Despite the Finance Committee voting to RETAIN the dollar level at which school board approval of bids is required at $10,000, the Board, behind the push of member Jim Carrel and Finance Committee chair Jim McCourt, voted to INCREASE the level to $25,000.
The rationale they cited for this change:
- the amount of time spent discussing bids between $10,000 and $25,000 at committee and Board meetings
- the Board needs to have trust in the administration and not "micro-manage" them
- the amount has not been changed in a number of years and represents only 0.068% of "non-salary/benefit" budget.
No one looked at what other similar size school districts do in theses cases for comparison. So, again, what value do we get for our $8700+ annual "membership" dues to the Wisconsin Association of School Boards?
The SP-EYE did the analyses that neither the Board or Administration did. In the past year, less than 2 of these $10,000-$25,000 bids per month have appeared before the FTT committee for review/approval. So, clearly, we're not spending a great deal of effort at the committee level on these bids. And at the Board level, even Board member Caren Diedrich admitted that these issues rarely become lengthy, time-consuming matters.
Other School District policies are all over the board on this issue, but few of the ones reviewed set the level for Board approval above $10,000-$15,000. Interestingly enough, Board President David Stackhouse wanted to have the level increased to $15,000 last fall and the motion failed. He said he thought $25,000 was excessive, yet voted with the gang to approve the motion less than a year later. What changed in 9 months? Maybe because Jim Gibbs was a voice of reason on these issues, and no the "governor" has been removed from this school board's engine?
Micromanagement is generally defined as exercising excessive control of a project or group of people. The fuzziness comes in to play when we try to determine what is considered excessive.
Mark Twin is famous for the quote, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics." The "fact" that 10,000 represents "0.068% of non-salary budget" is exactly what he was talking about. Does anyone care that the increase represents a whopping 250% above the existing policy level?
What's important here is that by increasing the point at which Board approval is required from $10,000 to $25,000 is that many big-ticket items could be purchased without the School Board's involvement. Several vehicles have been purchased for the district within that range. Shouldn't the Board approve such a capital outlay? What about high ticket items that are broken down into bite size (less than $25,000) chunks? Is there no concern that this practice could occur? Last, but certainly not least, shouldn't the public have an opportunity to comment on these purchases? It is, after all, THEIR tax dollars. It's fiscal IRresponsibility cleverly disguised as the reviled "micro-management". I wonder how Mr. McCourt would feel about allowing his personal finance manager to increase the level at which he makes his own investment decision's with McCourt's money by 250%.
What's the point of even having a Finance Committee, if you throw their recommendations to the wind? Carrel and McCourt got exactly what they want despite the committee and public input recommending otherwise. You want to save time? It makes equally as much sense to just dissolve the Finance Committee.
Posts
