School funding rules convoluted; timing unclear
As many of you are aware, there may be more school funding headed to Connecticut. But both:
1) the distribution method of the funds; and
2) the actual delivery of the funds
are in question.
The CTMirror's Keith Phaneuf and Robert Frahm explain that Governor Rell wants to use the money to fill the budget gap for ECS funding, but it seems that's prohibited.
Aside from the explanation on the funding distribution rules, I learned approximately how many teachers we have in CT from:
Mark Waxenberg, director of government relations for the Connecticut Education Association, the state's largest teachers' union, representing about 42,000 classroom teachers.
I have no idea how this will progress. But even if Cheshire gets funding, it wouldn't surprise me at all if the the funds arrive after school starts. Thank you Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid!
Tim White
29 comments:
Watch a lot of of this $$$ get spent on lawyers as judges decide how it can be spent.
Congress couldn't pour water out of a boot if the instructions were written on the heel
Tim, are you pissing on this plan because Dems created it? Late help is better than no help and if it allows some shufflng and smaller classes in a month, what is wrong?
It is nice to have a drink when you are thirsty, but better when you are dehydrated
12:55
"It is nice to have a drink when you are thirsty, but better when you are dehydrated"
Are you drinking Kool-aid? The same logic should be applied to anyone considering adding to the deficit. Anyone who cares so much about over crowding in the classroom should give some consideration to the yoke they are so willing to put around the necks of the next generation that has to pay for the nut jobs in the White House. This money is nothing more than an early payout to secure the election of some democrats to Congress.
12:55
"Late help is better than no help"
So we increase our deficit to appease the teachers unions 3 months before the election.
Pelosi calls an emergency session to push this through. So we have to pay to get all the legislators back.
In my home, if I can't afford something I have to bite the bullet and wait until I can. In the U.S. Government's home, thye just print more money. I wish it was that easy.
What happens next year when we are in the same boat? More handouts??
It has to stop.
And yes, the Dems created this pan and it should be "pissed on". It is idiotic.
Borrowing more money we can't possibly pay back as a country to prop up operating budgets is poor financial management. It's nothing more than a quick fix for states addicted to uncontrollable spending and lack of a sound, long-term fiscal plan.
The State of CT, namely Hartford, has been and continues to under-fund the ECS program. It's not meeting it's own funding obligations but it continues to implement education mandates that require more funding to implement. Hartford is walking a muck in the world of common sense...as depicted by the $3M CRA compliance audit. Over the last 2 years, it has partially filled this gap by using federal stimulus money. But the gap persists.
This specific stimulus money is nothing more than a diversion tactic and a blatant marketing campaign for elected officials for the upcoming November elections.
The simple fact of the matter is that if Obama / Pelosi wanted to help policeman/educators based on principal they would've done so MUCH EARLIER in the year. They either forgot about timing and that school starts now and/or they're greasing the skids for political gain...both of which are bad. I believe it's both. Regardless of which party sponsored this decision...it's a poor decision.
If Cheshire receives money from this we may stave off a few layoffs but for only one more year unless something drastically changes in the budget equation. But those positions that was just laid-off and subsequently re-hired will be laid off again in 12 months...putting us right back to where we are today...with no long-term funding plan on education, let alone other civic responsibilities.
The downside to accepting this money, as Dr. Florio pointed out in the Cheshire Herald, is that it creates more problems with budgeting because in essence, we're inflating a budget we know is not sustainable after one year. It also does not address root cause nor what's coming next year and the year after.
It's for the reasons I listed above that I'm inclined to not accept this stimulus money. ( Fire suit is on :-) )
I don't know about others but I don't feel particularly good that we robbed peter to paul on this one...cutting food-stamps, especially in this economic climate is a bad idea.
As the BOE receives more details on the stimulus funding I will post them here.
Thanks,
Tony Perugini
Tim...sorry for the dupe posts, not sure what happened there...can you clean them up? Thanks - Tony
Tony,
So if I'm reading your six identical posts correctly, you're all for more money coming to Cheshire from the state, but not from the federal government?
If you are so against the source of the funding, refuse it.
Everyone knows that the BOE and the Council will cry and cry about where this money comes from but at the end of the day, they will both accept it. If you guys are so against it, refuse it and take a stand.
Tony and Tim, you both are saying that the money is a ploy by the Dems to buy votes for November. I would like to see you both vote against it and see where you end up in your next elections
8:03
Since the deed has already been done, why would we refuse it?
It doesn't make it right that the Dems pushed it through, but you can't turn it down now. That would be foolish.
It's easy to sit there and say: show some guts don't accept it, but the bottom line is, where will it get you? Unelected with more spenders coming into office.
You take it, use it and then say stop, no more.
You refuse it and it will just be wasted somewhere else.
So stop the bitching and moaning. You want to know why we barely get 20% voter turnout? Another reason I wouldvote for anyone besides Tim or Tony. If you are against the money, vote against it. Do not sit here and tell us how wrong it is and then take it. Wrong or not, some problems can be fixed with it. If you are afraid to use it to hire a teacher that may have to be laid off in a year, then use the money to cover the personel deficit in the PD. The existing vacancies will cost about $500,000 in the next year
8:03
Accepting money to fill some positions that were already eliminated and that are not going to be paid for in next years budget makes no sense given the huge shortfall expected next year. How the local taxpayer sorts that out is up to them but elected officials are expected to make sound decisions.
I do think the public is quickly coming to terms with the ineptness of the characters in the Whitehouse and Congress. Messing with our lives they way they are and running up huge deficits has nothing to do with caring about our children. The November elections can not get here soon enough.
I suspect most of this money will go to the usual big city / town school systems and bypass us but if I have the opportunity to accept this money I will vote against it.
Tim Slocum
"I suspect most of this money will go to the usual big city / town school systems and bypass us but if I have the opportunity to accept this money I will vote against it."
Tim,
To be kind, your thinking is a little muddled. In one sentence you bemoan how other districts/towns always get funding instead of Cheshire and then declare how you wouldn't take the funding if it was offered.
You say the money would only pay for positions that wouldn't be funded again - but it's the council that has the power to continue funding those positions. Why would you have made up your mind in August 2010 that the town would not continue funding positions that would get the federal funding through the 2010-2011 school year? Isn't there a deliberative process that you and the council go through before making those kinds of decisions?
Two other things:
As my third-grader would tell you -- White House is two words.
But, nice job hitting the "publish your comment" button only once.
If Tim and others here are complaining about the timing of the funding, then you're blaming the wrong party. This would've been passed a lot sooner if it weren't for a Republican fillibuster.
And 2:32, this bill doesn't increase the deficit at all.
9:31
I bemoan the payoff process...and I believe I made that clear. Big City, Big Union, Big deal...it's 7% of the U.S. work force and it gets 100% of the attention from Washington.
Cheshire expects a shortfall in excess of 2 million dollars next year. That is a big number that may well have to result more cuts and higher taxes. Adding this payoff money from Washington increases that shortfall next year. Yes there is a deliberative process we go through and that we will continue to go through with public input from all quarters.
And here's another point for you to ponder...it is the taxpayers that funds these budgets.
You were so kind in the manner you challeged my mental capacity though. I am a product of Cheshire schools but I bear responsibility for my spelling errors.
Have a nice day!
Tim Slocum
9:48
You are such a genius....tell us all where the money is coming from?
The Republicans filibustered because they want to show the American citizens that they are tired of handouts, especilly to the unions. Whether it is the automotive unions or the teacher's unions, they seem to control what the Dems do.
It is too bad our congress doesn't see that many of us Americans are sick and tired of dipping into our pockets to bail people out.
Hey, my industry is hurting now, but I'm not in a union so I have friends who are losing their jobs and we have been in a pay freeze for 3 years. But I still have a job and I am happy.
People like you and 9:31 (may be the same arrogant person) show what has become too typical of the American worker. They get in trouble and expect someone to bail them out.
I say we need to stop now. We can't afford to keep borrowing from China.
So, tell us all where this money is coming from??Did the Dems just print more?
It's like a kid with a checkbook. I can't be out of money, I still have checks left.
STOP THE BLEEDING!
"Tony,
So if I'm reading your six identical posts correctly,"
I was posting amuck, sorry. I was getting a google error stating the comment string was too big to process when I clicked 'Submit' but it was obviously posting anyway. I'm trying an IP forensics beta software package tied to Google. Sorry.
" you're all for more money coming to Cheshire from the state, but not from the federal government?"
No. What I'm saying is I want Hartford to live up to it's promise of fully funding it's ECS which it hasn't been doing. Hartford has been relying on Federal stimulus money to close the gap. In essence, Hartford is borrowing more borrowed money to cover it's operating budget which I disagree with.
"It's easy to sit there and say: show some guts don't accept it, but the bottom line is, where will it get you? Unelected with more spenders coming into office."
I've said it at BOE meetings but I'm not going to pander to the voters for longevity. The folks that voted for me voted for me because they're fed up with the political rhetoric, they want transparency and they want problems solved...not to mention getting a handle on spending. These problems are not easy to solve and they're going to cause some pain before we see the light at the end of the tunnel.
"You take it, use it and then say stop, no more. You refuse it and it will just be wasted somewhere else."
This is the no-win scenario we're faced with (although obviously it's a win if the money is going to directly benefit students). But, accepting the money continues the tradition of uncontrollable spending that may solve a short-term problem but doesn't address root cause.
On the other hand, IF CT accepts the money CT won't give some of it back to the Feds. It's already spent, in essence. Of course CT is going to spend every single penny of it. I'm 99% certain Rell has her minions feverishly crunching numbers and formulas that would allow her legally skirt the mandate on this stimulus to close other parts of the CT Budget gap, such as Medicaid.
". Wrong or not, some problems can be fixed with it. If you are afraid to use it to hire a teacher that may have to be laid off in a year, then use the money to cover the personnel deficit in the PD."
And when the year is up, and there's no more stimulus money to fund the position, then what? That's not to say the TC will or will not increase taxes or reshuffled the budget to pay for the position after 12 months but they would've already funded the position if the town could afford to do so.
"And 2:32, this bill doesn't increase the deficit at all."
I assume this is because food stamps were cutback in order to fund this program. While I admire that someone in Washington tried to produce a net-zero effect on the deficit I wonder what criteria they used to
Tony P
"So if I'm reading your six identical posts correctly, "
Sorry about that. I was getting "message too long" errors from Google when trying to post my response. So each time I reposted I shortened my message not realizing that it was posting. Not Blogspot's problem, I'm trying out beta software used in IP forsensic analysis.
"you're all for more money coming to Cheshire from the state, but not from the federal government?"
No. I simply want Hartford to fufill it's obligation of funding it's ECS program. Unfortunately, it has been relying on stimulus money to partially fill it's funding gap further borrowing more borrowed money to live up to it's operating budget. Either fully fund it so that it's mandates can be implemented or scale back the mandates so we have adequate funding.
"Tony and Tim, you both are saying that the money is a ploy by the Dems to buy votes for November. I would like to see you both vote against it and see where you end up in your next elections"
I'm not going to pander to the voters for longevitity on the BOE or worry about whether each vote I cast is going to get me re-elected. My predecessors on the BOE played that game and we're left holding the bag. Those that voted for me (thank you) are tired of the bickering, political posteuring, financial irresponsibility that is plaguing us. I consider this stimulus more of the same.
"where will it get you? Unelected with more spenders coming into office.
You take it, use it and then say stop, no more.
You refuse it and it will just be wasted somewhere else."
I learned a long time ago that I cannot possibly make everyone happy. If my decisions don't bode well with voters than I will certainly know about it in Nov 2013. I cannot vote based on getting re-elected it's a disservice to responsible voters.
In some ways we're darned if we do and darned if we don't. But I believe that these handouts have now created an addiction. As a country, it appears that we cannot get ourselves out of this economic rut because it's so easy to take that handout and prolong the inevitable just another 12 months.
I'm sorry...but this latest stimulus is a blatant attempt to appease unions before the November elections. It puts us in a situation where 12 months from now, we're facing the same revenue/budget shortfalls. What then, more stimuli? This is no longer a stimulus...it's life support. Spending our way out of it is not working.
"If you are afraid to use it to hire a teacher that may have to be laid off in a year, then use the money to cover the personel deficit in the PD. The existing vacancies will cost about $500,000 in the next year"
My example about the teacher was compassion for putting them through a potentially vicious cycle. It's not fair. Even if the money is used to cover PD deficits (part of the stimulus money is to be used for that purpose) then the same applies. At the end of 12 months the TC would need to either raise taxes to pay for that position or pray that the Feds grant more stimulus or make cuts elsewhere in the budget. If that PD position could be afforded today, it would be funded through the existing budget.
As I stated earlier...this stimulus and the timing of it is a blatant payoff for votes in November. Why wasn't this passed back in March or January? The fact that all States were (and continue) facing budget shortfalls, high taxes, etc. is not new news. I don't care which political party is responsible for this stimulus but it's just another bad decision that is not solving the problem but digging the hole a little bit deeper.
State of CT projected $3B in the hole and getting bigger. Rell wants to use this stimulus money to plug the medicaid gap and you can bet that she has her minions crunching numbers/formulas to circumvent the stimuli rules for that purpose.
Thanks,
Tony P
"So if I'm reading your six identical posts correctly, "
Sorry about that. I was getting "message too long" errors from Google when trying to post my response. So each time I reposted I shortened my message not realizing that it was posting. Not Blogspot's problem, I'm trying out beta software used in IP forsensic analysis.
"you're all for more money coming to Cheshire from the state, but not from the federal government?"
No. I simply want Hartford to fufill it's obligation of funding it's ECS program. Unfortunately, it has been relying on stimulus money to partially fill it's funding gap further borrowing more borrowed money to live up to it's operating budget. Either fully fund it so that it's mandates can be implemented or scale back the mandates so we have adequate funding.
"Tony and Tim, you both are saying that the money is a ploy by the Dems to buy votes for November. I would like to see you both vote against it and see where you end up in your next elections"
I'm not going to pander to the voters for longevitity on the BOE or worry about whether each vote I cast is going to get me re-elected. My predecessors on the BOE played that game and we're left holding the bag. Those that voted for me (thank you) are tired of the bickering, political posteuring, financial irresponsibility that is plaguing us. I consider this stimulus more of the same.
"where will it get you? Unelected with more spenders coming into office.
You take it, use it and then say stop, no more.
You refuse it and it will just be wasted somewhere else."
I learned a long time ago that I cannot possibly make everyone happy. If my decisions don't bode well with voters than I will certainly know about it in Nov 2013. I cannot vote based on getting re-elected it's a disservice to responsible voters.
In some ways we're darned if we do and darned if we don't. But I believe that these handouts have now created an addiction. As a country, it appears that we cannot get ourselves out of this economic rut because it's so easy to take that handout and prolong the inevitable just another 12 months.
I'm sorry...but this latest stimulus is a blatant attempt to appease unions before the November elections. It puts us in a situation where 12 months from now, we're facing the same revenue/budget shortfalls. What then, more stimuli? This is no longer a stimulus...it's life support. Spending our way out of it is not working.
"If you are afraid to use it to hire a teacher that may have to be laid off in a year, then use the money to cover the personel deficit in the PD. The existing vacancies will cost about $500,000 in the next year"
My example about the teacher was compassion for putting them through a potentially vicious cycle. It's not fair. Even if the money is used to cover PD deficits (part of the stimulus money is to be used for that purpose) then the same applies. At the end of 12 months the TC would need to either raise taxes to pay for that position or pray that the Feds grant more stimulus or make cuts elsewhere in the budget. If that PD position could be afforded today, it would be funded through the existing budget.
As I stated earlier...this stimulus and the timing of it is a blatant payoff for votes in November. Why wasn't this passed back in March or January? The fact that all States were (and continue) facing budget shortfalls, high taxes, etc. is not new news. I don't care which political party is responsible for this stimulus but it's just another bad decision that is not solving the problem but digging the hole a little bit deeper.
State of CT projected $3B in the hole and getting bigger. Rell wants to use this stimulus money to plug the medicaid gap and you can bet that she has her minions crunching numbers/formulas to circumvent the stimuli rules for that purpose.
Thanks,
Tony P
Tony, Thank you for only posting twice instead of 6 times.
" Even if the money is used to cover PD deficits (part of the stimulus money is to be used for that purpose) then the same applies. At the end of 12 months the TC would need to either raise taxes to pay for that position or pray that the Feds grant more stimulus or make cuts elsewhere in the budget"
Maybe you are unaware of happenings around town, but the PD is currently short 5-7 officers. These are positions that are already budgeted for payroll. We did not layoff these officers. In the next few months, we have to pay for new hire training, uniforms, and benefits. The open positions have to be filled while the new hires are in the academy. Current officers will be making overtime on a daily basis for atleast 6 months. That leaves us paying the trainees their $30,000 and paying current officers an additional $30,000+/- to do the trainees job. This year will be very expensive for the town and the PD.
Hopefully, you now understand that the PD deficits are due to retirements and better offers and are already budgeted positions.
Yeah, I'm expecting PD salary costs to be unusual this year. Even if a 25 yr veteran is replaced with a (lower salary) rookie, there will be significant OT to cover all the staffing changes.
"Tony, Thank you for only posting twice instead of 6 times."
You're welcome.
"Tony, Thank you for only posting twice instead of 6 times."
You're welcome. :-)
Cheshire expects a shortfall in excess of 2 million dollars next year - What a line of garbage. Fiscal years 2004-2007 this town posted a surplus of over 2 million dollars each year. 2008 (the downfall of society) this town posted 1/2 million dollar surplus. Last year, 2009, the town posted an approximate 1 million dollar surplus. All the doomsday predictions are not coming to fruition, the Town will survive just fine and will continue to do fine
Fat years were great at producing excess moneies coming back from the state. We're in the lean years now...no pleasant surprises at year end. The current council is spending surpluses from a fews yearts ago to cover shortfalls it can avoid now.
Post a Comment