Better explanation needed on Jackson school budget

Paul Mayerowitz

Guest Column

A recent letter from the Finance Committee of the Jackson Board of Education tried to set the record straight about half-truths and the board's budgeting practices. It wanted to make sure that everyone knew the truth. Although the election for the budget has been concluded at this point and these comments may fall on deaf ears, it is never too late to set the record straight. This I agree with wholeheartedly. The board encouraged individuals to come forward and ask questions about the budget and I did this. The answers did not set the record straight.

Just what is a "phantom" student? A student existing in appearance only but not really there. The board's budget assumed an increase of 191 students over the prior year. The two prior years had increases of 78 and 53 students, respectively. So the budget included a threefold increase in students over the prior two-year average. Why?

When asked at their public workshop on the budget, they cited Jackson's explosive growth. This was their best estimate of student enrollment. In support of this estimate they pulled out an article in the Asbury Park Press that documented this growth. This article addressed future growth and not current growth. No one on the board could identify those new housing developments that were coming on line in calendar year 2007 that could support their projection.

The board cited changing demographics - older residents moving out and younger residents moving in - as the cause of the enrollment increase. This is occurring, but not at a rate substantially different than previously. Let's also remember that those prior years also have documented cases of new housing developments.

I agree that the Board of Education does not knowingly go forward and hire teachers and buy books for students who don't exist. However, at some point we have to have teachers and books available for students on the first day of school. We budget for those items and it is in the 2007 budget that we budget them. When are decisions made so that we have the right number of teachers and books available for our students on the first day of school? Also, how do you derive these numbers? Wouldn't the budget that is prepared and approved in April be your starting point?

I am not sure about the impact on the budget of an increase of 191 students vs. a lower number. The physical plant is still there and needs to be paid for. Our teachers are still there and the average classroom size might change slightly when distributed over all schools. Perhaps the dollar differential is meaningless. But even if it is, the budget should have a forecast that is justifiable and can be supported. This hasn't been done. At this point we can only wait and see if the increase does or does not materialize in October.

As presented by the board, the proposed 2007-08 school year budget increased by $3.1 million, from $129.7 million to $132.8 million, a 2.4 percent increase. This change represented the increase over the prior year budget. Note that this is a budget to budget year comparison and not the increase over the projected spending in 2006. This is where a problem exists.

I was advised that this was the format that the state of New Jersey mandates and the board was in compliance with that format. However, the state does not restrict the board from providing additional information which might allow the taxpayers to truly understand the real spending increases inherent in the budget. Isn't that why the board gives a presentation to the public?

Again, it is too late to do anything about it but let's examine the real numbers.

The base 2006 number of $129.7 million is the ap-proved 2006 board budget. It is not an estimate of the money actually being spent in 2006. Based on board data, the current year spending was actually going to be $1.4 million less than the anticipated 2006 budget. The 2006 base year also included carry-over purchase orders from 2005 of $2.3 million. No such carry-over exists in 2007.

Therefore, if you adjust the base 2006 number for these changes, the true 2006 spending base is $126 million. As such, the actual increase in spending proposed was from a restated base year of $126 million to the proposed $132.8 million, an increase of $5.8 million or 5.4 percent.

So which number do you present to the taxpayers? You present both if you want everyone to understand the budget.

I am not implying that the Board of Education tried to hide the real numbers. I would not have been able to raise the aforementioned questions if they did not assist in providing the details to my questions. However, to present the increase as only a 2.4 percent increase is just simply inappropriate and misleading. We need a more thorough presentation of the school budget each year. A 30-minute presentation on a budget of $132 million is too short.

Details on enrollments, staffing and capacity by school would go a long way in making the budget more understandable by the residents. It might even make it easier to approve a school board budget. As I suggested to the board chairperson, adding some non-board members to the finance committee might add more balance and perspective to the budget process.

Additionally, the meetings of the finance committee, except those relating to individual employment actions, contract or labor negotiations and/or pending litigation, should be open to the public so that we can observe the committee in action.

Still a thank you is in order to the members of the finance committee for the significant amount of time spent in preparing the annual budget and monitoring current year expenditures. The members of the committee as well as the entire board deserve our support and respect as they represent us the taxpayers. We in turn deserve the same.

All of our students should have the opportunity to be a rocket scientist, a doctor, a nuclear physicist or a teacher. They should all have the advantages that a strong educational system can provide. An educational system that instructs them not only in academic studies but also in values. We might start this process by presenting budgets that are as insightful as they are accurate while supporting the educational system that we all want for our children as they are our future

Paul Mayerowitz is a resident of Jackson.