Friday, March 25, 2011

March 17th Involvement Wonderful, Even if Not Completely Informed

[Elwood Community Network commentary distributed 3/21/11]

Overview:

The March 17th Board of Education Regular Meeting proved to be another evening which demonstrated that people do care about their schools and their community. Very much like many of those who spoke at the March 10th Budget Work Session, those who spoke during Resident Remarks were focused upon areas of the budget of personal concern, and on March 17th it was not merely "many" -- who on March 10th spoke about primarily the Athletics program -- but "most" who on March 17th spoke about the music and arts programs, with a fair number speaking on behalf of all three after-school activities.

Full Description:

For the sake of time (yours as well as mine) I am making the assumption that it is unnecessary to repeat the Background analysis and summary which I included in the March 15th commentary titled "Well-Attended Budget Work Session, March 10th."

Once again, however, many of those who spoke demonstrated that they had either (1) not attended many, and for some not any, Board Work Sessions, or Budget Work Sessions, or Regular Meetings at which the 2011/12 budget had been previously discussed; or (2) that they were not familiar with State law or regulations governing school districts; or (3) that they did not realize that much of their concerns about programs or activities "at risk" were about potential effects under a Contingent Budget scenario, rather than actual plans.

However, very much like comments at the March 13th Budget Work Session, the remarks of those focused upon a particular beloved portion of the activities of the Elwood School District, even if not completely on track with actual plans or potential modifications, did provide a service to the community because they provided additional perspective to the Board and to the Superintendent.

As more than one person has suggested supplementing District revenue with "fees" to participate in certain after-school activities, so that these activities would be more affordable for the District's budget, it is important to realize that the State does not permit what is sometimes called "Pay to Play," which is a procedure used -- according to information provided at the March 10th Budget Work Session -- by about twenty-five states, but which is currently illegal in New York State. As was also made clear on March 10th, it is permissible for the District to accept donations to make some programs more affordable, but there cannot be a binding tie of the District's hands on how such funds would be used, and it is also illegal for school districts to have an athletic program which discriminates on any basis, including gender.

There are also restrictions on what school districts can do with regard to things like "naming rights" or other tie-ins, but I am presently less informed on these points or whether there is some alternative way to accomplish this kind of fund-raising objective.

A second set of suggestions was related to reducing the costs of transportation, and it was clear that some of those who commented may not be familiar with State law relating to transportation. But there are also a number of more subtle but complex issues related to providing bus transportation for the District. Those who have been attending Board meetings and work sessions for the past eight or so years might have remembered a transportation study done by a subcommittee of the Citizens Finance/Budget Advisory Committee, which discussed several issues regarding differing perceptions about bus transportation, versus many realities incurred as a legal obligation, such as what one might call "the empty bus syndrome."

State law requires that school districts provide transportation to students at a minimum distance from home to school, and varying by grade level of the student, but school districts are permitted to transport students closer than the State minimum standard, provided that has been approved by the voters of such district in a public referendum. Once established by such referendum, those stipulated distances may not be changed until such change is also approved by voters in another public referendum. So, while some may suggest achieving savings by reducing bus transportation, that really becomes a long range issue rather than part of an immediate solution for the 2011/12 budget.

Moreover, the hands of a district are really tied with reducing transportation availability, as you may note in the following State Education Department requirement:

Parent Waiving Right to Pupil Transportation - A school district may not request that parents voluntarily sign a waiver of their right to pupil transportation services for their eligible children. You may not waive what you have a right to under the law. Even if a parent should sign such a document, the school district would still be bound by Education Law section 3635 and be required to provide pupil transportation on any school day that the child is present at the bus stop or school and requesting transportation service.
(http://www.p12.nysed.gov/schoolbus/Parents/htm/parent_waiving_right.htm)

In summary, finding legal ways to meaningfully increase revenue, or to decrease expenses, is a complicated challenge.

Comments and Questions By Residents:

As was noted in the March 18th community commentary, where the big headline of the evening was discussed, there were forty-five residents who addressed the Board and District Administration in the First Residents Remarks period. Many of these addressed a number of topics, so a quick run-down by subject might make it seem as if even more people had spoken, But, forty-five people is still impressive, simply because too many people seldom get involved in anything.

The challenge, as I see it, is to make sure that people become more fully informed over time, and that a way be found to somehow channel this new energy and caring, this amazing involvement, so that we can remain united as a community in fostering the best school district which we can create and sustain, while also maintaining true concern and positive compassion for the personal financial restrictions on neighbors who may be much less fortunate than the more wealthy members of our community. We also have to remember that all of this is taking place at a time of an ever-tightening fiscal noose being executed on school districts by our Governor and much of the State Legislature.

Before proceeding, I did a background count (based upon information provided by each speaker) of the residents who spoke: (a) twenty identified themselves as current students (nearly all at Glenn); (b) nine identified themselves as Glenn graduates; and, (c) sixteen were other residents, most of whom have students currently in Elwood Public Schools.

Now, on to comments and questions:

First, here is a simple tabulation of support expressed for various after-school activities, or educational programs, or other aspects of the Elwood School District offerings:

Music 13
Music & Art 3
Music & Art & Athletics 2
Music & Athletics 7
Athletics 1
Art 1
General After School Activities 3
Science Research Program 4
Foreign Language Program 2
Full Day Kindergarten 2
Class Size 2

Among the comments, aside from specific support for one or more program aspects, here is a fair sampling of the more significant ones:

"The problem is in Albany, with the mandates."

Gov. Cuomo is cutting taxes for the wealthiest New Yorkers, while cutting $1.5 billion from education.

After school activities are important for college applications.

"Students need well-rounded experiences."

"Colleges are looking for well-rounded applicants."

If there was no sports or arts, then there would be no scholarships to college.

One resident, currently in the college application process, reported that he received an interview from Harvard, and they were most interested in talking about what he did in terms of after-school activities; they were impressed by the extent of his involvement in the music program, and particularly impressed about the original research he had done in Glenn's Science Research Program.

"We're in a Global Society; how can kids compete if they only speak English, or if they were never captain of a sports team?"

The District should charge fees for after school activities.

"Fill every single bus seat."

After mentioning the bus driver who was arrested for an improper approach to a student (Note: You may recall that it was an employee of Huntington Coach Company, and not the school district, who was suspended as soon as the event occurred, and before the police acted), one resident suggested "do away with the buses."

If your kids are in music or sports programs, then they are not using the buses.

Transportation cost is too high; instead car pool or walk to school.

"Transportation cuts may need consideration."

One resident, concerned about possible cutting back from Full Day Kindergarten, suggested "you might as well disband Kindergarten rather than go to Half Day Kindergarten."

"I'm willing to dig in a little deeper so our kids can maintain the education they have; go a little bit higher [in the tax rate.]

"Please let the Board of Education know how much you are prepared to support; personally, if this budget [i.e., in terms of tax increase] goes up 15% I don't care."

"There can't be just an option of a 13.33% tax increase, or a 3.74% tax increase."

One resident objected that copies of a personal letter from a resident was on the "Greeter's Table" at the entry to the auditorium. The resident also objected to the content of the letter complaining about the fields, and instead pointed out how money was diverted from the capital projects program of ten or so years ago, and that $4 million was taken off the top to build an auditorium at Boyd, and then shoddy work was done on the fields by the contractor.

"If you want to solve a problem, you have to take the emotion out of it."

Comments By Trustees and District Administration:

After at least half of the approximately 400+ residents had departed, the Board proceeded with the remainder of its Agenda, but the most material point of the evening was the one made by Superintendent Peter Scordo regarding his generous offer to freeze his own 2011/12 salary at the current 2010/11 level. That announcement, and its deeper meaning for the District, was covered in the community commentary transmitted on March 18th. For reference, you may access that at:
http://elwoodilluminations.blogspot.com/2011/03/superintendent-leads-way-towards-budget.html

Mr. Scordo later spoke about two potential reorganization issues, one related to Glenn, and the other to the District's Kindergarten program possibly being reduced from Full Day to Half Day. As to Glenn, he noted that Principal Vincent Mulieri and his staff have been making wonderful progress on some alternative approaches, and that he wants to give them a bit more time to complete their work.

On the matter of Kindergarten, Board Vice President Joe Fusaro asked what the full savings would be if the District converted to Half Day Kindergarten, and Ass't Superintendent for Business William Pastore advised that the classroom savings (4.0 FTE) would be about $260,000, and the transportation savings would be about $40,000, and that there would be an additional 1.5 FTE reductions for related FDK positions such as library and music, and that would add about $118,000 of additional savings, for total savings to the District of about $418,000.

Trustee Dan Ciccone wondered if a modification could be made to a Half Day program so that more literacy training could be provided to kindergarten students. Part of his concept would be to have a short assessment period in the Fall to determine needs, and then allow one full-time reading teacher to carry out the required additional support. The District Administration will do a cost analysis of Mr. Ciccone's suggested possible modification.

Trustee Andrew Kaplan noted that even Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke has expressed a view that pre-school and kindergarten programs are very valuable to American education. Mr. Kaplan wondered what enrichment program associations the District might be able to work toward fostering, to allow parents to supplement a Half Day program, if they choose to do so.

Second Period for Comments and Questions By Residents:

It was nearly 11:15 PM when the Second Residents Remarks period began, and at that point perhaps one-fourth of the original audience remained in the Middle School auditorium. Only six residents, of whom four had not spoken in the first Residents Remarks period, elected to address the Board at that time.

One opposed going to Half Day Kindergarten.

One asked if we could instead return to the District's original Extended Day Kindergarten.

One suggested user fees, and, noting that there needs to be shared sacrifice, asked the Board to "come up with an option between the 13.33% (the projected tax levy increase for the hypothetical "rollover budget") and nothing."

One expressed support for music, and noted that we even have students qualifying for Harvard yet they started in Elwood with a Half Day Kindergarten program.

One said that standards have changed "since these kids went to kindergarten."

One said that a loss of education strength would be "disheartening."

Final Commentary:

Shared sacrifice should be easily understood by any student, by any teacher, by any administrator, by any parent, and by any resident whose own children are no longer in Elwood schools.

We can't all have what we want, and we have to think, and act, for the greater good.

Our Superintendent has led the way with his dramatic and most gracious offer, and it is now up to the teachers union and other bargaining units to do something financially significant to preserve whatever we can of our programs, and to consider what we need to do to get even better in the future.

We also need to do whatever we personally can to stop the lies coming from the Cuomo administration, and some complicit State legislators, who keep trying to get us to take our eyes off the Albany-created and controlled problems, and instead waste our time arguing with each other over more minor local matters. However, we also have to be realists about the probabilities about restoring aid to even last year's already-reduced levels. And that means we have to plan for a future of making do, as best we can, with even less.

But, in doing that, we have to keep up the pressure on the disingenuous Albany cabal, so that we can come to a more equitable funding basis in the future.

My favorite quote of the evening, I must say, was from the resident who wisely stated, "If you want to solve a problem, you have to take the emotion out of it."

To that I loudly say, Amen.

Well-Attended Budget Work Session, March 10th

[Elwood Community Network commentary distributed 3/15/11]

Overview:


The Board Budget Work Session drew a much larger crowd than usual, with part of that attendance as a reaction to the hypothetical discussion on March 3rd of how deep cuts might have to be if the District ended up with a Contingent Budget. It became a very candid discussion, and there there some interesting comments and questions from the dais, as well as from the sixteen residents who chose to speak during the subsequent Residents Remarks period. Clearly, this is a very complex issue with ramifications for the students, for staff, and for taxpayers.

Full Description and Background:

Last Thursday the District Administration and Board of Education held another Budget Work Session, and because of the large number of residents who attended (my estimation was 200 +), it was held in the Middle School auditorium.

Many people were there to demonstrate support for the athletic program and the co-curricular activities which the District provides for our students. It was not possible to determine whether or not all of them realized that the two page outline released on March 3rd -- in which Superintendent Peter Scordo had demonstrated just how deep personnel cuts would still have to be even if a number of very important and highly valued activities were eliminated -- was a discussion document, rather than an actual plan to completely eliminate athletics and many other programs and non-required expenditures.

Anyone who attended the March 3rd session should have understood that the draft was simply a demonstration of how deep the problems would be for the District, based upon existing labor contract costs and other expenses over which the District currently has little or no control, and how much cutting in personnel would have to be done even if such important activities were completely eliminated in order to achieve a Contingent Budget, should that become necessary.

But, whether or not Thursday’s attendees -- a great many of whom were not at the previous session -- understood the reality, it was clear that many were there to provide testimony to the importance of such activities to the students, and to their parents, and to many other taxpayers. To that extent, even if their understanding was imperfect, they may have provided a service to the Board and District Administration by making that point clear.

The entire base for the discussions to date was what amounted to a rollover budget, which was released a few weeks ago. What would have caused most heads to turn began with the size of the rollover budget increase which was largely related to State mandated increases for the two pension funds, and increases in health insurance costs, and increases in energy costs, and increases in transportation costs, as well as increased salary payments to existing staff based upon labor agreements already in place. That budget-to-budget increase, if it was to be a rollover budget, would have to be 8.86%.

But, for most people, what not only caused heads to turn, but for some to jump out of their chairs seeking oxygen, was the size of the tax levy increase that would be required for a rollover budget, namely 13.33%, and that would occur because not only was the State aid payment for Elwood not keeping up with the rapidly rising costs, we (and most other districts) would actually have a reduction in our State aid.

Albany’s Formula: Rising Costs - Lower State Aid = Local Travesty

So, the Board prudently asked the Superintendent to do some hypothetical runs to demonstrate the reality of what occurs when the State cuts our aid, even as costs -- some directly from the State, some indirectly from the State, and some directly from the marketplace of providers like energy producers and bus companies, as well as local personnel expenses.

That kind of modeling is necessary to begin a more detailed internal analysis, as well as generate some needed discussions.

With that rather lengthy preamble, which I believe is necessary for full and unemotional perspective, let me now turn to some remarks heard during the meeting.

Comments From District Administration and Principals:

First, the Superintendent spoke and gave a synopsis noting that we are not only facing a budget and funding problem for 2011/12, he also projected forward and indicated that if the Governor and Legislature do impose the proposed cap of 2% on any district’s tax levy, that would require additional cuts of $2.8 million for 2012/13, and $5.0 million for 2013/14, and it only gets worse after that.

So, drastic changes would have to be made both this year, and in future years, since this would be a multiyear problem in New York State.

EMS Principal Hugh Gigante and Glenn Principal Vincent Mulieri both made presentations regarding their own schools, and you can go to the District website and download each of those. You can also download the presentation by our Ass’t Superintendent for Curriculum, Maryann Llewellyn, which followed the remarks by the two principals.

BOE Trustees Comments and Questions:

Before opening up for Residents Remarks, Board President Mike Kaszubski gave each of the Trustees a chance to pose questions or raise issues.

Trustee Andrew Kaplan asked about the potential for giving up Full Day Kindergarten, which Mr. Scordo had mentioned earlier in the evening, noting that the savings for the District would be about $300,000. He asked for clarification about whether this would be the Extended Day Program we once had, or more traditional Half Day Kindergarten, and Executive Director Gene Tranchino (who now handles Transportation in addition to his Instructional Technology duties, since the Director of Transportation position was eliminated last year, for cost savings in this year’s budget) advised Mr. Kaplan that going to Half Day rather than Extended Day saves $30,000 alone in extra transportation costs.

His next question related to what the multiplier effect would be for each dollar that might be given up in salary by an employee, and Ass’t Superintendent for Business William Pastore indicated that each $1 in salary savings translates to about $1.25 saved because of various benefits related to salary. Ass’t Superintendent for Human Resources Ronald Friedman pointed out that some employee benefits, such as health insurance, have no relationship to the income level of participants.

A multiparty discussion then took place regarding whether it might be possible to accept donations for things like stipends for coaches and advisors, and Mr. Scordo indicated that counsel to the district has advised that donations are permissible but that they must be taken into the general fund of the district. In NY State it is illegal to have what is sometimes called “pay for play”, as is done in about 25 states, and one question was how decisions are made with regard to specific sports. Mr. Scordo and Dr. Friedman did something of a tag team on pointing out that donors would have to offer their gift to the district, and the BOE would itself choose how to spend the funds, but that there must be an equitable distribution of funding for male and female sports.

Mr. Kaplan then noted that a principal problem for school districts has been the spiraling cost of benefits, and that years ago benefits were boosted to provide more equitable overall compensation at a time when teacher salaries were rather low. But salaries began a process of increase over many years, but the pension benefits -- which had been boosted when salaries were low -- was never adjusted after the salaries became much better. He felt that the District needed to get a pure freeze on salaries, and that the budget was a “nonstarter” for him until the issue was settled.

Trustee Dan Ciccone noted that last year the initial proposed budget, which had a tax increase of about 7%, was rejected in May. The revised proposed budget, which was adjusted downward to reflect a tax increase of about 4%, was approved by the voters in June. He also pointed out a significant difference between last year and this year; Contingent Budget amounts are determined by the relative inflation rate, and last year a Contingent Budget would have resulted in a tax increase of Zero, while this year a Contingent Budget would result in a tax increase of about 4%.

Mr. Ciccone then observed that our teachers are greatly valued, and that they are the ones who educate and nurture our children. But the business model for education in New York has simply grown too costly, and he is greatly concerned about the possibility that the young careers of some brilliant teachers would be ended in a Contingent Budget situation, yet he does not believe that the community would pass a budget which would require even a 7% tax increase.

He also noted that athletics and music and extracurricular activities are the soul of the community, and that he would not be able to support any budget which “does not have them as part of our budget.”

BOE Vice President Joe Fusaro asked about a few line items of the budget, and noted that the portion of the budget over which the BOE has actual discretion is relatively small, and that we are going to have a multiyear problem. He encouraged residents to contact their legislators, since they are the ones with power to change State laws, and they need to fix the structural problems for school districts. And if they don’t want to do that, then they need to give power to local governments and school districts to enable them to work on these problems.

Trustee Patty Matos noted that she agreed with Mr. Ciccone and feels that athletics positively affects student character and motivates many kids to do better in classes so that they can continue playing the sports they love. She noted that it would be terrible if the District and BOE had to pit academics against athletics and the arts opportunities for students.

Mr. Kaszubski then opened the floor to residents for comments and/or questions, with a requirement that each person take no more than three minutes, until after every resident who wanted to comment had been given a chance to do so.

Comments and Questions By Residents:

Having witnessed some primarily emotion-based Residents Remarks periods regarding some intensive subjects in prior years, it was very nice to observe that only one resident elected to begin negatively, and then demonstrate apparent disdain for most of those on the dais.

Fortunately, other residents chose to be more constructive, and to pose intelligent questions or comments, some of them quite informative for me, and undoubtedly for others.

Here is a quick run-down of the breath of attitudes or beliefs or simple wondering:

One resident observed “I don’t wholeheartedly agree with freezing teachers pay, but we do have to start moving in that direction.”

Seven residents -- some giving personal testimony about their experience or their childrens’ experience -- affirmed their support for the District’s athletics programs and other after-school activities for students.

One resident felt that the voters would approve a budget bearing a tax increase of 7% or 8%, and felt that it too pessimistic to feel they would not approve more than 4% or 5% tax increase.

One resident felt that it would be hurtful if the District had to cut salaries and lose teachers.

One resident observed that if the District needs to cut back from Full Day Kindergarten to Half Day Kindergarten then it will be essential to give parents time to make alternative arrangements. [Note: Mr. Scordo indicated that would be done, and advised that Kindergarten would be one of the topics for the March 17th agenda.]

One resident indicated that if the District makes cuts in some areas, but not in other areas, then it would create adversarial relationships.

One resident asked about cuts in Admin. [Note: Mr. Scordo reminded everyone that in the current year’s budget, the District eliminated one Ass’t Principal position in Glenn, as well as eliminated one Ass’t Principal position at Boyd, and eliminated the Director of Transportation position, and that what had been full-time positions, the Ass’t Sup’t for Curriculum, and the Ass’t Superintendent for Human Resources, are now both part-time positions; of course, he also observed that Mrs. Llewellyn actually works close to full-time, although she receives only a part-time salary.]

One resident observed that the District Administration is “fabulous [and] I will never vote down a budget [and] I hope the people will stay positive and stay together.” The resident continued by observing “If I were a teacher I would take a freeze to make sure my colleagues should not lose their jobs.”

One resident asked “what is the three to four year plan even if was possible to pass a 13% tax increase? [Note: Mr. Scordo observed that was “a great question” but that the slide shown earlier, regarding future problems under the current Albany agenda, “was just crated today and we need to study the issue.” He also said that the Governor “is not coming up with a plan to tackle the real causes of our problems.”]

One resident asked “do we know the demographics in the District, [such as] how many are older and on fixed income?” [Mr. Ciccone replied that a study was done a few years ago and approximately 60% of households in Elwood do not have children in our schools.”]

Summarizing Potpourri of Comments:

It’s not easy to distill so many pages of notes into something “short and sweet,” but here are some additional comments which I noted at various points in the evening’s dialogue:

Dr. Friedman - Albany kept lowering the pension contribution under political pressure [i.e., not because it was required to do so] but changes in the law can be made; e.g. new pension tiers can be created. Also, changes can be made in health insurance. He asked “what if some of the changes that could have been made in Albany years ago had been done...well, our problems would be much less today.”

Mr. Kaplan - If every district starts cutting teacher positions, then there won’t be any job openings for the young teachers who would get cut. He said he was trying “to save teacher jobs” by getting concessions on teacher pay.

Mr. Ciccone - Governor Cuomo is trying to take away [with reference to Cuomo’s structure regarding a potential future Tax Cap] from the voters of each school district any opportunity to reasonably act on budgets which the majority chooses to pass. He also pointed, in contrast to Cuomo, to some encouraging Education plans from President Obama [“even though I’ve never been much of a fan of his”] and from Secretary of Education Arne Duncan.

Final Commentary:

Anyone who does more than scan what I have written over the past few years would understand that I am very much a centrist on these and other issues. The way to deal with problems is to roll up your metaphorical sleeves and get involved, but when many of those problems are imposed upon you by Albany, it makes it more than a bit challenging to effect the kinds of changes that are needed.

Those who feel that everything is simple, and that only their personal views are the right views, and that it is somehow a sign of weakness (or worse) to seek compromise or work for the mutual benefit of all, are not serving the community or the nation.

I heard one descriptive and quite creative word last Thursday night which I thought was spot-on; it was levied at some governors who seem to be taking a “no prisoners” approach to change within their jurisdictions, and the phrase was “thug-ocracy.”

We have to avoid any kind of thug-ocracy approach --from the left or from the right -- if we are ever going to really solve our own fiscal problems, both in the State of New York and in the nation.

Monday, March 21, 2011

Superintendent Leads the Way Towards Budget Redemption

[Elwood Community Network commentary distributed 3/18/11]

Given the fact that [the March 17th Elwood School District] Board of Education Meeting was one minute shy of four hours, and given the fact that forty-five residents spoke at the first Residents Remarks period alone, it is going to take quite some time to wade through my twenty-five pages of notes which I took at the meeting.

But, one event was so dramatic as to warrant a kind of early headline.

As most of you know, Superintendent Peter Scordo, like administrators and teachers, is employed under a contract with the Elwood School District. Therefore, the District has a legal obligation to pay him certain amounts for his services, and he has periodic wage increases built into his contract, just as do administrators and teachers.

Last night, in a step that was a clear indication of not only Mr. Scordo’s leadership but his devotion to the students of this District, he announced that he was volunteering to take a total freeze of his salary for the 2001/12 school year.

Now, the reality is that the compensation of any superintendent of schools is a small part of the expenses of a school district, so his generous action alone cannot redeem our District from the economic problems imposed by escalating wage and benefit costs of labor agreements, or from the irresponsible action by Governor Cuomo to not only fail to keep up with increasing expenses for school districts (many of which are generated by NY State itself, and some of which come from private companies like energy providers, and bus companies) but to actually cut State aid to schools from last year’s already low levels.

But, Mr. Scordo has now provided a mark of excellence that has to be considered for similar action by the source of the greatest personnel compensation expenses for any school district, namely its teachers union.

It is only our teachers union which has the powerful economic impact for our 2011/12 school year to mean the possible difference between substantial cuts in programs as well as young teachers, instead of trying to preserve as much as we can for the students and for the budding careers of our most recent teacher hires. Teachers are the life blood of a school district, and the cuts which we need to consider, given escalating costs and State cutbacks, would be tragic.

The community owes Mr. Scordo a great deal of gratitude for what he has already accomplished for us in terms of improvements, and for the steps he has put in place to get even better, but now we have even more reason to be grateful for his financial sacrifice for the good of our students and for the fiscal integrity of our District.

We must wait to see what our teachers union may do to take their own steps towards budget redemption.

Friday, March 4, 2011

For One District, Potential for Budget Cuts Could Be Even Worse Than Worst Fears

Elwood’s Board Work Session last night began, comfortably, with a great deal of information about the Special Education component of the annual budget. Over the course of about an hour or so, we saw a presentation that went through details of the changes in our Special Education population over the years, as well as insight into the various laws, regulations, and processes which govern our District, and all others in NY State.

Those of us who have had children who were either temporarily or permanently classified (my own disabled child finished Glenn in 2010), have a pretty good understanding of these matters, but for other parents it may have been a revelation as to its complexity and the year-to-year variability in staffing and/or outside placement costs which are affected by new classifications of existing students or by Special Education students whose families either move into, or out of, our District.

The depth or extent of the disability of a particular child can produce dramatically different expenses between one classified student and another, so those moves of families in and out of our District, and those new classifications of existing students, can produce dramatic swings in expenses from one school year to another. What was not clear, but which I hope will be made available soon, is the amount and percentage of these costs which are annually funded by NY State, so that residents can understand what Albany leaves for residents of our District, and others, to pay for through local property taxes.

As was astutely observed last night by a number of Trustees of the BOE, these are not only services which are mandated by NY State, they are also services which these children need and deserve. And any parent of a Special Ed child would give their right arm, and two legs, to have their own child permanently freed from their own disability and need no more services, and therefore no additional expenditures, than any “normal” child in our school district; it is a need, and not a “want.”

But, after that bit of what I would call adult education, we came to the point where the Superintendent gave his first public response to the Board’s request, at the last Budget Work Shop, for an indication of what would have to be cut, from the initial discussion draft of what I call his “ideal budget,” so that the Board and residents would understand what a Contingent Budget would mean for the education of Elwood students.

Sometime today the District is going to have posted to the website the two page summation, prepared by the Assistant Superintendent for Business, to which Mr. Scordo was referring in his remarks.

The essence of this fiscal shocker is that even if every co-curricular activity was eliminated, and even if all athletics were eliminated, and even if all new equipment and textbooks and workbooks and materials & supplies were eliminated, the effect of the major expenditure categories which are unable to be reduced further would mean that those draconian cuts could only produce about $2.3 million of the $3.5 million which would be required to achieve the reduced expenditures level needed to reach the Contingent Budget number.

The bottom line, which you find at the end of the two page synopsis, is that -- unless the District gets substantial wage and benefit concessions by the union --eighteen teachers would need to be cut.

So, no after school activities, no athletics, no new books or supplies, and still eighteen teachers would need to be cut.

And, to be realistic, it may be reasonably argued by some Trustees, and many parents, that elimination of 100% of those activities and supplies may not be in the interests of our students (perhaps a gross understatement), so the District might have to reach for an even higher number of teacher cuts, again, unless the union agreed to substantial concessions.

Furthermore, as we know, and as you saw Mayor Bloomberg arguing in his Op Ed piece in the NY Times, under current NY State restrictions on school districts, we cannot even accomplish those reductions on the basis of retaining the most effective teachers (regardless of whether they have been with us for twenty years or ten years or five years or whatever). No, instead, a school district in NY State is forced to cut teachers on the basis of who has been employed for the least amount of time.

“Ugly” is the first word that comes to mind, and we will get to hear greater detail at the next Board Budget Work Session, on March 10th.

But “irrational” is the second word that comes to mind when it comes to what the State forces school districts to do when releasing teachers in budget cuts.

Finally, the third word that would come to mind would be “enlightened,” which is what we hope the teachers union would become. If so, the District would be able to reduce staffing by far fewer teachers than would be required if the District was instead forced to pay the current scales of salary and benefits to the smaller number of teachers (i.e., if a majority of the union elected not to do anything to benefit their younger co-workers, as well as our students).

Next week, and the weeks thereafter, should become really interesting, but possibly really tense.

Let’s hope for enlightenment.

NPR Provided a Clue About Coming Albany Moves

[Elwood Community Network commentary distributed 3/2/11]

While doing today's [i.e., March 2nd] morning exercises, I was listening to NPR and heard a brief story on public pension changes being considered by Governor Cuomo. As that would be a big factor in moving toward reducing cost burdens for school districts and other local government entities, I did a bit of internet research and found a posting on the website of the Albany Times-Union.

The story begins with the following two paragraphs:

"Watch for a Tier 6 public employee pension proposal from Gov. Andrew Cuomo as part of a sweeping effort to reduce the cost of mandates on state and local government including those that govern employee compensation.

“I believe he will be presenting something in the near future,” Cuomo’s Senior Advisor Larry Schwartz said of a Tier 6 plan which presumably would be less generous than the Tier 5 plan pushed through by former Gov. David Paterson."

There was also a brief discussion of positions related to defined benefit vs. defined contribution pension plans, as well as the rather infamous Triborough Amendment.

You may read the full story at the following web page:
http://blog.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/53971/tier-6-proposal-may-be-on-tap/

Now, this kind of move to create a Tier 6 pension category could be good news for fiscal sanity in New York, but I hope that the Governor, and his increasingly close friends in the Legislature, don't try to portray that as an "answer" for the totality of the increasingly-out-of-control public pension system that imposes ballooning costs on school districts.

It's nice to make changes going forward, but it might take decades, not weeks or even years but decades, for that to have any substantial benefit for school districts.

I then discovered another internet gem at the Albany edition of The Business Review website, where they discuss -- very briefly -- the just-released report of a mandate commission for the Governor, and there are some interesting indicators in their story:

"The mandate commission's March 1 report offers a mixed bag of ideas. Among them: A ban on any new state mandates unless they're fully funded....The report doesn't address laws business groups have blamed for locking the state, local governments and schools into mandatory pay and benefit increases for their workers after a contract has expired....Municipal and school officials have called for changes to those laws to help them control costs....It's unclear what recommendations Cuomo will try to include in his budget proposal. He has until the end of this week to amend it."

Now, doesn't that sound nice, well, maybe almost nice? Unfortunately, there is that phrase which means that the existing problems -- substantial problems -- are really not being resolved, because the ban would only be on "...any new state mandates unless they're fully funded."

Furthermore, while the commission might suggest that the Governor is serious about preventing future financial albatrosses, how do you feel when you read the next sentence in that brief article?

"A final set of recommendations is due by the end of March 2012."

March of 2012?

2012!

Yet we have heard and seen Cuomo, and some complicit Legislators, proposing compensation restrictions, like one-size-fits-all caps (regardless of the region of the State, or cost of living differences) on the salaries of superintendents and other senior administrators, which have much, much less significance than the costs of those mandates and those State pension burdens (and which would also present dramatically dangerous risks to the viability of competently managing school districts) as if that was the magic bullet for school district finance.

We have heard Cuomo and his cronies talking about capping administrator salaries, instead of seriously tackling the economic absurdity of having 124 school districts total between Nassau and Suffolk Counties (and something like 700 districts in all of NY State).

Just start multiplying the compensation costs of one superintendent and several assistant superintendents against 124, and come up with an estimate for total costs. If school districts were consolidated on the basis of counties, there would be two superintendents, and a requisite number of asssistants, and the savings would be dramatically large. Even if they were simply consolidated on the basis of towns, there are ten Towns in Suffolk and three Towns in Nassau, so you would have thirteen superintendents and again a significant number of assistants, but the total savings would still be dramatically large, even if not as large as consolidation on the basis of counties.

So, let's hope that Mr. Cuomo and Mr. Raia and other members of the Assembly and State Senate stop proposing risky and fiscally insignificant measures, which are little more than Red Herrings to deflect attention from the problems which they or their predecessors have created for us, and let's have them get serious about the massive existing burdens which Albany caused.

And let's find the solution for those burdens now, and not twelve months from now.

You may read the entire story at the following web page:
http://www.bizjournals.com/albany/morning_call/2011/03/cuomo-releases-report-on-mandate-relief.html

He's Either Ignorant, or Cynically Deceptive

[Elwood Community Network commentary distributed 3/1/11]

In [the March 1st edition of] Newsday, on page A3, there is another story about Governor Andrew Cuomo's attempts to prevent people from paying attention to the problems which Albany has created for school districts and other municipalities in the State of New York.

You see, if Cuomo can keep people focused upon minor issues, he can avoid dealing with the major problems that afflict us all, and which have been long established by previous Governors and previous Legislatures (from which some members do still remain).

What are these major issues?

First of all, pensions for public employees are what is known as defined benefit plans, and when the value of pension funds decline, the State forces the taxpayers of New York to come up with more tax money to add to the particular pension funds. Anyone who has not been asleep for the past twenty years, or simply watching American Idol instead of the news, understands that there is a financial crisis in most states which has been made worse by the cost of ballooning public sector pensions.

The pension system for public employees was created by NY State, and it is wholly governed by NY State; we, as school districts, have to do what NY State tells us to do, no matter how expensive, and no matter what else we and other districts might like to negotiate differently with our employees. As Mayor Bloomberg rightly, and succinctly, pointed out in his Op Ed piece in yesterdays' NY Times:

"...in New York, state government — not the city — has the authority to set pension benefits for city workers, but city taxpayers get stuck with the bill. The mayor cannot directly discuss pension benefits as part of contract negotiations with unions, even though pension benefits could be as much as 80 percent of an employee’s overall compensation. In addition, members of the State Legislature pass pension “sweeteners” for municipal unions that help attract support for their re-election campaigns."

What the Mayor says here, in language directed toward New York City obligations, is equally true for all municipal entities in NY State, including school districts.

Second, NY State has imposed hundreds of requirements, or "mandates," on school districts over the years. By itself that might not be bad, and few would dispute the need and benefits of some of these mandates, but the problem is that NY State -- over the past ten or so years -- has paid for less and less of these mandates. In some cases they are distinctly underfunded, and in other cases they are not funded at all.

Therefore, school districts have obligations imposed upon them by NY State, in some cases by law and in other cases by State Education Department regulations, and these obligations -- these mandates -- have very substantial costs associated with them.

So what is Cuomo, and some complicit State legislators, doing about this pension system, or about these mandates?

Diddly squat.

Nothing, nada, nichts, rien, nulla.

Oh, I'm sorry, they are trying to make us think that the compensation of senior administrators in school districts is our "real problem." And that is despite the fact that the total compensation of a school district superintendent is typically about 1/2 of 1% of a school district's budget.

Now Cuomo has come up with his latest attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of the people of this State, and some pathetic nebbishes are even following in his footsteps. Brilliant!

We are being told that no school superintendents in NY State should be paid more than the Governor.

So, instead of asking whether the Governor of the State should be paid more than $179,000 (I would suggest so, even though it is a supreme ego trip that all manner of politicians are willing to actively seek, regardless of the pay), we are being told that we should cap the salaries of those running districts throughout the State to $175,000.

Now, think very carefully about this concept.

Does the cost of living in Fredonia, forty-five miles southwest of Buffalo, have any substantial relationship with the cost of living in Syracuse, or in Albany, or in Plattsburg, or on Long Island? I spent many weekends in Fredonia, and its surrounding communities, prior to and during the course of my daughter's college career. I know, intimately, the cost of real estate, and services, and anything else, in that community. You don't have to be a retired corporate finance professional to understand that it would be absurd to have a single level of compensation, whatever the level, throughout NY State.

Next, the increasingly slippery Mr. Cuomo is suggesting, as Newsday wrote, that superintendent salaries "...be paid on a sliding scale based on student enrollment. Even at the largest school districts (defined as those with more than 6,500 students), salaries would be capped at $175,000 - $4,000 less than the governor."

Newsday goes on to report that "...superintendents at districts with 250 or fewer students would earn the least, $125,000, while superintendents at districts with more than 6,500 students would earn $175,000."

Now, do you find yourself asking "what's wrong with this picture?" I do.

First, why would there even be a district with 250 students? That sounds like a serious management problem in Albany, doesn't it?

Second, if you want to relate superintendent compensation to school district size, then shouldn't Cuomo and his friends in the Legislature be doing something about school district consolidation instead? Right now, consolidation is a permissive act; the State allows it under law, and even provides some financial incentive for it to happen, but it does not require it. Any student of economics or business management understands that there is an economy of scale, and that administrative costs spread over a larger number of students, allows for greater financial efficiencies (as well, by the way, as a greater array of course and student activities).

However, if Cuomo had his way, by restricting compensation in absolute terms, small and medium sized school districts on Long Island would suffer a massive number of retirements of the more talented and experienced (by the way, the two do not necessarily go together) superintendents and other senior administrators. Most are eligible for their pensions, already, and Cuomo's plan would provide a complete disincentive for them to remain in their current positions.

Therefore, Cuomo would be causing the "dumbing down" of school district administrations all across Long Island, as the best and the brightest pack it in, go on to teach in colleges, or take superintendent positions outside NY State, or simply redirect their lives to forgetting about rising at 5 AM, five days a week, 48 +/- weeks a year (in case you don't know it, superintendents and other senior administrators work during the summers) and enjoying their time with grandchildren, if so blessed.

But, either the Governor and his friends are totally ignorant of this likely damage, or perhaps they simply don't care, as long as you think that school district problems are not primarily Albany-created problems.

So, I would say to Governor Cuomo, and to those State legislators who have begun to drink the Albany equivalent of the Jonestown Kool Aid, that you need to first work on accelerating school district consolidation in NY State, at least on a Town basis if not on a County basis, before you ever destroy sound school districts with artificial "fixes" like compensation limits that would be unrelated to local costs of living (wherever, within NY State), and which would be further limited by the current size of a school district, since you -- Albany -- have allowed and even cooperated in seeing a proliferation of economic inefficiencies of scale, over a course of decades.

You don't destroy school districts, and then try to figure out what to do to mop up the spilled blood of terminated careers of some superior administrators, as well as allow ruined college prospects for high school students who must live through a collapse of their districts before those districts find a way to rise, Phoenix-like, to only benefit the next generation of students.

I would also say to the Governor and the Legislature, that you need to devote your efforts to reducing the underfunded and unfunded State mandates on school districts.

Cost containment must start in Albany, to reduce and even eliminate the Albany-created problems for all municipalities in NY State, including school districts.

Mayor Bloomberg gets it; Governor Cuomo either doesn't, or doesn't want to admit it. He'd rather create Red Herrings and point to some Straw-man, so that the people take their eyes off Albany.

As always, beware the smoke and mirrors, and do pay attention to that man behind the curtain; NY State, and the Land of Oz, seem to have some parallels.