| Author | Message | ||
     Jerry Moore (Admin) Board Administrator Username: Admin Post Number: 25886 Registered: 01-2000  Rating: N/A |
Schenectady school district working around fees for facilities By Kathleen Moore / Schenectady (NY) Daily Gazette Reporter July 24, 2010  SCHENECTADY — The Schenectady city school district’s contingency budget won’t stop Pop Warner from throwing passes or shutter the basketball leagues that depend on school gymansiums. And the multitude of groups that meet in the schools on weeknights won’t even notice that the district is in contingency. That’s a real break, considering that state-limited budgets ban outside groups from using the schools unless they pay for the privilege. Not in Schenectady. Interim Superintendent John Yagielski has devised a way for every group to keep using school facilities without paying. “Sometimes you have to look at the letter of the law and look at the intent, too,” he said of the state law that requires user fees during contingency. “Clearly the intent is for us to not incur cost.”  No. Clearly the intent is for the district to be paid for providing the facilities to the community for non-school activities and meetings. Yagielski has got it wrong but who's going to file a complaint with the state education commissioner or file a lawsuit? This is why school officials pretty much do what they please regardless of the laws that are passed. There are simply no consequences. No one goes to jail. No one is fined. No one's pension is reduced. Yagielski has simply decided to remove one of the last remaining adverse consequences from contingency budgets because nobody can do anything about it. The law does state that non-school groups must pay for whatever cost the district would incur by hosting them. Even if they meet in a cafeteria and cause no mess, a janitor must be on duty to unlock the doors and lock them afterward, so they must pay for that person’s hourly wage. The answer, Yagielski said, is to simply schedule as many events as possible during regular staffing hours. Janitors work in every school building until midnight, Monday through Friday. That takes care of the Girl Scout meetings and Boys and Girls Club events. Why stop there? Why not simply schedule regular staffing hours whenever you want someone to have the free use of your building or facilities? Then you can thumb your nose at the entire statute. You know where this is headed, don't you? Regular staffing hours will be scheduled for favored groups and non-favored groups, well their meeting times by some accident or fate will be scheduled when staff aren't scheduled to work. And the district would love to schedule your disfavored group during regular staffing hours, but it just won't be possible for this flimsy excuse or that one. But the groups that use the district’s athletic fields were more of a challenge. Yagielski thought Pop Warner might be forced to pay $50 to $75 an hour for every field that its players practice on every day. The cost could have been crushing. Similarly, the two youth basketball leagues that play indoors on Saturdays faced an overwhelming bill to toss basketballs this winter. So Yagielski called a summit this Friday with all of the heavy outdoor and weekend users to devise creative ways to avoid the fees. Pop Warner offered to keep the fields spotless so that the district would not have to pay anyone to clean after the games and practices. That left only the bathrooms; on weekends, janitors come in on overtime to open the buildings so players can use the toilets. It doesn't work. What about the cost of wear and tear? What about utilities inside the buildings? And absolutely no one can keep anything spotless and use it at the same time. It's a complete fiction. Damage is unavoidable, too. A chip here, a dent there. All of this will be overlooked. “The Pop Warner people are clever,” Yagielski said. “They said they have arrangements in other places for porta-potties. If it’s sitting there and they’ve got someone taking care of it, we don’t incur cost. If they police the place, we wouldn’t incur cost.” Total bill: zero. At the end of the Pop Warner season, the group may have to raise some money for facilities when it gets too dark to play without lights. But Yagielski said he’s advised the group to reschedule so that only a few games occur in darkness. “Of course, later in the season they may need the lights,” he said. But in that case, he’s offered to help them fundraise. “Say they put on a Brooks barbecue sale,” he said. “People need to be there to serve, to help out, so I said a number of us would be willing to personally put on an apron, show up and promote it. Of course this would be strictly on a volunteer basis.” The basketball leagues may be a harder nut to crack. Yagielski is meeting with them one-on-one to go over their entire schedule along with the district’s master schedule for building staff. If they can use the gymnasiums when staff are in the building and keep the area clean on their own, they will likely not have to pay anything. But staff are rarely in the buildings on Saturdays, so the leagues will have to switch to weeknights or raise money to pay for weekend games, at a price of $75 an hour. Geeze. Why not make the same deal as made with the other groups--spotless, no-cost use--and bring in a school monitor for $15 an hour? Why charge $75 an hour? What's that about? Where's all that creative energy to avoid the law? Ooo! Ooo! Here's a better idea. The superintendent and other administrators are salaried. Just have the superintendent show up to open and close buildings and viola! Free building use. How hard is that? At around $600 a day, plus pension, surely the superintendent could open and close a few doors at opportune times. The district will calculate their total cost now so they know how much they must raise, Yagielski said. He’s hoping to help them minimize it through slight schedule changes. “Fridays versus Saturdays, for example,” he said. “Reasonable people who work together can meet the requirements of the law and still run programs.” However, city residents will have to give up one pleasure this year. The pool, which must be staffed by lifeguards, will not be open for free swimming. “Since it costs us money, it’s clearly one of those things we can’t do this year,” Yagielski said. What? Lifeguards are staff--or could be. If you want to completely gut the law, just schedule a private lesson for one student during public swim times and now the public can swim for free. Don't pretend you have ethics or respect for the law, now. This is a perfect example of how non-favored groups pay while favored groups get a free ride. They may be able to swim for a fee, but so few people swim at the pool that the fee might be unaffordable, Yagielski said. “It would come down to ‘are there enough people?'” he said. “If there’s only one person, that’s a really expensive swim.” 
| ||
| Jerry Moore (Admin) Board Administrator Username: Admin Post Number: 24987 Registered: 01-2000 Rating: N/A |
An illusion of democracy An Albany (NY) Times Union Editorial March 18, 2010 * * * Ms. Oppenheimer's bill, and a similar one in the Assembly, sponsored by Amy Paulin, D-Scarsdale, would let districts off the hook. It would allow contingency budgets of 4 percent or "the average of the previous five years of" the CPI. That would turn the four-tenths of one percent decline in the CPI last year into an increase of 2.5 percent. * * * The Assembly should reject this bill. Or it should at least insist that every school tax bill sent this fall contain a prominent note: "This tax increase was brought to you by your state legislator."
| ||
| Jerry Moore (Admin) Board Administrator Username: Admin Post Number: 24966 Registered: 01-2000 Rating: N/A |
A boost for contingency budgets Lawmakers back change in calculation of school districts' austerity plans By RICK KARLIN, Albany (NY) Times Union Capitol bureau March 16, 2010 * * * The contingency spending increase is limited to 4 percent or 120 percent of the Consumer Price Index, whichever is less. With deflation rather than inflation running through much of the economy, school budgets based on the CPI would stay level or drop less than half a percent this year. "We never really counted on a deflationary time," Oppenheimer said. Who's we? But allowing the CPI calculation to be based on a five-year average, the budgets could go up about 3 percent. Why doesn't the legislature just take away our right to vote on school budgets? This gives schools a 3.5% increase above the current contingency rules (which, without an increase in state aid above the governor's recommendation, will drive tax rates into the double digits). But you only think there are rules. The only rule is that no rule will keep public schools from increasing spending faster than the rate of inflation. And while the 5-year average sounds fair, public schools will be the first ones calling it unfair when they face inflation of 4, 5 or 6% with a 5-year average of less than 3%. Do you think the legislature and schools will leave the rules in place? I'll tell you how this works. Schools want the power to increase spending faster than current rules allow. But, they don't want to appear blatant about it. They want to make it appear as though the proposed change is an improvement over the current method. It's fairer. So, the 5-year average is born. It is fully supported by public schools and administrators. But this isn't a change based on principle. It's a change based on expediency. And as soon as the rule works against them, then they'll come up with a new fairness doctrine. Make no mistake about this change. It's an unfunded mandate when it comes to YOUR POCKETBOOK. It's a mandatory tax increase and a disenfranchisement of your right to vote under the rules of the game that have served public school interests for more than a decade. Now that the rule is about to give you a break, the rule is being changed. THIS IS NOT LEGITIMATE. IT IS NOT RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT. IT IS TYRANNY. Voters should force every school district into contingency if this passes. Force the schools to limit administrator costs and eliminate equipment purchases. There should be a revolt over this. And don't forget, it was your neighborhood educators who lobbied to take away your right to vote under the current rules. They do not respect you. They will be keeping all of their inflation-busting raises. They will be keeping all the raises they got because home prices were soaring. Their salaries will not fall even though home prices have fallen. Their salaries will not fall even though the labor market is flooded with teachers and teacher candidates. You are being screwed to the nth degree. You want to know why the college educated earn higher salaries than the rest. It's because they make the rules and they make damn sure they don't have to play by the rules that you play by. See, also, How Rich is Your Superintendent?. It's time for a law that caps the total compensation of public employees to an amount equivalent to 10 times the annual salary of a minimum wage worker. * * * *
| ||
| Jerry Moore (Admin) Board Administrator Username: Admin Post Number: 24834 Registered: 01-2000 Rating: N/A |
Contingency budgets face stark limits for 2010-11 By JAMIE MUNKS / Watertown (NY) Daily Times staff writer FEBRUARY 25, 2010 * * * The index declined from 3.8 percent in 2008 to minus 0.4 percent in 2009. That means contingency budget constraints will be tighter than usual, and school districts will have to face making reductions in programs, staffing and equipment purchases if budgets are defeated. * * * By law, spending categories that are safe from cuts in a contingency budget include debt service, capital construction projects and expenses relating to a court order. But areas district officials can cut include student supplies, new equipment purchases, community use of buildings and raises for noninstructional employees who are not union members. * * * School district budget votes will take place May 18.
| ||
| Anonymous Rating: N/A |
At the meeting of my school board last week, they indicated that legislation to base the contingency budget amount on a five year moving average of CPI was under consideration as the way to offset the zero contingency budget otherwise likely. Why doesn't someone propose the elimination of a contingency budget? Other states don't have it and their schools are working. Maybe we should eliminate voting on budgets all together and just vote on tax rate increases. In Ohio, school districts can go for as long as 10 years without requesting an increase in the tax rate. | ||
| Jerry Moore (Admin) Board Administrator Username: Admin Post Number: 24770 Registered: 01-2000 Rating: N/A |
2010-11 Contingency Budget Cap I've been waiting and waiting for the state to announce the CPI for 2009 so we can know what the Contingency Budget cap is. "[T]he overall increase in the total budget, with certain exclusions, is capped at the lesser of 120 percent multiplied by the average of the national consumer price indexes (CPI) determined by the U.S. Department of Labor for the 12 month period preceding January first of the current year," or 4%. The law is clear. So, why hasn't State Ed announced the CPI so school districts can calculate their contingency budgets? Because neither State Ed nor school districts like the CPI for 2009. They want to change the rules of the game. The CPI for 2009 is -0.4% [source], which means there was no inflation in 2009, just a slight touch of deflation. It is my understanding that State Ed has told school districts that the CPI to be used for calculating contingency budgets is 0%, but it has made no public announcement. That's because it's not currently the law. In Governor Paterson's 2010-11 Executive Proposal for Aid to Education [pdf] we read, "The Governor’s proposal would prevent a negative contingency budget cap adjustment, even if the average change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) is a negative number. When the CPI change is negative the allowable adjustment to the contingent budget cap would be zero." That might not sound too unfair to you now, but there could be years when deflation runs above 5%. To allow school districts to keep everything they have during deflationary periods is the same as giving them big raises when everyone else is getting less. You'll recall that when fuel and utility prices were soaring, school districts constantly publicized their pain. But with fuel and utility prices lower than budgeted this school year, do you think school districts will say, "We can handle a 0% increase because of our unexpected savings"? Not on your life. In fact, I'm sure the superintendent, school board and teacher associations are telling legislators that a 0% contingency budget cap would be disastrous for education. I'm sure they want a minimum of 2%, and they would tell the people what a great sacrifice they're making if they get it. In this post, Bob Lowry of the New York State Council of School Superintendents implicitly noted that sometimes the contingency budget cap gives schools a bigger boost than justified by current inflationary pressures. You don't see school districts running to the governor and the legislature to scale back the size of the cap to make it fair when it's too high. They quietly keep their advantage and tell voters, "It's what the law requires." But now that the formula has swung in favor of taxpayers, they aren't saying, "You win some, you lose some." They're doing what the powerful always do--ensuring that anyone except them suffers. They want you to believe they play by the rules--rules they helped write to benefit themselves. But when the rules work against them, they demand that the rules be changed. What should we call people and organizations that do this? Even if the contingency budget CPI isn't amended, you can bet that public schools will get the equivalent benefit through some other means, because they really can't live with a 0% budget increase if their budgets fail. They have to pay staff their raises, which are averaging above 4% for this year and topping out as high as 7 to 9%, based on averages from 2007-08. Staff salaries, FICA and Medicare taxes amount to nearly 60% of school budgets. The other parts of the budget aren't falling nearly as fast as employee costs are rising. Somebody in the "professional" press needs to be writing a story about this.
| ||
| Jerry Moore (Admin) Board Administrator Username: Admin Post Number: 23380 Registered: 01-2000 Rating: N/A |
Law would ban higher school contingency budgets By LAUREN STANFORTH, Albany (NY) Times Union Staff writer June 22, 2009 SCHENECTADY -- Assembly Republicans James Tedisco and George Amedore want to ban school districts from adopting contingency budgets that are higher than the budgets voters rejected, after the Schenectady City School District threatened to adopt a contingency budget with a 16 percent tax levy increase if its second budget failed last week. Tedisco said this week he'll introduce the School Budget Vote Fairness Act, a law that would forbid districts from taking exemptions that would bump their contingency budgets above the 4 percent spending increase now allowed under state law. The Schenectady school district told residents its contingency budget would be about $5 million more, and carry a huge tax levy increase, if voters shot down the $160.6 million budget presented to voters Tuesday. The district said it used the state formula to compute the contingency budget, a formula that allows districts to tack on money for expected enrollment increases. Schenectady said it needed $6.3 million more for an expected 471-student surge this fall. Without the enrollment money, the district's contingency budget would have been $159.2 million. Tedisco and Amedore's bill would stop the practice of adding money based on projected enrollment increases. But it would allow school districts to take other current exemptions, such as for construction and charter school costs, so long as the exemptions fall within the four spending increase allowed. A news release from Tedisco and Amedore called Schenectady's proposed contingency budget a "questionable school practice." But Tedisco said Sunday he's not specifically criticizing Schenectady by proposing the new law. "There should be a stipulation, regardless of what happens, that a contingency must be below the last budget voted on by the citizenry of the community," said Tedisco, R,C,I-Glenville. "We're not blaming anybody, but obviously there's a loophole." Schenectady school officials thought their second budget failed last Tuesday by six votes. But an election worker apparently transposed numbers from a machine at the high school, swaying the vote to "yes" by 47 votes. The 2009-2010 budget now voted in has a tax levy increase of 5.8 percent. Superintendent Eric Ely said last week the proposed $165.5 million contingency budget was based on a formula the district has used every year to construct a possible contingency budget. A policy expert at New York State United Teachers told the Times Union last week that money for enrollment increases, while legally allowed, does not have to be included in a contingency budget. When asked about that statement, Ely said he wasn't sure if the enrollment money had to be included. Tedisco said his bill will be considered this year if there's a special legislative session held. If not, the bill would not be entertained until 2010.
| ||
| Jerry Moore (Admin) Board Administrator Username: Admin Post Number: 23349 Registered: 01-2000 Rating: N/A |
Fix budget fiasco with law A Schenectady (NY) Daily Gazette Editorial June 19, 2009 Assemblymen James Tedisco and George Amedore, both of whom know a populist issue when they see one, are hoping to clarify statutorily what Schenectady school officials and the state Department of Education refused to during the recent budget fiasco. That is that so-called contingency budgets, which school boards are required to impose when taxpayers twice reject budget propositions, are supposed to be smaller than either of the two rejected budgets. We wish the legislators well. While there is evidence that State Ed requires a contingency budget to be smaller, Schenectady officials created more than enough ambiguity this month that voters fearing a 15.8 percent tax hike went instead for a revised budget calling for a 5.8 percent increase. Superintendent Eric Ely insisted that a formula which takes into account projected enrollment increases had to be factored into the equation — even though he had done so only minimally in either of the budgets rejected by voters because, he said, he was dubious of the projection. A projected influx of some 500 students would have fattened Schenectady’s contingency budget by some $6.5 million, resulting in a punishing tax hike. But the superintendent’s contention was bogus — contradicting one State Ed guideline which says a contingency budget adopted by the board of education “would always be less than a proposed budget” and another which says costs associated with educating additional students — not formulas — are supposed to be used to calculate a contingency budget. But State Ed refused to help clarify the issue, its officials repeatedly referring inquiries to the Web site and suggesting that taxpayers could file formal complaints after the fact (and wait months for a determination from the commissioner). Enter Tedisco and Amedore, the latter of whom criticized what happened in Schenectady as “ludicrous and irresponsible.” Their proposal for a law that expressly requires contingency budgets to be lower than a school district’s original budget shouldn’t even be necessary, but thanks to bullies like Eric Ely and the cowards at State Ed, couldn’t be more so. If the law requires that a contingency budget may not be larger than a rejected budget, then you may be assured that no school district will ever propose a budget that is smaller than a contingency budget. The Schenectady School District offered voters a budget that was LOWER than a contingency budget. Why would the district ever do that with a law that says, "if the proposed budget is smaller than the minimum budget permitted by the contingency budget, then the contingency budget must be reduced to an amount not exceeding the proposed budget rejected by the voters"? This law will simply guarantee that school spending goes up faster than it does now. This idea is DUMB DUMB DUMB.
| ||
| Jerry Moore (Admin) Board Administrator Username: Admin Post Number: 23348 Registered: 01-2000 Rating: N/A |
Amsterdam modified sports cut in contingency budget By Jessica Harding Schenectady (NY) Daily Gazette Reporter June 19, 2009 AMSTERDAM — Athletes will have to do without modified sports next year after the Greater Amsterdam School District’s Board of Education voted to eliminate the program Wednesday. The board was forced to cut about $200,000 from its proposed $55.4 million budget, which was rejected twice by voters, to fit a contingency budget — a level set by the state. The budget will increase spending by 4 percent and increase the districtwide tax levy by about 11 percent. Contingency level is only $200,000 less than the district’s proposed budget was. Superintendent Thomas Perillo and administrative directors met with school principals Wednesday to discuss what programs or positions could be eliminated while maintaining educational opportunities. Perillo said the team settled on cutting modified sports and eliminating two custodians and one teacher’s aide position. Board member James Walrath said Wednesday he supported cutting modified sports. “The community can pick that up,” Walrath said about modified sports. “There is no reason the district has to pay for sports for middle school kids.” Board of Education President Gina DeRossi said she hopes programs like Little Giants can expand to include middle school students. “I hope the community will rally around it,” DeRossi said. “I do find it to be an important part, but the actual education portion is a large part as well.” Custodians lobbied hard to get the budget passed, putting up posters, making phone calls to voters and manning polling stations handing out fliers. Four custodian positions were on the chopping block but the board eliminated only two Wednesday. The board was able to use about $38,000 in surplus money unused from last year’s budget to offset some of the cuts. DeRossi said district officials will take another look at the budget to see if an additional $30,000 can be found from retirements and moving positions around, which could be used to hire back one custodian. DeRossi said she wants to start planning for next year’s budget as soon as possible after learning from Business Manager Roger Seward that the fiscal situation next year might be worse than this year.
|
