Knowing that the vast majority of those in attendance had either read information in this blog or articles in the BDN or had been in attendance at the SAD63 Budget & Finance meetings (including the Citizens Advisory Committee) I wondered at the audacity of Mr. Varnum's statement that the lawsuit has cost only $160 thousand to date. (We won't go into the several minutes it took him to come up with that amount or his statement that Mr. Dench, the attorney for SAD63, has been providing a portion of his services "gratis" - the correct term being pro bono. We won't go into the issue that the amount of $217,750.87 was announced in both the BDN and at the April 27, 2009 School Board meeting - with documented payments of $61,345.10 from the first SAD63 insurance policy and an estimated $$65-70,000 from budgeted salary savings from the full-time superintendent's position through 6/30/09 leaving an estimated current balance $90-$87,404. And we won't discuss Mr. Varnum's statement in the Citizens' Advisory Committee that he believed in transparency.) But really?!
When a member from the public asked how the School Board planned to pay the costs of the lawsuit (ongoing - not even addressing any current balance), Mr. Hart stood up and hemmed and hawed a bit before saying they - meaning the Board - would have to put the costs back into the School Budget. That is NOT the reasoning he used in the last Budget and Finance Committee meeting for the explanation he (and allegedly Ms. Mitchell) had for reducing the 4th draft proposed BOD legal budget line item from $100,000. to $15,000. In Committee, Mr. Hart's rationale was that, once the final lawsuit costs were known, the BOD would have to come back to the voters of Clifton, Eddington and Holden to request authorization to obtain a long-term loan to be paid off over a period of years to cover the legal costs. Since it is impossible at this point to project what the costs will be, this seemed a reasonable approach - but why not admit it and explain it that way to the public? Perhaps he didn't know that at least half of the people in attendance read this blog on a regular basis. (I know because of the phone calls I receive.)
NOW - when one knows the voters are being given the shimmy-sham by the two quasi-leaders of SAD63 on two obvious pieces of information, just how much should we, the voters, be trusting the validity of the data being used to "justify" this proposed budget that is $269,155. higher than last year's budget?
To digress just a bit, let's review the budget costs per town (rounded off) since 2004-05 as they compare to the proposed 2009-10 (data from SAD63 2007-08 & 2009-10 Budget Hearing reports)
2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10
Clifton: 572,020 485,892 481,832 501,758 541,551 594,004
Edd.: 1,303,530 1,157,061 1,104,381 1,097,246 1,140,321 1,285,609
Holden 2,245,633 2,028,229 1,947,958 2,000,320 2,240,684 2,312,097
_______ ________ _______ _______ ________ ________
Total: 4,121,183 3,671,183 3,534,172 3,599,324 3,922,555 4,191,710
According to SAD63 report budget data, the towns' share of proposed 2009-10 budget will be $657, 538 higher than the 2006-07 budget. Of course, part of that increase must be attributed (to some degree) to the shell game being played in Augusta.
Although the Federal government intended Maine to receive $168,269 in federal stimulas funding, the Baldacci administration is intending to use this money as part of the standard state education funding (subtracting the same amount from the state's portion for the district's K-12 education funding). So no stimulas there. Then the State is also subtracting the penalties allocated to the three towns for voting down school consolidation. That amount is $163,167 (up from the original $157,000). (Clifton: $23,019, Eddington: $50,013, and Holden: $90,135).
As a result, the State is expected to only provide $4,803.034. (I say 'expected' because I have given up on believing this Baldacci administration will ever keep its word on anything re: their actions having no impact on increasing the people's property taxes. We already have too many examples of what Baldacci's words are worth.)
So, let's look at the total proposed School Budget (I'm going Bottom Line first and then talk about where I think cuts can and should be made).
Current Total: $9,478,014.
LESS:
Projected 2009-2010 Interest Income (5,000.)
2008-2009 Fund Balance - meaning unspent funds
allocated to the 2008-09 budget to be rolledover (310,001.)
__________
Sub-total : 9,163,013.
State of Maine Funding 4,803,034.
Federal (stimulus) Funding via State of Maine 168,269.
__________
Sub-total: 4,191,710. (balance to be
picked up
locally)
Local Share per town:
Clifton: $ 594,004. an increase of 9.69% over 2008-09
Eddington: $ 1,285,609. an increase of 12.74% over 2008-09 (which will cause a 1 mill tax
increase per the town manager)
Holden: $ 2,312,097. an increase of 3.19% over 2008-09
NOTE: There may be copies of the Power Point presentation used at the meeting at your local Town Office. Selectmen/women for all three towns were in attendance and they took additional copies back to their respective Town Offices for anyone interested in looking at the various costs attributed to salaries, benefits, programs, etc.
In the Proposed Budget are costs I think we can remove This Year - and - costs we should definitely remove when certain contracts expire in 2010.
- The school library at Holbrook Middle School (?) has previously been run by volunteers. This year the Principal reportedly wants to hire a part-time Librarian which will increase wages on that line item by at least $5,000.
- There is a $13,881 line item increase that I believe is the planned computer program for parents to be able to access the school (computer system) to check on their child's grades/performance in school - maybe his/her attendance or whatever. Now wait a minute. With a secretary at each school as well as one in the Special Education Director's Office and one in the Superintendent's Office (five secretaries!) what's wrong with the idea of parents' making a phone call if they want some information?! With all the salaries and benefits (and not that many students when you look at it) some personal feedback is a lot better than a blooming computer - not to mention the number of families that are terminating the internet at home because they are having to cut costs in these economic times. A message the Business Manager and certain others seem to have a problem hearing. And there is always the PTF conference meetings. If parents aren't going to avail themselves of these avenues of communication they certainly aren't going to use a computer system!
In 2010:
- When teacher contracts are renegotiated, taxpayers should cease to be paying the academic costs of teachers taking classes toward a Master's Degree. Those closts should be bourne by the individuals unless they are required by SAD63 as a condition of employment. REASON: It appears that when school consolidation first reared its head, SAD63 teachers believed we would be joining the Brewer district where, according to their union, teachers who have a Master's Degree receive a higher level of compensation. Consequently SAD63 teachers wanted to start getting ready for that higher compensation (taxpayer costs, too) and had their union negotiate that SAD63 would pay for their M.A. classes. This amounts to more than $4,500. annually.
And no teachers currently on the SAD63 BOD should sit on the district negotiating team since it would be a clear Conflict of Interest even if they belong to a different union.
- $72,000. (and 6 weeks of paid vacation) is at least one-third too much to be paying for a school district's business manager - especially a district this size. (We won't talk about that bonus clause that should never have been approved by a particular individual and never taken to the BOD - or the outstanding questions of whether taxes and FICA deductions were ever taken - or the issue of taxpayer money being used for bonuses.) There are plenty of well qualified people for that position who won't have any trouble creating timely financial reports for the BOD Finance Committee, projected budgets compatible with the contracted service reports, etc., etc. for at least $20,000 less and two weeks paid vacation.
And sometime soon, very soon, one has to wonder WHEN the BOD is going to start advertising or initiating an Executive Search for an Interim Superintendent. Mr. Hart has stated he is looking forward to resuming his previous retirement status. His current appointment as Interim Superintendent reportedly ends 6/30/09. This time it would be good to have a candidate(s) who does not have previous relationships with SAD63 staffs and are going to be more involved with issues what will need to be address in the coming year. It would also be nice to have someone who doesn't have such raw nerves around women who don't click their heels and salute.
A Note To Holden Selectmen: When you appoint a member of your community to the Citizens Advisory Budget & Advisory Committee (who did an excellent job BTW), you might have the courtesy to let her speak for herself and present the work she did instead of having Mr. Varnum appear on behalf of that Committee. Just because you had the multi-page report she had prepared from the Committee's work, and acknowledged her off the record, it was insulting. And FYI, many of the questions raised by the public at the May 13 meeting ,such as why the proposed budget doesn't show what was actually spent from that which was budgeted (line by line) in the previous year and how line item that compares to the same ine item in the proposed budget was actually discussed in the Citizens' Committee by more than one person. But the absence of such reporting is an excellent way to avoid budget accountability.
A Note to Clifton's Selectmen: Selectwoman Penny Peasley is one smart cookie! She is an asset to the Citizen's Advisory Budget & Finance Committee and her recommendations should be strongly heeded.
A Note to Eddington's Selectmen: Ralph Russell does a commendable job as Chair of the Citizen's Advisory Budget and Finance Committee - but where is the Selectman you were requested to assign to the Committee?
After all the phone calls today from people who've read this blog, I'm wondering if certain contracts I've believed didn't expire until 2010 actually expire 6/30/09. Someone called and said some contracts, at least, are one-year contracts - usually renewed annually. If that's the case, what has the Board been doing? We're six weeks away from the end of this fiscal year. The Executive Meeting tomorrow night is supposedly going to be looking at certain contracts that only the previous superindent reportedly approved (which would appear to make them illegal since contracts are supposed to be reviewed and approved by the Board).
ReplyDeleteQuestions:
1. Didn't the Board know they were supposed to be reviewing and approving ALL contracts?
2. Didn't they ask to see the proposed contracts no later than 30 days before they needed to be approved (so as to review and discuss/clarify, etc.)?
3. If the Board asked for - and were not provided - the contracts, why did they not continue to pursue the issue, holding up payment if necessary since the contracts were not legal until approved by the Board.
4. Did someONE act for the Board, without the Board's authorization? If so, did that person not act illegally and therefore be removed from the Board? The last thing we need is cause for ANOTHER lawsuit.
5. Can the Board ENSURE there are NO bonus clauses in any of the contracts being currently reviewed/approved that will become effective 7/1/09?
And how can the Board be doing its' job when the Business Manager sits in on the Executive Committee meeting? The BM is an employee of the Board - just as the superintendent (interim and otherwise). As we've learned from recent experience, we can't necessarily depend on getting the truth from the current Board Chair (who wasn't even elected to the Board).
Seems to me, taxpayers and Selectmen/women from all three towns better start paying close attention to the performance and attendance of their members to the Board. Seems too many of them either don't know the duties and responsibilities of their position - or aren't prepared to fulfill them.
OK - some clarifications have been received:
ReplyDeleteThe current Board Chairman was INITIALLY appointed to the Board but has been recently elected to the Board. Still - since we have learned he will misrepresent the facts (aka truth) to the public, as Spokesperson of the Board, PLEASE Board members, elect someone ELSE as Chair for the coming year if you want us voters/taxpayers to believe anything else you tell us or put before us on a ballot.
Second, it seems the BM only attends Executive Sessions when she is involved in the discussion - or a topic of discussion. So we can trust she will not be in the room when you discuss her overpaid salary (not to mention the questions of taxes and FICA deductions of past years bonuses).
Last but not least - it is STILL the responsibility of ALL elected people to know when, where and what their duties are (and to make the necessary arrangements, if needed) in order to fulfill their responsibilities to the voters and taxpayers. TRUE, someone at the Budget and Finance Committee meeting TRIED to get Supt. Hart to send out emails to ALL Board memebrs to remind you of the May 13 Public Hearing which you were expected to attend (and TRUE, that non-informative "calendar" you were sent really told you nothing), BUT you are supposedly adults. You wanted the position - and you got it. Now just do the job you were elected to do - and that means be in your seat and do more than just keep it (barely) warm.