Second Knowledge Café: Next subject—Budget Process and the 2% Property Tax Cap
Mark your calendar to talk budget and 2% cap on Wed., Dec. 7
Monday, November 28, 2011
Lyn McKay, Superintendent of Schools, and John Chow, Assistant Superintendent for Business, host a Knowledge Café on Wednesday, December 7th from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. in the Robert E. Bell Middle School Auditorium.
The CCSD website describes the session as focusing on the board’s strategic question, “How can the District ensure continuing excellence in academic and extracurricular programs while developing a budget that is fiscally responsible?”
McKay and Chow will share info on the budget-building process and the 2% property tax cap. Click to see the Empire Center for New York State Policy’s “New York State’s Property Tax Cap—A Citizens’ Guide.”
I truly hope this second Knowledge Cafe is not a repeat of the first. I attended the first Cafe and left terribly disillusioned. I attended expecting that we would share ideas, make suggestions, and be able to impact change to improve the middle school(s) situation. There are many inefficiencies and inequalities present in our 2 middle school configuration. I moved to several tables during the session and recognized that many parents attending shared similar concerns. It was very disheartening to hear early on that Supt McKay has already dismissed the idea of any significant structural change to our middle schools.
Since that first Knowledge Cafe the CCSD board of ed held a meeting and McKay once again proposed no change and only wanted to discuss adjusting minutes per class. She claimed that a majority of residents favor the current 2 middle school configuration. I dont know where she gets that data from because based on Knowledge Cafe 1 there certainly were many in favor of a 5-6 / 7-8 configuration. Several would support closing Bell.
If this second Knowledge Cafe goes anything like the first we can expect that McKay and Chow have already made up their minds about budget and tax cap and will do little but pay lip service to other views. Since McKay and Chow (with CCSD board of ed approval) have been conducting closed door budget meetings I expect they have information that we do not. Why pretend to want community feedback?
At knowledge café meetings, the CCSD administration provides select information.
For the 1st café (MS situation), Dr. McKay tabled a middle school consolidation option prior to the café yet she created these meetings to collect more community input (i.e., more than what she heard 2003-6/30/11). The community is divided as to which of the 3 configurations is best, two 5-8 MS, 5/6 & 7/8 MS, one 6-8 MS. We have not received details for each option with enrollment by grade, class size, employee headcount, itemized costs, itemized savings, capacity utilization rates, etc…
For the 2nd café (budget), McKay and Chow will probably make a case for exceeding the 2% tax levy cap. Their finance/budget advisory group does not provide community feedback on the CCSD web site.
McKay’s “Chappaqua Education for the Future” committee posted one page on the web site for district residents.
In contrast, the Bedford CSD will hold “Future Focus” meetings on 12/5 and 12/6 and all of the community is invited to attend one of the meetings. Community feedback is posted on the BCSD web site (www.bscdny.org).
To NCR…if you like the way they do things so much inBedford then move there. As for me, I wouldn’t choose Fox LaneHS over Greeley any day even if they held future focus meetings everyday on every subject.
Would it be possible for the school district board and administration to articulate a defense of the so-called “2% property tax cap” when:
1. As I understand it, it does NOT actually limit the increase in residents’ tax bills to 2% and when the assessed valuations on which property taxes are based may be inflated by not faithfully reflecting market prices in a lousy housing environment, whose end is not yet in sight? (To educate myself, I tried in vain to find a definition of “property tax cap” on the district’s web site where, curiously, the word “budget” is not among “quick links.”)
2. Even a 2% cap on actual bills may have been, and remain, unfair when core inflation has been, and remains, below 2%—and when, even more importantly, taxpayers’ income from work—if they are still lucky enough to have jobs—or from retirement assets, if retired voluntarily or involuntarily, may not have increased by 2%? It may even have declined!
3. Taxpayers may not be well informed regarding the significant actual and proposed budget items—explicitly including categories of salaries and benefits—that have been rising faster than core inflation?
To Many Houses,
You miss Chapp Parent’s point by a mile. His/her point is well taken
TRANSPARENCY, TRANSPARENCY, TRANSPARENCY AND TRUE COMMUNITY INPUT INSTEAD OF MISREPRESENTATION!
Perhaps, you dislike the democratic dynamic or don’t believe in honesty.
McKay misrepresents her own edicts as the community’s “vote” on these issues.
Let’s say she is less than forthright. She is becoming a dictator.
We need to think seriously about whether she has breached her contract or violated the standard expectation of ethical conduct. These “cafes” are a ploy and the BOE are allowing it to happen, they are negligent and are not carrying out their fiduciary duty to the community.
Something has to change, and soon!
The Superintendent wants to tightly control the information shared with the community and manage the community’s perception via PR activities, such as, cafes, coffees, public forums, etc. Regardless of the actual community input, the Superintendent’s proposal is / will be “what the community prefers”.
Our passive School Board has allowed this behavior. Highly effective School Boards do not abdicate their responsibilities and do not rubber-stamp Superintendent/Administration proposals. Our School Board should improve its performance or resign.
You guys can keep chirping here about what your small group wants to claim about the district being unlistening dictators, but the community survey says that 96% of residents are favorable to the district. Seems like the other 4% spend time posting here. http://www.ccsd.ws/files/filesystem/p111115.pdf
Over half of the survey respondents were empty nesters too. So there no way to claim it was just the PTA shills answering.
To Steve G - this survey was a typical “garbage in , garbage out” exercise. As a former media consultant with a statistical background I can tell you that you can get the type of responses you want by the way in which you ask a question. This was a softball survey and no hard questions were asked therefore the conclusions are meaningless.
Our children get a great education in largely because of collaborative efforts of parents and teachers. We read to our kids at very early age, we enroll them in pre nursery and pre K programs, when they struggle we hire tutors, we get them extra help and are actively engaged. Generally speaking as parents, we deliver engaged and prepared students to our teachers. Most of our teachers are excellent and they take over from there. That is why the general “survey” sentiment is favorable.
The overwhelming majority (70% - to 30%) believe taxes are too high and that the CCSD should work within existing funding levels. Yet, our school board continues to propose increased budgets and increased taxes. If we think taxes are too high and the board of ed continues to raise the budget how can there be a “favorable” view of the CCSD board?
What if the survey asked “are you satisfied or unsatisfied with the manner in which the school board of Ed has handled the teachers union” - “are you concerned or unconcerned with the regular turnover at key positions such as superintendent and principal” - ” would you prefer the CCSD board of ed hire an experienced superintendent from outside or promote an inexperienced internal candidate” - ” do you have a positive view or negative view of the high school principal” - ” do you think the CCSD boe has been open and transparent”-
You can be sure the results of this hypothetical survey would be much different than the one you referenced.
To Steve G - According to this survey, only 29% of those polled would support a modest increase in taxes to maintain what we currently have. 69% (2+ times the amount of respondents) already believe that taxes are too high and the we need to maintain what we have at current levels or lower. You certainly get the favorable rating numbers you quoted but look at the whole picture.
If you thought last year’s budget process was contentious, wait until this year. I have 2 children in school. The sentiment amongst parents is that we are NOT pleased with the current expensive and unfair 2 middle school configuration. There was no question or mention of it in this survey.
We are NOT pleased with constant and disruptive turnover at many key administrative roles- no question on the survey about this either. We question the wisdom of a school board that chose an inexperienced internal superintendant over an external experienced one- why no question about the CCSD Board of Ed.
We are upset that an ineffective principal is being promoted and given a raise and now will be responsible for evaluating others - no question on the survey here either. We are upset that constant complaints about our AD has rendered no change- no question about that either. There are issues regarding taxes, transitions, transparency, and leadership yet questions specific to these concerns were NOT asked on the survey.
This year, the administration added a closed budget advisory committee and a café meeting to help the Superintendent tweak her messaging for the January budget preview. On February 28, McKay presents her 2012/13 school budget proposal.
At BOE budget meetings, I expect “spend & tax” proponents will insist that spending more equals a better education for their children. I anticipate they’ll want to exceed the 2% tax levy cap by more than McKay’s proposal.
Based on their track record, the BOE will rubber-stamp the administration’s final budget proposal and higher school taxes.
The apathetic silent majority will skip the budget vote in May 2012. McKay’s PTA devotees will get out the vote and the budget will pass. The BOE candidate(s) most likely to support the administration will be elected.
In August 2012, John Chow will most likely inform the BOE that property value assessments came in lower than the budget figure so the actual 2012/13 school tax rate will be even higher.
@BP: Chirp chirp. According to the Patch, next year’s school budget recommendation will be below tax cap.
To Steve G - How can anybody know or any publication know what the budget recommendation will be? The CCSD board of education is allowing Supt McKay and Asst Supt Chow to conduct 8 budget advisory committee meetings while we speak. The community, parents and taxpayers, have been excluded from these meetings. They are being held behind closed doors with no public participation and no transparency. We do not even know who is on the committee. When asked why these meetings are not open to the public the response was that we the taxpayer and parents will be a distraction. So how can anybody know what the budget will be , how the decision was made, and who made the decision? This behavior by our school board is unprecedented and unacceptable.
I would hope that in creating the recommendations for next years budget, that a spending increase that just hits the tax cap is the most expensive proposal that we see. In the current environment, base case should be no increase in expenditures. Unions should be engaged early on the amount that is being allocated to them and their input should be sought as to whether they are more interested in maintaining the current unsustainable contract which will lead to add’l layoffs or minimizing / eliminating the need to cut any staff. Since this information is all public, I think it would helpful for the CCSD to create a complete list of all union leadership for the different entities that represent the CCSD employees. Would also like to see a public disclosure of tenure so that people know which teachers will be hit by the disfunctional LIFO system if and when the cuts are made.
