Wages:
- The MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) extends the current teacher's contract one year and which ends June 30, 2013.
- Wages: The contract splits the last year of the 4.6% increase (2011-2012) over two years. 2.3% will paid in 2011-2012, and 2.3% will be paid in 2012-2013.
- This is expected to save us ~$650K in 2011-2012.
- We were looking at an originally salary increase of ~$1.3M in 2011-2012.
- There will be no increment/step change in 2012-2013.
- This part of the package helps us address ~$650K of the $2.1M reduction to our proposed budget for 2011-2012.
- There's a retirement incentive offer that requires a minimum number of teachers to retire effective 6/30/2011.
- Option 1: The incentive is paying for a portion of the medical benefits coverage for 3 years for those retiring on June 30,2011.
- Option 2: The incentive is paying for a portion of the medical benefits coverage for 2 years for those retiring on June 30,2012.
- There's cost savings for the BOE with this incentive in that it allows highly paid/tenured teachers nearing retirement to leave the school district sooner.
- It gives the Superintendent the flexibility of not hiring replacements for these retirements OR hiring new, lower-cost replacements for the positions OR allow existing teacher's with appropriate certifications to fill these roles.
- A determined number of positions was specified in order to make certain savings would be achieved.
- The amount of savings from this incentive has been reduced for two primary reasons. First, the BOE budget submitted to the TM already included about $150K in anticipated retirements for 2011-2012. (Note: Negotiations didn't occur until after the budget was submitted). Unfortunately, the TC double-counted this amount in their reduction to the BOE budget proposal. So the savings from this incentive has been reduced by $150K this week via the budget process.
- Second, my bias is not to refill the positions vacated by these retirees unless it's a core position for a core program. As such, if we receive (as an example) 20 retirements, I don't expect us to have 20 fewer teachers next year as some of the positions could be refilled. What that turns out to be will be determined in the next few weeks. Even with some or all of the positions refilled (hypothetically) we will still see savings.
- Basically, any teacher under regular contract with the BOE for 2010-2011 are not be subjected to layoffs in 2011-2012. Teachers working under a one-year, interim or substitute contract are excluded. Same applies for 2012-2013.
- **However, should there be a 5% or more reduction in State and/or Federal funding to the Town of Cheshire OR the BOE then BOE retains the right to a reduction in force.
- Regarding this staffing language, be aware that we will already lose about 2.5% in Federal funding for 2011-2012 due to the loss of the federal stimulus money of $540K
- Should Hartford, namely Malloy, devastate our funding for PILOT, ECS, etc. by 5% or more we can compensate (as best as we can) with layoffs should this situation occur.
Considering the $2.1M reduction to our budget proposal by the TM and TC, this concession package is the only viable option for BOE at this point in time. Arguably, I detailed the restrictions/consequences of taking drastic/unrealistic action by trying to eliminate 40 teaching positions on this blog. Without this concession package, I don't know how we could possibly find $2.1M. While I do have some concerns with this concession, I believe it's the only saving grace we have at this time.
However, I estimate that we're still short somewhere between $600-900K in 2011-2012 budget. I will have a firm number next week and details on how to make up this shortfall soon. I expect a change in program, extra-curricular and tapping into the medical trust fund. But until the BOE chimes in and the Superintendent comes back with details, this is my speculation at this point. But there will be changes.
Regarding the Medical Trust Fund. (And I will have a dedicated post on this topic soon) the balance is about $2.2M. We received the March claims data this week and claims jumped from ~$300K in Feb to ~$600K in March. It appears to be trending back up. This, in conjunction with expected HSA participant claims to be paid soon from the MTF, is beginning to drive the MTF balance lower. Based on my view of the MTF and our claim history over the last two years, I believe a safe MTF balance should be around $1.5M. We've come to close to that level last year about to $1.7M this year.
I detail the above because the MTF is NOT a reserve for the operation budget. It's not a savings account, slush fund or the like. I believe it Mr. Ecke who erroneously referred to it as a general 'reserve' during his banter Tuesday night. If the BOE/Superintendent believes we should underfund it next year (i.e. draw it down) to free up cash flow in the operating budget...this is problematic. It will have to be replenished at some point. Borrowing from one unstable liability to pay for another liability is perhaps what got this country into trouble with the mortgage bubble. It's not a fiscally responsible solution. More on this later.
I want to thank the Town Council for giving us an increase to our budget. Although it's $975K, every penny counts and I do understand what went into their decision and the fact that they are looking out for ALL taxpayers in Cheshire. I'm not happy with it, but the BOE will make this budget work one way or another.
I also want to thank Beverly Jurkewicz (union President) for her efforts during the discussions. The concession package is a tough pill for me to swallow but it does help us and shows that the teachers tried to help. I also want to specifically thank the teachers who supported and voted in favor of this this concession package. Most folks may not know this but Tim Slocum was a very positive influence during the negotiations as well. I mention this because I've read many comments criticizing the TC for not being proactive with the union.
Our work continues.
76 comments:
First, and I'm sure you know this Tony, Diane DiPietro just announced she's retiring in Dec. 11/12. If she's not replaced for the balance of the year, the board should be able to save at least half of her salary.
Also, I have to say that I thought Mr. Brittingham was a bit out of line at the meeting with his comments about a certain council person who he mentions by name. Granted some on the board may not be happy with just getting a million more but that's the way it is. No need to criticize people especially when they're not there to speak to the comments being made.
4:28. I won't talk about personnel. Regarding retirees, you're correct about salary savings, particularly if they are not replaced even if for part of the school year.
Regarding Gerry's comments. We each choose to deal with our frustrations differently. I'd rather not use my time behind the microphone criticizing the TC. Or, as you pointed out, criticizing people while they're not there. I'd much rather conduct BOE business. But to each their own.
At this point I believe any criticism between the BOE/TC is a waste of time and energy. In the end, our problems (shared problems) reside in Hartford. Loss of revenue, funding, unfunded mandates, PILOT changes, tax increases, union regulations, etc.
None of these issues are going to get resolved within Cheshire, particularly between the BOE/TC.
Somehow we need to turn our frustrations to Hartford and we need the help of voters to make that happen.
We can continue to be creative in how we utilize our precious, limited revenue but that's running near the end of it's course.
On that note, one person gets it. I received a phone call from a Cheshire resident (not a fan unfortunately) who has turned their attention/efforts on our elected representatives.
In particular, this person is trying to rally residents to question what our representatives are actually doing to lessen the burden of unfunded mandates on our great town.
My frustration is greatly centered around Hartford rather than the TC. The TC and BOE is not forcing these mandates on us or making Hartford partially fund what Hartford is supposed to be fully funding.
I think we should be channeling our frustrations with Hartford at this point.
This concession comes a year late. Only when the union leaders saw how much other Towns teachers unions gave to save their jobs did they move. Sorry, but they lost a lot of my respect. Also, with all the other things that they were given to help them retire early will we save anything? All the previous talk about experience etc means little. Take the money and run and the heck with the children. It comes to squeezing the most out of your employer.
The BOE and TC drop the ball on this 3 years ago when it awarded such a large contract.
Yes Tony the problem is Hartford, but we will have to wait four more years.
I think it is misleading and unfortunate when Board members continue to refer to "the $2.1M reduction to our budget". The TM "refined" the Education budget, replacing a bad assumption that medical premiums would increase by 8% with a known actual increase of 2% - which reduced the Super's budget by $700,000. That was not a cut, just a more accurate number.
So BOE was given increase of $975K vs $2.3mm requested. Teacher concessions further reduce that difference by $650K, leaving a "cut" of $675K, which will be further reduced by early teacher retirements. So in the end, you are left to bridge a gap of $675K, not $2.1MM.
A determined number of positions was specified in order to make certain savings would be achieved.
With regard to retirements, two budgets are impacted:
1) The BOE operating budget would see reduced costs;
2) The State Pension Fund would see increased costs.
With regard to savings from retirements, will it reflect a net savings across both budgets?
Some people are utterly amazing. Teachers getting hammered and chastised in your last post and now this one, for giving concessions.
Lets get some facts straight.
1. If the teacher's union voted no to concessions, they would have received an average 4.6% increase next year. Even if the teachers received a 0% increase in 2012-2013, they would have made an average of $2,000 more over the two years than by accepting this concession. In other words, the teachers voluntarily gave up an average of $2,000 each to help the town and to do their part in sharing sacrifice. But I'm sure the negative people have done their math and know this.
2. Before people jump on the "they didn't want larger class sizes and people didn't want to lose their jobs" bandwagon, if people retiring are not replaced, class sizes will go up. No motivation there. As for jobs, there are over 340 members in the teachers union. 40 jobs could have been threatened. Which means over 150 teachers said yes to losing $2,000 when their job was not threatened. Again, to help.
3. Some teacher's retiring would not have been able to afford retiring without the retirement package. This helped them and the town. Their retirement saves the town money despite the package they received.
4. For anyone criticizing the timing, this was a process that the BOE and TC knew about and was working with the union on. The BOE and TC knew well in advance of the TC recommending a budget that a positive outcome on concessions was expected. Their was no knee jerk reaction on the unions part once the budget was set. This has been in the works and the TC knew when they set the budget.
5. Attacking a group that just gave up an average of $2,000 each voluntarily is beyond comprehension. While people are suffering and peoples wages have been frozen, most of this was not by choice. Most people did not say, pay me less so I can help, they just got what they got. These teachers just volunteered to be paid less to help.
I know several teachers in the district and I can tell you, the reason they did this is because they wanted to help and do their part. I want to say thank you to our teachers for caring about the town and our children's education enough to give up some of their contracted salary. Those who are negative, I hope next time you give $2,000 to someone to help they criticize you for it. Seems logical doesn't it... right.
I hope Tony, you and other members of the BOE and TC will recognize what the teachers did here and not sweep it under the rug as something other than a genuine gesture to help our town.
"I hope Tony, you and other members of the BOE and TC will recognize what the teachers did here and not sweep it under the rug as something other than a genuine gesture to help our town."
If you watched the BOE meeting last night, then you'll know that the BOE does indeed recognize this is a genuine gesture to help the town and we thank them.
What happens if the town council doesn't approve this modification to the contract? I don't see how that could happen but I suppose anything is possible. When are they scheduled to vote on this?
"With regard to savings from retirements, will it reflect a net savings across both budgets?"
Tim, I really don't know as I have no insight into the State's pension costs. I'll dig around and see if I can get an answer.
That's one thing that's easier on the town side. Town ee's get their pension funded by the town, not the state.
It's a lot easier to get all the information when both budgets sit in one place.
Anyway, I was more asking if you happened to know. No need to research it. Thanks for offering though. And maybe keep it in mind for the future when retirement costs get discussed again.
Tony, the $150K in retirement savings represents how many anticipated retirements? From what I've seen over the years, when Florio estimates the number of retirements there usually are way more than what he says. When you say the TC counted the number twice are you saying it was an error or are they estimating more retirements?
With regard to the MTF being a “general reserve” fund, I agree that it’s not an actual general reserve. But I feel it’s effectively a general reserve fund.
About a year or two ago – and after years of pressing – Bill Kunde finally got an answer to his question:
Since the MTF is funded from the BOE operating budget, is it underfunded at times, thus allowing other parts of the BOE operating budget to be overfunded at times?
The answer from the Sptd was that it does happen. At times, the MTF is underfunded and other parts of the BOE operating budget are overfunded (in relation to the BOE budget that was adopted the prior June).
So to me, calling the MTF a general reserve fund is factually incorrect, but it’s by no means a stretch of the imagination. I think it’s a fair characterization.
Btw, I don't have any problem with the BOE having either the MTF or a general reserve fund. But transparency is important and if my memory serves me, then people should be aware that the MTF is sometimes underfunded... effectively creating a cushion for the rest of the budget.
They gave $2000? How? How about the previous two years? More than most teachers received in surrounding Towns. They didn't step up to the plate until the TC stood their ground. This was what most people wanted and why they were elected.
Tony: As you know the retirements represent LONG TERM savings, which are the best kind. The first year may not be a huge savings, but the teachers retiring are at the top of the pay scale, and the ones that are replaced will net the BOE and town a big savings. Despite the rhetoric, you know enrollment has not dropped much, and most of the small drop has been the youngest kids.
What ever happened to the special ed reimbursement money from the state? Did the TC count that money in the town side of the budget or the BOE? If it is not on the BOE side, isn't that ILLEGAL?
"Also, I have to say that I thought Mr. Brittingham was a bit out of line at the meeting with his comments about a certain council person who he mentions by name. Granted some on the board may not be happy with just getting a million more but that's the way it is."
Mr. Brittingham was right. Certain TC members whose last names start with an S say they represent the whole town. If you believe that, there is a bridge in NY I'd like to sell you. They only represent the people who place their own tax bill above all else in importance and don't recognize the value of education.
Going back to my concern about the two different budgets (BOE and pension fund)...
With regard to pension fund costs, I believe teachers get 2% / yr, up to 37.5 yrs... or a max of 75%.
So if you get an idea of the number of years served by the retiring teachers (i.e. 30 yrs on average) and determine their final salary (or maybe it's an average of a few years??), then you should be able to do a back-of-the-napkin estimate... or at least a pretty simple spreadsheet estimate!
I'm guessing the retiring teachers are in the $70k to $80k range. So call it $75k x 60% = $45,000 annual compensation in retirement. If that $75k / yr teacher is replaced with a new teacher at $40k... well... just thinking about this now... that'd be $85k in costs next year. So that'd be a savings from a BOE perspective, but not necessarily a net savings to the taxpayers.
Anyway, my numbers are just guesses. Maybe at some point you could bring it up during a finance committee meeting and get some ballpark estimates.
The town did a retirement plan a few years ago. When we did, I kept raising the point about the net savings and was assured that it existed. I missed a followup point though.
The "savings" went into the general fund... but in my opinion, those "savings" should have gone to the pension fund. It effectively made the (high visibility) annual surplus look better... while the (low visibility) pension fund got underfunded.
It wasn't right IMO.
"They gave $2000? How? How about the previous two years? More than most teachers received in surrounding Towns. They didn't step up to the plate until the TC stood their ground. This was what most people wanted and why they were elected."
We're not talking about surrounding towns, we're talking about Cheshire. Teachers gave an average of $2000 of money that rightfully theirs. That money that was negotiated for and agreed upon by ALL parties involved. ALL PARTIES. Honestly, when are we going to stop blaming them?
It's unlikely this town council will actually call for and hold a vote on this contract. Don't fool yourselves.
"They gave $2000? How? How about the previous two years? More than most teachers received in surrounding Towns. They didn't step up to the plate until the TC stood their ground."
The surrounding towns don't compare in quality. Comparable towns (Guilford, Madison, Woodbridge, Southbury) spend more % of their town budget on education with smaller enrollments.
Get real! Cheshire schools are among the best in the state with one of the lowest funding levels. The teachers take a pay cut and you're still complaining. They contribute far more to the community than you or your fellow miserable complainers. Move to Florida and spend your days complaining about the heat.
I'm thoroughly sick and tired of reading comments from people who tell residents who want to keep their taxes low to "move to Florida". There is a problem with the state that education funding relies too heavily on property taxes, yes the state tells the towns what they have to offer in unfunded mandates and then says "figure out to pay for it". Also for those who want to pay more there is nothing stopping all of you from righting a check to the BOE but it never happens. If the only reason that you moved to Cheshire was because of the education system then I can assure you that as soon as your children are out of school the first thing you will do is move to Florida. This leaves all the others who like Cheshire for other reasons (quiet, safe town) to pay for all the tax increases that you so welcomed. You all sound like spoiled brats.
Make no mistake about this. I am extremeely happy the teachers union came to the table and came in with serious offers from the start. I have participated in 3 years of "talks" with the union reps and this was the one time there could be serious consideration given. It was not perfect...retirements will cost more in the 3 out years than the last retirement package but the "smoothing" of the pay raises over 2 years is a significant plus for the taxpayers and the schools budget. And above all the number of teachers does not have to change because of the adopted budget. And the TC, of which I am a member, has set a budget that is workable but not without some challeges for the BOE. But there remain challenges in every part of this budget given the uncertainty with what is coming back to cities and towns once the stae adopts its budget.
There were some risks in the budget but the the TC expected, as I stated publicly at the budget adoption meeting, the teachers would be voting on meaningful concessions and in fact they did vote.
Even if the 60 teachers that did not vote at all decided to vote against the contract changes the concessions would have passed. I thank the teachers for encouraging their union leadership to come to the table. I also thank the union reps for their cordiality towards me and the entire Town Council during the process. The discussions were fruitful. I was there and together with Gerry Brittingham and Tony P elected officials had a direct hand in developing a concession package we can live with.
Next year will once again be another round of budget excitement but then again they all are.
Tim Slocum
I think people get a little carried away with "how great our schools are".....the kids have more resources because the parents are able to afford the extras..and in a lot of cases the parents are well educated professionals.....it makes a huge difference...
I am a teacher and resident. I love my job. That said, it's ludicrous to think that anyone would become a teacher for the money. The majority of us work very hard because we care about kids, learning, and the future. Make no mistake, the decision made by the majority of the union members to vote "yes" on concessions was a difficult one. $2000 might not seem like much to some of you, but for the younger teachers with families, it was a sacrifice, given because they care about this school district. For the older teachers it was a gift, given for colleagues who might be laid off and as a gesture of goodwill toward Cheshire and its students. Those who complain about teachers, please volunteer to spend a day in any one of our schools. You will meet dedicated professionals and wonderful kids who deserve our support.
" If the only reason that you moved to Cheshire was because of the education system then I can assure you that as soon as your children are out of school the first thing you will do is move to Florida. This leaves all the others who like Cheshire for other reasons (quiet, safe town) to pay for all the tax increases that you so welcomed."
My kids are in college, but I have NOT moved. A major of the reason Cheshire is a quiet and safe town is that it is inhabited by well educated upper middle class people who can afford the houses (and taxes) and who support the businesses in town. I did move here for the education (which was great) and I don't mind paying for my neighbors kids to get the same education. I am getting sick of subsidizing the "I can't afford the taxes" whiners. The tax hike for the "average " household will be $86 and I doubt the whiners will pay even close to that. Shut up and pay your taxes, it's not just about YOU.
Anon 9:05
Nobody is blaming the teachers but they compared their 4+ % 3yr contract as being in line with surrounding Towns as justificaction for their contract a few years ago. Also their leadership said Cheshire could afford it. They changed leadership and the Town change TC. So everything work out I guess?
I think people get a little carried away with "how great our schools are".
WRONG. Just check the test scores and colleges that the students get accepted to. Sure the parents help, but they don't take the SATs for their kids. Good schools don't come free. Get over it.
There are many people who have lived here 40,50,60 plus years and have paid their fair share of the taxes without whinning and don't want to move to Florida. They are still here. There are over 400 families ( seniors, widowers and low income households) who have a hard time paying their taxes and received help from The Town. This Town has a good balance of people. Let's keep it this way and not tell people where they should live because of a few comments. Keeping everyone in mind I believe is what elected official try to do to keep the taxes fair.
"Also for those who want to pay more there is nothing stopping all of you from righting a check to the BOE but it never happens."
So you want the families who pay a big portion of the towns taxes to pay an even bigger portion of the taxes. And who paid the taxes for your education back in the day? Oh, you forget! One way street.
"There are many people who have lived here 40,50,60 plus years and have paid their fair share of the taxes without whinning and don't want to move to Florida. They are still here. There are over 400 families ( seniors, widowers and low income households) who have a hard time paying their taxes and received help from The Town."
I have a family member who is retired and living on a fixed income. She moved here to be close to family and the taxes in her old town were MUCH higher. She wants her grandkids to have a good education so would not complain about the taxes. Of course, she has never been a selfish person.
"Keeping everyone in mind I believe is what elected official try to do to keep the taxes fair."
Taxes are more than fair when you consider what we get for our money. Cheshire is a nice town with good services. It is safe, relatively well maintained, and has a great school system. I just don't think it is right to have serious cut backs in services in an effort to keep taxes "fair" for one segment of the town population. If we lose the services that make our town comfortable to live in, it won't be comfortable to live in anymore. Duh! By electing this TC we have shot the whole town in the foot, to benefit only one segment of the town. It's not like people are being asked to pay huge increase in taxes, $86. The vast majority of us could have afforded more or we could have used more of the RDF to maintain services.
To those who say we have not lost services. BULL. Wake up and smell the coffee.
I think it's interesting that no one has responded to the teacher's post. I guess when someone speaks the truth, there's not much to say in reply.
The TC wants you to believe that we have not lost services because they want to get re-elected. I hope the majority are not that gullible. Most services have been cut back to pander to their constituents. Sorry, but their constituents don't have the best interests of the whole town in mind, only their own self interests. Ditto for this TC.
You want a response to the teacher's comment? I found their remark very interesting saying it was "ludicrous to think anyone would become a teacher for the money." I wouldn't mind being that gym teacher at an elementary school that makes $90,000. Yes they've been there a while but to make that much money bouncing balls, playing ping pong, and other fun games seems like a lot and that's for just working 10 months.
Sure many are dedicated and want to teach the kids, but I'd say come that last day of school in June they're just as glad, if not more so, as the kids to get out of there.
I seem to remember years ago when the economy was good and the teachers got very small cost of living raises in their contract. The past two years the reverse was true, so now they were asked to conceed part of their pay raise and did. So if the economy improves in the future the people who demanded concessions will recommend larger raises for the teachers? No? What a shocker! Funny how the agenda is always in one direction, lower pay for teachers, lower taxes. If it's fair for people to ask for concessions in bad economic times, it is also fair to reward teachers for a job well done in good economic times. When that doesn't happen it reveals the true colors of the hypocrits.
10:09 You can pick an extreme case from any job and make it sound cushy, but the average teacher is a middle class person who works hard and cares about the kids. Yes, they get more vacation than most, but many work summer jobs to pay the bills. If you think they are just living off the taxpayers charity, you are clueless. In all the years my children were in school, I would say 99% of their teachers were hard working and caring professionals. They are worth every penny.
10:09. Spend a day with Mr. Daly at Doolittle School and then come back and tell me he isn't worth many, many times the amount he is paid. Go to CHS for a day and visit the physical education/health teachers, who not only spend their "free time" doing things like collecting and refurbishing bikes so all students can learn to ride (I know it's shocking that there are teenagers who don't know how to ride a bike in Cheshire, but not every child in this community has a picture-perfect childhood), but teach students CPR, how to avoid eating disorders, and how to be healthy people. Ask some of the successful, happy children and adults in this town who their role models are. Teachers are one of the most underpaid and under appreciated group of professionals around, and it breaks my heart when uninformed people speak poorly of them.
"If it's fair for people to ask for concessions in bad economic times, it is also fair to reward teachers for a job well done in good economic times. When that doesn't happen it reveals the true colors of the hypocrits."
April 16, 2011 10:12 PM
Huh? Is it fair for some people to have to take furlough days one year and then be told they have to take more furlough days the next year? Is it fair that some people don't get a raise for a couple of years? How about the state workers who are now being asked for huge concessions even though they made concessions last year? Many of these people work hard and do a great job. Do you think they're going to be "rewarded" for a job well done when the economy improves? I highly doubt it. They'll probably just be glad they still have a job.
"There are many people who have lived here 40,50,60 plus years and have paid their fair share of the taxes without whinning"
Good. So don't start whining now. Yes, the economy stinks. Blaming government workers and cutting back services for our future work force is not the solution. Those who truly can't pay receive a subsidy. Those who have a hard time paying should not drive the agenda for the whole town. Nobody likes paying more taxes each year, but we don't need to throw out the baby with the bath water.
"Do you think they're going to be "rewarded" for a job well done when the economy improves? I highly doubt it. They'll probably just be glad they still have a job."
People in the private sector get bonuses and raises when the company does well, government workers don't. That's just the way it is, so that's why they get cost of living raises. So asking them for concessions because the economy is down is fair, but to criticize them for getting cost of living raises is just ignorant. Cheshire town employees like the police and teachers do a good job without bonuses when times are good. Stop complaining and give them some credit.
Death and taxes are sure things in life. It's unfortunate that we have so many bitter people who got their way by pissing and moaning about the taxes. Does it some how make you feel better to blame the government employees and convince the elected officials to cut services for us all? I sure all glad we could all sacrifice for you to save $1-2 a week in taxes. We sure are lucky to have you in our community.
The fact is that teachers agreed to accept between $1000 and $3700 LESS than what was already agreed to for the 2011-2012 school year. They did this because they wanted to help preserve Cheshire's school system. Are all of the other parties doing their share?
"The fact is that teachers agreed to accept between $1000 and $3700 LESS than what was already agreed to for the 2011-2012 school year."
That's a great play on words there. The FACT is that the teacher's aren't losing anything. The raise in the last year of the current contract was split between 2011-2012 and 2012-2013. They lost nothing.
But they gained everything: job security (in addition to exiting tenure laws) for 2 years, same benefits, less health-care costs and salary increases.
I'm not saying they're not helping us, they are, but to twist it as giving up money is just a flat-out lie.
10:38 You seem to be doing quite a twist of your own. The fact is the union extended the contract a year, but took a 0% raise for the additional year. They don't have lower heath care costs, they have the same health care costs (which were increased in the current contract). Only tenured teachers have security for the next two years. Non-tenured teachers have no promise of renewal and there is no promise that retired teachers will be replaced. The district has lost 30 teachers (8%) the last two years while enrollment has only decreased 3% (mostly in grades K-2). Meanwhile all this talk of shared sacrifice by the TC was a load of malarky. They barely touched the RDF and raised taxes slightly, but funded the BOE with only enough to maintain the buildings and run the buses. The TC says they are not anti-eduction. Now THAT is a flat-out lie.
Mr. Schrumm cited the funding of the roof repairs at the high school as evidence that the TC supports education. What that shows is that this TC cares about the town buildings, but the fact that he used that as evidence of support for education shows how out of touch he and his cronies are. If they really cared about education we would not have lost staff and impacted programs. Seriously folks, he needs to go.
"but took a 0% raise for the additional year. "
Right, instead of a 14.4% increase over 3 years, it's 14.4% increase over 4 years PLUS 2 years of job security AND retirement incentives. Life is rough for you.
Welcome to reality.
Even as our student population declines we have to provide a budget that is equal or higher than last years. This makes no sense to me. How can the State dictate that to us? They could reduce their funding to us. These laws or mandates need to be reviewed ASAP. It seems that the Towns are told how to spend their money. This is crazy. Talk and write to your State legislators. Lay off the local officials they are volunteers and fellow citizens. If you don't agree with them vote in the local elections.
Massachusetts has recently tossed out tenure for teachers. Positive things do happen when times get tough.
There are mandates to keep people like you from ruining towns! Cheshire is one of the most prosperous towns in the state. Most can't live in a town like Cheshire. Sounds more like some made some poor financial decisions buying houses they couldn't afford and now want everyone else to suffer because they couldnt afford their purchase. I got news for you, if you can't afford a $100 to $200 tax increase you are a poor financial planner and shouldn't be advising anyone else. As for our seniors, they already receive an additional tax break. People living outside of Cheshire have no simpathy for you. You want your cake and eat it too! Live within your means and stop killing our services!
Maybe instead of critisizing tc members and complaining about wanting to spend more on education, you could all be giving Tony ideas on how you'd like to see the budget worked out. Also, perhaps those who truly want to spend more can organize a fundraiser. Cheshire is so good at fundraising (turf field, playgrounds, pto etc)perhaps some can form a committee and start discussions. It's at least more productive than complaining.
"Right, instead of a 14.4% increase over 3 years, it's 14.4% increase over 4 years PLUS 2 years of job security AND retirement incentives. Life is rough for you.
Welcome to reality."
What would you know about reality? You are living in a dreamworld where the cost of everything is increasing, but taxes should not rise. You want everyone to bend over backward to save you money on your taxes.
Non-tenured teachers (those that are still here) did not receive security and teachers who received incentives to retire will save the BOE money for years to come. Yes, the teachers had a favorable contract in 2008, but how favorable was it in previous years when the economy was better? What do have against the teachers? They provide a valuable service. Maybe the kids could volunteer to stop playing sports and in the band to save YOU more tax money.
1:18
Thank you Mr. Bonehead for your statement of "simpathy" for bad planners. Seems we live in a state full of bad planners. We can point to our state legislatures and governors past and present, cowed by people like you...give us more, we're such good planners, and we can and should always pay more because , afterall you are doing what we ask, or should be asking you to do for us.
And may the countless blessings bestowed on you continue so you can continue this prosperity you have earned by moving here to Cheshire.
And may your benefactor never recoil with your quest for increase despite the decline in their fortune because you are entitled to whatever you deem fair. And then again should your benefactor say, sorry dear and loyal employee, your services are no longer needed here.
What Mr. Bonehead will you do? What will you expect your neighbors to do for you? Oh yes...not your problem nor your concern. You chose to live in Cheshire.
There are many state mandates that don't make sense, especially when they are underfunded. Don't make it worse by underfunding our schools. That only hurts the entire community, not just the families.
"Non-tenured teachers (those that are still here) did not receive security and teachers who received incentives to retire will save the BOE money for years to come."
Not true. Let's clarify this a bit. As I wrote in my blog post on this topic:
Any teacher under regular contract with the BOE for 2010-2011 are not be subjected to layoffs in 2011-2012. Teachers working under a one-year, interim or substitute contract are excluded. Same applies for 2012-2013.
Non-tenured teacher's are included above. I also confirmed this with Dr. Florio today.
"There are many state mandates that don't make sense, especially when they are underfunded."
The UNFUNDED mandates keep coming from Hartford. It surprises me that few take issue with the fact that Hartford is not funding Special Ed ECS at it's mandated 100% level. I believe it's around 65%.
I'd like to see Hartford take a short break on education mandates for 2 years. Let the cities/towns have a breather and catch up with what's already in front of us.
Contact our representatives in Hartford and let them hear from you about unfunded mandates.
"Maybe instead of critisizing tc members and complaining about wanting to spend more on education, you could all be giving Tony ideas on how you'd like to see the budget worked out."
The finance committee is working on closing the gap on an $800K shortfall in this budget. And that's with the concession package and retirement incentives. Whether you believe me on that number or not, it's the number we're working with.
I'm scheduling finance committee meetings to deal with the shortfall. There should be ample opportunity for input/dialogue. I'll post dates/times as it becomes available. As with the previous budget meetings I've this will be transparent, open and feedback is welcome.
Here is the issue right here folks. This person calling another a bonehead, because what that person said makes sense. Don't be fooled, this person doesn't want people to stop providing for them.. Read the post. This is the type of person who will criticize welfare but expect the town to kill all it's services so they can afford to live outside their means. There is a difference in thought here. If some of us lost our jobs or had financial problems that would be our problem. These people want everyone else to pay for their financial woes. Instead of suggesting others write a check or do fundraisers, maybe you should be doing this to support your poor financial decisions. Stop expecting everyone else to pay for you. Maybe next week I will move into a million dollar mansion in Greenwich and then scream taxes can't go up cause I can't afford it!
Lets see if I have this straight? The people who are ok paying more tax so the COMMUNITY of Cheshire has its services for ALL sustained are selfish. Really? What exactly are the people then who want to cripple services for their own PERSONAL gain of a few dollars a month? As the previous post said, they want to live outside their means and get everyone else to pay for it.
Don't forget, parents have "pay to play" now and seniors now have an additional tax credit. So parents are already being taxed more. People who had everything paid for when their kids were in school now don't want to pay for yours. Talk about being selfish.
"So parents are already being taxed more."
In my opinion, parents aren't being taxed enough. The Pay to Play should be further expanded. There should be an education surcharge for those parents with children in the school system.
The per pupil costs I believe are about $12,000 per student. The full cost of education should be charged to homeowners/parents with children in the school system.
That's right. Those with 1 child pay $12,000. Those with 2,3,4,5 would pay $24,000, $36,000, $48,000 and $60,000 per year accordingly.
It would put the accountability of the expense squarely where it belongs, on those that actually utilize it. No reason to leach off the rest of the residents that don't want to pay for these greedy parents' kids education.
Put that in your pie hole and smoke it.
So I understand that the retirement incentive includes up to $45,000 in payments over three years.
If you add that ($15,000/yr) to my estimated cost of retirement ($45k pension + $40k new teacher = $85k/yr), then replacing one retired teacher (at $75k/yr) with a new teacher (at $40k/yr + $15k/yr retirement benes = $55k/yr) would show a savings of $20k/yr for the BOE, but increase total spending (for both the BOE and pension fund) by $25k/yr.
In other words, I'm guessing that the retiring teachers will actually cost the taxpayers more money.
I understand why the BOE is doing this. And my numbers may be wrong. But the taxpayer-funded state teachers' pension plan is a material number. So I think it should be part of the larger dialogue.
I don't know what 5:51 is smoking, but didn't people pay taxes for his/her education? Covenient to forget that. Also, who are the main taxpayers in the town? The businesses, then the families. Who supports the businesses? Yes, the families. Get a clue, sitting at home and complaining about your taxes doesn't support the economy. People who buy products and services do. I doubt you and your fellow complainers contribute much to the grand list or the local economy, so shut your pie hole.
Mr. White: I'm not sure what your point is. If you are saying that the pension is funded by state taxes, OK, but there is a savings for the town. The bottom line is the BOE has to pay less for staff salaries for years to come.
I agree with 9:06 and 9:43. It's all about asking everyone to give up services to lower their tax bill. This an UPPER middle class town,the vast majority can afford the $86 a year, or even double that. Those who truly can't afford it have the subsidy. Those who just don't "want" to afford it, accept the reality of where you live. Services have been cut too much already and the RDF is oversized.
Tony, Thanks for the clarification on the layoff issue. So, teachers on 1 year contracts can still be laid off and not all retiring teachers will necessarily be replaced? As far as the underfunded mandates go, any update on the special ed reimbursement funds? Did that get resolved or is the TC still trying to "hold on to them"?
I know many people have already offered suggestions and you have offered options to deal with the TC underfunding the BOE. Some were logical like increasing fees for extracurricular activities. Some were crazy like cutting AP classes.
I hope you listen to the voices of reason and not the crackpots out there.
9:14... I'm simply saying that pension costs are material and it is best to keep them as part of the discussion.
Frankly, I'm not necessarily sure it makes a difference over the long haul. Consider...
I speculated that a teacher retires after 30 years. But if the BOE doesn't encourage that teacher to retire now, perhaps that teacher retires in three years... getting an additional 6% per year in his/her pension.
6% on my $75k salary would be and additional $4500k/yr for life. If you assume the teacher started at 25 yrs old, is retiring at 58 yrs old and is with us until s/he is 80 yrs old... then that and additional $4500/yr x 22 yrs = $99,000... vs. $45,000 in BOE incurred costs. So over the long-term it may save the taxpayers money.
I don't know how the numbers would play out. My point is to simply elevate the dialogue. Pension costs are material and should be part of the public discourse.
But if it's the difference between a teacher retiring after 41 yrs or 38 yrs (after s/he already max'ed out), then you wouldn't have that add'l $99k in pension costs.
It would be useful if the state provided local school boards with a simple spreadsheet (using the state's actuarial assumptions) to calculate the pension costs, depending on the retirees' particulars.
Maybe Denise Nappier has something already?
Tony,
Apparently Superintendent Florio made $175,000 in 2009. Any idea what his salary was last year? Vincent Masciana received 2% and a bonus to his 401k according to the papers. Has there been any investigation into the salaries of the administrators? Have they made any concessions? If they did, could you share what saved the town?
Thanks.
Mr White: Sense the state is always sending underfunded or unfunded mandates to the towns, seems like fair play to send the state some expenses in the form of pensions. Of course, we all ultimately pay in the end, but at least the BOE saves some money in the meantime. This is especially important since the TC underfunded the BOE to the tune of $800K, but somehow saw fit to keep the RDF at $9 million.
"Since" the state, my mistake
"Some were crazy like cutting AP classes.
I hope you listen to the voices of reason and not the crackpots out there."
I covered the AP course idea somewhere on this blog. Not an option at this time.
I listen to everyone. What is your definition of a 'crackpot'?
"Tony,
Apparently Superintendent Florio made $175,000 in 2009. Any idea what his salary was last year? Vincent Masciana received 2% and a bonus to his 401k according to the papers."
Yes, I supported the annuity contribution increase for Vincent Masciana.
"Has there been any investigation into the salaries of the administrators?"
What exactly needs to be investigated? More detail please.
Dr. Florio & Michael Milone have not taken a pay increase for two years. Admin staff on ed side settled a new deal last fall as did admin on town side. Increse was about 2%. Town side had a zero for 1st six months.
"Dr. Florio & Michael Milone have not taken a pay increase for two years."
According to published information, Florio made 165,000 in 2008 and 175,000 in 2009. That is far from NO increase.
I am wondering what concession administration has made in the last 2 years.
"I listen to everyone. What is your definition of a 'crackpot'?"
There are those out there that forget that you are on the Board of EDUCATION, not the board of reckless cost containment. It is one thing to increase fees for EXTRAcurricular programs, it quite another thing to eliminate academic programs.
"There are those out there that forget that you are on the Board of EDUCATION, not the board of reckless cost containment. It is one thing to increase fees for EXTRAcurricular programs, it quite another thing to eliminate academic programs."
Understood. I really haven't come across any 'crackpots'. In other words, I haven't come across any unreasonable folks looking to destroy education or have an unlimited education budget and exceed it.
Once I'm able to get facts I find that folks are better informed and can make can reasonable recommendations for themselves. It should be no surprise to anyone that as budgets and revenue become tighter everything gets more scrutiny. Doesn't mean that we're going to butcher education. But we'll continue to be as efficient as we can and make investments in education where they're needed.
Post a Comment