Other

September 27 CCSD School Board Meeting featuring a segment on Mandate Relief

Submitted by JDKJJK on Mon, 09/26/2011 - 3:14pm

 

School Presentation on Unfunded and Underfunded Mandated 9/27/2011

James J. Kirk

 

Tomorrow's School Board presentation will include a segment on unfunded and underfunded mandates.  The recent Tax Cap levy law included language that intended to address this problem, but to the best of my knowledge the current law only calls for further study on the issue of unfunded mandates and does not include legislative language that offers immediate relief.

  

The New York State School Board Association (NYSSBA) has issued their own recommendations for mandate relief and some of the recommendations are likely to meet with intense resistance.  The New York State Board of Regents has also prepared a list of mandates, which is more current than the list provided by the NYSSBA.    

 

Special Education

 

One of the key areas of under-funded mandates is Special Education programs and one recommendation to shift the burden of defending the need for an IEP from the school to the parent.  I am not an expert on this particular mandate, and therefore not qualified to offer an opinion on how this shift would reduce overall costs, but according to NYS records the individual special education costs for the Carmel Central School District (CCSD) total 27K per student as opposed to an average of 12K for the remaining student body. This equates to a total of over 19 million dollars in expenditures for the CCSD.  The relevant information can be found here. 

 

This sum is partially offset by what is known as “Foundation Aid, which for the CCSD totaled close to 16 million for the 2010-2011 school year.  .  Special Education aid is included in the total sum CCSD receives for Foundation Aid and the percentage dedicated to Special Education is included in the link found here. It should be noted that the Special Education funding can be found under the items listed as Public Excess Cost Set Aside which totals close to 3 million dollars and when other aid is factored in the total excess cost aid is four million, four hundred seven thousand, and six hundred and seventy dollars ($4,407,670.00).   As noted above the 2011-2012 CCSD budget for Special Education is over 19 million dollars. Therefore, if the above calculations and information are correct the CCSD taxpayers are picking up the additional 15 million dollars for this mandated program.

 

Taylor Law

 

The NYSSBA also identifies the current Taylor Law as an unfunded mandate, which costs individual school districts millions of dollars.  Under the current law, once a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) expires the terms and conditions of the expired CBA remain in place with the exception of increases to those covered individuals who are the top Step.  This particular provision of the Taylor Law not included in the original language of the Law, but was adopted by a legislative act after a Judge in a Court Case determined that once the existing CBA expired, the entire CBA was deemed null and void including the existing practice of continuing to grant Step and Lane increases for all employees covered under the previous agreement.

 

While I am advocate for this legislative, the fact is if you compare teacher salaries for the current fiscal year against the 2010-2011 school year, the total increase in salaries is projected to be in the neighborhood of 1.3 million dollars;  his really is not a true savings but a deferred cost.  Under a subsequently negotiated CBA the teachers would, most likely, be entitled to raises they did not receive during the period when a CBA was not in effect.

 

However, my main reason for endorsing the Taylor Law change is that I believe the current system places the Administration at a disadvantage during the negotiating process.  The current system also lacks any provisions for finality in the Collective Bargaining process.

 

Transportation

 

Transportation is another area where the NYSSBA found room for improvement.  Under the current system the school is responsible for ensuring that their bus runs offer seating for all enrolled students.  I don’t pretend to know the actual percentage of school busses that are at less than capacity and by how much but this is an area worth exploring.  In fact, if I am not mistaken, this is also an area that has been widely discussed under the Shared Services initiative. One possible solution is to eliminate HS students who drive to school and also a possible charge on parents who drive their children to and from school with a waiver for children involved in extracurricular activity.  

 

A review of our current transportation expenses demonstrate that the CCSD spends over 5 million dollars per year on transportation, however as the Foundation Aid report cited above shows CCSD is reimbursed for over 2 million dollars of these costs.  But the bottom line is that the 2 million dollars is still taxpayer money.

 

One additional note and that is the figures cited on the School Budget do not add up to the figures posted on the NYSED website and maybe the Administration can clarify the discrepancies (e.g. Special Ed on the District Website totals 13 million dollars, yet NYSED listed the total at 19 million dollars).

 

Finally, the above list is far from comprehensive and does not include items such as Wicks Law or mandated Pension Contributions.  The latter being a significant cost burden on the individual Districts.  

 

PS: The embedded links do not appear to work properly. You may have to disable your popup blocker.           

Why A Constitutional Convention Is Meaningless In Regards To Addressing The Long Term Budget Problems Facing NY State

Submitted by JDKJJK on Wed, 06/29/2011 - 11:56pm

Why A Constitutional Convention Is Meaningless In Regards To Addressing The Long Term Budget Problems Facing NY State

 

James J. Kirk

 

While I applaud Assemblyman’s Katz desire to expedite the Constitutional Convention process in NY State, the sad fact is that changing the current State constitution will have very little affect on the immediate long term pension obligations of NY State. 

 

If you believe the above statement is not factual, just look at the FAQ’s released by Katz in conjunction with his request for a constitutional convention.  If you see any reference to pension reform for current State and local municipal employees let me know, because I don’t see them. 

 

The true facts are the Supreme Court and various Circuit Courts have ruled that even if a State does not provide constitutional protection for pension benefits, contract law may take precedence and prior agreed upon contractual obligations cannot be abrogated unless the State can assert a compelling public interest such as maintaining the continued viability of a pension plan.  

 

In States without contitutional protection for their pension benefit plans the burden of demonstrating that an actual contract exists falls on the moving party, which in most cases would be the Union.      

 

A number of States have decided to challenge this interpretation of the contracts clause of the US government by taking such actions as freezing COLA payments for current retirees.   Needless to say these actions are under attack by the local unions and their beneficiaries and as of this writing at least two cases have been dismissed, with the Courts ruling that COLA payments are not subject to the Takings Clause and changes to the COLA formula was within the perview of the respective legislations. 

 

It is no secret that the current Supreme Court is not labor friendly and the cases to watch now are those cases brought by municipal unions in Wisconsin and New Jersey.  However, as noted above pension reform does not appear on Assemblyman Katz' proposal for a Constitutional Convention. 

  

The bottom line is, unless New York State can get out from under their pension obligations for current employees a Constitutional Convention will not do much to change the State's fiscal picture and is not worth the cost.  However, if a Supreme Court decision puts pension reform on the table for current employees then a Constitutional Convention may be worthwhile.     

  

 

.       

 

Carmel Central School District Preliminary Budget Meeting Feb 8 2011

Submitted by JDKJJK on Wed, 02/09/2011 - 5:47pm

 

Last night I attended the first in a series of Budget presentations for the 2011-2012 Carmel School year and while it was pointed out that the budget presentation was preliminary and highly unlikely to be the budget presented to the voters in May, I thought I would pass along some of the preliminary information from last night’s meeting. 
However, I must confess that since I was aware that this was only a preliminary presentation I did not take notes, I know, shame on me, but I thought the information that I recalled may be noteworthy to some of our readers. 
First and foremost, in their initial budget proposal NY State has decreased the State’s contribution towards next year’s Carmel school budget by over 2 million dollars. This elimination is based on a component of the budget process known as Gap Elimination. I did not ask, but assume the Gap to which they refer is the 10 Billion dollar State wide budgetary shortfall. 
The District also faces increases in their contributions towards employee benefits, such as the Employee Retirement System (ERS), the Teachers Retirement System (TRS) and Health benefits. For ERS and TRS the increase is in the neighborhood of 30%. This does not amount to much for the ERS contribution but is a significant increase towards the TRS contribution. The health benefits increase should have been expected as over the past two years the Carmel Central School District has enjoyed significant savings in this area and these savings were one of the main reasons the budget increases over the past two years have been under 2 percent. In addition, this increase may be modified if the District and the Carmel Teachers Association reach an agreement on the new contract and the Teachers contributions are raised from the current 10% to a higher amount. 
I admit I was somewhat confused as to why after a stellar year in the Stock Market our TRS contributions would still be around 30% but it was explained to me by the CCSD Business Manager, Eric Stark, that the TRS contributions are based on a five year average. The downside to this is the negative returns of 2008-2009 will remain with the local taxpayer for at least two more years. This, of course can be mitigated if the Market continues its recent climb. 
One item of interest to some of our readers is theTax Certiorari Reserve Account.  The Administration stated that the CCSD was holding over 3 million dollars in this account with a majority of the funds dedicated towards a settlement with Kent Manor (over 2 million dollars). 
As to the preliminary budget, the initial budget asks for a year over year increase of 4.7% from last year’s budget. This includes taking into account the elimination of approximately 18 Full-Time Equivalent Employees (FTE’s) with 13 of the reductions coming from the existing workforce, as well as the reduction of 5th and 6th Grade ELA and Math Plus classes. There were also some Administrative reductions but I do not recall the total number. If the District were to adopt this budget, which they state they will not, they claim the overall tax levy would increase by 7 to 9 percent. It was also mentioned that the proposed 2% Tax Cap is not expected to affect this year’s budget. 
On another note, Board President Richard Kreps reiterated his support of continuing the status quo, as far as school funding and his opposition to District consolidation. He premised his belief on the fact that the school budget was the only area where the taxpayers have a direct say in the budgetary process and he believes that local control best serves the community. 
I must admit I am somewhat ambivalent in this area as the Duncombe study utilized by NY State in its Guide for District Consolidation was conducted during the late 80’s through 1997. This study demonstrated that consolidating Districts of over 1500 students does not achieve the desired economies of scale. My major concern with the Duncombe study is that was released in 2001 and the data utilized was from the period of 1989 through 1997. Since this time there have been major study proposed legislation that BOCES should be empowered to instruct the Districts they represent to perform a consolidation study, but, to my knowledge, much like anything in Albany, this proposal is still sitting in committee. 
Unfortunately the link to the referenced study is no longer available but Professor Duncombe and his staff continue to explore the topic of consolidation and if you are interested in additional studies click here.
Finally, one of the parents and a member of the Kent Campus Consolidation Committee did voice her disdain for the way the Administrative raises were handled last year, which was waiting until after the budgetary process was completed to announce the raises. This parent emphasized the fact that if the Administrators were really interested in holding the line on expenses they are expected to set an example.
 
James J. Kirk 

Letter to Editor by Richard France

Submitted by kfwadmin on Wed, 07/21/2010 - 8:49am

 

                                                         EDITORIAL
 
                                          “PUTNAM COUNTY COURIER”
 
 
 
            Robert Bondi – a reformer ? In the words of the great Aretha Franklin, “Who’s zoomin’ who ?”
 
            After all of his years as our County Executive, Mr. Bondi is finally getting around to asking his constituents if they “need or want 120 separate taxing districts in their future,” or 9 superintendents of school, or countless other obscenely wasteful policies. “Sacred cows are no more !” he declares so very self-righteously.
 
            Mr. Bondi was County Executive when I moved to Putnam over a dozen years ago. The waste that he is suddenly decrying was plainly evident at that time, and has become increasingly so ever since. Why, then, is he only now addressing it ? Are slogans such as “Politics be damned !” his way of launching a campaign for – God forbid ! – another four ruinous years in office ? “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.” By re-packaging himself as a reformer, is Mr. Bondi seeking to fool us yet again ? If so, then he is clearly a believer in P. T. Barnum’s maxim: “There’s a sucker born every minute.”
 
            There’s a “serious demeanor” among our elected officials. Is Mr. Bondi implying that, prior to the recent economic crisis, the ever-increasing waste of our tax dollars that he now wants to curtail with all the changes he is suddenly (and suspiciously) proposing was acceptable to him – and, by extension, to our representatives in Albany ?
 
            Those 9 school superintendents whom he seems to have just become aware of cost us approximately $1,000,000 each per year (when you factor in their staffs, offices, vehicles, and so on and so forth). By finally acting responsibly and dividing the county into two districts – Putnam East and Putnam West – 7 of these fiefdoms could – and, indeed, should – be eliminated. That alone would result in an annual savings to our overly-burdened tax-payers of at least $6,000,000.
 
            The Board of Education for the City of New York has identified some 525 teachers who are so egregiously incompetent and/or corrupt that they have been removed from their classrooms. But because of the stranglehold of tenure and the teachers’ union, these people continue to receive their salaries and benefits for doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. And thanks to the cowardice of their elected officials, who refuse to stand up to the teachers’ union, the tax-payers of New York City shell out nearly $50,000,000 per year just to keep these people in their rubber rooms.
 
            In addition to the $6,000,000 savings by eliminating these excess superintendents, how many more millions of our tax dollars are being squandered on incompetent and/or corrupt teachers and staff members here in Putnam County ?
 
            Mr. Bondi and his opportunistic but do-nothing side-kick, Gregory Ball, want to know “what the grassroots level is thinking.” To Mr. Bondi, I answer: “Get thee gone !” You only come down to Putnam from your farm up-state a (very) few days each week as it is, and only then to sign papers – which is all the authority you have left. We, the people who have been saddled with your bloated salary (plus perks, plus pension, plus, plus, plus) and reckless policies deserve a damned sight more responsible County Executive than we’ve had in you.
 
            And to Senator Leibell, for whom I voted, and Assemblyman Ball, whose demagogic tactics sicken me, I issue a challenge: Turn Mr. Bondi’s (stated) goal of “a new system of governance” into a reality. Stand up to the special interest groups by eliminating the staggering waste of our tax dollars: consolidate those 120 taxing districts into an efficient and manageable number; eliminate those 7 needless superintendents of school; introduce legislation in Albany that holds every teacher and administrator responsible for their behavior for the duration of their careers; and make the many other “wholesale changes” that Mr. Bondi insists are “staring us straight in the face” – by which I assume he includes the two of you as well as those of us whose votes are responsible for the offices that you currently hold, and may seek to hold in the future.
 
            No more excuses. No more passing the buck. We elected you to defend our interests, not to use as gullible stepping-stones that further your personal ambitions.
 
            Finally, to the Tea Party, I say: Focus your new-found political muscle on holding Albany’s feet to the fire until the people we send there either stand with their constituents (instead of the special interest groups who’ve been lining their pockets) – or stand down as our elected officials.
 
 
                                                                                    Dr. Richard France
                                                                                    Lake Carmel

Carmel Central School District Board March 9, 2010 Board Meeting

Submitted by JDKJJK on Wed, 03/10/2010 - 12:02pm

I attended last night’s meeting of the Carmel Central School Board.  On the agenda was the third in a series of presentations on the proposed 2010/11 school budget.  The meeting was taped and will be broadcast on the local Comcast channel.  However, I have provided a summary of last nights meeting for those who may not get a chance to view the broadcast.   

Attendance at last night’s meeting, as well as the meeting held on March 2nd, was very impressive.  There were very few vacant seats.

Also impressive was number of public comments, unlike previous board meetings there were at least 10 individuals who made comments before the board.

The majority of the comments were from parents who were justifiably concerned about the proposed reductions and the proposed realignment of Kent Elementary School and the Kent Primary School.

Several of the comments seemed to indicate a desire to retain the status quo and there was concern addressed about the elimination of Teacher’s Assistant positions and a Guidance Counselor. 

There was also concern addressed about the elimination of certain programs, which from the speaker’s comments and Assistant Superintendant Irvin’s response, indicated that these programs were implemented to help reduce the number of students who, in the future, may require more costly Special Education intervention. 

Mr. Irvin agreed that he still believed that these programs were indeed useful for achieving cost avoidance in the future.  However, the proposed cuts were necessary based upon the current financial pressure facing the community and that with this in mind the Board could not look at possible future potential savings.  

While I applaud the Board’s decisions on reducing overall costs, I must admit I was not satisfied with Mr. Irvin’s comments.  If the programs slated for elimination substantially reduce the District’s long-term costs then I believe it should be possible to quantify future savings. If the Board cannot quantify substantial future savings from these programs then the Board’s decision to eliminate these programs correct.

As to the other comments, while a majority of the parents voiced their support for the Teacher’s there was a palpable frustration at the means and methods utilized to determine where the and how the proposed cuts were made. 

One speaker, who by his initial comments, I originally perceived as opposed to the budget cuts.  However, in a later interaction with Board member Steve Port this same individual demonstrated his frustration at the fact that teacher’s were not held to performance standards.

Several speakers raised the lack of accountability for schoolteachers and while no names were mentioned, there was a general feeling that certain individuals should not be teaching.     

Along these same lines, there were questions about the methodology employed for the reduction of staff.  Assistant Superintendant Irvin explained the seniority system, and he informed the audience that the current tenure system is covered under NYS Education Law.

Another Speaker voiced her concerns about the proposed cuts and she stated that she believed that the Board should be looking at alternatives such as consolidating back office operations. 

There was also one speaker, who defended the teachers.  However, she also voiced her opinion that the Board should be looking at negotiating a wage freeze for the Administrative staff and the Teachers.  She believed that the Teachers would be amenable to a wage freeze if it meant saving jobs.

In response to the proposal for a consolidation of back office operations, I informed the audience that the authority to consolidate back office operations rests entirely with the School Board.  I further explained that under the current rules the Board would have to approach another District and negotiate a consolidation of back office operations.  I also informed the audience that Assemblywoman Galef has a legislative proposal to empower the local BOCES with authority to determine administrative consolidations. 

Board member Steve Port seemed to take issue with my statement and appeared to interpret my statement as an endorsement for school district consolidation.  Mr. Port stated that consolidation would lead to less personal interaction and increased layers of bureaucracy.  I informed Mr. Port that I was not advocating for the consolidation of the entire District.  I explained that I was aware of studies that indicate consolidation of districts does not necessarily lead to cost savings.  However, in retrospect I am having second thoughts on this position.  The study relied upon, which demonstrates school districts do not achieve economies of scale based upon consolidation was conducted between 1985 and 1997.  Since the 90’s, the use of the internet and other related technologies has expanded and it may be time to revisit this issue.   

Finally, as to the issue of a wage freeze, I have consistently proposed this to the School Board at both meetings and via emails.  I believe prior to the beginning of the current school year I sent Superintendant Ryan an email and asked him if had approached the Teachers Association and requested to renegotiate the terms of the current agreement.  I did receive a response frpm Superintendant Ryan.  Superintendant Ryan stated that the Board was looking at all possible measures to reduce costs.  However, I never did receive an answer as to whether the Board ever formally requested that the Teacher’s Association reopen negotiations.  The Board was equally silent on this issue last night. 

 

Jim Kirk

 

  

Additional Link for State and Local Information

Submitted by JDKJJK on Sat, 01/16/2010 - 1:16am

While seethroughNY.net is a valuable link, the following link provides additional information on NY State municipal contracts.  I have also provided a link to Arbitration decisions and Fact-Finding results (e.g. teachers decisions (second link)).  

Just one note of caution the Contract link appears to have a glitch that generates a warning asking if you wish the scripts to stop running as they may cause your computer to become unresponsive.  I have clicked yes and the page I was seeking became available without any additional problems.  If you are uncomfortable with receiving the error message, do not proceed with the connection.  If attempts to close the website through clicking the "X" box are unsuccessful you can end the program by pressing Alt+Control+Delete simultaneously, which will start your computer's Task Manager.  You can then utilize Task Manager to end the program. 

The second link appears to work without difficulty. 

 

Jim Kirk

 

 

http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/perbcontracts/

 

http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/perbfact/

NY Public Payroll Watch

Submitted by JDKJJK on Thu, 12/03/2009 - 7:09pm

 

December 2, 2009

Teachers clean up on “pension reform”

E.J. McMahon

Buried in the so-called Tier V pension bill just passed by the state Legislature is an incredible set of special concessions to unionized school teachers in New York.  None of these changes were contained in Governor Paterson’s original “pension reform” proposal, which was a colossal missed opportunity to begin with.  The worst of the giveaways to teachers in the final bill–effectively locking in one of the fastest-growing, most difficult to control components of school district compensation costs–is not even mentioned in Paterson’s press release hailing the bill’s passage.

The teachers’ union had their way on three major items:

  • While the minimum full-benefit retirement age after 30 years service was raised from 55 to 62 for all other civilian employees, it will set be at 57 for teachers.  In 2007-08, the median retirement age for New York State Teachers Retirement System (NYSTRS) members was 58.
  • The Legislature promised to enact a three-month early retirement window for teachers who are 55 but have only 25 years of service.  Districts will greet this as a cost savings, but it also will shift a so-far uncalculated cost to an already stressed pension fund.
  • Last but not least, the Tier V bill makes permanent a temporary law, annually renewed since 1994, barring school districts from “diminishing” health benefits for retired school district employees unless “a corresponding diminution of benefits or contributions” applies to active workers.  Since changes in benefits for current employees must be collectively bargained, the provision effectively gives unions a veto on the matter.  This provision of Tier V, described the Assembly’s press release on the bill as “mak[ing] permanent retiree health protections,” goes unmentioned in the Governor’s celebratory release.

To be sure, the Assembly and Senate had long been in the habit of annually (and unanimously) rubber-stamping extensions of the retired teachers’ health coverage provision.  But as long as the provision was temporary, there was always a chance that some future occupant of the governor’s office would feel sufficiently emboldened to veto it or demand modifications as a condition for approval.  In general, any coveted benefit subject to periodic renewal also represents a significant point of potential leverage over the unions for a sufficiently reform-minded executive.

In one fell swoop, the Tier V bill will eliminate that leverage.  Further, it will embolden other public-sector unions that had been seeking the same permanent, perpetual benefits for their members.  The newly permanent provision for teachers becomes a precedent for everyone else.  Other public-sector units will now put strong election-year pressure on the governor and Legislature to give them same thing.  (Indeed, the Tier V bill also featured a four-year extension of compulsory arbitration rights for police and firefighters–another feature of current law that unions covet, for reasons explained here.)

Keeping in mind that the Tier V pension changes did not require bargaining with unions to begin with, Paterson and Legislature got very little from NYSUT in exchange for the special teacher goodies in the bill.  In fact, NYSUT’s sole concession apparently came down to this: while all other civilian employees in Tier V must contribute 3 percent of their salaries towards their pensions throughout their careers, teachers hired after Jan. 1 will pay 3.5 percent—a token one-half of a percentage point more, at a time when contributions are poised to increase by double-digit percentage rates.

According to the NYSTRS actuarial note pegged onto the Tier V bill, the hypothetical “entry rate” employer contribution for teachers under the new benefit structure will be about 26 percent below the rate for the current benefit structure.   This is equivalent to the projected savings for other Tier V non-uniformed members.  But, as in other areas, “it will be at least several years before [the change] has a noticeable impact on the employer contribution rate,” the actuarial note points out.

In the meantime, if the predicted path of employer contribution rate increases in the regular state retirement system is any guide, the rate for teachers is likely to rise from 6.17 percent to over 15 percent within the next few years.  NYSUT can always seek to claw back the benefit reductions before anyone in Tier V gets around to retiring–just as the union successfully did soon after Tier IV took effect in the early 1980s.  And again, districts are now more permanently stuck with costly early retiree health benefits–which, for example, amount to a $1 billion unfunded liability for the Buffalo city school district alone.

Unions are fond of using “fair share” analogies, but NYSUT is paying nowhere near its fair share for what it has gotten out of this bill.

The changes in police and fire pensions also included in the bill, especially the creation of a permanent employee contribution rate, will save more and represented a more significant change–but were balanced by the rote renewal of compulsory arbitration for those same unions.  Besides, when police and fire pensions are so much more expensive than those for everyone else, there’s scant rationale for pegging the contribution rate at the same 3 percent level as the one charged to non-uniformed employees, and below the 3.5 percent that will now be charged (but for how long?) to newly hired teachers.

Is the Tier V bill at least a step in the right direction?  Yes–only in the sense that if you are standing in Albany, face southwest and take one giant stride forward, you will be about three feet closer to an expense-paid vacation in Las Vegas.

Filed under: Labor unions, New York State, Public Pensions, School Finance —
Syndicate content