NTA EBulletin: May 4, 2025

Marc Laredo's Campaign Email

on the School Budget

(new)

I apologize for the late arrival of this email. The late sunset gave me the illusion that I could just keep editing away. 

I also would like to issue a Wonk alert. There is a lot of wonky ground covered in this section of the EBulletin. I have tried to break down what I say so that if you don't have the time to follow the details, you can read along point by point, and when you get enough of the picture, skip to the section called the "bottom line." And since many in the community read this email, I have felt the need to go into the weeds to deepen the public debate.

******

On Tuesday, April 29th, candidate for mayor and Newton City Council President Marc Laredo sent out a campaign email about the Newton Public Schools budget. I recommend you read it; you can find it here. Marc stays neutral on the critical issue: the school committee's decision to approve a budget that exceeds Mayor Fuller's allocation. Instead, he explains what he takes to be the relevant facts in the debate.

I believe Laredo should take a position on the FY26 school budget debate. As the sole candidate for mayor, we can reasonably expect to know his position in this contentious debate. By doing so, he would define for the Newton electorate where he will stand on the school budget when he is mayor, and show us how he understands the mayor's working relationship with the school committee. And were he to come out in support of the school committee, he would put tremendous public pressure on Mayor Fuller to increase the NPS allocation, and end this period of excruciating insecurity. 

And because he won't take a public stand, his reassurances that he is fully committed to working with the school committee and superintendent to adequately fund the Newton Public Schools sound as hollow as do those of Mayor Fuller. 

Since Marc takes no position on the clash between the school committee and Mayor Fuller, I focus on the facts as he explains them, and then determine what we can infer from his description of these facts.

In his explanation of how schools are funded, he begins with a couple of Ruthanne Fuller's talking points. To wit, he says that:

1. "Direct school spending is more than half of the total city budget. However, within the rest of the budget are expenses for school-related items, such as school nurses." 

2. "When our total spending is considered, more than two-thirds of all city revenues are used to support our schools."

On point 1, the City of Newton has approximately 1,000 employees; the Newton Public schools have approximately 3,200. There are currently 34 school nurses whose salaries and benefits are paid by the City of Newton. Crossing guards, who earn approximately $12k per year, are also paid for by the city; the city budgets for 52 crossing guards; but 14 of these positions are vacant. 

#1 Bottom line: given the number of personnel the NPS employees, it is ridiculous to assume that the schools should function on approximately 1/2 of the city's total budget. The schools employee three times as many employees as does the city. How does it even make sense that they must make do so with the same amount of funding? 

On point 2: The primary way the city spends an additional 1/6 of its budget (2/3 total cost of schools minus 1/2 cost of direct funding) on the NPS is on capital improvements to the buildings. The NPS are only responsible for the everyday maintenance of school buildings, and minor, non-capital repairs. The cost of nurses and crossing guards is not a significant driver of this additional expenditure. The main driver is the cost of these capital expenditures, or the bonds the city sells to pay for them.

School buildings are OWNED by the city, and it is the city's responsibility to fund any capital expenditures: Those leaking roofs; the poor heating, ventilation and air quality; the windows that won't open, or won't stay closed; the communication systems that don't work, the buildings that are so dated and in such poor condition that they should have been replaced long ago--these major capital projects are NOT the financial responsibility of the Newton Public Schools.

Given the poor condition of many of our schools, it is fair to say the city has been quite remiss in this part of its responsibility as well. Why is another one-sixth of the city budget being spent on the schools? Partly because of years of negligence; years of expecting educators and students to work in antiquated, rundown and inappropriate learning spaces.

#2 Bottom line. Just as the city has failed to directly fund the Newton Public Schools operating budgets adequately, so too has it failed to maintain NPS buildings adequately. And the piper has come home to roost.

3. Free cash. Marc says that free cash has increased in recent years, and he attributes this to facts like these: "the Administration has had larger than anticipated amounts of free cash for multiple reasons, including one-time settlements with utilities; relatively mild winters; and higher than budgeted interest income." 

On point 3. There are other, quite important, sources of free cash Marc does not mention--sources that are not the result of one time anomalies, such as the settlement with Eversource, or mild winters, or higher than budgeted interest income.

The city regularly underestimates its revenues by about 1%--five or six million dollars every year, a point Chris B. and Anna N. have both made repeatedly--and which the NTA made throughout our contract campaign.

The city regularly overestimates its expenses, primarily by systematically overestimating the number of employees the city has on its payroll. This year's city budget lists over 110 positions that are vacant, positions the city counts towards its budgeted expenses, but does not fill year over year. I have not done an exact calculation of how much the city overestimates its expenses, but a reasonable estimate is that this too must be the source of five or six million dollars in free cash every year.

#3 Bottom Line. Most of free cash is not really "one time funds"; it is baked into the budget by systematically underestimating revenues and overestimating expenses, to the tune of at least ten to twelve million dollars every year. This is more than enough to fully fund the school budget while maintaining a reasonable reserve. 

4. On Budgetary Responsibility. Marc says: "Under our city charter, the Mayor controls how much the city will spend in each fiscal year (the fiscal year runs from July 1 – June 30). Typically, in January she tells the School Committee how much money she intends to provide for the schools for the next fiscal year. The School Committee then must work within that allocation to create a school budget.The School Committee’s budget is then presented to the City Council." [my emphasis]

On point 4: There is nothing in the Newton City Charter requiring the school committee to work within the Mayor's allocation to create a school budget. There is a state law, which has never been tested or interpreted in court, that MAY require the school committee to do this. But this remains an open question. Perhaps Mayor Fuller would like to spend funds on legal fees to test this law rather than allocate these funds to the schools? 

#4 Bottom Line: The school committee and superintendent are fighting the good fight for the NPS, and there is no established legal justification for them not to do this.

5. On the City Council's power to amend the budget. Marc says "while the City Council engages in a thorough review of the budget, it does not have the authority to either increase spending or shift spending from one area to another. Even if the City Council rejects the Mayor’s budget as being insufficient or disagrees with her allocation of funds among departments, it still goes into effect." "Thus," Marc says, "the Mayor has almost complete control over all city spending."

On point 5. This is not accurate. Yes, the city council cannot add to the budget. Yes, if it rejects the entire budget, it goes into effect anyway. But the city charter gives the city council the authority to "delete or decrease any programs or amounts," and then approve the budget as amended.

Because the city council can cut line items within the mayor's budget, and because it can pass the budget as amended, if there is anything the mayor absolutely needs in the budget that the city council has cut--she would have no choice but to bargain with them.

#5 Bottom Line: The city council actually has tremendous power...the power to disrupt; the power to leverage the mayor.

Finally, Marc includes a section in his email called "How will I fund the schools to meet the educational needs of our students as Mayor?" There are a couple of points he makes there that allude to possible ways he might govern differently than Mayor Fuller. 

6. With respect to next year's budget. Marc says that he will inherit Mayor Fuller's budget for the first six months of his term. However, he says that in the event there are financial challenges once he becomes mayor, he will work with the school committee and the superintendent.

On point 6.  Sounds to me like he is saying "Trust me, I will work with school leadership." Well, if that means he won't be as unrelentingly close-fisted as Ruthanne Fuller, all to the good. But he does not say HOW he would work with the school committee, and he does not say HOW he thinks Mayor Fuller should be working with the school committee now.

#6 Bottom line: I'm not reassured.

7. With respect to FY27 and beyond. Paraphrasing, Marc says that he will be prudent, reasonable and collaborative. While he says he will consider "[h]ow to fully fund our outstanding pension liability before the state-mandated 2040 deadline in a manner that is both fiscally responsible and does not place undue strain on current budgets," he makes no commitment on this front.

On point 7. Chris Brezski has argued forcefully that slowing down the pace of pension contributions, which choke the city's operating budget, is key to sustained funding for the schools in the medium and long term. As current president of the city council, Marc has all the information he needs to take a position on this issue.

#7 Bottom line: With respect to Marc's reassurances to voters that he is deeply invested in the Newton Public Schools and will fund them accordingly: Reassurances are not commitments, not policy statements, not statements of what he thinks Mayor Fuller should be doing right now.  As such, they are empty. 

Marc's email to the community is too little, too late. A principled and public stand by him now would encourage city council members to exercise the power they do have, and put tremendous pressure on Mayor Fuller to fully fund the Level Services Plus budget the Newton School Committee has passed.

I would go so far as to say that as the city council president and only candidate for mayor, Marc has the most power of anyone in the city to force Mayor Fuller to provide more funding to the schools.

We should all be wondering: Why is he unwilling to exercise that power? And I believe that much of what Marc recounts as neutral facts provides us with plenty to make our own inferences on how to answer that question.

School Committee Presents

School Budget to City Council

(from April 27 EBulletin)

On Thursday April 17, Chris Brezski and Anna Nolin presented the school committee approved "Level Plus" budget to the Newton City Council. After Anna presented the details of the school budget itself, Chris (1) demonstrated that there are financially responsible and sustainable ways to fully fund the school budget next year and in future years; and (2) asked the city council to use the power it has to leverage Mayor Fuller into funding the FY26 NPS budget. 

With regard to (1) above, Chris showed that the city's free cash (that is, budget surpluses) allows it to fund the "Level Plus" budget this year. Moreover, because free cash surpluses result from chronically underestimating city revenues, they are thus not simply "one-time funds." Chris further argued that the long term goal of moving towards Anna's "Thrive" budget is sustainable IF the city were to slow down the pace at which it funds the Newton Retirement System. (State law requires the city to fully fund future municipal pensions by 2040; the city is currently on pace to fully fund future pensions by 2032--eight years sooner than required.  Instead of spreading the cost out over a longer period of time, this accelerated pace will starve the city's operating budget every year between now and 2032.)

With regard to (2) above, Chris said that the Mayor indeed wields great power over the budget in the city: She holds, he said, "51 of the 52 cards in the deck." But the city council holds one particularly powerful card that it could play: they have the power to say no to any use of free cash that the Mayor proposes, effectively preventing her from funding any capital projects with free cash. And they have the power to say no to any line items in the Mayor's FY26 city budget. (If the city council rejects the Mayor's whole budget, legally, it goes into effect without their approval; if they reject or reduce any number of individual line items, and approve it as amended, it goes into effect as amended. They cannot increase the amount of any line item.) 

Regarding free cash, Chris did not ask the city council to pick and choose which projects to approve; he asked them to disapprove ALL requests to fund ANY project with free cash until such time as the Mayor allocates the necessary free cash to fully fund the "Level Plus" budget--no strings attached. In other words, he is asking the city council  to stonewall the mayor.

I am not sure the city council members heard what Chris was asking; the questions and comments that followed his presentation were predominantly about the school budget itself. Only two council members, Marc Laredo, city council president and sole candidate to be the next mayor, and Lenny Gentile, chair of the finance committee, even brought the issue up. Laredo said that he did not think that the council should be picking and choosing which projects to fund with free cash--but that is not what Chris is asking them to do. Gentile seemed to understand what Chris was asking, but was deeply opposed to the city council asserting its power over the Mayor. 

If you have a chance to watch the meeting, Chris and Anna put on quite the performance. In particular, tune in at minute 59:30 of the meeting, where Chris asks the council to exercise the power of their "one card."

Budget Cuts and Reductions in Force

(from April 27 EBulletin)

We don't yet know what the results are going to be of the budget battle Chris Brezski and Anna Nolin are fighting, so we don't know the depth of cuts there will be next year. But there already will be cuts due to the reorganization or cutting of programs, and members are asking: What are the protocols governing layoffs when there are staff cuts? What are my rights?

The superintendent has the prerogative, contractually and legally, "to determine the number of teaching positions and other professional positions that are needed in the school system." This is the same across units. She can reorganize programs, repurpose employees to other roles, reduce the total number of staff members. Nonetheless, there are contractual obligations and limitations on who is laid off when reductions in force or restructuring happens. 

The principles guiding reductions in force are simple, but the scenarios that result from layoffs can be complicated. I will try to convey the broad picture here. If you have questions about your individual rights under the contract, please use this form to ask Chris Walsh and me your questions.

In Unit A, if reductions are needed beyond normal attrition, PTS and licensure are the primary determining factors governing whom can be laid off. Unit A members without PTS must be laid off before Unit A members with PTS who have applicable licensure are laid off. 

It is similar for Unit B. Although Unit B members do not hold PTS in their administrative roles, they do pass through a probationary period of three years that is similar to to non-PTS Unit A members first three years. But even if Unit B members have finished their probationary period, they can be more vulnerable, because their administrative license does not necessarily qualify them for a different position in the system.

However, if a Unit B member had Unit A PTS in the district before they became a Unit B member, they have a right to a Unit A position for which they are licensed. The contract is less clear about whether a Unit B member who never had PTS in a Unit A position in Newton is entitled to a Unit A position.

Unit C members with fewer than eight years of seniority in the NPS can be laid off without regard to their years of seniority; which becomes a primary determining factor for layoffs when Unit C members have eight of more years of experience in the system. Historically, when a program or a number of positions are cut due to restructuring, the district helps the people who are cut find positions for which they are qualified, although the contract language does not definitively require this.

In Unit E, as with Unit B, the contract states that "[no] non-probationary Unit E member shall be laid off within a job classification while a probationary (less than three years of service) Unit E member is holding a job within the same job classification, which a non-probationary Unit E member is qualified to fill."

On Friday, April 11, Chris Walsh, Greg Shea, and I spoke with NPS General Counsel Jill Grady and HR Director Joany Santa, and they explained to us how the were approaching reductions in force. Based on what they told us, they are attending carefully to members' contractual rights--and as important, gave the impression that they regret the loss of valuable employees.

Health Insurance

(revised from April 27 EBulletin)

City of Newton CFO Maureen Limieux, working with the city's health insurance consultant, determined that health insurance premiums must go up 11.2% next year. Although an 11.2% premium increase is in line with increases across the state, coming on top of the over 13% increase in premium costs this year, next year our health insurance premiums will have gone up 25% in just two years. 

Members have asked: When would this increase come into effect? July 1, 2025.

For retirees on Medicare. The increases to Medicare Supplemental Health Insurance have not yet been determined. They could quite possibly be higher than those for active employees. The increases will come in effect on January 1, 2026. 

In solidarity, 

Mike Zilles, President

Newton Teachers Association