BOARD OF EDUCATION BUDGET CUT - THREE ONE HUNDREDTHS OF ONE PERCENT!
As a member of the Board of Finance, I felt it was my responsibility to attend all four budget hearings so that I could report back to my Board when the BOE request comes to us.
I think we should add $7,000 to the BOE budget....for cheerleading uniforms for each of the seven Board of Ed members who voted for the budget. The other two, Bill Wellman and Julie Turk, get dunce caps and have to sit in the corner and be quiet. No one on the board is listening to them anyway.....I noticed everyone's "body language" every time they spoke. There was anger seeping from their pores.
Bill Wellman asked the majority of the questions. They were well thought out, but they fell upon deaf, indifferent ears. I was a little disappointed last night, however, when, after all the questions he asked the first three nights, he proposed "no more than 4.8%" without offering any suggestions, leaving it up to the "experts" in the administration. Since those "experts" already claimed to present a bare-bones budget, that didn't make sense. He should've proposed specific cuts. I'll cut him some slack because he was just appointed a few weeks ago. With that said, I still think he's a good addition to the board and we need more like him. I hope he continues to ask questions, and I expect that he will effectively scrutinize any spending requests.
Wendy Faulenbach presented her comparisons to other districts increases, showing that they're similar, and some are even higher. How is that relevant? I just don't see the point. This is about New Milford, and what the taxpayers can afford. I make my best possible effort to avoid the whole Republican/Democrat thing, but I often wonder whose side some people are really on.....why give ammunition to the side that's already fully armed?
There were a total of $160,026 in proposed "cuts" - two tenths of a percent of the budget:
$18,000 from line 561 - Magnet school tuition - That cut should've been $27,000 (18 students x $1500). The tuition is $1,000 per student. Why were they padding the budget with an additional $1500 per student, by requesting $2500 each? Would they have just accepted a 150% increase in tuition?
$17,026 from line 810 - Dues and memberships - We're paying $17,000 so they can have "reduced admission" to more cheerleading classes???
$50,000 from line 511 - Additional school bus - We have fewer students each year, yet we need another bus? By the way, why did Bill Wellman abstain on this one?
$75,000 from the Capital budget - $65,000 was justified by Julie Turk for all new tables and chairs in the High School Cafeteria. So all she was really asking for was a discretionary $10,000 decrease. The Capital budget, by the way, is up 108.25%!!!!!!!!
Of this $160,026, only $18,000 was approved by the board, and that wasn't really a cut at all. It was a reduction in an artificially inflated line item. And that line is still inflated..... So, in total, they "cut" three-one-hundreths of a percent of the requested budget.......What an accomplishment......
The final vote: 7 - 2. I'd probably feel better if it was 6-3, especially after the 75k motion was defeated. How do you vote to pass that motion, and still vote to approve the budget when it fails? Makes no sense to me.....
So, our Board of Education, which was elected to oversee the Administration (not the other way around), spent four nights playing checkers, while the master chess players in the Administration got their way, once again....I wish I could've been a fly on the wall when Dr. Paddyfote and the rest were high-fiving each other and doing their "touchdown dances"....
The taxpaying citizens of New Milford should be very disappointed. Unfortunately, they don't know any better. The newspapers provide only a fraction of the big picture, which can only be understood by actually attending these meetings.
Friday, February 1, 2008
BOF Member Michel Gutman: 'Taxpayers Should Be Disappointed'
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
43 comments:
There's very little average folks can do about inflation (much higher energy, food, medicine prices, etc.). You simply have to cut back in other areas of your family budget in order to afford these necessities.
In contrast, the Superintendent and Board of Education appear to have done nothing of the sort. They're on a lavish spending spree with our tax dollars while average folks who pay the taxes are struggling to make ends meet. How dare they!
Well, I can tell you that the Board of Education's wasteful budget will not get my support unless they start making some of the same sacrifices my family has been forced to make. I haven't spoken to any working folks around here lately who think their taxes are too low or that the schools need any more money. Maybe Board of Education members should start listening to the cash-strapped people who elected them rather than the overpaid bureaucrats who are supposed to be working for them.
To the Town Council, from cash-strapped voters: Just in case there's any doubt in your minds, ANY increase is too much this year. Please don't throw us all under the school bus again!
If, like the Board of Education, the Board of Finance, Town Council and Mayor don't do their jobs, at least common-sense voters still have the final say in New Milford.
some very good points listed here
My input:
1)$7k is not enough for cheerleading uniforms and dunce caps, not the way the BOE overpays for everything.
2) Comparisons to other districts....
this is not a SPENDING contest; these people need to enhance their personal lives some other way than by using taxpayer money to create their self-centered feel-good feelings...all in the name of the children
3) "Cutting" the Magnet School contribution indicates that the NM BOE is afraid of competition; bad move.
4) Additional bus...
when I went to Immaculate (and living in Danbury), my parents had to pay for bus service.
Let's encourage more parents to drive their kids to school, so the kids don't have to experience the terrors associated with the rite of passage of riding the bus.
5) New tables and chairs...the NEED the HS principal stated is that the current tables and chairs are plastic, and are harder to clean. Typical mindset from a lazy and overfed administrator.
6) 245 page budget....
what is it they say...something about dazzling them with bullshit?
The Town Charter Committee should have written in that all budgets exercises are to be zero-based.
I'm dying to see the Town side of the budget...it will shame the BOE.
I urge ALL Council members to cut the hell out of this ridiculous BOE proposal.
Isn't the high school <5 years old?
We didn't buy chairs to last longer than 5 years or didn't consider the maintenance of them at that time.
Could we hire someone with an MBA to explain you need to justify expenditures or else you don't spend?
When I do good, I feel good; when I do bad, I feel bad. That is my religion. - Abraham Lincoln
Come on people.
There is indeed waste, but how does that become "a lavish spending spree"? Your points would carry more weight if you avoided the hyperbole.
"Isn't the high school <5 years old?"
I believe the school opened in 2000.
If you don't like the budget, don't vote for it. It doesn't seem to have much of a chance.
Thats the problem, They don't want this to be put up for a vote because the voters "might" disagree with them.
"Anonymous said...
Thats the problem, They don't want this to be put up for a vote because the voters "might" disagree with them."
Lets define "Anonymous" - Afraid, Something to hide. Obviously, you don't want anyone to know who you are for a reason.....
Anyway, you clearly don't understand the system that has been put in place BY THE VOTERS!!!
The Mayor, Town Council and Board of Finance were elected to review and make appropriate changes to the budget BEFORE it goes to the voters.
You're advocating that the Board of Education budget bypass that process, and that would be unfair to everyone.....
Wow - thank you, Mr. Gutman - you get it.
Now - How do we get the message out there to compete against the PTO Mommies (Jeff Winter included)?
Well, I'm not so sure that we have to compete against them. I really think that we need to educate them.
Are the PTO mommies really aware of the wasteful spending by the administration? Do they understand the budget? Is their request for smaller class sizes really unreasonable?
I think the answer to all the above questions is "no." They simply want the best for their children. And the fact is, so do I. What sets us apart is that I understand the budget. I see where money is being wasted.
Most importantly, I can't be brainwashed by the administration's implications that increased spending will improve things. They can't convince me that the only way to support the children and their education is to support their budget.
The PTO mommies are not bad people. They're just misguided. The administration is brilliant at creating a divide between those who blindly follow them and those who question them.
The best way to educate them is to show them specific areas where money is being wasted, and to show them that everyone cares about the childrens' education.
As usual, Gutman, Wellman, Turk, and anyone else who's chimed in has not shown one bit of "wasteful spending." Please be specific - since you claim to know how to read a budget.
In a $59 million budget, I'd like to see what you come up with. Remember - BE SPECIFIC.
Since Turk and Wellman (with help from other cronies) couldn't come up with more than $75K in "proposed cuts," are you telling me that they are complicit in this "fraud upon New Milford?"
OK....I'll start with one example......and I'll give you as many more as you'd like......This one's easy, because it was already brought up during the budget hearings:
$65,000 for new tables and chairs in the High School Cafeteria....The school is 7 years old, and the problem, as stated by Mr. Shugrue, is that they're difficult to clean.....He mentioned nothing about their physical condition. He even admitted that this could be spread out over several years.
Argue that one intelligently, and then I'll give you more.....
By the way, if you say that it's "only" $65,000, I will not bother to reply......
I applaud your enthusiasm; I also had it when I served on the Board of Finance (BoF). Did you notice how many members of the Town Council and BoF were present at the Board of Education budget hearings with you? There’s a reason for that…
Unfortunately, you’ll soon discover that no matter how much you scrutinize the budget, how much waste and inefficiency you uncover, your colleagues on the BoF and the Town Council will look the other way. While the BoF had a reputation for being “fiscally conservative”, it was all just a façade. Sure they’ll humor you, let you be the “bad cop” during budget deliberations and bring up all the waste, inefficiency, etc. But in the end, the BoF’s purely political decision will be arrived at based on one criterion only; “How much of an increase are taxpayers willing to accept?” There will be no concern about how much spending is actually justified, and there will be no discussion of actually reducing waste or spending.
My only regret is that I twice voted with the Republican majority to pass along several insignificant reductions in the proposed budget increases. At the time, I thought this was better than not reducing the proposed budget increases at all. If I had it to do all over again, I would vote “no” until I was satisfied that some waste was being reduced. In other words, I should have never supported a budget that came before the BoF during my tenure.
I wish you success in your quest to educate the public and your BoF colleagues.
Since you have to mention an item already brought up in the hearings, does that show you have uncovered little on your own? Further, would you want your kid eating on these tables? I guess he does eat there, correct? Are you sure they aren't a health hazard if they're tough to clean?
That's your rebuttal????
there are no logical rebuttals for these ignorant spendthrifts
Mr. Parks was in way over his head. The only thing he excelled at was being an indifferent, bureaucratic bully, backed by the power of the state. He wasn’t just a “regular guy” doing an unpopular job; he was a stereotypical, marginally satanic weasel who thoroughly enjoyed screwing the good taxpayers of New Milford.
As you are loathe to offer more unless I acquiesce to your point that cafeteria tables are unnecessary, I will now shout "Uncle."
Now, let's what else you've got...
First of all, please learn to type in English. Verbs are pretty useful, and when used properly, people might actually understand what you're saying.
Second, you know who I am. Yet you're hiding behind "anonymous." Why?
Verbs confuse you, or did you skip English class? Or, was your class size too big?
Loathe (transitive verb): to dislike greatly and often with disgust or intolerance.
Acquiesce (intransitive verb): to accept, comply, or submit tacitly or passively - often used with "in" and sometimes with "to"
I'll dumb it down for you: Since you so won't disclose any more "fraud" until I agree that cafeteria chairs are unnecessary, I'll agree with your point.
Now, let's hear some more Mr. BOF.
Hey Mr. Anonymous...
First of all, the proper use of the word would've been, "loathing," and that's really an inappropriate word to use in that context.
Second of all, where's the verb in "Now, let's what else you've got..."
Oh, that's right....there isn't one...
Anwyay, I'm not really interested in making you look like an idiot. You're doing a fine job of that yourself.....I'm sure you're just as bad in math, which is why you don't get it....
Why are you anonymous???
Just let it go Michel. You're not changing this person's feeble mind and you're in peril of undermining your credibility by continuing to respond to this person's idiotic scribblings.
Again, I'll concede that you pointed out an error in my grammar. I had a typo - sorry. I forgot the word "see."
Now, let's get back to it: What other specific "fraud" can you point out? Or will you continue to avoid the question?
I haven't been avoiding the question. I responded to your insults by pointing out what a moron you are. You tried to make a fool out of me, but that backfired, didn't it?
Now, to respond to your question....I never used the word "fraud," nor did I imply it. I simply said that there are areas where savings can be found. You conceded that the one example I gave you would save us $65,000, yet the Board of Ed disagrees. If I can find 10 examples like that, it's $650,000. 20 examples is $1,300,000. This adds up, don't you think?
I've worked hard scrutinizing every line of this budget, and I can assure you that I've found more waste than I ever expected to. However, I'm certainly not going to provide that information to you, especially since I don't know who you are....Or do I?
Whoever you are challenging Michel Gutman, you're barking up the wrong tree.
He knows what he's talking about and I know this from my personal knowledge.
It's my understanding that he was at a meeting yesterday with the Mayor, the BOE people and Ray Jankowski to discuss the Budget. The "Town side" raised many issues that must be addressed.
I concur with Jay;
Gutman is doing exactly what needs to be done...on behalf of all of us.
Then please enlighten us as to the waste in schools and government. Neither Mr. Gutman or Mr. Lewin have ever been specific with examples of waste, so let's hear it.
Don't keep it a secret between the two of you - enlighten us all!
Actually, non-english major, you are still wrong about loathe vs. loathing. You don't understand the difference in context - but that's why you're on BOF because you're a "numbers guy."
Wow....are you a new idiot, or the same one who posted, "As you are loathe to offer more....."??
It should be either "As you are loathing to offer more...." or "As you loathe to offer more....."
UNLESS, or course you meant to use the word "loath," which has an entirely different meaning.....But the dictionary definition YOU provided is for the word "loathe," which once again is WRONG in that context.....
Obviously, you don't know me. I will not argue with someone unless I know what I'm talking about. I will not speak unless I have something to say. I wish I could say the same about you, but I'd be wrong.
Anyway....Apparently, you're an idiot who's unsuccessfully trying to sound intelligent, which leads me back to my last question, "Do I know you?"
I don't know you - You don't know me. You don't know most of the 28,000 people in town.
Now, what other "fraud" or "uncontrolled spending" can you tell us about?
As you continue to avoid the question, it tells us you don't have squat.
My question is, why are you arguing with someone who says he
knows of cuts and will disclose them at the appropriate time. Since he is on BOF that would be the place to state his findings not on this page to someone who is such a coward they will not say their name. My guess is you are an ignorant, rude cheerleader for the school system. If you do believe he has nothing why the anger? Maybe an accounting/finance class with some anger management is what you need.
Well, so far we've established that your writing skills stink, and that you have anger issues. Now, lets tackle your ability to comprehend what you've read.
On February 5, at 8:26 AM, I wrote, "I've worked hard scrutinizing every line of this budget, and I can assure you that I've found more waste than I ever expected to. However, I'm certainly not going to provide that information to you, especially since I don't know who you are...."
Which part of that are you having a hard time understanding? Maybe the fact that I used proper grammar is a little confusing to you.
Oh, and since we don't know each other, what's your name?
You should have taken the advice to drop it. Trying to change one fool's mind isn't worth the time or effort, and won't accomplish much anyway. By continuing, you may be turning-off people that you might have been able to sway...
From what I hear, Mr. Gutman has the anger problem.
Nah, I'm not angry at all. Actually, I'm a very easy going guy. I just have no patience for stupidity...
Anyway, I'll take the good advice from two posts ago, and drop it.....
Budget hearings are a only a few weeks away anyway, and then Mr. or Ms. Anonymous will get all the answers....
If it truly is Michael Gutman posting here, your posts are diminishing any credibility you hold as a public official.
DON'T BLOW IT STUPID!
The name is Michel...not Michael....Yes it's me. My credibility is, as it should be, based on my record and my actions, not on a conversation with a dimwit.
Alexander, Pruss, Sherry, Tripp and Wargo are the people you need to start convincing, not the dimwit(s) posting here. However, getting 3 out of 5 of your fellow board members to see things your way will be like shoveling sand against the tide. Actually, you'd probably get more accomplished (and be less frustrated) shoveling sand against the tide than trying to convince those dupes of anything.
Lets count the amount of BOF, Town Council members who should not vote. Pete Bass, his wife now works for BOE, Mark Vendetti, his wife works for BOE, Gale Alexander works for BOE, Larry Tripp a retired teacher for BOE is apparently working there again.
Should they abstain? My feeling is they should state their conflict to the public and abstain. What about Bob G. how many employees of the Town of NM does he represent? How many lawsuits does he lawfirm represent against the town of NM. Not only does he not reside in NM, he has more conflicts than anyone yet he just keeps on voting.
Let's examine the people you have targeted here as having a conflict of interest. It is my understanding that the wife of Mr. Bass is a para-educator. She is basically a teachers assistant. She gets no benefits from the BoE and makes a wage that is basically poverty level. I don't see where the conflict comes in here. She stands to benefit the least from any BoE budget. The wife of Mr. Vendetti is an on-call substitute, meaning she is there when other, much higher paid, teachers are unable to make it to work. Again. little or no benefit from the BoE budget. In addition, I thought Mr. Vendetti was a BoF altenate. I would think that he would have no vote as long as all BoF members attended the vote on the budget. If we have BoF members that do not make it their priority to be there for the most important vote of the year, then perhaps they should not be in the position. As for Mr. Alexander, Mr. Tripp and Mr. G, these people have done nothing but serve the town in an effort to do what they believe is right in moving the town forward.
Stating that these people should not vote on a budget because of some "potential" conflict of interest suggests that their integrity is questionable. They have been elected by the people of this town, or appointed by the mayor, presumably because it was felt that they would be most able to properly represent the people. I don't for a minute believe that any of them would have a problem separating themselves from whatever you perceive as a conflict of interest and doing what is right for the town. However, I am sure there are other people in the fray who would like nothing more than to serve their own purposes in order to advance politically in the town.
The people of new milford ought to be up in arms about Grumblesjerker. He's suing the Town right now.
Jay, please confirm
I confirmed that Bob Guendelsberger's firm has, indeed, commenced an action against the New Milford Wetlands Commission. The client, Sumple, is the owner of 82 Second Hill Road.
Guendelsjerker also represents town employees in workers comp cases. Cops are some.
Post a Comment