by Phillip Zema
Shortly after the BOE meeting adjourned last Wednesdsay, Tom Morelli, began organizing the leadership advisory committee. Because a second budget proposal is due May 26, the Committee’s first priority is to develop a more viable budget. But a number of peripheral objectives are also on the committee’s agenda, such as establishing a long term financial plan, evaluating the attractiveness of keeping Grafton open and searching for a permanent superintendant. While developing an amended budget under this time constraint seemed formidable, many were optimistic. As Morgan Hartman, a local resident, put it, “If people have the will to succeed, they can achieve a great deal.”
Within twenty-four hours, a number of community, faculty, BOE and administrative members volunteered for the committee. It had its first formal meeting on May 20. For purposes of efficiency, the members were broken down into sub-committees: BOCES, modular installation, cost of Grafton, administrative salaries, non-administrative salaries and miscellaneous. The subcommittees were then tasked with finding ways to lower the budget. After developing a target savings, they then researched where savings could be made. A number of areas, however, could not be cut without violating educational laws, breaching contracts or compromising student learning. These factors created formidable barriers to many cost-saving measures such as lowering BOCES costs or renegotiating teacher contracts.
On Monday, May 24, the Committee held another open forum. Before the sub-committees made their reports, several audience members expressed their concerns. Pam Gerstel, a retired Berlin Elementary School P.E. teacher, said she was appalled by last week’s BOE meeting. Never before had she witnessed such inappropriate behavior at an educational setting. Morelli claimed that the tumult surrounding the meeting and recent BOE events played a substantial role in the committee’s formation.
Initially, the ideal savings was projected at $476,265+, which would essentially eliminate any tax increase. A number of obstacles, as stated above, made this number unfeasible; a more realistic projection has been quoted at $64,030 (or a .34% decrease from the first budget). The proposed cuts include consolidating the middle school and high school principals; there would be one principal and a Dean of Students who would oversee student behavior. Furthermore, by eliminating some middle school half-days, making cuts to sports/field trip transportation costs (the District typically has an annual surplus of $9,000 in this department) and taking other cost saving measures, the District could save nearly $20k in transportation. Additionally, there were a few areas where BOCES cuts could be made, although well below its $180k target, the District could save $16,523 in this area.
Glen Guimarra, New Lebanon’s physics/chemistry teacher, and Craig Mosher, a local resident, questioned whether the District really needed to set up modular units at Berlin Elementary. It would cost the District $358,160 (a total cost of $456,340 over five years) to rent these classrooms. In his presentation, Guimarra claimed that even if consolidation occurred, Berlin Elementary would still only have 431 students; the state claims that the original building could only hold 400 students. Guimarra suggested that by either shipping the fifth grade to the high school or moving pre-kindergarten out of the building, the modular classrooms would no longer be necessary since there would be less than 400 students at the school. Many of the proposal’s details need ironing out, like whether the Business Office should move to the high school. Yet if the District accepted this alternative, it would save $358,160.
Atsushi Akera, an RPI professor, discussed the options facing Grafton Elementary School. If left open, it is claimed that the District would spend $627,888. The sub-committee hoped to reduce this cost to $300k. Yet because of various factors, the number was revised at $400,533. If the school replaced its principal with a head teacher, filled some of its teaching and library assistant positions with PTO approved volunteers and conducted its operations more efficiently, this number could be realized. Ideally, the costs of keeping Grafton open would be offset by other cost cutting. The chief concern with this proposal, however, was whether the school would be permitted to make such faculty adjustments. There was plenty of discussion about the merits and demerits of closing Grafton. Some people claim it is an irreplaceable community school; others fear that leaving it open will cause taxes to soar. Moreover, there is still some disagreement over how much consolidation saves the District. Nevertheless, the committee took no formal stance on whether the school should stay open.
On May 27 the Board will be presented with a number of recommendations to amend the budget. The committee stressed that the proposals to purchase a new school bus and spend $100k on renovations should be presented to the voters. although this time with explanations. The Board will have several options to choose from. Some involve keeping Grafton open; others involve the school being closed. The Board will take a position on May28. If they reject an amended budget, a contingency budget will be implemented. Details about the committee’s proposals can be found online at bcdleadershipadvisorycommittee.blogspot.com.