Home » Opinion » Editorials
'Fully funded': Labeling a school budget
Manchester School Superintendent Thomas Brennan has to submit a budget for next year that keeps school spending below the city's voter-approved spending cap. School board members this month asked him to submit a second one that would "fully fund the Manchester district and meet state standards," as board member Art Beaudry's motion put it. Though this will not tell parents and taxpayers very much, it will provide a lovely opportunity for some political grandstanding.
That grandstanding has already begun. At the school board meeting two Mondays ago, member John Avard said, "We need to know what the number is that is going to keep us in compliance with state guidelines. We have to see what a fully funded budget looks like."
Board members who advocate spending more money love this game because they get to define the terms. By the definitions imposed by the board, the higher-spending budget will be "fully funded" and the one that complies with the voter-imposed spending cap will not be. It should be obvious that simply calling the higher budget "fully funded" does not make the lower budget a dereliction of the city's duties. But that is how the cap-compliant budget was portrayed this past year, and the same way it will be portrayed next year, as though the city can measure its commitment to students by raw budget numbers alone.
Ignored in this political exercise will be the assumptions made in the creation of the "fully funded" budget. By definition, the full funding will mean increasing employee compensation per the existing contracts. But the contracts are to be renegotiated next year. New contracts might allow the district to hire more personnel at a lower per-person cost.
The so-called "fully funded" budget also would not necessarily include things like shifting costs by finding corporate sponsors (approved this year by the school board), or cutting costs by finding more efficient ways of doing things.
Taxpayers should not fall for this rhetorical trick.
READER COMMENTS: 0
- Minimum wages: Maximum spin - 11
- A CIA bombshell: Feinstein and the Fourth - 1
- Supervised visitation: The metal detector problem - 1
- Charter cap trap: A restriction to repeal - 0
- Taken for a ride: Hooksett’s Pinkerton deal - 4
- Bedford’s road bond: A good deal for a big fix - 1
- Legislative ethics: NH way works better than most - 0
- Blue shame: Obamacare's big change - 19
- Obamacare's new trick: Only temporary relief - 21
READER COMMENTS: 0
- Sens. Shaheen, Ayotte slam latest push for online sales tax - 0
- Bedford girls basketball team spreads the scoring wealth - 0
- New Hampshire high school athletes on the run (and jumping) in NYC - 0
- Ian Clark's High School Hockey: Teams anxious to play - 0
- Manchester Mayor Gatsas: Vote tells me Hooksett is satisfied with Manchester schools - 0
- After Pinkerton rejection, what's next for Hooksett students? - 0
- Nashua aldermen approve pair of union contracts - 0
- Was a crime committed? Nashua police are not certain - 0
- Nashua must decide on parkway project's bridge aesthetics - 0
SCORE workshop offers social media tips
Minimum wages: Maximum spin
Hooksett votes down Pinkerton schools deal
Hooksett has five new school board members
A CIA bombshell: Feinstein and the Fourth