If the Scranton School Board fails to approve the recovery plan, the state could void all union contracts, fire administrators, raise taxes and make the board powerless.
As school directors prepare to vote this month, officials warn that not passing the plan — which calls for school closures and tax hikes — would be more detrimental than following it.
“I think we have to be very honest about the fact that a ‘no’ vote is passing the buck,” Director Katie Gilmartin said. “We could do it now and have some control. If we say ‘no,’ we cede all local control. I don’t want to see that happen.”
The plan, submitted to the Pennsylvania Department of Education by Chief Recovery Officer Candis Finan, Ed.D., last month, lays out how the struggling district can find
solvency in the next five years. The district must raise taxes by at least 3.4% a year, close elementary schools and fund preschool through outside sources. The plan also includes no guaranteed raises for employees.
Finan did not include a need for fair funding from the state — an issue that school directors have rallied for but one that Finan said is out of her control. The district, which has about 10,200 students, claims it needs an additional $18.9 million a year to receive the per-pupil funding of similar urban districts.
That will lead at least one school director to vote against the plan. Vice President Greg Popil said city taxpayers should not make up for the state’s shortfall.
“I’m not going to go along with hurting our citizens,” Popil said. “By voting for this, you’re acquiescing to the stupidity of the state.”
Directors tentatively plan to vote on the plan Aug. 26. If the board does not approve the plan by that night, all assistance, including from Finan and financial consulting firm PFM, goes away. If directors continue to reject the plan, the state would petition the court for receivership on Feb. 3.
As of Friday, Gilmartin, Barbara Dixon, Mark McAndrew, Tom Schuster, Tom Borthwick and Kenneth Norton said they plan to vote for the plan. Paul Duffy is undecided. Repeated attempts to reach Bob Lesh were unsuccessful.
Of 500 districts statewide, only three — Harrisburg, Chester Upland and Duquesne — are in receivership. Harrisburg entered receivership in June. Within two weeks, the receiver eliminated the positions of more than a dozen employees, including the district’s superintendent, lawyer and its entire business office and human resources department. The state placed the 7,500-student district in financial recovery in 2012. After the district failed to fully follow the recovery plan, the state petitioned the court for receivership.
“When you look at receivership, it’s bad for everyone. It’s bad for kids, it’s bad for teachers and staff, and it’s awful for taxpayers,” Borthwick said. “At least people have the power to elect their representatives. If we go into receivership, that is not the case. The receiver has no obligation to listen to anyone. That aside, the plan is simply worth supporting.”
During a Financial Recovery Advisory Committee meeting last week, Finan gave a warning of what could happen in Scranton if the state took control. All contracts, including those with the teachers and vendors, would be voided. Most of the central office staff would no longer have jobs. The only role of the school board would be to raise taxes.
“It would not be a good situation,” Finan said.
The district’s preliminary 2020 budget, scheduled for a vote Wednesday, includes a 6.7% tax increase and $1.7 million deficit. If the technical support goes away, the district will be unable to present a balanced budget by the end of the year, Finan said.
“We’d undo all the progress we’ve made,” said Dixon, board president.
While directors said they don’t want to raise taxes, the district needs the guidance in the plan.
“The city of Scranton needs the school district to be solvent. We can’t let it continue on like it’s been going,” Schuster said. “Right now, it’s irresponsible to vote ‘no’ on this. We need to become solvent for the kids.”
Finan has stressed the ability to amend the plan if necessary, including if the district receives additional funding from the state. If that happens, taxpayers must be spared the burden of tax increases, Schuster said.
Norton said he would rather have the board retain control and the new board, which will take over in December, will have the duty of amending the plan.
Duffy said he still has major concerns about the plan, including the lack of fair funding from the state and no firm plans to give employees raises. The plan calls for salary increases only if sustainable revenue sources are found.
“I still haven’t committed one way or another,” Duffy said. “But, I feel like the idea of not letting recovery have a chance is more a detriment than many of the things I dislike about the recovery plan itself.”
While fair funding is definitely an issue, the board cannot use that excuse to reject the recovery plan, McAndrew said.
“Let us not forget decades of mismanagement and an ongoing corruption investigation,” he said.
The investigation already led to charges against the former fleet manager, Daniel Sansky, and former business manager, Gregg Sunday, along with inquiries into the district’s bus contract with DeNaples Transportation and the dismissal of former principal Gwendolyn Damiano.
“We ate lobster every day instead of meatloaf,” McAndrew said.
Contact the writer: shofius@timesshamrock.com; 570-348-9133; @hofiushallTT on Twitter
Upcoming
meetings
All meetings will be held in the boardroom of the Administration Building, 425 N. Washington Ave.
Budget and finance committee, Tuesday, 6 p.m.
Special meeting, including passage of preliminary budget, Wednesday, 7 p.m.
Work session and special meeting to vote on the recovery plan (tentative), Aug. 26, 7 p.m.
