Back-to-School Bashing

Here are some of the latest school factoids you may have missed while reading the local news. The school board has approved a $1.5 million budget increase for the upcoming year. Sadly, Superintendent Healy neglects to mention how even a dime of that extra money will be spent or why last year’s $61.8 million budget wasn’t enough.

 Normally, you’d be able to review the district’s “User Friendly” budget to view the line item increases but a funny thing happened along the way. According to last year’s budget (and the superintendent’s budget presentation), the 2011-12 budget was $61.8 million. However, according to the 2012-13 budget, last year’s $61.8 million ballooned into $64.1 million.
>>> Read more!

A Lesson in Bureacratese

Let’s take the following hypothetical from a board member’s perspective.

The state awards your school district nearly $600,000, no strings attached. Your superintendent insists the school district spend the money “for the children”. Yet, you’re reluctant. Your district is being ravaged by high unemployment and a wave of foreclosures. Your district is among the highest taxed in the county and, even discounting the windfall, the district has already increased spending by 4%.

The superintendent sees your reluctance and quickly outlines a plan for spending the money. Over a $100,000 will be spent on books. For the children. Who can be opposed to books? And, to make it more palatable, he insists it’s a can’t fail, “research-based” program to create classroom libraries.

You’re wondering why, if it’s such a sure thing, isn’t everybody doing it? And how does sticking books in a room really improve language arts scores? And why isn’t this concept, that’s “research-based”, listed in the federal Department of Education’s What Works Clearinghouse?
>>> Read more!

When the School Budget Gets Defeated Again

There’s obviously some kind of disconnect between the school board and voters in the school district. For the past decade, the townsfolk have been crying No Mas! No Mas! Yet, with the exception of one year, the school board keeps voting to raise taxes.

This year, they’re understandably in a bind, having to transition between administrations, but you can already tell how they’re planning to deal with the next budget defeat.

I remember a school board meeting in May, 2008. The budget had just been defeated and Dr. O’Malley, new to the position, was explaining how they were cutting the budget. The big ticket item was replacing the roof at Cambridge Park. I asked Dr. O’Malley if the “spending cut” was going to cost the district more money since the roof would still need replacement plus immediate maintenance. When he was slow to answer, I said, “It’s okay to say ‘yes’."

Well, guess what’s back on the budget and sure enough the price has gone up 21% since 2008 – Roof Replacement, Cambridge Park, $454,485

Expect that item to be the first thing to go overboard when the budget fails. The roof is about 40 years old and does need to be replaced but I suspect they’ll wait until they finish their ADA obligations and then use a “payment plan” for the roof like they did for the football field.

As usual, employees provide the bulk of the expense. Despite all the agonizing cries of yesteryear when Dr. O’Malley slashed the employee rolls, I’ve not heard any stories of the district collapsing. (I did inquire regarding the stories of violence and there does seem to have been a temporary upsurge but that appears to have been quelled.)

I believe we can cut still more. Outsource where you can and transition some non-core programs to after-school programs. Right there is over half a million dollars. There’s a couple hundred thousand more by allowing class sizes to rise to twenty children. From there, we need to “convince” certain employees to retire and then eliminate those positions. That would be another half million. In the high school, we can offer some students to swap their first class for an online class and give them a late start.

After that, we need to bend the cost curve. As the budget shows, in a single year without any major layoffs, "Personal Services - Employee Benefits" is up 10.5%. As those benefits keep skyrocketing, the school district will have no choice but to keep firing personnel.

And the only place to bend the cost curve is in contract negotiations.

One thing to beware in contract negotiations is retroactive pay increases. For example, let’s say the board awards a 3% pay increase with no retroactive pay. School boards tend to promote the teachers are only getting a “1%” increase because that’s the hit to the current budget but the 3% increase creates a new baseline that lasts forever.

Another gotcha is abuse of the salary guide – teachers garnering $9,500 pay increases for worthless degrees that do nothing for the students.

Then there is the endless number of past practices agreed to by prior administrations. No superintendent could possibly know all the past practices but the union does, with written proof going back decades. Any contract that doesn’t address past practices is an invitation for more union abuses.

Finally, I would ask the board to make one more change. Do not sign any contract before a non-binding resolution has been voted upon by the district residents. Before the school board votes upon a contract, allow the community to have their say. After all, it’s the residents who’ll be paying for it. >>> Read more!

Making Goals Mean Something

About a year and a half ago, the Matawan-Aberdeen school board had agreed upon three goals:

• Grade level reading/writing proficiency for all students
• Among a pre-selected group of twenty-five school districts, ours rank among the top fifteen on all state assessment exams
• The district would not raise taxes above 2% in any year

Since that time, we haven’t heard much, if any, discussion related to those three goals. That’s a mistake. Like the mission/vision statement, those goals should be a constant focus of the school board.

In the meantime, how are we doing?

Reading/Writing Proficiency
I think it’s a mistake to use the state exam as a standard. Proficiency should not be defined as knowing half the material nor should we rely upon the state to set consistent standards.

Still, considering the resources being used to train our students to pass the state exams (curriculum rewrites, professional training, consultants, etc.), it’s certainly fair to ask how we did.

Here are the results. Don’t get too excited by the 11th grade LAL. The state dumbed down the exam resulting in a big jump across the state. That’s why school ranking is a better indicator of performance than year-over-year score improvement.

	09-10	08-09	Change
3rd LAL TP	78.4	70	8.4
4th LAL TP	64.8	69.2	-4.4
5th LAL TP	65.5	69.2	-3.7
6th LAL TP	73.5	74.3	-0.8
7th LAL TP	77.1	77.8	-0.7
8th LAL TP	88.9	89.2	-0.3
11th LAL TP	90.5	86.9	3.6

Top 15 Ranking
The school board selected 25 districts in the GH district factor group (one above Matawan-Aberdeen) and set a goal to rank among the top 15 in both total proficiency and advanced proficiency for each state exam.

Click here for the full report on the Top 15 ranking.

As seen in the chart below, Matawan-Aberdeen’s Top 15 ranking increased from 8 to 12 categories out of 32, including all 3rd grade categories. On the downside, the district finished dead last in 11th grade math. More on that to come.

	Rank	Percent	Goal	Above/Below	1-Yr Change
3rd LAL AP	19	7.6	7.6	0.00	2.6
3rd LAL TP	3	78.4	68.9	9.50	10.1
3rd Math AP	13	53.2	47.2	6.00	3.8
3rd Math TP	9	90.7	88.1	2.60	0.2
4th LAL AP	11	12.1	12.1	0.00	3.3
4th LAL TP	18	64.8	71.7	-6.90	-9.2
4th Math AP	14	39.8	42.7	-2.90	-3
4th Math TP	15	81.5	86.5	-5.00	-6
4th Sci AP	18	53	51.6	1.40	3.6
4th Sci TP	23	95	96.9	-1.90	-1.3
5th LAL AP	19	8.9	10.9	-2.00	4.7
5th LAL TP	25	65.5	71.6	-6.10	-4.6
5th Math AP	18	48.7	44.6	4.10	7.4
5th Math TP	19	83.6	87	-3.40	-0.4
6th LAL AP	18	8.7	9.4	-0.70	5.3
6th LAL TP	22	73.5	76.2	-2.70	-1.5
6th Math AP	18	30.9	28.8	2.10	5.5
6th Math TP	20	81.9	79.7	2.20	3.2
7th LAL AP	23	19.4	21.1	-1.70	3.6
7th LAL TP	22	77.1	77.9	-0.80	2.6
7th Math AP	9	34.3	28.3	6.00	7
7th Math TP	17	78.7	74.8	3.90	-2.6
8th LAL AP	19	21.8	24	-2.20	-1.6
8th LAL TP	18	88.9	90.9	-2.00	-0.6
8th Math AP	8	41.9	36.7	5.20	2.5
8th Math TP	9	77.5	78.7	-1.20	-5.2
8th Sci AP	25	34.1	39.8	-5.70	-5.5
8th Sci TP	16	89.5	90.9	-1.40	9.3
11th LAL AP	21	19.9	22.3	-2.40	2.1
11th LAL TP	21	90.5	93.6	-3.10	1.2
11th Math AP	26	16	25.9	-9.90	-0.9
11th Math TP	24	67.1	81.3	-14.20	-3.2

Tax Increase of 2% or Less
Given the state’s newly mandated 2% cap on school budget tax increases, this goal doesn’t sound as impressive as it did when first passed. Unfortunately, the district has used newfound state funding to avoid the aggressive cost cutting still needed for taxpayer relief.

Although the proposed tax hike is only 1.69%, at $61.8 million the proposed budget will increase spending 4% during a recession.

We can save over half a million dollars from outsourcing personnel (bus drivers, secretaries, guidance counselors, child study teams, teacher aides, etc.) and another half million by cutting extraneous personnel.

Let’s make sure the 2% is a cap and not a target. More can be cut.

The board set goals. Let’s make those goals mean something. >>> Read more!

I Do Hereby Proclaim

In contrast to Matawan’s professional and understated resolution, Aberdeen Township chose to attack the school board and the administration. I don’t know of a single other instance when one local governing body unanimously voted to denigrate another governing body. The fact that Aberdeen’s resolution is full of distortions and factual errors just aggravates an already egregious breach in protocol.

In response, I issued my own “proclamation” at Monday night’s school board meeting. Below is the text, in full.

Whereas Aberdeen’s Town Council has unanimously approved Resolution 2010-83 certifying Matawan-Aberdeen’s Regional School District’s budget

Whereas said resolution contains many clauses attacking this school board and our administration

Whereas said resolution purposely distorts the facts and our record

Whereas said resolution intentionally avoids mentioning a single accomplishment, academically or financially, of this school district under Dr. O’Malley’s administration

Whereas said resolution violates confidentiality by disclosing private conversations between representatives of the school board and the town council

Whereas the town council breached protocol by publicizing the resolution without first notifying the superintendent of the proposed budget

Whereas the town council, in violation of the sunshine laws, failed to give the public adequate notice of the budget vote

Whereas the town council, in violation of the sunshine laws, has never given the public adequate notice of the school budget vote for over half a decade, at least

Whereas the town council rejected a proposed school tax increase of $280,000 for Aberdeen Township but has submitted a preliminary budget calling for a municipal tax increase of $2,000,000

Whereas, over the last three years, the school district has raised taxes less than 2% compared to the town council’s projected three-year increase of more than 30%

Whereas Aberdeen Township has the fifth highest property taxes in Monmouth County due to the town council’s inability to attract commercial development

Whereas the town council, in violation of the sunshine laws, secretly authorized a Memorandum of Understanding with a local developer for the construction of 194 new residential units

Whereas the town council is using a Payment in Lieu of Taxes program to divert over $400,000 a year from the school district toward the municipal budget

Whereas the town council is obscenely compromised by pay-to-play

Whereas Aberdeen Township pays the town council’s largest political donor over $1.2 million a year for professional services

Whereas the town council only awards professional services to campaign contributors and the politically connected

Whereas town council members raised $40,000 during the most recent general election but didn’t disclose a single contributor

Whereas the town council retains one attorney who misrepresented crucial facts during a public meeting and another attorney who threatened residents, including members of this school board, with police action

Whereas town council members pay themselves tens of thousands of dollars a year in salaries while school board members work for free

Whereas Resolution 2010-83 leaves the ludicrous impression that the town council is better qualified to manage the school district than the board of education

We, the undersigned, award the Town Council of Aberdeen Township the Lifetime Chutzpah Award and hereby present to you the ceremonial boot.

--Since no one is here from the town council to accept the ceremonial boot, I am ashamed to accept it on their behalf.--

P.S. The above remarks have not been endorsed by Ms. Jan Rubino. >>> Read more!

The Custodians’ Last Days

Tonight’s school board vote on whether to outsource custodial services marks a sad turning point for Matawan-Aberdeen. Our custodians have been long-serving, dedicated, and hard-working employees. They’re being unceremoniously dumped because we can no longer afford to retain them. It didn’t have to be this way. The teachers union had the ability and the opportunity to save the custodians but, given a choice between saving the custodians and taking their raises, the union leadership preferred to take their raises.

Three companies submitted bids to provide custodial services and Pritchard was the lowest bidder at $3.1 million. That’s nearly half of what we’d pay to retain the custodians. For guidance, we can look to Marlboro. In 2006, Marlboro had a projected cost of $2.77 million for 35 custodians. Pritchard, the lowest bidder, was awarded a custodial contract for $800,000. We’ve been in touch with Marlboro and they’ve been pleased with their services and continue to use Pritchard.

For Matawan-Aberdeen, next year’s projected costs are $2.9 million for 36 custodians. On a per employee cost basis, that’s only a 1.8% increase over Marlboro’s estimates despite four years having elapsed. Like Marlboro, that cost includes “salaries, health benefits, pension contributions, Social Security and workers' compensation”.

In March, the teachers union membership argued vociferously to retain the custodians but not one speaker suggested he was prepared to offer any concessions aside from voting to raise property taxes.

The union leadership has had multiple opportunities to save the custodial positions. They could have negotiated healthcare contributions before it became state mandated. They could have offered concessions as a sign of good faith to help the budget pass. They could have given the membership an up or down vote on a pay freeze to save the custodians and other positions.

Today, however, we have a failed budget and a vendor’s bid substantially below expectations. Nothing short of a one-year pay freeze would suffice to offset those savings.

Never again will the union membership be able to proudly wear buttons proclaiming “I CARE about our kids”. When given an opportunity to join in our community’s shared sacrifice and to save their colleague’s and fellow union members’ jobs, the union said no. Next time the union leadership organizes a show of force, maybe they should distribute buttons saying “Show Me the Money”. >>> Read more!

Should I Yes or Should I No

On Tuesday, we’ll be voting whether to approve a 2% tax levy increase for the Matawan-Aberdeen Regional School District, the lowest proposed increase among the non-Abbott K-12 school districts in Monmouth County. (The proposed budget is $2.3 million below last year’s and $2.9 million below the budget for 2008-09.) Supporters and opponents of the tax increase both have valid arguments. However, on balance, I believe it is in our community’s best interest to support the budget.

If the budget fails, the governing bodies of Matawan and Aberdeen will likely recommend the tax increase be cut from 2% to 1%. No more personnel or program cuts will be necessary since the district will begin receiving 1.5% salary contributions towards health benefits from all employees represented by the teachers union, amounting to about $500,000. (All other employees already contribute.)

If the budget passes, that same money would go towards restoring programs and personnel; I would argue for restoring summer school, the librarians for the middle and high schools, and a child study team.

The arguments against the tax increase are straightforward:

Our taxes are already too high
Among Monmouth County’s 53 municipalities, Matawan has the 2nd highest property taxes and Aberdeen has the 5th highest.

We don’t raise taxes during a recession
All of us personally know people who lost their jobs and probably know people who either lost their homes or are at risk of doing so. The community cannot afford another tax increase on top of all the other increases from sewer fees to water prices to municipal taxes to county taxes to medical devices to loss of the homestead rebate to . . . Well, you get the picture.

The school district needs to cut more fat
We’ve got teachers who can’t teach and administrators who can’t administer. Why aren’t we getting rid of these people?

We need to send the teachers union a message
Every penny of the proposed tax increase is going towards staff salary increases. The new 1.5% salary contribution to healthcare only covers one-third of this year’s $1.5 million increase for health benefits (and less than 10% of the total cost for the union’s Cadillac plan). Meanwhile, the teachers union has refused to offer any meaningful concessions that would save jobs and programs or, at the very least, demonstrate a shared sacrifice during a deep recession. The budget vote is the community’s only opportunity to demonstrate its anger towards union intransigence.

Defeating the budget will reduce future taxes
The state imposes CAPs that set strict limits on what percentage the district can increase taxes from year to year. Defeating the budget sets a lower baseline, which likely translates into lower annual taxes moving forward.

I agree with all of the above but I ask you to do the following:

Place all these arguments on one end of a scale and librarians on the other end. Put another way, is our community willing to increase school taxes by 1% to have librarians in all our schools. Libraries are a completely different learning experience from the internet and I fear that experience will be lost without school librarians. My vote is for the librarians. >>> Read more!

Rodeo Clowns in the MRTA

Please do not post comments to this article. Blogger has blocked comments to this article due to a vandal who tried to crash the site through spam. All the comments that were previously posted to this article, can be downloaded here.

The MRTA’s latest antics and utter incompetence would be comical if they weren’t so tragic. In the face of massive layoffs, the Matawan Regional Teachers Association, which represents nearly every fulltime school district employee below the administrative level, has chosen to antagonize the only people on the planet who could actually save their members’ jobs, namely the Matawan-Aberdeen School Board.

The union has orchestrated political theater from heckling board members at a public meeting to frightening the community into believing the district will replace our beloved custodians with pedophiles.

All this to distract the public and the union membership from the simple truth:

• Every cent of the 2% tax increase has been budgeted for staff salary raises
• A 2% tax increase isn’t enough to fund their raises so the custodians are being outsourced
• The district has to terminate another 30 people to cover a $1.5 million increase to their Cadillac health insurance plans
• The union has not offered any concessions or suggestions on how to cut costs and save jobs
• Union officers receive full pay for a reduced workload to permit extra time for union activities
• The union has filed a slew of grievances demanding extra pay which, if victorious, will result in more job losses
• Our high-end teachers are among the highest paid in the state

At this past Monday’s board meeting, there was such overcrowding from union members and their friends that we had to change venues after an “anonymous” former board member contacted the police.

Once the meeting reconvened, the battle lines were drawn when school board president Charles Kenny refused to give MRTA president Carl Kosmyna any special consideration and Kosmyna refused to give his home address (as every other speaker did) when addressing the board, instead using the MRTA’s office address.

Of the approximately 32 people who spoke, three-quarters were district employees, all unanimous in recommending a 4% tax increase. Among local residents not on the payroll, four speakers (counting a married couple as two) supported a 4% tax increase. (4% is the legal maximum excluding waivers.)

To give a sense of the circus atmosphere, the union members cheered a young mother who was scared of being unable to provide for her children in the face of rising taxes. They cheered again when Dr. Gambino recommended the entire district take a pay-freeze even though they were refusing to do exactly that.

When Kosmyna was asked what he had done to reduce layoffs, the Lion of Matawan declared he had sent board member Ruprecht an email and the dastardly Ruprecht hadn’t fully responded. That’s right. Confronted by scores of union members losing their livelihoods, Kosmyna sent an email. I exert more effort returning spoiled food to Shoprite.

Mr. Kosmnya also stated the union was prepared to make concessions in exchange for a written guarantee of no layoffs, as if that were a possibility with a $7 million shortfall.

Remarkably, nobody from the union spoke about the 43 other employees who would be losing their jobs, half being teachers.

As for the board, many (if not all) of us were wondering at what point the union would offer a concession that would allow us to save jobs. We were equally amazed that people trying to convince us to save jobs would be so disrespectful. (The union could learn a thing from Ms. Collins who spoke beautifully about custodians going above and beyond for the students and staff.)

Matawan-Aberdeen hasn’t approved a tax levy increase since 2001 and it’s unlikely they’ll do so again during a deep recession and housing crisis. Once details of the board meeting hit the papers, the community will probably be even less likely to vote for the budget, thereby placing more jobs at risk.

The latest union gambit is to complain the board refuses to negotiate as if that would make a dime of difference even if it were true. All Kosmyna needs to do is offer concessions in exchange for jobs and the board would leap at the opportunity.

Meanwhile, unbeknownst to us at the time, during the school board meeting, New Jersey approved a bill requiring all public employees to contribute 1.5% of their salaries towards health benefits once their current contract expires. The contributions will save the district about $500,000.

What will the school board do with that newfound money? Pay down debt, use it for tax relief when the budget fails, or preserve jobs? Will the union try to strong-arm the board again? Is that the only way they know to negotiate?

As every rodeo clown knows, you can distract the bull, deceive the bull, and avoid the bull, but stick around too long and you will get trampled. The union leadership can no longer distract, deceive or avoid the public. Or its membership. >>> Read more!

The St. Patty’s Day Massacre

"THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
THEN THEY CAME for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant.
THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up."
- Pastor Martin Niemöller

Amidst the celebrations and merrymaking of St. Patrick’s Day, New Jersey State delivered a very sobering reality - the state is broke and cuts in state aid for school districts are going to be much deeper than anticipated. State aid for the Matawan-Aberdeen Regional School District will be slashed $2,917,577, about $1.2 million more than projected.

There will once again be calls for higher efficiencies, higher taxes, anything but the only solutions that will actually close the budget gap – reduced personnel and program cuts.

Once again, the ball is in the teachers union’s court. Will the MRTA agree to wage and benefits concessions to save jobs? They didn’t do it for the 73 employees previously slated to be terminated. Will they do it for the bus drivers who came to the last board meeting? Will they do it for the teacher aides, the non-tenured staff, the child study teams, the guidance counselors, the computer instructors, the librarians, the secretaries . . .

Will they agree to lower stipends so we can continue to fund after-school programs and athletics?

The union membership loves our children and they love their colleagues. They would agree to small concessions to save jobs and programs in a heartbeat. But will they be given that option?

Carl Kosmyna, you have a rare opportunity to craft your own legacy. Will you be remembered as the union leader who marched your most vulnerable members off a cliff or will you be the hero to the Matawan-Aberdeen community and your colleagues?

We are all awaiting your decision. >>> Read more!

Take-Home Pay in the School District

I’m still formulating my thoughts on the budget but here’s a little nugget of some interest.

The APP maintains a database of all salaries for district employees. We all know that salaries aren’t the full story. Health benefits ($19,000 for a family plan) and pensions are the other major cost components.

However, there’s one more tidbit. Salary isn’t the same thing as take-home pay. Teachers have the opportunity to earn a bewildering array of stipends. The big ticket stipends are athletics. At the opposite end of the scale, this past Monday, the school board voted 6-3 to pay high school and middle school teachers $50 a head to attend their students’ graduations. (O’Connell, Gambino, and I dissented.)

Click here for an Excel download of the 2009 take-home pay for the Matawan-Aberdeen school district. Bear in mind, there are two flaws in the file. First, I had to compile it from a scanned document. Second, the list shows earned income, not salaries. Therefore, the incomes for those who only worked part of the year may be significantly less than their salaries.

In 2009, the top five earners were

O'MALLEY	RICHARD	182,326.82	Superintendent Of Schools
GLASTEIN	JOEL M.	158,434.52	Deputy Superintendent
Martucci	Joseph	140,729.23	Director of Athletics/Assistant Principal
RUSCAVAGE	MICHELE	139,705.86	Principal
Olsen	Kathleen	139,244.59	Principal

In 2009, the top five earners among teachers were

Turner	Samuel	111,619.36	Driver Education (Fall – Spring)
Geran	John	108,947.65	Pre Calculus
Kaye	John	108,670.95	Physical Education & Health Education
Stead	Thomas	103,750.20	Principle of Chemistry BD Class
Friedl	James P.	102,971.36	Principle of Lab Chemistry ICR

Among full-time teachers and administrators, 43% of staff earned over $80,000.

After teachers, the next largest category of full-time workers is secretarial at 34. They’re also the lowest paid, earning a little over $40,000 on average.

The next largest group is custodians, 31 employees at an average take-home pay of $59,026 (excluding the 3 individuals who didn’t work a full year).

Including part-timers, the district employs 49 teacher aides but only 6 earned more than $30,000 last year.

Nationwide, over half of all unionized employees work in the public sector. In other words, the primary purpose of unionization is to protect workers from the public. Between their salaries, benefits, and job security, I’m not surprised. >>> Read more!

More School Budget Woes

Last September, the school district discovered that $1.7 million of the state funding was derived from federal stimulus money and would likely be non-recurring. That created the first big whole in the budget. Last week, the district learned the state would probably cut our funding some more. Every year, after setting aside a 2% surplus to maintain as a rainy day fund, the leftover monies would go into the Budgeted Fund Balance and used for taxpayer relief the following year. To cut the state deficit, Gov. Corzine has proposed cutting state funding by half the Budgeted Fund Balance. For Matawan-Aberdeen, that means another $280,000 cut on top of the $1.7 million cut.

Meanwhile, our operating costs continue to rise. New Jersey is raising the premiums on our health benefits plan by 25% and every staff member is expecting a salary increase. (Last year, salaries were projected to grow $1.4 million before cuts and total health benefits to cost $6.7 million.) Toss in pension, utilities, and everything else with cost increases and you’re playing in a $5 million ballpark.

Yet, we cannot afford to raise taxes.

At last night’s meeting, I presented three lists I downloaded from the Monmouth County website. In the past 90 days, Aberdeen Township sold tax certificates against 41 properties. During that same time period, foreclosure actions were initiated against 39 properties in Aberdeen. And the Sheriff’s list of sales includes 39 Aberdeen properties. For a small community during a short time period, this is huge.

Additionally, the jobs market continues to shrink and inflation fears are rising as the dollar falls.

We cannot afford tax increases.

Though I’m only one of nine board members, I believe several others share my position. We must cut everywhere we can cut without jeopardizing our mission or seriously detracting from our quality of life. We need to be creative. And we, as a community, must be willing to recognize that these cuts will be painful, far more for some than others, but our only alternative is to raise taxes and I do not believe that is an option.

For those wondering, I remain committed to supporting another hefty salary increase for Dr. O’Malley and Ms. Irons if they can deliver another 0% tax levy increase without any major cuts to critical services. Even in bad times, we must always reward performance.

Unlike prior boards or the town council, we must lead, we must set the targets, and we must hold our administration accountable. I oppose any tax increase this year. >>> Read more!

Clarification on the School District's Stimulus Funds

At last night’s meeting, Dr. O’Malley clarified the details swirling around the use of the stimulus funds for balancing the budget and funding the RTI program.

Last March, the state informed the Matawan-Aberdeen school district that funding would be flat. Dr. O’Malley then presented a zero tax-levy increase budget based upon the state’s assurance that state funding would remain at the prior year’s level.

In September, the state informed the school district that federal stimulus money had been used to fund the state’s obligations to the school district. The federal government was now requiring a report as to how many jobs were “created or saved” through the use of the federal stimulus funds.

Dr. O’Malley recommended we report to the state that the funds were used to “save” the RTI teaching positions.

Moving forward, however, Dr. O’Malley does not expect that funding will be available next year. That means we’re likely looking at a $1.7 million revenue shortfall for next year.

Next month, the district will provide a review of the RTI program. Undoubtedly, a $1.7 million revenue shortfall will entail program cuts somewhere or everywhere. >>> Read more!

The Incredible Shrinking School Budget

Click Here to view the proposed 2009-10 school budget.

This Monday, Matawan-Aberdeen’s superintendent, Dr. O’Malley, will be making a small bit of local history; he will present a school budget that spends $600,000 less than the previous year. Considering the contractually mandated spending increases (salaries and benefits) and the district’s new initiatives (high school academies, NWEA, Naviance, Realtime, etc.) a reduced budget is a significant achievement but an equally significant political risk. In a break from prior budgets, this budget does not encompass inflated numbers or “slush funds” in anticipation of another rejection by the school district’s voters. The question is whether a budget that actually cuts spending and taxes can break a 7-year streak of rejection. I endorse the proposed 2009-2010 Matawan-Aberdeen school budget.

The main budget busters are salaries and benefits. Of the school district’s 546 full-time employees, only 16 are non-union. Including the 33 part-timers, the combined cost of salaries and benefits is $46,388,396. That’s a $1.8 million increase over the prior year and averages to over $82,000 per full-time employee.

The other main cost increase is out-of-district tuitions - $100,000.

Since state aid is frozen, all cost increases must be covered by tax increases. Dr. O’Malley could have proposed a budget, like last year’s, to raise the tax levy by the maximum amount allowed under law – 4% or a little over $1.6 million. Instead, he cut.

Staff will be reduced by 3% (without affecting class sizes) generating a $1.5 million savings. More of the transportation costs will be brought in-house providing another $200,000 in cuts. Add another $600,000 in cuts for supplies, technology, curriculum, and building operations. Toss in $200,000 more savings from 10% across the board cuts and, presto, $2.5 million in spending cuts generating a $600,000 reduction in the tax levy.

To appreciate the savings, consider the following: Had the district proposed a maximum tax increase, knowing it would be rejected, the tax levy would likely still increase by $1,000,000 after the municipalities imposed a symbolic cut. That means taxes would be $1.6 million higher than Dr. O’Malley is proposing. That’s a savings of about $150 per household this year and every year afterwards.

And therein lies the risk. In prior years, the school district proposed budgets expecting them to be defeated at the polls. The budget process always included fluff and political theater, giving the mayors a chance to “force” the district to reduce taxes but never worrying that those cuts might affect services.

This time is different. If the budget is defeated, several programs may be adversely affected.

But that’s not what most worries me. I’m afraid that having voters reject a budget that actually reduces taxes and spending will be a strong incentive to return to the practice of past years of presenting inflated budgets with built-in fat that can be easily excised after the vote.

If we want the school district to present honest budgets then we have to be willing to accept budgets, however imperfect, that demonstrate vast improvements.

Like most of us, I believe we are still spending too much and taxes are too high. As a board member, I will work to further reduce the tax burden. But this budget cuts taxes and spending without sacrificing our students’ education. This school budget deserves our support. On April 21st, vote “Yes” to lower taxes. >>> Read more!

Revisiting the Matawan-Aberdeen School Budget

Click Here for the advertised school budget summary for 2008-09
Click Here for the advertised school budget summary for 2007-08

A CEO interviews three candidates, a physicist, a mathematician, and an accountant, for the position of chief financial officer. He asks each candidate “What is two plus two?” The physicist answers four. The mathematician answers four point zero zero zero to infinity. The accountant looks around, pulls the window shades, turns off the lights, and whispers in the CEO’s ear “What do you want it to be?”

As my detractors fondly note, I’m no expert in public finance. In my world, two plus two equals four. Apparently, that type of math doesn’t extend to public school finance.

First, there was the proposed school budget, where the administration tried to raise taxes by the absolute legal maximum and then marketed the proposed tax hike as a sign of fiscal restraint. Next, the administration chose to increase maintenance costs by postponing needed roof repairs and then budgeted these additional costs as a spending cut.

Now, we’re left wondering how much the district actually cut healthcare benefits for teachers. At the last BOE meeting, I asked the board whether the ratified teachers contract included employee contributions to healthcare benefits. Under advice from the board attorney, Board President Pat Demarest refused to answer.

Well, it seems Mayor Buccellato never took the Omerta. On May 22nd, Alyssa Passeggio reported in the Courier that “Matawan Mayor Paul Buccellato noted that the board was ‘unable’ to obtain medical contributions during teachers’ contracts negotiations. However, the board did save $750,000 by receiving a lower premium on a state program.”

I assume they’re referring to the State Health Benefits Plan – NJ Direct10. The plan is similar to an HMO that gives full reimbursement for in-network and partial reimbursement for out-of-network. Considering the plan is administered by the state and the state has a “friendly” relationship with the teachers union, I assume it’s a good plan. It should be at a "discounted" rate of $1,035.75 per family per month.

So, I should be thrilled. $750,000 is a lot of money.

I’m not. On April 13th, I wrote “It's possible that the teachers have simply agreed to a less expensive benefits plan but even that would be notable.” I was being both cautious and generous. Cautious because I was under the impression that the teachers had agreed to some kind of contribution towards their own healthcare. Generous because I’m highly suspicious of this “savings”.

Here are the numbers for the Personal Services – Employee Benefits (page 5):
2005 - $8,400,852
2006 – $8,954,909 (6.6% increase)
2007 - $10,260,832 (14.6% increase)
2008 - $9,517,999 (7.3% decrease)

If we swapped 2007 and 2008, this line item would show an approximate 6% annual increase. It almost looks as if we had a large increase in 2007 so we could then announce a decrease in 2008. (Note: Neither Superintendent O'Malley nor Business Administrator Irons were involved in the budget numbers for prior years.)

Also, if you compare the 2007 and 2008 budget summaries, you’ll see the appropriations for benefits in 2006 exceeded actual expenditures by nearly $250,000. The following year, appropriations were then increased by $200,000 above the original projection; it appears the surplus money was shifted from one year to the next. Discounting the $200,000 surplus, the benefits savings is reduced to $500,000. If they use that surplus to cover a deficit, then the savings is reduced to $300,000.

Meanwhile, despite claims of fiscal restraint, despite employee healthcare contributions by all staff excluding faculty, despite the $750,000 “savings” from the new healthcare plan, spending growth for general operations is accelerating. The general operations budget grew 4.5% in 2006, 4.9% in 2007, and 6.4% in 2008 (page 5).

How does the school district finance such spending increases while remaining within the state mandated 4% cap? Easy. The administration slashed capital spending by 56.5% (page 5). That was assuming the roof in the administration building would be replaced. Since that’s been postponed, capital spending has dropped 81.6% to a measly $274,224.

As there’s no more money to cut from capital spending (and the buildings will literally fall apart at their current level of financing), where will they cut next year? Well, the biggest budget items, in order, are salaries, benefits, and building maintenance. Care to guess where the administration is likeliest to cut next?

Yup, I’m no expert in public finance but this sure doesn’t look to me like fiscal restraint. In my world, two plus two still equals four. >>> Read more!

School Budget Masquerade

Special thanks to the school district for making the budget presentation available for download.

The Matawan-Aberdeen Regional School District has been marketing itself as the picture of fiscal self-restraint. The budget presentation states the tax levy will only rise 2% and that “[c]omparative costs per pupil are below the state average.” Though technically correct, it’s a distortion of the complete picture. The truth is that the district began the budget process by raising taxes to the legal maximum, we’re spending more than necessary, and this is a budget that should be rejected.

Slide 8 describes how they arrived at the 2% increase. They took last year’s tax levy and then increased it by 4%. Had they gone beyond the 4% mandated state cap, the county would have likely rejected the budget and enforced budget cuts.

Meanwhile, state aid increased by 10% under Corzine’s new funding formula, which reflects the student body rather than the zip code. However, the state believes the district is spending more than necessary so, of the 10% increase, only 2.89% can be used toward expenses to cover inflation. The remaining 7.11% must be applied to tax relief.

During the budget review, both the administration and board of education made clear they opposed using any additional state funds towards tax relief but that they had no choice.

As slide 8 shows, the maximum tax levy permitted by law is $44,326,599. Then, on slide 11, that same number, the maximum tax levy permitted by law, is the proposed tax levy. Is raising taxes to the absolute maximum a sign of fiscal restraint? According to our board of education, which unanimously supports the budget, the answer is yes.

Next is the item of per pupil costs being below the state average. Once again, technically correct but there are two caveats. Slide 12 shows our district’s average per pupil cost is $12,227, below the state’s $12,806. But what exactly is “average per pupil cost”? Slide 4 shows we have a projected student body of 3,859. Multiply the number of pupils by the per pupil cost and you have $47,183,993. That means $16,172,023 of a $63,356,016 budget, or over 25%, is not being counted as part of the “per pupil costs”.

Another point to remember is that “state average” is the lowest of standards. In virtually every measurement, district officials use the more appropriate District Factor Group (DFG) which groups school districts according to socioeconomic measures. Matawan-Aberdeen’s DFG is FG (upper middle income). In that group, we had the 28th highest per pupil cost out of 89 similar school districts in the 06-07 school year.

The one notable bright spot in the school budget is the employee contribution (including teachers) towards healthcare benefits, a first in our district’s history. (One of the reasons the teachers union is “secretly” opposing Aitken’s candidacy is because he demanded that all employees begin contributing towards their healthcare just like workers in the private sector. During contract negotiations, about 70 union members picketed outside his home.)

Still, there are far more places we can cut. Promethean boards, as beautiful as they are, have not been proven to improve education. Last year, the district spent $9,000 on proposals for converting the TV studio into an instructional facility. I would rather see Huskievision become self-sufficient or shut down; it’s a luxury item we cannot afford. We’d be better off leasing time from another school district. The Response to Intervention (RTI) program uses teaching methods that are either harmful or ineffective and should be shut down. The district could make more of an effort to remove unwanted teachers and administrators. We could purchase refurbished equipment. We could reduce utility costs by using state funds to develop “green” energy sources and become more energy efficient.

Additionally, we could develop alternative revenue sources such as grants (one of Aitken’s proposals), business sponsorships, for-profit community services, and making Huskievision profit-oriented.

The Board of Education and the administration worked very hard on the proposed budget and had to make lots of unwanted spending cuts but, in the end, they did the absolute legal minimum. I would never eat in a restaurant that only adhered to the legal minimum and I would never support a school initiative that only sought to meet the barest legal standards.

The Matawan-Aberdeen Regional School District is the highest taxed area in Monmouth County. Once again, the citizenry needs to say “NO”. >>> Read more!

Questions for the Board of Education

Note: I have uploaded a chart comparing a recent history of school property tax increases, inflation, and wage growth. Despite a stable student population, school taxes outpace inflation and consume a larger share of income. My chart is slightly different from the one presented by the district. The district will claim last year’s tax levy rose only 2.3% and this year’s will only rise 2%. The truth is that last year, after the budget was defeated, they cut appropriations without cutting spending – in other words, they used deficit spending in place of higher taxes. However, the true cost to taxpayers remained the same. This year, the 2% figure discounts the state-financed tax relief. This is like the school district pocketing your homestead rebate check and then claiming they didn’t take any of your money.

Some months ago, in private conversation with one of the BOE members for the Matawan-Aberdeen Regional School District, I had argued against using a zero-based budget approach. I urged the board to use a “fixed income” approach, meaning you set a limit on how much money you can spend. Otherwise, there is no limit. At the time, I never imagined they would use my idea but set their spending limit to the legal maximum.

I recognize the board and administration have spent over a thousand man-hours working on the budget and cut $3 million from expenditures to meet the state-imposed growth limits. I also realize that every budget line has a constituency. And I understand their primary concern needs to be the welfare of the students.

Yet, there’s no denying the district started the budget from the maximum tax levy and worked their way backwards.

Next week, the board will be presenting their budget to the public. The budget has unanimous support among board members and the administration. The following are a list of questions I would like answered:

1. The proposed budget raises taxes and spending by the statutory maximum. How does this comport with the district’s commitment to balance its needs against those of the taxpayers?
2. Over the past several years, taxes and spending have risen faster than inflation and wage growth, even when the student population is stable (see chart). Why?
3. What initiatives has the district undertaken to generate additional non-tax revenue streams and how successful have those initiatives been?
4. What has RTI achieved that qualifies it for additional funding?
5. Why do we continue financing Huskievision during economic hardships?
6. Why does the district purchase new equipment when used and refurbished will often suffice?
7. Won’t voting for the budget put the taxpayers at risk of a larger increase the following year since budget caps are based upon a percentage increase?
8. Given the history of voters rejecting past budgets for being too high, why would the board, our elected representatives, submit a proposal that raises taxes to the legal maximum?

I’m certain we’ll be hearing again how the tax levy is only going up 2%. Remember, that number would be 4% except the district has confiscated our tax relief money from the state.

In college, one of my professor’s once attributed a line to Pierre Du Pont – Nothing grabs a man’s attention like a noose a around his neck. Sadly, the district will never truly reduce spending until they have no other option. >>> Read more!

Matawan-Aberdeen Regional School District Parties Like It’s 1984

This past week, at a special action meeting to review the “tentative” 2008-2009 school budget, our Matawan-Aberdeen School Board of Education hosted a Theater of the Absurd. After primping themselves for Huskievision, the district-financed television station, and sipping from bottled water, they publicly bemoaned that the state had cruelly limited their ability to tax and pillage the locals. Even worse, the state had allocated money for tax relief, money that could have spent by the schools. Oh, the humanity!

The board then engaged in a bit of Orwellian doublespeak should anyone try to quote them. Barbato asked if the board could “technically” do anything to grab the tax relief money for themselves. Donaghue asked if they could get a “waiver” to raise taxes even higher.

Again and again, they thanked the administration for presenting a school budget that raises taxes and spending to the absolute legal limit. In fact, Dr. O’Malley presented the budget in this fashion – The law forbids us from raising the tax levy any higher than $44,326,599 so that’s the number we’ll be using. The overall proposed budget is $63,356,016.

Then the conversation turned to how they could market their tax and spend scheme. According to Aitken, any rejection of the bloated school budget would put our children “at risk”. The school board ultimately borrowed bankrupt Foxton’s slogan – “2%”. Even though the board is raising taxes by the legal maximum of 4%, the net rise is only 2% if you include the state-sponsored tax relief money they’ll also be taking. By mindlessly repeating the “2%” mantra, they hope the voters will forget that the confiscated tax-relief funds were ever meant for the taxpayer’s benefit.

To make this Orwellian production complete, Zavorskas assumed the role of thought police. She asked if the PowerPoint slide showing prior budget increases could be “clarified” for the 2003-2004 school year when the budget rose an eye-popping 15%, the same year Zavorskas was school board president.

As much as I enjoy theater, it’s time to give these charlatans the hook. Here are the simple facts and you can judge for yourself. Putting aside certain exclusions, the state has restricted school tax increases and school spending increases to 4%. At the same time, state funding has increased 10%. However, of that 10% increase, 2.89% (same as the inflation rate) goes to school spending and the remaining 7.11% goes to property tax relief.

It works as follows: Let’s say you pay $100 in school taxes. The district can (and will) raise your taxes to $104. However, the state has provided $2 in property tax relief. So, your final tax bill is only $102. The school board, therefore, claims they’re only raising taxes 2% and discounting the fact they’ve taken your tax relief money as well. Meanwhile, the board gets to congratulate themselves for “fiscal restraint” when all they’ve done is held spending to the legal limit.

I’m sure we’ll be hearing more about the school board taking a “zero-based cost approach”, that the highest taxed school district in the county had no choice but to raise spending and taxes to the legal limit, and that rejecting the budget will put our children “at risk”.

After the citizenry rejects the school board’s spending plans for the 7th consecutive year, the district will once again circumvent the voters’ wishes and negotiate spending proposals with the municipalities.

It’s too late to run any reform candidates this year but mark my words – 2009 is the year we begin throwing the bums out. >>> Read more!

When Failure is an Option

Imagine the following: Your neighbors have entrusted you with their children’s education. They have given you sixty million dollars and asked you to do the best you can with what you have. You recognize the responsibility your neighbors have bestowed upon you; so much of their children’s futures depend on what you do. In such a scenario, would you do any of the following?

1. Give all teachers guaranteed employment for life if they manage three years without getting fired
2. Dole out millions of dollars a year as an incentive for teachers to improve their own education but not one penny as an incentive to improve the education of their students
3. When presented with two candidates to coach the chess club, a local grandmaster willing to work for free or the gym teacher who demands a thousand dollars, choose the gym teacher
4. Adopt the legal minimum standards of education as your own standards
5. Allow students to coast through school by taking only the easiest courses
6. Dedicate more resources on psychiatrists and drug counselors than on the science department
7. Draft a mission statement that doesn't include teaching
8. Guarantee every teacher an automatic raise regardless of performance

Let's say you did all the above and failed miserably.

1. Each year, your students score below the state average in all the assessment exams
2. Most of your students graduate with an 8th grade math education compared to other industrialized nations
3. Only a minority of your students successfully complete college
4. Most of your students lack the skills to pursue careers in the most promising fields

Assuming all the above, would you then have the gall to demand more money from your neighbors because of promises you made to the teachers? Would you have the chutzpah to extort money from your neighbors by threatening to cut services?

Now, imagine the reverse. Imagine it’s your neighbor who’s taking your money. Imagine it’s your neighbor who’s failing to educate your child. And ask your neighbor this – “Since when did failure become an option in my child’s education?” >>> Read more!

Our School District’s New Website

The Matawan-Aberdeen Regional School District launched its new website this week. I submitted an online comment commending the site design but questioning the cost. I was quite pleased to receive a response the next day from Darlene Gallagher. She thanked me for my interest and informed me that the cost was $28,063.00 at startup plus an annual fee of $7,500. That’s about $50,000 over a three year period. $50,000 for a website? It’s a beautiful site but I can’t justify the cost.

The website, www.marsd.org, was built by SchoolWires, a company that specializes in school websites. SchoolWires normally charges over $15,000 per year plus startup fees so I should be pleased that we’re getting such a bargain. But $50,000 over three years is still a huge sum to spend on a nice looking website.

When our students are scoring below average in every single standard exam, we can’t afford to spend $50,000 on a website we don’t need. Moreover, the school could have used the student body to build and maintain a new website. Or they could have used Gmail to provide free email services.

Does anyone believe the faculty would prefer this new website over $50 gift certificates during the holiday season? Does anyone believe $50,000 on a website will do more for our children’s education than spending the money on prizes for educational projects? Is there no one on the school board who couldn’t think of a more creative way to spend $50,000?

The Board of Education does not understand the simple concept of limited funds. It does not understand the concept of fiscal responsibility. Nor does it realize that its sole mission is to educate our children without unnecessarily burdening the taxpayer.

Nice website but we’re better off without it. >>> Read more!

The Matawan Man-Eater

(Editor's Note: This article was originally published elsewhere on August 14, 2007, prior to the creation of Aberdeener.com)

As local homeowners watch their adjustable rate mortgages pop higher, their homes lose tens of thousands of dollars in equity, and the number of foreclosures last year in Monmouth County rise over 70%, our school board feels that now is the time to hire another Latin instructor. Perhaps he can operate the scoreboard in our new $1.5 million football field.

Despite promises to spend our money more “effectively”, not one of the recently elected board members would even entertain the concept of “budget cuts”. Nor do we know the cost of new programs, such as outgoing Superintendent Quinn's “Response to Intervention” for kindergartners.

What are we getting for our $62 million (a fifty percent increase over the 2000 budget)? According to the State of New Jersey's report card for the academic year 2005-2006, at $13,231 per pupil -

• Our students rank below the state average for advanced proficiency in math and language


• Our students are below the state average in SAT math and verbal scores


• Less than 10% of 11th and 12th graders took and passed an advanced placement test


• Fewer than half of seniors plan to attend a four-year college


• 9.1% of our students are labeled learning disabled


• Three advanced placement classes each have only one registered student


• Our students have less instructional time than the state average

Considering we have a high faculty ratio earning above average salaries in an upper middle income neighborhood, these results are abysmal.

The public school component already comprises two-thirds of our property taxes and is growing faster than any other part of local government. For the upcoming year, the school board voted unanimously to increase employee benefits by nearly 11%. The latest tax increase will cost the average homeowner another $300 per year and over $4,000 in lost home equity.

Consider the following: If we simply issued $9,000 school vouchers for the local private schools, our costs would drop 30%. That's equal to a 20% cut in property taxes.

(Editor's Note: For a list of possible school remedies, please read Reforming Our Schools. >>> Read more!