Montgomery County To Use School Funds for Other Items PLEASE SEND EMAIL

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a $25 million cut -- not $107 million.

The cut is targeted at employee health benefit premiums and retirement benefits. The cuts won't impact kids at all.

There seems to be some confusion over where they got this $107 million number. My understanding of how they arrive at this number is the following: The BOE budget request was $82 million over last year because of projections of increased enrollment and in keeping with the maintenence of effort law. Ike Leggett, the county executive, took the BOE request and reduced it by the 82 million keeping it level with last year, when he made his budget recommendation to the County Council. The County Council is now considering cutting it an additional $25 million beyond the $82 million that Leggett cut. Hence $82M + $25M = $107M.

this is factual and let's get back to debating the original intent of the advocacy letter rather than the silly exchange between the idiot and the teacher. Do we think this is cutting educational programs/experience or just sqeezing the teachers without affecting kids' education? and does this method of the council represent a turning away from educational expenditures that are sqeezing the younger generation to the benefit of the older folks who won't be paying higher taxes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in TARP money, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes?

Neither do I.

Bravo.

Perfection. Thank you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a $25 million cut -- not $107 million.

The cut is targeted at employee health benefit premiums and retirement benefits. The cuts won't impact kids at all.

There seems to be some confusion over where they got this $107 million number. My understanding of how they arrive at this number is the following: The BOE budget request was $82 million over last year because of projections of increased enrollment and in keeping with the maintenence of effort law. Ike Leggett, the county executive, took the BOE request and reduced it by the 82 million keeping it level with last year, when he made his budget recommendation to the County Council. The County Council is now considering cutting it an additional $25 million beyond the $82 million that Leggett cut. Hence $82M + $25M = $107M.

Yes, your logic is correct. But there are two reasons why the MCPS request is not relevant. First, the schools don't need $82 million for increased enrollment. They need $17.5 million. The rest of that increase is benefits and raises for staff. Second, it's true the board wanted $82 million more than what Leggett funded. But after their budget request was submitted, the State provided an additional $37 million in funding. So the board's sticking with the $82 million figure is very disingenuous.

And the county has no legal authority to take state funding to schools and use it elsewhere. That's not how government budgeting and spending work. The only authority the County has is over appropriating County funds. It can't touch state or federal education funds.

[Anonymous]

The Council is discussing health and retirement benefits right now. It's worth watching to gain a better understanding.

[Anonymous]

Aren't these "cuts" meant to bring healthcare and pension costs more in line with the private sector? If so, with the economy sucking all over it is frankly hard to get worked up over shifting those costs when so many taxpayers have already had years of furloughs, salary cuts, or are unemployed. That does not mean I don't value the work of my kids' teachers.

Perhaps I digress. . .

[Anonymous]

How about the BoE show some leadership and persuade the bloated central office to cowboy up and take furloughs like the rest of MoCo? Now that would really minimize the impact on the classroom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Aren't these "cuts" meant to bring healthcare and pension costs more in line with the private sector? If so, with the economy sucking all over it is frankly hard to get worked up over shifting those costs when so many taxpayers have already had years of furloughs, salary cuts, or are unemployed. That does not mean I don't value the work of my kids' teachers.

Perhaps I digress. . .

Well said. I am one of those many people who have been deeply impacted by the economy. I can't afford higher taxes so that teachers can continue receiving their super benefits. Sorry, MCPS teachers, administrators and MCEA activists, stop whining!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How about the BoE show some leadership and persuade the bloated central office to cowboy up and take furloughs like the rest of MoCo? Now that would really minimize the impact on the classroom.

Our Board of Education just rubber stamps. It has no real role because of the Superintendent acting as King. So they can be furloughed too....

[AngryTeacher]

Then don't whine when your child is in a class of 30 and NOT receiving the attention s/he deserves. Next year, we already have classes of over 40 at the high school level.

Maybe then you'll stop being so selfish.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aren't these "cuts" meant to bring healthcare and pension costs more in line with the private sector? If so, with the economy sucking all over it is frankly hard to get worked up over shifting those costs when so many taxpayers have already had years of furloughs, salary cuts, or are unemployed. That does not mean I don't value the work of my kids' teachers.

Perhaps I digress. . .

Well said. I am one of those many people who have been deeply impacted by the economy. I can't afford higher taxes so that teachers can continue receiving their super benefits. Sorry, MCPS teachers, administrators and MCEA activists, stop whining!

[AngryTeacher]

Barclay's testimony:

Testimony of the Montgomery County Board of Education
Public Hearing on the
Fiscal Year 2012 Operating Budget
Presented by
Christopher S. Barclay, President
April 5, 2011

Good evening, Ms. Ervin and members of the County Council. I am Christopher Barclay, president of the Montgomery County Board of Education. I am testifying on behalf of the Board of Education on the Fiscal Year (FY) 2012 Operating Budget Request for Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS). The Board of Education has requested an FY 2012 Operating Budget of $2.1 billion. This budget, set at the legally required Maintenance of Effort (MOE) level is the least amount that the Board is allowed to request under Maryland state law.

The county executive’s budget reduces the Board’s request by $82 million thus failing to meet the required local contribution for MOE. Indeed, the executive’s budget does not increase the county contribution to our schools at all from last year. In other words, under the executive’s proposal, MCPS would receive exactly the same amount of county contribution as it did for the current year, despite the increase of 3,400 students.

Last year’s budget estimate did not account for the increase in the number of students who entered MCPS above expectation and we anticipate even more students in the next school year. Given our increasing enrollment and the increasing needs our students are bringing, we are disappointed by the executive’s proposal, yet we are also very cognizant of the county’s fiscal challenges. Although, the Board knows that the $82 million reduction will require sacrifice by our schools and will reduce services to students, the Board has recognized that the fiscal realities require that we work together to accomplish necessary reductions with the least impact on our children. To this end, the Board has voted to join the county’s application for a waiver of MOE recognizing that the county cannot afford to pay any more at this time. If the county does not receive a waiver this year, we could face a penalty of $30 million or more. It is therefore imperative that we avoid any further reductions.

Let me restate that although the Board of Education was disappointed that County Executive Leggett did not recommend any increase in local funding for MCPS, we recognize that the school system must share in the sacrifices that are necessary at this time of fiscal constraints as it has done over the past two trying fiscal years. As you are aware, MCPS has absorbed base budget reductions over the past two years that have reduced the per pupil expenditure by $1,000 per student. These reductions were real and had real impact as will the $82
million reduction proposed by the executive that will further reduce the per pupil expenditure. Nevertheless, I intend to join the county executive and the president of the Council for the third year in a row to request that the Maryland State Board of Education approve a waiver for Montgomery County. However, further reductions below the zero increase in county funding would be highly detrimental to the futures of our students. We would have to make reductions that would permanently harm our students’ ability to succeed. We pledge to work collaboratively with you to make the hard choices necessary to fund the MCPS budget at the level recommended by the county executive.

[Anonymous]

Angry teacher -

What is "selfish" about taxpayers saying "enough" when there are other ways for the school system to do more cutting, starting with the central office? You are playing right into Jerry Weast's polarizing tactics.

Concerned parent

[Anonymous]

Over the past 3 years, this is how funding has looked for departments and agencies across County government. Only MCPS and Mont. College have gotten funding increases.

MCPS: 2.6% increase
Mont. College: 2.3% increase

Police: -3.7%
Fire: -6.2%
Montgomery County Government: -8.1%
Transit (Ride On): -9.5%
Park and Planning: -14.8%
HHS: -16%
Libraries: -35.4%

Don't forget this is the worst recession since the Great Depression. The old rules just can't apply.

[Anonymous]

This school board is basically run by the apple ballot/union.

I support unions and teachers, but I feel like this board is not very transparent and has done a poor job of justifying it's budget and policy choices. They are very secret about selecting a superintendent, selecting school sites, and providing test data to justify their policies. As an elementary school parent and taxpayer, I really am having trouble supporting this board (I did not vote apple ballot).

So as of now, I am willing to take a short term hit and hope for a better future. Although I support unions, I think we need a more balanced school board that can also include the interests of parents (MCPS consumers) and taxpayers (MCPS underwriters).

I hope the next election, people consider voting for non-apple ballot candidates.

[Anonymous]

What is the apple ballot?

[Anonymous]

The apple ballot is a slate of school board candidates endorsed by the Montgomery County Education Association (MCEA). MCEA says they represent 11,000 teachers and other education employees. To get an endorsement, the candidates must pay a fee and also answer a questionnaire on topics of interest to MCEA. In the last election, I believe all elected school board members were on the apple ballot slate. I want to say that every school board member was endorsed by MCEA, but I am not completely sure. If anyone knows, I would be curious...