| Author |
Message |
    
nwyave
Citizen
Username: Mesh
Post Number: 49
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 1, 2003 - 8:39 pm: | 
|
It was mentioned in passing at the trustee debate the other night that SO is one of the few communities that voters do not approve the education budget. I was wondering what the logic is behind that and if either of the candidate platforms believe that this should be changed so that the voters approve the budget - and why. Would it make a difference? If its is desirable to change the approval process, can it be changed and how would it happen and lastly would it be a priority item to do. |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 329
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Friday, May 2, 2003 - 10:33 am: |
|
It is part of the same logic that came up with the wacky formula for how much each town should pay towards the school budget. We need the state to change the rules for towns that share school systems. It has to be changed at the state level and there are several other school districts that would be affected.
The current method has too many flaws and the system needs to be fixed. I hope it would change the outcome and I would hope it would bring more accountability to the school budget.
I do want to point out, that this has nothing to do with the BOE or the work they do. Brian made the point that the line of communications between the BOE and the two towns is weak. That is also a problem that needs to be fixed.
I don't think this should be a campaign issue, but since it was related to one of the questions at the debate, it did come up.
Trustee election is on May 13th.
www.leadershipwithvision.org
Vote Line A
|
Brian O'Leary
Citizen
Username: Brianoleary
Post Number: 1324
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, May 3, 2003 - 9:11 am: |
|
New Jersey has two types of school districts - ones in which the public votes directly on a budget, and ones in which a Board of School Estimate votes on the budget. With the exception of Maplewood - South Orange, a board of education that is elected has its budget approved by the public. A board of education that is appointed (as is the case in communities like Montclair) has its budget approved by a local board of school estimate. Sometimes the local BSE is the governing body for the municipality; other times it is separately formed.
The Maplewood - South Orange structure dates back to 1904, when what was then a single town split into South Orange and what was later named Maplewood. At the time, the school system was shared by the two new communities, something that is very unusual in New Jersey now but was more common then.
At the time the two towns were formed, there was concern that one town would grow larger than the other and have an outsized influence on the Board of Education (by approving budgets and electing members at large who would favor the interests of the larger community). Ironically, at the time it was felt that South Orange was going to be the larger town; today, Maplewood has the larger population.
To address that concern, the two towns formed a Board of School Estimate, which is made up of an equal number of representatives from South Orange and Maplewood. The BSE oversees the financial decisions of the BOE but (through its composition) represents each town evenly.
In my experience, this structure works well when the members of the BSE have adequate time to understand the budget and work with the BOE to explore options and implications of spending recommendations. There are some areas in which the current approach can be strengthened (for example, starting public workshops in the fall), and I'd favor resolving those concerns before looking at changing the approval process and going to a public vote.
In New Jersey, only school budgets are subject to public approval (directly by the public or indirectly through BSEs). Muncipal and county budgets are approved by their governing boards and not subject to a direct vote. As a result, the school budget sometimes becomes a tax referendum on the overall burden, not a considered review of the recommendation for schools. If we want to have direct approval of the school budget, let's also look at having annual referenda on all three property tax assessments.
In New Jersey, there is an over-reliance on the property tax to fund government services, but having a consolidated school district whose cost is allocated by property wealth offers a real advantage to South Orange. Most communities that don't have a K-12 system enter into a "sending - receiving" relationship with a community that has a high school or later grades.
The "sending" district is most often billed on a "per-student" basis but has little or no say in the program, budget decisions and only limited appeal in the allocated cost. In the current system, the two towns are represented equally and, through representation on the BOE and the BSE, can influence the system on an ongoing basis.
www.opensouthorange.com
Vote Line B on May 13th
|
kathy
Citizen
Username: Kathy
Post Number: 547
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, May 5, 2003 - 4:35 pm: |
|
As a former BOE president once pointed out to me, the system that we use to approve the school budget is the procedure that other towns use when their budgets are defeated. So while a direct vote on the budget would provide a little more public input on the bottom line, it wouldn't change the end process much.
Different states handle the defeated-budget scenario in different ways. When I was a student in New York, a district got two or three chances to pass a budget and if they couldn't, they went to a default "contingency budget" wherein the state mandated that certain items (salaries, some level of busing) be paid for and others (sports teams and other extracurriculars, notably) not be.
When I was in Oregon, a school district was entitled to spend as much as it had spent the previous year, even if a larger budget was defeated. One year the town of Cottage Grove shut its schools during spring break and didn't reopen that year, because they had run out of money. This year, at least one Oregon district (Hillsborough?) is threatening to close early because reductions in state aid have left it without enough money to continue.
In comparison, I think that I like the system we have. |
Brian O'Leary
Citizen
Username: Brianoleary
Post Number: 1372
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Friday, May 9, 2003 - 8:52 am: |
|
This is a bit off topic, but not quite enough to start a new thread...
Since the start of this campaign, there has been an occasional claim made that one of my reasons to run for Village president is a desire to stack the Board of School Estimate's vote on the school budget. Initially, I laughed about it (why sit as a Village president for a year to vote once on a school budget?), but it is persistent.
My running mates and I know that it's not true ... we have a broad platform that is widely documented, and it does include working with both Maplewood and the schools. But true or not, perhaps it is perceived as a real concern. So I ask, what limits or controls do you think we'd need to make sure that a Village president with a specific schools agenda does not unduly influence the process? Are they in place now?
www.opensouthorange.com
Vote Line B on May 13th
|
J. Crohn
Citizen
Username: Jcrohn
Post Number: 71
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 10, 2003 - 6:21 pm: |
|
I wonder if towns where the public votes on the budget have higher voter turnouts than SO-MA.
Hypothetically speaking, why would the existing system be better than one in which the budget was submitted to a popular vote and a BSE vote, simultaneously?
The popular vote would prevail, except in the event of a nominal tie, in which case the BSE vote cast the same day would resolve the tie.
The BSE would also be elected, not appointed.
(I realize such a system would require state enactment.) |
J. Crohn
Citizen
Username: Jcrohn
Post Number: 72
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 10, 2003 - 6:44 pm: |
|
Brian: "[In systems where school budgets are subject to public approval] the school budget sometimes becomes a tax referendum on the overall burden, not a considered review of the recommendation for schools."
Perhaps, but the alternative, which is not better, seems to be that each year the admnistration and school board propose a budget that will entail frightful service cuts, the community becomes enraged over both the proposed cuts and the proposed tax increase, and the BSE reps approve the budget no matter how hastily it was prepared and whether or not they have seen it.
Moreover, I suspect that whether the school budget becomes a tax referendum in any given year depends on variables such as the political makeup of the towns at the time, how well the schools are perceived to be doing, the shape of the national economy, the local unemployment rate, etc.
If the school board does a good job of communicating the rationale for its budget, the degree to which voters make schools a tax issue should reflect the degree to which schools actually are a pressing tax issue. This, I am told, is precisely the way it works in Livingston (which admittedly is not a shared school district): the school board takes pains to explain the admin's budget to voters (for instance, using the local newspaper to explain what costs what), and voters then make informed decisions and live with them.
|
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 381
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Monday, May 12, 2003 - 10:02 am: |
|
I agree with J. Crohn's comments which seem to reflect a lot of what I feel about the school budget process.
I feel that maybe there would be more accountability and a more open school budget process if there was a public vote. It seems that every few years we are fighting to prevent the exact same cuts in programs while the aministration portion never seems to see any cuts.
The shool tax portion of the tax bill has had increases that double the municipal portion or the county. At the same time, we have seen cuts in programs along with increases in the average class size.
Remember to Vote Line A on May 13th
www.leadershipwithvision.org
|
Brian O'Leary
Citizen
Username: Brianoleary
Post Number: 1402
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Monday, May 12, 2003 - 3:03 pm: |
|
If you factor in the change in student enrollment, the percentage growth in the school district tax bill over the last ten years is the same as that seen for the municipal budget.
I'm not sure I understand what makes municipal officials overseeing the budget less effective than voters (who elect the municipal representatives) directly approving a school budget. Maybe I'll get there, and if I do, I think we should have such a vote on any public budget, not just the schools. This would include the village and the county.
www.opensouthorange.com
Vote Line B on May 13th
|
J. Crohn
Citizen
Username: Jcrohn
Post Number: 76
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 12, 2003 - 7:11 pm: |
|
Brian, do we have some link-able, year-by-year stats available on enrollment over the last ten years?
My understanding was that the following factors were the main cost drivers this year:
* Substantial increases in facilities insurance post-9/11
* SOMEA--new contract
* Increase in cost of employee health insurance
These seem not to be enrollment-related issues. And yet these were the costs cited by Steve Latz in the last meeting I attended (at Clinton), in which he and Dr. Horoschak did their best to explain the budget situation to a roomful of aggravated parents.
So is Latz wrong? Or is this a case of correlation not equalling causation--and enrollment increases not causing the tax increase? |
J. Crohn
Citizen
Username: Jcrohn
Post Number: 77
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 12, 2003 - 7:36 pm: |
|
"I'm not sure I understand what makes municipal officials overseeing the budget less effective than voters (who elect the municipal representatives) directly approving a school budget."
In the first place, the BSE is appointed, not elected, and every year the BSE needs to weigh in because every year the proposed budget portends unacceptable service cuts. Is it realistic to believe that we will not see separate budget proposals for the forseeable future?
Second, and chiefly, the problem with representatives approving the budget is an unfortunate component of electing someone to understand a complex subject and decide for you: voters tend to shed personal responsibility for grappling with the issues. It then becomes easier, as a voter, to hang the blame for rising taxes or inadequate schoools on someone whose politics (or color, or educational ideology) you dislike.
Moreover, elected officials sometimes have a tendency to take a position on budgetary matters that equates to, "it's really too arcane for a non-specialist to comprehend." This is understandable--why go out of your way to arm your detractors with information? If you've been elected, you've been elected to do the job, not to be micromanaged by the electorate.
And yet, in times like these, the elctorate will not easily be satisfied where the welfare of their children is concerned--it's a much more personal issue than whether we build an arts center or pave the roads with granite, and therefore probably not comparable with municipal budget decisions. Moreover, the oversight structure of the schools is fundamentally different from town governance. We can change mayors and trustees in a single election. It's harder to change superintendants, administrative staff, and teachers--that's a BOE function and thus is a step removed from electoral control. (I am not necessarily advocating any of the aforementioned, by the way.)
The electorate should have the responsibility for deciding something about school budgets, if for no other reason than to cure us of our collective disaffection. |
Brian O'Leary
Citizen
Username: Brianoleary
Post Number: 1405
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Monday, May 12, 2003 - 8:02 pm: |
|
Over a ten-year period, enrollment has grown 32% (I'll list the figures below). Next year's enrollment is not expected to grow significantly, and other things have contributed to costs increasing for the 2003 - 2004 budget.
Enrollment increases do lead to increases in staffing, which (in a period like this one, in which health care premiums are escalating) leads to increases in other costs. We are close to peak enrollment, and thus peak staffing, so the related increases come at a time when the budget impact will be greatest.
1993 - 4,806
1994 - 4,965
1995 - 5,260
1996 - 5,601
1997 - 5,813
1998 - 6,052
1999 - 6,119
2000 - 6,203
2001 - 6,316
2002 - 6,342
www.opensouthorange.com
Vote Line B on May 13th
|
J. Crohn
Citizen
Username: Jcrohn
Post Number: 79
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 12, 2003 - 11:10 pm: |
|
Thanks for the details, Brian. Your comment re enrollment makes more sense to me now.
It would be interesting to see figures for staffing over the same period. I notice that enrollment increases peaked in 1996 and the increase in students annually dropped off sharply in '99. (See below.)
Annual enrollment increase over previous year-
1994: 159
1995: 295
1996: 341
1997: 212
1998: 239
1999: 67
2000: 84
2001: 113
2002: 26
For the past four years the increase in the district's students hasn't been extraordinary. Have our tax increases during that time partly been a function of playing staffing catch-up for the years during which our enrollment increase hovered around 250 students annually?
Another question remains unanswered for me, and that is why, given that staff are being cut this year, the expenses that go along with staffing do not appear to be decreasing substantially. My tentative conclusion is that it is because it has been the less expensive staff who have been cut.
In another thread, it's being reported that the district is now raising the cap on 2nd grade class size to 24. In the meeting at Clinton I referred to earlier, Dr. Horoschak indicated he did not expect enrollment to rise sufficiently to make 24-student classes a reality. (Let me add the caveat that he may have been referring only to Clinton, which is the district's ESL school.)
But you know, he didn't mention what the district plans to do over the next three years, during which time costs are projected to keep rising (more or less irrespective, it would seem, of enrollment). Eventually, even with only modest enrollment increases, and certainly if we keep cutting teachers, class sizes will rise to an unacceptable level.
Then what?
|
Brian O'Leary
Citizen
Username: Brianoleary
Post Number: 1406
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 13, 2003 - 6:55 am: |
|
These are just my opinions, not a reflection of the BOE or any of its members.
I don't have the staffing figures for the same period. I'll see if there is a consistent source for that information.
From 1997 through 2001, the district invested in program and administration in a number of areas (there were good reasons for these investments that would take us well beyond a municipal campaign thread...) For a period of time, the tax increase was felt less because the district used excess surplus (as defined by the state, a school district must use surplus funds greater than 6% of the operating budget to reduce tax rates) to balance its annual budget.
Starting two years ago, the district's surplus fell below the cutoff and was no longer available as a funding option. At that point, the annual increases in costs that the district incurs were more readily apparent in tax rates, even in periods of little change in enrollment.
The state formula assumes annual cost increases of 3% (plus some adjustments for transportation, special education and other items). The district's "business as usual" budget increases at a higher rate - this is what leads to the need for a separate proposal. As you may know, I've voted against separate proposals in each of the last two years, in large part because I didn't feel that the district had done an appropriate review of the "base" budget.
In March, some effort was made to "sell" the budget to PTAs, HSAs and the BSE; the Clinton meeting may have been part of that effort. My interpretation of the core argument for this year's budget was that "the increases are the result of things we don't control; we don't have enough money now; these recommendations reflect our best thinking on the options." I think we can do better than we did with this budget, and I hope that's the case going forward.
I don't want leave you with the impression that, even with a thorough review, the budget choices the district has to make would be easy. I do feel strongly, though, that marginal decisions run the risk of cutting out the things we most need to succeed as a school district. The change in class-size policy (to balance a budget) may be an example of that risk.
www.opensouthorange.com
Vote Line B on May 13th
|
J. Crohn
Citizen
Username: Jcrohn
Post Number: 80
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 13, 2003 - 9:46 am: |
|
"I've voted against separate proposals in each of the last two years, in large part because I didn't feel that the district had done an appropriate review of the "base" budget."
It has certainly been my impression that the base budget needs more careful scrutiny, but that the likelihood of this happening is slim given the propensity of bureaucracies to want to retain their fundamental structures and methods of operation, even when these might be what are contributing to perpetual cost increases.
"I do feel strongly, though, that marginal decisions run the risk of cutting out the things we most need to succeed as a school district. The change in class-size policy (to balance a budget) may be an example of that risk."
Looks that way.
Maybe some sort of district reorganization is needed.
Thanks for the exchange, Brian, and good luck in today's election. |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page