Showing posts with label Board of Education. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Board of Education. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 02, 2010
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
School Board Candidates Squabble Over Illegal Flyer
District 3 Board of Education candidate Karen Smith is blasting At-Large Board of Education candidate Lisa Lloyd for distributing a flyer that misrepresents her positions. And because the flyer lacks an authority line, it’s illegal to boot!
Here’s the flyer from Lloyd, which lists six campaign positions and urges voters to support her and three other candidates, one of whom is Smith.
Note the lack of authority line on the flyer, which is required by state election law.
Upon seeing the flyer, Smith fired off this email to Lloyd and the other school board candidates.From: Karen Smith [mailto:karen@karensmith4boe.org]
Sent: Wed 10/20/2010 11:25 PM
To: citizensforlloyd@gmail.com
Cc: [Other school board candidates]
Subject: Unauthorized flyer
Ms. Lloyd:
It was brought to my attention tonight that you are distributing a flyer with my name on it that purports to represent me as having signed on to your platform in your race for the Board of Education.
I am writing to tell you to immediately stop distribution of this flyer as it seriously misrepresents my positions in this campaign. You did not consult me about this flyer, and if you had, I would have told you unequivocally and in no uncertain terms that you were NOT to put my name on it.
You will also attempt to retrieve any flyers that have already been distributed, or are in line to be distributed by other organizations on your behalf.
Please do me the courtesy of acknowledging your receipt of this message and informing me of your plan of action to correct this.
Karen Smith
Candidate for the Board of Education, District 3
Montgomery County Public Schools
No word yet on whether Lloyd has corrected the flyer, or has chosen to obey the law.
The dispute may not matter very much. Incumbents Pat O’Neil and Shirley Brandman, who are running against Smith and Lloyd respectively, have been endorsed by the Washington Post and MCEA. But what this squabble lacks in profundity, it certainly makes up for in sheer entertainment value!
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Wednesday, September 08, 2010
On the School Board Races
By Laura Berthiaume.
I am not up for election in 2010. Thank goodness. I did not have to campaign in over 50 plus days of 90 degree plus heat, my summer was largely my own, and I can put everything that goes with thinking about running for office into my “decisions to be made next summer” box. Still, I have been following this year’s political races closely, the school board races most closely of all. We all have a lot riding on the primary next Tuesday and on the general election in November, but I submit that the most important races are actually those you will vote on at the end of the ballot. So here are three myths about the Board of Education Races that I would like to dispel (hat tip to the Post’s Five Myths, and yes I limited myself to three instead of five - be glad).
1) Mike Durso isn’t the best candidate for the District 5 seat.
Not so. In fact, he is not only the best candidate for the District 5 seat, he may just be the key to the best future of our schools. Mike was unanimously selected by the rest of the Board to take Nancy Navarro’s seat. Honestly, once he threw his name into the hat, and once we saw him answer our questions, it was no contest. Mike has an intimate knowledge of schools and how they work (or do not work) because he has been in the thick of it for decades. He has been a principal in three jurisdictions: the District of Columbia, Virginia and Maryland. He retired as the principal of Springbrook High School, a “red zone” school, and his work there garnered the respect of both his students and his peers. Perhaps for me, his most sterling recommendation was that unlike many others he was never promoted up (or down, or even fired upwards, as some would have it) to MCPS headquarters during his decade or so in MCPS under the current administration. I figured that meant he probably had a spine, and I was right. His vote on the Pearson contract - basically saying that he saw no reason why he should vote yes on a contract on Tuesday he had just received for review on Sunday - was remarkable. In his year on the Board, he has been a team player when he could, given his frank and informed opinion where it was helpful, and stood up to the administration when he needed to. His insight into the current state of MCPS is unique and irreplaceable.
2) The Washington Post gives independent thought to its school board endorsements.
Apparently not. This Sunday, the Post issued its endorsements in the school board races. If I ever previously thought to myself that certain editors at the Washington Post perhaps just turn to the current Superintendent and say, “Write what you want us to say - we will turn over our editorial space to you,” this Sunday’s endorsements are sure evidence that I have been right to think it. How else to explain the Post started off with a glowing paragraph about the Superintendent’s favorite Board Member, Patricia O’Neill, who is not even in a primary race and is not on your September ballot? How else to explain the Post’s failure to endorse Mike Durso, the person best positioned to guide the next Superintendent through the inner politics of MCPS, to point out where nests are being feathered, empires grown, and wounds are festering in need of healing? Maybe it was that the administration is so very, very ticked off about Mike's Pearson vote? Or maybe it was just that Mike was honest with the Washington Examiner about the fact that the current vote count on renewing the Superintendent's contract was running 6 to 1 against. The fact is, the Post Editorial Board thinks that strong school boards are universally bad (really - I got it from the horse’s mouth). So, I ask you, if the Post does not want you to elect a strong school board that will demand accountability - for taxpayer dollars, for corporate culture, for academic results, for kids’ well-being while at school - what exactly does that say about the candidates the editors did endorse? What does it say that they devoted an entire paragraph to Mrs. O’Neill, while barely giving Shirley Brandman the time of day? That the Carver staff does not particuarly love Ms. Brandman, but they did not have an acceptable alternative to support against her, given that Lyda Astrove, someone who regularly gives them fits, is her opponent?
3) I can skip voting on the school board races.
NO! Reason number one: The next Board of Education not only selects the next Superintendent but also makes sure the selection process goes smoothly and quickly, with no hiccups, intentional or otherwise. The Superintendent of Montgomery County Public Schools is the highest paid public office in Montgomery County - by far - and it is an unelected position. The contract is for four years, so it is darned hard to fire a Superintendent once he or she in office, which means you had better pick a good one when you have the chance. Getting a good Superintendent is the direct result of having a wise and responsible Board of Education. To me, that means that my main goal will be to pick a Superintendent who has the vision to look ten years down the road, with all of the reforms and innovations that occur every day now, and get us to the school system of the future. It is certainly not to pick through a screen of finding someone who will just protect the choices that have been made in the past or to cover up past mistakes or secure a “legacy.” In short, we need a Board that is dedicated to the future, not to the past. We need innovation and flexible thinking, not protection and navel-gazing.
Reason number two: The MCPS is the vast majority of your tax dollars - 57% of this year’s County budget. By the way, your County Council members can’t touch it by line item, only by category. ‘Nuf said.
Vote for Mike Durso.
Laura Berthiaume was elected to the Board of Education in 2008.
Friday, July 23, 2010
Berthiaume Takes on Weast, Post
In an incredible op-ed in the Washington Post, Board of Education Member Laura Berthiaume publicly calls out both MCPS Superintendent Jerry Weast and the newspaper itself. Here's an excerpt:
In the balance of power between the board of education and the bureaucracy, the superintendent and his staff hold all the cards. They outwit, outlast and outplay. In my experience, the board actually has little to no impact on union contract negotiations: The superintendent and his staff negotiate the contracts. Even if there ever were actual board opposition, it would be met with a fierce, resolute wall of angry staff.Various elected officials have shared these sentiments with your author privately, but none have dared to vent them in public. Until now. Whether she is right or wrong, Laura Berthiaume stands out for her guts, her willingness to rock the boat and her - perhaps reckless - honesty.
Given that Dr. Weast is the one who negotiated and recommended the contracts, budget and benefits over the past 10 years that are now the subject of so much complaint, is it not hypocritical to excoriate the MCEA for unrealistic salaries and benefits yet praise Dr. Weast and demand that his contract be renewed? Both The Post and the voters should consider this issue carefully this fall.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
School Board Authorizes Lawsuit Against County
MCPS Superintendent Jerry Weast asked for and received authorization from the Board of Education to sue the county if the County Council cuts the system's budget below the level proposed by the County Executive. The Post reports that the authorization was unanimous. Following is the text of the resolution approved by the board.
Office of the Superintendent of Schools
Montgomery County Public Schools
Rockville, Maryland
May 11, 2010
MEMORANDUM
To: Members of the Board of Education
From: Jerry D. Weast, Superintendent of Schools
Subject: Authorization for Legal Action Related to the Board of Educations’ FY 2011 Operating Budget
WHEREAS, In the last two fiscal years, the school system’s budget has been reduced and savings totaling $223,000,000 made available to the County through hiring freezes, expenditure restrictions, cuts in existing services, and the agreement of our 22,000 employees to forego any cost-of-living salary adjustment; and
WHEREAS, The Board of Education and the superintendent of schools worked cooperatively with the Montgomery County Executive to balance the needs of the school system, its 22,000 employees and its 142,000 students with the fiscal realities facing local government; and
WHEREAS, The Board of Education and the superintendent of schools, for the second year in a row, are supporting and joining with the County Council and the County Executive to seek a waiver of the County’s obligation to fund so-called “maintenance of effort” from the Maryland State Board of Education; and
WHEREAS, The requested waiver effectively would reduce the school system’s budget by an additional $137,700,000 and subject the school system to a decrease in state education funding of up to $51,300,000, if the waiver is not granted; and
WHEREAS, Further reductions by the Council to the school system’s budget below that recommended by the County Executive will most certainly trigger a penalty of up to $51,300,000 in state aid even if the State Board of Education approves the County’s request for a waiver of maintenance of effort; and
WHEREAS, These significant reductions in the school system’s budget come at a time when the school system’s enrollment increased by approximately 4,000 students over the past two years, including a 10 percent increase in the number of students receiving Free and Reduced-price Meals System services in just one year, so that nearly one-third of elementary school students are eligible to receive subsidized meals; and
WHEREAS, An additional reduction of at least $30,000,000 proposed by some members of the County Council will threaten the education reforms that have resulted in record student achievement and could lead to a significant dismantling of the school system’s programs in this County; and
WHEREAS, Additional reductions of at least $30,000,000 combined with a potential state penalty of $51,300,000 will be very difficult, if not impossible, to implement before the opening of school, and
WHEREAS, The students and families rely on the school system to provide nutrition, often not available elsewhere, and an education that is closing the gap and providing students with the ability to enter college and to enter careers to become productive citizens and taxpayers; and
WHEREAS, The Board of Education has a fiduciary duty to provide the education our students require to secure their futures and a statutory duty, pursuant to Section 4-101 of the Education Article, to promote the interests of the schools under our jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS, The County Council is without legal authority to reduce the school system’s budget beyond reductions made by the County Executive when the level of funding he proposes is below the level required by state law to maintain the effort; now therefore be it
RESOLVED, That legal counsel representing the Board of Education and the school system are hereby authorized to take any and all appropriate legal action to prevent the County Council from exceeding its authority by making any further reductions in the County Executive’s recommendation for the FY 2011 Operating Budget for Montgomery County Public Schools.
JDW:BKE:dh
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Pension Surprise Wrong for Montgomery County
By Patricia B. O’Neill, President, Montgomery County Board of Education.
Last week, in a surprising move, the Maryland Senate voted to transfer hundreds of millions in teacher pension costs from the state to local governments out of concern that the expenditure is unsustainable. As president of the Montgomery County Board of Education, I must say that this was a total surprise to us, especially given that the move was championed by one of our own legislators, Senator Rich Madaleno. It is comforting for now that the proposal appears to have stalled, with the House Appropriations Committee recommending a study of the implications of the cost shift. It is the right and respectful thing to do, and Delegate Norman Conway, chair of the committee, is right; a seismic shift of this magnitude should only be undertaken after a comprehensive study involving all stakeholders. At the very least, those who are going to be affected adversely by this shift should have been aware of this instead of reading about it in the papers and blogs.
This is nothing personal against Senator Madaleno. Here in Montgomery County, we love and respect Senator Madaleno. He is usually a trusted ally who fearlessly goes to bat for Montgomery County using his intellect, charm, and boundless energy. It was, therefore, a stunning shocker when we on the Montgomery County Board of Education learned, without any prior warning, that he had introduced legislation that would shift in yearly installments the obligation for teacher pensions to local jurisdictions. We wish he had spoken to us before hand. If this legislation passes, it will be hard to find in the history of Montgomery County a more devastating fiscal blow delivered by one of our very own. There is no one that I have spoken to that understands why Senator Madaleno chose to lead this fight that could in essence jeopardize the retirement income of the teachers and staff of Montgomery County Public Schools.
Senator Madaleno has tried to explain why he decided to sponsor a plan to shift these funds from the state to the local jurisdictions. It is very simple, he says, the system in its current form is unsustainable. If this is correct, then, it is puzzling how merely shifting the burden to counties solves the problems. The only explanation would be that the proposed legislation is a Trojan horse carefully designed to force a conclusion to Madaleno’s thesis – that the pension plan for our hard working teachers and staff is unaffordable and unsustainable. Let’s be clear — the cost to Montgomery County of the Madaleno-inspired shifts would be staggering, and in this climate quite simply unaffordable. Senate staffers have calculated that it would cost us $13 million in FY 2012, $41 million in FY 2013, $69 million in FY 2014, and $70 million in FY 2015. Let’s also be clear — if this bill passes, the options are limited and unpalatable. These are funds that would be competing with other needs. If taxes are not raised, our staff would be forced to absorb the expenses through reduced pensions or vastly increased employee contributions to the pension fund. These cuts, if passed on to Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS), would be devastating. The effect would be to decimate our instructional program as we know it today. These cuts could represent losses of hundreds of teachers; as many as 140 in FY 2012, 440 in FY 2013, 740 in FY 2014, and 751 in FY 2015. The county is already reeling from the effects of a global recession, and the Board of Education has been working closely with the County Executive, County Council, and our unions to brave a very tough fiscal climate, beginning with this year when our unions agreed to forgo $79 million in raises in order to close the fiscal gap.
For next year, the school system has had to accept an unprecedented $137.7 million in additional cuts. As we struggle with these cuts, we are doing everything in our power to avoid cutting those investments that have made a difference in the lives of our youngsters. I have been on the Board of Education for more than ten years and I have not seen anything quite like this. In all of this financial tsunami, I have been impressed with the cool-headed approach of the leadership of all our unions representing our teachers, support staff, and administrators. They have shown a great willingness to work with us through these issues. The timing of this legislation couldn’t have been more inappropriate. I call upon Senator Madaleno and all our representatives in the name of all that is fair and decent to fight this pension shift. It could have devastating consequences to our teachers and staff. Beyond the fiscal cost, the loss in morale for staff that is faced with forgoing any salary increases again next year is incalculable. We have always prided ourselves on ensuring that the best and committed are retained in our classrooms. This we do by compensating them fairly and ensuring that their wages and classroom preparedness are on par if not superior to neighboring jurisdictions. This proposal is a giant step backwards in that regard. Our teachers and staff deserve better than this.
Finally, I believe that any attempt to compromise what our teachers and staff have earned in terms of their retirement is, quite simply, morally wrong. The pension plans for MCPS employees have been unfairly compared to those of employees in the private sector. When most employees in the private sector were investing their defined contributions in the financial markets, our employees were earning the same in the form of defined benefits that they would need in their retirement years. Our employees did not have the flexibility of investing these funds themselves and presumably making a substantial profit. By working in our classrooms, they chose a conservative option of earning their benefits over the years. What Senator Madaleno’s proposal does ironically is to put at great risk the earned fruits of the hard labor of the incredibly dedicated men and women that toil daily to secure the future of our children. That is just not right. The economic challenges that we face today are not for a single individual to bear alone. As elected officials, we are a team sworn to protect the interests and the future of our citizens. A key part of that problem solving is communication and dialogue. What just happened is a sobering commentary on how we conduct business – in silos, with little connections to each other. As President of the Montgomery County Board of Education, I pledge on behalf of the Board that I will work alongside all key players to ensure that our delegation in Annapolis fights for and represents our interests. These times that we live in call for nothing less.
Monday, March 08, 2010
MCPS Prepares to Cut Positions, Increase Class Size
MCPS Superintendent Jerry Weast sent a memo to the Board of Education and an email to MCPS staff on Friday indicating his intention to cut 252 classroom positions in the schools, thereby increasing MCPS class size by one student per class. Weast is taking this step because he anticipates that his budget request will not be fully funded and the school system needs to begin planning its staff allocations for the next school year now. We have run the ugly budget numbers before and this is the first sign of many of their tangible effects on county services. No one is safe. The County Executive is due to present his operating budget proposal next week.
Following are Weast’s memo to the Board of Education and his message to MCPS staff.
#####
Office of the Superintendent of Schools
Montgomery County Public Schools
Rockville, Maryland
March 5, 2010
Memorandum
To: Members of the Board of Education
From: Jerry D. Weast, Superintendent of Schools
Subject: FY 2011 Staff Allocations to Schools
This memorandum is to inform you about the preliminary steps that are being taken to prepare for the possibility that the County Executive and the County Council will substantially reduce the Board’s requested Fiscal Year 2011 Operating Budget. Our normal process calls for allocations for schools to be made during the first week of March for the following school year. In making these allocations, I believe it is prudent that we plan for significant reductions in allocations because of the difficult fiscal times we are facing. If we do not make this assumption and allocate positions to schools based on the Board’s request budget, and the County Council makes substantial reductions in May 2010, we could have to eliminate hundreds of school-based positions in early June 2010 and begin the involuntary transfer process at a time when teachers and other 10-month employees would be leaving school for the summer. We expect that these allocations will cause significant concerns, but the disruption will be far less than if we had to make these cuts during the summer.
Schools receive their staff allocations for the upcoming year on March 5, 2010. Principals have three weeks to identify teachers and other staff that have to be involuntarily transferred. Position vacancies will be posted by principals at the end of March. The job fair for teachers will be held the week of April 19, and the voluntary transfer process will begin on April 23. The voluntary transfer process will continue until May 28, 2010. At that time, the offices of Human Resources and School Performance will begin to place all involuntarily transferred staff members who have not been offered positions during the transfer process. Once all involuntary transfers are placed in a subject or grade level, the voluntary transfer process will reopen. The Office of Human Resources will then begin to hire new teachers from outside Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS). Previously, hiring began prior to June using the “open contract” process in which new hires were given a contract, but were not assigned to schools until all involuntarily transferred staff members were assigned to schools. This year, because of the uncertainty of the situation, open contracts will be offered in only a few selected areas of need, such as special education.
If we wait to reduce school allocations until after the County Council takes action on the budget, the allocation, transfer and hiring processes would begin three months later than usual, and it would be impossible to complete the process by August 2010, when school begins. The uncertainties and anxieties that this would create would have a tremendous impact on our schools next fall. The plan we have initiated is intended to make the process as smooth as possible given the difficult fiscal constraints. In the event that the County Council does not make reductions to the MCPS budget, it will be much easier to allocate additional positions to the schools in June than it would be to begin reducing schools’ allocations at that time.
In the operating budget that I recommended to the Board in December 2009, I included a list of possible reductions that might have to be considered if the County Council did not approve full funding of the budget request. We have used this list of possible reductions as the basis for the allocations that were made to schools this week. We have assumed some of these reductions, but not all of them. Some of the reductions would impact so many staff members that we would not be able to place all of them in positions in the fall, and some of the reductions would have required us to reduce the numbers of hours of employment for hundreds of staff. Although we may still have to make these reductions in June 2010, depending on the final actions of the County Council, my goal is to keep “Reductions in Force” (layoffs) and the number of staff who lose hours of employment to a minimum. But, this will depend on final County Council action.
Classroom teacher allocation formulas have been adjusted to increase class size by one student per class. This has resulted in holding 252 positions in reserve: 142 in elementary school, 55 in middle school and 55 in high school. These positions are in addition to the classroom teacher reserve that is held to address schools where enrollment increases result in an unmanageable number of oversized classes. In addition, 80 other teacher positions have been held in reserve. These include special program, staff development, focus, and academic intervention teachers and media specialists. Approximately 30 paraeducator positions also have been held in reserve. Furthermore, a plan is being developed to notify central services staff whose positions might be eliminated so that they may have the opportunity to seek positions in schools during the scheduled voluntary transfer process.
If we ultimately have to eliminate these positions that are being held in reserve, there will be a significant impact on schools. If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Larry A. Bowers, chief operating officer, at 301-279-3626.
JDW: LAB: ndm
Copy to:
Executive Staff
Ms. Cuttitta
Mr. Ikheloa
Dr. Newman
Mr. Prouty
Ms. Romero
#####
From: Administrator
Sent: Friday, March 05, 2010 1:36 PM
Subject: A Message to Staff from Dr. Weast Concerning Staffing Allocations
Dear Staff:
I continue to be impressed with the exceptional work you do every day on behalf of the children of Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS). Despite these difficult economic times, you have kept a positive attitude and focused on our core mission of preparing every child for the world beyond our doors. And the results continue to be impressive with student achievement increasing at every level.
I have spoken with many of you about the trying economic environment we are in and the budget difficulties we are facing. And you have shared with me your anxieties and uncertainties about what the future holds. I want to reassure you that our leadership team and I are committed to doing everything we can to preserve jobs and avoid layoffs, if possible. The unfortunate reality is that there will be painful cuts ahead as we work to balance the budget.
As you know, staffing season is just beginning. We have made the decision to make reductions in staff allocations this spring to prepare for what we believe are inevitable cuts. If we do not make this assumption and allocate positions to schools based on the Board of Education's requested budget and the County Council makes substantial funding reductions, we could have to eliminate hundreds of school-based positions in early June. That would delay the involuntary transfer process to a time when teachers and other 10-month employees are leaving school for the summer. I don't believe that is fair to our employees and that's why we are reducing the allocations now.
The most significant change in the staffing plan is the increase in class size by one student. This will result in the elimination of 252 positions - 142 in elementary schools and 55 each at the middle and high school levels. There are other reductions in the allocations as well, some of which are driven by enrollment fluctuations. Principals will be discussing the allocation changes and the involuntary transfer process with staff members over the next three weeks. Again, our goal is to be able to place staff members in vacant positions, but we cannot guarantee that we will be able to avoid layoffs at the end of this process. If there is a need for layoffs, they will be implemented in accord with the collective bargaining agreements.
In addition to school staffing reductions, significant cuts also will be made to central services. Over the last two years, we have cut $18 million from the central office budget and we expect to make another $6 million in cuts. These will be challenging cuts and will impact the support we provide to schools, but they are necessary to confront the worsening fiscal situation.
I realize that this news is disturbing, but I believe it is important to keep you informed of the budget situation. The County Executive will submit his recommended budget to the County Council on March 15. The Council is expected to approve a budget by mid-May, which is when we will know what our final budget will be. We will provide further updates to you as the budget process progresses.
Again, thank you for all you do for our children. I know that, despite the additional challenges we will be facing, our staff will continue to provide the best possible education for every student.
Respectfully,
Jerry D. Weast, Ed.D.
Superintendent of Schools
Monday, December 14, 2009
Weast War
And so it has begun. MCPS Superintendent Jerry Weast has fired the first shot in what may be his last and greatest battle: the fight over the Fiscal Year 2011 school budget. Pull up your chairs, folks, because you are about to see the master at work.
Weast’s opening salvo was a double-down special in the Post and the Gazette, plus an appearance on News Channel 8. He has drafted both an “as is,” or bare-bones, budget and a list of cuts if it is not funded. (The latter tactic reminds us of the state’s infamous “doomsday cuts” that were rolled out just before the 2007 special session.) Weast’s budget is based on the premise that the county will at least match the per-pupil local spending of FY 2010, which is the state “maintenance of effort” (MOE) requirement. On its face, it is entirely reasonable for the Superintendent to expect that the county will comply with state law.
Of course, the budget assumes that school system employees will be granted $25.9 million more in step increases, which are salary hikes for employees gaining seniority within their existing classifications. That virtually matches the overall budget increase of $25.2 million. But Weast has not negotiated new contracts with the school system’s three unions: the Supervisors, SEIU Local 500 and MCEA. There is no assurance that county employees in the rest of the government will get step increases or that the County Council will support them. So if Weast does not negotiate step increases, the budget will drop by $25.9 million with no direct impact on the classroom.
But there may be sanction from the state. MOE demands that the county must match its prior year’s per-pupil funding level to be eligible for state aid. No exception is made for reduced labor compensation, a point made by Council Member Marc Elrich on this blog. Council Member Valerie Ervin has labeled MOE a “crazy law” and some state legislators are discussing how to make it easier for the counties to get waivers and spend less. But that will not sit well with Weast, who says that any cut to his proposed budget will have “a devastating impact on the children.”
Nor will it be tolerated by MCEA, which is still the county’s undisputed 800-pound gorilla. MCEA has posted a lengthy analysis of MOE on its website, which contains this statement:The MCEA Board of Directors has approved the following position statements on Maintenance of Effort:
Additionally, MCEA President Doug Prouty’s appearance on News Channel 8 and MCEA Executive Director Tom Israel’s comments on this blog make plain that the union regards any weakening of the MOE law as injurious to education. In that position, they are in lockstep with Weast.
MCEA supports legislative action to waive the soon-to-be-announced multi-million dollar “penalty” in loss of state education aid to Montgomery County for the 2009-2010.
MCEA supports legislative action to ensure that future “penalties” not be imposed on local school systems for actions taken by others (the county councils).
MCEA opposes any erosion of the – already minimalist – definition of Maintenance of Effort.
And so Weast is digging in his heels and unsheathing his many weapons to fight back. Just as he told the media, he will not settle for a dime less than what is guaranteed by MOE. He will probably not be doing the county any favors by taking the lead in labor negotiations, which is what he did a year ago. Why should he? Weast’s reward for making the county’s labor renegotiations with the non-school unions easier was the MOE debacle. On top of all this, Weast’s press release states that he is “repurposing the $79.5 million placed in the budget by the County Council in FY 2010 to pay for county debt service. Instead, that money will be used to meet rising costs.” In other words, all deals under discussion to cope with MOE last spring are off. Weast is not about to be double-crossed again.
It is very unwise to bet against Jerry Weast and the 800-pound gorilla except for one thing. Their enemy is not the County Council or the state government. Their enemy is an entity of nearly unlimited power and no remorse: the county’s moribund economy, which is now an exploding grenade spraying shrapnel in MANY directions. The horrible state and county budgets, the requirements of state law, the immense political pressure directed by Weast and the unions and the looming specter of the 2010 elections are all about to collide.
Which will be blown to smithereens first?
Monday, November 09, 2009
Marc Elrich Comments on School Funding Dispute
County Council Member Marc Elrich, a former 5th grade teacher at MCPS for many years, offered the following comments about the county’s school funding conflict with the state.
#####
The State BOE (Board of Education) is fundamentally wrong on this one. The compromise would have been to grant us a waiver the right way. To be sure, they are not qualified to judge either the state of the economy or the state of our budgets. The absurdity of their decision shows that.
The only reason we did not make MOE (maintenance of effort) is because the unions gave back their COLAS. The value of that act by the unions, as part of something all the unions did to help us avert a total budget meltdown, was virtually equal to the amount we didn't spend in failing to meet the MOE. In short, if we'd funded the union contracts, we'd have met MOE. We failed to meet it by the value of those contracts.
But, if we’d funded those contracts, we’d have had to fund all of the other union contracts because they were to be treated the same. The cost to the County would have been around $125 million total. To find the $125 million, we’d have had to cut that amount from the government side of the budget (since any cuts to schools would have brought them under MOE again.) There is no way that that could have been achieved without massive layoffs. It’s a number so big that it could not be done with furloughs. It would have cost a very large number of jobs and substantially reduced services. It was a very bad option.
The fundamental issue is this. If in hard economic times you fail to meet MOE because the labor unions are willing to reduce their contracts, you should get a waiver. This is not a reduction in spending in the classroom, it doesn’t increase class size and it doesn’t reduce educational programming, all of which are the laudable intentions behind the MOE law in the first place.
The Board’s application of the law leads to even more absurd implications. If the Superintendent found a way to reorganize administration that saved $25 million dollars and if school budget is then $25 million less than MOE would require, then you’d fail to meet MOE and get penalized. How nuts is that? Under the current rules, you can’t save money, you can only spend more money. Something is seriously not right here. It defies logic, it disincentivizes any effort to be more efficient, and it punishes schools if unions contribute to balancing the budget. It’s just wrong.
I would hope that there’s an honorable way out. The State BOE actually can’t force the County to do anything. What they would do is reduce funding to the school system which would only make the school funding situation worse! The County budget outlook is not improving. We don’t have the money. A confrontation over this will not produce a good outcome.
The other important point is that the county has routinely exceeded the MOE requirement, year after year. It has never been the County policy to fund as little as is needed to pass the State MOE requirement, but rather to spend as much as it can toward providing the best education possible. So for years, the County has poured money into the schools. Yet for this test, none of that matters. The fact that our failure to meet this year’s MOE is because, in part, of our history of spending even more than required was totally ignored by the State. And what message does that send to the Counties? Don’t spend above the MOE level because if you ever find yourself in an economic bind, your history of doing everything you can won’t count for beans and, in fact, your higher levels of past spending will drive even higher MOE requirements. It’s like being punished for doing a good thing.
Saturday, November 07, 2009
Weast Throws Council Under the Bus on School Funding Dispute (Updated)
In a statement released to the media but not to County Council Members, MCPS Superintendent Jerry Weast puts the blame squarely on the council for the county's setback on school funding. Weast has long run an empire at MCPS, with an independent line to the Washington Post's editorial writers and a condescending attitude to his board and local elected officials. But the blunt language and threatening final paragraph in his statement is sure to draw fury from Rockville.“I’m disappointed, but not surprised, at the Attorney General’s ruling. We had serious concerns that the County Council’s plan did not meet the Maintenance of Effort provision and, unfortunately, we were correct. Now, we may face a fine from the state and the brunt of that burden will be felt by our students and teachers at a very critical time.”
Update: Council Member Valerie Ervin, Chair of the Council's Education Committee, has called Weast a “rogue superintendent.”
“We were trying to do the right thing: We wanted to help the county with its budget problems. We asked the state for a waiver of the MOE provision and we were denied. We offered suggestions and ideas to the County Council for legal ways we could help them and we were not listened to. In the end, we had a solution pushed upon us that, it turns out, was illegal. I guess no good deed goes unpunished.”
“Over the next several days, we will be discussing the impact of this ruling. I can promise you this: We will have a full Maintenance of Effort budget in fiscal year 2011. Never again will we put our employees and students in this position.”
Friday, November 06, 2009
MoCo School Funding Dispute: A Way Out
The intense school funding dispute now raging between the Montgomery County government and the Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE) may be headed to court. But it does not have to go that far. There is real potential for a settlement that gives each party what it needs without giving either everything it wants. Here’s what a deal looks like.
What the County should give the State
MSDE is overseen by the State Board of Education, whose members are appointed by the Governor and in turn appoint the State Superintendent of Schools, Nancy Grasmick. One of the principal responsibilities of MSDE and the Board is to monitor state aid to public schools, now totaling $5.5 billion or 40% of the state’s general fund. State aid to local schools has gone up by 83% since the passage of the 2002 Thornton Act, a factor credited by many for the state’s number one public schools ranking by Education Week. But increases in state aid come with a catch: the recipient counties must not cut their own spending on their schools, a provision known as “maintenance of effort” (MOE). The Board is very protective of this requirement since it is a cornerstone of the state’s education policy.
After the Board rejected Montgomery County’s waiver request to excuse it from sending $79 million to its school district, the county responded by charging the schools $79 million for debt service on capital projects. At the Board’s request, Attorney General Doug Gansler issued an opinion denouncing the county’s move as “artificial.” The county has responded with strong language against the Board’s action and the Attorney General’s opinion and has threatened to sue.
The county must understand the Board’s position. It is the Board’s responsibility to enforce state aid requirements impartially across all counties. Montgomery was not singled out as the Board also rejected waiver requests from Prince George’s and Wicomico Counties. When Montgomery claimed in its request that the tax-limiting Ficker Amendment prevented it from raising revenues, the Board responded that local tax caps were no excuse for evading state law.
Montgomery’s leaders must also understand that a lawsuit would pit them against State Superintendent Nancy Grasmick, the ultimate survivor of state politics. Grasmick has friends in both parties across the state and thwarted an attempt by Governor O’Malley to eject her, a rare defeat for a Democratic Governor on a personnel matter. Grasmick’s political capital is also high because of the state’s number one schools ranking. Finally, Grasmick has a difficult relationship with MCPS Superintendent Jerry Weast, with each believing that they are the top school official in the state. She is a formidable opponent for any adversary and may prove too much for Montgomery’s leaders to handle.
For Grasmick, the Board and MSDE, this is more a matter of policy than money. The county must recognize their legitimate role in overseeing state aid and enforcing state law. County officials must cease their excessive rhetoric against the state, stop defending their budget gimmick that Gansler rejected and that would not stand much of a chance in court and promise to never do it again. All of this would allow the state to move towards responding to the county’s legitimate needs.
What the State should give the County
What so outrages Montgomery’s leaders is that the county has been a leader in local school funding for decades, a fact that has been ignored by the state during this dispute. In FY 2007, the county was third from the top in per capita spending on its schools.
Meanwhile, the county is third from the bottom in per capita state school aid among Maryland’s twenty-four jurisdictions.
Montgomery County residents pay billions for their own schools and hundreds of millions more for schools in other parts of the state every year. Indeed, the state’s financial structure has depended on huge transfer payments from Montgomery, Howard and other “wealthy” areas for decades. But Montgomery is not as rich as the state believes and its current budget crisis is real. After two bad budget years, the county is looking at another giant deficit that could total $410 million, and that is before any more state aid cuts. County employees are likely to go a second consecutive year with no cost of living increases. Layoffs and/or furloughs are a real possibility. If the state forces the county to transfer $79 million to the schools and adds penalties to that amount, it will force the county to either ravage its police, fire, planning and human services or endanger its bond rating. How can the state not see the county’s fiscal calamity as legitimate grounds for a waiver? And how is further budgetary mayhem in the state’s interest?
And so if the county concedes the State Board of Education’s role and promises to not repeat its discredited budget gimmick, the state should respond with a symbolic, non-monetary penalty. Precedent will be respected, the principles of the Thornton Act will be preserved and the General Assembly can revisit the circumstances under which maintenance of effort waivers should be granted during the next session.
This deal can happen and should happen. And if the parties cannot resolve the matter themselves, the Governor should step in. It’s time to shut up, sit down and work it out. Lord knows there will be more to fight about soon enough.
Thursday, November 05, 2009
MoCo Threatens to Sue the State Over School Funding
An increasingly explosive dispute between Montgomery County and the state government over public school funding looks like it may be headed to court.
This morning, the Post reported that Attorney General Doug Gansler had found the county's attempt to meet state requirements on school funding to be illegal. We explained the state's rules on school funding last May: counties are required to spend at least as much of their own money on public schools each year as they did in the prior year, with only exceptional circumstances allowing for a waiver. Last spring, Montgomery County applied for a waiver based on its poor economy and the tax-limiting Ficker Amendment and was turned down by the state. The consequence was that the county owed $79 million more to the school system than it had budgeted. We argued that the county should use money it had set aside for reserves to pay the school system, but the county opted for a budget gimmick instead. The county decided to send $79 million more to the schools, but then charge them the same amount for debt service related to construction projects, a practice it had never instituted in the past. We called that move a "desperate budget gamble" and Gansler's opinion now threatens millions of dollars in penalties.
The response by County Executive Ike Leggett and County Council President Phil Andrews to Gansler is two-fold. First, they criticize the school funding law (called "maintenance of effort") and repeat their claim that the state was wrong to deny the county's waiver request. (We analyzed the state's reasoning for denial here.) Leggett and Andrews discuss the need for unspecified "legislative remedies," but they are not likely to come for many months if they come at all. Second, the Executive and Council President openly threaten to sue the state. Maryland's schools are currently ranked as the best in the nation and MCPS is its biggest local system. Any school-related lawsuit between the nation's top-ranked state and one of its top-ranked counties would be a disaster for all sides.
We reprint the press release from the County Executive and the Council President below.
Statement by County Executive Isiah Leggett and County Council President Phil Andrews on the Attorney General’s Opinion on the County’s Compliance with the Maintenance of Effort Provisions of State Education Law
November 5, 2009
“The opinion by the Attorney General that Montgomery County did not meet the State’s Maintenance of Effort school funding requirement is disappointing – and wrong.
“This opinion second-guesses local efforts to fully fund the needs of County school kids and meet critical County needs during this unprecedented fiscal time and limits the flexibility of local County and school officials to craft responses to the challenges before us.
“This opinion ironically could penalize our school children. It potentially forces cuts in school programs, and even further cuts in critical services such as public safety, libraries, and help to the most vulnerable County residents.
“That’s why Montgomery County will exercise all options to challenge this opinion. We are prepared to sue the State of Maryland – and we will aggressively pursue legislative remedies to a law that is fatally flawed.
“Montgomery County has shown its strong commitment to public education by devoting nearly half its budget – year in and year out – to K-12 education, far above and beyond what has been required by the State of Maryland. Over the past decade the County’s support for our schools has exceeded the State’s Maintenance of Effort requirement by a total of $576.8 million. To be penalized now for this outstanding support would be nonsensical.
“During the past decade, MCPS enrollment has risen by 5.4 percent while our local contribution to the schools increased 75 percent. For the past two years, even with fiscal challenges, we have significantly reduced both the overall capital and operating budgets of the County government in order to ensure that our schools had the necessary resources.
“Only the severity of the economic downturn and the dire consequences for the County’s overall budget caused us to request a waiver this year and ultimately to pursue a sound way to meet the Maintenance of Effort requirement. Despite these challenging conditions, we still funded 100 percent of our School Board’s education request. Any penalty imposed by the State on the County school system for ‘inadequate’ local support of public education would defy common sense and would be a gross waste of scarce funds in hard times.
“Montgomery County continues to support our world-class school system while sustaining critical programs in public safety, safety net services for our most vulnerable County residents, and initiatives to support our children and youth.
“We cannot accept this opinion as the final word. Too much is at stake – for County students and for County residents dependent on critical services.”
# # #
Contact:
Patrick Lacefield, 240-777-6528
Neil Greenberger, 240-777-7939
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
Board of Education Statement on Blair Ewing
Following is the press release from the Board of Education.
Board President Issues Statement Honoring the Legacy of Blair Ewing
June 30, 2009
STATEMENT OF BOARD PRESIDENT SHIRLEY BRANDMAN ON THE PASSING OF BLAIR G. EWING, FORMER MEMBER OF THE MONTGOMERY COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION
“On behalf of the children and staff of Montgomery County Public Schools and the Board of Education, we wish to express deep condolences to the family of State Board of Education Member Blair G. Ewing on his passing today.
“Montgomery County, indeed Maryland, has just lost a tireless crusader for children. For many decades, as a Montgomery County Board of Education member, Montgomery County Council member, and State Board of Education member, Mr. Ewing worked vigorously, enduring long hours to craft policies, draft legislation, and provide adequate funding for public education in Montgomery County and in the state of Maryland. His commitment to ensuring high quality educational opportunity for all children was unshakeable. As a leader, no other passion consumed his time and energies more than his principled love for the welfare of every child under his jurisdiction.
“As we mourn the passing of a giant, we are comforted by the knowledge that everywhere we look in Montgomery County, the fruits of Mr. Ewing’s labor of love for our children are evident—in the classrooms and in the positive academic outcomes that he fought so hard to maintain through good instructional policies and adequate funding. The Montgomery County Board of Education salutes Mr. Ewing’s lifetime of service on behalf of all children.”
###
Board of Education: Ms. Shirley Brandman, president. Mrs. Patricia O’Neill, vice president. Members: Mr. Christopher Barclay, Ms. Laura Berthiaume, Dr. Judy Docca, Mr. Philip Kauffman, and Ms. Quratul-Ann Malik, student member. Dr. Jerry D. Weast, superintendent and secretary-treasurer. Office of the Board: 301-279-3617.
The Montgomery County Board of Education is the official educational policymaking body in the county. The Board is responsible for the direction and operation of the public school system. The Board consists of seven county residents elected by voters for a four-year term and a student elected by secondary school students for a one-year term. Board members are elected county-wide but run at-large, or from the Board district in which they reside.
Monday, June 29, 2009
New Board of Education Member Appointed
Following is the press release from the Montgomery County Board of Education.
Michael Durso Appointed to Fill District 5 Board of Education Seat
June 26, 2009
Retiring Springbrook High Principal To Step into Post Left Vacant by Election of Nancy Navarro to County Council; Term Runs Through 2010
Michael Durso, who retires this month as principal of Springbrook High School, has been appointed by the Montgomery County Board of Education to fill the District 5 seat vacated by the election of Nancy Navarro to the Montgomery County Council. Durso was elected by the Board today on the first ballot, by a unanimous vote of 7-0 and will complete the remainder of the term, through 2010.
“I am honored to be selected and for the opportunity to serve in the District 5 Board of Education post,” said Durso, a Silver Spring resident. “I am looking forward to working with the other Board members in dealing with all of the challenges that face our school system, as we continue our effort to be a first class system in all aspects.”
The vote on the appointment took place on Friday, June 26, following a series of interviews earlier in the day with each of the six finalists selected by the Board.
Durso has served as principal at Springbrook since joining Montgomery County Public Schools in 1996. Prior to that, as part of a 44-year education career—including 38 years as a school administrator—Durso was a principal at Yorktown High School in Arlington, Virginia, and a principal at Woodrow Wilson High School and Lincoln Junior High School in the District of Columbia. He holds a bachelor’s degree from The Catholic University of America in American History and a master’s degree from American University in educational administration.
Durso will be sworn in at a special ceremony on Wednesday, July 1, along with Timothy Hwang, the new student member of the Board of Education, who will serve a one-year term.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Montgomery County's Desperate Budget Gamble
Montgomery County’s budget crisis, exacerbated by a State Board of Education decision at the very end, is over for the moment. Or is it?
The County Council approved a new budget last week containing a 1.1% decrease in spending from FY 2009, the first drop since FY 1992. The last hurdle to that budget involved a state requirement for “Maintenance of Effort” (MOE) on school spending, which holds that counties must at least maintain their per-pupil spending on education to be eligible for increases in state aid. Montgomery County applied for a $79.5 million waiver from the State Board of Education, saying that the county’s poor economy and its anti-tax Ficker Amendment prevented it from meeting MOE. Moreover, the county argued that since federal stimulus money earmarked for schools would enable the county to meet Superintendent Jerry Weast’s budget request, its limited county funds would be better directed to other parts of the government.
The State Board of Education denied Montgomery’s waiver request on two grounds: first, it was not persuaded that the county’s economic problems were worse than the state’s other jurisdictions (of which only two others were asking for MOE waivers), and second, it said that the county’s Ficker Amendment was no excuse to avoid MOE. That provoked an angry response from County Executive Ike Leggett and County Council President Phil Andrews and created a thorny last-minute problem: the county would now have to figure out how to direct $79.5 million to the schools from the rest of the government. How could they do that in a matter of days, especially in the context of a $587 million deficit?
Based on a recommendation from the County Executive, the council adopted this budget resolution language to get around the MOE decision:10. This resolution appropriates $79,537,322 for the payment of debt service due in FY10 for the construction of Montgomery County Public Schools facilities.
In plain English, the county gave the money to the schools as required by the Board of Education decision. And then they took it back as a special “debt service” charge on school construction. So the county’s position is that we are meeting the state’s MOE requirement. Even though in terms of net real dollars we clearly are not.
a) Montgomery County Public Schools must make payment for the debt service through the Montgomery County Government as provided in subparagraph 1O(c). These funds must not be spent for any other purpose.
b) The inclusion of this amount for debt service will be part ofthe County's Local Appropriation and part of the calculation of the FY11 Local Appropriation required to comply with the State maintenance of effort requirement.
c) Reimbursement must occur no less than five days before each applicable debt service payment.
So why is this a desperate gamble? The State Board of Education’s decision affirmed that local government financing of schools was a “cornerstone” of state education policy. It was a rigid statement of principle. Will they now sit back, ignore the county’s action and allow Montgomery to collect its state aid? The consequences of pushback from the Board are potentially immense. No one yet knows if they will take on that fight with the county government. Montgomery’s leaders are praying they do not.
There was another approach available, but it would have generated its own problems. The County Executive’s proposed budget added $119.6 million to the revenue stabilization fund, defined as “a special revenue fund that accounts for the accumulation of resources during periods of economic growth and prosperity when revenue collections exceed estimates. These funds may then be drawn upon during periods of economic slowdown when collections fall short of revenue estimates.” It’s true that drawing on this fund would have required some explaining to the county’s credit rating agencies. But it would not involve risking the wrath of a clearly hostile state agency that has already demonstrated its indifference to the county’s financial plight and controls hundreds of millions of dollars of aid.
The county rolled the dice and gambled that the State Board of Education would be less likely to twist a dagger into its back than Wall Street. For all our sakes, we hope they are right.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
The Infamous "PIA" Video
This discussion by Board of Education members about parents who are "PIAs" (pain-in-the-a$$es) has led to a most entertaining feud with the Parents Coalition. Enjoy!
Friday, May 15, 2009
Leggett and Andrews Slam State Board of Education
You better hide the kids and shield your eyes before reading this press release, folks!
Statement by County Executive Isiah Leggett and County Council President Phil Andrews on the Decision of the State Board of Education on the County’s Maintenance of Effort Waiver
“The last-minute decision by the Maryland State Board of Education to deny Montgomery County a one-time waiver of the Maintenance of Effort funding requirement is totally unjustified.
“This is a classic example of state bureaucrats second-guessing an agreement reached on the local level by Montgomery County and the Montgomery County Public Schools to fully fund County school programs.
“This waiver request was fully supported by the Montgomery County Board of Education – those in closest touch with the needs of County schoolchildren and their families.
“Given the County’s long history of unparalleled local funding for our public schools and the strong case Montgomery County has made for the existing fiscal difficulties, it is difficult to understand how any waiver for any jurisdiction at any time could ever be approved by this State Board of Education.
“This decision actually harms school kids and the Montgomery community as a whole. It potentially forces even further cuts in critical services such as public safety, positive youth programs, libraries, and help to the most vulnerable County residents – or reductions in public school spending.
“During the past decade, MCPS enrollment has risen by 5.4 percent while our local contribution to the schools increased 75 percent. Montgomery County has gone far above and beyond what is required by the State of Maryland in funding our schools with local dollars from local taxpayers. For the past two years, even with fiscal challenges, we have significantly reduced both the overall capital and operating budgets to ensure that our schools had the resources necessary. For example, last year, the County raised property taxes by $130 million, again, in part to help fund our public schools.
“Only the severity of the economic downturn and the dire consequences for the County’s overall budget caused us to request a waiver this year. Despite these challenging conditions, we still funded 99 percent of our school system’s request.
“Montgomery County requested this waiver in order to continue to support our world-class school system while, at the same time, sustain critical programs in public safety, help for the most vulnerable County residents, and other important initiatives in the County budget that support our children and youth.
“As a result of this unwarranted decision by the State Board of Education, we will work together on a plan to resolve this unacceptable denial in a manner which we believe will be in the best interests of the County and its taxpayers.”
# # #
Contact: Patrick Lacefield 301-919-9372, 240-777-6528
State Board of Education: Local Tax Caps Are No Grounds for Waivers
The State Board of Education denied the Maintenance of Effort (MOE) waivers for school funding for all three counties (Montgomery, Prince George’s and Wicomico) that applied. And contrary to what we were hearing, former Montgomery County Council Member Blair Ewing supported Montgomery’s request and dissented from the State Board’s decision.
In its decision for Montgomery County, the State Board cites state law holding that a county may obtain a waiver if the board determines “that the county’s fiscal condition significantly impedes the county’s ability to fund the maintenance of effort requirement.” The Board’s regulations list four factors it would consider in deciding on a waiver:
(a). External environmental factors such as a loss of major industry or business;
(b). Tax bases;
(c). Rate of inflation to growth of student population;
(d). The maintenance of effort requirement relative to the county’s statutory ability to raise revenues.
Moreover, a county asking for a waiver bears a burden of proof that the above factors prevent it from maintaining its current level of per-pupil school spending, thus requiring a waiver. Should a county not receive a waiver and fail to meet its MOE requirement, its increase of state aid would be at risk.
On Montgomery, the Board found the following:
(a). While the county is suffering an economic downturn, it has not lost a major industry or business. The Board noted that 21 of the other 24 counties also suffered from the recession and did not request waivers.
(b). The Board found that while Montgomery had revenue reductions, it did not have an erosion of its tax base. It cited the county’s relatively low unemployment rate and the presence of the federal government as protecting its tax base relative to the rest of the state.
(c). The Board stated that Montgomery’s student population had grown by just 1,424 in the year ending September 30, 2008 so inflation or student growth was not an issue.
(d). The Board differentiated between two limitations on the county’s ability to raise revenues: the income tax cap and the Ficker Amendment. Both were cited by the county as reasons it could not raise more money and was thus compelled to seek an MOE waiver.
State law limits income tax rates charged by the counties to 3.2%. Montgomery is already at that limit. The Board said, “We give great weight to the fact that the county is prohibited by State law from increasing the income tax rate.”
The Ficker Amendment, passed by Montgomery voters last November, requires a unanimous vote by nine County Council Members to raise property taxes by an amount exceeding the rate of inflation. The Board dismissed that as a reason for the MOE waiver, saying, “We give little weight to the need for a unanimous vote to raise property taxes.”
Why?
The Board said this about local tax caps:In some counties in Maryland there are locally imposed caps on taxes and/or other significant locally imposed impediments to increasing taxes. We do not opine on the propriety of those locally imposed prohibitions or impediments. We do opine, however, that based on our understanding of the State/local share requirements contained in Maryland’s education funding formula, when we consider a county’s ability to raise revenue we will give locally imposed prohibitions little weight in the balance.
Translation: you may pass the Ficker Amendment or any other tax caps, but you may not escape your responsibility to educate your kids. Prince George’s and Wicomico Counties were also denied waivers because the Board gave “little weight” to their own local tax caps.
We adopt this position because each county and its voters are free to restrict tax increases, but in our view, each is not free to abdicate its responsibility to fund its minimum local share of education costs. If we gave locally imposed prohibitions great weight in our analysis, we envision legal and public policy consequences that could destroy the cornerstone of the education funding formula because any county in Maryland can, by referendum or otherwise, cap its property or other tax bases at a level that would ultimately preclude the county from raising sufficient taxes to fund MOE in full. That is not an outcome this Board could sanction by interpretation of our regulation.
Our spies were dead wrong about Blair Ewing. He offered this dissent from the Montgomery decision:The Montgomery County case is a unique one. The initial problem was that there was adequate money to fund the schools, but not adequate money to fund both the schools and the county government operations. The local school board, the county executive and the county council have now all agreed on adequate funding for both the schools and the county government operations, but need the waiver they have requested to make the agreement effective. This is an example of good government at work. It ought to be encouraged and supported. The waiver should be granted.
State Board Member Donna Hill Staton also dissented.
So now Montgomery is obligated to divert $79 million of county money from non-school programs to the schools to maintain its per-pupil education spending. That is money the schools do not need because they are receiving federal stimulus funding. Police service, fire service, health and human services programs, transportation – all are at risk because of the Ficker Amendment.
And this is just the beginning.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Will Montgomery Get its School Funding Waiver?
A major part of Montgomery County’s $587 million budget crisis is not under the control of the County Executive, the County Council or anyone else in Rockville. In fact, a decision affecting $79 million of county money will actually be made in Baltimore – the home of Maryland’s State Board of Education.
Maryland state law contains a “Maintenance of Effort” (MOE) requirement for counties stating that they must at least maintain their per-pupil county spending on education before receiving state school aid increases. The goal of the law is to prevent counties from diverting their own school spending while accepting state school money.
Montgomery County is suffering its worst budget problems since at least the early 1990s. The crisis could have been a lot worse if the state did not receive federal stimulus money. Much of the stimulus money was earmarked for schools, and the Governor used part of it to fully fund the state’s Geographic Cost of Education Index (GCEI) program. That meant Montgomery could fund almost its entire education budget request but still faced problems in the rest of its county government. And so the county applied for an MOE waiver from the State Board of Education, claiming that it had more than met its responsibility for education but had needs elsewhere. Specifically, the county asked to use $95 million (later revised down to $79 million) required for school funding to finance other parts of the government, arguing that federal aid would keep the schools whole. Both the Montgomery County Board of Education and MCPS Superintendent Jerry Weast supported the request.
The State Board of Education, however, may not go along. It is taking its sweet time in making its decision, waiting to release its position until May 15. (The County Council’s first vote on the budget, originally scheduled for May 14, has been postponed until next Tuesday.) If the State Board does not grant the county’s request, all or part of the $79 million will have to be transferred from the police, fire service, public works, transportation, health and human services or other government functions to MCPS. Policy makers worry that would damage non-school services and create significant inequities between non-school employees and MCPS personnel.
Rumors are careening all over Rockville even as we write this. Everyone is speculating about what the State Board will do, but very few people claim to know the outcome. (Those who do are probably lying!) Here are a few factors.
1. Precedent
The State Board is full of business people and school activists who are deeply invested in the state’s educational system. They do not want to make it easy for the counties to evade their MOE obligations. In FY 1992, the state gave a blanket waiver to the counties allowing non-compliance with MOE but that idea did not go anywhere this year. It is likely that the State Board will want to keep waivers available only for genuine emergencies.
2. Nancy Grasmick
The state’s Superintendent of Schools is the ultimate survivor of Maryland politics. Even the Governor had to make his peace with her. Part of Grasmick’s power derives from the state’s strong educational performance. What happens if the State Board approves MOE waivers and test scores go down? One more thing: Grasmick and Weast are not the best of friends.
3. Prince George’s County
Two other counties are applying for MOE waivers: Wicomico and Prince George’s. While Montgomery’s leaders are cooperating, Prince George’s County Executive Jack Johnson and his Board of Education are in open conflict over their waiver request. Would the State Board approve Montgomery’s request but deny Prince George’s? How would that be perceived? What would the blowback be from Prince George’s politicians against the O’Malley administration? All of the above may be an issue, but why should one county’s request have anything to do with the other’s?
One of our best-connected spies is convinced Montgomery will not get the waiver. Two spies report that State Board member Blair Ewing - a former Montgomery County Council Member and county Board of Education Member - is working against the request. Our other informants make no predictions and are on the edge of their seats. The State Board will likely show its hand tomorrow and Montgomery officials – and the rest of us – will learn our fate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
