TESD Archives - Page 21 of 24

TESD

It has come to be attention that some readers may be confused about the last couple of Community Matters posts and are questioning why Tredyffrin Republican supervisor and school board candidates did not respond to my questions and that the Democratic candidates did. Hope this post will offer clarification.

In early October, I sent an email to all the Tredyffrin Republican and Democratic supervisor and school board candidates. In addition, I sent the Republican and Democrat school board candidates in Easttown the same email. The email asked the candidates to (1) idenify what they thought was the most important issue facing either the school district or the township, (2) the candidate was asked what they would do to help or solve the issue if elected and (3) what in their background or experience qualifies you to help solve the issue. I was specific and asked that the 3-part question be 200 words or less and gave them a deadline that was prior to the League of Women Voters debates.

The Easttown school board candidates Pete Motel (R) and Craig Lewis (D) responded with their answers prior to the deadline and those responses were posted on Community Matters on October 19. In that October 19 post, I also explained that the Tredyffrin Republican and Democratic supervisor and school board candidates had declined to participate. Here is an excerpt from that post:

. . . Believing that it is important for voters to make an informed decision on which candidate they elect to serve us, I saw no downside to the candidates participation in May nor did I at this time.

Much to my surprise, the individual Tredyffrin Republican supervisor and school board candidates declined my offer, suggesting that voters could visit their websites for information and that, “We are more than happy to answer questions from individual voters across Tredyffrin – and are doing so while going door-to-door, attending community events, and more.”

The chair of the Tredyffrin Democratic Party Dariel Jamieson responded on behalf of the Democratic supervisor and school board candidates, declining to participate until after the League of Women Voters debates. Here is an excerpt from that email:

“Our BOS and School Board candidates prefer not to submit answers to the questions you posed to them until after the LWV [League of Women Voter] debates. The questions were all ones that were asked in the debates two years ago – as they should have been, they are key questions – but to have our answers published first is not fair to the LWV and makes the job of our candidates harder to distinguish themselves in the debates.

Following the League of Women Voters debates, I received responses to my questions from the Democratic supervisor and school board candidates. Although the responses were past my original deadline, I thought there was value for the voters in posting them. But so everyone knows, I actually sent a courtesy email to the Republican candidates last week to explain that the I had received the Democratic responses and offered the Republican candidates a second opportunity to answer the questions. My email to the Republican candidates stated that that no response was required if they were not going to participate; and for the record, there was no response to my email.

So there is absolutely no question in anyone’s mind — if the Republican supervisor and school board candidates would like to answer the 3-part question — I am now making a third offer to them. Candidates — answer the 3-part questions in 200 words or less and email them to me at: tredyffrincommunitymatters@gmail.com I will be happy to post your responses! I hope this clarifies the timeline and that I gave all candidates exactly the same opportunity. I am sorry if there was any confusion!

Finally . . . Contract Agreement between Unionville-Chadds Ford School District & Teachers Union – Any lessons for T/E?

September 13, 2011

40 Comments

The Unionville-Chadds Ford (UCF) school district and their teachers union have finally agreed on a contract. The UCF School District teacher’s contract expired June 30, 2010. Based on UCF contract results, any lessons for T/E school district?

I have posted periodically about UCF and the ongoing saga between the school board and the teachers union. Unable to resolve their contract issues, the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board appointed attorney Mariann Schick in late December 2010 to help with the bargaining impasse through a fact-finder report.

Students from the UCS and T/E school districts enjoy similar academic performances – both top performing school districts. On the SAT and PSSA performance, both school districts score in the top 1% statewide. T/E School District ranks #2 for SAT scores and UCF is ranked at #5 on the SAT. Due to the similarity of the academic performances in the UCS and T/E school districts, I have followed UCS school districts contract negotiations.

This is the last year in the T/E school district teacher contract . . . will there be similar conflict between members of our board and the teacher union? The teachers of UCF worked for over a year without a contract as negotiations played out. Do you think that there is any relationship between teachers working without a contract and the academic performance of the school district?

So what did the UCF school board and teachers union finally agreed to? Terms include:

Year 1 (2010-11) no pay increase for 2010-11
Year 2 (2011-12) 1% increase on the pay schedule, step movement, prep level movement
Year 3 (2012-13) $300 in each cell on the matrix, $700 one-time bonus, step movement, prep level movement

One of the sticking points in the UCF school board – teacher contract negotiations had been healthcare. In the agreement, the teachers will contribute 7.5% in 2011-12 and 10% in 2012-13 toward their healthcare costs.

The agreement has an interesting component for UCF high school teachers — they will be required to participate in one open house plus an additional event per year (second open house, parent conference, field trip, school performance, etc.) I found it interesting that this element was included in the contract – it would seem that teacher’s dedication to their students would dictate their involvement in activities with the requirement that a contract forcing them to attend.

To read Unionville-Chadds Ford school district tentative teacher’s contract, click here.

Tredyffrin Township Budget Workshop & T/E School Board meeting updates

August 24, 2011

3 Comments

Monday was township’s budget workshop as well as the T/E School Board meeting. I attended the school board meeting and fortunately for us, Ray Clarke attended the budget workshop. Thank you Ray for attending and for providing your notes to Community Matters readers.

The long-range budget and economic situation continues as a major discussion of the school board directors. During the school board meeting, we were reminded of the Citizen Tax Study Group. The group was set-up to study the “possible effects of an earned income tax and presenting research to the school board and community”. The Tax Study Group meetings are open to the public. Here are the meeting dates and times from the T/E school district website:

Thursday, September 8, 2011 – 7:00 p.m.

Thursday, September 29, 2011 – TBD

Thursday, September 15, 2011 – TBD

Thursday, October 6, 2011 – TBD

Thursday, September 22, 2011 – TBD

Thursday, October 13, 2011 – TBD

Based on Ray’s notes from the township budget workshop, we can certainly see that our township is not exempt from the worsening economic climate. Township staff and services have seen major cuts so I’m not sure how the supervisors are going to manage to hold the line on no tax increases. On the revenue side, we do not see any significant commercial real estate transfers in the near future, so …what’s the answer?

According to Ray, there will be another township budget workshop (date not confirmed) that will focus on capital projects. This budget workshop had no mention of the township building’s HVAC system — I remember discussion between the supervisors and Steve Norcini that there were major problems with the current system so it will be curious to see if the HVAC system is on the capital project list at the next budget workshop.

Here are Ray Clarke’s notes from the township budget meeting:

The Township held a Budget workshop on Monday night to present a base case context for development of the 2012 budget. A good event – short, focused, and with significant implications – it was disappointing that very few residents attended. My takeaways follow; I recommend that anyone interested pick up a copy of the materials, hopefully Monday’s extras are still available.

1. The slumping economy is taking its toll on the Operating Statement. For 2011, instead of the budgeted small surplus, there is now a projected deficit of $422,000. Revenues are unfavorable to budget by $373,000, due essentially to a $191,000 shortfall in licenses and permits (especially a mis-budgeted road opening rate and volume??), an $87,000 shortfall in transfer taxes and a $77,000 shortfall in other revenues like camp fees. Expenses are unfavorable by $96,000, with $205,000 overspending in supplies (road salt), offset by $115,000 favorable in personnel costs.

2. Things are likely to get worse next year, based just on what’s knowable at the present time. Revenues will be down a further $124,000, largely due to reductions in state transfers. That’s before any impact of a reduction in real estate assessments. (And of course, before any changes in tax rate). Expenses will continue upward, driven by an increased pension contribution (due to a minor reduction in assumed return to a level that’s still ridiculously high……), offset by a hoped-for better snow clearing experience and reduced repairs and maintenance. Now, the key here is that all employee contracts are currently being negotiated: the base case assumes no salary increase and the current benefits plan. (A similar approach to that of the School District). I leave it to others to judge the realism of this. The base case does include a 3% increase in contributions to the fire companies. Bottom line: 2012 General Fund Operating Deficit of $667,000.

3. On the capital side, the Township is on track to spend about 60% of the capital budget across all the funds (General, Sewer, Trunk Sewer, Vehicle and Equipment). There are reasons for this; one seems to be that the township always budgets generously to assure that it is correctly positioned for grants. Another might be that we simply don’t have the resources to get done everything that needs to be done. The capital plan information that was presented was acknowledged to be very rudimentary, and it was agreed that another workshop be held (I think a Saturday in early October?) to discuss the projects and priorities in detail.

So, what’s the answer for the Operating Statement? Are there more cuts to be had? Seemingly it would be tough to make the staff any leaner on top of the layoffs of recent years. The crumbling state of the front steps to the township building does not indicate that recent repair and maintenance spending has been effective. Unlike the School District, it’s not clear that there’s much room in benefits. On the revenue side, the property tax rate has been unchanged since 2009 and has increased at an annual rate of less than 1.7% for the last decade.

Paul Olson contrasted recent property tax rate increases in Easttown (my data for 2010, 2011: +12%, +4%) and Radnor (+11%, +9%). Of course, rather than just layer on more property taxes, the net cost to Tredyffrin residents would be lower if the township took a percentage of any EIT that a large number of residents are already paying and that the School District may possibly put to referendum ……

Should T/E School District Offer the PSAT to 9th Graders? Radnor School District to Fund Student’s PSAT Tests

August 11, 2011

17 Comments

I read the following update on the Radnor School District in the Main Line Suburban:

Assistant superintendent Kim Maguire outlined a plan to the Curriculum Committee that would have all Radnor ninth-, tenth- and eleventh-graders take the PSAT in October with school-district funding and with across-the-board scores allowing teachers to “check for trends [as well as] individual student trajectories.” The hope, Maguire said, “is that students will be more motivated.”

Asked if she meant more than for PSSAs, Maguire answered, “Yes.” Superintendent Linda Grobman said the school district would be able to “use the [test-score] information to help plan the instructional program.”

The Preliminary SAT/National Merit Scholarship Qualifying Test (PSAT) is a standardized test administered by the College Board and National Merit Scholarship Corporation. Other than practice for the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT), a high score on the PSAT is the only way to qualify for a National Merit Scholarship. The PSAT is great practice for the SAT as the results provide a sense of strengths and weaknesses.

The PSAT is offered for Conestoga High School students in their Sophomore and Junior years as preparation for the SAT exam. Radnor High School likewise offers the PSAT to their students in the tenth and eleventh grades. According to the article, the Radnor School District is suggesting that the District will offer the PSAT to the ninth graders in addition to the tenth and eleventh-graders.

Last month when there was discussion on Community Matters of Newsweek’s ‘best of high school’ lists, some commentors suggesting that T/E didn’t need to ‘keep up with the Joneses’ — that everyone knows that Conestoga High School is a great high school and the fact that it didn’t appear on Newsweek’s list was of little consequence. The jury may still be out on the importance (or impact) of Newsweek’s high school rankings, but the PSAT is another issue.

The PSAT is viewed as great practice for the taking of the SAT — and we now read that Radnor School District is discussing adding another practice PSAT year. Can we assume that if a student takes the practice exam three times before taking the SAT, that the student’s SAT scores will go up?

If a student takes the PSAT in both the ninth and tenth grades, is the student better prepared for taking the PSAT in the eleventh grade?

Why is the PSAT exam in the eleventh grade important . . . ? Answer — qualifying for the National Merit Scholarship awards is based on the scores on the PSAT taken as a Junior. Instead of only one practice exam, the Radnor School District students will have the opportunity to practice the PSAT twice before their Junior year. I would suggest that the number of Merit Scholars in Radnor School District will probably increase as a result.

The number of National Merit scholars is a widely quoted indicator of a given high school’s quality. To back up the high standard of T/E school district education, should the Curriculum Committee consider adding the option of PSAT testing for ninth graders? Should T/E fund PSAT testing for its students? Or, does T/E ignore what other neighboring districts are doing? Is there a risk that by increasing the number of practice PSAT exams, that teachers would teach to that exam rather than offering students a more traditional curriculum?

T/E School District Offers Explanation of Conestoga’s Omission from Newsweek’s ‘Best High Schools in America’ Rankings

July 26, 2011

17 Comments

Following-up on Newsweek’s listing of America’s best high schools; I emailed an excerpt from my Community Matters post to TESD administration, school board members and to Karen Cruickshank, president of the board. I asked for comment or explanation of why Conestoga High School was missing from the Newsweek best high schools in America list when neighboring high schools (Lower Merion, Radnor, Great Valley, etc.) were listed.

There has been a response from the school district and from Karen Cruickshank. Like many of us, Karen too was disappointed that Conestoga was not on the Newsweek list and volunteered that she had received phone calls from realtors asking the same question as to ‘why’. She assures me that the error will be corrected and that T/E will participate in the Newsweek high school survey next year.

To offer an explanation as to why Conestoga High School was not included in this year’s ‘best of the best’ rankings by Newsweek, Karen sent the following response she received from T/E administration:

I am writing to respond to the message concerning the Newsweek Best High Schools List. As you are aware, Conestoga was not included in this year’s Newsweek list of “America’s Best High Schools.” In following up with Newsweek, we learned that an email was sent in mid-May to all secondary schools requesting information. The email, Newsweek explained, was sent to a Conestoga High School counselor. The counselor, however, reported that the email was not received. We subsequently sent our data to Newsweek, and we would have placed around #100 on the list based upon their calculations. We have since corrected the Newsweek contact information to ensure that we are included in its analysis in future years.

Althoughk nowing why Conestoga HS did not appear on this year’s Newsweek rankings may not satisfy everyone, it does help explain the omission.

According to the administration, the Newsweek email was not received by the school district. After the fact, the school district did submit Conestoga’s survey data to Newsweek but apparently did not make the submission deadline. Additionally, the administration offers that Conestoga should have “placed around #100”. Since the data was public when sent to Newsweek, I will ask the school board to provide the submitted information. Conestoga’s statistical data will be posted when I receive it.

Regardless of how you feel about rankings, it’s the world we live in . . . whether you are looking at colleges or finding a doctor, some of us find the information useful in making decisions.

America’s Best High Schools But Where is Conestoga High School?

July 23, 2011

56 Comments

Newsweek has released a list of the top 500 public high schools in America. Here are high schools in our local area that made the list and their ranking:

Harriton High School: #123
Radnor High School: #146
Lower Merion High School: #224
Downingtown East High School; #279
Downingtown West High School: #339
Great Valley High School: #346
Haverford High School: #466

But where is Conestoga High School . . . ?

To create the list of the top 500 public high schools in America, Newsweek used the criteria below, with its corresponding percentage of calculated weight:

Four-year, on-time graduation rate (25%)
Percent of 2010 graduates who enrolled immediately in college (25%)
AP tests per graduate (25%)
Average SAT score (10%)
Average AP test score (10%)
Number of AP courses offered per graduate (5%)

With all the discussion about the quality of TESD schools, does it not strike some of you odd that Conestoga High School is not on the list? I have to believe that Conestoga High School would not fall short in any of the categories as based on Newsweek’s criteria (above).

There has been much discussion, including on Community Matters, in regards to the quality of our T/E school district. Repeatedly, people have affirmed that the quality of our school district is helping to sustain our property values. If that is correct, shouldn’t TESD taxpayers expect the same ‘bragging rights’ as the other school districts?

Unable to explain ‘why’ Conestoga High School is not on the list, I researched further. Under Newsweek’s category, “Methodology: How we compiled the list” and I may have discovered the answer. From the Newsweek website, I found the following:

To compile the 2011 list of the top high schools in America, NEWSWEEK reached out to administrators, principals, guidance counselors, and Advanced Placement/International Baccalaureate coordinators at more than 10,000 public high schools across the country. In order to be considered for our list, each school had to complete a survey requesting specific data from the 2009-2010 academic year.

Based on Newsweek’s methodology, is the explanation to Conestoga’s MIA status on the list as simple as the administration dropped the ball and did not complete the survey?

Regardless of whether you give credence to school rankings, what does it say that every other public high school in the area is on the list except for Conestoga High School?

If you were moving into the Philadelphia suburbs and had high school age children, would it make a difference to you? If all was equal, do you think that a family with high school age children would opt for one of our neighboring school districts because they were ranked by Newsweek and TESD was not?

Bottom line, as our property taxes continue to increase, I am guessing that most taxpayers in T/E would like to see their high school on the list. If nothing more, it helps take some of the sting out of the tax bill.

I would be curious what explanation our school board members would have to say on the ranking and Conestoga’s MIA status on the list.

—————————————————————-

As a follow-up note, I have emailed school board president Karen Cruickshank and cc the T/E school board. If I receive a response, I will be glad to post it.

T/E School District (Paoli) House & Contents Goes to Auction July 16

July 7, 2011

4 Comments

I received a notice from an antique auction site that caught my attention. Although fairly common in some parts of the country, I don’t recall the last time I saw a house and its contents on the auction block in Tredyffrin Township.

On July 16, a ranch style house at 788 N. Valley Road in Paoli is going to be auctioned (open house is this weekend) — details are in the advertisement below. The property includes 3.2 acres and is a fixer-upper. This is a lovely area of the township and my guess is someone may buy it and rather than fixing the house, will knock it down for the property. I’m sure that there is story behind this auction as I am on this road almost every day and there was not a ‘for sale’ sign, so appears that it is going directly to auction. Is this auction an isolated situation, sign of the economic times or foreshadowing of what’s to come.

Auction Listing

AuctionZip Auctioneer ID# 9683

OPEN HOUSE JULY 8th, 9th & 12TH FROM 2-5 PM

ON SITE REAL ESTATE AUCTION

SATURDAY JULY 16, 2011 AT 1:00 PM

788 N. VALLEY ROAD, PAOLI, PA 19301

VALLEY GREEN NEIGHBORHOOD

TREDYFFRIN TOWNSHIP

TREDYFFRIN- EASTOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT

OFFERING 3.2 ACRES, RESIDENTIAL, WITH A ONE STORY BRICK RANCHER FIX ME UPPER.

PROPERTY INSPECTION: JULY 8TH , 9TH & 12TH FROM 2-5 PM.

TERMS: $20,000.00 CERTIFIED FUNDS DUE AT KNOCKDOWN. SETTLEMENT 30-60 DAYS. THIS PROPERTY IS BEING OFFERED SUBJECT TO OWNER CONFIRMATION.

ANTIQUES AND PERSONAL PROPERTY WILL START AT 10:30 AM.

GEORGE H. WILSON, AUCTIONEER, AU-001020-L

610-955-9417 OR 610-283-8469

Corbett’s Property Tax Reform Throws a Curve Ball to School Districts . . . Limits on Act 1 Exceptions May Cause Angst to School Boards

July 2, 2011

25 Comments

School vouchers, Marcellus Shale fees and transportation funding may have been temporarily sidelined in Corbett’s budget but not so for property tax reform.

When Gov. Corbett inked the budget this week, school districts across the commonwealth collectively received a curve ball. Included in Corbett’s budget was property tax reform, which makes change to the Taxpayer Relief Act of 2006 (Act 1) that could effect future school board’s financial decisions.

With school districts struggling with significant reduction in state spending, many used Act 1 exceptions in their budget decisions, which permit tax increases without allowing voters the right to veto. However, with Corbett’s property tax reform, the school districts will not be permitted to increase property tax above the rate of inflation without voter referendum. Corbett suggests that the property tax reform will give the power to the taxpayers to decide whether they want a property tax increase to fund a particular program. A reduction in allowable Act 1 exceptions will force school boards to make their case to the voter for approval of a property tax increase.

Prior to the amendment, Act 1 included 13 permitted exceptions including new construction projects, debt, pension and special education costs – school boards could increase property tax using these exceptions without a voter referendum. The Act 1 exceptions will continue to include special education spending and payments to the state pension system but no other exceptions will be permitted without voter approval.

It is my understanding that if a school district has a building project underway, the previous Act 1 exception for construction will remain in place for the length of the project. However, the amendment to Act 1 does not permit an exception for future constructions projects without voter approval. So where does the Act 1 reform legislation leave TESD’s planned transportation garage/storage building on Old Lancaster Ave.? Although the project is only in the initial architectural development stages, the Facilities Committee may need to rethink their plans or be prepared for voter input. No longer qualifying for an Act 1 exception, this proposed new construction project would require a voter referendum. In addition, because the transportation garage is not educational programming, I would suggest that voters might not show their support for a property tax increase for this type of project.

By removing so many of the Act 1 exceptions, school boards will be limited in their ability to increase property taxes without voter referendum. On the other hand, you could say that property owners in Pennsylvania will have a more active roll in what school boards do with their money. Gaining voter support at the polls will require public convincing by school boards. Do you think that this is the way for taxpayers to receive property tax relief? I also wonder if some school districts will opt for creative responses to the Act 1 changes, such as forming their own charter schools.

On the subject of property taxes but slightly off topic, the T/E school district tax bills arrived in the mail. Having just read somewhere online that the average school taxes paid in Pennsylvania is $1,200 – I am struggling to see how that is possible.

My husband and I own an investment property in Glenhardie Condominiums in Wayne — a small 1-bedroom condo. According to the tax bill, our school taxes for the 1-bedroom condo are $1,232 — equivalent to the average school tax bill in the state. It is interesting that our 1-BR condo represents in T/E the model for the ‘average’ price of real estate across the state. So . . . $1,200 in school taxes buys you a 1-BR condo in the T/E school district – wonder what that same $1,200 in average school property taxes buys you in other parts of the state? A quick search online indicates that Pittsburgh is ranked as one of the ‘best buys’ in America. For the price of a 1-BR Glenhardie condo, one could buy a nice 4-BR house in Pittsburgh!

Corbett’s Budget – No Marsellus Shale Fee but $1.3 Million Restored Funding to T/E School District … Any Chance of a Rebate on 3.77% Property Tax Increase?

June 30, 2011

2 Comments

The fiscal year for Pennsylvania starts July 1 and for the first time in 8 years, a signed budget will meet the deadline. The Pennsylvania House Republicans passed the budget and all that awaits is Gov. Corbett’s signature.

In the last few days, there was a major battle over the projected revenue surplus. Expected to be close to $700 million, the Democrats wanted most of the money to go to the Department of Education to restore spending cuts to higher education and to school districts across the state. There was support from the Democrats that the revenue surplus should also help restore the funding cuts to human services. The Republicans argued that the $700 million should be held in reserve. The battle is over on this one – the revenue surplus will go to the ‘rainy day’ fund; although some might argue that we are living in the eye of the storm now.

Some are suggesting that this budget is not a ‘no-tax’ budget as has been touted but rather a ‘tax-shift’ budget. Using the ‘robbing Peter to pay Paul’ approach, the money is coming out of one pocket and going to another pocket. Theoretically, Corbett can claim that his budget does not include a tax increase to the taxpayer, the end result filters down locally. Pennsylvania taxpayers may not see an increase in state tax but due to the decrease in public education funding, school districts are forced to increase property taxes. Isn’t this shifting of the tax burden creating the same product? Whether it is at the state level of locally, the taxpayer will see an increase in taxes.

I received a copy of a ‘talking point’ statement circulated by the office of House minority leader Frank Demody (D). Among other things, it addressed the tax-shift notion of Corbett’s budget, claiming that, “. . . middle-class homeowners and seniors being forced to pick up the tab through higher local property tax hikes”. I uploaded the statement – click here for an interesting read.

Although the education cuts are not as severe as were contained in Corbett’s draft budget in March, significant cuts remain – approximately $860 million from public schools and funding to higher education remains scaled back. School districts will receive less funding than a year ago but certainly more than in the original March budget proposal.

Sen. Andy Dinniman, minority chair of the Senate Education Committee released the figures on the Chester County school districts. Collectively the 13 Chester County school districts will see state funding restored by $11+ million over the governor’s original budget. From Dinniman’s office, the followings list indicates the school district and the increase over Corbett’s proposal from March.

Avon Grove $ 280,716
Coatesville Area $1,987,156
Downingtown Area $ 949,310
Great Valley $ 750,487
Kennett Consolidated $ 405,560
Octara $ 120,294
Owen J. Roberts $ 785,118
Oxford Area $ 186,084
Spring-Ford Area $ 893,610
Phoenixville Area $ 825,756
Tredyffrin-Easttown $1,276,771
Unionville-Chadds Ford $ 827,233
West Chester Area $1,757,349

The timing of this information comes after the deadline for school district budgets. The T/E school board passed the 2011-12 school budget with a 3.77% property tax increase for taxpayers just a few weeks ago. The school budget passed 7-2 with school board members Debbie Bookstaber and Rich Brake casting the opposing votes. At the time, Brake who serves as the board’s legislative liaison, offered that he believed that some state public education funding would be restored. Although Brake did not have a crystal ball, he was estimating the amount could be $900K to $1 million. At $1.3 million in restored funding, T/E school district exceeded Brake’s expectation and was only behind Coatesville and West Chester on the county list.

For the record, T/E school district currently has $29 million in the fund balance. The $1.3 million will be additional revenue for the 2011-12 school year. Based on the restoration of $1.3 million in state funding, presumably there is no mechanism for the school board to recalculate and lower the approved 3.77% property tax increase. I guess it is not possible for TESD to offer some form of a rebate back to the taxpayers.

We have learned that the state budget does not contain imposition of a fee or tax on Marcellus Shale gas drilling. Further discussion of imposing a natural gas extraction fee is off the table until at least the fall. Another topic that will take a break is the school voucher discussion. Although temporarily on hold, legislators will most likely take up that discussion after their two-month summer break. Transportation funding is also on hold until late summer or early fall.

TESD’s EIT Tax Study Group . . . You Have until Midnight Tonight to Apply!

June 15, 2011

28 Comments

I attended the TESD Public Information Committee meeting yesterday . . . primarily to fully understand the selection process for committee members and the mission of the Earned Income Tax (EIT) Tax Study Group.

Several months ago, the T/E school board decided to create a citizen tax study group and sent postcards to Tredyffrin and Easttown township residents asking those interested to fill out an application and submit it to the school district – tonight at midnight, June 15 is the deadline.

According to the application, “This citizen group will study the effects that an Earned Income Tax (EIT) would have on the School District and its residents. Following its study, the Tax Study Group members will present the pros and cons of an EIT to the School Board and the community. Tax Study Group members must be willing to be introduced publicly as the Tax Study Group and be willing to present information at one or two televised meetings. The Tax Study Group will meet up to eight times in September and October 2011.”

The EIT tax study group application contains 19 questions ranging from age, gender to level of education, profession, whether or not you currently pay an EIT and two important questions (in my opinion) Why do you wish to be a member of the Tax Study Group? and what particular expertise could you bring to the Tax Study Group?

Part of the Public Information Committee meeting agenda was to look at the selection process of the nine members that would form this tax study group. At the meeting, the school board members began constructing the process. As a means of distancing themselves personally from the members that were to be chosen, it was determined that it would be a blind, random choice based on specific criteria. For the sake of anonymity and fairness, the school board members would not know the names and addresses of the applicants.

I sat and listened as the five board members attending the meeting (Debbie Bookstaber, Karen Cruickshank, Kevin Buraks, Anne Crowley and Betsy Fadem) prepared their list of criteria in order of priority. Their order of priority of criteria for selection on the tax study group is:

1. 3 members of the group to be Easttown Residents; 6 members of the group to be Tredyffrin residents.
2. There should be a mix of people who (a) currently pay an EIT elsewhere; (b) those who are residents and work in the district and for which an EIT would be a new tax and (c) those residents that are retired and therefore would not be paying an EIT. It was suggested to include 4 members that currently pay an EIT and to include 5 members for whom an EIT would be a new tax.
3. 2-3 members should have school age children in T/E
4. Age of applicant
5. Gender of applicant
6. Renters
7. Business background

There were only 3 audience members at this meeting (1 Easttown resident and 2 Tredyffrin residents) and I sat rather impatiently listening to their criteria; not quite believing that what I viewed as the most important baseline criteria was not mentioned. As they were completing their list of criteria, I reminded them that at the school board meeting when this was originally discussed, it was agreed that the tax study group would be ‘apolitical’. I mentioned that the application had not addressed the poltical issue but recalled that Kevin Mahoney specifically suggested that current school board members and township supervisors as well as candidates for the school board and township supervisors be excluded from the group. I asked how those specific would be excluded if the names were not to be known in the selection.

To their credit, the board members immediately placed that at the top of the criteria and assured me that staff would pull any of those applications. Seeking further clarification, I asked about ‘former’ school board members or ‘former’ township supervisors – were their applications suitable. Yes. What about applicants with connections to the local political parties, were their applications suitable. The answer was yes. This suggests that Democratic or Republican committee people (or those individuals closely associated with local political campaigns) are suitable applicants for the tax study group. Attempting to further explain this study group needs to be apolitical, I suggested that when the 9 members of the group are known, the public will recogonize if these individuals are in the category of ‘political’. I have attended enough school board, finance and budget meetings to know that if 25 residents show up to any of these meetings, that is a lot of interest. Therefore, when I learned yesterday, they have received 150 applications, I do not think it is a stretch to assume that there may be some politics going on. I want this to be a very positive and informational experience for the community; not a tax study group that is tainted with politics. I am hoping that this Community Matters post will give the board time to reflect before the members of the tax study group are chosen.

The other troubling aspect of the criteria selection was that the 2 questions at the end of the application – Why do you wish to be a member and what particular expertise could you bring to the group were overlooked and may be all but forgotten in the selection process. It is important to have qualified people as members of this tax study group. We live in a community that is rich with residents with skills, background and expertise, so shouldn’t that be a major factor in the selection? In addition, ‘why’ someone wants to participate is also very telling and should be factored in the choice.

As for the actual process of the selection – it is my understanding that the decision will be made at the Finance Committee meeting on Monday, June 20. The residents chosen for the tax study group will be called and asked of their willingness to participate. All applicants will be put in to individual groups and the names randomly chosen. They feel that renters are needed in the mix and to date, there is not a single renter among the 150 applications. If you are a numbers person, happen to be a renter and want a seat at the tax study table, the odds are in your favor.

I hope that the EIT Tax Study Group selection process goes well and that residents are offering to participate for the right reason. I suggest the process be documented prior to the selection of the members; otherwise, residents are going to look at the school board members if there is a problem.

← Older Posts

Newer Posts →

Pattye Benson

Community Matters