Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I agree that consolidation alone will cure everything and yes, corruption is an aspect in terms of costs. With that said, how are states that still have their share of corruption still able to have lower tax burdens? As an example: https://www.publicintegrity.org/2015...-investigation
So, there has to be something else outside of corruption that needs to be addressed in terms of services and tax burden.
First off, New York leads the country in corrupt politics. Chicago is the only other area that comes close. This is a big problem. Patronage jobs, pols making sure cost cutting measures do not take place because the bloated tax income benefits friends or big donors. Don't underestimate the numbers involved.
Long Island has 125 school districts. Let's say the average Superintendent is making $350k (which seems close, if a little on the high side). Let's also say that consolidation will eliminate ALL these positions (which it obviously would not) - savings of $43.8 million. A quick look shows a little over 1 million households on Long Island. That's a savings of about $40/household per year. Not even a rounding error on my tax bill.
Compare that to the Venditto indictment - that involved the town guaranteeing loans in excess of $20 million for a third party. The borrower defaults and the town is on the hook for 50% of the "savings" you hope to get from the elimination of all those administrators. That's just one town and one situation with enough evidence to be prosecuted.
I'm not trying to make a one-to-one comparison. Just throwing some general numbers to put things in perspective. Add in all the other shenanigans - patronage jobs, bloated pensions, etc., and it is clear that it has a big effect on taxes.
Quote:
With that said, how are states that still have their share of corruption still able to have lower tax burdens?
Complex answer: Do a one to one comparison of services in each location along with the cost of each service. They either provide fewer services and/or pay less for those services.
Simple answer: As I already pointed out: "we simply pay too much for the services we receive. Salaries, benefits and pensions have spiraled out of control"
Teachers, Police... for virtually all the "services" we receive we are paying considerably more than those in other areas. You can only reduce the cost of teacher/police/other service salaries/pensions in two ways - employ less of them or reduce their wage/pension. The former would be difficult to do and most people wouldn't go for it (If you could justify it with consolidation, you could justify it without).
The latter option is possible, for new hires at least (which makes it a long term fix). Still a difficult uphill battle against strong unions (which is another reason why other areas do not have these high costs). Politicians will not fight these unions, making the problem worse. But that's the only way to see meaningful reduction in taxes.
First off, New York leads the country in corrupt politics. Chicago is the only other area that comes close. This is a big problem. Patronage jobs, pols making sure cost cutting measures do not take place because the bloated tax income benefits friends or big donors. Don't underestimate the numbers involved.
Long Island has 125 school districts. Let's say the average Superintendent is making $350k (which seems close, if a little on the high side). Let's also say that consolidation will eliminate ALL these positions (which it obviously would not) - savings of $43.8 million. A quick look shows a little over 1 million households on Long Island. That's a savings of about $40/household per year. Not even a rounding error on my tax bill.
Compare that to the Venditto indictment - that involved the town guaranteeing loans in excess of $20 million for a third party. The borrower defaults and the town is on the hook for 50% of the "savings" you hope to get from the elimination of all those administrators. That's just one town and one situation with enough evidence to be prosecuted.
I'm not trying to make a one-to-one comparison. Just throwing some general numbers to put things in perspective. Add in all the other shenanigans - patronage jobs, bloated pensions, etc., and it is clear that it has a big effect on taxes.
Complex answer: Do a one to one comparison of services in each location along with the cost of each service. They either provide fewer services and/or pay less for those services.
Simple answer: As I already pointed out: "we simply pay too much for the services we receive. Salaries, benefits and pensions have spiraled out of control"
Teachers, Police... for virtually all the "services" we receive we are paying considerably more than those in other areas. You can only reduce the cost of teacher/police/other service salaries/pensions in two ways - employ less of them or reduce their wage/pension. The former would be difficult to do and most people wouldn't go for it (If you could justify it with consolidation, you could justify it without).
The latter option is possible, for new hires at least (which makes it a long term fix). Still a difficult uphill battle against strong unions (which is another reason why other areas do not have these high costs). Politicians will not fight these unions, making the problem worse. But that's the only way to see meaningful reduction in taxes.
Or you could reduce overtime for law enforcement agencies with more staff at a lower, but "reasonable" pay rate.
There are roughly 940,000 households on Long Island and you are likely to going to have look into more than just superintendents. Assistants just below them would have to be looked at, as well as also looking into internal consolidation in terms of schools with small student enrollments, for a couple of other potential possibilities.
Saying that NY corruption is the worst may or may not be true, but as the report shows, it isn't exclusive to NY.
There are other things that are more unique to NY in terms of always being an entry state for immigrants/refugees and giving more than it gets from the Federal government, among some others(Medicare, etc) that makes this quite complex. So, it may be a matter of asking what can the people of NY live without or with less of.
Or you could reduce overtime for law enforcement agencies with more staff at a lower, but "reasonable" pay rate.
No argument there. That is one of many ways to reduce costs. The current situation is a result of the way the system is set up and the contracts agreed to. My point is that consolidation would not help this side of the problem. It would likely make things worse as the areas with lower pay/benefits would receive increases to equalize things.
Quote:
There are roughly 940,000 households on Long Island and you are likely to going to have look into more than just superintendents. Assistants just below them would have to be looked at, as well as also looking into internal consolidation in terms of schools with small student enrollments, for a couple of other potential possibilities.
Yes, there are many other items to consider. I only used those rough numbers to give perspective. The current research indicates that consolidation has the potential to provide a cost savings for districts with under 1500 students. Using the LI example again, there are only 29 of the 125 school districts that fall in that range. Even if it made sense to consolidate all of those districts into nearby larger ones (no assurance it is feasible or would provide any savings), the total potential savings would be minimal... and it would only benefit the small number of people in the 29 small districts. That shows the problem is somewhere other than de-centralization.
Quote:
Saying that NY corruption is the worst may or may not be true, but as the report shows, it isn't exclusive to NY.
You are correct - it's definitely not exclusive to NY. I still believe NY (particularly downstate, with Albany a close second) is on an entirely different scale. To be clear, by "corruption" I don't necessarily mean politicians directly stealing money for themselves. I also refer to the "good 'ole boy" network where patronage jobs are handed out to friends, no-bid contracts are awarded to donors and the entire bureaucracy it overstaffed and overpaid. Just look at the recent indictments... I don't see that happening with such frequency in other locations.
Quote:
There are other things that are more unique to NY in terms of always being an entry state for immigrants/refugees and giving more than it gets from the Federal government, among some others(Medicare, etc) that makes this quite complex. So, it may be a matter of asking what can the people of NY live without or with less of.
No argument there. As I stated earlier - you either reduce the number of services provided or reduce the amount you pay for those services. When budget shortfalls happen, the pols always argue about the former. I am of the belief that the latter is the real problem.
The district paid $150,000 for the senior class trip to Disney. You can't make this stuff up.
If there was only accountability. The School Board and administrators should be personally liable for this irresponsible use of funds. Without accountability (like we have in the real world) they just have to say "oops" and even get to keep their jobs.
Sue people for malfeasance. Fire people without severance. File criminal charges. have some real accountability and maybe others will think twice before throwing our tax dollars out the window.
Hiring more people to eliminate overtime will not produce savings. Overtime only cost the the 1 1/2 pay, however a new separate employee will have to have all of their benefits paid for. Far cheaper to pay existing employees OT.
So, we are basically back to square one then or do we not look at governmental structure? While getting rid of corruption is important, it is tough to legislate continual behavior that occurs outside of just voting said people out or locking them up. Unfortunately, our system isn't necessarily set up to focus on political corruption on those terms.
A couple of articles in regards to school consolidation and how it went from being something that people didn’t want to being credited for being a catalyst to increased economic development. It also shows why many don’t want to go back to the old system. Wake County Schools merger leader Roy Tilley dies | News & Observer
A couple of articles in regards to school consolidation and how it went from being something that people didn’t want to being credited for being a catalyst to increased economic development. It also shows why many don’t want to go back to the old system. Wake County Schools merger leader Roy Tilley dies | News & Observer
Interesting article. Seems people with other systems can also be dissatisfied with the services they receive and want to try another way. The article is fairly one-sided (as most are) and doesn't address whatever issues prompted the study.
The troublesome theme of the story is this quoted item:
“One of the big things to keep in mind is that cost will increase as you need multiple administrations and administrative offices,” he said. “There’s a reason that taxes are so high in the Northeast and Midwest.”
This shows the battle described is purely political. Both sides will say anything to advance their agenda, and the party faithful will blindly believe it. Most of the "backlash" the article refers to is from politicians.
Multiple administrations do not necessarily lead to increased costs, and certainly not by a substantial amount. The reason school taxes are so high in NY has to do with teacher salaries and benefits/retirement. Give Wake county teachers the same package and watch their taxes skyrocket. Nassau/Suffolk teachers average about TWICE the annual salary as Wake County teachers ($90k vs $45k). That doesn't account for the long-term financial burden of retirement benefits.
Is the push to split-up districts due to the previously mentioned mergers not working out as planned? Interesting that the article cites claims of increased costs due to a potential split, but there is no mention of the previous mergers lowering costs. Since the districts used to be split, one would think there is a basis of comparison to substantiate such claims. There was a time when newspapers researched such issues rather than parroting political-speak.
Whether consolidating or breaking up a large district, there are going to be tremendous up-front costs to implement the change. Any potential long-term savings will likely be reduced as the various stakeholders fight for, and receive, concessions from the government. Let's face it - most government entities have a very poor record of negotiating for services. It's especially hard with schools due to the opposition cries of "it's for the kids!"
Break up one district into four and you will likely have four administrations of the same size costing the same as the original. Consolidate four into one and you likely have one administration as large as the original four combined and probably cost more due to increased compensation.
There are definitely situations where consolidation will work (again, studies show savings for smaller districts with <1500 students). There are also situations where it will not work. The problem is properly identifying which districts are which and then having two political parties agree (when they can't agree on anything). After that, you have to trust these politicians to approach the process without putting their own interests and that of the special interests first.
Show me the numbers. Show me the actual guaranteed savings for making such a fundamental change in a system that arguably works. If the savings aren't achieved, have the responsible politicians resign from office. Hold them accountable, just like the rest of us in the private sector. Without accountability, they are simply playing games with our money to advance their own political goals.
BTW- the other link in your post goes to an expired domain message.
Interesting article. Seems people with other systems can also be dissatisfied with the services they receive and want to try another way. The article is fairly one-sided (as most are) and doesn't address whatever issues prompted the study.
The troublesome theme of the story is this quoted item:
“One of the big things to keep in mind is that cost will increase as you need multiple administrations and administrative offices,” he said. “There’s a reason that taxes are so high in the Northeast and Midwest.”
This shows the battle described is purely political. Both sides will say anything to advance their agenda, and the party faithful will blindly believe it. Most of the "backlash" the article refers to is from politicians.
Multiple administrations do not necessarily lead to increased costs, and certainly not by a substantial amount. The reason school taxes are so high in NY has to do with teacher salaries and benefits/retirement. Give Wake county teachers the same package and watch their taxes skyrocket. Nassau/Suffolk teachers average about TWICE the annual salary as Wake County teachers ($90k vs $45k). That doesn't account for the long-term financial burden of retirement benefits.
Is the push to split-up districts due to the previously mentioned mergers not working out as planned? Interesting that the article cites claims of increased costs due to a potential split, but there is no mention of the previous mergers lowering costs. Since the districts used to be split, one would think there is a basis of comparison to substantiate such claims. There was a time when newspapers researched such issues rather than parroting political-speak.
Whether consolidating or breaking up a large district, there are going to be tremendous up-front costs to implement the change. Any potential long-term savings will likely be reduced as the various stakeholders fight for, and receive, concessions from the government. Let's face it - most government entities have a very poor record of negotiating for services. It's especially hard with schools due to the opposition cries of "it's for the kids!"
Break up one district into four and you will likely have four administrations of the same size costing the same as the original. Consolidate four into one and you likely have one administration as large as the original four combined and probably cost more due to increased compensation.
There are definitely situations where consolidation will work (again, studies show savings for smaller districts with <1500 students). There are also situations where it will not work. The problem is properly identifying which districts are which and then having two political parties agree (when they can't agree on anything). After that, you have to trust these politicians to approach the process without putting their own interests and that of the special interests first.
Show me the numbers. Show me the actual guaranteed savings for making such a fundamental change in a system that arguably works. If the savings aren't achieved, have the responsible politicians resign from office. Hold them accountable, just like the rest of us in the private sector. Without accountability, they are simply playing games with our money to advance their own political goals.
BTW- the other link in your post goes to an expired domain message.
Interesting, as I could view both just fine.
I think the difference in teacher requirements in regards to education in NY plays a part in the higher pay as well.
I think the thinking is that if you consolidate, you have more people paying into that system and that this is with no or little pay increase. I think that is the thing that people are referring to in regards to consolidation.
I also wonder if the push to break up the system is coming from people that came from areas where there are multiple school districts in a county. I think the cons to the county school district is that kids could or would be shuffled across the county, which made for long bus rides. This was usually based upon economic aspects. So, that could play a part in the break up of the county SD.
With that said, I think you could have a county system with zones, in order to keep from having the long bus rides. You could also offer open enrollment similar to the WI and MN systems within each zone. There would have to be a reduction in administration, but there also would need to be some research done in order to see what would be the best model in achieving this.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
