Tuesday May 15th are the elections for the New Rochelle Board of Education and New Rochelle Public Library Board of Trustees. The school district and library budget vote are also scheduled.
Incumbents David Lacher and Chrisanne Petrone are running unopposed for the New Rochelle Board of Education.
The proposed school district budget for the 2012-2013 school year is $234,174,978, an increase of 1.43% on a budget to budget basis with a projected tax rate increase of approximately 4.13%. The actual tax rate is determined in the fall when the city’s tax roll is set.
Incumbents Haina Just-Michael and Bernardo Nunez are running unopposed for the New Rochelle Public Library Board of Trustees.
The proposed library budget is $4,468,996 based on a 2.2% in the tax levy for New Rochelle residents. This translates to an increase of $93,209 in the tax levy. The increase is below the New York State property tax cap.
The 2012 School Budget newsletter was mailed out last week and all residents should have received a copy. The newsletter contains information required to be shared with voters under New York State law. The budget referendum will take place tomorrow, May 15th. The newsletter contains information on polling places in New Rochelle.
If you did not receive a copy you can download a PDF: New Rochelle Board of Education 2012 Budget Newsletter
EDITORIAL COMMENT:
My personal views on the budget are already known: My Remarks at the New Rochelle School Budget Public Hearing — Resolving the Conflict Between the CAC Report and Tax Stabilization. I am willing to support this year’s budget with the understanding that the work of the Citizen Advisory Committee will continue and that there will be a good-faith effort to implement all feasible ideas recommended by the committee.
What I don’t like is habit of the administration, school board and PTA to mislead the public in their pre-school vote communications. It is unnecessary and disrespectful to voters and the larger community. I would take issue with a few claims made by the administration in the newsletter.
1. Cost-Efficient – “Compared to all school districts in Westchester and Putnam Counties, New Rochelle has consistently been recognized as one of the most cost efficient in total expenditures for per pupil spending by ranking 42nd out of 46 districts in the most recent report from 2010-2011.”
This is like comparing my in-law’s driving to my driving and concluding that because I am a better driver than the two of them I ought to be racing in the Indianapolis 500. Just because I am better than some very bad drivers does not make me “one of the best” drivers.
While it may be the case that New Rochelle is ranked #42 our of 46 in “total expenditures for per pupil spending”, this claim is only meaningful if some or all public school districts in Westchester and Putnam Counties are cost efficient. If none of them are cost-efficient than being #42 only means that New Rochelle is the least inefficient. Even that assumes too much because that assumes that “total expenditures for per pupil spending” is a useful measure of cost-efficiency. Talk of the Sound has reported on many examples of waste, fraud and abuse in the New Rochelle school system that would suggest that the district is something other than cost-efficient. If you think that public school systems are efficient than this claim would be a good reason to believe the New Rochelle school district is “most cost efficient”. I have met very few people who believe that public school systems in New York are cost-effecient.
2. Contingency – “If the budget is voted down and the district operates under a contingency budget, $3,877,773 would have to be removed from the proposed budget. This would result in the reduction of equipment, community use of buildings and grounds, certain student supplies, and additional staff positions, and reduction in many non-mandated expenses.”
This — “If the budget is voted down and the district operates under a contingency budget…” — is classic district double-speak, accurate but misleading. If the budget referendum does not pass tomorrow, there is a second vote in June. You are meant to understand that if the budget does not pass tomorrow the contingency budget will come into effect. This is not the case. The board could choose to go to a contingency budget but that is absolutely never going to happen. Instead the board can resubmit the same budget and just work harder to turn out the “yes” vote or make changes to win more support.
You have to wade deeper into the newsletter to get an accurate picture of what is going on here but this statement on the cover is intentionally misleading, in my view. The newsletter repeatedly refers to a budget vote on May 15th and then talks about what happens if the proposed budget does not pass on May 15th and tries to suggest that if the voters reject the budget on May 15th the district will lose over $3.8 million dollars. The head of the Special Education PTA made this exact (false) claim during the budget hearing and Mr. Quinn, the Assistant Superintendent of Business Affairs, has made similar-sounding statements to this effect.
When you look inside the newsletter, on page 3 there is section with the bold, all caps headline “WHAT HAPPENS IF THE BUDGET DOES NOT PASS?” and beneath it several bullet points and a sentence in bold letters The bullet points state that if the budget does not pass there will be a “Loss of programs and further loss of staff”, “Jeopardizing cultural, sports and after-school programs as well as community use of school buildings and grounds” and “No purchase of new equipment”. The final sentence reads “The difference between the proposed budget and a contingency budget is $3,877,773.
Nested within the regular font, lower case paragraph are the key, accurate facts the budget vote process:
If the budget does not pass on the second vote, the Board must adopt a contingency budget. Under the new state legislation, a contingency budget means that districts must hold their tax levies to the same amount as the current school year – this means a 0% increase in the tax levy for 2012-13.
The contrast in font size, formatting and the use of lowercase letters suggests that this is what the district does not want residents to know — that if the budget does not pass on May 15th there will be a second vote in June. So that it is quite possible. maybe even likely, that if the budget is defeated on May 15th there will still not be a contingency budget. This is important because some supporters of the Citizen Advisory Committee have promoted the idea that voters should reject the budget on the grounds that the administration did not incorporate the cost-savings measures described in the CAC report into the 2012-13 budget. The idea being floated within the community is that residents should vote “no” in May and then offer to vote “yes” in June if the CAC recommendations are incorporated into a revised budget.
What they really don’t want voters to know is that if the budget is voted down twice and the district is forced to adopt a contingency budget that under the new tax levy cap law “districts must hold their tax levies to the same amount as the current school year — this means a 0% increase in the tax levy for 2012-13. The tax levy in the proposed budget is $3,877,773 higher and so the district would be denied these additional funds. This is a radical change from past years where contingency budgets were based on a formula of inflation and past budget increases. In recent years the district has proposed budgets where the taxes would go up less if the district’s budget was approved than if it was defeated. That is no longer the case and possible the most worrying aspect of the new law from the administration’s perspective.
3. Lowest Increase – “The proposed budget is an increase of 1.43%, the lowest budget increase in 13 years.” Yes, but not every year has seen a budget increase. In 2009 the budget was actually decreased by over $4 million. What they are trying to convey is that this is best the district has done in 13 years in keeping the budget under control when in reality this budget is increasing by about $3.3 million instead of dropping by $4 million or more than $7 million worse than the “best” year.
It reminds of a basketball coach who was asked “What does it tell you that your time has one 10 of the last 12 games?” He answered, “it tells me that I lost the 13th game. In other words it is not just what you count but how you count.
4. PTA Support of the Budget – There have been numerous misstatements about PTA support for the budget. It is the policy of the PTA across the state that a PTA cannot claim that the PTA supported a budget unless they held a general canvass of all PTA members. If it is only the executive committee which voted, the PTA can only state that the executive board of the PTA supports the budget not the entire PTA. I am not aware of any school PTAs that held a general canvass of their members yet several PTA presidents made statements at the budget hearing that they entire PTA had voted to approve the budget when it was only the executive committee. Several schools did not make any statement. The PTA Council stated that since a majority of the PTAs support the budget the PTA Council supported the budget when only the executive boards voted to support the budget.
5. An Investment Paying Off – In 2011, “more than 880” students tested in Advanced Placement exams in 26 different AP classes. I asked about this and was told by the district that “more than 880” is 881 and that as some students took multiple AP tests “it is not 881 unique students but rather 881 students took AP tests last year”. In other words the district admits that it was not 811 students who took AP exams last but some lower figure — perhaps 600 to 700 students – because a good number of students took AP exams in more than one subject but the district still insists that even though it is not 881 students it is 881 students.
After going around in circles on this one I proposed considering the question as if it were an AP Math Exam question.
1. The College Boards offers AP exams in 26 subjects and students can take up to four exams in a school year. At Springfield High this year, 500 students took one AP exam, 100 students took two AP exams, 50 students took three AP exams and 10 took four AP exams. How many students took AP exams at Springfield High this year?
A) 552
B) 660
C) 890
D) cannot be determined from the information given.
The correct answer is “B”. The district agrees that the correct answer is “B” but asserts that the way to calculate the correct answer is to apply the method which gives answer “C” [500 x 1 + 100 x 2 + 50 x 3 and 10 x 4 = n].
When I explained this and requested a correction I was told that “Anyone who knows or cares is well aware that there are less than 880 students in the class and could reasonably draw the conclusion that there are kids who took multiple tests. You may not like how it is worded or presented but it does not warrant a correction because it is accurate. I wasn’t answering a multiple choice exam in the newsletter so my ability to answer your question correct and to present the information in that way are not mutually exclusive.”
This is an odd position for the district to take.
First, why should any voter have to “reasonably draw the conclusion”? Why should a voter have to infer or deduce information from this legally required mailer. How about good old plain English? Isn’t the best communication the simplest?
Second, what does “anyone who knows or cares” mean? Is that the new standard? How about they just be accurate for the sake of bring accurate? How about being accurate because they are required by New York State law to be accurate? How about being accurate so that when they make other claims such as 96% of the Class of 2011 is continuing on to post-secondary education that figure is also deemed credible?
Third, the district says that since “anyone who knows or cares” knows that in a given class (emphasis added) at the high school there is less than 880 students it is reasonable to expect people to do the math and figure out that there are kids who took multiple tests. Even if we were pretend this made sense, it would only apply if a “given class” meant a senior class. It is true that the senior class this year has less than 880 students but students in other grades takes AP classes at New Rochelle High School, all the way down to 10th grade or three-quarters of the student population of 3,500 students which is far more than 880 students. The district’s position on this is entirely inaccurate. No one can make any valid inference from 880 that it is meant to include students who took more than one exam because students in three grades, over 2,000 students, may be taking the tests not just 750 or so in the senior class.
6. Improvements – There are no references to the Newsweek rankings or the school’s being national ranked which is good since New Rochelle High School is not ranked by U.S. News & World Report and the board voted to refuse to cooperate with Newsweek in 2009.
Speak for Our Children
The New Rochelle School Board has made some strides to see what is in front of them and to their sides. Blinders are an awful thing to get rid of sometimes. Enough said. I am hopeful that the small progress made over the last couple of years has been a direct result of contributions from folks in the community who know what really is happening in our schools and have the necessary experience to fix or find solutions. Prior members of the BOE have always been reluctant to admit they knew anything on particular subjects so they went along with the majority or were bullied to go along by the superintendent(s). My philosophy has always been that given the enormous responsibility of Board Members, transparency and direct communication with the community is essential. In doing so, you may find a friendly ear or sufficient support on any number of issues and/or difficult situations. Getting truncated in the philosophy of a few who believe that “this is the way we have done things” simply does not work anymore. We need fresh eyes, new ideas, flexible perspectives, but more importantly we must have the courage to admit we make mistakes and be risk takers at the same time. Without this, we follow a path of mediocrity. There is tremendous inequity & inequality in our schools – both in resources and apportioning quality educators. We create fantastic opportunities for our children in various elementary schools – I believe we have incredibly dynamic teachers in our elementary schools – but we simply do not know what to do in our middle schools and much less in our high school. In our High School, inequality prevails – a sort of reservation culture exists – our small learning communities propagate racism and economic tension. Our anointed leaders in these schools do not have the new tools or the necessary support to imagine a new way of thinking, teaching or learning. We constantly and hypocritically spit out the notion that “we live in a diverse community”. Do you know how this is being parlayed in our schools? Sit in the HS cafeterias. See who sits with whom? There is no diversity there. There is factionalism by race and nationality. We allow this to continue and fester. We create tension. We have students there who are afraid to go to school because we have a security force that is politically placed and under-trained; a security force that creates tension and fuels anger and discontent among students. Walk the halls like I did twice last week and you will hear security guards at their desks, playing with their cell phones, yelling and cursing at the students, telling me as I enter the school “what you want” (oops, I was dressed like a landscaper perhaps?) and in my world I would have fired many of them for poor work performance or creating a climate of fear & hostility with their constant terroristic threats. Enough on that. We as a community must get involve as we have over the last couple of years. Some changes have occurred, but we must be vigilant. Our children need our voices. Please join us.
This is A Municipal, not Just a District Issue
Excellent discussion of the decision parameters facing voters. Messrs Cox, Galt, and McCaffrey have made points that make a decision more than a knee-jerk issue.
I have used the term, “Enablers” on a number of occasions in the recent past to describe those who either actively contribute (for example, political contributors) or passively contribute (helicopter parents or the nonaffected) to describe what constitute the major detriments to growth and development– actually evenn holding our own — in a number of areas in New Rochelle.
My view on the school district voting comes down to a yea; but marginally based on recent actions and perhaps even insights demonstrated by the new board leadership. However, I am very emotionally drawn to Mr Galt statements, privately interpreting these as “tough love” with less risk than otherwise publically seen if the budget is voted down. But Mr. Cox persuades me that giving the citizens group a chance to find its place is important, perhaps even instructive to the two or three existing board members who are long-termed and I fear never will be able to adjust to needed change.
I want to spend a moment on Mr.McCaffrey and his reasonable view of “enablers” and posit that a key enabler for a deficient school district it the elected body, the City Government. It is convenient to deny responsibility of any sort given the choice of separation of district and administration. However, it is a pure example of adverse impact on the fortunes of the district, the children of the community, the property tax/certiorari picture faced by taxpayers and much more. Were Ron Tocci a correspondent on Talk of the Sound I would ask him if the legislation he largely put forth in the NYS Assembly in 1987 or 1988 denied a direct role for a City in the management or oversight of its School District. I think not: I believe the legislation only mandated that the community get to vote on its school budget and trustees.
The Council must realize that failing to see the direct relationship between an effectively operating school district in developing a positive investment and development climate; welcoming new and vibrant commercial investors and higher net worth residential climates, is literally a recipe for continued property tax issues as well as deteriorating student performance results.
This said, the school district suffers from a lack of this formal arrangement and there is literally no reason why this should not be addressed and I am appalled at the failure of the community not to recognize this and demand change. Thus, the COMMUNITY joins the Administrators as Enablers.
I think Ms. Richmond began the process and her successor has picked up the baton. I am especially pleased that Mr.Lacher has apparently looked at this with fresh eyes and is part of a solution.
Mr Cox has done a yeoman job in framing and supporting change by his long-term insistance on this change and his work with the Citizen group.
Besides what I mention above, I do believe that there are many, many more qualified candidates than mr. organisciak and he should be dismissed. I think that third party negotiations along more reasonable tracks is crucial and that we need to get behind the Board and others in challenging the crippling mandates from NYS.
In closing, re-read Mr. Galt’s viewpoints as they are an excellent take on reasons why you could oppose this matter today. I hope this is obligatory reading for the school board and, Mr. Hastie, a very intelligent and I think fine citizen of this city, might read it and the above postings especially carefully given the fact that he is also on the Citizens budget/Plannng committee (I think) and may be willing to test the waters on a more productive formal arrangement between district and the city administration.
Nice job all around.
Sometimes no is the kindest word
It’s an old Polish saying. You are all enablers of a distorted, corrupted system who’s only interest is self preservation. Not i repeat NOT the children. The PTA leaders can spout all the spin they want but they are all ostriches when it comes to seeing the truth. The fact that there is somewhere between 15 to 20 MILLION dollars in unassigned funds floating in the budget is the single most telling reason to do the kindest thing and vote NO. All levels of spending can remain without anyone losing their job and no tax increase and the existing funds will support all expenditures. Blindly giving carte blanche to the district for every increase has resulted in declining performance, criminal behavior and a host of other improprieties. What does it say about the district that one of the board members won’t even send his own kids to the n.r. schools? Prominent PTA members sending out reminders to vote with a P.S. at the bottom of the email saying by the way, as a private resident i suggest you vote yes. Look for yourself. Noting will change unless YOU do something. All it takes is for you to go vote. That’s all, but New Rochelle as a whole is apathetic on this. The voting numbers are sad at best. Yet this is the biggest part of your taxes and affects your property values more than any other single issue. Don’t you care? The district should earn their money, not cajole it from you. Right now, they don’t deserve it until changes are made. They ALREADY HAVE THE MONEY to do all that is needed. Do you get that yet? The threat of a contingency budget is BS. Vote no and the district still has options before a contingency. They want you to believe in doomsday for no reason other than their own survival. Your increase will wind up more like 5.2% when the final tax rolls are computed. That’s like a 8 to 9 % increase in your property tax. Are you happy now? Then do something.
NR a City of Enablers
Change is not possible without acceptance and admitting there is a problem. Like any addict hooked on a drug or habit you have to admit there is a problem first. Then seek the help necessary and make changes to correct the problem or problems. As any addict knows, you can’t go it alone. The addictions here in New Rochelle are so bad that they have spread throughout our many support systems. It only takes one bad apple to spoil the bunch. We have good people with in our systems here in New Rochelle. However, those good employees and people that can help turn things around are stifled. They are stifled by the very addicts and enablers that need the help and hide the problems. You see the people calling the shots have addictions also. What us we have no problems here! We live amongst a group of nay Sayers and enablers that feed the addictive habits and behavior.
There are solutions and ways to fix these systems. There are no quick fixes and it will take some hands on tough love. This system wide problem cannot be managed from our couches and beach clubs. We already have a situation that is almost to a point of being an epidemic amongst our School System, City Management, and The City Council and even more on a County, State and Federal level. Look at all of the waste and corruption that has been seen with in the last year alone. We continue to feed these habits. When the addicted say I need just a little bit more to get me through, we turn around and give in to those habits we are trying to correct.
Wake up New Rochelle, if you see something, Say something. More and more people are and we need to keep up the pressure or the addicts and enablers will never be cured. It is our city and we need to take control and responsibility for what goes on here. Remember, the addicts aren’t the only ones to blame. Step up and VOTE it is your responsibility and duty.
We’ll start next year off $6 million in the hole.
I dont really see the benefit of using 30% of the districts reserve balance on this budget. We’ll start next year off $6 million in the hole. What kind of financial expert recommends that?
As usual, the district proposes the wrong cuts to balance the budget. Seems like the people crafting and proposing the budget should be replaced.
Not $6 million
The district is NOT using $6 million of the reserve balance. We have covered this quite a bit already and I have spoken about this many times.
This is just an accounting gimmick for purposes of making the numbers add up on the first page, the summary page, of the budget document.
The district does not actually drawn down this amount from some bank account. In fact, if they really were doing that this amount over the last 5 years would be like $20 mm or more. Every year they have that line item in the budget and for many years the board has understood what you understood that if you say you are drawing down x millions on that page that means you are actually spending that money.
They are not and the board is finally starting to grasp this just a little.
Sure looks to me like the
Sure looks to me like the district is using $6 million of its reserves.
So if the $6 million isn’t coming from the reserves, then where is it coming from?
Or are you saying the expenses are wrong & the district doesn’t really need the $6 million to balance its proposed $234 million budget?
Either way, it shows (to me at least) that we don’t have the best & the brightest working on our team and they’re handling more than $1.3 million for every day the schools are open. That’s a lot of cash that we’re entrusting to a less than stellar staff that can’t add up the numbers without a fudge factor.
Heck they can’t even figure out that they should be using a fixed assessment total so I have my doubts. One big circular blame game & it would be nice if someone took some responsibility and were held accoutable.