Why I’m running for Greenville school board

To the Editor;

I am running for a position on the Greenville School Committee. I was a member of the budget committee during development of the proposed 2016-17 town and school budgets. My primary focus was (and is) to encourage full disclosure and complete transparency so that each citizen can make an informed decision regarding the tax burden we are being asked to shoulder.

I have owned The Lodge at Moosehead Lake in Greenville for nine years and was a practicing attorney specializing in individual compensation and benefit plans and corporate and individual income tax planning. I am also a certified public accountant.

Past school budgets presentations have offered up seemingly endless numbers without any meaningful explanation. During the 2016-17 budget process, our school committee seemed open-minded about my suggestions to include some additional analysis but the lack of any meaningful explanation continues. I would like to call attention to some key points not discussed by our school committee in its budget presentation.

Our school committee presents the 2016-17 budget total as a “decrease” of $19,500 compared to the prior budget. That is true; but misleading. In fact, our superintendent projects that last year’s budget will generate a surplus of approximately $200,000 at the end of the current fiscal year. In other words, our school committee is actually asking for an increase of approximately $180,500 or 5.2 percent more than they expect to spend in the current fiscal year.

The most recently available state wide data indicates that, on average, Maine schools allocate Nearly 60 percent of budget expenditures are to “Instruction”, “Special Education” and “Career & Tech”. These are the three major categories that capture dollars (including teacher salaries and benefits) spent on classroom instruction. Our school committee’s proposed budget indicates that they will spend only 52.1 percent on these critical categories. This means that approximately $230,000 is being spent elsewhere. Where … and on what?

Perhaps the answer can be found in the categories of “Student/Staff”, “System Admin”, and “School Admin”. On average, Maine schools spend 16.25 percent of their budgets on these categories. Our school committee projects that they will spend 22.7 percent (approximately $235,000) more than the statewide average on these categories. Is it a coincidence that the amount not spent in the classroom is almost exactly equal to the “additional” amount spent on administration?

It is important to verify the financial condition of our school system by having an annual audit conducted by an independent professional accountant. The audit does not deal with “budgets”. It focuses on actual cash in the bank. When our school committee presented the budget for the 2014-15 year, they assumed a “Carry Forward” fund balance of $289,000. The independent auditor’s report, however, showed a Fund Balance (i.e., actual cash in the bank) of $639,214 as of 6/30/2015. Why was the audited Fund Balance so much greater than indicated by our school committee’s budget presentation?

Fast forward to today. Our school committee projects that as of 6/30/17 the Fund Balance will be $114,089 because they are “using” $200,000 of the existing Fund Balance to help “balance” the 2016-17 budget. This again is misleading. Remember the superintendent’s projection of a $200,000 surplus from the 2015-16 budget year? Those dollars stay in the bank because they won’t be spent.

So the expected Fund Balance as of 6/30/2017 will be $314,089 rather than $114,089. Again, that is a much higher Fund Balance than suggested by our school committee. If the school committee collects more tax dollars than are spent, shouldn’t they disclose to the community how many “extra” tax dollars are “needed” and what they intend to spend the “extra” tax dollars on? Am I suggesting foul play? No.

I am suggesting that our school committee can do a much better job in explaining the true amount of “extra” tax dollars that have been collected but not spent. With “extra” tax dollars already in the bank why is any increase in tax dollars needed in this budget?

And finally, the elephant in the room that everyone wants to continue ignoring. Teachers’ compensation is by far the largest expense in any school budget. It comprises the lion’s share of the approximately $2,728,175 in total employee compensation (the superintendent’s office estimates that 75 percent of the total budget consists of employee compensation and benefits) that our school committee has included in the proposed budget.

Our teachers are compensated through a collectively bargained (union) contract. This is a public document and a copy can be obtained by visiting the superintendent’s office. The current 3-year contract expires at the end of August 2017. The renegotiated terms that will be agreed to by our school committee next year will be “cast in stone” until the year 2020. The key financial elements of this contract are the negotiated annual increases to base salaries and the provisions for health insurance benefits. Annual base salary increases are limited to a negotiated percentage. However, health insurance benefit increases each year are not limited. A teacher with individual coverage bears no increase in personal cost regardless of whether annual insurance rates rise by 1 percent or 20 percent. A teacher with family coverage pays only 25 percent of any increase.

Under terms of the current contract, our school committee cannot “shop” for a less expensive source even if the coverage terms remain exactly the same.

The budget presentation reports each year that the costs of teachers’ salaries and benefits have increased. Want more details? You will have to go to the Internet and do your own research. That’s what I have done. Teachers’ salaries are part of the public information that each Maine school system publishes annually. Pick a school and compare it to Greenville.

My personal research indicates that total compensation for our teachers is, on average, at least 20 percent higher than surrounding school systems. I hope that many of you will challenge my conclusion. I look forward to participating in a dialogue between the community and our school committee on this critical topic.

If true, my conclusion indicates that our community is providing “additional” compensation of over $300,000 annually. I think our school committee should be able to explain to the community why that “additional” compensation is appropriate and the impact it will have on future tax dollar requests if it is not addressed.

Dennis D. Bortis
Greenville