RTM Approves $88.4 Million Budget

by Marcia Chambers | May 16, 2008 9:58 AM | | Comments (16)

IMG_0449.JPGAfter a rollicking four-hour meeting that ran past midnight Tuesday, the RTM adopted a $88.4 million budget for 2008-09 despite persistent demands from the minority Republican Party to trim it. It passed 21-6.

What this means for Branford taxpayers is that the mill rate will go up 0.88 of a point from 22.33 to 23.21. Homeowners will likely be paying an additional $247 a year in property taxes. Since the year 2000, student enrollment has dropped 10 percent or by 371 students.The current student body population is 3,068. The town has three elementary schools, one middle school, one high school and one school day care facility.

The Board of Finance and the RTM have worked for months on the budget, the lion’s share of which goes to fund education, That is why a good deal of the meeting centered on the schools. Reiners noted that “we have no line item control of the Board of Education” even if $46. 6 million goes directly to fund education. The town department’s side of the budget was roughly $41.8 million.

Unlike other Connecticut towns where residents vote up or down on the Board of Education budget, Branford has no public oversight rule. The closest it gets is through the RTM, the elected legislative representatives who act as a town meeting.

But it seems that every time the RTM asks questions or makes a suggestion about education spending, members of the Board of Education get a little huffy. At this meeting several sat in the audience, looking serious and sometimes imperious. From their point of view, they are bound by state mandate and state statute. Even though nearly 60 percent of the town’s budget is turned over to education, the board’s attitude seems to be: So what?

Lonnie Reed, the RTM’s education chair, said throughout months of meetings parents had become vocal about not increasing class size even as the district decides to adopt an all-day kindergarten program. Parents, she said, “are all united in class sizes remaining small in those early grades,” telling the RTM that the committee was sending a letter to the board outlining these views.

Frank Carrano, the chairman of the BOE (he also serves as the head of the town’s Democratic Party) sat next to Schools Superintendent Dr. Kathleen Halligan. Neither looked particularly pleased that any outside group would dare to suggest a priority, even though the board’s priorities seem to demand review.

For example, the school system adopted a kindergarten system based on a lottery, a tension-producing situation for parents. This means if parents won the lottery their child went to all day kindergarten. And if they lost, the child went a half day. The lottery was devised for a public school system that is funded by taxpayer, state and federal public funds, a program that on its face seems contrary to federal law.

IMG_0446.JPGReed ( pictured speaking) noted that “it is not fair to run a two-tier program in a public school system,” one tier for the haves and one tier for the have-nots. “We can’t have a two-tier system, a caste system. This is America and we can’t do it.” What she didn’t say was that the board was running the risk of being hauled into court. Reed said all-day kindergarten had produced good results, but more was needed by way of data.

Republican RTM member Peter Black asked if there was any evidence that all-day kindergarten helps children. Dr. Halligan, asked to speak, seemed unprepared for the question. She mentioned research about kids not dropping out of school and not winding up in the juvenile justice system. She observed that girls don’t get pregnant. She did not say how the data was gathered. While it is true that Branford has a small share of students who drop out of school, get arrested and do get pregnant, these are not the general realities for the overall student population.

IMG_0447.JPGNor did the superintendent (pictured left) do much better when it came to answering questions on the amount of funds Branford receives for the notorious No Child Left Behind program, a federal standardized-testing focused law that the Connecticut Attorney General has challenged in the courts. Initially she said she did not know.

Jim Walker, a former Republican RTM member, said: “I am shocked that Superintendent Halligan could not come up with any numbers.” He said the school system is top heavy with administrators.(19 in all across the schools) Carrano stood to say that the Branford BoE gets $184,000 in federal funds and “we would lose that money if we don’t comply with No Child Left Behind.” Carrano was serious. But not everyone in the room had his reaction. Several parents wondered why, given such a paltry fee, Branford simply doesn’t bag the program and drop out. Other towns have.

One parent, Eve Volk, who has two daughters at Tisko Elementary school, expressed dismay with a new mathematics program — an “initiative,” is how administrators put it. She says the aim of this program and others is to “dumb down the curriculum.”

She and other parents, all deeply distressed, said that when they approach school officials and administrators about the math program “we get snowed with jargon. Our teachers are being asked to take a lot of time away from what they do best. I think that there are groups within the BoE, within the unions and the central office and all have good intentions, but there is a huge distance between parents and administrators. We need to be heard.”

Carrano conceded that “some of our decisions are not necessarily the most popular ones.” He said “with respect to the comment made by the parent,” meaning Volk, “our meetings are open.” At the same time he told the audience “we have to be careful not to undermine the decisions made by our administrators. It is complicated; it is not simple. We look at everything. We need to be cognizant of the fact that the school district has to be constantly looking to improve what we do. This is about change, about changing systems. But change is necessary. There is no way around it and we all have to deal with it.” But the parents seem to be saying that change for change sake may not be the way to go.

The youngest member of the 30-member RTM, Grady Keefe, a senior at Branford High, emerged on the change side. He played to his high school strengths, informing his elders that change is the future.

“It is impossible to survive without the technology. Our guidance counselors have the oldest computers in the school. We are not entrusting them with proper technology. We need to take these issues seriously…” he said, objecting to a $20,000 cut in an already generous technology budget.

No one mentioned the obvious, that guidance counselors are used for guidance, for wisdom, for experience and not for running computer programs.

The RTM was upset that the board was incurring additional costs because its computer ordering process was awry. Keefe ignored that argument. Instead he informed the group that “when technology is not working properly you can lose the whole class right there.” This too is a sign of the times, perhaps one that should not be indulged.

After the education debate, Frank Twohill, the Republican Minority Leader, led the fight to reduce town expenses. He spoke for a majority of Republicans about high salary increases for the town’s department heads. Unk DaRos, the first selectman, defended the increases, saying they were long overdue. He noted that Branford’s form of government requires its leaders to do more than in other towns “Take a look at what happens if you lose a department head. We want to try to keep people here,” he said.

DaRos added that the RTM approved the concept under the prior administration. “You passed this last year. If we choose not to do this we will not attract people and keep them. Some of our people still haven’t gotten to the minimum. … The demands that are going to be placed on this town will increase. I do not enjoy doing this. I had assumed the RTM wanted me to do this and I did it.”

Anthony Giardiello, the Democratic majority leader, said: “we try to pay our employees fairly” but his response did not sit well with the Republicans. “Who in this room is getting a ten percent raise?” Twohill asked.

Then Republican Michael Nardella stepped up to nickel and dime a $30,000 allocation designed to examine and rewrite the town’s zoning laws, now 40 plus years old. This process would require a full inquiry into the existing statutes. Nardella thought it could be done in-house. Twohill agreed.

Now Unk was angry.

“You know why we end up in court?” he asked, referring to the zoning statutes and three major land cases the town has faced. “We end up in court because of these regulations. You need a professional. You need to do the whole thing from beginning to end.” He noted prior problems with the Wetlands Commission because of antiquated regulations. “This is the cheapest money you will spend tonight,” he said. The money stayed.

In the end, the $88.4 million dollar budget passed at 12:05 a.m. The Democrats vastly outnumber the Republicans. Six of the nine Republicans voted against it. Jay Bodner, a new Republican RTM member, abstained. It is rare for an RTM member to abstain on a budget vote t because budgets are considered a key item. Bodner did not explain his abstention but there were indications from some of Bodner’s questions that he had not read the budget documents.

Twohill also announced that another newly elected RTM Member, Michael Orsene is stepping down because he is moving.

As the clock moved to 12:08 a.m., Reiners thanked everyone for attending multiple budget meetings and for the vigorous debate. “That is a healthy part of the process. You are all to be commended. It is a very sound budget for the whole town,” a sentiment that several Republicans, including the RTM Clerk Dennis Flanagan, agreed with.

The town has come a long way since 1958, the year the Branford Charter was adopted. This month marks the 50th anniversary of the creation of the RTM. Speaking of change, Reiners reported that the budget for the town in 1958 was $2.1 million.
###







Share this story: digg / newsvine / facebook

Comments

Posted by: Marie Watson | May 16, 2008 11:38 AM

Full-Day Kindergarten is not a new idea. It has been implemented and studied for the last 20 years. Perhaps fewer girls become pregnant and perhaps fewer high schoolers will drop out of school. Branford has a low drop-out rate, but I don't know exact numbers of teen pregnancies.
However, full day kindergarten isn't about the end result in 12th grade. It's really about ensuring success in the early grades. One hard fact that won't go away is that if a child is not reading by third grade, statistically they will stay behind for the duration of their educational years.
Full day kindergarten gives teachers and children more time. Not just more time for academic focus, but more time for what many uninformed people believe is frivolous. They have more time to play. This means they learn through all the interactions that aren't dictated by a curriculum or a teacher. They are making peer connections, they are learning how to listen, and they are learning how to form opinions. As adults, we need these same skills. How many of us are learning them now?
Children who learn these skills early on have a much easier time academically.
We, as citizens living in a community with young children and families ought to not only welcome, but embrace new ideas that we weren't lucky enough to benefit from, but our children and grandchildren are. It will pay off when these beautifully well-adjusted children grow into beautiful, well-adjusted adults who will be the face of Branford for the next generation.

Posted by: Frank Carrano | May 16, 2008 12:09 PM

Ms Chambers misses the point. The BOE has the responsibility and in fact the statutory mandate, to make budgetary decisions based on our collective wisdon as to what programs will support the educational needs of the majority of our children. We take that responsibility seriously. The RTM Education Committee in recommending that class size of 17 become the standard for the next year makes it difficult for us to make the best decisions. We have heard from many parents and teachers who haven't communicated with the RTM and we will need to take their issues into consideration too. This is not and should not be a political process. This should instead be a process that assesses all of the needs of the district and makes decisions that are based on good educational and fiscal criteria.
As for the need for change, every system everywhere is changing in recognition of the changing demands of our world based society. Our students need to be prepared for that change. Changing systems, be it a new Math program or a new approach to revealing the world to our students, is always difficult because it makes some prople uncomfortable.
Our BoE takes every means to provide opportunities for community input We listen, but our responses are not always what some people want to hear.We should approach our responsibility as partners in the best interests of our community, not as adversaries.

Posted by: Bill Horne | May 16, 2008 1:12 PM

The quote in the article of First Selectman DaRos's comment about problems with the Wetlands Commission because of "antiquated regulations" is misleading, perhaps unintentionally. Branford's Inland Wetlands regulations are among the best in the state, in part because the Inland Wetlands Commission has updated its regulations more than once in recent years, including a major revision in 1999 that was upheld by the Connecticut Supreme Court in the landmark case of Queach Corp. v Branford Inland Wetlands Commission. Often, the revisions are prompted by the need to incorporate recent changes in State wetlands statutes or Dept. of Environmental Protection (DEP) model wetlands regulations. Any changes to the regulations are referred to the DEP staff for comment before being adopted. It's time to bring Branford's Zoning and Subdivision Regulations up to the same high quality. And when the revised Zoning and Subdivision regulations are finally put forward for public comment, it's important that Branford's citizens look at them carefully to make sure that they will adequately protect the things about Branford that make it such a great town to live in, and tell the Planning & Zoning Commission if the proposed regulations don't appear to be doing that job.

Bill Horne

Posted by: stan konesky jr | May 16, 2008 5:43 PM

I would like to have an opportunity to review the complete research that full day KG reduces student's entry into the juvenile justice system, reduces school dropouts and reduces pregencies. The correlation would be interesting. The superintendent, if she said this, should be willing to share this very important info to the citizens of Branford, maybe on a cable TV show or at a townwide PTA meeting. This could have an major impact on child developemnt.

Posted by: Jay Avitable | May 17, 2008 6:49 AM

It is, as Mr. Carrano stated, the responsibility of the BoE to plan for, and request funding for, the educational requirements of our children. That is their mandate, and their expertise. While I disagree with many of the spending priorities of the BoE, it is not the place of the RTM to re-write the BoE budget. If parents do not like the programs being promoted by the BoE, like the abusive, manipulative, divisive, mean-spirited "kindergarten lottery", they need to take that up at BoE meetings, and more importantly, on Election Day. Having said that it IS the responsibility of the RTM to reconcile the overall BoE budget to the other needs of the town, and the ability of the taxpayers to fund said budget. It is hard to understand how, for example, a school system that has lost 10% of the community it serves can justify such huge annual increases in spending. I would guess that if the BoE budget was subject to public referendum, as it is in many area towns, the outcome would be far different. While I would prefer to see a cooperative process between the BoE and RTM, that may be an unrealistic hope. There is a long-standing sentiment on the part of many in town that the BoE is imperious and condescending, way up there in their "ivory tower", and an increasing concern that the RTM has lost their resolve to "just say no".

Posted by: Branford Dad | May 17, 2008 7:33 AM

While Ms.Watson is undoubtedly well-meaning, she is utterly illogical. In fact, everything about schooling is ultimately about the 'end-product'. How can she say that its about early grade success but not about the end product? What good is early success? How can she then draw tenuous conclusions about the end product of all day kindergarten yet claim its not about the end product?

As for Ms. Watson's informed view on the value of play, peer connections, developing listening skills, and forming opinions, we, the alleged uniformed, call it parenting. That several more hours a day in kindergarten will magically produce these beautifully well-adjusted children with these extraordinary skills is farcical and simply unsupported by research or experience. Ms. Watson's suggestion that those of us in our mid (or later!) years are bereft of these important skills because we didn't go to all day kindergarten is laughable! I'm going out on a limb to say there were far more significant factors that shaped who we became as adults.

There is no better indicator of success than good parenting and a loving home. This is not the reality for all children and the resources to support these kids AND their families must obviously be available. However, all children are better served with high expectations for conduct, meaningful discipline, a strong curriculum, and an honest measurements of success.


Posted by: gilbert Kelman | May 17, 2008 7:42 AM

Excellent Reportage ! Maybe for the good of education in our town Frank Carrano should choose to be either Board of Ed Chairman or Democrat Town Chair, also Dr.Halligan Did not have the answers to questions that a Schools Superintendent should have on her finger tips.Both Voices for Branford Education lacked passing grades

Posted by: branford dad | May 17, 2008 8:27 PM

It is not at all clear to me how Mr. Carrano claims the recommendations of the RTM Education committee are politically motivated. The BOE receives public money and the RTM is a public forum. Where better to provide feedback to the BOE and the taxpayers than through the RTM or its committee? Mr. Carrano should be very careful about attempts to squelch or control protected public comment or scrutiny of how the taxpayer's money is spent.

In the absence of concrete evidence of success or an ability to articulate such evidence, the BOE and the Superintendent claimed that all day kindergarten is 'what the parents wanted'. It seems the collective wisdom the BOE is informed by external forces when it suits its own purpose.

Posted by: Another Branford Dad | May 19, 2008 12:21 PM

I too am a father of children in the system and I too question the value that all-day kindergarten provides to our children. As a product of the Branford School System when we did not have an all-day kindergarten, and for that matter such a large Administrative Staff (those not directly teaching our children) in our district, I believed the system and I faired well.

It is incumbent on those who desire such programs to be able to articulate the benefits beyond statements in a public meeting. They (the School Administration and BOE) should be able to support those statements with data. And honestly not having the answers when there was the really likelihood of the questions being raised as the Budget meeting of the RTM is inexcusable.

My children are beyond the kindergarten stage at this point and were not part of the all- day Kindergarten program, yet they seem to be doing just fine. My concern is the trade-offs being made for full-day kindergarten. Will there be an increase in class size at the older grades? It is my understanding that there is substantial data that supports lower teacher to pupil ratios do achieve better results, how does that fair against he districts data that supports an All-day Kindergarten program. The BOE and School Administration need to compare these impacts when determining how best spend our taxpayer dollar, and my hope is that they come to a conclusion based on the facts and not based on desires.

P.S. I too am concerned by Mr. Carrano's statement that anyone who questions the Board of Education, is doing so "politically". It appears to me that as Chairman for both the BOE and the Democrat Town Committee he is throwing rocks in a glass house.

Posted by: branford dad | May 19, 2008 5:07 PM

The BOE will cannibalize the entire budget to fund all day kindergarten with nothing more to support their claim of success than parents wanted it and are happy with it. That's not what's being measured. There is a fine study on the efficacy of all day kindergarten programs and I'll provide the link below.

As for class size, there is some evidence that smaller class size actually increases the acheivement gap due to strong students taking advantage of teacher resources. While the research is fairly clear about class size not affecting outcome, it can argued that other factors such as lax discipline and poor class room management are felt more keenly in a larger class setting. Again, I return to my earlier statement that rigor, discipline, and conduct are far more apt to produce results than class size. In the absence of that and with no really strong evidence of all day kindergarten acheivement, I'll stick with smaller class size. Give the kids a chance.

My children are far past kindergarten, but it does affect me as a taxpayer and a resident who would like sane school policies - not spurious decisions that utimately are nothing more than a way to create jobs.

Posted by: FIX THE SCHOOLS | May 19, 2008 6:59 PM

Lots of studies found on google that indicate that class size is not as important as the quality of the classroom teacher!

But we've all bought into the logic. It make sense to have a smaller class size, doesn't it? Of course - but only if you have a good teacher in it!

So who really really wants lower class size? The same folks who NEVER talk about teacher quality. The teacher's union.

So class, here are some equations that we all should memorize:

Lower class size = more unionized teachers.

Low accountability = mediocre performance.

unionized teachers + mediocre performance = crappy education.

Next RTM, ask about the impact of teacher quality on learning. Then ask what kinds of accountabilities are built into the system to ensure quality.

Check out Branford's CAPT scores and graduation rates. Do you all feel that there are enough kids in town who are prepared to go on to 4 year colleges? Try asking the admissions folks at SCSU or UCONN whether our H.S. grads are ready for college level work.

Posted by: branford dad | May 21, 2008 1:12 AM

Check out the number of remedial courses for math and English at local universities. Ask businesses about student readiness to work either out of high school or out college. It's demoralizing.

And the BOE responds to challenges or criticism with haughty indignation and utter disdain for the 'peasants' for whom they are making decisions for their own good.

According to the town website, BOE members are up for re-election as follows:

Marie Watson 2009
David Squires 2011
John Prins 2009
Art Lombard 2007 (must be an error)
Frank Carrano 2009
Donna Melcher 2011
Judith Hotz 2011
Michael Krause 2011
Linda Barr 2013

Let your board members know they serve at the pleasure of the people. Does anyone else think there is a problem when everyone votes in lock step? Why is there not a reasonable dissenting voice? It's almost as if there is a Stockholm syndrom that takes over when someone is elected to this board. Perhaps some of us who are so dissatisfied should consider running. Try contacting your local political town committee members. I'm sure that Democratic Chair Frank Carrano can help you out with issues with BOE Chair Frank Carrano

Posted by: branford dad | May 21, 2008 1:20 AM

Where are fiscally responsible Republicans? Shouldn't a board that controls 60% of the town budget have at least one person who can ask the right questions that provoke rigorous, public debate?

Posted by: Mojito, T.E. | May 21, 2008 8:53 PM

Branford Dad, the fiscally responsible Republicans lost across the board in the last local election to the "democrat machine". The Democrats have complete control over the BOE, RTM Town Hall, State Rep and State Senate Seats. The one thing that comes with complete power is complete responsibility. So all the increases we are seeing today are courtesy of those in power. To your point, keep that in mind for the next election, both at the state and local level.

Posted by: Pat | May 22, 2008 11:38 AM

The Branford Board of Education has always felt that they know best and the taxpayer has no say or is not intelligent enough to make the right decisions. As far as all day kindergarten stopping teen pregnancy, who came up with that absurd idea. I believe we should change the town charter to allow the Branford taxpayers to vote on the budget. Other cities have eliminated BOE's
and done very well. These are political positions.
We certainly could use a Jack Welch personality
on any of our boards.What happened to the term "cost reduction"? Frank Carrano is chairman of two very important organizations, the BOE and the Democratic party. I would like to hear the question asked of him, What, Frank is your relationship with the Teacher's union???

Posted by: Jay Avitable | May 24, 2008 8:40 PM

To Mojito, T.E. and Branford Dad,

While this is a political issue, I do not believe it is a "Political" issue. Firstly, there are no fiscally conservative Republicans in town, nor have there been in the recent past. Fiscal conservatives, both Republican AND Democrat have been disappearing from elected office. In next fall's municipal elections, after a cold winter of $5.00 fuel oil and a summer of $6.00 gasoline, perhaps the voters will start paying attention. In all fairness, let's not forget that the reason towns establish RTMs is to address the problem of voter apathy. For example, last week in North Branford, the budget was rejected in a referendum in which 4% of registered voters voted!

Sorry, Comments are closed for this entry

Sections

Neighborhood News

Special Sections

Legal Notices

Some Favorite Sites

Government/ Community Links

Legal Notices

Sponsors

N.H.I. Site Design & Development

NHI Store

Buy New Haven Independent Stuff

News Feed

Powered by
Movable Type 3.35