Transitioning from School Elections to School Reform

In the last few months, whoever said that voters should not get to approve school budgets learned a lesson in American local government. For far too long, the turnout at April school elections has been spotty at best, reflecting either no interest or, in some cases, an awareness usually prompted by some hot topic such as redistricting or a change in curriculum.

Without any pressing issues, turnout is usually humdrum and non-representative. Not this year. The election of Governor Chris Christie combined with his out-of-the-gate proposals to restrain school district spending and his attempt to introduce accountability into the educational system drew statewide attention. This resulted not only in some of the largest turnouts ever seen, but in an enormously high rate of rejected school budgets.

What impressed me the most is that for the first time that I am aware of, union contracts became the stuff of significant public input in which parents and other voters finally educated themselves about the content of association contracts which their boards of education had negotiated. It was informed voter pressure which led to the union givebacks that we have all been reading about.

In the Bridgewater-Raritan School District for example, it was the direct, overwhelming voice of parent groups which were responsible for BREA givebacks of $1.6 million. It was their coming to the mike individually, meeting after meeting with other citizens to insist that the BREA respond with concessions.

I found that to be a breath of fresh air compared to the usual closed-door negotiation sessions which school boards and unions employ to keep the public in the dark. At budget time, the standard answer to why costs are so high is that wages are “the biggest chunk of the budget,” that wage increases are “in the contract” and, therefore, “there is nothing we can do about it.”

Let’s hope that the reforms being proposed in Trenton put an end once and for all to that irresponsible Catch-22 situation.  Thanks for reading.  Stay informed, and enjoy your weekend.

Photo:  A Bridgewater parent addresses the school board concerning the AI program at the April 27th 2010, reorganization meeting. (by Dick Bergeron)

Respecting the Power of the Unions

It’s just about all over now, except for formal action by the Bridgewater-Raritan Board of Education on Tuesday evening, May 18. At that meeting, the board will decide whether to accept or to modify the cuts to the school budget made by the Bridgewater and Raritan councils last Wednesday.

Don’t expect any surprises on Tuesday. The board will not challenge the councils’ cuts by appealing to the New Jersey Commissioner of Education – that would be fatal. Despite any claims to the contrary, the administration and the board were lucky to get away with reductions of only $1,037,000 to the 2010/2011 school budget.

The real failure of this budget process was the refusal of the three bargaining units to accept a one-year wage freeze which would have minimized budget losses. The unions’ successful pushback to Governor Christie’s and this community’s repeated requests to do so underscores the enormous power of the New Jersey Education Association (NJEA) and of its local affiliate, the Bridgewater-Raritan Education Association (BREA).

A major component of that power is the Bridgewater local’s ability to mobilize its members, as well as the parents of this district into a cohesive force that only the slightest majority of voters was able to counter. Even though many parents and at least some teachers (we will never know how many, because no vote was taken) supported a wage freeze, the absolute tight-fisted solidarity of union leadership prevailed.

There are at least two takeaways from this. The first is that boards of education need to pre-plan their bargaining strategies well in advance and find a way not to be such pushovers in contract negotiations. It’s not too soon for the Bridgewater-Raritan School Board to come up with a line-in-the-sand strategy effective enough to counter the BREA. This district has had enough of “win-win” contracts in which the community comes out as a loser.

The second is that Governor Christie’s office needs to find a realistic way to gain consensus with the legislature on his signature strategy to enact “Cap 2.5” legislation that will finally put a limit on runaway spending.

Mr. Christie has the momentum and the support of the majority of New Jerseyans on this one, but it would be an enormous mistake for him or his staff to discount the NJEA’s lobbying power, as well as that of other symbiotic muscle groups who stand to lose greatly should his initiatives become law.

Thanks for reading, and stay engaged.

Bridgewater and Raritan Councils Agree on School Budget Cuts

At 12:10 AM today, at the end of a meeting that began at 7:00 PM on Wednesday, the combined councils of Bridgewater Township and Raritan Borough agreed to reduce the budget of the Bridgewater-Raritan School District by $1,037,000.

The elements of the cuts are as follows: $600,000 in savings realized when retiring senior staff is replaced by younger lower-paid staff; a $250,000 additional reduction in the district’s reserve account; a $150,000 savings through elimination of the Spanish language/cultural program at the 3rd and 4th grade levels, while retaining it at the 5th and 6th grade levels; and a reduction of $37,000 in the postage account.

The six-member Raritan Borough Council voted unanimously on a formal resolution for these cuts. The five-member Bridgewater Township Council agreed as well, with only one member, Christine Henderson Rose dissenting from the majority.

Bridgewater needs to have its attorney draft a formal resolution which will be voted upon at tonight’s regularly scheduled meeting, where the official voting outcome is not expected to vary from this morning’s poll.

Does this Man Hold the Key?

A handful of people will now determine the fate of budget reductions to the Bridgewater-Raritan School District.

Among those, I believe that Jeffrey Brookner, the president of the Bridgewater-Raritan School Board, is highly influential, at least in this stage of the process.

More than anything else, the contentious issue of further reducing the budget or of coming up with merely token cuts or none at all is a major policy decision.

Consequently, Mr. Brookner’s position on additional budget reductions as he advances his views constitutes a major policy stand which will demonstrate his mettle in dealing with the voters’ message delivered in the April 20th election.

In one of the public meetings which I attended since the school budget was first proposed in December, 2009, someone raised the question of why the entire custodial staff was being outsourced. Mr. Brookner responded that this district could no longer afford above-market salaries for their services.

If that’s true, then there needs to be a compelling reason as to why all other employees in the three bargaining units representing teachers, support staff, principals and supervisors will have the benefit of above-market contract salary increases, in addition to the above-market salary rates of the previous two years.

The Bridgewater-Raritan Education Association’s piece of the pie is a 4.35% contract increase beginning July 1.

Note: The committee charged with representing the two municipalities and the school district in discussions which took place on May 6th is composed of the following officials: Denise Carra and John LaMaestra for Raritan Borough; Matthew Moench and Christine Henderson Rose for Bridgewater Township; Jeffrey Brookner, Lynne Hurley and Michael Schilder for the school district.

Tomorrow evening at 7:00 PM, the Bridgewater Township Council and the Raritan Borough Council will meet in a special joint meeting at the Bridgewater Municipal Complex to discuss and to possibly take action on the failed school budget.

Bridging the Gap

Collegiality and civilized discussion prevailed among the municipal councils of Bridgewater Township, Raritan Borough and the Bridgewater-Raritan Board of Education last night in the meeting room of Bridgewater’s new municipal complex.

Nonetheless, it was evident from comments made by officials of the three groups that there is still a long way to go to reach agreement on an acceptable school budget-reduction number.

In remarks at the outset of the meeting, Bridgewater Council President Matthew Moench said that “the council has not decided on a number.” In reference to what seems to have become an iconic budget-reduction target e.g., the $2.4 million which “corresponds to a (one-year) wage freeze,” Mr. Moench added that, “it could be more, it could be less.”

Reading from a prepared statement, Bridgewater-Raritan School Board President Jeffrey Brookner outlined the cuts that were already made since the budget was originally proposed in mid-December, 2009. Perhaps referring to the tripartite, 7-person committee that I discussed in my previous post, he said, “We will debate whether even more cuts are needed. The answer, he added, is simple . . . (we can absorb) $500,000 from recent retirements. Any more cuts will negatively impact education.”

The $500K to which Mr. Brookner was referring is known in education circles as ‘breakage.’ It represents the difference between the higher salaries of long-tenured personnel who retire, and the lower salaries of their replacements. It’s an even larger number if there are no replacements.

However, ‘breakage’ is found money and should be kept off the table in the committee discussions. That $500K will most likely grow to what could be $1 million or more by September, especially if Governor Christie extends the notification time to encourage more high-salaried staff to retire between now and the start of the next school year.

‘Breakage’ is not a budget-cut line item and it should not be considered as a reduction to the 2010/2011 school budget. That would be the easy way out and it leaves no buffer for next year. That brings us back to the possibility of a $2.4 million wage-freeze.

The Silence of the Leaders

Except for the Superintendent of the Bridgewater-Raritan School District, Dr. Michael Schilder, there seems to have been a veil of public silence over the school budget from two leadership groups, the supervisors and the principals. Dr. Schilder, through his presentations and comments at public meetings, as well as through a series of e-mails to a recipient list has been very expressive in his views about that topic.

So has Mr. Steve Beatty, President of the Bridgewater-Raritan Education Association which represents mostly teachers, but also includes secretaries, custodians, maintenance workers and others. (Lately, he has not spoken before the board of education or either municipal body.)

But the principals and supervisors, each represented by their own union, seem to be comfortable with officially remaining in the public background; and lately, it appears, letting Mr. Beatty speak for them on the much publicized question of a wage freeze for the upcoming academic year.

The principals and supervisors were the first to endorse a contribution to their health care benefits. Together with a give-up of certain other educational expenses, those concessions were subsequently adopted by the BREA.

A thoughtful person has to wonder what might happen now, if the principals and supervisors were to take the lead and to reconsider their previous rejection of a one-year wage freeze. It’s not too late.

Instead, since their initiative with the health care concession, the two unions seem to have linked arms with the BREA.

Why is that? At a time when the superintendent of schools and the entire non-bargaining team have already given up their salary increases for next year, why are the principals and supervisors still resisting? Please . . . Don’t tell me that they have already contributed enough through a 1.5% concession towards health care benefits.

It would be unwise to minimize the total impact of health care concessions which, for the BREA alone represents a $1 million give-back to the district. Notwithstanding, let’s also remember that those contributions are already scheduled to go into effect by law as soon as existing contracts expire. On July 1st, the BREA finds itself in the last year of its three-year wage agreement.

This is the consequential issue: The Bridgewater-Raritan community is staring at the stark possibility of further significant reductions to the school budget. Only a $2.4 million wage freeze might assure that more teachers will not lose their jobs.

Thanks for reading, and stay engaged.

Impasse on Bridgewater-Raritan School Budget

The President of the Bridgewater Township Council, Matthew Moench, was advised on Friday that the three major bargaining units for the Bridgewater-Raritan School District have rejected the two municipalities’ request to accept a voluntary wage freeze amounting to $2.4 million for the 2010/2011 school year.

Mr. Moench expressed disappointment that the only “the only solution offered was $1 million from budget salary ‘breakage.’”  This is a rather arcane term that represents the differential between the higher salary of retiring staff and the lower salary of new staff.

The higher salaries of long-term employees are always built into the budget at the outset, because there is no way of knowing in advance how many experienced, higher salaried personnel will retire. It’s important to note that, according to Moench, “school administration says that there is now $500,000” worth of known ‘breakage,’” half the number claimed by the BREA.

“There was not any plausible solution offered,” Moench said and, “essentially, we were told, ‘we are not helping; good luck,’” He added that “They (the union representatives) don’t think we will cut $2.4 million or more . . . they really are misreading the public. If the $2.4 million salary freeze had been proffered, we would have accepted it. At first, some council members thought that was too low. Now, it could be a larger number.”

“We asked for a wage freeze in the hope that they would have cooperated. Union representatives put themselves ahead of their fellow colleagues and kids. They had a chance to practice what they preach, and they didn’t do it.”

Steve Beatty, speaking for the Bridgewater-Raritan Education Association of which he is President, as well as for the other two administrators’ unions representing the Principals and the Supervisors, offered another view.

Mr. Beatty rebutted by claiming that, in combination, the three union groups have already given up a total of $2.4 million in concessions, although not as a wage freeze he admits. He arrived at that number by stating that the $1.6 million in forfeited education reimbursement expenses and in the 1.5% of salary volunteered as a health care contribution, when combined with $0.8 million in ‘breakage’ already equals $2.4 million.

“What difference does it make where the money is coming from?” he asked.

Beatty continued, “We are not trying to be greedy. We are looking at the long and short term. What is being asked of us is political.”

When asked why each of the three bargaining units did not take the municipal councils’ request for a $2.4 million wage freeze to their rank and file for an up or down vote, he responded, “We truly believe that the executive committee(s) has a handle on how members feel. We talked to people and teachers and we listened.”

Beatty also volunteered that originally, the BREA did not want to accept any cuts in advance of the budget vote at the April 20th election. “We would have liked to wait until after the vote,” he said, “but we were prodded, pushed and bullied” into concessions before the April 20th election.

Also asked how he thinks the public will feel after this, he said “I’m pretty sure it will be bad and we will have some angry people; we will also have some on our side; it’s hard to say. My fear is that the councils have made up their mind. If we don’t agree, the councils may cut $3.5 million or more. It’s possible.”

Status of Negotiations with Bridgewater-Raritan Schools’ Bargaining Units

In a telephone call this afternoon, Matthew Moench, President of the Bridgewater Township Council, provided an update on the status of negotiations with the teachers’ association, as well as of talks with the principals’ and supervisors’ groups.

Mr. Moench confirmed that on Monday, April 26th, the following parties had met in a preliminary closed-door meeting to establish an initial sounding of positions:

Present at Monday’s meeting were Mr. Moench on behalf of the Bridgewater Township Council; Denise Carra, Raritan Borough Council President, Mayor Jo-Ann Liptak, and John LaMaestra, Borough School Board Liaison. Bridgewater-Raritan Board President Jeffrey Brookner and School Business Administrator/Board Secretary Peter Starrs were participants.

Also there were Steve Beatty, President of the Bridgewater-Raritan Education Association; as well as the two leaders of the Bridgewater-Raritan Principals’ Association and the Supervisors’ Association.

Negotiations, which are still in progress, center on the “possibility of further concessions and cost savings,” beyond those already built into the failed budget, according to Mr. Moench. This afternoon he was still actively “discussing options” with the bargaining units on behalf of those on the Bridgewater-Raritan negotiation team.

Mr. Moench added that he has requested the unions representing the teachers, principals and supervisors to get back to him by “Friday at the latest” with their proposals. He indicated that he “feels that they are doing their best,” and “believes that they seem to be acting in good faith.”

Without revealing its contents due to the sensitive nature of ongoing negotiations, he volunteered that he had a 45-minute discussion this afternoon with BREA President, Steve Beatty.

Because the voters of Bridgewater and Raritan rejected the school budget on April 20th, New Jersey law requires that the municipalities of the school district review the failed budget and forward their recommendations to Executive County Superintendent of Schools, Trudy Doyle.

As readers of this blog understand, there has been much pressure from Trenton for a total one-year wage freeze.

The current budget includes BREA concessions for health care (1.5% of salary) and tuition reimbursement in the amount of $1.4 million. These are offset in the current budget by reinstated budget cuts of the same amount.

The principals’ and supervisors’ associations also have agreed to pick up 1.5% towards their health care premiums. The Superintendent and all non-bargaining personnel are already on board with a one-year wage freeze.

Will Collegiality Win the Day?

At a meeting of the Raritan Borough Council at which Mayor Jo-Ann Liptak presided on Saturday morning, April 24th, borough officials stated that they were looking at a potential $2.4 million additional reduction to the failed Bridgewater-Raritan school budget, an amount which according to statements made that day could be covered by a union wage freeze.

Officials at the meeting further explained that the impact of such a freeze to the current combined tax levy of Bridgewater and Raritan would be to drop it from 4.95% to 2.83%, a 43% improvement. The actual breakdown for each municipality results in separate levies, each of which is determined by formula.

Yesterday, representatives of each municipality, the board of education, the three school unions, and administrator(s) met in a preliminary closed-door meeting.

Although no communiqués have yet come from that gathering, it’s safe to assume from discussions at Saturday’s Raritan Borough meeting that the key topic would be the question of a wage freeze for the three major bargaining units, the BRPA, the BRSA, and the BREA, unions representing the principals; the supervisors; the teachers, secretaries, and others, respectively. (The Superintendent and non-bargaining personnel have already consented to a one-year wage freeze.)

Further buttressing the assumption that the main topic on the table is a one-year freeze of salaries was the conference call last Friday by Education Commissioner Bret Schundler with municipal and school officials, as reported in The Star-Ledger. Schundler is encouraging “government officials, who will determine local tax levies after reviewing the defeated spending plans to reach out to union leadership during the process.”

Schundler claimed that “There are times when a third party, such as a town council, can help two parties look at another side.” He added, “In a negotiation between a union and a school board, they (municipal officials) are the counter-parties to the discussion.”

Thus, there is no reason to doubt that the critical topic at the moment is whether or not union members will get to vote on a voluntary wage freeze.

Saturday morning at the Raritan Borough Municipal Building, the requests from the audience – virtually all teachers – to Borough officials seemed to be unanimous in not wanting any further cuts to programs or personnel. The exchange was quite informal. It lasted for two and a half hours. At times, there were very personal and emotional pleas made from concerned teachers and other union members. (The BREA has already agreed to $1.4 million in concessions in exchange for a similar amount of reduced cutbacks – a net wash in the budget.)

What would you do if you were a teacher or other union member and knew that taking a full 4.35% wage freeze with no other conditions attached would save programs and the jobs of your colleagues? Would you claim your personal seniority and watch the pink slips go out, or would you take that one-year hit?

The answer is not easy – not if you are the one making the decision. I’m convinced that most people in Bridgewater and Raritan recognize this. They, too, have suffered the pain of absorbing hard economic hits.

We are all waiting for the answer. Will collegiality win the Day?

Photo Commentary:  In the picture above, Raritan Borough Mayor Jo-Ann Liptak and the Borough Council take comments from the audience about the failed Bridgewater-Raritan school budget at the April 24th emergency meeting in the Raritan Municipal Building. (Single-click the image for a larger view)

Same Topic, Last Minute Thoughts

Tuesday, April 20th,  is D-Day – decision day – for the 2010-2011 Bridgewater-Raritan School Budget. Unlike most years, it’s been one of the most widely publicized budget processes in decades.

What characterizes this one from previous budgets is that it is embroiled in a statewide financial crisis, with few school districts being spared the agony of cutbacks due to reduced state aid. The numbers which have been thrown about are dizzying.

Go back a few months: What do you think would have happened, if Jon Corzine had been re-elected, instead of Chris Christie? It’s not unrealistic to assume that the B-R School District would have received most or all of its anticipated state aid. There would have been no program or personnel cutbacks, perhaps not even any outsourcing of custodians.

The Bridgewater-Raritan Education Association would not have been asked to implement a wage freeze. Negotiations for another generous multi-year contract would have begun. And everyone would be happy.

Now let’s step out of that dream.

That’s the kind of thinking that leads to addiction, in this case, financial addiction. Let’s face it, Bridgewater and Raritan brothers and sisters, we’ve been living high off the hog in this district for too long. Ours is the state with the highest cost of education and the highest taxes. It is full of cronyism, patronage and corruption.

Seniors are strapped, having lost about $1200 from the cancelled homestead rebate. They have seen their incomes plummet as the result of virtually 0% interest rates and watched their 401k’s tank. Working people of all ages and income strata in the commercial sector are being laid off from well-paying jobs.

People fortunate enough to have solid employment are looking at little or no increases in their salaries and are getting socked with ever-increasing health care premiums. Tens of thousands have lost their defined-benefit retirement plans, a benefit still enjoyed in the public sector.

The nominal unemployment rate is pushing 10%, while the actual unemployment due to discouraged laid-off workers no longer seeking employment sits at a staggering 17%.

Does anyone seriously think that the spending trend in our school districts could have been kept on its current trajectory? What astonishes me is not that the Christie medicine is being forced upon reluctant patients. What does is that not enough could see the symptoms of the disease.

Excess is excess, no matter what field it’s in. The overly-generous spending in New Jersey on most levels, including within the Bridgewater-Raritan School District reminds me of the dot.com and real estate bubbles of the last two decades. We all wanted a good time and didn’t worry until the bubbles popped in our faces.

I’ll conclude with one of the most egregiously false and age-old arguments for why school budgets are where they are – personnel salaries which comprise about 80% of the total. We have been told over and over again that these are fixed costs, implying that nothing can be done to slow their growth.

But that argument is suicidally circular, because the same school board which tells us that salaries are fixed costs and can’t be slowed because they are part of multi-year contractual agreements, are the very same school boards that negotiated those inflated agreements to begin with.

By the way, that much ballyhooed 12.8% three-year wage agreement with the Bridgewater-Raritan Education Association is in fact a three-year 13.35% wage hike. This result occurs through the magical compounding of each annual wage increase in the package over its contract period.

The school funding and spending problem in New Jersey and in our community is serious, real and now in our faces. The sooner we fix it, the better off we will all be. Jon Corzine and his predecessors are gone and they are never coming back.

It's been a long one.  Thanks for reading.

A Refresher on the Bridgewater-Raritan Schools Wage Package

I still remember the evening of December 18, 2007, when I sat down in the conference room of the Wade Administration in Martinsville to hear the Bridgewater-Raritan School Board approve a three-year 12.8% wage hike for the Bridgewater-Raritan Education Association. I don’t recall board members discussing that proposal. It was put on the table and voted upon. Done!

Members of the BREA have received the first two increments of that raise, 4.2% for the 2008/2009 school year, and 4.25% for the 2009/2010 school year. The final increment of that package, 4.35%, is due to take effect July 1st.

Since the BREA is the biggest bargaining unit, the results of its negotiations feather out in talks with the principals and supervisors associations who won’t settle for much less. Similarly, this influences the increases built into the superintendent’s package and others on the payroll. Control wage increases for the BREA, and you control everything else.

One of the reasons that the BREA rejected the board’s request to freeze the 4.35% wage hike now built into the April 20th budget is that it would weaken the BREA's position in the next round of contract negotiations. That point was made in what was probably a slip-of-the tongue, barely audible acknowledgment at one of the recent public meetings.

In yesterday’s post, I explained the concessions that already have been made by the BREA, while stressing that the 4.35% is still the biggest purse left on the table and included in this year’s budget. But it doesn’t have to be that way.

In an op-ed piece today in The Sunday Star-Ledger, Governor Christie writes that “There is still time to reopen negotiations and have the teachers union finally agree to reasonable, shared sacrifice – a one-year freeze on salaries and a small contribution to health insurance costs.”

The Bridgewater-Raritan Education Association has already agreed to a health care insurance contribution. Now it’s time for it to do some heavy lifting, return to the school board, and cancel its 4.35% wage hike for the 2010/2011 school year. The result would feather out to other bargaining units.

But that’s not in the cards; that is, not unless you, the voters of Bridgewater and Raritan robustly remind the BREA of that omission on Tuesday, April 20th, when you draw the curtain behind you in the voting booth.

B-R BOE Accepts BREA Offer

In a sparsely attended meeting that lasted only about ten minutes this afternoon, a five-person quorum of the Bridgewater-Raritan Board of Education voted unanimously on proposals to accept the offer of the Bridgewater-Raritan Employee Association (BREA).

The Board also voted to approve the budget for the 2010/2011 fiscal school year beginning July 1st. It now will be submitted to Trudy Doyle, the Somerset County Executive Superintendent for her sign-off and inclusion on the April 20th ballot where voters will have the final say.

In its revised contract agreement, the union membership, according to a statement released by Superintendent Michael Schilder, “agreed to contribute 1.5% of their salaries towards the cost of health care.” BREA members also gave up $403,000 of tuition reimbursements.

Union membership voted by an overwhelming margin of 2 to 1 in favor of these concessions.

The total cost of these give-backs is $1.4 million, but the amount is a wash in the expense budget and on the school tax rate because, in return, the Board agreed to restore teaching positions, as well as other programs slated for elimination in prior budget drafts.

The tax levy for the Bridgewater-Raritan School district will rise by 4.95% from last year. However, the Bridgewater Township school tax levy will go up by 5.42%, while the Raritan Borough school tax levy will go up by 3.90%.

This anomaly in school tax levies between the two municipalities is, according to Peter Starrs, School Business Administrator/Board Secretary, caused by three factors: One of them is a New Jersey proration formula, and the other two are the valuations and ratables for each municipality.

Sounds complicated and it is, but the percentages can swing from year to year with Raritan, in some years, getting a higher percent share.

BREA Concessions

The Bridgewater-Raritan Education Association voted yesterday on a proposed $1.4 million of concessions that would help to save some jobs and programs. Obviously, this won’t be sufficient to offset all of the anticipated state aid that was built into the original Bridgewater and Raritan Schools budget proposed in December, 2009, for the new school year beginning July 1st, 2010.

If the BREA membership has voted in favor of the $1.4M of give-backs, its impact will be folded into the final budget of the B-R BOE on Wednesday.

You may recall that, on March 23rd, according to Board President Jeffrey Brookner, the B-R BOE had projected saving “over $3 million worth of teacher jobs in exchange for givebacks worth approximately $1.7 million.”

That offer was not presented to the BREA membership. Instead, the association leadership returned to the table with a counteroffer of $1.4M in givebacks, in exchange for a like amount of job and program savings by the B-R BOE.

The original Board offer of March 23rd had asked for “the union to forgo $403,000 worth of tuition reimbursements,” and to “reduce its scheduled raise from 4.35% to 2%” beginning on July 1.

How probable is it that the BREA’s counter-offer of $1.4M in give-backs will include a lowering of its scheduled 4.35% hike to 2%? Very unlikely.

Remember, the unions for the principals and the supervisors – the BRPA & the BRSA – had declined to freeze or to reduce their salaries. Their offer which was accepted by the B-R BOE was to pay 1.5% for their health benefits and to forego a small amount of other benefits similar to tuition reimbursements.

The BREA, if it voted to accept the $1.4M in give-backs, is likely to mirror the principals’ and supervisors’ lead and to propose a giveback of tuition reimbursements combined with an offer to pay a portion of their health benefits. Just like the other groups.

Surplus Funds & the Bridgewater-Raritan School Budget

The Bridgewater-Raritan School District has traditionally followed a fiscal practice of annually setting aside an unallocated amount of cash in its budget. That amount, not initially charged against any specific expense line items, is commonly knows as “surplus,” “rainy day fund” or, more derogatorily, has been also labeled as “a slush fund.”

However it is described, the surplus-fund apple cart was quickly upset statewide, when Governor Christie announced that he was withholding further monies from New Jersey school districts. With Christie’s announcement, the anticipated $4 million in aid to the B-R School District from Trenton has evaporated.

Consequently, planning for the Bridgewater-Raritan school budget has been thrown into disarray, and the Administration and School Board are now required to hustle under uncertain conditions and to revamp the preliminary budget.

To make up for this loss of state funding, the budget draft for the next fiscal year (2010/2011) beginning on July 1, has been reduced from $136.9 million to $132.5 million, as of Tuesday, February 23rd. Keep in mind that in the past, preliminary budgets have rarely been reduced, but presented to voters unaltered in the April election.

The actual operating budget for the current school year ending on June 30th 2010 is $133.2 million, or $0.7 million higher that the preliminary $132.5 million figure presented to the public last Tuesday for the next school year. Therefore, you might think this means a reduction in your real estate taxes.

But don’t count on taking this to the bank– these numbers are anything but final and further mandates may be imposed on school districts by Trenton.

B-R School Superintendent Michael Schilder described several other cloudy scenarios in his Tuesday evening presentation. According to him, “These cuts are devastating, the likes of which this community has never seen . . . a real first,” he went on to explain. “The deeper the cuts are, the more the (real estate) tax goes up.” This seems to be a clear signal that any more mandates imposed by Trenton will simply be added to your real estate tax bill.

Furthermore: The 4.35% wage hike scheduled to go into effect on July 1st for the Bridgewater-Raritan Education Association is still on the books.

Parents to Board of Education: Share the Pain

Tuesday night’s message from parents of this community to the Bridgewater-Raritan Board of Education could not have been clearer, more articulate, or more unanimous: It’s time to share the pain.

In the over 20 years that I have attended board meetings either as a community volunteer on committees or as a board officer, rarely have I seen such a sober consensus among such an overflow gathering.

People do not want to see the $4 million reduction in state aid (more about that in another post) imposed only upon selected teachers and custodians. They want equity in reducing the budget. The sense of the gathering last night, judging by the persons who addressed the board and who were roundly applauded after they spoke, is this:

Before laying off anyone and going through hoops to find other places to cut, do one of three things, or a combination of all three: 1. Work to rescind the looming 4.35% pay hike built into the BREA union contract. 2. Beginning with the Superindent, require that all administrators at all levels – whether in a bargaining unit or not, forego their pay hikes. 3. Address pay-to-play for athletics.

Nobody wants to see people lose their jobs while well-paid administrators and surviving teachers get a 4.35% pay increase or more.

It is unrealistic to think that there won’t be additional reductions in the future. Nonetheless, this community wants fairness, and it wants it now. This means that pay hikes scheduled for the 2010/2011 school year be canned before people get canned.

I hope the Bridgewater-Raritan Board of Education is listening. But there is reason to doubt. After the open-to-the-public period of the meeting ended, board members were asked for their reaction.

Before hushed listeners, only one board member, Jill Gladstone, provided her opinion. Mrs. Gladstone said that she “supports sharing the burden in this (school) community,” and “wants a top-to-bottom solution among union and non-union” members.”

I hope that the rest of the board doesn’t come down on her for having validated what every person in that room thought last night. And, I am certain, what every thoughtful and considerate person in the Bridgewater-Raritan community also believes.

To further punctuate this line of reasoning, at least two teachers came to the podium in support of the public’s comments.