PANGLOSS:
“Once one dismisses
The rest of all possible worlds
One finds that this is
The best of all possible worlds!”
STUDENTS:
“Once one dismisses
The rest of all possible worlds
One finds that this is
The best of all possible worlds!”
No, this is not an essay on musical theatre, but I find a number of parallels between some themes of Leonard Bernstein's Candide, roughly based on Voltaire's Candide, and this community of Elwood.
One of my frustrations is the failure of many, though certainly not our Board of Education and not some of our teachers and some of our administrators and not most parents, but many, to embrace a Best Practices approach in improving the educational experience for the children of the Elwood community.
There is this disturbing and periodic obsession about a mythical Elwood of ten or twenty years ago, as if it was Camelot (whether the Camelot of King Arthur or of JFK), or as if it was some blessed kingdom of the educational fairies, and there is certainly a revulsion by some against engaging in honest and candid dialogue about how we might do better.
Pangloss, who is both philosopher and teacher and mentor to Candide, continues in that song about the best of all possible worlds:
ALL:
“Now onto conjugations!”
PANGLOSS:
“Amo, amas,
Amat, amamus!”
STUDENTS:
“Amo, amas,
Amat, amamus!”
PANGLOSS:
“Proving that this is
The best of all possible worlds
With love and kisses [blows a kiss]
The best of all possible worlds!”
STUDENTS:
“Proving that this is
The best of all possible worlds
With love and kisses [blows a kiss]
The best of all possible worlds!”
Does any of that seem familiar to you?
I have witnessed far too many parallels, over the past nine years, after I was finally able to take part in the educational experience of my children, and after I was finally free in July of 2000 to work on something other than my responsibilities at Chase, and my responsibilities in the Navy.
My own attempt to bring a Best Practices approach to the Elwood School District, which began in 2001, was based upon what I learned from some of my Chase clients, along with the very successful Japanese auto industry concept of Kaizen, which means “continuous improvement.”
I kept visiting other school districts to attend their Board of Education meetings, and I kept looking at their websites to glean useful information, and I would periodically bring that to the attention of our own Board and whomever was Superintendent at the time.
Later, after our Board created the myriad of committees and subcommittees which we now have (to channel the experience and intellectual curiosity of Elwood residents into helping the Board to improve their own performance), I brought those Best Practices and Kaizen applications to committees on which I was serving.
To be succinct, “good enough” is not an acceptable attitude, whether that is in industry, or in the military, or in government, or in education.
In the Finale of Bernstein's Candide, there is a beautiful and poignant song, begun as a duet and ending as a triumphal recitation by the cast, in which they identify a key element of life, which is to do all that you can, and to be honest about it.
Candide starts the song, and in the middle of the first verse, he pleads:
“And let us try,
Before we die,
To make some sense of life.
We're neither pure, nor wise, nor good
We'll do the best we know.”
My friends, what so often saddens me is the attitude of complacency in parts of the Elwood educational bureaucracy and even among some parents.
We see the denial, by some, that other school districts do a number of things better than Elwood.
We see the disdain, by many, for even caring about trying to do better.
We see the preference, by most, that we keep our metaphorical pinkies in the right position when metaphorically drinking tea, and that artificial propriety is preferred to having an honest and free dialogue about getting better, and doing better.
For those folks in Elwood, the last line of Candide which I cited would have to be rewritten:
“We'll do the least we know.”
When are we going to get serious about getting better and doing better?
When are we going to acknowledge that while some districts do things not as well as Elwood, it is also true that some do things better than Elwood, and that we can indeed learn from them?
But, like trying to overcome an addiction, the first step of any twelve-step program is to acknowledge the problem.
And, like any intervention, it is essential that there be honest and free dialogue.
This is not the best of all possible worlds.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Newsday Makes Some Great Points About School Costs
Having been away for several days, I am still catching up on what the local and national media said during that time.
For anyone who has not been living inside a glass bubble for the past few years, or for anyone who has been living in the real world and not been in deep denial about reality, the subject of escalating school costs and its impact on the affordability of living on Long Island is something that we know is critical for all of us.
On Sunday, May 17th, Newsday had its lead editorial titled "A coming crisis in school costs," which appeared on page A40, and which is found on their website, in an updated and slightly modified version, titled "There's a crisis coming for school costs." If this link does not work, you can paste into your browser the following:
http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-vpschl1712766398may18,0,1629189.story
The entire Newsday editorial is worth your reading and consideration, but I would like to highlight a few sections of particular importance.
The Newsday paragraph that will probably have the various teachers unions up in arms, since an enlightened public is a more likely challenge to the covert and intentionally complicated structure of contracts negotiated by those unions, is as follows:
"Voters would also be better able to exercise local control if they were given more information about teachers' contracts. Salary structures could be posted online, giving a fuller picture of the step raises, educational credits and other boosts to salaries. Parents seeking an excellent district might certainly be willing to pay higher taxes for better performance, but taxpayers should know the details of the planned wage increase as well as the hidden escalators."
Now, to that very point about hidden escalators, on May 21st of 2007 I published a piece, titled "What About That "Elephant in the Room?", that dealt with the intricacies of contracts which allow unions and some complicit boards of education and superintendents to play down the full cost of the teaching staff of a school district. You may read that original commentary on this blog as it has been posted, immediately prior to this posting, for convenient reference.
Earlier in the Newsday editorial, the important point is made that Long Islanders should keep in mind "...that a couple of budget-busters are heading our way in two years, and school districts should begin planning for them now. Federal stimulus money is expected to disappear by 2011. And the teachers' retirement fund has lost so much money in the market crash that schools' pension contributions will soon soar."
At the end of the editorial, Newsday sums up with a plea to all, including the teachers unions:
"School spending, which accounts for 65 to 70 percent of property taxes in Long Island communities, needs to slow down so we can all afford to live here together - teachers included. We shouldn't wait two years for a crisis before taking action."
As I said, the entire Newsday editorial is worth reading, and after you have read it, please consider how you can get involved to prevent the implosion of our school systems on Long Island if rapid, and even radical, change is not made to protect the education of your children, and to preserve your home values from the destruction of unaffordable tax increases.
Jerry Hannon
For anyone who has not been living inside a glass bubble for the past few years, or for anyone who has been living in the real world and not been in deep denial about reality, the subject of escalating school costs and its impact on the affordability of living on Long Island is something that we know is critical for all of us.
On Sunday, May 17th, Newsday had its lead editorial titled "A coming crisis in school costs," which appeared on page A40, and which is found on their website, in an updated and slightly modified version, titled "There's a crisis coming for school costs." If this link does not work, you can paste into your browser the following:
http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-vpschl1712766398may18,0,1629189.story
The entire Newsday editorial is worth your reading and consideration, but I would like to highlight a few sections of particular importance.
The Newsday paragraph that will probably have the various teachers unions up in arms, since an enlightened public is a more likely challenge to the covert and intentionally complicated structure of contracts negotiated by those unions, is as follows:
"Voters would also be better able to exercise local control if they were given more information about teachers' contracts. Salary structures could be posted online, giving a fuller picture of the step raises, educational credits and other boosts to salaries. Parents seeking an excellent district might certainly be willing to pay higher taxes for better performance, but taxpayers should know the details of the planned wage increase as well as the hidden escalators."
Now, to that very point about hidden escalators, on May 21st of 2007 I published a piece, titled "What About That "Elephant in the Room?", that dealt with the intricacies of contracts which allow unions and some complicit boards of education and superintendents to play down the full cost of the teaching staff of a school district. You may read that original commentary on this blog as it has been posted, immediately prior to this posting, for convenient reference.
Earlier in the Newsday editorial, the important point is made that Long Islanders should keep in mind "...that a couple of budget-busters are heading our way in two years, and school districts should begin planning for them now. Federal stimulus money is expected to disappear by 2011. And the teachers' retirement fund has lost so much money in the market crash that schools' pension contributions will soon soar."
At the end of the editorial, Newsday sums up with a plea to all, including the teachers unions:
"School spending, which accounts for 65 to 70 percent of property taxes in Long Island communities, needs to slow down so we can all afford to live here together - teachers included. We shouldn't wait two years for a crisis before taking action."
As I said, the entire Newsday editorial is worth reading, and after you have read it, please consider how you can get involved to prevent the implosion of our school systems on Long Island if rapid, and even radical, change is not made to protect the education of your children, and to preserve your home values from the destruction of unaffordable tax increases.
Jerry Hannon
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
What About That “Elephant in the Room?”
[originally created and distributed to E-mail networks on 5/21/07, but still relevant]
In its May 13th edition, on page A46, Newsday published a full page editorial on the important topic of the costs of running school districts on Long Island, and its resultant impact upon property taxes.
One of the things that the editorial highlighted was our need to address the reality - versus the practice of obscurity that seems to be preferred by most district superintendents and most boards of education - of the cost of salaries and benefits, primarily for teachers and secondarily for administrators and other staff.
The Newsday editorial's most important paragraphs on this point were the following:
-------------------------------
"Teachers' pets
But the biggest chunk of any school's budget is the salaries and benefits paid to teachers, administrators and other staff. And that's where school boards have fallen short. Even when a district announces a contract agreement that holds raises to the level of the inflation-induced cost-of-living increase, the reality is that district employees - especially teachers - will receive double that.
What's often not understood by taxpayers is the impact of automatic "step increases" for longevity or academic credits earned. Even if a district won a "zero" - no annual increase - the payroll could rise by several percentage points. And benefits, particularly health care, by even more."
-------------------------------
Newsday has basically validated the analysis that I first did last December, after three of the five members of our Board of Education, following the recommendation of our Superintendent, voted to approve the Memorandum of Agreement for a new contract with the teachers union, fully six and one half months before the existing contract was even due to expire.
Anyone at the December 14th BOE meeting heard that agreement described as basically a “3% raise, plus Step,” and my December 20th community commentary pointed out the lack of candor in any such description.
I went on to provide an analysis using the existing contract and demonstrated how, at one particular Column level of 4 (corresponding to a Masters Degree of one hypothetical teacher), and at Step 5, such a teacher would actually receive 4.15% more just for being in place one additional year, i.e. Step 6, without any increase in the contract which had just been agreed by the BOE.
That does not mean that all Step/Column increases would be so generous, since the Step increases vary significantly among the Columns, and even among the particular Steps. But it did demonstrate that if an administrator or a trustee was merely speaking of 3% increases to the contract, i.e. by the new Memorandum of Agreement, he/she was not really speaking about true annual costs to the District and its taxpayers.
In April, Northport's local newspaper, The Observer, published my letter to the editor which noted, among other things, the following:
----------------------------------
“…we have to watch out for administrators or trustees, of any school districts, who refer to contract settlements that provide for a hypothetical increase of, say, 3% per annum, when the reality is that employees are actually receiving salary increases of more like 5% to 6% per annum.
How is that possible?
Most teachers' union contracts have automatic salary escalators that
provide an increase to an employee merely by being in the same job for one more year. There is no performance review for the employee, and whether someone is a superior teacher, or average, or deficient, all employees at that particular level (in Elwood's contract these are called “Steps”) would receive the same increase, aside from any increases negotiated for a new contract.
Wouldn't we all like to have that?
There are also increases built into most contracts that are provided when a teacher accumulates a certain number of additional postgraduate credits, or an additional degree. In private industry, or in the military, these do not result in another automatic salary increase, although they could be a factor in one's performance review.
So, when any BOE or Superintendent speaks only about an increase of 3% or 3.25%, they may be technically correct (i.e., more honest than Bush's “weapons of mass destruction,” or Clinton's “depends upon what the definition of 'is' is” ), but they are not being candid with their residents about the true compensation packages which are awarded to teachers.”
-------------------------------------
In any event, the days of ignoring the “Elephant in the Room,” the cost of teachers' contracts, which have been accelerating faster than in private industry (or even in our overstretched military, for that matter), are over.
Even Newsday has finally acknowledged that this often unrecognized, and unbalanced, one-way economic street is not sustainable.
The next step should be a published candid analysis, by our District, and indeed by every district on Long Island, of the total cost - and total benefit to the teachers - of the compensation packages for teachers unions (including their salaries, plus their healthcare benefits, plus their pension benefits). We will then need a healthy dose of realism on the part of teachers unions, and their individual members, which must result in their willingness to accept their own fair share of the burden of escalating costs that has, until now, been primarily borne by the taxpayers, as well as by the students who sometime have to sacrifice courses, or clubs, or athletics, or arts programs, in their own schools.
Fairness, all around, is a very reasonable concept.
Jerry Hannon
In its May 13th edition, on page A46, Newsday published a full page editorial on the important topic of the costs of running school districts on Long Island, and its resultant impact upon property taxes.
One of the things that the editorial highlighted was our need to address the reality - versus the practice of obscurity that seems to be preferred by most district superintendents and most boards of education - of the cost of salaries and benefits, primarily for teachers and secondarily for administrators and other staff.
The Newsday editorial's most important paragraphs on this point were the following:
-------------------------------
"Teachers' pets
But the biggest chunk of any school's budget is the salaries and benefits paid to teachers, administrators and other staff. And that's where school boards have fallen short. Even when a district announces a contract agreement that holds raises to the level of the inflation-induced cost-of-living increase, the reality is that district employees - especially teachers - will receive double that.
What's often not understood by taxpayers is the impact of automatic "step increases" for longevity or academic credits earned. Even if a district won a "zero" - no annual increase - the payroll could rise by several percentage points. And benefits, particularly health care, by even more."
-------------------------------
Newsday has basically validated the analysis that I first did last December, after three of the five members of our Board of Education, following the recommendation of our Superintendent, voted to approve the Memorandum of Agreement for a new contract with the teachers union, fully six and one half months before the existing contract was even due to expire.
Anyone at the December 14th BOE meeting heard that agreement described as basically a “3% raise, plus Step,” and my December 20th community commentary pointed out the lack of candor in any such description.
I went on to provide an analysis using the existing contract and demonstrated how, at one particular Column level of 4 (corresponding to a Masters Degree of one hypothetical teacher), and at Step 5, such a teacher would actually receive 4.15% more just for being in place one additional year, i.e. Step 6, without any increase in the contract which had just been agreed by the BOE.
That does not mean that all Step/Column increases would be so generous, since the Step increases vary significantly among the Columns, and even among the particular Steps. But it did demonstrate that if an administrator or a trustee was merely speaking of 3% increases to the contract, i.e. by the new Memorandum of Agreement, he/she was not really speaking about true annual costs to the District and its taxpayers.
In April, Northport's local newspaper, The Observer, published my letter to the editor which noted, among other things, the following:
----------------------------------
“…we have to watch out for administrators or trustees, of any school districts, who refer to contract settlements that provide for a hypothetical increase of, say, 3% per annum, when the reality is that employees are actually receiving salary increases of more like 5% to 6% per annum.
How is that possible?
Most teachers' union contracts have automatic salary escalators that
provide an increase to an employee merely by being in the same job for one more year. There is no performance review for the employee, and whether someone is a superior teacher, or average, or deficient, all employees at that particular level (in Elwood's contract these are called “Steps”) would receive the same increase, aside from any increases negotiated for a new contract.
Wouldn't we all like to have that?
There are also increases built into most contracts that are provided when a teacher accumulates a certain number of additional postgraduate credits, or an additional degree. In private industry, or in the military, these do not result in another automatic salary increase, although they could be a factor in one's performance review.
So, when any BOE or Superintendent speaks only about an increase of 3% or 3.25%, they may be technically correct (i.e., more honest than Bush's “weapons of mass destruction,” or Clinton's “depends upon what the definition of 'is' is” ), but they are not being candid with their residents about the true compensation packages which are awarded to teachers.”
-------------------------------------
In any event, the days of ignoring the “Elephant in the Room,” the cost of teachers' contracts, which have been accelerating faster than in private industry (or even in our overstretched military, for that matter), are over.
Even Newsday has finally acknowledged that this often unrecognized, and unbalanced, one-way economic street is not sustainable.
The next step should be a published candid analysis, by our District, and indeed by every district on Long Island, of the total cost - and total benefit to the teachers - of the compensation packages for teachers unions (including their salaries, plus their healthcare benefits, plus their pension benefits). We will then need a healthy dose of realism on the part of teachers unions, and their individual members, which must result in their willingness to accept their own fair share of the burden of escalating costs that has, until now, been primarily borne by the taxpayers, as well as by the students who sometime have to sacrifice courses, or clubs, or athletics, or arts programs, in their own schools.
Fairness, all around, is a very reasonable concept.
Jerry Hannon
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
What Can Be Done About Teenager Dangerous Driving?
Having read a recent request, from Elwood resident Susan Katz, for community organization and individual support for a grant application to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration by Safe Kids Suffolk, I wanted to look further into the issue of parent involvement in teen driver safety.
Susan is a registered nurse at Stony Brook University Hospital and an active leader in Safe Kids Suffolk, which is part of Safe Kids USA. The organization focuses upon injury prevention among children, of all ages, and Susan has been a strong advocate for this for at least as long as I have known her.
On behalf of the board of directors of our local civic association, I was pleased to join other community organizations in supporting their grant application, which would be used "to build a program that focuses on parental enforcement of house driving rules for teen drivers." The request letter from Safe Kids Suffolk also noted that "parental involvement is at a peak at licensure, but declines rapidly through the first 12 months of teen driving."
Having read their request, and being enlightened a bit about these risks and possible steps to reduce these risks, I did a bit more research and found an interesting article which was recently in the South Florida Sun-Sentinel discussing a new thirty second ad campaign which seems quite powerful.
The story was titled "Teen drivers: Ad campaign targets risky road behavior," and it noted that traffic crashes are the leading cause of death for 15- to 19-year-olds in U.S. That is a frightening statistic for any parent, so you have to wonder what you can do to help.
Safe Kids Suffolk is trying to be a partner with you, and you can E-mail them at suffolksafekids@yahoo.com to get further information about this, or other programs designed to reduce injuries for all of our children.
Susan is a registered nurse at Stony Brook University Hospital and an active leader in Safe Kids Suffolk, which is part of Safe Kids USA. The organization focuses upon injury prevention among children, of all ages, and Susan has been a strong advocate for this for at least as long as I have known her.
On behalf of the board of directors of our local civic association, I was pleased to join other community organizations in supporting their grant application, which would be used "to build a program that focuses on parental enforcement of house driving rules for teen drivers." The request letter from Safe Kids Suffolk also noted that "parental involvement is at a peak at licensure, but declines rapidly through the first 12 months of teen driving."
Having read their request, and being enlightened a bit about these risks and possible steps to reduce these risks, I did a bit more research and found an interesting article which was recently in the South Florida Sun-Sentinel discussing a new thirty second ad campaign which seems quite powerful.
The story was titled "Teen drivers: Ad campaign targets risky road behavior," and it noted that traffic crashes are the leading cause of death for 15- to 19-year-olds in U.S. That is a frightening statistic for any parent, so you have to wonder what you can do to help.
Safe Kids Suffolk is trying to be a partner with you, and you can E-mail them at suffolksafekids@yahoo.com to get further information about this, or other programs designed to reduce injuries for all of our children.
May 19th School Budget Vote and Trustee Election
On Tuesday, May 19th, you have an opportunity to vote on the Proposed 2009/10 School Budget, as well as to vote for two Trustee positions on the Board of Education.
Budget:
At this point, everyone should have received the May edition of Elwood Highlights, which has a great deal of information on the proposed budget, as well as comparative data for your consideration.
Normally a great deal more time is spent in preparing each May's edition of Elwood Highlights, which is always the "Special Budget Edition," but this year we had some beyond-last-minute negotiations between the teachers union and the Board of Education (BOE). The good news, indeed the very good news, is that the teachers have agreed to eliminate the 3% increase which was scheduled in their contract for the 2009/10 school year, and this has resulted in $500,000 savings for the district and district taxpayers. If it were not for that delay, with its wonderful results, a bit more care could have gone into preparing the body of the Special Budget Edition, but the essential information is there for you to consider.
For those on the two distribution lists for Elwood community commentaries, and who save some of these, there are three pertinent commentaries which you might want to reread: (1) on 4/29, "Proposed Budget Approved - Synopsis"; (2) on 5/3, "Proposed Budget and the FDK Mystery"; and, (3) on 5/8, "How Do You Spell Myopia?"
For the convenience of readers of this blog who might not be on the two distribution lists for those community commentaries, they are reprinted here in original date order.
In the most recent cited commentary, "How Do You Spell Myopia?", I indicate why I am supporting this proposed budget, and why I will vote for it, despite the actions of some people who actually were urging Elwood residents to vote "no" last year, simply because they were not satisfied that the 2008/09 budget did not provide for Full Day Kindergarten for Elwood.
Unlike them, I am not willing to punish Grades 1 through 12 because of the deplorable tactics which they employed. This is a K through 12 district, and this budget, despite what I perceive as the failures thus far of the District Administration to give sufficient attention to the needs of the later grades, is good for the district overall.
Let's get this done, and pass this budget, and then focus upon any possible weaknesses yet to be remedied.
The fact remains that our BOE, and our District Administration, were very conscious about the current economic and fiscal crisis, and were diligent in holding down expenses. The 2.33% increase in budget, at a time of escalating energy costs, and escalating health care costs, and escalating transportation costs, is as low as I have ever seen it.
Unfortunately, even though the State restored the cuts that they had originally scheduled, they have not kept up with the increases which had been promised about two years ago, and that means property taxpayers will need to pick up a larger share of the budget increase. But, with a projected tax levy increase of 3.66%, partially enabled by the teachers gracious concession, it is at least a somewhat manageable tax increase.
Trustees:
Now, on to the two Trustees who are running for reelection, Dan Ciccone and Joe Fusaro; the fact that nobody filed petitions to oppose Dan and Joe, is understandable. Aside from the fact that both Dan and Joe significantly increased their victory margin in 2006 from 2003, when they were first elected, we must also keep in mind that the Board and District reforms which have blessed this community over the past six years were enabled when Dan and Joe combined with Mike Kaszubski in 2003 to form a reform-minded majority. Subsequently other Trustees joined the Board to strengthen this democratizing coalition.
Just think of this; since 2003 we have witnessed the following improvements:
(1) Creation of a Citizens Finance/Budget Advisory Committee (actually one of Dan's 2003 campaign platform proposals) to provide the BOE with the benefit of advice from finance and accounting professionals, as they examine various financial aspects, including the formative proposed budget and, expected in 2009/10, a strategic financial plan for the district;
(2) Creation of a Financial Oversight Advisory Committee (FOAC), before the State ever required school districts to have Audit Committees, to provide better protection for the taxpayers of this district, in light of problems that became known in such school districts as Roslyn, William Floyd, and Three Village; the FOAC was subsequently converted to become the district's Audit Committee, after the state finally caught up and effectively agreed with Elwood's BOE.
(3) Creation of five Subcommittees of the BOE, to take advantage of the professional talents and the personal interests of residents, covering the following areas: Curriculum and Technology; Facilities; Personnel; Policy; and Public Relations.
(4) Creation of three Roundtable forums, one with Staff, one with Parents, and one with Other Residents and community organizations, to engage in dialogue on what had been taking place, and what might be considered, in the Elwood School District.
(5) Creation of a second Residents Remarks period at BOE Regular Meetings, thereby increasing the dialogue between Board and residents, and allowing residents to speak with more immediate impact than the previous structure by which comments on the meeting would have to wait until the next BOE meeting.
(6) Creation, for the first time, of a monthly BOE Work Session where residents could listen to detailed discussions by BOE members about various subjects to be covered at future Regular Meetings.
(7) Creation, subsequently, and also for the first time, of a Residents Remarks period at the new BOE Work Sessions, so residents could present questions or comments pertaining to discussion items.
(8) Creation, for the first time, of a BOE collective E-mail address; until then, residents could only send E-mails to Board Trustees if they happened to know a Trustee's personal E-mail address.
(9) Creation, for the first time, of three “Board Books,” containing the detailed action items which the BOE sees, but which were previously unknown to Residents, and those Books are placed at the back of the auditorium before every BOE Regular Meeting for review by any resident.
Three words come to mind: (1) openness; (2) candor; and (3) accountability.
And, as if that were not enough, Dan and Joe have helped this Board push for numerous educational initiatives including the innovative virtual high school (shorthand VHS), which is so useful in a small school district like ours (as we can link with other small districts to provide a greater variety of course offerings for high school students), health and nutrition improvements, and a personal finance elective.
Also, the BOE and former Superintendent Bill Swart joined to create the District Strategic Planning Council, to create the first concrete strategic plan for this district as well as a process for periodically updating the plan, so that Elwood would operate more on the basis of well-conceived and long range plans for our students and staff.
So, don't just take it for granted that Dan Ciccone and Joe Fusaro will win reelection; come to the Middle School next Tuesday, and vote for both of them to thank them for their great contributions towards promoting democracy and accountability and creativity in Elwood. It is a grueling job, with no compensation other than knowing they are appreciated, by you, for trying to make things better for Elwood's students and its taxpayers.
Budget:
At this point, everyone should have received the May edition of Elwood Highlights, which has a great deal of information on the proposed budget, as well as comparative data for your consideration.
Normally a great deal more time is spent in preparing each May's edition of Elwood Highlights, which is always the "Special Budget Edition," but this year we had some beyond-last-minute negotiations between the teachers union and the Board of Education (BOE). The good news, indeed the very good news, is that the teachers have agreed to eliminate the 3% increase which was scheduled in their contract for the 2009/10 school year, and this has resulted in $500,000 savings for the district and district taxpayers. If it were not for that delay, with its wonderful results, a bit more care could have gone into preparing the body of the Special Budget Edition, but the essential information is there for you to consider.
For those on the two distribution lists for Elwood community commentaries, and who save some of these, there are three pertinent commentaries which you might want to reread: (1) on 4/29, "Proposed Budget Approved - Synopsis"; (2) on 5/3, "Proposed Budget and the FDK Mystery"; and, (3) on 5/8, "How Do You Spell Myopia?"
For the convenience of readers of this blog who might not be on the two distribution lists for those community commentaries, they are reprinted here in original date order.
In the most recent cited commentary, "How Do You Spell Myopia?", I indicate why I am supporting this proposed budget, and why I will vote for it, despite the actions of some people who actually were urging Elwood residents to vote "no" last year, simply because they were not satisfied that the 2008/09 budget did not provide for Full Day Kindergarten for Elwood.
Unlike them, I am not willing to punish Grades 1 through 12 because of the deplorable tactics which they employed. This is a K through 12 district, and this budget, despite what I perceive as the failures thus far of the District Administration to give sufficient attention to the needs of the later grades, is good for the district overall.
Let's get this done, and pass this budget, and then focus upon any possible weaknesses yet to be remedied.
The fact remains that our BOE, and our District Administration, were very conscious about the current economic and fiscal crisis, and were diligent in holding down expenses. The 2.33% increase in budget, at a time of escalating energy costs, and escalating health care costs, and escalating transportation costs, is as low as I have ever seen it.
Unfortunately, even though the State restored the cuts that they had originally scheduled, they have not kept up with the increases which had been promised about two years ago, and that means property taxpayers will need to pick up a larger share of the budget increase. But, with a projected tax levy increase of 3.66%, partially enabled by the teachers gracious concession, it is at least a somewhat manageable tax increase.
Trustees:
Now, on to the two Trustees who are running for reelection, Dan Ciccone and Joe Fusaro; the fact that nobody filed petitions to oppose Dan and Joe, is understandable. Aside from the fact that both Dan and Joe significantly increased their victory margin in 2006 from 2003, when they were first elected, we must also keep in mind that the Board and District reforms which have blessed this community over the past six years were enabled when Dan and Joe combined with Mike Kaszubski in 2003 to form a reform-minded majority. Subsequently other Trustees joined the Board to strengthen this democratizing coalition.
Just think of this; since 2003 we have witnessed the following improvements:
(1) Creation of a Citizens Finance/Budget Advisory Committee (actually one of Dan's 2003 campaign platform proposals) to provide the BOE with the benefit of advice from finance and accounting professionals, as they examine various financial aspects, including the formative proposed budget and, expected in 2009/10, a strategic financial plan for the district;
(2) Creation of a Financial Oversight Advisory Committee (FOAC), before the State ever required school districts to have Audit Committees, to provide better protection for the taxpayers of this district, in light of problems that became known in such school districts as Roslyn, William Floyd, and Three Village; the FOAC was subsequently converted to become the district's Audit Committee, after the state finally caught up and effectively agreed with Elwood's BOE.
(3) Creation of five Subcommittees of the BOE, to take advantage of the professional talents and the personal interests of residents, covering the following areas: Curriculum and Technology; Facilities; Personnel; Policy; and Public Relations.
(4) Creation of three Roundtable forums, one with Staff, one with Parents, and one with Other Residents and community organizations, to engage in dialogue on what had been taking place, and what might be considered, in the Elwood School District.
(5) Creation of a second Residents Remarks period at BOE Regular Meetings, thereby increasing the dialogue between Board and residents, and allowing residents to speak with more immediate impact than the previous structure by which comments on the meeting would have to wait until the next BOE meeting.
(6) Creation, for the first time, of a monthly BOE Work Session where residents could listen to detailed discussions by BOE members about various subjects to be covered at future Regular Meetings.
(7) Creation, subsequently, and also for the first time, of a Residents Remarks period at the new BOE Work Sessions, so residents could present questions or comments pertaining to discussion items.
(8) Creation, for the first time, of a BOE collective E-mail address; until then, residents could only send E-mails to Board Trustees if they happened to know a Trustee's personal E-mail address.
(9) Creation, for the first time, of three “Board Books,” containing the detailed action items which the BOE sees, but which were previously unknown to Residents, and those Books are placed at the back of the auditorium before every BOE Regular Meeting for review by any resident.
Three words come to mind: (1) openness; (2) candor; and (3) accountability.
And, as if that were not enough, Dan and Joe have helped this Board push for numerous educational initiatives including the innovative virtual high school (shorthand VHS), which is so useful in a small school district like ours (as we can link with other small districts to provide a greater variety of course offerings for high school students), health and nutrition improvements, and a personal finance elective.
Also, the BOE and former Superintendent Bill Swart joined to create the District Strategic Planning Council, to create the first concrete strategic plan for this district as well as a process for periodically updating the plan, so that Elwood would operate more on the basis of well-conceived and long range plans for our students and staff.
So, don't just take it for granted that Dan Ciccone and Joe Fusaro will win reelection; come to the Middle School next Tuesday, and vote for both of them to thank them for their great contributions towards promoting democracy and accountability and creativity in Elwood. It is a grueling job, with no compensation other than knowing they are appreciated, by you, for trying to make things better for Elwood's students and its taxpayers.
How Do You Spell Myopia?
[distribution date - 5/8/09]
Last night there was a combined BOE Work Session and Budget Hearing for the Proposed 2009/10 School Budget which was approved by the Board of Education on April 23rd, at a Special Meeting called for that purpose because of some remaining open issues from the April 16th Regular Meeting of the Board.
But the audience at this Work Session/Budget Hearing was far from the normal assemblage of Elwood residents, and the dialogue, such as it was, seemed like it belonged as a new act in Waiting for Godot.
By that I mean that there were some comments, and some questions, which suggested that the people either did not know that the Board had already approved the Proposed Budget on April 23rd, or that they did not know that this was a Work Session, and that no Board of Education can take an official vote during a Work Session.
During Work Sessions the BOE can discuss issues, and they can speak about reaching consensus, and they can plan for future official Meetings, but all official votes must take place during either Regular Meetings or during Special Meetings of the Board.
The second aspect that seemed bizarre was related to some of the people who were speaking most adamantly, last night, about making sure that this Proposed Budget, with its provision for the initiation of a Full Day Kindergarten program in Elwood, will be approved by the voters.
The reason for my sensation that this could have been from an episode of The Twilight Zone is that a number of these uber-advocates for FDK had themselves urged people to vote “NO” on the Proposed Budget for 2008/09, on the basis that the May 2008 proposal did not include provisions for an FDK program. Yet, here they were, not worrying (or at least not publicly worrying) about the needs of students in Grades 1 through 12, but trying to make sure that nothing could stand in the way of their personal focus upon FDK.
I wonder if I would need to provide a definition of “myopia,” to get some of these folks to understand that this is a K through 12 district, and that we are all in this together?
I wonder if there should be a course on moral responsibility that everyone in Elwood should be required to take, so that we all understand the needs of all of the segments of Elwood society, and not just our own pockets of special interests?
I wonder if there should be a course on critical thinking, and honest intellectual engagement, and candor and clarity of communication, so that we all focus upon the real world rather than some intellectual fairyland?
Despite what I regard as an over-the-top approach to hyper advocacy for single-issue politics, I am on record as supporting the Proposed Budget for 2009/10.
I support the Proposed Budget for 2009/10 not because of the comments of some people who urged last year that the Proposed Budget for 2008/09 be defeated, but despite their comments last night.
I support it because it will help to restore some of the reserve funds that this District will need in these very uncertain financial times, and because it will preserve the integrity of programs for Grades K through 12 as well as valued after-school activities, and because it will protect class size for Elwood's students, and because it will continue our modernization of this District from its former technological wasteland condition to a leading edge District in these rapidly advancing technology times.
I will rise above special interest advocacy and focus upon addressing the needs of all Grades in Elwood's schools, and with a conscious and empathetic focus upon the economic well-being of all families in the community of Elwood.
I urge you to do the same.
Last night there was a combined BOE Work Session and Budget Hearing for the Proposed 2009/10 School Budget which was approved by the Board of Education on April 23rd, at a Special Meeting called for that purpose because of some remaining open issues from the April 16th Regular Meeting of the Board.
But the audience at this Work Session/Budget Hearing was far from the normal assemblage of Elwood residents, and the dialogue, such as it was, seemed like it belonged as a new act in Waiting for Godot.
By that I mean that there were some comments, and some questions, which suggested that the people either did not know that the Board had already approved the Proposed Budget on April 23rd, or that they did not know that this was a Work Session, and that no Board of Education can take an official vote during a Work Session.
During Work Sessions the BOE can discuss issues, and they can speak about reaching consensus, and they can plan for future official Meetings, but all official votes must take place during either Regular Meetings or during Special Meetings of the Board.
The second aspect that seemed bizarre was related to some of the people who were speaking most adamantly, last night, about making sure that this Proposed Budget, with its provision for the initiation of a Full Day Kindergarten program in Elwood, will be approved by the voters.
The reason for my sensation that this could have been from an episode of The Twilight Zone is that a number of these uber-advocates for FDK had themselves urged people to vote “NO” on the Proposed Budget for 2008/09, on the basis that the May 2008 proposal did not include provisions for an FDK program. Yet, here they were, not worrying (or at least not publicly worrying) about the needs of students in Grades 1 through 12, but trying to make sure that nothing could stand in the way of their personal focus upon FDK.
I wonder if I would need to provide a definition of “myopia,” to get some of these folks to understand that this is a K through 12 district, and that we are all in this together?
I wonder if there should be a course on moral responsibility that everyone in Elwood should be required to take, so that we all understand the needs of all of the segments of Elwood society, and not just our own pockets of special interests?
I wonder if there should be a course on critical thinking, and honest intellectual engagement, and candor and clarity of communication, so that we all focus upon the real world rather than some intellectual fairyland?
Despite what I regard as an over-the-top approach to hyper advocacy for single-issue politics, I am on record as supporting the Proposed Budget for 2009/10.
I support the Proposed Budget for 2009/10 not because of the comments of some people who urged last year that the Proposed Budget for 2008/09 be defeated, but despite their comments last night.
I support it because it will help to restore some of the reserve funds that this District will need in these very uncertain financial times, and because it will preserve the integrity of programs for Grades K through 12 as well as valued after-school activities, and because it will protect class size for Elwood's students, and because it will continue our modernization of this District from its former technological wasteland condition to a leading edge District in these rapidly advancing technology times.
I will rise above special interest advocacy and focus upon addressing the needs of all Grades in Elwood's schools, and with a conscious and empathetic focus upon the economic well-being of all families in the community of Elwood.
I urge you to do the same.
Proposed Budget and the FDK Mystery
[distribution date - 5/3/09]
This constitutes Part Two of my summary and commentary regarding the 2009/10 Proposed Budget, which was approved by the Board of Education (BOE) on April 23rd for submission to the voters on May 19th. Part One was the synopsis of the budget approval discussion, and Part Two will focus upon the steps which have brought Full Day Kindergarten (FDK) to Elwood starting September of 2009.
First of all, let’s get one bit of distortion about FDK proponents and opponents purged from our collective minds.
While many people tend to focus upon (1) the minority who have adamantly insisted upon immediate implementation of FDK, regardless of objective considerations, or (2) the minority who have opposed implementation of FDK, regardless of objective considerations, most people in this community were neutral, and that includes each of the five members of our BOE, and numerous residents have called for an objective analysis in the context of all of the needs of this district.
The great majority of residents were open to the concept of FDK implementation, if a complete analysis proved that it was (a) fiscally responsible, and (b) done within the priority schedule of all needs of this K through 12 district, and (c) done without harm to current students in Grades 1 through 12.
I attended nearly all of the BOE’s budget work sessions, and discussions of the budget at regular meetings and at general work sessions, and also attended nearly all meetings of the Citizens Finance/Budget Advisory Committee (CFBAC), having been a member of that body since its creation over five years ago.
Anyone who attended these various BOE sessions had heard, repeatedly, calls by various trustees, particularly by the Board President, for more definitive information which should include a comprehensive analysis of the 2008 proposal by the Superintendent to implement FDK in 2009/10.
At the April 23rd meeting, after various trustees had made comments about disappointment (I’m using a mild word, considering the reality) in the lack of clarity of the information which they received from the District Administration, there was one somewhat visceral reaction by Harley Principal Dr. Cancroft, during Trustee Ciccone’s remarks, that seemed directed to the wrong person, since Dr. Cancroft had been providing her input to the Superintendent, Mr. Cenerelli, and Mr. Cenerelli was providing his response, and his analysis, to the Board President and to the BOE.
Dr. Cancroft obviously feels that she provided all necessary information to justify the BOE agreeing that FDK should now come to Elwood, yet it was not her responsibility, but that of the Superintendent, to provide the comprehensive analysis which the BOE, quite properly, required.
Moreover, we do not know, since Dr. Cancroft provided her input to Mr. Cenerelli, whether the original work done at Harley was a true comprehensive analysis (multiyear financial projections, financial risk, building operations impact, personnel impact, transportation impact, possible Grades 1 through 12 impact, etc.), or whether it was a series of disjointed topic descriptions that were only comprehensible to someone reading between the lines of the compendium.
But, whatever Dr. Cancroft provided to Mr. Cenerelli, it was clear that the Board President, as well as several members of the BOE, felt that they had not received the information which they had instructed the Superintendent to provide.
In the end, several Trustees did decide to vote to approve the Proposed Budget, including the incorporation of an FDK program for Elwood, but they seemed to do so primarily because they were placing their faith in Dr. Cancroft, and not because of what they had received from Mr. Cenerelli.
In the case of Trustee Kaplan and Trustee Matos, each of them seemed to have some satisfaction from material that they had been able to develop outside the direct channel of the Superintendent-to-BOE President providing to the BOE what he had been instructed to provide, perhaps allowing that to be used as a refining supplement to information which they received from the Superintendent. But they, along with other trustees, seemed far from satisfied with the information received to date.
Mr. Ciccone was the one approving trustee who made very clear that there were remaining concerns about FDK structural integrity and minimal impact on other grades, and who also made very clear that the BOE is not only relying upon upon Dr. Cancroft to make this program successful, but to make it succeed without anyone asking the BOE for additional financial support for FDK in future years.
It was also noted by Mr. Ciccone that there were open questions about how the FDK plan will require adjusting the school day hours at the Middle School, as well as at Harley, and that there were open questions about the impact on AIS instruction.
Mr. Ciccone also made note of the fact that there has never been a true analysis of the alternative FDK model which he had proposed, involving 3 full Harley days and two reduced Harley days, in contrast to the proposed model of five 5 1/2 hour FDK days, which includes 25 instruction hours.
There have been some misguided remarks from the District Administration about the SED not permitting an arrangement such as Mr. Ciccone had proposed, when anyone who reads the actual SED regulation (as I did) clearly sees the language which would permit Mr. Ciccone’s concept, which also has 25 hours of instruction each week, as long as the SED approves it in advance.
The per-annum cost to taxpayers, by the way, after some very diligent work by the BOE, and by the District Administration in response to the BOE, was reduced to only $25,000 in Year One, and $25,000 in Year Two, and about $40,000 in Year Three. Mr. Ciccone believes that his alternative structure could lower the costs further, but that has yet to be demonstrated.
Therefore, for less than $100,000 of net additional costs over the next three years, the Elwood community will have a new and attractive program that could bring other families, with very young children, to consider purchasing a home in Elwood instead of in some of the surrounding communities. That could have some positive implications for the pricing of home resale's in the Elwood community, although some real estate professionals discount that factor.
In any event we are going forward on an FDK program for Elwood with the following predications and provisos:
(1) The viability of Elwood’s FDK program will depend upon Harley Principal Dr. Cancroft making the program work, as she believes that she has demonstrated that viability to the Superintendent of Schools;
(2) Neither Dr. Cancroft, nor the District Administration, should request additional funding for FDK from the BOE and Elwood’s taxpayers;
(3) Any adjustments for unanticipated costs of FDK, therefore, will have to come from within the FDK program itself, rather than from other District resources;
(4) Dr. Cancroft and the District Administration will be expected to minimize any impact upon Grades 1 through 12 as a result of the implementation of the FDK program.
This entire process has provided more evidence, as if it were needed after last year’s FDK proposal debacle, that Elwood’s District Administration, in future years, will be held to higher standards of due diligence, and full compliance with all governance requirements as indicated under State laws and SED regulations.
Surely, we can do better than we have done with this FDK proposal.
This constitutes Part Two of my summary and commentary regarding the 2009/10 Proposed Budget, which was approved by the Board of Education (BOE) on April 23rd for submission to the voters on May 19th. Part One was the synopsis of the budget approval discussion, and Part Two will focus upon the steps which have brought Full Day Kindergarten (FDK) to Elwood starting September of 2009.
First of all, let’s get one bit of distortion about FDK proponents and opponents purged from our collective minds.
While many people tend to focus upon (1) the minority who have adamantly insisted upon immediate implementation of FDK, regardless of objective considerations, or (2) the minority who have opposed implementation of FDK, regardless of objective considerations, most people in this community were neutral, and that includes each of the five members of our BOE, and numerous residents have called for an objective analysis in the context of all of the needs of this district.
The great majority of residents were open to the concept of FDK implementation, if a complete analysis proved that it was (a) fiscally responsible, and (b) done within the priority schedule of all needs of this K through 12 district, and (c) done without harm to current students in Grades 1 through 12.
I attended nearly all of the BOE’s budget work sessions, and discussions of the budget at regular meetings and at general work sessions, and also attended nearly all meetings of the Citizens Finance/Budget Advisory Committee (CFBAC), having been a member of that body since its creation over five years ago.
Anyone who attended these various BOE sessions had heard, repeatedly, calls by various trustees, particularly by the Board President, for more definitive information which should include a comprehensive analysis of the 2008 proposal by the Superintendent to implement FDK in 2009/10.
At the April 23rd meeting, after various trustees had made comments about disappointment (I’m using a mild word, considering the reality) in the lack of clarity of the information which they received from the District Administration, there was one somewhat visceral reaction by Harley Principal Dr. Cancroft, during Trustee Ciccone’s remarks, that seemed directed to the wrong person, since Dr. Cancroft had been providing her input to the Superintendent, Mr. Cenerelli, and Mr. Cenerelli was providing his response, and his analysis, to the Board President and to the BOE.
Dr. Cancroft obviously feels that she provided all necessary information to justify the BOE agreeing that FDK should now come to Elwood, yet it was not her responsibility, but that of the Superintendent, to provide the comprehensive analysis which the BOE, quite properly, required.
Moreover, we do not know, since Dr. Cancroft provided her input to Mr. Cenerelli, whether the original work done at Harley was a true comprehensive analysis (multiyear financial projections, financial risk, building operations impact, personnel impact, transportation impact, possible Grades 1 through 12 impact, etc.), or whether it was a series of disjointed topic descriptions that were only comprehensible to someone reading between the lines of the compendium.
But, whatever Dr. Cancroft provided to Mr. Cenerelli, it was clear that the Board President, as well as several members of the BOE, felt that they had not received the information which they had instructed the Superintendent to provide.
In the end, several Trustees did decide to vote to approve the Proposed Budget, including the incorporation of an FDK program for Elwood, but they seemed to do so primarily because they were placing their faith in Dr. Cancroft, and not because of what they had received from Mr. Cenerelli.
In the case of Trustee Kaplan and Trustee Matos, each of them seemed to have some satisfaction from material that they had been able to develop outside the direct channel of the Superintendent-to-BOE President providing to the BOE what he had been instructed to provide, perhaps allowing that to be used as a refining supplement to information which they received from the Superintendent. But they, along with other trustees, seemed far from satisfied with the information received to date.
Mr. Ciccone was the one approving trustee who made very clear that there were remaining concerns about FDK structural integrity and minimal impact on other grades, and who also made very clear that the BOE is not only relying upon upon Dr. Cancroft to make this program successful, but to make it succeed without anyone asking the BOE for additional financial support for FDK in future years.
It was also noted by Mr. Ciccone that there were open questions about how the FDK plan will require adjusting the school day hours at the Middle School, as well as at Harley, and that there were open questions about the impact on AIS instruction.
Mr. Ciccone also made note of the fact that there has never been a true analysis of the alternative FDK model which he had proposed, involving 3 full Harley days and two reduced Harley days, in contrast to the proposed model of five 5 1/2 hour FDK days, which includes 25 instruction hours.
There have been some misguided remarks from the District Administration about the SED not permitting an arrangement such as Mr. Ciccone had proposed, when anyone who reads the actual SED regulation (as I did) clearly sees the language which would permit Mr. Ciccone’s concept, which also has 25 hours of instruction each week, as long as the SED approves it in advance.
The per-annum cost to taxpayers, by the way, after some very diligent work by the BOE, and by the District Administration in response to the BOE, was reduced to only $25,000 in Year One, and $25,000 in Year Two, and about $40,000 in Year Three. Mr. Ciccone believes that his alternative structure could lower the costs further, but that has yet to be demonstrated.
Therefore, for less than $100,000 of net additional costs over the next three years, the Elwood community will have a new and attractive program that could bring other families, with very young children, to consider purchasing a home in Elwood instead of in some of the surrounding communities. That could have some positive implications for the pricing of home resale's in the Elwood community, although some real estate professionals discount that factor.
In any event we are going forward on an FDK program for Elwood with the following predications and provisos:
(1) The viability of Elwood’s FDK program will depend upon Harley Principal Dr. Cancroft making the program work, as she believes that she has demonstrated that viability to the Superintendent of Schools;
(2) Neither Dr. Cancroft, nor the District Administration, should request additional funding for FDK from the BOE and Elwood’s taxpayers;
(3) Any adjustments for unanticipated costs of FDK, therefore, will have to come from within the FDK program itself, rather than from other District resources;
(4) Dr. Cancroft and the District Administration will be expected to minimize any impact upon Grades 1 through 12 as a result of the implementation of the FDK program.
This entire process has provided more evidence, as if it were needed after last year’s FDK proposal debacle, that Elwood’s District Administration, in future years, will be held to higher standards of due diligence, and full compliance with all governance requirements as indicated under State laws and SED regulations.
Surely, we can do better than we have done with this FDK proposal.
Proposed Budget Approved - Synopsis
[distribution date - 4/29/09]
There are very few benefits to enduring a ten hour drive, which is what it takes to get to my daughter's college in western NY State. But, the morning following last Thursday night's special Board of Education meeting, at which some major steps were taken regarding the 2009/10 proposed budget, we were underway to Fredonia, and it gave me a chance to reflect upon what was said and done at that meeting.
For the sake of greater clarity, I am going to break my summary and my analysis into two parts, with this first part providing a general synopsis, and a subsequent second part providing some very specific information and comments relating to the subject of Full Day Kindergarten.
Of a somewhat general nature, dialogue among trustees is much better when it is free of ancillary considerations or contrivances. Therefore, I am going to ignore the somewhat treacly comments of one trustee, and the somewhat self-promoting comments of another trustee, and focus upon the substance of what took place.
First of all, the start of the meeting was delayed by a previously unscheduled Executive Session, at which the Board and cognizant Administrators were joined by Lorelei Stephens, who is the President of Elwood Teachers Alliance, which is our local teachers union.
The wonderful news is that the teachers union agreed to forego the scheduled 3% increase in their contract for 2009/10, which had been in effect since their three year contract was signed as of July of 2007.
That is real money, folks, and we should be grateful to the teachers union that their members will be surrendering approximately $500,000 of expense which was otherwise scheduled to be paid in 2009/10. They responded to calls all over Long Island that employees of school districts share in the sacrifice which most families have had to make since the severe economic recession began.
Now, for anyone who understands the structure of typical teachers contracts, this does not mean that every Elwood teacher will see no increase in their compensation, since it really depends upon where a particular teacher fits into the matrix of steps based upon longevity, and additional credits taken or degrees earned.
But some teachers will indeed have no increase in compensation, and all teachers will be sacrificing the 3% raise which they were otherwise due to receive.
This is a blessing for Elwood’s residents, and it will benefit Elwood’s students and the fiscal health of our district, as I will subsequently outline.
It would have been nice if we had also seen some evidence of sacrifice from administrators in the District, both from the central office and from the buildings, but I must admit that I don't know what compensation increase, if any, they were scheduled to receive in 2009/10. For now, all we know about is the significant sacrifice by our teachers.
Once that agreement had been reached in the Executive Session, it was then necessary for the Board to deliberate on how the $500,000 in savings should be applied, and this was far from a simple matter.
The first consideration was how to reduce the projected increase in the tax levy for 2009/10, which had been left at 3.99% as of the April 16th Board meeting, with a budget spending increase of only 3.37%.
As most of you are aware, even though the State was able, through the special assistance of the Obama Administration and Congress, to restore the aid to Elwood that had been scheduled for elimination, NY State is not keeping pace with increases in costs to school districts, and has not been doing so for years. We have generally had to fund more and more of our expenses through local property tax hikes made necessarily higher than historical ratios demonstrated.
The second consideration was how to restore the fiscal integrity of the Elwood School District, by building up our fund balance (think of the word “reserves” when you hear fund balance) which provides a cushion against future unanticipated fiscal burdens, such as the approximately $200,000 NY State took back from Elwood in 2008 as a recaptured overpayment of aid from prior years.
Elwood’s fund balance had dropped to $325,000, while the district would have been permitted, under State Education Department regulations, to have as high a level as 4% (this permitted level was increased by the State two years ago from 2%) of our annual budget. With a 2008/09 budget of $47.8 million, Elwood would have been permitted to maintain fund balance of about $1,912,000, and without that change we would have been permitted to maintain a fund balance of about $956,000.
Now, do not imagine that fund balance has no cost to you, since it does require a pre-funding, and that pre-funding comes from your taxes. But, the most prudent family does maintain a “rainy day fund”, and the trick is finding the balance between sufficiency and excess. If you are over the age of 40, you might recall the famed ad campaign for California Prunes, where the tag line was “Are three enough; are six too many?” Finding the right fiscal reserve may be as arcane as that ad campaign suggested, and there really is no absolutely right answer.
The third consideration was to examine some of the things that were carved out of the formative budget as it was being prepared by the District Administration and submitted to the Board. Included in that discussion were things like certain textbooks or supplementary material, as well as the proposed sharing of our Asset Sup't for Human Resources with the Harborfields School District.
I would be remiss if I failed to applaud the quality of the discussion among the five Trustees of our Board, who did not agree on every point, but who took principled and reasoned stands on various matters before them.
But I want to provide special praise for the integrity of two Trustees, Board President Mike Kaszubski and Board Vice President Joe Fusaro, each of whom had the courage to vote their convictions against approval of the Proposed Budget, as modified, which was ultimately approved by the Board of Education by a 3 to 2 margin. I am praising these two Trustees who voted “no,” even though I personally support this budget despite my great disappointment in the quality of supporting information which the Superintendent authorized for release, and in the lack of candor from the Superintendent about the Full Day Kindergarten consideration process.
With the reduced expense for the teachers, as a result of their bold action, partially offset by the increased expense for the Ass't Sup't for Human Resources, who would no longer be shared with Harborfields, and partially offset by increased spending for supplementary educational materials, and partially offset by the $300,000 increase to fund balance (think “reserves”), the new Budget to Budget increase was reduced to 2.33%, and the new projected tax levy increase was reduced to 3.66%.
Mr. Fusaro had consistently maintained that more of the teachers concession should be applied to reduce the tax levy further, since people in Elwood were already undergoing economic pain, and that is why he voted no.
Mr. Kaszubski had clearly and consistently and publicly, and he did this throughout the course of the past several months of budget work-up, called for Mr. Cenerelli to provide greater detail, hopefully in the form of a comprehensive analysis, of the Superintendent's proposal for Full Day Kindergarten for Elwood.
This focus upon clarity should also have been no surprise to anyone since Mr. Kaszubski, as well as Mr. Fusaro, and Mr. Ciccone, and Mr. Kaplan, had made clear during the 2007/08 school year, that they did not oppose Full Day Kindergarten, per se, when it was proposed by the previous Superintendent, Dr. Swart. However, they opposed the
badly structured and ill-conceived and risky proposal, as it was launched with great surprise by Dr. Swart in early 2007. Ultimately Dr. Swart, himself, withdrew the proposal and provided sound reasoning to district residents for doing so.
The superintendent of schools of any school district reports, under State law and State Education Department regulations, to the president of the board of education of that school district. When Mr. Cenerelli failed to produce what the Board President had consistently called for, Mr. Kaszubski’s only possible response, in order to maintain the integrity of the office of president of the board of education, and in order to fulfill his fiduciary responsibility to district residents, was to vote against adoption of the proposed budget.
Mr. Kaszubski knew, as did most of the residents in that room paying attention to the dialogue, that the proposed budget would be approved by a majority of the Trustees of the Board of Education, but he was making an important statement about integrity and responsibility.
I will save further comments about Full Day Kindergarten for Part Two of my summary and analysis, which will basically be devoted to that topic, and to the process for its further recommendation in 2008 for our 2009/10 school year.
There are very few benefits to enduring a ten hour drive, which is what it takes to get to my daughter's college in western NY State. But, the morning following last Thursday night's special Board of Education meeting, at which some major steps were taken regarding the 2009/10 proposed budget, we were underway to Fredonia, and it gave me a chance to reflect upon what was said and done at that meeting.
For the sake of greater clarity, I am going to break my summary and my analysis into two parts, with this first part providing a general synopsis, and a subsequent second part providing some very specific information and comments relating to the subject of Full Day Kindergarten.
Of a somewhat general nature, dialogue among trustees is much better when it is free of ancillary considerations or contrivances. Therefore, I am going to ignore the somewhat treacly comments of one trustee, and the somewhat self-promoting comments of another trustee, and focus upon the substance of what took place.
First of all, the start of the meeting was delayed by a previously unscheduled Executive Session, at which the Board and cognizant Administrators were joined by Lorelei Stephens, who is the President of Elwood Teachers Alliance, which is our local teachers union.
The wonderful news is that the teachers union agreed to forego the scheduled 3% increase in their contract for 2009/10, which had been in effect since their three year contract was signed as of July of 2007.
That is real money, folks, and we should be grateful to the teachers union that their members will be surrendering approximately $500,000 of expense which was otherwise scheduled to be paid in 2009/10. They responded to calls all over Long Island that employees of school districts share in the sacrifice which most families have had to make since the severe economic recession began.
Now, for anyone who understands the structure of typical teachers contracts, this does not mean that every Elwood teacher will see no increase in their compensation, since it really depends upon where a particular teacher fits into the matrix of steps based upon longevity, and additional credits taken or degrees earned.
But some teachers will indeed have no increase in compensation, and all teachers will be sacrificing the 3% raise which they were otherwise due to receive.
This is a blessing for Elwood’s residents, and it will benefit Elwood’s students and the fiscal health of our district, as I will subsequently outline.
It would have been nice if we had also seen some evidence of sacrifice from administrators in the District, both from the central office and from the buildings, but I must admit that I don't know what compensation increase, if any, they were scheduled to receive in 2009/10. For now, all we know about is the significant sacrifice by our teachers.
Once that agreement had been reached in the Executive Session, it was then necessary for the Board to deliberate on how the $500,000 in savings should be applied, and this was far from a simple matter.
The first consideration was how to reduce the projected increase in the tax levy for 2009/10, which had been left at 3.99% as of the April 16th Board meeting, with a budget spending increase of only 3.37%.
As most of you are aware, even though the State was able, through the special assistance of the Obama Administration and Congress, to restore the aid to Elwood that had been scheduled for elimination, NY State is not keeping pace with increases in costs to school districts, and has not been doing so for years. We have generally had to fund more and more of our expenses through local property tax hikes made necessarily higher than historical ratios demonstrated.
The second consideration was how to restore the fiscal integrity of the Elwood School District, by building up our fund balance (think of the word “reserves” when you hear fund balance) which provides a cushion against future unanticipated fiscal burdens, such as the approximately $200,000 NY State took back from Elwood in 2008 as a recaptured overpayment of aid from prior years.
Elwood’s fund balance had dropped to $325,000, while the district would have been permitted, under State Education Department regulations, to have as high a level as 4% (this permitted level was increased by the State two years ago from 2%) of our annual budget. With a 2008/09 budget of $47.8 million, Elwood would have been permitted to maintain fund balance of about $1,912,000, and without that change we would have been permitted to maintain a fund balance of about $956,000.
Now, do not imagine that fund balance has no cost to you, since it does require a pre-funding, and that pre-funding comes from your taxes. But, the most prudent family does maintain a “rainy day fund”, and the trick is finding the balance between sufficiency and excess. If you are over the age of 40, you might recall the famed ad campaign for California Prunes, where the tag line was “Are three enough; are six too many?” Finding the right fiscal reserve may be as arcane as that ad campaign suggested, and there really is no absolutely right answer.
The third consideration was to examine some of the things that were carved out of the formative budget as it was being prepared by the District Administration and submitted to the Board. Included in that discussion were things like certain textbooks or supplementary material, as well as the proposed sharing of our Asset Sup't for Human Resources with the Harborfields School District.
I would be remiss if I failed to applaud the quality of the discussion among the five Trustees of our Board, who did not agree on every point, but who took principled and reasoned stands on various matters before them.
But I want to provide special praise for the integrity of two Trustees, Board President Mike Kaszubski and Board Vice President Joe Fusaro, each of whom had the courage to vote their convictions against approval of the Proposed Budget, as modified, which was ultimately approved by the Board of Education by a 3 to 2 margin. I am praising these two Trustees who voted “no,” even though I personally support this budget despite my great disappointment in the quality of supporting information which the Superintendent authorized for release, and in the lack of candor from the Superintendent about the Full Day Kindergarten consideration process.
With the reduced expense for the teachers, as a result of their bold action, partially offset by the increased expense for the Ass't Sup't for Human Resources, who would no longer be shared with Harborfields, and partially offset by increased spending for supplementary educational materials, and partially offset by the $300,000 increase to fund balance (think “reserves”), the new Budget to Budget increase was reduced to 2.33%, and the new projected tax levy increase was reduced to 3.66%.
Mr. Fusaro had consistently maintained that more of the teachers concession should be applied to reduce the tax levy further, since people in Elwood were already undergoing economic pain, and that is why he voted no.
Mr. Kaszubski had clearly and consistently and publicly, and he did this throughout the course of the past several months of budget work-up, called for Mr. Cenerelli to provide greater detail, hopefully in the form of a comprehensive analysis, of the Superintendent's proposal for Full Day Kindergarten for Elwood.
This focus upon clarity should also have been no surprise to anyone since Mr. Kaszubski, as well as Mr. Fusaro, and Mr. Ciccone, and Mr. Kaplan, had made clear during the 2007/08 school year, that they did not oppose Full Day Kindergarten, per se, when it was proposed by the previous Superintendent, Dr. Swart. However, they opposed the
badly structured and ill-conceived and risky proposal, as it was launched with great surprise by Dr. Swart in early 2007. Ultimately Dr. Swart, himself, withdrew the proposal and provided sound reasoning to district residents for doing so.
The superintendent of schools of any school district reports, under State law and State Education Department regulations, to the president of the board of education of that school district. When Mr. Cenerelli failed to produce what the Board President had consistently called for, Mr. Kaszubski’s only possible response, in order to maintain the integrity of the office of president of the board of education, and in order to fulfill his fiduciary responsibility to district residents, was to vote against adoption of the proposed budget.
Mr. Kaszubski knew, as did most of the residents in that room paying attention to the dialogue, that the proposed budget would be approved by a majority of the Trustees of the Board of Education, but he was making an important statement about integrity and responsibility.
I will save further comments about Full Day Kindergarten for Part Two of my summary and analysis, which will basically be devoted to that topic, and to the process for its further recommendation in 2008 for our 2009/10 school year.
Friday, May 8, 2009
The Open Meetings Law Really Means “Open”
In an editorial on Thursday, May 7th, Newsday made some excellent points regarding needed changes to make the Open Meetings Law more meaningful to New York citizens. You may read the entire Newsday editorial, entitled “Bill will put more muscle behind open meetings law.”
To get a good contrast in non-compliance vs compliance with the letter, and spirit, of the NY Open Meetings Law, simply attend a few meetings of the Huntington Town Board, and then contrast that by attending School Board meetings of either the Elwood School District or the Northport-East Northport School District.
You will be amazed at Huntington Town Board meetings, because there is almost no discussion, not even a fig leaf of pretension, as they cast their votes on dozens and dozens of resolutions. Yes, some of those are perfunctory resolutions, but many are substantive, and yet you will not hear a discussion, much less a free and open debate, on those items.
But, do you really believe that there has been no discussion among the five members of the Huntington Town Board? Or, has there instead been a discussion behind closed doors, out of the public’s eyes (and the public’s ears), and has the discussion preserved whatever secrecy that any of the five Town Board members preferred?
In contrast, attend a Work Session of the Elwood School Board, which is typically held each 1st Thursday, and then attend a Regular Meeting of the Board, which is typically held each 2nd Thursday. At the Work Session there is a full discussion of issues before the Board, and while a consensus may be achieved, there is no official vote until the next Regular Meeting of the Board. And, even at the Regular Meeting, given the tendency of some of our Board members to speak and re-define their positions, you will again hear a free and open discussion, and sometimes even a debate. Votes come with openness, as the Open Meetings Law intends.
Similarly, the Northport/East Northport School Board, which typically meets every other Monday, has very open discussions among the Board members, since they have a series of Regular Meetings, rather than the Work Session/Regular Meeting structure employed in Elwood. The dialogue in Northport is open, and sometimes quite candid, and those people attending their meetings are also witnessing an excellent application of the Open Meetings Law.
The Town of Huntington, and its five Town Board members, certainly needs to be “encouraged” by the kind of enhancement to New York’s Open Meetings Law which has now been promoted by the editorial board of Newsday.
To get a good contrast in non-compliance vs compliance with the letter, and spirit, of the NY Open Meetings Law, simply attend a few meetings of the Huntington Town Board, and then contrast that by attending School Board meetings of either the Elwood School District or the Northport-East Northport School District.
You will be amazed at Huntington Town Board meetings, because there is almost no discussion, not even a fig leaf of pretension, as they cast their votes on dozens and dozens of resolutions. Yes, some of those are perfunctory resolutions, but many are substantive, and yet you will not hear a discussion, much less a free and open debate, on those items.
But, do you really believe that there has been no discussion among the five members of the Huntington Town Board? Or, has there instead been a discussion behind closed doors, out of the public’s eyes (and the public’s ears), and has the discussion preserved whatever secrecy that any of the five Town Board members preferred?
In contrast, attend a Work Session of the Elwood School Board, which is typically held each 1st Thursday, and then attend a Regular Meeting of the Board, which is typically held each 2nd Thursday. At the Work Session there is a full discussion of issues before the Board, and while a consensus may be achieved, there is no official vote until the next Regular Meeting of the Board. And, even at the Regular Meeting, given the tendency of some of our Board members to speak and re-define their positions, you will again hear a free and open discussion, and sometimes even a debate. Votes come with openness, as the Open Meetings Law intends.
Similarly, the Northport/East Northport School Board, which typically meets every other Monday, has very open discussions among the Board members, since they have a series of Regular Meetings, rather than the Work Session/Regular Meeting structure employed in Elwood. The dialogue in Northport is open, and sometimes quite candid, and those people attending their meetings are also witnessing an excellent application of the Open Meetings Law.
The Town of Huntington, and its five Town Board members, certainly needs to be “encouraged” by the kind of enhancement to New York’s Open Meetings Law which has now been promoted by the editorial board of Newsday.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
