After School Budget Defeat: Public Speaks, Board Listens

by Joan R. Simon

(May 24, 2007) While there were many common themes at the two “listening” sessions the Mamaroneck School Board held on May 21 and 22 in response to the defeat of the budget on May 15, rising taxes and the administrative restructuring plan introduced by Superintendent Paul Fried in February were the two issues that dominated the discussions (see: Mamaroneck School Budget Defeated by 61% of Vote).

Complaints That Taxes are Too High

Among the more than 150 people at the two meetings was Bob Katz of Mamaroneck, who summed up the senior citizen view on taxes: “Increases of 6 to 8% each year are making it untenable to stay in the community where we’ve been all our lives. We can’t keep paying these taxes year after year.”

Joan Bailey, a Larchmont parent, concurred: “It’s almost always about the money.” Bob Areno said it was time to end “double rate of inflation increases.” Burt Corwin, the father of three high school graduates, stressed that the recent tax increases were “neither reasonable nor sustainable.”

Ted Plonsker, a Murray parent, remarked, “Not all of us are Rockefellers who can keep giving out more money” and asked the board to “justify” the increases. Calling the vote a “wake up call,” Bob Meglio, a parent from Larchmont, declared, “At a certain point the taxpayer just says ‘enough is enough’.”

Criticism of Administrative Restructuring Plan

Many speakers were critical of the plan for adding secondary school directors or of the way it was proposed. At the evening meeting, high school social studies chair Elizabeth Clain was probably speaking for many of the teachers in the audience when she criticized the “one size fits all” solution that didn’t take into account the different needs of each department. “Had there been a discussion, we would have thought of creative ways of responding to concerns in cost effective ways.”

Resident Darrell Fennell complained that the plan was “not a well-grounded proposal” and was “not properly vetted." Philippa Wharton, a parent from the Chatsworth area, felt the complexities of the program made it “a hard plan to sell.” Victor Jennison, a parent of three children, said he was against “layering in more administration in a district I don’t think needs it.” Lauren Selden, who said she voted for the budget, urged the board to “take it a little slower.”

Sherry Thaler from the Chatsworth area wondered what the secondary school principals and assistant principals were responsible for. Charlotte Stadler, a Larchmont resident and New Rochelle teacher said, “I’ve never seen any problem that can be solved by hiring more administrators.”

Support for the Administrative Plan

Nancy Pierson, outgoing co-president of SEPTA and incoming school board trustee, countered Ms. Stadler’s remarks with her own maxim: “no problem is solved by throwing less money at it.”

Her sentiments were echoed by Diana Burr, a former SEPTA co-president, who cited the hiring of two assistant directors in the special education department as a positive example of what administrators can do. She said the additional personnel were responsible for less litigation, happier parents, and fewer classified children. “I hope the board doesn’t drop this plan or a similar one,” she said, referring to the proposed directors. “I’d rather have the planning, management and looking ahead than more teachers.”

MHS co-president Liz Liscio also dismissed the argument that teachers were unhappy with the new plan. “There are many teachers who buy into this program,” she said, describing the proposed administrators as “director/mentors” not “supervisors.” Connie Reddicliffe, a parent of high school triplets, felt that “people have been asking for oversight – not because teachers are bad, necessarily,” but because it is hard for parents to get issues resolved through the department chairs.

Other Complaints

There were also complaints about the lack of budget information that was made available to the community (despite a district wide mailing and several well-posted meetings); the difficulty in determining what is optional spending and what are mandated or contractual costs in the budget; and inconsistent teaching at the high school.

There were objections to the 2:30 elementary school closing on Wednesday (and at noon on conference days). And there was surprise at how the “step” schedule (standard in neighboring school districts, as well) gave additional raises to teachers each year along with the annual contractual increases. The typical teacher recieves a combined increase of 5% to 7.5% per year.

There were recommendations for: consolidation of services with other communities; trimming teacher salaries; putting the budget online for easier access; and a return to the community conversations that were held several years ago.

Budget Re-Vote/Contingency Budget

It is expected that the school board will submit a revised budget to the voters on June 19. If that budget fails, the district will be required to adopt a contingency budget, and there were many questions about what that would mean. The board explained there would be a 4.37% budget increase cap, which would mean cutting $3.57 million dollars from the budget that was just defeated. While the board is free to make the cuts in any program that is not mandated, Dr. Fried noted that because a very large percentage of the budget is for personnel, it is likely that teaching staff would have to be reduced, with the least senior positions first in line.

Next School Board Study Session: May 29

A budget study session will be held on Tuesday, May 29 at 8:00 pm in the tiered classroom.. The board plans to review the input from the two public sessions, as well as the survey and email responses they have received.