Quote Originally Posted by Paul Grasso View Post
As for the "real world", please stop patronizing. I work in the "real world" with budgets and imperfect information. What we do to compensate for deadlines with imperfect information is NOT to assume the most aggressive scenario. In this case, it would not have been to assume all savings to be recognized with no incremental costs. Not only did the SC assume all of the $400-$450K of savings from the consolidation of Loker but it also added co-curriculars like Middle School athletics back into the budget.
I apologize. I certainly did not intend to be patronizing.

I disagree with your characterization of "the most aggressive scenario." Our assumption was $400k (not $450k) in savings resulting from the reconfiguration. We did not include utility savings or rental income, giving us a small cushion. We did not include transportation costs, but had heard from the Administration that the number of buses would not increase (it now appears that our transportation costs will come in *below* the amount that we budgeted). We did not include the $40 in municipal side savings estimated by the Finance Committee. And we did not include the reduction in another section (and approx. $60k) that at most recent count appears to be possible.

So, we may be closer to $500k now than the "not most aggressive" $400k on which we based our decision. Of course, that amount may change depending on exactly what enrollment materializes.

I don't follow your "Not only/also added" logic. Yes, we assumed $400k in gross savings and elected to use $100k of that to preserve co-curricular programs of a known cost.