Simple- No Disclosure, No Budget
Update 6/16/08 11:30pm: BOE budget cuts include SPED Teacher, Sports (Playbook #11) and a demand from the Academy. The arrogance continues to be absolutely astounding.
FOI in the spotlight- Nation watches open-records case
It is becoming clearer at every turn that the BOS and BOE have absolutely no intention of addressing the issues of transparency and disclosure with regard to spending. Instead we are fed a steady diet of 'Playbook' rhetoric and scare tactics about services or teachers/programs that will be cut.
When asked to defend the compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) currently documented at 8-9% over the last number of years, there is silence or a change of subject from the BOE board chairman. When there are questions about why “State Mandated” spending line items have changed drastically through the budgeting process, there comes an admission that the spending is at the discretion of the board with regard to mandated programs, yet there is no clarity espoused to define the actual spending. To paraphrase Mr. Loftus “Once appropriated, we’ll spend it any way we want to”- relying on the following statute:
Sec. 10-222. Appropriations and budget. Financial information system. (a) Each local board of education shall prepare an itemized estimate of the cost of maintenance of public schools for the ensuing year and shall submit such estimate to the board of finance in each town or city having a board of finance, to the board of selectmen in each town having no board of finance or otherwise to the authority making appropriations for the school district, not later than two months preceding the annual meeting at which appropriations are to be made. The money appropriated by any municipality for the maintenance of public schools shall be expended by and in the discretion of the board of education. Except as provided in this subsection, any such board may transfer any unexpended or uncontracted-for portion of any appropriation for school purposes to any other item of such itemized estimate. Boards may, by adopting policies and procedures, authorize designated personnel to make limited transfers under emergency circumstances if the urgent need for the transfer prevents the board from meeting in a timely fashion to consider such transfer. All transfers made in such instances shall be announced at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the board. Expenditures by the board of education shall not exceed the appropriation made by the municipality, with such money as may be received from other sources for school purposes. If any occasion arises whereby additional funds are needed by such board, the chairman of such board shall notify the board of finance, board of selectmen or appropriating authority, as the case may be, and shall submit a request for additional funds in the same manner as is provided for departments, boards or agencies of the municipality and no additional funds shall be expended unless such supplemental appropriation shall be granted and no supplemental expenditures shall be made in excess of those granted through the appropriating authority. The annual report of the board of education shall, in accordance with section 10-224, include a summary showing (1) the total cost of the maintenance of schools, (2) the amount received from the state and other sources for the maintenance of schools, and (3) the net cost to the municipality of the maintenance of schools. For purposes of this subsection, "meeting" means a meeting, as defined in section 1-200.
(b) The Commissioner of Education shall develop a financial information system to assist local and regional boards of education in providing to the State Board of Education budget and year-end expenditure data in conformance with the provisions of section 10-227. The financial information system shall be consistent with regulations concerning guidelines for municipal financial reports adopted by the Secretary of the Office of Policy and Management pursuant to the provisions of section 7-394a.
While the highlighted section noted appears to provide some protection in that any monies spent must be spent on items already appearing in the budget, we have nowhere near the clarity required to know whether they are in compliance, especially since whenever questions are asked there are no answers or when documents are requested it becomes necessary to file FOI requests and wait to see the response. Upon review of the information they deem to be responsive to these requests, which as history shows is highly questionable, only then can one even begin to understand how to navigate the maze they create in hiding how our money is spent. No wonder we now have a BOE legal budget in excess of $100K, citizens might ask questions. They can count on it.
The BOS in their budget cutting session decided to keep the raises intact, cut a dump truck and adopt the strategy suggested by Mr. Richardson in spreading the Revaluation costs over 3 years, this is cutting the budget? Isn’t this something they should have done on their own in the first place and why we elect and pay them? This would be called looking out for OUR interests, especially in tough economic times. Instead, these measures are put forth after the shenanigans are exposed, followed by threats with regard to services in an attempt to scare us into adopting a budget that is clearly poorly crafted with little thought other than how to get around the questions.
The BOF instead of scrutinizing and policing these budgets and issues as is their duty, simply lop off what they think might fly and line us up again with Mr. Converse asking for an exit poll so he can understand why the first budget was rejected- can you say “out of touch”?
You may be asking yourselves- what is the answer? I can only think of one and that is to again reject this budget. We are on the precipice of major change being forced upon our leaders and the hand that controls the spigot is yours.
I've come to the conclusion that unless challenged by the public, politicians will act on their own behalf, not the publics. There is a pervasive mentality that somehow, once elected, they know better than the electorate. The problem lies in the fact that the electorate believes that a casted vote is the only responsibility they have. Many people voted against the budget, but only a few actually follow through to voice on how that budget should be cut. Imagine if your household was run that way: Expenses go up. A family votes to cut their spending habits. They then hand their finances over to their bank to decide where these cuts should be made. It's simply ludicrous.
The apathy and complacency of the electorate is baffling.
You're right, however, most people are afraid to speak up in fear of repercussions. Woodstock was and is famous for friends and family first, all others in town make up the shortages. The property tax is unfair and unjust, some pay little some pay less. Some are over taxed and for the life of me I can't figure why they get away with it? What percentage of residents in Woodstock have children that use the system? Why do all have to pay for the over inflated educational budget? Why does the State get away with nonsupport of its towns and education? Where does the Lottery, Casino, Sales, State, Transportation, Gas Tax, etc. go? We the people are faced with sacrifice when the economy falls or goes slow and yet the BOE and BOF hates to cut its budget? Recession! - a period of economic decline when production, employment, and earnings fall below normal levels. Understand?
Maggie, all good points except for one. We all have responsibility for the Education Budget even if you have no kids in the system. Perhaps your kids are already through, everybody paid for them in their time- just the way it works. We do however have the right to know, in clear detail, how our money is spent.
We all know, having read the Budget Propaganda Playbook, that the BOS and BOE tried to sell Woodstock taxpayers on the idea that the budget they presented to the town was “a bare bones, maintenance budget.” Please see ploy #10 in the Playbook.
We’ll just have to add #28 to the Budget Propaganda Playbook: Cuts in Town Staff & Services. This threat is generally thrown out to make the taxpayers afraid of losing basic services they all depend upon. It also serves to instill fear that people will lose their much-needed employment.
This verbiage is deliberately vague and means nothing since cuts are made in almost every proposed budget, yet no one loses their jobs and there are no services in Woodstock anyway. Unless they’re referring to the town road crew, the town hall staff and the school system, that is. Is anyone out there aware of any other services the town provides? If so, please shed some light on this for all of our sakes.
Thank you.