Kimmel Weighs In On Budget

This is a guest blog by Bruce Kimmel.  Mr. Kimmel served on the Board of Education from August 2005-February 2009.  Before that, he was on the Common Council from 1997-August 2005, serving as Finance Chair for part of that time. Mr.Kimmel is a fourth grade teacher in a New York City public school.


In early January, the Board of Education and members of the public listened to a presentation of the Superintendent’s recommended operating budget for the 2010-11 fiscal year. The recommendation, which totaled roughly $155 million, amounted to a 3.4% increase in spending over the current budget. The next evening, the Board approved the Superintendent’s request without changing anything, even though two members, Ms. Haynie and Mr. Colarossi, raised a number of questions and urged more discussion before sending the budget to the Board of Estimate and the Common Council. 

It is important to note that during the weeks before the Board endorsed the budget request (the vote was 7 to 2, with Haynie and Colarossi voting no) they had been urged by the Mayor and other city officials to craft a budget with a zero percent increase. The reason, of course, was the tough economic times that have reduced the city’s revenues and have forced other city departments to come in with near-zero percent increases. The Board rationalized its quick endorsement of a 3.4% increase by announcing that they would immediately get to work cutting the budget, that they wanted to “get the ball rolling,” even though the Council and the BET probably had no intention of altering their budget deliberation timelines. I have been told that the Board has yet to begin what is called the “reconciliation process.” Which makes perfect sense because a budget can’t be reconciled until a spending limit is imposed.
 
The Board’s approval of the Superintendent’s request with very little debate placed an unfair burden on the Council, whose job is to set a total spending cap for the city, and the BET, whose job is to decide exactly how much the BOE should receive for the next fiscal year. Thus, the cuts that the Board will undoubtedly have make in the coming months can easily be attributed to the “draconian” decisions of the other city agencies. This is called shirking one’s responsibility as an elected official.
 
Members of the Board and BOE administrators have recently been pointing out that the 3.4% spending increase is a “status quo” budget; by that they mean all of the increase can be attributed to contractual obligations related to salaries and benefits. They also have said that it would take about $5 million in additional cuts to reduce the budget to current levels, which would be the zero increase city officials have requested. In general terms, they have predicted gloom and doom for the next school year if they are forced to make the additional cuts. In fact, they make it seem next to impossible to make such extensive cuts without seriously harming the school system.

Some members of the public and city officials have urged the unions in the school system to open up and renegotiate their contracts, assuming that this will lead to substantial savings. This is complicated under Connecticut law; unions cannot be forced to renegotiate anything that already has the force of law behind it. I should mention, however, that the Norwalk Federation of Teachers has renegotiated its contracts with the BOE several times in recent years and the city has benefited to the tune of several million dollars in savings. Also, the most recent contract between the BOE and the NFT had a net increase of zero because the union agreed to reductions in health care costs. Putting aside this complex and often controversial issue, let’s look at the alternative: finding savings in the budget itself.         

I’ve had a chance to look over the BOE budget and have come up with a series of proposals that could reduce spending. I have not had the opportunity to discuss the actual impact of these proposals or their exact costs; thus, I have estimated based on past experience as a member of both the Common Council and the Board of Education. The proposals, I believe, do not directly impact what goes on in the classroom, but they may indeed cause modifications in some teaching and school-based procurement practices. Below are my proposals, which, I should stress, are meant to generate discussion. There are many factors to consider, which I am not in a position to address, before positions are actually eliminated.  

The Board’s budget proposal projects a net increase in enrollment next year of 60 students. I have assumed that any additional increases in enrollment will not be in clusters but will be evenly distributed across the system, thus allowing for the removal of the 7 reserve teachers from the budget for a savings of about $500,000. (I calculated each teacher’s salary plus benefits to be about $70,000.) If there is a need for additional teachers in the coming months, I believe the Board should discuss this with the Mayor and the BET, and should initiate the process for a special appropriation or another type of transfer of funds.

Regarding the chart on page 9 of the budget: I would freeze at current levels the accounts for Professional and Technical Services, Property Services, Other Services, Supplies and Materials, and Other Objects for a savings of $1, 603, 328. Another possibility that may have to be discussed is to reduce four of these accounts (excluding Other Objects, which is not that large) – which range from $10.5 million to about $2 million – by $150,000 for an additional savings of $600,000. We are thus talking about a potential savings of around $2.2 million from these particular accounts.

I believe the state legislature has indicated that it is not necessary to implement the new suspension system; thus, the in-school suspension officer request can be cut for a savings of $119,070.

Regarding the Human Resources Department: It is projected to have 1 assistant director, 1 executive secretary, 1 administrative secretary, and 1 “team leader” for security. I would consider eliminating this last position for a possible savings of $70,000 (salary plus benefits).

Regarding the Department for Curriculum and Instruction: It is proposed to increase Reserve Class Size Aides from zero to 2. I would remove that item for an estimated savings of about $60,000. More importantly, I would propose having the 4 projected instructional specialists report directly to the director of the department and remove the Director of Elementary Education position for an estimated savings of about $150,000 (salary plus benefits).

Regarding the Department of Pupil Personnel Services: I believe we could live without an assistant director position (savings of $150,000) and we could probably remove 1 of the 3 assistant supervisor positions (savings $120,000).
 
Regarding the Finance Department: Eliminate the Grants Bookkeeper (savings of $70,000).

Regarding the Information Technology Department: Perhaps we can make it without an assistant director (savings of $150,000).

Regarding the Facilities Department: Remove 1 of the two coordinators of maintenance/custodians (savings of $150,000) and eliminate 1 of the 6 mechanics (savings of $100,000).

Regarding the Transportation Department: Eliminate the mail clerk position (savings $60,000)
 
The above list delineates possible savings of roughly $4 million. I also suggest that discussions begin immediately on possible adjustments in our health insurance projections based on current trends. In past years, such discussions have reduced these projections considerably.

I realize that this outline might be considered draconian, and that it might anger a number of folks who work in the school system. But it is only meant to be an outline for a discussion among Board members, and between Board members and Central Office staff, as well as between the BOE and the public. 


This post reflects the views of the author and not of NorwalkNet.