{"id":893,"date":"2024-08-02T16:46:55","date_gmt":"2024-08-02T16:46:55","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.sosnorthampton.com\/?p=893"},"modified":"2025-05-12T13:49:40","modified_gmt":"2025-05-12T13:49:40","slug":"nps-budget-observations-a-debrief-deep-dive","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.sosnorthampton.com\/es\/2024\/08\/02\/nps-budget-observations-a-debrief-deep-dive\/","title":{"rendered":"NPS Budget Observations \u2013 A Debrief Deep Dive (A Series of Reports)"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

August 2, 2024<\/p>\n\n\n\n

by Tom Riddell, Northampton Resident, retired Smith College Professor & Class Dean<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

#1<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

On June 17th, there was a Special Meeting of the Northampton City Council. It was called by six members of the Council and the Mayor. The purpose of the meeting was to allow Ward 3 Councilor Quaverly Rothenburg to present ideas for fully funding the schools for FY 25 and beyond. It was a Zoom meeting. Councilor Rothenburg, however, arranged to use space in the First Churches so that supporters of a level services budget could attend in person.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Quaverly was also invited to include a panel of other presenters. One of them was Al Simon, who presented information compiled from auditor\u2019s reports over the last 12 years on yearly surpluses in the city\u2019s budget and the attendant accumulation of stabilization funds, free cash and undesignated balances.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the question period by City Councilors following the presentations, At Large Councilor Marissa Elkins attempted to diminish the facts that Al Simon reported by asking him the rhetorical question of whether he had also looked at the city\u2019s budget information and the quarterly reports from the city\u2019s Finance Director, which the Councilor reported were readily available on the city\u2019s web site. (It later turned out the quarterly reports, presumably delivered to the City Council, were, in fact, not available on the web site.) In any event, Councilor Elkins encouraged Mr. Simon to take a good look at the city\u2019s budget documents.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Well, I have been looking at them, contemplating them and observing interesting aspects of them for the last few months.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Here\u2019s the first one I\u2019ll share. This is from Superintendent Dr. Portia Bonner\u2019s \u201cfirst view\u201d of the NPS budget on December 14th, 2023.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

FY2025 Superintendent’s Preliminary Budget<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

It\u2019s from Slide #4 of her presentation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The first thing I noticed was the title! It\u2019s labeled a Level Service Budget. So I started looking for the familiar $42.8 million figure for maintaining current services that advocates have been demanding. It was then that I noticed it was a \u201clevel services\u201d budget AFTER INITIAL REDUCTIONS (that is, job losses). Who knew?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Other curious observations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

1)The FY 24 budget figure, $37,765,747, includes the $1.2 million that the mayor added last year, with the warning that it would lead to cuts and that it was a onetime addition to the schools budget.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2) The \u201cestimated FY 25 funding available\u201d is the appropriation for FY 24 without the $1.2 million added in by the mayor last year ($36,565,747) increased by 4% to $38,028,377. This was the NPS budget number that the mayor presented on January 30th to a combined meeting of the City Council and the School Committee.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

3) The budget figure (appropriation from the city) the Superintendent offered here ($40,778,585) is exactly the same number that has been arrived at after the mayor\u2019s budget presentation on May 16th and the City Council meeting on June 6th. First, she added $1.6 million to her 4% increase budget (5\/16), which brought the total to $39,673,835; and then she added another $1.1 million (6\/6), bringing the total to, voila!, $40,778,585. ($1.6 plus $1.1 = $2.7!)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

4) Finally, there\u2019s the estimated budget gap, basically the difference between the mayor\u2019s proposed 4% increase in the NPS budget vs. the 8% increase presented by the Superintendent (which covered the district\u2019s legal obligations). It\u2019s $2,750,208. This will, in the ongoing budget discussion be identified by the mayor and several City Councilors as the schools deficit. It\u2019s actually one measure of insufficient funding for Northampton\u2019s schools. Coincidentally, it\u2019s also exactly the amount of money the mayor added to the schools budget between December and June!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

#2<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

 On January 30th<\/sup>, Mayor Gina-Louise Sciarra presented her \u201cFinancial Trends and Projections for the Fiscal 2025 Budget Process\u201d to a joint meeting of the City Council and the School Committee. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

(If you\u2019re inclined to do a deep dive yourself, here\u2019s the link.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

https:\/\/northamptonma.gov\/2356\/Budgets<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The mayor begins with the context that all municipal budgets in Massachusetts must be balanced (expenditures = revenues) and that the mayor works with the city\u2019s Finance Director and department heads to maintain services, identify needs, and construct budgets.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Slide 18 shows General Expenditures for FY 24, including education amounting to $48,525,769 and constituting 41.59% of the city\u2019s total expenditures of $116,679,550. Without any description of the total, it\u2019s actually the total city spending for both Northampton Public Schools and the Smith Vocational & Agricultural School. It amounts to one of the rhetorical devices to exaggerate the portion of the city\u2019s budget that goes to the city\u2019s public schools. (Smith Voke is obviously in Northampton and the city hosts its budget; but it\u2019s a regional vocational school. It has its own, separate, Superintendent and School Committee.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If you take the NPS budget for FY 24, $37,765,747, it is actually 32.4% of city expenditures. A significantly different proportion when you\u2019re talking about city priorities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But there\u2019s an even more misleading misdirection (but rhetorically purposeful) in Slide 44 which purports to identify Total Education Spending out of City Funds!  It is reproduced below.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The conclusion from the presentation in this slide is intended to leave you with the impression that the schools take up more than half of the city\u2019s funds \u2013 55%. \u201cHow can anyone claim that the city doesn\u2019t support education?!?!? It\u2019s by far the most important spending category in the city\u2019s priorities!!\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sure thing\u2026. It includes the NPS budget, the Smith Voke budget and then adds in all<\/strong> city expenses (indirect costs) attached to the schools and its employees — benefits, insurance, debt, capital projects, general government services, central services, outgoing expenses for charter schools & school choice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

You might well wonder whether there\u2019s a similar slide for any other or every other city department in this preliminary budget analysis for the city. But it won\u2019t surprise to discover that of course there\u2019s not. What, possibly, could be the motivation for this presentation, inquiring minds (critical thinkers!) want to know.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"\/<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n

#3<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

This observation is more like a revelation<\/strong>!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The following quote is from the Mayor\u2019s January 30th<\/sup> budget presentation to the School Committee, Smith Voke Trustees, and the City Council – \u201cFinancial Trends & Projections for FY2025\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

(here\u2019s a link to the whole thing)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

https:\/\/northamptonma.gov\/DocumentCenter\/View\/24640\/FY25-Budget-Presentation-1-30-24-PDF<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe budget process is governed by Massachusetts General Law (MGL) Chapter 44. v MGL Ch. 44, \u00a7 31 states that all Massachusetts municipalities are required to prepare balanced annual budgets. This means the revenues match the expenses<\/strong>.\u201d (slide #4)  [I\u2019ve bolded that last sentence.<\/strong>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Slide #72 presents information about projected revenues for the city\u2019s general funds. The total is $119,270,509.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And Slide #73 presents information about projected city expenditures (assuming that the Northampton Public Schools budget increases by 4% to $38,028,377). The total is $119,977,229.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

You\u2019ll notice that revenues don\u2019t equal expenditures. That means they aren\u2019t balanced!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At the bottom of Slide #73, the excess of projected expenditures over projected revenues is identified as a \u201cshortfall\u201d of $706,721. In subsequent public discussions, this will be labeled by the Mayor and some City Councilors as a \u201cdeficit.\u201d Not only that they will attribute it to the schools. It will become the schools\u2019 deficit<\/strong>\u2026.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A couple observations, at this point.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

1. NPS expenditures increase by 4% in this presentation. So do the expenditures for the Smith Vocational and Agricultural School. Health insurance costs for the city will increase by 10%, and employees\u2019 benefits increase by 4%. Other insurances increase by 5%. (Most city departments were allocated an increase of 2.5% for their FY 2025 budgets.) Why not attribute the \u201cshortfall\u201d (the DEFICIT) to these other projected expenditures??<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

2. The presentation could easily have added $706,721 to projected revenues to balance projected revenues and expenditures. Why not?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Well, the answer to both questions is that attributing it to the schools serves as a rhetorical device for the Mayor. If the budget is out of whack, it\u2019s the schools\u2019 fault.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Further on in the PowerPoint, to focus attention on the culpability of the schools, the Mayor presents what would happen to the budget if the NPS budget increased by 7.98% to $40,778,805 (the \u201cfirst view budget\u201d that Superintendent Bonner presented earlier in the budget season in December).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Following that, there\u2019s a demonstration of what would happen if the schools got a level services budget of $42,805,908. These two scenarios are meant to demonstrate that if more funds were allocated to the schools, the city\u2019s \u201cdeficit\u201d would explode. In fact, it became the schools\u2019 deficit!<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

With the Superintendent\u2019s budget, the shortfall would increase to $3,456,929 (Slide #75). With a level services budget, the shortfall increases to $5,484,252 (Slide #79)!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

IF NOTHING ELSE CHANGES<\/strong> — OTHER EXPENDITURES, ALLOCATION OF ADDITIONAL REVENUES, THE USE OF FREE CASH, THE USE OF FISCAL STABILIZATION FUNDS, ETC. — THEN THE SCHOOLS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THESE ESCALATING, HUGE DEFICITS! <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In other words, the creation of the rhetoric of the schools\u2019 deficit<\/strong> is based on a hypothetical construction \u2013 a fiction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That, my friends, is the Mayor\u2019s preliminary budget message.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Next, a look at what the Mayor presents in May as her official FY2025 budget.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Two footnotes:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

1. In Slide #88, there\u2019s an acknowledgment that this view of the FY 25 budget is preliminary and will require \u201cremaining revenues for unknowns\u201d of, you guessed it, $706,721.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2. Maybe no one proofread Slides #72 and #87. In the first, the city\u2019s projected revenues are $119,270,509; but in the second, they are $119,270,507. Someone lost a Jefferson somewhere\u2026.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

A Slight Diversion: Two Miscellaneous Items, \u201cSignifying Nothing\u2026.\u201d in the continuing series on NPS Budget Observations<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

1. How Many Employees Work for the Northampton Public Schools??<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

You would think that the Superintendent of Schools would know the answer to this question.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Well, in her December presentation of the \u201cfirst view\u201d of the NPS budget for FY 2025, which you can find here, she did:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

FY2025 Superintendent’s Preliminary Budget<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

On Slide #15, she reports that there were 557.52 employees on staff for FY 24. This includes the 9 elected members of the School Committee and the 21 members of the School Administration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Several months later, after the School Committee, the Mayor & the City Council continued to discuss the budget and the Support Our Schools & Fully Fund Schools public weighed in demanding a level service budget, the Northampton Association of School Employees voted no confidence in the Superintendent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On June 18th<\/sup>, Superintendent Bonner responded with an Opinion piece in the Daily Hampshire Gazette: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

https:\/\/www.gazettenet.com\/Guest-columnist-Bonner-55630514<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In it, she criticized the school employees\u2019 union for getting the number of employees wrong. \u201cThe result of the no-confidence vote was 348 in favor out of 364 voting. This was pitched as a 96% vote in support of the action, but this spin is misconstrued when one realizes there are 897 employees. Maybe they\u2019ll get it right the next time.\u201d  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Maybe they\u2019ll<\/strong> get it right??? One has to wonder where the extra 340 employees came from (wherever that number came from, I\u2019m betting they aren\u2019t union members). Apparently she forgot what she reported in the Preliminary Budget Presentation in December, or didn\u2019t bother to refresh her memory.  Or maybe it was rhetorical exaggeration and misinformation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2. The consideration of the budget by the School Committee\u2019s Budget and Property Subcommittee.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

On March 11th<\/sup>, the School Committee\u2019s Budget & Property Subcommittee held its first meeting on the FY 2025 budget for the schools. On February 12th<\/sup>, they had a meeting that focused on information regarding enrollment in the schools. The agenda for the meeting on March 11th<\/sup> focused on staff reductions and special education\/student services.But here\u2019s how the chair of the subcommittee, Member Karen Foster-Cannon, began the meeting. You can watch it here:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

3-11-24 Zoom Recording<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Here\u2019s what she said (~1:52 to 2:26), in the midst of a developing community conversation about the schools\u2019 budget:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cAnd then a process note for committee members. I’d like to avoid deliberation tonight<\/strong>. We have Charlene Nardi, the city finance director here, and Bobby Jones, the school business manager here. And so while we’re here, and to use our meeting time wisely, I’d like to make sure that we’re using our time with our city staff to ask questions, develop our understandings? And make sure that we have the information we need. We’ll have plenty of time for deliberation during the April first and April eleventh meetings.\u201d (Emphasis added.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The April 1st<\/sup> and 11th<\/sup> meetings were of the whole School Committee. The chair of the Budget & Property Subcommittee, tasked with reviewing the budget and making recommendations to the whole committee, told the subcommittee members that she didn\u2019t want them to deliberate on the budget!!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I watched it when it happened, and I was not speechless in addressing my laptop.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

August 2, 2024<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

August 2, 2024 by Tom Riddell, Northampton Resident, retired Smith College Professor & Class Dean #1 On June 17th, there was a Special Meeting of the Northampton City Council. It was called by six members of the Council and the Mayor. The purpose of the meeting was to allow Ward 3 Councilor Quaverly Rothenburg to […]<\/p>","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-893","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.sosnorthampton.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/893","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.sosnorthampton.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.sosnorthampton.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.sosnorthampton.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.sosnorthampton.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=893"}],"version-history":[{"count":9,"href":"https:\/\/www.sosnorthampton.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/893\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2505,"href":"https:\/\/www.sosnorthampton.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/893\/revisions\/2505"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.sosnorthampton.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=893"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.sosnorthampton.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=893"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.sosnorthampton.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=893"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}