Sunday, March 31, 2013
Reply to Comments and Questions on NCN
In response to this NewCastleNOW article and the comments below that article. This is the unedited version from before I tried to get it into one 2000 character comment box.
Usual disclaimers apply. I do not speak for the Board of Ed. I speak only for myself. This is not a district statement either. Shake well before using. Refrigerate after opening. Your mileage may vary.
To C-O-N-T-R-O-L: I can think of many reasons both positive and negative why we would want questions asked privately. But, I think it is safe to say that whenever the Board or Administration replies to an email, it assumes that that email can and will be made public. I do.
I do not agree with your assumption that it makes our job a lot easier if people don't hear each other's criticisms. That is only the case if you also assume our job is to ignore the public. While I recognize that some people think that, I view our job as actually the opposite of that. While I don't think we should just be a weather vane twisting in the wind with the latest opinion, I do think that we are elected as fiduciaries to the community and as such have an obligation to listen to what the community has to say which by the way can include complements. If you read the post on my blog about deciding to run or not, I address this there.
I think it is also important for the community to know that the Board is not always in a 5-0 agreement on how to do things, but we do act as a consensus Board. In general, after a consensus of the Board is taken, the President of the Board will fashion a response that reflects that consensus. Whether I support that consensus response, I will always support that this is a majority rules Board and that the President has certain power/authority/obligation to respond in a way that (s)he sees fit within the consensus.
As for the last meeting and the timing of the two statements, I can tell you there was nothing Machiavellian about them. After almost 6 years on the Board, I can tell you that the announcement about the administrator's contract was put first, for two reasons. One, it was not on the agenda anywhere because of the timing of the agreement with the Board (not agreed upon until after the agenda was made. Agendas are generally set on the Thursday or Friday prior to the next meeting.) so it was put first, and, two, it was good news for the community in terms of the budget impact. The meeting was primarily focused on the budget. Hence, put the budget item first.
The so called Tim Bloom response was not purposely moved to 11:00 pm or later in the meeting so no one would hear it. First, Tim never wrote directly to the Board. He wrote to the administration and published it here on NCN. So, it was a little confusing as to who the Board would actually be responding to. In the end, we were responding to the community in general, but we never got one direct piece of correspondence from anyone in the community about it. Writing anonymous comments on an internet blog is a very inefficient way to communicate with the Board. (Any Board.)
Second, there are few people attending the meetings. Most watch it on replay or on NCMCTV online. Anyone could fast forward to find the portion they are looking for. Third, it was on the agenda in the Superintendent's and President's report. Ironically enough, it comes later in the meeting because we moved the presentations to the beginning of the meetings so that the public could come to watch that and not have to wait until the end. When I first got on the Board and prior to that, the business section came first and then the presentations. We got criticized for that and changed it.
Legally, we are required to have an agenda. It makes sense to stick to it as much as possible as we are also required to publish it in advance. Some have suggested that we start earlier. We have considered that. I for one, would love to get home before midnight on a meeting night. But, there were other considerations and other points of view. In the past, we had a lot of feedback that starting earlier would make it particularly difficult for those with students in elementary and middle school to attend. Between dinner and bedtime, starting at 7:00 or 7:30 would be a hardship for many.
One of the interesting things that happened at the last meeting is relevant here. I am not sure how many people noticed it, but we received an email with several questions from a resident who was unable to attend the meeting. President Tipp actually read the questions during the appropriate part of the presentation. It is certainly a way to ask a question while not having the pressure or whatever of coming to the microphone. I will sometimes email questions to the presenters in advance so that they are prepared to answer them publicly. I don't think it is fair to the public when someone says they will get back to you on that. Then the response is not on the record. Feel free to email the Board with questions you might have in advance. If you send it to the President and/or all the Board members, I think the President would be more than happy to represent your questions at the appropriate time.
On a slightly similar note, Christine has been prodding the Board for several years to make its meetings live. One of her concepts with having it live would be to have the ability for someone watching at home to ask a question maybe through email or a text or something. It is certainly something to be considered, although I have never seen it in practice. I have suggested to Christine that I would be willing to do a live online forum answering questions. I envisioned it something along the lines of a Reddit Ask Me Anything. If I decide to run for a third term, I would definitely be willing to answer any question I legally could on any subject.
I think this Board has gotten an undeserved reputation by some of the anonymous commenters here on NCN as a closed Board. Nothing is farther from the truth. We have gone out of our way to be as transparent and forthright as we can. Some items, particularly personnel and legal items, we are precluded from speaking about publicly. It is frustrating to us too when we cannot speak about something we would want to otherwise.
Yes, we have a three minute stated limit on questions. However, I can only remember two times where we actually imposed that limit and with those two times, we simply told the person they could ask additional questions after those who have not had a chance to ask any question yet already did so. Quite frankly, if you cannot ask one or two questions in three minutes time, then you are making a speech. I cannot think of anyone who has not had a chance to ask their question or make a comment at one of our meetings.
Do we get defensive at times? Sure, we are human. We are also volunteers. We are trying to do our best. Really. I recognize that we will not always be universally applauded for some of our decisions. There are many issues where the community itself is divided. I personally get frustrated when people think because we do not agree with them or do not take a certain course of action they support that we don't listen. We listen, we deliberate, we consider ramifications and we decide.
I just want to make one more point about anonymous comments. I get why some who make comments wish to remain anonymous. It can be scary criticizing teachers or administrators when your child is in school. There is one school of thought that your child could be subject to retaliation. Believe me when I tell you that I considered it myself when I speak out or when we negotiate, etc. While it is a concern, I know the leadership of all the unions well. I know many of the teachers in the district personally. I give them more credit than thinking they would even dream of retaliation. They are professionals dedicated to teaching. It is just not something that would enter the mind of the staff.
I personally don't mind criticism. I do mind personal attacks. Question my thought process, question my vote, question my decisions, but don't question my integrity, don't call me names, don't make statements you know to be false or ones you don't know to be true.
I oppose anonymous comments. I think using your name leads to a more civilized dialogue. I think using your name gives your comment more credibility. I get that some people want to hide behind the cloak of anonymity, but I don't condone it.
Finally, I wish the community would recognize that we are volunteers trying to do our best. We don't get paid, we don't have any perks that I am aware of, and we don't get benefits. We do spend a lot of time, we do work hard. and we do want to engage the public. If it was such a great job, more people would be trying to do it. It is a rewarding job if you care about education, care about the students and care to serve your community. A wise former board member told me on the way out the door, that it is only a thankless job if you are expecting thanks. I am not.
Edit: Feel free to post a comment here on my blog. I will reply to all that ask a question or ask for a reply.
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
To Run or Not to Run, That is the Question
I wrote this email in response to a voice mail I received from Tom Auchtermonie, the editor of the Chappaqua/Mt. Kisco Patch. Both he and Christine (New Castle NOW) asked about my plans to run again.
Tom,
Tom,
Thank you for calling.
That announcement put out by the LWV and the PTA regarding their April 2nd meeting is accurate. They contacted me over the weekend to see what my status was, and I was ok with them sending out what they sent out.
I still have not decided.to run or not. They may have used the word "announced" which I prefer, but either way, I am still weighing the decision.
Serving on the Board for the past six years has been very rewarding for me and hopefully a positive for the district and community. There are many many factors both personal and school related that go into making this decision.
I happen to think for a myriad of reasons that the district is at a critical crossroads as to the direction it takes. While the budget issues that dominated my first terms are still there and will likely remain for years to come, I am very comfortable with how we have faced and will continue to face the pressures on the district in that regard. Negotiations with 3 of our 4 bargaining units have shown that the district and its units are trying to be true partners.
I think, rightfully, that the focus going forward after this year's budget, will be a fight for the soul of the district. By that I mean with a relatively new Superintendent, with new principals at Grafflin, Roaring Brook and Horace Greeley, with many many state and national mandates, the district has to decide who we want to be, what our mission will be going forward and how do we get there. It is going to take strong leadership to steer the district toward our goal. [Edit: Upon reread, I want to make it clear that I think we have that strong leadership in the district currently.]
Hopefully, one of the bi-products of Tim Bloom's open letter to the administration is a two way conversation between the district and the community about what we want, who we want to be, and how we accomplish those goals. While I gave a general response on my blog,10514 Musings, I think it is important that the district, the board and the administrators have an open and frank discussion with the community about the future of this district. We need to find a shared vision, not an imposed one.
I think that being a Board Member for the next 3 years is going to take a significant commitment of time and energy. It is why I hesitate. Whether I run or not, I strongly encourage members of the community to step up and make that commitment.
I hope to make my decision shortly. When I do, of course, I will let you and The Patch readers know.
Jeffrey
Friday, March 15, 2013
Reply to Tim Bloom Letter to the Administration
(Note: I initially left off my usual disclaimer. The absence of it does not change the fact that I am speaking only for myself, I do not speak for the district or the Board here. All other disclaimers are valid here too. YMMV.)
Tim,
I have told you this privately, but I think it important to reiterate it publicly. I very much admire your forthrightness and willingness to take personal risk by writing this letter. Quite frankly, I wish I were not saying that there is personal risk in writing, but anytime you go against the establishment, in my days, "the man", you risk backlash.
As a School Board Member, I know that the district sometimes makes mistakes. I know that the reasoning for some decisions are not always readily obvious. I know that like any large institution that caters to all the students in the district we sometimes have to make compromises. I know that there are times we are not even legally allowed to say why we do what we do. It is all frustrating. I add one more caution: Do not take the Board's silence in any circumstance as not caring or not aware or as tacit approval either.
One area in which I think we should never compromise is in our 'lofty ideals'. I have no knowledge of any of the facts of this particular letter. I am not writing now to comment on the particulars of this letter; this is something that Tim and his peers have to work out with the building administration. I am writing to thank Tim for starting the dialogue.
I would like to say that, in general, a successful district educates the entire student and the entire student body. If, in one of the Board's strategic questions, we as a district strive to educate critical thinkers, we must accept that that means allowing students to take risk, to make mistakes, and to learn lessons not only in the classroom, but also outside the classroom. Rather than stifle that urge, we should support it.
We need to support our students in extra-curricular activities including student council and self governance, in clubs, in sports, and in the performing arts. Education is not just learning the ABCs in the classroom. It is not just your gpa or what classes you take. It is inclusive of after school activities. We need to encourage our students to reach for their next level. We must let them challenge themselves. Sometimes that means taking risks ourselves.
Finally, at the risk of embarrassing you Tim, knowing what a terrific student you are, knowing of your dedication and fortitude on the football field, knowing you are a committed volunteer firefighter in Town, knowing you are student council President, and knowing that you are a good friend to so many, I sleep well at night comforted that future generations and future leaders like you will soon takeover.
JSM
Tim Bloom, Student Council President, Letter to HGHS Administration:
Tim,
I have told you this privately, but I think it important to reiterate it publicly. I very much admire your forthrightness and willingness to take personal risk by writing this letter. Quite frankly, I wish I were not saying that there is personal risk in writing, but anytime you go against the establishment, in my days, "the man", you risk backlash.
As a School Board Member, I know that the district sometimes makes mistakes. I know that the reasoning for some decisions are not always readily obvious. I know that like any large institution that caters to all the students in the district we sometimes have to make compromises. I know that there are times we are not even legally allowed to say why we do what we do. It is all frustrating. I add one more caution: Do not take the Board's silence in any circumstance as not caring or not aware or as tacit approval either.
One area in which I think we should never compromise is in our 'lofty ideals'. I have no knowledge of any of the facts of this particular letter. I am not writing now to comment on the particulars of this letter; this is something that Tim and his peers have to work out with the building administration. I am writing to thank Tim for starting the dialogue.
I would like to say that, in general, a successful district educates the entire student and the entire student body. If, in one of the Board's strategic questions, we as a district strive to educate critical thinkers, we must accept that that means allowing students to take risk, to make mistakes, and to learn lessons not only in the classroom, but also outside the classroom. Rather than stifle that urge, we should support it.
We need to support our students in extra-curricular activities including student council and self governance, in clubs, in sports, and in the performing arts. Education is not just learning the ABCs in the classroom. It is not just your gpa or what classes you take. It is inclusive of after school activities. We need to encourage our students to reach for their next level. We must let them challenge themselves. Sometimes that means taking risks ourselves.
Finally, at the risk of embarrassing you Tim, knowing what a terrific student you are, knowing of your dedication and fortitude on the football field, knowing you are a committed volunteer firefighter in Town, knowing you are student council President, and knowing that you are a good friend to so many, I sleep well at night comforted that future generations and future leaders like you will soon takeover.
JSM
Tim Bloom, Student Council President, Letter to HGHS Administration:
To the Horace Greeley High School Administration,
I was very disappointed to hear yesterday that the Greeley Games event that I proposed is not going to happen. Quite frankly, I'm not at all surprised, as this seems to be par for the course these days. It has gotten to the point where every single member of the Student Council is disenchanted with the way the administration is trying to dismantle the very things that had made Greeley great for so long. We have lost our motivation to try to engage the students, generate enthusiasm and a sense of community and make being a Greeley student more than capitulating to the arbitrary decisions of the administration. Why bother working on proposals and trying to innovate when we know the administration is going to say no?
It’s funny that we are all so frustrated with our elected officials in Washington, yet the same thing is happening right here. Each time a new idea comes to the floor, we're getting filibustered, then left to take the blame for not taking action. It's really sad to see how significantly Greeley has declined over the past four years, from the exercise in political correctness gone mad re: the funball team name debacle to the arbitrary and ridiculous hoops that need to be jumped through to bring in a speaker, to the fact that a group was told they can’t sell hot chocolate in the morning for charity because it’s “too dangerous.” I don't feel as if I'm doing even half the job I ran for as President and the reason for that is the administration. Know that for us high school is more than just getting into college. It’s supposed to be an experience that matures us not just intellectually, but also in other ways. How can we do that when the only thing we are assured of is the academic aspects and those aren't so great anymore either? This school has become so resistant to positive new ideas that students actually care about and so concerned with the possibility of political incorrectness that nothing even has a chance. For example, how do we know that the event I proposed would have an attendance problem if it’s never happened before?
When I sat down with Mr. Rhodes and Mr. Corsilia in the beginning of the school year, I saw the potential to reignite at least some of the fire that I know Greeley used to have. I now know how wrong I was in thinking that. I know that interest in participating in Student Council is in rapid decline and I wouldn't be surprised if next year's group has trouble filling all of the positions, another sign that the administration is failing to provide a meaningful high school experience. People simply don’t want to deal with working hard and formulating new ideas only to be shot down. You are denying leadership opportunities to the next generation of leaders by rendering those who do want to lead utterly ineffective. It has become simply not worth my time either to think of fun creative ways to bring the school community together when I know that there is no chance of any of our ideas actually coming to fruition. I'm tired of being asked, "When are we going to have a school wide event?" or "When is something fun going to happen?" and not having an answer. From this day forward, I am going to tell anyone who asks that the administration won't let it happen. I don't want the students who elected me to think I don't care and haven't been trying mightily to bring this school back to its former greatness.
I am deeply disappointed in the administration for not recognizing that the Greeley we all love is slipping away because they are afraid of innovation and trying something new. The other members of the Student Council feel the same way and share my disappointment in your decisions. I've spoken to many former Greeley students recently, some who graduated last year, some who graduated ten years ago, and some who were Student Council members themselves, and they are amazed that the Greeley they knew and loved bears no resemblance to the one I am graduating from in just a few months. This school has gone from a place of which I was proud to be President to a place that I can't wait to leave. If it is your long-term plan to oversee a community of grade-obsessed, one dimensional, disinterested students then continue to do what you are doing. If you want a vibrant, engaged community of students who participate in their education more fully, then you need to reexamine how you interact with us. Less police state and PC paranoia and more positivity would help. Just today, I heard of two new issues that are all of the sudden problems in the eyes of the administration. I’ve been told that the beloved Greeley A Capella groups have to meet with you because the fact that they rehearse off the school campus is a problem. Why? Why do they have to change how they operate if they are successful as they are now? Isn’t this discouraging the independence that you encourage us to develop throughout high school? And now you want to change the traditional trip to Jones Beach for seniors? You have already dismantled quite a few senior traditions. Can you leave just one alone?
I feel compelled to write this as the elected representative of the student body, a position that I will continue to take very seriously until my term is up. I will continue to plan the events that are already on the calendar and I will continue to fulfill my responsibility of addressing the school at the coming assemblies and ultimately graduation, but I promise nothing more. The next time you need someone to represent Greeley, whether it be to a group of students from another country or one new student who will be joining this so-called community next year, find someone else. I don’t feel as if I can lend my time to your causes, if mine are not taken seriously. To summarize, we’ve all had enough of the arbitrary decisions. The Theatre Company just put on a play about sex (and a very good one might I add) without being questioned, and yet a song for the a capella concert was questioned because it included the word bullet and referenced guns. Can you explain that inconsistency? I can't. I wish you an uneventful rest of the school year.
Sincerely,
Tim Bloom
Thursday, February 28, 2013
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.
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.
Monday, August 27, 2012
Go Quakers! Greeley Football 2012!!
Below is a copy of a letter I sent to the Editor of NewCastleNOW:
To the Editor:
I want to thank you for printing the story, “Monday Night Lights - An Invitation to see the Quakers Practice on Rec Field”. I write wearing many hats. Most prominently, I am a School Board Member and I am the father of both a Varsity (and a JV) football player.
I want to thank you for printing the story, “Monday Night Lights - An Invitation to see the Quakers Practice on Rec Field”. I write wearing many hats. Most prominently, I am a School Board Member and I am the father of both a Varsity (and a JV) football player.
I am writing to encourage the
entire community to come out tonight from 6:00 to 8:00pm to watch the football
team prepare for its season. As both a
father and Board Member I cannot express well enough how proud I am of this
team and these players. Regardless of
their won-loss record this year, these boys have already proven themselves
winners. They have overcome adversity,
uncertainty and forced change.
While the football program has
been under scrutiny recently, most members of the community and district are
not aware when the football program is spoken about what being part of the
program really means. Coach Tribou
taught so much to these boys. Many of
those lessons were about football, about being in shape and being
prepared. However, he taught these boys
so much more than the X’s and O’s of football.
Above all else, he taught these
boys about teamwork, about supporting each other, about honor, integrity, duty
and love. Imagine my surprise listening
to my first Tribou speech at the strongman a few years ago when all he talked
about was family, honoring your parents, loving your teammate and respecting
your teachers. 20 minutes of Billy
ranting and raving and not one thing was said about football. Bill Tribou had a knack for taking students
disengaged with school, screwing up in life or simply directionless and giving
them focus and motivation to make the most of themselves, to respect themselves
and appreciate themselves. While many
may quibble with his methods, none can question his intent.
Football, unlike many sports here
at Greeley is a year round commitment.
As it turns out, it is a parental commitment too. Twice a week, all winter and spring long, the
boys work on strength and conditioning in the Greeley weight room. At 6:30am.
The attendance rate is over 95% every Wednesday and Friday. And, since offseason workouts consist of
Juniors, Sophomores and Freshman, none of them have permission to drive to
school; a parent is dropping these boys off at 6:20am twice a week. During the season, there are walkthrough
meals to contribute to, ice packs to be administered, post game meals and the
unspoken worst part of being a football parent, the rides from practice or
games with some of the smelliest equipment and bodies you will ever encounter. If you see a car with its windows down in 40
degree fall weather leaving Greeley, you know why.
Since April, they have dealt with
the uncertainty of who would be coaching this year. That was not resolved until this summer. We welcome Tim Sullivan, Greeley grad,
longtime assistant coach, Yorktown High guidance counselor and Chappaqua
business owner (Quaker Hill). While Tim
is obviously his own man, he takes the same holistic approach to the team as
Coach Tribou. He and his staff have
already built a rapport with the players.
It fell to the captains, Teddy
Graves, Cory Ekstrom, Brent LoBien and Billy Marino to lead and motivate the
players through the spring. They stepped
up big time. They kept the team informed
of the latest updates all spring. They
lead by example in the weight room. They
helped plan for the coming season. They
passed their football knowledge down to the underclassmen. What most people, even other football parents
don’t know is that being the parent of a captain is a HUGE commitment as well.
A special thanks to the Graves,
the Ekstroms, the LoBiens and the Marinos who have stepped up and taken the
lead. I thank them for their polite yet
determined advocacy with the administration on behalf of the boys, with their
generosity in time and resources, and in their unwavering commitment to the
team. Incredibly enough, each captain’s
parents are given a 5” thick binder of how to support the team throughout the
year. They organize the spring Strongman
competition non-football activities, the preseason dinner, the post game meals,
the walkthru dinners, the game day merchandise sales, the preseason dinner, the
merchandise orders, they coordinate with the coaches, etc. The list goes on and on. Thank you!
The boys are two weeks away from
their first game at Brewster on September 7th.
So far they have dealt with losing a beloved coach, getting used to a
new coach, being told that there was not going to be a trip to camp this year,
and with repeated changes to what was years of routine. Almost weekly they were
told something else is changing.
For the last week and a half they
have come together, twice a day, once at 7:30 - 9:30 and again from 11:30 to
2:00, to put all the bs aside and play some football. I had the pleasure of watching two practices
so far and I am happy to report they are focused and determined to have a
successful season.
Come out tonight and watch them
practice. There will be hot dogs, drinks
and other food items available. The team
is hoping this will become a yearly tradition.
Its intent is to give back to the youth football program (ably led by
Pete Zimmerman, Greeley grad and owner of EZ Sports) so many of them started
in, and to create a family event for the entire community. Bring the entire family.
Come see how 40 high school boys
can overcome, ignore and put aside all the politics, limitations and changes
imposed on them by us adults and work toward their common goal of being great
teammates and a successful football team.
Sincerely,
JSM
Monday, May 14, 2012
CCSD Budget Vote May 15th!
Please get out and vote on the school budget. I personally am advocating for a "YES" vote. This is a fiscally responsible budget that preserves academic programs.
Highlights:
Highlights:
- Tax increase is less than allowed under the new tax cap legislation
- Last budget under the existing CCT contract
- No material program cuts
- Uses $3 million in reserves
- Endorsed by the New Castle Citizens for Responsible Education
- Endorsed by the PTA.
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
3/6/2012 Board of Ed Meeting
Budget presentation and legislative mandate discussion for first 1:35, concerned baseball parents starting at 1:36 followed by regular business. The public comments continue after we conclude the business. Some commenters from the first comment section return to the podium.
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Thursday, January 19, 2012
BOCES Follow-Up
On Tuesday January 19th, the Board of Ed voted unanimously to reject the BOCES proposition. We believe that while the work needs to be done and we have an obligation to the consortium to participate, there are better, less costly and more efficient alternatives. This is not a symbolic protest vote, it is a genuine vote against the current proposal. But, we seek to offer alternatives to that proposal.
Our Director of Facilities has already met with his BOCES counterpart, and we are prepared to make several significant and specific suggestions on how to change the proposal to make it more effective and less costly. We are also prepared to meet with other members to establish a facilities advisory board to help BOCES plan this project and their facilities projects going forward.
Below is an email exchange with BOCES following the vote.
We received the following email in reply:
Our Director of Facilities has already met with his BOCES counterpart, and we are prepared to make several significant and specific suggestions on how to change the proposal to make it more effective and less costly. We are also prepared to meet with other members to establish a facilities advisory board to help BOCES plan this project and their facilities projects going forward.
Below is an email exchange with BOCES following the vote.
John,I wanted to follow up with you as I know that our district clerk spoke with you about our vote last night.We are eager to work with you and the other component districts to develop long term solutions to the facilities problems. We feel very strongly that by pooling our intellectual resources we will find the best way to ensure that our fiscal resources are used in the most beneficial and sustainable manner.Our no vote in no way implies that we are attempting to eschew our obligations and we recognize that as part owner of these facilities we need to help support them.Additionally, we sincerely appreciate and value the programs and services that PNW BOCES provides to our students and teachers.We would very much like to meet with you, other district board members and their facilities directors in a collective brainstorming environment and see if we can move these projects forward in way that works for everyone.I look forward to working with you.AlysonAlyson Gardner KieselPresident, Chappaqua Central School District Board of Education
We received the following email in reply:
Alyson,Thank you so much for going the extra mile to reach out to us. Your district clerk, Theresa Markley did a wonderful job relaying the message from the Board about the vote and your ideas for moving forward. I spoke with Dr. Langlois, our Superintendent, about the ideas from you and your fellow Board members this morning. We both agree that meeting to find a way to address our capital needs is a good idea. I will speak with Jim tomorrow so we can start planning to get together.I want to thank you and your fellow Board members for your willingness to be a part of the solution for our capital needs.John
Sunday, December 18, 2011
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.
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.
Thursday, December 8, 2011
In Honor of and In Tribute To
I have three children in the high school. While that has many implications, it primarily means that I make many trips to the high school each week. One week, I counted 21 individual round trips to the high school. If you drive to the schools enough, you start to notice subtle changes. Since the beginning of the year, I have noticed the flag flying at half-staff almost every time I went to the school. I made a mental note to myself as part of the Facilities Committee to ask Joe Gramando if the flag pole was broken. I just assumed it was as the flag was flying at half-staff nearly everyday. When I finally got around to asking Joe if the flag pole was broken, he told me why the flag is flown so often these days at half-staff.
The flag has been flown at half-staff in order to honor the men and women who have sacrificed their lives for our country. Other than federal holidays and federal decrees, the flag is flown at half-staff at the order of the Governor. Governor Cuomo, in a change from the prior administration, has ordered state government and school flags flown at half-staff in honor of and in tribute to soldiers, either from New York or stationed at a base in New York, who have died in the line of duty. Unfortunately, there have been many of them lately. Obviously, one is too many, but there have been more than that. The Governor's office sends an email to the district to notify us when to fly the flag at half-staff and why.
The emails from Albany include a brief description of the deceased soldier and the action that lead to his or her death. It is quite sobering to read them. If you ever want to know the particulars, you can go to the Governor's website or ask me, I now get copied on the emails.
Here is what was written in the email sent to the district on November 28th for flying the flag at half-staff on the 29th of November:
I join with the Governor in mourning the loss of Private Diener and in sending my deepest sympathies to his family, friends and fellow soldiers.
Now, when you drive up to any of the schools in the district and you see that the flag is at half-staff take a moment to remember why it is flown that way, to recognize and appreciate the sacrifices made daily by our soldiers for our country, and to hug your school-aged child who might one day be a United States soldier.
The flag has been flown at half-staff in order to honor the men and women who have sacrificed their lives for our country. Other than federal holidays and federal decrees, the flag is flown at half-staff at the order of the Governor. Governor Cuomo, in a change from the prior administration, has ordered state government and school flags flown at half-staff in honor of and in tribute to soldiers, either from New York or stationed at a base in New York, who have died in the line of duty. Unfortunately, there have been many of them lately. Obviously, one is too many, but there have been more than that. The Governor's office sends an email to the district to notify us when to fly the flag at half-staff and why.
The emails from Albany include a brief description of the deceased soldier and the action that lead to his or her death. It is quite sobering to read them. If you ever want to know the particulars, you can go to the Governor's website or ask me, I now get copied on the emails.
Here is what was written in the email sent to the district on November 28th for flying the flag at half-staff on the 29th of November:
Governor Andrew M. Cuomo has directed that flags on state government buildings be flown at half-staff on Tuesday, November 29 in honor of a Fort Drum soldier who died in Kandahar province, Afghanistan on November 21.
Private Jackie L. Diener II died of wounds suffered when insurgents attacked his unit with small arms fire. He was assigned to the 3rd Squadron, 71st Cavalry Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division, based at Fort Drum. Private Diener was from Boyne City, Michigan.
"I join with all New Yorkers in mourning the loss of Private Diener and I send my deepest sympathies to his family, friends, and fellow soldiers," Governor Cuomo said. "We will honor the service of this Fort Drum soldier and we will be forever grateful for his dedication to our nation."
I join with the Governor in mourning the loss of Private Diener and in sending my deepest sympathies to his family, friends and fellow soldiers.
Now, when you drive up to any of the schools in the district and you see that the flag is at half-staff take a moment to remember why it is flown that way, to recognize and appreciate the sacrifices made daily by our soldiers for our country, and to hug your school-aged child who might one day be a United States soldier.
Friday, December 2, 2011
Does Bill Clinton Read His School District Website?
In the news today, former President Bill Clinton in a joint press conference with President Obama talked about retrofitting buildings for energy efficiency. It is part of President Obams'a "Better Building Initiative". This article states,
Maybe President Clinton reads the Chappaqua Central School District website. If he does, he would have seen this article posted to the CCSD site on the energy performance contract. Right here in his adopted hometown we are going green and according to his analysis helping to create jobs! Too bad he doesn't give Joe Gramando, John Chow and the district credit for being an early adapter and proactively green.
Energy Performance Contract - Phase 1 Project Timeline
Noting rural communities like his new hometown of Chappaqua, N.Y., Clinton added: "Every little county has got one bonded contractor. That bonded contractor can guarantee to every public school, every state, county and local building, every little office building ... what the savings are going to be."All the former President has to do is go about a mile down the road from his house to Horace Greeley High School to see this in action. The district recently signed an Energy Performance Contract with Johnson Controls that guarantees that the cost savings from the upgrades to district facilities will pay for the cost of the improvements themselves. Or, over the term of the agreement, there is no net cost to the taxpayer for significant improvements to the district's infrastructure.
Maybe President Clinton reads the Chappaqua Central School District website. If he does, he would have seen this article posted to the CCSD site on the energy performance contract. Right here in his adopted hometown we are going green and according to his analysis helping to create jobs! Too bad he doesn't give Joe Gramando, John Chow and the district credit for being an early adapter and proactively green.
Energy Performance Contract - Phase 1 Project Timeline
 |
To support the administration and faculty in their efforts to create a rich and dynamic learning environment that will prepare students to be productive members of an increasingly global community of limited natural resources, the District entered into a long-term Energy Performance Contract with Johnson Controls in July 2011.
Basically, an energy performance contract is a financing tool that utilizes cost savings from increased building efficiency and reduced energy consumption to pay for the cost of installing new energy conservation measures - without any up front capital expenses.
The contract agreement is for Johnson Controls to guarantee that the savings (plus building aid the District receives from the state) will meet or exceed the annual payments to cover all project costs, and that Johnson Controls pay the difference if at any time energy savings do not materialize.
Phase I of the energy performance contract brings improvements to all 6 school building, the Education Center and the Chappaqua Public Library.
Monday, November 28, 2011
Anonymous Comments Revisited. Again.
This weekend, The Journal New's online site, LoHud.com, informed its readers it would no longer be allowing anonymous comments. Here is a link to that article. Essentially, LoHud concluded that anonymous comments do not work. They do not lead to a civil dialogue among community members. They even cited the fact that the same person often comments under different names in the same article.
I wrote two posts about anonymous comments, linked here and here. I do not allow anonymous comments on this blog. I encourage comments from anyone who wants to post, just not under the anonymous tag. It is my strong belief that every community, including ours, should have an open and continuous dialogue about the issues it faces. Anonymous comments do not contribute to that dialogue for the most part. I recognize that there may be reasons why you would want to keep separate your professional and private lives, but, for the significant majority who have nothing to hide, associating your name to a comment leads to civil dialogue.
It is worth reposting this link from one of my earlier posts. In it Jeffrey Weiss does a terrific job explaining the pitfalls he encountered moderating anonymous comments and why his newspaper blog switched to signed comments.
I am asked occasionally how I, as a member of the CCSD Board of Ed, could not put much credence in anonymous comments in local blogs. Putting aside any content in the comments, how do I know that the person commenting even resides in the CCSD? How do I know that folks aren't posting multiple times under different tags in order to make it seem as if what their point of view is more prevalent than it actually is, essentially, having conversations with themselves in the comment section? If the posts are edited or moderated, how do I know if comments made are even getting posted? If all comments are not posted as written, am I relying on the biases of the person doing the moderating to determine what it is I do and do not see?
John Hatcher on Poynter.org brings up a very good point. He writes, for you, "the reader, knowing who I am helps you decide both if you want to spend your time reading what I have to say and whether you think I know what I’m talking about. You want to know if I have credibility." For me, it is important to consider the source when evaluating the value of a comment or statement. It goes to expertise and credibility.
A byproduct of disallowing anonymous posts means there is less need for moderation in terms of checking comments before posting. It would allow for moderation to be done after the post, thus allowing for posting on a real-time basis and essentially creating an actual community dialogue.
As for the tone and civility of anonymous comments, that is for a different post. I happen to come from a point of view that appreciates civility and a collegial tone even if I disagree with what is being written. I know there are a lot of ways to provide constructive criticism, to argue against ideas and to disagree in general and still remain respectful and civil. After all, aren't we all neighbors?
Good on you LoHud.com (Gannet) for recognizing that civil discourse is more apt to occur without anonymous posting.
I wrote two posts about anonymous comments, linked here and here. I do not allow anonymous comments on this blog. I encourage comments from anyone who wants to post, just not under the anonymous tag. It is my strong belief that every community, including ours, should have an open and continuous dialogue about the issues it faces. Anonymous comments do not contribute to that dialogue for the most part. I recognize that there may be reasons why you would want to keep separate your professional and private lives, but, for the significant majority who have nothing to hide, associating your name to a comment leads to civil dialogue.
It is worth reposting this link from one of my earlier posts. In it Jeffrey Weiss does a terrific job explaining the pitfalls he encountered moderating anonymous comments and why his newspaper blog switched to signed comments.
I am asked occasionally how I, as a member of the CCSD Board of Ed, could not put much credence in anonymous comments in local blogs. Putting aside any content in the comments, how do I know that the person commenting even resides in the CCSD? How do I know that folks aren't posting multiple times under different tags in order to make it seem as if what their point of view is more prevalent than it actually is, essentially, having conversations with themselves in the comment section? If the posts are edited or moderated, how do I know if comments made are even getting posted? If all comments are not posted as written, am I relying on the biases of the person doing the moderating to determine what it is I do and do not see?
John Hatcher on Poynter.org brings up a very good point. He writes, for you, "the reader, knowing who I am helps you decide both if you want to spend your time reading what I have to say and whether you think I know what I’m talking about. You want to know if I have credibility." For me, it is important to consider the source when evaluating the value of a comment or statement. It goes to expertise and credibility.
A byproduct of disallowing anonymous posts means there is less need for moderation in terms of checking comments before posting. It would allow for moderation to be done after the post, thus allowing for posting on a real-time basis and essentially creating an actual community dialogue.
As for the tone and civility of anonymous comments, that is for a different post. I happen to come from a point of view that appreciates civility and a collegial tone even if I disagree with what is being written. I know there are a lot of ways to provide constructive criticism, to argue against ideas and to disagree in general and still remain respectful and civil. After all, aren't we all neighbors?
Good on you LoHud.com (Gannet) for recognizing that civil discourse is more apt to occur without anonymous posting.
Monday, November 21, 2011
2008 Greeley Grad Earns Rhodes Scholarship
Edit: Here is a link to the district website story that is much better written and more complete than below. Again, congrats to Brett!
----------
Brett Rosenberg 2008 Horace Greeley graduate and current Harvard University student was awarded a Rhodes Scholarship on Sunday. At Harvard, her focus/concentration is history. At Greeley she was an all-around terrific student (natch), star of the cross-country team and wonderful person/friend according to several people I spoke to today.
HGHS principal, Andrew Selesnick said, "You could not ask for a nicer, more deserving young woman to win such a prestigious award." Her father, Marc Rosenberg, quoted in the Daily Chappaqua said, "She was extremely excited when she called us."
Brett is also a writer. A good writer with a sense of humor. Here is a link to some of what she wrote for the Harvard Magazine. I particularly like the "Black and White—and the Red, White, and Blue" article.
Congratualtions, Brett! Off to Oxford University. Cheers, mate.
The Daily Chappaqua posted this article late this evening.
----------
Brett Rosenberg 2008 Horace Greeley graduate and current Harvard University student was awarded a Rhodes Scholarship on Sunday. At Harvard, her focus/concentration is history. At Greeley she was an all-around terrific student (natch), star of the cross-country team and wonderful person/friend according to several people I spoke to today.
HGHS principal, Andrew Selesnick said, "You could not ask for a nicer, more deserving young woman to win such a prestigious award." Her father, Marc Rosenberg, quoted in the Daily Chappaqua said, "She was extremely excited when she called us."
Brett is also a writer. A good writer with a sense of humor. Here is a link to some of what she wrote for the Harvard Magazine. I particularly like the "Black and White—and the Red, White, and Blue" article.
Congratualtions, Brett! Off to Oxford University. Cheers, mate.
The Daily Chappaqua posted this article late this evening.