For about eighteen months now I have been a regular attendee at the New Paltz School District school board meetings. This is the second budget process I have had a front row seat for (literally). Throughout these two cycles, myself and others, via public comment at board meetings, and now this year, via a school district budget blog, have requested more detail -- down to the line items -- on the proposed budgets.
And guess what. Last night, by a vote of 5-2 (Rod Dressel and David Dukler dissenting), our school board voted to post the full, detailed, line item proposed (draft 3) budget on the district's website. You can see it here.
WOW! KUDOS to our school board! Thank you for listening.
(See, being pesky works!)
kt tobin flusser
.png)
Showing posts with label David Dukler. Show all posts
Showing posts with label David Dukler. Show all posts
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Get Your Free Hybrid School Bus Here!
With all the bean-counting school budget prep and the fight over seven percent, I'm sure a lot of us are mindful of ways to help the district get a leg up. Today I saw a brief in New York Teacher about an essay competition with a hybrid bus as the grand prize. The $5,000 scholarship may just motivate a few of our talented local students, at least if the $3,000 school supply award convinces teachers to spread the word.
I figure it can't hurt. Please tell your local educators to get those essays going!
I apologize for not making this easy, but please share this post on Facebook as well. Many kids use it, and if they like the idea word will get around lickety-split.
Yes, I said lickety-split.
I figure it can't hurt. Please tell your local educators to get those essays going!
I apologize for not making this easy, but please share this post on Facebook as well. Many kids use it, and if they like the idea word will get around lickety-split.
Yes, I said lickety-split.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
7%
Due to state budget woes, the school budget process schedule will be much earlier this year. Last Wednesday (February 4), Superintendent Rice presented her draft budget at the board of education meeting. The summary and power point are now posted on the district website.
The proposed increase in the tax levy is 6.99%. Some board members (in particular, Don Kerr and Patrick Rausch) reacted that in order to get the tax levy down to 5%, the budget would need further cuts and/or the district would need to generate more revenues. Steve Greenfield noted that while 7% is not a low figure, in comparison, many districts in the region are now considering double digit increases and we need to remember we are dealing with public education, not a consumption budget (e.g. the district can’t stop going the movies and out to dinner, like a household can). Rod Dressel pointed out, it is also very important to note that the increased levy is primarily a result of less money coming from the state, not more spending in the district.
This coming Wednesday, Feb 11, the board will continue their discussion of the budget. (Reminder: this is the same night as the Middle School renovation study presentation.) On February 25, the board is seeking public input and will host a community forum at the high school. Maria Rice will submit her revised budget on March 4.
In terms of cuts, there is one in particular I would argue against: the $7,000 allotted to the food services line which is/was meant to facilitate progression towards healthier foods served to the children in our schools. While $7K is not chump change, in a 48 million dollar budget, it is somewhat symbolic… and its retraction is very indicative of a lack of commitment to providing better food in our schools.
Areas where I would like to see more cuts are in administrative lines… I am sure we could unearth at least $7K in the board of education ($105K) and superintendent ($264K) lines.
As far as revenues, one of my biggest concerns is the proposal to start charging building use fees to non-school groups that use school facilities after 6pm on weekdays and on the weekends. *I believe* it was stated that these fees will be $30-45 per hour (it is not in the power point…). This could have a major impact on civic and sport activities in New Paltz and I am very concerned about the ripple effects this will have on the community.
These are just a few of the things that popped out at me upon my first perusal of the draft budget. I urge anyone concerned about the tax levy and the delivery of public education in New Paltz to take a look, and to then show up on February 25 for the community forum. The superintendent and school board have asked for our input – about spending cuts and revenue generation – and we need to take them up on their offer to listen to us.
(ps. Check out the file name of the power point. Very funny.)
The proposed increase in the tax levy is 6.99%. Some board members (in particular, Don Kerr and Patrick Rausch) reacted that in order to get the tax levy down to 5%, the budget would need further cuts and/or the district would need to generate more revenues. Steve Greenfield noted that while 7% is not a low figure, in comparison, many districts in the region are now considering double digit increases and we need to remember we are dealing with public education, not a consumption budget (e.g. the district can’t stop going the movies and out to dinner, like a household can). Rod Dressel pointed out, it is also very important to note that the increased levy is primarily a result of less money coming from the state, not more spending in the district.
This coming Wednesday, Feb 11, the board will continue their discussion of the budget. (Reminder: this is the same night as the Middle School renovation study presentation.) On February 25, the board is seeking public input and will host a community forum at the high school. Maria Rice will submit her revised budget on March 4.
In terms of cuts, there is one in particular I would argue against: the $7,000 allotted to the food services line which is/was meant to facilitate progression towards healthier foods served to the children in our schools. While $7K is not chump change, in a 48 million dollar budget, it is somewhat symbolic… and its retraction is very indicative of a lack of commitment to providing better food in our schools.
Areas where I would like to see more cuts are in administrative lines… I am sure we could unearth at least $7K in the board of education ($105K) and superintendent ($264K) lines.
As far as revenues, one of my biggest concerns is the proposal to start charging building use fees to non-school groups that use school facilities after 6pm on weekdays and on the weekends. *I believe* it was stated that these fees will be $30-45 per hour (it is not in the power point…). This could have a major impact on civic and sport activities in New Paltz and I am very concerned about the ripple effects this will have on the community.
These are just a few of the things that popped out at me upon my first perusal of the draft budget. I urge anyone concerned about the tax levy and the delivery of public education in New Paltz to take a look, and to then show up on February 25 for the community forum. The superintendent and school board have asked for our input – about spending cuts and revenue generation – and we need to take them up on their offer to listen to us.
(ps. Check out the file name of the power point. Very funny.)
Friday, January 30, 2009
A 6 Man Board (We Need a Mom!)
Laura Walls resigned from the school board this week to take a job with Eliot Auerbach in the Ulster County comptroller's office. Laura was also the board vice president so that position is also now vacant.
The current board now consists of six men: David Dukler (President), Rod Dressel, Steve Greenfield, Don Kerr, Patrick Rausch, and Edgar Rodriquez.
These six men can:
* Leave the seat vacant until the May elections
* Appoint someone to the open seat now
* Authorize a special election for the seat
As far as the VP seat, these six men can:
* Leave it open
* Vote for a new VP
Any actions will be taken in executive session, I believe even the Superintendent will not be present.
It is too close to May to hold a special election. Given the prevalence of 4-3 votes on this board (Laura being in the "4" group), my suspicion is the board will appoint someone. Is it even possible these six men could find someone that they all could (well, at least four of them) agree on?
And what about the VP slot? I suspect they may just let that one go till May, maybe even July.
The Dressel and Kerr seats are up this year, and if they decide they want to stick around, they will need to run (and win) in May to keep their positions. Laura's term also would have been up, so that means we have three school board seats to fill in May. Will they appoint someone just to fill the slot till May, someone that may not even choose to run this Spring? Will that be a prerequisite to appease all parties?
Only three (I think) of these six men have school-age children attending New Paltz schools. Only one has elementary school age kids (again, I think). In my opinion, we need a New Paltz mom! (Or two, or three... but good golly I'll take at least one at this point.)
(This post is also at The New Paltz School Renovation)
The current board now consists of six men: David Dukler (President), Rod Dressel, Steve Greenfield, Don Kerr, Patrick Rausch, and Edgar Rodriquez.
These six men can:
* Leave the seat vacant until the May elections
* Appoint someone to the open seat now
* Authorize a special election for the seat
As far as the VP seat, these six men can:
* Leave it open
* Vote for a new VP
Any actions will be taken in executive session, I believe even the Superintendent will not be present.
It is too close to May to hold a special election. Given the prevalence of 4-3 votes on this board (Laura being in the "4" group), my suspicion is the board will appoint someone. Is it even possible these six men could find someone that they all could (well, at least four of them) agree on?
And what about the VP slot? I suspect they may just let that one go till May, maybe even July.
The Dressel and Kerr seats are up this year, and if they decide they want to stick around, they will need to run (and win) in May to keep their positions. Laura's term also would have been up, so that means we have three school board seats to fill in May. Will they appoint someone just to fill the slot till May, someone that may not even choose to run this Spring? Will that be a prerequisite to appease all parties?
Only three (I think) of these six men have school-age children attending New Paltz schools. Only one has elementary school age kids (again, I think). In my opinion, we need a New Paltz mom! (Or two, or three... but good golly I'll take at least one at this point.)
(This post is also at The New Paltz School Renovation)
Thursday, December 18, 2008
School Board should Fight for Real Tax Reform
What a mess our antiquated tax system has put upon our heads. People have been up in arms about high property taxes in New York, and then our state's unbalanced economy crashes because of a dependence on Wall Street "productivity" to sustain itself - or, I should say, to sustain the state's tax revenues. Now a governor that was pondering relief of those taxes is going to have to slash state aid to local governments and programs, including schools.
In truth, I never liked the property tax cap plan. You don't solve the problem by not letting school districts spend more money, even if things get more expensive. If you watch the New Paltz school board meetings, you'll quickly realize that much of what the district pays for is controlled by state mandates or ironclad union contracts over which they have little control (and which themselves are certainly worthy of a post). Controlling spending is definitely a good plan if you want to reduce taxes, but this is like reducing your kid's allowance by a buck a week but expecting him to pay for more expensive lunches anyway.
What I would like to see our local school board do is make a stink about the medieval system of taxation they're forced to follow - land has not been a useful measure of wealth for a couple of centuries, after all. David Dukler and friends should rally districts around the state to throw down the property tax system altogether, and replace it with something more equitable. Education is the responsibility of all of us, and should be paid for by all of us. We've heard louder and louder grousing about high taxes for years, and it's the job of our elected representatives to make sure Albany is really listening.
I'm terrified that as a senior citizen I'm going to want to vote down school budgets because I want to stay in my home, and that's a pretty crappy place to be. Governor Paterson's plan, though, is more than a bit shortsighted, and I'd like to see better.
In truth, I never liked the property tax cap plan. You don't solve the problem by not letting school districts spend more money, even if things get more expensive. If you watch the New Paltz school board meetings, you'll quickly realize that much of what the district pays for is controlled by state mandates or ironclad union contracts over which they have little control (and which themselves are certainly worthy of a post). Controlling spending is definitely a good plan if you want to reduce taxes, but this is like reducing your kid's allowance by a buck a week but expecting him to pay for more expensive lunches anyway.
What I would like to see our local school board do is make a stink about the medieval system of taxation they're forced to follow - land has not been a useful measure of wealth for a couple of centuries, after all. David Dukler and friends should rally districts around the state to throw down the property tax system altogether, and replace it with something more equitable. Education is the responsibility of all of us, and should be paid for by all of us. We've heard louder and louder grousing about high taxes for years, and it's the job of our elected representatives to make sure Albany is really listening.
I'm terrified that as a senior citizen I'm going to want to vote down school budgets because I want to stay in my home, and that's a pretty crappy place to be. Governor Paterson's plan, though, is more than a bit shortsighted, and I'd like to see better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)