[Originally transmitted on Elwood Community Network on 4/18]
I have learned, as many of you have probably already heard through the Elwood grapevine, that qualified nominating petitions, for each of the two seats, have been received by today's 5 PM deadline. I am listing the names alphabetically, but actual position on the ballot is determined by lot.
For the seat presently held by Mike Kaszubski:
1. Walter Gutekunst
2. James Tomeo
For the seat presently held by Patty Matos:
1. Michael LaMena
2. Patty Matos
3. Jack Schwartz
Frankly, I have never met, much less spoken with, either Mr. Gutekunst or Mr. LaMena. Undoubtedly information will develop on both of these individuals, and I will offer comments after that has occurred.
The job of Board of Education Trustee is a grueling one, demanding not only a major investment of time, but also an investment of emotional energy. The fact that this is a totally unpaid and uncompensated position means that we have to respect the dedication of anyone who does this job, and even admire those who are willing to make the commitment to the community and school district, should they be elected.
Since I do know three of the five candidates, I will pass along my own experience with them.
Listing the three alphabeticallly:
Patty Matos - Frankly, I am delightfully surprised that Patty is apparently going to run for re-election; I had been afraid that she would not, despite the fact that I don't think there are even a handful of potential candidates in this community who could hold a candle to her accomplishments, much less defeat her in an election. Patty probably has more friends in Elwood than you or I have in the entire Northeast United States, and those few who don't like her -- well, they simply don't really know her or want to know her.
Patty is the quintessential devoted member of our community, and has been active in the school district for well over twenty years. That includes serving as President of most (if not indeed all) of the PTA units, and she was my immediate predecessor as Elwood PTA Council President.
In addition, Patty has actively served on several committees of this school district, both prior to her 2008 election to the BOE, as well as subsequently. Selfless devotion to the district, and dedication to the entire K though 12 spectrum, as well as continuous and consistent active involvement and volunteer work for the students and the entire school community, are important elements for anyone asking for our trust and support.
Jack Schwartz - Jack, if I recall correctly, is a patent attorney. He was active in the group that was focused, in 2008 and 2009, upon pushing the school district to establish Full Day Kindergarten. As I was a member of only six district committees over the past few years (dropping back to four committees this year, due to so many other demands for my time), I don't know if he served on more than the two where I occasionally but infrequently saw him, the Citizens Finance/Budget Advisory Committee (CFBAC) and the Facilities Committee. He has not actively participated in the CFBAC during the 2010/11 school year.
James Tomeo - I served with James on the Shared Decision-making Committee of John Glenn HS a few years ago, when I was a Parent Member and he was a Student Representative. James graduated from John Glenn in 2007, I think, but I don't know what he has done since that time. I do know that he is a genuinely nice person, and my records also show that he was an unsuccessful candidate for Board Trustee in 2008. What I do find somewhat surprising is that James has apparently not served on any district committees subsequent to his unsuccessful run for the Board of Education, and if someone cared enough about the district to run for the BOE, then I feel that person should have been willing to give it a commitment of active and consistent support in a meaningful way.
Good luck to all of the candidates, and after I am able to develop information about Mr. Gutekunst and Mr. LaMena, I will comment at that time.
Jerry Hannon
Monday, May 2, 2011
District Has Posted Reply to 2nd Variation of Contingent Offer from Teachers Union
[Originally transmitted on Elwood Community Network on 4/16]
For those who have not gone to the District website today, you will find a link to the reply from the Board of Education to a revised offer from the teachers union, Elwood Teachers Alliance.
You will find that letter by going to the Home Page, http://www.elwood.k12.ny.us/, and following the first item under "Headlines", titled "Board of Education response to the Elwood Teachers Alliance offer New!"
It is obvious that the union continues to offer a financial concession but only, repeat, only if the District will agree to a contract extension plus a commitment to future increases.
You will find the BOE's financial analysis in the body of the letter referenced above. The verbal summary of the Board is found in the following three sentences:
"The request to extend your contract for two years, through June 2016, in light of diminishing state aid, and a looming tax cap with no specific guarantee of mandate relief, leaves us unable to extend a further financial commitment to your unit members. Simply put, we are unable to write you a check now without knowing if we will be able cover the expense. If we were to make such a commitment, the future increase of salary expense you proposed will put us above the tax cap and our only recourse would be to eliminate jobs and/or valuable programs."
I don't know how you react to this scenario, but to me the concept of sacrifice, which is what all of us are being asked to do, is just that. Sacrifice. It should not be a negotiation to get "x" benefit in the future by giving up "y" today.
The students are not going to get any carve-back, or future benefit, for what they have to give up in 2011/12 in terms of reductions in either programs or after-school activities.
The taxpayers are not going to get any carve-back, or future benefit, for what they are being asked to do in terms of significant tax increases for 2011/12.
The benefit to the teachers union is that they would be able to preserve the jobs of many of their colleagues, the younger teachers, the future of our schools and our society, providing that the more-senior teachers (since we are still faced with the last hired-first fired system imposed on us by Albany) simply give up a scheduled increase in 2011/12.
That's right, they are not being asked to take an actual CUT in salary; they are simply asked to not take a scheduled INCREASE in salary for 2011/12.
I remain hopeful that wiser, and calmer, and more compassionate minds and hearts among the teachers union's Executive Board will prevail.
But the clock is ticking ever more loudly, and time is flying by ever so swiftly.
Jerry Hannon
For those who have not gone to the District website today, you will find a link to the reply from the Board of Education to a revised offer from the teachers union, Elwood Teachers Alliance.
You will find that letter by going to the Home Page, http://www.elwood.k12.ny.us/, and following the first item under "Headlines", titled "Board of Education response to the Elwood Teachers Alliance offer New!"
It is obvious that the union continues to offer a financial concession but only, repeat, only if the District will agree to a contract extension plus a commitment to future increases.
You will find the BOE's financial analysis in the body of the letter referenced above. The verbal summary of the Board is found in the following three sentences:
"The request to extend your contract for two years, through June 2016, in light of diminishing state aid, and a looming tax cap with no specific guarantee of mandate relief, leaves us unable to extend a further financial commitment to your unit members. Simply put, we are unable to write you a check now without knowing if we will be able cover the expense. If we were to make such a commitment, the future increase of salary expense you proposed will put us above the tax cap and our only recourse would be to eliminate jobs and/or valuable programs."
I don't know how you react to this scenario, but to me the concept of sacrifice, which is what all of us are being asked to do, is just that. Sacrifice. It should not be a negotiation to get "x" benefit in the future by giving up "y" today.
The students are not going to get any carve-back, or future benefit, for what they have to give up in 2011/12 in terms of reductions in either programs or after-school activities.
The taxpayers are not going to get any carve-back, or future benefit, for what they are being asked to do in terms of significant tax increases for 2011/12.
The benefit to the teachers union is that they would be able to preserve the jobs of many of their colleagues, the younger teachers, the future of our schools and our society, providing that the more-senior teachers (since we are still faced with the last hired-first fired system imposed on us by Albany) simply give up a scheduled increase in 2011/12.
That's right, they are not being asked to take an actual CUT in salary; they are simply asked to not take a scheduled INCREASE in salary for 2011/12.
I remain hopeful that wiser, and calmer, and more compassionate minds and hearts among the teachers union's Executive Board will prevail.
But the clock is ticking ever more loudly, and time is flying by ever so swiftly.
Jerry Hannon
Monday, April 11, 2011
April 7th Elwood School Budget Workshop - Part One
[Originally Transmitted 4/10 on Elwood Community Network]
Introduction:
The school district’s fifth Budget Workshop proved to be another very long evening, beginning just after 7:30 PM, following the BOE’s return from a brief Executive Session, and not concluding until approximately 11:28 PM. There were 124 participants in the audience at its peak, including 6 or 7 administrators not on the dais, as well as several staff members, but by far most of the audience were residents. The Residents Remarks period, as scheduled, took place after announcements, presentations, and dialogue among the BOE trustees and District Administration. There were 24 sets of comments and/or questions, with 6 residents taking the opportunity to come to the microphone a second time, after all 18 residents who wanted to address the Board had their own chance to do so.
Truer Words Were Never Spoken:
At approximately 11:25 PM the 24th, and final, remarks of the evening came from a resident who described himself as a New York City Police Officer (whether current or recently retired was not clear) who has two children in Elwood schools. This gentleman, obviously reacting to the very disappointing proposal to the district from the teachers union, related that he had personally agreed to take a Zero increase in pay for three consecutive years so that the jobs of his brother and sister police officers could be preserved. He could not understand how so many young teachers could be allowed to lose their jobs.
Big Announcement of the Evening:
The Superintendent advised the audience that the Elwood Teachers Alliance, which is the teachers union for our district, had submitted a proposal for a partial (*, see Note below) deferment in salary, and that partial deferment would only be for approximately five months of the District’s full fiscal year. They also offered an actual freeze of the scheduled increase for stipends for extra-curricular activities and athletics (but this particular expense is merely a small factor in our budget).
However, in return for that partial deferment of the scheduled raise (but not deferment of Step increases), and for only a small part of the school year, the union was demanding that the Board of Education extend their labor agreement for an additional year, until June 30 of 2015. Moreover, they wanted a raise built into that extended year which would be based upon the Consumer Price Index, with a minimum of 1.75% and a maximum of 3%.
( * Note: A teacher’s salary is determined by a multi-part formula, combining a contracted percentage raise for a particular year, with a contacted percentage increase by virtue of a teacher being in the district for one additional year, usually known as “Step”; in addition, there are also increases related to the college degree(s) obtained, as well as additional credits earned subsequently, but those achievement-based criteria are not the subject of discussions about potential sacrifice by the teachers union, for 2011/12, in order to save jobs that would otherwise be lost. Furthermore, the mere delay of the scheduled raise for the teachers, instead of an actual freeze for the year, would mean that the higher level of pay would be reflected for pension purposes in a teacher's final average salary, and it also means that the full amount would be included in the base for which a higher salary level, in accordance with the amounts already in the contract, would be calculated for the 2012/13 school year. The structure of the teachers contract is so complex that, in a particular year one teacher might see a significantly higher raise than another, and the next year could see something of the opposite; therefore, the Board and District discuss and negotiate on the basis of averages for the teachers.)
Following the Superintendent’s synopsis, Board President Michael Kaszubski read the Board’s response to that “final” proposal from the teachers union, which began with appreciation for the union’s consideration of possibly participating in the sacrifices that will have to be made by students and taxpayers alike (not to mention the personal sacrifice already made by the Superintendent, and subsequently by other District administrators).
But, the Board’s letter also provided a very clear outline of why the union’s proposal was not only far short of the mark of making a substantial difference for our 2011/12 budget (given the rising expenses combined with the cut in State aid), but was also completely at odds with any specter of reasonability and even a great risk for the taxpayers of Elwood.
You may download a PDF copy of the full text of the Board’s letter to the union by going to this page on the District website (http://www.elwood.k12.ny.us/newsdistrict_information/budgetfinancial_information) and then scrolling down to the last item in the section for the April 7th Workshop.
The BOE letter makes it very clear what the teachers are receiving, in terms of the annual negotiated raises and “Step” increases, so that when someone tells you that the teachers took a freeze in the 2009/10 school year, you will see that it was only a partial freeze (i.e, their salaries were actually increased an average of 2%, by virtue of Step increases), and the union also obtained an extension of the contract at a guaranteed rate of increases in both categories for the extended 2013/14 year of the contract. The Board’s letter also makes it clear that the one year extension, to 2014/15, demanded by the union as compensation for their partial freeze, for part of the year, would cost the District and its taxpayers additional increases between 4.55% and 5.80%.
The operative part of the Board’s letter is as follows:
“The ultimatum by the Executive Board of the bargaining unit is simply not acceptable. It fails to recognize the long-term systemic issues in public finance and would still result in the devastating loss of jobs and core education for next year and the years to follow. Furthermore, the BOE has heard from the community and is in no position to add additional years to the teachers contract.
They poignantly go on to say:
“The Board of Education is prepared to present the community with a budget that keeps all programs, that keeps all 28 teacher jobs intact, retains all sports, and retains all extra-curricular activities. These would occur in exchange for a complete freeze in increase and step for next year for each of your unit members. Even with the Board of Educations’ suggested proposal, we realize that a 7% tax increase may not be warmly received by all voters, but believe that we would, as a group, be saying to the community that we support our schools and our teachers.”
Mr. Kaszubski, and the Board, received a loud round of applause from a super-majority of the audience, at the conclusion of his reading of the letter.
Fifty Cent Version of the Logic Behind This Action:
Our school district has a certain amount of money available for employee compensation.
When there are raises built into labor agreements, as there are in Elwood's and other districts, and when revenue sources are reduced, you either have to get everyone in the current system to hold fast to current pay levels, or you have to lay off some of your workers so that you can pay higher amounts of money to those who will be left, after the layoffs.
Nobody is being asked to take an actual cut in their current pay.
Nobody is being asked to take on more classes or duties than they now have.
The school district has a binding contact with the union, so it cannot demand anything.
But, the union has it within its power to protect the jobs of younger teachers, merely by agreeing not to take the increase in pay for 2011/12 which the contract would otherwise require in terms of both the annual negotiated raise as well as "Step."
Basically, the teachers union has four days in which to reconsider, so that some very fine teachers -- their younger colleagues -- can be retained by our district rather than put on the streets at a time when it will be difficult for them to obtain a position in another district. Retaining these teachers will also ensure that our students do not end up with much higher class sizes, thereby enhancing educational opportunities, and it will enable us to retain programs that would otherwise have to be cut.
This is out of the hands of the Superintendent, and out of the hands of the Board of Education. It is totally in the hands of the Executive Board of the teachers union, which has been responsible for negotiations to this point in time.
Let’s hope that wiser, and more considerate, and cooler heads will prevail.
Other Issues and Comments:
These will be covered in Part Two, as soon as I can finish the analysis of my notes.
Jerry Hannon
Introduction:
The school district’s fifth Budget Workshop proved to be another very long evening, beginning just after 7:30 PM, following the BOE’s return from a brief Executive Session, and not concluding until approximately 11:28 PM. There were 124 participants in the audience at its peak, including 6 or 7 administrators not on the dais, as well as several staff members, but by far most of the audience were residents. The Residents Remarks period, as scheduled, took place after announcements, presentations, and dialogue among the BOE trustees and District Administration. There were 24 sets of comments and/or questions, with 6 residents taking the opportunity to come to the microphone a second time, after all 18 residents who wanted to address the Board had their own chance to do so.
Truer Words Were Never Spoken:
At approximately 11:25 PM the 24th, and final, remarks of the evening came from a resident who described himself as a New York City Police Officer (whether current or recently retired was not clear) who has two children in Elwood schools. This gentleman, obviously reacting to the very disappointing proposal to the district from the teachers union, related that he had personally agreed to take a Zero increase in pay for three consecutive years so that the jobs of his brother and sister police officers could be preserved. He could not understand how so many young teachers could be allowed to lose their jobs.
Big Announcement of the Evening:
The Superintendent advised the audience that the Elwood Teachers Alliance, which is the teachers union for our district, had submitted a proposal for a partial (*, see Note below) deferment in salary, and that partial deferment would only be for approximately five months of the District’s full fiscal year. They also offered an actual freeze of the scheduled increase for stipends for extra-curricular activities and athletics (but this particular expense is merely a small factor in our budget).
However, in return for that partial deferment of the scheduled raise (but not deferment of Step increases), and for only a small part of the school year, the union was demanding that the Board of Education extend their labor agreement for an additional year, until June 30 of 2015. Moreover, they wanted a raise built into that extended year which would be based upon the Consumer Price Index, with a minimum of 1.75% and a maximum of 3%.
( * Note: A teacher’s salary is determined by a multi-part formula, combining a contracted percentage raise for a particular year, with a contacted percentage increase by virtue of a teacher being in the district for one additional year, usually known as “Step”; in addition, there are also increases related to the college degree(s) obtained, as well as additional credits earned subsequently, but those achievement-based criteria are not the subject of discussions about potential sacrifice by the teachers union, for 2011/12, in order to save jobs that would otherwise be lost. Furthermore, the mere delay of the scheduled raise for the teachers, instead of an actual freeze for the year, would mean that the higher level of pay would be reflected for pension purposes in a teacher's final average salary, and it also means that the full amount would be included in the base for which a higher salary level, in accordance with the amounts already in the contract, would be calculated for the 2012/13 school year. The structure of the teachers contract is so complex that, in a particular year one teacher might see a significantly higher raise than another, and the next year could see something of the opposite; therefore, the Board and District discuss and negotiate on the basis of averages for the teachers.)
Following the Superintendent’s synopsis, Board President Michael Kaszubski read the Board’s response to that “final” proposal from the teachers union, which began with appreciation for the union’s consideration of possibly participating in the sacrifices that will have to be made by students and taxpayers alike (not to mention the personal sacrifice already made by the Superintendent, and subsequently by other District administrators).
But, the Board’s letter also provided a very clear outline of why the union’s proposal was not only far short of the mark of making a substantial difference for our 2011/12 budget (given the rising expenses combined with the cut in State aid), but was also completely at odds with any specter of reasonability and even a great risk for the taxpayers of Elwood.
You may download a PDF copy of the full text of the Board’s letter to the union by going to this page on the District website (http://www.elwood.k12.ny.us/newsdistrict_information/budgetfinancial_information) and then scrolling down to the last item in the section for the April 7th Workshop.
The BOE letter makes it very clear what the teachers are receiving, in terms of the annual negotiated raises and “Step” increases, so that when someone tells you that the teachers took a freeze in the 2009/10 school year, you will see that it was only a partial freeze (i.e, their salaries were actually increased an average of 2%, by virtue of Step increases), and the union also obtained an extension of the contract at a guaranteed rate of increases in both categories for the extended 2013/14 year of the contract. The Board’s letter also makes it clear that the one year extension, to 2014/15, demanded by the union as compensation for their partial freeze, for part of the year, would cost the District and its taxpayers additional increases between 4.55% and 5.80%.
The operative part of the Board’s letter is as follows:
“The ultimatum by the Executive Board of the bargaining unit is simply not acceptable. It fails to recognize the long-term systemic issues in public finance and would still result in the devastating loss of jobs and core education for next year and the years to follow. Furthermore, the BOE has heard from the community and is in no position to add additional years to the teachers contract.
They poignantly go on to say:
“The Board of Education is prepared to present the community with a budget that keeps all programs, that keeps all 28 teacher jobs intact, retains all sports, and retains all extra-curricular activities. These would occur in exchange for a complete freeze in increase and step for next year for each of your unit members. Even with the Board of Educations’ suggested proposal, we realize that a 7% tax increase may not be warmly received by all voters, but believe that we would, as a group, be saying to the community that we support our schools and our teachers.”
Mr. Kaszubski, and the Board, received a loud round of applause from a super-majority of the audience, at the conclusion of his reading of the letter.
Fifty Cent Version of the Logic Behind This Action:
Our school district has a certain amount of money available for employee compensation.
When there are raises built into labor agreements, as there are in Elwood's and other districts, and when revenue sources are reduced, you either have to get everyone in the current system to hold fast to current pay levels, or you have to lay off some of your workers so that you can pay higher amounts of money to those who will be left, after the layoffs.
Nobody is being asked to take an actual cut in their current pay.
Nobody is being asked to take on more classes or duties than they now have.
The school district has a binding contact with the union, so it cannot demand anything.
But, the union has it within its power to protect the jobs of younger teachers, merely by agreeing not to take the increase in pay for 2011/12 which the contract would otherwise require in terms of both the annual negotiated raise as well as "Step."
Basically, the teachers union has four days in which to reconsider, so that some very fine teachers -- their younger colleagues -- can be retained by our district rather than put on the streets at a time when it will be difficult for them to obtain a position in another district. Retaining these teachers will also ensure that our students do not end up with much higher class sizes, thereby enhancing educational opportunities, and it will enable us to retain programs that would otherwise have to be cut.
This is out of the hands of the Superintendent, and out of the hands of the Board of Education. It is totally in the hands of the Executive Board of the teachers union, which has been responsible for negotiations to this point in time.
Let’s hope that wiser, and more considerate, and cooler heads will prevail.
Other Issues and Comments:
These will be covered in Part Two, as soon as I can finish the analysis of my notes.
Jerry Hannon
Example of How Albany Shafted NY School Districts and Their Taxpayers
[originally transmitted 4/3 on Elwood Community Network]
I have pasted below a description of the 2000 Retirement Enhancement Law; as noted it was signed into law by Gov. George Pataki, whom we all remember, and it came from a bill in the State Senate sponsored by Sen. Carl Marcellino, who is still the State Senator for our community, and a bill in the State Assembly sponsored by Assemblyman Vitaliano, whose name is unknown to me.
To see the reaction to that new law by the state's teachers union organization, New York State United Teachers, you can go to this web page:
http://nysut.org/media/archive/000711pensionlegislation.html
Read the description below, and consider carefully how this change in law expanded the retirement benefits for public employees in NY State, since this has a very real (and increasingly high) cost for school districts and their taxpayers, particularly since the State simultaneously eliminated the 3% contributions by certain tiers of employees after they have achieved ten years of service.
Albany and our State politicians are a recipe for disaster; they had already cut State aid to school districts this past year, and they have now cut aid even more for 2010/11, despite the fact that it was Albany which has increased the costs for those same school districts in not only the referenced pensions, but also in unfunded State mandates for school districts, and in personnel management constraints and restrictions for school districts.
Brilliant!
Maybe they'll offer us the Bubonic Plague next year, while simultaneously taking away hospital beds and decreasing their funding of medical care for the less wealthy among us.
But then they'll probably try to take our eyes off of the Governor and Legislature by telling us that the salaries of nurses, and the salaries of doctors, and the salaries of hospital administrators, are too high relative to the Governor's salary, and that those are the only problems to which we should pay attention.
Just remember the mantra: Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain in Albany.
Dorothy knew better, and she unmasked the phony Wizard of Oz. And that's what we also need to do with Albany.
Jerry Hannon
-----------------------------------------
Retirement Enhancement Law Add Article 19 SS900-902, Add Art 19-A SS910 & 911, R&SS L (Signed 7/11/00 Gov. Pataki ) S.8142 Marcellino / A. 11418 Vitaliano - Provides for the following enhanced retirement benefits : (1) an additional one-twelfth of a year of additional retirement credit for each year of service up to a maximum of two years for certain employees who are Tier I and II members; (2) Elimination of the three percent of salary contribution rate for employees who are Tier III and Tier IV members with more than ten years of membership in a retirement system.
RSS - Retirement and Social Security
Article 19 - BENEFIT ENHANCEMENTS
900 - Definitions.
901 - Election of benefit enhancements.
902 - Benefit enhancements.
II. Benefit Enhancement:
(S.8142 by Sen. Marcellino, et al. /A.11418 by Rules by Asm. Vitaliano)
For members in the New York State Teachers' Retirement System (NYSTRS) and New York State and Local Employees' Retirement System (NYSLERS), these new benefit improvements include:
(1) Tier I & II Members: Members who are currently in active service will be afforded one month of additional service credit for each year of service up to a maximum of 24 months at no cost.
ο This legislation also increases the maximum final average salary factor to 79%.
ο The benefits provided by this legislation can be used in addition to the benefits provided by the state's early retirement incentive (Chapter 86 of the laws of 2000).
ο Members who are eligible for both the benefit enhancement and the early retirement incentive (Chapter 86 of the laws of 2000) may increase their final average salary factor to a maximum of 85%, depending on their credited service.
ο For members retiring at the close of this school year, this bill takes effect June 1, 2000. For all other members, this bill takes effect on October 1, 2000.
(2) Tier III & IV Members: Individuals who have been members of any public retirement system for 10 or more years or who maintain 10 or more years of credited service will no longer have to make the required 3% contribution towards their retirement!!! This benefit will begin on October 1, 2000.
ο Members who have not been members of a public retirement system for 10 years or have less than 10 years of credited service will no longer have to make contributions towards the retirement system once they reach their 10th anniversary.
I have pasted below a description of the 2000 Retirement Enhancement Law; as noted it was signed into law by Gov. George Pataki, whom we all remember, and it came from a bill in the State Senate sponsored by Sen. Carl Marcellino, who is still the State Senator for our community, and a bill in the State Assembly sponsored by Assemblyman Vitaliano, whose name is unknown to me.
To see the reaction to that new law by the state's teachers union organization, New York State United Teachers, you can go to this web page:
http://nysut.org/media/archive/000711pensionlegislation.html
Read the description below, and consider carefully how this change in law expanded the retirement benefits for public employees in NY State, since this has a very real (and increasingly high) cost for school districts and their taxpayers, particularly since the State simultaneously eliminated the 3% contributions by certain tiers of employees after they have achieved ten years of service.
Albany and our State politicians are a recipe for disaster; they had already cut State aid to school districts this past year, and they have now cut aid even more for 2010/11, despite the fact that it was Albany which has increased the costs for those same school districts in not only the referenced pensions, but also in unfunded State mandates for school districts, and in personnel management constraints and restrictions for school districts.
Brilliant!
Maybe they'll offer us the Bubonic Plague next year, while simultaneously taking away hospital beds and decreasing their funding of medical care for the less wealthy among us.
But then they'll probably try to take our eyes off of the Governor and Legislature by telling us that the salaries of nurses, and the salaries of doctors, and the salaries of hospital administrators, are too high relative to the Governor's salary, and that those are the only problems to which we should pay attention.
Just remember the mantra: Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain in Albany.
Dorothy knew better, and she unmasked the phony Wizard of Oz. And that's what we also need to do with Albany.
Jerry Hannon
-----------------------------------------
Retirement Enhancement Law Add Article 19 SS900-902, Add Art 19-A SS910 & 911, R&SS L (Signed 7/11/00 Gov. Pataki ) S.8142 Marcellino / A. 11418 Vitaliano - Provides for the following enhanced retirement benefits : (1) an additional one-twelfth of a year of additional retirement credit for each year of service up to a maximum of two years for certain employees who are Tier I and II members; (2) Elimination of the three percent of salary contribution rate for employees who are Tier III and Tier IV members with more than ten years of membership in a retirement system.
RSS - Retirement and Social Security
Article 19 - BENEFIT ENHANCEMENTS
900 - Definitions.
901 - Election of benefit enhancements.
902 - Benefit enhancements.
II. Benefit Enhancement:
(S.8142 by Sen. Marcellino, et al. /A.11418 by Rules by Asm. Vitaliano)
For members in the New York State Teachers' Retirement System (NYSTRS) and New York State and Local Employees' Retirement System (NYSLERS), these new benefit improvements include:
(1) Tier I & II Members: Members who are currently in active service will be afforded one month of additional service credit for each year of service up to a maximum of 24 months at no cost.
ο This legislation also increases the maximum final average salary factor to 79%.
ο The benefits provided by this legislation can be used in addition to the benefits provided by the state's early retirement incentive (Chapter 86 of the laws of 2000).
ο Members who are eligible for both the benefit enhancement and the early retirement incentive (Chapter 86 of the laws of 2000) may increase their final average salary factor to a maximum of 85%, depending on their credited service.
ο For members retiring at the close of this school year, this bill takes effect June 1, 2000. For all other members, this bill takes effect on October 1, 2000.
(2) Tier III & IV Members: Individuals who have been members of any public retirement system for 10 or more years or who maintain 10 or more years of credited service will no longer have to make the required 3% contribution towards their retirement!!! This benefit will begin on October 1, 2000.
ο Members who have not been members of a public retirement system for 10 years or have less than 10 years of credited service will no longer have to make contributions towards the retirement system once they reach their 10th anniversary.
Friday, March 25, 2011
March 17th Involvement Wonderful, Even if Not Completely Informed
[Elwood Community Network commentary distributed 3/21/11]
Overview:
The March 17th Board of Education Regular Meeting proved to be another evening which demonstrated that people do care about their schools and their community. Very much like many of those who spoke at the March 10th Budget Work Session, those who spoke during Resident Remarks were focused upon areas of the budget of personal concern, and on March 17th it was not merely "many" -- who on March 10th spoke about primarily the Athletics program -- but "most" who on March 17th spoke about the music and arts programs, with a fair number speaking on behalf of all three after-school activities.
Full Description:
For the sake of time (yours as well as mine) I am making the assumption that it is unnecessary to repeat the Background analysis and summary which I included in the March 15th commentary titled "Well-Attended Budget Work Session, March 10th."
Once again, however, many of those who spoke demonstrated that they had either (1) not attended many, and for some not any, Board Work Sessions, or Budget Work Sessions, or Regular Meetings at which the 2011/12 budget had been previously discussed; or (2) that they were not familiar with State law or regulations governing school districts; or (3) that they did not realize that much of their concerns about programs or activities "at risk" were about potential effects under a Contingent Budget scenario, rather than actual plans.
However, very much like comments at the March 13th Budget Work Session, the remarks of those focused upon a particular beloved portion of the activities of the Elwood School District, even if not completely on track with actual plans or potential modifications, did provide a service to the community because they provided additional perspective to the Board and to the Superintendent.
As more than one person has suggested supplementing District revenue with "fees" to participate in certain after-school activities, so that these activities would be more affordable for the District's budget, it is important to realize that the State does not permit what is sometimes called "Pay to Play," which is a procedure used -- according to information provided at the March 10th Budget Work Session -- by about twenty-five states, but which is currently illegal in New York State. As was also made clear on March 10th, it is permissible for the District to accept donations to make some programs more affordable, but there cannot be a binding tie of the District's hands on how such funds would be used, and it is also illegal for school districts to have an athletic program which discriminates on any basis, including gender.
There are also restrictions on what school districts can do with regard to things like "naming rights" or other tie-ins, but I am presently less informed on these points or whether there is some alternative way to accomplish this kind of fund-raising objective.
A second set of suggestions was related to reducing the costs of transportation, and it was clear that some of those who commented may not be familiar with State law relating to transportation. But there are also a number of more subtle but complex issues related to providing bus transportation for the District. Those who have been attending Board meetings and work sessions for the past eight or so years might have remembered a transportation study done by a subcommittee of the Citizens Finance/Budget Advisory Committee, which discussed several issues regarding differing perceptions about bus transportation, versus many realities incurred as a legal obligation, such as what one might call "the empty bus syndrome."
State law requires that school districts provide transportation to students at a minimum distance from home to school, and varying by grade level of the student, but school districts are permitted to transport students closer than the State minimum standard, provided that has been approved by the voters of such district in a public referendum. Once established by such referendum, those stipulated distances may not be changed until such change is also approved by voters in another public referendum. So, while some may suggest achieving savings by reducing bus transportation, that really becomes a long range issue rather than part of an immediate solution for the 2011/12 budget.
Moreover, the hands of a district are really tied with reducing transportation availability, as you may note in the following State Education Department requirement:
Parent Waiving Right to Pupil Transportation - A school district may not request that parents voluntarily sign a waiver of their right to pupil transportation services for their eligible children. You may not waive what you have a right to under the law. Even if a parent should sign such a document, the school district would still be bound by Education Law section 3635 and be required to provide pupil transportation on any school day that the child is present at the bus stop or school and requesting transportation service.
(http://www.p12.nysed.gov/schoolbus/Parents/htm/parent_waiving_right.htm)
In summary, finding legal ways to meaningfully increase revenue, or to decrease expenses, is a complicated challenge.
Comments and Questions By Residents:
As was noted in the March 18th community commentary, where the big headline of the evening was discussed, there were forty-five residents who addressed the Board and District Administration in the First Residents Remarks period. Many of these addressed a number of topics, so a quick run-down by subject might make it seem as if even more people had spoken, But, forty-five people is still impressive, simply because too many people seldom get involved in anything.
The challenge, as I see it, is to make sure that people become more fully informed over time, and that a way be found to somehow channel this new energy and caring, this amazing involvement, so that we can remain united as a community in fostering the best school district which we can create and sustain, while also maintaining true concern and positive compassion for the personal financial restrictions on neighbors who may be much less fortunate than the more wealthy members of our community. We also have to remember that all of this is taking place at a time of an ever-tightening fiscal noose being executed on school districts by our Governor and much of the State Legislature.
Before proceeding, I did a background count (based upon information provided by each speaker) of the residents who spoke: (a) twenty identified themselves as current students (nearly all at Glenn); (b) nine identified themselves as Glenn graduates; and, (c) sixteen were other residents, most of whom have students currently in Elwood Public Schools.
Now, on to comments and questions:
First, here is a simple tabulation of support expressed for various after-school activities, or educational programs, or other aspects of the Elwood School District offerings:
Music 13
Music & Art 3
Music & Art & Athletics 2
Music & Athletics 7
Athletics 1
Art 1
General After School Activities 3
Science Research Program 4
Foreign Language Program 2
Full Day Kindergarten 2
Class Size 2
Among the comments, aside from specific support for one or more program aspects, here is a fair sampling of the more significant ones:
"The problem is in Albany, with the mandates."
Gov. Cuomo is cutting taxes for the wealthiest New Yorkers, while cutting $1.5 billion from education.
After school activities are important for college applications.
"Students need well-rounded experiences."
"Colleges are looking for well-rounded applicants."
If there was no sports or arts, then there would be no scholarships to college.
One resident, currently in the college application process, reported that he received an interview from Harvard, and they were most interested in talking about what he did in terms of after-school activities; they were impressed by the extent of his involvement in the music program, and particularly impressed about the original research he had done in Glenn's Science Research Program.
"We're in a Global Society; how can kids compete if they only speak English, or if they were never captain of a sports team?"
The District should charge fees for after school activities.
"Fill every single bus seat."
After mentioning the bus driver who was arrested for an improper approach to a student (Note: You may recall that it was an employee of Huntington Coach Company, and not the school district, who was suspended as soon as the event occurred, and before the police acted), one resident suggested "do away with the buses."
If your kids are in music or sports programs, then they are not using the buses.
Transportation cost is too high; instead car pool or walk to school.
"Transportation cuts may need consideration."
One resident, concerned about possible cutting back from Full Day Kindergarten, suggested "you might as well disband Kindergarten rather than go to Half Day Kindergarten."
"I'm willing to dig in a little deeper so our kids can maintain the education they have; go a little bit higher [in the tax rate.]
"Please let the Board of Education know how much you are prepared to support; personally, if this budget [i.e., in terms of tax increase] goes up 15% I don't care."
"There can't be just an option of a 13.33% tax increase, or a 3.74% tax increase."
One resident objected that copies of a personal letter from a resident was on the "Greeter's Table" at the entry to the auditorium. The resident also objected to the content of the letter complaining about the fields, and instead pointed out how money was diverted from the capital projects program of ten or so years ago, and that $4 million was taken off the top to build an auditorium at Boyd, and then shoddy work was done on the fields by the contractor.
"If you want to solve a problem, you have to take the emotion out of it."
Comments By Trustees and District Administration:
After at least half of the approximately 400+ residents had departed, the Board proceeded with the remainder of its Agenda, but the most material point of the evening was the one made by Superintendent Peter Scordo regarding his generous offer to freeze his own 2011/12 salary at the current 2010/11 level. That announcement, and its deeper meaning for the District, was covered in the community commentary transmitted on March 18th. For reference, you may access that at:
http://elwoodilluminations.blogspot.com/2011/03/superintendent-leads-way-towards-budget.html
Mr. Scordo later spoke about two potential reorganization issues, one related to Glenn, and the other to the District's Kindergarten program possibly being reduced from Full Day to Half Day. As to Glenn, he noted that Principal Vincent Mulieri and his staff have been making wonderful progress on some alternative approaches, and that he wants to give them a bit more time to complete their work.
On the matter of Kindergarten, Board Vice President Joe Fusaro asked what the full savings would be if the District converted to Half Day Kindergarten, and Ass't Superintendent for Business William Pastore advised that the classroom savings (4.0 FTE) would be about $260,000, and the transportation savings would be about $40,000, and that there would be an additional 1.5 FTE reductions for related FDK positions such as library and music, and that would add about $118,000 of additional savings, for total savings to the District of about $418,000.
Trustee Dan Ciccone wondered if a modification could be made to a Half Day program so that more literacy training could be provided to kindergarten students. Part of his concept would be to have a short assessment period in the Fall to determine needs, and then allow one full-time reading teacher to carry out the required additional support. The District Administration will do a cost analysis of Mr. Ciccone's suggested possible modification.
Trustee Andrew Kaplan noted that even Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke has expressed a view that pre-school and kindergarten programs are very valuable to American education. Mr. Kaplan wondered what enrichment program associations the District might be able to work toward fostering, to allow parents to supplement a Half Day program, if they choose to do so.
Second Period for Comments and Questions By Residents:
It was nearly 11:15 PM when the Second Residents Remarks period began, and at that point perhaps one-fourth of the original audience remained in the Middle School auditorium. Only six residents, of whom four had not spoken in the first Residents Remarks period, elected to address the Board at that time.
One opposed going to Half Day Kindergarten.
One asked if we could instead return to the District's original Extended Day Kindergarten.
One suggested user fees, and, noting that there needs to be shared sacrifice, asked the Board to "come up with an option between the 13.33% (the projected tax levy increase for the hypothetical "rollover budget") and nothing."
One expressed support for music, and noted that we even have students qualifying for Harvard yet they started in Elwood with a Half Day Kindergarten program.
One said that standards have changed "since these kids went to kindergarten."
One said that a loss of education strength would be "disheartening."
Final Commentary:
Shared sacrifice should be easily understood by any student, by any teacher, by any administrator, by any parent, and by any resident whose own children are no longer in Elwood schools.
We can't all have what we want, and we have to think, and act, for the greater good.
Our Superintendent has led the way with his dramatic and most gracious offer, and it is now up to the teachers union and other bargaining units to do something financially significant to preserve whatever we can of our programs, and to consider what we need to do to get even better in the future.
We also need to do whatever we personally can to stop the lies coming from the Cuomo administration, and some complicit State legislators, who keep trying to get us to take our eyes off the Albany-created and controlled problems, and instead waste our time arguing with each other over more minor local matters. However, we also have to be realists about the probabilities about restoring aid to even last year's already-reduced levels. And that means we have to plan for a future of making do, as best we can, with even less.
But, in doing that, we have to keep up the pressure on the disingenuous Albany cabal, so that we can come to a more equitable funding basis in the future.
My favorite quote of the evening, I must say, was from the resident who wisely stated, "If you want to solve a problem, you have to take the emotion out of it."
To that I loudly say, Amen.
Overview:
The March 17th Board of Education Regular Meeting proved to be another evening which demonstrated that people do care about their schools and their community. Very much like many of those who spoke at the March 10th Budget Work Session, those who spoke during Resident Remarks were focused upon areas of the budget of personal concern, and on March 17th it was not merely "many" -- who on March 10th spoke about primarily the Athletics program -- but "most" who on March 17th spoke about the music and arts programs, with a fair number speaking on behalf of all three after-school activities.
Full Description:
For the sake of time (yours as well as mine) I am making the assumption that it is unnecessary to repeat the Background analysis and summary which I included in the March 15th commentary titled "Well-Attended Budget Work Session, March 10th."
Once again, however, many of those who spoke demonstrated that they had either (1) not attended many, and for some not any, Board Work Sessions, or Budget Work Sessions, or Regular Meetings at which the 2011/12 budget had been previously discussed; or (2) that they were not familiar with State law or regulations governing school districts; or (3) that they did not realize that much of their concerns about programs or activities "at risk" were about potential effects under a Contingent Budget scenario, rather than actual plans.
However, very much like comments at the March 13th Budget Work Session, the remarks of those focused upon a particular beloved portion of the activities of the Elwood School District, even if not completely on track with actual plans or potential modifications, did provide a service to the community because they provided additional perspective to the Board and to the Superintendent.
As more than one person has suggested supplementing District revenue with "fees" to participate in certain after-school activities, so that these activities would be more affordable for the District's budget, it is important to realize that the State does not permit what is sometimes called "Pay to Play," which is a procedure used -- according to information provided at the March 10th Budget Work Session -- by about twenty-five states, but which is currently illegal in New York State. As was also made clear on March 10th, it is permissible for the District to accept donations to make some programs more affordable, but there cannot be a binding tie of the District's hands on how such funds would be used, and it is also illegal for school districts to have an athletic program which discriminates on any basis, including gender.
There are also restrictions on what school districts can do with regard to things like "naming rights" or other tie-ins, but I am presently less informed on these points or whether there is some alternative way to accomplish this kind of fund-raising objective.
A second set of suggestions was related to reducing the costs of transportation, and it was clear that some of those who commented may not be familiar with State law relating to transportation. But there are also a number of more subtle but complex issues related to providing bus transportation for the District. Those who have been attending Board meetings and work sessions for the past eight or so years might have remembered a transportation study done by a subcommittee of the Citizens Finance/Budget Advisory Committee, which discussed several issues regarding differing perceptions about bus transportation, versus many realities incurred as a legal obligation, such as what one might call "the empty bus syndrome."
State law requires that school districts provide transportation to students at a minimum distance from home to school, and varying by grade level of the student, but school districts are permitted to transport students closer than the State minimum standard, provided that has been approved by the voters of such district in a public referendum. Once established by such referendum, those stipulated distances may not be changed until such change is also approved by voters in another public referendum. So, while some may suggest achieving savings by reducing bus transportation, that really becomes a long range issue rather than part of an immediate solution for the 2011/12 budget.
Moreover, the hands of a district are really tied with reducing transportation availability, as you may note in the following State Education Department requirement:
Parent Waiving Right to Pupil Transportation - A school district may not request that parents voluntarily sign a waiver of their right to pupil transportation services for their eligible children. You may not waive what you have a right to under the law. Even if a parent should sign such a document, the school district would still be bound by Education Law section 3635 and be required to provide pupil transportation on any school day that the child is present at the bus stop or school and requesting transportation service.
(http://www.p12.nysed.gov/schoolbus/Parents/htm/parent_waiving_right.htm)
In summary, finding legal ways to meaningfully increase revenue, or to decrease expenses, is a complicated challenge.
Comments and Questions By Residents:
As was noted in the March 18th community commentary, where the big headline of the evening was discussed, there were forty-five residents who addressed the Board and District Administration in the First Residents Remarks period. Many of these addressed a number of topics, so a quick run-down by subject might make it seem as if even more people had spoken, But, forty-five people is still impressive, simply because too many people seldom get involved in anything.
The challenge, as I see it, is to make sure that people become more fully informed over time, and that a way be found to somehow channel this new energy and caring, this amazing involvement, so that we can remain united as a community in fostering the best school district which we can create and sustain, while also maintaining true concern and positive compassion for the personal financial restrictions on neighbors who may be much less fortunate than the more wealthy members of our community. We also have to remember that all of this is taking place at a time of an ever-tightening fiscal noose being executed on school districts by our Governor and much of the State Legislature.
Before proceeding, I did a background count (based upon information provided by each speaker) of the residents who spoke: (a) twenty identified themselves as current students (nearly all at Glenn); (b) nine identified themselves as Glenn graduates; and, (c) sixteen were other residents, most of whom have students currently in Elwood Public Schools.
Now, on to comments and questions:
First, here is a simple tabulation of support expressed for various after-school activities, or educational programs, or other aspects of the Elwood School District offerings:
Music 13
Music & Art 3
Music & Art & Athletics 2
Music & Athletics 7
Athletics 1
Art 1
General After School Activities 3
Science Research Program 4
Foreign Language Program 2
Full Day Kindergarten 2
Class Size 2
Among the comments, aside from specific support for one or more program aspects, here is a fair sampling of the more significant ones:
"The problem is in Albany, with the mandates."
Gov. Cuomo is cutting taxes for the wealthiest New Yorkers, while cutting $1.5 billion from education.
After school activities are important for college applications.
"Students need well-rounded experiences."
"Colleges are looking for well-rounded applicants."
If there was no sports or arts, then there would be no scholarships to college.
One resident, currently in the college application process, reported that he received an interview from Harvard, and they were most interested in talking about what he did in terms of after-school activities; they were impressed by the extent of his involvement in the music program, and particularly impressed about the original research he had done in Glenn's Science Research Program.
"We're in a Global Society; how can kids compete if they only speak English, or if they were never captain of a sports team?"
The District should charge fees for after school activities.
"Fill every single bus seat."
After mentioning the bus driver who was arrested for an improper approach to a student (Note: You may recall that it was an employee of Huntington Coach Company, and not the school district, who was suspended as soon as the event occurred, and before the police acted), one resident suggested "do away with the buses."
If your kids are in music or sports programs, then they are not using the buses.
Transportation cost is too high; instead car pool or walk to school.
"Transportation cuts may need consideration."
One resident, concerned about possible cutting back from Full Day Kindergarten, suggested "you might as well disband Kindergarten rather than go to Half Day Kindergarten."
"I'm willing to dig in a little deeper so our kids can maintain the education they have; go a little bit higher [in the tax rate.]
"Please let the Board of Education know how much you are prepared to support; personally, if this budget [i.e., in terms of tax increase] goes up 15% I don't care."
"There can't be just an option of a 13.33% tax increase, or a 3.74% tax increase."
One resident objected that copies of a personal letter from a resident was on the "Greeter's Table" at the entry to the auditorium. The resident also objected to the content of the letter complaining about the fields, and instead pointed out how money was diverted from the capital projects program of ten or so years ago, and that $4 million was taken off the top to build an auditorium at Boyd, and then shoddy work was done on the fields by the contractor.
"If you want to solve a problem, you have to take the emotion out of it."
Comments By Trustees and District Administration:
After at least half of the approximately 400+ residents had departed, the Board proceeded with the remainder of its Agenda, but the most material point of the evening was the one made by Superintendent Peter Scordo regarding his generous offer to freeze his own 2011/12 salary at the current 2010/11 level. That announcement, and its deeper meaning for the District, was covered in the community commentary transmitted on March 18th. For reference, you may access that at:
http://elwoodilluminations.blogspot.com/2011/03/superintendent-leads-way-towards-budget.html
Mr. Scordo later spoke about two potential reorganization issues, one related to Glenn, and the other to the District's Kindergarten program possibly being reduced from Full Day to Half Day. As to Glenn, he noted that Principal Vincent Mulieri and his staff have been making wonderful progress on some alternative approaches, and that he wants to give them a bit more time to complete their work.
On the matter of Kindergarten, Board Vice President Joe Fusaro asked what the full savings would be if the District converted to Half Day Kindergarten, and Ass't Superintendent for Business William Pastore advised that the classroom savings (4.0 FTE) would be about $260,000, and the transportation savings would be about $40,000, and that there would be an additional 1.5 FTE reductions for related FDK positions such as library and music, and that would add about $118,000 of additional savings, for total savings to the District of about $418,000.
Trustee Dan Ciccone wondered if a modification could be made to a Half Day program so that more literacy training could be provided to kindergarten students. Part of his concept would be to have a short assessment period in the Fall to determine needs, and then allow one full-time reading teacher to carry out the required additional support. The District Administration will do a cost analysis of Mr. Ciccone's suggested possible modification.
Trustee Andrew Kaplan noted that even Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke has expressed a view that pre-school and kindergarten programs are very valuable to American education. Mr. Kaplan wondered what enrichment program associations the District might be able to work toward fostering, to allow parents to supplement a Half Day program, if they choose to do so.
Second Period for Comments and Questions By Residents:
It was nearly 11:15 PM when the Second Residents Remarks period began, and at that point perhaps one-fourth of the original audience remained in the Middle School auditorium. Only six residents, of whom four had not spoken in the first Residents Remarks period, elected to address the Board at that time.
One opposed going to Half Day Kindergarten.
One asked if we could instead return to the District's original Extended Day Kindergarten.
One suggested user fees, and, noting that there needs to be shared sacrifice, asked the Board to "come up with an option between the 13.33% (the projected tax levy increase for the hypothetical "rollover budget") and nothing."
One expressed support for music, and noted that we even have students qualifying for Harvard yet they started in Elwood with a Half Day Kindergarten program.
One said that standards have changed "since these kids went to kindergarten."
One said that a loss of education strength would be "disheartening."
Final Commentary:
Shared sacrifice should be easily understood by any student, by any teacher, by any administrator, by any parent, and by any resident whose own children are no longer in Elwood schools.
We can't all have what we want, and we have to think, and act, for the greater good.
Our Superintendent has led the way with his dramatic and most gracious offer, and it is now up to the teachers union and other bargaining units to do something financially significant to preserve whatever we can of our programs, and to consider what we need to do to get even better in the future.
We also need to do whatever we personally can to stop the lies coming from the Cuomo administration, and some complicit State legislators, who keep trying to get us to take our eyes off the Albany-created and controlled problems, and instead waste our time arguing with each other over more minor local matters. However, we also have to be realists about the probabilities about restoring aid to even last year's already-reduced levels. And that means we have to plan for a future of making do, as best we can, with even less.
But, in doing that, we have to keep up the pressure on the disingenuous Albany cabal, so that we can come to a more equitable funding basis in the future.
My favorite quote of the evening, I must say, was from the resident who wisely stated, "If you want to solve a problem, you have to take the emotion out of it."
To that I loudly say, Amen.
Well-Attended Budget Work Session, March 10th
[Elwood Community Network commentary distributed 3/15/11]
Overview:
The Board Budget Work Session drew a much larger crowd than usual, with part of that attendance as a reaction to the hypothetical discussion on March 3rd of how deep cuts might have to be if the District ended up with a Contingent Budget. It became a very candid discussion, and there there some interesting comments and questions from the dais, as well as from the sixteen residents who chose to speak during the subsequent Residents Remarks period. Clearly, this is a very complex issue with ramifications for the students, for staff, and for taxpayers.
Full Description and Background:
Last Thursday the District Administration and Board of Education held another Budget Work Session, and because of the large number of residents who attended (my estimation was 200 +), it was held in the Middle School auditorium.
Many people were there to demonstrate support for the athletic program and the co-curricular activities which the District provides for our students. It was not possible to determine whether or not all of them realized that the two page outline released on March 3rd -- in which Superintendent Peter Scordo had demonstrated just how deep personnel cuts would still have to be even if a number of very important and highly valued activities were eliminated -- was a discussion document, rather than an actual plan to completely eliminate athletics and many other programs and non-required expenditures.
Anyone who attended the March 3rd session should have understood that the draft was simply a demonstration of how deep the problems would be for the District, based upon existing labor contract costs and other expenses over which the District currently has little or no control, and how much cutting in personnel would have to be done even if such important activities were completely eliminated in order to achieve a Contingent Budget, should that become necessary.
But, whether or not Thursday’s attendees -- a great many of whom were not at the previous session -- understood the reality, it was clear that many were there to provide testimony to the importance of such activities to the students, and to their parents, and to many other taxpayers. To that extent, even if their understanding was imperfect, they may have provided a service to the Board and District Administration by making that point clear.
The entire base for the discussions to date was what amounted to a rollover budget, which was released a few weeks ago. What would have caused most heads to turn began with the size of the rollover budget increase which was largely related to State mandated increases for the two pension funds, and increases in health insurance costs, and increases in energy costs, and increases in transportation costs, as well as increased salary payments to existing staff based upon labor agreements already in place. That budget-to-budget increase, if it was to be a rollover budget, would have to be 8.86%.
But, for most people, what not only caused heads to turn, but for some to jump out of their chairs seeking oxygen, was the size of the tax levy increase that would be required for a rollover budget, namely 13.33%, and that would occur because not only was the State aid payment for Elwood not keeping up with the rapidly rising costs, we (and most other districts) would actually have a reduction in our State aid.
Albany’s Formula: Rising Costs - Lower State Aid = Local Travesty
So, the Board prudently asked the Superintendent to do some hypothetical runs to demonstrate the reality of what occurs when the State cuts our aid, even as costs -- some directly from the State, some indirectly from the State, and some directly from the marketplace of providers like energy producers and bus companies, as well as local personnel expenses.
That kind of modeling is necessary to begin a more detailed internal analysis, as well as generate some needed discussions.
With that rather lengthy preamble, which I believe is necessary for full and unemotional perspective, let me now turn to some remarks heard during the meeting.
Comments From District Administration and Principals:
First, the Superintendent spoke and gave a synopsis noting that we are not only facing a budget and funding problem for 2011/12, he also projected forward and indicated that if the Governor and Legislature do impose the proposed cap of 2% on any district’s tax levy, that would require additional cuts of $2.8 million for 2012/13, and $5.0 million for 2013/14, and it only gets worse after that.
So, drastic changes would have to be made both this year, and in future years, since this would be a multiyear problem in New York State.
EMS Principal Hugh Gigante and Glenn Principal Vincent Mulieri both made presentations regarding their own schools, and you can go to the District website and download each of those. You can also download the presentation by our Ass’t Superintendent for Curriculum, Maryann Llewellyn, which followed the remarks by the two principals.
BOE Trustees Comments and Questions:
Before opening up for Residents Remarks, Board President Mike Kaszubski gave each of the Trustees a chance to pose questions or raise issues.
Trustee Andrew Kaplan asked about the potential for giving up Full Day Kindergarten, which Mr. Scordo had mentioned earlier in the evening, noting that the savings for the District would be about $300,000. He asked for clarification about whether this would be the Extended Day Program we once had, or more traditional Half Day Kindergarten, and Executive Director Gene Tranchino (who now handles Transportation in addition to his Instructional Technology duties, since the Director of Transportation position was eliminated last year, for cost savings in this year’s budget) advised Mr. Kaplan that going to Half Day rather than Extended Day saves $30,000 alone in extra transportation costs.
His next question related to what the multiplier effect would be for each dollar that might be given up in salary by an employee, and Ass’t Superintendent for Business William Pastore indicated that each $1 in salary savings translates to about $1.25 saved because of various benefits related to salary. Ass’t Superintendent for Human Resources Ronald Friedman pointed out that some employee benefits, such as health insurance, have no relationship to the income level of participants.
A multiparty discussion then took place regarding whether it might be possible to accept donations for things like stipends for coaches and advisors, and Mr. Scordo indicated that counsel to the district has advised that donations are permissible but that they must be taken into the general fund of the district. In NY State it is illegal to have what is sometimes called “pay for play”, as is done in about 25 states, and one question was how decisions are made with regard to specific sports. Mr. Scordo and Dr. Friedman did something of a tag team on pointing out that donors would have to offer their gift to the district, and the BOE would itself choose how to spend the funds, but that there must be an equitable distribution of funding for male and female sports.
Mr. Kaplan then noted that a principal problem for school districts has been the spiraling cost of benefits, and that years ago benefits were boosted to provide more equitable overall compensation at a time when teacher salaries were rather low. But salaries began a process of increase over many years, but the pension benefits -- which had been boosted when salaries were low -- was never adjusted after the salaries became much better. He felt that the District needed to get a pure freeze on salaries, and that the budget was a “nonstarter” for him until the issue was settled.
Trustee Dan Ciccone noted that last year the initial proposed budget, which had a tax increase of about 7%, was rejected in May. The revised proposed budget, which was adjusted downward to reflect a tax increase of about 4%, was approved by the voters in June. He also pointed out a significant difference between last year and this year; Contingent Budget amounts are determined by the relative inflation rate, and last year a Contingent Budget would have resulted in a tax increase of Zero, while this year a Contingent Budget would result in a tax increase of about 4%.
Mr. Ciccone then observed that our teachers are greatly valued, and that they are the ones who educate and nurture our children. But the business model for education in New York has simply grown too costly, and he is greatly concerned about the possibility that the young careers of some brilliant teachers would be ended in a Contingent Budget situation, yet he does not believe that the community would pass a budget which would require even a 7% tax increase.
He also noted that athletics and music and extracurricular activities are the soul of the community, and that he would not be able to support any budget which “does not have them as part of our budget.”
BOE Vice President Joe Fusaro asked about a few line items of the budget, and noted that the portion of the budget over which the BOE has actual discretion is relatively small, and that we are going to have a multiyear problem. He encouraged residents to contact their legislators, since they are the ones with power to change State laws, and they need to fix the structural problems for school districts. And if they don’t want to do that, then they need to give power to local governments and school districts to enable them to work on these problems.
Trustee Patty Matos noted that she agreed with Mr. Ciccone and feels that athletics positively affects student character and motivates many kids to do better in classes so that they can continue playing the sports they love. She noted that it would be terrible if the District and BOE had to pit academics against athletics and the arts opportunities for students.
Mr. Kaszubski then opened the floor to residents for comments and/or questions, with a requirement that each person take no more than three minutes, until after every resident who wanted to comment had been given a chance to do so.
Comments and Questions By Residents:
Having witnessed some primarily emotion-based Residents Remarks periods regarding some intensive subjects in prior years, it was very nice to observe that only one resident elected to begin negatively, and then demonstrate apparent disdain for most of those on the dais.
Fortunately, other residents chose to be more constructive, and to pose intelligent questions or comments, some of them quite informative for me, and undoubtedly for others.
Here is a quick run-down of the breath of attitudes or beliefs or simple wondering:
One resident observed “I don’t wholeheartedly agree with freezing teachers pay, but we do have to start moving in that direction.”
Seven residents -- some giving personal testimony about their experience or their childrens’ experience -- affirmed their support for the District’s athletics programs and other after-school activities for students.
One resident felt that the voters would approve a budget bearing a tax increase of 7% or 8%, and felt that it too pessimistic to feel they would not approve more than 4% or 5% tax increase.
One resident felt that it would be hurtful if the District had to cut salaries and lose teachers.
One resident observed that if the District needs to cut back from Full Day Kindergarten to Half Day Kindergarten then it will be essential to give parents time to make alternative arrangements. [Note: Mr. Scordo indicated that would be done, and advised that Kindergarten would be one of the topics for the March 17th agenda.]
One resident indicated that if the District makes cuts in some areas, but not in other areas, then it would create adversarial relationships.
One resident asked about cuts in Admin. [Note: Mr. Scordo reminded everyone that in the current year’s budget, the District eliminated one Ass’t Principal position in Glenn, as well as eliminated one Ass’t Principal position at Boyd, and eliminated the Director of Transportation position, and that what had been full-time positions, the Ass’t Sup’t for Curriculum, and the Ass’t Superintendent for Human Resources, are now both part-time positions; of course, he also observed that Mrs. Llewellyn actually works close to full-time, although she receives only a part-time salary.]
One resident observed that the District Administration is “fabulous [and] I will never vote down a budget [and] I hope the people will stay positive and stay together.” The resident continued by observing “If I were a teacher I would take a freeze to make sure my colleagues should not lose their jobs.”
One resident asked “what is the three to four year plan even if was possible to pass a 13% tax increase? [Note: Mr. Scordo observed that was “a great question” but that the slide shown earlier, regarding future problems under the current Albany agenda, “was just crated today and we need to study the issue.” He also said that the Governor “is not coming up with a plan to tackle the real causes of our problems.”]
One resident asked “do we know the demographics in the District, [such as] how many are older and on fixed income?” [Mr. Ciccone replied that a study was done a few years ago and approximately 60% of households in Elwood do not have children in our schools.”]
Summarizing Potpourri of Comments:
It’s not easy to distill so many pages of notes into something “short and sweet,” but here are some additional comments which I noted at various points in the evening’s dialogue:
Dr. Friedman - Albany kept lowering the pension contribution under political pressure [i.e., not because it was required to do so] but changes in the law can be made; e.g. new pension tiers can be created. Also, changes can be made in health insurance. He asked “what if some of the changes that could have been made in Albany years ago had been done...well, our problems would be much less today.”
Mr. Kaplan - If every district starts cutting teacher positions, then there won’t be any job openings for the young teachers who would get cut. He said he was trying “to save teacher jobs” by getting concessions on teacher pay.
Mr. Ciccone - Governor Cuomo is trying to take away [with reference to Cuomo’s structure regarding a potential future Tax Cap] from the voters of each school district any opportunity to reasonably act on budgets which the majority chooses to pass. He also pointed, in contrast to Cuomo, to some encouraging Education plans from President Obama [“even though I’ve never been much of a fan of his”] and from Secretary of Education Arne Duncan.
Final Commentary:
Anyone who does more than scan what I have written over the past few years would understand that I am very much a centrist on these and other issues. The way to deal with problems is to roll up your metaphorical sleeves and get involved, but when many of those problems are imposed upon you by Albany, it makes it more than a bit challenging to effect the kinds of changes that are needed.
Those who feel that everything is simple, and that only their personal views are the right views, and that it is somehow a sign of weakness (or worse) to seek compromise or work for the mutual benefit of all, are not serving the community or the nation.
I heard one descriptive and quite creative word last Thursday night which I thought was spot-on; it was levied at some governors who seem to be taking a “no prisoners” approach to change within their jurisdictions, and the phrase was “thug-ocracy.”
We have to avoid any kind of thug-ocracy approach --from the left or from the right -- if we are ever going to really solve our own fiscal problems, both in the State of New York and in the nation.
Overview:
The Board Budget Work Session drew a much larger crowd than usual, with part of that attendance as a reaction to the hypothetical discussion on March 3rd of how deep cuts might have to be if the District ended up with a Contingent Budget. It became a very candid discussion, and there there some interesting comments and questions from the dais, as well as from the sixteen residents who chose to speak during the subsequent Residents Remarks period. Clearly, this is a very complex issue with ramifications for the students, for staff, and for taxpayers.
Full Description and Background:
Last Thursday the District Administration and Board of Education held another Budget Work Session, and because of the large number of residents who attended (my estimation was 200 +), it was held in the Middle School auditorium.
Many people were there to demonstrate support for the athletic program and the co-curricular activities which the District provides for our students. It was not possible to determine whether or not all of them realized that the two page outline released on March 3rd -- in which Superintendent Peter Scordo had demonstrated just how deep personnel cuts would still have to be even if a number of very important and highly valued activities were eliminated -- was a discussion document, rather than an actual plan to completely eliminate athletics and many other programs and non-required expenditures.
Anyone who attended the March 3rd session should have understood that the draft was simply a demonstration of how deep the problems would be for the District, based upon existing labor contract costs and other expenses over which the District currently has little or no control, and how much cutting in personnel would have to be done even if such important activities were completely eliminated in order to achieve a Contingent Budget, should that become necessary.
But, whether or not Thursday’s attendees -- a great many of whom were not at the previous session -- understood the reality, it was clear that many were there to provide testimony to the importance of such activities to the students, and to their parents, and to many other taxpayers. To that extent, even if their understanding was imperfect, they may have provided a service to the Board and District Administration by making that point clear.
The entire base for the discussions to date was what amounted to a rollover budget, which was released a few weeks ago. What would have caused most heads to turn began with the size of the rollover budget increase which was largely related to State mandated increases for the two pension funds, and increases in health insurance costs, and increases in energy costs, and increases in transportation costs, as well as increased salary payments to existing staff based upon labor agreements already in place. That budget-to-budget increase, if it was to be a rollover budget, would have to be 8.86%.
But, for most people, what not only caused heads to turn, but for some to jump out of their chairs seeking oxygen, was the size of the tax levy increase that would be required for a rollover budget, namely 13.33%, and that would occur because not only was the State aid payment for Elwood not keeping up with the rapidly rising costs, we (and most other districts) would actually have a reduction in our State aid.
Albany’s Formula: Rising Costs - Lower State Aid = Local Travesty
So, the Board prudently asked the Superintendent to do some hypothetical runs to demonstrate the reality of what occurs when the State cuts our aid, even as costs -- some directly from the State, some indirectly from the State, and some directly from the marketplace of providers like energy producers and bus companies, as well as local personnel expenses.
That kind of modeling is necessary to begin a more detailed internal analysis, as well as generate some needed discussions.
With that rather lengthy preamble, which I believe is necessary for full and unemotional perspective, let me now turn to some remarks heard during the meeting.
Comments From District Administration and Principals:
First, the Superintendent spoke and gave a synopsis noting that we are not only facing a budget and funding problem for 2011/12, he also projected forward and indicated that if the Governor and Legislature do impose the proposed cap of 2% on any district’s tax levy, that would require additional cuts of $2.8 million for 2012/13, and $5.0 million for 2013/14, and it only gets worse after that.
So, drastic changes would have to be made both this year, and in future years, since this would be a multiyear problem in New York State.
EMS Principal Hugh Gigante and Glenn Principal Vincent Mulieri both made presentations regarding their own schools, and you can go to the District website and download each of those. You can also download the presentation by our Ass’t Superintendent for Curriculum, Maryann Llewellyn, which followed the remarks by the two principals.
BOE Trustees Comments and Questions:
Before opening up for Residents Remarks, Board President Mike Kaszubski gave each of the Trustees a chance to pose questions or raise issues.
Trustee Andrew Kaplan asked about the potential for giving up Full Day Kindergarten, which Mr. Scordo had mentioned earlier in the evening, noting that the savings for the District would be about $300,000. He asked for clarification about whether this would be the Extended Day Program we once had, or more traditional Half Day Kindergarten, and Executive Director Gene Tranchino (who now handles Transportation in addition to his Instructional Technology duties, since the Director of Transportation position was eliminated last year, for cost savings in this year’s budget) advised Mr. Kaplan that going to Half Day rather than Extended Day saves $30,000 alone in extra transportation costs.
His next question related to what the multiplier effect would be for each dollar that might be given up in salary by an employee, and Ass’t Superintendent for Business William Pastore indicated that each $1 in salary savings translates to about $1.25 saved because of various benefits related to salary. Ass’t Superintendent for Human Resources Ronald Friedman pointed out that some employee benefits, such as health insurance, have no relationship to the income level of participants.
A multiparty discussion then took place regarding whether it might be possible to accept donations for things like stipends for coaches and advisors, and Mr. Scordo indicated that counsel to the district has advised that donations are permissible but that they must be taken into the general fund of the district. In NY State it is illegal to have what is sometimes called “pay for play”, as is done in about 25 states, and one question was how decisions are made with regard to specific sports. Mr. Scordo and Dr. Friedman did something of a tag team on pointing out that donors would have to offer their gift to the district, and the BOE would itself choose how to spend the funds, but that there must be an equitable distribution of funding for male and female sports.
Mr. Kaplan then noted that a principal problem for school districts has been the spiraling cost of benefits, and that years ago benefits were boosted to provide more equitable overall compensation at a time when teacher salaries were rather low. But salaries began a process of increase over many years, but the pension benefits -- which had been boosted when salaries were low -- was never adjusted after the salaries became much better. He felt that the District needed to get a pure freeze on salaries, and that the budget was a “nonstarter” for him until the issue was settled.
Trustee Dan Ciccone noted that last year the initial proposed budget, which had a tax increase of about 7%, was rejected in May. The revised proposed budget, which was adjusted downward to reflect a tax increase of about 4%, was approved by the voters in June. He also pointed out a significant difference between last year and this year; Contingent Budget amounts are determined by the relative inflation rate, and last year a Contingent Budget would have resulted in a tax increase of Zero, while this year a Contingent Budget would result in a tax increase of about 4%.
Mr. Ciccone then observed that our teachers are greatly valued, and that they are the ones who educate and nurture our children. But the business model for education in New York has simply grown too costly, and he is greatly concerned about the possibility that the young careers of some brilliant teachers would be ended in a Contingent Budget situation, yet he does not believe that the community would pass a budget which would require even a 7% tax increase.
He also noted that athletics and music and extracurricular activities are the soul of the community, and that he would not be able to support any budget which “does not have them as part of our budget.”
BOE Vice President Joe Fusaro asked about a few line items of the budget, and noted that the portion of the budget over which the BOE has actual discretion is relatively small, and that we are going to have a multiyear problem. He encouraged residents to contact their legislators, since they are the ones with power to change State laws, and they need to fix the structural problems for school districts. And if they don’t want to do that, then they need to give power to local governments and school districts to enable them to work on these problems.
Trustee Patty Matos noted that she agreed with Mr. Ciccone and feels that athletics positively affects student character and motivates many kids to do better in classes so that they can continue playing the sports they love. She noted that it would be terrible if the District and BOE had to pit academics against athletics and the arts opportunities for students.
Mr. Kaszubski then opened the floor to residents for comments and/or questions, with a requirement that each person take no more than three minutes, until after every resident who wanted to comment had been given a chance to do so.
Comments and Questions By Residents:
Having witnessed some primarily emotion-based Residents Remarks periods regarding some intensive subjects in prior years, it was very nice to observe that only one resident elected to begin negatively, and then demonstrate apparent disdain for most of those on the dais.
Fortunately, other residents chose to be more constructive, and to pose intelligent questions or comments, some of them quite informative for me, and undoubtedly for others.
Here is a quick run-down of the breath of attitudes or beliefs or simple wondering:
One resident observed “I don’t wholeheartedly agree with freezing teachers pay, but we do have to start moving in that direction.”
Seven residents -- some giving personal testimony about their experience or their childrens’ experience -- affirmed their support for the District’s athletics programs and other after-school activities for students.
One resident felt that the voters would approve a budget bearing a tax increase of 7% or 8%, and felt that it too pessimistic to feel they would not approve more than 4% or 5% tax increase.
One resident felt that it would be hurtful if the District had to cut salaries and lose teachers.
One resident observed that if the District needs to cut back from Full Day Kindergarten to Half Day Kindergarten then it will be essential to give parents time to make alternative arrangements. [Note: Mr. Scordo indicated that would be done, and advised that Kindergarten would be one of the topics for the March 17th agenda.]
One resident indicated that if the District makes cuts in some areas, but not in other areas, then it would create adversarial relationships.
One resident asked about cuts in Admin. [Note: Mr. Scordo reminded everyone that in the current year’s budget, the District eliminated one Ass’t Principal position in Glenn, as well as eliminated one Ass’t Principal position at Boyd, and eliminated the Director of Transportation position, and that what had been full-time positions, the Ass’t Sup’t for Curriculum, and the Ass’t Superintendent for Human Resources, are now both part-time positions; of course, he also observed that Mrs. Llewellyn actually works close to full-time, although she receives only a part-time salary.]
One resident observed that the District Administration is “fabulous [and] I will never vote down a budget [and] I hope the people will stay positive and stay together.” The resident continued by observing “If I were a teacher I would take a freeze to make sure my colleagues should not lose their jobs.”
One resident asked “what is the three to four year plan even if was possible to pass a 13% tax increase? [Note: Mr. Scordo observed that was “a great question” but that the slide shown earlier, regarding future problems under the current Albany agenda, “was just crated today and we need to study the issue.” He also said that the Governor “is not coming up with a plan to tackle the real causes of our problems.”]
One resident asked “do we know the demographics in the District, [such as] how many are older and on fixed income?” [Mr. Ciccone replied that a study was done a few years ago and approximately 60% of households in Elwood do not have children in our schools.”]
Summarizing Potpourri of Comments:
It’s not easy to distill so many pages of notes into something “short and sweet,” but here are some additional comments which I noted at various points in the evening’s dialogue:
Dr. Friedman - Albany kept lowering the pension contribution under political pressure [i.e., not because it was required to do so] but changes in the law can be made; e.g. new pension tiers can be created. Also, changes can be made in health insurance. He asked “what if some of the changes that could have been made in Albany years ago had been done...well, our problems would be much less today.”
Mr. Kaplan - If every district starts cutting teacher positions, then there won’t be any job openings for the young teachers who would get cut. He said he was trying “to save teacher jobs” by getting concessions on teacher pay.
Mr. Ciccone - Governor Cuomo is trying to take away [with reference to Cuomo’s structure regarding a potential future Tax Cap] from the voters of each school district any opportunity to reasonably act on budgets which the majority chooses to pass. He also pointed, in contrast to Cuomo, to some encouraging Education plans from President Obama [“even though I’ve never been much of a fan of his”] and from Secretary of Education Arne Duncan.
Final Commentary:
Anyone who does more than scan what I have written over the past few years would understand that I am very much a centrist on these and other issues. The way to deal with problems is to roll up your metaphorical sleeves and get involved, but when many of those problems are imposed upon you by Albany, it makes it more than a bit challenging to effect the kinds of changes that are needed.
Those who feel that everything is simple, and that only their personal views are the right views, and that it is somehow a sign of weakness (or worse) to seek compromise or work for the mutual benefit of all, are not serving the community or the nation.
I heard one descriptive and quite creative word last Thursday night which I thought was spot-on; it was levied at some governors who seem to be taking a “no prisoners” approach to change within their jurisdictions, and the phrase was “thug-ocracy.”
We have to avoid any kind of thug-ocracy approach --from the left or from the right -- if we are ever going to really solve our own fiscal problems, both in the State of New York and in the nation.
Monday, March 21, 2011
Superintendent Leads the Way Towards Budget Redemption
[Elwood Community Network commentary distributed 3/18/11]
Given the fact that [the March 17th Elwood School District] Board of Education Meeting was one minute shy of four hours, and given the fact that forty-five residents spoke at the first Residents Remarks period alone, it is going to take quite some time to wade through my twenty-five pages of notes which I took at the meeting.
But, one event was so dramatic as to warrant a kind of early headline.
As most of you know, Superintendent Peter Scordo, like administrators and teachers, is employed under a contract with the Elwood School District. Therefore, the District has a legal obligation to pay him certain amounts for his services, and he has periodic wage increases built into his contract, just as do administrators and teachers.
Last night, in a step that was a clear indication of not only Mr. Scordo’s leadership but his devotion to the students of this District, he announced that he was volunteering to take a total freeze of his salary for the 2001/12 school year.
Now, the reality is that the compensation of any superintendent of schools is a small part of the expenses of a school district, so his generous action alone cannot redeem our District from the economic problems imposed by escalating wage and benefit costs of labor agreements, or from the irresponsible action by Governor Cuomo to not only fail to keep up with increasing expenses for school districts (many of which are generated by NY State itself, and some of which come from private companies like energy providers, and bus companies) but to actually cut State aid to schools from last year’s already low levels.
But, Mr. Scordo has now provided a mark of excellence that has to be considered for similar action by the source of the greatest personnel compensation expenses for any school district, namely its teachers union.
It is only our teachers union which has the powerful economic impact for our 2011/12 school year to mean the possible difference between substantial cuts in programs as well as young teachers, instead of trying to preserve as much as we can for the students and for the budding careers of our most recent teacher hires. Teachers are the life blood of a school district, and the cuts which we need to consider, given escalating costs and State cutbacks, would be tragic.
The community owes Mr. Scordo a great deal of gratitude for what he has already accomplished for us in terms of improvements, and for the steps he has put in place to get even better, but now we have even more reason to be grateful for his financial sacrifice for the good of our students and for the fiscal integrity of our District.
We must wait to see what our teachers union may do to take their own steps towards budget redemption.
Given the fact that [the March 17th Elwood School District] Board of Education Meeting was one minute shy of four hours, and given the fact that forty-five residents spoke at the first Residents Remarks period alone, it is going to take quite some time to wade through my twenty-five pages of notes which I took at the meeting.
But, one event was so dramatic as to warrant a kind of early headline.
As most of you know, Superintendent Peter Scordo, like administrators and teachers, is employed under a contract with the Elwood School District. Therefore, the District has a legal obligation to pay him certain amounts for his services, and he has periodic wage increases built into his contract, just as do administrators and teachers.
Last night, in a step that was a clear indication of not only Mr. Scordo’s leadership but his devotion to the students of this District, he announced that he was volunteering to take a total freeze of his salary for the 2001/12 school year.
Now, the reality is that the compensation of any superintendent of schools is a small part of the expenses of a school district, so his generous action alone cannot redeem our District from the economic problems imposed by escalating wage and benefit costs of labor agreements, or from the irresponsible action by Governor Cuomo to not only fail to keep up with increasing expenses for school districts (many of which are generated by NY State itself, and some of which come from private companies like energy providers, and bus companies) but to actually cut State aid to schools from last year’s already low levels.
But, Mr. Scordo has now provided a mark of excellence that has to be considered for similar action by the source of the greatest personnel compensation expenses for any school district, namely its teachers union.
It is only our teachers union which has the powerful economic impact for our 2011/12 school year to mean the possible difference between substantial cuts in programs as well as young teachers, instead of trying to preserve as much as we can for the students and for the budding careers of our most recent teacher hires. Teachers are the life blood of a school district, and the cuts which we need to consider, given escalating costs and State cutbacks, would be tragic.
The community owes Mr. Scordo a great deal of gratitude for what he has already accomplished for us in terms of improvements, and for the steps he has put in place to get even better, but now we have even more reason to be grateful for his financial sacrifice for the good of our students and for the fiscal integrity of our District.
We must wait to see what our teachers union may do to take their own steps towards budget redemption.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
