Numbers aren’t quite computing
Published on July 11th, 2007
STONEHAM, MA - The side by side comparisons are somewhat baffling.
Significant discrepancies exist between the proposed budget cuts initially proposed by the School Committee last February and the final list of reductions approved a week after June’s override vote failed.
During a tri-board meeting last winter, during which town officials outlined the consequences of a then $3.8 million deficit for FY’08, School Committee members distributed a list of devastating educational program reductions to the general public.
At the time, the district’s total deficit was listed at $1.8 million.
However, when the override failed, and the School Committee slashed its budget a week later to account for the loss of revenue, another memo outlined a quite different list.
In fact, the total deficit in that June handout, listed at approximately $1.5 million, was $300,000 less than the $1.8 million budget hole described by school officials last winter.
While many of the actual program losses remained the same, not a single dollar amount associated with those June cuts matched the list first distributed to the public during the winter tri-board meeting.
Reached earlier this week, new Supt. Dr. Les Olson, who just assumed the post last Monday, was unable to explain the reasons for the differing dollar amounts.
School Committee member Marie Christie was also unable to explain the discrepancies.
“Without seeing the figures or the background, I really can’t comment on that,” said Olson. “Pretty much, since I’ve became actively involved in mid-April, the [budget cuts] have stayed pretty much the same.”
“I don’t have that list in front of me. So I couldn’t tell you. But it’s basically the same list we had in the May or June time frame,” Christie remarked in a separate phone interview.
Many reductions first described by school officials last February, such as slashing eight elementary school teaching positions, never materialized in June — when only two such jobs were eliminated.
A list of February reductions that never occurred follows:
• A proposal to eliminate two middle school teachers for a $66,496 savings;
• Slash $82,315 from the textbook budget;
• Cut $74,600 from the technology budget;
• Six elementary teaching positions slated for the chopping block in February for a savings of $294,181 later morphed into cutting two elementary jobs for a $66,009 total;
• A plan to cut two school nurses for a $47,095 savings in February later changed in June to eliminating one school nurse for a $33,649 savings.
In addition to those differences, corresponding dollar amounts for another subgroup of cuts increased significantly between February and June.
For example, the closure of the rear middle school wing was listed as saving $119,005 in February. However, in June, that dollar figure jumped by over $50,000, with the school officials estimating that the closure would save the district $170,262.
A year prior, during the buildup to a failed April override, the wing shut down was also pitched by school officials, only that time as a $79,000 budget cut.
The reductions that jumped significantly between February and June are as follows:
Planned cut
Cut high school athletics $306,694 (February) $392,694 (June)
Layoff asst. principal $50,516 (February) $80,259 (June)
Close rear middle school wing
$119,005 (February) $170,262 (June)
Reached earlier this week, School Committee member Cheryl Walsh suspected that many of these changes were attributed to personnel turnover and union bumping rights.
“In all honesty, I can’t answer that. But I believe it has to do with whose jobs were at stake. What happens is if someone is bumped to a different job, that would change the numbers,” Walsh explained.
“It also depends on a lot of other factors. One week they may factor in someone who had health insurance, but another week, that may change,” the School Committee member added. “It’s a very fluid budget. The closer you get to budget time, the more concrete the numbers get.”
Specifically, under union rules, if a senior teacher’s position is eliminated, they can replace a less senior member’s post. For example, if a math teacher at the high school is cut, but he or she holds a certification to teach science, they could replace a less senior science teacher.
According to retired Supt. Dr. Joseph Connelly, those are exactly the types of circumstances that created the discrepancies between dollar amounts.
Citing the changes to the high school athletics reduction, the long-time administrator referred to former Athletic Director Mike Lahiff’s dual role as head of the sporting program and as a supervisor of health and physical education programs.
According to Connelly, when Lahiff recently decided to step down from his post to become Watertown’s athletic director, the School Committee was able to eliminate the portion of his salary that was related to administering the physical education and health programs.
“The rationale was that the building principals would be responsible for what we had left for physical education and health staff,” the retired superintendent said.
“Back in February, when we first identified the cuts, we tried as best we could to identify who would be affected and if they had bumping rights.”
Subscribe and get Home Delivery of The Independent
Save 36% off the newstand price — that's like 18 FREE issues!