Finance Bd. Continues Its Call For School Budget Specifics

By John Voket

While the last official Board of Education meeting of the 2005-2006 fiscal year addressed spending for new teachers and cuts mandated by town leaders for the next budget cycle, there was no discussion of any late transfers or how administrators planned to spend more than $1.7 million in unencumbered surplus funds before the end of June.

Concerns about the distribution of that surplus, which would represent six-tenths of a mill in tax relief if it is returned to the town and applied to the municipal budget in its entirety, prompted the Board of Finance to issue a letter requesting a joint meeting of the two boards. The finance board is also looking for details on how much revenue the school board derived from insurance savings, state Educational Cost Sharing (ECS), and a salary account in the current fiscal cycle.

Finance Board John Kortze told The Bee last Wednesday that although the suggested date for that meeting was July 10, his board would be receptive to a joint meeting as soon as possible. Mr Kortze referenced comments made during budget deliberations about the school district realizing a net benefit of about $60,000 in savings from an insurance benefit package, when the most recent information he reviewed indicated the district would be accounting for more than $250,000 in net insurance savings.

“We’d like to know how much revenue the district gained from surpluses to a turnover account to cover teachers salaries,” Mr Kortze said, referring to an account funded to cover teaching positions that may have gone unfilled, or pay for long-term substitutes following the departure of existing staff during the school year.

A representative at the school board offices said that substitutes are paid at the lowest, or “first-tier,” of teacher salary and do not receive any additional benefits or continuing education subsidies. So if an experienced teacher working at a significantly higher pay rate with benefits left at any point since June 2005, the district would realize a surplus between what that teacher would have received in pay and benefits versus the lower paid sub not receiving benefits.

Mr Kortze questioned why the district ended up considering adding teaching positions, which came to fruition at Wednesday evening’s school board meeting (see related story), when during the budget process they frequently referred to cutting or not funding additional and much-needed teaching positions.

“All our board and the parents heard about at budget time was how they were going to be cutting two teachers at Reed School,” Mr Kortze said. “So how can they afford to be adding those positions now, after almost $900,000 in additional budget cuts. I think the board and the taxpayers deserve to know where that money is coming from.”

The finance board chair also wanted the Board of Education members and the district administrators to clarify whether projects and purchases that were cut from next year’s budget would be paid for and encumbered from surplus funds “found” in the final days and hours of the current fiscal cycle. Mr Kortze referenced between $100,000 and $200,000 in additional projects and purchases he said he was told were occurring beyond line items budgeted this year.

“Are they buying down stuff with this year’s surplus?” he asked. “And again, if so, where did that money come from? I’m not refuting the need for the purchases, just the handling of it and the lack of disclosure.”

While it represents just a fraction of the surplus, Mr Kortze is hoping to clarify why earlier in the year his board was told the district could not save any additional money by turning down school facility thermostats because classrooms had to be kept at a certain temperature, and subsequently learning the district logged $20,000 in additional energy savings by turning down the heat in certain buildings.

“This is why there is frustration,” Mr Kortze said. “The parents and taxpayers are told the sky is falling [during budget deliberations] and the money is there all along.”

Mr Kortze drew comparisons to deliberations that occurred several years ago when the budget was defeated in two referenda before finally passing.

“That year the council and finance board were accused of doing irreparable damage by cutting the school budget, but if taxpayers knew that money was there in the first place, the whole referendum might have played out differently,” he said. “And once the budget was passed, miraculously more money was found, but no programs were restored.

“We get all this fire and brimstone, scaring parents every year, and once the budget passes it all disappears,” Mr Kortze added. “I believe there is savings [built in to the existing budget]. The taxpayers were told it didn’t exist, but now it exists.”