Comments At June 16, 2004 Rochester City Council Meeting Regarding Mayor William Johnson's Proposed $7 Million Cut In Aid To Rochester Schools

<font size="2"><b><p align="justify">The children of Rochester can’t afford to lose any educational services that are being provided by the federal, state or local governments. It’s clear that instead of cutting funding and services --- the exact opposite needs to be happening. That is, if we are serious about significantly improved academic achievement --- then many of the children are going to need (not less), but additional resources and services. And let me translate this point --- so that it’s clear: I’m talking about the need for additional money. As it relates to the city’s current budget problems and the need to secure additional funding in order to close its sizeable gap --- I can sort of follow the Mayor’s position to a point, but at the same time, his position includes some very glaring contradictions. As I understand it, part of the rationale behind the Mayor’s proposal to cut $7 million from the local contribution to the Rochester City School District (RCSD) is based on the belief that there’s a lot of fat in the school district’s budget. First, let me say that I am absolutely, unequivocally convinced that there is so-called fat in the CSD’s budget, but the fat is not at the classroom level. There is some fat at the school building level. For example, I look around the school building where I work, and I see Coordinators of programs who have secretaries; I see Vice Principals who have two and three assistants, and I just ask myself what in the heck is going on? I have found it to be interesting beyond belief that when people search for fat or pork in any multimillion dollar business or organization --- often it doesn’t seem obvious to those who are doing the searching --- that one of the most logical places to start is at the top. With regard to the CSD and the top --- 131 West Broad Street has fat on top of fat. For example, who ever heard of a school district having a secretary, with a fancy title, and little or no college education making nearly, or more than $100,000 a year? What other school district in this area, or in any area --- has that type of position? I couldn’t believe that I saw recently an advertisement for a RCSD Director of Human Resources at the cost of around $90 or $100,000 a year. The CSD has a Chief of Human Resources. I thought that it was the responsibility of the Chief to direct the Human Resources Department. I read in City Newspaper recently that Rochester School Board member Robert Brown had the audacity to challenge people to name ineffective, wasteful, CSD programs. If you look at the lack of progress on the part of most of the children --- one could make the argument that all of the programs are ineffective. Sometimes, and absolutely in the case of the RCSD --- waste is not just about ineffective programs. Instead, it’s about highly overpaid individuals who don’t perform functions that are anywhere near commensurate with their largely inflated salaries. This was pointed out in the Mayor’s OP-ED piece, which just coincidentally appeared in the D&C this morning. According to his article, “259 RCSD administrators will be paid an average of $91,600, and this does not count several other even higher paid administrators included in the Civil Service budget lines.” That’s truly amazing. This lucrative phenomenon is what Dr. Adam Urbanski use to refer to as “the blob”. Even though Urbanski is not talking much about the “blob” these days (and some of us have ideas about why he is not) --- it’s still there, and I would argue that it’s bigger and more scandalous than ever, and it still needs to be dealt with. Now, after having said that --- let’s look a little closer at the Mayor’s superbly timed editorial this morning; and let’s think critically (like we try to teach our students to do) about some of the information and facts that are not included in his timely expose. It’s easy to make the case that there is fat and waste in the RCSD’s budget. That’s common knowledge. In fact, it’s sort of the talk of the town, but let’s turn our attention for a moment to the city’s budget. Some very interesting facts were pointed out recently by a completely knowledgeable and reliable source relative to the city’s budget vis-à-vis the school district’s budget. For example, we know that over the past 10 years (since 1994) the amount of money allocated to the school district by the city has remained capped or flat at $127 million. It was pointed out that if that figure was adjusted for inflation --- currently the contribution should be $155 million dollars --- as opposed to $127 million. It was also pointed out that where the city is concerned, a significant number of police officers have made $25,000 a year in overtime pay. $25,000 is as much or more than the salaries of hundreds of workers who work directly with children in classrooms and school buildings daily. The Mayor is quoted in his expose this morning --- as having said that he “looked each [city] department head squarely in the eye and asked them to make tough choices, to prioritize the essentials and to identify things that could be eliminated.” Apparently, he forgot to look the police chief squarely in the eye --- and if he did, the chief must have thumbed his nose at the Mayor. It was pointed out that 10 years ago, (in 1994) there were no Net Offices in Rochester, and now, 10 years later --- the budget for those Offices is $4 million. It was pointed out that 10 years ago the Mayor’s Office spent $1.3 million, and that 10 years later, it spends $2.4 million. If adjusted for inflation, the $1.3 million that was spent 10 years ago should only be $1.6 million currently. So, this could lead one to the reasonable conclusion that the Mayor forgot to pick up a mirror and look himself squarely in the eye. It was pointed out that 10 years ago, the city’s Law Department spent $1.3 million, which has increased to $1.8 million. If adjusted for inflation over 10 years --- the latter number should only be $1.6 million. So, again, the major point becomes that --- while it is common knowledge that the CSD has fat and waste in its budget --- according to reliable sources ---the exact same argument can be made about the City of Rochester. Lastly, part of the rationale for the Mayor’s propopsal is that the RCSD is experiencing declining enrollment, and should therefore close some of its schools in order to save money. The failure of the district to close #36 School is being held up as an example of how the Board and Superintendent buckled to public pressure, and don’t have the political will and fortitude to be fiscally responsible. I’m not sure that I buy the declining enrollment argument, but even if enrollment is declining significantly, how do we automatically make the leap to the belief that schools should be closed. What happened to the idea that just a few years ago people, including the current Superintendent, were running all over the community touting the importance and value of small, more personalized school settings? Even if they hadn’t been running around espousing this idea --- we know that there is a massive amount of educational research that suppots the importance and significance of small school settings. Part of the bottom line is that significantly improving the academic achievement of our children is an expensive proposition. The truth of the matter is that if both the school district and the city tightened their budgetary belts as much as possible, and gave all realized savings to the children of Rochester, and if it was spent wisely, efficiently and effectively --- it still wouldn’t be enough. There have been numerous studies that clearly indicate that we need billions of additional dollars to effectively and successfully educate our children. This is not a game. This is about the lives of children, and we already know that either we will pay now for their education, or we will pay more later for many of them to be incarcerated. If the kind of public interest and political pressure that was demonstrated here this evening is consistently brought to bear on an ongoing basis --- the money will come forth. It is in fact the only thing that will guarantee adequate funding of education for all of our children. </p></b></font>

<p><font size="2"><b><br /> </b><p align="justify">The children of Rochester can’t afford to lose any educational services that are being provided by the federal, state or local governments. It’s clear that instead of cutting funding and services --- the exact opposite needs to be happening. That is, if we are serious about significantly improved academic achievement --- then many of the children are going to need (not less), but additional resources and services. And let me translate this point --- so that it’s clear: I’m talking about the need for additional money. As it relates to the city’s current budget problems and the need to secure additional funding in order to close its sizeable gap --- I can sort of follow the Mayor’s position to a point, but at the same time, his position includes some very glaring contradictions. As I understand it, part of the rationale behind the Mayor’s proposal to cut $7 million from the local contribution to the Rochester City School District (RCSD) is based on the belief that there’s a lot of fat in the school district’s budget. First, let me say that I am absolutely, unequivocally convinced that there is so-called fat in the CSD’s budget, but the fat is not at the classroom level. There is some fat at the school building level. For example, I look around the school building where I work, and I see Coordinators of programs who have secretaries; I see Vice Principals who have two and three assistants, and I just ask myself what in the heck is going on? I have found it to be interesting beyond belief that when people search for fat or pork in any multimillion dollar business or organization --- often it doesn’t seem obvious to those who are doing the searching --- that one of the most logical places to start is at the top. With regard to the CSD and the top --- 131 West Broad Street has fat on top of fat. For example, who ever heard of a school district having a secretary, with a fancy title, and little or no college education making nearly, or more than $100,000 a year? What other school district in this area, or in any area --- has that type of position? I couldn’t believe that I saw recently an advertisement for a RCSD Director of Human Resources at the cost of around $90 or $100,000 a year. The CSD has a Chief of Human Resources. I thought that it was the responsibility of the Chief to direct the Human Resources Department. I read in City Newspaper recently that Rochester School Board member Robert Brown had the audacity to challenge people to name ineffective, wasteful, CSD programs. If you look at the lack of progress on the part of most of the children --- one could make the argument that all of the programs are ineffective. Sometimes, and absolutely in the case of the RCSD --- waste is not just about ineffective programs. Instead, it’s about highly overpaid individuals who don’t perform functions that are anywhere near commensurate with their largely inflated salaries. This was pointed out in the Mayor’s OP-ED piece, which just coincidentally appeared in the D&amp;C this morning. According to his article, “259 RCSD administrators will be paid an average of $91,600, and this does not count several other even higher paid administrators included in the Civil Service budget lines.” That’s truly amazing. This lucrative phenomenon is what Dr. Adam Urbanski use to refer to as “the blob”. Even though Urbanski is not talking much about the “blob” these days (and some of us have ideas about why he is not) --- it’s still there, and I would argue that it’s bigger and more scandalous than ever, and it still needs to be dealt with. Now, after having said that --- let’s look a little closer at the Mayor’s superbly timed editorial this morning; and let’s think critically (like we try to teach our students to do) about some of the information and facts that are not included in his timely expose. It’s easy to make the case that there is fat and waste in the RCSD’s budget. That’s common knowledge. In fact, it’s sort of the talk of the town, but let’s turn our attention for a moment to the city’s budget. Some very interesting facts were pointed out recently by a completely knowledgeable and reliable source relative to the city’s budget vis-à-vis the school district’s budget. For example, we know that over the past 10 years (since 1994) the amount of money allocated to the school district by the city has remained capped or flat at $127 million. It was pointed out that if that figure was adjusted for inflation --- currently the contribution should be $155 million dollars --- as opposed to $127 million. It was also pointed out that where the city is concerned, a significant number of police officers have made $25,000 a year in overtime pay. $25,000 is as much or more than the salaries of hundreds of workers who work directly with children in classrooms and school buildings daily. The Mayor is quoted in his expose this morning --- as having said that he “looked each [city] department head squarely in the eye and asked them to make tough choices, to prioritize the essentials and to identify things that could be eliminated.” Apparently, he forgot to look the police chief squarely in the eye --- and if he did, the chief must have thumbed his nose at the Mayor. It was pointed out that 10 years ago, (in 1994) there were no Net Offices in Rochester, and now, 10 years later --- the budget for those Offices is $4 million. It was pointed out that 10 years ago the Mayor’s Office spent $1.3 million, and that 10 years later, it spends $2.4 million. If adjusted for inflation, the $1.3 million that was spent 10 years ago should only be $1.6 million currently. So, this could lead one to the reasonable conclusion that the Mayor forgot to pick up a mirror and look himself squarely in the eye. It was pointed out that 10 years ago, the city’s Law Department spent $1.3 million, which has increased to $1.8 million. If adjusted for inflation over 10 years --- the latter number should only be $1.6 million. So, again, the major point becomes that --- while it is common knowledge that the CSD has fat and waste in its budget --- according to reliable sources ---the exact same argument can be made about the City of Rochester. Lastly, part of the rationale for the Mayor’s propopsal is that the RCSD is experiencing declining enrollment, and should therefore close some of its schools in order to save money. The failure of the district to close #36 School is being held up as an example of how the Board and Superintendent buckled to public pressure, and don’t have the political will and fortitude to be fiscally responsible. I’m not sure that I buy the declining enrollment argument, but even if enrollment is declining significantly, how do we automatically make the leap to the belief that schools should be closed. What happened to the idea that just a few years ago people, including the current Superintendent, were running all over the community touting the importance and value of small, more personalized school settings? Even if they hadn’t been running around espousing this idea --- we know that there is a massive amount of educational research that suppots the importance and significance of small school settings. Part of the bottom line is that significantly improving the academic achievement of our children is an expensive proposition. The truth of the matter is that if both the school district and the city tightened their budgetary belts as much as possible, and gave all realized savings to the children of Rochester, and if it was spent wisely, efficiently and effectively --- it still wouldn’t be enough. There have been numerous studies that clearly indicate that we need billions of additional dollars to effectively and successfully educate our children. This is not a game. This is about the lives of children, and we already know that either we will pay now for their education, or we will pay more later for many of them to be incarcerated. If the kind of public interest and political pressure that was demonstrated here this evening is consistently brought to bear on an ongoing basis --- the money will come forth. It is in fact the only thing that will guarantee adequate funding of education for all of our children. </p> <p></p></font></p>