Last Updated: March 31, 2010

No-Go on Pending Education Legislation Aimed to Raise Contingency Budget

• Adam Grohman
On March 19, New York State Senators Suzi Oppenheimer (D, White Plains) and Craig Johnson (D, Nassau County) were successful in passing the Education Mandate Relief Act through New York Senate that, as previously reported, (The Leader, March 24, 2010) would have altered how the contingency budget increases were determined. Despite a 56-2 vote in favor of the act in the Senate, according to Darlene D. Murray, Senate Education Committee Clerk, Office of Senator Suzi Oppenheimer, the “bill is no longer active in the Assembly.” Though no specific reason was provided as to why the Education Mandate Relief Act stumbled once it hit the floor of the New York State Assembly, Murray outlined that “there is no chance of its passage,” due to its current inactive status. As a result, barring any future proposed bills, the contingency budgets, as previously reported, will remain at 0% growth. Had the Education Mandate Relief Act passed, the 2010-2011 cap on the contingency percentage would have been 3.1%.
Currently, if a school budget fails to receive a passing vote during the first vote, school districts can either propose a second budget for vote or accept the contingency or “austerity” budget. If the school district chooses, they can forgo proposing a second proposal and accept the contingency budget. If a second budget vote also fails to gather enough positive voter support, the school district is forced to utilize the contingency budget. Ms. Murray noted that this year, the contingency budget “will be zero,” but corrected previously published information that indicated that a zero percent contingency budget cap was the norm. Murray explained that normally, “every year, the calculation for a contingency budget changes since it is tied to the CPI.” Past contingency budgets, she explained have usually ranged from “around 1% to 3% and is capped at 4%.” This percentage increase provides for the “growth in fixed costs such as energy (transportation and facilities), health insurance, payments into the Teachers’ Retirement System (which is invested in the stock market, and therefore changes according to how the stock market is doing), etc.”
“Senator Oppenheimer's bill,” noted Murray, proposed to “change the calculation to a five-year rolling average of the CPI, rather than using the previous years' CPI. This would even out the natural fluctuations in the CPI from year to year. Last year's CPI,” Murray outlined, “was a negative number.”
At the February 23 first public meeting regarding the budget for the Locust Valley Central School District, an austerity budget, as noted by Locust Valley Central School District Superintendant Hunderfund, would result in “catastrophic cuts.” As previously reported, (The Leader, March 3, 2010) “if the zero contingency budget is the course of action, the district will be severely limited in its ability to maintain its current operating tempo. Hunderfund outlined that the exclusions required by law, if the zero contingency budget is implemented would include the end of “all capital projects (utilizing 2010-2011 budget funds) and non-essential maintenance, no support for the school lunch program, no replacement of school buses, no non-instructional equipment, no support for the summer recreation program, limited school supplies (forcing the supplies to be provided by the student’s family or guardian), no pro-bono or reduced fees for use of facilities by community groups, and the end of the driver’s education program.” In addition to the exclusions, Hunderfund further outlined how the zero contingency budget-reality would adversely affect the overall district’s ability to maintain its current level of excellence. There could be “significant class size increase, significant staff reductions (up to 50 faculty members), elimination of non-required subjects and classes, a reduction of current student transportation services, elimination of non-mandated support services, elimination of inter-scholastic sports, elimination of extra-curricular activities, elimination of non-mandated pupil personnel services, elimination of community services, continuing education program and the remedial summer programs.” Essentially the implementation of the zero-contingency budget could eliminate the bulk of the integral aspects that are currently provided to the students. Comment regarding the proposed and now in-active legislation from the Locust Valley Central School District though requested, was not received as of press time.
With the “inactive” status of the Oppenheimer and Johnson sponsored bill, this year’s 0% contingency budget cap will remain in effect. Unless other legislation is proposed and passed, school districts, as outlined above would, if a first vote is rejected by voters, could choose, or after a second vote of their proposed budget receives a no-go vote, would be forced to accept an austerity budget of zero percent. So maybe “no” still means no after all?

 

---