written (or copy and pasted) solely by Stanley H. Wotring, Jr. I am not a representative of the LSC (BUT I WANT TO BE!}
nor are they responsible for the content. My email address is ***Lynn.School.Watch@gmail.com***.
TIME TO GET SERIOUS!
Thank you Brian! Nice job giving a clear, concise explanation of the progress made and future plan to finally resolve this issue and in only a minutes time. The one question I have is when you say this year's NSS requirement has been met to bring the city into compliance and out of the penalty phase, does this mean 100% of the FY16 requirement was met, or does this mean less than 100% but at least 95% was met resulting in carryover for FY17?
I think we are just out of the penalty phase because just enough was added to this year's budget in addition to get us up to 95%. We were down around 92% I think.
The DESE has not updated their FY15 NSS compliance reports to reflect this resolution. I would not get too excited until this happens. Also, the FY16 figures show Lynn's requirement (excluding carryovers) to be 191,949,857. Therefore, is it our understanding that Lynn will 100% meet this figure plus another $2.2 million? If not, wouldn't that mean an additional carryover amount on top of the $8 plus million already owed?
This negotiated settlement I believe will make the problem go away, a political solution that masks the underlying inequalities. My understanding is that money has already changed hands.
The problem has not gone away. It just went from over $17 million to $8.9 million. $8.9 million is still a good chunk of change to owe for a past due balance. For years, the city has not met it's NSS requirement without any carryover amounts included. Requirements that were significantly less than FY16's. Now we are being told it is able to meet $191.9 million for FY16 plus an additional $2.2 million? Keep in mind, the $191.9 million foundation will most likely increase each year, so they city will have to meet (100%) these greater foundation amounts plus an additional $2.2 million.
ALL THEY GOT TO DO IS CHANGE THE RULES AND THE "DEBT" DISAPPEARS I don't believe there is political will to hold LYNN accountable. In the end, it's our students who will pay.
Has Brian or anyone else given you the details on how exactly the debt went from $17 plus million to $8.9 million? If you recall, Peter Caron's proposal mentioned the state allowing Lynn to include specific costs for specific years toward net school spending (costs that Lynn was not allowed to include due to state restrictions) Is this what the state agreed to, or did they agree to some other compromise?
I do not know the specifics. I would guess it was paid through political capital between Judy and Charlie through the workings of Polito. That, however is only my cynical opinion.
So an additional $2.2 million was just given to the school department, but how that money will be spent has not been discussed yet at any school committee meeting correct? Perhapm it will go to paying for some of the items on what the Mayor referred to as committee members "wish lists". Also, as of today, do we know exactly how much of the $192 million FY16 requirement will actually be spent? If the city does not spend 100% of the requirement, it will result in more carryovers to FY17, which will of course increase the FY17 requirement. The additional $2.2 million the city agreed to pay for past due amounts will be in addition to the FY17 requirement plus carryovers. Sound familiar? Isn't this how we got into this mess to begin with? I look forward to the DESE posting the updated compliance reports for Lynn.
I have been harping about the lack of transparency on just how we will spend this "half a loaf" to maximize our benefit. I agree the rules for the foundation budget need to be changed but until they are you need to play by them. It is not fair to other 350 school districts that do. Plus it is even more unfair to our students who have to compete with students who came from a fully funded district that played by the rules and didn't make them up as they went along.
Thank you Brian! Nice job giving a clear, concise explanation of the progress made and future plan to finally resolve this issue and in only a minutes time. The one question I have is when you say this year's NSS requirement has been met to bring the city into compliance and out of the penalty phase, does this mean 100% of the FY16 requirement was met, or does this mean less than 100% but at least 95% was met resulting in carryover for FY17?
ReplyDeleteI think we are just out of the penalty phase because just enough was added to this year's budget in addition to get us up to 95%. We were down around 92% I think.
ReplyDeleteThe DESE has not updated their FY15 NSS compliance reports to reflect this resolution. I would not get too excited until this happens. Also, the FY16 figures show Lynn's requirement (excluding carryovers) to be 191,949,857. Therefore, is it our understanding that Lynn will 100% meet this figure plus another $2.2 million? If not, wouldn't that mean an additional carryover amount on top of the $8 plus million already owed?
ReplyDeleteThis negotiated settlement I believe will make the problem go away, a political solution that masks the underlying inequalities. My understanding is that money has already changed hands.
DeleteThe problem has not gone away. It just went from over $17 million to $8.9 million. $8.9 million is still a good chunk of change to owe for a past due balance. For years, the city has not met it's NSS requirement without any carryover amounts included. Requirements that were significantly less than FY16's. Now we are being told it is able to meet $191.9 million for FY16 plus an additional $2.2 million? Keep in mind, the $191.9 million foundation will most likely increase each year, so they city will have to meet (100%) these greater foundation amounts plus an additional $2.2 million.
ReplyDeleteALL THEY GOT TO DO IS CHANGE THE RULES AND THE "DEBT" DISAPPEARS I don't believe there is political will to hold LYNN accountable. In the end, it's our students who will pay.
ReplyDeleteHas Brian or anyone else given you the details on how exactly the debt went from $17 plus million to $8.9 million? If you recall, Peter Caron's proposal mentioned the state allowing Lynn to include specific costs for specific years toward net school spending (costs that Lynn was not allowed to include due to state restrictions) Is this what the state agreed to, or did they agree to some other compromise?
ReplyDeleteI do not know the specifics. I would guess it was paid through political capital between Judy and Charlie through the workings of Polito. That, however is only my cynical opinion.
ReplyDeleteSo an additional $2.2 million was just given to the school department, but how that money will be spent has not been discussed yet at any school committee meeting correct? Perhapm it will go to paying for some of the items on what the Mayor referred to as committee members "wish lists". Also, as of today, do we know exactly how much of the $192 million FY16 requirement will actually be spent? If the city does not spend 100% of the requirement, it will result in more carryovers to FY17, which will of course increase the FY17 requirement. The additional $2.2 million the city agreed to pay for past due amounts will be in addition to the FY17 requirement plus carryovers. Sound familiar? Isn't this how we got into this mess to begin with? I look forward to the DESE posting the updated compliance reports for Lynn.
ReplyDeleteI have been harping about the lack of transparency on just how we will spend this "half a loaf" to maximize our benefit. I agree the rules for the foundation budget need to be changed but until they are you need to play by them. It is not fair to other 350 school districts that do. Plus it is even more unfair to our students who have to compete with students who came from a fully funded district that played by the rules and didn't make them up as they went along.
DeleteCorrect, not 100%, only 93% to avoid penalty. Not sure how 17M became 8.9M other than a settlement was offered and accepted by Polito and city.
ReplyDeleteLol, when did Polito get a job at the DESE? Makes you wonder who's in charge.
Delete