LETTER: Herald News Analysis Partly Wrong, Partly 'Spot on'
Dear Editor,
In the March 14 edition of the Groton Herald, there were incorrect reporting statements made that misrepresent the facts behind the district's FY15 budget.
Firstly, there is a statement that the $40,000 saved by moving the central office staff out of Prescott will result in an equal $40,000 increase in Groton town costs. One article describes that $40,000 as rent paid to the town of Groton. Both statements are incorrect. The district does not pay any rent to Groton for the use of Prescott school. The savings will be realized by eliminating heating/utility and custodial costs - very little of which the town will be required to pick up, if any. Further, the district has long been planning to move it's central office out of the Prescott School based on Groton's intent to redevelop/sell the property following the end of the district's lease. The current fiscal challenges have caused those plans to progress a bit faster than planned, but only by a year or two at most.
Second, there is no "accounting sleight of hand" in play when the committee voted to reduce the district's contingency line items. During the early rounds of budgeting, the committee asked the administration to conservatively set aside $650k in contingency funds, for two reasons:
1. Analysis of the FY13 and FY14 budget gaps indicated that insufficient contingency planning had taken place, and when new special education expenses were incurred, we were not in position to cover them.
2. The district was faced with the very real possibility that the remaining reserve funds in its Excess & Deficiency account might have to be drained in order to balance FY14. The prospect of running at $39+ million operation with no reserves was and is alarming.
As the FY14 picture has become more clear in the past few weeks, the committee felt that it could adopt a less conservative approach to contingency funding, dropping those items from $650k down to $400k.
This is prudent fiscal planning, not "sleight of hand."
The final point that the News Analysis article makes is spot-on, however, and that is the serious situation we face as a community over the longer term. With state funding failing to keep pace with rising operating costs, the burden of funding is falling increasingly on our two towns. It is time for some deep soul searching with our two communities about how important a quality educational system is to our towns, what we expect the district to deliver in that regard, and how it can all be paid for in a broadly supported, transparent, sustainable manner.
This is no small or short discussion - in fact it is the strategic plan that has languished due to the revolving door of district leadership for the past four-five years. A good strategic planning process can take 12-18 months to conduct from start to finish. Everything must be on the table, and the process should start as soon as we have seated our new long-term district leader.
What should we do right now? The committee, based on community input and its best judgement, has determined that the best path in the short term is maintain status quo within our current district via "level services" budgeting, so that the subject of the strategic planning dialogue is stable, predictable, and well understood. A level services budget will not be 100% identical from year to year, but for the most part it means nothing substantial added and nothing substantial lost. And this is what the budget passed by the school committee seeks to do - maintain status quo while we all work together to define the future path of education in Groton and Dunstable.
Regards,
Jim Frey
Representative, Groton-Dunstable Regional School Committee
