Let's not be unkind to Mike Barbis. He's working hard. Texting and sending emails throughout every meeting-- Following Sue Haynie with a shovel and trashcan-- Feeding Lisa Thompson details of Executive Sessions-- Explaining to Heidi Keyes how she's supposed to vote. Plus those nasty responses to parents don't write themselves. No wonder Mike has little time to worry about the taxpayers and school children.
Interesting take on Barbis. But on the flip side you have Colorossi - who was too busy kissing Ditrio and Mellion's butt while Finance Chair to keep track of the $4m budget blow up or Rosa who's tethered to Norwalk's favorite principal or Mig who hangs out on the 3rd floor waiting to be told what to do but can't be bothered to attend the executive sessions.
Impugning my integrity by making baseless accusations hardly advances an intelligent and meaningful debate on the core issues-- namely, whether central office employees should be held to the same standards of accountability that are expected of all who educate our teachers.
So let me provide a detailed analysis of the basis for the insurance shortfall-- one can draw one's own inclusion if my analysis (which was shared through the Finance Committee when I served as its Chairperson) is a reflection of someone who was more concerned with derrieres than budget balancing, which I will do in a follow-up posting to this site.
In Supt. Marks’ budget for 2011-2012, she requested $27,636,489 for Object Code 212. This is on page 93 of the 2011-2012 Superintendent’s Budget Book. Interestingly, the breakdown for Object Code 212 showed a net operating budget need for $28,288,981 (this in on page 94 of the 2011-2012 Budget Book). Therefore, Supt. Marks was requesting as part of her budget approximately $650,000 less than the detail (on page 94) indicated was needed.
The Board of Education rejected the Superintendent’s proposed budget (which sought $155,338,729) and instead sought a City appropriation of approximately $158,000,000. BoE staff was unable to produce a detail of how these funds would be allocated across all budget areas.
The City decided to provide a more modest increase and appropriated $154,801.489 for the 2010-2011 budget appropriation. Therefore, the BOE was responsible for reconciling its budget to the City award of $154,801,489.
As was discussed during May meetings of the Finance Committee, the BoE was not provided with a revised budget book to account for how the proposed increase would be allocated across all object codes. Furthermore, as was discussed, there would be a significant labor utilization to prepare such a “trued-up” budget document and there were insufficient resources to complete that task. Therefore, COO Drezek explained that he had estimated what a “same services” budget would require for 2011-2012. The BoE would then reduce the costs of various positions, programs or services that would be eliminated from that “same services” budget to arrive at the reconciled amount. However, there was never a printed out “same services” budget that was provided. That meant that we would be asking for the anticipated costs of certain items for 2011-2012 and then voting to reduce those items until we arrived at the City approved funding level of $154,801,489 (by subtracting each of those savings from this mythical “same services” budget). The understanding was that any item which was not cut would be funded as anticipated in this 2011-2012 same services budget. I refer to this “same services” budget as being “mythical” because it was never produced for the BoE- we were told of its existence by COO Drezek but also told that consolidating all of the data that comprised it would be too time-consuming. Therefore, we were required to take on faith the budget instrument from which cuts would be taken. During the budget reconciliation meeting of June 14, 2011, I specifically asked COO Drezek about the potential for cost savings on our insurance premiums. He confirmed that savings of at $200,000 were likely due to the efforts of the teachers union, but that he could not guarantee any further savings. After that questioning (which can be found on page 11 of the June 14th minutes, athttp://portal.norwalkps.org/BOE/Board%20Meeting%20Agendas%20%20Minutes/623actions.PDF), I moved to reduce $200,000 from the expenditure for health insurance premiums (page 13 of the June 14th minutes). The motion passed unanimously. The same services fringe benefits (Object Code 212) was given as $30,120,995 (page 108 of the 2011-2012 budget book). Therefore, the net amount (after the $200,000 reduction) should have been $29,920,995. Even if one were to assume that Object Code 212 had not been modified from the Superintendent’s budget, then the BoE would have cut $200,000 from the $28,288,981 included in the Superintendent’s initial proposed budget.
During the budget reconciliation meeting in June of that year, 14 non-teaching positions and 10 teaching positions were eliminated; each cut included reducing the salary amount and the standard benefit package (of approximately $20,000). After four administrative positions were restored later in the summer, there still remained a net loss of 20 positions, and a concomitant reduction of $400,000 for insurance. That would leave Object Code 212 in a range of $29,520,995 to $27,688,981. Therefore, 2012 budget book was inaccurate in listing the appropriation for Object Code 212 at $25,452,223. The BoE fully funded our net liabilities for insurance and funded at least $2M more than is shown for our appropriation in the 2012-2013 budget book.
Now of course, the question should be why no action was taken to ascertain why budgeted amounts were not reflected in the "final" budget issued under Supt. Marks' watch (don't forget that Mr. Drezek left after the budget has passed, and was not employed at the time of the final "true-up" of the budget book. The good news is that with the hiring of Elio Longo, and now Rich Rudl, the central office finance team is demonstrating the level of professionalism that our students and taxpayers deserve. With the monthly reporting of expenditures, the BOE is better able to monitor spending-- if such reports had been more readily available, the $2+Million shortfall would have been caught in August and remedied (notwithstanding the over-hiring of staff undertaken by Supt. Marks during that summer).
"...14 non-teaching positions and 10 teaching positions were eliminated;..."After four administrative positions were restored later in the summer, there still remained a net loss of 20 positions..." Well isn't that nice, four administrators get their jobs restored and 14 non- get nothing. Then hours get cut, then libraians get cut, now every non-admin position is only part time, insurance costs are hefty, raises are miniscule, workloads double - don't expect overtime, BUT somehow there is lots of money for new ADMIN positions. AND there's a SURPLULS!!! Nice to know that the workhorses of the district get zero appreciation or notice and big dogs get all benefits and $$$'s from the cuts at these poor people's expense...way to go BOE, way to go...
And there is still money ($600/day) to pay interim people. Yeah, they say they're not getting benefits, so that helps. They're already getting hefty pensions and benefits, so of course they don't get extras as interims. It's always about the big guy. And the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer and dumped upon. It really is disgusting!!
What's more disgusting is NO FINANCE COMMITTEE meetings to figure out what's going on now- no push to figure out why the City is going to take $500,000 of the surplus.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of the classic Steve smack-down of the bullies and blog trolls. But seriously, did they not have Reader's Digest in any of those fancy Harvard libraries?
All the suffering-- been awful for teachers, secretaries, aides, etc. Kids in elementary paying a big price that is UNACCEPTABLE. With all that pain, every one on that BOE should be trying to find out why. Now the City wants to take a piece of the surplus from last year. UNACCEPTABLE. It can't be Steve C. who's fighting these battles for us alone (again), right? Haynie, Heidi- you know you're running for re-election right?
Four years ago we were all frustrated. We got a Board of Education that had so much promise. We know what happened. Maybe we can get it right this time.
I'm at the end of my rope with the double standard. Barbis gets criticized for not having finance committee meetings. That's a fact. Some comment negatively about Haynie not knowing how to negotiate and spending way too much on lawyers because of it. That's a fact. Lyons gets his shots over stopping the new reading program for the younger kids. Another fact. Their team fires back with the Colarossi the union-puppet line. No facts, just cheap shots. Is that what we can expect until November 5th??????
True facts. Except Haynie was the main person responsible for elementary kids not having a new reading program. She is as quiet as a dead mouse now at Board meetings. It's election time!
Let's be positive-- I was impressed with the conditions of the schools today during my two stops (4th grade and sixth grade). Both my children came home happy.
With Brigg in full turn around mode, why are staff jumping ship so fast?
ReplyDeleteStaff isn't jumping ship. Everyone had to re-apply for their jobs. They needed fewer teachers, so not everyone could come back.
ReplyDeleteCan anyone tell me what Mike Barbis does as "Finance Commitee Chairman"?
ReplyDeleteI don't think he's met since before the budget was approved.
Let's not be unkind to Mike Barbis. He's working hard. Texting and sending emails throughout every meeting-- Following Sue Haynie with a shovel and trashcan-- Feeding Lisa Thompson details of Executive Sessions-- Explaining to Heidi Keyes how she's supposed to vote. Plus those nasty responses to parents don't write themselves. No wonder Mike has little time to worry about the taxpayers and school children.
DeleteInteresting take on Barbis. But on the flip side you have
ReplyDeleteColorossi - who was too busy kissing Ditrio and Mellion's butt while Finance Chair to keep track of the $4m budget blow up or Rosa who's tethered to Norwalk's favorite principal or Mig who hangs out on the 3rd floor waiting to be told what to do but can't be bothered to attend the executive sessions.
Impugning my integrity by making baseless accusations hardly advances an intelligent and meaningful debate on the core issues-- namely, whether central office employees should be held to the same standards of accountability that are expected of all who educate our teachers.
ReplyDeleteSo let me provide a detailed analysis of the basis for the insurance shortfall-- one can draw one's own inclusion if my analysis (which was shared through the Finance Committee when I served as its Chairperson) is a reflection of someone who was more concerned with derrieres than budget balancing, which I will do in a follow-up posting to this site.
In Supt. Marks’ budget for 2011-2012, she requested $27,636,489 for Object Code 212. This is on page 93 of the 2011-2012 Superintendent’s Budget Book. Interestingly, the breakdown for Object Code 212 showed a net operating budget need for $28,288,981 (this in on page 94 of the 2011-2012 Budget Book). Therefore, Supt. Marks was requesting as part of her budget approximately $650,000 less than the detail (on page 94) indicated was needed.
DeleteThe Board of Education rejected the Superintendent’s proposed budget (which sought $155,338,729) and instead sought a City appropriation of approximately $158,000,000. BoE staff was unable to produce a detail of how these funds would be allocated across all budget areas.
The City decided to provide a more modest increase and appropriated $154,801.489 for the 2010-2011 budget appropriation. Therefore, the BOE was responsible for reconciling its budget to the City award of $154,801,489.
As was discussed during May meetings of the Finance Committee, the BoE was not provided with a revised budget book to account for how the proposed increase would be allocated across all object codes. Furthermore, as was discussed, there would be a significant labor utilization to prepare such a “trued-up” budget document and there were insufficient resources to complete that task. Therefore, COO Drezek explained that he had estimated what a “same services” budget would require for 2011-2012. The BoE would then reduce the costs of various positions, programs or services that would be eliminated from that “same services” budget to arrive at the reconciled amount. However, there was never a printed out “same services” budget that was provided. That meant that we would be asking for the anticipated costs of certain items for 2011-2012 and then voting to reduce those items until we arrived at the City approved funding level of $154,801,489 (by subtracting each of those savings from this mythical “same services” budget). The understanding was that any item which was not cut would be funded as anticipated in this 2011-2012 same services budget. I refer to this “same services” budget as being “mythical” because it was never produced for the BoE- we were told of its existence by COO Drezek but also told that consolidating all of the data that comprised it would be too time-consuming. Therefore, we were required to take on faith the budget instrument from which cuts would be taken.
During the budget reconciliation meeting of June 14, 2011, I specifically asked COO Drezek about the potential for cost savings on our insurance premiums. He confirmed that savings of at $200,000 were likely due to the efforts of the teachers union, but that he could not guarantee any further savings. After that questioning (which can be found on page 11 of the June 14th minutes, athttp://portal.norwalkps.org/BOE/Board%20Meeting%20Agendas%20%20Minutes/623actions.PDF), I moved to reduce $200,000 from the expenditure for health insurance premiums (page 13 of the June 14th minutes). The motion passed unanimously. The same services fringe benefits (Object Code 212) was given as $30,120,995 (page 108 of the 2011-2012 budget book). Therefore, the net amount (after the $200,000 reduction) should have been $29,920,995. Even if one were to assume that Object Code 212 had not been modified from the Superintendent’s budget, then the BoE would have cut $200,000 from the $28,288,981 included in the Superintendent’s initial proposed budget.
During the budget reconciliation meeting in June of that year, 14 non-teaching positions and 10 teaching positions were eliminated; each cut included reducing the salary amount and the standard benefit package (of approximately $20,000). After four administrative positions were restored later in the summer, there still remained a net loss of 20 positions, and a concomitant reduction of $400,000 for insurance. That would leave Object Code 212 in a range of $29,520,995 to $27,688,981. Therefore, 2012 budget book was inaccurate in listing the appropriation for Object Code 212 at $25,452,223. The BoE fully funded our net liabilities for insurance and funded at least $2M more than is shown for our appropriation in the 2012-2013 budget book.
DeleteNow of course, the question should be why no action was taken to ascertain why budgeted amounts were not reflected in the "final" budget issued under Supt. Marks' watch (don't forget that Mr. Drezek left after the budget has passed, and was not employed at the time of the final "true-up" of the budget book. The good news is that with the hiring of Elio Longo, and now Rich Rudl, the central office finance team is demonstrating the level of professionalism that our students and taxpayers deserve. With the monthly reporting of expenditures, the BOE is better able to monitor spending-- if such reports had been more readily available, the $2+Million shortfall would have been caught in August and remedied (notwithstanding the over-hiring of staff undertaken by Supt. Marks during that summer).
"...14 non-teaching positions and 10 teaching positions were eliminated;..."After four administrative positions were restored later in the summer, there still remained a net loss of 20 positions..."
ReplyDeleteWell isn't that nice, four administrators get their jobs restored and 14 non- get nothing. Then hours get cut, then libraians get cut, now every non-admin position is only part time, insurance costs are hefty, raises are miniscule, workloads double - don't expect overtime, BUT somehow there is lots of money for new ADMIN positions. AND there's a SURPLULS!!! Nice to know that the workhorses of the district get zero appreciation or notice and big dogs get all benefits and $$$'s from the cuts at these poor people's expense...way to go BOE, way to go...
And there is still money ($600/day) to pay interim people. Yeah, they say they're not getting benefits, so that helps. They're already getting hefty pensions and benefits, so of course they don't get extras as interims. It's always about the big guy. And the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer and dumped upon. It really is disgusting!!
DeleteWhat's more disgusting is NO FINANCE COMMITTEE meetings to figure out what's going on now- no push to figure out why the City is going to take $500,000 of the surplus.
DeleteDon't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of the classic Steve smack-down of the bullies and blog trolls.
ReplyDeleteBut seriously, did they not have Reader's Digest in any of those fancy Harvard libraries?
All the suffering-- been awful for teachers, secretaries, aides, etc. Kids in elementary paying a big price that is UNACCEPTABLE.
ReplyDeleteWith all that pain, every one on that BOE should be trying to find out why. Now the City wants to take a piece of the surplus from last year. UNACCEPTABLE. It can't be Steve C. who's fighting these battles for us alone (again), right? Haynie, Heidi- you know you're running for re-election right?
Four years ago we were all frustrated. We got a Board of Education that had so much promise. We know what happened.
ReplyDeleteMaybe we can get it right this time.
I'm at the end of my rope with the double standard. Barbis gets criticized for not having finance committee meetings. That's a fact. Some comment negatively about Haynie not knowing how to negotiate and spending way too much on lawyers because of it. That's a fact. Lyons gets his shots over stopping the new reading program for the younger kids. Another fact.
ReplyDeleteTheir team fires back with the Colarossi the union-puppet line. No facts, just cheap shots. Is that what we can expect until November 5th??????
Not facts.
DeleteSad but true.
DeleteTrue facts. Except Haynie was the main person responsible for elementary kids not having a new reading program. She is as quiet as a dead mouse now at Board meetings. It's election time!
DeleteLet's be positive-- I was impressed with the conditions of the schools today during my two stops (4th grade and sixth grade). Both my children came home happy.
ReplyDeleteAnother thing to be positive about - the BOE choice of Dr. Rivera. I heard there was a standing ovation at the convocation.
ReplyDeleteThere was a standing ovation for Marks too.....
DeleteMore good news--- lots of Colarossi & Roman signs all over Norwalk!
ReplyDeleteSeems like we might get change after all.