Carmel Central School District Board March 9, 2010 Board Meeting

I attended last night’s meeting of the Carmel Central School Board.  On the agenda was the third in a series of presentations on the proposed 2010/11 school budget.  The meeting was taped and will be broadcast on the local Comcast channel.  However, I have provided a summary of last nights meeting for those who may not get a chance to view the broadcast.   

Attendance at last night’s meeting, as well as the meeting held on March 2^nd, was very impressive.  There were very few vacant seats.

Also impressive was number of public comments, unlike previous board meetings there were at least 10 individuals who made comments before the board.

The majority of the comments were from parents who were justifiably concerned about the proposed reductions and the proposed realignment of Kent Elementary School and the Kent Primary School.

Several of the comments seemed to indicate a desire to retain the status quo and there was concern addressed about the elimination of Teacher’s Assistant positions and a Guidance Counselor. 

There was also concern addressed about the elimination of certain programs, which from the speaker’s comments and Assistant Superintendant Irvin’s response, indicated that these programs were implemented to help reduce the number of students who, in the future, may require more costly Special Education intervention. 

Mr. Irvin agreed that he still believed that these programs were indeed useful for achieving cost avoidance in the future.  However, the proposed cuts were necessary based upon the current financial pressure facing the community and that with this in mind the Board could not look at possible future potential savings.  

While I applaud the Board’s decisions on reducing overall costs, I must admit I was not satisfied with Mr. Irvin’s comments.  If the programs slated for elimination substantially reduce the District’s long-term costs then I believe it should be possible to quantify future savings. If the Board cannot quantify substantial future savings from these programs then the Board’s decision to eliminate these programs correct.

As to the other comments, while a majority of the parents voiced their support for the Teacher’s there was a palpable frustration at the means and methods utilized to determine where the and how the proposed cuts were made. 

One speaker, who by his initial comments, I originally perceived as opposed to the budget cuts.  However, in a later interaction with Board member Steve Port this same individual demonstrated his frustration at the fact that teacher’s were not held to performance standards.

Several speakers raised the lack of accountability for schoolteachers and while no names were mentioned, there was a general feeling that certain individuals should not be teaching.     

Along these same lines, there were questions about the methodology employed for the reduction of staff.  Assistant Superintendant Irvin explained the seniority system, and he informed the audience that the current tenure system is covered under NYS Education Law.

Another Speaker voiced her concerns about the proposed cuts and she stated that she believed that the Board should be looking at alternatives such as consolidating back office operations. 

There was also one speaker, who defended the teachers.  However, she also voiced her opinion that the Board should be looking at negotiating a wage freeze for the Administrative staff and the Teachers.  She believed that the Teachers would be amenable to a wage freeze if it meant saving jobs.

In response to the proposal for a consolidation of back office operations, I informed the audience that the authority to consolidate back office operations rests entirely with the School Board.  I further explained that under the current rules the Board would have to approach another District and negotiate a consolidation of back office operations.  I also informed the audience that Assemblywoman Galef has a legislative proposal to empower the local BOCES with authority to determine administrative consolidations. 

Board member Steve Port seemed to take issue with my statement and appeared to interpret my statement as an endorsement for school district consolidation.  Mr. Port stated that consolidation would lead to less personal interaction and increased layers of bureaucracy.  I informed Mr. Port that I was not advocating for the consolidation of the entire District.  I explained that I was aware of studies that indicate consolidation of districts does not necessarily lead to cost savings.  However, in retrospect I am having second thoughts on this position.  The study relied upon, which demonstrates school districts do not achieve economies of scale based upon consolidation was conducted between 1985 and 1997.  Since the 90’s, the use of the internet and other related technologies has expanded and it may be time to revisit this issue.   

Finally, as to the issue of a wage freeze, I have consistently proposed this to the School Board at both meetings and via emails.  I believe prior to the beginning of the current school year I sent Superintendant Ryan an email and asked him if had approached the Teachers Association and requested to renegotiate the terms of the current agreement.  I did receive a response frpm Superintendant Ryan.  Superintendant Ryan stated that the Board was looking at all possible measures to reduce costs.  However, I never did receive an answer as to whether the Board ever formally requested that the Teacher’s Association reopen negotiations.  The Board was equally silent on this issue last night. 

Jim Kirk