Commentary & Letters
March 25, 2010, pages 3 & 4
CCS School Budget, for and against, & Trails

Commentary by the CCS School Board
CCS, A School in Transition
Part 2: Revised CCS Budget Proposal

For the past two weeks, the CCS School Board has followed a deliberative and thoughtful process to develop a revised budget for the 2010-2011 school year. The board considered feedback provided by taxpayers, the CCS faculty and the administration in preparing the revised budget of $7,062,271, a DECREASE of 2.44% from last year’s budget. The following outlines the reductions the Board has made to the current budget amount:

Reductions in the Initial Proposed Budget (-1.65%)
• elimination of 2 full-time teaching positions
• elimination of 0.5 administration position
• elimination of the co-curricular enrichment
position
• elimination of assistant to the Principal position
• reduction of nurse from full-time to a 0.9
position
• CSSU courier service eliminated
• Supplies budget reduced to 2008-2009 school
year level
• Technology budget flatlined

Additional Reductions in the Revised Budget (-2.44%)
• one bus eliminated
• savings related with teacher retirements
• reduction/elimination of funds for supplies for
the board and the Principal
• additional reduction in the operations and main-
tenance budget

Based upon information we have received from many sources, it is clear that many misconceptions remain about certain elements of our budget. These include:

Misconception: The proposed budget was higher than the current budget.
FACT: The school’s current budget (09/10) is the same as in the previous school year (08/09). The budget proposed at Town Meeting was $119,583 LESS than the two previous years, or a reduction by 1.65%. The revised proposed budget is $176,999 LESS than the two previous years, or a reduction of 2.44%.

Misconception: The bond payment will be a payment in addition to the school tax.
FACT: The proposed budget includes the debt service on the bond and all other costs associated with the project. This project will address significant safety and health issues in the building.

Misconception: We are increasing the number of administrators at CCS.
FACT: The proposed budget has 2.5 administrators, a reduction of 0.5 administrators from last year’s budget.

Misconception: We have a declining enrollment and accordingly should cut more staff.
FACT: CCS had a declining enrollment until 2007. In response, six teaching positions were eliminated in accordance with a plan formulated in 2007. Demographic projections suggest that CCS’s enrollment will increase for the next several years.

The CCS School Board is committed to providing our students with the best quality education possible at a cost that does not unduly burden Charlotte taxpayers. Our proposed revised budget carefully balances these interests and should allow us to continue to provide each student with an educational experience that promotes academic excellence and enables each student to develop confidence and the knowledge skills and behaviors necessary to become a competent, caring, productive and responsible citizen. We thank you for your continued understanding as we work through these challenging times.

CCS School Board, schoolboard@ccsvt.us
Lynne Jaunich, 425-6223
Sue Thibault, 985-5096
Kristin Wright, 425-5105
Clyde Baldwin, 425-3366
Daniel Luce, 425-7700

-------------------
Commentary by Clyde Baldwin
A Dissenting View
page 1

The CCS Board has backed the community into having to accept a budget that includes items which have not been adequately discussed and which represent an outrageous end run around what the community supported. A shortcoming of a republic is that for the term of office officials are free to act as they please, regardless of public sentiment.

The board has done this by offering contracts to CO-PRINCIPALS, which have been signed and are binding, prior to a budget being approved, by changing the building project completely AFTER THE FACT of community approval, and, of course, by all but completely disregarding community input on math.

How any of this supports the statement that  “We (the board) value your participation, support and consideration” …..escapes me.

Facts. Having co-principals will, as indicated, cost us about 10K more than a principal/vice-principal. Describing this as “no more” than a principal and vice-principal is peculiar. In a year where we struggled to find a few thousand dollars, 10K strikes me as “more.”  I’d rather have, for example, drama, after-school sports and a variety of other things than co-principals.  Perhaps disregarding 10K is an Every Day Math thing.

More significant is the issue of the non-process which was used to arrive at this decision.  Serious input was taken only from the faculty, board members and the superintendent – all of whom (except myself) favored the design. There was no support of numbers, research or performance – the things that we claim to be paying attention to in our deliberations – or any broad-based community discussion. The last time the COMMUNITY discussed the issue of separate middle and elementary schools, the concept was resoundingly defeated. Facts and genuine community involvement are missing. The board and the faculty work for the community. Our/their opinion is valued but not the final answer. Don’t kid yourself: this is the first step in creating separate entities. Shelburne is widely viewed within their community as having two separate entities housed within the same building. With a Charlotte student population of +/- 450 this is wrong.

The plan to change from renovating to razing the ‘49 building should leave the community slack-jawed in disbelief.  NO ONE – including me – came away from those presentations believing that we were going to do anything other than renovate. The town has paid dearly for the space that we have and the board did not advertise a serious possibility of a complete re-design after the fact of your money being in our pocket. After the fact, the decision was handed over to a handpicked, self-selected group who favored razing the building. The board rubber-stamped this group’s decision…..

None of this generates the trust and confidence which a community should have in its board.  I caution those people who favor co-principals and razing the ‘49 building to distinguish between ends and means and consider their reaction if the shoe were on the other foot. There must be a reliable, visible, trustworthy process which - after widespread input, discussion and consideration - yields a well-defined plan which the board can be trusted to enact. The actuality is an example of the machinery of government being co-opted to favor a particular viewpoint.

The community is trapped in the “yes, but…” phenomenon. It works like this: “Yes, we did this or that or didn’t do this or that but we HAVE to pass a budget that’s best for kids NOW.”

The board is executing a fait accompli which depends for its success on the unstated fact that the significant issues of trust, reliability and genuine process cannot be addressed within the time frame of passing a budget. Because of this many voters will wonder whether their vote counts or whether they should vote at all, absent the ability to address the actual issues.

I will vote against any budget which includes, among other things, co-principals and will – sooner or later – include expenditure for a building program which the community did not approve. If this budget fails by one vote – mine – I will be comfortable in the knowledge that I spoke and voted on behalf of actions which are to the benefit of both the narrowly defined school community and the community as a whole.

Clyde Baldwin
------------------

Letter from Ed Amidon
Please vote on April 6 to approve the revised budget
page 3

Consider when you vote April 6 on the revised CCS budget that the tax rate increase culprit is not our local school board. Vermont is one of two states where the local education property tax is a state tax and not a local tax.

Under Act 60, the Tax Department adds up all the approved school budgets in the state and the total non-exempt grand list, and sets the various tax rates. It is actually slightly more complicated – I think by design – but that is the gist of it. Recently the Legislature has not been above reaching into the education fund cookie jar for non-school purposes as well.

How did we get to this point? Prior to Act 60, Vermont had a system like New York and most other states where the general fund (income tax, sales tax, etc.) helped out school districts with low property values in order to equalize educational opportunity. However, our Legislature in the eighties and nineties gradually siphoned off school district aid to pay for large budgets in other areas such as social services, health and corrections. Not enough general fund money was left for poor school districts, and so the local property tax base was tapped.

In sum, but for Act 60, the year-to-year budget reductions by the CCS Board would mean reduced education property taxes (subject to grand list fluctuation and currency of town appraisals). So, don’t take your upset out on the CCS Board and local students – the big money school tax decisions are effectively made in Montpelier when the general fund pie is divided up. Please vote on April 6 to approve the revised budget.

      Ed Amidon

---------------------
Trails as transportation
Letter By Charlie Proutt
page 4

The Charlotte trail project should be classified as a transportation project rather than a recreation project and put under Junior’s thoughtful jurisdiction.

During hard times it is no wonder that the voters turned down trails as a recreation project. We already have Demeter, Mt. Philo, Thompson’s Point, private trails and many beautiful rural roads to walk and bicycle upon. Who needs the flatlands behind the Town Offices for recreation?

But for transportation, why that’s a different thought. As cars and fuel get more and more expensive, and as our midsections continue to expand, many of us would walk or ride into town or to a park. While rural roads are used all the time, trails are needed to circumvent riding or walking along the dreaded Route 7.

If only we could pry from the railroad a right of way for a path to Ferrisburg, Shelburne and Burlington. Our town trail would serve as a feeder to that corridor, which would really have an impact on trails as transportation. Wouldn’t it make sense to ride a bike along a flat trail to get to the Shelburne Athletic Club?

The trails committee should really focus on trails as transportation, leading from rural roads and neighborhoods to popular local destinations. By using a tiny percentage of our highway fund we could begin to develop a trail. The committee could provide needed direction and advice, and Junior could follow through with implementation. In a few short years we might have somewhere to go and an alternative way to get there.

Charlie Proutt
----------------

Supervisory districts and trails
Letter by Rick Pete
page 4

I offer my full support for the intelligent views and information  supplied by the letters of both Joseph Blanchette and John Howe on trails being a great asset to a location and a joy to use and a huge thank-you to those who voluntarily helped to achieve them, and to supporting some of the best teachers I have ever met at CVU.

My son is now a hopefully graduating senior, and we have never wished he had a different teacher. We have entertained a bunch of his team- mates and friends in our home and are both impressed and encouraged that there is hope for the future through these bright and intelligent kids. The teachers are encouraging, enthusiastic and professional.  And all through the angst of those teenage years, they have been supportive of their charges and appear to have accomplished quite well the goal of not only educating but encouraging them to think on their own.

I support teachers’ and parents’ ability to determine basic education systems and also support limiting the obvious unnecessary bulk of a bureaucratic institution that the supervisory system has become. I love the reference that Hawaii with double our population has one supervisory district and Vermont with half their population has 60! Why cut it from 60 to 16, why not to one just like $1 for trails. I believe in the teachers’ ability to teach and the parents’ to know.

Rick Pete