Tredyffrin Easttown School District Archives - Page 25 of 42

Tredyffrin Easttown School District

Loss of $570K in T/E Real Estate Appeals & Outsourcing of Custodial Services Remains a Strategy Option for TESD

December 13, 2011

There was a T/E Finance Committee meeting last night and although the entire school board was present, the Finance Committee is Betsy Fadem (Chair), Kevin Buraks, Jim Bruce and Rich Brake.

There were several interesting discussion items for me – Ray Clarke’s notes follow mine. There was much discussion about the school district’s decreasing real estate tax revenue. We learned that for 2011, there have been 147 successful residential real estate assessment appeals ($217K) and 41 successful commercial appeals ($352K) for a combined total of $570K in lost tax revenue. The largest commercial appeal was by Vanguard who was successful in five separate appeals. There was discussion about the school districting appealing the decisions on some of these successful commercial appeals. The example of Mealey’s Furniture and Big Lots was used – where a commercial real estate owner could have appealed their tax assessment while their real estate was vacant, received a lower assessment and then the property is leased and its value goes back up (but the commercial owner remains at the lower assessed rate). The case could be made by the school district that the assessed value of the commercial real estate has gone up and they should now pay more.

Appealing some of these commercial decisions could be a way to generate additional revenue for the school district. However, what was unclear was the ‘cost’ of these appeals to the school district (financial and staff time). In Harrisburg, there is discussion on requiring nonprofits organizations to pay real estate taxes. This was not discussed at last night’s meeting, but should this change occur, there is some new tax revenue to the school district. I wonder what kind of revenue could be generated from real estate owned by nonprofit organizations.

Another possibility for generating school district revenue was to shorten number of days on the school calendar. Apparently, TESD’s current school year is 9 days longer than the state requirement. For each non-teaching day, the district would save $200K in teacher and benefit costs. Shortening the school year by 9 days would yield $1.8 million in district savings. This is an interesting cost-savings approach and clearly the district cannot cut all 9 days. Some of those extra days are in the calendar if snow days require their use. But does it need to be 9 extra days — the last few days of a school year are not productive so what about cutting those half-days at the end of the year from the calendar.

(Note: It is not entirely clear to Ray Clarke and myself re the 9 days. Ray understood that strategy had to do with the 9 in-service days of the teachers ‘only’ and decreasing those in-service teacher days versus my understanding that the strategy involved decreasing the number of calendar school days. Ray has a call in to the school district for clarification and I will update when the information is available.)

A ‘new’ budget strategy under review for FY2012-13 was listed as ‘reduce equipment budget’ – $300K. I was clueless what ‘equipment’ this referred to – turns out the administration is suggesting reducing IT equipment purchases for the district. This is confusing because computer equipment was on the chopping block for the FY2011-12 budget and then when Corbett returned funding to the school districts (TESD received $1.3 million) the T/E school board discussed the putting the computer equipment back into the budget. Ultimately, the $1.3 million was added to the fund balance. So now here we are again with another round with IT equipment and a strategy to reduce the budget by $300K. Where is the school district’s long-range technology strategy? Taking technology ‘on and off’ the budget each year is not a strategy!

The outsourcing of the custodial services carried over from last year’s budget strategies and at $950K remains the most significant line listing of possible savings. The school district was able to save the in-house custodial services for the FY2011-12, helped greatly by the union members not taking raises for this year. As reported last night, their members are working with the school board on ways they continue to lower costs. More information should be available in January.

Ray Clarke’s comments from the Finance Committee Meeting:

At Monday’s meeting the TESD Finance Committee decided – I think – that it will recommend that the full Board on January 3rd 2012 not limit the 2012/13 tax increase to no more than the Act 1 Index increase of 1.7%. However, there seemed to be a sentiment that the tax increase in the Preliminary Budget (required therefore to be made available by January 5th) be capped at the Index plus Exceptions (a total of a 3.3% increase). Anything more would require a referendum.

A few observations:

The property tax rate goes up as the base goes down. Successful appeals have cost over $0.5 million in revenue for 2012/13. The Index increase raises $1.5 million. The Committee did not pay much heed to the linkage.

The Committee plans to raise property taxes through “Exceptions” that compensate for the increase in PSERS expenses just about dollar for dollar, while sitting on $15 million of taxpayer money in the Fund Balance earmarked for exactly that purpose and with no plan whatsoever as to when the money might be used.

With the $3.3 million tax increase and visible budget strategies worth $0.7 million, the 2012/13 deficit is projected to be about $2.5 million. On top of the quantified strategies, there was a report of constructive discussions with TENIG (for savings at some percentage of the $950,000 out-sourcing estimate) and the option to cut up to nine teacher in-service days, worth $0.2 million per day. It appears that these numbers made the Committee comfortable that any gap after the 3.3% property tax increase could be covered from the Fund Balance.

Notable that the largest expense decrease is $300,000 from reduced IT hardware spending. Is that the same line item that was last recommended for an increase to use of some of the $1.3 million state windfall? Is there an IT strategy at all??

There was mention of a sentiment inHarrisburgto again reduce the social security match, and also to even reduce the PSERS match. Not quite the direction desired by the advocates of a state solution to the problem!

The cost of the current benefit plan was mentioned in passing. $19,000 per year for family coverage. I have to think that a majority of union members would be willing to restructure the plan, if it meant more cash compensation and an overall benefit to the district. There was no discussion of any change to the status quo salary/benefits projection in the financial model.

It should be noted that this recommendation does not preclude the tax increase being lower than the Index plus Exceptions, but we know how that works!

Increase in Sales Tax Rate – According to Local CPA, Don’t be Surprised!

December 2, 2011

38 Comments

A couple of weeks ago, the T/E School Board voted against an EIT voter referendum question for the April primary. (School Board members Kevin Mahoney and Anne Crowley favored taking the EIT question to the voters).

I received an interesting comment from Jim Newhard in response to T/E School District’s response the November 15 post. Rather than adding to the earlier post, I thought it could make for interesting commentary. A small business owner in Paoli, Jim Newhard is a CPA. I served with Jim on the board of the Paoli Business & Professional Association. Thanks Jim for weighing in – anyone else think economics may eventually lead to an increase in our sales tax rate?

From Jim Newhard, CPA

There is no tax related decision at any level that does not produce winners and losers. Retirees don’t mind EIT because they generally don’t have earned income; high EI earners see big tax without offsetting benefit and are then chastised as the “evil 1%” for their success; property owners have no assurance that any savings will be realized, particularly since the school district needs to plug deficit holes.

In a Commonwealth with a heavy union population, the unfunded pension liability will not likely be reduced — just refinanced and spread over a longer period to create a false sense of short-run fiscal “balance” or “stability.” Future monies likely to come from a fee/tax levied on the Marcellus Shale natural gas exploration are not going to help southeastern PA and will have nominal impact of the state general fund (will certainly be mostly ear-marked for “road & environmental” implications from the drillers.

With a heavy practice in PA local taxes (especially EIT), analyses on tax distributions are quite the challenge, and are always a moving target. As we continuously monitor state budget and fiscal results — don’t look to Harrisburg (or the feds) for a stimulus windfall. In fact, do not be surprised if there might be a sales tax bump with extra bump amount designated/elected to be retained by the county (for example, there may come a day when the sales tax in Chester County is 7% with 6% to the Commonwealth and the 1% staying in Chester County).

Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean that someone isn’t out to get you!

Tredyffrin’s Preliminary Budget Approved with 6.9% Increase, but Chairman Bob Lamina hopes we can do better!

November 22, 2011

62 Comments

There was some forward movement on the budget last night at the Board of Supervisors meeting. At the onset of the budget discussion, Mimi Gleason apologized to the supervisors and to the public for the errors contained in the preliminary budget that was presented at the last BOS meeting. There were math errors in the budget summary tables that were carried forward in the township manager’s narrative. Gleason offered that the week before there had been a number of last-minute changes in the benefit numbers as her explanation.

I am glad that John Petersen reviewed last week’s preliminary budget and caught the discrepancies and notified the township. It was good to see that responsibility was taken for those mistakes and I am hopeful that going forward, there will be greater oversight from the Finance Commission and the supervisors. For the record, there never was a response to the residents from last week’s emails. Some would suggest that since the message was received and changes made, no response was required. Although I am a proponent for process, there is not closure on the issue and we can move on.

There was much discussion and questions from the supervisors to Gleason and the finance director in regards to the budget. Although there were mistakes in the budget summary, the numbers in the budget remain the same – there is a $500K deficit in the 2012 township budget. Without any adjustment to the preliminary budget, the deficit would mean a 6.9% millage real estate tax increase. Using an average assessed property value of $221,000, the increase would equate to approximately $34 per homeowner. The major contributing factors to the deficit are the decrease in transfer and real estate taxes and a significant decrease in the recycling grant money. Both residential and commercial property reassessments have greatly reduced real estate taxes.

Several areas in the budget were reviewed in detail. Specifically, there is a $106K in the budget for website and software upgrade. Of that amount, $6,500 earmarked for a citizen notification system. This system could provide notifications for emergencies, road closures, special events, etc. The approximate $100K remaining funds is split with $50K for contact management system and $50K to permit greater flexibility and to keep making progress. The goal is to make the website more user-friendly, including the ability to reserve sport and summer camp programs online, a complaint and work order tracking system for public works, a third-party credit card system, etc. The $106K website and software upgrade would come from reserves.

There remain some open issues surrounding the employee health insurance costs. I was very surprised to learn that the current budget includes 100% paid insurance. I suggested that almost everyone pays a co-pay of $15/20 and had that been considered? Although Mimi responded that this is part of the union negotiations, I am not confident that the insurance situation is going to change. With the school district negotiations starting in January, this may offer some bargaining power for the teachers.

Tim Klarich, the township finance director alluded to the large unfunded medical and retirement liability but did not state the total. It was my understanding that several years ago, there was $25 million in this unfunded liability and I asked that number to be qualified. Very surprised to learn that the township’s unfunded liability as of January 1, 2011 was $36 million! Although Klarich stated that at this time, there is no minimum contribution requirement for this liability, it does make you wonder what our increase would be if the taxpayers were forced to fund $36 million liability! When and how does that liability receive funding? Is this a bond issue?

Currently the 2012 budget summary is available online but I asked if the township could provide the full budget online for the residents. Bob Lamina asked Mimi if that was possible and she agreed to provide the information. I am not sure if it will confuse us more or help us – but at least this way, we will be able to review the department budgets and see the line listings that make up the individual budgets.

Although the budget discussion ended with the unanimous approval of the preliminary budget with its 6.9% millage real estate tax increase, there was the sense from the supervisors that they are going to continue their review. Lamina stated that he believes that they can do better than the 6.9%. He is not certain that they can get the budget down to a zero percent increase but between now and the next BOS meeting on December 5, they are determined to try.

College Remains Important but Choosing the Right Major Could be Key to Employment

November 20, 2011

14 Comments

As a community, we focus on the T/E school district’s educational quality and its sustainability during these economic challenging times. Many in this community believe that there is a direct correlation between the quality of education provided in this school district and their property values. For other residents, they look at the quality of our school district as a contributor to their children’s college experience and future job prospects.

Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workplace conducted an extensive study on the projection of jobs and education requirements through 2018. A new report was recently released from the center, ‘Career Clusters: Forecasting Demand for High School through College Jobs 2008 – 2018‘ which offers some interesting trends and forecasts.

Everything we know about the job market tells us that a college degree is a passport to employment that provides a decent wage and benefits, albeit some benefits in the workplace are fading in today’s world. We all know that having a college degree does not guarantee employment. However, without a college degree the chances of securing a job providing a decent wage are far less. The Georgetown study reports that by 2018, 62% of all jobs will require at least some college education. The United States will need 22 million new college degrees but the study says we will fall short by at least 3 million.

“A bachelor’s degree is still the best path to middle-class employment and wages in the United States, and while those with only a high-school diploma can achieve the same status, it will become harder for them to find and secure such jobs.” according to the study.

The reports indicates that there are jobs for those with high school degrees, but those jobs are mostly in male-dominated careers – manufacturing, architecture and construction, distribution and logistics and hospitality. The study makes an interesting point that women need education beyond a high school degree to be able to earn the same wage as a man with only a high-school education. This analysis would suggest that at the lower educated levels, women have not advanced as far with their paychecks as those women of higher education. Although there remains a disparity in many workplaces between the salaries of women and men that gap has become narrower in the last decade. This report suggests that the paycheck gap between the sexes is wider among the lower educated. The higher the education, the lesser the salary gap between women and their male counterparts.

In the future, a person with only a high school diploma will have to work harder to reach a middle-class status versus a person with only a few college credits. Opportunities go up proportionately based on the level of education and that growing fields of employment with better salaries will require college degrees. The bottom line . . . a college education is still important and valuable, even in a bad economy. It is the economy that is putting a high value on college degrees. Putting students on a track to reach the college or university level and emphasizing the importance of a degree remains important.

Understanding the importance of a college education, if you look at the original report from the Georgetown University Center of Education and the Workplace, the data suggests the following:

Consider that, since 1983, among prime-age workers between the ages of 25 and 54:

• Earnings of high school dropouts have fallen by 2 percent;
• Earnings of high school graduates have increased by 13 percent;
• Earnings of people with some college or an Associate’s degree have increased by 15 percent;
• Earnings of people with Bachelor’s degrees have increased by 34 percent;
• Earnings of people with graduate degrees have increased by 55 percent.

Although unemployment affects all economic levels, the report suggests that those individuals with postsecondary education will fair better through this recession than ‘high school educated only’ individuals. In addition, that the country’s future economic recovery will focus on skilled rather than unskilled labor jobs. In other words, those that lost jobs that only required a high school education will find that their jobs may be permanently lost; lost either to automation or through outsourcing to foreign competitors.

Using the data from the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workplace, the Wall Street Journal created an interactive tool where users can search for the average employment rate and median income of people who studied each major.

Current top 10 college majors with the highest unemployment (10% employment rate or higher)

1. Clinical psychology 19.5%
2. Miscellaneous fine arts 16.2%
3. United States history 15.1%
4. Library science 15.0%
5. (tie) Military technologies; educational psychology 10.9%
6. Architecture 10.6%
7. Industrial & organizational psychology 10.4%
8. Miscellaneous psychology 10.3%
9. Linguistics & comparative literature 10.2%

One obvious trend to recognize is anyone with some form of an undergraduate psychology degree is struggling to find employment. Due to the slowdown in the construction industry, it is not a surprise to see architecture on the list.

The most employable college majors (with accompanying unemployment rate):

1. Actuarial Science 0%
2. Astronomy and astrophysics 0%
3. Educational administration and supervision 0%
4. Geological and geophysical engineering 0%
5. Pharmacology 0%
6. School student counseling 0%
7. Agricultural economics 1.3%
8. Medical technologies technicians 1.4%
9. Atmospheric science and meteorology 1.6%
10. Environmental engineering, nursing and nuclear industrial radiology and biological technologies 2.2%

College students should take note of some recession-proof degrees. There are at least six fields of study whose graduates are virtually 100 percent employed right now. That’s right – certain majors, such as pharmacology, produce graduates who face a zero percent unemployment rate. That’s not bad considering last month’s joblessness rate for people with a college degree or higher was 4.4 percent. Jobs are available for science and technology majors but also it is good to see that education and school counseling majors should be able to find employment.

Looking at the county’s unemployment rates and the rising costs of a college education over the last three decades, we should not question the value of a postsecondary degree as the Georgetown University study confirms its value. However, even if we can agree on the importance of a four-year education, especially once the country struggles out of recession into recovery mode, a pressing problem remains.

Beyond the cost of the college degree is the bigger problem . . . and that is how to pay for it!

I feel like we are living in the slow motion era of the 2^nd Great Depression.

Tredyffrin’s 2012 Preliminary Budget Indicates 6.9% Increase . . . But the Math Doesn’t Add Up!

November 16, 2011

12 Comments

At Monday’s Board of Supervisors meeting, our township manager Mimi Gleason presented Tredyffrin’s preliminary budget for 2012 that indicates a 6.9% millage real estate increase will be required to balance the budget. As she does each year, Gleason presented a budget summary, which was designed as an overview of the township’s current financial picture. Included in the summary are 2011 budget and forecasted revenue and expenditures through the end of the year plus the 2012 preliminary budget. Two summary tables marked ‘General Fund Revenue’ and ‘General Fund Expenditures’ are part of the township manager’s document dated November 10, 2011.

I do not know about you, but when I review budget data, I look at the totals, the ‘bottom line’ – just assuming that the math is correct. Laying no claim as a financial expert, when I reviewed the township’s budget memorandum, I accepted Ms. Gleason’s summary information as correct and her math as accurate. As the hired professional and chief executive officer of the township, in my view, she is the expert and I had no reason to question the accuracy of the information.

Resident and former township supervisor John Petersen reviewed Ms. Gleason’s budget summary and discovered multiple mathematical errors in the report. I learned of the mistakes in the budget information when I was copied on emails to Gleason, along with township supervisor John DiBuonaventuro and resident Ray Clarke.

In review of Gleason’s budget summary, the totals for the General Fund revenue and expenditure summary tables are incorrect. The 2012 budget revenue should be $16,467,175, and the difference vs. the 2011 Forecast is ($141,748). On the expenditure summary table totals, the 2011 Forecast should be $16,916,736 the 2012 Budget should be $16,926,204, and the difference vs. the 2011 Forecast should be $9,468. If you use these corrected totals from the revenue and expenditure tables, similar errors are now contained in Gleason’s summary description. In referring to 2011, Gleason states, “the year is forecast to end $377,000 under budget.” Due to mathematical error, this information is incorrect; the year is forecast to end $355,160 under budget, not $377,000. Gleason states the “General fund revenue is projected to decrease another $130,000 in 2012, for a total decrease of $330,000 versus the 2011 budget.” Correcting the math, the 2012 general fund revenue is projected to be $255,950 less than the 2011 budget, not $330,000.

What does all this mean to us the taxpayer and to the budget process? With declining revenues and increasing costs of our current economic climate, it is more important than ever to account for every dollar. As taxpayers, we trust that the financial information is accurate – isn’t this information checked and re-checked. After all, the township manager’s budget information would have multiple in-house reviews before it goes public, correct. Finance Director, Township Manager, Supervisor Finance Committee, Board of Supervisors . . . all of these people have access to this information before the public sees it. Where is the accountability? Are these kinds of mathematical ‘mistakes’ OK? These errors are in the budget summary . . . are there additional errors in the budget line listings?

Reading the township revenue and expenditure summaries, I find it confusing and difficult to understand. There is not an adequate breakdown of the department expenditures and the account detail worksheets do not provide sufficient explanation (particularly of increased costs). Can the public please have a complete township budget with all details? If you look at the school district, they are far more transparent, providing complete information, including every check written from TESD. The last budget update from TESD was 180+ pages and provided the public with complete information. The township budget is a fraction of the school district budget; should we not expect similar public information?

We were all caught up in the EIT campaign hype over the last month leading up to Election Day. We were inundated with Republican campaign mailers, robo-calls and yellow signs all claiming ‘No EIT’ and then the defense from the Democratic camp. As was the case when I ran for the Board of Supervisors in 2009, the Republican campaign materials implied that if voters elected a Democrat candidate, residents would be in line for an increase in taxes.

Election Day 2011 was only a week ago and we know from the results that Tredyffrin Township will continue as an all-Republican Board of Supervisors and the School Board will be Republican-majority in its membership. Democrats were not elected because they presumably would ‘raise taxes’. So how is it that a week after the election, the Republican Board of Supervisors present a budget that contains a 6.9% tax increase?

There were two 2012 township budget workshops, late August and October 1. The supervisors would have known that a tax increase would be required for 2012. Rather than indicate or suggest the possibility of a 2012 tax increase, the supervisors choose to wait until after Election Day. And the Republicans said it was the Democrats who would raise taxes . . . guess this is ‘politics’.

Between the tax increases from the township and the school district, what do you guess the overall increase will be for the Tredyffrin taxpayer . . . 10%, 12%?

No EIT for Tredyffrin Easttown School District in 2012!

November 15, 2011

48 Comments

Based on Ray Clarke’s notes below from the Finance Committee and the School Board meeting on the Earned Income Tax, sounds like it was quite a night! First off, the big news to report — there will be no EIT voter referendum question on the April primary election ballot. The same two people, Kevin Mahoney and Anne Crowley, favored taking the EIT to the voters as they voted similarly in October 2010. Please read Ray’s comments and I would like to hear from others who attended the meeting last night.

A couple of fascinating school district meetings last night. Bottom Line: a motion to advise the townships of a possible intent to put an EIT on next year’s ballot was defeated 7:2 (Mahoney, Crowley).

My own take, but watch the action for yourselves….

The usual arguments were rehearsed by both Board members and audience, but the ones that I felt carried the day were that “now is not the time” and “we’re going to try really really hard to get Harrisburg to find another of your pockets to take the employee pensions from”. Dr Brake had a well-reasoned position that also made the point that the current political climate would not allow a thoughtful debate and the Board could avoid “roiling the community” further by not putting it to referendum now.

But that was not what kept this audience member awake. Just about every board member (campaigning or not) berated the political machine for the campaign tactics.

Dr Brake contrasted legitimate “contrast pieces” with “offensive” “making stuff up”. Then Republican operative Tom Colman launched a defense of the election tactics, and acknowledged that he had orchestrated a personal campaign against the Act 1 tax in 2007. That brought up Jenny Wessels to state that she had been miss-represented in the campaign and to commend the Board for their non-partisan approach. Then followed Debbie Bookstaber, in a long soliloquy berating her colleagues for their political statements. Must see TV!

A few interesting audience comments:

Ed Sweeney: strongly against an EIT and wants the tax policy to attract the “right people” (high income earners?)

Melody Price: a thoughtful appeal for a balanced approach that considers all potential solutions.

Unknown audience member: “three words – Taxed Enough Already” (that was helpful!)

Barbara Morosse: There is more expense for the district to cut, including through teacher salary structure changes.

Notable board member comments:

Rich Brake: wants to completely recalibrate the teachers’ contract, do away with the matrix.

Kevin Mahoney: a) lest anyone thinks that companies are not interested in property taxes, consider the multi-million dollar GSK assessment appeals, b) maybe school districts should be freed up from rules that limit investment options to be able to earn returns like UPenn endowment’s 15%

Betsy Fadem: Don’t think we can use the Fund Balance to balance the budget because the School Board has committed it….

Which brings me to the evening’s opening act, the Finance Committee. Four things to remark:

[1] The minutes that Pattye had puzzled over were corrected: the administration proposals for the $1.3 million funding restoration were not authorized by the last Finance Committee but referred back to the Education Committee.

[2] A discussion of the Fund Balance commitments, which include $7.6 million of “vested employee services”, along of course with $15.4 million of “future retirement plan stabilization”. The accounting is much different to the GAAP I’m used to, but here’s my takeaway:

These amounts are based on arbitrary board policies

The PSERS commitment is based on the next five years, the employee services on almost but not quite the full lifetime liability

They are only commitments to the extent that it takes a Board vote to change them

Few if any other school districts have a commitment for vested employee services, and pay as they go.

So, “vested employee services” appears to be another way to sit on taxpayer money without fully revealing what the actual liability is, what the additions and payouts are from year-to-year, and where the funding for the liability comes from. And, in general, the PSERS liability is going straight up for the next 5 years, holds flat for the next 10, and then starts to decline. So would the policy mean that the district sequesters say $25 million of taxpayer money until that decline starts in 2025 or so?

I think that Mahoney committed the next Finance Committee to review the policy. At the very least it would be good to know exactly how all this works, and why it is that TE policies need to be different from other school districts.

[3] Groundwork laid for the ongoing property tax-to-the-max strategy: next year’s Act 1 Index estimated at 1.7%, Exceptions for PSERS and special education 1.7%, total property tax increase 3.4%, $2.9 million.

[4] The fourth thing was …… err ……. ooops …… oh yes:

The Finance Committee approved a contract with a marketing agency for selling promotional space on district property. The net annual revenue to the district is projected to be $160,000. The agency was the only one that responded to the district RFP. The contract states that the District has to approve all content, sponsors, advertisements; in the meeting it was stated that the Board approval is required.

If I think of any else, I’ll add it as a comment.

Decision Time – Will T/E School Board Directors Vote in Favor of an EIT Voter Referendum Question?

November 13, 2011

36 Comments

Monday night is a case where I would like to be in two places at once . . .

Tredyffrin’s township finances and the proposed 2012 budget is on the Board of Supervisors agenda at 7:30 PM while the T/E school directors will hold a Finance Committee meeting at 6:30 PM followed by a special school board meeting at 7:30 PM to discuss the EIT. (Both school district meetings will be held in Conestoga HS cafeteria). I will attend the Board of Supervisors meeting and I am counting on my friend Ray Clarke to attend the school district meetings.

In reviewing the agenda for the T/E Finance Committee meeting and the draft minutes from their October 17 meeting, I read the following:

Education Committee Recommendation:

At the prior Finance Committee meeting the Committee was informed that the State reinstated $1.3 million in funding that was not included in the District’s 2011-12 budget. In light of this information, the Committee authorized the Superintendent to restore education program cuts made in the 2011-12 budget. Dr. Richard Gusick presented the proposed reinstatements of budget cuts to the education program and explained that they were already reviewed by the Education The Finance Committee asked that the proposal to reinstate these budget cuts be presented at a future Board meeting.

I am confused. Although I was aware that the State had reinstated $1.3 million in funding to the T/E school district, I was not aware there was a decision as to whether (1) restore the district’s education programming cuts or (2) add the money to the fund balance.

According to these minutes, the Finance Committee (or Education Committee?) authorized the money go to restoring education program cuts. Restoring which programming cuts? Latin in the Middle School? Foreign language in the elementary school? Technology purchases? Specifically, which education program cuts did the committee authorize restored? In addition, are we to assume that the option of adding the $1.3 million to the district’s fund balance is off the table for consideration? These are questions for the school board directors at Monday’s meeting.

I also noted that the Finance Committee meeting minutes indicate that the school district will wait until 2012 to release a RFP for the outsourcing (if needed) of custodial services. It is not clear at this point if custodial outsourcing will be on the budget reduction strategy list.

Immediately following the Finance Committee meeting tomorrow night, the school board will hold a special meeting at 7:30 PM to consider notification to Tredyffrin and Easttown townships of the intent to levy an EIT. November 16 is the deadline for the School Board to provide the townships with notification so the board will be taking a vote at this special meeting. The school board will vote on whether to include EIT as a voter referendum question on the primary election ballot on April 24, 2012. For school districts to levy an EIT requires voter approval. The maximum that TESD could levy is 1%. If approved by voters, all residents, including renters, in Tredyffrin and Easttown Townships would be taxed at 1% on earned income. If an EIT were to be approved, the townships have the legal option to request one-half of the 1% collected by the school district.

Leading up to Election Day, we watched as EIT become the ‘buzz’ word of the local campaign season. Early on, the local Republican Party took a stand against an earned income tax and furthered the issue by labeling the Democrat candidates as EIT supporters. Feeling the pressure, all the Democratic school board candidates responded that ‘they’ were personally opposed to an earned income tax.

The politicizing of the EIT prior to the public presentation of TESD’s tax study group troubled me. The EIT became a political football between the local political parties and in my opinion, damaged the community’s ability to completely understand the EIT as presented by the tax study group. Not to mention the confusion that occurred at the polls on Election Day! Three different precinct judge of elections have reported to me that there were some confused voters — asking where the EIT question was on the ballot. Based on the campaign mailers and political signs, many in the community came to the polls on Election Day expecting to vote on the EIT issue.

Now that we are on the other side of the election, how can newly re-elected school board members Karen Cruikshank (D) and Jim Bruce (R) now vote in favor of taking the EIT issue to the voters. I do not know whether re-elected Easttown school board member Pete Motel (R) made a public statement one way or the other re the EIT. Based on the pre-election political hype of the EIT, the vote count of the school board members will be interesting. Will we see the school board members following the lead of their political parties?

If the school board members vote in favor of an EIT voter referendum question on the April primary ballot, do many of us really think that the residents would vote in favor of this new tax. During the school board budget cut strategy meetings, there were residents asking for tax increases vs. further educational programming cuts.

Faced with the possibility of further programming cuts in the next school district budget, would there be sufficient support from voters for an EIT?

Election Day 2011 is over . . . Looks like much will remain the same!

November 9, 2011

88 Comments

Election Day 2011 has now passed and the ‘unofficial’ results are in. The full results for all races can be found at the Chester County website, www.chesco.org. In reviewing the results, all incumbents prevailed in the supervisor and school board races. Other than Karen Cruickshank’s re-election as school board director, it was a clean sweep for the Republicans for the T/E School Board and Board of Supervisors.

SCHOOL DIRECTOR TREDYFFRIN EASTTOWN REGION I
VOTE NOT MORE THAN 2
JAMES D BRUCE (REP) . . . . . . . 1,443 25.33
TARA G LA FIURA (REP) . . . . . . 1,336 23.46
KAREN CRUICKSHANK (DEM) 1,635 28.70
JERRY HENIGE (DEM) . . . . . . . 1,280 22.47
WRITE-IN. . . . . . . . . . . 2 .04

SCHOOL DIRECTOR TREDYFFRIN EASTTOWN REGION II
VOTE NOT MORE THAN 2
ELIZABETH A MERCOGLIANO (REP). . 2,416 25.71
KRIS GRAHAM (REP). . . . . . . . 2,428 25.84
JENNIFER LIGHTMAN WESSELS (DEM) . . . 2,322 24.71
SCOTT DORSEY (DEM) . . . . . . . 2,229 23.72
WRITE-IN. . . . . . . . . . . 1 .01

SCHOOL DIRECTOR TREDYFFRIN EASTTOWN REGION III
VOTE NOT MORE THAN 1
PETER MOTEL (REP). . . . . . . . 1,256 61.51
CRAIG A LEWIS (DEM) . . . . . . 785 38.44
WRITE-IN. . . . . . . . . . . 1 .05

Karen Cruickshank (D, Jim Bruce (R) and Pete Motel (R) were re-elected for TESD Region 1 and Liz Mercogliano (R) and Kris Graham (R) were elected for TESD Region II. In Region III, incumbent Pete Motel won by a significant margin against his opponent. If you recall from the school board debate, the candidate who made personal attacks was Craig Lewis against Pete Motel. Maybe this win indicates that voters from Easttown did not appreciate Mr. Lewis tactics. Cruickshank is currently serving as president of the school board and her win reflects a vote of confidence from the voters on her performance.

Looking at Mercogliano’s win, I am reminded that neither she nor Tara LaFiura participated in the League of Women Voters debate. If I had been a betting person, I would have thought that would have harmed her chances of winning. But she was only 12 votes behind the winner Kris Graham who did participate in the debate.

Here are the unofficial results from the Tredyffrin supervisor races:

TOWNSHIP SUPERVISOR AT-LARGE TREDYFFRIN TOWNSHIP
VOTE NOT MORE THAN 2
MICHAEL C HEABERG (REP). . . . . . 4,020 27.09
KRISTEN KIRK MAYOCK (REP) . . . . 4,042 27.24
MOLLY DUFFY (DEM). . . . . . . . 3,636 24.50
F MICHAEL MURPH WYSOCKI (DEM). 3,137 21.14
WRITE-IN. . . . . . . . . . . 4 .03

DISTRICT SUPERVISOR 1ST DISTRICT TREDYFFRIN 1ST DISTRICT
VOTE NOT MORE THAN 1
PAUL W OLSON (REP) . . . . . . . 1,331 50.21
VICTORIA SNYDER (DEM) . . . . . . 1,318 49.72
WRITE-IN. . . . . . . . . . . 2 .08

DISTRICT SUPERVISOR 3RD DISTRICT TREDYFFRIN 3RD DISTRICT
VOTE NOT MORE THAN 1
JOHN JD DIBUONAVENTURO (REP) . . . . 1,616 98.54
WRITE-IN. . . . . . . . . . . 24 1.46

Incumbent Mike Heaberg (R) was re-elected along with Kristen Mayock (R). Only 22 votes separated those two spots. Unopposed in the race, JD DiBuonavnturo (R) was re-elected for District 3. In District 1, Paul Olson (R) will retain his seat on the Board of Supervisors. Tory Snyder (D) gave Olson a real run and came within 13 votes of unseating him.

Based on these results, Tredyffrin’s Board of Supervisors will continue as an all-Republican board. Mayock’s election to the Board adds a third woman – it has been awhile since we had that dynamic. Personally I’m looking forward to that new element and what that will mean for the residents.

In an upset, Jeremy Blackburn (R) was unseated by Analisa Sondergaard (D) as District Judge. I was one of those who believed that our District Judge should be an attorney so I am very supportive of Sondergaard’s win in this election.

MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGE DISTRICT 15-4-01
VOTE NOT MORE THAN 1
JEREMY M BLACKBURN (REP) . . . . . 1,847 48.36
ANALISA SONDERGAARD (DEM) . . . . . 1,971 51.61
WRITE-IN. . . . . . . . . . . 1 .03

In the Chester County District Attorney race, I am pleased that Tom Hogan (R) won this race and will serve the county as our new DA.

DISTRICT ATTORNEY
VOTE NOT MORE THAN 1
TOM HOGAN (REP) . . . . . . . . 45,036 60.07
SAMUEL C STRETTON (DEM). . . . . . 29,826 39.78
WRITE-IN. . . . . . . . . . . 106 .14

In the County Commissioner race, the three incumbents, Ryan Costello (R), Terence Farrell (R) and Kathy Cozzone (D) were all re-elected to another term as Commissioners.

COUNTY COMMISSIONER
VOTE NOT MORE THAN 2
RYAN A COSTELLO (REP) . . . . . . 42,232 29.40
TERENCE FARRELL (REP) . . . . . . 40,629 28.29
KATHI COZZONE (DEM) . . . . . . . 31,933 22.23
SUSAN BAYNE (DEM). . . . . . . . 28,736 20.01
WRITE-IN. . . . . . . . . . . 111 .08

To all the candidates, thank you for all the time and energy spent over these last few months with your campaigns. To our newly elected officials, the community thanks you and remain hopeful that you will stand behind the campaign promises that you made to the residents.

Yesterday I visited several precincts and spoke to many people. There was a constant theme in our discussions; I learned that many people in this community were deeply troubled by the campaign rhetoric of the political parties. They spoke of the infamous yellow signs, the negative campaign mailers and of the robo-calls. I actually had several people say that they almost stayed home in protest and knew that would not help with the message. Regardless if you are the winning side or not, please know that the tactics during this campaign season was not what many in the community want. I hope that in the aftermath of Election Day 2011, the local Republican and Democratic party will take the time to reflect on their campaign strategies for the future.

The Clock Ticks Down to Election Day – Soon it will be up to ‘Us’, the voter!

November 6, 2011

23 Comments

In less than 36 hours, the polls will open on Tuesday at 7 AM, Election Day. Soon it will be up to us, the voters.

Although I encourage everyone to take their voice to the polls on Tuesday, I admit that this political campaign season has disappointed. Some would suggest that negative campaigning is the way to mobilize the partisan base. Perhaps, but where does that leave the independent and swing voters? Emotion-packed or personal attacks on campaign mailers play a different role than policy-based attacks.

The political rhetoric in this country has become too vitriolic . . . we are losing the ability to discuss things with civility. The poisonous rhetoric is everywhere; turn on CNN or read the New York Times . . . ‘our national discourse’ has tumbled to new lows. Regrettably, it is not limited to the national campaigns but it is right here; in our own backyard.

Certainly some of the campaign mailers and political signs have made good points, but it is the way they are presented. The politicos are not trying to reach us intellectually; they want to draw on our emotions – make us afraid, angry, anxious.

We all understand that a natural part of any political campaign is opposition research. After all, a candidate has to make a case to the voter that they are the more experienced, the better prepared, and the best ‘choice’. Therefore, we should not be surprised that the next step is for the campaign camps to feel pressure to let voters know “the truth” about their opponent, especially if that person has already gone negative. The pressure builds between the opposing sides. One side attacks and then the other side feels they have little choice but to respond in kind. Yes, that is the name of the game . . . politics.

Often times during this campaign season, I watched with sadness as members of this community lobbied attacks against each other. It is such a shame, because for every minute a candidate spends attacking his opponent that is one less minute that could be spent talking about legitimate differences on policy issues that actually affect the voters. Speaking of differences between the sides – at times it has appeared the candidates were more similar than different.

Where does all this leave us for Election Day; what is a voter to do? There are no campaign enforcement police making sure everyone is telling the truth. My hope for all of you who hold the privilege to vote is to think for yourself. Do a little research and use that developed human brain of yours. Please try not to be influenced by the negative campaign ads. Your vote is worth more than a nay saying ad or a half-truth campaign mailer.

Think for yourself, beyond what your neighbor, your friend or co-worker favors. Know the candidates and support those who have shown principled behavior. Exercise your right to vote in a sane, thoughtful manner and make your vote count this Tuesday!

It is now up to ‘us’ . . . the voters.

T/E School Board Candidates Asked What’s Most Important Issue – Responses from Tredyffrin Democratic candidates & Easttown candidates, no Tredyffrin Republican candidate responses

November 5, 2011

51 Comments

We know that local elections are important and that the choices that you make on Election Day, Tuesday, November 8 will help determine the future of our community. As a way to better understand the school board candidates and what they value as the most important issues facing the district, I sent a three-part question to all Tredyffrin-Easttown School Board candidates. Previously, I had received and posted the responses from Easttown school board candidates – Republican Pete Motel and Democrat Craig Lewis.

Following the League of Women Voters debate on October 25, I received responses to the question from Tredyffrin Democratic school board candidates. However, the Tredyffrin Republican school board candidates declined to participate.

Below is the question and the responses from Tredyffrin’s Democratic school board candidates Karen Cruickshank, Jerry Henige, Scott Dorsey and Jenny Wessels. Following their responses, I have reposted the responses from Easttown’s school board candidates Pete Motel (R) and Craig Lewis (D)

It’s a shame that the Republican school board candidates in Tredyffrin Twp declined to respond. One of two reasons — either the Republican school board candidates in Tredyffrin didn’t see any value in my question (and their answers) or they didn’t see value in Community Matters. But then two of the Republican school board candidates (Tara LaFiura, Region 1 and Liz Mercogliano, Region 2) decided against participating in the League of Women Voters debate so perhaps I should not take their decision as personal.

Dear School Board Candidates:

Local elections are important. In an attempt to inform voters for Election Day, as a candidate for the TE School Board, I hope you will participate in the following Q&A on Community Matters.

In 200 words or less, please respond to the following question. Incorporate all three parts of the question into your response and please be specific. School board candidate responses will list on Community Matters in the order that they are received.

(1) In your opinion, what is the single most important issue facing the Tredyffrin Easttown School District?
(2) If you were elected, what would you do to help solve or improve this issue?
(3) The Tredyffrin Easttown School District needs problem-solvers; what in your background or job experience qualifies you to help solve this important issue?

————————————————————————————

Karen Cruickshank
Democratic Candidate for School Director, Region 1

The most important issue facing the T/E School District is our fiscal outlook.

The School District faces a 5.5 million dollar budget gap for 2012 and increases to 17 million in 2015.

State controlled pension obligations will increase from 4.7 million in 2011 to 13.3 million in 2015. In 2001 state legislators gave themselves, state employees, and public school employees a big increase in pension pay outs. These increases were never OKd by local school districts or the public.

The second budget factor is a loss of 6.5 million in revenues since 2006 from commercial and residential real estate reassessments.

In response to fiscal issues the School District has cut 10 million dollars out of its budget. Our teacher’s union gave up half of their raises for this year and our non-teaching union gave up all of their raises.

If re-elected I will work with legislators, unions, administrators, and citizens to find solutions to fiscal issues. I will look for ways the District can become more efficient without hurting the quality of our schools.

A trained higher education professional, I understand the issues facing education. I am trained in conflict negotiation and am a proven consensus builder.

——————————————————————————–

Jerry Henige
Democratic Candidate for School Director, Tredyffrin Region 1

We have great schools that contribute to the wonderful quality of our neighborhoods. However, our great schools are facing serious financial challenges. For example, we are losing almost $3M a year due to property reassessments and this amount will continue to grow. And, based on bad decisions in Harrisburg, the amount the school district is being asked to pay into the pension funds will grow from $3M last year to $13.4M over the next 4 years.

At the same time Kevin Mahoney, the financial expert on the school board, is retiring leaving a critical skills gap. The financial challenges are too great to leave this gap unfilled. I believe that with my 30+ years of management and financial experience, I am the candidate that is best suited to fill this gap.

We need a school board that can work as a team to focus on potential solutions. We need to partner with parents and taxpayers, teachers and other school districts, our townships and employers to put pressure on Harrisburg to address the pension problem.

We need a school board that is prepared to work diligently to find common ground with all these constituencies. We need to be willing to try alternative approaches to education that may be more effective than what we are doing today. And we need to consider the plight of the retiree on fixed income, the family with a member who has lost a job.

I believe that I have the financial skills, temperament and energy to manage the serious financial challenges facing the school board.

——————————————————————————

Scott Dorsey
Democratic Candidate for School Director, Tredyffrin Region 2

Today our district is facing a financial storm that threatens the excellence that we have come to expect from our schools. $6.5 million in lost property tax revenues because of reassessments, and other revenue shortfalls will devastate programs that are vital to many average students. Co-curricular and extra-curricular programs are also in danger. I have proven track record as a non- profit Administrator who is fiscally responsible, and I am personally opposed to the Earned Income Tax.

My background as an educator and community leader has inspired my passion for investing in children’s success. In response to TESD’s budget challenges, I propose to:

Collaborate with the public and private sector for solutions that combine best educational and business practices that will benefit every child

Fight to hold the line in the upcoming teachers’ contract

Find creative solutions to keep sports and other after-school activities from being cut

Work with the Unions to lobby the state legislature to fix the pension system

Work with the Township to build grant-funded sidewalks that could reduce transportation costs

I have deep experience as an administrator who has helped lead multi-million dollar non- profit organizations from the red to sound fiscal footing. I am a skilled consensus builder. I am the only school board candidate who has not sought union endorsement because I believe full transparency is required in the upcoming contract negotiations. I will lead with integrity, fiscal responsibility, and a dedication to investing in our children’s success.

—————————————————————————–

Jennifer Lightman Wessels
Democratic Candidate for School Director, Tredyffrin Region 2

The most important issue facing our school board is managing our limited financial resources while minimizing the impact on our educational program. I will be a voice on the board committed to protecting our outstanding educational program.

To lessen the financial strain on our district, I will lobby Harrisburg for legislative reform. I will use my training as a labor attorney to achieve a successful result during contract negotiations with the teachers’ union in 2012. I will be open to innovative ideas, such as pursuing new income streams from advertising and private funding. I will not, however, support the implementation of new taxes such as the Earned Income Tax (EIT) and I would oppose any move to enact an EIT in Tredyffrin Township.

As a parent of two young children in our school district and having served as the President of the PTO at New Eagle Elementary School for two years, I understand and care deeply about the issues facing our school district. As a taxpayer, I understand the importance of balancing these concerns with fiscal restraint and responsibility.

Among all the school board candidates, I am unique in that I will bring both a parent’s perspective and a lawyer’s skill to this job. I look forward to the opportunity to serve.

——————————————————————————

Pete Motel
Republican Candidate for School Board Director, Easttown Township

The biggest challenge facing the T/E School District is maintaining the quality of education it delivers during the current economic downturn.

District revenue is down by millions of dollars primarily due to two reasons:

Property tax assessment appeals resulting in decreased real estate tax collection;

Decreased home sales resulting in decreased real estate transfer tax. This is coupled with steep increases in the state required contribution to the state pension system – now millions above the contribution required last year.

Great efforts have been made by the Board to balance the District’s budgets without significantly effecting educational opportunities. The Board has implemented cost containment through administrative salary freezes, implementation of self-insured health insurance and more efficient scheduling of staff time.

With the economic recovery projected to take another several years, T/E Boards need to continue to cut expenses without reducing core educational programs. Success will require detailed knowledge of District operations and proven leadership skills.

My experience on the T/E Board as Committee Chairs and past Board president, coupled with my professional experience as a small business owner, demonstrate that I have the proven skills to help guide the District through the next few years of difficult budgets.

——————————————————————————

Craig Lewis
Democratic Candidate for School Director, Easttown Township

TE’s biggest issue is irresponsible budgeting.

My opponent, republican Dr. Motel, has mandated 5 study halls per week in Conestoga High (12% instruction reduction) AND a 20% increase in students per teacher. TE was the 4th best high school in Pennsylvania. Losing this rank will result in a 10% home price decline, reduced college acceptance, scholarships and earning potential.

My opponent diverted education money to purchase, tear-down and build non-educational facilities wasting millions of dollars.

TE’s projection shows out-of-control budget shortfalls. Starting with the current year they are:

-$777,000
-$3,909,000
-$7,925,241
-$11,862,000
-$15,450,000

My fiscally conservative priorities to prevent this catastrophe are:
Stop wasteful spending

Halt all construction and real-estate acquisitions.

The teacher pay was cut and workload increased 20%. Aggressive cost reduction has to look at all other areas.

Halt no-bid contracting

Preserve our premier school ranking

Repeal the 5 study-hall mandate.

Respect our staff; balance their workloads.

Initiate summer enrichment programs for profit.

Retirees deserve school tax relief – My opponent never did this, I will.

I have twenty years of experience in setting goals, developing strategies, creating and managing budgets, both departmental and enterprise wide. This required creative approaches, engaging individuals from different departments to drive successful outcomes.

← Older Posts

Newer Posts →

Pattye Benson

Community Matters