A More Transparent and Substantive Discussion on the BHPSNJ Budget is the Next Step to Calmer Waters
A More Transparent and Substantive Discussion on the BHPSNJ Budget is the Next Step to Calmer Waters
John’s Notes on the 03/18/2024 Budget Discussions
There were two disturbing discussions during last night’s BOE Meeting. One related to transportation, where the policy committee expects the Board to accept a policy on the highly controversial and secretive practice of Courtesy busing without the rubric or data to support a new policy.
This article will focus on the Budget.
I should begin by saying that Ms. Bradford, her problematic votes aside, did a very effective job facilitating the meeting—a huge improvement from the prior meeting and closer to her commitment to a higher-functioning Board. It was not perfect but it was much better and I appreciate the change in direction to more open discussions. It’s a good sign when a leader recognizes something quickly and takes steps to correct it.
I feel I should make clear, given this mornings announcement, that it is both unfair and naive to assume Dr. Varley resigning will solve all of our issues. While her tenure was problematic, our BOE was on a problematic trajectory well before she started and she was placed by that same BOE in a position that made it her responsibility to spear-head one of the most divisive and problematic changes to our District.
Calmer waters are going to be the product of many changes.
The meeting on 03/18/2024 represents, in large part, what still needs to be repaired.
During the Budget discussion, three BOE Members asked straightforward questions about what turned out to be a surplus of anywhere between 2.5 million dollars and 5 million dollars. Ms. Joly referenced documents within the current attachments themselves. These funds are being directed to capital reserve, yet there are yet to be projects on the table that are planned and need to be funded. This is an essential point as this district has a long history of building pots of money to fund projects in a manner that avoids referendum.
Given this historical practice, it is fair to ask whether the administration and former majority have a project they are trying to fund on the back end to avoid a public input process or vote.
The Business Administrator was shockingly defensive and used buzzwords as well, repeatedly using the term “cuts” when all Ms. Akiri was asking had to do with whether the surplus could be used to fund next year’s Budget.
That’s not a “cut,” Mr. Juskiewicz. Given that we keep banking multimillion-dollar surpluses, maybe a “cut” would be reasonable in some areas (like administration and legal spending).
The behavior of the Business Administrator was also confusing to me. The conversation with Ms. Joly referenced documents provided by Mr. Juskiewicz in the attachments. The numbers were connected directly to the discussion the BOE was having about the Budget, yet more buzzwords came out, like “apples and oranges.”
How are monies realized in 2023 not connected to a budget for 2024?
Ms. Stanley and Ms. Penna continued using buzzwords with little to no substance—”tight”—to describe the Budget. There was also the giggling and smirking, but when you dig down, it is hard to find what was so funny. We can have calmer waters when BOE members begin to treat each other with respect and approach their work with an open mind instead of theatrics.
Here are the facts:
In the Board Secretary’s report this month, we find that the district has $4.3M in unspent funds (last column on the right “unrealized) that were in the Budget for the year 2023-24.
After accounting for encumbrances, $1.7M of the $4.3M is related to capital projects, leaving approximately $2.6M in unspent funds from last year.
Look at line item numbers:
1. 52480 Total Undistributed for student transportation
2. 76260 total facilities acquisition and construction
3. 51120 total undisputed expenditure – Operation and maintenance
4. 29180 Total undisputed expenditure – Instr
Even if you take into account a 3% cushion, which Mr. Sincaglia noted was reasonable (going from memory), you are still left with ~$1M using the lowest projection.
However, should we build cushions in what is already an inflated budget compared to other Districts, or is it better to take a scalpel to some of the very questionable spending that goes to higher administrative positions and the lawyers who protect certain members of our BOE in filing ethics claims and unnecessarily screening OPRA requests ad nauseam?
Then, consider that parents have had to pay for tutors out of their own pockets to compensate for the prior administration’s failed experiments in math.
Ms. Khanna, who headed the finance committee, rescued the situation by doing what a reasonable person would do: “Thanks for this information—we clearly need to look at this.” Contrast that with how feedback on the transportation policy was received.
We cannot afford to have another Business Administrator who reacts in a manner that seems flustered, angry, and confused about important matters like our Budget. We cannot afford to have BOE Members who respond to legitimate questions with staged laughter and buzz words.
We have the highest per pupil cost out of seven comparable Districts, and our results do not reflect this spending.
Hard questions need to be asked, Mr. Juskiewicz.
Calmer waters begin when our Administration acts professionally to the representatives our Community, elected to ask the very questions that were asked last night.
Video Clip of Budget Discussions: