Last night the board met in special session, with the goal of balancing the budget for next year. We ended up reducing two of the IMC media professionals for a savings estimated at $66,000, bringing the total cuts to $811K, well short of the $1M objective. Essentially we did not deal with the additional $250K we needed to find to offset our decision not to consolidate Maywood.
In normal circumstances I would be willing to say "close enough"- but not this year. We are facing growing deficits each year, and if we don't balance the budget it will only increase the pain next year, with interest (quite literally - our interest expense will increase because our operating cash will be reduced.) Cuts of $811K will save only $4M over 5 years, so the shortfall over the next four years has effectively grown to $11M. If we get lucky and the deficit isn't as big as projected, the additional reductions would serve to make next years reductions a little easier.
I don't believe any reasonable operating referendum will balance the budget alone without additional cuts, so the cuts we don't make this year will have to come out of programs in the future. The road we kick this can down is really one big pothole.
On some of the specifics, I moved that we not reduce the building budgets by 5% ($25K savings). Building budgets pay for pens and paper, art supplies and curricular materials, communication with parents and classroom equipment. Its the kind of thing that supports all programming, and preserving it fits with my philosophy of adequately supporting those things we choose to do rather than trying to do everything. This item alos appeared on the list without going through the thorough process for other items, and the amount of effort we were asking from the staff to make us comfortable with this small reduction just didn't seem worth it to me.
We also reviewed the plans for increasing walk zones to save transportation costs. Currently our elementary students walk a maximum of 3/4 mile, the change would have meant some students would have to walk as much as 1.5 miles. This would effect about 250 students, the vast majority of those at CG elementary. Given the number of students and the small amount saved ($35) I was uncomfortable with the plan and proposed John and Mary Ellen take a look at some alternatives, perhaps looking to develop a plan to provide the service at a reasonable fee to families in these areas.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
Thank you for the update. I didn't want to see any of the cuts that were on the table last night made, but I also strongly believe that it's wrong to not balance the budget. So.....what's to be done?
A thought about the busing...if the district is going to look at a reasonable fee for students to ride the bus to school, shouldn't a reasonable fee for use of the late bus and practice bus also be looked at? It seems that getting kids to school should be a higher priority than getting kids to or from extra-curriculars.
Thanks
I think it is a sad state of affairs that we have cut IMC while we operate Winneq no where near capacity.
Monona VOTER
I support the decision to keep Maywood and Winnequah schools open in Monona, but I do wonder...
Why is there no open and honest discussion of realistic cuts in teacher and administrative pay and benefits?
Are school districts in WI immune to global and national macroeconomics?
Hi Peter, I asked this question on an older thread, maybe you missed it. I'm still hoping you can help me understand.
There are a lot of comments suggesting that teachers/staff take a pay freeze or pay cut. In order for any cut to work over the 5 years that the district is striving for, we need to put it in place and keep it in place, correct? So it seems to me that in order to solve this problem long-term, that would mean that the pay freeze/cuts would have to stay in place indefinately.
When people suggest this as a way to balance the budget aren't they really suggesting that teachers and staff take these cuts permanantly since taking them temporarily would then only solve the problem temporarily?
I didn't think that the major reason we're in this budget crisis is because of the bad economy, but because of the way we fund public schools. Until that's solved, even pay freezes, pay cuts and furlough days would only be only short-term solutions, wouldn't they? When the economy turns around, won't we still have the same funding and budget problems that we have now if something isn't done at a state level?
If I'm completely misunderstanding this, please clarify.
Short answer: No need to clarify, you understand it perfectly!
Peter, Thanks for answering.
Since that's the case, I can't see how anyone can suggest that we try to solve this problem this way.
We need other, better suggestions.
"aren't they really suggesting that teachers and staff take these cuts permanantly "
Short answer: YES!
The pay cuts many non-teachers have taken ARE permanent - and there will certainly be more cuts in the future. These are the 'lucky' people. They still have a job.
Many of the layoffs people have suffered ARE permanent - their employers have gone out of business due to global competition (i.e., lower wages overseas - and no benefits).
Furloughs are temporary pay cuts. It would be a start on balancing the budget, but PERMANENT cuts in pay AND benefits, in addition to position cuts in overlapping and non-critical or core areas, are also going to be required for this district, and most other districts to survive in the long run.
Deal with it now or deal with it later. But the longer this school board keeps their heads in the sand, the more painful the reality later.
Holding out 'hope' for school funding reform is pointless. Any 'reform' that passes (very unlikely, especially in an election year) may leave this district with even LESS state aid than it currently receives! Be careful what you wish for. There are many WI school districts in worse shape than MGSD. Besides, Mark Miller is not immortal. Nor is he immune to losing an election.
"The pay cuts many non-teachers have taken ARE permanent - and there will certainly be more cuts in the future. These are the 'lucky' people. They still have a job."
I disagree. Non-teacher cuts are NOT permanant. When the economy gets better, other businesses will be able to bring pay back up, jobs will be restored or new ones will be created.
Not true for school districts. When the economy gets better, they will still be in trouble, so pay and jobs will not be able to be restored. Who will ever go into teaching knowing that their starting salary will be their salary for life? No raises ever.
You obviously know more much more than I do about school funding and the politics surrounding it, but if reform isn't going to happen, what can be done?
FYI-I'm not a teacher, not married to a teacher, don't work for a school district. I just have a lot of respect for what teachers do (not to imply that you don't.)
I don't think the teachers should get a cut in either their wages or benefits.
If anything, the globalization argument says we should increase teacher pay, so that our students are better prepared to compete with skilled workers around the world. It also shows that we need a major health care reform, which most industrialized countries experience less of due to their reforms. Health insurance costs eat at both the teacher's pay AND the levy limit.
If we want to switch to a good time/lean time pay system with the teachers we need to start in a good time. That's the best way to show the teachers we can be trusted to write the bigger checks. They know we can be trusted to write the smaller ones in bad times.
Besides, the teachers didn't cut our pay, our bosses or the company owners did. We're angry, but we don't stand up the people who are at fault for the bad economy or our pay cut. Instead we turn our anger toward teachers thinking if we bring them into our misery, we'll feel better. The truth is we won't feel better, and our kids will get a worse education out it.
You really need to FREEZE or CUT all district staff salaries and benefits (inluding teachers). Period. Your largest expenditure is in personnel costs. That is the only way to chip away at your long term deficits.
Why don't public sector employees have to feel the same pain that the private sector employees have had to? Many people have taken pay cuts or worse, have been laid off. Even other public sector employees like Dane County employees have taken cuts? DO NOT be pushed around by the teacher's union. Do the right thing for our children and make all district staff understand that they too must make sacrifices.
I don't think that anyone on the school board has the guts to make this tough decision and it's unfortunate. Due to your (the school board as a whole) lack of leadership and vision, kids in Cottage Grove are going to suffer the most. And that's the real tragedy here.
Congratulations on being re-elected, Peter. I like that you were able to earn another term even though your stance with closing Maywood may not have been the most popular.
One comment on last night's meeting...yikes! Sure were some unprofessional comments and behaviors exhibited toward Craig by a couple of the board members. Kind of disappointing, and I hope they have a chance to watch the replay to see how terribly they came off.
Nice analysis on kicking the can...watch out for potholes!
It is unfortunate that people believe that some of us are not capable of researching who we believe would represent our value system and ideals when choosing to make a vote. For instance, I put a Norton sign in my Monona yard last year. I talked him up amongst my friends....because I believed he was the best candidate not because he was from CG.
So, to have appointed officials makes me nervous. I would rather take my chances on people making their own choices in the voting booth. I truly believe that a Peter Sobol, for instance, would not be on the board if we had that system. He did not live in the district his whole life. From what I observed, he doesn't rub elbows with the "in crowd" (sorry Peter)...or at least didn't when he got elected. He got elected because the people of this district believed in his values and ideals. He got re-elected for the same reason.
Keep up the excellent work Peter
POINT #1
How quickly some of the public can forget that around 1993, a law called the QEO was put into place to limit teacher salaries. Many public members thought it was great and many teachers did not. It is this law that has severly restricted and limited raises as well as total compensation for teachers for the last 15 years. Never mind the limit it has had on the families of teachers. They have been dealing with it for over a decade. During that same period of time, economic times, including compensation packages, were between fantastic to excellent for both private and public sector employees.
POINT #2
Teachers and other emplyees of the district are not immune to the cuts and are losing their jobs. Just look at the cut list.
POINT #3
A few months ago, the Board decided to offer one year contracts to several administrative positions so they would be in a better position if necessary for the future.
POINT #4
Discussion about potential cuts in pay and benefits for teachers and administrators are conducted in closed session negotiations between the parties involved, not at open meetings. The discussions are protected by current law. Why does one think or conclude that absence of public information means they are not actually being considered and discussed in closed sessions, potentially by both sides?
I think it's completely reasonable to cut the building budgets. Every week, I'm shocked at the amount of paper my son brings home in his Friday folder. I would much rather receive communication online, and save trees and money. I have the option to "go paperless" with my bank, my phone company, my cable provider, etc. While not everyone would make this choice, it's unfortunate for both the environment and the budget that the option to receive the majority of our communication from schools isn't available.
Public employee salaries and benfits SHOULD be discussed openly, in PUBLIC. After all, the 'PUBLIC' has to pay for these salaries.
QEO didn't restrict teacher salaries. It was a guaranteed 3.8% increase every year! Most of the folks I know did NOT average a 3.8% increase per year since 1993.
If you are teaching for the money, then please leave the district. If you are teaching because you like serving the PUBLIC and like playing a role in developing children into young adults, then stay. but please don't gouge us along the way. Home schooling has been gaining favor. I wonder why?
One thing I would be in favor of is a compression in pay for all teachers. I mean lower pay for long-time teachers and higher starting salary for beginning teachers with a 2-3 year probationary/evaluation period. If they are not very good - let them go. If they are good - give them another pay bump after passing probation. If they are doing it just for the money, they will eventually leave - assuming they can find a better paynig job somewhere else.
And please cut the post retirement benefits and make teachers make the major contribution to their retirement fund. Many folks don't have that LUXURY and many of those that do FUND IT THEMSELVES!
LOL! Most people you know averaged much more than 3.8% per year since 1993, salaries and benefits. Teacher salaries have NOT kept with average salaries.
LOL! Why should a teacher sacrifice their future, and their ability to provide for their children to educate your brat? You wan't professional service, pay for professionals, you want amateur service? Feel free to home school.
The QEO is the total package increase each year (pay, healthcare, and retirement), and basically formed a floor and a ceiling at the same time. They have not been getting a 3.8% pay raise each year.
With the double digit increases to healthcare (about 1/2 of the package), teachers have been getting about 1-2% in pay increases each year since 1993, while inflation has been equal to that or slightly higher (I think the inflation average was 2.3% from 2000-2005). Most teachers are making about the same in 2010 dollars that they were in 1993.
The reaction by the public against teachers pay is due to the rough ecconomy. Up to 2004-2005, no one was complaining about teacher's pay because it was still lower then private sector pay, and private sector people were getting 3-4% increases each year. In a few years when we return to good times, we'll be happy again and forget about the teachers. Usually good ecconomic times last longer then bad ones, so in the long run a 3.8% QEO is better for tax payers then teachers.
There was a stat a few years ago that 50% of teachers (in the nation) quit within 3 years because of the stress and low pay. The teachers that stay do like serving the public and some accept the lower pay partly because their enjoyment. There may be a few that stay because of good benefits, and a consistant pay system, (especially in these times) and like any job their is a problem with burn-out, but we should not cut teacher pay to ballance the budget.
Perhaps the can is filled with concrete. Don't kick it too hard or you'll break every bone your foot.
Post a Comment