Editor:
On July 28, RSU voters will again be asked to ratify a budget that had been approved at a meeting attended
heavily by school employees and hardly at all by anyone else.
As a former chair of the school board, I will again vote, reluctantly, against the budget. While a school director, I supported seven of the eight budgets presented.
When voters strongly defeated the budget proposal last month, the message to administrators and board seemed
clear: “Enough is enough, and this is too much.”
While the board met three times to discuss changes in the budget, it did not manage to take even 1 percent out of the original spending plan. One director told me that the superintendent – not in a public meeting — had told directors after two meetings that he would propose no further cuts because he was hearing from people who would vote no if the budget were reduced.
Sadly, no director proposed or even suggested discussing further cuts. The board’s vote to send the budget for ratification did draw three more No votes than the June budget proposal. So, fully a third of the school directors who voted on this budget voted against it.
A number of spending lines remain unchanged. In many cases, class sizes at the high school may be too small. The increase of $600,000 in special education spending has not been addressed. The issue was raised by the public at one board meeting and the response was along the lines of “All the kids we say need special education need special education.” That is what Woodward and Bernstein called a “non-answer answer” back in the Watergate days.
At the budget meeting last week, a question was asked as to when the debt-service payments would begin decreasing. The questioner got an answer as to when the various bonds would be retired, some as late as 2032, but not a word as to when the total amounts would begin to drop. This, too, was a non-answer answer.
When I was a school director, the board questioned the wisdom of using 40-60 passenger buses to transport fewer than a dozen students on some runs. The superintendent at that time replied the state permits the district to buy three buses a year so he would always buy the big buses because it meant SAD 9 (now RSU 9) was getting more from the state. That response apparently is still the position of the school district. Large cars cost more to operate than small cars. Large buses cost more to operate than small buses.
Some governments use a zero-based budgeting method. It is not a panacea, but under zero-based budgeting a government or a department must begin each year at zero dollars and build a new budget from scratch. That does not happen in RSU 9. I can assure you that when next year’s budget comes out, it will be presented in terms of this year’s budget. It will be up by some percentage over this year’s budget. So, whatever budget we wind up with this year, you can be sure that it is only the starting point for building next year’s budget.
We live in a poor area and the prospects for improvement are not bright. Who is going to pay for evermore school funding for ever fewer students? Remember, SAD/RSU 9 has lost 800 students over the past 25 years, yet the school budget has more than tripled.
As the late Fred Hardy used to say, “We live in a Chevrolet school district but they want us to buy Cadillac schools.”
Please be sure to vote. Remember that the polls are open for only a few hours, and at least one town has changed its voting hours from last month’s referendum. So check the listing in The Daily Bulldog to make sure you get to the polls on time.
Thank you.
Very truly yours,
Bob Neal
New Sharon
Bob Neal’s letter is thoughtful and sincere. However, when comparing budgets and student numbers, it is important to take into account today’s inflation. It’s not just the schools which cost more to run, it’s clothes, food, cars, housing, you name it.
People on a fixed income are really hurting. But do they know about the state program for tax relief if the taxes take too big a bite out of their income? If that might be you, call the tax office for the state of Maine. Let someone explain to you how to apply, and how the tax relief program works. I was eligible for it for a few years, and it really helped.
I’m going to vote in favor of the school budget, because I trust the school board to have the best interests of our students at heart.
As a former director of the RSU 9 Board, ending my membership in 2014, I also urge you to vote NO for the new budget. Read Bob Neal’s reasons, above.
I understand having limited resources. In the case of the school district, if we underfund, we will be wasting taxpayer money and students’ childhoods. If we are going to do the job, let’s do it right. The reason the budget looks like it is increasing ahead of inflation is because we have been underfunding for years. The original budget was based on needs, not wants, that is why it was so difficult to cut. I voted yes in an effort to stop waste! Let’s do it right the first time.
Thank you for taking the time to write this thought-provoking editorial and for your gracious manner of speaking.
We can only hope they don’t ask for a bigger budget next year. Thank you Mr. Neal for your editorial.
Judi, we can also hope the sun will start rising in the west.
On the Sandy…. Yes. I agree you should pick up the tab for all!seems your saving sooo much money getting tax relief paid by all the other taxpayers who don’t get tax relief from our other tax payers.