Opacity

“We want to make this as transparent as possible. We want people to understand our parameters and assumptions when developing the budget, discuss the budget and have you give us feedback.”

---Sun Prairie School Board member and Finance Committee chair Jim McCourt speaking about the school district budget for 2010-11

What Do We Mean By Transparency?

"...when budgets and financial statements are clearly defined and all assumptions are disclosed they are seen as transparent and there is less opportunity for the authorities to abuse the system in their own interest."

OK...so...if they want things to be so "transparent", why is it that when a resident asks a question about the amount of the budget reserved for raises (???), the questioner was told that "legal counsel advised against revealing that information"?

How "transparent" is that?

Fly into the Danger Zone

One of two things can happen in this scenario; neither of which is good.

1. The electors approve a tax levy without ever knowing how much was hidden in the budget for raises to Tim Culver, Administrators, Admin Support staff, and the perennially screwed Local 60. In this scenario, it's tough tooties for we the people. District Admin will cry "naaah naaah", and declare that we were foolish to approve a levy without knowing how it would be spent.

2. The alternative would be for the school board to settle these contracts and raises BEFORE the annual electors meeting. In this scenario, they can then build the increases into the budget and declare transparency. Should any elector motion to reduce the levy, the board can then say that they need the full levy to cover the magnanimous raises they approved.

A third option would be for the school board to make a very bold move--much like the state--and declare up front the entire "purse" available for raises (if any). Keeping in mind that many districts are freezing all salaries, our school board could opt to do the same. Then, during negotiations, all they need to do is just say, "It is what it is...even if it ain't much". This strategy, of course depends on two things: (1) NO contract is settle or raises administered until AFTER the elector's meeting, and (2) the board be 100% above board and declare up front the total dollar amount being allocated for raises.

In fact, if they do it in this manner (rather than declaring a percentage), then no union or group of employees can use said "percentage" as a basis for their negotiations. But...what do we know? Newsflash. When state employee unions "negotiate" their contracts with the state, there is no real negotiation...not for money, anyway. The state dictates what is --or is not--available. That's it. There is no give and take. The unions simply take what is available to them. The only real "negotiation" involves changes to contract language or other non-monetary benefits.

Our View

We find Frei and McCourt's collective rallying cry of "Transparency!", while shielding the very monies they are allocating to the 800 lb gorilla to be nothing more than a version of "do as I say, not as I do".

Rather than transparency, they effectively created a budget which is perhaps translucent to the optimist, yet quite opaque for the seasoned realist.

Opacity

Etymology: Middle French opacité shadiness, from Latin opacitat-, opacitas, from opacus shaded, dark

1 a : obscurity of sense : unintelligibleness

b : the quality or state of being mentally obtuse : dullness
2 : the quality or state of a body that makes it impervious to the rays of light; broadly : the relative capacity of matter to obstruct the transmission of radiant energy

SP-EYE NOTE: We find the definition "state of being mentally obtuse" to be rather fitting.