Superintendent presents 2013-2014 School Budget

Superintendent Patricia Charles presented her 2013-2014 budget to the Board of Education Tuesday evening, asking for increases in almost every part of the budget.  Five major price increases are driving the overall budget increase:

1. Contractual increases in salaries (asking for 7% increase)
2. Increased cost of benefits (assuming a 20% increase in costs)
3. A need to purchase critical technology infrastructure & hardware (asking for 23% increase)
4. State mandates for the new Common Core State Standards, professional development, assessments, and reform efforts 
5. Tuition for out of district students (33% increase asked for - covers both special ed services and magnet school participation)

The combined sum of requested increases totals almost $8.5 million; however, there currently is no bottom line request for the new budget because of additional negotiations still underway with the City.  Superintendent Charles has a meeting next week with Mayor Dan Drew about the possibility of combining redundant services, and this may drastically change what the BOE budget looks like.  For example, the City and the BOE both maintain grounds-keeping personnel.  If this function could be assumed by the City for school grounds, the BOE would not have to spend this money.

Once the City and the Superintendent agree on what services can be combined, the Superintendent's budget can be finalized.  A bottom line budget number is expected at the January BOE meeting.

In the mean time, Dr. Charles has to deal with the current budget deficit for the 2012-2013 budget.  The BOE approved immediate cuts in the following areas:

Athletics trainer ($5000)
Activities ($20, 548)
21st Century After School ($15, 000)
Cell phone reduced ($3000)
1 custodian - unfilled position ($40, 000)
All City Arts Show cut back ($2000)
Adult Ed benefits ($40, 000)
BOE salary/benefits reduction ($2000)
Facility use (Hall House) ($9, 621)
Increase cafeteria prices ($15, 000)
Consultant fee reduction ($2, 500)
15% hold on supply funds ($142, 969)
long term sub ($31, 889)
city return of unexpended utility balance ($70, 381)
EAP RFP ($5, 400)

Total - $455,308

These immediate reductions really only cover approximately 1/2 the actual deficit amount.  As the school year continues, there are several unknowns that may exaggerate the deficit: winter weather, the out-placement of special ed students, unexpected facilities issues/repairs, state funding reductions, maternity leave, and magnet school participation.  Furthermore, approximately 75% of the budget is salaries and benefits, so any significant budgetary savings would have to include cutting teaching positions.

BOE member Sheila Daniels praised the Superintendent, thanking her for a thorough presentation that was eye-opening and daunting: "I think you presented a budget that will move us forward."

BOE Budget Committee member Ed McKeon thanked Dr. Charles for her hard work and analysis for savings, noting that he intended to personally support her budget requests.  "We have to work hard to make sure the budget is realistic, but we have been skating on thin ice for 5 years.  We have been working on budgets that have sent us backwards, and we can no longer accept budgets that push us backwards.  We will continue to see erosion to magnet schools."  McKeon went to on say that the "Public has to understand the position that the state put us in - without any proof in the pudding - that this problem is foisted upon BOEs without legislators addressing how to fund education system.  The poorest communities have the biggest problems and the wealthiest communities have no problems.  It is unacceptable for the governor to say he's cutting education and expecting us to do more.  Our schools can't perform at the level expected if resources are taken away."

Budget Chairman Ted Raczka seemed stunned at the proposed budget, and he raised several potential issues of concern:

1. How could a new budget get put together if staff contracts had not yet been approved by the Common Council?
2. Several of the budget object codes were not clear or transparent for Raczka to understand what the budgeted funds would be used for.

Raczka seemed to be the only BOE member who verbalized doubts about the proposed budget: "An 11% budget increase?  Almost 8 million dollars?  This is breathtaking given the realities in our community...this would be a fundamental change in how city funds everything.  The community can't afford that kind of budget increase unless other things are let go."

In contrast, BOE Chairman Dr. Gene Nocera commented, "we have a clear understanding of what the district needs, it took a considerable amount of time to present this, and our responsibility to present this in as clear a way as possible.  The next 30-60 days are critical to move the district forward."

Besides approving budget reductions, the BOE also acted to approve the 2013-14 School Calendar (yes, February break is included!) and it increased breakfast and lunch prices by $.15 and $.25 respectively.  The cafeteria price increase will begin January 2, 2013.  For more information, read Dr. Charles' letter to parents here. (click on the Cafeteria Menu Prices Increase as of January 1, 2013 link)

The next regular BOE meeting is Tuesday, January 8, 2013, at 7pm in the Common Council Chambers at City Hall.

Reader Commentary: Children in a Divorce?

A reader commentary submitted by Eye reader Jane Majewski

CHILDREN IN A DIVORCE ?

Watching the leaders of our town debate the responsibility of the budget between the BOE and City feels akin to a child living in divorce proceedings. The two parents divorcing, the Board of Education Administration and the old city leadership have been publicly fighting and blaming the other side in ways that I believe are destructive to the core structure of our educational system in town. Two sides spending almost a million dollars of money that was earmarked for special education without communicating to each other has been described as a married couple not communicating how much each is spending from a bank account and drawing a negative balance.

I get this. I just don't get why. I don't get how leaders on both sides of this issue are able to disagree to a level of non communicating about a million dollars. I don't like showing up at BOE meetings to watch those sides attack each other personally. What ever happened to disagreeing with each other but respecting the other side?

The public sits and watches as two parents divorcing are yelling at each other about finances, about who is to blame for the breakdown of the "marriage". As children (and yes, they're adults but for the sake of the story I call them children) stand at the microphone and also attack people; they're rebuked by the same parents who are doing the same thing to each other.

The public, like children in a divorce, listens to both sides. Many have aligned themselves with the "parent" that they most agree with based on their relationships with each side. I watched the Union leader of the Administration read a heartfelt letter about the wonderful things our administration has done in spite of the bad press as of late. I agree. Our administration and teachers have done some amazing things. Then I watch parents stand and angrily scream out like children having been tossed to the side over issues that are painfully real to their experiences. I agree with them also.

I myself feel like I am tossed in a storm on the sea. Perhaps I would be called the middle child? I am a parent who feels she has unresolved issues with the administration regarding simple safety issues for a child with special needs. I am also a parent of a child who has flourished academically and socially at the hands of wonderful staff in her school. I can see both sides.

What I can't see is why is the divide this toxic? Why are the leaders of our educational system hanging onto "who is right" more than focusing on making the educational system a better one for all involved?

Did I mention that there is a new wife in this story? Yes, the Board of Ed has a new wife, the mayor (symbolically). The step mother and father have made a decision about how to resolve the million dollar problem while the first wife (the old BOE leaders) have not felt like they have a say in the matter.
Dad and his new wife have decided that the old wife was wrong in spending the money and will pay him and his new wife back.

The problem as I see it is this....the money wasn't Dad's, his wife or his ex-wives to spend. The money was given from outside the city and earmarked for special education. So, as the middle child, I have to ask...... "this child support if its for educating our children, why is Dad's new wife getting to spend it?"

Let me interpret. State money to reimburse special ed services came to the town. The town spent it. The BoE spent it. The new leadership has decided that the BOE should not have spent it and will now pay it back. Where will this money come from? Could it be reducing special education supports? Could that have been why DEAL was closed to begin with? Will they cut academic programs? teachers salaries? athletic programs? A million dollars is a lot to pay back even in a payment plan. The children and their teachers will pay the price.

I am thinking that both sides may need intervention much like divorcing parents are required to go through family relations. I think they need someone who is not politically aligned to help them work through their differences in a productive way. Me? I think I'll move to grandma's house until they all figure out what they're doing.........