Public Relations > News

5/27/2011: Board President’s Statement regarding the 2011-2012 budget

It is fair to say that no member of the board wants to vote for a budget that includes a tax increase of 4.87%.  That is because we represent all taxpayers including: the 80% who do not have children in school, the elderly living on fixed incomes, the poor, as well as the more financially fortunate, including those who stood up and said they would be willing to pay more if we did not reduce a program that they favored.

The administration has done an admirable job in responding to our policy which directed them to reduce expenditures in a manner that followed law, honored district contractual obligations, balanced the budget, and had the least negative effect on all of the children’s education.

Many will suffer the effects of the tax increase.  Not least of which will be seniors living on fixed incomes and who have not received a cost of living increase in Social Security payments, and whose 401K’s have been decimated by the economic trauma.

Renters will feel the pinch as their rent is increased to reflect higher property taxes.

Some students will see an increase in class size, however none will exceed the district’s historic guidelines.

Some students will see a reduction in formal sports programs in middle school.  However the administration is already working on program substitutions through the Community Education Program which will provide an alternative outlet for student athletics in after school activities that can keep them busy and out of trouble.

Some students will see a reduction in ninth grade sports, yet the administration is working on a plan to expand junior varsity participation, again in order to provide less costly yet broader participation in sports.

Many parents of students in some of our schools were upset that third grade special instruction in string instruments was to be eliminated.  This cut resulted in the room being filled on three different committee meeting nights.  Many said they would be willing to pay more for the privilege of continuing this program.  There is no way to continue the program at the reduced cost necessary and be in compliance with the contract we have with the teachers.  We were impressed with the imaginative suggestions brought forth by members of the public.   Many have been considered, implemented, or rejected for contractual reasons.

The most damaging reductions come in the form of reduced intervention support in both title and non-title schools for kids who struggle to learn to read at an early age.  This issue has been more troubling for board members.  We know that learning to read in elementary school is more important than any other skill, including music.  The administration has been under constant pressure from the board to find ways to substitute for these lost services.  They have again responded well.  Many teachers have been cross-trained to provide these services.  Also, if any funds are restored from the state, the reading assistants will be the first to be restored. 

Another very damaging reduction is the suspension of bus service from several of our schools to the Boys and Girls Club.  Some of the kids who take advantage of this service are from struggling families, sometimes single parent families.  The structured program at the club requires kids first have to do their homework in a supervised homework room, and then they are allowed to play.  This support is not always available at home.  Getting homework done in a supervised environment with mentors to help is a very important ingredient to early childhood learning.  Not one board member wants to give this up, yet it is not required by the state.  The administration is hard at work to find alternative funding for this important activity.

After you listen to this recitation of reductions, and if you have followed the discussions and heard the agonizing comments by board members, then you can only conclude that my colleagues have responded to the challenge with the utmost care for all stakeholders.

There are several paths to a balanced budget.

1. Reduce spending in non-essential, non-mandated, non-contractual areas.  The Administration responded by reducing expenditures by $970,000.  There was still a budget shortfall of $3 million.

2. Reduce payroll:  Starting with the Superintendent, all administrators, including the cabinet, their administrative assistants, all of the principals and assistant principals, everyone involved in the administrative portion of the district gave back some or all of their expected salary increases for next year.

3. Additional payroll reductions:  We asked other employee groups to take a salary freeze.  After lengthy discussions, 3 groups declined or placed conditions on the freeze that were unacceptable to the board and administration.  Discussions with those three groups were ended on May 5th.  The next day both parties sent statements to the press and each position was reported in local papers.  There was also information posted on the district web site.

4. Reduce costs:  We offered an Early Retirement Incentive that prompted 28 teachers to retire.  All of them are at the top of the salary schedule.  Some, but not all, will be replaced by teachers at the entry level of the salary schedule.  There will be a net reduction in cost to the district.  This step was used to make a significant contribution to closing the budget gap.  Without it, there would have been more serious reductions in the education program.

5. The ERI has become more controversial than need be.  Here are some facts. 

6. From the beginning, it was planned that some teachers were not going to be replaced, but the exact number could not be known until the administration knew who the actual retirees were.  As it turned out 17 teachers will not be replaced, knowing what we now know.

7. It is claimed by a resident that 14 teachers retire each year and as a result we will pay an incentive to teachers who were going to retire any way.  This is only partly true.  The average over 7 years is 14, but the range is between 9 and 17.  More important, the administration had only 3 retirements in hand at a time when they would have had 8 or 9 in a normal year.  Therefore there was no assurance that the 28 retirements would be forthcoming.  Absent these retirements there would have been far more serious cuts to the education program.

8. The total of salaries and benefits for all 28 retirees is $3.2 million.  The cost of 11 replacements is $563,000.  The cost of incentive dollars in the first year is $241,500.  This yields a net reduction in cost to the district of $2,418,200 in the first year.  There are similar reductions in cost for each of the next three years of the ERI.  These are real reductions, no accounting gimmicks, real reductions in district costs.  

9. There are real reductions in taxpayer costs since their costs include the actual contributions to the retirement system in the year that contributions are made.

10. The board knew in January that there was work to be done with the administration to close a budget shortfall of about $1.5 million.  We took a prudent decision and said we would not go to referendum to ask to raise taxes more than 4.87% as allowed by law.  We published a preliminary budget together with the decision not to go to referendum.  That budget and decision was duly published, listed on the web site, and made available for public inspection. 

11. When the state budget proposal was revealed on March 8, we discovered we would have an additional shortfall exceeding $1.5 million for a total of more than $3 million.  But the opportunity to decide to go to referendum had passed because of the time line imposed by state law. 

12. There was a short window of time in which to make this ERI work.  Two days after the state budget proposal was revealed, the administration began discussions to obtain wage freezes and to explore the possibility of the ERI if we did not get the wage freezes required.

13. During the next several weeks the discussions continued with the teacher’s union leadership.  They continued to attempt to modify the ERI as though the wage freeze and ERI were connected., which they were not.

14. On April 7th, the ERI package was sent to all eligible employees.   The due date for return was no later than April 21 at 4 PM.  No one would know the results of the program until that moment. 

15. We all knew that the next day was Good Friday and the beginning of a 4 day weekend.   We all knew the date for the next board meeting had been advanced two days to comply with the law stating we had to publish the budget 30 days prior to adoption at the next board meeting.

16. Ignorant of these facts, a member of the public chose to put the worst possible interpretation on the fact that the budget was not on the web site until the day of the meeting.  Ignorant of these facts he went on to charge the board with deception because of the short notice and because the ERI was placed on the consent / action agenda.  No item on the consent agenda is in a “not to be discussed” mode.  We all know that any member can request any an item be removed from the consent agenda and placed on the discussion agenda, and that in fact is what happened.  There has never been any attempt at this time or any other time, by this board, to deceive the public.  We have been and continue to be scrupulous about following the Sunshine Law.

17. We will continue to the best job in the most transparent mode that we have always done for all of the taxpayers in this district.