Editor’s note: This commentary is by David M. Clark, of Westminster, who is the chair of the Windham Northeast Supervisory Union
I have heard from a number of people who’ve expressed their concern about the potential for paraeducator layoffs. I share those concerns, however I have to balance those concerns against the realities being faced by the people who pay their salaries, the taxpayers.
Phil Scott’s tax holiday has just been discovered to be a revenue holiday as well, and it’s a little tetchy right now as to whether the state will be making its April transfers to the schools on time. There was some slightly worse news to go along with it, because should those revenue shortfalls continue into FY20-21 they will be made up by the statewide property tax, and that’s going to be a stretch for a lot of taxpayers who no longer have jobs.
The language in the collective bargaining agreement about layoffs is clear and unambiguous. Furthermore, if there was ever a situation where layoffs need to be given serious consideration, this is that situation. I am going to go a step further as well and tell you that I think the boards are going to need to give very serious consideration to the possibility of teacher RIFs. I am as proud of the schools and the professionals who work in them in this district as anyone you know, but I need to state clearly and unambiguously that the current circumstances are the harbinger of a new paradigm.
Everyone, beginning with you and me, is entitled to a different take on current circumstances and what their longer-term implications are, and these are mine: To begin with, unlike the ’07-’08 recession, which was a top-down recession, this time we have a recession which is both top-down and bottom-up. Furthermore, the $2 trillion which has been authorized to mitigate it is more than twice as much money as was thrown at the ’07-’08 recession, and many of the economics wonks who are commenting on it now say that this might be only half as much money as it’s going to take to restore some sort of economic equilibrium.
This is an unfathomably enormous amount of money, and it will come at great cost. When the term “to print money” is used, the Federal Reserve does so by selling bonds (it borrows), and the Wall Street greed heads who buy those bonds are going to get their pound of flesh for it. This means that borrowing to cover any revenue shortfalls in school budgets is going to be pretty pricey because we’ll be competing against the federal government, or at least our banks will, for that money.
I think this is a pretty likely scenario because I believe that substantial numbers of our taxpayers are going to be severely challenged to pay their taxes either in part or in whole. What I see coming down the pike is a long period of what was known as “stagflation” in the early ’80s because interest rate hikes created a fundamental cost-push on the money supply.
We need at all times, but especially at this time to be cognizant of the huge pressures now being, or about to be exerted on our neighbors at a time when those same wonks say that the unemployment rate could hit 30%. COVID-19 aside, I believe we’re looking at a 100-year event.
Our schools have delivered the goods to our communities for a long time, and these communities, realizing the excellence of our work product, have been continually supportive of the budgets which we’ve proposed to support our excellent good work.
Now, however, we are at a tipping point. The tipping point is this: We are now going to need to commit to a shared sacrifice with the communities that support us. If we adopt the attitude that “You passed the budget, and we’re going to spend it,” my prediction is that next time we go to those same voters with our “gimme hand” out, we’re gonna see a bloodbath, instead, and we cannot allow that to happen.
I support good teachers, good outcomes, and good schools, but the time has come where we need to also start sharing the pain.