitator is a little fuzzy. I'll explain if anybody wants).
It took me a goodly amount of time and effort to achieve the understanding I have now. (I'm not done).
If the BOE would provide more information about how the budget proposals are formulated, as well as information about where the money goes (the '02-03 Audit Report is still not yet available at the School District's web site) we might have fewer residents screaming "no new taxes".
Because of the methods employed by the BOE, there are too many of our District's citizens that believe the BOE is using the Separate Proposal as a blank check to avoid the task of operating within reasonable fiscal constraints.
It has to stop.
TomR. |
sac
Citizen
Username: Sac
Post Number: 1024
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 3:59 pm: | |
Bobk - re your last sentence - While that may be true, that is not the same as saying that they are willing to do so and, in fact, WILL do so. In fact, the evidence is that this is not the case, particularly for families who are not already in the school. Many of those families are possibly also in a position to send their children to private school, but that doesn't mean that they will do that either (but then, again, maybe they will and that probably doesn't bode well either.)
The Demonstration Program is attractive to many families, but that attractiveness only goes so far. Such (magnet type) programs are rarely successful without transportation support. And I don't know the percentages, but there are certainly some children transferring to SB and riding the bus who are not from affluent families. |
ffof
Citizen
Username: Ffof
Post Number: 2067
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 4:15 pm: | |
TomR-
I guess the question is, if the seperate proposal is voted down now, will these things actually disappear or will the BOE actually go back to the drawing board and "find" a way of funding it all? |
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 4998
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 4:18 pm: | |
Sac, to be honest I tend to agree that the 'free" transportation is probably an attraction to get families to send their rug rats to Seth Boyden. Unlike a lot of the "conservatives" I support the concept of the demo school, especially since one of the BOE members and a teacher there worked me over pretty well on the subject at a soccer game a couple of years ago.
However, including this in the Special Question doesn't seem the way to do this and smacks at the BOE and Administrations usual scare tactics on the budget. Take a look at Tom R's analysis of just one part of the budget shenanigans to see what is going on. I would also point out that there are a lot of other items that are threatened, that probably have more overall validity than busing kids to Seth Boyden. |
Nohero
Citizen
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 3045
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 4:19 pm: | |
As mentioned on another thread, the State says that if a Separate Proposal is defeated, the items which would have been funded by the Separate Proposal can not be paid for out of the regular, "T & E" budget. |
ffof
Citizen
Username: Ffof
Post Number: 2068
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 4:24 pm: | |
well, hell then, we have to pass the seperate proposal BUT THEN WE HAVE TO CHANGE THE WAY THE BUDGET IS HANDLED ONCE AND FOR ALL SO WE DON'T GO THROUGH WITH THIS SHIT NEXT YEAR!!!!!! |
sac
Citizen
Username: Sac
Post Number: 1025
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 4:28 pm: | |
TomR,
I will admit to discomfort with the process too, but I don't agree with your solution. Voting down the funding for these programs in order to send a message is sacrificing our children's education to politics.
If you don't think that the BOE is managing the process appropriately or providing the oversight it should, then you should run for the office or promote others who can better represent your views to do so and then work to get them elected. |
sac
Citizen
Username: Sac
Post Number: 1026
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 4:31 pm: | |
PS - As it stands now, if the 5% level is approved, that does fund the busing. What it does not include is Enrichment, Project Ahead, Instrumental Music, etc. |
ffof
Citizen
Username: Ffof
Post Number: 2069
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 4:33 pm: | |
there goes the neighborhood. Have fun selling your homes. |
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 4999
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 6:29 pm: | |
I rather expect given the general sentiment that there will be some juggling of items between the T&E budget and the special question before things go before the BOSE. |
Cedar
Citizen
Username: Cedar
Post Number: 117
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 7:04 pm: | |
As a newcomer to this budget process where, between T&E and the separate proposal, do administrative merit increases fall? |
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 163
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 7:15 pm: | |
sac,
Do NOT attempt to put words in my mouth. It leaves a bad taste, and, to me, is insulting.
As for your suggestion that I run for the BOE, maybe in a few years when I have a full understanding of the budget process as well as the shortcomings and successes of our district. It’s a fool who sits at the table without understanding the game being played.
With that thought in mind, that's why I've gone to the trouble over the last ten months to achieve the understanding of the budget process I now have.
Also, WRT to your subsequent post about the programs "eliminated" if only a 5% increase in the BOE's budget is authorized; read my post again. The Enrichment and Project Ahead items are two of the five items which we previously funded, which funding, plus three percent, is now incorporated within the proposed T&E budget.
Don't you want an explanation from the BOE about why we are being asked to again fund the programs and services as Separate Proposal items?
TomR. |
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 164
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 7:26 pm: | |
ffof, Nohero & sac,
WRT the question of whether the BOE is permitted to provide programs and/or services which are budgeted as part of the Separate Proposal, if the Separate proposal is rejected, in all honesty, I don't know, YET.
However, a budget does not become a mandated spending directive from the BoSE.
(Where is the '02-03 Audit Report? Oh, its still under construction.)
The BOE proposes a budget which supposedly explains how it PLANS to spend the district's money, justifying our (through the BoSE) authorization for funding the budget. Once the money is authorized, the BOE is pretty much free to spend it as it sees fit during the school year.
So, if the Separate proposal is rejected, in whole or in part, the BOE might elect to take some of the $335,000.00, it PLANS to spend on copying machines, maintenance and supplies (not including paper and staples) on elementary instrumental teachers.
Yes, you read that right. $335,000.00, to keep the district's fleet of thirty-seven copying machines up and running (not including paper and staples).
By the way, a high end (not top end) Xerox, network capable, high capacity copier retails for about ten large, with warranty.
Anybody wondering why the copying machines are within the nearly untouchable T&E budget, but 16.7 FTE teaching positions are in the Separate Proposal? (I have suspicions). Again, BTW, none of the teaching positions are in the BOE's high priority category in the Separate Proposal, and only 4.6 FTE high school teaching positions and 2.4 FTE elementary school teaching positions (the music teachers) made Category B.
Nohero points out the NJ DOE's regulations regarding the rejection of proposed expenditures. I'll take your word for it that you accurately conveyed the essence of the regulation. (Send me a link to the regs if you have one. I haven't come across one yet).
I would note, however, that the regulation speaks to the proposed expenditures, not to the programs and/or services for which the expenditures were proposed. Again I don't yet know whether the BOE can reallocate the financial resources authorized to other projects and/or services. It is clear that under the regulation, the BOE can't revise the T&E budget to incorporate the rejected Separate Proposal items.
One man's observations. Take it all as food for thought.
TomR. |
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 165
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 7:38 pm: | |
bobk,
I would hope so. The BOE has already juggled the T&E and Separate Proposal budgets to move atheltic and cocurricular program stipends from the Separate Proposal to the T&E budget, while moving a nearly identical amount for the Marshall-Jefferson transportation services from the T&E budget to the Separate Proposal.
My suspicions for the above moves are the same as my suspicions for the copying machines -v- the teaching positions as outlined above.
TomR. |
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 166
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 7:53 pm: | |
Cedar,
I haven't found a specific budget line item for adminsitrative merit increases in the T&E budget. (It may be in there somewhere, but its definitely not listed as a line item within the $5,634,422.00, proposed for Central Administration or School Administration). I can tell your, for sure, its not in the Separate Proposal.
TomR.
In all fairness, merit increases may be part of the individual administrators' contracts with the district. I just don't know. |
sac
Citizen
Username: Sac
Post Number: 1027
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 8:03 pm: | |
TomR,
My sincerest apologies. I did not intend to put any words in your mouth, only to respond to your post. However, I do stand by my suggestion to you or anyone else, that if you are unhappy with the way the budget process proceeds, the proper response is to elect a BOE that better meets your expectations throughout the process, NOT to vote down the funds for programs such as these.
I would like to believe that they will somehow get funded anyway, but there have been too many years when those programs have been chipped away for one reason or another (including the loss of 4th grade instrumental music last year), that I do not have a high confidence that will be the case.
Re the athletic/co-curricular programs, I understand that the County superintendent directed the BOE that they could not legally put those into the Separate Proposal, so they had to swap it out for that reason. |
Nohero
Citizen
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 3047
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 8:04 pm: | |
TomR: The regulations I referenced earlier on separate proposals (N.J.A.C. 6A:23-8.5) state 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. In other words, it's not just the dollars, but the purpose or program for those dollars, which cannot be included in the regular budget. So, it doesn't seem that we can trade copiers for music instructors.
Sorry, I don't have a link to the regulations. I had to find them the old-fashioned way, on the shelf in my library at work.
Sac: It's not surprising that the district was told that it had to restore the activities to its budget. That's what is says in the State's budget guidelines, which any idiot could have read before it got to that point:
quote:I4 Can a district put out its entire extracurricular and/or cocurricular program on a separate proposal?
No. Extracurricular and cocurricular programs are part of a T&E education. Districts, however, may put out new or expanded programs/activities, as well as existing programs/activities if its base budget maintains sufficient funding in these areas to ensure a T&E education. For example, a new athletic team or even an existing feeder program(s) for a varsity team(s) may be put out as a separate proposal if the base budget maintains a base level of spending for extracurricular activities consistent with the T&E model.
It really make one wonder, what other bad advice is being given to the Board of Education, by the professionals who are supposed to be up on this stuff. |
sac
Citizen
Username: Sac
Post Number: 1028
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 8:37 pm: | |
TomR,
I forgot to add that, yes, I would like to see the itemized accounting of what happened to that money. However, I think the answer, at least in part, is that many of the other T&E items from last year increased more than 3% ... notably salaries across the board (wasn't the contracted increase more than that?), so when all was said and done, that 3% wasn't enough to fund everything that was in there before. Just because the state says that 3% is sufficient, doesn't make it so.
I have written to all of the BOE and BOSE members about this issue. Included in my letters has been a strong request to better clarify and elucidate the budget information provided to the public as well as to work harder for real education funding reform. |
fringe
Citizen
Username: Fringe
Post Number: 336
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 8:23 am: | |
Apparently this, too, needs to be said again. If a Separate Proposal item is rejected it cannot, as stated above, be funded from either the T&E budget or free balance of the District. It can, however, be funded from outside sources such as contributions or user fees.
Those following this year's budget process will recall that the last proposed SP before the one submitted to the county super contained $400,000+ in stipends for athletics and co-curricular activities. The county super rejected these as SP items not because they were considered T&E, but because the District had not put the entire programs in the SP. In other words, while the coaches and other teacher leaders were put at risk, transportation to competitions, equipment, etc. were kept in T&E. The administration/BOE plan all along was to set up a user fee system to cover salaries if the items were rejected by the BOSE.
The same is true for the non-remote transportation of Seth Boyden and Marshall-Jefferson students which replaced the stipends in the final SP version. If voted down, parents and other entities will be given the opportunity to make up the difference. The transport of remote students (about 40% of the total) is not part of the SP items.
JTL |
sac
Citizen
Username: Sac
Post Number: 1029
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 8:31 am: | |
The last time that a portion of the non-remote families lost their SB bus service, there was no opportunity offered for those families to make up the difference. The service was just eliminated. This happened about three years ago. |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page