A $2.1 million mess

Westbrook School Department employees and parents argued last week in favor of spending all of a $2.1 million increase in state funding on schools.

As we report in this week’s paper, many of them argued – to cheers and applause – that it was the state’s intention to give all that money to local school districts to support their programs.

While we support funding schools at a healthy level, that assertion is simply inaccurate.

We support maintaining small class sizes, offering teachers competitive salaries and benefits and giving them the tools they need to teach their respective subjects. The strength of public education locally and throughout the country is more important now than ever as our schools fall behind internationally, especially in the areas of math and science.

But, as we argued last week, it’s important to keep some perspective in this debate. Reducing an increase is not an overall reduction. The schools are proposing a $1.2 million spending increase. At the same time the school department is proposing cutting positions, including a math teacher at the high school, it is proposing paying for new programs, including all-day kindergarten.

The School Committee is right to – as Committee Chairman Colleen Hilton indicated last week – send whatever members believe is a responsible budget to the city, regardless of what Mayor Bruce Chuluda has requested. That’s how any budget debate should work.

But those who want to spend all of the $2.1 million on the schools shouldn’t misconstrue the intentions of the state. Schools received additional money this year through a bill known to legislators and policy wonks as “LD 1.” It was the governor’s and Legislature’s response this year to the almost universally acknowledged failure the previous year to pass tax relief legislation.

Those who doubt its intentions can look it up on the state’s Web site. Every single section of the preamble references property tax relief – not paying for school programs. It was a flawed bill, but its intentions were clear. That’s why the City Council, with the support of Superintendent Stan Sawyer, endorsed this fall sending 100 percent of the money back to taxpayers.

Defining what exactly 100 percent would be, however, has proven difficult because of a new school funding model, know as Essential Programs and Services. And, we know it’s probably confusing to readers.

We believe 100 percent is probably shy of the full $2.1 million. The state money going to Westbrook schools would have increased a little bit this year, with or without the new state law, and Essential Programs and Services does require some additional spending locally, although not as much as Sawyer is arguing for. (For further explanation of all this, go to our Web site, www.keepmecurrent.com, and look for the story, “Application of new tax law differs,” by using the number 3096 in the take it online box in the upper right-hand corner of the page.)

Regardless, what’s important is that the schools and the city find the spending each cannot do without, argue on behalf of its preservation and then prepared to be forthright and open with taxpayers about how much tax relief the city passed on to taxpayers and why.

Support social services

The City Council will take up Thursday, May 14, Mayor Bruce Chuluda’s proposed 25 percent reduction in funding to local social service agencies, including Mission Possible, VNA Home Health Care, the Westbrook Food Pantry and the Peoples Regional Opportunity Program.

In the interest of full disclosure, I should say that I have a conflict of interest here. I serve on Mission Possible’s board of directors.

I serve on the board, however, for the same reason that I think the city should maintain the amount of money it’s giving to these local agencies – it benefits Westbrook residents. All of these organizations benefit the city, sometimes in ways that save the city money.

Mission Possible, for example, gives young teenagers a place to go and things to do at a time in their lives and a time of day when they are vulnerable – the early teenage years and after school, respectively. Lacking role models and constructive uses of their time, these kids could wind up getting into trouble. That would become a problem for the local police, which the city also pays for.

The Westbrook Food Pantry is another good example. Operating almost entirely through volunteer labor, the pantry helps struggling Westbrook families get the food they need.

Those same families could be coming to the city for a little extra help.

As budgets have gotten tight, many communities have put the squeeze on local social service agencies to save money. Westbrook shouldn’t follow their lead. The city can’t afford to increase the money it gives to these agencies now, but it should not reduce its contributions.

Brendan Moran, editor