| Author |
 Topic  |
|
justme
Advanced Member
1428 Posts |
 Posted - 06/13/2007 : 07:12:27 AM
|
| Yes, Michael, it is outrageous! The Independent calling for the auditor's removal is over the top. We finally have an honest, knowledgeable person providing information and they want him to be dumped? The budget presented is unworkable and the mayor’s refusal to make any cuts is beyond belief. Larry DeCoste seems to be the one shining light the CC & BOA can depend on when it comes to this budget. He deserves a commendation, not termination……. |
 |
|
|
Been Here to Long
Member
25 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2007 : 07:39:12 AM
|
| Seems they are calling for his termination because he tells the truth and the adminstration cannot control Larry. I think Larry is doing a great job. I bet Vetrano and Andrew are kicking themselves for approving of the Mayor hiring him in the first place. |
|
|
|
Court4Fred
Advanced Member
1201 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2007 : 07:40:11 AM
|
At this point, it might be appropriate for Larry DeCoste to have the DOR issue a ruling in writing. While Mayor Walking Eagle is content with a tiny loophole, the auditor and city government should not be, nor should the taxpayers of this city.
Mr. DiPerri makes a good point. If in fact the mayor can "pass" this budget as is, but the city council can't...then the net result is still the same. Sharpen the pencils, folks. It's going to be a long two weeks. It's time to school the budget director and the mayor on preparing a budget. It's a shame that Walking Eagle is so recalitrant to cutting the budget; he might actually have learned something.
As for the Independent...Resnek is well on his way to rendering Quigley's paper irrelevant. He called for the head of the last auditor for exposing Foresteire's fun and games with the budget. It's a pattern of behavior that he keeps repeating, and he's always on the wrong side of any moral argument. Hello, Mr. Quigley? Are you paying attention? |
Edited by - Court4Fred on 06/13/2007 07:49:21 AM |
|
|
|
Citizen Kane
Advanced Member
1082 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2007 : 08:39:35 AM
|
| Well, as you said last night Court, the spin by Resnek was predictable. He has no scruples whatsoever, as long as he's getting his cut. It's distressing, but not surprising, that he would call for DeCoste to be axed. |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2007 : 09:43:25 AM
|
| WOW! Resnek's rant on the auditor was almost as head popping as Hanlon's rant was last night. Did anyone get the "eliminating Barry Doyle's "fake" job" comment? It didn't make any sense to me. |
Edited by - tetris on 06/13/2007 2:34:22 PM |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2007 : 10:08:16 AM
|
| I just finished reading the Independent. I agree the article about Mr DeCoste is outrageous. As I was reading through the "Forum Section," I was getting the distinct impression the Independent is starting to move away form the Hanlon Administration and heading towards DiMaria. They even mentioned DiMaria's campaign kickoff complete with time, date and telephone number to RSVP. That's like having a free political ad. We will have to see just how loyal this "newspaper" is. |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2007 : 10:46:49 AM
|
I got a response to my e-mails from Millie Cardello last night that finally allowed me to figure what caused my confusion over the school budget for FY08. The bottom line appears to have been a problem with the mayor's presentation of the budget that confused a number of members of the BOA and CC as well as myself and probably almost everyone else. Below are excerpts from my reply to the councilor that hopefully explain the situation concisely and also a suggestion for the future. I apologize for any confusion that I may have caused the members of this board.
The budget that was presented to the city needed to reflect the entire amount required to meet net school spending, i.e., an increase of $5.1 million. What the mayor failed to mention in his presentation of the budget, to his own detriment and also to the school department's, was that $4.9 million of that increase would be funded by an increase in Chapter 70 money. Please correct me if I am wrong.
As we have come to find out over the last few days, how much the total budget goes up might not be as important as the impact that budget increase has on the tax levy. I hope that in future years that, when the budget is presented to the Committee of the Whole and the people at home, whoever is mayor focuses on this issue. I'm also hoping that, in the future, this committee will demand, by ordinance if possible, to be provided with projected revenues and written plans for covering any shortfalls with the budget. A list of proposed expenditures does not a budget make. This may have been the way it was always done in the past but it is more than past time for a change.
|
|
|
|
Ellen
Senior Member
173 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2007 : 12:07:13 PM
|
The mayor set the political tone of the hearing as soon as he started his opening comments. It appeared to me that the CC and BOA had done their homework since last Saturday's hearing and came prepared to act on the necessary cuts that they expected the administration to bring to the table last night. Since it is obvious the mayor has set this budget in stone, on his side, I would have liked to see city government go ahead and bring it down last night. Most of them had areas in the budget that they found that could be cut.
Chuck DiPerri clearly stated his cuts did not involve the school department. Why not? How is net school spending calculated? Does it have anything to do with the bottom line of the city budget? I don't know and am interested in how the state calculates that figure.
The auditor came prepared. He had even prepared a worksheet including funds that are projected to come in. He even went so far as to run his worksheet by the DOR, which found no fault with the auditors methodology.
Last years budget was questioned extensively by some members of city government. The majority of the city council passed it with only $5000. cut from the budget. The few that voted against last years budget have stood firm on that issue ever since. Last year it was called a "true" budget and they kept coming back for more money. What are they going to call it this year, "RECEIVERSHIP," because that is where we are heading if city government doesn't put a stop to this madness.
I also think city government needs to get far below the 2.5 levy and needs to also cut some of the over 6 million increase that the taxpayer is going to have to pick up. They say we can't do anything about the fixed costs, I don't believe that. We all live with in some fixed costs, we conserve, the city needs to learn how to do that also. They need to cut where ever they can and reduce the burden to the taxpayer.
I do not think this is the year to put back the residential tax exemption, either. If we are facing a major tax increase and the city shifts some of the burden to the few, the city is going to end up bankrupting some of these people. Everyone needs to pay an equal share this time around.
We are in a mess and some drastic measures need to be taken. At this point it doesn't mater who created it, it just needs to be handled. |
|
|
|
Citizen Kane
Advanced Member
1082 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2007 : 1:45:54 PM
|
Tetris, going back a bit, you're right. I checked it out a little more, and technically the Mayor was correct in what he said based on the portion of the statute that he cited. At the end of the day, it is illegal to PASS this budget. One would think that a responsible administration, however, wouldn't submit a budget that couldn't be passed legally. He knows that cuts will have to be made to bring this under the levy limit -- he just doesn't want to be the one to do it. It's childish and unprofessional and classic Hanlon.
I'm just disgusted with the whole thing, and that editorial piece in the Independent today? Unbelievably galling. To go after the man who's actually telling the truth about the numbers instead of focusing their poison pen on an administration that is running rampant through every last dime we have to spend is journalistic prostitution. |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2007 : 2:03:12 PM
|
Ellen,
If you really want to see how "net school spending" is calculated, I would point you to start at the following link on the DOE web site:
You must be logged in to see this link.
If you'll notice, I actually sent you to a page that talks about a foundation budget. I, along with a lot of other folks including "our" elected officials, have been talking about net school spending when we really should be talking about the foundation budget since we are in the budget portion of the process. The DOE defines net school spending as follows:
"Each district must spend the sum of its required district contribution and its Chapter 70 aid. This sum is referred to as the net school spending requirement."
Since the money hasn't been yet spend yet, it's not really net school spending. Yes, I know that ultimately, you get to the same place but it would be hard to follow on the DOE website if you don't make this distinction.
As far how the foundation budget requirement for FY08 impacts the bottom line of the city budget, I would refer you to some of my earlier posts about net school spending. I'm sure that most people on this board, including me, are probably get tired of me posting that information over and over. |
|
|
|
Ellen
Senior Member
173 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2007 : 4:32:41 PM
|
| Thank you, I am sorry I didn't read your earlier posts. I looked at that page and I read that enrollment is a large variable in the formula, plus other factors. So one way to bring down net school spending is to be positive that all students in our schools live in Everett. That also tells me the illegal immigration issue is also adding to the total of net school spending. I understand there is much more to it than that but it is a starting point. We need help where we can find it with this budget. |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2007 : 09:12:35 AM
|
| I think I have read in the past on this board that there are out of district students at the high school. If the FY07 average is $8425 per pupil, it wouldn't take many out of district students to push the school departments budget up, thus impacting our net school spending. I think I am understanding this correctly. It is a bit confusing to the lay person reading some of the info provided on this subject. |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2007 : 09:16:22 AM
|
Way to go Leader-Herald! What insightful coverage of the the city's current budget situation! Way to take a stand!
Wait...What?!....Are you sure?...There wasn't one word about it? Oh, nevermind!
At least we got a "timely" comment on the audit and I'll always have my legal notices. |
|
|
|
Lynda
Advanced Member
1282 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2007 : 09:26:22 AM
|
| Isn't it unbelievable. Not a word! What would we do without our media coverage? |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2007 : 09:33:45 AM
|
| Speaking of the "Leader Herald" did you happen to read,"From the desk of the publisher" on page 3? I found that interesting reading. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Budget
