To the editor:
Throughout this spring’s budget season, the School Committee (SC) considered two options:
A level services budget of $47,423,851 that would require additional funding through a general override or other procedural maneuvering.
A reduced services budget of $45,592,667 that would not require additional funding but would require significant cuts of staffing and services for the next school year (fiscal year 2025).
Marblehead Public Schools receive funding from a range of sources including Marblehead property taxes, state and federal aid, grants, and fees for services like full-day kindergarten (one example of a revolving fund). A significant portion of the school’s budget is allocated by the town from its general fund.
Ultimately, through collaboration with the Finance Committee, the SC moved forward with a compromise budget of $46,759,110 that doesn’t require a general override or the level of significant cuts in staffing and programming presented at its February’s budget hearing.
Crying wolf: deficit or surplus?
Why didn’t the SC begin the budget process with a common understanding of the full scope of funds available to the schools and the circumstances under which those funds would be used? Instead, administrators were forced to plan significant staff and programming cuts and the SC dangled the idea of seeking additional funding through a general override or asking the town for more money before realizing there were sufficient funds available for FY25. Moving forward, the SC must establish guidelines for the use of balances in its revolving funds so the Finance Committee and the public can understand when and how those funds will be used.
Why didn’t the SC know until the 11th hour that FY24 funds would be available to pre-pay certain FY25 expenses? In past years, the assistant superintendent for finance and administration gave periodic reports on current-year spending, but those reports were stopped when Sarah Fox became chair. Why? The full SC and the public would benefit from in-real-time reporting on school spending.
What’s next?
The MPS FY25 budget of $46,759,110 will be voted at Town Meeting (Monday evening, May 6) as part of the full town’s balanced budget. No separate vote at Town Meeting or at the ballot box will be required for the current budget approved by the SC and recommended by FinCom.
The SC’s last-minute stop-gap solutions this year are a short-term fix to a long-term problem. Revolving-fund balances and budget surpluses are NOT going to be available every year and should NOT be relied upon as a solution to the ongoing fiscal challenges faced by the schools and the town as a whole.
The SC must prove its competency: establish transparent budgetary planning practices, stabilize district leadership, and settle a new contract with Marblehead teachers. Without solving these issues, the community can have no confidence in this SC’s leadership.
David Harris, Waldron Street
Mark Libon, Cedar Street
Christine Nuccio, Damey’s Way