Number crunching
By law, the Council has fulfilled its statutory obligation to review the school budget in the wake of its April rejection by the voters. The symbolic 0.63% dent in the Board of Ed's spending plans is enough to close the issue. However, it is almost certainly not what the electorate had in mind, and it is unlikely to satisfy the Teaneck voters.
To be fair, the Council operated with one hand tied behind its back as it attempted to find places to trim. The Board of Ed was uncooperative, refusing to follow protocol and hold a joint public session with the Council during which they might be forced to admit that not every penny of the $84.8 million they had requested was absolutely necessary. That meant, of course, that the Board of Ed was also foregoing its right to stick up for its requests. But the BoE figured it could afford to run the risk of the Council overcutting in its absence, knowing full well that in a session scheduled one day before Election Day, there was little risk that any Council member would argue forcefully for significant cuts. The BoE was right.
This means that a rare opportunity to review the BoE's expenditures with a fine toothed comb has been missed. That does not mean that others cannot go through the exercise, though. If there were a political will to heed the voters and rein in the BoE's spending, what areas could come in for more careful scrutiny?
The website of New Jersey's Department of Education contains a treasure trove of pertinent data. Here are a few figures that stand out:
- Teaneck's total comparative cost per pupil (one of two measures of total per pupil expenditures supplied) stood at $13,256 for the 2004-05 academic year, 18.7% above the state average. Among neighboring towns, Bergenfield, Bogota, Hackensack, Leonia, Ridgefield, New Milford, and Ft. Lee all manage to come in below the state average, so it is not just a function of geographic location. Paramus and Englewood also came in above the state average, but only Englewood's per pupil spending was higher than Teaneck's.
- Teaneck HS' average class size was 20.5, above the 19.2 statewide average. Englewood's was 16.1 and Paramus' was 15.4.
- Teaneck's per pupil spending on maintenance ($1,778) was 36% above the statewide average and well above that of all neighboring towns.
- Teaneck's per pupil spending on administration ($1,484) was 20% above the statewide average. In the area, only Bogota spends more per student on administration. However in recent years, steps appear to have been taken to reduce this and the number of students per administrator has risen slightly above the statewide average.
- Teaneck's per pupil spending on support ($1,773) was 3% above the statewide average, though in the area only Paramus and Englewood expended more.
- Teaneck's per pupil spending on classroom instruction stood at $8,002, 21% above the statewide average and well above all other districts in the area. The bulk of this expense was teacher salaries and benefits, as the average faculty salary was $69,137, 31.5% above the statewide average. Though Teaneck teachers were slightly more experienced than the statewide average, this does not fully account for the gaping discrepancy, as Ft. Lee's faculty members had significantly more experience than Teaneck's and still earned 5.6% less.
posted by Teaneck Blog @ 10:41 AM
19 Comments:
Just the fact that you've shined a line on these horrific numbers is a "new beginning." Journalists, are you reading? Eli Katz, are you paying attention? There are not enough revenue opportunities to cover this monster budget. Perhaps it's time you sat down with a calculator, a pencil with a good eraser, and a clearer sense of taxpaper sentiment.
Someone should tell Monica, Jackie, Rev Randall, and Langford that the voters wanted a cutin the budget. The proposed amount is laughable at best.
Thankfully, we will be rid of two of these liberals in a couple of weeks and we can be rid of the other two in two more years.
Its time for the voters who voted against unresponsible spending to stand up and request action. As long as the ultra liberals who represent this Township and Board of Education are still in power they will continue to spend our hard earned money on a failing and embarrassing school system.
well said anonymous.. this cut was an insult to those of us that came out and made it quite clear we wanted a change by defeating the budget. jackie, monica and the board of ed- keep an eye out for the nearest exit. the days of spend spend spend and spend stupidly are over.
Tuesday evening, May 16th, 7:00 pm
Special Regular Meeting of the Teaneck Township Council in the Municipal Building
On the agenda- resolution regarding the Board of Education budget
http://www.teanecknjgov.org/council/agenda.htm
On what basis did you determine that a "joint public session" is protocol? NJ has rules and procedures that are to be followed when a budget is defeated. They do not include a joint session and I don't believe such sessions have ever been held when budgets have been defeated. If you want to criticize the process, you could find out what it is first. I believe most memebrs of the council and board are willing to provide such information.
One more question. The budget was defeated by 269 votes - 1590 to 1321 - out of 23,358 registered voters. What size cut do you think would be necessary to satisfy this overwhelming mandate?
On what basis did you determine that a "joint public session" is protocol?
As you well know, this is not the first time a school budget has gone down to defeat in NJ. I say "protocol" and not "law" because while there is no statutory obligation for representatives to appear when the Council reviews the budget, it is the customary procedure. See this item http://www.ahherald.com/bodypolitic/bp010517_school_budgets.htm
Every press outlet that covered this story made the reasonable assumption that a joint session would occur and even some Council members went record saying they expected that as the next step, IIRC. So while the BoE did not do anything illegal by not participating, they weren't as helpful and accomodating as most other school boards are in these situations. The BoE deserves to be called on that.
As for your other point about the margin of defeat, it really is immaterial. Large annual increases are upheld no matter what percentage of the voters vote for them. In case of a defeat of the budget, the base case scenario ought to be a rollback of the entire year over year increase. Money that absolutely cannot be removed (guaranteed annual pay increases for faculty, etc.) can then be added back to keep the increase to the bare minimum necessary. Of course, that didn't happen here.
matter what percentage of the voters vote for them. In case of a defeat of the budget, the base case scenario ought to be a rollback of the entire year over year increase. Money that absolutely cannot be removed (guaranteed annual pay increases for faculty, etc.) can then be added back to keep the increase to the bare minimum necessary.
I'm inclined to agree with Teaneck Blog on this. I also think it would have a salutory affect on the 20 thousand or so people who didn't vote. If the results really upset them they would come out the next time. I'd be much more willing to accept higher taxes on my own home if they were widely supported within the community.
In fact, I wonder if there might be a way to enforct this concept by statute -- are referendums legal in NJ municipalities?
Actually it is quite possible that voting on school budgets will cease altogether. The feeling among many legislators in Trenton is that the votes are too costly for the low turnouts they attract. In order to raise turnout and save money, school board elections would be moved to November to take advantage of the greater interest in statewide and national elections and voting on budgets would be abandoned.
The article you cite, does not refer to "joint public sessions". If you are under the illusion that no meetings took place between council and board members you might want to check with them.
The article you cite, does not refer to "joint public sessions". If you are under the illusion that no meetings took place between council and board members you might want to check with them.
I take it I've addressed the rest of your questions satisfactorily.
"The council also plans to hold a special public meeting with the school board on May 15." -Bergen Record, April 27, 2006
http://tinyurl.com/eu2ea
A plan that was foiled by the BoE. Q.E.D.
Perhaps you are unaware that the reporter you now cite was provided this information by the council without any consultation with the board and that the board had a long standing prior commitment. You could check with a member of the board or council about this. I believe you could also get the same information from the reporter who wrote the article.
As my other question was about your opinion providing your opinion was indeed sufficient.
OK, so what you are saying is that the BoE was too busy to attend a Council meeting in which the school budget was going to be reviewed and recommendations for cuts would be drafted. I can't imagine what prior commitment took precedence over this, but apparently some people are satisfied with this excuse. It still raises questions for me. I guess we will agree to disagree over how forthcoming and helpful the BoE was in this situation.
I belive the prior commitment was the annual staff appreciation event.
I don't think anyone should be satisfied that the mayor would announce a meeting to the press without having the courtesy or competence, or both, to check with the board president first.
I don't think anyone should be satisfied that the mayor and some other council members would then try to spin this glaring lapse as a refusal by the board to entertain their "proposal," when in fact it was a pronouncement from on high.
And how much consideration was given to the Board's proposal, which was basically to follow the procedure used the last time the budget was defeated? Even in the opinion piece you cited, the writer (a councilman in some other NJ town) referred to a review by a council "finance committee," which I must assume is not a committee of the whole.
It appears you have conceded that the link you posted is not much of an authority to support your contention that the procedure the mayor/council tried to dictate is the "customary procedure." You have not yet conceded Tom Abbott's other point, sarcastically stated. The actual budget vote is hardly "immaterial" to his observation that the rhetoric about some sort of compelling "mandate" is just a wee bit overblown.
You have not yet conceded Tom Abbott's other point, sarcastically stated. The actual budget vote is hardly "immaterial" to his observation that the rhetoric about some sort of compelling "mandate" is just a wee bit overblown.
This is laughable. If a 'yes' vote by any margin ratifies the full amount of a proposed budget, a 'no' vote by any margin must be interpreted as a complete rejection of the proposed budget increase.
When the significant margin by which the 'no' vote carried is viewed in light of the past results, it makes it even more clear that this year the Teaneck electorate put its foot down and said "Enough!" You cannot shrug off the outcome of this school budget vote unless you are prepared to say that previous 'yes' votes were also not reflective of the will of the voters.
As for the BoE's prior commitments taking precedence, I remain unconvinced. If the BoE took this situation at all seriously, it would have found a way to be work hand-in-hand with the Council. It is clear from your remarks and the remarks of others that a certain disregard for the outcome of this school budget vote exists in the community. That is unfortunate. I don't know if it is sour grapes, or arrogance, or something else, but it looks bad. I have seen no compelling evidence to dissuade me from drawing the conclusion that I (and Council members) have drawn about the BoE's attitude throughout this process.
It's possible that I messed up, but I could have sworn that the identity I used in my last post wasn't just another "anonymous," but "just another anonymous."
I don’t “disregard” the outcome of the budget vote, but I do find specious your assertion that a “‘no’ vote by any margin must be interpreted as a complete rejection of the proposed budget increase.” If, for the sake of argument, the voters had been asked to vote in one percent increments from zero to the 4-point-something increase the board proposed, how many of the “no” voters do you suppose would have opted for “zero”?
“As for the BoE’s prior commitments taking precedence,” that is your issue, not mine, and I suggest you re-read my previous post. If you want to talk about arrogance, not to mention some other things, you need only look at how the mayor botched the “process.” I’m sorry, but one doesn’t announce a meeting to the media before one goes to the trouble of consulting with people one intends to meet with. I know you want to keep your eye on the ball of the budget, but you shouldn’t ignore this.
I don’t “disregard” the outcome of the budget vote, but I do find specious your assertion that a “‘no’ vote by any margin must be interpreted as a complete rejection of the proposed budget increase.” If, for the sake of argument, the voters had been asked to vote in one percent increments from zero to the 4-point-something increase the board proposed, how many of the “no” voters do you suppose would have opted for “zero”?
Think about it this way: the ballot question is posed as a simple 'yes' or 'no.' The majority voted 'no.' We have no information other than that. Is it more plausible to assume that by voting 'no,' the electorate implicitly approved an increase that was 0.64% smaller, or that the electorate has approved no increase at all?
One last observation on this topic for now- the intensity with which a number of posters have argued against assigning any blame to the BoE for the less than stellar way in which the budget review was handled only serves to strengthen the questions raised in my first posting on the subject- "it is not entirely clear whom the taxpayers of Teaneck have to blame" and "is there any accountability?"
As usual, everyone agrees that things could have been handled better, but fingers are being pointed in all different directions. I can't help but thinking that the loser in all of this is, once again, the Teaneck taxpayer.
Then there are those of us who think that it would be a diservice to the students and the town as a whole if the budget was cut in the manner you describe.
Post a Comment
<< Home