A Round of Applause...

...to the school board for getting one right this week.

In the 2 weeks since the electors voted to reduce the proposed tax levy by $2M, there were definite signs that the board would make a move to trump the electors and set a levy higher than what the electors voted. Al Slane made several comments, as did Jim McCourt, that were clear indications of an idea to secure legal opinion to produce a resolution declaring that the levy set by the voters was "insufficient to operate and maintain schools".

But, happily, no such motion came forth during Monday's board meeting. In fact, the board voted 7-0 to direct administration to find at least $1.2M in budget cuts, and then 7-0 again to adopt the reduced tax levy set by the voters.

Caren Diedrich spoke that she personally would like to see nothing taken from fund balance. Diedrich indicated that she would vote to take up to $800K (of the $2M levy reduction) from fund balance but not for one penny more. On the downside, Diedrich again referred to the electors' vote on the levy as "advisory". Wrong, Caren!

Jill Camber-Davidson [referring to earlier comments by Diedrich at the Finance committee meeting that the levy reduction mounts to only about $8 per month for each taxpayer] stated that $96 may not seem like a lot, but to many community members, that means a coat and boots for their child.

Al Slane took a moment to qualify remarks he made at last weeks working session, but then answered the bell by stating that, "What's important [from the annual meeting] is the message that came through that the people think we're spending to much and we have to cut back". Slane went on to say that, after looking at statutes, it is clear that preservation of fund balance isn't a rationale to reject the levy set by voters, since the determination on having sufficient funds to operate and maintain schools is based on the current school year. Therefore, asserting that preservation of fund balance because cutting affects future borrowing does not apply.

Phil Frei and Jim McCourt harped again about the fact that some community members were outraged at 5% proposed cuts [$250K] to individual school building budgets, but now they want to cut $1.1M. Both declared that "...there's no way we can cut $1.1M without affecting the kids". McCourt said, "From what I've heard, this is not about us making cuts, but to use the 'rainy day' fund."

McCourt went on further to comment that he is currently working to start up a business, and in his discussions with Standard & Poor ratings, he has found them to be very critical. [Newsflash, Jim...but there's HUGE distinction between reviewing the credit worthiness of some new private business start-up vs. a huge, growing school district.] This was part of a 10 minute McCourt soliloquy that concluded with McCourt's thinly disguised threat that he was , "...still contemplating whether I want to make a motion to raise the levy."

After all that, McCourt motioned (second by Jill Camber-Davidson) to adopt the budget as prepared but we want the impact on fund balance to be not more than $800K.

Al Slane commented that he had a problem with saying, "We should try...". Slane wanted to know within a month whether significant cuts were feasible. He also noted that, " I'm pretty sure that Administration won't propose freezing their own salaries--that's up to us. It's time for us to step up."

Caren Diedrich noted that there was some uncertainly as to whether teaching staff could be furloughed [Annette Mikula was checking into it], but she also noted that, "...we CAN furlough administration and certified staff. At the high school there are 2 principals and 4 assistant principals--surely we can furlough some of them." Diedrich followed that by speaking directly to Culver and Frei and declaring, "I want you to furlough some administration and certified staff and find a couple of hundred thousand dollars."

Terry Shimek, who appears to have seen the light and is starting to act more like the fiscal conservative he proclaimed himself to be during last spring's elections, commented, "Maybe we need to increase class capacities this year and not adding an aide even if a class has 1-2 additional kids. The electors said that they do not want a 12.5% tax increase this year so I'm sure they don't want a 14-18% increase next year. A lot of Sun Prairie people are not making their [mortgage, loan or credit card] payments. We have many more free/reduced lunch kids this year."

John Whalen noted that "Phil and Tim have done a good job over the years with putting extra money into fund balance." [Sheeah....John E! That's because they put some much fluff into the budget! Do you think it was lost on the community that Phil recently (perhaps inadvertently so) announced that he had over-budgeted ($400K) for the costs of the annual short-term borrowing, which really only cost $150K? And where exactly did that $250K disappear to, since your revised budget after the annual meeting only reduced $100K taken from fund balance? Shouldn't that have immediately translated to a $250K reduction...as was pointed out at the annual meeting?]

Phil Frei noted that, "...more than 90% of the budget has already been allocated and will be spent". [We're just wondering here--what do WE know?-- but if the budget is $68M, and only 90% of it has been "spent", doesn't that mean that there is $6-7M available for review? ]

Terry Shimek motioned (second by Jill Camber-Davidson) to adopt the tax levy of $44.25M as voted by the electors. Passed 7-0.

So...all in all, SP-EYE wants to thank the members of the school board for following the wishes of the community. And in particular, we appreciate Mr. Slane, Mr. Shimek, and Ms. Diedrich for making the difficult comments that it's time to make some cuts. We CAN cut some of the fluff out of this budget without affecting the kids. We know it was hard to do, but it gets easier.