Well, let' start out with the fact that I didn't get to watch the selectmen last night. Yes, Virginia there is at times more to life than the happenings in our little town.
Anyway, from the article in the S-T it seems previous town counsel has been reappointed as present town counsel. The most important factor in the debate is the fact it took place. Criticize a selectman or two all you want, but no service to the town should go without periodic review. The last time for this one, and for a serious review proposal was over six years ago.
Maybe next time around, a set procedure can be established and followed in doing it.
It only took over a decade to get action to take a serious look at procedure and be serious relative to the outside yearly audits the town is required to have done. You know what? All the excuses and reluctance as to why that one wasn't done, or didn't need to be done, proved to be extremely hollow.
Anyway ... bottom line, the selectmen are the sole determiners as to who gets hired for town counsel and in the end essentially should be under our present little structure. It finally is over. Time to move on.
Moving on that is by taking a look at yesterday. I note that no one seemed to be able to take a shot at the "agenda" exercise. More notable, no one seemed able to take a shot at the "what would you personally be willing to give up." Sure, a few comments were made. Me however won a bet with myself on just how many people would comment on what they would personally give up.
One point in a comment I will strongly disagree with is describing town meeting as "infamous". Whether it was done so out of a belief or as a "shock" point, town meeting in my opinion will never be an entity to live in infamy.
A few of its members perhaps. but I digress...
A point to be made here is the obvious one, that it seems individuals are either reluctant or unable to even suggest of doing away with anything they personally like, even if it is not a necessity.
Actually understandable. A somewhat natural reaction. Being natural and understandable, it is nonetheless not encouraging.
There will be a whole lot of reactions going on soon enough when the process begins shifting into higher gear. Why this and not that for example. Let's also not forget the add on requests. There are always new things that like the hottest toys at Christmas time are must haves.
Like many of the must have toys you get them and after a few months, a year or two later you can find them in the back of the closet.
Finite resources mean finite ability. Creative cooks know how to stretch a dollar to expand a recipe for a hearty stew, add lib a bit, to feed a few more. Sooner or later though the meal budget is exhausted and the best you can due is thin out the meal with water to fill enough bowls. At some point hearty because nothing more than a thin soup; and, given the price of water these days, you have to factor that cost in too.
Of course the alternative is to expand the budget. The problem is however you are limited to how much more you can spend in a year, unless your stakeholders vote to give you more, i.e. in our little realm of reality that means a debt exclusion, an override or start charging more for fees or impose new fees.
I don't see the prospects for any operational overrides. Debt exclusions for specific purposes, well none on the immediate horizon and likelihood for the same in five years, plus or minus are simply going to be dependent on public willingness at that time.
We will soon have an indication of the true effect of taking money several years in a row from your stabilization fund to pay for operations. Note: This is something we HAVE NOT done. A few communities have, and will be going out to borrow soon enough, and we will have a gauge as to how harmful or not that SOP can be.
Whatever harm there is, or isn't to borrowing, the real harm is at some point draining your savings account, without any real prospect of replenishing it to continue operating does in fact pose the problem of what do you do when it runs out.
Taking a parallel track there so let's shift back.
It just seems that despite circumstances requiring the menu to be reduced, people want to add to it every year. I honestly believe that going forward, no "new" spending should be incurred absent a proposal from the proponent identifying the program or department to be cut. I realize this is essentially applicable to the general fund, yet until indications trend otherwise, essentially every general fund dollar spent on something new is taking away from something in existence.
I have posed that question on occasion in the past to some proponents for new spending, the answer is well that's your job to decide.
We all have a real easy decision making process going forward with that. When new appeals to us, well we will make the decision to fit it in, doing what is necessary. When it doesn't hold a special appeal, oh well.
You get to adopt that kind of attitude when you know there isn't enough money to meet the wants.
Then you through out the recommendations, hope the people voting are seeing how to fit the puzzle pieces the same way you are, and if not, well again oh well.
Okay, it is Tuesday, time to put some garbage on the curb.
Be safe.
The School Department needs to be more specific about where their money goes. Who knew the total amount of 'net school spending' doesn't go directly to the students needs? What percentage goes towards retired teachers' healthcare costs? In light of the current economy, wouldn't it be helpful to know that before making a decision to spend above net school spending?
ReplyDeleteFor the need to be more specific, you can find the school department buget for the current year on line:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.fairhavenps.org/Dr.%20B%20Budget/FY'14%20Budget.pdf.
Each year the school department holds a public hearing on its budget prior to adoption,
Town meeting does vote on only one figure. You could print a detailed budget for the warrant, however with the exception of a separate vote on transportation and possibly "maintenance" if other matters were adopted, the control on spending is the "total amount".
I submit the reasons behind not exercising the limited category control has a great deal to do with the fact that if done, than the town "owns" the obligation and yearly blips in these items, as opposed to the same having to be dealt with within the yearly appropriation.
As to "net school spending" and retired teachers; healthcare, retiree healthcare costs for no department is paid from directly from the appropriation for that department. The amounts for the same are used in the calculations for compliance with the state law.
Net school spending is a minimum amount imposed by the state as a result of an SJC decision. For FY 2013, Fairhaven was calculated at 6% over net school spending, roughly $1.1 million. FY 2013 actual will hopefully be out Dec./Jan.
Here is a link to the DOESE web site with relevant info and links on Chapter 70 and "net school spending":
http://www.doe.mass.edu/finance/chapter70/
You could apply the "net" spending concept to any department. It would probably be just as useful for some to know the other costs incurred in running any department that aren't included in the bottom line.
For what it is worth, taking current trends into account, both revenue expenditure and the "net school spending formula" along with the "foundation aid" calculations, exceeding net school spending isn't going to be an argument for much longer. My guess is three to five years and we will be down to it.
If the argument is spend no more than you have too, well we have more than a few departments running well over 6% of the minimum, at least in the thought process of some.
I am going to add that I don't buy the "not knowing". With all the chatter over the years about "net school spending" there has been enough discussion about its components to know what it is comprised of.
If the state calculates a net school spending figure for each district, then what's the argument for spending above net school spending? Why hasn't the breakdown of net school spending, what goes to the students and what doesn't, been shared during the discussion?
DeleteExplain what you mean by "what goes to the students and what doesn't"? What am I suppose to take from such a question?
DeleteShould I surmise that you feel a salary paid to a teacher does not go to benefit of the student?
Should I surmise that you feel the costs to run an after school activity, be it a sport or the various clubs doesn't go to the students? What about foreign language course, honors course or AP courses? Music, art?
The breakdown for net school spending. Follow the links in my previous comment and you can find your breakdown. Want to see the components that go into net school spending follow this link:
http://www.doe.mass.edu/finance/chapter70/chapter_14.html
scroll down to the complete formula spreadsheet. clcik it. download the spread sheet. enable your macros, and then insert the LEA code for Fairhaven. Then wade through the components of the formula.
The state calculates a minimum, get it minimum, amount you must spend. It isn't itemized as to what it is has to be spent on, although there are more than a few mandated costs over which there is no discretion but to spend it on.
It is a determination based on numerous factors of the minimum, again minimum amount you must spend. It doesn't tell you how many pencils to buy, how many teachers to have or not have, how many sports programs to run.
The question isn't what net school spending gets spent for. It is what you don't do if that is all you spend.
Don't want to spend more than the minimum, vote against it or lobby your town meeting members to vote against it. Go to the school committee and lobby against all expenditures you feel are wasteful, unnecessary and don't benefit the students.
Want to see a sleeping dog wake up.
I am also going to add that like money, time is a finite resource. What does or does not get in here to spoon feed you information is attainable by following the links, or gasp, heaven forbade doing your own research. And if you follow the links maybe you can see why there isn't time to explain it in this format.
The breakdown you people seem unable to grasp is that the minimum amount is part of the total appropriation and allocated through the budget, plus associated costs, charge backs and a few other little tidbits. See link above in prior comment for the school budget.
Put as simple as possible, which should be absolutely clear after following all the links right, it is the number calculated by the state based on enrollment, population, foundation aid and the other factors noted. It is an amount that you cannot spend less than, but can spend more, if you choose.
If you feel it is too much, I get that. Just say so and be done with it. Might be nice to actually add a reason behind it. I will accept you right to argue that we don't have to spend anymore than the minimum. I might even respect it if the same holds true for spending anywhere else too.
The minimum we are required to spend on many things, even some you might feel are necessary but others might not is a big fat $0.00. thus the comment about being able to trim many budgets by 6%.
Every budget, every single one is susceptible to the same argument.
We have spent the last six years trying to maintain what is believed to be a fair level of services for this town, based believe it or not by in fact listening to the people. The people however aren't unified in what is fair, right, needed, just, and on and on. Any surprise there?
I want to feel safe in my bed at night, I don't want to be counting the minutes until the ambulance comes and I don't want to get up in the morning and have snow on the streets. Oh and I for one believe and support a good educational system, but I see no personal need for (insert your own pet project).
This comment is not meant to raise your blood pressure any more than it already is, but I fear it might.
DeleteI do consider almost all the things you listed as 'going to the student.' The one thing that I don't consider going to the student is (don't attack your computer monitor here,) retirement benefits. There, I said it.
I'm more than willing to go to the link you provided and get the information.
In all the years I've heard the school committee discuss it I never heard what it actually pays for. Now I know.
Fear not about my blood pressure. And in the hopes I don't get your own to rise, how serious can you be taken when you make the statement "In all the years I've heard the school committee discuss it I never heard what it actually pays for." We obviously have to have been listening to different discussions over the years.
DeleteI truly hope you go to the links. In an assist,if you want to truly see what it pays for, look at its budget. Want to see how net school spending figure is assessed, look at the components listed in the DOESE links.
For what it is worth, wearing the private citizen hat, there is a great deal that bothers me about public retirement packages, and perhaps that is for another day. I will add however there is also a great deal people should also seek information on before opining on that aspect too.
I'll listen more carefully this year when the superintendent gives his "Net School Spending 101" lecture during the SC meeting. Until recently, I never heard it broken down. I've heard something to the likes of, it's an injustice to our kids to spend at net school spending. I'll be looking for him to give the detailed breakdown of net school spending. It's not all for pencils.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the net school spending link.
ReplyDeleteSomeone is trying to wake the sleeping dog,beware of what you might get.We have heard the transparency speech, net school spending,its all for the kids,and the state of ma. D.O.E. recommends it for several years now.Don"t think the thought process will change unless somebody is listening to the residents that don"t work for the town.If there are more than a few departments running 6% over the minimum maybe thats where the FinCom members should be made aware to make their initial cuts.Then the school dept might pay more attention to their budget..What goes around usually comes around..
ReplyDeleteNet School Spending does not include several unfunded mandates such as regular transportation costs and Special Education transportation costs. There are also several other Special Education mandates that are not included in the Net School Spending minimum. New Bedford is currently funded at or below Net School Spending. One doesn't need to read much in the local paper to understand the condition they are in. A town like Westborough is 20%+ above Net School Spending year after year. Take a look at their scores and the condition of their facilities.
ReplyDeleteYou get what you pay for.
It's not only the amount of money, but it's what's done with the money. Fairhaven will never see double digit net school spending, because who would allocate that amount of money without having any say in how it's spent?
ReplyDeleteState law prohibits any body other than the school committee from allocating how the money is actually spent. While the selectmen and Mr. Osuch would love to dictate, it would be against the law.
ReplyDeleteYes, and as long as it's that way, what is the motivation to allocate more than the minimum? Suppose we hope it's spent for materials and it's spent on administrative raises? At least there's a way to control how much they get in the first place.
ReplyDeleteI'm confused, the school department budget and how the money is allocated is posted for all to see on the school department website.
ReplyDeleteAnd if you want to allocate the minimum, go ahead. But then there will be extreme cuts to services, staff, transportation, sports, etc.
The minimum doesn't cover unfunded mandates. Your comment is born out of ignorance and an apparent unwillingness to acknowledge a posted budget.
While people like to perpetuate the myth that a detailed budget isn't presented, that is nothing more than a lie.
First of all- mandated services can't be cut. Those have to be provided.
DeleteIf I remember correctly, it was the school department who first considered reducing transportation costs a few years ago by charging user fees, almost punishing families because they didn't live within walking distance to a school.
Some school districts apply fees to sports and other activities. Why should those who don't participate in any activity continue to pay for those who participate in many?
Cuts in staff? HMS cut grade 6 History and Science a few years ago as if it was an extracurricular. One teacher told parents how great it was because the students in transition from elementary school to middle school would only have three core subjects of homework a night instead of four. The move of reducing two core subjects BY THE SCHOOL DEPARTMENT to 1/2 year instruction only demonstrated that the district administrators don't put a high value on those educators or the subject matter they teach. It wasn't the public who supplies the funding that cut the staff.
Our town has supported education by providing funding for new building construction and improvements. I realize the buildings don't 'educate,' but it's proof this town has supported our students.
The arguments about how much funding should be allocated to schools is decades old. The factor to consider when making that decision, which changes over time, is exactly what is school administrators going to do with it?
And you can see exactly what is going to be done with it by reviewing the posted budget. And who said mandated services would be cut?
DeleteAnd yes, Fairhaven supports education, nobody said they didn't. I didn't have a seperate science or history teacher in the sixth grade when I grew up because sixth grade was part of elementary. I believe it was the best place to make a cut because frankly, at that grade level, it isn't a necessity. Sports and music activities support the whole student and create well rounded people. They also attract acushnet students which brings in additional revenue.
What is done with the money is clear and defined. It is also discussed in public every year. You could count on one hand the number of people that show up to speak over the last 5 years combined.
Another item to note, the school department is currently the largest revenue stream to the town bringing in $1.9 million from Acushnet tuition. If you cut to the minimum, that revenue will cease because those students will no longer choose to attend school here.
ReplyDeleteOf course you knew of the $1.9 million since you have reviewed the budget in detail.
Is that a larger revenue stream than our real estate taxes?
ReplyDeleteIf the town cut funding, or simply didn't 'increase' funding, I don't think it would be completely detrimental to the Fairhaven revenue stream. Have you looked at the choices available to Acushnet students? The high school across the river is a level 4 school. And it's doubtful every student seeks a vocational education.