School Committee member Steve Stycos provided the following update on the budget for the Cranston Schools, and explains his reasoning behing agreeing to the $25,000 payout to the outgoing Superintendent:

BUDGET

The Cranston School Committee passed a final budget last week that was balanced without draconian cuts to school programs thanks to federal stimulus funds, employee concessions and some job and program cuts. The budget passed unanimously.

The receipt of $1.7 million in federal stimulus funds, plus new contracts with the teacher, custodian and bus driver unions insured that program cuts would be minimal. The unions agreed to pay a larger share of their health insurance (ten percent for bus drivers and custodians, twelve percent for mechanics, thirteen percent for skilled tradesmen and fifteen percent for teachers). The custodians and bus drivers also agreed to give up payments for not using school department health insurance (teachers did not have that provision). The two unions also received a promise of no layoffs during the contract. Savings from these three unions totaled about $1.5 million dollars for the 2009-10 budget. I voted for all three contracts as each included major sacrifices by employees that the school committee used to save programs.

Several smaller unions representing teachers aides, cafeteria workers and secretaries have yet to agree to contracts and are still paying three percent of their health insurance. The school committee is trying to negotiate new contracts, although only the cafeteria workers are close to settling.

Major cuts also helped balance the budget. They included the elimination of two high school librarians, three middle school library secretaries, a special education director, one EPIC teacher, one elementary guidance counselor, an elementary music teacher, two custodians and three 3 hour cafeteria workers. Three hour bus monitors and three hour cafeteria workers also lost five paid holidays and substitute teachers had their pay cut by five percent. Finally, middle school sports were eliminated and high school activity funds were cut 25 percent.

The budget relies on some shaky projections, including hundreds of thousands of dollars in savings when the state takes over bussing students to private schools outside the district this fall. The budget also predicts $280,000 in additional concessions from the unions who have yet to settle. I voted against this projection, which passed 5-1, because it may not materialize. One reason the city’s finances are so bad this year is that Mayor Napolitano and the City Council budgeted $1.2 million for concessions last year and obtained none, creating a huge hole in the budget.

The 2010-11 budget is likely to be gruesome. As of today, stimulus funds will be much less. Unions with contracts are due raises from 2.25 to 3 percent and pension costs are expected to soar as the impact of the stock market crash finally hits the pension contribution formula. In addition, health insurance increases which were largely borne by employees this year through increased cost shares, will be largely borne next year by the school department. Next year is also an election year when state legislators and city council members will want to brag about holding the line on taxes, even though it will force higher tax increases the following year.

For now, however, our schools are intact and the bulk of our employees under contract. I am sure our fine teachers, administrators and support staff will make the coming school year a good one for our children, despite the tight financial times.

$25,000 FOR SUPERINTENDENT

Many people have asked why the school committee paid retiring superintendent Rick Scherza $25,000 when the school department is so short on money. I voted for the agreement.

I have been a major critic of Superintendent Scherza. I opposed his move to eliminate the auto repair program at the vocational school at Cranston West. I felt his presentation of the reasons for moving the sixth grade to the elementary school was weak and felt he made some poor administrative appointments. During last year’s budget deliberations he failed to present a balanced budget, ducking his responsibilities. This year he failed to present the committee with many financial options, forcing us to manage the school district’s finances because he would not.

Most importantly, however, was my sense that he was not engaged in handling the district’s many problems. He often did not know the answers to questions and almost always referred them to subordinates. He was frequently out of the district.

One example: This spring, the school committee formed a sub-committee to explore the school food program’s deficit and consider sub-contracting services. I was appointed chair and the superintendent volunteered to serve as a committee member. He attended the first two meetings and then missed the following four. Although he seemed to favor sub-contracting, he made no suggestions on how to eliminate the cafeteria program’s deficit. He gave no explanation for this lack of participation and did not send any ideas with other administrators. This forced the committee to produce a plan without any help from the district’s top manager. We did that, but I felt we were doing his job.

June 30, 2009 Mr. Scherza’s three year contract was scheduled to end, but a clause in that contract stated that if we did not inform him of his termination by September 1, 2007, (only 14 months after he started) the contract was automatically renewed for another year. I did not understand this clause at the time the school committee approved the contract and our lawyer at the time, Greg Piccirilli, did not explain it to the school committee. Therefore his three year contract became a four year contract in September 2007.

Prior to September 1, 2008, when his contract would have been automatically renewed for a fifth year, the clause was explained to the committee by our new lawyers. The committee objected to it and Mr. Scherza graciously agreed to remove it from his contract. Months later, he offered to retire the end of his third year and receive the $25,000 consulting agreement.

By that time, I felt he was not only disengaged from the school district, but detrimental to it. I try to decide issues on whether they will benefit children in the classroom. Leadership is important in the central office and I did not want to stumble through another year or risk losing some of our top administrators to other districts. I agreed to the $25,000 so we could have better central office leadership in these difficult times.