Worcester City Council hears the Worcester Public Schools budget

Looks like we have John Monfredo from the School Committee, Mr. Allen, and, on her first day in her new position, Superintendent Binienda
updating as we go..once we start...here we go! Mayor Petty is in.
Petty: any questions?

Meetings next week (with UPDATE from the Council agenda)

More to come on both of these, but both the Governance subcommittee and the full School Committee meet next week.
Governance meets on Tuesday at 5. This includes an update of the employee social media and computer use policies (which has been on here since last June), updates on making WPS the school of choice, the question of having a Title I parent council, and Rep. O'Day's H3793 on health education.
The full Committee meets on Thursday at 7 (6 for Executive Session). The report of the superintendent is on the school disciplinary policy. Remember that there is also the public hearing on the proposed grant for security communication between schools and policy, as well as the vote on the proposed IB school.

UPDATE: Also, I see from the Council agenda that we've hit the annual "I'm on City Council, but I'm doing School Committee's job" season:

Request City Manager obtain information/reports from the appropriate departments prior to this year’s budget as to the cost(s) and feasibility of implementing full-time Worcester Police Officer(s) and/or metal detector(s) in each of our public high schools and the current costs/expenses associated with security measures thereat. (Bergman, Rosen)

A) not the City Manager's (or the City Council's) job and B) (multiple reviews of the research reveal) not something that actually makes schools (or ballparks) safer.

Councilors vocally supporting education

A bit late on this post, but in the interest of giving credit where due...

At Tuesday night's Worcester City Council meeting, there was some outspoken support for education in discussing the FY16 budget. An item filed by Councilor Gaffney recommended that the city either not raise taxes at all, or if they were raised, to direct the funding to OPEB, or OPEB, police, and fire; oddly, it appears that Gaffney was partly justifying this based on an assertion that chapter 70 was cut last year and wasn't this year, which is untrue (it was fully funded both years).
The following was said by other councilors in response (and my thanks to Worcester Magazine reporter Tom Quinn, who liveblogged the meeting; all quotes taken from his notes):

Councilor Economou: As a district councilor I think it's premature to make that commitment when the majority of calls I get are about streets, sidewalks, playgrounds, schools.

Councilor Rushton:This is about numbers. Nothing more than numbers. If there is not the 2.5 percent increase, it means 15 million will not be there to fund services. The order is kind of wishy washy – it says don't raise it, but if you do, I want it to go to three categories – police, fire, OPEB. You're eliminating WPS. The 15 mil will be coming out of the classroom.

Mayor Petty;We're not going to do the fire and police motion at the expense of teachers, public works, city hall administrative offices.

Councilor Rosen: The schools are short teachers. I know what it's like to teach in schools without sufficient numbers.

Councilor Rivera: The facts are, when you break this down, we're cutting public works, police, firefighters, teachers.

Now, the proof, as they say, is in the pudding, and so we won't draw any conclusions on this until we see the actual FY16 budget. As has been pointed out a couple of times already this spring, the required contribution of the city to WPS for FY16 went up by $1.6M; usually it goes up by more like $3M. Thus this would be an excellent year for the city to make up ground on underfunding the schools. We remain $3M under minimum school spending; if the city doesn't start to make up ground on that, and doesn't keep up the funding required for transportation, we could be looking at $4.5M or more underfunded for next year.

I'm encouraged by the words. I hope it's more than words.

WPS budget before Council: FY15 edition

posting as we go...
awaiting a quorum...
Petty: first session is Worcester Public Schools

RIP, Mrs. Rosen

Our condolences to former School Committee and City Council member Gary Rosen on the death of his mother.
I only knew Mrs. Rosen through Gary's frequent mentions of her on the radio when I was on with him. She was a faithful listener and Gary never forgot that. I know she'll be missed.

WCRN on the budget

And I should note that the second half of the radio show that I do with Gary Rosen tonight will be on the school budget (specifically, my giving him a hard time about his column in last week's Worcester Magazine, which I can't find online).
WCRN 830, starting at about 7:30 pm

Comments from the members: Rosen

Selling airport: a done deal?
Yes, more or less

Rosen talks about the Alliance for Education coming back to Worcester

Combining offices: HR, purchasing...has Boone heard of the suggestions? would she be willing to look at it?

At the 11/19 meeting, the HR task force is coming back! "generate interesting information" and how different the departments are...

From Council

Councilor Rosen just threw a big wrench in the works here tonight by taking Section 19 (which provides for coalition bargaining for retirees) OFF THE TABLE (where it's been since March). He's done that in response to a motion (under suspension) from Councilor Petty capping retirees health insurance rate at 30%. He said he wanted to have a real conversation.

UPDATED: After a great deal of talking (including testimony from Virginia Ryan, former EAW president), Rosen tabled his motion (thus re-tabling Section 19?), and Petty's motion was put off to next week. Stay tuned...

Pension Reform: Rosen

Gary Rosen has just spoken at some length about the state's rejection of Worcester's local option, saying (I paraphrase) that the $12 million under tax levy is not relevant, that we weren't asking for more money, that it's a terrible year to raise taxes.

Councilor Rosen

...with much commenting on how "it's been years" since he's paid close attention to this, but he's concerned. He's also remembering a well-stocked chemistry closet at Doherty.
He points out the 80% rate of moving in some schools.

A popular choice?

We would be remiss if we didn't point out Daily Worcesteria's post from yesterday revealing that Councilor Rich Rushton is considering a run for School Committee.
That would make two at-large Councilors potentially in the race for School Committee, as Councilor Gary Rosen is also considering a run for School Committee.
Neither Councilor has formally announced a run for School Committee, and only Rosen has pulled papers for it, 'though he has not yet turned in any signatures for either at-large or School Committee.

Campaigning?

We should comment, incidentally, on the presence of Councilor Gary Rosen at tonight's School Committee meeting. It is so extremely rare as to unheard of to see any councilor at a School Committee meeting. Interesting in light of today's Worcester Magazine comment that he might be running for School Committee rather than re-election.

Rosen on the public schools

In speaking of the privatization of public health, Councilor Rosen commented:
"public schools have some pretty good finances for this coming year"

Rosen "brings back memories"

"brings back memories of those ten years I was on the School Committee...I thought we had come so far...a little painful for us...can take me out of the school system but you can't take the school system out of me."
"They are the City...we are the City...there's no competition"
Budget constraints make us pull in all directions. School Committee members were elected to advocate for the children; city councilors were elected to advocate for children, too.
"Let's keep in mind that this has to be a team...a team of seventeen."
dang, is he running for something?
Rosen is the first City Councilor who directs a question to Brian Allen: he asks how the loss of the funds will show up in the school budget.
It's been factored into the budget already, he says.
Is it teachers? Books? Rosen pushes.
Roughly 20 teachers, Allen says.

Human Resources Task Force appointed

At an 11:30 press conference this afternoon, interm superintendent Loughlin appointed the Human Resources task force. The members are:

• Tracy Hassett, Chair: Vice-President, Human Resources, WPI
• Nicole Brown: Assistant Dean, Worcester State College
• Russell Vanderbaan: Vice-President, Human Resources, Morgan Construction
  
• Jose Vieira: Assistant Superintendent, Milford Public Schools
• Patricia Webb: Senior Vice-President, Human Resources, UMass-Memorial Healthcare

Superintendent Loughlin introduced the group, then turned the floor over to Mayor Lukes, who commented that the city has "suffered a black eye" from the current and ongoing flap around the schools' Human Resources department. The task force will conduct an "in-depth investigation" and report back to the Superintendent. She commented also that this is a "very professional and qualified group."
Mr. Bogigian and Mr. Monfredo were the other School Committee members there, and both briefly commented. Councilor Rosen also attended, as did several parents of special needs children, who spoke with both the press and the officials after the meeting.

Liveblogging joint subcommittee meeting: who's here

Present are the three members of the City Council subcommittee (Toomey, the chair; Eddy; Smith) and two of the members of the School Committee standing committee (Foley, the chair; Bogigian; O'Connell is the 3rd member and he's running late).
Also in the room are Mary Mullaney, Gary Rosen, and Barbara Haller.

Liveblogging City Council:Rosen

"preserve as many services as possible"
"cannot have too little money, too little revenue, and have the same services"

Liveblogging City Council: FY10 budget goes on the road?

And we're off on budget hearings and transparency...

9a.Request the City Council, in conjunction with the City Administration, consider establishing a series of three public hearings across the City relating to the Fiscal Year 2010 budget to provide maximum budget-related data to the general public and to receive maximum public input all modeled after the successful protocols implemented in the City of Portland, Oregon. Also, request that there be a comment section created on the City’s web site to allow immediate remote commentary as a result of these community hearings.

Councilor Toomey has proposed the motion, in the name of transparency.

Councilor Clancy says Council "unlike School Committee through the years" has met a number of times in an open, televised process..."I really think we do have an open transparent process." He comments that he likes the process as it is.

Clancy asks if we have a schedule for the budget hearings. The Manager answers that the budget is still waiting for final information on the application of federal stimulus money; he intended to have it ready this Friday...but now it's looking like it's going to be Tuesday instead. It will be presented with a budget summary this year, rather than a budget message as per usual.

Toomey says she's not asking to change the budget process, but to add meetings, hearings..."it doesn't have to be our budget session" She insists that the public be recognized, as not everyone can make the regular Council sessions.

Councilor Rosen notes that it's a suggestion.

Councilor Rushton calls the budget process "stale and unengaging...it may be tough at this point" He says we can engage the public...notes the governor goes online to engage the public..."it's here..." He speaks of the smart phones offered to the Councilors: "We've had a largely unengaged citizenry while the budget hearings are happening"

Councilor Eddy rises to "amend" after a reminder from the mayor that they may only rise for a limited number of reasons...he doesn't think the budget process is stale. He would like the subcommittees go out to hear public commentary on the budget.

Councilor Clancy suggests flip-flopping the budget hearings and the regular Council meeting: the meetings at 4, the hearings at 7.

Toomey says that it's a "hearing about the budget" not "a budget hearing," "away from City Hall." The various items pass for at least consideration.

City Council notes: apologies for the hold-up

I did not liveblog the Tuesday (3/3) City Council meeting, but I did take some notes on the budget. Tuesday's talk around the budget was largely a reaction to the presentation, just preceding the meeting, by the Massachusetts Taxpayers' Foundation, which then was repeated for the public at 7pm at South Community High.

The big news this week from the City Manager was the 75/25 split being taken by non-union employees. The Manager is determined on this one, and the numbers are stark:

• on the City side, a 75/25 split would save the City $2.35 million
• on the School side, the same split would save the City $3.4 million

On average, an employee would pay around $12 more a week with that change.

This is one where public opinion could really make a difference. There was a line tossed in last week's Clive McFarlane column by Dr. Mills referencing the teachers' union--"they eat their young." Speaking as a former MTA member, that isn't always true. But the numbers this year are going to come down, in many cases, to everyone paying $12 more a week for health insurance or laying off the newest of every profession. We already saw that happen with the police. Teachers are certainly going to have this happen next if the health insurance becomes a deal breaker.

The stark news from the presentation by the Taxpayers Association was that the Governor's budget appears to have been too rosy. According to the Manager, it looks like the Governor's budget has $1 billion that doesn't exist anymore. Thus his cuts in local aid don't go deep enough.

The Manager has intentionally not included the Emergency Relief bill in his calculations of the FY10 city budget, as we can't count on that money, as the bill hasn't passed yet. This led to Councilor Clancy asking for the Council to send a letter (per our delegation's request) to the Legislature, asking for them to pass the bill. The Mayor asked that the three portions of Emergeny Relief be dealt with separately (she doesn't support a meals tax). Councilor Eddy then held the item under privilege. That one won't move until next week. If you're wonder what the ER bill would do, it has three parts:

• "closing the telecom loophole" which would charge telephone companies taxes (in essence). For Worcester, this would mean an estimated $361,969
• a 1 cent meals tax, for Worcester would mean an estimated $2,780,336
• a 1 cent hotel/motel tax, for Worcester would mean an estimated $233,579

Councilor Petty gently urged the School Department to get moving on giving the city some numbers: "the more we know the better." He pointed out that the Council has been getting reports from the Manager "in depth." The only number anyone seems to have from the schools is the $18 million deficit given at last week's School Committee meeting.

Councilor Toomey asked the Manager what the given deficit is for the city if the city is level-funded, citing a school deparment number of $10 million on the school side. The Manager was clearly not thrilled about this question, saying that he thought the schools' number "may be oversimplified" but eventually gave a figure of between $9 and 11 million. This is what I cited below: given the same amount of income and no new budget items, there's automatically a deficit due to the increased cost of doing business from one year to the next.

Councilor Rosen repeated the line from the Taxpayers' Association: we should expect "thousands of teachers in Massachusetts to be laid off in the next few years."

When do we start paying attention?

Here's a troubling exchange from tonight's City Council meeting (with humble thanks, as always to Daily Worcesteria). Councilor Rosen here is question City Manager O'Brien about his planned early retirements:

Rosen: Why weren’t teachers included in early retirement?

O’Brien: A lot of stimulus money is going to education, and “there wasn’t a lot of interest” from the school department.

Is there an assumption here that the fed is going to save everything? Between this and the lack of planning for next year's budget, the school department is starting to look much behind the eight ball.