Janitors get support in Roxbury

The school board in Roxbury is considering a plan to privatize janitorial services; This is a good idea, given the fact it could save nearly $1 million a year.

Opposition, however, has surfaced. Signs have popped up around town against the proposal, One of them reads: “Outsourcing? Not with our tax money.”  This message is just plain dumb; the idea is to save taxpayers’ money.

Another sign reads  “Strangers? Not in our school.”  That message is equally foolish. All school employees are “strangers” when they’re hired. And when you get down to it, what difference does it make if a janitor is a “stranger” or a “friend.”

Advertisements

About fsnowflack
Fred Snowflack was editorial page editor and a political columnist for the Daily Record of Morristown for almost 12 years. He has won numerous awards for editorial and column writing from the New Jersey Press Association and has written a blog on county and state politics for the last three years. He lives in Ledgewood in Morris County.

77 Responses to Janitors get support in Roxbury

  1. Ted Doty says:

    I don’t see a long-term benefit to outsourcing janitorial services. Vendors hire from the same labor pool as the district. There might be an initial savings due to a low balling to win the contract but long term, labor costs will be the same and the vendor will add his/her profit margin.

    Another factor is background checks. Are district parents willing to rely on the vendor’s ability to keep children safe?

    I think it’s better to attempt cost savings through tough negotiations with existing bargaining units.

  2. Ted Doty says:

    And I’ll call that bluff. Let’s see details of the proposed $1 million savings along side a vendor quote that guarantees the savings.

    If the goal is to cut cost, focus on the high cost item; teaching staff

  3. P says:

    The big difference is that the vendor’s employees will not be covered by a union contract, and since they are not public employees, will not have the same rich benefits – health care and pension, which must be covered by the school district or municipality today.

    The later two could easily shave 20% off their total cost, and the former, another 10%.

    Anyone working in a school building or on school grounds would need the same background check as any school district employee. That would be in addition to, not in lieu of, the vendor’s own background check.

    This is an easy win for any local school district or municipality. And worst case, the simple threat will bring the custodians and maintenance workers back to the bargaining table.

  4. Ted Doty says:

    Roxbury’s total Operation & Maintenance budget for 2010 was $6.3 million. I assume P knows how much of that is purely janitorial service and can detail the $1 million savings.

    Once you’ve broken out the janitors isolate the cost of benefits, support your claim of 20% and 10% savings and add it up. I’m sure there’s not a $1 million savings.

    Here’s some help:
    Assume Janitorial service is 1/3 of the $6.3 mil (or $2.1mil). Now let’s say benefits are half the$ 2.1; all benefits for Janitors would be $1.05 mill. So even if you reduce total benefits by 20% you only yield $200,000 savings.

    Now, even if a vendor paid less per hour, you’d have to find $800,000 for a million dollar savings….and after removing benefits there’s only $1.05 million in wages…and the vendor will require profit and will have to pay minimum wage.

    Pbrain, the teachers union ALWAYS suggests cuts in maintenence to save teacher salaries. But once the cuts are made, the REA will scream that the place is falling apart and somehow request a Cap waiver or referendum. You act like this is my first rodeo.

    P, you’ve fallen for the Union hype…”don’t cut my budget, cut theirs”. You’re so naive.

    THINK Pbrain, THINK

  5. Ken Bank says:

    Just another scheme to enrich politically connected privateers at the expense of middle class, blue collar workers.

    That “million dollar” savings has as much validity as the Christie-trumpeted “$50 million” savings in this years state budget from various privatization schemes which have been well-exposed at the recent legislative hearings on privatization.

    If the “privateers” have their way on education reform we’ll be teaching our kids at McDonalds.

  6. Ted Doty says:

    Ken, step away from the light

  7. thegoodolddays says:

    the consultant’s analysis is on the school website – http://www.roxbury.org
    click board of ed and then contracts on sidebar

    http://www.roxbury.org/boe/contracts/Custodial%20Outsourcing%20Analysis.pdf

  8. Ted Doty says:

    Page one of the consultant report illustrates the problem. Under the AS&U study custodial salaries are $277.60 or $6.95/hr, based on a 40 hr week. The NJ Comparator shows $240.63 or $6/hr. Roxbury shows $429.66 or $10.75/hr.

    Either a lot of districts pay below the minimum wage or are providing less than 40 hour custodial service. My best guess however is the low cost studies reflect average paychecks for part timers, which would also explain benefit savings.

    Like I said, the $1 million savings is highly improbable. Fred you live in Roxbury, why not raise tthe issue at the next BOE meeting. Or suggest that Rogers and Castriotta look at the consultant report more closely.

    That’s the problem with fancy and expensive consultant reports. People tend to believe them.

  9. Ted Doty says:

    both low cost studies use a per student constant, which is invalid. For example, assume per hour rates are the same for all and each district has one building, per pupil cost would vary based on student census.

  10. P says:

    Actually, they claim custodial is about half – $3M. And I realized I was wrong, you can easily save 50% of benefits’ costs (HC + pension) by going private, and at least 20% on salary (especially when you factor in productivity gains by getting away from a restrictive NJEA union contract).

    So a 30% total save against over $3M easily nets you the over $900K they estimate on the high side. And that’s 2% savings every year on the Tax Levy. And given the much slower growth in private sector comp, that number will grow every year.

    As for “ours” vs. “theirs”, as far as I’m concerned it’s all “theirs,” given the fact that the custodians are represented by the NJEA.

    That doesn’t give the BOE license not to press the teachers for concessions too. They still have that 4.7% contracted salary increase hanging around their necks for at least another year.

    P.S. Let us know the next time you’re performing at the Rodeo, I’d pay good money to see you. Ted in action – http://www.faithpromotingrumor.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Rodeo-Clown-300×197.jpg 😉

  11. Ted Doty says:

    Pbrain.
    According to the consultants report, total coustodial costs are $3,026,981: $1.8 mil for salary, $163,916 for OT, $904,812 in benefits, $11,203 for uniforms
    and $109,406 for administration.

    If outsouced, admin costs more than double to $260,743. Now all salary &fringe savings are based on either belw minimum wage rates or average weekly salaries for part time workers. That’s evident fron page one of the consultant report.

    What’s needed is a analysis based on hourly wage and consideration of full or PT status

    I forwarded the following letter to each board member. So far 3 have responded:

    Roxbury BOE members,
    Regarding the Roxbury BOE’s consideration of outsourcing janitorial services, I reviewed the Edvocate report.
    Edvocate used per-student statistics to compare custodial costs. Page one of the report, compares Roxbury’s actual per pupil janitorial cost of $429.66 with two survey averages of $240.63 and $277.60. This wide difference accounts for most of the estimated savings (Program Comparisons pg 9). In my experience if it sounds to good to be true, it usually is. But I’ll pursue an analytical approach.
    For example, assume per hour rates are the same for all districts and every district has one building. Per pupil cost would then vary based on census. And comparison of one district to the average is a true distortion. Clearly, a more appropriate denominator is required.
    Absent a per hour wage survey, I approximated one based on a 40 workweek for each metric. The AS&U study calculates to $6.95/hr; the NJ Comparator, $6.00/hr and Roxbury’s actual is $10.75/hr. This might indicate that many surveyed districts pay less than minimum wage or that they’re providing less than 40-hour custodial service. However, my guess is that the lower cost studies reflect average weekly pay for part timers, which would also explain benefit savings
    Edvovate’s report is a distortion. At the very least the consultant should provide an hourly wage comparison and rework its analysis based on Roxbury’s custodial service requirement. My guess is that savings won’t total a million, especially given a higher management cost for out sourcing: (Page 9 of the report shows $109,406 for current operations and $260,743 for outsourced option 1).

    Ted Doty

  12. P says:

    So how much do you are the three musketeers estimate the real save is, and if it is $600k v. $900K, would you still say NO, and why?

  13. Ted Doty says:

    I say savings can’t be determined based on this consultant’s report.

    Briefly, Admin costs will more than double from $109,000 ton $260,000. Salary and benefit savings can’t be determined until an accurate hourly rate is reported. Also, the PT/FT statusof employees must be defined (this impacts benefit cost).

    Roxbury BOE President, John Moschella raised a valid point in his response to me last night. There is value to current employees. I told him that LBJ’s Budget Direct wrote a book on the subject but the accountintg industry hasn’t yet contrived an adequate measurment tool. People value is important but management has to assign its own value.

    Until Edvocate’s (the consultant) report is corrected and th RBOE assigns people value (an offline balance sheet asset), savings cannot be determined. But in my opinion, there is no savings from outsourcing janitorial services and the consultant’s fee was a waste of taxpayer money..

  14. P says:

    Forget about the consultant’s report. Based on YOUR experience, do you not think that –

    1. NJEA union supported custodians have benefits that are significantly more generous than any outsourced vendor would pay (min 50 – 100% higher)?

    2. Ditto for union wages (min 25 – 50% higher)?

    3. A non-unionized staff would give you greater flexibility that would also allow for cost savings on OT or coverage issues?

    And what is your threshold in terms of savings required to pull the trigger – $900K, $700K, $500K, . . . ???

    Not sure why you would spend any time factoring in the “value” of the custodial staff. The last time I checked, it’s the Roxbury Board of EDUCATION, not the Roxbury Board of CUSTODIANS. Unless it impacts that mission, it is an extraneous issue.

    I can’t understand why this is such a complicated decision, or why anyone would think that you couldn’t save a lot of money. I understand you want to bring the NJEA to heel, but ignoring a savings because it doesn’t address that issue isn’t the way to go.

  15. Ted Doty says:

    Assume you are correct on fringe benefits. The 2010 actual is $905k a 50% savings would be $452k. The current wage in Roxbury is $10.46/hr and a 50% cut would be below minimum wage. So let’s say it can be cut to $8.50/hr,a 20% cut (these days kids get that stocking shelves…with no background check). Current wages are $1,837,643/yr and a 20% cut would make that $1,470,144 or a cut totaling $367,512. So now we’re at a gross saving of around $819K.

    Now you must subtract the increase in admin cost $152 k and you’re at $667k, assuming your percent savings estimates are accurate. You need to prove a 50% savings in benefits and a 20% cut in wage; your estimates are no more trustworthy than Edvovate’s.

    Fred is correct in saying new employees become old friends over time but a current employee value exists, as evidenced by the signs Fred mentioned. That value is unfortunately subject to debate but must be factored into the decision and amortized over the time it takes to make new friends old buddies…my green eyeshades are showing .

    Pbrain, your analysis is too simplistic. This decision MUST be made based on more than salary and benefit savings. Also the asset value of current employees IS REAL and not all Roxbury residents view that value as non-existent. And certainly not all board members hold your myopic viewpoint.

  16. P says:

    Ted – Read the contract – http://www.roxbury.org/boe/contracts/Roxbury%20Custodial%20Contract%202008-2011.pdf Custodians make between $38 – 58K per year. Now where near $10/hr. So now you need to rethink your whole “analysis” in light of the fact that you didn’t bother to check the facts, and how you ever thought there was a single BOE with a custodial staff making $10/hr ($20K/yr), is beyond me. Especially since you actually served on a BOE.

    P.S. I still think a 50% savings on benefits is a conservative number. No one offers anywhere near the taxpayer funded health care benefits that the unionized public sector staff get, no one has a pension plan as generous, and no one has lower productivity that union protected, seniority based staff.

    Oh, and you still haven’t said how low the savings would have to be before you wouldn’t even consider pulling the trigger on outsourcing. By any chance, do you have a relative or friend in the bargaining unit?

  17. K says:

    The organization that I work for has been outsourcing since several years. They believe, in outsourcing their non-core competencies. Hence they outsourced most of their non-core functions.

    They achieved this by transferring their existing employess to the outsourced ompany.(obviously if they were well qualified and capable of continuing their curent roles) Thus,the outsourcedstaff never lost their jobs, they still worked in the same location, doing the same jobs but just work for an outside contractor. Infact, they made more money working for the newer company.

    If Roxbury want to outsource, it is fine. They could still retain the same employees (janitors), but have them work for another organization than the schools. This way they will not have”new faces” or “strangers” in the school and the kids do have to worry about strangers or training new personnel.

    This way the board saves money, everyone keeps their jobs and there are no strangers in the schools.. Hopefully this will be a win-win for all. We have had years of non-approved budgets and our kids are suffering due to these disagreements. Our chools ratings are dropping compared to our neighbouring towns. THIS HAS TO STOP, GO ROXBURY.

  18. Ted Doty says:

    Pbrain,

    The Edvocate report shows an AS&U survey reporting custodial salaries at $277.60, NJ Comparator at $240.63 and Roxbury at $429.66. There is no context signifying what those salaries represent. Weekly? Averages? Regardless, proposed savings result from those figures. I clearly defined the basis for my analysis and stand by it.

    Now you introduce a different metric. So Pbrain, follow through, you still have to prove a significant savings from outsourced salaries and benefits. So far all you’ve presented is your opinion that 50% savings is a conservative estimate. Pbrain, it’s about differentials. Is outsourcing less expensive than current operations and by how much.

    You’ve changed your argument again. You’re now saying I’m wrong because I didn’t use the metric you just discovered. It doesn’t work that way Pbrain. Use your google expertise to find an outside comparison for the contract you presented, calculate gross savings, reduce gross savings by increased admin charges and figure a way to compensate for the value of lost personnel. Then we’ll talk.

    Pbrain instead of looking for ways to attack me, do some analysis.

    PS I see you were up late figuring a way to respond. It appears to have taken you around 9 hours…and that’s the best you could do? Pitiful

  19. Ted Doty says:

    Oh and I did respond to all your questions Pbrain. First the savings must be determined and you’re far from that goal. It’s too bad that you suffer a reading comprehension problem

  20. P says:

    Ted – My reading comprehension is just fine, it’s your facts ($10/hr?!), logic and writing that are difficult to follow.

    And you continue to refuse to answer one simple question – At what level of savings would you outsource the function? The fact that you won’t answer that question, and that you continue to obfuscate, tells me that there’s no amount of savings that would satisfy you, and the proof is in your responses #1, 2 & 4. You really have a hard on for the teachers and that’s why you want to exclusively train your fire.

    As far as why it takes time to “respond,” first, Fred doesn’t always “accept” our responses as they are submitted. Second, some of us have tax paying jobs so you can enjoy your US Government sponsored retirement. Third, some of us have lives outside responding to Fred’s Blog (although some, including Fred, might argue that my volume of responses is in conflict with that statement. 😉 ), so the fact that you sit in your basement waiting to respond to my latest Scud doesn’t mean that I’m always here waiting for yours.

    P.S. Why do I need to find an “outside” contract to compare to Roxbury’s? I’m familiar with the going rate for janitorial services (fully burdened), and they are vastly cheaper than what the people there pay. Since you don’t live there it’s easy for you to dismiss the savings, but if I were a Tax Payer in RT I’d be screaming at my BOE if they ignore this opportunity.

    At a minimum, put together an RFP and find out what a company is willing to charge to replace your staff. You’ll be pleasantly surprised about how much you will save.

  21. Ted Doty says:

    Pbrain, ONE MORE TIME

    My facts are consistent with those presented by Edvocate and my analysis is consistent with that report.

    I)f you now want to change the playing field no problem. I’m glad you agree with my comment in post #11:” What’s needed is a analysis based on hourly wage and consideration of full or PT status”.

    You took us halfway there by providing the actual contract. Now finish the job by providing the rates for vendors providing janitorial sevices, multiply those rates by Roxburys need and compare. Then adjust for iincreased admin costs and an amortized value for existing employees. Then and only then can you decide whether to out source.

    Now it’s obvious to the rest of the world if your analysis shows net savings you source. If not, you don’t.

    Pbrain, that’s the value of through analysis. Once completed, the answer is simple

  22. Ted Doty says:

    There’s no question that the hourly rate from an outside vedor will produce a savings (refer to post #15 and thanks again for agreeing with my comment).

    Unfortunately, hourly rates and benefits are not the only factors. I understand your opinion is there will be net savings but that ain’t cutting it here in the real world.

  23. P says:

    My Final Two Comments –

    I can see why Ted was such a joy to work with. My sympathies to his former board members in Rockaway Twsp.

    In case you wonder why nothing gets done in the world of Public Education, I give you the exchange above as Example 1 – Obfuscation; Misdirection; Refusal to Address even a Simple Question; Bogus Facts; and Analysis Paralysis.

    So, Roxbury, the choice is clear, follow Ted Doty into a box canyon and save Nothing; or, Bid out the services and reap the reward of at least $500K, and more likely, about $1M, in Savings year after year after year.

    I Report, You Decide.

  24. Ted Doty says:

    Pbrain,

    It’s simple. Provide a though analysis based on the info you’ve found and present the result….But you’re afaid to do it

  25. Cas1962 says:

    The people posting those signs are probably the same ones who vote down the school budgets year after year. Well now you’re living with the results!!!

  26. Cas1962 says:

    BTW – Ted Doty sounds like a complete and utter a-hole!

  27. Ted Doty says:

    Even if budget supporters post the signs, their opinions illustrate a value for existing employees. Using Fred’s argument that new employees become old friends over time, how long will that take? My guess is 6 years in a K12 district. So determine an asset value, amortize it over six years and subtract from gross savings. Heck. In the first paragraph of Edvocate’s report the caution of a resistance to change. Employee value is real.

    Again I emphasize the mistake of using per pupil statistics for financial decisions. Such stats only raise the question why district “A” spends more than “B” or which, if either operates efficiently. You budget hawks jump to the conclusion “B” is better and attempt to justify your thought

    Further, only costs that vary with census can be used. Supplies and classroom staff levels a prime examples. Regardless of census, the district will use janitorial services. Technically such costs are termed “semi-variable” and contain a high fixed cost component. It’s wrong to compare districts on this basis even if they have equivalent facilities…the census is different.

    Edvocate strongly suggests careful development of RFP’s to determine savings. Why THEY didn’t effort that is probably due to town council’s predisposition to outsourcing…why waste the time? However on page nine of their report, Edvocate shows in house operations cost $109K. Outside vendor cost is $260K to administrate plus $150K in profit&overhead. This too must be subtracted from gross saving.

  28. P says:

    When did the Town Council start making decisions for the RBOE? As for the rest, more noise from the Dot-inator. Sowing chaos and confusion to maintain the status quo.

    Still won’t answer the simple question – How much savings would this have to generate to get the Doty Seal of Approval?

    P.S. The only “value” that the existing employees have is institutional memory. It can make them more effective than someone new to the job. “Friendship” is worthless, and trying to place a “value” on it is a Fool’s Errand.

  29. Ted Doty says:

    Aside from your myopic view regarding employees, the Roxbuy TC presured the BOE to study outsourcing afte their budget failure. I’ve heard from bord members confirming that fact. based on that pressure, outsourcing might pass

  30. P says:

    It will pass because financially, it makes all the sense in the world. And if the members of the RBOE are going to bow to “pressure” from the TC, they should resign so people with backbones can take their place.

  31. Ted Doty says:

    Pbrain,

    Really? On what do you base the comment that it makes financial sense…or for that matter, on what basis can you say current employees have no value?

  32. P says:

    Ted – Not sure if you just can’t read, or are intentionally ignoring what I wrote. I CLEARLY said that experienced employees had some “value,” but that “Friendship” wasn’t one of them. As for my analysis, it’s above, it’s clear, it’s spot on and it favors outsourcing the function.

    And you STILL haven’t answered my simple question – How much savings would be enough? Not sure why you keep dodging it.

  33. Ted Doty says:

    This is what you wrote; “The only “value” that the existing employees have is institutional memory. It can make them more effective than someone new to the job. “Friendship” is worthless, and trying to place a “value” on it is a Fool’s Errand.” So you’re so narrow minded that you can’t equate “valued employee“ with the term “old friend”. But would you employ a valued worker who isn’t a friend?

    Now back to the point. Your argument is that institutional memory is the only value. I disagree but at least you admit to a value. How much is that worth in dollars and cents? Or if you don’t think institutional memory has financial value, why do employers boast of low turnover rates whenever they can?

    Pbrain, when you’re in a hole, stop digging

  34. Ted Doty says:

    The answer has been prroded seeral times Pbrain. Gather all factors and if it comes to anet savings you outsource. If not, you don’t.

    The prolem you’re having is that only want to include the metrics that like. You think therevwage savings…so proe it. You ignore admin cost increases and refuse to acknowlege a value for existing employees…Myopic

  35. Ted Doty says:

    The answer has been prroded seeral times Pbrain. Gather all factors and if it comes to anet savings you outsource. If not, you don’t.

    The problem you’re having is that only want to include the metrics that you like. You think there are wage savings…so prove it. You ignore admin cost increases and refuse to acknowlege a value for existing employees…Myopic

  36. P says:

    Wow, even after reading BOTH posts I haven’t a clue what Teddy is saying. Once again, I will offer anyone $100 to translate from Doty to English.

    P.S. Still no answer – How much savings would be enough for TeddyBoy?? I really think he’s afraid to answer the question.

    P.P.S. My position is far from Myopic (in fact, I’d call it Enlightened), and I can see clearly through your smokescreen of obfuscations from my spot high on Mt. Olympus.

  37. Ted Doty says:

    Hey Pbrain, I’ve clearly outlined the process needed to determine whether Roxbury can save money by outsourcing janitorial service. And I’ve illustrated why the current consultant report doesn’t help in that regard. In post 14 you asked what level of savings would it take to outsource. My answer was, and still is, the district needs to determine if there is a saving

    Pbrain, you argue an opinion about potential wage savings and try to justify that opinion by presenting the union contract. Uncovering the actual contract may be a good get but it doesn’t determine savings. Quotes from potential vendors must be compared to current cost, which are $1,837,643 salary; $163,916 OT; $904,812 in benefits; $11,203 for uniforms Pbrain, no matter how much you rant, your opinion of a 20 -50% savings in salary and benefits is worthless what’s needed is actual quotes for equal coverage.

    Now once again Pbrain Salary and benefits are not the only factor. An outside firm has profit and overhead requirements. It’s a simple exercise really. Page nine of the consultant report assigns $109K for running the operation in house. Outsourcing would be $260K for admin and $152K for profit, taxes and overhead. I know math isn’t your strong point Pbrain so that comes to $303K increased cost to outsource and must be netted with any wage savings.

    Now your question’ “How much savings is enough to trigger change?” implies that there’s a dollar level at which change isn’t worth it. And that Pbrain is the annual value of existing employees.

    My method simply moves employee value to the left side of the equation. Finally, the change in wages minus vendor cost, minus current employee value equals net savings. If net savings is positive you outsource because all factors are considered. You’ve even met the price at which my old friend is expendable. If net savings are negative, you stick with what you have.

    I could get into the methods of amortizing employee value over 6 years and calculate the net present value of cash flow but I’m afraid your head would explode Pbrain. For now, just read and comprehend this rehash of previous posts.

  38. P says:

    I think it’s clear by now to all but Ted that he really has no interest in seeing the RBOE save any money by outsourcing their “critical” janitorial services. In all the years I’ve managed budgets and worked on transformational projects, I’ve never seen someone try so hard to make a simple decision soooo complicated in hopes of sinking the project.

    But the choice is clear, save anywhere from $500,000 (min) to $1,000,000 per year, EVERY year, OR, keep listening to Ted, twisting yourselves in knots trying to understand his logic, yet continuing to crush your taxpayers. I don’t live in Roxbury so I really don’t care what the people there do, but good luck getting your budget passed if you let this opportunity slip away.

  39. Ted Doty says:

    I think it’s clear to all but Prain that I want the RBOE to determine whether savings are possible rather than be pushed into a decision based on half baked theorys of 50% savings.

  40. P says:

    Ted continues to misrepresent what I’ve written in an attempt to muddy the waters. I said that I thought that savings of 50% of BENEFITS could be achieved, not TOTAL SAVINGS. Total Savings of 15 – 25% should not be an issue.

    And I continue to ask, would even a 10% annual savings be enough for Ted to endorse this idea?

    P.S. The question is purely rhetorical, because Ted will NEVER answer.

  41. Ted Doty says:

    Pbrain, the outsorcing decision may have already been made but I misrepresented nothing. You claim a 20- 50% savings in wages would be easy…but you failed to provehow. Futher you neglected all othr factors

  42. P says:

    1.) Still no answer as to what the savings would have to be before FarmerTed would pull the trigger on outsourcing.

    2.) Please post the quote where I say that a 50% SAVINGS in wages is achievable.

  43. Ted Doty says:

    Pbrain, which word don’t you understand? IF THE ANALYSIS SHOWS THERE ARE SAVINGS, OUTSOURCE. The problem you have is a simplistic approach; you’d like to cherry pick one metric and base the decision on that.

    Myopic

  44. P says:

    I guess that’s Ted’s way of acknowledging that he misrepresented what I said about Salary savings.

    And if I take his quote literally, “IF THE ANALYSIS SHOWS THERE ARE SAVINGS, OUTSOURCE,” a $1 savings would meet that threshold. If that’s the case, even someone who just landed on the Planet Earth would “know” that outsourcing the function would save at least $2, doubling the savings that Ted would need to see.

    So there you have it RBOE – Ted Doty ENDORSES the OUTSOURCING of your Janitorial services.

  45. Ted Doty says:

    Not at all Pbrain, you need bettter reading comprehension. BTW you promised that post #23 was your final comment. You must just crave attention

  46. Ted Doty says:

    If after COMPLETE ANALYSI there are saings, outsource. You can’t assume even $1 saings…READ Pbrain, READ

  47. P says:

    I see you are able to read and understand my posts when you want to. But I decided that allowing you to continue to spread FUD couldn’t stand, so I fired up the DotyTruthSquad in response.

    P.S. “You can’t assume even $1 in saings (sic) . . “?! Seriously? Even the Janitors in Roxbury are RAFLTAO at such a fatuous statement. I think you just shredded your last ounce of credibility.

  48. Ted Doty says:

    I think most readers understand your posts. Basically, you assume that not only can contractors hire at lower costs but also that wages are the only cost factor. The annoying thing is thing that you believe constant repetition of your assumptions make them true and you think you’re clever enough to trap opponents in an illogical loop

    Pbrain, you’re a light weight

    PS, I now blog at http://rtboe.blogspot.com/

  49. Ted Doty says:

    I think most readers understand your posts. Basically, you assume that not only can contractors hire at lower costs but also that wages are the only cost factor. The annoying thing is thing that you believe constant repetition of your assumptions make them true and you think you’re clever enough to trap opponents in an illogical loop

    Pbrain, you’re a light weight

  50. P says:

    It’s somewhat comical that whilst complaining that I “believe constant repetition of my assumptions make them true,” you repeated yourself! I keep “repeating” myself because your keep trying to obscure the facts.

    As for “trapping you in an illogical loop” (whatever that is), I’ll let the posts above speak for themselves.

    P.S. A person with a lame website shouldn’t call anyone a “light weight.” But I’m glad to see you found a new outlet for your RTBOE Death Match. Maybe Fred won’t have to publish your letters to the editor anymore.

  51. Ted Doty says:

    After posting what you said would be your final comment in post 23, you persisted with your nonsense rant. But in none of the Tsubsequent 27 posts do tou offer backup for your opinion.

    Pbrain face reality, you lost another argument

  52. P says:

    Re: #23 – Asked and answered.

    As far as “rant,” or “losing another argument,” maybe in TedLand, but not in the real world.

    P.S. Your arguments, and your cheesy website, would carry more weight if they weren’t riddled with spelling errors and grammatical mistakes –

    Tsubsequent 27 posts do tou” Five words, two errors! much like the “logic” in your comments. And just because you don’t like the numbers I gave you, you don’t get to dismiss them as irrelevant or not satisfying your “requirements” for analysis (although calling what you’ve written “analysis” is very generous).

    You’re just the guy trying to keep this from becoming a reality, with no good reason other than your belief that it distracts from the Real Issue –

    “the teachers union ALWAYS suggests cuts in maintenence (sic) to save teacher salaries. But once the cuts are made, the REA will scream that the place is falling apart and somehow request a Cap waiver or referendum. You act like this is my first rodeo.

    P, you’ve fallen for the Union hype…”don’t cut my budget, cut theirs”. You’re so naive.”

    In everyplace but TedLand you attack ALL cost drivers.

    P.P.S. As for “rodeos,” I did find this shot of you for all to enjoy – http://www.rodeoart.com/images/223d1528artweb.jpg

    Are you the guy on the right or the left?? 🙂

  53. Ted Doty says:

    Pbrain,

    Unlike you, I’m no slave to ideology. I won’t use flawed analysis to justify a position. You use opinion (flawed analysis) to justify your position that outsourcing janitorial services will save money for Roxbury.

  54. P says:

    Obviously, Ted can pretend that he’s right forever, but if I lived in Roxbury, I’d be demanding that the RBOE bid out these services and see what the real cost would be to outsource. You’ll be more than pleasantly surprised how much you’ll save next year, the year after, ad infinitum.

    One other thing that wasn’t included in the consultant’s report, or Ted’s “analysis,” NJ’s retirement plans (pension & health care) are a disaster, and the unfunded liability that we all owe is astronomical.

    Outsourcing will remove people from the public sector retirement program and, in the long-term, make the system more viable. Everyday that someone remains on the public payroll they are accruing a benefit that NJ will eventually have to raise taxes to pay because governors and legislatures for the past decade haven’t paid what they needed to into the program.

    P.S. Ted – Your last post was Perfect – Three statements, all WRONG!

  55. Ted Doty says:

    Geez,, now Pbrain suggests RFQs be sent to vendors. Thank’s for agreeing with me.

    BTW Pbrain. tthe unfunded liability is of no consequence in Roxbury’s study. It;s a problem but not one that’ll be resolved by outsourcing

    Obviously outsourcing will remoe people from the retirement system. But if will force some to retire early, putting further strain on the broken system

    THINK Pbrain THINK

  56. P says:

    Ted – Nice to see you finally agree WITH ME. I couldn’t find a single comment (and I re-read all 55) where you proposed going to bid. In fact you claimed on several occasions that no money could be saved through outsourcing.

    As far as the state retirement plan comments, not everyone in the plan is eligible to retire (or even vested), so moving them out of the plan before that time stops the bleeding. The state needs to start covering less people, not more.

  57. Ted Doty says:

    In Post 4 I clearly show why a wage survey is require. In Post 11, I specifically called for a wage survey.. Like I’ve said before Pbrain, you just can’t read.

    I’ve used the word improbable to describe your estimated savings and stand by that comment. Also I mentioned several times that the Edvocate report is insufficient to determine any savings.

    One More time Pbrain, learn to read

  58. P says:

    A “wage survey” isn’t and RFQ or “going to bid” – i.e., Asking vendors to submit proposals with specific costs to cover a service or set of services you’d like to buy, in this case, in lieu of services performed by staff.

    And as far as your view on savings, although you’ve been all over the map, in Post #13 you clearly stated – “But in my opinion, there is no savings from outsourcing janitorial services and the consultant’s fee was a waste of taxpayer money.”

    Just admit that on principal, you don’t want to see the Janitorial Services outsourced. You really don’t care whether or not there are savings, and even if there was hundreds of thousands of dollars a year that could be saved, you want to maintain the status quo.

    Because I can not only read, but read between the lines, I can see what you are really saying.

  59. Ted Doty says:

    Because you can’t read and comprehend, I should find alternate phrasing hoping you’ll understand? Frankly Pbrain, you’re not worth it.

  60. P says:

    I’ll let Fred’s readers decide who has the problem reading and communicating clearly. I’m fairly confident that if a vote was taken, it would be unanimous, and that you would not be the victor.

    P.S. I didn’t ask for you to rephrase, just to offer specific proof that you ever recommended that the RBOE Bid this out. It isn’t hard to do, just note the post # and copy and paste in the specific phrase. Refusal to do so will be considered by all an admission of guilt.

  61. Ted Doty says:

    If you know of any poll (you’re good at finding them) let us know Pbrain.

    BTW, you’re the ONLY one needing remedial interpretation

  62. P says:

    Not a Poll, Ted, a Vote. Look up the difference. I’ve never heard of “remedial interpretation.” Was that offered back when you were in HS?? 😉

    P.S. Still waiting for you to post proof of your mysterious request that the BOE bid out the Janitorial Services as you claimed in #55. As usual, the Silence is Deafening.

  63. P says:

    P.P.S. Speaking of Polls, thanks for reminding me about my All Time Favorite Thread from last year – http://blogs.dailyrecord.com/morrispolitics/2009/08/31/a-debate-over-debate/

    For those who missed it, be sure to read all the way through. Best Comment in the thread is Fred’s – http://blogs.dailyrecord.com/morrispolitics/2009/08/31/a-debate-over-debate/#comment-2805

    To be honest, whenever we go through one of these painful back-and-forths because Ted is alternately trying to prove his brilliance whilst simultaneously trying to avoid addressing simple questions and truths about his “facts,” I start to think that I should have stuck to my original promise to just ignore him – http://blogs.dailyrecord.com/morrispolitics/2009/08/31/a-debate-over-debate/#comment-2819

  64. Ted Doty says:

    No Pbrain, you can’t read and you don’t comprehend. You merely talk in circles

  65. P says:

    I think that statement is redundant – i.e., if you can’t read, then you cannot also comprehend anything that is written.

    But I digress (note – that’s a side trip, not going in circles), some people continue to be confused, but on this topic, there’s not much more to say given the density of a certain individual’s skull.

    But on another topic, let us try to clear up the confusion someone has about Taxes and Fees.

    For a better understanding, I would recommend perusing this post – http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/24609.html and also this one – http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/topic/98.html

    As noted, “Any assessment that raises money in excess of what is needed to defray costs is a tax.” Ergo, one that doesn’t, isn’t. So an ECA Fee that only partially covers the cost of all the extra curricular activities in a school district ISN’T a Tax.

    An example of a Fee that is a Tax is the Motor Vehicle Registration “Fee” we all pay. Only a fraction of the money is used to run the MVC, the rest gets swept into the state’s general fund.

    P.S. This is one area that Christie could look at to salvage the Transportation “Trust” Fund (without raising gas prices) – Direct all excess revenue from the MVC “Fees” to pay for our roads.

  66. Ted Doty says:

    So, the local tax levy (property tax asessment) is actually a fee, not a tax because it also takes state aid and federal funds to cover all school cost?…And since annual increases are required, districts never receive more than needed, ergo we never pay taxes only fees.

    Pbrain, thanks for clearing that up. I feel better..

  67. P says:

    Sigh!

    Ted, once again, is trying to obfuscate.

    Property Taxes are taxes because they aren’t dedicated to specific purpose (as an ECA Fee is), but rather, used by government as they see fit. If your township broke out specific items, like sewage, garbage, etc. those could possibly be Fees, but not a general purpose bill that covers whatever they decide to spend it on this year.

    Just admit that your latest flight of fancy (http://rtboe.blogspot.com/2010/10/pay-to-play-fees-are-just-another.html) is completely off base (SOP) before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.

    P.S. Does your laptop have an aircard? Can we expect Tweets from the BOE meeting tonight? Your public awaits anxiously your latest words of wisdom.

    Fred – I would tell the DR’s RT assignment editor to send that reporter elsewhere (maybe Roxbury, to see if the BOE has the stones to outsource the janitors and send Ted into apoplexy). Ted has us covered.

  68. Ted Doty says:

    Oh I see, when extra curricular activities weren’t paid by parents, residents were “taxed” via property tax rates. But now that there’s a 2% cap and school administration removed extra curricular costs from levy calculations, the “tax” becomes a “fee”.

    Yes, I see the difference now Pbrain. ROFLMAO

  69. P says:

    Actually, school districts, because of the 2% cap, are going to have to choose between eliminating all but bare bones extracurricular activities (over time), levy a fee to keep them intact, or look to booster clubs and/or parents’ groups to keep them fully funded. Parents will have a choice to pay the fees, or see the activities eliminated. Not sure why you think it’s such a bad thing, or what your alternative solution is??

  70. Ted Doty says:

    Hi Pbrain I/m glad you now agree that fees are just another name for taxes.

    No, the 2% cap is designed to minimize tax increases, not to provide “bare bones” education. If districts are allowed to circumvent the current funding fomula and impose fees, we’ve given school districts a license to tax some at higher rates than others.

    Does anyone really want a school board to have that kind of power? I don’t

  71. P says:

    If you don’t want a BOE to be able to impose fees, then you should (again) talk to your legislators. The state’s mandate on extra curricular activities doesn’t require the breadth or depth that all public school districts provide, and districts are well within the law if they decide to impose fees to maintain them at their current level.

    And once again, you take license with my words. The phase I used was “bare bones extracurricular activities,” not “education.”

    I also clearly have not said that real Fees are Taxes, and gave you examples and explanations why. The fact that you have to twist my words to prove your “thesis,” just shows how weak your argument really is.

    P.S. All taxes are imposed at different rates – Income Taxes are on a “progressive” scale (with some exemptions and credits), Property Taxes are based on the value of the land, improvements and use; Sales Taxes are imposed on some items, and at different rates depending upon location, . . So your line about taxing, “we’ve given school districts a license to tax some at higher rates than others. Does anyone really want a school board to have that kind of power? I don’t,” is factually incorrect (DotySOP), and that’s assuming a Fee is a Tax, which (I’ll repeat for those who cannot or will not understand), it isn’t.

  72. P says:

    P.P.S. Please don’t interpret my words for the three people who read your blog. Either post my response verbatim, or nothing at all. You completely misrepresent my position (as usual), and unlike here, people can’t see what I actually said and make up their own minds.

  73. Ted Doty says:

    You’re confused about something. Activity fees are taxes if cover by the local tax levy but are fees if a school board decides to collect the tax levy AND charge parents seperately?

    Fees sure sounds like taxes to the rest of the world…double taxation if the local tax levy isn’t reduced.

    Thanks for visiting my blog and feel free to comment there anytime you like

  74. P says:

    Once again, a lame attempt to obfuscate. It might work on your website, but not here.

    Reread – http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/24609.html

    and

    http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/topic/98.html

  75. Ted Doty says:

    Choose your words carefully next time Pbrain

  76. P says:

    I choose my words carefully every time. You, on the other hand, get a “brainstorm,” and start pounding away on your keyboard and press “Submit” without ever re-reading what you’ve written.

    As anyone who has the time to review our writings (above, or on numerous other threads), your junk is replete with typos; as well as grammatical, logical and punctuation errors to the point where one needs a DotyDecipherRing to understand the point(s) you think you are trying to make.

  77. Ted Doty says:

    It takes one to know one…or…I know you are but what am I. ROFLMAO

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: