Tredyffrin Easttown School District Archives - Page 12 of 19

Tredyffrin Easttown School District

Monday, January 3rd is an important Special T/E School Board Meeting. The meeting will be held at TEAO, Room #200, 940 W. Valley Road, Suite 1700, Wayne at 7:30 PM. For those unfamiliar, the building is located in a corporate complex just beyond the Southeastern Post Office. The meeting will focus on options to close the $8.8 Million budget gap in the 2011-2012 school budget.

In the last week, many of you have weighed in about the school budget deficit and the commentary has been very useful. However, there is no way to know if the School Board members follow Community Matters and have read our remarks. My guess is 2-3 of the board members regularly read the posts and comments but we cannot be sure of the others. That is why it is important to make sure that our voices are heard . . . you can attend Monday’s meeting and offer your remarks during the public comment section, or you can send the school board an email in advance of the meeting.

The email address for the T/E School Board – schoolboard@tesd.net

I received the following comment from Ray Clarke and thought it was important for the front page of Community Matters. Ray kindly shares the email that he sent to the School Board members below.

Ray Clarke, “I sent this to the School Board. I hope that other readers here will also make their views known directly.”
___________________________________
Dear School Board

I hope that you will take the following considerations into account as you vote for a preliminary budget on January 3rd, and conclude, as I do, that you should continue TESD’s sterling performance of increasing property taxes at a rate no more than the Act 1 index.

1. An increase in property taxes reduces the ability to finance house payments. Home price affordability in the past decade was stimulated by lower interest rates, despite the 50% increase in TESD property taxes. Now the bubble has burst, and short term prices are under yet more pressure from rises in mortgage rates and reduction in government subsidies. Prices remain above long term trend rates and many forecasts are for continued decline. The more the decline, the more homeowners will appeal assessments, the less revenue you will raise.

2. There is opportunity to focus spending further. The proposed preliminary budget has over 1/3 of expenses in “non-instructional” costs. The single best thing you can do to maintain the quality of the program is to attract the kind of residents that value education. High performing parents will be the source of high performing students. Smart parents do the calculus weighing test scores, college entrance results, key extra-curriculars (eg: sports, music) against cost. They’ll look for a School District that is as focused on performance and results as they are. (And of course the District Communications/PR program plays a role here).

3. The District can reduce the $28 million Fund Balance. As I recall from the Auditor presentation, that balance is substantially more as a percentage of expenditures than other districts. Although I expect you to do the work suggested by Mr Buraks to confirm the feasibility, I believe that more of this money can be returned to tax payers to pay for near term deficits while the cost structure is realigned through efficiencies and better employee contracts.

4. Holding the tax increase to the Act 1 level allows further analysis to determine the absolute floor in expenses and – if indeed a large tax increase is necessary – the most efficient and equitable option for raising revenues. I believe that you can not ignore the benefits of claiming an income tax that is already paid by a substantial portion of the district’s residents and for which the circumstances have changed dramatically over the past five years.

Many thanks for your your consideration of these items and for your time devoted to the interests of our School District.

Conestoga Students Not Supportive of Possible High School Programming Changes

December 23, 2010

71 Comments

In today’s mail, we received an update from the T/E School Board – focused on the 2011-12 budget and the corresponding challenges facing the school district. The looming deficit facing the school district is a staggering $8.8 million. Reasons for the deficit include continuing decrease of revenue, salaries, increased teacher pension contributions and rising health care costs. These factors remain relatively unchanged from the 2010-11 school year.

The million-dollar question (or rather the nearly 9 million-dollar question) is how to solve the deficit problem. The school board will undoubtedly vote in favor of increasing property tax by 1.4% for the 2011-12 school year, which is the limit permitted by the Act I index set by the State. This move will provide the district with approximately $1.2 million in revenue . . . clearly, not close to the $8.8 million deficit. The district already has some cost cutting measures in place including the elimination of the FLES (foreign language in the elementary school program). There is also discussion of requesting an Act I exception that would provide an additional $2.4 million in revenue by increasing property taxes by an additional $2.8%. These suggestions will help decrease the deficit situation but do not eliminate the problem.

So what other cost-cutting measures can the school district take? Suggestions include (1) optimizing staffing – additional high school teachers will teach 6 periods instead of five; (2) restructure the high school program for 42 periods instead of the current 48 periods; (3) eliminate German and Latin in the middle school: and (4) continue to implement operational efficiencies.

There are some important T/E School Board meetings coming up in January. There is a special School Board meeting on January 3 at 7:30 PM to vote on using eligible Act 1 exceptions. If the Board votes to apply for exceptions, the School Board will present a preliminary budget on January 4 for public comment. The School Board will vote on the 2011-12 budget on January 24.

If you do not have children in the school district, it can be difficult to understand the impact of the cost-cutting suggestions. Conestoga High School students will be impacted if the school board members decide to restructure the high school program. I was curious if the students were surveyed (or asked) to offer their opinion on the proposed programming changes at the high school. By chance, I saw the following editorial in the recent edition of ‘The Spoke’, Conestoga’s newspaper. The opinion article speaks directly to student concerns in regards to possible programming changes.

No to proposed class cuts

Posted on 21 December 2010 by the Spoke Newsdesk
This article originally appeared on page 7 of the Dec. 21, 2010 issue of The Spoke.

The school district has proposed a plan that would cut down certain Conestoga elective courses from being six days a cycle to three days a cycle, a proposal that, The Spoke editorial believes, would have drastic repercussions in the future.

When asked what makes Conestoga unique when compared to other high schools, most students will not hesitate in answering that it is the wide variety of classes that the school offers. Elective courses offered here, ranging from AP Music Theory to Culinary Arts, allow the school to foster a sense of creativity and imagination that goes far in providing a well-rounded education.

Because of the ongoing budget crisis, however, the school district has proposed a plan that would, if passed on Jan. 3, jeopardize these elective courses. The district plans to remove some classes from the program of studies while cutting down the majority of them, including popular courses like Beginning TV and Ceramics 1, from being six days a cycle to three days a cycle. While this initially might not seem like a substantial decrease, it is sure to have repercussions in the future.

Though it is understandable that continuing some classes is economically unfeasible considering our current fiscal situation, the school should not cut down these important courses that offer students a way to creatively express themselves. Because many students at Conestoga take academically challenging courses, often filling up their schedules with Advanced Placement and Honors classes, they look at these classes as outlets that offer them both an entertaining and relaxing break. Such elective courses also allow students to branch out their interests so that they can focus on artistic or vocational skills, rather than center their high school careers on strictly academic disciplines. Most of the classes require students to gain a cumulative understanding of the topic, something that is difficult for the teacher to instill if classes only meet half of the cycle. Students are bound to forget important information and teachers will have to sacrifice valuable class minutes when classes resume next cycle. Therefore, students who eventually progress to the Advanced level classes might not be as proficient as others in past years and so the advanced matter will have to be diluted to compensate for information not taught in the limited amount of time.

By choosing to make these decisions about elective courses, the district will in essence stifle the uniqueness and creativity that thrives in our school community. In the past, students have left Conestoga knowing that they have had the opportunity in our high school to hone their artistic, technical and vocational skills.

Though The Spoke’s editorial board consists of mostly upperclassmen, we nevertheless lament the loss of the six-day elective courses, and are especially saddened by the fact that the underclassmen will not be able to capitalize on the many opportunities that we once took for granted.

We understand that Conestoga is among the elite in the country when it comes to offering students the luxury of elective courses and so we plead the district to reconsider their proposal. By limiting or eradicating some of these cherished courses, Conestoga risks its reputation as a place where creativity is fostered and originality is nurtured.

TESD Finance Committee Meeting . . . Raise School Taxes vs Eliminating School Buses or Support for Athletics? Notes from Ray Clarke

December 14, 2010

47 Comments

In the midst of packing to leave for a family holiday, Ray Clarke was still able to attend last night’s School Board’s Finance Committee meeting. We are all grateful that Ray attends the meetings and then kindly supplies his notes. Thank you my friend and happy travel! Below are Ray’s notes and I think you find them interesting! With the looming deficit, we are not surprised at the direction of our school taxes . . . but tax increase vs. elimination of school buses or support for athletics? Don’t think those options are likely to be approved.

There was a well-attended meeting of the TESD Finance Committee on Monday night. There was much material to cover, though, and not much time for input from the 30 or so community members present. Since the size of the problem and contentiousness-level (sorry!) of some of the ideas is off the charts, all the Finance Committee could really do was kick the can down the road.

No surprise, the Committee voted to recommend that the full board vote on January 3rd to apply to the state for Exceptions to be able to increase property taxes by 2.8% on top of the Act 1 increase of 1.4% – total 4.2% increase. This would also involve publishing a preliminary budget at that time that shows a budget deficit (after the tax increases) of somewhere in the $4-5 million range (depending on whether any expense reductions are included).

Important to note: this recommendation keeps options open. On the revenue front, the Board could 1) still ask for a higher tax increase through a voter referendum (but could not now ask for an EIT), 2) ask voters to approve any tax increase beyond 1.4% (and not apply for Exceptions), 3) hold the increase to zero or 1.4%. On expenses, there seem to be $1-2 million of “Level 1” and other strategies that could reasonably be implemented for 2011/12. The gap between revenues and expenses that results from the final choices on the above dimensions would be met from the fund balance. Kevin Mahoney and Debbie Bookstaber seemed to be favoring revenue option (2).

A few numbers that caught my eye:

1. This year’s operating statement is being strongly fortified by delinquent tax collections and by reduced PSERS contributions that are each projected to be ~$750,000 favorable to budget, resulting (with other puts and takes) in a reduction of the expected contribution from the fund balance from $1.5 to $2 million.

2. The district is finally publishing and using figures that reflect TEEA increases closer to the effect of the actual salary matrix. The aggregate salary increase for 2011/12 is projected to be 7.33%, and may go higher with more movement across the matrix.

3. The projections use historical rates of increase for medical and prescription costs (10-15% per year); it seems possible that current experience will turn out to be more favorable.

4. The “base case” used for starting points includes the Act 1 tax increase of 1.4%. This is different from other years when the base case is the current tax rate. With no tax increase and no additional expense reductions, next year’s gap would be $8.8 million. This includes $470,000 add back of “one-time” strategies used last year.

5. Options to close the close the gap with no tax increase include things like: elimination of school buses ($2 million) and of support for athletics ($1.5 million), outsourcing custodial services ($0.95 million), further reducing aides ($0.8 million). There was no indication that the Board would seriously consider these, although there was commentary about transportation inefficiencies observed by some Board members. Interesting that the option to hold administration salaries flat (impact $150,000) was included with these “Level 2” strategies. There is also a set of strategies to eliminate teaching positions that if approved by the Education Committee/Board and if staff attrition occurs would eventually save $3 million/year ($525,000 of this will be up for approval at the 1/32011 Board meeting).

6. Going forward, the problem compounds – even with a model that includes no TEEA compensation increases (none!). The issues are flat assessed values, healthcare costs, and PSERS (no, Harrisburg didn’t fix it!). One audience member cited research that predicts that property values and employment don’t reset and resume growth until 2016. That ~$5 million in earned income taxes paid to other jurisdictions seems pretty important, as do healthcare benefit cost-sharing programs and index-linked compensation in future union contracts. Maybe we will continue to look to the state for PSERS help, but there is clearly a lot that can be done at the local level.

There was much talk of the educational value delivered by the T/E program. Dan Waters compared Lower Merion expenditures and Kevin Buraks asked for comparisons of tax rates of neighboring districts (but this blog knows we need to look at rate times assessed value too).

Finally, there was an interesting aside that the Great Valley School district has asked for support for a County-wide property reassessment. Not sure what that means, except at the least a correction of imbalances that have built up over the years.

Hopefully, there were other CM readers at the meeting who can amplify and raise things I’ve missed here.

Poplar House Has Become Radnor’s La Ronda!

December 5, 2010

2 Comments

I just received notice that Poplar House, at 600 Maplewood Ave. in Radnor Township was demolished. Dating to 1902, the house contained 10 bedrooms, 6.5 bathrooms, 11,433 sq. ft and sat on 36 acres. The house was demolished to make way for a new housing development.

Although Radnor Township has a HARB (Historic and Architectural Review Board) in place to advise the Township on matters related to three historic neighborhoods, they do not have the authority to stop the demolition of any historic resources in Radnor. (Radnor does not have a Historical Commission). Lower Merion and Haverford Townships have Historical Commissions and regulations to prevent the loss of their most valuable and significant buildings.

Tredyffrin Township has a HARB (I’m one of the members) and we have been working for over a year toward the creation of a Historical Commission. Going back and forth between the HARB and the Planning Commission, we finally all reached an agreement back in August and the plan moved to the township solicitor for review. At the October Board of Supervisors meeting it was announced that the proposed Historical Commission would be presented at a public hearing on December 6. Then at the supervisors meeting following the November election, the Historical Commission was abruptly removed from public hearing status; we were told because the legal work had not been completed. No new date was given to the HARB members and it could be months (if at all) before there is a new public meeting scheduled.

It is so discouraging to read these stories of beautiful and notable buildings destroyed in the name of progress. One does not have to live in a historic property to understand and appreciate their value. Hopefully, our supervisors will support the establishment of the Historic Commission so that Tredyffrin’s historic properties don’t suffer the same fate as historic properties in Radnor Township.

First there was La Rhonda in Lower Merion and now Radnor Township has allowed Poplar house to be destroyed. What’s next? Here are some photos of Poplar House:

Tredyffrin Easttown School Board Meeting . . . Notes from Ray Clarke

November 23, 2010

1 Comment

We are very fortunate to have Ray Clarke not only attending the Tredyffrin Easttown School Board meetings but so generously willing to share his notes and thoughts with all us. Last night was no exception — and below are Ray’s notes from the meeting.

I am curious about the IT upgrade proposal. The School Board accepted the proposal from Teranet Consulting Services for Phase I – Part 1 of the IT upgrade, not to exceed $11,625. According to the information on the TESD website, “The consulting services are to survey the network, develop a project plan and establish specs for support and services needed to implement the upgrades recommended by the administration.”

Last week the 4 page proposal from Teranet Consulting Services was part of the agenda package but after last night’s school board meeting the proposal letter is no longer available online. I wish the proposal letter from regarding Teranet was not removed, as I was trying to track down the company ‘Teranet’ and could not find it — only a company out of Chicago. No conspiracy theory on my part, . . . just trying to get further information on this consulting group. If someone from the School Board is reading Community Matters, perhaps they could provide a link to the proposal or a copy of the proposal to me at tredyffrincommunitymatters@gmail.com . Thank you.

Here are some items that caught my eye and ear in Monday’s School Board meeting.

1. The administration reported on proposed changes to the high school schedule and staffing, to implement a 42 period cap for students and to increase teaching classes for teachers.

The cap would be subject to a few exceptions; for example, for co-curricular classes like orchestra and chorus that also meet outside the school day, and for academic support. Much discussion by the Board of whether studio art classes should also be exempt, although these seem to be just like music classes which would be in the cap. Reportedly the cap is highly favored by students. The middle school “advisory period” has proved really popular.

Eliminating the “professional period” for teachers would bring the number of teaching periods for T/E in line with neighboring districts, at the expense of activities that teachers elect to undertake, like “office hours”, club oversight, mentoring, etc.

Note that both these changes will in the long run bring financial benefit to the district, but only after the staff has reduced through attrition.

2. The high school musical will be Phantom of the Opera, for which the rights have just been released to schools. If this comes close to matching the stunning Les Miserables production of five or so years ago, tickets will be hard to come by. Big vocal and technical demands, though, especially for the radio-controlled boat….

3. Under Education, there was discussion of increasing the Highway Safety class size to 60 – maybe not so bad – and teaching AP World History in 9th Grade – a big stretch, it seems to me. Also the changes in World Languages look to be enabling deeper immersion in core languages like Spanish and French. A good development.

4. Under Facilities, the Board was presented with, and approved, only the first part of the consultant proposal for work on the data network upgrade. To me, this constraint is a step in the right direction. It would be nice to see an IT project that is actually driven by user/education requirements and a real business case rather than by the technical/facilities people! We should watch future Facilities Committee meetings closely for the justification of the likely multi-million dollar expenditure.

5. And the Committee to be watched most closely, of course, is the Finance Committee. Kevin Mahoney previewed the December 13th meeting, which will set the stage for the Board’s big tax decision on January 3rd. That next meeting will unveil near term projections including:

Updated PSERS costs from Harrisburg’s parting “gift” of HB2497, (a slight reduction over the expected increase for 2011/12 and much bigger benefit for the following few years, as discussed here previously)

New estimates for key budget variables (eg interest rates, price increases, compensation increases)

Presumably some guess at the attrition-enabled impact of the Education programs

Any other budget strategies

An important date for anyone concerned with tax increases.

TESD Facilities Committee Meeting – Presentation of $3 Million Plan to Upgrade IT Network

November 12, 2010

12 Comments

Ray Clarke attended the school district’s Facilities Committee meeting and graciously sent me notes. Although I have been married to a computer marketing guru for 30 years, I certainly don’t claim to have any understanding of the IT world. However, it is almost certain that when organizations make significant IT changes/upgrades — they are nearly out of date by the time they are installed. Because computer technology is constantly changing and advancing in today’s world, it can be difficult (and costly) to stay current. Technology experts — we could use your thoughts on the school district’s IT network upgrade plans.

Ray Clarke’s TESD Facilities Committee Meeting Notes . . .

Friday’s TESD Facilities Committee meeting was most notable for a presentation of a $3 million plan to upgrade the IT network. Happily, the Committee gave approval for only initial consultant planning work. Hopefully more of the community can be present for that report to learn what exactly is to be done, when, and what the practical user benefits will be.

The basic argument went as follows: “Text books and teaching materials are becoming more available electronically. Therefore we need a) higher speeds in the district network, and b) wireless network availability throughout the high school (already in place?), the middle schools and eventually the elementary schools.” The consultant waved his iPad, and stated it was useless without a network. But, is the converse also true?

Are we therefore setting the District up for an ongoing cascade of expenditure? The Committee was adamantly against the provision of mobile devices to students. Will they therefore be able to bring their own? Will our classrooms come to resemble the Ivy League class my wife and I sat in on, where 90% of the students were on Facebook, playing video games, IM’ing their buddies a few rows down, etc.?

The $3 million will expand the network speed from 1 to 10 gigabtyes per second. That’s nice. Is the network slow now? What’s the current capacity? What’s the correlation between capacity and response time perceived by the user? How much capacity does a “multi-media-rich, interactive web-based” class need? How many such classes could the current network support? What would happen if every class had one of those presentations at the same time? (And if they did, what would that say about our ability to have our students actually engage in stimulating discussion with the teacher and their peers, and actually learn to THINK?)

We’ll know the temperature and humidity in the switch closets. Also nice to know, but are we having sauna/steam room problems now? Further, it would be nice to have every phone in the school have immediate emergency power before the generators kick in, but what problems are created by the current situation?

I trust that there are answers to these and other questions. Dr Motel and the Committee were absolutely right in not giving carte blanche to this proposal and in asking for a real plan. Perhaps the bottom line question should be: How will our students benefit?

The 10 year capital plan – without solutions for district storage and maintenance facilities and with no provision for ongoing IT needs – shows the $15 million from last year’s bond being used up during 2014/15. The next tranche of bond funds at the same interest rate would be available just in time (I think (?)). Otherwise that $9 million designated for capital in the General Fund (if indeed it’s still there) would be needed.

Not much leeway, it seems to me.

Tredyffrin’s 2011 Budget Unveiled – No Tax Increase! TESD Finance Comittee News Not as Positive

November 9, 2010

19 Comments

Due to last night’s Board of Supervisors meeting change (due to Election Day), I was unable to attend. However, I have received an update about the township’s proposed 2011 budget. (Here is a link to the proposed 2011 budget). It is my understanding that the proposed budget includes (1) no increase in taxes; (2) no reduction in township services or personnel; and (3) restoring of fire company contributions to 2009 levels. Considering that Lower Merion’s residents are facing a 12.7% tax increase in their 2011 budget, last night’s news is particularly good for Tredyffrin residents!

Having not see the proposed budget and having not attended last night’s supervisors meeting, I do have a question for anyone who did attend — how was the township building’s HVAC capital expense factored in to the 2011 budget? If you recall, there has been much discussion about valve and duct work replacement in the HVAC system and the associated costs. Does anyone have information how the needed HVAC work was treated in the proposed 2011 budget?

Although last night’s supervisors meeting was over by 8:15 PM, it seems that there was more discussion at TESD’s Finance Committee meeting. I counted on my friend, Ray Clarke to provide notes from the meeting and as usual, his detailed notes did not let me down. Thank you Ray!

TESD Finance Committee Notes from Ray Clarke —

Monday’s TESD Finance Committee meeting was largely devoting to laying the groundwork for property tax increases.

This year’s revenues and expenses are largely in balance, with the shortfall in transfer taxes offset by Harrisburg’s deferral of PSERS costs and many smaller ups (eg salaries) and downs (eg FTEs). The projection for next year remains for the moment at a $6.9 million deficit, but a detailed review of the assumptions in the model revealed another $1 million of overly optimistic assumptions: a 1% increase in assessed value and a 2% return on investments. (The $1 million over-generous (in today’s times) transfer tax formula was not discussed). The model will be re-worked with new assumptions (a 0.26% assessment decline and a 1% investment return, not done at the meeting), but it seems clear to me that the deficit is going to be north of $8 million, as discussed here last month.

Leftover 2010/11 budget strategies likely to be implemented in 2011/12 could be worth a benefit of $0.8 million, although they would have to be phased in only as attrition allows.

The Board then reviewed the timetable for the processes required to a) define and request available exceptions to the increase property taxes beyond the Act 1 limit ($1.2 million) and b) prepare a referendum question for a property tax increase beyond the probable [Act 1 + Exception] limit ($2.8 million).

What this means is that the proposed preliminary budget must be discussed at the next Finance Committee meeting on December 13th if the School Board is to vote on requesting exceptions at its January 24th meeting.

If there is any intent to raise taxes above the Act 1 limit, the 2011/12 budget must be adopted by mid-February.

So, the pressure is on in the next couple of months. If the Board voted against even considering whether to ask the community to implement an EIT that 40% are already paying, can they really ask for a referendum to increase property taxes by a greater amount? The alternative is likely to be raiding the General Fund for the $5 million shortfall (bringing it down to $23 million), and thus pushing off the problem until 2012/13, . Likely still OK for the bond rating.

In that year, of course, the PSERS problem will hit hard under the current formula – a $5 – 6 million net cost increase. Plus of course another 4.5% TENIG increase and a new TEEA contract. A deficit, after more property tax increases, of $10 million, say. That would take the fiund balance into tricky territory. There was much discussion of the need for a state fix to PSERS and the spectre of School District bankruptcies (not TESD!) was raised.

Maybe it will actually take defaults and bond-holder restructuring to force the kind of constitutional changes needed to reform current pension plans. Dealing with the problem by squeezing new hires may solve long run accounting, but will there be enough cash to get through the short term, and if we do, how will we be able to attract a next generation of teachers of the needed caliber?

There’s probably more to comment on, but I’ll stop with the interesting sidebar that the average wage cost of a teacher used in calculation of budget strategy savings was raised from $73,000 to $80,000 – a 9.6% increase. This recognizes the actual individual year-on-year salary increase built in to the current contract and hidden in the 5% numbers much publicized officially.

Tredyffrin-Easttown School Board’s Finance Committee Meeting – Tonight – As Tredyffrin’s Board of Supervisors Unveil their Proposed 2011 Budget

November 8, 2010

2 Comments

The T/E School Board’s Finance Committee Meeting is tonight, Monday, Nov. 8, at 7:30 PM. The next school-board meeting is scheduled for Monday, Nov. 22, at 7:30 PM. Meetings are held at the school district’s administration offices, Room 200, West Valley Business Center, 940 W. Valley Road, Suite 1700, Wayne. Here is the Finance Committee agenda.

A visit to the school district’s website offers Earned Income Tax information, updated on October 26 after the T/E School Board decided not to move forward with the EIT referendum at their October 25 school board meeting.

As a follow-up to the last T/E school board meeting, here is an article that appeared in yesterday’s Main Line Media paper. The school board’s Finance Committee meeting occurs tonight as the township’s Board of Supervisors unveil their proposed 2011 budget. Could be an interesting night on both accounts!

T/E School Board shelves EIT; 2011-12 budget gap remains
By Alan Thomas

Hang on. There may be a collision.

The Tredyffrin/Easttown School Board decided not to push an earned income tax of 1 percent for Tredyffrin and Easttown residents for 2011-12 during its Oct. 25 meeting while, at the same time, its Web site notes that the district is facing a “projected budget gap for the 2011-12 school year of $6.9 million.”

The tax proposal would have been subject to approval in a May 2011 primary-election-ballot referendum. And so the EIT proposal was apparently advanced as the preferred way of avoiding hitting the budget gap head-on. Or so it might have seemed.

At a community informational meeting held at Conestoga High School Oct. 18, around 100 residents heard presentations from Pennsylvania Economy League representative Steve Wray and school-district solicitor Kenneth Roos laying out both advantages and disadvantages to the levy. A week later the board decided not to move forward with the EIT while also moving to “further study” the topic in 2011.

Board secretary and business manager Arthur J. McDonnell said that “the process [of looking at the possibility of an EIT] was started about a year ago. We came up with a series of strategies [to overcome the projected budget gap].” With the present proposal now tabled, McDonnell said that the board would “begin studying it [again] in early spring.” McDonnell did not comment on reasons why the board had made an apparent U-turn.

According to a Web-obtained document attributed to “Inquirer research on county ballot documents,” 63 school districts in Bucks, Chester, Delaware and Montgomery counties have or are proposing either EITs or PITs. Personal income taxes (PITs) include dividends, interest, income from trusts, bonds, insurance and stocks as taxable whereas EITs do not.

According to Berkheimer Tax Administrator and posted on the school district’s FAQ Web page, “one-third of the T/E residents currently employed are paying an EIT [to another school district, totaling $3.58 million].”

The projected budget gap will be there.

School Board Votes Against Continuing EIT Discussion at this Time

October 26, 2010

52 Comments

The vote last night by the T/E School Board stunned me – they voted 7-2 against sending a notification letter to the Tredyffrin and Easttown Townships that the school district would consider a voter referendum on the EIT on the May ballot. Their vote last night was only to continue the process of discovery – there was no downside to the notification to the townships. The School Board would still have until the March 18, 2011 deadline to decide whether to take it to voter referendum in May. Kevin Mahoney and Anne Crowley believed that it was important to continue the public discussion and voted in favor of sending the notification to the townships; the other 7 members of the school board voted against.

I do not understand this school board decision. Faced with a $7 million deficit that needs to be funded, why would these seven board members take an option off the table prematurely? The school board may not have enough details now to make a decision about the voter referendum but the beauty of the vote last night was that they did not need to make a decision now – just buy themselves some more time by notifying the townships and continuing to work towards a March decision. After continuing to research their options, if the March 18, 2011 deadline came and the School Board was not comfortable with a voter referendum on the issue, they could decide then not to take if any further. However, by taking it ‘off the table’ last night, seven members of the School Board took away that option.

Why did the School Board go to the trouble of having a public meeting on EIT if this was going to be the outcome? Why not handle the decision democratically and let the public weigh in? Whether it is an increase in property taxes, imposing an EIT, cutting programs and/or staff . . . something is going to have to change and there will be a cost to the taxpayers and/or to the school district programming. Again, why remove one of the options unnecessarily without full discussion?

A reason to vote against continuing the process by some of the School Board members could be the thought that the EIT referendum would fail out the polls in May . . . but without a crystal ball, how could they know?

In my opinion, with the school district facing a $7 million deficit, keeping all options on the table as long as possible should be the goal of the school board, rather than second-guessing the future. Perhaps the 7 members of the School Board have some kind of funding solution in mind for the future . . . taking on the teacher union at the next contract negotations?

Ray Clark attended last night’s School Board meeting and provided the following notes:

At its meeting on Monday, the School Board voted 7-2 against sending to the Townships a letter of intent regarding the implementation of an EIT in 2011/12 and for setting up a Commission to study the issue between May and September 2011. Kevin Mahoney was in favor of sending the letter to allow continued discussion this year, while Anne Crowley wanted further information for another Board meeting before the November deadline for the letter.

The most common reasons advanced in favor of the delay were:
– An EIT could maybe be a good idea, but in the opinion of the Board, the voters would vote it down if presented with options and asked next year.
– There is not enough time (5 months (October 26 2010 to March 18 2011) to resolve the many unknowns (versus May to September 2011?).
– Because T/E will have to solve the $8 million gap problem by cutting education programs, drawing down the fund balance and/or going to a property tax referendum, there will be pressure on the unions to accept compensation reductions in the contract beginning 2012/13 and 2013/14.
– Harrisburg will eventually fund PSERS at no incremental cost to T/E.
– That an EIT will harm property values more than a property tax increase.

Betsy Fadem introduced a nice piece of analysis by calculating the percentage of residents (seniors, income earners, children, maybe pets [just kidding!]) who are currently paying an EIT, and implying that all the remaining residents would have to pay an EIT if it were introduced by T/E. Thankfully Kevin Mahoney was able to point out that there are five residents in his household, but only one is, and would be, paying an EIT!

Separately, but relatedly, Karen Cruickshank noted that the Education Committee had voted in favor of increasing teacher workload at CHS and of an effective reduction in CHS periods (combined expense-saving potential, assuming workforce reduction through attrition, approx $1.5 million per year).

I would definitely encourage residents to watch the replay of the meeting to assess their representatives’ perspectives.

T/E School Board Holds Public Informational Meeting Tonight on Earned Income Tax (EIT)

October 18, 2010

2 Comments

As the T/E School District begins the budget development process for 2011-2012, a budget balancing strategy from last year was to determine the effect an earned income tax (EIT) would have on the school district and its residents. Tonight (7:30 – 9:00 PM, Conestoga High School auditorium) is an informational presentation from a representative from the Pennsylvania Economy League.

The School Board will not make a decision tonight; in regards to an EIT; the session is strictly informational. Again, I applaud the efforts of the School Board in their willingness to disseminate the EIT information in a transparent, public manner. This public meeting tonight is a good first step — educating the School Board and the community on EIT so an informed decision can be made at a later date.

On the subject of the School Board, the following letter came across my desk today from the president-CEO of the nonprofit research and educational group, Commonwealth Foundation. There are some harsh words for the teacher unions. With many of the local teacher contracts up for negotiations, it is going to be interesting to see how wide-spread the negativity towards teacher unions is and how it will affect the process.

Dear Commonwealth Foundation Friends:

Support for school choice is becoming more and more bipartisan, as both sides of the ideological aisle begin to realize that maybe—just maybe—the teachers unions have their own agenda, and that ensuring the best possible education for our kids may not be their first priority.

In last Monday’s update, I mentioned that I was scheduled to testify that Wednesday before a Senate Education Committee hearing on the future of school choice and opportunity scholarships. It was quite an experience: an all-day free-for-all that included a remarkable exchange between Senator Andrew Dinniman, the Democratic Chairman of the committee, and a Pennsylvania State Education Association (PSEA) representative, whom Sen. Dinniman sharply criticized for frustrating committee efforts to meet to discuss reform measures. Sen. Dinniman event went so as to wonder alond whether PSEA’s commitment to students is just “window dressing.”

We’ve known all along that teacher union bosses care first and foremost about one thing: preserving their own taxpayer-funded perks and cushy pensions, while at the same time making sure that they are never made to justify any of it. Meanwhile, the poorest and most vulnerable of our kids are being warehoused in failing schools, while these well-paid union reps stand at the schoolhouse door, blocking any reform that might make a real difference in the lives and futures of these kids. It’s outrageous.

We know that whoever wins next month’s gubernatorial campaign, our next governor will be sympathetic to the issue of choice in education. Though we may be getting a friendlier and more receptive set of ears in the Governor’s Mansion come January, this debate is by no means over. Any measures to reform our schools will be seen as a threat to the teachers unions and to the entrenched bureaucrats whose very careers and livelihoods depend on maintaining the status quo. We’re going to keep up the good fight. Together, we will work to ensure that every child in the Commonwealth has access to a safe, top-notch education, regardless of his or her family income, or the zip code in which he or she happens to live!

Fighting for Your Freedom,

Matthew J. Brouillette
President & CEO

← Older Posts

Newer Posts →

Pattye Benson

Community Matters