Middle School Recognized as a "High Performing/Gap Closing School" But the District is Not

Although you won't see this information anywhere on the district's website our own Monroe-Woodbury Middle School was recognized by the New York State Education Department as a High Performing/Gap Closing School under the No Child Left Behind Act!  Kudos to Joe Fraioli and all the middle school staff and faculty for this achievement.  They are doing what we taxpayers expect them to do...to provide an excellent education for our children!

The district also won't tell you that of the 47 districts recognized for this achievement that our district was glaringly absent!  Wouldn't you expect our district to be a "High Performing" district with all the tax dollars they get to do their work with?  We think so.  Unfortunately it's business as usual. 

You can see the entire list of 571 schools recognized along with the 47 districts on the NY State Education site here.  They also have a very good FAQ sheet that may answer many of your questions.  But you'll have to contact a board member to ask why our district isn't on this list!

Newsweek Publishes List of Top 1,000 High Schools

Monroe-Woodbury is NOT on the list of the nation's top 1,000 high schools according to an article published in this week's edition of Newsweek.  You can see the list one line at their website.  A few Orange County schools made the list as did about a half-dozen of the state Education Department's list of similar schools to our district.  We wonder why the Gold Standard wasn't there.  Please ask your favorite board member why?  If you would like a PDF copy of the 2005 or 2003 list please send a note to us.  We'll be glad to send you a copy.

Final Decision -- $1.17M (May 2005)

On Wednesday evening the board adopted a revised austerity budget.  According to the Times-Herald Record, Claire Perez, board president, said, "We tried as hard as possible not to impact students,"  We hope that is true.  We understand that about half of all field trips will take place.  Sports seemed to take a big hit that will affect those students.  We feel that the board made some progress in not taking it out on the kids but they didn't do enough.  We can't think of any, yes any, reason why they had to take away any of that from the kids.  But progress has been made.  We just wish the board "got it" more and better...We'll be looking hard at contracts soon.

The newspaper reported they will lease three busses when they wanted to buy 19.  What does that say about needs vs. wants?  We'll be keeping an eye on the details in future days and keep you posted here. 

It's Austerity...Again (May 2005)

According to the Times-Herald Record the Monroe-Woodbury Board of Education voted on May 25th to adopt an austerity budget.  It's unknown at this time if this was a unanimous vote.  They have to cut almost $2 million to meet state requirements.  Please continue to send your ideas to the board.  Continue to let them know that the children shouldn't even know there is an austerity budget.  One such letter already sent is here.

4.5% Raise for Top Administrators...Now That's Real Austerity

While looking over some meeting minutes something caught my attention in the June 9, 2004 meeting minutes.  I'm still not sure what it is that I'm looking at but it certainly appears to be a 4.5% annual raise for our top four administrators for this year (which ends June 30, 2005) and for the next two years after that.  It's still kind of hard to believe so here are the words cut right out of the district's meeting minutes:

Approval of Non-Contract Salaries

"With motion made by Mrs. Mulkeen and seconded by Mr. Huberth, the Board voted unanimously to approve the recommendation that the 2003-04 salaries of District non-bargaining unit personnel be increased by four and one-half percent effective with the 2004-05 school year, and that a like percentage be applied to the prior year’s salary in determining salaries for the 2005-06 and 2006-07." (Taken verbatim from the June 9, 2004 minutes.) (Emphasis added)

Let's go back on the clock to last year's budget vote that took place about three weeks before they gave this incredibly generous pay raise to the top four administrators.  In Paul Brooks' article in the May 19th, 2004 edition of the Times-Herald Record we find the following quote:

"Yesterday, Monroe-Woodbury taxpayers passed the district's $112.2 million budget, which carries a 5.7 percent tax increase, by a mere 92 votes.   Last year, voters defeated the district's proposed spending plan, which led school officials to adopt an austerity budget that still saw tax bills increase by an average of 17 percent. District officials said they got last night's message loud and clear.   "We expected it to be close," said Claire Perez, school board president, who also won re-election last night. "We do not take this vote for granted and understand that this vote represents a desire to not see programs cut but it's not a license for unnecessary expenditures."" (Emphasis added)
 

We're really confused now!  Just what loud and clear message did they "get" when three weeks later they handed out a whopping 4.5% pay raise to the four top administrators?  The Consumer Price Index (CPI) this year is 2.7%; last year it was 2.3%; the year before that it was 2.8%; and before that at 3.4%.  That's an average inflation of 2.8% yet they handed out over one and a half times inflation raises to the top administrators!  Either they know something about the economy we don't or they felt like Santa in June!  So it seems the pattern is that inflation has decreased mostly over the past four years but this board has decided to increase salaries by a significant amount!! 

See the next article to see if pay should be tied to performance.

4th and 8th Grade ELA Scores

The day after school elections the State Education Department released the results of the state wide testing for English Language Arts for the 4th and 8th grade.  There is good news and there is not so good news.  First the good news.  Monroe-Woodbury received a B- with 81.3% of students passing the 4th grade ELA test.  In the 8th grade arena Monroe-Woodbury students received a C+ with a 77.6% passing rate.  Also good news is that we were rated second place in the county in 8th grade results (behind Warwick's 83.1% grade) and one of only five out of 16 districts that passed the test.

In the 4th grade testing county wide we placed 4th with our B- score out of 15 districts that passed.  Warwick (87.5%), Cornwall (86.1%), and Greenwood Lake (83.5%), all surpassed us on this exam.

Since 1999 our 4th grade passing mark has increased by 20 points but our 8th grade mark has only gone up 10 points. 

Is it time for performance pay for our administrators, principals, and teachers? 

Is it a Contingency Budget or an Austerity Budget?

If you thought that school finances were tough enough to understand wait until you see what happens now!  It looks like about 10 districts had their budgets defeated on Tuesday.  New York law gives them a couple of options.  They can:

• Put the same budget back up for a re-vote (which Goshen did last year and they got, in the terms of a sports announcer, spanked!)
• Put a revised budget up for a new vote
• Adopt a contingent budget

Voting again is only a one time option.  If it's adopted then it's adopted.  If it's not, then a contingent budget must be adopted.  The term austerity and contingency budget are synonymous and used interchangeably.  However the law only recognizes the term contingent or contingency. 

Monroe-Woodbury has had it's budget defeated three times this century (which is only in it's fifth year!).  In all instances they adopted a contingent budget.  We've seen no indications that they have had a change of heart so we expect them to do just that.  We are pretty sure that they have already decided exactly what to cut from the proposed budget to meet the contingent amount that is set by law.  But you can act now to influence what they cut.  The cuts are not set in stone until the board meets and adopts the budget so your action is needed NOW!

According to information provided by the district the contingent budget requires cutting $1,914,284 from the proposed budget.  Exactly where those cuts come from is what the board must decide.

This is where concerned taxpayers need to step up and look out for our students and our community.  Past performance by this district has shown that the cuts they will make will hurt the children the most and the community second.  We urge all concerned taxpayers to stay with us, learn what they really can and can't do, and then you need to tell your favorite board member what you wish they do (remember they are your elected representatives.)

What's the Law Say is a Contingent Expense?

First off if it is in a contract then it's pretty much hands off.  That means all employees will get their raises and benefits.  So that should provide for a very happy workforce!  They will need to be happy because after all the contractual stuff is allocated there isn't much left to cut.  And in the past the two biggest cuts that hurt the district's innocent children were in field trip and sports transportation.  The next cut was in community support.  They charged fees for using district buildings and grounds. 

We will show you that neither of these things need to happen.  And if you contact a board member and tell them maybe, just maybe, this time they will get the message.  That message is that this huge business they run has to be run more like a business and some very tough decisions need to be made.

Let's examine some guidance that the New York State Education Department (NYSED) provides for contingent budgets.  They publish a budgeting handbook.  And more specifically they have several pages devoted to contingent budgets. 

In this document there are a couple of key sentences and paragraphs.  One such paragraph follows:

Now we could be wrong here but our interpretation of this paragraph states that they can still transport students on field trips, athletics, and other extracurricular activities to the mileage limits previously adopted (which I believe is 100 or 150 miles).  At the September 10, 2003 Board of Education meeting Mr. Collins of Monroe quoted the law and asked why field trips were cancelled.  This is what their response was: 

"In response to Mr. Collins quote of the law that field trips can continue under an austerity budget, Mrs. Perez said that he quoted the law correctly but that the law states can…not must continue. She explained that field trips alone would have cost the District $69,000 and when the Board reviewed the budget line-by-line a decision was made in an attempt to keep the taxes at a reasonable level, field trips was one of the items cut, with the exception of the fifth grade trip made to the Challenger and this is for curriculum purposes. She added that no trips will be made beyond a 100-mile radius for athletics, Odyssey of the Mind, competition, music, etc will not transport out of state." (This quote is taken from the BOE minutes for Sep 10, 2003.)

During that contingent budget they cut out $69,000 so the district children couldn't have a field trip in the name of saving taxpayers money.  This cost is so small in such a large budget that that thought is almost unbelievable!  Factoring in the 6.6% CPI since then the trips this year should cost about $73,554.  Just a quick look at the budget for the school principals (all of which will receive their six figure salary and benefits) reveals that $23,994 was budgeted for; dues and publs; travel allowance; conferences and meetings; and other misc exp!  We don't think any of that is under contract (if so let's see it) and all of it can go toward our district's children's field trips.  Budget item #8100 is Conferences and Meetings.  That total is $29,163 (and is not the same as the principals item above.) which brings us to needing just $20,397 to find to give the children their trips!  Contact your favorite board member and tell them to make the administration look hard and long to find these funds and not punish the children.

Getting Our Money's Worth From the Big Guns

If you don't know this you should.  Board of Education members work for free!  That's right.  Now we're sure each of them has their agenda and they are probably getting their just rewards otherwise why would they want to run this district.  But our administrators are another story.  They are the professionals we pay to run this district on a day to day basis.  Our district superintendent's total compensation package is just over $200K.  He, along with four assistant superintendents, and all the principals, and directors of transportation, buildings and grounds, and pupil services among others are paid quite well.  We do have a certain expectation of results for they pay they get.  All in all these folks rake in more than $1 million in salary and benefits. 

If it took us six minutes to find 2/3 of the money needed to send the kids on their trips imagine what all those big guns can do over the course of the next few days!  They will do whatever this board tells them to do.  If the board tells them to transport the children to their field trips and sporting events I'm very confident that they will find the money to do it.  There are other items besides these that our district children get short changed on during a contingent budget.  The parents and board members know what those are.  We hope that they tell the administration to do the right thing.  Your support to the board is required for this to happen.

Community Support

We have a lot of community groups who use school facilities for a variety of reasons.  There are church groups and soccer clubs.  The list goes on and on.  In the past some of these community groups have made donations in-kind to the school district.  I suspect it was in appreciation for letting them use buildings and fields.  Some of this must change during a contingency budget.  The budget handbook has this to say about outside organizations using district proprty:

There can be lots of interpretation here.  For instance, "no identifiable expense to the taxpayers" means just that.  Our fields are cared for on a regular basis.  If a soccer club uses a field one could interpret that an expense associated with that use is not easily identified.  So why try?  If an organization uses a school building when custodial staff or others are there anyway why try to put a cost on it?  At worst we think that the district should (could) charge $1 for all such use.  Other districts have done just that to keep community organizations alive and well.  We think this district should too.  Additionally, the handbook does not state when the "donations" are to have been made.  If a soccer club paid to have a parking lot built and donated that lot to the district shouldn't the district now recognize that and charge them a $1 token fee for use?  We think so.  Let a board member know.

Some Areas to Look for Savings

While following the school boards actions or inactions over the years some real world savings areas that haven't been looked at should.  Although the budget has been defeated several times this decade already the board and administration still don't get that they need to make fundamental changes in running this business.

In our letter to the board last June we gave them several ways to reduce costs.  One of those cost saving measures would have trimmed $1.2M then and may trim just more than that this year.  They had a year to do something about it and it appears that they did nothing.  An examination of board minutes does not reflect one word about this measure.  Now might be a good time to contact them and tell them to get on with the business of running this district more efficiently. 

Change the districts health care provider now!  Currently the district is self-insured through and Orange-Ulster BOCES health insurance plan.  Changing that plan to the Empire Plan -- Core Plus which is the CSEA's own plan based out of Albany, would reduce our health insurance costs by at least $1,359,941 this year alone!  Although changing insurance providers is covered in each union's contract it is something which CAN be changed if the board has the will to do so.  Please contact a board member and let them know your thoughts.  Not only did we advise the district of this huge savings but the State Comptroller issued guidelines detailing ways to reduce these costs.

Usually in June a number of employees retire or otherwise leave the district.  The district needs to look very closely at hiring replacements for these employees.  Over the past few years you will find little or no evidence in any board meeting minutes that the board has directed the administration to look at positions closely and report back that each department or section is staffed as efficiently as possible.  The state comptroller has issued guidelines concerning custodial staffing levels.  They provide specific and measurable standards.  Urge the board to apply these guidelines and adjust now when attrition is occurring.  This will not eliminate jobs (which CAN be done during a contingent budget.) as these folks will be leaving anyway.  Not hiring replacements and making organizations more efficient has been done in business for years.  Our district is no different.

 Lastly our analysis shows that this districts spending per pupil in certain areas exceeds all other large districts in Orange County.  Sometimes this excess is quite large and needs to be looked at very closely.  You can see that "Operations and Maintenance" is quite a bit higher in dollars per student as well as a percentage of the budget when compared with our surrounding districts.  In some cases it's almost double in percentage of budget than most other districts!  Since these are neighboring districts their expenses (or cost of goods and services) are very close to ours.  Our large district should be half what their costs are because we should be getting better volume discounts.  We are doing less with more compared to them.   Our "Transportation" expense is also higher than other districts. We're buying the same fuel they are...why are we so expensive?  These two areas are all affected by the local economy as they are our neighbors.  The difference shouldn't be so great.  Tell a board member that these two areas are where the administration needs to make the required contingent cuts.  Tell them to be more business like. 

Fiscal Performance and Academic Performance...
Where do we stand today?

The chart below depicts six indicators from recent years.  The data, provided by the school district, shows some very interesting facts.  Let's take a detailed look at the figures behind the chart.

One of the chanting mantra's at school board meetings is "explosive growth" so in our chart we can see that in School Year (SY) 01-02 that student enrollment grew by 2.24% over the previous year, then by 2.61% into SY 02-03, and then by 1.27% into SY 03-04.  That's a three year total of 6.24% of "explosive growth."

Next we can look at the CPI (Consumer Price Increase), that amount that our economy grew by.  (Note that many public employee groups have their annual raises tied to the CPI but not in Monroe-Woodbury.)  So for the same time period we see the CPI at 3.4% for SY01-02; then 2.8% in SY 02-03; then by 1.6% for SY 03-04; totaling 7.8% for the three years.

Notice that student growth is fairly steady and not so explosive at all.  And our economy grew also steadily in the low single digits.  Now let's look at the tax increases.

Note that these figures are for the Town of Monroe...the other four town's will be slightly different but similar.  Going into SY 01-02 Monroe taxpayers saw a 7.68% increase; then by 14.76% into SY 02-03; then by 16.68% into SY 03-04; totaling a whopping 47.64%!!  That's right, an almost 50% tax increase in just three short years.

Possibly, quite possibly, the next three data elements might explain why we paid such an exorbitant increase. 

A new hire teacher into the district would receive 3.09% annual salary increase coming into SY 01-02; then and 8.89% increase into SY 02-03; and then 8.72% increase into SY 03-04!  That totals up to a 22.15% salary increase just for being an employee!  All the while the CPI rose a mere 7.8%!!

An established teacher with a Masters Degree who has worked here six years would get the same 3.09% going into SY 01-02; then a 5.63% increase into SY 02-03; and a 5.68% increase into SY 03-04.  This totals out at 15.08% increase in three years!

Our last data element is for a teacher with a Ph.D. who has been with the district about 10 years.  The same 3.09% raise going into SY01-02; then 5.3% into SY 02-03; and then a full 12% increase going into SY 03-04 for a grand total of 21.59% salary increase in three years!

Some notes on the salary figures:  The initial 3.09% first year is our conservative estimate as previous salary charts were not available.  That actual figure is probably higher in reality.  Also, these three hypothetical employees did not contribute any money towards their medical benefits.  That money (up to $14K) is NOT figured into these numbers.  If you want to see the actual salaries used for this chart you can view them here.

How much did you get during those three years?

Proposition #2 -- The bus vote

Since there is very little on the district's web site regarding this proposition we will give you some information to help make an informed decision.  This proposition calls for spending $1,791,000 to buy 19 new busses.  Let's do the math...that's $94,263 per bus.  The proposition doesn't stipulate that these busses are special in anyway like with handicap access so we assume they are normal school busses we see everyday. 

One of our Concerned Taxpayers asked, "How much do other districts spend on busses?"  We thought that was a good question.  We checked the propositions at other districts and found that not only do we buy the most expensive busses in the tri-county area, but that not many districts buy busses every year.  Let's take a look.

In Ulster County the Highland district is buying four busses for $280,000 (two large and two smaller busses) at $70,000 each.  Only one district out of six is buying busses.  In Sullivan County one district, Eldred, out of eight, is buying busses.  They will pay an average of $55,825 for them.  To be fair one is a 60+ passenger model and the other is only nine passengers.

In Orange County, four of 16 school districts are buying busses.  In Goshen, they want to spend $777,224 to buy six large busses, two wheelchair accessible busses, two 20 passenger vans and a service truck.  That works out to $70,656 per vehicle.  At Port Jervis they want to buy five busses for $431,750 or $86,350 per bus.  Washingtonville is proposing buying 13 busses and a vehicle lift for $747,162 which works out to $57,474 per vehicle (including the lift).  And we've already detailed that Monroe-Woodbury, the Orange County Gold Standard as some have called it, is spending the most money per bus of six districts of 32 in the tri-county area. 

The Gold Standard indeed. 

Monroe-Woodbury has long thought about spending our money in ways that make you think we are made out of gold!  At the February 2nd board meeting where this bus proposition first appeared.  The district transportation director expressed his desire to return to a 12 year bus replacement cycle instead of the current 14/15 year one.    He also talked about the need for a new bus barn for bus parking.  Two years ago the board put that proposal to the voters who rightfully voted it down.  Although that idea didn't go anywhere in February neither did it die.  Not one board member is on record of questioning the reason or total cost for such a folly.  Not one.  The past reason given was to reduce the number of busses that didn't start on cold winter mornings.  Could that still be the reason why the director wants to spend our money so foolishly?  Not one board member asked:

• How much will it cost to heat this barn each year for the next five years?
• How much will it cost to light this barn each year for the next five years?
• How many busses did not start this and last winter due to the cold?
• Are they the same busses each and every time?
• How much does it cost to maintain a bus for two to three additional years?
• How do other districts deal with the cold start problem?
• Now that strobe lights have been on for a couple of years, what is the accident rate?  Has it gone up or down?
• Other districts contract transportation.  Why not get some bids and see if we are being efficient or can do it better and cheaper by contracting?

We called a similar district in the North Country, Saratoga County.  At the Shenendehowa CSD they have 194 busses.  They operate on a 14/15 year cycle and when asked if they had a problem with bus starting in the winter they women laughed at us!  "No, of course not," she said, "they all start."  Then we asked how many were kept inside...again the laughter came.  None!  They only have a maintenance garage.  All busses stay outside all year long.

School Board Candidates

This year three incumbent candidates are running for reelection to the school board.  Because of their lack of looking out for our tax dollars we recommend not voting for any of the candidates.  Especially since they are running unopposed they merely have to vote for themselves and they are reelected.  We ask that you send a loud and clear message and do not vote for any school board candidates.  We do ask that you continue to ask them what they are doing to use our money wisely.

Recent Teacher/Teachers Aide Contract Signed

The Times-Herald Record reported last week that a contract with the teacher's union had been signed.  According to the paper we can glean some ideas out of the article based on past contracts.  We will be obtaining the contract via the Freedom of Information Law to examine it in detail.  We hope to report on that in the coming weeks.

Mr. Moscati stated that there was a 4.75% total salary package increase each year for the three year contract.  We wish we could see the contract before Tuesday because this contract really will show just how much concern for the taxpayer this current administration and board have.  The last contract, which we detailed some of the annual raises below, we were told by senior administrators and some board members that it represented only a 3% increase!!  As the article below shows this is clearly not the case.  The last contract had a 3% increase from one year's pay table to the next.  But these employees get a step increase every year.  This combination resulted in some employees getting more than a 12% increase over their previous years salary...and all for just coming to work!

If the 4.75% yearly increase is from pay table to pay table as it has been in previous contracts we suspect that next year's budget will be another double digit increase just as we had during some of the past five or six years.  We hope that what Mr. Moscati meant was that the greatest annual salary increase for any of these employees is 4.75%.  We will give him the benefit of the doubt for now. 

The article stated that these employees will, for the first time, make a contribution to their health insurance.  This is good news.  Last June we wrote a letter to our board and recommended some very specific changes be made.  This change was one of them.  Thanks to all the concerned taxpayers who contacted a board member and told them to do the right thing.  Again, without seeing the contract, we can only make some broad assumptions.  The figures presented in the article would indicate that these employees will contribute about 5% of the total premium.  In our letter we recommended that teachers aides to pay 5% with no cap.  It seems that has happened and we're appreciative of that.  We recommended that teacher pay 10% with no cap.  That clearly has not happened.  Although some payment is a step in the right direction we feel somewhat slighted.  Especially since the districts health care plan was shown to be the second most expensive of 20 plans we looked at.  No change was done here. 

We Make Some Specific Recommendations to the Board

On June 9th we delivered to the board our letter of specific recommendations that comprised much of what you told us.  Our letter was longer than we desired, but then again, fiscally, there's lots of room for improvement here!  Thanks to you we were able to come up with the following recommendations:  (These are brief summaries, see the letter for details.)

1. No district provided vehicles to any employees.  Simple, not much savings in current dollars, but huge savings in potential liability due to a lawsuit after said employee is involved in an accident (regardless of fault) and the district gets sued. 
2. Change the health care provider.  Changing to another plan could save the district millions!  One specific plan, the Empire Plan, used by many thousands of CSEA employees in the state will save us over $1.2M the first year!!  Of 20 plans you told us about only three were more expensive than our districts current plan!
3. Bring employee contributions to that health plan more in line with the rest of the world in which we live.  The "vast number" of school districts now require employees to make a contribution.  Our recommendation provides for the least contribution by lower paid employees and those making six figure salaries make a bigger contribution...fair. eh?!  We think so.  Many of you think we didn't go far enough.  Remember that Rome wasn't built in a day!
4. Tie annual raises to the actual cost of living (inflation rate), stop giving 25% raises from one year to the next, and even out the pay charts by extending them as other districts do or make step increases longer than annually.  Most districts we contacted have 22 to 29 step pay tables.  The federal government has only 10 steps but take 18 years to get to the top step.  Annual pay tables need to be tied to the actual inflation rate. 
5. Institute a viable and rewarding employee incentive program.  Let the employees who are closest to the work make recommendations to do it cheaper and get a portion of the savings.

Well, that's it.  There were more suggestions but we limited our first recommendation to these few areas.  The potential savings the first year could be as much as $1.5M or more.  Over the long run the savings will be greater, especially if no grandfather clauses are written into contracts to keep the perks on rolling.

We urge you to contact your favorite board member and tell them how strongly you feel about these areas.  Let them know someone is watching out for the taxpayer around here.  Let them know that we demand fiscal integrity and restraint.  Note that any $1,000,000 saved will translate into approximately 1% less tax!!

Many of you made other suggestions.  We are taking a look at all of them.  Some of them are quite complex.  Some maybe too innovative for this district.  We hope to present more at some future date.  In the mean time let your favorite board member know what you want them to do with these suggestions!

What will the 5.7% Tax Increase Really Mean?

Tuxedo and Blooming Grove taxpayers will welcome the September tax bill while Monroe and Chester taxpayers see a small increase, but Woodbury taxpayers will carry the burden this year.

Due to the complex way that New York has school districts compute and assesses taxes each community in a district pays a different rate that is reflected above.  These percentages are what we think (remember we are just looking at data and making some educated guesses) the difference from last September's tax bill will be.  The STAR program does not enter into these simple equations because you are taking your total school tax bill from last year and applying the above percentages to it.  The STAR exemption is already included.  If you want to know more about STAR please go to the state site here.

To understand the equalization rate go to the state site here.  Note that the Town of Monroe has filed a complaint with the state on it's equalization rate.  We believe that one of the reasons for that protest is that Monroe has historically provided more tax funding for the Monroe-Woodbury school district than the other four communities.  If you want to view your town's rates for school tax purposes please visit this state site.

One of our members has asked the school district several times to post a school tax calculator on the districts web site.  His requests have fallen on deaf ears.  In the near future we hope to publish just such a calculator so that you may see what your tax bite will be so you can plan for the coming year.  Our tax burden is significant and we deserver time to put our priorities in order to meet our tax obligations.  Keep coming back and the calculator should appear within a week or so.  We've done the math with the above information so you don't have to.  Another service of the Concerned Taxpayers of Monroe Woodbury.

What's the Law Say about Contingency Budgets?

You can see for yourself what the law requires in a contingency budget at the state's web site with their Budgeting Handbook.  This page, written in 1967, shows item #6 as not a contingent expense until you see the asterisk which shows that in 1997 the law was changed that allows our school boards to truly do things for the children.  Some boards truly work very hard to ensure that a contingency budget is transparent to the children.  We applaud those districts wherever they are for doing the hard work to take care of our children.  It shouldn't hurt to be a child.  We looked it up so you don't have to.

We Compare Teacher's Contracts

Contract negotiations are currently on-going as the Monroe-Woodbury Teachers Contract will expire this June 30th.  We've previously taken a look at some portions of the current contact.  Now, one of our members has taken a close look at a contract from, what we consider, a similar school district.  Finding a similar school district was not easy.  What we looked for was a district, in New York, of course, that had a similar sized pupil population, had a budget within 10 to 15% of ours, and whose students achieve similar scores.  We chose Shenendehowa Central School District.  Located in upstate, just North of Albany, in Clifton Park.  We feel that our biggest objection is that it is located in a much lower cost of living area.  Although it is somewhat cheaper to live in that area it is not a significant difference.  For instance, we currently pay the same sales tax in both counties, except that our tax in Orange county will be going up soon.  Gas and oil prices are also very similar.  We don't think you will find an exact match...if you do, please contact us immediately and we will make that comparison.  Read on to see what we found out between the two contracts.  Go to the next page here.

Are we getting the most bang for our buck?

On April 7th, the Times-Herald Record newspaper reported on Regents Diploma graduation rates throughout Orange, Sullivan, and Ulster counties. (NOTE: The on-line article does not include the chart that was in the printed paper.)  On April 14th, at the Board of Education meeting, Dr. Louis Ciota, mentioned the article, and noted that of all the schools in the tri-county area that only Cornwall did better than Monroe-Woodbury. He noted that Monroe-Woodbury has always led the tri-county schools in performance but mentioned that Cornwall, who did better than we this year, was a smaller district than ours.

Monroe-Woodbury has gone up the last three years. But has it given us a good buy for our money? When taking a look at these figures in a different, more rational way we can see that our district is, really, just pretty average. And the average performance has come at a cost...a cost to you and I as the taxpayers who fund this district. Read on to see the results of our analysis. You will be able to look at the data yourself and determine for yourself if you're getting the most bang for your buck.

While thinking about this it occurred to us that the geographical comparison that the newspaper did may not truly reveal just how our district was doing compared with similar districts. Fortunately the New York State Education Department also thinks comparing similar schools is a good idea. You can view the state's description of similar schools and see the list of some 80 districts that really are what we should be comparing ourselves to.

Our district falls into similar group #49 which comprises secondary schools with an average need and resource capacity. There are 80 school districts in this group. They are located all across NY except that no NY City schools are included. There are schools in this group in Orange County, Dutchess County, Westchester County, and two counties on Long Island. In other words, some districts face similar or higher expenses or cost of living areas.  They truly are in similar economic situations as us.  Some others are not.

Three years ago, in school year 2000-2001, Monroe-Woodbury was just plain average in our similar schools group. That's right, our 65.93% Regents Diploma graduation rate is just 3/10ths higher than the 80 districts average! The following school year, 2001-2002, we fell below the group average of 70.71% to 68.13%!!

We did rebound for the last year, SY 2002-2003, with a 74.88% Regents Diploma graduation rate.  We beat the 80 school's group average of 71.01%. But our increases have come at a cost. We aren't getting the bang for our buck that other districts are getting.

In our analysis we looked at the cost per pupil that NY state calculates for each district. Although Superintendent Olivo likes to show a chart at board meetings that we are just average in cost.  This is a chart by the Mid-Hudson School Study Council. We're not sure who they are or how they compare costs.  The $13,000+ per pupil costs in the chart is anybody's guess.  The cost per pupil we used is computed exactly the same for every school district in New York state.  It is, in our opinion, a better gauge, and more standard than what he has typically shown.  As for being average in costs?  He may not be too far off. NY's education department agrees with him because our pupil cost of $12,324 is very close to the NY state average of $12,265. That is the good news. We are average.

The real story comes when we look at those districts that did better than us in producing Regents Diploma graduates. Almost all districts that did better than us did it cheaper than us!!  That's right, 26 districts that performed better than us did so at a lower cost per pupil!! Only three districts that did better than us had higher costs than us. Of the districts that outperformed us, at less cost, some were in Orange County and Dutchess County. Nassau County and Suffolk County had schools whose costs were less than ours, but they didn't do as good as us. These counties have cost of living rates the same or higher than us!!  The table shows districts with higher costs per pupil than ours in RED.  All the districts in red that had higher costs than us did worse than us except the three mentioned above.  This translates into higher costs do not mean better performance!  Maybe we should ask the board to consider performance pay for administrators. 

If lots of other districts can outperform us at less cost, including those districts in high cost areas, why can't we?  That might be a good question to ask a board member!
 

You can always find previous Home Page Articles here.  And you can always find all our articles on the Table of Contents page.

State Comptroller Issues First of a Series of Reports

"We believe that prompt action by District officials will help improve the District’s financial condition."  This is but one sentence in a letter written by Assistant Comptroller Steven J. Hancox of the NY State Comptroller's Office in a recent letter to the Monroe-Woodbury Board of Education.  The NY State Comptroller is required by Chapter 158 of the Laws of 2003 (the law enacted that allows the district to issue the $6M bail out bond without voter approval) to perform certain examinations of the districts financial activities for the life of the bond (for 10 years). On April 12th, Assistant Comptroller Steven J. Hancox issued one of the first letters to Superintendent Olivo and Members of the Board of Education regarding their proposed 2004-2005 budget that will be adopted tomorrow night. 

The State Comptroller's Office also recognizes the importance of open government access.  The letter further states that "...the Board of Education should prepare a plan of action that addresses the recommendations in this report..." and that they (the BOE) "...make this plan available for public review in the Clerk’s office."  One of the comptroller's concerns is using $2M of this year's austerity budget money to pay for some of the proposed $112M budget of next year.  Read the letter to see for yourself what they recommend.  If the district follows the recommendation it seems that the $2M must come from somewhere else...probably our property taxes! 

Mr. Hancox found that the district's tentative budget to be "reasonable" and "structurally balanced."  This is good news.  This type of good news is very welcome indeed.  We hope that the administration and the board will take Mr. Hancox's recommendations to heart and implement changes to fine tune the budget process.  Additionally we hope that the district will become even more open with regards to this budget of taxpayer money and become better stewards of taking care of our hard earned dollars.

BOE and Administration Seemingly Ignore Comptroller's Recommendation

Last month the New York State Comptroller issued a letter to the district that recommended "We recommend that the Board of Education reconsider the amount of fund balance being appropriated in the 2004-2005 budget. In addition, District officials should closely monitor 2004-2005 operations to ensure that immediate action is taken, if necessary, to prevent negative variances from creating a fund deficit."

As far as we can tell the board has ignored this recommendation and decided to proceed with the superintendents recommended budget as he presented it.  The board, a public body, has not, to the best of our knowledge, publicly discussed or otherwise debated the comptrollers recommendation.  We know of no public vote by board members to either accept or reject the comptrollers recommendation. We find that this type of action or inaction as the case may be runs contrary to how a publicly elected board is supposed to operate. 

If the board did publicly discuss and by majority vote (isn't that how things work in a democracy?) decided to reject the comptrollers recommendation they would put our district into a financial position that could cause us a deficit, like the last three years where we lost $2M per year and though a special law that allowed the district to float a bond for $5.77M that we taxpayers have to pay back over the next ten years.  Or that phantom majority vote could decide to accept the comptrollers recommendation, which would mean that our tax impact would be higher than the 5.7% the superintendent briefed on April 14th.  In either case the decision to accept or reject is a difficult decision that it seems our board has decided to just ignore.  And in a democracy we the people should let our board members know just what we think of that.  Mr. Olivo stated at the April 14th meeting that he looked on the comptroller as an additional resource and that it was a good thing...then they promptly ignored it.

You can read our original article about the comptrollers letter here.

April 14th Budget Decision

On Wednesday, April 14th, the Board of Education adopted the budget as recommended without any modification.  Both propositions, the first, the districts $112M budget and the second, the $2.1M bus bond, will be put up for vote on May 18th.  The expected tax increase will be 5.7% as reported at the meeting.

NY State Has Released School Report Cards -- Lets Examine How M-W Is Doing

New York's Education Department has released the latest school report cards.  You can find their general information here.  And specific Monroe-Woodbury Central School District information here.  The Times-Herald Record published an in-depth look at all districts in Orange, Sullivan, and Ulster counties.  Check out the article and the actual report cards to see how your tax dollars are working in this district.

Some Of The Things We've Looked At

Please see this page for items which we have an interest in.  We have attended all budget meetings held so far.  We have also examined several employee contracts.  The personnel portion of the budget is what consumes most of this $100 million budget.  See what we found out.  Many of you had questions at the September and subsequent BOE meetings.  We have additional information that might be of interest to you. 

When is a Mandate Unfunded?

The Constitution of the State of New York in Article XI states:  "The legislature shall provide for the maintenance and support of a system of free common schools, wherein all the children of this state may be educated."  That's it.  That's all of it. 

Unfunded mandates.  It's a popular phrase.  In the January 29th, 2003 Board of Education meeting minutes it states:  "Dr. Gold requested a list of unfunded mandates."  At the May 14th, 2003 board meeting the minutes reflect:  "Dr. Gold thanked central office for the list of unfunded mandates and recommended the list be made available to the community."  So if it took a couple of months for a board member to be provided with this list it takes years for mere taxpayers to get to see it!  We're still waiting!  Evidently Dr. Gold's recommendation fell on deaf ears.  We wonder why?  Was it because the list is so short?  Too long?  Too complicated for mere mortals to comprehend?  We don't know and neither do you.

In 2002 our state legislature passed a law requiring school districts to have on hand defibrillator equipment.  This is something which some folks might consider an "unfunded mandate."  It clearly doesn't fit into the constitutional requirement and the law doesn't say how districts will pay for this.  Fair enough.  Although my recollection is a bit fuzzy I seem to recall two figures that were bantered around at board meetings but I can't find anything in the minutes.  Those figures were $300,000 or $150,000.  Now at a cost of $2K to $5K (depending upon who you ask) that adds up to anywhere from 30 to 150 Automatic External Defibrillator (AED) devices (not including training.)  As you can see the law requires one per building.  Certainly 30 would have been enough...and we really have no idea.  But according to a report in the Times-Herald Record  (September 13, 2002) state Senator Bill Larkin gave districts $420,000 to buy them.  The article states a cost of about $2K for each.  So does this now make it a "funded" mandate? 

Our district has an ice hockey team.  Yes, that's right, an ice hockey team.  A team that went as far away as Albany and Troy to play other teams!  It too doesn't seem to fit into the constitutional requirement.  So is it an "unfunded mandate"?  Certainly looking at the various State aids we get ice hockey isn't specified.  Nor is it in any laws I searched for.  It must not be "unfunded" because they went all over the place playing and someone had to pay for it.  I guess you could say likewise for the Ski team and let's not forget about music or art activities too.  Along with so many other activities that aren't covered in either the constitutional requirement or in laws. 

These activities and requirements are all paid for with tax dollars.  Albany will be sending us about $34M in aid for next year.  Some of that money is earmarked, you know, specified for specific things like textbooks or computers.  Some of it is not.  Sometimes it's called the color of money.  This money can't be used for that because it was intended for this or that.  Of the $87.8M in property tax money that we will give the district NONE of it is earmarked for anything.  That's right the board can spend it on what ever they see fit.  So if the board says that ice hockey is needed they spend the money on it.  If they say AEDs are unfunded and whine that it's not being paid for then I guess they have to make some hard decisions.  It's all a matter of making choices.  "...wherein all the children of this state may be educated."

The flip side of this is that if Albany has to tell us how to spend all the money they give us then what will we do?  So be careful what you ask for.  If the board and administration want to complain about unfunded stuff they may get their wish and Albany will start putting conditions on every dollar they send to us.  So let us know when a mandate is unfunded!  Is that what we want? 

The Power of Compound Interest

The school district has tried to make this budget look reasonable.  The illustration I saw, handed to me at the pool, was that this tax increase would equate to a $3/week increase for a current tax bill of $8000.  Well, that all sounds good, assuming you can give up your morning double latte at least once per week. However, the district does not want you to understand the power of compound interest.  Here is a simple, but effective, tool for understanding how interest rates affect your money; it is called the Rule of 72.  Simply put, if you take a compound percentage rate increase and divide it into 72, the answer you get is how many years it will take for your money to double.

For example, if you invest $1000 with a bank that will give you 8% interest on your money, in 9 years you will have $2000 (72 / 8 = 9).  If the bank will give you 7% interest, you will have $2000 in (72 / 7) a little more than 10 years.  For a 6% compound interest, your money will double in 12 years.  The district wants you to believe that a 7% increase in the budget is not bad.  Would you imagine that within 11 years, at an increase of 7% per year, the school budget we will be voting on will be over $236 Million, double last year's budget!  Now, even if the impact on you is only 5% (the district asserts that the tax levy increase will probably be just under 5%) your tax bill will double (at 5% per year) in just over 14 years.

Hopefully, we will all be getting raises at work over those next 14 years.  I doubt they will be as generous as the average salary increases of those teachers who are not already beyond step 14, over 6% per year.  Until the district is willing to cut cost increases in the area that comprises over 60% of the budget, that is staff compensation, annual tax increases will continue to take a bite out of your earning power.

Send mail to webmaster@ctmw.org with questions or comments about this web site.
Last modified: 10/21/07