I believe the discussion of aides' benefits is part of ongoing contract negotiations with the union.

I've had to remove one comment today for being a personal attack.. I don't wish to remove more. Please stick to the issues and dispense with the name calling. Thank you.

Mr. Shor,

Well-said. Couldn't have said it better. All of this talk of "uncertainty" still, even after a $13.9 million surplus? Sounds like scare-tactics again. This is what happened last year. And as the union gives more in health, the district will see more and more money. Will they restore benefits for aides? Probably not. Will they bargain in good faith? Never.

It was my comment that was removed, and the fact that it was represented more evidence that some (read: school board members and other tax-cut zealots) are more protected on this site than others. The unilateral cutting of the aides' benefits was a low point in this town's history even before the discovery of the now-plural surplus -- after which it can be called an utter disgrace. To say it is part of the ongoing negotiations is to buy the board's strategy of laying its duplicity at the feet of the union. At a time it will offer no raises while state law demands (not unreasonably, i would add) that teachers pay more for health care and pension and after the union has already given back substantial amounts, the board will blame the union for not willing to give even more to cover the aides. While the benefits expenditure would only cut into a small percentage of the surplus. If you want to stick to the issues, how about an honest appraisal of them?

"$2.7 million of it would be set aside in an emergency fund"

This is not quite correct. The idea of an emergency reserve was presented, but Ms. Sullivan recommended against putting money into this kind of reserve. Rather, up to M$2.5 is going into the capital reserve and up to M$0.5 is going into the maintenance reserve. These amounts are "up to" because the school year's books are not yet closed or audited.

Each of these reserves is a hedge against future need, but the capital reserve is the most interesting for me. Money will be used from this reserve before any more bonding occurs, or at least this is the idea. That translates to less debt and less money spent on interest. This seems like a Good Thing to me; we've too much debt and are spending far too much on the cost of that debt already.

...Andrew

You are right Andrew.. am going to change the wording on that now..

"$2.7 will be held in reserves as recommended by the State."

I think I'm grasping the source of the confusion around the M$2.7. This is the amount of surplus that the district is permitted to carry on the budget. It is 2% of the budget amount plus a few other factors (eg. state aid received after the budget was closed).

It's not the same as a reserve (such as the capital reserve or the maintenance reserve), but I admit that the distinction can seem unimportant as it is money that exists against a possible need.

Note that M$2.7 is the maximum amount we're permitted to carry. We could carry less than this.

...Andrew

I urge every Montclairian who cares about the future health of this town to pay close attention to the shell game that is going on with our current school board. There are millions to spend -- more millions than the board seems able to count. And yet, the jewel of our town -- our public schools -- are being gutted. I can't imagine that any of us wants our school system to crumble into mediocrity. But right now, the budget cuts are causing completely unnecessary pain to our children. Libraries are depending on the kindness of volunteers -- librarians have been fired. Spanish classes have been axed. School aides, essential educators for our neediest children, are being treated like temporary Walmart employees, stripped of benefits. All this spells erosion of quality. We will end up what we pay for. Is that what we want? While 13.9 million dollars goes unspent? I hope the next mayor will take charge of this travesty, depose the current board president, and reverse the damage before it's too late. LynNell Hancock, 20-year homeowner, grandparent of a 3rd grader.

"While 13.9 million dollars goes unspent?"

While there might be some merit to the "we're not spending properly on the schools" position, how can we know if proponents misstate - deliberately or through lack of understanding - the amounts involved? There was M$13.9 in an account on one day. The next day it was about half that. And of that remaining half, much has already been spent even if the cash hasn't been paid out yet.

I urge people interested in this to actually study the BOE budget books. Once the materials presented by Ms. Sullivan yesterday evening are on the web site, review these (I plan to; a glance at a projected screen is not enough time to grasp that array of numbers).

I'd an interesting epiphany while reading these:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/19/us/to-avert-liability-washington-town-drops-helmet-laws.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/19/opinion/nocera-when-alec-takes-over-your-town.html

which show examples of what can happen to a town driven to - or past - the financial brink. Given our debt, and what we spend on interest - tax revenue we cannot spend on services - I fear that we may be aimed at that direction.

But as the second article claims, some may want it this way. Is Montclair to be deliberately driven into bankruptcy so as to serve some GOP agenda?

When we hear cries of "spend spend spend" and "debt doesn't matter", we need to take into account the matter of who wins as our indebtedness grows.

...Andrew

Mtc soundly rejected the anti-tax crowd in the May elections so why is the BOE still on the anti-tax warpath? BOE is out-of-touch and out-of-step when it puts cutting taxes first and educating children last. Unbelievable--BOE piled up yet another huge surplus after promising solemnly last year to not let it happen again--and here it is again, millions unspent while BOE fakes a budget crisis to fuel its labor war, playing politics with the aides's family health care. (Remember what happened when Komen played politics with women's health care.) Our town is not on the fiscal brink as the honorable Mr. Gideon suggested; the TC threw money at Wildwood and blew $1mil to beautify one business street downtown; no cash crisis when business cronies want something from the TC, just take it away from the kids and teachers and aides in our public schools. Surplus millions should go to reduce class size if BOE was serious about closing the achievement gap and knew how to use dollars to make a difference in learning outcomes. The new mayor should remove this BOE and appoint 7 civic-minded education-oriented people who understand how crucial good public schools are to our kids and property values.

"Mtc soundly rejected the anti-tax crowd in the May elections so why is the BOE still on the anti-tax warpath?"

I heard somewhere that Montclair's debt is the 5th highest in the state. Is this true? The election might have stifled the realists, but time may just stifle the spend until the state takes us over crowd.

The former school president loves to tell us how important it is to preserve diversity in Montclair, as if the decrease in African-American residents is solely related to the taxes and has nothing to do with the housing price wars of a few years ago. But along with racial and economic diversity comes the obligation to meet its challenges. As Mr. Shor points out, the achievement gap will not be closed by putting huge surpluses over smaller class sizes. Montclair's reputation for public education will not be served by treating educators like enemies and squeezing FULL-TIME aides to the point of creating an unhappy (and transient) work force. No one is asking the BOE to run up debt. Just invest what it has in children and educators. Said this before and I'll say it again. If the board members want to please the tax-cut zealots so much, get off the damn board and run for mayor and town council in 4 years. Want to serve on the school board, put education first, and that includes a cooperative working relationship with those who serve our children.

pardon, school board president

The school system in Montclair is a joke, highly over rated and the high school is one of the most ghetto schools I have ever seen. I pay taxes here but was forced to pull my son out and put him in a private school because of the bullying, torment, leaky ceilings in geometry class and just overall bad attitude that prevails in this school system. There are countless kids who do not belong in this school system, who's parents don't live here. So you say surplus, get rid of Dana Miller, and the whole bunch if they are still there. White Montclair has busing black Montclair does not for high school students. Give some of that to parents who's children are forced to ride the NJ transit buses to school. I cannot wait to put my for sale sign up in this town. Teachers who don't have any kind of control over monsters who roam the hallways picking on other kids. Perhaps hiring a security team for the animals that go to that high school. Implement a dress code... Montclair high school is a hot mess. We need a new high school, not more middle schools. I notice also that the ratio of black kids to white in the brand new school is quite unbalanced. More white than black. Teachers who are in the Glenfield school and other middle schools who are tenured and terrible. Montclair is making sure that they get rid of all of the black principles and are trying to change the tone of the area. Surplus for who the staff of the BOA, not with my tax dollars!

"Our town is not on the fiscal brink as the honorable Mr. Gideon suggested"

We are already spending roughly 1/5 of our tax money spent on interest. That's a lot of money not spent on services for/to the town. When interest rates rise, this will get worse. If we see future downgrades of our debt, this will get worse.

But as I wrote above, it seems that some want to drive the town past the brink of financial insolvency, as this would permit them the opportunity to push their agenda.

"the TC threw money at Wildwood and blew $1mil to beautify one business street downtown; no cash crisis when business cronies want something from the TC"

This logic is flawed. If someone spends themselves into debt and beyond, would we use the excessive spending as proof that they're financially sound? Citing irresponsibility on the part of the council as justification for irresponsibility elsewhere is more than a little silly.

...Andrew

what's your point, Andrew? Starve the school system, gut the one thing that is supposed to hold the community together. You're arguments always seem to lack nuance, along with compassion and in the end common sense. No one here is denying mistakes haven't been by governments past or arguing for greater debt. We are decrying the heartless punishing of low-paid teacher aides, the finger-pointing at public workers, the eagerness to withhold money that will allow children to learn and uphold the reputation of the schools. stop lumping every expenditure into the same argument.

@Montclair Public I find Andrew's comments among the more insightful on these public boards. Almost every expenditure can be justified in isolation and Andrew helps provide context.

@June You clearly have a bone to pick on behalf of your child and this is completely understandable but the vitriol in your post undermines any potential empathy.

"You're arguments always seem to lack nuance, along with compassion and in the end common sense."

That seems an odd assertion, in that I'm arguing for sensibility in spending. I will admit that I weight compassion for the students, and then the families living in town, above that of compassion for the staff of the school system. The system exists to serve us; not the other way around.

This shouldn't be seen as any sort of criticism of the staff. For the most part, I've a great deal of respect for them. Simplistically: how can one have a school w/o teachers? Still, in a world where priorities are necessary I'm prioritizing the welfare of the students over that of the staff.

For one interesting example of priorities, look to Ms. Sullivan's presentation at the last BOE meeting (which I assume you attended given your interest in our schools). Recall what she said about savings resulting from reduced health costs. That's money that can be spent in various ways on education. That's money that doesn't have to be taken from families so financially pressed that they're looking at leaving town.

Maybe it'll mean another librarian or two. Enough steady-state savings might even translate to restoring foreign languages at the elementary level. This is far from "gutting" the schools.
[Continued]

"No one has said anything really like this"

People have argued precisely that. For example:

"Mrs. Lombard's BOE refuses to spend the money it has on what our kids need most, a shameful choice in a town this smart. High-quality schools bring families to Montclair willing to pay high sale prices and high taxes for the sake of their children's educations."

This is a request for greater spending funded by higher taxes. I admit there's even a certain logic to it, but it would further the process of turning Montclair into Just Another Wealthy NJ Suburb.

As for politicians and debt, please see the debt-related proposals on http://www.montclair2012.com/financial and http://www.realprogressmontclair.com/fiscal-priorities.html and compare. One actually proposes reducing debt-funded spending. The other does not. That's telling. One can discuss debt reduction as long as one likes, but as long as there's a steady stream of debt-funded spending little can change. One might as well exercise well on a steady diet of chocolate chip cookies.

[I believe that For Montclair also took a realistic approach, but that site is unavailable at the moment.]
[Continued]

"I'm sure this seems to lack compassion to you, and I can certainly see your point. I don't particularly like being in a position where these types of choices have to be made."

And there is where your argument goes off the rails. The sheer size of the surplus(es) demonstrate that this particular choice didn't have to be made. There is no time like stressful times when our character and compassion are truly measured. The board failed miserably when it grabbed for the lowest hanging fruit and punished FULL-TIME aides making low salaries and working with our neediest children. You say you put the children ahead of the educators. Self-serving pap. In a well-functioning school system, prioritizing children and respecting educators are inextricably tied. As I have said many times, I do not believe asking teachers to pay more into pension and health care is unreasonable, long as it is achieved through honest collective bargaining. what the board did unilaterally to the aides was heartless, unnecessary and revealing of those who executed it. I know one thing: none of those board members would do that to a member of their own family. Shame on them and on you for excusing it.

I meant to asking teachers to pay more into pension and health care is reasonable.