From the Board's Vantage Point

This was taken at the beginning of the October 11th meeting. This is what the Board sees when it looks out to the audience. On the right are loyal Board observers from the PTA.  In the front on the left, Mr. And Mrs. Weitz, longtime residents of Chappaqua interested in education and the budget. In the back on the left are district administrators. (Tom from the Patch had not yet arrived. Nobody attended from NewCastleNOW).

There were two presentations at this meeting. One, from the district's outside auditor who gave the district an unqualified opinion (best you can get), and two, from Professor Chris Dede of Harvard University who is an expert on the use of technology in the classroom and its value to the learning process.  Professor Dede's presentation was particularly well received.

Also, the Sports Boosters asked for and received approval to have fire works for homecoming!  Jim Nottingham crossed the "i"s and dotted the "t"s including bringing the fire marshal to assure us of the safety of the fireworks.  District's insurance carrier has also weighed in.

Several other community members also were in attendance but eluded this picture.

Note:  This photo has been edited.

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.

Tuesday's with Morrie; Wednesday's with the BoE

At our September 20th meeting, the Board voted unanimously to move our meeting date to Wednesdays (from Tuesdays) starting with the 2012-2013 school year.  Here is a link to my original post on the issue.  I would like to thank my fellow Board members for moving this idea forward for the next school year.

At that same September 20th meeting, Christine Yeres, editor and blogger for NewCastleNOW, asked if we would also move the meetings to New Castle Town Hall.  Without looking at the tape of the meeting, I recall my response was along the lines of, "That makes no sense whatsoever".

The more I think about it, it makes even less sense than that.  I think the reason Christine asked it was as a way to backdoor going live since the town is already set up for that and it would cost the district close to $10,000 to set up.

Here is why it makes no sense.  One of the issues that became clear during the Reader's Digest/Summit Greenfield development debate was that too many people equate the Town of New Castle with the Chappaqua Central School District.  We are very different.  First, the CCSD has a budget almost 3 times the Town's.  Second, only 90% of the people in the CCSD are also in the Town of New Castle.  Mt Pleasant is about 10% of the district.  Third, only about 80% of those in the Town of New Castle reside in the CCSD.

Second, we are the school district not in anyway associated with the Town.  We should be using district facilities.  Third, the most centrally located facility for residents of the CCSD is the Horace Greeley High School.  Town hall is at the south end of the district.  HGHS is also convenient for the Administration that has offices yards away from the meeting place.  Finally, HGHS give us the flexibility to change the location from the academic commons to the auditorium if there is a need based on attendance.

To me, the only issue remaining with meeting dates and locations is the production of the district calendar.  It was clear in April when this first came up and again the other night that producing the calendar is a burden for the PTA.  They are doing it as a favor at our request.  I do not think we should continue to place that burden on the PTA.  I strongly believe we should take that back in house.  It is not fair of us to burden an outside organization.  And, it brings control of the decision making with respect to the calendar 100% with the district.

Follow Up to Turf Post

The following are some questions I received and my answers.  These are my answers only.  I do not speak for the entire Board.  If you would like to send an email to me, I can be reached at the link below (comments@newcastlealternative.com) or JeMester@ccsd.ws.  Emails you send to my district email or to the Board's email (Board@ccsd.ws) are subject to Freedom of Information Act requests.  To call me, click on the link on this page.  If you block your caller ID, I do not see the number.  Leave a message if I am unable to answer.


Q. Will the Board us district funds for the turf field?


A. No.  The Board and the district has said repeatedly that we will not use district funds for the turf when we have academic priorities that take precedence.

Q.  Then why was the Board voting to sign the contract with the Engineering firm before it had the funds in hand from the turf committee?


A.  First, we tabled the motion initially and approved the motion at our September 8th meeting contingent upon having the funds in hand from the TCTC or them demonstrating that it was placed in escrow for the district.  Second, the turf committee is a community group and is made up of members of the community, natch.  Quite frankly, I trust them to honor the legally binding MOU we signed with them.  I do not think we should treat them any differently from other community groups that use our facilities.  For example, the PTA currently owes us $40,000 for a program they run.  We have not said, "No, you cannot have that program until you paid."  That makes no sense for many reasons.  One, we asked the PTA to be a conduit for the program.  Two, they are a community group whose word is their bond.  They told us they would pay and we know they will without doing a D&B report on their credit.  Why should we treat the TCTC differently than the PTA?

Another reason why I think we could have and should have signed the agreement prior to having the actual funds in house is that there are other issues that arise that are critical to the timing.  As this is district property, the district has to sign the contract.  In order to actually undertake the work on our fields, believe it or not, Albany (Dept. of Ed) needs to approve of the work.  If you have ever asked for government approval on a construction project, you know that it takes time.  A lot of time.  So, in order to install turf in the summer of 2012, we need to file in the early fall and we need to submit an engineering study as part of that filing.

Also, if we file in a timely matter and meet certain criteria there is a chance that the state will give us matching funds for up to around 23%.  Why not try to get that money?  It was taken from us as tax payers.  Let us get it back.

Q. Why is the PTA and others in the community saying that you are rushing into this without public input?


A. Again, I have no idea.  That simply is not true.  There were significant meetings on this two years ago.  Again in the spring , the Board of Ed's Facilities Committee announced and held (June 1st) a public meeting on the issue.  There were approximately 30 people in attendance.  Of those who attended, some were neighbors with concerns, some were community members with other concerns and some were supporters.  We stayed and answered every question and gave anyone who wanted to a chance to speak.

In fact, that meeting was announced by the PTA!!!  Below is the relevant section from a copy of the email they sent announcing it.

Artificial Turf The topic of artificial turf in Chappaqua will be on the agenda of the Facilities Committee when they meet on Tuesday June 1 at 7:00pm at the Education Center.  Consider attending if you would like to learn more about private fundraising to bring turf to Chappaqua and how the process of gaining approval for a turf field will work.  You are also welcome to attend the meeting to raise any other questions or concerns about the facilities of the Chappaqua School District.

For the PTA to claim that we are doing anything hastily is simply incorrect and disingenuous.  The PTA tried to make some point that the September 8th meeting was not on their precious district calendar, but the September 1st one was and they chose not to attend.  In fact, in response to concerns a Board member expressed, the motion was tabled until those concerns could be addressed one week later.

Additionally, the district did not announce the meeting two hours before it began.  The PTA sent out their own email.  The district posted the meeting on its website and sent out an announcement to everyone on our mailing list that has asked to receive such emails.  Ours was sent on Tuesday, a full 52 hours in advance.

And, I personally sent emails to both The Patch and NCN to let them know about the meeting.  I certainly would not characterize sending an email to local bloggers to get the word out as anything but full transparency.  I cannot control their publication schedule or their editorial decision on what is worthy of being blogged about.

Schools Open!! Email, Turf and more

Schools Open!! Congratulations to Dr. McKay, the administrative team, the teachers and the entire staff on a terrific first week of school. Also, thank you to Joe Gramando and his staff for the outstanding job they have done over the summer and this past two weeks dealing with the terrible weather conditions that has affected so many of us and our neighbors.

 I received more calls, texts and emails tonight about the schools than I did in the past two months combined. Apparently, many residents read the email (copied below) sent out by the PTA late this afternoon and had questions and concerns about the email. First, tonight, the Board approved an amended motion to accept the contract with the engineering firm for preliminary work on the potential turf field contingent upon either receiving the actual funds from the community group spearheading the effort, TCTC or TC2 or their demonstrating that the monies have been put in escrow on behalf of the district. Tonight's 5-0 vote reiterates that the Board never intended nor will spend district funds on a turf field. For those who attended the September 1st meeting and those who took the time to inquire with the district, that fact was never in dispute.

To respond to your questions about the PTA email, let me reiterate that I do not speak for the entire Board (our President, Alyson K does), I speak only for myself. 

I regret that the PTA sent the email to the community prior to asking for and understanding the facts of the issue. As they did not attend the September 1st meeting, their decision to rely on published media reports for their information lead to their own hasty email filled with innuendo and inaccuracies that in the end reflected poorly on the PTA. I am quite confident that going forward the Board and the PTA can and will resume our terrific working relationship with the common goal of helping the children of this community.

I also want to publicly thank the Sports Boosters and Jim N for all their efforts especially in coordinating the many various town and school related groups to make this effort a true community project. For the first time, Jim has managed to get five local youth sports organizations to work together in addition to several school organizations. At tonight's meeting he also extended an olive branch to the PTA to join the group effort on turf and noted his regret that they had not communicated sooner.

Should this fundraising effort prove successful, the gift of a turf field will reduce district maintenance costs by around $50,000 annually, will benefit all the district's high school JV and Varsity teams and will significantly increase the available fields for local youth organizations both in terms of hours of availability and with the current weather related closings. This is a win-win-win all around.

Let me also make it clear that the monies sought are not being siphoned from monies that would otherwise go to the district. These are completely private funds. The TC2 is working with the CSF to find ways to benefit both groups without diverting contributions from the CSF. The TC2 intends to make in clear in their fund raising efforts that they are only seeking donations for the field and do not want to affect any other donations a contributor may make. They want this to be incremental giving not replacement giving.

The Board's next regularly scheduled meeting is on September 20th at 8:15 in the HGHS academic commons. See you there.

Here is a link to the email and below is the text.

The Chappaqua Board of Education will be meeting at 6:30 tonight, Thursday, September 8th, at the school district Education Center, 66 Roaring Brook Road. This special meeting is not on the district calendar and was scheduled hastily, mainly to consider an action tabled at the Board's September 1st meeting. The action under consideration is whether the Board should approve advancing approximately $141,000 in taxpayer funds to pay for an engineering study of what has been promoted as a privately-funded effort to build a lighted turf sports field at Horace Greeley High School. Private fundraising efforts by the Chappaqua Turf Committee have just begun and the Board of Education is considering advancing the cost of the engineering study until such time, if any, that sufficient private funds are raised to reimburse the school district. Please consider attending tonight's meeting if you'd like the Board of Education to hear your views before it decides whether or not to approve the use of school district funds for this purpose during a time of severe fiscal constraint.

It is Not the Board's Schedule

Tonight, my suggestion and motion to move our meetings from Tuesdays to Wednesdays got voted down 1-4. I obviously was the only one who voted yes.

Whose Schedule is It?

At the CCSD School Board's May 24th meeting, I made a simple suggestion to move our Board meetings next year to Wednesdays instead of Tuesdays. For as long as I can remember, and probably longer than that, CCSD School Board meetings have been held on Tuesdays. No one I asked can give me a reason why, other than that is the way it always is/was.

I asked to move the meetings for two reasons. One, so our meetings do not conflict with the Town Board meetings. Anyone interested in local governance like I am cannot actively participate in both Town Board meetings and School Board meetings. While you can watch them both online at your convenience, if you wish to attend both and/or participate in both, you are forced to make a choice of one over the other. While I concede regular attendance at both board meetings is limited, that is besides the point. This is about good governance.

I also think that having the meetings on the same day sends the wrong symbolic message to the community. As it is, correct or incorrect, the message we send to the community with our meetings scheduled on the same day is that we do not work together and we do not care about the conflict.

I want to change that perception. Coming off the recent conflict over the former Reader's Digest property, this would be a great first step toward repairing the relationship between the two boards. The two boards share many of the same interests, have many (but not all) of the same constituents, and are both part of the same community; we need to act like the good neighbors we are.

Changing the meeting day to Wednesday also sends a positive message to the community of change. Over the past few years, the School Board has changed with the times. We are a proactive dynamic Board that is able to be both academically supportive and fiscally responsible. But, perception may not yet have caught up with reality.

Change continues this year in the district. We will have two new Board members. Of the remaining three Board members, one is completing his rookie year, another her second year and I am finishing my fourth year. Next year, the average term of a sitting Board Member will be 1.4 years. We will also have a new Superintendent and a new Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum as well as a new head of Human Resources.

A change to Wednesdays signals a new way of doing things, that we are willing to be flexible, dynamic, and break conventions.

Two, moving the meetings to Wednesdays would be a significant positive change for me personally. I do not think it necessary or appropriate to give the details of my personal reasons, but suffice it to say that the change would materially benefit my family life, my professional life and my personal life. Not changing will also have a measurable negative affect on my situation.

While serving on the School Board is a privilege, it is not without its burdens. Between Board meetings, exec sessions, committee work, interviews, school walk thrus, retreats, meetings with constituents, and meetings with administrators and staff the time commitment is immense. It is not a role one takes on for any sane reason other than a true commitment to the community and its children. That may sound corny, but it is true. Every Board Member I have ever served with or known personally, regardless of where they stand on individual issues, serves because of a commitment to education, to the children of the community and to their neighbors. It is certainly not for the pay or the perks.

So, while it may sound self serving and may even be self serving, to the extent possible, I strongly believe that we should make serving on the Board less of a burden where ever possible. Accommodating Board Members when possible will help retain experienced Board Members and will not be a limiting factor in attracting new volunteers. To the extent we can make it easier on any one of us without making it harder on any of us, we should. We already do everything possible to accommodate those on the Board who work full time. Why not accommodate those with evening conflicts too? We should try even if that means more work in the short run for the Administration or other groups that may be affected.

If you watch the tape of the meeting, none of the remaining Board Members nor the two incoming Board members have an issue with moving the meetings to Wednesday. I can also say that subsequent to the meeting all checked their schedules and still have no issue themselves with moving to Wednesdays.

But, there is opposition within the school community to the change. No one I spoke to thinks it is a bad idea. All opposition to the change revolves around logistics/work involved in making the change.

Quite frankly, while I am sympathetic to the amount of effort needed to successfully make this change and have volunteered to take on that task, we should make the decision based on what is right, not on the amount of work needed. Making the expedient decision over the right decision will send the wrong signal to the community and will negate the hard work this Board and this Administration has done in becoming more flexible, more transparent and more community accessible, or to put it in more 21st century terms, more user friendly.

We should never let the threat of hard work prevent doing what is right.

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.

Where Do We Fit In Relative to Our Peers?

A question that has come up several times recently is where do we fit in relative to other schools in Westchester in relation to budget increases and tax increases. I also added the amount of reserves used.

Here is a list of schools with which we are often compared:

School/Budget Increase/Tax Increase*/Reserves Used

Chappaqua/1.88/2.11/$4.25mm
Scarsdale/2.75/3.19/$6.667mm
Bedford/2.15/7.25*/$4.4mm
Edgemont/4.48/2.65/$1.25mm
Katonah/1.59/5.43/$2.754mm
Rye/3.14/2.52/$1.96mm

(For other schools, see their district's website. It is generally listed under the Board of Education link.)

* Used the New Castle number when available for comparison.

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.

LWV-PTA Meeting Tonight 03/09/11

The League of Women Voters in partnership with the CCSD PTA is holding an informal informational meeting tonight at 7:30 in the Teacher's Lounge at HGHS for those considering running for the Board of Education or seeking more information about the process.

There will be former Board Members (Shapiro and Davis) and current Board Members (Mester and Kiesel)providing background and answering questions.

With the recent announcement by long-time Board Member Janet Benton that she will not be seeking a 5th term, it is more critical than ever that the district residents are represented by an informed, dedicated member of the community.

If you are at all considering running for the Board or simply think to yourself, "Hey, I could do better than them" please come to tonight's meeting.

More Regarding Anonymous Posting

.

Found this interesting article and blue print for comment posting to websites and blogs. Accountability is the key word.

JSM

.

Questions and Follow-Up

I have been asked some questions multiple times. I am posting those questions and the answers here. If I get enough interest and emailed questions (comments@newcastlealternative.com) I will try to make it a regular feature of answering mailbag questions.

(The usual disclaimers are relevant here. I am speaking as an individual board member (with one exception noted below in the first answer); I do not speak for the board. The opinions expressed here are my own. YMMV, etc.)

Did the CCT (teacher's union) know that with the amount of givebacks there would still be job losses? Will they take a pay freeze this year?

The official board response is: "We remain thankful that the CCT was willing to reopen an existing contract and save the District more than 1MM dollars [this year] despite having no obligation to do so. While we offered the idea of a full freeze to save more positions, we were unable to reach such an agreement, and do not want to second-guess the 1MM savings that was achieved."

Why did you vote for the new deal with the teachers that extended the contract a year and "only" had $1.7 million in give backs?

I will give the short answer here. I am writing up the longer detailed analysis to be posted to this blog as soon as I finish. First, the CCT was under NO obligation to give us back anything. Certainly, there was some community pressure and depending on your point of view a moral obligation, but legally there was nothing we could do to compel a giveback. As noted in the question above, we certainly would have preferred to have preserved all jobs by having a salary freeze, but that was not our decision to make beyond our proposing it to the union. Also, even with a salary freeze, the pension benefits obligation for next year are going up by over $3 million. That would take an amendment to the state constitution to change.

Having said that, know that opening an existing contract and giving anything back is virtually without precedent. Second, without leverage of any real substance we got a strong union to voluntarily open the last year of an admittedly generous contract and if you take the two year obligation versus the contract and what they would be entitled to under the Triborough amendment to the Taylor laws, we beat that too in the second extended year. Third, by only going out 1 additional year, we kept the board's flexibility in the event that Triborough is amended, repealed or suspended.

Or, looked at it another way, if we had not come to this agreement and the existing contract was honored we would have had to lay off an additional 10-12 teachers beyond what is currently proposed. That would have certainly effected the program for the worse. Then, even if Triborough was repealed the second year and we could impose a freeze, it would have saved us $3.5 million the second year, the amount of step raises. By coming to the agreement we did, we preserved programs and LOCKED in savings that amount to 50% of what may be the maximum amount saved over the two year period of the agreement.

For those residents who only care about the bottom line and not about what programs we would need to cut, by opposing this deal, they want us to make a bet that it is a greater than 50-50 chance that Triborough is changed such that it allows us to impose a salary freeze in the event there is no agreement. It is my opinion that even in this current political and economic climate, that betting on our legislature in Albany whose second most political contributions come from teacher unions (healthcare unions are first) to throw Triborough out the window is a bad bet. It is certainly not a bet I am willing to take with taxpayer money and certainly not a bet that is worth gutting our program for this year with the 50-50 hope of saving next year. I disagree with those who say we should have waited for Triborough to be "thrown out". I think there is a less than 50% chance that happens or happens in a way that the district will not benefit from it.

This deal preserves the academic integrity of our program and locks in savings to the taxpayers of $1.7 million over the two year period versus what the district would have been legally responsible for.

Yes, of course, we would have liked to have reached a deal that had a salary freeze over a few year period (or more), but the reality of the situation is that we could not get that agreement. The accusation and implications that we didn't even try or could have done better are off base. Just as off base are the implications that the teachers have acted in any way less than honorable. Remember, they tore up an existing contract and gave up legal rights under the Triborough amendment in order to help the community.

As this board has been saying for the past two years and again this year, real change has to come from our legislators. This is playing out all over the country. Mandates, regulations and work rules have to change in Albany.

How do we save specific teacher jobs?

The short answer is that it is very difficult to do so. When reducing positions due to enrollment declines or program changes, we are bound by a state mandated LIFO system for layoffs. Last in, first out. The long answer is not much different, but involves what we call the waterfall affect. With LIFO, when reducing a program, it is not necessarily the teacher that taught the class who is laid off. It would be the person who has the least seniority who is qualified to teach that subject (and does not have seniority teaching another subject for which he/she is qualified/certified) who is let go. Certain subject areas become tricky. For example, foreign language is a subject in which you can be generally certified. If we eliminate a language such as Swahili, it may not be the Swahili teacher who is laid off. If the person with the lowest seniority in the FL department teachers Japanese, that Japanese teacher would be laid off and the Swahili teacher, even if he/she does not speak Japanese would be entitled under work rules to teach Japanese.

Do you have 5 year projections or do you just look year at this year and kick the can until next year?

YES, we have projections. The administration will be presenting them at one of our next few meetings. I will also take that spreadsheet and make my own projections if they differ from the administrations. Know that it is very difficult to make projections as much of the assumptions are out of our control. How much we will be contributing to the pension fund is one example as is the amount of state aid. We can make projections on salaries for several scenarios and show the residents the different possibilities. It is also very difficult to estimate tax rates in that we have no control over assessments.

Update on Tuesday Feb 15th Meeting

For those looking for the video of our Tuesday meeting, it will be posted tomorrow (Friday). With the change in location, we used older analog technology that needs to first be converted to a digital format and then delivered to MCCMC. With a four hour meeting, and conversion taking a couple of hours per hour to convert, it has caused a much longer post time than we would like.

The Patch has posted an article to its site with a summary and review, and I expect NCN will post its own interpretation to its blog Friday morning.

JSM

Budget Preview

The administration sent the budget presentation to the Patch, the Journal News, Examiner and NCN about an hour ago. The administration proposal calls for a 1.78% budget increase, increased class sizes in order to maintain as much of the program as possible and over 30 staff cuts between instructional and non instructional.

Details tonight.

Email me at comments@newcastlealternative to submit a question for tonight's meeting. I will be able to receive them during meeting. Anonymous ok.

Tuesday Feb 15th Board Meeting Tweets and Anonymous Questions

I have been asked why there is no way to comment anonymously at Board meetings. The complaint is that there is a fear of retribution.

I have a possible solution. I intend to bring my laptop and try to Tweet the major points made. My Twitter handle is JSMCCSDBOE. (BIG HUGE Disclaimer: I am new at Tweeting and I want to focus on the presentation myself, so I may miss Tweeting a lot.)

If you are in the audience and do not want to ask a question yourself, send an email to me, comments@newcastlealternative.com during the meeting and I will try to ask it for you. All questions will be considered anonymous unless you "opt-in" and ask for it to not be anonymous. You do not even have to sign your name. I will do my best to ask them at the meeting. No guarantees, but I will pledge my best efforts.

Feel free to send the questions in advance too if the question is more general and not directly tied to what is presented.

Also, know that item 2.2 on the agenda is my proposal to add my district email address and a personal phone number to my entry on the member page. I feel strongly that residents should have the ability to contact me directly if they so desire rather than going through the general board@ccsd.ws email. I believe in transparency. To email any Board member or for that matter any staff in the district that has district email, use the first two letters of the first name with the last name @ccsd.ws For example, Jerry Garcia would be JeGarcia@ccsd.ws

JSM

13436

This Tuesday's Meeting on the Budget

In anticipation of this Tuesday's budget proposal meeting, I ask two questions. Please feel free to comment here or at Tuesday's meeting. I have heard from some residents who want a zero budget increase. The question for them is, is that at any cost regardless of its effect on the academic programs? Is it simply a financial decision without regard to the ramifications or is there some academic component to your request? To those who say we should preserve all academic programs regardless of cost, is there no price too high? Is there any concern over cost and any thought to justifying a cost benefit analysis of some programs that could be cut?

I will be looking for those who not only point out problems and make demands, but I will be focusing on those who follow up problems with possible solutions. It is easy to sit back and say 0% or 5% budget over budget change, but to actually point out feasible ways to accomplish your goal is the hard part.

I also suggest that all sides in the budget debate remember that they can make their thoughts heard and their opinions known with dignity and civility. I would love to have what Jeffrey Weiss coined a civilog or a civil dialog.

JSM

13436

The Official District Announcement

Here is the announcement sent out by the District regarding Tuesday's Budget Meeting:

CCSD 2011-2012 Budget Proposal - 2-15-2011- HGHS AUDITORIUM
The Chappaqua Board of Education will meet on February 15 to focus on the 2011-2012 Superintendent’s Budget Proposal, with particular attention to school programs and staffing. To encourage public participation, the meeting will be held in the Horace Greeley High School Auditorium, starting at 8:15pm. Subsequent meetings in March and April will delve further into budget details, leading to the Board’s responsibility to formally adopt a budget proposal on April 12, which in turn is subject to voter referendum on May 17, 2011.

Already thus far in the budget-building season, the Board and administration have confirmed that significant reductions from the level of a “straight-line” budget will be necessary, and proposed support staff reductions have been announced. A reopening of the current Chappaqua teachers’ contract, which will save the District over $1MM in 2011-2012, has also been publicly announced. Even so, further announcements of proposed reductions in teaching positions are expected on February 15.

The Board’s strategic question guides this whole process: How can the District ensure continuing excellence in academic and extracurricular programs while developing a budget that is fiscally responsible?

2011-2012 Initial Budget Proposal on February 15th

Reminder that this coming Tuesday February 15th Interim Superintendent John Chambers and his administrative staff will present to the Board and the community a proposed budget for the 2011-2012 school year. This is a first look at the budget (expense) side of the proposal. It will also be a first chance to comment directly on the budget. Public input is an important part of the process of finalizing a proposal for the voters in May. Please come out and be heard!!

Oddly Enough

I just finished reading, Odd Jobs, a great page turner of a thriller by a first time novelist. I read the book in two evenings. Could not put it down. Very impressed by the pacing, the detailed story and the interspersing of humor within a thriller context. Written in the first person, the main character is both sympathetic as well as willing to do whatever necessary to reach his goal. I highly recommend the book. Since I am not a regualr book reviewer, I will leave out much more as I do not want to spoil the book, but if you like thrillers, take the time to read this book.

So why am I telling you this? Well, this first time novelist is a bond trader who lives here in Chappaqua. His name is Ben Lieberman. Here is a link to the book on Amazon. Here is a link to Ben's website and here is a link to an interview he did when he won the Tommy Award for excellence as a first time novelist. (Ben Lieberman author of Odd Jobs)

Ben and I are acquaintances, having several friends in common. We may have met several times. One of my children is friendly with one of his. Despite our tenuous connection, Ben spent 10 minutes with me in the parking lot of the A&P discussing his book. I had heard he had written the novel and saw him on line in the store. I merely intended to congratulate him for getting published when we started to talk about the book. His enthusiasm for the book and for the process of writing a novel for the first time is contagious. At the time, I had not yet read the book but had read several interviews and reviews. His willingness to discuss the concept behind the title and the editing process as well as the entire publicity and marketing "campaign" that is required was so interesting and fascinating.

We also discussed the premise behind the title to the book, Odd Jobs. Ben, using his own experience as well as from many many conversations remarked how the "od jobs" we all have had at one point in our life has had a profound impact on who or what we eventually become. It is a terrific observation Ben makes. I spent one summer in the customer complaint department of Sieman's Furniture. As a 17 year old, I did not even know some of the words that were coming out of the caller's mouths. I am very sure that I cannot put the broken furniture in the place they suggested.

I spent another summer working in a factory as the assistant to the gofer. His name was as far as I could get, Tony "Coca-Cola". By day, when I was with Tony, he did handy work around the factory floor, ran errands, picked up and sorted the mail as well as any other undocumented small job around the factory. It took me three days to get the guts to ask him the question that was burning in my head since the moment I met him. I finally blurted out, "Hey Tony, how come you are driving a Cadillac and talk about your pool and wear all that jewelry when you are the gofer around here?" "Kid", he replied, "this is my day job. On the weekends I have another job. I pick up envelopes. Each week I go to a list of addresses given to me by my boss, ask for the envelope and go on my way to the next pickup. If they have the envelope, great. If they don't, the next week when I go try to get the envelope, 9 times out of 10, the guy who I am getting the envelope from has either a leg or arm cast and several bruises."

"Tony, you work for the f*cking mob!" I shouted in surprise. "Kid, you're real smart. You're going places with that quick thinking of yours. Now, stop thinking and start doing. Turn the f*cking label machine on, huh?" Toward the end of the summer, he did offer to take me to his weekend job. I declined. Oh, and when I told Tony I really wanted to get tickets to this one concert, but it was sold out, two days later he handed me an envelope with four good tickets to the show. When I asked how he got them and what I owed him, he responded, "I was talking to my boss about you kid when I told him about the concert. Next day, Big Joey hands me the tickets to give to you. You never ask Big Joey where he gets things, but he must have noticed the surprised look on my face because he said to me, 'What are you looking at? I found them on the ground.' Here kid, enjoy."

Here is a quote from Ben's website:

People who read the novel often ask how much of this is from my own personal experiences. I usually say for sure one thing - I never killed anybody. I leave the rest up to them."