An Arlington leader can change his mind, and Charlie Foskett has. After spelling out a lengthy argument in March to the Finance Committee questioning the way the school administration is handling special-education funds, Foskett said he planned to ask Town Meeting to cut $1 million from the school budget proposed for next year.
“It’s not OK to change the rules.”Jud Pierce, School Committee
Then this month the vice chairman of the Finance Committee decided to go along with the vote of the board, which approved the planned school budget, by a vote of 13-4-1.
His desire to cooperate with the committee has history: He said that during his tenure on the Finance Committee, the only time he has acted against its vote that he can remember was on the Park Circle Fire Station, in 2005.
Before changing his mind about fiscal 2016 school budget, which Town Meeting will take up this year, Foskett told the Fincom on March 25 that the administration is “playing footloose and fancy-free with taxpayers’ money”in ways that are contrary to the plan aimed at controlling costs following the 2011 override.
Among other goals, that plan called for annual limits on increases for town and school budgets of 3 1/2 percent and a 7 percent for special education. The plan worked well for three years and was extended to 2020. This year the town’s Long-Range Planning Committee has proposed some changes to those targets.
This proposal and the Fincom discussion in March led to vocal upset by some School Committee members at their March 26 meeting.
“It’s not OK to change the rules, committee member Jud Pierce said, referring to the proposal to alter established budget targets as well as at a plea to cut $1 million from the school budget. Contacted the next day, he declined further public comment.
What are the proposed changes, and what did Fincom consider March 25? The answers illustrate town leaders trying to rein in hard-to-control issues.
Changes to the three-year, postoverride plan were discussed at February’s Budget & Revenue Task Force meeting, Town Manager Adam Chapdelaine said. The details are included in his budget message (see annual 2016 budget message, page 6). It says:
Administration is “playing footloose and fancy-free with taxpayers’ money.”— Charles Foskett, vice chair, Finance Committee
What the changes are
Under the heading “Balancing Community Needs with Fiscal Prudence,” it says, in part:
“Annual budget growth for the general education portion of the School Department budget will be maintained at 3.5% for FY2016, reduced to 3.25% for FY2017, and then reduced to 3% for FY2018 and beyond.”
The Long-Range Planning Committee includes members of the town and school administration, including those quoted in this story.
There has been little public discussion about these proposed changes in postoverride targets. The Advocate’s report of the Feb. 23 budget task force does not mention them. YourArlington did not cover the meeting. A page one report in last week’s Advocate refers to the issue but does not explain its impact. This report is an attempt to do that.
A summary of Fincom’s votes March 25 shows the tug-of-war that can occur over town money matters. Following a respectful hourlong discussion, the committee cast three:
First was a motion to table the school budget and have school-administration representatives return — they had made a lengthy presentation two days earlier. That was defeated, 5-11, with two abstentions.
Next was a motion by Foskett to reduce the fiscal 2016 school budget plan by $1 million. It was turned back, 5-10, with three abstentions.
Last, a motion to approve the budget passed, 13-4, with one abstention.
Following the March 26 School Committee meeting, YourArlington tried to learn the source of some school officials’ upset and was directed to the Fincom meeting, which eventually became available in video on demand.
Foskett’s argument
At the March 25 Fincom meeting, Foskett provided numbers showing that out-of-district spending for special education has declined in the past year and money that might have been spent on special education has been transferred to general education.
Foskett said he is “not talking about nickels and dimes” and that the school administration counts the 7-percent cap for special-education spending as a revenue source. His argument goes this way:
— Special-education spending for fiscal 2016 shows an increase of 1.6 percent without salary increases. The difference between the forecast expense and the 7-percent limit is about $1.55 million.
— Special-education spending for fiscal 15 is projected at $19,121,299. If the entire account were personnel, a 3-percent increase in payroll would be $573,638, he explained in an email. Because outside services account for a large part the budget, be believes suspect the increases will be well under $500,000.
— The remaining $1 million or more in spending is targeted for elementary and secondary general education. That is in addition to increases of 3.5 and for population growth. The latter refers to $530,069 added to the school budget because of increases in enrollment (see fiscal 2016 budget message, page 7).
Foskett maintains that when the Long-Range Planning Committee agreed to a 7-percent cap for special education, it was supposed to be just for special education.
Out-of-district costs declining
In a separate story, Diane Johnson, the school’s chief financial officer, notes the disagreement about this issue and portrays the school administration’s side of the story.
Contrary to fears about the rise of out-of-district spending — that is, the costs incurred when a special-education student must attend a school beyond town borders — he says his analysis shows most overruns come from in-district spending and that out-of-district spending has declined. His examples: Such spending increased 3 percent in 2013, then 11.74 percent the next year and back down to 3.3 percent last in 2015.
He told the Fincom that townside is cutting their budget in order to push out the need for an override, but that the school administration is increasing its budget. He believes the special-education cap should be reduced to 5 percent, from 7.
He says he strongly favors fully addressing special-education needs, but he says the school administration has been using those costs as a budget screen for the last several years. What he calls the “extra” $1 million should go into a special-education reserve to cover the big variances in costs or should go back to the override stabilization fund or free cash to the benefit of the taxpayer.
Foskett notes he intends to lead the effort for $11 million to refurbish Stratton and co-chaired the 2005 override campaign.
What other Fincom members said
A variety of voices spoke following Foskett’s presentation at the March 25 Fincom meeting.
Fincom Chair Allen Tosti presented a measured view: He said special-education spending has been up and down over the period since the 2011 override. “As long as the average is 7 percent, they’re reasonable,” he said.
Tosti said he had suggested to Superintendent Kathleen Bodie that the administration have a reserve fund just for the special-education cap as a budget line item.
Dick Fanning, the Fincom’s second vice chair who attends School Committee meetings to monitor the budget, commented that with social workers in every school, the schools are being “mother, fathers, doctors” to students.
Fincom member Tom Caccavaro expressed concern about the movement of funds and suggested that they were “moving up the floor”; that is, to administrators. He offered no specifics.
Committee member Len Kardon tempered the discussion some history: He said Arlington is not a town known for special-education services. In fact, a state review in 2005 found special education wanting in many areas. He said the School Committee is “facing a string demands” from parents. He added that the views of some on the Fincom “somewhat biased.”
Member Dean Carman, in a lengthy defense of his position, said: “I am going to vote for the budget.” The schools face numerous pressures as to special education, as well as enrollment. “Are they doing their best?” They are “when it’s understood that [you] can’t keep hammering away” at them, he said.
Member Stephen W. DeCourcey was pointed: He said he would rather “rather the School Department tell [the Fincom] that they need the money elsewhere.”
He added that he favored calling school reps back and provide answers that he said the committee was not getting.
Fincom member John Deyst said similar issues were addressed successfully a couple of years ago with the AYCC, a licensed mental health agency that supports Arlington youth and families. “They’re now paying their way,” he said.
Member Dave McKenna called special education a long-standing issue, because of unfunded mandates, one he knew well in his 15 years on the School Committee (he left in 2003). He said he would rather have a presentation with full facts on the budget. He suggested the Bodie should have added more.
He said Johnson “knows what she’s talking about,” but he agreed with DeCourcey that the Fincom did not get the answers it wanted. He also said he was “torn,” because he agrees with Foskett and others.
Now it’s on to Town meeting, which begins April 27, and this Finance Committee discussion may be a preview of what residents might hear when the school-budget articles comes up for discussion.
Video on demand, March 25, 2015 Finance Committee meeting >>
Proposed fiscal 2016 school budget
This explanatory report was published Monday, April 13, 2015. The publisher thanks Sean Keane of ACMi, who helped in providing improved audio for the March 25 Finance Committee meeting video.
