PLEASE VOTE TODAY!!

Complacency is the enemy of victory!

Please go out and vote today!  In a low turnout election, every vote does count.

Voting is from 7:00 am to 9:00 pm today at the Horace Greeley Gymnasium.  Parking available for voters in the second lane close to the gym.  Once at the high school, voting only takes 5:00 minutes or less.  No excuses.  Go vote.

Patch Candidate Q&A

The Patch asked the candidates for the school board to respond to several questions.  The Patch has not yet published them, but I expect they will sometime before the election.  Below are the questions and my responses. (This was cut and pasted from an email so apologies for any formatting errors.)

What are the school district's biggest challenges? 

The biggest challenge facing the district is creating a sustainable educational model that is both fiscally prudent and sound as well as adaptive to the changes in how education is designed and delivered in the 21st century.  Our students need to learn to be creative risk takers and critical thinkers not just memorizers of content knowledge.  I think we need to adapt to the rapidly changing technology and learn to use technology for actually improving the educational experience. We need to continue to move towards a sustainable budget model including addressing structural (mandates) and contractual issues.  We also need to find alternative ways to engage our students in their learning process. 

Academically, as always, our biggest challenge is reaching the middle of the bell curve.  We need to find a way to challenge and motivate the students that fall in that huge range that is the middle student.  One way to do that is to allow the students to decide how much to challenge themselves rather than have strict numerical cutoffs.  For example, I believe that a student that wishes to take an AP class at the high school should be given that opportunity to challenge themselves rather than there being a bright line cutoff.  In the event the student is not keeping up at the end of the first quarter, then have that student drop into a non AP section.  Reaching the middle students is essential not only at the high school, but more importantly is reaching out to those students at both the elementary and middle school levels.

I also think a major challenge facing the district is expanding community involvement.  We need to find ways to get more of the residents involved in education whether that is through attending Board Meetings, sending emails to the Board, voting in the election, voting on the budget, helping to fight unfunded mandates or simply being more involved in the different buildings. 

Finally, I think that with natural turnover in our administration team especially at the building principal level, we need to ensure that they have and develop the necessary leadership skills to drive their buildings to both academic and social success.  Leadership is critical to having thriving students all striving to reach their potential.  Our central office administration is actively involved in taking a lead role in support of the new school administrators.

State-mandated employee pension contributions have been a significant driver of higher costs for the district in recent years. What changes, if any, would you like to see to the pension system?  

The State mandated pension plans, Teacher's Retirement System (TRS) and Employee Retirement System (ERS) are Defined Benefit Plans.  The State of New York taxpayers are guaranteeing a market rate of return to the plan.  I would support a change from a Defined Benefit Plan to a Defined Contribution Plan whereby districts know their obligation is simply a straight line function of the number of employees.  The plan itself and the members of the plan would be taking the investment risk, not the taxpayers.

Pragmatically, I would accept a transition period as well as protections for staff employed more than a certain number of years.  Without compensation, I think it is wrong to retroactively change the system to someone who is well on their way to retirement and has relied on the expectations of the current plan. This transition could also include the unionized staff having to make contributions to their own defined benefit plan.  I think it is imperative from a fiscal standpoint that benefits and their associated costs are brought in line with the private sector. Or, let the State of New York take over payments to the pension systems that they mandated.

Do you support repealing the Triborough Amendment to the state's Taylor Law, which preserves terms of expired union contracts until new deals are in place? 

First, it is important to understand what is the Taylor Law and the Triborough Amendment to that Law.  In short, in New York State, the Taylor law prohibits policemen, firemen and teachers from striking. Without the ability to strike, the legislature felt that these groups lost all leverage in negotiations, so they amended the law to protect against cities, municipalities, school districts, etc from unilateral cuts to compensation in the event a contract expired without an agreement on a new contract.  What the amendment says is that in the event of a contract expiring without a new contract being agreed to, that the terms of the old contract would continue.  In theory, that is a reasonable right to exchange.  The groups are prohibited from striking, but the employers would have to live under the terms of the existing contract.  

Where I diverge from this thought process is in the interpretation of what should be continued in the event of no agreement.  To actually repeal the entire Triborough Amendment would be a mistake.  But, I believe it should be modified so that so called "step" increases do not continue in the absence of an agreement.  What I think is fair and appropriate is for the actual compensation to stay exactly as it was at the end of the expired contract.  No unilateral cuts by employers and no automatic step raises to employees.  This change will create a more level playing field in contract negotiations.  The real issue for me behind the Triborough Amendment is automatic step increases. 

Finally, I think it is only fair to point out that locally, in the CCSD, so far, 3 of our 4 bargaining units have agreed to new contracts that give them lower raises than they would have gotten under the Triborough Amendment.  That is, they accepted raises that were less than their natural step increases.  I believe that is a strong show of good faith and an indication that our staff recognizes and appreciates that we are partners whose primary focus is on the students.

What are your thoughts on tenure for teachers and administrators? 

First, tenure is a state mandate.  The concept of tenure is not something we can control locally.  What we do control is the granting of tenure.  In general, with a few exceptions, if a teacher or administrator is to be employed in the district beyond their three year probationary period, then they need to have been granted tenure.  That is a State law, not a locally negotiated provision to our contracts.  The history of tenure was to provide for academic freedom and teaching without the fear of reprisals.  It also protects against arbitrary firings.  However, the system as it is designed limits performance based hirings and firings.  The 3020-a process is so expensive, time consuming and fraught with peril as to make it almost irrelevant.  (See NYC and "rubber rooms"). The system severely limits the district's ability to make personnel decisions based strictly on current work product or merit. 

So, if I were king, I would change the system.  I do believe there needs to be material protections for the staff.  What I would do would be to give staff 5 year contracts.  In the event the district fired a teacher for anything other than enrollment reasons, the balance of the contract would be paid or one month severance pay for every year worked, whichever is greater.  This would give protections to teachers and allow the district to make decisions on hiring based on merit.

The district is facing academic mandates from the state, such as continued administration of a new teacher and principal evaluation system and a shift to what are called common core standards. How do you think the district is doing in responding to these requirements? What else, if anything, would you like to see done?

I believe in local control of public education.  I think the core standards are a knee jerk reaction to outdated data and a misguided attempt by the federal government to create minimal standards that will, in effect, bring the top performing schools down to the core standards when our local expectations are much much higher than theirs.  Essentially, we are forced to waste time and money being in compliance with standards that are below our own.  Similar things could be said about the APPR.  

I believe we as a district do a much better job of evaluating our staff than does the APPR which is 25% mandated to rely on standardized test scores.  So, I think the federal and state government should stay out of local education or at the least provide for exemptions for high performing districts such as ours. 

As to how the district is responding to the requirements, we are making the best of what I think is a bad situation.  The district, in partnership with the CCT and the administrators, has created APPR criteria and measurements that are far and above what the State is suggesting.  We will continue to evaluate personnel with more than checked off boxes and standardized test scores.  Evaluating a teacher's effectiveness is part art and part science.  We need to use both quantifiable measures as well as observation.  In fact, we as a district have had our APPR held up as a model for other districts around the state to emulate.

Most of the district's budget revenue comes from property taxes. Would you support creating new revenue streams for the district? If so, what would you propose? 

Of course I support creating new revenue streams for the district.  Who wouldn't?  I have made some specific proposals at Board meetings.  For example, if our biggest asset is our teachers and our rigorous academic program, with technology advances and districts throughout the New York facing financial pressures, why not sell our classes to other districts?  Through technology, we could easily package our classes, use Skype, etc to deliver first class learning to other districts that cannot afford to offer certain classes.  Another possible revenue source is selling physical district assets.  The Facilities Committee on which I sit is currently exploring the sale of several parcels of district property we deem to be not needed for future use.  In general, I think it is incumbent upon the district to find its own sources of revenue.  However, know that the district is restricted by NY State law from many types of revenue sources including taking any kind of financial risk, using taxpayer assets such as facilities to profit or to rent them to for profit groups.  Any ideas along those lines are restricted. 

I also support continuing and expanding the public-private partnership between the district and such groups as the Chappaqua School Foundation, the Sports Boosters and the Turf Committee.

Currently, Chappaqua Crossing developer Summit/Greenfield has a proposal for the site, which is across the street from Horace Greeley High School, before the New Castle Town Board to rezone the property to allow for 120,000 square feet of retail, including a supermarket of 36,000 to 66,000. Summit/Greenfield has also stated that it could create more tax revenue for the school district. Do you support the plan, oppose it, or are you undecided? What are your concerns, if any, with the proposal as it currently stands?

If you are asking me as a current School Board member and hopefully future School Board member, I neither support nor oppose the retail plan directly.  It is not the role of a School Board member to support or oppose the plan any more than it is the role of a Town Council member to tell us whether or not we should have an SRO in our schools. 

I do have some serious concerns about the plan that, for the most part, mimic the District's submission to the DSEIS.  Mainly, first and foremost, the safety of our students and staff.  Second, I am very concerned about traffic.  Third, I am concerned about the intersection of the first two.  That is, I am concerned that emergency first responders have the ability to respond to any emergency in the district, particularly at the high school in a timely and appropriate manner.  Will the addition of a retail zone and the ensuing increased traffic negatively affect first responders ability to respond to the high school? Fourth,, I am concerned about other general matters such as underclass students parking across the street, non-authorized students leaving the campus, and especially the accuracy of the tax projections.

  

I think that both the developer and the Town, before proceeding need to clearly outline for the district how the traffic and safety concerns will be addressed.  I also remain concerned about the residential student enrollment versus the residential taxes paid.  To the extent that a market rate dwelling is not taxed as at a fee simple rate, there is concern that the other taxpayers in the district will need to absorb the costs.  I would also like to better understand the tax projections from the retail zone.  What are the assumptions that underlie those projections and could the Town and the developer, as part of a tax certerori settlement on the current outstanding grievances agree to a set tax number going forward for a period of years that will allow the district to make long term revenue plans and assumptions. 

As a resident and School Board member I would hope and expect that our Town representatives clearly detail for New Castle residents the logic and reasoning behind their proposed changes to the zoning code and how they think the benefits of such a change out weigh the negatives before they approve of the plan if they do. 

In fairness, I would add that Summit Greenfield has reached out to the district and expressed a willingness to both address these issues and be a good neighbor.  I hope actions speak louder than words.

The issue of personnel status disclosure came up last year when longtime Greeley football coach and physical education teacher William Tribou was suspended and then resigned with a settlement with the district. The school board did not disclose details because it was a personnel matter, with a reason given that disclosure was not allowed. Is it appropriate for districts to not disclose personnel status when an individual is facing discipline or leaving, and would you support repealing limitation of school officials disclosing details of employee suspensions, terminations or resignations?

If you are asking if the exception to the open meeting law statutes of NY State should be revoked legislatively to allow for public discussion of personnel matters, my short answer would be, no.  I think that in personnel cases there are competing and often conflicting interests.  Mainly, the interest of the employee and their privacy versus both the public's right to know and the potential safety and welfare of students in the district.  That includes educational, physical and social welfare. 

The presumption made by both the exception to the open meeting law and by the rules and regulations governing a 3020-a hearing is that a staff member has the right to privacy at least until any allegations are proven, AND that the Board members through their sworn oaths and fiduciary obligations as Board Members are protecting the public's interest in personnel cases.  In the cases where the personnel issue is performance and not conduct, I think that the APPR process and the fact that those records are publicly reviewable, at least by the parents of children in the teacher's class, makes that part both public and accountable. 

Ethically, I am uncomfortable making what are allegations public until they are proven or stipulated to or agreed upon.  I ask a simple question, how does the employee get their good name back if the allegations are not true?  

The state-mandated cap on annual tax levy increases will expire in June 2016 unless if it is renewed. If elected, this would happen near the end of your term. Do you support allowing the cap to expire or should it be extended?

Again, this is a simplified question to a complex issue.  The June 2016 renewal is tied to rent control laws.  As per your link to a power point presentation, page 2 slide 6 last bullet point, "Expires June 15, 2016 unless rent control extended"  If rent control is extended, the tax cap will be as well.  While I would never rely on a political outcome, I would be very surprised if a deal to extend rent control did not happen. 

However, in short, without the benefit of seeing how it continues to work in the next 3 years, I support extending the tax cap.  I think the best case for the district would be for the tax cap to be extended while at the same time the state starts funding many of its own mandates such as pension plans.  But, even if the State were to continue to ignore the burden they shift from themselves to the local taxpayer and not address mandates, I would still support extending the tax cap.

Candidate Statement and Brief Biography for NCN

I was asked to submit a biography and candidate statement for publication in NewCastleNOW.  Here is what I submitted.

Jeffrey S. Mester:  Candidate Statement and Biography

Candidate Statement

This is my third time running for the School Board and I can safely say that the oddity of running for a volunteer position never seems to go away.  We are asking you, the community, to select us as the best, most appropriate volunteer.  So, first, I would like to recognize my fellow candidates, Warren and Rick, for their willingness to volunteer.  I admire their decision to offer to commit their time to the community.

One of the reasons I originally ran for the Board six years ago was because of my strong belief in my responsibility as a community member to serve our community in a way that best suits my qualifications with the community's needs.  That remains true today.

New York State says the qualifications for school board membership are an ability to read and write, be  a qualified voter, and be a resident of the district for at least one year prior to the election.   Not a very high bar indeed. 

Any candidate that receives enough votes can be a member of the Board of Education, but to be an effective member of the Board requires much much more.   It is not simply about being smart and having the time.   It is not about representing one segment of the community.

As  one of my fellow candidates will learn, there is a lot more to the job than the hot button issues.  It is easy to identify problems; it is much harder to offer solutions and make decisions.  I am the only candidate who can stand on a proven, successful track record of doing just that.

Being a school board member is about, first and foremost,  having a passion for education.  It is also about understanding education law and regulations, about understanding the budget, and about listening.  Listening to the community, listening to the students, listening to the administrators, listening to the staff,  and listening to your own gut.

Going forward, I will continue to work for ALL members of the community to reach responsible budgets.  I will further seek to reduce the burden on taxpayers by strengthening the public-private partnerships such as with the Chappaqua School Foundation and the Sports Boosters.  I will continue to support openness and transparency.  I will continue to support and seek public involvement and input. 

The Board cannot and should not face the challenges ahead alone.  We need community involvement and support. I will seek to bring the various interest groups including residents with children in the schools as well as residents without, and district personnel together to collectively and creatively find sustainable solutions for our district.

For the past six years, I have worked tirelessly on behalf of the members of this community to be an effective member of the school board.  It requires a person with an extensive and detailed knowledge of the district, a complete understanding of the budget and the structural budget issues the district faces, a person who can make practical and reasoned decisions, a person who is flexible and can build consensus, a person who can balance competing community interests, and a person who has vision and conviction.  There is no experience like direct experience and a proven track record.  I stand on mine.

Simply put, common sense with an uncommon commitment.

Brief Biography

I am 51 years old.  I have three terrific children one of whom graduated from HGHS last year and two currently in high school.  All three started in the district in Kindergarten at Roaring Brook Elementary School, attended Seven Bridges Middle School, and then went on to Horace Greeley High School.  My professional background is in the trading of equities and equity derivatives.  Most recently, I have been in the compliance side of the business.  I have an undergraduate BA in Economics from the University of Virginia and an MBA with a concentration in Finance from the Kelllogg Graduate School of Management at Northwestern University. 

Budget Thoughts Part 1

It's been a while since I last posted, and to both of my regular readers (Hi mom!) I apologize.

As we approach budget season, I thought I would address some of the issues facing the district and some of the questions being asked of me by residents.

(The usual disclaimers apply.  I do not speak for the Board of Education or for the CCSD.  I speak only for myself as an individual Trustee on the Board. Shake before using.  Refrigerate after opening.  Your mileage may vary, etc.)

First, what was presented at the January 24th Board meeting is NOT the proposed budget for this year.  It was simply a preview of what the "rollover budget" would be.  A rollover budget is simply to take the exact programs we have this year and coupled with known contractual obligations project out what it would cost to keep things exactly the same.  The numbers for that were sobering.  They would far exceed the tax cap.

The budget presented tonight (February 27th)  is a first draft.  It called for an approximate 2.34% ($2.6 million) increase in the tax levy, well within our cap limit of 3.9%.  When asked by the reporter for the Examiner after the meeting if I like tonight's proposal, my response was that it is too soon to form an opinion.  Until we see the details and until we can put the dollar figures in context, it is premature to decide if it is the best budget we can submit to the voters.

Do I like the dollar amounts? I think that it is very important to come in under the tax cap number.  (More about that in a few paragraphs.) This budget does that.  Would I like to see the number be even lower? Yes, but at what cost? The need for fiscal restraint can only be considered withing the context of the proposed academic program.  Without getting into a long discussion about real estate values, taxes and the schools and how they all interrelate, I think the primary driving  factor for a majority of Chappaqua residents as to why they live here is the value proposition of the schools.  Said a little differently, the bigger picture fiscally prudent thing to do is to protect real estate values by continuing to offer the top academic program we can.

In tonight's presentation, John Chow, the Assistant Superintendent for Business pointed out that we are ranked 13th out of 46 in terms of per pupil spending in Westchester. I contend that per pupil spending is a good proxy for an efficiency measure if you consider it in context.  Arguably, we have the top school district in the county while only spending the 13th most per pupil.  It is easy to lower your per pupil spending if you are willing to cut programs and staff.  To have the broad and rich offering we do while not being even in the top 10 in spending is a testament to efficiency.

But why are taxes so high if we are only spending 13th in per pupil spending? That is a direct function of the mix between commercial and residential real estate in our tax base.  Most towns have a commercial tax base that effectively subsidize the schools.  In Chappaqua, we have one of the lowest commercial tax bases in the county.  Couple that with the fact that a good portion of our commercial tax base are condos that often have children in the schools and our commercial base can even be a drag on taxes (See the District's response to the Chappaqua Crossing DEIS for a detailed explanation) rather than a subsidy.

One thing I am happy about is that the administration, with this budget, demonstrated fiscal restraint in that they did not look at the tax cap as being a floor, but as it being a ceiling.  Over the next month and a half, we will get the details of the budget and I can form an opinion as to whether I think we are allocating our precious dollars in the most appropriate way.

A huge positive that came out of tonight's Board meeting was that in response to my question about listing any program that was being affected as a direct result of a budgetary decision (as opposed to an academic appropriateness decision) was that there really were no programs that were going to be cut.  That is a testament to the administration, the CCT and the Board all agreeing to be partners in the district and reaching a fair compromise on a two year contract for the CCT that saves the district $1.5 million over the course of the contract versus Triborough.

Parenthetically, it is important to note here that while the legislation passed last year is often referred to as the 2% tax cap, that is misleading.  It is a tax cap.  The 2% number is a baseline.  There are exceptions and there is a multiplier for growth so that the actual cap could be as high as 4% or more.  Also note that this is a cap on the tax levy, NOT the rise in taxes nor on the change in the budget.  While those two are related and intertwined, they are not the deciding factor in the tax cap.  Also understand that in a period of declining assessed real estate values, that while the tax levy cap may be 2% or may even stay the same, your individual taxes could still rise more than the amount of the change in the tax levy.  Following so far?

In my opinion, even if we think we can pass a budget that would exceed the tax cap, it is inappropriate to do so until we get to the point of being academically insolvent.  I define academically insolvent differently for Chappaqua than I do for New York State schools in general.  The term typically refers to the point when a district has cut every optional program, has used all of their reserves, and now cannot afford to even pay for required mandated state programs.  The State of NY requires certain amount of phys ed, english, social studies, math, etc to get a degree.  There are many districts in NY State that will be insolvent within two to three years.  For Chappaqua, I define it as the point we have to start dismantling programs against our wishes.

Budget and Contractual Obligations

The district starts its budget process each year with a zero based budget process.  We look at the district and assume nothing.  We look at it as if we are starting a new district each year and what would we put in our program if we were starting from scratch.

But, to be honest, while we may claim we use a zero based budget process and build it from the ground up, that is over simplifying the actual process.  Also, now that there is a tax cap, it almost flips the concept.  We now know what our ceiling for spending will be and we have to work backwards to see what fits under the cap.

It is over simplifying the process because for many reasons we cannot start with zero.  One, there are the previously mentioned state mandated programs we need to include. Two, there are contractual obligations that are in place as long as we are an operating school district such as transportation of students.

When building the budget, we know what our contractual obligations will be.  We also know historically what percentage of the budget is allocated to what items and because most of that is contractual, we can build almost all of the budget from that. The biggest contractual obligation is staff compensation.

We are currently in negotiations with all four of our bargaining units.  They are the Chappaqua Congress of Teachers (CCT), the Administrators, CSEA (Civil Service jobs) and COSA (clerical staff positions). Tonight, following yesterday's ratification by the CCT, the Board of Ed unanimously approved the terms of a Memo of Agreement (MOA) with the CCT that sets the financial arrangements of the next contract.  We are still negotiating some of the other language and work place conditions of the contract.

Later in this post I get into a discussion about the Triborough Amendment to the Taylor Law.  Now, know that the CCT has taken a major conciliatory step towards meeting the taxpayers half way between Triborough and a freeze.  There is no doubt that by their actions they are indicating their partnership with the district and its residents to work together to maintain the academic quality, the rigorous course offerings and the culture of learning in the schools.

Before I write one more word, I think it is important and appropriate to note that one of the aspects that makes the CCSD such a high ranked school district is our culture.  Part of that culture is emphasizing good relations between the district and its unions.

There is no question that I am not talking out of turn when I say that in my six years on the Board I have never seen either the Board or all four of our bargaining units waiver from a student first viewpoint.  That is true of the administration and CCT, but equally true of our clerical staff and our custodial and maintenance staff as well.  For example, as a member of the facilities committee, I see how hard our custodial and maintenance staff works and what a great job they do.  As a resident, I have seen numerous examples of the members of the CSEA stepping outside of their duties to help students both academically and personally.  I have seen members fix flats on student cars, have seen them stay late to accommodate a student theatrical production or a student meeting.

Historically, compensation has been around 75% of the budget, although that number is threatening to  creepi higher in recent years.  Let's use 77% for this year's hypothetical budget because the 38% increase in pension payments and the increase in health care costs to the district are in excess of the increase in payments our staff will pay.  Transportation, with rising gas prices will be about 7% of the budget.  Debt costs, net of savings from the energy performance contract, will run about 5% of the district's budget.

So, we already know that 90% of the budget is spoken for.  If we assume another 5% goes to operations and maintenance we are left with 5% of the budget being "discretionary".  But what is really discretionary?  We need to buy items such as text books (paper or electronic), supplies, technology, security, etc.

So how do we actually control the budget?  Through programs.  What non-required classes are we going to offer, what are the maximum and minimum sizes of those classes, what extracurricular programs are we going to offer and how is that going to be paid for (taxes or "pay to play").

Simple math tells you that if there is a cap on the increase in tax levy of say 3% adjusted, and 94% of our budget comes from the tax levy, if the sum of compensation, transportation and debt service rises by more than around 3%, we need to cut something.

That something is programs.  Also, we could try to find ways to provide the same programs in a more efficient or cost effective manner. Since compensation is almost 80% of the budget, that is where the majority of adjustments must be made to stay under the cap. Since salaries are collectively bargained and contractual, we cannot simply or unilaterally freeze salaries or even cut them.  So, the mechanism for controlling the total compensation line of the budget is a blunt tool, it is controlling the number of programs/staff.

For the teachers, because of State tenure rules, the only way to reduce staff is to eliminate a program.  In some cases, programs are eliminated because of enrollment.  For example, one year we may need one fewer 2nd grade teacher because enrollment dropped such that we can still maintain class size within district contract and policy while reducing the number of sections offered. Sometimes, even with a declining enrollment, unless we redistrict the elementary or middle schools, because the decline is spread our among the multiple schools, we are unable to take advantage of it for cost savings.  Another way would be to say we are dropping a program altogether such as the Spanish program at the high school or we are cutting kindergarten to a half day program.  (These are hypothetical and NOT actually proposed ideas.)

Another reason controlling the compensation through program adjustments is a blunt tool is that we as a district do not control which teaching staff member from a department or area of expertise is going to be cut. It is simply a LIFO (Last In, First Out) or FISH (First In, Still Here) system. Know that while I think there are valid reasons to put job security protections in place for certain staff, I would prefer that layoff decisions mimic hiring decisions in that we want to keep the best regardless of experience, salary level or any other metric other than a performance one.

To take a small digression, there are many problems with that system of layoffs beyond the fact that it does not take into account merit or effectiveness.  One, in these times of economic hardship coupled with the tax cap, we are not only not hiring less experienced teachers, we are laying off ones too.  This is creating a mid-term problem of not having a core group of teachers with between 3-8 years experience.  As teachers retire over the next 5-10 years, we will be drastically reducing our average years of experience for teachers.  Like any business there is an appropriate mix of lots of experience, middle levels of experience and newer staff.  Certainly in teaching experience does matter.  Teachers learn and grow as they become more experienced. Having experienced mentors in their school or their department is also a critical component of teacher growth. We don't want to lose an entire generation of possible mentors.

Also, less experienced teachers, those laid off first, are naturally paid less than more experienced teachers under the step plus salary increase compensation plan. So, we may be forced to lay off 3 less experienced (lower compensated) teachers for every two more experienced teachers.  The implication is that program cuts have a sort of multiplier affect on staff layoffs.

Triborough Amendment to the Taylor Law

The Taylor law is a law enacted by the state legislature that legally forbids police, fire personnel and teachers from striking.  Forbidding a union from striking takes away one of the union's most effective bargaining tools.  The legislature was persuaded to compensate or protect the unions for giving up the right to strike by passing the Triborough Amendment to the Taylor Law.

The Triborough amendment essentially says that in the event that bargaining in good faith fails and no new contract can be agreed upon at the end of an existing contract that the terms of that expiring contract will remain in place until successful conclusions to negotiations lead to a new contract.  Over time, the courts interpreted that to mean that while there will be no salary increases when Triborough is in effect, the continuation part means that step increases will continue to be implemented each year.  Also, the contribution to health plans stays frozen at whatever level was in effect at the end of the expired contract and any non cash terms such as work rules and other contractually agreed upon items remains the same as the expired contract.

What does that mean to us here in Chappaqua? Well, using the CCT as an example since they are by far the largest of our bargaining units, the average teacher, or the average step increase would be 2.68%.  To be fair and to be clear, not every teacher gets a step raise every year. The step schedule includes a few breaks in the mid teens number of years and stops altogether after a certain number (long term) service to the district. So, while the step increase is around 3% when it is relevant, since not every teacher gets one, the average is 2.68%.  I think it is also important to point out that step increases generally help the less experienced teachers more than the experienced ones.

Triborough seems to create a floor for compensation not at freeze levels, but at a RAISE of 2.68% per year.  In tough economic times like the ones in which we live, there appears to be no incentive for a union to settle for anything less than a raise of 2.7%.  To be fair, in good economic times, the district has that incentive to keep raises to a minimum and be at Triborough.

But, that is theory and while it may be how it actually works in other districts, it is not necessarily how it works here in Chappaqua.  That brings me full circle to the district establishing favorable work environment with its staff.  For example, in good times such as when we first signed our last new (not amended) contract with the teachers 5 years ago, we agreed to terms that were about double what Triborough would have been.  Not only were the step increases in place, but we also gave salary raises of about 3.4% too.  We could have come to no agreement and forced Triborough, but we did not.

Now, with the tax cap and with stagnant real estate prices and inflation being low, in order to preserve programs and even expand them, the only way to do so would be if our unions agreed to accept less than what Triborough guarantees them.  That is not to say actual salary cuts but, rather, less of an increase than they could demand legally.

I am precluded from speaking directly about current negotiations for both contractual and practical policy reasons.  As per above, the Board strongly believes that maintaining good relations with our unions comes in part from not negotiating in public.  We prefer to look at our relationship as a long term one.  We focus on our aligned interests, that of providing the best education to the students of the district.  Of course, where we differ, when we do differ, is on appropriate compensation levels.

Let me restate the good news I stated above.  The CCT and the district have agreed to financial terms of the next contract via a signed MOA. The members of the CCT agreed to accept less than State law mandated.  Both the CCT and the district have made major concessions so that we can continue to work jointly toward our goal of preserving and even growing the already rich academic program.  By accepting about a 2/5th haircut to Triborough, the CCT has allowed the district to materially reduce any staff reductions and program reductions we would have had to make in the absence of this compromise.

The CCT leadership and the administration (in conjunction with the Board of Ed) were able to sit down and have substantial discussions about the future of the district, about the financial issues facing the district and about creative ways to solve them.  By putting aside the larger rhetoric coming out of Albany and various interest groups, we were able to focus on what is important and best for Chappaqua.  I strongly believe that through this extensive discussion process the district and the CCT undertook has put us on a joint partnership path towards finding mutually acceptable solutions to our financial constraints going forward.

To use the CCT as a demonstrative example, compensation comes in four areas.  One is cash salary.  That is the amount a teacher is paid per school year.  Second, is the district's contribution to the state mandated defined benefit pension plan.  Third is the district's contribution to an employee's health insurance plan.  We also have to consider what benefits that health plan provides such as deductibles, co-pays, prescription benefits, etc.  The fourth part of compensation are other benefits.  Some of those are hard to quantify.  Some are not universal to all four unions.  For example, the CCT has a ten month work year with about 4 weeks of paid vacation during the 10 month work period.  All the unions have provisions for sick days and personal days.  Look at the contracts closely enough and you will find that one union even has a paid day off for their birthday.

To be fair to both the district and the bargaining units, locally, we really only have control over 1.5 of those 4 areas.  1.0 is salary or cash compensation and the other 0.5 is the percentage of health care contribution.  There are of course some local work condition items we can negotiate locally such as work hours or working conditions (number of students per class, custodial staffing levels on snow days, etc)

In theory, one way to rollover or keep every program we have this year next year would be with a salary freeze.  We will pay you exactly what we paid you this year, next year.  But, Triborough says that can only happen if it is collectively bargained that way.  We cannot unilaterally impose wage freezes like a private sector employer could.  So, to put it in trader parlance, in theory, the opening market for negotiations would be the district bidding freeze and the unions offering Triborough.  They could theoretically ask for more than Triborough, but the district would not be compelled in any way to pay more.

With a two sided market of freeze bid, offered at Triborough, it would appear that the bargaining units have the upper hand because in the absence of an agreement, Triborough (2.68% increase) will be imposed.  However, that assumption presumes that the only goal of the bargaining unit is pay increases.  This is where having a good working relationship with our bargaining units can show quantifiable results.

This week, the CCT demonstrated that their goals are broader and more in line with the residents than simply maximizing salary over the short term.  They recognized that program preservation and thus job preservation is in everyone's best interest.  They recognized that long-term financial sustainability is in their interests as well as the taxpayers.

I can unequivocally say that the Board of Ed and the administration respect the teachers as individual teachers.  We are proud of having the best faculty anywhere.  Our teachers are dedicated, hard working and selflessly working for the district's students.  I can also say that the CCT leadership is appreciative of the district's financial limitations, are creative in working towards solutions, and recognize that the real goal is providing the best academic experience we can for the students in the district.

Personally, I think it is a meaningful sign that the CCT views themselves as partners with the district by compromising on a contract that is somewhere between a freeze and Triborough.  Accepting less than is legally guaranteed (Triborough) is a real concession on the part of the CCT.  And, while it is not without a small part that is self serving (possibly saving jobs and programs), it is really benefiting the students.

I also have to add that were any of our bargaining units to accept terms that are less than Triborough, it is a big risk for that bargaining unit because they are under pressure from their own state union leadership to hold the ground.  Do not underestimate the pressure on local unions to hold onto a system that may not even be in their own best interest, but that guarantees certain short term benefits. Do appreciate how
deviating from the state union's leadership is a true sign that the union is partners with the district, not adversaries.

Let's face it, school budget issues are present in every school district in the state.  The district's staff all live in school districts that face the same issues we do.  They pay high school taxes in their districts too.  They understand both sides of the equation because they live on both sides.  Residents that simply complain that the unions are "not living in the real world" or are "blind to the issues" are, quite frankly, ignorant or willfully being misleading.

Other Budget Issues

So how do we keep the budget under control other than through staffing levels?  Well, there are several options.  We continue to seek ways to be more economically efficient.  Starting next year, our elementary schools will join with our middle and high schools in going to a six day schedule.  We will also be extending the class day at the elementary schools by a half an hour a day.  The six day schedule and the extra half an hour will give the students materially more instruction time, will allow us to be more flexible when pulling students out of classes for individual instruction, will allow us to expand some of the specials, and, not insignificantly, it will allow us to schedule staff development days (half days and full days) on Fridays so that the entire family benefits from an extended weekend rather than a midweek interruption.

(Next year's school days schedule was recently approved and can be found here on the district website.(pdf)  It is a material improvement over this year's although to be honest, the Board has little control over a lot of it.  There is a two week vacation over Christmas/New Year's, there is a full week off in February, another full week in April, a four day Memorial Weekend, and staff dev days will be on Fridays allowing for several 3 day weekends.)

Another option is to cut out facilities maintenance.  That is a short sighted decision that is really a non-starter. It would make future budgets even more difficult. It is the exact approach we have spent over a year fighting with BOCES about.  After putting off needed maintenance, the component districts are now faced with $18 million in repairs.

We could go to a "pay to play" model for all extracurricular activities including, sports, theater, clubs and organizations.  We may one day have to resort to that, but that is a last gasp measure.

Bottom Line

What does this all mean? I can talk in circles about the budget and the theories behind the creation of a budget, about negotiations, about partnerships, about anything at all, but the bottom line everyone asks the Board Members and the administration is, "How does this affect me?"  For about half, that means what is going to happen to my taxes next year, and for the other half it is a two parter, what happens to my taxes and what happens to my child's education.  How does it affect my child directly.

I can safely say here that the Board, the administration, the teachers, and all of our staff have as their primary goal, working together to provide the best education, the best environment for learning and the best overall program.  More directly, the district and its unions will work together to find a way to reach financial compromises that will ensure that we continue to offer the best public school education, that we continue to innovate and stay on the cutting edge of teaching and program offerings, and that we will stay below the tax cap mandate.

Anonymous Myths on BOCES Debunked

"The Board of Ed does not even understand the BOCES fees and charges..."

First, participation in BOCES is a state mandate.  Back when BOCES (Board of Cooperative Education Services) were first formed in the 1940's, the big 5 cities were excluded and districts were given a chance to opt out.  Only one district in Westchester, Mamaroneck chose to opt out.  Once that initial decision was made some 70+ years ago, BOCES is like a roach motel.  You can check in, but you can never check out.

The Board knows full well about BOCES charges.  I am not so sure that NCN did an adequate job explaining them as many comments seemed to be based on either incomplete or inaccurate knowledge.  BOCES charges are in our budget every year.  BOCES is used for many different reasons.  One, obviously, are the on-site educational services.  They are invaluable to the students and save the district significant amounts of money versus creating our own program for a handful of students.  In fact, that is the point.  BOCES was set up to be a more efficient and cost effective way to handle certain types and parts of the FAPE (Free and Appropriate Public Education).

There appears to be some confusion regarding the annual costs.  We are not being charged $2 million (or close to that) for sending a 12 students there.  The charges for the 12 students are only part of the overall BOCES costs.

We also currently use BOCES for their expertise in certain areas as well as their ability to coordinate and share services inter-district.  For example, we are working through BOCES to develop on-line learning opportunities.  Through BOCES several Westchester districts are developing on-line courses that will allow districts to share the resources and the expenses of developing the resources.  We anticipate being able to increase our course offerings in the future to include on-line classes developed through BOCES that would not otherwise be economically feasible to develop and offer on our own.

BOCES is also used as a purchasing co-op for its member districts.  We use them to lower the price of certain items and services for the district.  In addition, we are able to use (purchase) certain administrative services that we would otherwise not have the need for a full time staff member to do.  These purchasing costs are a pass through from BOCES.  They will appear on the BOCES expense line because we are being billed by BOCES to pay the vendor, but they are not necessarily BOCES services per se.

The district is charged in two ways from BOCES.  One, we are charged an annual allocation of administrative and operational costs.  Two, we are charged directly for the services we use and the co-op purchases we make.  The latter is obvious and easy to appreciate.  The former is less obvious.  We are required to be part of BOCES.

Looked at another way, what would be the affect on the district's budget if there were no BOCES?  Would we spend the same, more or less?  As I have been told, Mamaroneck's analysis of not being a member is that it is about the same in annual costs to the district as if they were a member.  They purchase services a la carte from the Northern and the Southern Westchester BOCES.  It is my opinion that you would have to break down the expense into its components.

For example, we would clearly spend more on the goods and services we use/buy as part of the co-op buying service.  The only time we use BOCES for that now is if it would save us money vis a vis purchasing it on our own.  For the educational services provided to the students we send to classes at BOCES, we would spend considerably more without BOCES.  Educating one student versus spreading the cost over several or many similarly situated students is prohibitive.  The question becomes, does the cost savings from co-op purchasing whether it is goods and services or education related classes out weigh the expense of simply being a member and getting an allocation of annual administrative /operating expenses.

There are other costs associated with BOCES that don't show up in the BOCES lines on our budget.  For example, the cost of transportation to and from BOCES for our students is part of our transportation costs.  And there are cost savings we accrue by being an inclusive district that otherwise would likely be part of BOCES.  Educating our students in district within the general population not only is a significant benefit academically and socially to both the students in need of services as well as their classmates without, it is cost savings to the district.

The BOCES budget itself, is very similar to its component district's budgets.  Most of the cost are personnel related for salaries and benefits.  It cannot borrow money itself, so it has not debt service.  As a member district, we act as our taxpayers act in relation to our district/board.  We can and do demand efficiencies, we expect them to reduce administrative head count in order to lower benefits expense, we expect them to keep plain old administrative operating expenses in check, and we question what are appropriate course offerings.    But we are only one member district and our opinion does not always rule the day.  There are clearly districts that are much heavier users of BOCES services that derive a much larger benefit from being part of the co-op.  Just like Westchester County does not get back tax dollars from the state in the form of services that it pays in taxes, some districts like the CCSD do not benefit as much as others.  But, we are mandated to remain part of the system just like residents of Westchester cannot opt out of the State tax system.

I don't want to mislead anyone and say that if we were not required to be part, we would withdraw.  That decision would take a lot of analysis and prioritizing of what it is that the district wants to provide its residents.

The difference though from a non-member and a member in terms of cost really comes to the forefront when there is a cash call for facilities improvements like we are faced with now.  Whereas non-members are faced with higher user fees than members for services, non-members are not being asked to help defray the cost of the facilities upgrades and repairs.  It is no different than owning an apartment in a co-op building.  There are occasionally capital repairs that require the building board to issue a one-time assessment.

The Board is certainly aware that our annual administration charges are based on a formula that is 50% a measure of wealth as defined by property values and 50% by number of students in the district.  This is actually a change from 100% based on property value wealth that used to be what the formula used.  NWBOCES applied for and got an exception from the State of NY to change the formula to 50-50.

As part of the annual allocation of expenses, there is a capital cost included.  That is supposed to be used for facilities maintenance and the like.  I believe that last year we paid $70,000 toward that.  It is clear that BOCES has not been doing proper maintenance or proper planning.  The majority of what they are asking for is for structural repairs (flat roofs need replacement).  This capital call raises many questions independent of how BOCES is operated and expenses shared on an annual operating basis.

What was our capital costs used for all these years if there are still millions of dollars in repairs needed?  Why weren't these repairs or replacements done periodically to avoid this sort of one time expense?  Why was there no replacement plan that could have been discussed with member districts so that we could properly plan ourselves for upcoming costs?  Finally, who should pay for facility repairs and upgrades, users, member districts or some combination?

Simply put, on a relative basis, relative to other members of the BOCES and relative to our own local education usage, we do not use the facilities anywhere near what most other districts use.  Our ~12 students are not a material part of the wear and tear on the buildings.  Asking the CCSD to pay for the repairs based on property valuations and wealth vis a vis other districts is a regressive tax on our community members.  One suggestion to BOCES at our meeting was to charge users a prorata cost, not member districts.  Districts that use services but are not part of our BOCES are not being given an allocation of these costs.

Know too that we are not the only district grappling with this issue.  A majority of the districts have questioned the surprise nature of the critical need for repairs as well as BOCES costs structure in general.  I know of several districts that are meeting again with BOCES prior to their vote to express their displeasure with this situation.  One suggestion that seems to be gathering momentum is to reduce the size of the capital request to a bare minimum level needed to keep the facilities operating without upgrade.

To clarify, while our district's allocation is about $1.5 million, we would borrow the funds and repay them over time.  The annual cost to the district would be around $90,000 according to the administration.  If the proposal is voted down by the member districts and we are forced to pay for this on an ad hoc emergency basis, the costs to the district would likely be higher.  In fact, Bedford voted yes because of its fear that a no vote would cost more.

Budget Advisory Committee

On Friday September 30th, Christine Yeres an editor and blogger for NewCastleNOW, posted a story about a school board budget advisory committee.  In that blog posting, she makes a big point to emphasize that the committee's meetings are not open to the public.

First, she misstates that these meetings are Board committees.  They are not.  There are no Board members attending or leading this committee.  What?   The administration is trying to hear from the public directly without Board interference?   Last year, the finance committee of the Board consisting of me and Randy Katchis lead a committee of about 25 community members split into 3 groups working on issues related to the budget.

One group, working on ways to communicate with the public, ultimately suggested the Board conduct a survey of the community to help ascertain what the community valued (and did not value) with the CCSD education structure.  That group even spent hours attempting to write up such a survey.  The Board last year agreed with the recommendation and determined that it was such a good idea it was worth spending money to get accurate and statistically relevant results.  

This year, before the end of October, the Board will receive from the private firm hired to conduct the survey, the preliminary results of the survey.  We are looking forward to hearing from ALL segments of the community, from folks with children just entering the school system to empty nesters and everyone else.

Second, the group approved a flyer developed and written by the sub-committee dubbed "the mandate group".  We approved of the flyer, posted it on our website and agreed with the principles espoused in the document, mainly seeking ways to get mandate relief and to change the system including the Triborough amendment to the Taylor law as well as the defined benefit pension system.

Third, the Board approved the continuation of the group that was trying to analyze the districts allocations on spending and compare them to other neighboring districts.  This is the group currently meeting that a few folks seem to be upset that they cannot attend.

To me, one of the the flaws of the system last year was that all three sub-groups were part of the same committee.  In hindsight, there should have been three separate groups.  There should have been a group that met to discuss ways to better communicate with the community both with the budget AND in general.  There should have been a group a little broader than focusing only on mandates that was more targeted toward being a political action committee that dealt with mandates and was an ongoing committee that could help address all interactions with Albany on an ongoing basis.  Three, there should be a group that helps analyze the specific numbers of the budget and does comparisons to other districts and maybe devises their own metrics to measure success and efficiency of the budget.

Another flaw with last year was the timing of the committee meetings meaning they started too late to affect last year's budget much and with the timing of the board responding to what was produced.  If you watch the  first meeting of the board when I tried to get the school board to accept the reports and suggestions, you will see one of the most frustrating (2nd behind not approving Wednesday as the meeting date for this year because the PTA did not want to do the work to change the calendar) meetings of my 4+ year board career.

When I was quoted in the NCN blog as having said that I thought that a problem with last year's committee was that it became a political platform, I think some members of the community are misconstruing what I meant or I did not do a good enough job explaining.  I think that ALL three of the subgroups had a bias.  Three different bias'.  That was a natural result of the members of the various sub groups.  Of course there will be a bias if we are human.  

What I did not like was that rather than produce work, at times, from all three groups, when we got together as one group, there was political posturing rather than factual reporting.  That was true of all three groups whether it was discussing the special ed expenditures, the community feedback or what the board could or should do about mandates.

By having the community volunteers this year work directly with the administration, it eliminates the time lag between waiting for the board to accept and approve of the work, it eliminates whatever political agenda all the Board members have in accepting or rejecting a report of the committee and it allows the committee members themselves to focus on the work without interference.

It has also allowed the district to start the meetings sooner than last year with the hope that any result will be applicable to the budget produced this year (2012-2013 school year.)

As for whether the meetings should be public, I have no strong opinion either way.  On one hand, I support transparency, so having them be open would make sense.  On the other hand, once you introduce the public, it will change a few things but mostly, these are community volunteers.  As an elected Board member, I expect public criticism and the anonymous blog attacks.  They are what they are to me.  I have come to accept that if I just do what I think is right and remember my fiduciary obligation, then whatever is written about me or the Board is whatever.  I rarely read the blogs.  I get feedback in the forms of emails, direct comments, meeting comments, phone calls, etc.  Edit: Sometimes my kids tell me that another person called me an idiot on NCN.  They threaten to post their own complaints if I make them take out the garbage or clean their rooms.  "They're anonymous, Dad.  No one will know its us complaining."

I have learned that actions speak louder than words.  My favorite maxim or old world saying gets me through; "The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on."  Personal attacks, I ignore,  Constructive criticism I consider closely.  Suggestions are analyzed. Compliments accepted knowing you are "only as good as your last trade."

But volunteers on a committee that is trying to analyze district budgets or create metrics to measure the success of the administration and/or Board did not really sign up for that nor should they be subject to it.  Maybe we should release the names to Christine and Tom to show that it is a cross section and ask them not to publish them unless the individual oks it?  Is there a way to create public accountability without subjecting the volunteers to the noise?

The district has many committees that are not open to the public nor do we release names for those who serve.  Has anyone ever been to or wanted to attend other than the members themselves a wellness committee meeting? A green committee meeting? Etc.  This year, the new Superintendent, Dr. McKay has made it a priority to have meetings with the public to both get their feedback and to provide information and transparency to the community.  I think it is clear that the Board itself has tried to be as open as possible too.  

The last Board meeting on September 27th was a work session.  One complaint we have received is that the meetings go too late and we do all this boring approving or rejecting of various board business business.  On the 27th, we did not have any business.  We simply had two reports to the Board and public, the President updated the community on several issues including turf and the new iPads the Board is using to go paperless and streamline the meeting process as well as open up questioning to the community and reporters present to ask anyone anything.  We tried to make it more of an open discussion among Board members themselves and between the district and the community.

But, this change and the structure of the work session to allow earlier input from the community was not reported on by NCN or anyone else for that matter.  Instead, the focus was on the fact that a committee was closed.  Even if reporters came to these budget committee meets, would you trust them to report it accurately without their own opinion and bias?  (I recommend against expecting a complete and unbiased reporting.)

Granted, it was the first time we did it so there was not a lot of questions or comments, but hopefully the next time it will expand and become an important part of the interaction between the Board, the administration and the community.  And, as noted above, we are conducting a professional survey of the community.  Finally, as always, you are welcome to send suggestions, ideas, comments, criticisms and compliments directly to the Board via email (Board@ccsd.ws) or to us individually (First two initials of first name plus last name at ccsd.ws).

Edit (10/5/2011): As of today, the Board of Ed has received not one, not a single email directly to the Board (or me) with concerns about the Budget Committee.  

I can be reached via email at JeMester@ccsd.ws or if you want to ask a question here or have me post an answer here use comments@newcastlealternative.com.  And, you can use the button at right to call me too. (914-840-2233).  To post a comment to this article (or any article) use the form at the bottom of the article.

JSM

Edit:  You can also use the district's website (ccsd.ws) to ask a question.  Two years ago we implemented a feature called "Ask the District" so that you can submit questions about anything from the mundane (When is the 7 Bridges lot going to be paved --by the end of October, btw) to specifics (What percentage of the budget goes toward retirement funds)  There is a quick link to it on the left side of the home page.

Budget Passes with over 65% Voting "Yes"

Congratulations and thank you to the community for overwhelmingly voting to support this year's school budget. It is a victory for the district and the children of the district.

But, it is only the beginning. We still have systematic problems that need to be addressed. I am quite confident that the district taxpayers and the bargaining units can find local solutions to national problems if we avoid falling back on established party lines and really work to address the issues facing the individual taxpayer and the real interests of the entire rank and file.

Finally, as I have said previously, the message from this budget passage is just that, the budget passed because of academic preservation combined with fiscal responsibility. It is a message on the budget, not on anything else. The need for mandate relief from Albany has not changed. We must work as a community to lobby our representatives for change.

Budget and Messages?

As always, my usual disclaimers apply. I am writing as an individual. I do not speak for the School Board or anyone else but myself. No district resources were used to write this post. Your mileage may vary (YMMV). Shake well before using, etc.

Recently, the New Castle Citizens For Responsible Education (NCCRE) a group of 5 Chappaqua school district residents published an open letter to the New Castle Community suggesting that residents vote "No" on the CCSD proposed budget on May 17th. Apparently, they are not opposed to the budget per se but they want you to vote "no" to send a message to "the School Board, Administration, School Unions, Union Leadership and Albany legislators that the continued budget and tax increases are not sustainable and that State Mandates must change."

First, their actual message of changing or eliminating state mandates is a good one. So good in fact that despite the group's claim to the contrary, at the CCSD School Board's January 11th meeting, we passed a motion proposed by me based on a similar motion passed by the Westchester-Putnam School Board Association that calls for mandate relief. Here is a link to that resolution. To be clear, I fully and unequivocally support mandate relief.

But, their method for getting this message out is seriously flawed. There is no, and will be no, link to voting "no" on the budget and getting this message out to the community. The only valid assumption about the budget, should the proposed budget get voted down on May 17th, is that the proposed budget was voted down. Complete stop.

The Vote
This entire exercise by the NCCRE is simply an attempt to change the vote from a vote on the merits of the budget to a vote on mandates. I urge you to read the line in the voting booth they are asking you to vote "no" on.

It says:

"Resolved: That the Board of Education of the Chappaqua Central School District be and hereby is authorized to expend the sum of $111,448,488 set forth in the School District Budget for the School Year 2011-2012, and that the necessary tax be levied thereof."

There is nothing in that language to suggest this is a vote on mandates or messages, it is clearly a vote on the proposed budget.

The Message
The best and appropriate way to send a message is to do so in a clear and unambiguous manner. Changing state mandates, especially ones that are constitutionally protected, will only come with a ground swell of public support that threatens financial well being and the re-election prospects of our legislators in Albany. It will not come from voting down a local budget. In fact, the only message sent from voting down a local budget is that we have a community divided.

Additionally, in the likely event the budget passes, they have set themselves up for the claim by our legislators that the community does not want mandate relief as evidenced by the budget vote. As the vote on the ballot is for the budget not mandate relief and they are not mutually exclusive, it is quite probable that most of the community is like me in supporting both the budget and getting mandate relief from Albany.

The Process
Should the budget get voted down, the Board would then have to decide how to proceed. The Board's choices are to present a new proposed budget and a new contingency budget, to keep them the same and have another vote, or to go straight to the contingency budget. The Board can also decide to change the amount of reserves used to offset any tax rate changes.

In fact, in these times of fiscal austerity the Board cannot know if a budget was voted down because of some tangential message, because we are spending too much, or because residents are upset with the amount of cuts or the increase in class size and want us to raise the budget. There is no one message to take from a rejected budget other than a divided community.

Budget Bargaining
Further, the decision to advocate for a "no" vote is tantamount to bargaining in bad faith. The School Board this year took great pains to craft a budget that reflected a broad swatch of the community. Included in that was input from the NCCRE. At every budget meeting they had a member speak and ask questions. Many of their suggestions were incorporated in the final proposal. In fact, the large amount of reserves committed is a reflection of their input and suggestions.

The five members of the NCCRE themselves in their opening paragraph of the letter state that the contingency budget is only $132,000 less than the proposed budget so a "no" vote does not take away from educational programming or the excellent quality of the Chappaqua School system. If they think the proposed and contingency budgets are good and fair ones, why the "no" vote suggestion?

The NCCRE bargained in what I assumed was good faith for a budget that they could live with and now that they got what they wanted, they are suggesting it get voted down to send some sort of message. That is not bargaining in good faith. They want you to vote "no" for reasons that have nothing to do with the budget itself.

Penny Wise, Pound Foolish
This NCCRE plan is a plan that, like my mother used to say to me, is "cutting off your nose to spite your face". The NCCRE members are willing to sacrifice their real estate values to send a message to the teacher's union and their elected officials in Albany despite they themselves having been active participants in negotiating for this proposed budget. They choose to ignore that home buyers in this community are motivated by the school system and that they will not move here if we start voting down budgets that are reasonable ones to begin with. They are willing to vote "no" to send a message that has no immediate effect on taxes or that at best will save them an amount on their yearly taxes that will take them 20 or 30 years to make up based on the resulting loss in real estate value. It makes no sense.

Contingency Budget
Then, in order to convince you to vote "no" these five residents make certain assumptions and claims in their letter that are not necessarily valid. In the same first paragraph mentioned above, they correctly point out that the contingency budget is only $132,000 less than the proposed budget, but there is an implied assumption that if the budget is voted down, that the contingency budget will automatically kick in.

That is an erroneous assumption. If the budget is voted down on May 17th, as stated above, the School Board would have several options including presenting a new Proposed Budget, a new Contingency Budget as well as adjusting the amount of reserves committed to offsetting the tax increase.

"Real Budget Increase"?
In their reasons to vote "no", they try to come up with a concept of "Real Budget Increase" that is erroneously calculated. They have used a projected actual spending number for this year that is incorrect. This year's approved budget was $109,391,348. But, that number is not the amount authorized to be spent. As one of their members repeatedly pointed out at Board budget meetings, the actual spending budget was $110,800,000 as there was a reserve of approximately $1.4 million used on the expense side this year. The "Real Budget Increase" is actually $688,000, or approximately one half of one percent.

They also erroneously try to use the projected surplus as a reduction in spending this year without accounting for a potential surplus next year. They seem to make assumptions only when it suits their purposes and not use them consistently throughout the analysis.

Tax Analysis
They also claim the real property tax increase is 5.2% not 2.11% if reserves aren't used. Well guess what? Reserves are being used. So, the real property tax increase is 2.11%. They are correct in saying that the reserves are previously collected but unspent tax dollars, however, if they want to be intellectually honest in making the claim that the real tax increase is 5.2% because of the use of reserves, they would then need to restate all the previous tax changes (20 years?) to say that the actual tax rate in years when no reserves were used but we spent less than budgeted was lower than it was claimed. I strongly supported returning as much of the reserves to the taxpayers as prudently reasonable. Now, after the Board committed to using more reserves than the Administration initially recommended, the NCCRE is claiming it does not matter what number is used, the tax rate is really 5.2%. Under that theory, we might as well eliminate the use of reserves and make the tax rate increase 5.2% since that is the basis on which they are making their decision.

Causal Relation Confusion
When they make the case that enrollment is declining, staff levels are being reduced yet compensation levels are increasing, they are 100% correct, but I fail to see the correlation to voting down the budget.

In fact, they are making the argument to vote for the budget. In spite of a significant increase in pension expenses and other employee contractual obligations, this budget increase is less than the amount of the increase in expenses. The Board and Administration is being fiscally prudent in maintaining the academic excellence in our schools while limiting the budget increase to an amount that is less than the increase in contractual costs. What are they suggesting the Board do different from what we have done? Nothing, they just want you to vote : “no" to send a message unrelated to the current budget.

Contractual Givebacks
The five members of NCCRE suggest that the Board, in accepting the $1.1 million in givebacks from a union that has seen approximate 7% raises the last three years, could have imposed a unilateral freeze on teacher salary increases while the teachers had a valid contract in place. It appears as if they are suggesting that we should have accepted nothing less than a freeze.

First, of course we suggested a freeze to the CCT, it was rejected, but it is unrealistic to expect agreement to a freeze when an employee unit is only voluntarily reopening a contract that has another year to run at higher compensation. Second, with a valid contract in place, the appropriate way to analyze the savings made is versus the contract and in the event of an extension of that contract versus what would be imposed under the Triborough Amendment to the Taylor Law. In this case, imposed step increases. In this proposed budget, the district is saving $1.1 million versus the existing contract. In the following year, the district will be paying $600,000 less than we would have had to if we came to no agreement on a contract and the Triborough Amendment was imposed. Those are real and significant savings.

The NCCRE would have you believe we live in some theoretical world where a union will rip up an existing contract and offer to give back everything they negotiated on salary AND, not only that, what the law says they are entitled to. To assume this could or would happen is disingenuous on their part.

School Board Public Support
Finally, the NCCRE makes the claim that the School Board "has not publically supported or advocated for mandate relief even though it is recommended by the School District Budget Advisory Group, the Westchester Putnam School Board Association and the New York State School Board Association." As stated above, this ignores the resolutions passed and the Board's public support of both the Westchester-Putnam School Board Association and the New York State School Board Association's public lobbying efforts to address mandates.

The NCCRE is also directly aware of the fact that the Budget Advisory Group recommendations will be on the May 24th School Board agenda. To claim that we are specifically ignoring a recommendation by an advisory group is incorrect. While there is no guarantee we will accept that recommendation, we have made it very clear to them that we will be considering it. While the consideration does come one week after the budget vote, the timing of that is not relevant to this year's budget vote. A decision to accept, reject or modify the recommendation will not have any effect on the budget numbers, even if we had voted on it a month ago.

The group's claim of lack of public support also ignores the very fact that they had representation on the Budget Advisory Committee Mandate subgroup. It was the School Board that established the committee and suggested that one of the subcommittees be focused on addressing mandate relief. If the Board creating a group to address mandate relief with the charge that there were no areas they could not address is not publically supporting mandate relief, then I am not sure how we could ever satisfy them.

The Vote
Let me be clear. The vote on Tuesday May 17th is whether or not to support the academic and fiscally responsible budget proposed by the Board of Ed. Mandate relief is not on the ballot.

I advocate you vote "YES" on the budget and support mandate relief by contacting our legislators in Albany.