School Board Addresses Questions On Budget Issues

By Eliza Hallabeck

Members of the Board of Education responded to questions from the public about budget issues at their special meeting on Monday, May 10.

The first question of the evening came from Donna Monteleone Randle. “We are putting our children’s future, their opportunity to compete and function in a global economy at risk if we remove computer science from their seventh and eighth grade curriculum,” said Ms Randle, who also asked the school board to look at all potential savings, including a possible $200,000 in savings from ongoing contract negotiations with owner/operator bus drivers in town.

Superintendent of Schools Janet Robinson reminded the public after Ms Randle spoke that the school board has not taken action on cutting programs, positions, or more since passing the Board of Education-approved budget to the Board of Finance.

“A lot of things you are hearing are speculation,” said Dr Robinson. “The board has not removed any additional teachers officially from the budget beyond that first cut.”

Meetings between the school principals and the superintendent have been held, according to Dr Robinson, to discuss potential places to cut in the budget.

The 2010-2011 school district’s $69,415,876 budget was approved by the board on February 9, reflecting a 4.8 percent increase over last year’s spending package. On March 8, the Board of Finance reduced the school board’s requested 2010-2011 increase by $2.5 million, leaving the school district with a $679,806 increase for the coming fiscal year. After the budget failed at referendum, the Legislative Council, during a special meeting on April 29, made no further cuts to school spending, but made adjustments that moved $435,000 from health insurance and Excess Cost Grant funds into other areas of the school budget.

Resident Sue Zimmerman said she wanted a stronger confirmation that things will not be cut from the budget.

“How do we as parents support that budget?” Ms Zimmerman said, adding that if parents are truly going to vote Yes on the budget, they need alternatives other than cutting 15 teachers, 11 educational assistants, after school programs, and classes like computer technology and home economics.

Through infrastructure savings, Dr Robinson answered the school district was able to save $108,631 on electricity, in diesel and gasoline the school district and the town locked in a rate to save them $64,907, and on heating fuel the district saved roughly $29,000.

Other savings the board is estimating include an Excess Cost Grant through the state and medical savings through work with the town. Dr Robinson said all the saving options add to $1.2 million from the originally proposed school district budget.

“So from there,” she said, “to get to the $2.5 million reductions we received from the Board of Finance, we still have to seek almost $1.3 million. That, realistically, in a school district as lean as this one, has to be viewed as people. That is something we have to recognize.”

As of Monday, Dr Robinson said the number of teachers in the district who could be cut had increased from the 15 reported to the school board at previous meetings to 21 teachers.

“There are other things we are looking at,” said Dr Robinson.

School board secretary Debbie Leidlein said she wholeheartedly supports advocating for a Yes vote on the upcoming town budget referendum, scheduled for May 18, because she has faith the school board can find cuts that will allow the district to move forward without the drastic cuts proposed that could lead to increased class sizes.

“And I wholeheartedly believe,” said Ms Leidlein, “that through looking at more cost-saving measures, we as a board can find a way to reach that $2.5 million without cutting teaching positions.”

Board Vice Chair Kathryn Fetchick said she agreed with Ms Leidlein, and that looking at teachers should be the last thing the school board does.

“I don’t feel like we have exercised all of the options,” said Ms Fetchick. She added combing overhead costs together with the town could help to find further savings.

School board member David Nanavaty said he continues to support a No vote on the referendum, because, “We’ve seen the dismantling of our Newtown schools. We were once Blue Ribbon schools, and I think that has got to stop.”

Board member Richard Gaines also called the budget appalling, and said he cannot support it.

“I don’t see anyway of not cutting teachers,” said Mr Gaines.

Board member William Hart said scaring people with saying if they do not vote Yes on the referendum then more cuts will be made to the school district, is blackmail.

“There is no magical way to save money here,” said Mr Hart, who added the only luxury item left in the district is paying 30 percent higher for transportation than anywhere in the state.

School board Chair Lillian Bittman said she is worried there is no further pressure on the Legislative Council to add money back to the school budget if the referendum fails.

“I’m trying to look at the end game,” said Ms Bittman, who has said she is advocating for a Yes vote on the referendum.

All members of the school board agreed voting on the budget is important, regardless of how people intend to vote.

The next public question addressed by the board came from Kinga Walsh, who asked the board to say what the absolute minimum amount of money would be needed to run the district without cutting from the core of education, and whether there is a place for the taxpayers to see what options the school board is looking into to save money.

“It’s very difficult at this point,” said Ms Bittman, “when we are down to the nitty-gritty and massaging out specific numbers, to tell you specifically how this board of going to vote, because we are divided on some of these issues. That is why is it not out there right now.”

Mr Hart said adding back $1.3 million to the school board’s budget would keep the district afloat, while adding back the full $2.5 million would help the district toward working back to Blue Ribbon status.

Resident Charles Hepp asked the board what the district’s warning status with the New England Association of Schools and Colleges means and where the district stands with renegotiating contracts with the district’s owner/operator bus drivers.

Newtown High School was put on warning status, according to Dr Robinson, because of a lack of course options for students and space. The NHS expansion and renovation project, she said, adds the space needed, but teachers are still needed to offer more course choices.

Ms Bittman said as far as the district is concerned, negotiations with owner/operators in town was still in the works.

After indicating he had sent out an email earlier in the day addressing an email sent out from owner/operator Carey Schierloh, Mr Nanavaty said what he could say, as the board’s designated owner/operator contract negotiator, is there are two years left on the owner/operator contract.

“Next year, in 2010-2011,” he said, while reading a prepared document, “they are still to receive $384.70 a day, paid for over 183 days.”

The contract, he said, gives the average owner/operator $70,412 for nine months worth of work. Adding fuel oil, which the board pays 100 percent, and insurance, Mr Nanavaty said, adds to a per-day cost for each large bus of $421, or $77,628 a year.

“That’s what we pay over a nine-month period for one owner/operator bus, so multiple that by 30 and you will get the approximate number of what we initially pay for transportation,” said Mr Nanavaty. “That doesn’t include what we pay for [MTM Transportation Inc] or for the short buses.”

The email Mr Nanavaty was reacting to from Ms Schierloh said, “Parents have been told the owner/operators make more than teachers and that we are being paid $77,000 a year. Our current rate of $368 a day, times 180 days, is $66,240 a year. Subtract the bus payments, taxes, maintenance, repairs, insurance, registration, self-employment tax, and it leaves us with about half the annual amount. We receive no benefits, no health insurance, no retirement...those items have to be paid from our net profit, further reducing our income. What’s important is not our daily rate, but how much the district pays out for total transportation costs, and we are not more expensive than comparable districts.”

Ms Schierloh’s email was circulated, along with Mr Nanavaty’s responding email, on Monday, May 8.

“We are willing to work with the district, but there is a limit as to how much we can give back. To request $500,000 a year from 33 individuals is not a fair or reasonable expectation. However, our offer of $200,000 can save the seventh grade cluster,” Ms Schierloh’s email continued.

Mr Nanavaty’s responding email was sent to Kinga Walsh, then circulated back to everyone who had received Ms Schierloh’s email, because, Ms Walsh wrote, she was interested in sharing both sides.

“They want to deduct the cost of their expenses,” Mr Nanavaty’s email said. “That would be, by example, one saying that you must deduct what is taken out of pay for taxes and other deductions, before you determine what is paid by an employer. Clearly that is purely self-serving and incorrect. They also believe that savings in the first year of a new five-year contract can also include savings that would exist in the second year of a new contract by comparing the new contract with what would have been received under the old contract. This is fiscally irresponsible.”

A full audio recording of Monday’s special meeting is available at www.newtownbee.com.