Prelude:
First of all, if you are not interested in the details of the debate and its dynamics, you could just read the Overview and Summary and then skip right to the Total Impression and Analysis. But, if you would like to gain a sense for the specifics of the responses and the potential impact of some of the more critical, then you might want to take the time to review the admittedly lengthy section simply called Details.
Additionally, you should feel free to forward this piece to anyone among your neighbors or friends; it will also be posted to the blog, Elwood Illuminations, http://elwoodilluminations.blogspot.com/, for convenient reference.
Overview and Summary:
While waiting for my son at High Performance Tai Kwan Do, on Thursday, I had an interesting conversation with another Elwood resident, a PTA president, who had also attended the Wednesday Debate among the four candidates for school board trustee. It sounded as if our individual reactions to the debate were quite similar.
Earlier in the day, while going through the customary one hour wait at my doctor’s office, I had a chance to review my twenty plus pages of notes from the debate, and to reflect more carefully on some sensible points made by a few, and some illogical or even inaccurate points made by others.
Aided by that further analysis, I also detected a pattern, in the answers to some of the questions asked by audience members, which suggested that two of the candidates had been coached by the same team of advisors and were effectively responding from a pre-scripted and agenda-driven perspective which appeared related to the interests of the “old guard” among Elwood employees, particularly some of the teachers and building administrators.
Taking the debate performance first, and cautioning that debate performance by itself should never be the sole basis for supporting one candidate and rejecting another, I would assign the following grades, using a twelve grade scale, to each candidate; all candidates answered each question, in a sequence that shifted by one at each question, and each candidate had an opening statement and a closing statement:
Mike LaMena (candidate for the Matos seat) A
Jack Schwartz (candidate for the Matos seat) B -
Bill Gutekunst (candidate for the Kaszubski seat) B -
James Tomeo (candidate for the Kaszubski seat) D +
Interestingly, nobody, including the very impressive Mr. LaMena, correctly answered one errant question which was related to the LIPA challenge to the property assessment of its power plant to the north, on Long Island Sound. Each spoke as if he did not appreciate that the LIPA challenge affects the Northport School District, but not Elwood (nor Harborfields, nor Commack, nor Half Hollow Hills, etc), and that resulted in my lowering everyone’s grade by a very minor one notch.
Details:
Now, for those who want to read about the content of the program, and are willing to take the time to do so, here is my summary of the questions and answers period, which was the heart of the program, from the debate:
On the question of goals, everyone spoke of a need for increased communication and participation, but there were also some helpful specifics. Bill Gutekunst pointed out that the escalation of costs with our need for ever higher taxes have been driven by unfunded mandates from the State, and that we also need to look at the district’s contractual obligations. Mike LaMena spoke of his commitment to legislative reform which is what will be required to dive through real change including a State empowerment of districts locally.
On the question of whether they support this year’s budget, all candidates indicated that they support this year’s budget with some reservations, with a variety of non-specific comments about non-sustainability in the long term.
On the question of each candidate’s experience, Messrs. Gutekunst and LaMena and Schwartz recited their long histories in business, respectively, in healthcare (president of a respiratory services company), financial services (chief operating officer of a financial advisory firm), and law (patent attorney). Mr. LaMena also taught for one year, following graduation from the University of Notre Dame in 1995, at a Catholic high school in the Bronx.
On the question about full day kindergarten, all candidates supported the concept if it made sense for the students. With reduced funding from the State, there seemed to be a sense of realism about the need for possible constraints, including the Board’s reduction to a half-day program for 2011/12, but there was also a specific endorsement by Mr. LaMena of the Board’s attempt last month to consider a hybrid program (Editorial Note: That would require cooperation by the teachers union, as indicated by Ass’t Sup’t for Human Resources Ron Friedman, in order to be implemented). Mr. LaMena also committed to restore full-day kindergarten if it becomes financially viable and balanced in terms of the needs of other grades.
On the question of potential consolidation of school districts, Mr. Tomeo said there was pride in Elwood and that the idea of Elwood merging with one of its rivals did not sit well with him. Mr. LaMena indicated that we need to do what we can to preserve the intimacy of Elwood but also noted that the BOE has a fiduciary obligation to consider such potential measures. He further noted that our district should explore opportunities for consolidation of services, and not just mergers. Mr. Schwartz indicated that he saw how much pride there was in our school district among residents, and that a merger would have to be really good for Elwood. Mr. Gutekunst indicated that he moved from the Northport school district into Elwood because of community pride in its schools, and he noted that no merger can ever take place unless there was a willing partner to consider it, and that a formal study would have to be done to determine the positive or negative effects, and that each district’s Board could only recommend it to its voters, and that nothing would ever happen unless the voters of both districts, independently, voted to approve such a transaction.
On the question of whether a State-imposed limit of $175,000 on superintendent compensation would, or would not, be good for Elwood, Mr. LaMena said that there has to be an assessment of value versus cost, and further noted that the Board has to look at all salaries, whether the superintendent, or the teachers, or the custodians, or any other unit. He finally noted that the question has to be whether any employee is earning his or her compensation and that we really need the approach of meritocracy. (Note: Webster defines that as “a system in which the talented are chosen and moved ahead on the basis of their achievement”). Mr. Schwartz replied that a State-imposed cap on superintendent’s compensation is a good idea, and he then went on to cite his interpretation of the current superintendent’s contract, which he apparently considered excessive. Mr. Gutekunst said that he agrees with a concept of a salary cap, but further explained that one consideration is whether the superintendent and the district is actually doing more with even less support in the Central Office. He further explained that the value of the work has to be considered against the cost of the salary. Mr. Tomeo said that he agrees with the salary cap and that this would be a huge savings for our district.
Now, this set of exchanges by the four candidates demands, before we take even one step further, much greater analysis and clarity and fact-checking.
Before turning to what the candidates said, we need to first recognize another part of reality that the audience member who posed the question may not have realized, or chose to ignore. The actual proposal by the Governor would have two tiers of caps for superintendent compensation, and the $175,000 figure is actually for large districts, not Elwood. As a small district, Elwood’s superintendent would be limited to $155,000.
Now, to show you how absurd that would be, I went to the website of SeeThroughNY.net, and discovered the 2010 compensation for the following: (1) Vincent Mulieri (Glenn principal) $155,922; (2) Eilenn Maiori (originally Glenn assistant principal, now at Elwood Middle School) $130,563; and (3) Lorelei Stephens (Special Education teacher and head of the Elwood teachers union) $117,830.
Aside from the absurdity of thinking about a superintendent, with total responsibility for everything that happens in this district, and the power to positively change or to negatively foul up whatever happens with our students, having little or no difference in compensation from those reporting to him, the salary disparity gets even more interesting with the third individual.
As head of the teachers union, under the labor contract with the union, Ms. Stephens gets released from about 40% of her teaching duties to perform union-related functions: therefore, her true salary for teaching, alone, would really be derived by dividing her $117,830 compensation by 0.6; that means an effective salary for her teaching duties, alone, of the equivalent of $196,383.
Obviously, that would be a good topic for future Board deliberations, assuming that the union would ever consent -- in labor negotiations -- to such a change.
Now, back to an analysis of responses by the candidates.
Two candidates, Mr. Schwartz and Mr. Tomeo, seemed to take particular pleasure in discussing the superintendent’s compensation, but did not go the essential further step of discussing the superintendent’s compensation as a proportional cost of the district’s budget and particularly not in the context of the cost of teachers compensation as a proportional cost. They also did not address the matter of cost versus value, as Mr. LaMena said, nor did they address the matter of whether or not the superintendent is doing more, in the Central Office, with less and less Central Office support for him.
On the matter of proportionality, or what I would call a test of materiality or substance, the cost of a superintendent of schools typically ranges between 1/4 of 1% to 1/2 of 1% of a school district’s budget (or, 0.0025 to 0.0050), with that range generally related to the size of the district. In contrast, the cost of teaching staff generally ranges between 65% and 70% of a district’s budget (or, 0.65 to 0.70), again generally related to the size of the district.
You could eliminate the entire compensation for a superintendent of schools and it would be like pouring a glass of water into the Mississippi River, at flood stage.
If a potential BOE member wants to make a real dent in Elwood’s cost structure, then you have to tackle the big money issues, the locally negotiated costs and the State-imposed costs, of our teaching staff, and other staff, and not dance around the edges of our problems as if that was a real solution.
On the matter of value, my own observation is that our current superintendent has provided greater value to this district, for the money that we are paying him, than any superintendent in the past twenty years. You may recall commentaries which I did several months ago, where I pointed out the specific value of innovations by our superintendent, and also noted that you often get what you pay for, as we sadly found out a few years ago. Elwood must not settle for mediocrity, and it must not tolerate incompetence; that “savings of money” is a short-sighted recipe for disaster.
Furthermore, the current Central Office administration -- including the cost of the superintendent’s compensation -- is costing less, overall, than it did last year. Our superintendent has consolidated jobs, and has substituted part-time employees for what had been previously full-time employees, with somewhat bloated salaries, and has simultaneously managed to increase the quality of the work of the two offices so affected because of the tremendous quality of the individuals which he has brought into the district.
The reality is that “same old same old” is not helpful, and is not energetic, and is not innovative, and it ultimately leads to a sense of entitlement and self-promotion. In my opinion, much of the “old guard’s” discomfort in Elwood about embracing change is finding its way into trash-talk about the superintendent, and the district.
So, let’s talk about right-sizing compensation, but let’s do it for everyone, and let’s do it on the basis of materiality, and, first-and-foremost, let’s do it on the basis of merit.
Now, on to the next question from the debate.
On the question of the impact of the pending State cap on property taxes, none of the candidates felt that it would be a good idea, by itself, but that the concept had some merit. Mr. LaMena had the most specific comments, and he noted that the concept of risk management always demands that you need to plan for the worst, but work for better results. The critical issue, he went on to say, is to address the numerous unfunded mandates from New York State.
On the question about bullying, each candidate spoke about the need for student awareness of what it does to the child; teaching respect for others, finding ways to root out bullying, and emphasizing the need to have that understanding begin at each child’s home, were the basic messages.
On the question about the impact of increased State testing, Mr. LaMena noted that while we live in a data intensive society, testing cannot define the process for us, but measurement is an important objective. Mr. Schwartz, while noting that testing is a fact of life, said there is a danger of too much testing. Mr. Gutekunst observed that while you may measure success by a test, it is not a real measure of knowledge. But he went on to say that there can be a value in having data results go back to the teacher, for possible adjustments.
On the question of concrete ideas for working with bargaining units, Mr. LaMena observed that we need to find a common ground in any negotiation, and that there has to be a sense that we are all in this together. He further noted that we can’t mortgage the future of this district for some current short-term benefit. Mr. Schwartz said that the parties to any negotiation need each other, and that the ideal result is when everyone is either happy, or just a little upset at the result. Mr. Gutekunst indicated that he has a lot of respect for the teachers and the job that they do every day, but observed that the Board has a fiscal responsibility to consider all contracts, particularly in this time of great economic uncertainty. Mr. Tomeo noted that the Board needs to have an open discussion with the teachers union, and then said that the teachers union did come up with a somewhat reasonable offer.
On the question of mandates that should be cut, Mr. Schwartz said that he was not informed about those, while Mr. Gutekunst also said he needed to become more familiar he was careful to noted that we certainly don’t want to cut those mandates which benefit the district and its students. Mr. Tomeo said that he would attend some NYSSBA workshops, while Mr. LaMena observed that the Board would need to do a comprehensive review, and determine where there is flexibility. But he was also the only candidate to give one specific mandate that needed to be changed, when he named the State’s requirement that a district must provide a seat on a bus for any student who is entitled to transportation, even if that student never even uses that bus. (Editorial note: This is a point of obvious waste that ticks off many residents, who witness buses that have very few students on them; but most of those residents are not aware of the State-imposed requirements.)
On the question about steps to relieve the burden on taxpayers, Mr. Gutekunst noted that while any negotiation is a good start, the teachers union’s offer would not have been good for the district because the teachers would have given back about $600,000 over the next two years, but only if the district would agree to extending the contract at an additional cost of $1,000,000. He pointed out that the district cannot leverage itself like that. Mr. Tomeo said that the negotiation with the teachers should have been a two way street. Mr. LaMena pointed out that the tax levels in our district are not sustainable, and that the key to change is by getting real legislative reform for the burdens which the State has created. Mr. Schwartz said that budgeting is a balancing act, with some prepared to pay much more, and others who can’t pay very much, and that the district needs to find a happy medium. But, like Mr. Tomeo, Mr. Schwartz said that the district should have made a counter-offer to the teachers union.
On the question about the value of class size, Mr. Tomeo noted that his classes ranged between 22 to 31, and that 26 seemed to be OK. Mr. LaMena observed that while smaller class size is beneficial, the challenge for the district is what we can best do help keep class sizes low. He cautioned that sound judgment is needed for the decision-making process. Mr. Schwartz said that optimally small class sizes are best, but that an addition of 1 or 2 or 3 more in class should be acceptable. Mr. Gutekunst said that smaller class sizes are better but that a balance is needed since there are also budget needs. He was the only one of the candidates to offer a concrete view that while increased class sizes might be acceptable at the high school level, we must be much more cautious about higher class sizes in the younger grades.
I have already covered the errant LIPA question, and the lack of understanding by all, so we’ll skip to the next point.
On the question about educational priorities, Mr. Gutekunst said that we must support a full core educational program. Mr. Tomeo indicated that we need to keep a well rounded academic agenda. Mr. LaMena noted that the breadth of offerings is critical and gave as an example the interest of differing students and their parents for such issues as AP courses, or full day kindergarten, or science and math classes. He went on to note that it is the responsibility of a Board trustee for all of these matters. Mr. Schwartz commented that he wouldn’t be so presumptive to know what to do, and that he would brainstorm with each of the Principals.
On the question about finding ways to supplement State aid and local taxes, Mr. Tomeo spoke about billboards and ads that he has seen at sports venues, and asked why we couldn’t go to local merchants for such support. Mr. LaMena said that we need to learn what is viable; what is legal, and what is not legal? Mr. Schwartz said that we need more community involvement, and that such support could serve to reduce non-educational stipends for staff members. Mr. Gutekunst said that we need to look at our budget, line by line, because it is also a matter of decreasing expenses as well as increasing revenues. To that point, he observed that we need to look more closely at consolidating services with other districts, as well as renegotiate our transportation contract with bus companies.
This is one of those sets of dialogue that, again, cries out for clarity, and the blowing away of smoke, and the covering of mirrors.
One would think that some people, who have claimed to attend BOE meetings, and committee meetings, either were not often there, or, if they were there, did not pay attention to all that was discussed.
The State of New York restricts what school districts can do with regard to advertising, so that is not a matter of ignoring a potential source of revenues; it would be a matter of changing State laws and State Education Department regulations. These facts have been discussed at several BOE meetings in this school year, and in prior school years.
Another not-fully-understood comment is that relating to the potential use of parents in a volunteer capacity. While that was indeed the suggestion of a current Trustee, what was neglected was attention to the follow-up comment by Ron Friedman, the Assistant Sup’t for Human Resources, that the teachers union or other bargaining unit whose members might be affected could take the district to the Public Employment Relations Board, and, if their members had a long pattern of employment and compensation for such “jobs” turned over to parent volunteers, the district would likely lose such an action.
That, my friends, was the heart of the questions and answers at last Wednesday’s candidates debate.
Total Impression and Analysis:
By now everyone has undoubtedly read biographies and commentaries by the four candidates, and for me the two races are now clear.
For the seat presently held by Mike Kaszubski, the two candidates are James Tomeo and Bill Gutekunst.
I had previously indicated that in this time of financial challenge and the need for cost containment while preserving programs, the standards for determining the suitability of the candidates need to be even higher than the very high standards which we have had in much simpler times. Accordingly, while I commend James Tomeo for his enthusiasm and willingness to serve, I find that he lacks the experience of a career, or the experience of raising a family, and I would instead encourage him to devote his future to serving the district in other ways, which will also help his understanding in the future.
Mr. Gutekunst demonstrated, in this Candidates Debate, that he has a sound understanding of the responsibilities of the Board of Education, and he further demonstrated a refreshing candor and clarity in answering the questions which were put to all candidates. His impressive career in the healthcare industry, including significant executive experience, as well as his community service with youth, would put him in good position to represent the interests of all students and staff and residents of the district. His diverse skills would be very helpful for our Board.
For the seat presently held by Patty Matos, the two candidates are Jack Schwartz and Mike LaMena.
As previously noted, both Mike LaMena and Jack Schwartz are qualified, by virtue of their considerable business experience as well as their experience in raising a family, to serve on the Board of Education at this very challenging time.
However, Mr. LaMena has not only performed head-and-shoulders above everyone else in the Candidates Debate, Mr. Schwartz included, he also came up with some very sound analyses of issues, and provided some very specific and concrete examples and ideas, and the experience of listening to his answers and comments during the one and on-half hour event, was extremely positive and gives one great hope for our future. Moreover, Mr. LaMena has over fifteen years of financial experience in business, and this will be a critical skill-set for our district as we continue in the very rough seas of State cut-backs and likely additional restrictions. We need his talent. Finally, Mr. LaMena, is the only one to have the practical experience of having once had the responsibility of teaching students, even if it was for only one year.
Retiring Trustee:
Finally, I want to take note of the tremendous service of Patty Matos, who withdrew from the contest just this past Wednesday. As you could tell from my initial comments, when the list of candidates became known, I have long respected her talent and her dedication on so many levels, the Board of Education being merely the most recent.
I knew that Patty had been wrestling with the idea of whether or not to run again, and it is my understanding that it was only her sense of public service that caused her to submit her Nominating Petitions. Therefore, the original contest for her seat would have had three contestants: Mike LaMena, Patty Matos, and Jack Schwartz.
But, after getting to know Mike LaMena over the past few weeks, and learning about his qualifications and ideas and sensible approach, she now feels comfortable that he would provide the balanced non-agenda skills to make our Board of Education even better. So, Patty will, instead, have yet another opportunity to reinvent herself in service to this district and its students, as she has in so many ways over the years.
She will be greatly missed, as will Mike Kaszubski, about whom I will write at another time.
