| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GARDEN STATE COALITION OF SCHOOLS/GSCS EMAILNET 10-5-04
Dr. Walter Mahler, President Lynne Strickland, Executive Director
Betsy Ginsburg, Parent Network Representative/GSPN
Phone 609 394 2828 Fax 609 396 7620 Website ‘gscschools.org’ email ‘gscs@ebnet.org’
In this issue: Flash – S1945 Hazardous route cap waiver amendment to S1701 introduced by Senator John Adler…GSCS Speaks Out on ‘Tools for Schools’…Member Q&A re: Budget and S1701/A99 Process…Regional Meetings Update.
GSCS Quick Facts: Please help GSCS get its message across & distribute GSCS to your school community (2) contact ‘gscs2000@hotmail.com’ w/changes to your district email addresses/phone/fax.
Next Board of Trustees Meeting: October 13, 3 p.m., at the East Brunswick Board of Education [723 613 6705]….Please note the time change from 4 pm to 3 pm. Patricia Meyers, Executive Director of the NJ Council on Local Mandates will present to the board. GSCS members welcome, please RSVP ‘gscs2000@hotmail.com’ with you attendance plans.
Scheduling conflict: The NJSBA has scheduled a new special legislative panel at the Fall Workshop in
Regional Co-Host GSCS-Member District Meetings:
Glen Ridge December 9; Mt Laurel February 10, 7 -9pm;
ADVOCACY - S1701 A99 News!
GSCS S1701 Work Groups & Member District Advocacy Getting Results:
First Amendment to S1701 is Introduced: Provides Cap Waiver for Hazardous Routes
|
Revises the calculation of courtesy busing school budget cap adjustment for courtesy busing performed along a hazardous route. See New Jersey Legislature website. |
With the introduction of S1945 this Monday, Senator John Adler [
Member Alert: Please contact Senate President Richard Codey and Senate Education Committee Chair Shirley Turner to request S1945 be posted for legislative hearing ASAP.
October Meetings Reminder/Details
ü October 12, Marlboro Board of Education [1908 Township Dr.] 1 pm, with Senator Karcher, and Assemblymen Morgan and Panter of the 12th district/those parents, board members and superintendents whose schools are in the 12th district are especially encouraged to attend. RSVP Lynne Strickland ‘gscs2000@hotmail.com’
[See ‘ http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/’ for 12th district communities].
ü October 13 at the
Dollars& Sense Meeting Notice:
99 CENTURY ROAD
OCTOBER 13, 2004 7:30 p.m.
Does recent legislation (S1701) bring real tax relief or temporary artificial savings?
WHAT IS REALLY DRIVING RISING COSTS IN PUBLIC EDUCATION?
Unnecessary and Unfunded Mandates
High Cost of Health Benefits
High Cost of Special Education Conflict Resolution
Disproportionate Distribution of State Education Funds
PLEASE, JOIN US IN
Our
The program on this evening will include information and lively interactive discussion.
WE SHARE COMMON GOALS:
REAL TAX RELIEF
HIGH QUALITY COST EFFECTIVE EDUCATION FOR ALL STUDENTS
For directions to
Presented by: Dollar$ and Sense – A shared committee of the Demarest, Ramsey and Ridgewood Boards of Education
GSCS SPEAKS OUT:
It’s Up to
GSCS Asks the Legislature: Give us cost-saving “Tools for Schools”
For example, here are a few suggestion, for starters ……..
Health Benefits:
e.g., Required Dual Spouse Coverage under State Health Benefits Plan: allow incentive ‘buy back’ for one coverage [re dual spouse] in State Health Benefits Plan [SHBP].
Pilot for 3 years, then review to determine cost-benefit regarding impact on actuarial pool, thus potential for increasing cost basis of premiums. If benefit to school communities outweighs ‘adverse selection’ impact, then the incentive program should continue.
Haddonfield example (has been able to do this since it has contracted w/private carrier for 12 years [Aetna/US Health Care]; Fleet is Haddonfield’s insurance broker):
1. The average coverage costs, excluding dental, range:
7K Single to 12K Family
2. Incentive buy back range:
1K to 2.5K @ approx. 15% participation rate
3. Net savings to Haddonfield taxpayer = $244K [35 incentives v. 8K average
savings] more than 10% of total medical benefits cost of $2+M in
Thumbnail of potential for savings statewide == $122M based on Haddonfield savings X 500.
(Haddonfield is a smaller K12 District in Southern Region of New Jersey. Thus Haddonfield savings as a base helps take into account that there are a number of other districts that may already have this type of buy-back program outside of SHB Plan. Conversely there are a number of larger districts within the SHBP that could save far more if they had access to this option. )
Special Education:
Include negotiated settlements within the Extraordinary Aid to Special Education parameters.
While the Doe has statistics that show that more than half of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) decisions in the state are decided in favor of local districts, common knowledge among schools and attorneys, that the Administrative Law Judges exert great pressure on districts to settle [approximately 80% or so are deemed to be settled out of court].
Oversight for all private provider tuition increases that exceed standard budget growth applied to public schools.
Since 2001-2002 Special Education State Aid has been held flat for mandated programs (when aid is held flat for mandated programs, property taxes now have to make up the difference): Update the aid and fund according to current enrollment levels.
Member Q&A…. from
________________________________________________________________
Q: Why did the Budget [S1701/A99] seem to get so quickly presented for a vote with no advance time for public notice and public dialogue?
A: (1) The Budget and S1701/A99 were not the same piece of legislation, and (2) it was politically expedient to squeeze S1701/A99 [recognized as good ‘sound bite’ politics] into the legislative process at the end of the Appropriations/FY05 Budget bill session. Presenting the school spending legislation with little time for understanding, information dissemination and discussion made it much more likely that this legislation would pass.
_______________________________________________________________
Explanation: THE BUDGET PROCESS IN
The Budget for the State of New Jersey Fiscal Year 05, incorporated in the Appropriations Act FY05, was presented to the legislature with the Governor's Budget Message (this year in later February). This is consistent with past practice. Appropriations Acts are routinely amended and modified along the way to passage, officially to be voted on (the final budget must also always be "balanced") by June 30 annually.
S1701/A99 was a not part of the Act per se, but a separate piece of legislation introduced on paper June 10, not actually in people's hands until the afternoon of June 14. Only one hearing, on June 17, was held where the public in general had actually seen the bill in writing. The Senate passed S1701, by an "emergency" floor vote, the next Monday - 6/21 after it had been amended in the Assembly earlier in the day to specify that budget growth be limited to 2.5% or the CPI “whichever is greater” - and the Assembly passed its companion legislation A99 on June 24. June 24 was the last day of the session; the Appropriations bill passed that day as well, as did the full Millionaire’s Tax bill package.
Initially the concepts in the S1701/A99 legislation were a [promised] commitment by the Governor when he spoke to the legislature in April about his proposal for a millionaire’s tax. McGreevey said he would not introduce this tax without curtailing government spending, including schools and municipalities. Strategically, S1701 was 'tie-barred' with 3 other bills - the millionaire's tax bill (used to provide approximately 800M in property tax rebates); the municipal budget/cap bill; the school budget/cap bill; and the bill to establish the Constitutional Convention Task Force. The tie-bar measure put additional pressure on legislators to pass all bills included within, since if one bill was voted down, they all would have failed.
GSCS – THERE IS A BETTER WAY: There are good, common sense reasons to allow new bills ‘air’ time. Bills need to be in hand in with enough time to enable in-depth study for legislators and for the public; the details are critical in order to understand impact and evaluate proposed legislation and it potential impact responsibly. Positive energy spent.
Legislators did not have time for a thorough review and analysis of the S1701;many seem to be confused still as to its content and negative impact; negative energy to be spent.
