Curt Brown has a blog post about the receipt of $300,000 in state grant money that was awarded for FY09. The funds had been expected many months ago. Thanks to the efforts of our state delegation, Representative Quinn and Senator Montigny, the money has finally arrived. There was considerable doubt as to whether it would be paid due to the fiscal crisis at the state level.
Comments on the Dartmouth Beat blog ...
... speculate about spending the money in FY10.
Unfortunately, this grant money will be needed to cover the FY09 budget shortfalls that were caused by state cuts to this year's local aid and falling local receipts. The FY09 budget is will need at least the $300,000 and probably hundreds of thousands more. The Town Meeting at the urging of the Finance Committee prudently put aside $500,000 in the Stabilization Fund at the Fall Town meeting in order to make it through this year without deficit if state aid were cut.
Now the bad news. Last night at the Finance Committee meeting, Dr. Russell and Mr. Iacaponi noted that the state will not make the final Chapter 70 payment for this fiscal year, FY09, which amounts to over a million dollars. The reduction amounts by district are at this link.(MS Excel format) Coming at the very end of the year, this is a devastating cut. Obviously the money has all been committed (spent) and there is no time to make compensatory changes to prevent the shortfall. So that is where the pothole grant, Stab fund, and turn backs from town departments from FY09 funding is going to be spent. Forget about spending it in FY10, there is not going to be any left.
The town will have to apply for a stimulus grant which is promised to replace the funding withdrawn from Chapter 70. If and when that grant materializes, the town may have the funds to replace those spent this year.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Dartmouth receives "pothole" grant funds and bad news
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
28 comments:
The School Committee needs to hire the two new principals at the low end of the salary scale. It's time to put what you'd "like to give" into perspective with what can give, and that needs to be realistic. It seems the school lost an opportunity last year to save some money with the hiring salary and "reopening" of the salary in 2009 and 2010 for the assistant superintendent who, at that time, did not have her qualifying degree or certification for either the superintendent or assistant superintendent's position. They forget, apparently, that they should not be "nice" on our dime. Well . . . it is our dime, so I guess that makes it okay.
I think that should have been 2010 and 2011, but, you get the picture. It was to be "reopened" the following two years after her hiring.
..and what do you suggest?
the low end of the scale
With respect to the assistant superintendent, it's too late now. Learn from it!
What is the low end of the scale?
I find it hard to believe you don't know what is meant by that.
Within a salary range for the position, how about not giving a salary on the higher end of the figures?
No one needs to be that nice when the money is low.
I also think that was part of the problem: when the money WAS there, our governing officials had no problem spending it.
The School Committee and our infamous superintendent will pay the higher end administrative salaries at the expense of teachers/aides. Keep your eye on the Quinn staff. Just what Dartmouth needs in light of declining elementary academic performance and the reduced CH 70 funding. Moving forward may require ten signatures... if you know what I mean.
good thinking lets blame the chap 70 funding cuts in the SC. its a conspiracy!!! nice try ellen
The salary range for her new position is $104,000 to $112,000, according to Russell.
Average HS Principal salary in the area is around $109,000.00.
If you take Ms. Lynch's current salary on a per diem basis and multiply it by the number of days she will be contracted to work (more than she does now), her salary will be around $119,000.00.
What would be your suggested starting salary?
that too easy. on this blog 2 dollars less then everyone else who posts here
A realistic salary is in the 105-108 range. Mrs Dimery made 112 (35 years)while the assts super makes 108.
$80k is what she should be making. The whole system is out of whack and that's why the children have to beg to get textbooks.
how do you figure that the asst superintendent should make 20k less than the principals who work under her? dartmouth logic at it finest. If someone makes more than me its a racket. 80k is near the top range of the teachers? teachers make more than their boss. good plan idiot
Children have to beg for textbooks because people like Bill keep praising Barnstable without really looking at the details. They wouldnt be begging if they had barnstables budget.(76,000,000 school expenditures) versus 40,000,000. they wouldnt be begging if the town spent 12,000+ per pupil instead of 9500. and the funny part is Barnstable didnt make AYP last year either. If there's no money how do you buy books.
Also you have to pay what the market determines the going rate is for a principal. Just because you think it should be 80K doesn't make it so. If surrounding districts are offering 110K and we offer 80K, where do you think the more qualified individuals will go? The DPS does it's research, they know the going rate, they aren't just throwing their money away, they are at MNSS (that means they are at rock bottom) but they need to get a qualified individual to lead the High School, this is an important position. They are not heavy in administration, nor are their salaries high. Review the DOE website it has been explained ad nauseum.
Why bother even having a "range" then? Dr. Russell stated the salary "range" for Ms. Lynch. That sounds like there's room for consideration of qualifications, experience, even experience in our own school system, possibly, before looking at the high(est) end of the pay scale.
We certainly don't need to give our new hire the same amount of salary our retirees received when they left their job, just as the town did when TM approved the same $60,000+ salary for our then-assistant town clerk to step into the town clerk's position, that figure being the same salary the retiring town clerk left with after HOW MANY YEARS of working in that position??
And the rationale there is . ... ???
That's all I'm talking about. Let's be a little judicious, realistic, and responsible in our spending.
You answered your own question as it's based on qualifications. You never know what you might discover once you get into the interview process but you want to make sure that what you put out their for bait gets you the most qualified applicants. If you put out a range in the market place that's too low you won't get a great choice to pick from to even begin the interview process.
The "market rate" for these school administrators is a bubble. It needs to burst like bubbles in the private sector do.
Nowadays, if anyone wants a job badly enough, he or she may be willing to take a lower rate than they would like, or even that they should get, just to have the work or the opportunity to work in a higher position. Am I mistaken, or has Ms. Lynch not had any experience as a principal? THAT in itself is a reason to start at the low end of the scale.
12:56, I agree. However, where is it written that you MUST pick from the first pool of applicants if there is no one in particular that stands out?
And, maybe from among these less-than great applicants, there just may be a diamond in the rough, if you took the chance to interview.
Just thoughts.
who of any competency will apply knowing they will get 30,000 less than the town next door? you want a quality person you need to pay a quality wage. How much is that new executive administrator going to get?? Im sure its more than 80k for those same exact reasons.
Exactly 9:18 our salaries in Dartmouth are not the problem, jealousy, bitterness and the divisiveness that has been created by having to choose where a shrinking town budget gets allocated is the problem.
You can continue the argument that salaries are not too high but the voters disagree. Why is it the town side has received overrides but the schools have not? The general population believes the schools have overspent for administration while sacrificing the needs of the children. I think the schools also have to look towards athletic/music/arts programs and prioritize there. I don't disagree that these programs are beneficial but we are offering too many.
It was tough to think that the teachers were being thoughtless (to put it nicely) when they refused less money to save their colleagues' jobs in 2007 when the school pressed for an override(s). But with the union's refusing the AP grant, now there is little doubt where the real intentions lie, and it is unfortunate if all the teachers are branded by the union's decision.
So don't preach about salaries to most of the residents, at least. When the adults mean more to the schools than do the children, there is a definite problem. I absolutely cannot believe the struggle parents have had to get the necessary books/technology for the children, and the struggle still continues.
But go ahead and pay all those new hires. It sounds at least that both our assistant superintendent and our currently hired new DHS principal were literally "new" to their positions. Experience in that position was/is still nonexistent, so the theory that you never know what you will find once you interview someone does not quite hold water. It would be a coup to find someone with some "extra" skills, but right now, the only "experience" I would pay more for would be the experience the individual already had in the position he/she was seeking.
I will still maintain that if the individual wants the position badly enough, or, even more to the point, needs it, the money, as long as it is more than he/she is/was making, would not be the bone of contention some people make it out to be. Is it offensive to you to think that a "lesser" offer might have to be made, given the financial circumstances of our town and of the nation?
A fiscally responsible person knowing the town's economic status would make the "lower" offer. A fiscally responsible person knowing his or her economic status would take it.
If it's that tough to find "quality" candidates, take the time to do so. Other communities have done so when there was a need for them to find administrators for their schools or town/city. It's in the papers all the time. Why should Dartmouth feel it necessary to pick someone the first time around?
We are not rushing to pick our EA. If there is someone qualified to step into Mr. Gagne's position until a new EA is chosen, would it not be feasible to have someone step into the position of whatever school position is currently left open until such time as a responsible (and quality) individual is chosen, because seemingly it appears it will be difficult to attract someone since our finances cannot "afford" the "quality" individuals
how much time would you allow? a school cannot run without a principal as Dartmouth cannot run without an EA. IF it could why would we be searching for a replacement? Someone IS doing the EA position its not vacant. Mr Iacaponi is doing Mike Gagne's job and his own. unfortunately the state mandates certain licenses and certifications assistant principals do not yet have in order to be principal so no one can "fill-in" until we find a highly qualified 80,000 principal candidate.I have the feeling on this blog if they found a highly qualified person with years of experience, people such as yourself would still complain about no experience in Dartmouth schools or they overpaid for the position. I follow if the person wants the position "bad enough" will they accept a lower pay rate than the market calls for? I doubt it. As to needing the position as I recall all the applicants are employed elsewhere. Not a single applicant came from someone out of work and I dont buy the "good Samaritan" theory that someone will accept less because the town is in fiscal difficulties. That person has to feed their family also. Since that subject is broached while Ed is cutting salaries why hasn't he trimmed HIS salary also? He's not the good Samaritan? not even salary freeze for himself? is it a case of sucks to be you or is it I got mine you lost.
I am FULLY AWARE that Mr. Iacaponi is stepping in for Mr. Gagne as the interim executive administrator. I am not without that knowledge. Perhaps I should have mentioned his name in my post, or began my sentence with "Since there is someone." That way I would not have left myself open to misinterpretation.
I am ALSO fully aware that the applicants for the principals' positions are currently employed. What they think of the financial range given them, I have no idea, nor do I know what they currently make. Ask them. It is also probably public information. The point is, I would assume it is more than they are making now, or yes, why would they apply for or accept the job here?
Did you misinterpret my post? I never stated that they should accept lower than what they are currently making as their salary in whatever position they currently hold. (Unless the job were A++ fabulous and a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for them, I would think they would be foolish to do so.)
I AM suggesting that, while not in our case in Dartmouth, quite possibly somewhere in this great country of ours there are some people laid off that might just qualify for these positions, and would jump at the chance to accept one. This was not the case here. I frankly could care less who did or did not apply. It was an opinion.
I am not suggesting that someone be a "Good Samaritan" and take less salary out of the kindness of his/her heart out of consideration for Dartmouth. Again, foolish, mildly put, if they did so. I am saying that most people understand the financial reality of our economy today, and, while obviously would like and maybe even qualify for top dollar, if he/she would be getting more than he/she currently is making AND wants the job badly enough, JUST MAYBE they would be willing to take a lesser (no, I never suggested $80,000 as the "lesser") pay. It would be totally up to them.
Has our assistant superintendent received her certification for the position of assistant superintendent that she currently holds yet? Has she received her necessary degree yet? I believe it was stated upon her hire last year that she was to receive one or both this month?
She's not "filling in" for the position. She's IT.
I also never stated at any time that our teachers had "no experience," nor have I ever stated that they are overpaid. Where do you see either in my post?
I have no idea about Ed's salary, or what he is or is not doing with it. Again, ask him.
Are you saying 80k can't feed a family?
I'm not saying $80,000 can't feed a family. Mine could be more than well fed on it.
I think a salary should be offered for as near the "going rate" as possible for the area, within the confines of the employer's (Dartmouth's) ability to pay. The "going rate" may well be more than an employer can afford in this economy. Then it is a choice that the prospective employee has to make.
I would assume a principal would get more than $80,000, how much more, I don't know. But, at whatever the "range," I think today's employer needs to err on the more conservative side of this range.
The key here is "as near as possible." Of course, experience and the like play a key role in the salary, but, again, in today's economy, the responsible employer carefully assesses his or her finances and makes the best offer he or she can afford. It's up to the prospective employee to take it or leave it and move on. And, for that matter, if the prospective employee is unhappy with the offered salary, the employer can and should tell him or her to move on, as well.
Post a Comment