CITIZENS’ ADVISORY BUDGET COMMITTEE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION FUNDING

J. Tucker Lamkin, Chairman

The Chair of the Citizens’ Advisory Budget Committee, Subcommittee on Education Funding (the “Subcommittee”) initially wishes to thank each of the members of the Subcommittee for foregoing their other pursuits to dedicate their time and efforts in these recent weeks. The varying viewpoints brought to the Subcommittee’s deliberations provided spirited discussions which allowed the Subcommittee to thoroughly explore what are perceived as significant problems with the Board of Education’s (“BOE”) budget proposal for the upcoming 2004-2005 school year, and the process utilized by the BOE in adopting its proposal. Thanks to these widely varying viewpoints, the Chair believes that the observations and proposals set forth below adequately represent the interests of the broad spectrum of thought found amongst all Maplewoodians.

GENERAL OBSERVATIONS

Unlike the Township budget, once passed by the Board of School Estimate, the monies authorized in the school district budget may be freely moved from one line item to another without any review by an independent entity. The Board of Education ("BOE") compounds this process by yearly enacting authorization for the Superintendent to make such transfers prior to informing the BOE. As a result, the CBAC Schools Subcommittee has long believed that a line item analysis of the school district budget is a meaningless exercise, and has focused its attentions on the budget process, programs and larger issues. This year's emphasis on the Separate Proposal stems partly from its unprecedented size and partly from the limited time between the budget introduction on February 26 and the possible BOSE vote on March 30. We note that the BOE made no effort to include any outside group in its budget building process, but did spend considerable time in trying to educate the public as to the reasons for its actions, as it saw them.

There is preliminary evidence that a review of line item maintenance expenditures by the BOE may be warranted, but time prohibits it for this report. This should have been done by the BOE prior to its actions with regard to the custodial staff. The fact that it was not is indicative of the lack of meaningful communication between the administration and SOMEA, and has increased tensions between them. At worst, the administration's decision to outsource custodians without input from anyone raises the possibility that the action was punitive. The worsening employer-employee relations do not bode well for the contract negotiations set to begin next year.

 The Subcommittee spent its limited time reviewing the budget process and, more particularly, the Separate Proposal. It is unanimous in its opinion that the methodologies employed by the administration as supported by the BOE in the budget process, while allowed by the NJDOE, are beyond seriously flawed.

 1 The previous budget year Separate Proposals, which are cumulatively included within the ‘04-05 Maximum Permitted Net T&E Budget Proposal are as follows:

 Budget Year Separate Proposal Authorized

‘99-00      $944,362.00

‘00-01      $1,386,602.00

‘03-04      $1,272,155.00

 Cumulative amount included within ‘04-05 Maximum Permitted Net T&E Budget Proposal $3,603,119.00 Source: 18 February ‘04, Memorandum to the BOE and Superintendent Horoschack; from K. Milanette, district Business Administrator

 The budget-building process begins with a determination of the dollar amounts authorized under the current school year’s budget ($73,628,680) increased by three percent.  State approved spending growth limitation adjustments ("SGLAs") for courtesy bus transportation, Special Education, and Capital Outlay are added to calculate the Total Maximum Net T&E Budget Permitted under CEIFA. The Administration and Finance subcommittee has characterized this as an "artificial barrier" that must be circumvented if the administration's premise that all programs and services provided this year are essential for next year is valid.

To the extent that the Max T&E budget allowed by NJDOE is less than the amount necessary to fund a "maintenance budget", the budget amount allowed must be increased through the use of a Separate Proposal (which, as of March 5, is $3,280,371.00).. Note the Max T&E Budget includes all of the amounts available pursuant to the prior school year’s budget, which amounts include, on a cumulative basis, Separate Proposal funding from all previous years.1

By law, items included in a Separate Proposal can only be those not necessary for a thorough and efficient education as interpreted by the district. The BOE has great latitude in this regard, as the NJDOE has very few specific requirements as to how a district must attain the educational objectives required by law. What one district may consider as necessary, another might regard as non-essential. Exacerbating the problems inherent in this process, is the fact that the BOE’s funding proposals are first disclosed to the public for scrutiny and comment, a scant five weeks prior to the adoption of a tax levy to fund the proposals.

The process presently, and in the past, employed by the BOE leads to an ever escalating school budget with no assurance, and without guidance, as to whether the funds appropriated are being used effectively to provide the thorough and efficient education to which our children are entitled under our Constitution, State law and Regulation; as well as the personal commitment demanded by our moral and social obligations.

Regrettably, one thing that is assured, and for which there is clear guidance, is that the methodologies employed by the BOE in the budget process, will continue this escalation of our school district’s budget, and concomitantly, the escalation of the tax levies necessary to fund said budgets. This burden, shared by all in our community, unfortunately finds its most oppressive outlet in the burden it imposes upon those of more limited means, and in particular, upon those long term residents, who find themselves unable to make Maplewood their place of retirement after providing so much to all of us during their lives here.

 The Subcommittee is beyond adamant in their collective opinion that while this process may be allowed by the NJDOE, the BOSE must consider its obligations to all Maplewoodians and stop this misuse of the law simply to increase the school budget.

THE BUDGET PROCESS

Timely Disclosure of Information

While the Subcommittee appreciates that the members of the school district’s administrative staff commenced its work well in advance of the disclosure of the fruits of their labors, the disclosure of results of their work in mid February simply leaves an insufficient window of time in which our residents may review the BOE’s budget proposal; appreciate the faults and achievements of the proposal; and recommend appropriate, and reasonable, adjustments to the proposal. The Subcommittee further appreciates that the district’s administrative staff can not all be engaged in a full time, year round, open sunshine budget process. It would also be unreasonable in the extreme, to expect the administrative staff to engage in a constant back and forth dialogue with the citizenry-at-large over each expenditure the BOE makes, or seeks to make under the always upcoming subsequent budget year.

The Subcommittee believes that the recommendations made herein, adequately address the interests of the residents of our Township, and the district as a whole, in achieving a better understanding of whether our tax levies are being utilized effectively in providing the thorough and efficient education which we all desire for our children. The recommendations below are also formulated to avoid imposing any unreasonable burden upon the administrative staff of our school district.