Let’s start with the School Committee meetings on the Budget. There were many.
After several days of budget presentations – (March 28th, March 30th, March 31st), review, and discussions, all given with the understanding that the schools were faced with a $4 million dollar deficiency, the School Committee sent this resolution on March 31st, and 12 members of the City Council sent this letter to the Mayor – both requesting use of ARPA funding to close the budget gap. After the NPS financial team “scrubbed their books” looking for one-time ARPA expenses, the Mayor announced her decision to provide an additional $1.51 million of ARPA funds to be allocated to NPS to reimburse those one-time ARPA expenses (specifically $1.1M for COVID-related expenses and $410K for one-time maintenance projects). In addition, NPS found additional savings through budget reductions totaling $439,310, incorporating approximately $1.9 million more funding into the final approved budget.
Many issues were raised during the SC’s deliberations – the budget process – (Prenner wants to revive the Budget Guidelines (when did they stop?), Brezski – “it is unlike any other budgeting process I’ve ever been involved in my life” and Parlikar wants something similar to Brookline – “a bottom-up buildup of a budget that is focused on the goals that are set forward by the SC “), appropriate use of ARPA funds (Brezski on stipends), the “structural deficit” (Levy has lots to say about this), charter maintenance, and the possibility of an override – (Watch the April 11th SC meeting – begins around 2:04:55). With thoughtful discussion and debate and still with an approximate $2 million deficit, the School Committee voted to approve the FY2023 Budget 8-1 (Levy opposed).
On the City Council side, 12 members of the Council sent this letter to the Mayor requesting the use of ARPA funds to fill the gap, and Chair Susan Albright sent this memo to her colleagues, outlining how they got to where they are and referenced the June 2020 Matt Hills/Paul Levy webinar – discussing the tough choices ahead for the Newton Public Schools hosted by Councilor Emily Norton. At last Wednesday’s Joint Finance and Programs and Services meeting, the Council was reminded about the recommendations from the Blue Ribbon Commission (see 2007 Final Report)and the Citizens Advisory Group (go here to access individual reports and here for the 526-page Final Report) that both Paul Levy and Mayor Fuller led and participated in, debated about “the structural deficit” and the role of the teacher’s contract in creating this “deficit”, a reminder about our OPEB and Pension Liabilities and the growing impact it has on our budgets and the likely need for an override(Councilor Crossley), and debated the role of the Council in the budget process (Councilor Humphrey and Chair Grossman referencing Chair Grossman’s memo).
At 2:38:09, Chair Olszewski listed the different members that she has appointed to the negotiating teams – identifying Levy, Brezski, and Parlikar as bringing valuable different perspectives to weigh in on negotiating contracts with the unions, and stated what the SC has been doing to address the structural deficit – “we approved a budget last night, that shoulders some of the burden of remedying the costs” and clarifying that they are not “finding” money – but rather “calling from other areas of our budget in order to infuse health into the Newoetn Public Schools Financial Status”. In addition, Chair Olszewski said: “And at some point soon, we’re going to be looking to you 24 city councilors to be our partners in supporting an operational override that Councilor Crossley you talked about earlier. So collectively, all of us on this Zoom will be taking part to ensuring the financial continued health of the Newton Public Schools and it doesn’t really matter to my perspective anyway with respect, it doesn’t matter the reasons why we find ourselves here – it matters that we find ourselves here.”
“Overwhelming Abstentions” on Straw Vote in both Committees to approve the FY2023 Proposed Budget
Councilor Baker made a motion for a straw vote of the Programs and Services Committee to approve the NPS budget acknowledging that the vote would not prohibit or exclude further discussion or action but would at least advance the budget to the Committee of the Whole. The vote was 3 in favor (Baker, Albright, Krintzman) -0 (opposed) -5 abstentions. (Greenberg, Wright, Noel, Humphrey, Ryan)
On voting “no”, Councilor Norton stated: “With all due respect to those who say we don’t have the power to do anything, vis a vis the budget, Then why are we here? why did we go through this for 3 hours. Our votes are our statements to the world. and more importantly to our constituents to where we stand. I don’t support the cuts that this budget represents. I support using ARPA funds to close the gap. So I’m not going to vote for this budget because that would imply that I do support it.”
Councilor Kalis made a motion in the Finance Committee for a straw vote to approve the NPS budget. The vote was 2 in favor (Grossman, Kalis)- 1 opposed (Norton) – 4 abstentions (Oliver, Malakie, Humphrey, and Noel).
Chair Grossman, in explaining her “yes” vote, briefly described her viewpoint as Finance Committee Chair having access to knowledge about the city’s finances and difficulties and the intricate ways they all come together. She pointed to the “realities of Prop 2 1/2”, “OPEB and Pension liabilities”, “the painful realities of what our kids have gone through”, and the “opportunities provided with ARPA.” Addressing the SC members in attendance, Chair Grossman acknowledged the work of the SC to “find ways to close the gap in a less painful way” and said her “yes” vote “is an endorsement of what you have all done to get us to the point of a next fiscal year for our kids that I think will serve them well (but) maybe not to the absolute utmost place where we would hope to get…”
For reference, see the following:
FY23 Budget – Non-Instructional (District Operations) – Presentation- FY23 Budget – Informational Technology and Library Services – Presentation
- FY23 Budget – Teaching & Learning and Student Services – Presentation
- FY23 Budget – Elementary, Middle, High School – Presentation
- FY23 Budget Book – Proposed – 3.23.22
- FY23 Budget Presentation – 3.23.22
- FY23 Superintendent Budget Message – 3.23.22
See also the following documents:
Factors of the FY23 Superintendent Proposed Budget
FY23 Budget Changes – Sources and Uses
FY23 Staffing Changes Not Due to Enrollment
“Unlike any other budgeting process I’ve ever been involved in my life….”
While School Committee members were very pleased with the restorations and expressed their gratitude to the Mayor for providing additional ARPA funding, and to the staff for finding additional savings, several expressed concerns regarding the process.
SC Prenner stated (56:46) that she has been trying for years to revive the budget guidelines process (when did it end?) that allows the SC to set high-level goals that would be shared with the Superintendent and senior staff before they craft their budget so there is an understanding of what the priorities of the SC are every year.
SC Brezski put it bluntly, “It is unlike any other budgeting process I’ve ever been involved in my life – where the starting point is some number that comes from somewhere where none of us has any insight into even as committee members.” SC Parlikar would like to see the SC move to a process similar to Brookline. “….they start out with a bottom-up buildup of a budget that is focused on the goals that are set forward by the SC and the district then through a process of open discussion, get to the point of meeting in the middle between the budget that achieves everything and the funding that is available for that budget.”
Charter Maintenance and a new Finance subcommittee
Things got a little tense at the April 12th School Committee meeting (starts around 50:00), after Chair Olszewski addressed the issue around charter maintenance raised by SC Member Levy. While she agreed that charter maintenance is “oftentimes insufficient to meet the ongoing needs and unanticipated one-time events that pop up”, she stated that “…the way to fix it isn’t to essentially hold hostage a budget that has restored the priorities of the district, in order to move forward the maintenance line item.” Instead, she suggested creating a more “collaborative” process that is “sustainable over time” and appointed Levy and Prenner to a new Finance subcommittee.
Levy, thanked the Chair for the offer to be appointed with Prenner, but with “respect”, made it clear that he was “offended” by her suggestion that his bringing up a motion regarding maintenance was an attempt to hold the budget hostage. “I think it’s important to address it currently because there has been a 10-year pattern of overspending to the extent of $800K/year” and enumerated a number of maintenance issues such as “… power outages, plumbing leaks at Mason-Rice”, leaky roofs at South and Pierce, “a banging heating system at Ward”, and a number of schools with antiquated kitchen equipment “that interferes with the delivery of warm and nutritious meals at many of the schools.” Chair Olszewski responded (50:49) that she appreciated his “sharing” that he was offended by her remarks adding, “hyberbolic though they were.”
With regard to Charter Maintenance and the desire by SC Levy to increase the line item, SC Prenner, as a Facilities Representative and having been “intimately familiar and involved with years and years of deferred maintenance”, stated that given the current budget situation (see 57:12), “for me personally, looking at this from a broader picture, (I’m) not 100% sure that if we had an additional $300K, that I would stick it all in charter maintenance.”
Members agreed that maintenance has been underfunded and needs do exist. SC Brezski relayed how “disturbed” at “some of the conditions” having visited 5 of the schools that are oldest and most in need of maintenance,” adding that when they discuss and “manage PTO budgets on equity …down to the last penny per student, it strikes me that we just ignore a giant inequity – there’s kids who get to go to Cabot and Zervas and there’s kids that go to Countryside and Ward and they live two different realities.”
SC Levy opted not to offer the amendment (“in the interest of comity” – 1:12:13)and voted against the budget as proposed.
General Counsel recommendation to School Committee: Approve or Reject the Budget – No Authority to revise and submit different budget to the Mayor
At the April 6th School Committee meeting, a question was asked to the School’s General Counsel, Jill Murray Grady, whether the School Committee could approve and submit a budget that is greater than the appropriation of funds that the Mayor has committed to the School District. In her response, although there is nothing prohibiting the School Committee from doing so, the Mayor is not legally bound to present that budget and can present a budget of a lesser amount to the City Council. Attorney Grady recommended: ” that the School Committee only review and approve (or reject) the budget that is submitted by the Superintendent, as the plain language of the statute, without additional authority or guidance, does not contemplate the School Committee unilaterally revising and submitting a budget to the Mayor.”
