|
Home
Up
News
Contact Information
Member Directory
Next Meeting
Search
Links
| |
MARS Board Meeting Minutes
January 13, 2004
Present: Maureen Marshall, Clifford
Fountain, Lynn Ryan, Gene Carlo, Richard Scortino, Michael Fitzpatrick, Stephen
Hemmen. Guests: William Conners, Al Tutela, Peter Brennan. Staff: Dee Dee
Niswonger
Chapter 70
The meeting discussed the work and ideas being developed by MAVA and MASS
regarding the legislative leadership Chapter 70 Working report.
Currently Chapter 70 is a political process. There is no formula.
The lack of a formula is clearly behind the report's recognition of such things
as the discrepancies in required contribution, work toward similar contributions
by similar communities, the need to understand how to arrive at fair and
accurate property values across the state. It was emphasized that a "seven room
cape" in eastern Mass. has a very different value as one moves westward across
the state, and that difference must be accounted for in the formula's
development. Therefore the collection of accurate data is essential.
A plan which uses a percentage of Chapter 70 will not work in regions because
regions are made up of varying towns.
Game of wage adjustment factors: the original 25 different wage areas in the
state were reduced to 21 but the wage adjustment factor can be used to raise
apparent valuation. It is important to keep alert to the effect of this factor
which does not give the accurate picture of need that rolling average enrollment
figures can.
Requirements for the Chapter 70 formula were described thusly: there must be a
formula which is not tampered with that is used for all communities. With the
target share concept, all the legislature would have to do would be to
determine the sum to be distributed, and avoid the political fall out of
always trying to beef up the bottom line for each legislator's districts.
Rolling three-year average enrollment counts should be used as well as municipal
revenue growth factor which is not capped when determining target share.
Taxes
Members of the legislature are hoping that the court case (Hancock) will
demand that the state pay more for education. 2 billion may be the required
amount. The legislature is hampered by the Question 4 vote during Celucci's
governorship, that indicated broad support for eliminating all income tax in the
state. The "rollback" of taxes to the current 5% is our trouble. If we were
still at 5.95% we would not be dealing with all this cutting.
There was a discussion about regions being given their own tax base. The idea
was not pursued.
Separate Regional Formula
Both the Governor's office and among Democrats in the legislature there is
talk about developing a separate formula for regions. Although we know that the
talk is serious, we do not know what the proposals are, or if there are any at
this time.
FY05 Budget Discussion
It is feared that one political move will be to put into House One (due out
Jan. 28) an increase for Chapter 70 which the state cannot afford and the
legislature will be forced to cut, thereby allowing the Governor to be seen as
an education supporter, when in fact he is simply playing politics. There was
discussion about the expected "spike" in local contributions and how that plays
into this political picture. The spike idea results from indications in FY04
House One.
All agree that the districts with a high percentage of Chapter 70 are most
vulnerable.
The safest bet for planning FY05 budgets may be to level fund expectations from
Chapter 70. Although new money may go into education as much as 100 million may
be dedicated to elementary school class size reduction.
It is also seen as prudent to put aside, if anyone has the dollars to do so,
extra money into areas which can add support for reduced income years, health
insurance trusts, and so forth. However, we are warned that the auditing
process is now looking carefully into reserve funds. Strict compliance with
GASBY 34 is essential: school committees must retain their line item and bottom
line control; must vote on financial matters, and a complete trail of all
business matters must be kept.
As is usually the case during these difficult fiscal periods, save harmless is
very vulnerable to the legislative ax. While formulaically save harmless
presents a conflict with any workable formula, as far as running a school
district is concerned, save harmless is essential, particularly in view of the
20% reduction in 04. A return to FY 03 figures, not the reduced 04 figure, is
the current save harmless request.
The "pot hole" dollars were discussed and the change this year that allows
regions to apply directly for them. But there are so many variables in the "pot
hole" plan that those dollars cannot be counted upon as an answer to hard times.
We were reminded that the figures being touted about shortfall, 1 billion by the
Governor, 2 Billion by the legislature, are numbers that don't really mean
anything. They are "made up" by looking at anticipated costs, not actual
numbers. One can do anything one wants with numbers.
Hancock is not expected to be a help for 05. Community spirit will have to
support schools in 05. There was discussion about this from districts that will
have to use up both school and town reserves for 05 and see 06 as a disaster
year unless Hancock requires more dollars to be distributed.
Regional transportation
Regional transportation monies may be raised this year but more contact from
the affluent suburbs around Boston with their legislators is needed to help on
this. The western part of the state is pushing hard and needs to continue to do
so. As always constant work is needed on this. Some are optimistic that there
will be additional dollars put into the line item for FY05.
The average Charter school per child cost is $8700, which does not include their
transportation which, if a chapter school has become a "regional" is drawn from
the same line item as traditional regions' transportation. Currently it is
thought that the Charter school transportation cost coming from that line item
is about $500,000.00.
Other
Visitors asked about ways to affect the Board of Education. An opinion was
expressed that the Board has abrogated its responsibility to public education.
We were reminded of the Commissioner's request to MASS and MASS's agreement to
let him deal with the Board.
MARS will abide by that.
Final testimony in the Hancock case was heard last week. We cannot anticipate
when the case will be settled. The conflict between the state dealing with the
Hancock case, and the outfall of that, and a Superintendent trying to explain to
her/his communities what is going on was noted with frustration.
Respectfully submitted by Dee Dee Niswonger
For More Information Contact:
Massachusetts Association of Regional Schools
P.O. Box 334, Williamsburg, MA 01096-0334
Tel: 413-268-3607
E-mail:
niswonger@comcast.net
|
Massachusetts Association of
Regional Schools