| Author |
Message |
    
fringe
Citizen
Username: Fringe
Post Number: 792
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 7:43 am: | 
|
Those who have followed the budget process during the last few years know that the initial preliminary budget (no matter how late presented) bears little resemblance to what is finally passed. Apparently it is the case again this year. Thus far the SOMSD residents have been spared the predicted ravages of S1701 tsunami with the loss of 7th grade French emerging as the most controversial cut.
One may wonder how this is possible given the doom and gloom of late last year. I have some theories that are still being developed, but the purpose of this post is to remind interested folks that it is rumored the administration plans to disclose a few more details about the 05-06 budget that may include more cuts at its workshop tonight.
|
Chris Prenovost
Citizen
Username: Chris_prenovost
Post Number: 349
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 12:30 pm: |
|
Thank You, Tucker. |
LibraryLady(ncjanow)
Supporter
Username: Librarylady
Post Number: 2223
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 8:35 pm: |
|
Just received this email
BOARD OF EDUCATION
School District of South Orange and Maplewood
525 Academy Street
Maplewood, New Jersey 07040
Peter P. Horoschak, Ed.D. 973-762-5600x1820
Superintendent fax 973-378-9464
February 23, 2005
Dear Key Communicators,
At the January 24, 2005 Board of Education meeting, I presented the school district’s preliminary 2005-2006 budget to the Board. At that time, the preliminary budget included $2.2 million dollars in reductions because of the State’s CAP on budget increases. Tonight at the Board of Education Budget Workshop, at 7:00 p.m., in the Columbia High School Library, the Board will discuss additional reductions of more than $800,000 that appears to be necessary in order to comply with the State’s CAP law. This will result in reductions of more than $3 million dollars from the preliminary budget for the 2005-2006 school year.
After searching through all areas of the budget, the administration suggests that there are only two ways in which this kind of cost reduction can reasonably be achieved. One way is to reduce the cost of operations and the other is to increase class size to reduce the cost of staff. I recommend that we leave class size intact and reduce operational costs by expanding the contracting of custodial services.
Currently, the district has contracted custodial service in the Montrose building, the Board of Education building and partially in the two middle schools. I am recommending that next year these services increase to full contracted service at the two middle schools and include Columbia High School. Half of the current district custodial staff will be retained as district employees and will be reassigned to the elementary schools. This will save the district $700,000 in operating costs. Given the positive experience of our partial use of contracted custodial service this year and the success of our contracted food services over many years, we feel confident that the expansion of these services will be a positive one for the district.
The complete budget can be found on the districts website, www.somsd.k12.nj.us. The next opportunity for discussion of the budget will be at the Board of Education meeting on February 28, 2005 at 7:30 p.m., in the Columbia High School Library. February 28th is also the last day to submit an application to be a candidate for election to the Board of Education. The Board will vote on the budget at its March 7th meeting.
|
fringe
Citizen
Username: Fringe
Post Number: 794
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 24, 2005 - 8:35 am: |
|
The new preliminary budget, as detailed in the letter to the key communicators above, is built on the original premise that the district's programs and administration staff are untouchable in the budget process leaving the teaching or support staff as the only places to find the necessary cuts. Judging from the comments so far, the President's Council, PTAs and key community members are on-board with this strategy.
It is true that the 24 January prelim contained a cut of one administrator for $140,000, but that savings disappeared in last night's presentation without comment by a single BOE member. It's also true that the funding for the new all-day K section at Clinton was nowhere to be found last eve. The state aid figures will not be announced until after 1 March, and without an increase for that specific program, no program.
So, again this year the support staff bears the brunt of the cost cutting with the 23 Feb version slicing all the custodians at CHS to be replaced by out-sourced workers at a savings of ~$1,000,000.
This still leaves Super H with a pool of elementary custodians for next year's budget battle. Perhaps PE teachers will fill this category two years from now.
Now the custodians have few real friends among the public, and fewer when the choice is increasing class sizes by dropping classroom teachers or outsourcing janitors. This despite the fact that other than the squabble over 7th grade French, we've heard little about the 14.7 elementary and middle school teaching positions to be lost.
Why? The fact is that S1701 has not been the disaster for SOMSD described in the Fall, partly because of the budget fat built up over the last few years and partly because of declining enrollment. And, because there is no Separate Proposal this year, there is little the residents or Board of School Estimate can do to change the priorities if this represents the will of the majority of the BOE.
There are still some interesting budget aspects to consider, mostly around the SOMEA negotiations and the salary increases that may or may not happen, but they can wait. |
wharfrat
Citizen
Username: Wharfrat
Post Number: 1608
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 24, 2005 - 3:16 pm: |
|
Tucker, as usual I will disagree with your interpretation of the facts. The latest budget proposal calls for elimination of one central office FTE. This saves the district $71,000 plus benefits.
The $140,000 in savings from the previous proposals was the principal's position at Clinton. According to bulletins I am receiving from the Clinton PTA, the administration is moving forward on hiring a new principal for the elementary school.
You also simultaneously complain that we are balancing the budget on the backs of the staff, and then state that we are getting through this budget season based upon fat in the budget.
So which is it?
Given that the teachers and custodians represent about two-thirds of the $3.2 mil in cuts, are we to interpret that you think teachers and custodians are “fat.” |
fringe
Citizen
Username: Fringe
Post Number: 796
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 24, 2005 - 9:41 pm: |
|
In the letter above Super H creates a Hobson's Choice - the administration suggests that there are only two ways in which this kind of cost reduction can reasonably be achieved. Apparently some agree with this analysis. I do not. There are, in fact, other targets that the BOE and/or administration might discuss this year, and I have identified some of them earlier on other threads. The fact that the BOE and administration have chosen not to adress them this year only delays the inevitable - short of a legislative reprieve before the 06-07 budget next February.
While I don't agree with the decisions of the BOE in supporting district leadership on this matter, they are the elected representatives. And we will see if Messrs. O'Leary and Miller and Ms. Jasey are as ready to defend their support for these 40+ staff cuts with no major administration changes or program reductions to the voters. I hope they will be asked to explain how the district has benefited by the programs initiated during the term of their superintendent and why those programs deserve precedent over the 40+ folk to be terminated.
The district budget has increased dramaticly over the Super H tenure. Certainly some above-inflation costs have contributed, but the cost of the initiatives has carried it to heights that have proven unsustainable. Now that the legislature has done what our own elected officials have been reluctant to do and capped budget increases (even if only for a year), the O'Leary-Jasey-Latz board faction has shown that it is willing to sacrifice custodians and class size if necessary to preserve the programs reflecting their vision. It remains to be seen if that is the vision of the majority of the residents.
As to the administrative savings - the 24 January preliminary budget listed reductions of $144,000 for the Clinton principal and $47,200 for Special Education administrators for a total of $187,200 in salary savings for unfilled administrative positions. The 23 February budget lists only $71,000 in unspecified Administration savings. As this was not discussed, and no BOE member thought it important enough to ask about, I'm open to an explanation of why the CHS custodians must bear the $116,200 burden of the added administrator's salary.
JTL
|
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 489
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Friday, February 25, 2005 - 6:08 pm: |
|
From Dr. Horoschak's letter of February 23:
"The complete budget can be found on the districts website, www.somsd.k12.nj.us. ..."
Has anybody been able to find the budget on the District's web site? I haven't.
Didn't this happen last year?
Does anybody else think that the independent audits should be available on-line?
Isn't this the Administration that keeps telling us that communicating with the community is a high priority?
TomR. |
Reflective
Citizen
Username: Reflective
Post Number: 755
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 25, 2005 - 10:27 pm: |
|
TomR
I just clicked on the website address in your post and got the main page. Then I clicked on the budget data for 05-06 on left column and waited a moment for the pdf to come up.
I believe it's there unless you are referring to something else. |
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 491
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Friday, February 25, 2005 - 11:02 pm: |
|
I went to the link for:
http://www.somsd.k12.nj.us/finance/0506budgethome.htm
and didn't find the budget.
I notice that you didn't write that you did find the budget.
Did you? If so, where?
TomR |
Reflective
Citizen
Username: Reflective
Post Number: 758
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 25, 2005 - 11:10 pm: |
|
Ok I see what you mean. My mistake.
I was looking at the prelim and the summary.
The new budget is dead on arrival as you said.
The highly paid administrators are poorly versed in communication skills. |
fringe
Citizen
Username: Fringe
Post Number: 799
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, February 27, 2005 - 9:56 am: |
|
fringe
Citizen
Username: Fringe
Post Number: 565
Registered: 5-2001
Posted on Thursday, October 28, 2004 - 9:35 am:
At the last BOE meeting, finance committee chairman Latz said that the district would be $3 million to $4 million short of having the necessary funding authority for all current programs and services. He was not saying that the BOE wouldn't raise the money if it could. He was simply stating that S1701 prohibits the district from spending the amount required - even if it wants to. While some hope for a reprieve from Trenton or believe this only a one year restriction that can be gutted through, at this writing it is the law, and various interest groups within the district are mobilizing to advocate for their particular interest. Indeed, now is the time to do so. Those who leave the triage to Major Super H and his BOE supporters in February will find themselves out of time.
Realizing the new school funding law creates a zero-sum game, should the district:
* Retain busing for the Marshall-Jefferson pairing, Seth Boyden and South Mountain
* Maintain the Alternative Program - not for miscreants as advertised, but the time-challenged
* Maintain a 9 period day at CHS
* Retain 3 Assistant Superintendents
* Maintain current Math & LA curriculums with their reliance on the Project Ahead & Supplementals safety net.
Which of these, and others, are worth keeping by cutting regular classroom teaching staff (and by extension, expanding class size)?
Should the Strategic Planning Council give firm direction on these items or leave it to the current administration?
JTL
|
Albatross
Citizen
Username: Albatross
Post Number: 533
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, February 27, 2005 - 11:45 am: |
|
Cuts that directly affect students should never come before any feasible alternative cuts or refrained expansion.
The primary responsibility of a school district and its administration must always be to the students first.
Unless the feasibility of cuts not directly impacting student instruction and opportunity has been discounted, I find it unacceptable that the district chooses to trim programming. |
johnny
Citizen
Username: Johnny
Post Number: 1198
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, February 27, 2005 - 10:08 pm: |
|
It is typical of Super H to create a dooms day scenario, "either this or that." His solutions are never creative and just result in irate parents at budget meetings. I can hear it this year, "our schools will be filthy" or "how can my child go to a dirty school."
This is all playing right into Super H's hands. He is a master at manipulating the process and parents' emotions.
Please fire Super H. |
Iwant2 KeepMyJob
Supporter
Username: Fastfusion
Post Number: 25
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Monday, February 28, 2005 - 6:40 pm: |
|
Anything that is NON ACADEMIC should be considered when cutting spending.
That includes the Pool, Sports, Trips to Great Adventure, etc....
Remember that the administration had a clear view of the trouble ahead when they raised their salaries and took "Bonus Cash" called Merit Pay.
Merit pay? What did they do so great to deserve MERIT?
Will the staff being dismissed receive severance bonuses?
In my opinion they knew they were going to lay off these employees before they took their raises and bonuses. They took the money because they knew they were going to sacrifice jobs to stuff their pockets.
I guess it's ok to sacrifice others as long as you don't feel the pain....People that practice this should be exiled not dismissed. |
ffof
Citizen
Username: Ffof
Post Number: 3381
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, February 28, 2005 - 6:50 pm: |
|
The Pool? It's part of phys ed curriculum.
Trips to Great Adventure? Paid for by the students or their parents.
I think fringe's ideas for cuts would be more likely as non-academic examples. |
wharfrat
Citizen
Username: Wharfrat
Post Number: 1612
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Monday, February 28, 2005 - 7:20 pm: |
|
quote:In my opinion they knew they were going to lay off these employees before they took their raises and bonuses. They took the money because they knew they were going to sacrifice jobs to stuff their pockets.
I guess it's ok to sacrifice others as long as you don't feel the pain....People that practice this should be exiled not dismissed.
Time for a reality check-
1) The total value of administration raises this year is about $240,000. In addition, both ASCA and CO have committed to 2.5% raises the next two years (and agreed to a benefits re-opener, should negotiations with SOMEA go this route).
This figure is a pittance compared to the $3.2 million we have to cut in 05-06.
2) The total salary and benefits for Central Office ($2.4 million) and ASCA ($3.6 million) is $6 million.
In order to avoid any other cuts, this year, we would have to cut over 50% of our administration.
3) Looking forward, with the district going into negotiations with SOMEA, is it wise to tell the 800 members that they aren't getting raises in order to avoid cuts?
Perhaps the poster cited above, and others who are MOL posting district employees will be the first to forgo raises, in order to avoid anymore cuts.
|
Chris Prenovost
Citizen
Username: Chris_prenovost
Post Number: 364
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 28, 2005 - 7:33 pm: |
|
Wharfrat, your numbers are very deceptive.
You are including direct instruction support staff only, and not counting the admin for special education, or any other admin for that matter.
Do you work for the educracy. . . ? |
wharfrat
Citizen
Username: Wharfrat
Post Number: 1613
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Monday, February 28, 2005 - 8:33 pm: |
|
What special ed administrators should we excise, Chris?
Also, we've had a conversation similar to this, before.
Specifically what would you cut from the budget?
And, since you want us to believe that you are a person who "walks the talk" , are you willing to cap your raise at 2.5%, AND give back benefits? |
Iwant2 KeepMyJob
Supporter
Username: Fastfusion
Post Number: 26
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Monday, February 28, 2005 - 11:00 pm: |
|
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
3) Looking forward, with the district going into negotiations with SOMEA, is it wise to tell the 800 members that they aren't getting raises in order to avoid cuts?
Perhaps the poster cited above, and others who are MOL posting district employees will be the first to forgo raises, in order to avoid anymore cuts.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My answer is YES. I would.
I would hope the Teaching staff remembers that the support staff went out on strike for/with them.
And yes, I would accept a raise equal to the administrations of 2.5%.
Hard times should be shared. This layoff is affecting employees that live in 140 thousand dollar homes and drive used cars. They struggle to save money and meet their bills. They worked hard and put the years in.
That’s a far cry from the people making the decisions up top. Where 2.5 % equals 3000 dollars more and for support staffs it is less than 1000 dollars. And no matter how hard they work they do not get any type of merit pay.
The District doesn't add extra men to help them out. They did add more square footage to the buildings and increased work loads.
To use men and women’s livelihoods as tools to balance a budget before cutting out the fat and perks is a horrible thing to do.
This will not stop with 25 men. It will expand to all custodians probably next year and all maintenance mechanics next. I have seen other local districts privatize and it doesn't stop till all Custodians and Maintenance men/woman are gone. They are offered jobs with the private company at half the pay and must pay for their spouses and children’s benefits which give them a salary of around 9 dollars an hour.
We love our job that is why we are fighting to keep it. The District will NEVER get the quality from privatized employees they get now from real BOE employees. We have seen this in SOMS with stolen computers by Aramark’s men, and United Cleaning Service’s men with the abuse of a child at SOMS.
The only people for privatization are those that never have to worry about it happening to them.
|
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 81
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 1, 2005 - 11:36 am: |
|
I agree with iwant2. The custodians at CHS are caring and needed. The SOMS experience with privatization is a mess.
50% less administrative staff is not a bad idea, start with Horoshack.
In tough times raises are not guaranteed. Why should there be any raises at all if we have to cut vital needed programs and people. Keep the people and dont hand out raises this year. Cut the expenses not the people. Cut the merit increases and whatever the realized cost it is less in the cost to our childrens educations.
The costs of educating our students must be skyrocketing since my taxes are out of control. If that is really the case then there is something out of control at the BOE. It wont take much more for me to abandon SO. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 5686
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 1, 2005 - 4:16 pm: |
|
Power is concentrating where it already has been. This leaves those at the top with the ability to get more raises and those at the bottom to lose their jobs or get fewer raises. The market allows those at the top to get their raises elsewhere if they don't get them where they currently are. Those at the bottom don't have as many options, so they have less bargaining power, so to speak.
These things seem like a big shame to me.
But realistically speaking, is there a way to reverse this trend?
I mean, if we say no raises to the administrators and they all walk, everyone is in trouble.
Yet I don't want the market forces to extort whatever the people are demanding.
Is there a middle ground? |
ladyrunner
Citizen
Username: Ladyrunner
Post Number: 38
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 1, 2005 - 6:00 pm: |
|
I doubt that the administrators would leave if their raises were frozen. I think at the very least the super and 3 asst. supers should volunteer this as a sign of good faith.
Would they really walk away from $145,000/year or $165,000/year? I bet it is a lot more than Dr. H and Mrs. Davenport made in Albaquerque. |
johnny
Citizen
Username: Johnny
Post Number: 1200
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 1, 2005 - 7:10 pm: |
|
I don't think Super H would walk away. I'd be shocked if he could get as good a salary somewhere else because his track record here sucks. |
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 82
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 2, 2005 - 9:08 am: |
|
Basically if they all walked off the job the system would not fall apart and new leadership would be available.
We live in an area where highly capable people can be found relatively quickly. Perhaps even some in our own district. |
SOMSD Watcher
Citizen
Username: Somsd_watcher
Post Number: 2
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, March 3, 2005 - 7:43 am: |
|
Who is the Admin cut? Does anyone care? |
Dad23
Citizen
Username: Dad23
Post Number: 69
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 3, 2005 - 8:40 am: |
|
At $71,000 it can't be an administrator. Maybe it is administrative. Clerical. |
Lee Sherman
Citizen
Username: Lee_ann
Post Number: 2
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, March 3, 2005 - 8:41 am: |
|
I agree with Hoops. There are a lot of capable employees from within the district that could step up to the plate if given the chance. Let them spread their wings. |
SOMSD Watcher
Citizen
Username: Somsd_watcher
Post Number: 3
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, March 3, 2005 - 10:54 am: |
|
It must be a supervisor. I guess we will find out at the board meeting Monday night. |
Slsd38
Citizen
Username: Slsd38
Post Number: 4
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, March 3, 2005 - 11:09 pm: |
|
It is the director of transportation. He has done an awesome job and don't understand the rationale behind letting him go. I think anyone and everyone that can come out to this meeting better be there. |
Southorangemom
Citizen
Username: Southorangemom
Post Number: 175
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 4, 2005 - 6:49 am: |
|
Pehaps the question is why, according to the superintndent, balancing the budget can ONLY be done on the backs of the custodial staff.
This district IS top heavy with administrators. Sorry, folks, but it's those who interact day to day with the kids who matter, not the residents of the BOE building.
SouthOrangemom |
Slsd38
Citizen
Username: Slsd38
Post Number: 5
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Friday, March 4, 2005 - 7:33 am: |
|
Southorangemom-does your child walk or ride a bus? For your sake I hope he/she walks. Who knows what is going to happen in transportation now. How much time do you think is going to be spent on day to day operations of the transportation department if this is placed on another administrator that already has a plate full? How many other administrators do you know that will stay until all the vehicles are back at the transportation building? How many other administrators do you think are going to call in on their vacation just to make sure there are no problems. You are right, let's get rid of an administrator like this and worry more about the custodial staff. It is far more important to make sure there are enough paper towels in the dispensers than to make sure the kids are safely where they are supposed to be. |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page