To the Editor:
As Chairman Bob Westrich, of the Jefferson Village School Board noted, in response to my analysis of the true operating costs of the new Jefferson Village School, “citizens’ comments are encouraged!”
Thank you, Chairman Westrich. Ours must remain an open and free society where competing views are thoroughly explored. His acknowledgement of my analysis, “His average numbers may be correct,” is certainly appreciated, and, I thank him for that.
When reading Chairman Westrich’s letter of response, for the fourth time, his assertion of my “misleading and wrong statements,” continued to elude me. Chairman Westrich, please reread the last sentence of my first paragraph. I acknowledged that Superintendent Bouchard reported a decrease in regular instruction and that the increase was the result of the added debt service. I do not call that a misleading statement. Chairman Westrich’s assertion of my wrong statements is vaporous.
Chairman Westrich’s attempts to vilify me by suggesting that I do not understand the inconvenience of having to move to another building to, “use the facilities,” is bogus. Many of my students and staff left the building to “use the facilities.” Certainly, this is not ideal.
Subsequently, I assisted my janitor in emptying the #4 square wash tubs used as honey-buckets by the students, where flush toilets did not exist for that school of 140 as well as the same in a number of other schools. I do not suggest that, the aforementioned should be the norm. I have been lucky to have been the principal of two new buildings, for K-12 and K-6, in my career, where I broke ground for both. I wish all Jefferson children and staff the best experience in the new Jefferson Village School.
This attempt at my vilification still doesn’t refute the excessive per pupil cost. It’s either $15,583 for K-12 or approximately $18,729 for K-8.
Chairman Westrich’s contention that I have a problem with transportation costs is inaccurate. Although running nearly empty busses and then deadheading empty returns is not terribly efficient. My analysis of transportation costs was merely to assign those costs to individual students.
Now let’s get to the more serious issues. I’ll accept the board’s bottom line. The increase is 18.4 percent. This is outrageous. Districts in the rest of the state are committing to 2-3 percent increases. How about Gorham’s budget? They now have three new buildings on debt service with the most recent added for next year and the increase of their budget is three percent. I have a number of other examples; but, will refrain as Chairman Westrich dislikes my comparisons.
The Chairman’s excuse that the smaller districts can’t operate as efficiently as larger ones is not an excuse for unusually low pupil teacher ratio. Now, what is really frustrating about Chairman Westrich’s response is that he suggests that, Jefferson taxpayers will not be responsible for the debt service cost.
I’m really confused. Am I not seeing the obvious? Are all Jefferson citizens, except me, exempt from state and federal taxes? This is the usual position of citizens who think that the cost of services away from the town will be borne by others. Give me a break. I pay state income taxes, federal taxes, local taxes and every use tax that the rest of the citizens pay.
This is typical of a society thinking others owe it an existence. That posture is precisely why our state and the country as a whole are in the current financial predicament.
In addition, I realize that the superintendent had desired to pad last year’s budget to create a surplus to offset new operational costs. However, I doubt there are any districts even as large as the Portland Schools (theirs-$280,000), who had a $745,635 undesignated balance. That’s 16 percent of the budget. That amount is irresponsible. This is derisive budgeting. Our chickens will come home to roost in the succeeding budget years.
Let’s take the funding balance of $745,635 and add the $128,096 of federal “Jobs Funds” which expire next year. That totals $873,731. You will burn it up, literally, next year. If not, you have continually over-budgeted. Let’s get real about the budget numbers. It’s really worth noting that the budget beginning balance of $745,635 is almost exactly the same (within $8000) as the total of the previous total state subsidy added to the beginning balance of the 2010-2011 school year.
Seems to me that the district did not spend any state subsidy funds last year. We could have enjoyed that as a tax cut. Folks, do you realize that you may be required to replace the $873,731 with local allocation?
Now, let’s get to operational costs of a new building and potential growth. Typically, operational costs are underestimated in new buildings. Costs of heating and utilities will be greater than anticipated, even with chips.
Secondly, I will challenge the growth rate of the JVS. I will challenge anyone that insists that the growth will be greater than one percent per year. So, in 10 years we will have 25 more, if you compound the growth. The population will be approximately 213. Do you realize what the cost will be per student, with current inflation? Or, does the Chairman also subscribe to the “no current inflation,” message?
We ought to also examine what kinds of economic factors that will create population growth. Obviously, someone anticipated unusual growth for a new school designed to house 400 students. My experience has been new high employment business or industry moving into a community; development of inexpensive subsidized multi-family housing or sub-divisions of starter homes and/or cheap fuel where citizens will move to rural areas because they are willing to drive long distances for work cause school population growth. We already know what these scenarios suggest.
I submit that the costs per contracted secondary student will also increase, further exacerbating the total costs. Jefferson elementary school costs per student exceed secondary costs, currently. This is highly unusual in any district. When teachers are faced with negotiating a new contract, will they forgo any salary and benefit increases as many other district teachers’ unions have accepted this year in order to control costs?
Let’s affirm that we will accept no additional increases in education costs without commensurate achievement increases. School Board members are irresponsible if they accept anything else.
Richard S. Harnett, Jefferson
