Finance Chairman: District’s Response To Budget Queries ‘Phenomenal’

By John Voket

And Eliza Hallabeck

Following nearly five hours of interaction over the course of two meetings involving the proposed 2010-2011 school district budget, Board of Finance Chairman John Kortze had high praise for the responsiveness of district and school board officials.

“This is the most forthcoming [level of detail] I’ve ever seen,” Mr Kortze said about the reams of paperwork and substantiation provided by Superintendent of Schools Janet Robinson and Board of Education Chairman Lillian Bittman to his board by the end of a March 1 special meeting.

“The volume of information and the speed it was delivered was phenomenal,” he said.

Following a public hearing February 25 (see related story), the finance board began the first of two sessions questioning school board and district officials about details of the proposed 2010-2011 budget that was presented at $69,494,734, or a 4.8 percent increase.

During her introductory comments, Ms Bittman reiterated a sentiment that has been repeated perennially by school budget supporters to send her board’s recommendation to the taxpayers as is, allowing the people to decide whether to accept or reject the proposal at referendum.

Newtown, however, maintains a single budget model that is not divided between town and school spending, so it is virtually impossible to determine if a budget referendum defeat results solely from either the town or school-side component, or the combination of the two.

As Ms Bittman proceeded with her formal budget presentation, she touched upon fixed cost increases, health insurance rates, various staff and educational obligations, transportation, and student population trends. The presentation also touched upon energy cost expectations, a breakdown of the budget implications at each school, and an idea posed about possibly closing an elementary school to conserve district and town operational costs.

“We feel this is the lowest possible budget we could have without affecting the quality of education,” Ms Bittman said as she concluded the presentation and settled down to begin receiving questions from the finance board members.

Enrollment Questions

Questions from the finance board immediately following the February 25 presentation began with Michael Portnoy, who clarified that district officials will explore the possibility of closing or mothballing a school if remaining facilities could continue to adequately serve a declining enrollment. Ms Bittman said discussions on that issue will begin at the Capital Improvement committee level on her board.

Mr Kortze asked Dr Robinson to further clarify enrollment trends. She replied that enrollment at the lower grades has decreased by about 106 students.

She said the high school enrollment is up, and will remain up, until this current enrollment cycle graduates. Mr Kortze pointed out that according to district documentation, “On page 46 of the budget it says it is down three.”

Dr Robinson replied, “That is really not a significant change,” adding that high school enrollment can fluctuate 15 students over the course of a year, and that the three-student decline may be accounted for by students who graduated recently.

“That’s where the decrease came from,” she said. Questions continued about transportation costs, targeting a midday kindergarten bus run.

Finance officials also asked about the district’s plans when a two-year standalone federal stimulus subsidy funding teacher positions runs out in 2012. Dr Robinson said the district tried to do as much as it could in terms of programs, but acknowledged that “there are some personnel in there” and promising to return March 1 with additional detail.

Mr Kortze noted that the school districts documentation showed “that there are certain [federal] ARRA [American Recovery and Reinvestment Act] and IDEA [Individuals With Disabilities Education Act] funds paying for positions. I’d like to understand what that dollar amount is. When you do that, it would be nice for you to articulate which one of those positions will remain.”

A Stack Of Information

On March 1 the finance board and school officials reconvened at the Municipal Center fortified with a several-inch-high stack of information, which corresponded to written questions submitted to the district that morning by the finance board. Before the deliberations resumed, resident Charles Hepp provided a detailed analysis he generated, illustrating several Newtown student segments, and how they are performing against better or lesser funded peers — on a cost per student basis — in districts with similar demographics.

Additional public comment was balanced between parents who thought the district should receive additional town support, or no further proposed reductions to the current proposal, and those who either noted declining enrollment as justification for further personnel reduction in the school or among administrators.

Referring to an earlier comment made about the declining ratio of staffing, Richard Fenaroli told the finance board regarding administrative personnel, “I don’t understand how we can talk about the skeletal structure of the schools, and how pared down it has become, but I don’t see any shortage of BMWs in the school parking lots.”

Resuming questions, and clarifying points that were introduced at the previous meeting, continued with each question being supported by both verbal responses and written detail that Ms Bittman said was assembled by numerous school and town personnel earlier that day.

One by one, questions were posed or reposed, and addressed regarding the history of high school enrollments versus projections; which subsidized programs would continue after federal one-time subsidies lapsed; breaking down into some detail on how “pay-to-play” funds are managed and spent; how unemployment compensation is budgeted; and how educational assistants are compensated.

Ms Bittman and Dr Robinson also spoke to queries about the projected state Excess Cost Grant; a range of benefit and pension issues; and finally clarified that a science teacher position that was requested in the 2009 budget was hired — possibly mitigating the line item funding for a similarly delineated position in the 2010 proposal.

“It’s remarkable the amount of information you put together in such a short time,” Mr Kortze stated as the second school budget session drew to a close. The March 1 session generated some additional questions as the finance board continued to seek further clarity on several issues, and Ms Bittman promised answers when the board finalized its deliberations on the overall budget scenario.

Before closing the meeting, finance board member Martin Gersten articulated a concern about what would happen if the town and taxpayers could simply not afford a 4.8 percent school district increase.

“There are other constituencies in the town besides the school,” Mr Gersten said, acknowledging that schools were “at the top of the list as needs go.”

“The heart of our district is our people,” Dr Robinson replied. “We aren’t left now with anything but people to cut.”

Additional board of finance budget sessions were scheduled March 4 to deliberate town-side issues, and deliberations were set to conclude on Monday March 8