Hebron Dollars & Sense

First, there were about 30 minutes of public comment. The BOS chairman asked each speaker to limit their comments to 2 minutes or less. For the first time in 6 years, there were almost as many speakers against the BOE budget as there were for the budget. This hasn't happened since the infamous "budget wars" of 2004. (i.e., warning signal...)

The chairman stated that the board had received 17 emails, the vast majority (all but 2) involved the Hebron Board of Education budget; a couple of those were in support of the budget.

We were not able to stay for the entire meeting due to work obligations, but Dr. Robert Siminski gave an excellent presentation on the RHAM Budget. He presented clear data on what a 2.099% increase would look like (which is where they are currently; previously, it was 2.58%); what a 1.49% spending increase would look like (what reductions would have to be made); and what a 0% budget spending increase would look like (what additional reductions would have to be made.)

The non-professional union is currently in negotiation, and hasn't had a contract in over two years. When that settlement is reached, there will be "back pay," which is factored into the RHAM budget. The number provided, according to Dr. Siminiski, was "on advice of counsel." Arbitration will not be concluded until June or July.

Frankly, the 0% spending increase wasn't as bad as we thought. It reminded us of the same types of sacrifices the town, CIP, and Open Space are making... cutting now, with hopes of an improving economy in a couple of years, with everyone understanding that we're going to have to play "catch up" at some point in the future.

Interestingly, NO LESS than three times, Dr. Siminiski mentioned that no one is moving into town, which is dramatically affecting the NESDEC predictions. He spoke in some detail about the stagnant housing market in Hebron.

As we've been saying for months: we have no new customers for schools; Hebron taxes and the general economy have outpriced new families with children moving into town. Even though the "bubble" from 2000 is now moving through the system, causing an increase in Hebron students at the Middle/High Schools, once the bubble has passed through in the next four years, student population will decline dramatically unless the housing market stabilizes and people with children are again able to buy a home in Hebron.

Dr. Siminski also described how he used the IDEA stimulus money to build a program for the future which could be a great cost-savings for special education students. This would save on out-placements and transportation, and could accommodate up to 8 students. He also stated, "I'll be the first to say, if it doesn't work, it doesn't work, and I'll can it [the program]." But we were impressed by his efforts to use stimulus money to potentially save money in the future. And it sounded like it was a great idea for both special ed students and taxpayers alike.

The RHAM budget also accommodates students wanting to attend magnet/charter schools, as well as vo-ag/technical schools, and there is an increase in the number of students wanting to attend those schools, even with a 0% spending increase. But that is a mandate that has to be met.

Kudos to Dr. Siminski for a straight forward, non-emotional presentation, and for providing budget scenarios that aren't of "Doomsday" quality.

Please note: RHAM Administrators are declining a salary increase for FY 2010-11.

The RHAM budget detail presented tonight will be posted on the RHAM site tomorrow, 3/19, according to Dr. Siminski. Gotta give him credit; he apologized to all for not bringing enough copies (there were a lot of folks there), but promised that the detail would be online tomorrow.

For others attending, and those able to stay, please let everyone know what happened at the rest of the meeting, and/or add your own thoughts regarding the RHAM presentation.

This was my second time seeing the RHAM presentation and I agree--great presentation. As for the Hebron BOE--Ellie and Jane have developed some new arguments in favor of ADK, and they've done some creative shuffling and claim that ADK would now cost nothing. I'll go into some more detail on this in the am. Oh, and kudos to Brian O'Connell--he basically admonished the union for refusing to give concessions.

In an open session after the BOE budget presentation, discussions continued about dwindling grants, less federal and state support and the disappearance of stimulus funds (which have been used for recurring programs). Board members were looking for an honest answer of how this shortage would be addressed, i.e., will programs be cut , how much would this impact on the children, will we be forced to have larger classes, will teachers be dismissed and/or will the BOE request for more funding from the town? It is folly to fund recurring obligations with non-recurring funds. Everyone setting up a budget knows this!

How did the superintendent respond? Ms. Cruz answered several times with the phrase: "We will have to wait and see". WRONG .. the correct answer should have been "It is a definite problem and we need to start PLANNING FOR IT TODAY!!"

Mombert wrote:


Or at the very least, the response should have been "While what you are describing sounds like it would be a problem for future year's budgets, at this point there are too many unknowns, and the point of tonight's discussion is on the current proposed budget. After the current budget is passed, we intend to establish a task force to analyze the potential impact of these possibilities, in order to be able to respond in the event these reductions come to fruition."

Mombert wrote:


Or at the very least, the response should have been "While what you are describing sounds like it would be a problem for future year's budgets, at this point there are too many unknowns, and the point of tonight's discussion is on the current proposed budget. After the current budget is passed, we intend to establish a task force to analyze the potential impact of these possibilities, in order to be able to respond in the event these reductions come to fruition."

Or at the very least, the response should have been "While what you are describing sounds like it would be a problem for future year's budgets, at this point there are too many unknowns, and the point of tonight's discussion is on the current proposed budget. After the current budget is passed, we intend to establish a task force to analyze the potential impact of these possibilities, in order to be able to respond in the event these reductions come to fruition.

I disagree. Even this would not have been an appropriate response, in my opinion. They should not be pushing to expand a non-mandated "pilot" program when the financial future of the entire country is so up in the air. And the supt.'s continued insistence that there is no indication that the state won't make up the slack is just ridiculous. There is no indication that they WILL either. We are potentially just under $1 million in the hole between the RHAM and Hebron B's of Ed. next year. And no one can predict how this will play out. But with the state as far in the red as it is right now, my crystal ball says that we are more likely to be facing that deficit than not.