LONG ISLAND BULLETIN BOARD

Sachem BOE Caused Massive Cuts!

A source close to the state has said in confidence that Sachem has no one to blame but themselves for the huge cut in state aide. They said that the cut should have been closer to 6 million than the 14 million but financial games that the BOE played with the budget over the past years backfired on them. The source said state aide this year was based on a formula that looked at past tax rates. The state was trying to distribute more aide to the districts that had higher tax increases. So if you had low tax increases in the past you got less state aide. The reason the state did this was because School Boards were playing too many games with the budgets. Some districts, Sachem being one of them, were amassing huge amounts of reserves and by basically overtaxing residents. They looked at Sachem as the ‘poster child’ of this kind of a district.

When they looked at a district like Sachem they noticed that taxes in the district were extremely stable and had not been increased at the rate of other districts. When they looked closer they noticed that the district was grossly under-spending the budget every year and reserves were being maxed out. The New York State concluded that these ‘Sachem’ like districts simply did not need the money. While the districts like Sachem claimed it was due to being ‘thirty’ the state looked at it as a simple over-taxation of residents. They wanted to force them to stop playing games.

The formula for aide that the government put together rewarded districts that had tax increases. Districts, like Sachem, that were running up huge reserves because of the grossly under-spent budgets got much less aide because they simply didn’t need it. Apparently the NY State officials would rather see honest budgets that see smaller increases every year than to see district stockpile money in reserves.

According to this source, the district has put its’ self in a very awkward situation in fiscal year 2011-2012. For that fiscal year they really don’t need a tax increase but the officials in the administration fear that they will lose even more state aide because of the formula that is used unless they have tax increases. They said although the district claims the reserves are being used they really are not going to go down. They said that Sachem has already acknowledged an 11 million plus under-spent budget this year and that based on the history and trends of the district they estimate that the money available to be put back in reserve at the end of this fiscal year is closer to 15 million. They said the budget will more than likely be under-spent by 13 million and there is an extra 2 million from state aide that the Board will put in reserve.

The source said that the fact that Sachem is already reporting close to a 7 million surplus for the next fiscal year of 2011-2012 should clearly demonstrate these events. The source said that the real estimate of how much the budget will be under-spent next year is very close to 15 million. They said if the budget is passed expect the board to approve 2 to 3 million in ‘emergency’ type repairs over the budgeted amount in the next fiscal year. They will need to spend money almost immediately because they will have too much in reserve.

The source finally said that Sachem has made some decisions in the past 4 years that definitely has some short term game financially. They said however, those short term gains will turn in to a long term night mare. Retirement incentives are effective for the short run and not the long run. They said by the time this bill comes due the current Administrators will be retired. The current business manager is looked like a hero today but will be retired when the financial hits come.

But the person said if the district had run honest budgets the said aide under the current formula would have been cut much less and that the school taxes would be considerably lower for the past 4 years if they acted responsibly. The source said they blame the state for the budget shortfall but it was their own budget games that created the situation.

Anonymous wrote:

Sachem BOE Caused Massive Cuts!

A source close to the state has said in confidence that Sachem has no one to blame but themselves for the huge cut in state aide. They said that the cut should have been closer to 6 million than the 14 million but financial games that the BOE played with the budget over the past years backfired on them. The source said state aide this year was based on a formula that looked at past tax rates. The state was trying to distribute more aide to the districts that had higher tax increases. So if you had low tax increases in the past you got less state aide. The reason the state did this was because School Boards were playing too many games with the budgets. Some districts, Sachem being one of them, were amassing huge amounts of reserves and by basically overtaxing residents. They looked at Sachem as the ‘poster child’ of this kind of a district.

When they looked at a district like Sachem they noticed that taxes in the district were extremely stable and had not been increased at the rate of other districts. When they looked closer they noticed that the district was grossly under-spending the budget every year and reserves were being maxed out. The New York State concluded that these ‘Sachem’ like districts simply did not need the money. While the districts like Sachem claimed it was due to being ‘thirty’ the state looked at it as a simple over-taxation of residents. They wanted to force them to stop playing games.

The formula for aide that the government put together rewarded districts that had tax increases. Districts, like Sachem, that were running up huge reserves because of the grossly under-spent budgets got much less aide because they simply didn’t need it. Apparently the NY State officials would rather see honest budgets that see smaller increases every year than to see district stockpile money in reserves.

According to this source, the district has put its’ self in a very awkward situation in fiscal year 2011-2012. For that fiscal year they really don’t need a tax increase but the officials in the administration fear that they will lose even more state aide because of the formula that is used unless they have tax increases. They said although the district claims the reserves are being used they really are not going to go down. They said that Sachem has already acknowledged an 11 million plus under-spent budget this year and that based on the history and trends of the district they estimate that the money available to be put back in reserve at the end of this fiscal year is closer to 15 million. They said the budget will more than likely be under-spent by 13 million and there is an extra 2 million from state aide that the Board will put in reserve.

The source said that the fact that Sachem is already reporting close to a 7 million surplus for the next fiscal year of 2011-2012 should clearly demonstrate these events. The source said that the real estimate of how much the budget will be under-spent next year is very close to 15 million. They said if the budget is passed expect the board to approve 2 to 3 million in ‘emergency’ type repairs over the budgeted amount in the next fiscal year. They will need to spend money almost immediately because they will have too much in reserve.

The source finally said that Sachem has made some decisions in the past 4 years that definitely has some short term game financially. They said however, those short term gains will turn in to a long term night mare. Retirement incentives are effective for the short run and not the long run. They said by the time this bill comes due the current Administrators will be retired. The current business manager is looked like a hero today but will be retired when the financial hits come.

But the person said if the district had run honest budgets the said aide under the current formula would have been cut much less and that the school taxes would be considerably lower for the past 4 years if they acted responsibly. The source said they blame the state for the budget shortfall but it was their own budget games that created the situation.

Very interesting an unknown "source" is quoted by another "unknown" source. I guess another way of looking at this is that we had 4 years of zero tax increases and now because of that the state has punished us for being fiscally prudent, while the SDs that couldn't control themselves are now being rewarded for being incompetent.

Acutally, they said that the reason why there was zero increase the past year or two was because the years of 7% plus increases early in the decade never should have happened.

They said proof of what they wrote is in the estimated amount that the budget will be underspent next year which will be enormous. They did say the retirement incentives did help to keep costs down, but that was a real temporary fix. That bill will come in after the the current administration is retired in a few years. They said look for the business manager to retire pretty quickly when he is eligible. They said he won't want to stick around.

This should be easy enough to prove or disprove. This person says that the district is reporting that the district is reporting that it will underspend the proposed budget by $7 million but they are raises taxes. Is that correct? If it is true why on earth would the district raise taxes if they have $7 million extra in the budget? That doesn't make sense is it true?


Stable taxes is a lie. Sachem has a $60 million fund balance. That is why the Governor cut us
http://www.sachemunspun.com/10-6%20Audi ... 013-14.pdf

Go to see last page for $5 mil of Fund Balance (extra cash http://www.sachem.edu/board/budget11/pd ... on%203.pdf and http://www.sachem.edu/board/budget11/pd ... Report.pdf for the other $2 Mil

See http://www.sachem.edu/board/budget11/pd ... 20Page.pdf for tax increase

Typical stupid governmental policy.

Remembering how short the board was caught in 1990 when it dumped the fund balance of 2 million to lower the tax rate then was hit with an 11 million state aid cut, the board saved for a rainy day this time around.

Then the rainy day arrived and the board had enough fund balance on hand to allow 4 years of minimal tax increases. It was then penalized by the state for its prudence.

Bottom line is always the same. If you have a pile of money sitting anywhere (as in the state teachers retirement system), the politicians will create a smokescreen to try to grab the money.

The taxpayers always lose. Responsible behavior is always penalized by the government and irresponsibility receives unlimited attention and unlimited funding.

For years we have heard about how we should have large consolidated school districts. That's exactly what Sachem is! And everytime there is a government shortfall, the larger districts always get hammered disproportionately. Do you wonder why smaller districts never want to merge? Government policy is to take from the thrifty and give to the shifty.

Until and unless government begins to reward responsibility we will just repeat this mess over and over again.

Good post obviously not written by fred or some "unknown" source from the state.

O' Boy in 1989-90 the TRS payment policy changed. The Governor paid every district's TRS so they could collect the TRS in the year it was for rather than the year it was due, without raising taxes. The very next year every when the one time payment was no longer part of State aid. Districts claimed he cut state aid. In fact Sachem kept compounding the lost aid. E.G. in 1993 Sachem claimed a loss of $23 million in aid so I compounded Sachem's increases... Falco raised the cost of education $70 million at a time we lost $23 million in aid.

For 1990-91 Cuomo's state budget proposed a cut to Sachem's state aid of 18 million. Lobbying brought it down to 11 million. Nothing to do with the retirement system; everything to do with a state financial crisis.

My previous comments about government policies stand.

Bull the Cut was because the year before he paid the TRS bills for all Districts!

This is such bunk. You know so much, but can't spell state aid correctly.

ok if this is not right tell us which part is wrong. I have confirmed that the state formula hurt any district that did not raise taxes last year. I have confirmed the state was trying to help those districts that really needed the money rather than those like Sachem that were hiding huge reserves.

Now this holds water when you look at all the reserves and underpent budgets.

This year Sachem is going to have at least an 11 million surplus? True

Last year 2009-2010 sachem had a 12 million surplus? True.

2008-2009 Sachem had an 12 million surplus? True

2007-2008 Sachem had a 12 million surplus? True.


2006-2007 the year after our old super CM predicted disaster if a failed budget happened we ran a 4 million surplus? True
In 2005-2006 are old super said if we didn't pass an 18% increase the district would fall apart completely, he predicted disaster. We went on contingency and still ran an expenditures equaled the budget. Did sachem collapse? NO


So by the end of this year we will have had 50 million in surplus budgets over the last 5 years? True true true.

So you still think Fred is wrong when he says this board is pickpocketing the taxpayer.

Next year they are admiting they have the budget padded by at least 7 million!

That will make it close to 60 million over a 6 year period? Come on now, is this board for real?

No doubt you will say I am full of it. These numbers are all facts so tell us what is not true. These figures come right from the sachem website:

http://www.sachem.edu/board/budget11/pd ... istory.pdf

So, now tell us what is incorrect. Tell us why Fred is full of it. And please tell us where all this money is going! It sure as heck isn't going to student programs they are being cut.



The Board sees no need for honesty in dealing with voters or taxpayers. Just listen to this tape http://www.sachemunspun.com/10106timo.mp3

This page will show you ten years of budget increases, actual expenses, taxes and fund balance http://www.sachem.edu/board/budget11/pd ... istory.pdf

You need to understand every line on this one page http://www.sachemunspun.com/10-6Auditpg21.pdf

This year the Board is hiding $25 Million of fund balance and hording $40 million of reserves and available funds. They are building fund balance at the expense of taxpayers, employees and programs to banking money because they fear the Tax Cap.

This year the district will spend $259 million and collect $287 million

Currently the District has;
$28 million in reserves (13 million ) and liability accounts ($15 million)
$11 million in un-appropriated fund balance
$25 million of budget surplus
$10 million in capital funds that can be used to restore programs

Next Year’s Tax Increase is 4.5% and they don’t need it;
The 2011-12 Tax increase is $5,422,460
Declared budget fat 1s $7 million
$1.2 million of the budget is capital improvements
And the are firing 90 people

For $7 million fund balance See last page http://www.sachem.edu/board/budget11/pd ... on%203.pdf and http://www.sachem.edu/board/budget11/pd ... Report.pdf

The Sachem Board can only deal in fear and deception they have no trust in the community or a moral compass. At the 4/13 meeting the Blackmailers went over the worst cuts possible so they could put them in the budget news letter. Timo, Like Scavo the year before and Falco the year before that said, These cuts are horrible but ewe don't have to do them.

Go to www.Sachemunspun.com to hear the Board members confirm all the below
Current Budget, $282 Million … Passed Budget $287 Million … Contingent Budget $285 Million
Current Taxes, $145 Million … Passed Budget $151 Million … Contingent Budget $149 Million
Fund Balance, $17 Million … Passed Budget $23 Million … Contingent Budget $23 Million
Fund balance is the money you were overtaxed this year that is used to reduce taxes next year

CAN YOU TRUST THIS BOARD WITH A PASSED BUDGET? Twice in the last two years the Board increased the voter approved budget for $ 6 million of unforeseen circumstances. This year their meetings are full of “emergency repairs”. If the Budget passes expect a $4million increase for unforeseen circumstances.

A PASSED BUDGET IS AN OPEN CHECKBOOK! It permits the Board to increase spending and taxes for unforeseen circumstances. It also increases every future budget’s base by $6 million.

A DEFEATED BUDGET LIMITS SPENDING TO $285 MILLION AND NOT A DIME MORE In the last two years the Board has found excuses to increase spending and taxes beyond what the voters approved to avoid returning over taxation to the voters. Last year they collected $282,111,665 and only spent $265,509,366

The Board picks taxpayer pockets every year to level future taxes and bank money
2006-07 Budget 266,665,361 Expenses 262,000,417 Fund Balance 25,471,388
2007-08 Budget 274,707,921 Expenses 265,060,293 Fund Balance 32,148,964
2008-09 Budget 278,801,607 Expenses 267,926,888 Fund Balance 36,110,757
2009-10 Budget 277,694,940 Expenses 265,509,366 Fund Balance 41,687.472
2010-11 Budget 282,111,665 Expenses 259,700,000 Fund Balance 61,700.000 est. inc Excel BAN
2011-12 Budget 287,834,125 Expenses 270,000,000 Fund Balance 72,700.000 est.. inc Excel BAN

For 2011-12 http://www.sachem.edu/board/budget11/pd ... ndices.pdf
For 2010-11 http://www.sachem.edu/board/budget10/pdf/Appendices.pdf
For 2009-10 http://www.sachem.edu/board/budget09/pd ... 09to10.pdf
For 2008-09 http://www.sachem.edu/board/budget08/pd ... NDICES.pdf
For 2007-08 http://www.sachem.edu/board/budget07/20 ... ndices.pdf
For 2006-07 http://www.sachemunspun.com/documents/06-7Apendix.pdf

Now Listen to the 4 one minute clips and understand why I call the Board Pickpockets and deceivers.
http://www.sachemunspun.com/wcdeb.mp3
http://www.sachemunspun.com/10106timo.mp3
http://www.sachemunspun.com/11fb20m.mp3
http://www.sachemunspun.com/11blies.mp3

Don't believe this unknown source story. Sachem like Middle Country, Central Islip etc lost state aid and by percentage of revenue this is significant. The district relies on this since it is a big revenue stream. If your unknown source story was accurate there are districts holding far greater money than Sachem who were affected little. They were not impacted since state aid does not make up a large part of their annual revenue. Read the paper the district impacted the most were high state aid districts.

OK so you are saying when the Board said we lost aid because Sachem kept the taxes low, they were lying. And I'll assume the Governor who said Use your reserves did not know what he was talking about.

As respects unknown sources the majority of the links are official Sachem documents on the sachem web site. the recordings are part of Sachem recorded Board minutes. As respects me just Google Fred Gorman Sachem.

If you don't believe that Sachem got penalized because of the formula the state used just email the business manager.

Now he will tell you that we were penalized because we were fiscally repsonsible. We might have spent money in a fisaclly responsible manner. However, Sachem also overtaxed residents. That is why we had a surplus every single year. The state issue was that you might have spent money in a responsbile manner but you overtaxed residents and filled up reserves in an irresponsible manner.

As for comparing ourselves to other districts your comparison simply is not true. Sachem had the legal limits of 4% in the allowed accounts but than put much more money that was required in reserve accounts like Workerman compensation. They had that account at over $7 million dollars. The account need less than $2 million year. They are pulling some of the money out now to use.

They outright lied and it is documented in recordings.

Sachem got penalized because they played games with reserves. They got caught red handed. This is their punishment. When you think about it the state handled it in an appropriate manner.

So you want me to call the so-called lying, untruthful and deceptive business manager for the correct information. Now that makes a lot of sense. I don't know whose spin to listen to yours or his. I'll pass on both.

his Sachem CSD official document from the district website will show you ten years of budget increases, actual expenses, taxes and fund balance http://www.sachem.edu/board/budget11/pd ... istory.pdf Study it and draw your own conclusions.

No it means the Sachem Taxpayers have been ripped off for years in order for there to be a 0% Budget Increase--that just proves how much money was hidden in the budget for Future SALARY INCREASES.
Taxpayers who continually VOTE YES on SCHOOL Budgets have no one to blame but themselves.
keep Sachem on A CONTINGENCY BUDGET to PREVENT EXACTLY This kind of taxpayer RIP Off.

see this
Also I would like to add the following:
No matter what the teachers agree to and no matter who is on the BOE, The taxpayers MUST ALWAYS VOTE NO on the School Budget.

This is the reason to vote NO & to STAY ON A CONTINGENT BUDGET:
Once a School Budget passes, the BOE/Administration can move money around the various budget lines regardless of what the Public thought they were voting for. Only keeping the School District in a Contingent Budget, for years, will the taxpayers have some control over the growth of spending.

What if the Proposed Budget is actually Less than the Contingent Budget?
Keep in Mind: The BOE NEVER is REQUIRED to have a CONTINGENT BUDGET LARGER than a PROPOSED Budget-but it is REQUIRED to MAKE SURE the CONTINGENT BUDGET DOES not EXCEED the STATE MANDATED CAPs/Criteria.

So Why would a BOE then Put up a Proposed Budget Less than what a Contingent Budget would be? Although this gesture by a BOE appears to save the taxpayers money compared to a Contingent Budget, the sad reality is that a VOTER APPROVED BUDGET opens the door to spending millions and millions more. This is because a VOTER APPROVED (PASSED) Budget removes the state's fiscal controls (Although minor that they are, they still put some control over the BOE & District0 that keep the School Board's expenditures in check. Clearly, a contingency budget offers the advantages to the taxpayers and provides for the educational needs of the District's children. Voting NO is the only fiscally prudent choice that provides for all.

REASONS to STAY ON A CONTINGENT SCHOOL DISTRICT BUDGET:
**District CANNOT move money from a Contingent Budget Line to a Non-Contingent Budget Line (This prevents the School District Budget from being nothing more than a Slush Fund for the BOE & Administration)
**CAP-District cannot increase spending by more than 120% of CPI or 4% (whichever is lower.)
**Exempt from this cap-tax certiorari, other legal settlements, debt service (mortgage payments), & costs associated with enrollment growth.
**% of budget devoted to administrative costs cannot increase from what it was in the prior year's budget or the last defeated budget, whichever is lower.
**Community residents are no longer allowed to petition boards of education to put additional items up for a separate vote.

*BOE is ONLY permitted to use funds for those "expenses deemed to be absolutely necessary to operate and maintain schools". That requires the Board to make a case by case determination before each expenditure. (When the Board is not in contingency, it gains the flexibility to grant salary increases, increase fringe benefits, and make unnecessary purchases, all of which do not benefit the schools or children.) (examples: software purchased by a District that goes unused, Equipment that is purchased but is not necessarily needed)

Spending Not Subject to Restriction
Education Law section 2023 identifies the following expenses to be excluded from the calculation of the budget cap:
---Expenditures resulting from a tax certiorari proceeding;
---Expenditures resulting from a court order or judgment against the school district;
---Emergency expenditures that are certified by the commissioner as necessary as a result of damage to, or destruction of, a school building or school equipment;
---Capital expenditures resulting from the construction, acquisition, reconstruction, rehabilitation or improvement of school facilities, including debt service and lease expenditures, subject to the approval of the qualified voters where required by law; this also includes debt service for the purchase of school buses.
---Expenses relating to increases in total public school enrollment, including pre-k, from the prior year;
---Non-recurring expenditures in the prior year's school district budget;
---Expenditures for payments to charter schools pursuant to section twenty-eight hundred fifty-six of this chapter; and
---Self-Supporting Privately Funded Programs.