I decided to take down the budget cartoon. Some of the bloggers here have contacted me to let me know about their discontent with the cartoon. And as the title of the blog reads "Tony Perugini Listens" I've listened and I hear you loud and clear on this one.
My intent for posting the cartoon was to make light some of the absurd arguments being made regarding the budget increase. It was certainly not meant to be inflamatory by any means. And it certainly was not meant to disrespect our teachers or elected officials.
Please accept my apologies if this cartoon has offended you. That was certainly not my intent. Those of you that know me and/or have spoken with me know that I try to be fair and give everyone an equal voice here on this blog. As such, I've reopened commentary on this topic. Posting policies still apply and I will take down comments that are derogatory in nature and/or violate Blogger posting policies.
I'm not going to bury this issue/post or try to hide from it. As such, I'm leaving this topic and commentary open for input from our bloggers.
Original Post:
This was emailed to me today and I thought I'd share it here. It's a cartoon about the 5% budget increase. Not sure if it's about Cheshire. My intention is to not disparage either the teacher's union, TC or anyone else for that matter. But I think it does summarize a few of the arguments, out of many, being heard around Cheshire and on this blog. Some statements are obviously absurd, others aren't but you be the judge. This video can be found on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpybOM6kzlg
112 comments:
VEERY INTERESTING.
this is why you won't get re elected
being a christie wanna be solves nothing and makes you look like foolish
then you say "oh Im not anti education
why then this cartoon
Looks like someone's underwear got all twisted up in a knot, lmao.
Looks to me like the "teacher" couldn't give a logical reply to many if any of the questions. And she also admitted she knew nothing about some of the facts presented to her. Her monotone reply of "it's about the children" doesn't cut it..obviously she was only interested in getting the most money she could so she could retire on top in a few years.
Sad, isn't it. Where's the shared sacrafice??
Excellent use of humor to illistrate some VERY important issues. The pension thing is just one of them. I don't think the Gov even got into the pension crisis in his speech today. Bottom line is that as teachers' salaries were pushed ever higher by binding arbitration, the pension resources could not keep up....they will NEVER be able to keep up.
The entire financial picture in CT is crumbling......and some STILL refuse to come to grips with it.
This cartoon isn't funny....its scares the hell out of the people who are paying attention.
That teacher in the cartoon could have been one of the many parnts who kkep shouting that if we don't pass the 5% increase then we are anti-eduacation.
Do they realize that the majority of that money is going to the teachers and their benefits? Not much going into the schools.
But all they can say is "it is for the children". Too many clueless people will stand before the council with their chests puffed out and say ridiculous things when the bottom line is, we can't afford it. Especially now that our "wonderful" governor wants to tax the hell out of us.
Gov. Malloy is asking, demanding concessions too so does that mean he's anti-education too? Of course not, but he's speaking reality. And this cartoon isn't too far from reality at all.
Did anyone watch/listen to Gov. Malloy deliver his budget yesterday?
He made himself pretty clear about where he stands with the teacher's unions:
"Malloy also had a strong message for the state teacher unions in cities and towns across the state -- that they must not take advantage of his pledge to fully fund local schools.
"I am asking you not to take this additional two-hundred-and-seventy million dollars in funding for education and use it to demand raises that will surely result in some of your colleagues losing their jobs or having larger classroom sizes," Malloy said."
""We have done our part in increasing funding for education, but we need all of you to step to the plate as some of you already have," he said."
Obviously, this is not just a Chehsire problem now isn't it? Wake up people...reality is knocking on your front door.
I can't say that I could identify the "teacher", but it's pretty obvious who the "other guy" was!
Humor is supposed to be "funny". This is NOT funny. Even worse, the fact that an elected official, one who alledgedly values education -- given that he is elected to the Board of Education -- chooses to post it on his blog speaks volumes regarding why there is mistrust between teachers, the BOE and TC. Shame on you for such poor judgement. Please don't try to convince that you're an advocate for education. Your "humor" shows differently.
What the heck are talking about? Tony's blog is a place to discuss topics whether you like the topic or not. I don't find anything wrong with it.
He made himself pretty clear about where he stands with the teacher's unions
Based on what I've read, I disagree.
Malloy asked for shared sacrifice. So he proposes raising $1.5 billion in taxes on everyone and asks state ee's to take a $2 billion hit.
Where exactly does the teachers' union share in the sacrifice?
He acknowledges that the current pension system is unsustainable. I agree. And the teachers' pension rests with the state.
But has he asked the teachers' union to change their pension plan? He may have. I don't know. I may have missed it. But it seems to me that since the teachers' union pension plan sits in Hartford, he has the ability to negotiate with the state teachers' union and get them to agree to push their local unions for wage freezes across the state.
Heck, he wouldn't even need to ask for 100%. He could guarantee full funding for the pension plan in exchange for 80% of teachers' unions agreeing to a wage freeze for the year.
But instead, he wants to raise taxes... the sales tax (as a direct passthru to the towns) and the income tax (for redistribution among the towns).
Again... I may have missed it, but I don't see where he's asking the teachers' union for shared sacrifice in the budget.
I wouldn't be surprised if the lack of dealing with the teachers' union was the direct result of a conversation with the Teachers' Union's Top Organizer, Chris Donovan... the same guy who thinks running for Congress is the same as being their Cheerleader in Chief.
But in fairness to Malloy, he is taking action and trying to start a discussion on the state's long-term liabilities for state ee's. That's better than Obama and his big punt on entitlements.
Agree with them or not, some people (Malloy and Boehner) step up to the plate and try to have an adult discussion. Others run and hide and hope that public sentiment dislikes the proposals.
And since I can't watch video here... who's the "other guy" in the video?
Here's an interesting article on the national backlash toward teachers' unions:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49706.html
It's not just Christie (NJ) and Walker (WI). It also recalls Obama challenging teachers' unions.
The events point to a convergence that is remaking the politics of education. Teachers unions, historically one of the most powerful interest groups in American politics, are being besieged like never before — under attack from conservative GOP governors with a zeal for budget-cutting even while taking fire from some Democrats, including President Barack Obama, who has suggested he agrees that unions can be an impediment to better schools.
The backlash threatens to undercut one of the Democratic Party’s most stalwart backers — and upset a mutually beneficial relationship where the unions provided financial support and foot soldiers for Democratic campaigns, in return for political cover to protect their prerogatives in the U.S. Congress and state capitols across the nation.
Chris Donovan sure loves his foot soldiers.
"And since I can't watch video here... who's the "other guy" in the video?"
I'm not sure but it's a public servant named "Charles" and a teacher/parent having a discussion about the 5% budget increase.
I don't know who the author is but the cartoon does mention Hartford so I assume this video is about Cheshire. You have to hear the whole video to appreciate it.
Unfortunately, I've been told it's upset a few people.
"Humor is supposed to be "funny". This is NOT funny. Even worse, the fact that an elected official, one who alledgedly values education -- given that he is elected to the Board of Education -- chooses to post it on his blog speaks volumes regarding why there is mistrust between teachers, the BOE and TC. Shame on you for such poor judgement. Please don't try to convince that you're an advocate for education. Your "humor" shows differently."
I'm not certain which is more absurd your comment or the cartoon.
"chooses to post it on his blog speaks volumes regarding why there is mistrust between teachers, the BOE and TC. "
Apparently, based on this statement, it's definitely NOT about the children. It's sad and disgusting, at the same time, that someone would try to use this cartoon as an excuse for 'mistrust'.
It's obvious that this person is simply looking for any excuse, no matter how silly it may seem, to NOT help with union concessions. Shame on you.
There's nothing wrong with this cartoon Tony, you can't please everyone.
8:07 I agree with you. I am a teacher and I don't find anything wrong with the cartoon. Despite what some write here, we're not as evil as they some say we are. We do have a sense of humor. And I find the cartoon funny.
Tony
The people who feel this cartoon is in bad taste have been blinded by the light set off by the teacher's union. They want you to think it is all about the children. They continue to spout that the total dollars that go to the teachers is not much different then it was 3 years ago. They don't tell you that there are less students and less teachers.
The one good thing that Malloy stated in his budget address was about teacher tenure.
He believes in the concept of tenure to protect teachers' rights, but wants school districts struggling with budget constraints and layoff decisions to have the flexibility to retain new, talented teachers rather than simply going by seniority.
He said he will look into legislation to change it.
I am sure all those in the teacher's unions who backed him are thrilled.
Lets hope he follows through on this one.
I am a veteran teacher who strongly believes that the union should be having a conversation with the board of Ed about how we can help through givebacks. However, posting a mean-spirited and divisive cartoon about teachers on the night before we had a general membership meeting to discuss what we are going to do just made my job of convincing my colleagues that we should have a respectful, trusting conversation with the board of Ed that much more difficult. It's disheartening to those of us who want to work together.
"It's disheartening to those of us who want to work together."
It sounds like yet another lame excuse for not helping.
Don't say lame excuse for not helping. The members of the teachers union have finally had their voice heard and was given a chance to vote to have discussions with the BOE. This blog was thrown in our faces as reason not to have the vote and not to trust the BOE. Great job Tony! We finally make some headway and you post this on the eve of our meeting. You owe the teachers an apology and the people in this town. As a teacher and homeowner in town I am terribly disappointed with this.
"However, posting a mean-spirited and divisive cartoon about teachers on the night before we had a general membership meeting to discuss what we are going to do just made my job of convincing my colleagues that we should have a respectful, trusting conversation with the board of Ed that much more difficult."
It could be about teachers, town council, BOE, parents, taxpayers and it could've been created by anyone on either side of the arguments. You choose to make it about the teachers. I choose to make it about the absurdity of some the arguments being made around town on the budget matter. You read it as mean-spirited others see it as satire.
You speak of mistrust but I want to remind you that this BOE voted 6-1 to forward Dr. Florio's budget untouched to the TC. Lots of mistrust there and certainly not a sign of respect.
As I stated at the night of the vote, I will state it here: If a near-unanimous vote on passing a budget that preserves teaching positions is not an olive branch of good faith and a show of trust for the union...then I don't know what is.
You haven't been to the recent budget meetings but if you've been following those meetings you'll know that myself and BOE finance committee are doing everything we can to minimize the impact of reductions in teaching positions. Which, facing a $2M reduction, equates to 40 teaching positions using an average of $50K/position.
At last night's BOE finance committee, it became apparent that a full pay-to-play fee is not feasible as it would price many students out of their activity. Raising the fee to $300 would only generate about $250-300K in savings.
With $985K going to extra-curricular activities, it's highly likely that not only would the fee be increased dramatically but a significant number of activities would be eliminated.
All in the name of preserving our classroom learning as much as possible...you know...because we obviously don't respect the fact that our teachers are the backbone of our schools and we need you in our classrooms.
To say that this boe can't be trusted is simply ludicrous when in fact it's been doing everything possible to keep you and your colleagues employed in our school district as we believe teachers are the backbone of our education system.
Putting blame on a cartoon...for creating 'mistrust' only seems to fortify those perceptions in the public that the union is looking for excuses not to help. I don't believe the union is looking for excuses but when you speak of mistrust (especially in light of a...cartoon)...it makes it difficult to be taken seriously.
Rather than focusing on this cartoon I'd suggest focusing on preserving the 40 teaching positions that may be eliminated when the budget is finalized.
We can argue over a cartoon or we can discuss ways in which the union and boe can work together for the best interests of all stakeholders. You have all seven members of the BOE amd the administration waiting and willing to hear from you on how we can proceed forward in a respectful and trustful manner.
Let's get it done.
First of all, I would like to apologize for posting anonymously earlier -- my name is Megumi Yamamoto, I am an English teacher/department leader at CHS and a town resident. I posted the comment at 6:44am. I love being a teacher and I'm very proud of my department and our students. But I do want to say respectfully that I don't think the cartoon could be interpreted any other way than as insulting to teachers. Please look at the comments made by the teacher character again. However, my main point was that yesterday, when I got up to speak at the union meeting in favor of working with the board of ed, the fact that it was posted made it much harder for people to hear what I had to say. I'm really happy that the Board of Ed passed Dr. Florio's budget recommendation on to the town council as is, and that point was made repeatedly by speakers at our meeting. Unfortunately, when the blog post was brought up, it took away from the positive momentum that had been built up at the meeting. Tony, I'd be happy to invite you to come to CHS and meet with me or my teachers to see what we do and talk to our students about their perspective on how best to move forward. Thanks for your time and efforts --I'm hopeful that we can work together productively.
For the angry teachers writing in.....
1. For decades you have let a small group of union leaders speak for you. You sat back, didn't speak up and let someone else determine your wages and benefits.
2. You condoned tenure....an outdated concept that promotes public distrust and even internal resentment among your own fellow teachers.
3. You were perfectly satisfied to let good new young teachers get thrown under the bus so the system could keep less effective "senior" teachers.
4. You were very happy to accept a three year contract in the fall of 2008 in the midst of the financial meltdown that called for raises that were simply not affordable. You KNEW....or should have known ...that the train wreck was coming. Some of you tried to get the union leadership to compromise last year but the big dogs at the CEA in Hartford told your local union to hang tough. And you went along with it.
5. You were very happy (or maybe not?) to allow your union dues money to buy elections for Connecticut politicians who WILLFULLY allowed your pension plan to fall BILLIONS of dollars into the hole? Do you think your pension is safe? Maybe, maybe not. But at least you have one....and the citizens of Cheshire are going to have to pay more taxes to bail the fund out! And you don't expect people to be a little peeved?
Why are you angry that many people are upset....not just in Cheshire....but all across the country ...where generous public employee (not just teachers') salaries and benefits are coming into view as the economic tide goes out? I can understand that you may be feeling a little defensive as the "public sentiment" appears to be running against you. But take a hard look at what has transpired in your industry (and education IS an industry) over the last couple of decades and consider the positive changes that can come out of this turmoil. Changes to tenure, seniority, binding arbitration and a greater say over what you teach and how you teach it can only HELP you. Embrace the change and tell the self-aggrandizing union leaderhip to....retire?
Nobody doubts that what you do is important......and can be difficult. But there are a lot of other important and difficult jobs out there were salaries and benefits lag well behind yours.
Don't let the die hard unionists in your midst use a cartoon as an excuse to not compromise so jobs can be saved. Humor can be used to highlight important issues.....and this cartoon did, albeit a little too pointed in spots. Let's get on with resolving the issues.
They are not going away.
What is shocking to me is that any Cheshire teacher, as educated as they are, can be the least bit surprised by the satire in the cartoon. They are entering year three of a generous contract. Do they live under rocks?
There has been volumes of criticism from the POLS and the public. To say this is shocking is to say how truly tone deaf many teachers and their union leadership is. Its like saying everyone loved the pool bubble and what a shock it is now that some folks hope a new bubble never goes back up. Give me and no less than2/3rd of Cheshire taxpayers a break or just get on a bus for Madison, Wisconsin.
"Tony, I'd be happy to invite you to come to CHS and meet with me or my teachers to see what we do and talk to our students about their perspective on how best to move forward. Thanks for your time and efforts --I'm hopeful that we can work together productively."
No apology needed Megumi but I'd like to meet with and your colleagues. Understand that I have no official capacity to negotiate on behalf of the board so this would be an informal meeting whereby I'd like to personally address this cartoon and collobarate on how we can work together. Please let me know what your schedule accomodates and I will make myself available. My email is aperugini99@cox.net and my phone is listed. Thank you!
Thanks, Tony! The apology was really because I appreciate you stating your beliefs in this public forum, and I realized that if I wanted to chime in, I should do the same thing and stand behind my thoughts with my name. I'll be in touch soon via email and I look forward to meeting you! Megumi
You made the right call in pulling the cartoon. That kind of one-sided spiteful thinking is not what we need in this town. Making arguements against raising taxes is one thing, but portraying such a distorted view of teachers is not productive.
Tony,
As a teacher in town I choose to stay anonymous but I also respect Megumi's bravery. The teachers have spoken with a vote in favor of discussions for some type of concession with the BOE and TC. I know you enjoy the kids and are proud of our school system. When I saw you working with the kids in the cafe at Dodd I thought to myself finally we have elected officials getting into the schools. I also respect Ann Giddings for doing the same. My challenge to you is to work with the other elected officials and come up with something that can be mutually agreed upon by both sides to help the schools, the town, and most importantly the kids. It's time to put political views aside and figure out whats best for our future. Please don't come up with some ridiculous option for the teachers. Maybe extend the contract a year and spread the raise over 2 years. There seems to be a lot of teachers in favor of that option. What kind of savings would this create? Thank you for your services.
"You were perfectly satisfied to let good new young teachers get thrown under the bus so the system could keep less effective "senior" teachers."
Quite the contrary, the teachers are angry that good new young teachers were thrown under the bus. They just are aware that it was the TC budget cuts that caused this to happen, not the union contract. The TC chose to cut the BOE budget more and to not use more of the rainy day fund. The contract was signed 3 years ago, the TC budget cuts were for THIS YEAR.
The seniority issue was decided a long time ago when teacher pensions were structured to encourage teachers to "hang on" for way too long. The pension system is outdated and needs to be changed, but not by cheating current teachers out of the pensions that they someday hope to live on when they retire.
Don't know if you should be blaming the TC for all the budget cuts. If you recall, it was the BOE that cut the budget by 1.1 million before sending it to the TC.
"Don't know if you should be blaming the TC for all the budget cuts. If you recall, it was the BOE that cut the budget by 1.1 million before sending it to the TC."
But it was this tc that went public and stated they were looking at a near-zero increase before any budget was presented to them. This year, more of the same. While I can't put blame on this tc for the country's or state's financial troubles...I do fault this tc for keeping a closed mind on the education budget. Publicly stating that there would be no or near-zero increases, or that the budget would be dead on arrival...before anything is forwarded to them...pretty much summarizes the bias present on the tc.
The seniority issue was decided a long time ago when teacher pensions were structured to encourage teachers to "hang on" for way too long. The pension system is outdated and needs to be changed
This is something I've wanted to see change years ago. I've had a few friends of mine (who are teachers) tell me that they feel that "burnout" happens most often in the 10 to 15 years range. Obviously, that's not true of all teachers. But I think the combination of the 37 year pension and tenure creates an environment where teachers who should leave, don't leave.
I'd love to see Malloy tackle that. But with people like Donovan underfunding the pension for years... I find it unlikely that Malloy could restructure the teachers' pension right. It would be helpful though if he could offer a pension buyout for teachers who are partly vested and want to change careers.
I understand that teachers get fully vested at 2% each year, up to 37.5 years. Do you happen to know the various tranche / vesting years? 5 yrs? 10 yrs? 20 yrs? And what % at each of those years?
Some of the best and some of the worst teachers in the system are the most senior ones. The difference between the two? The best ones are still there because they love teaching and children. The worst ones are still there only for the pension.
"Don't know if you should be blaming the TC for all the budget cuts. If you recall, it was the BOE that cut the budget by 1.1 million before sending it to the TC."
From what I understand, the BOE made cuts last year hoping to avoid further cuts, but it did not work out that way. This TC still got the hatchet out. This year they were not fooled again. If the TC wants to gut the school system let them stand behind that and run in the next election. The BOE will make lemonade if they are given lemons, but they would rather have a workable budget not some bare bones charade.
From what I understand, this year the Boe only forwarded the budget over "as is" because they didn't want to send it over without specifics on where reductions would be made. They needed more time to figure it out. They know it'll be reduced.
" They needed more time to figure it out. They know it'll be reduced."
Everyone knows the TC will make cuts, it's just a matter of how much. Until the BOE knows just how bad the cuts are, it would be hard to make specific reductions. Do you think the TC will take the >$1 million surplus into account? No, they already spent that. Will they return the $0.5 million in special ed money from the state to the BOE? Stay tuned. Will they continue to claim that the RDF is just for natural disasters? Stay tuned. If we get the same answers as last year, get ready for home values to drop significantly.
8:48 PM
The only thing impacting your housing value Mr. selfish, use the kids as your human shield, is a crappy economy. Economics 101 has been lost on most Americans. We are in a rotton, ugly economic tailspin...a cycle no 20-60 something has ever seen. If you choose to think otherwise you are simply in a cocoon. Blame it on Bush, blame it on FDR, blame it on the town council but that is the fact. Live with the realities and be part of a solution to the overall problem and start by not bemoning your loss in home value.
What do you care unless you're tapping into a home equity line or ready to head south to enjoy your retirement in a tax climate you can afford.
You folks fixated on the actions of the town council or the board of education are ignoring the facts. Its not teachers, public employees, Bush or FDR. Its you...selfish silly mutton heads that are staring into the past for answers instead of grasping the problems and rising to the challenges. Do it for your kids not your property values. Mr tax man doesn't give a whoop about that. With your attitude they'll have to tax you out of town like they have in Detroit, New Haven, Chicago, Hartford and the list goes on and on.
To 8:48 - And your answer to solving the budget problems is???? How much of a tax increase should there be????
"You folks fixated on the actions of the town council or the board of education are ignoring the facts"
Unfortunately, most refuse to acknowledge that the actions of the board or council are simply a result, or symptoms, of a greater problem beyond the control of local government.
Society has evolved into a nation of entitlement, dependency and ignorance. None of which can be easily solved and stupid can only be fixed by Darwinism.
The "Raise my Taxes" spectacles that presented themselves last year in front of the TC for their 15 minutes of fame have since vanished into the shadows. Perhaps they will once again come out from rock of greed and try to save the day for cheshire. Hopefully, Darwinism evolved them out of Cheshire. One can only hope.
" Live with the realities and be part of a solution"
The cost of EVERYTHING is rising and your property taxes should stay the same? Talk about selfish and living in a cacoon. There are over 5000 students and they all have parents. They should suffer to keep your taxes lower? EVERYONE'S property values will drop if the school system is no longer an attraction for home buyers, not just the families. There are over 500 seniors who get a tax break to the tune of $0.5 million. You won't hear me complain about it because it's the right thing to do, but failing to approve the use of some of the RDF and having a modest tax increase to preserve the quality of our schools is WRONG.
11:19 If you think Cheshire is some oasis of low taxes in CT that people flock to for that reason then you are truly living under a rock. Most of thousands of families that live in Cheshire came here for THE SCHOOLS, not lower taxes, not bedding plants, not the pool. Education is a lower % of our town budget than most comparable towns, would you like a list?
What the DRMT (don't raise my taxes) crowd fail to consider is that property taxes are based on property values. People that have large houses (families) will be affected much more by property tax increases, while people who live in condos or small houses will be affected much less. The families that are in favor of small tax increases are the very ones that will pay the bulk of those increases. The ones who are so against any tax increase will in fact pay very little of the increase.
"And your answer to solving the budget problems is???? How much of a tax increase should there be????"
Well let's review again. The town ran a >$1 million dollar surplus this year and still has $0.5 million in special ed money from the state that they have not returned to the BOE. How much was the tax increase last year for the average household? and how much of the RDF did the TC use last year? Last year Mr. Ecke proposed that the average household pay ~$25 more in property taxes and we use more of the RDF to fund some of the BOE budget. That was rejected and we got more teacher layoffs instead. Apparently that was this TC's idea of a "solution". Yes, the economy is bad, but the RDF is there for such situations. I'm not saying use the whole RDF just some it to get through this year.
"What do you care unless you're tapping into a home equity line or ready to head south to enjoy your retirement in a tax climate you can afford."
Did it ever occur to you that when parent's children grow up they might want to downsize to a smaller house? Did it ever occur to you that people move down south for warmer weather not lower taxes? Did it ever occur to you that people move out of cities because of the crime not high taxes? Did it ever occur to you to move down south since low taxes seem to be your only concern?
Living in CT and expecting taxes to be low is like living in ND and expecting it to be warm or living in Seattle and expecting it not to rain.
So, rumor has it that the union took a vote on friday and the outcome was overwhelmingly positive. Anyone on the 'inside' want to elaborate on the vote? If what I heard is true, many naysayers commenting negatively aginst the teachers here are going to owe the teachers an apology.
The teachers union came up with a concession (loan) last year. Let's hope if they are truly worried about the teachers, children and the town as a whole they'll come up with something realistic this year.
"The teachers union came up with a concession (loan) last year. Let's hope if they are truly worried about the teachers, children and the town as a whole they'll come up with something realistic this year."
Let's also hope that the BOE and especially the TC are willing to consider a true compromise, not a one-sided scenario. If the union is willing to help out the BOE, then the TC has to be willing to help out the BOE also. Last year the TC only provided the BOE with enough funding to cover increased utilities and transportation costs. A decidely one-sided, autocratic, and political assault on our schools, students, and parents.
Two years ago the TC (Matt Hall Chairman, Ecke Budget Chair) gave the BOE a 1.3 million increase in their budget...much less than requested. At the end of that fiscal year they had $300,000 left over to stash in the medical benefits (rainy day?) trust fund. The Admin also had enough left over to "pre-pay" some bill ( $200,000+) in the new fiscal year....for which they got their hands slapped....just a little...by the auditors.
Put another way, they ran the school system very nicely with a net increase of about $800,000. Along comes the next Council and gives the BOE a $900,000+ increase for the next fiscal year (the one we are in now)....with (again) fewer kids in the system. This was supposed to be the end of the world.....but the schools are still running very nicely thank you. So if the effective increases for the last two years was less than a million dollars, why does Florio need 3.5 million increase now?
And for those of you worried about all the "staff reductions"....look at the figures and you will see a very large increase in positions (30+) in 2006-2007 timeframe (enrollments still declining back then too) How come all the new positions? Hmmm? Maybe we are just "right-sizing" the system....but some people are making it sound (again) like it is the end of the world.
Time for reality check.
"So if the effective increases for the last two years was less than a million dollars, why does Florio need 3.5 million increase now?"
Did you bother reading the detailed information here about what makes up the increase?
"And for those of you worried about all the "staff reductions"....look at the figures and you will see a very large increase in positions (30+) in 2006-2007 timeframe (enrollments still declining back then too) How come all the new positions? Hmmm? "
Umm...30 positions were eliminated in 2009-2010 and 2010-2011. Enrollment declined 60 students this school year, not the projected 115. Ya may want to get up speed as you seem stuck in 2006.
"Ecke Budget Chair) gave the BOE a 1.3 million increase in their budget...much less than requested. At the end of that fiscal year they had $300,000 left over to stash in the medical benefits (rainy day?) trust fund. The Admin also had enough left over to "pre-pay" some bill ( $200,000+) in the new fiscal year....for which they got their hands slapped....just a little...by the auditors."
So the TC gave them $$ and the Boe had an extra $300,000 and $200,000 at the end of the year and they didn't have to give it back to the TC. Nice.
You keep talking about declining enrollment. Yes, we are getting to the end of the echo-boom (children of the baby boomers)and that is resulting in a SMALL decrease in enrollment. So why are we failing to replace middle and high school teachers that retire? The drop in enrollment won't affect those grades for 7-8 years.
"At the end of that fiscal year they had $300,000 left over to stash in the medical benefits (rainy day?) trust fund."
And how much of this years >$1 million dollar surplus did you put in the town medical trust fund?
and how much went to the BOE? $0! You can try to rationalize the actions of this TC all you want, but you are not fooling us. The November vote can't come soon enough.
"At the end of that fiscal year they had $300,000 left over to stash in the medical benefits (rainy day?) trust fund."
As an FYI, at the end of the 2009-2010 budget there was $320K leftover that was put into the medical trust fund too.
In the current budget, as of last week, we're $320K in the hole. More than likely, there may be a request to the TC to ask for funding to cover the shortfall which is related to the CHS air quality issues, snow removal, and special ed. This may the first time the BOE doesn't contribute to the medical trust fund at the end of the school year. I say this because accounts have already been frozen since mid-december and we have this shortfall at this time. Last year, at this time, this wasn't the case.
I should have more detail about this at the next BOE Business meeting. I'll post details here as I get them.
I also received a report on what Cheshire will receive for Special Ed reimbursement. I haven't read it yet but will do so this evening and report.
"Maybe we are just "right-sizing" the system"
So instead of trusting trained administrators who are experts in education to make such decisions, we are supposed to have TC members, who haven't sat in a real classroom for 30-40 years make those decisions for us? Let's have the TC members go to the middle school on a nice hot June day and sit in a full classroom of 13 yr olds for the entire school day. Then, they might a very small glimpse of what educators do all year and might have a different perspective on "right sizing". Of course some of these TC members are so full of themselves that they would never consider such a thing. They feel that their vast experience in education (they attended high school) eons ago qualifies them as "experts".
1. To 12:25 pm - Yeah, the public should have no say about anything...just leave it to the "trained administrators".
You mean the same "experts" who have lead the American education system to its exalted position?
Just because you took a lot of ED courses doesn't mean you have the market cornered on good ideas or on economic reality. It just means you took a lot of ED course.
2. Hot in Dodd in June? Good God! I never knew how the poor kids suffer.Can't let them be in an un-air conditioned space ...ever...now can we.
3. 8:36 - "small decrease in enrollment".....according to BOE budget book it is down 100 kids per year on average for the last five years and will continue to fall at about the same rate for the next five.
When do the savings kick in? or does the BOE budget never go down?
Hey Tony, where's the cartoon?
I can understand you not wanting to post it in its entirety because you are an elected official....but at least share the YouTube address in the interests of "diversification", "hearing all sides", "being open to new ideas", "thinking outside the box", etc etc etc.
Or does that only apply when liberals want to be heard?
4:22, I added the link to the post.
at least share the YouTube address in the interests of "diversification", "hearing all sides", "being open to new ideas", "thinking outside the box",
The cartoon seemed like the same tired old ideas, just presented in cartoon form and a very biased view. Yeah let's encourage more divisive and ignorant garbage.
"Yeah, the public should have no say about anything...just leave it to the "trained administrators"."
I have seen "the public" come before the TC and ask them to listen to those administrators. Some of the TC just ignore them. Yes, the public should have a say. The TC should not ignore them.
Some on the TC seem to think that teacher layoffs is the solution to our problems in spite of what "the public" wants.
Here's how I see it with the TC & Boe. The TC will give the Boe a certain dollar amount. They have no say on how it's spent. It's then up to the Super to use that 60 some odd million as he sees fit and providing the Board approves of his plan. The Super could adjust what he budgeted for in various accounts (they don't always spend the amt budgeted), he can up the activity fee, reduce or combine extra curricular activities, adjust course offerings, reduce positions (including administrative). In other words, it's up to the Super not the TC. So one shouldn't say that the TC wants teacher layoffs.
"So one shouldn't say that the TC wants teacher layoffs."
You are completely WRONG. If the TC does not provide the BOE with enough funding (like this year), they have no choice. They still have to pay for utilities, buses, and state mandates. This TC made sure that the BOE could not increase the salary account. Enrollment has dropped 3%, teachers 8%.
Reminder:
taxpayers provide the funds not the TC. And if memory serves me correctly the last council got its clock cleaned. And if memory serves they tried awfully hard to do exactly what the paid administrators asked for. The new TC is marching to a new drummer...that darn old electorate of 2009. We will just have to see how evrybody feels about that in Nov. 2011. My hunch...the folks who think the "paid" experts should get evrything they ask for will once again be very disappointed.
"taxpayers provide the funds not the TC"
OK, the TC allocates the funds, but would the taxpayers rather have their tax money "allocated" to the RDF or the BOE. This TC thinks they have a mandate to gut our schools. We will indeed see in Nov.
"When do the savings kick in?"
Well if you are looking for short term savings because there are less 5-6 yr olds coming into the system, then you are being unrealistic. Long term savings yes. That is why the BOE is considering closing Chapman. Eventually there will not be enough elem school students to justify 4 elem schools. Should they start a gradual change to Chapman (have only grades 2-6 this year, 3-6 next year, etc.)? They should also look at retirement incentives for 30+ yr teachers. Again, not a short term but a long term savings if they are not replaced or replaced with starting teachers. As the BOE has mentioned, since the school buildings are town owned why not have all maintenance under one financial budget rather than two? What about health insurance, why not have all town employees under one plan instead of lots of separate plans? The insurance companies are gouging the town with expenses.
In the short term (this year) use some of the RDF, negotiate a new contract with the union, explore long term savings options (see above).
Once again all we hear is how bad the TC and the stingy taxpayers are. When is someone going to see that many things could be solved if the teachers union would come to the table and make concessions. If teachers are lost they have no one to blame but their union heads.
"Once again all we hear is how bad the TC" if the shoe fits...
All this TC wants to do is blame the union. Same tired arguement.
And the union will blame the town council. The same insane argument.
Of the two groups, only the tc came to the table and increased the education budget and raised taxes to help pay for it which includes the unions wages.
What did the union bring to the table? Consider the answer next time you hear the union place blame on the town council.
"Of the two groups, only the tc came to the table and increased the education budget and raised taxes to help pay for it which includes the unions wages.
What did the union bring to the table? Consider the answer next time you hear the union place blame on the town council."
You clearly have not been paying attention. The TC quite transparently only provided enough funding to pay for increased utilities and transportation costs, the salary account did not increase at all, thus the layoffs. The teachers offered a no interest loan to be paid back 5 years later. That was rejected, so they encouraged
>100 teachers to switch to the HSA to save some insurance costs. Now they are poised to negotiate concessions again. Will the TC now claim that these offers are not good enough? Have they been taking lessons from the Wisconsin govenor? Seems like their solution to everything is more layoffs. If they really cared about the state of the schools they would have used some of the RDF this year, but chose not to. Clearly having an oversized RDF is more important than the schools.
Using some of the RDF this year would have prevented more layoffs without affecting taxes, but NOOOO. I don't buy the "we were preserving our bond rating" or "we need to be ready for a natural disaster" arguements. That is what I call political propaganda. The laid off teachers are real people who probably find no comfort in the RDF.
Using some of the RDF this year would have prevented more layoffs without affecting taxes, but NOOOO. I don't buy the "we were preserving our bond rating" or "we need to be ready for a natural disaster" arguements. That is what I call political propaganda. The laid off teachers are real people who probably find no comfort in the RDF.
"What did the union bring to the table? Consider the answer next time you hear the union place blame on the town council."
Yep, you are 100% correct.
I don't consider a loan to be paid back at a later date a meaningful concession. If that is what the union comes up with again they deserve what they get. The teachers union doesn't care about teacher layoffs or the children or anyone for that matter all they are concerned with is maintaining their power. If the teachers are serious about making concessions they should oppose their union and do just that. The taxpayers of this town or any town for that matter are fed up with the tax increases. You increase taxes $100 this year and next and before long your looking at an incrase of $1000 a year, this is not sustainable and someone has to be realistic and face the hard facts.
Good day, Cheshire residents!
I weigh in from a distance, so forgive me for offering opinions and fodder for further debate.
Yesterday's NY Times Magazine ( Feb. 27, page 32) had a very interesting article about Gov. Chris Christie and the battles he is engaged in with various union leaders. Tight situation down there, budget wise, but from what I can gather, Connecticut isn't all that far behind when you add up all of the unfunded pension liabilities and health care benefits.
As a matter of fact, one very graphic chart reveals that CT is ranked 4th in the nation for the gross amount that every household would owe if states were forced to pay all their obligations all at once. The amount.....? A staggering $32,000 per household. Only Hawaii, Alaska, and new Jersey would owe more.
The article is an excellent read, and IMHO lays out the issues in a readable and understandable manner.
No matter which side of the budget you sit on, give it a glance. It's available here:
http://www.nytimes.com/pages/magazine/index.html
The title is: "The Disrupter: How Chris Christie Did His Homework"
For all the nay-sayers that will jump all over this post with the "that's NJ. this is CT" I say this: I agree with you - geographically speaking. Financially, the big budget issues are very similar and require dramatic action.
Good luck with your budget, and the talks with your union leadership.
Hello 4:28. You are spot on with your comments. Cheshire's problems are just like everyone else's and trying to make our situation unique (and blame it on the TC)is off base. When there is no more money, there is no more money and all the wishful thinking in the world is not going to help.
Thanks for passing along the article info. I am always a little reticent to believe everything I read in the NYT; they are not the paper they used to be.I much prefer the WSJ. Far more objective.
Since you have an interest in this stuff (even if from afar)you might want to watch the cartoon posted on this blog (article attached to this string). It explains a lot and, even if not Cheshire specific,it does make multiple points that need to be made. Funny, a bit biting, but on target.
Maybe you can use it in your home town. Probably applies there as well.
"I don't consider a loan to be paid back at a later date a meaningful concession."
You may not consider it "meaningful" but it was a sizable amount of money that the TC turned down.
"The teachers union doesn't care about teacher layoffs or the children"
Pure BS! One could say this about some of the TC members.
"The taxpayers of this town or any town for that matter are fed up with the tax increases."
The ones who complain the most about taxes seem to be the ones who have the smallest increases. The parents who are affected by the layoffs pay a much bigger portion of the tax increases. Layoffs are not the answer to solve our problems, it will only make our town lose in the long run.
"The ones who complain the most about taxes seem to be the ones who have the smallest increases. The parents who are affected by the layoffs pay a much bigger portion of the tax increases."
Now how do you figure this is an accurate statement? What are you basing it on?
Now how do you figure this is an accurate statement? What are you basing it on?
Property taxes are based on property values, so if you live in a large (family size) house, when property taxes increase your taxes increase more than if you live in a condo or smaller home. The people who go to town hall to complain about budget cuts for the BOE live in family size homes. How many people do you see at TC and BOE meetings compalining about high taxes and how many live in family size houses with large property tax bills?
So I guess you're saying that people that live in big houses want the superintendent's budget passed "as is" and are happy to pay a certain percent more in taxes. The sky is the limit.
And you're saying people who live in smaller houses are against the superintendent's proposed budget and want no tax increase.
That's total BS. When the mil rate is set each person's tax increase will be basically the same percentage wise. The people in the "big house" might pay 20% more but so will the guy in the "little house."
"When the mil rate is set each person's tax increase will be basically the same percentage wise." It might be percentage wise, but it nowhere near the same moneywise. If you think there are lots of families in Cheshire that think that low taxes or growing the RDF is more important than education, you're wrong. They moved here for the schools not low taxes or for the RDF. The TC can minimize tax increases and maintain some of the quality of our schools by using some of the RDF. They think they were elected to only represent the don't raise my taxes crowd who don't even pay the bulk of the property taxes anyway.
"..who don't even pay the bulk of the property taxes anyway."
March 5, 2011 6:46 PM
So you think because you pay a large tax bill that that makes you any different than those who pay less...you think you're entitled to more than someone else...you have no concern for those on fixed incomes, those w/o jobs, or those who realize spending needs to be controlled??? You moved here just for the schools so I guess you're leaving when you kids are out. You've probably only been here less than a dozen years give or take. Money is no object for you so you think you should have your cake and eat it too. You don't believe in shared sacrafice b/c I don't hear you saying any unions should give up their raises. You think that taxpayers should bail out the town and pay for the budget increase of salaries & benefits. You want to use the RDF this year and you'll probably say the same thing next year, and the year after, etc.
You think you're in the majority of those who just want to tax and spend. The public spoke at the last election. The majority of taxpayers want spending to be reduced and taxes increases to be kept at reasonable amounts.
If you want to pay more then make a large separate donation and have your rich friends do the same.
"you have no concern for those on fixed incomes, those w/o jobs" Wrong. There are subsides for low income seniors and I'm in favor of those.
"moved here just for the schools so I guess you're leaving when you kids are out" Wrong, but the people who say "why should I pay for other's people's kids?" make me wonder. Who paid taxes for them to go to school?
"The majority of taxpayers want spending to be reduced and taxes increases to be kept at reasonable amounts." Well I will give you that they elected this TC, but I don't think they bargained on the TC gutting the schools to preserve the RDF.
"I don't hear you saying any unions should give up their raises" Even if the union agrees to concessions the costs of utilities, transportation, and supplies still are going up. Taxes are still going up, but the RDF would help to keep the increases lower.
"If you want to pay more" As I pointed out I already do.
I understand the desire to keep tax increases to a minimum, but what's the rationale for not using more of the RDF? to punish the union, to punish the students, to punish the parents, to lower property values? The union will have a new contract next year whether concessions happen or not, so why not use some of the RDF to keep tax increases low and prevent more layoffs?
The economy is still in tough shape which is exactly why this would be the right time to use some (not a major portion) of the RDF. When the economy improves it can be replenished. Yes the RDF is a reasonable investment, but education is a far more important investment in the future of our work force. To keep it "stowed away" when it is needed to preserve the quality of our schools is just short sighted and more detrimental to the future of our town.
I think there's a pretty simple and fair solution...for those that want to pay more for education and have their taxes raised to do so...send them the bill. An "Opt In" solution.
For the rest of us who feel we're paying more than enough towards education ($60M out of $90M of the town budget goes towards education)...we "Opt Out". Simple.
l0:36 - Sure there's a senior tax credit program but you do realize there are many people that don't qualify..then there's those w/o jobs, or those who have to tighten their budgets.
I have never heard anyone say, "Why should I pay for other kids' education." You're just assuming people think that way. But one has to wonder for those that lived here 30 plus years, I'm sure they've paid a lot more than even you.
Donations - It doesn't matter if you pay a lot or a little. If you want everything then you should make that separate donation. I've seen people do it and they were of "average" means, living in that "smaller" house.
Sure utilities will go up and people realize taxes will increase b/c of it, but there still needs to be a shared sacrafice across the board.
I don't think you get it.
"I have never heard anyone say, "Why should I pay for other kids' education." You're just assuming people think that way. But one has to wonder for those that lived here 30 plus years, I'm sure they've paid a lot more than even you."
You'll never get through to these people for they have been infected with the "entitlement" mentality. Their children are entitled to your money, whatever the cost, otherwise they will suffer.
What these people fail to realize is that those who have lived in town 30+ years have paid dearly for generations of children to go through the school district. Has anyone thanked them? Nope.
Costs are out of control and taxpayers are not ATM machines. Almost 70% of the overall town budget is education folks. Entitlement is here, alive and well.
"Costs are out of control and taxpayers are not ATM machines. Almost 70% of the overall town budget is education folks. Entitlement is here, alive and well."
Actually it's 64%, but it's closer to 70% in many other towns that have less students and a comparable
avg income. You don't get it, you think Cheshire is some dreamworld where costs don't rise. Future generations should not suffer just because you can't afford CT.
"For the rest of us who feel we're paying more than enough towards education ($60M out of $90M of the town budget goes towards education)...we "Opt Out". Simple."
What else would you be able to opt out of? the pool, the library, fire trucks, the senior center? Sounds like tea party bull crap to me. People pay taxes to pay for services that benefit the community, if you don't want to be part of the community then "opt out" and leave.
"People pay taxes to pay for services that benefit the community, if you don't want to be part of the community then "opt out" and leave."
Likewise, if you don't like the fact that Cheshire taxpayers don't want to pay more for education then feel free to leave anytime. Your child is not entitled to our tax dollars although I'm certain there are other communities that would welcome your kind.
Actually, when you factor in both the town operating AND capital budgets education makes up over 70%. Let's not lose sight that education also sucks up a significant amount of capital money as well.
Pouring more money into the problem, including dipping into the RDF, doesn't solve the problem. The path we've been on and continue to traverse is not sustainable. CT, according to Malloy, is in DIRE times. $1.5B in new taxes, pension deficits, businesses leaving the state, jobs moving out of the state and few people moving in the state.
Cheshire is not immune to the state's woes. If the state cannot fund it's surplus account in the forseeable future...what makes anyone think Cheshire will be able to do so? It's not feasible that Cheshire will be able to replenish the RDF over the next 10 years.
The simple fact of the matter is that the RDF should NOT be dipped into for excess costs for education. If folks want to pay more towards education they can cut a check to the town and do so.
In the meantime, while all of this banter about spending on education is good and all how about we get back to solving the problems that are forcing us to raise taxes? Increasing the mill rate isn't it.
"Costs are out of control and taxpayers are not ATM machines."
Very true, great statement!
" Your child is not entitled to our tax dollars although I'm certain there are other communities that would welcome your kind."
So if the families leave in droves and the businesses who depend on them follow suit, where are the tax dollars going to come from? You haven't that far ahead have you? You don't care about the future, all you care about is your tax bill.
"The simple fact of the matter is that the RDF should NOT be dipped into for excess costs for education."
First off they are not "excess costs", they are operating costs. Second, you did not give a rational reason why we can't "dip into the RDF" this year. It is not a simple fact, it is merely your opinion. You can only cut spending so much before services deteriorate. We are already at that point.
"Very true, great statement!"
Actually, the statement can be revised to "Rainy Fund is not an ATM machine".
Very easy to withdraw the money from an ATM/RDF but nobody can detail how to replenish it without raising taxes. Fail.
"First off they are not "excess costs", they are operating costs."
And herein lies the problem, given the above mentality, there are no excess costs in education. Basically, education should be an unlimited budget and it should be exceeded.
Dr. Florio himself refers to many "excess costs" in the budget. Perhaps he's delusional according to your logic?
"Dr. Florio himself refers to many "excess costs"
And exactly what costs are you refering too? All education costs are excess according to your mentality. You don't understand the value of education.
"So if the families leave in droves and the businesses who depend on them follow suit, where are the tax dollars going to come from?"
Yea, the future of Cheshire. Less businesses than we have now and less tax dollars, wow what a great plan. Sounds like a ghost town to me, but at least we'll have the RDF.
"Your child is not entitled to our tax dollars" and you speak for the businesses and families in town who pay most of the taxes? NO, I don't think so. You speak for a bunch of complainers who don't support the town and just want to drive it into a ditch so your tax bill stays the same.
"You speak for a bunch of complainers who don't support the town and just want to drive it into a ditch so your tax bill stays the same."
This is exactly what your entitlement attitude is doing to Cheshire. By crying that your little Susie is suffering, and crying for your entitlement to spend at all costs without responsibility you and your kind have driven up, significantly, the cost of living in Cheshire and are driving out families as well as businesses.
Look at your property value, it's in the gutter and it's directly related to the excessive costs for education which translates directly into property tax bills. Sales of homes are also in the gutter and why? Who wants to move into a town where people like yourself feel entitled to other people's money?
So, please, go ahead and keep spending more as you'll be driving yourself out of Cheshire sooner rather than later.
As for the "complainers"...realty sucks for you doesn't it? But fortunately, the more responsible citizens are standing up for what's right and that's common sense which does not include raiding the the rainy day fund or increasing taxes for excessive and bloated contracts and healthcare costs. Common sense says we can't spend our way out this problem. But for spoiled brats who feel entitled to everything, common sense eludes you.
Come this fall, the "complainers" as you put it will speak loudly and clearly at the polls: No means NO more bloated education budgets. Sorry.
As someone wrote earlier taxpayers are not ATM machines. In this regard, you are overdrafted, account closed!
"crying for your entitlement"
I bet you want your social security and medicare "entitlements" don't you? Funny how my tax dollars are paying for those.
"the cost of living in Cheshire and are driving out families as well as businesses"
People did not move to Cheshire for a low cost of living. All the surrounding towns have had a lower cost of living for DECADES.
"Look at your property value, it's in the gutter and it's directly related to the excessive costs" WHAT? Any realtor will tell you that good schools increase property values, but people like you are trying your best to ruin our fine schools (what Cheshire is known best for across the state).
"standing up for what's right" Yeah, being a self-serving penny pinching miser is what you call "right". The students and parents really appreciate your efforts to gut our schools and town so YOU can save some bucks.
"As someone wrote earlier taxpayers are not ATM machines. In this regard, you are overdrafted, account closed!"
Ha, that's funny right there.
"As someone wrote earlier taxpayers are not ATM machines. In this regard, you are overdrafted, account closed!"
Hmmm who put all that money in the Grand List to begin with? Not you that's for sure. It was the businesses and families.
"Hmmm who put all that money in the Grand List to begin with? Not you that's for sure. It was the businesses and families."
Yeah, when they say taxes will go up $100 for the average homeowner, that means it will go up $300 for the families, but $50 for Ebeneezer. Who does the complaining? Not the families, yep you guessed it Ebeneezer.
Return on investment. Where do I want my tax dollars to go? Over 5,000 young people better prepared for the workforce and the future? or a slightly better rating on town bonds (the RDF)? Tough choice! Fiscal responsibility, yeah right.
What is sad about this whole education spending debate is that the majority of the town does not even vote for the TC or BOE. So no matter which side you are on, you are a majority of a small minority.
I'm sure part of it is this dumb idea to have town elections on odd years. Why can't they just have them when the rest of the elections are? At least we would have a larger % voting. I wish people would at least care enough to vote regardless of which side they are on.
Perhaps if more people had voted in 2001(? can't recall year when it was voted on) we wouldn't have this albatross of a pool. Maybe education would not be such an issue if we hadn't dumped millions into that hole filled with water.
I grew up in a town considered to be at the bottom economically in CT. I saved and went to college so I could afford to live in a town like Cheshire. So my kids could go to a great school. Do you know how many people would love to live in Cheshire but can't. Everyone who is upset about a $10 to $20 tax increase a month .... go complain to people in the town I grew up in. They will have no sympathy for you. You want to live in a place most people can't, but you don't want to have to pay for it. Recently a town member said to me, at a BOE meeting, "I already pay $6,500 in property taxes. I can't afford to pay anymore." Then guess what... you can't afford to live in a $400,000+ home. Go cry to the people in my old home town where the average house is like $180,000 ... cry to them about your home in Cheshire.
Entitlement!!?? You want your cake and eat it too!!?? Absolutely... the people complaining about the education budget want to live where most can't and not pay for it. The best part... my bottom of CT town economically, pays more money per student than Cheshire. Cheshire is ranked 145 out of 166 on per pupil expenditure.
Even if you are in the most modest home in Cheshire... you live in a town most never will. Perhaps the issue is not with the education budget and with your own poor financial decisions.
Post a Comment