Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-01-11 School Committee MinutesReading Public Schools Reading, Massachusetts , RECEIVED Regular Meeting of the School CortTG, SS. Open Session 20FEB..1 P Z'42 Date: January 11, 2010 Time: 7:34 p.m. (Open Session) Place: Superintendent's Conference Room School Committee Members Present Lisa Gibbs. Chuck Robinson Elaine Webb David Michaud Chris Caruso Karen Janowski Patrick O'Sullivan Student Representative Staff Members Present John Doherty, Acting Superintendent Mary DeLai, Director of Finance & Operations Colleen Dolan, Director of Pupil Services Visitors: RPS Budget Parents Elizabeth Conway, Director of Human Resources Karen Callan, Barrows Principal Richard Davidson, Wood End Principal Doug Lyons, Parker Principal h Call to Order Ellie Freedman, RMHS Principal Barry Berman, Fincom George Hines, Fincom Christine Lyons, Reading Chronicle Steve Hagan, Reading Advocate Chairperson Robinson called the meeting to order at 7:34 p.m. He reviewed the agenda and welcomed guests and recognized the RPS administrators. Mr. Robinson pointed out that this is the Superintendent's recommended budget. II. Recommended Procedure A. Public Input Q B. Reports I I. Student 2. Liaison 3. Superintendent's Report 4. Director of Finance and Operations C. Continued Business FYI 1 Budizet Overview 1 Chairperson Robinson turned the meeting over to Dr. Doherty who presented an overview of the Superintendent's Recommended Budget. This budget was developed over several months of collaboration with the principals and administrators. Each cost January 11, 2010 center has been reviewed and carefully scrutinized. He pointed out that it is important to keep the district mission and vision in mind as the School Committee reviews the budget. The vision is what drives the budget. Dr. Doherty broke down the process which began in August. The administration held community forums, has met with the RTA Executive Board, Reading Public Schools staff, budget parents and the Administrative Council in developing a level funded budget. He went on to review how we got to this point reviewing the FYI 0 budget reductions. Many of those reductions were made away from the classroom with the goal to reduce personnel cuts. Dr. Doherty pointed out that the administration used a multi-faceted approach to addressing the needed reductions including cost savings in special education and facilities and the introduction of new fees and increases in offsets. Dr. Doherty reviewed the per pupil spending in comparison to the state average. Reading is once again well below the state average overall but near state average in the teaching and learning and operations and facilities areas. He continued to discuss the priorities used to design the budget aligning with the district vision. Dr. Doherty indicated that there would be a reduction of 14.8 FTE in personnel, as well as the elimination of three sports. The criteria in determining which sports would be cut included possible Title 9 issues in the future, the cost of running the program and participation levels. Mr. Vaccaro would provide more information during the Athletics Cost Center presentation. He wanted to make the School Committee aware that there will be an impact as a result of these reductions. Dr. Doherty turned the meeting over to Ms. DeLai to answer questions from the committee or audience. She reviewed the questions the School Committee had previously submitted. (See attached) Mrs. Webb requested clarification regarding the $125,000 carry over in the Accommodated Cost section and Mrs. Gibbs asked about the support for the Director of Finance. FYI 1 Administration Cost Center Review Ms. DeLai reviewed the Administration Cost Center. She reviewed the areas of this Cost Center and the basic description of duties in each area which include the Office of the Superintendent, Assistant Superintendent, Business & Finance, Human Resources and Data and Information Management. She stated that Administration comprises 2.3% of the budget and there will be a.5% decrease in the FYI 1 budget which includes no increases for non-union personnel and a reduction in hours of the full-time Central Office Administrative Support Staff. The administration has been looking at ways to decrease costs in contracted services as well as instituting a reduction in supplies and materials and a reduction in advertising and employee physicals. Ms. DeLai answered questions from the committee. She reviewed the questions the School Committee had previously submitted. (See attached). Jmnuary 11, 2010 Mrs. Janowski inquired about the collaboration for services with area districts. Dr. Doherty stated that we have had meetings with area districts but there are not many cost sharing opportunities at this point. Mrs. Webb asked who was responsible for grant compliance. Ms. DeLai replied that her office oversees these issues. Mr. Caruso asked if there is a fee for Administrators Plus and if it was included in the Administration Cost Center. Ms. DeLai replied that there is a fee and it is included in the Technology budget. Mr. Robinson opened the floor to the public. Mr. Berman, Fincom Liaison, wanted to commend Ms. DeLai and Dr. Doherty on the quality of the budget book. He felt it was easy to read, transparent and very well done. He asked about the increase of 16.1 % in Professional Salaries. Ms. DeLai stated that 62,000 was the HR Administrator salary which will appear in the FYI 0 End of Year budget. The position was funded in FY10 by eliminating an Administrative Assistant in Central Office and a secretary in the Pupil Services Department. He also asked about the possibility of tapping into the community to assist in grant writing. Dr. Doherty stated he would be glad to investigate. He also said that our grant writer is available when we need her whereas a resident might not be available as readily. Mr. Berman inquired about money available because we have not filled the Assistant Superintendent position. Ms. DeLai responded that the School Committee authorized the chair to enter into contract negotiations with the Superintendent. Barbara Heinemann asked if all schools were working on a level funded budget. Dr. Doherty answered that the expense budget is level funded but the salaries are disproportionate. He also indicated that the per pupil expenditures for each building which is based on enrollment will remain the same. Mrs. Janowski asked about using volunteers and high school students to do data entry in the Central Office. Dr. Doherty indicated that we are using elder volunteers in our elementary schools as part of the Tax Abatement program. Ms. DeLai indicated that much of the data entry would be into Munis and confidentiality would be a concern. Sean Tersoro, new resident to Reading asked for clarification on the per pupil expenditures, teacher salaries and contractual increases. Ms. DeLai indicated that all 5 collective bargaining units will receive increases in FYI 1 which include step and column. Reading has historically been below state average in per pupil expenditure and our teacher salaries fall in the middle ranges: The Reading Public Schools offer more non- salary benefits which include a very strong induction program, tuition reimbursement and our students discipline issues are low. Reading Public Schools has a very positive learning environment. January 11, 2010 George Hines was excited to have new- resident get involved. He said a strong school system benefits the whole community. He also asked for clarification of the Central Office support positions and duties and the definition of duties for account receivable and payable. D. New Business III. Routine Matters Bills and Payroll (A) e Approval of Minutes Mr. Caruso moved, seconded by Mrs. Webb, to approve the open session minutes as amended dated December 21, 2009. The motion carried 6-0 0 Bids and Donations Calendar IV. Information Mr. Robinson reminded the School Committee that Regular Day and Special Education would be presented on Thursday. V. Adjournment Mr. Caruso moved, seconded by Mrs. Webb, to adjourn. The motion carried 6-0. VI. Future Business Meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m. o F. Doherty, Ed.D. terintendent of Schools NOTE: The minutes reflect the order as stated in the posted meeting agenda not the order they occurred during the meeting. School Committee Questions & Administration Responses general / Overview Ouestions y Explain 7.5 FTE Teaching reductions. John will be providing to breakdown dining his overview presentation. 2. We reduced Paraeducators significantly last year. Where is this going to come from? John will be providing this detail during his overview presentation. 3. What is the financial impact of eliminating Winter Cheerleading, JV Boys Ice Hockey, and Varsity Girls Gymnastics? This information will be covered in the athletics budget presentation. 4. What will be the middle and high school extra-curricular fees? This information will be covered in the regular day budget presentation. 5. What percentage are we budgeting for Circuit Breaker? We will discuss the circuit breaker assumptions in more detail in the special education budget presentation but we are assuming a reimbursement rate of 40% which is the same percentage that we are receiving this year. 6. What is the 6.1 % increase in Undistributed? This increase results predominantly from the reallocation of the nurse that was formerly assigned to the RISE pre-school and paid from the special education budget who is now assigned as the second high School nurse and paid far from the health services budget. This individual stillprovides as coverage to the pre-school but is no longer required specifically for fulfillment of IEP-related services. 7. I know the reduction in "Secretary 1.2 FTE" will be done through a reduction in hours. Will this be the case for the 1.0 reduction in "Custodian FTE?" This information will be covered during the Administration, Regular Day, and School Facilities budget presentations. 8. On Page 7, when you look at the overall district staffing to total district enrollment ratio, we've cut that by 8% from 08/09 - 10/11, with the cuts in 2300 driving that. When you look at the 4 year trend and projected FY2011 the staffing is down in all areas except school nurse +l and therapeutic services +.4. Other than the number of coaches, and psychological services, there is no area that is jumping out at me as an alternative opportunity to avoid the deep cuts in 2300. We would concur with your assessment. 9. On Page 10, Accommodated Costs - if you have any updates on the view for health care costs, I'd like to hear that. There is no new information available at this time. I believe the initial renewal estimates are not presented to the town until mid-February. ' Accommodated - What are your concerns if any with regard to the savings in SPED not flowing to our berating budget? Can we improve this situation. The savings in special education do help with our operating budget. The savings also assist with the town's operating budget as well. For each $1 saved, the school department sees approximately $0.66 of those savings with the remaining $0.34 of savings benefiting the town. 11. Is the $125,000 carry over in the budget. No, this amount was eliminated as part of the cuts to the FYII budget. 12. On Page 8, the percent change FY09/10 Ch 70 aid is -2% not 9.5% or is it me. You are correct. The table was downloaded from the DESE website and the FYI0 amount was reduced by the amount of the SFSF grant but the percentage column was not updated to reflect that adjustment. It did, in fact, decrease by 2.2%. 13. On Pages 12-13, can you provide any more detail on possible cost savings and revenue generation strategies that you will be working on and do any of these have the potential to impact FYI 1 (that you may not have already factored in). Cost savings assumptions that were factored into the FYII budget include additional electricity cost savings (removal of appliances from classrooms), paper reuse and reduction, reduction in in4et printers, and continued re-bidding and re-negotiation of contract services. Revenue generation assumptions include only the increase in kindergarten tuition, and the implementation of three additional new fees (HS & MS extracurricular activities and HS fitness center). School Committee Questions & Administration Responses administration Cost Center Administration 1. Why are we decreasing the Grant Writing line? It seems to me that should be maintained due to Race for the Top and other potential grant opportunities associated with this program. The Race to the Top and Innovation Grant proposals will be written and submitted in the current fiscal year. The $10, 000 would cover an additional two major grant proposals initiatives. 2. I read the reason for the Legal increase, which is due to re-negotiation of Collective Bargaining agreements 2010-11. 1 think this should stay flat due to the expected legal needs at these negotiations. The total amount of the increase is only $700. Historically, bargaining year legal expenses have averaged about $8, 000. The current funding request represents over 31% less than the average amount for a bargaining year. This additional $700 would also cover any potential fee increase. 3. What line previously held the "Annuity Contributions"? Teacher salaries, which is not the proper classification under the DESE chart of accounts. 4. Why are the photocopier leases up 4%? 1 didn't find that the narrative. Due to aggressive re-negotiation efforts in FY09, the contract was restructured and we received a credit for FYI 0 so the current year's amount appears lower as a result. The FYII amount still reflects a significant savings from the historical levels. 5. I realize it is not a lot of money, but why is recruiting up 10% and Dues and Memberships up 0.7%? Historically, we have budgeted for 1-2 Administrator searches each year to allow for the additional expense associated with these more extensive search efforts. We did not budget for any in FY10 but believe it would be wise to budget for I in FYI]. We have no announced administrator retirements for FY12 at this time but those announcements would not be made until December of 2010 or January of 2011. Dues and memberships are reflective of the actual amounts paid in the current fiscal year. The current year's amount was underfunded by $57 due to an unanticipated increase for one association. b. Is there a redundancy of the services and value provided by MASS and MASC? Could we get away with just being a member of MASS? There is certainly a great deal of collaboration between MASS and MASC. As to the value of the services provided by MASC to individual members, we would defer to the committee. Eliminating the MASC dues would result in a savings of $4,962. The Business & Finance narrative notes Revenue generation strategies. Are there any additional revenue assumptions that pertain to Community Education Programs? Currently, we receive $32, 000 in rental fees from the YMCA for their lease of the buildings to provide this programming. We have maintained this assumption for FYII with respect to anticipated revenue to the Use of School Property revolving fund. Should we launch our own After School and/or Before School programs, we would lose the rental income but we would only do so if we felt that the program would be able to generate an equal or greater profit than $32, 000. 8. The Business & Finance narrative notes challenges associated with the number of transactions. Will the current staff be able to handle the additional work associated with the reporting requirements of "stimulus funding"? The majority of the reporting is being handled directly by the Director of Finance and Operations. Having MUNIS in place does facilitate the tracking and reporting of these expenses, however, it does present a resource constraint challenge to the department. 9. Where are we with identifying the costs associated with the putting programs in place to achieve savings in special education? As previously discussed, we would like to take these costs back to the Town as a "Community Priority." There are no new programs funded within the operating budget to which we can credit a reduction in out of district tuitions. By formula, we might be able to attribute the reduction in out of district placements to some percentage of existing program costs but we have not done so as part of this budget 10. On Page 13-14, can the 1.5 FTE actually handle the work load due to ARRA and the continued escalation of DESE regulations & reporting requirements? Since 06/07 1000 is down .2 FTE, but the work load has increased considerably. As mentioned above in response to Mr. Robinson's question, the majority of the reporting is being handled directly by the Director of Finance and Operations. Having MUNIS in place does facilitate the tracking and reporting of these expenses, however, it does present a resource constraint challenge to the department. 11. On Page 14, I applaud our continued use of MUNIS are municipal depts doing the same? Is there any opportunity for support or shared resources? Municipal departments are doing the same. In fact, they have just implemented the MUNIS module for their tax billing and collections and we are about to investigate implementation of the general billing module that we would use to facilitate collection of tuitions and fees in the school department. Given the collaborative models we employ, we currently due share responsibilities in the areas of accounts payable processing, accounts receivable processing, payroll processing, and benefits administration. There have been some discussions regarding the feasibility of sharing IT resources. 12. On Page 15, will Admin Plus remain or will those data functions be brought into MUNIS? Administrators plus is used predominantly for tracking students and schedules while MUNIS is used for tracking employees. Neither of these software packages currently has a module or application available to replace the function of the other adequately so both will remain. ~3. On Page 15, 5th paragraph, which services will be eliminated and which will be pushed back? AND if we are doing this and at the same time cutting 2200 clerical by 1 FTE, will they really be able to support their buildings? Some of the additional training and technical support can be eliminated as school and department secretaries are becoming more comfortable with the current MUNIS modules. The services to be transitioned back will be some of the accounts payable and accounts receivable processing. Again, now that secretaries are more comfortable with MUNIS and have become more efficient with this processing, they should be able to absorb some additional processing responsibilities. 14. On Page 15, on the cell phone cut back, is this consistent with municipal dept heads/staff? Is there an opportunity to get the 4 critical administrators phones paid for via some type of safety grant? It is my understanding that the only cell phones that are paid for by the town are for Public Yorks and Public Safety officials. For Public Yorks, cell phones are provided to a few on-call staff, two foremen, and to those in supervisor or higher positions. I am not sure who in Public Safety receive town paid cell phones. We are not aware of any grant funding that would be available to fund the four administrators' phones. 15. On Page 16, cost savings using electronic media, do we still have the ability to send home paper docs to those families who do not have access to edline? We are still able to send paper documents to families that do not have access to Edline. 16. There are 4.3 staff positions under "Administrative Support Staff -a reduction of 0.2. What would be the impact of eliminating a full position? What would be the cost savings and what work would go undone? Can I have a breakdown of salaries and roles? Currently, there are 4.5 FTE Central Office Administrative Assistant positions. This is down 1.0 FTE from prior years as we eliminated one Administrative Assistant position in the current year to create the HR Administrator position. Central office could not continue to provide the required support to district level administrators nor to the schools and departments within the school department with the elimination of one FTEposition. Furthermore, there are four major functions that, for internal controls purposes, must reside with four different individuals (billing, accounts payable, accounts receivable, payroll). While these staff provide support to individual administrators, their major roles are to support functions rather than people. The handout shows the various roles and responsibilities as well as the salaries. >Distribute table showing Administrative Assistant roles >Distribute table showing impact of position elimination 17. Does the $8,747 under "Dues & Memberships" include the MASC dues? Or does this come out of a separate line item? I believe we said this was approximately $4k. That amount does include the MASC dues which are budgeted at $4,962 (equal to the current year amount). 18. If we did not fund the Asst. Superintendent position at all, what would be the approximate cost savings? The salary budgeted for this position for FYI I is $128,777. " 19. "The 16.1 % increase in professional salaries represents the reclassification of the Administrative Assistant for Human Resources to the Human Resources Administrator position." In fact, this is a substantial $70,000 increase. is this the right time to reclassify this position? It seems that the additional costs could be better spent ~.aintaining teaching positions. I understand that there is a subsequent decrease in clerical staff hours to offset is but why aren't we using the cost savings to protect teaching positions that directly impact student learning and support our mission and values? This restructuring occurred in FY2010 and was codified as part of re-negotiated contracts. While t-he FYII increase in professional salaries is $69,961, there is a corresponding decrease in clerical salaries of $54,612. There is also an additional $20, 000 yet to be transferred from the special education budget resulting from the elimination of a special education clerical position in FYI0 to fund the remaining cost of this re-structuring. The reclassification was budget neutral and, in fact, generated a savings of about $4,000. The administrative assistant position that was eliminated was the Administrative Assistant to Human Resources. Had this re-structuring not occurred, thatposition would had to have been retained at a cost of about $45, 000. 20. Is it time to reconsider the payment of membership fees to professional organizations? This question was raised above as well. The elimination of the MASC membership would result in a savings of $4,962. We would not recommend eliminating membership to the Massachusetts Association of School Superintendents, the Massachusetts Association of School Business Officials, or the Massachusetts Association of School Personnel Administrators as these organizations provide substantial benefits to our district with respect to advocacy, professional development, communication of state and federal issues and changes, and information sharing between districts that is often critical to decision making.