An Alternate View

To the Editor:

The memo reported in last week’s article, [Bee, 7/17/09, “Finance Board Examines School Bd. Budget Statements To End-Of-Year Realities”] seems little more than politics as usual. I’ve read the actual memo, but find that the discussion is too vague and misleading to convey much information. For example, it states, “It has long been our view that overhead is the largest expense in the town’s budget.” Just what exactly is meant by “overhead?” It also suggests that needed teacher attrition did not happen despite a “clear decline in enrollment.” According to a UConn site, enrollment dropped by 31 students from 2006 to 2007. What does a loss of 31 students across 13 grades mean re: teachers and class size? Below is an alternate view of the school budget process, as gleaned from public documents.

On December 8, 2008, the finance board recommended a budget that was 95 percent of our current budget. Their minutes end with “the majority of the Board of Finance is in favor of 95 percent.” This recommendation was still a viable option in March. And so a contentious stage was set.

A five percent reduction translates to about $3.3 million. Of this, well over $2 million would likely need to be applied to staffing, since staffing costs are about 70 percent of the overall school budget. Back-of-the-envelope calculations indicate that over 40 staff positions would need to be cut. School administrators ensured that the five percent reduction, favored by the Board of Finance (BOF), could be legally honored under the regulations dictated by federal and state governments and contractual obligations set forth in union contracts. As stated in the March 20, 2009 article, “School Bd Looks for Savings,” there was an April 1 deadline for notification of potential terminations.

Also, throughout the budget deliberations, the school board had to account for worst case scenarios just as did the finance board, alluded to by John Kortze when he reportedly said revenue streams presented a “disturbing unknown this year” in the March 13, 2009 article, “School Proposal Defended.” Unfortunately for the school, they had many, many more unknowns (enrollment, the use of stimulus money for preexisting programs, state reimbursement guidelines, etc). So, the school board prepared for the preferences of the BOF in their planning and what did they get? A document outlining what appears to be a list of insinuations raised in the guise of a memo to “help” taxpayers.

We need to ensure that our town/school administrators are fully qualified and are willing to communicate openly. We appear to have that in our current school administrators. We need to have town officials who provide vision, direction, and oversight without political grandstanding. Voting is our means to build a local government that provides these needs. The majority of the members on the school board are recently elected, and we can look forward to future elections where voters can continue to have a say. Unfortunately the BOF is effectively an “appointed” board, as the number of candidates equaled the number of positions last election. We need an opportunity to choose.

Deborra Zukowski

4 Cornfield Ridge Road, Newtown                                  July 21, 2009