To the Editor:

On Sept. 19, the Cranston School Committee met to approve a contract extension for its bus drivers. The motion to approve it was tabled. Two weeks later, this Thursday, Oct. 6, the matter is again on the School Committee’s agenda. It should be tabled, again.

Why all the hurry?

As the School Committee Representative for Ward 1, it is my impression that some members of the School Committee are hastening to approve a contract extension with the school district’s bus drivers before completing a cost/benefit study on outsourcing the district’s transportation services or before developing a credible plan for replacing the district’s aging fleet of buses.

What’s the motivation? Are the long-term interests of Cranston being sacrificed for political or fiscal expediency?

Four and a half months ago, and at the urging of the City Council, the Cranston School Committee decided to terminate its own study on the cost/benefits of outsourcing the district’s busing services and form a sub-committee, comprised of members from the City Council, the School Committee, the school administration and the Laborers, to study the issue more thoroughly. When the school district terminated its own study, it did so with the study almost complete but with many important questions asked but unanswered. These questions should be answered before the school district locks itself into a long-term contract with its bus drivers.

• Should we continue to operate the existing buses, despite their advanced age (many are over 15 years old and have endured 165,000 miles of city driving) for another two to five years?

• Are the buses as safe as they could or should be, despite passing safety inspections every six months?

• Would it be safer to have newer, more reliable buses on the road, to better protect our children?

• Would it be more cost effective to replace the buses sooner, to improve fuel economy and reduce maintenance costs?

• How will the school district and/or the city pay for or finance the replacement of the bus fleet?

• How will the challenging state of the school district/city finances impact the ability to replace the fleet and the timing of its replacement? Does the city have the resources to issue bonds or enter into a lease to finance the acquisition of replacement buses?

• Could capital monies spent on bus fleet replacement be better spent on other capital improvements for the school district, such as modernizing the science labs or replacing windows and boilers to improve energy utilization?

• Is it more cost effective to outsource the district’s transportation services with equivalent levels of service quality, to free resources to reinvest in education or return them to the city as taxpayer relief?

• If continuance of transportation services in-house were to result in better service quality and/or lower costs, would the school district obtain a better contract with its drivers with a term of three years, instead of the two years being proposed?

• Will outsourcing of transportation services result in new tax revenue to the city? Could this new revenue be used to reinstate cut education programs or maintain ones that face elimination?

With all of these unanswered questions that will have a significant impact on the school district’s busing and finances, why is the School Committee rushing to approve this contract extension?

To make it clear, I am not advocating a rejection of the contract offered by our bus drivers; I am advocating that it is premature to approve it until the school district has determined the best way to provide transportation services to its students and to replace its aging fleet of buses.

Why is there such a hurry to approve this contract? What are the reasons?

I have heard only two: first that the School Committee needs the concessions to balance its budget this fiscal year, and second, that if the school district does not present a balanced budget to the city, then the City Council and the administration will not restructure the school district’s loan repayment to the city as required by the agreed deficit reduction plan. The facts, however, do not support either contention.

• To balance its budget this year, the school district has budgeted $3.35 million in concessions. To date, it has obtained $2.65 million, requiring an additional $700,000 in concessions, additional cost savings, or loan restructurings to balance its budget.

• The concessions that are offered as part of the contract extension to the school district’s bus drivers are not subject to a time constraint. The school district does not have to approve this contract immediately or risk losing the concessions offered. Although some of the value of the concessions will expire between now and the completion of the study by the Transportation Sub-committee, the majority of the concessions, approximately $200,000 to $250,000, will still be available in January when the transportation sub-committee issues its report and the School Committee is in a position to act upon it.

• Additional cost savings may become available. The school district is also examining the potential of outsourcing its custodial services. Last week, the School Committee entertained five presentations from potential suppliers of custodial services, of which one of the suppliers verbally guaranteed a savings of $8 million to be realized during a five-year contract. At the same time, the school district is also negotiating in good faith with the union representing the custodians.

• Additional loan restructurings are available. For this current year, the school district has budgeted a loan repayment to the city in the amount of approximately $1.6 million, with $1.1 million to be deferred into the future when greater funding on the Rhode Island education fair funding formula is available. The net repayment scheduled for this year amounts to $500,000, which can also be deferred, making it available as an offset to the concessions required to balance the school district’s budget this year.

• Loan restructurings are already required. The school district has already budgeted to defer two-thirds of its loan repayment this year. The concessions offered in the bus driver contract extension will not close this gap and allow for complete payment of the loan installment this year. As a result, the School Committee is already committed to renegotiating its first year loan repayment. How will the School Committee appear in these negotiations to restructure its loan, if the School Committee approves a two-year contract extension with its bus drivers, before considering the fiscal impact of bus fleet replacement on the city? Would it appear credible or irresponsible?

To summarize, the school district requires $700,000 in concessions, cost savings, or loan restructurings to balance its budget. It has available $500,000 in loan restructurings, and approximately $200,000 to $250,000 in concessions from the bus drivers. As of today, the school district has the necessary savings, in place, to balance its budget for fiscal year 2011-2012. It does not have to approve the contract with the bus drivers today to obtain the necessary savings. The School Committee can and should afford to weigh its options to determine the best means to provide transportation services to the students of Cranston, before committing to a long-term contract with it bus drivers.

I regret that I am traveling on business and will not be able to attend the School Committee meeting on Oct. 6. I urge my fellow School Committee members to table approval of the contract extension with the school district’s bus drivers until the transportation sub-committee completes its study on the cost/benefits of continuing transportation services in-house or outsourcing them. Only then will the School Committee be in a position to evaluate the fiscal merits of approving the contract extension.

Steven Bloom
Cranston School Committee
Ward 1