Kimmel on Marks' Budget Process

Bruce Kimmel is a former Board of Education member.

It seemed too good to be true when I first read the news stories, so I double-checked and, true enough, the Norwalk Board of Education, for the first time in memory, has included some of the significant stakeholders in preliminary discussions of the 2011-12 operating budget. According to reports, Superintendent Marks made sure representatives of the educational unions and the PTO Council had seats at the budget table from the get-go. Apparently, extensive meetings have been taking place on a weekly basis.


Some people might question the wisdom of including union representatives in these discussions, and they do have a point: Unions have their own interests and naturally will try to protect those interests. But so do Central Office personnel, and for years they’ve been part of the budget discussions. Plus, it’s about time we abandoned our standard budget scenario, which in the past pretty much excluded the educational unions, forcing them to present their budget ideas during the public participation phase of BOE meetings. I suspect that bringing organized labor to the table will eventually lead to some imaginative ways to save money.

Also of significance are the discussions that have taken place between the Superintendent and the city’s Finance Director, Tom Hamilton. Last year, I believe, was the first time the Finance Director and the Mayor, as well as the Board of Estimate and Taxation, met with school officials early in the budget cycle and suggested a spending cap for the 2010-11 operating budget. Unfortunately, last year’s recommendation was initially ignored as the Board initiated a game of chicken with city officials.

It might be worthwhile to briefly review what happened; hopefully, it won’t happen again: The Finance Director, the Mayor, and the BET clearly recommended that the Board adopt an operating budget for the 2010-11 fiscal year with a zero percent increase in spending. We were then in the midst of a terrible recession and revenues had decreased considerably. Ignoring the city’s fiscal watchdogs, the Board, after little discussion, adopted a budget that was five million above the recommendation.

Inexplicably, two contrary things then happened that confused the public: First, the Interim Superintendent again announced that the adopted budget was bare bones, clearly implying there was nothing to cut, apart from essential programs that benefit students. Second, Board members announced they would immediately begin looking for ways to trim the so-called bare bones budget. Finally, after considerable discussion – much of which was initiated by the unions – the Board settled on an operating budget that conformed to the recommendation from the Finance Director, the BET and Mayor.

The problem with this yearly game of chicken between city agencies and the BOE is that the public is caught in the middle and after a while doesn’t know what to believe. Last year was not the first time the BOE and the Superintendent predicted programmatic disaster, only to later make the necessary cuts without the system losing programs or key personnel. Fortunately, so far it seems the new Superintendent plans to work within the framework suggested by the Finance Director. However, I do question her use of “bare bones” so early in the process.

Nonetheless, compared to a few years ago, when budget discussions and presentations were not even properly noticed for the public, Marks seems to have adopted a radically more inclusive, as well as transparent, approach to the nitty-gritty aspects of budget crafting. Hopefully, this new approach will begin to rebuild trust among the BOE, the educational administration (often called Central Office), other city agencies and, most importantly, the public.

However, I would take this new approach a step further: To ensure the widest possible public participation, the BOE and Superintendent Marks might consider including members of “non-educational” groups, such as neighborhood or housing organizations, in these discussions.

Our public school system belongs to, and is supported by, the people of Norwalk; all the people, not only those who have a direct stake – such as a child or a job – in the system. Moreover, the long-term health of our city is in large measure dependent on the quality of education provided by our schools. It is incumbent on the BOE and the Superintendent to devise ways to include the broader public in budget discussions, as well as all other discussions that may have an impact on property taxes and property values.

The level of inclusiveness I am advocating is not the traditional way of doing things. But the world of education is changing and so must our BOE and the manner in which Norwalk develops its budgets. What could possibly be wrong with making our school budget process – and perhaps the budgets of other departments – community endeavors? Perhaps it’s time we cut through the silly distinction that divides our city into “taxpayers” and “parents,” as if these were mutually exclusive categories locked in a zero-sum budget struggle. Of course, the BOE would have final say – that’s what they were elected for – but including people with different perspectives is bound to enhance the overall process.

Bruce Kimmel