Cuomo's Tax Cap - A Message To Local Assemblymen

In my opinion and the opinion of many of my colleagues and neighbors, the Governor’s fight for a tax cap is an attempt to pander for short-term popularity among the frustrated taxpayer and has no sound economic reasoning. Any legislator that jumps on the Governor’s bandwagon will trade the education of children and long-term economic health for short-term popularity. The tax cap will eventually lead to the implosion of public school systems across NY State and Long Island, and restrict the constitutional rights of children to receive a fundamentally sound public education. Please use sound judgment and vision in your positions in Albany. Be leaders in a time when true leadership is needed.
We can agree on one thing from the May 22nd Newsday Article, “Long Island property taxes are out of control.” Nonetheless, considering the income taxes generated from hard working Long Islanders are being thrown into school programs and other earmarked initiatives in Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, Yonkers and other upstate communities in the form of State aid and earmarked grants, the homeowners on LI are forced to pay a continually increasing percentage of all school expenses that support the education of the children within their respective communities. It is the cost increases related to unfunded state mandates, including the pension system, combined with the continued slashing of state aid revenue that is the driving force behind increased property taxes. In Elwood, we have had little choice; our contractual obligations have been offset by painful staff cuts. Rising costs related to our collective bargaining agreements have been managed through a choice of union concessions, or a reduction of employees. Therefore, Elwood’s property tax increases over the past two years are a direct result of the increase in mandated expenses and the continued cut in State aid – period.
The messages coming out of Albany have tried to deflect the responsibility of rising property taxes on local boards and central administrators. The most common criticisms made by the Governor have been bloated reserves and the excessive salaries of chief administrators. Notwithstanding a few exceptions, the first assertion is not a fair or accurate description of school finances, and the second is, frankly, absurd. These comments are made to raise the ire of the common taxpayer who is either uninformed or less sophisticated in their understanding of governmental accounting, the value of educational leadership, or the marketplace for key employees where the talent pool is very shallow.
In Elwood, we have been audited by the NYS Comptroller’s office and received a clean bill of financial health and deemed to have appropriate internal controls with no material flaws. Furthermore, the Comptroller’s office confirmed that the reserves maintained in Elwood were not large enough to be depleted to offset rising costs. Many, school districts on Long Island have a similar financial story.
The second contention related to the salaries of school superintendents is absurd. This is not a philosophical statement; rather, it is a mathematical and purely factual assessment. We can all agree that the cumulative cost of education on Long Island (based on approved school budgets) is $10.8 billion. The cumulative cost of all superintendents among the 124 LI school districts totals approximately $35 million. Therefore, the full cost of salaries, benefits and other compensation of superintendents on Long Island represents only 1/3rd of one percent of all school spending, or (0.0033), (0.3%). Eliminating superintendents may be a popular conversation among frustrated taxpayers, but as the numbers prove, would have a negligible effect on school property taxes. Furthermore, the salary cap that has been suggested in a bill introduced by the Governor would only save 1/7th of one percent, or (0.0014), (0.14%) of all school spending on Long Island. However, it would have a tremendous impact on a school district’s ability to have experienced leaders of education and school administration taking the helm of school districts across Long Island. In the end, the Governor’s bill would have a negligible effect on property taxes, but have a significantly negative impact on educational leadership and necessary school operations. Diminishing valued service without lowering costs significantly eludes logic and should not be supported by our legislators.
Lastly, the Governor’s barrage of advertising messages on television and radio continue to make claims that the tax cap will create jobs and save our economy. In light of the fact that nearly 2,000 Long Island teachers and other school employees will be out of work even though Long Islanders overwhelmingly approved school budgets, it becomes hard to believe that a tax cap can create more jobs than it eliminates. The reduction of teachers leads to diminished educational opportunities for children. Sound economic policy that has vision is one that improves the education of children. This leaves one significant question to answer: how can a tax cap that will continually eliminate thousands of jobs from educators and diminishes quality instruction and educational opportunities from children have a short-term or long-term positive effect on the economy of Long Island or New York State?
There are many legislative reforms that can reduce costs going forward while improving the quality of education in our public schools. Look to the goals of the “Race To The Top” initiative to guide you. Please do not embrace legislation that threatens the implosion of public education on Long Island. Please avoid giving into the mobocracy that has swayed the Governor and be true leaders in a time that leadership is needed to march us out of the doldrums of a bad economy without destroying the constitutional rights of children to have a sound public education.

Our Mission Continues

A community that overcomes continuing hardships and skepticism, and embraces a full breadth of educational opportunities for children shows a great commitment to the core values and principles of a great society. I am especially proud to be part of the Elwood Community this morning.
Our mission continues, but while we may take a day to breathe a sigh of relief after a budget season filled with tension and anxiety, we must wake up tomorrow morning and take steps to bring forward the reforms and embrace changes that will keep public education vital.
There are those that will look backward into the past and long for how things used to be; nevertheless, we must ask everyone to stand up in a collaborative effort and establish new legislation, practices, and a business model that will further improve upon the education of our children while maintaining a sustainable financial model for current and future generations of children and new, committed educators.
Lastly, congratulations to two new BOE Trustees, Bill Gutekunst, and Mike LaMena, who got the calling to make a long-term commitment, step off the sidelines, and take a decisive role in the school community. Messrs Gutekunst and LaMena will bring a thoughtful, independent perspective to the Board of Education and we welcome them to the team.
On behalf of all 2,645 students of Elwood Schools – THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONTINUED SUPPORT.

There is only one question and it is a YES or NO answer

Over the past day or so I have heard people talking about being undecided about how they will vote for the budget on May 17th. There are other Elwood residents out there saying that they will vote NO because they are angry. They are angry at teachers, angry at administration, or the superintendent, or the Board of Education. Angry because we needed to change our kindergarten program. Angry because gas prices are high or that they see buses going by that are not filled to capacity. Angry because they have not received a raise in two-years or work longer hours than teachers for 12-months per year. Angry because Northport’s percent of increase is less than Elwood’s.

Well, someone needs to explain how their anger justifies taking components of Elwood’s educational program away from children. Is the rationale “I’m angry, so I am going to knock down some kids????” Are you saying A TEACHER GOT A RAISE, SO TAKE AWAY THE PERFORMING ARTS PROGRAMS? A PRINCIPAL GOT A RAISE, SO CANCEL SPORTS AND FIRE MORE TEACHERS. SORRY FOLKS, I JUST DON’T GET IT. For those of you who feel justified in throwing out the baby with the bath water and just do not want to take accountability for voting no… Well, like I said, I just don’t get it and I will never subscribe to your way of thinking. This is my blog, not an official Board of Education correspondence, and I am telling you personally; if you are voting no for any other reason other than you cannot afford to provide any additional funding to education in Elwood, then in my opinion, you do not get a free pass because you are angry and frustrated.

Some people say they really cannot afford it; that I understand – I get that! I have pointed out to them how a loss of State Aid will affect their property taxes and how taxes will rise even if the budget never passes and we go to austerity. The difference between a YES and a NO vote is +2.33% on the tax levy. People get confused between the budget and the tax levy increases and some need to have it explained that there are two sets of different numbers that are not always directly related. The budget is purely about expenses and how much it will cost to implement all services to children – mandated services, academics, cultural arts, athletics and clubs, and how much it costs to run the district’s facilities and transportation. The tax levy is the expense budget less all other sources revenue - the biggest other source of revenue is state aid. We must balance the budget, so the tax levy fills the gap between our expenses and all other sources of revenue. If State aid is reduced, as it has been over two years (this current year and next) the tax levy needs to be raised to fill the gap.

There are reforms needed and we must fight for, and embrace, change in order to keep public education vital for our children. There is no greater economic initiative and attribute of a great society than a well-rounded education of a child. We must provide Elwood’s children with every opportunity to learn, to discover their creativity and competitiveness, to grow emotionally, and in character. We must get children ready for a competitive post-secondary education and a 21st Century workforce.

I have heard all of the political rhetoric, all of the anger, all of the frustration, but at the end of the day you are voting for an additional +2.33% funding for well-rounded education of our children.

There is only one issue on the table; only one question being asked on May 17th: Will you pay an average of $250 per year more for the children of Elwood Schools – Yes or No?

Sups' Salaries - Political Vs. Factual

I wanted to point out a widely discussed topic that is much more political than factual, and in my opinion, a complete deflection on the part of the Governor and legislators that points the finger of blame on non-unionized superintendents, rather than the statutes that provide protection over the evaluative process of work performance, a speedy, one-time only tenure appointment, and most importantly, bargaining leverage to the Teachers’ and Administrators' Union (NYSUT), as well as other legislative mandates, as the root cause of public education expenses that are spiraling out of control.

As reconfirmed in Newsday this morning, Long Island will approve $10.8 BILLION dollars in spending next Tuesday. The average “all in” compensation (salary and benefits) of school superintendents on LI (and Westchester for that matter) is $295,000. If you extrapolate that out for 124 districts on LI, you could come to a total estimate of school superintendents’ compensation on Long Island of $36,580,000, or (0.34%), or 1/3rd of one percent of all school spending. Moreover, this would be the amount saved if all superintendent salaries were eliminated, not lowered.

If you went to the Governor’s proposed cap, the savings this will generate on Long Island collectively is approximately (0.14%), or 1/7th of one percent of school budgets on Long Island. So, when the naïve say a material amount of money, or “a great deal of money” can be saved by lowering salaries of superintendents, they are making an assumption that has not been researched very well and has NO basis of fact.

In order to get some perspective, think of the following: teachers work 10-months per year and every school district has teachers with similar long-time seniority in education as superintendents do. These teachers make $105k - $118k, and with a couple of stipends for clubs or extra-curricular work, easily reach the $125k mark. I can tell you Elwood has a number of teachers in this category and Elwood teachers are not the highest paid on Long Island or among the eight neighboring districts in Huntington for that matter. Therefore, in considering the Governor’s proposed legislation would have an Elwood Superintendent make an all in compensation package of $155,000, I ask you ponder this question: Why would anyone take a superintendent’s job for less than $30k a year more than he/she could make as a classroom teacher?

Is this issue a political sound bit for legislators that gets a lot of mileage among the frustrated taxpayer, or is it a prudent school business policy that clearly is in the best interest of managing effective schools while also providing relief to the taxpayer?

A truly pertinent question might be - What is the value of an effective educator with CEO level experience and leadership in a school district and what is the marketplace for such an individual?

MANDATES AND THE LOSS OF AID REVENUE ARE THE DRIVING FORCE OF OUR PROPERTY TAX INCREASES

A review of cost increases for a short-list of legislated NY State mandates and the reduction in Aid over the past two years clearly indicates the unmanageable financial scenario that is driving Elwood’s school property taxes higher.

It is hard to see through all of the political dust that the demagogues in Albany are kicking up in the media with their talk of overpriced administrative bureaucracy, bloated reserves and failing schools. Obviously, Andrew (“No One Should Make More Than Me”) Cuomo has never been to Elwood. So allow me to say it again to stress the point: THE RISING COST MANDATES AND THE LOSS OF AID REVENUE ARE THE DRIVING FORCE OF OUR PROPERTY TAX INCREASES. The spread between the increase in mandates and the loss of aid revenue is above $4 million over the 2010/11 and 2011/12school years. This impacts our tax levy by 12%, which is exactly our combined tax levy increase for this year and the 2011/12 proposal.

CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS
There is an overwhelming public sentiment that teachers’ contractual pay raises are driving up taxes. However, while automatic step raises combined with contractual pay hikes are a contributing factor that creates a tremendous financial strain on any school district, we have been able to offset this contractual obligation with staff cuts.

You should know that these cuts are something we do with great difficulty. For one, teachers that provide quality instruction are the vital asset to any school and it is important that we continue to assure that the people inside of the classroom are highly skilled pedagogically, dedicated to our mission, and masters of the content they deliver to our students. Secondly, for a majority of the community a “staff cut” is a line item on a spreadsheet. However, to the members of the Board of Education a “staff cut” has a name and a face. These are people who are doing a great job with our children; they are people who we care about; who are getting married, and supporting their own families. In a small community like Elwood, a staff cut is a heart wrenching decision – one that hurts more than anyone will ever know.

You should also know, that we (the BOE) are continuing to have conversations with the various union officials that can bring about meaningful reforms and changes in our contractual obligations – and when dialogue occurs there is hope of a brighter and more manageable future.

THE CENTRAL OFFICE TEAM
The central office team of administrators that was assembled in 2009/10 is lean, and the most experienced and effective team of educators that the district ever had in the central office. Moreover, next year their collective cost of compensation and benefits to the district taxpayer will be $100,000 less than the central office team we had in the 2008/09 school year.

A DIFFICULT DECISION FOR TAXPAYERS
The Board has always been mindful to those who cannot afford much more in school taxes and are unsure how much more we can ask these people to tighten their belts so our schools can stay true to our mission. While there are signs of economic improvement, financial burdens still seem overwhelming to many. Of greatest concern is the potential of taxing senior citizens out of our community. Other than not providing a child with a competitive education, this is the next worst fear of our Board of Education. The current Board wants to explore re-energizing the bill introduced to the legislature by Senator LaValle a few years ago that would freeze school taxes for homeowners starting at 70-years of age.

We must remain diligent and find new ways to fund our schools, and reform the archaic systems and laws that will eventually lead to the implosion of public education if we do not take action on the local, state, and national level.

NEVERTHELESS, we are not going achieve our reform goals by May 17th… And, the only message that can be sent on the 17th is how much YOU (every individual and Family) are willing to fund education in Elwood during the 2011-12 school year.

A MARKETING NIGHTMARE
The Budget proposal that the Board of Education is bringing to the community (+7.98%) is, frankly, a marketing nightmare. Across Long Island we have become used to school districts being marketed in the media based on the size of their percentage of budget and tax levy increase from the previous year, and in that competition we are behind the 8-ball. At this time of year the masses rarely focus upon the educational services delivered, the success of Elwood students, diminishing state aid, or the amount of commercial property that helps hold down the tax rate, or the lack thereof… Or, how low their tax increases may have been relative to other school districts in the past.

SO, WHY IS THE BOE PROPOSING THIS BUDGET TO THE COMMUNITY WHEN WE ARE LIVING IN THESE MOST INTERESTING TIMES?
The time clock continues to wind down for children as we prepare them for college and a 21st Century workforce. There is no holding back or slowing down for a rebuilding year, or getting back a year or years… Our goal is to get children ready for life beyond John Glenn High School and we must provide them with every opportunity to learn, to discover their creativity and competitiveness, to grow socially and emotionally, and in character. We must get children where they need to be on time. We simply cannot afford to take programmatic opportunities away from children when the clock is ticking and risk not having them well rounded and ready for a competitive post secondary education when the buzzer sounds.

In this proposed budget, we have stayed true to our mission and there is something to be said about a community that overcomes continuing hardships and skepticism, and keeps their focus on the mission of their schools:

“Our mission is to provide an excellent educational experience that empowers and inspires each student to succeed academically, socially and emotionally in an evolving global society. We invite the entire Elwood community to join us on this journey.”

This budget proposal is just that – an invitation for the entire Elwood Community to join us on this journey.

Massachusetts Strips Bargaining Rights from Public Unions

Well, it most definitely has been an interesting few months. Mind you, Massachusetts passed a Tax Cap a while ago and it has not turned out well - no surprise there. You have to believe that is because a tax cap and collective bargaining can never really co-exist - except in the mind of the Democratic Assembly in Albany that is.

In part, I am empathetic to public employees and what I believe to be their right to organize and collectively bargain. Nevertheless, it has been clear over the past couple of decades that the pendulum has swung from a time when public employees needed to be protected from the abuses of management in the 50’s and 60’s, to the side of an unsustainable financial model that would eventually cause the implosion of public education. The window of opportunity and progressive change has been in front of NYSUT (and all teachers’ unions) for quite some time, but the union’s intractable mindset has made it clear that public education as we have come to know it in this country is at the beginning of the end; unless, of course, sweeping reforms and decisive action are taken. While I have mixed feelings about the action taken in Wisconsin and Massachusetts, I do not see that there was much of a choice. (see link)

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/04/29/massachusetts-dems-vote-to-strip-public-unions-of-bargaining-rights/

What do you think?