Seriously? $9,384? That's nice, but not much of a dent in salaries for something called "Education Jobs".

As for "spending the surplus": Whatever we do, it's important to remember that this isn't money won in a lottery. It is money paid by taxpayers in Montclair, many of whom are in very difficult financial position (lost jobs, reduced salaries, cut benefits) and some of whom have had to - or will have to - leave Montclair because of the cost of living here.

That's why the state instructs the district to roll this into the next budget as revenue, offsetting the need for some revenue from the taxpayer. It *is* from the taxpayers; paid in 2010 for the 2012-2013 budget. However we spend 2012 revenues, including both this prepaid tax and tax that year, we need to do so wisely and for maximum educational benefit for our kids.

...Andrew

What will spend the surplus on? I have heard this question many times from government official. Why not try something novel, give it back to the taxpayers?

I'm still stuck wondering how 6 million was "found," or "not known." Forget for a moment what to do with it, HOW was it overlooked?

(I imagine someone pulling out an old pair of summer shorts and finding some crumpled up bills. On my best day, that might be $20, not 6 million.)

I've stated my worry about those in charge in town, and this is yet another reason...

I remember a few years back there was some sort of 'error' found in BOE numbers - $1 mil or $2 mil. It sure seems to me that they're not keeping proper track of things. A huge amount like this should be a surprise to no one.

It's my understanding that the board received figures to calculate the yearly budget-but these figures were set at a certain point-say in Jan 2010.

After that point, no further analysis was done on the figures throughout the remainder of the year-nor is any historical analysis kept on previous years spending trends.

There was no opportunity-whether this is a good thing or not is another question-to amend, project, analyze the budget to see where we may have been tipping one way or the other...

Perhaps it is time to start collecting the historical data on the schools so that the board can be more nimble and actually make choices based on actual working data-and not old figures.

"Perhaps it is time to start collecting the historical data on the schools so that the board can be more nimble and actually make choices based on actual working data-and not old figures."

The board requested at least one report of this sort at the meeting: a monthly "year to date" comparing the current to previous years. There seemed to be some resistance to producing this, but we'll see. In addition, the budget working group has requested some additions be made to the Budget Book that would permit a better understanding of each line item's "evolution" over time, and therefore permit better proposals for those numbers in the new budget.

I think that there's near-universal agreement that better information is required.

However, this also shows why the choice of BOE members is so crucial. The Mayor removed a member with a financial background only to replace her with someone w/o that same background. His own committee recommended someone with that background, but he didn't follow their recommendation. That's what happens when one politician has complete control over the BOE. He tried to pacify us by putting that committee into place, but then ignored it when we were not paying attention.

I do wonder what the Mayor has against people that understand finances.

...Andrew

"HOW was it overlooked?"

Whether you agree or disagree with the choices made, this was explained during the meeting. There are roughly two categories.

The first is unknown information. The business administrator had no way to know that there'd be 41 retirements last year, nor what the replacements would cost. She cannot build the resulting savings into the budget. That's almost M$1.4 "found" right there.

Similarly, one line item was 5,772,741 in the 2010-2011 budget, but the actual spending was about 4,200,000. Another M$1.5 "found". This was the result of bringing students in-district, but could she have know that this would have occurred when building the 2010-2011 budget? I don't see how. In 2009-2010, we did spend 5,436,746 on that item, so 5,772,741 isn't on its face an unreasonable proposal for 2010-2011.

The second is the highly conservative approach taken by the business administrator. That same line item is budgeted at 5,725,745 for 2011-2012. Should she have known that we were trending toward only spending M$4.2 in 2010-2011 when building the 2011-2012 budget? Yes. Should she have reduced the 2011-2012 number by more than $50,000 from the 2010-2011 budget? Well, that's the big question about accuracy vs. conservativeness that I think we're going to have to have.

However you feel about the choices being made in budget numbers, I hope this at least explains how budget surplus occurs.

...Andrew

All good points, Andrew.

It is encouraging to hear Shelly Lombard say the surplus should be used to offset taxes. That should be the ONLY acceptable outcome. It is OUR money..please give it back.

Thanks a lot for the explanations above, Andrew. I also think it validates Ms. Lombard's point that she did not know about the surplus. Give this woman a break please. Would she have put some much time and effort into the budget cut process if she'd have known there was an almost six million dollar surplus? This is an incredibly thankless, VOLUNTEER position that she does extremely well given all of the difficult circumstances. You may not agree with all of her decisions but no one can doubt her dedication to the kids of this town.

Give the aides back their benefits. Many of them are PART of the struggling class in Montclair and the board's punitive action -- balancing the budget on the backs of its lowest-paid and most vulnerable employees -- was pandering to the mean-spirited right-wing values creeping into Montclair politics. don't want to hear the crap about sustainability either. These people are suffering NOW! return their benefits and get down to the business of negotiating a contract with the MEA that will be fair to the teachers (all of them) and the taxpayers.

And to Peter Zorich's point about the surplus being "Our Money?"
At least $2 million of that surplus is state aid restored by Christie. It's the school district's money to provide educational services -- which the aides do on a full-time basis, tending to the neediest children, for salaries averaging in the low to mid 20K. They don't deserve health care?

Montclair Public is right...if youre Shelly Lombard, you paint this as "well, we're giving the taxpayers their money back", even though we were asleep at the wheel. If youre actually invested in this community and not simply youre own pocket, and you care about the educational system, then insuring that some of that surplus money is used to better the system for the kids is integral. By the way, if your schools deteriorate because you continue to defund them, as well demonize the workers who work in that district, your property taxes will decrease anyway. As the schools go, so do your property taxes. So any money you get back here, won't mean jack if your schools system flounders and the kids don't get what they deserve, which is a top-notch, public education. It's about the kids, is it not?

Montclair Public.. to suggest there is "a mean spirited right-creep" in town is a complete stretch. Take a look at the current Mayor and Town Council. Some of them may be mean, but "right wing"? As to the surplus.. does it matter how much of it was state aid? We are getting crushed by local and state taxes. Any opportunity to provide some relief should be applauded.. not criticized as pandering. And for the record, Montclair per-pupil spending is relatively high.

"was pandering to the mean-spirited right-wing values creeping into Montclair politics"

The BOE is selected by the Mayor, and a working group within the council. Mayor Fried is so far from being a "mean-spirited right-wing" politician, that you suggesting it makes your argument baseless.

Also the BOE budget is agreed upon by the BOSE(Board of School Estimates) all left leaning people and the County, which in Essex County we have very few "mean-spirited right-wingers" living or part of elected Government.....

Please keep doing all that Yoga, because your stretching is Grade A!

@ Robin Hoffman-I agree with your sentiment!

Kyle,

Huh?

The BOE is appointed by the Mayor. He has an advisory group, but has ignored them on at least one occasion. The Council, under Mayor Fried's administration, has no input in the choice, unlike other administrations where the Mayor conferred with Council members.

The BOSE has three Council members, of which the Mayor is one. I would hardly call the remaining two -- Dr. Baskerville, and Councilor Murnick, "left leaning."

This town, its council and BOE, generally-speaking, are faux-liberal. With a district that is, by educational standards, an "I" district (which means we sit right below the "J" districts, which have the most wealth), it's only natural that there would be fiscal conservatism, even though on the outside, there is this belief in social justice, equity, opportunity for all. But, when it comes to the money to help create the semblance of equity for all, it's "not out of my pocket" conservatism that has not only crept into this town, but has shown the town for what it truly is...faux-liberal, from the mayor on down.

@This Town...

During the presentation on the NCLB testing results one BOE meeting back, the point was made that we're an atypical I district. I don't recall the precise numbers, but something that stuck in my mind is that we've something like 1/3 or 1/2 of all the economically disadvantaged kids living in a I district in the state. That's a huge number! It is in fact a ridiculous number, highly suggestive that our classification is flawed.

If we paid for school via a town income tax, things might be "more fair". As it is, though, people pay taxes to our schools based upon their property tax (or within their rent). This makes no allowance for having lost a job, working more hours for less money, lost benefits, etc. It would be wrong - and illiberal as I understand the concept - to discount the cost to those people of arbitrarily high tax increases.

These are the people that have been, or could be, forced to leave town if taxes are not more properly managed. Now, perhaps that is the goal of some people. Certainly, many things might be easier or more convenient in a Montclair that was a more conventional I district. But I think deliberate gentrification of Montclair via a pro-tax policy would be a highly illiberal choice (again: as I understand the concept).

Certainly, it would cost us our economic diversity. I wouldn't think this a path we'd want to take.

...Andrew

Yes, I know some of the "liberal" power brokers in Montclair. Liberal, as This Town notes, as long as they can maintain their distance from those who fall short of their life standing. And when they get too close, well, there is always MKA or Newark Academy. Look, I know I am broad-stroking here but that fool of a mayor sat on his ass and said nothing while the BOE and MEA sold out the aides in what was as mean-spirited an act as it gets. Yes, our taxes are high, high enough for me to consider bailing out of here, but to put the blame on the schools is a crying shame. it's so much more complicated and you all know it, or should. and again, as This Town correctly notes, let the school system deteriorate, and see how much resale value your home will have.

Peter,
my right-wing contention referred to what was done to the aides...would you argue that balancing the budget on their backs was not mean-spirited in the context of the Republican right wing? As for the surplus, again, the money from Trenton was meant to restore some of what Christie took away last year. Why shouldn't it be returned to the schools and specifically to those (the aides) who were prematurely punished?

Montclair Public, our public schools spend and waste too much money.

When somebody works full time or even part time during the hours that school-centric employees often must work, they can't get another job that provides them benefits. In that case, the benefits are often the job. They are the pay, more than the salary. Really.

Why does everyone in this town think Dems are more "compassionate" than Repubs because they give other peoples money away. Where do these compassionate people think the $ comes from.Last time I checked, there is no free lunch.

When schools buy computers, they often pay four or five times what they are worth, and you know somebody is getting paid off. These days you can get a nice 64 bit desktop for under $300.

None of you know what the hell you are talking about when you assert that the schools waste money. It's the myth perpetuated in Montclair by those without children, those who send their kids to private school and couldn't give a damn about public education and those who finished with the schools years ago and have forgotten their kids were educated there. i would agree that there is some waste in central office, over-staffing. but our schools, all of them, are actually understaffed and strapped in ways that are pitiful....shared nurses, lack of librarians, language teachers. the high school's music program is a joke. we live in a community with state-mandated busing, many special needs kids and a generation of parents far more sophisticated in gaming the system to generate costly out-of-town services for their kids -- some legitimate, others not so much. i hear people like all of you in cafes, bitching about too many secretaries in the high school. i put 3 kids through the school. most of you i would bet have never stepped in the building.
Jag, the truth hurts. don't confuse educating children with free lunch. most of the free lunch in this country these days is going to those who are stuffing their faces with prime rib for dinner.

Good morning all--It's the job of BM Sullivan and BOE Head Lombard to know the budget. For them to "miss" a nearly $6mil surplus and to allow a destructive year-long town debate on what to cut is a disgraceful dereliction of duty by Lombard annd Sullivan. Both should resign or be removed. They failed us. Our property values are supported by quality schools. professional families move here for the schools and civic amenities. Cut them and you depress property values, plain and simple. Public education, public parks, public services like garbage collection and tree palnting are not "luxury items." Our schools do not waste money even if our central office is bloated. Class size is too large. Aides are essential. We should not cheat our kids of their futures or our aides of health care which every American should have as their right. Do not rebate the surplus or spend it on such things as computers which have not been proven to raise student achievement despite all their glamor. We need smaller classes and aides. The surplus is not "a loan" from taxpayers. It is an investment in our kids and in our property values and civic well-being at a time when Wall St corporations and banks are making us feel "broke" because they hold $3 trillion in cash which they refuse to pay taxes on or invest in higher wages or new hires. Cutting public school funds or aides' health care only plays into their hands and makes things worse...respectfully, ira shor

Keeping our public school strong and ever improving is important for home values but keeping taxes undercontrole is more important for the people who actually want to stay in Montclair.

Well said, Mr. Shor

State mandates, overlapping budget cycles and perhaps even perhaps even outdated systems make school finances difficult to track for finance professionals let alone unpaid volunteers for whom this is not a full time profession. You have to be able rely on the professional, full time career adminstrators. If you can't there is a real problem.

Ms. Sullivan explained on Wednesday night that her systems don't let her track actual numbers through the year well enough to give meaningful projections. The BOE is not given information that compares actuals to budget within any one year-just look at the budget books. Once the anger subsides over how ludicrously off the budget was- we need to get this fixed quickly.

You would hope that the administrators would have had some inkling this was coming-they've gone through many budget cycles-when everyone was scrambling around looking at closing schools-selling wristbands to keep them open, looking at outsourcing aides, etc. If they did know and didn't let the BOE know-we'd better find out why that happened. Was it politics or something more institutional? It's not enough to say "we gave you everything required (reams of purchase order?) by law." If they didn't know such a surplus was growing-we have to figure that out and fix it.

Mr. Swenson--Mrs. Lombard proclaimed a deadly budget shortfall last year at meeting after meeting and once suggested that schools may be closed. You now say that budget surpluses routinely accumulate year to year into large sums; if so, how come Mrs. Lombard or Mrs. Sullivan did not know this and reassure the town that no emergency existed? The absolute certainty of Mrs. Lombard's declaration of fiscal crisis was never contradicted by Mrs. Sullivan or anyone else. Now, we are told there is an enormous "surprise" surplus. This is a disgraceful mismanagement of our valuable public schools which support family life here and our property values. The two of them should resign or be removed. Last year's long civic battle over the school budget was divisive, destructive, and completely unnecessary, setting schools against each other in the hope that this one or that one would survive the axe, and driving some leading members of one school PTA to withdraw their children. Those responsible for this civic disturbance should withdraw from public service...respectfully, ira shor

Wait. You didn't realize that every year there are a certain level of surplus baked into ye budget? I believe this is standard practice across all districts...it is the amount of surplus that the board relies on the BA to project. To protect against confined reduce state aid, among other things. I think every war it is btwn 2-4mm. Last year it was 3.2 mm. This was discussed in the public meetings,, in all the budget books and voted on in
public session . It is the added surplus recognizes as the year was ending and then closed that the BA did not proactively report or update the BoE. It was the VOLUNTEER computer that recognized this and brought it to everyone's attention. Mrs Lombard and the BoE then brought the matter to a public session as soon as possible. Otherwise, Montclair would probably not know about this until the BA's 1st schedule budget presentation on 11/21. The lack of info, estimates, variances, further projections, etc on which to guide choices is the issue and Central Office's resistance/reluctance to recognize the problem and proactively offer new solutions is a disservice to students, teachers, staff, bldg administrators, everyone.

Excuse the typos and weird autocorrects above. On an iphone. Makes for creative reading.

"None of you know what the hell you are talking about when you assert that the schools waste money"

We pay about $800,000 per year on "substance abuse" counselors, many for the elementary schools.

We pay a million for social workers.

Right of center,
He did state waste at central office as being an example, which is hard to deny.

Ira,
The key point is Ms. Sullivan (nor any other administrators, professional staff, etc) ever contradicted Ms. Lombard. Where do you think Ms. Lombard gets the numbers? In the fall of 2010, with State funding in doubt, the potential for the charter school to drain funds, with a new hard cap on the tax levy, etc I think the BOE was being prudent to put all the drastic options on the table. It may have been divisive, but at least it was an open process. State funding came in, the charter school wasn't approved and "magically" an extra $2 million or so surplus was found so that the most drastic cuts like school closings came off the table. Obviously it would have been helpful to have known that the surplus was ballooning. Ms. Sullivan evidently didn't know, or of she did know she didn't say anything. The "battles" you are referring to were being fought on false premises and that's really frustrating.

I think it would make sense to insert a sort of sanity check in the local and county procurement and appropriations process that posted all spending over $5,000 to a web site for 30 days so that local residents could propose and debate alternative, less costly means of solving the problems. Some mechanism where the citizens could veto expenditures if there was a large outcry about something being cheaper to do in some other way and a better alternative was put forward, but they did not follow up on it. Basically, a mechanism to expose and prevent sweetheart deals and potential crony capitalism type of situations where money is funneled to friends of politicians for products or services of dubious value.

@Don There's a lot of room for sanity checks. I'm not sure how what you propose would work in practice given that a lot of purchases seem to be made as part of larger contracts, but it's certainly worthy of discussion.

Related to this story, though, we need more sanity checks on the budgeting process itself. Some changes have been requested, and I expect more to be requested in the future. It will be interesting, for example, to see what comes of the BOE's request for "year to date" spending reports.

...Andrew

@IraShore As others have noted, the surplus is a natural and necessary consequence of the districts obligation to avoid a deficit. As such, everyone has known that it exists. However, nobody outside Central Office was aware of the way it was permitted to grow during 2010-2011. The budget synthesis process has simply not been as open as people thought (and by this I mean "open to the BOE members" as much as anything else).

As was clear in the meeting, the BOE is trying to correct this by requesting additional information, on an ongoing basis, from the district.

Further, the risk factors that happened not to occur last year - elimination of state aid, charter school approval, etc. - were all real threats (and remain so!). It was completely appropriate for the BOE to consider the consequence of these and prepare alternatives should they occur. In fact, it would be grossly irresponsible had they not!

The BOE wasn't saying "the sky was falling" so much as "the sky might fall, and we need to have a plan ready in case it does." This type of proactive planning and consideration of possible future outcomes is exactly the sort of financial management we should be demanding from all parts of our town (and beyond, but let's not travel down that discussion path here *grin*). Attacking people for proper management seems counterproductive.

...Andrew

Granted, I did not attend every BOE meeeting last year or this year, but my interpretation of what the BOE was doing was exactly as Andrew Gideon and Chris Swenson pointed out- preparing us responsibly for what could be from within their operating framework. IMO, the only pitting of schools, residents against one another was largely self-imposed (by residents not the BOE). I strongly disagreed with removing benefits to the classroom aides but from what I've seen at the BOE meetings, Ms. Lombard is as competent, direct and trustworthy as any BOE Prez we'd be lucky enough to have.

"It was the VOLUNTEER computer that recognized this and brought it to everyone's attention."

Was this intended to be "committee" instead of "computer"?

Anyway: This is a point worth recalling. Last year's BOE chose to form several working groups. Stealing a word from Don, these operated as a "sanity check" on some aspects of our schools' operations. As far as I know, these groups continue to operate this year.

It was one of these groups that identified the surplus this early. Typically, this is buried in the district's budget book produced much later in the school year. The BOE, receiving this information, pushed the district to provide the information we saw in the last meeting's presentation. The BOE is now pushing for greater transparency on the part of the district in its spending and budgeting.

Given that it was the actions of the BOE that uncovered this, I'm a bit astonished at the continued attacks on the BOE members. I have my own complaints about the BOE (why the Mayor, with his exclusive control over the BOE, chose to remove a BOE member with a financial background and failed to replace that background despite his own committee's recommendation being at the top of my list). But at least in this case they seem to be doing the right things.

...Andrew

"it was Mrs. Sullivan's failure to see the huge surplus and not Mrs. Lombard's?"

I cannot speak to what she saw, but the growth of the surplus was never reported by our BA.

Further: It was never clear just how much padding was built into the budget. Pick a random line item in the budget. Note that we have the proposed new budget, the current budget, and last year's actual. We can see neither last year's budget (which would tell us how accurately it was predicted) nor any information regarding this year's spending. It's easy to base the new budget proposal on the current year's budget. This ignores any savings implemented this year, so on any item where there has been significant savings, next year's budget for this item will be inflated and there will therefore be that much more surplus.

This might not make a difference during "normal times". But when we're in the process of implementing various cost savings measures, this lag in reporting the result of those savings will result in excess surplus.[Continued]

[Continuing]"What is certain is that the BOE through Mrs. Lombard did confront parents with "the sky is falling in" last year, not a soft contingency message as you politely frame it. "

I'd certainly not call the message "soft"; there was an element of major concern - and rightly so. But it was clearly a "contingency message". That ~6 million dollar hole came from various assumptions such as eliminated state aid, an approved charter, etc. This was clearly stated at the beginning of the process.

"Perhaps you attended every BOE mtg as I did; perhaps you are also a class parent and a school volunteer with children in the schools. "

Yes.

"Only Mr. Alvarez to his credit made clear that he did not recommend the doomsday plan that Mrs. Lombard ordered him to submit."

That is an interesting point. Are you suggesting that he knew more than the rest of us regarding the monies available?

"The budget surplus now shows us who was truly out-of-touch with reality, the BOE, and I see no one stepping up with dignity to accept responsibility for the damage caused and tendering their resignations"

What you do see is a BOE trying to fix what is clearly a broken process.

However, I am concerned that you're still thinking of the surplus as "found money". It is still taxpayer money, and it must [mostly] be spent as revenue for the 2012-2013 budget. This is simply tax dollars for 2012 that we paid two years early, rather like an interest free loan to the district.

...Andrew

"the only pitting of schools, residents against one another was largely self-imposed (by residents not the BOE)."

The PTA council this year has learned from that episode, and is emphasizing the "one district" concept. I strongly endorse this. Those same threats to our budget last year - state aid uncertainty, charter school, etc. - remain present today. We also clearly need improvements to various aspects of our budgeting process. These issues, and all those others we face, will all be easier to address if we address them as a single district.

...Andrew

The BOE and the Administration does not want us to know how much the school wastes. We don't need all the VP's at the HS and if we do then the Principal is not doing his job! We also do not need all the SACs making 140k a year either. We need accountability not passing the buck!!

"only one that targeted two orphan schools for closure; the rest circled their wagons"

I won't defend the "circling of wagons". I do, however, agree that I'd rather a smaller number of fully funded schools than a larger number of threadbare schools. I do prefer, though, that we haven't been forced to make that choice.

...Andrew

"We don't need all the VP's at the HS and if we do then the Principal is not doing his job!"

I'm curious how you've come to know this. What schools of that size and complexity run with no VPs? Or have you spent a few days following the HS principal around to see what it is that he does?

...Andrew

"They are blunt fiscal axes. Now we learn they were not necessary given the actual budget surplus of $5.7mil."

I'm not clear how you come to this conclusion. The surplus feeds into the 2012-2013 budget as revenue. It wasn't available, even if known, when planning 2011-2012. Nor will it be available in 2013-2014.

Knowing about its formation might have permitted a more accurate budget for 2011-2012, even if it would have been no sure thing at that point. We might have been able to reduce some line items to reflect more accurately the spending and saving during 2010-2011.

Still, would that have been enough to fund benefits for the aids? Would it be enough to fund this *every* *year* hence? Keep in mind that that's what's under discussion: spending now and into the future; not just one year.

...Andrew

Mounties is just spewing nonsense he heard in the toilet at Tierney's. All mouth and myth, no facts. Give us numbers. Tell us what the VPs do or don't do. Problem is, he has no idea.

The educational system in NJ is one of the better things about this state. But unfortunately, because it works, showing the lie to the manufactured crisis mentality the right promotes, its been targeted. That myopia is poison for our futures, all of us. Americans are in some kind of denial about the need for education. If we don't educate kids, we are going to be a country of unemployed people. No options. The rest of the world isn't going to wait for us to catch up. And all the "we're the best in the world" talk from politicians wont make they true if people dont keep learning new skills that match the changing employment landscape. Without a huge renewed "surge" based on increasing our support for lifelong education, we will either have a welfare state or a nightmare scenario of violence, crime, drugs and poverty.

I disagree with "Its not like jobs in schools pay well, they don't."

When I last checked there were over 100 employees in the school district who make over $90,000. Most of them are teachers, not VPs. It is not a fortune, but this is for 10 months work with full health benefits for families and pensions.Yes, I believe that they work hard, but we have far more staff that make this much money as compared to other school districts of our size.

I agree with the overstaffing, Montclair is top heavy and needs to cut some high saleries.

Using some of the surplus to restore health benefits for the aides is a no brainer. 200 aides out of 1,000 school staff and the lowest on the salary scale should not have been singled out for removal of benefits. More than half of aides reside in Montclair. Also, more than half relied on the health benefits to support our families. For those who were retained (and the aide workforce was reduced) we are working the same number of hours, are assigned to more students in some cases but do not receive a living wage. In fact those of us paying for COBRA now make less than $5/hour. My son has a seizure disorder and I'm afraid to switch to another plan. I'm using the money I've
saved over 10 years for my son's college to pay for our
health benefits. Other aides have dropped their
healthcare. One colleague cashed out her husband's life
insurance. From the beginning this was an unfair, imbalanced cut that comes dangerously close to a social injustice that this school district was established to
reverse. As for the bottom line, restore our benefits as of Jan. 1 and establish a new contract with the MEA that is fiscally responsible and sustainable for the town of Montclair.

"I agree with the overstaffing, Montclair is top heavy and needs to cut some high saleries."

Yet the Budget Book for 2011-2012 shows per-student administrative costs 7.6% below the state average (of districts over 3501 students in size). Per-student spending is similarly below the state average, while spending on instruction is 5.3% higher.

These seem like good numbers, and contrary to such claims as the one above. That doesn't mean that the claims are necessarily wrong, but there does need to be some evidence to counter the facts before us.

...Andrew

"Yes, I believe that they work hard, but we have far more staff that make this much money as compared to other school districts of our size."

I've not looked at employment numbers; where do you see that we've a higher paid teaching staff than other districts?

I have to add that I'm not sure that this is a Bad Thing. The MEA contract is such that teachers that have been here longer, and have put more time into the study of education, get paid more. To steal someone's phrase from above, I think that a "blunt axe". There are plenty of experienced and well-educated teachers that are burned out or otherwise below average, and young and lightly educated teachers that can really reach students. But, in the general case at least, I think it a Good Thing to have a better educated and more experienced teaching staff.

...Andrew

The problem with "you conservatives" is that you confuse opinion with fact. still waiting for you to provide evidence that the montclair schools are overstaffed. don't tell me there are 9 VPs in the district; tell me what they do or don't do. or tell me that you believe the resources could be put to better use with librarians, nurses, smaller class sizes, better music and language programs and the like. but you can't because you are a typical public-employe bashing resentful right-wing blowhard.

First of all, I do not drink so put down the sushi and your second bottle of wine and read my lips” No More Taxes” Don’t you have school tomorrow? You should go to bed so you can sleep off your drunken state of mind. Remember you are molding children’s minds and by the way, 11 SACs and 9 VPs in the districts is too many! I hope this is easy enough for you to understand.

blowhard on board, beware

Good morning--I agree with LynNell Hancock that the surplus must be spent on increased staffing--librarians, aides and their healthcare, etc. Spending it on computers as Mrs. Lombard suggests is a waste of money. Computers don't teach kids; teachers, aides, librarians teach kids. Good schooling requires high-quality professionals who are given the small classes and aides they need to do their job well. Mrs. Lombard's suggestion to return the surplus to taxpayers or to buy hardware will yield a tiny tax rebate like last year's $131 per ratable, a sum that no way justifies the year-long turmoil and disruption caused to families, kids, schools, and town civility. Another tiny rebate will further damage our schools and further hurt our property values which depend on a recognized quality school system which attracts professional families as buyers. Perhaps Mrs. Lombard still doesn't get what our property values rest on: good schools in a leafy town known for civility. I once again urge her and Mrs. Sullivan to resign for the good of the town so that the BOE can move ahead not backwards....respectfully, ira shor.

"I agree with LynNell Hancock that the surplus must be spent..."

Once again, this is based upon the idea that the surplus is extra money. It is not. This is money collected from taxpayers that must be used as revenue in the 2012-2013 budget. Technically, we could spend it on expenses we'd not otherwise choose to fund, but the direct consequence of this is higher taxes.

If the district wants to considering buying more aides, librarians, etc. at the cost of higher taxes, that's something to consider. But it is disingenuous to try to hide the consequence of such a choice - higher taxes - by claiming that there's "extra money to spend".

...Andrew

I find it ironic that in the same week that the town "found" 7 million dollars in the school budget, the town had to borrow 4 million dollars to fund tax refunds and buy things. Now there seems to be a rush to quickly spend the 7 million, while we hear that there may be a need to borrow more money to fund additional tax rebates.

Ya cant make this stuff up.

I think the money should go towards replenishing the gambling bankroll which our educators are rapidly depleting down in Atlantic City this weekend.

I'm fairly impressed that this surplus has grown to M$7 as we've discussed it.

More seriously: The point @tryintosurvive makes is interesting. Part of the problem is that the "wall" between town and school expenses and revenues makes it impossible for us to balance out bad years of one with good years of another. On the other hand, keeping them separate does encourage accountability on both sides. I'd be peeved if our current town administration's mismanagement were hidden behind the school's "excess conservatism" (if that's what we can call it for the moment {8^).

On the other hand, ultimately both town and school feed off of our property taxes. This is part of why it is disturbing how many people want to treat this money as "found money", ignoring that this is money that taxpayers paid into the district. Yes, we paid it too early. And I do believe that that's a problem. But that doesn't change the fact that these are tax dollars, and that they must be spent with appropriate care.

...Andrew

While Lombard and Sullivan consider stepping down, may I suggest that some of the other board members -- Leslie Larson and Robin Culwin come to mind -- who feigned sympathy for those victimized but never protested the outrage of it -- be removed as well. We need advocates for our schools, not bean counters looking to placate the angriest taxpayers, many of whom would be happy if we closed half the schools and had class sizes of 60.
R

This seems to be just another example of the financial disarray the Montclair community tolerates. Having misused tax payers dollars yet again, by debating school closings, educational cuts, proposed tax hikes, we come to find out there is a surplus of nearly ten million dollars. I have to wonder why Ms. Sullivan and her committee are not required to conduct economic forecasts prior to the unnecessary gyrations of board members, community members, school administrators and the like. The problem here is that there is no "accountability". This is simply just another, "oh, guess what... we made a bit of a mistake...." scenario, an "oversight"...!!!

This type of shortsightedness and incompetence has cost the children, tax payers, families and educators such as teachers aides and former employees, literally their health and welfare. This would not be tolerated anywhere in corporate America.

In Montclair, there resides some of the most brilliant financial minds in the New York metropolitan area. (I am not one!). It is time to step up to the plate and take control of the asylum before the inmates break this down beyond repair. Let me know, and i will do whatever i can to assist.

Mark Haefeli

Elect the board and your accountability will improve. Continue to let the mayor appoint the board and the accountability disappears.

I would suspect that we are one of only a few communities who do not either elect the school board or vote on the school budget. Unless we do at least one of these, we are at the mercy of appointed people doing what they believe is best.

The current school board and Shelly Lombard at least seem willing to listen and are somewhat open about the decisions that are being made, but I don't think that they are under any obligation to do so.

Hey "Dude".. Instead of lashing out at me for being "ignorant", maybe you could actually address the issue intelligently without resorting to ad hominem attacks.