Readers Write - Business Ed. Over Diversity Hire

<senorstubs@yahoo.com> wrote:

I see your point in saying that the district said there was no new funds to hire a "diversity specialist" and went to create a new position for a retired person for a job they did as a teacher. It baffles me too. However, without a dedicated person connecting the business and industry with education, it would not happen. Businesses have better things to do than chase public education to see what is happening and connect with a disconnected organization. Expecting a teacher with a full teaching load (which Ms. Everson DID NOT have when she was performing that job) would result in a lesser partnership. Was it right to hire back Ms. Everson and not pass on the duties to someone new? That is a good question and one worth chasing for an answer. To say the partnership is not needed will disconnect the schools from careers even more so than they are now.

We agree on some of your points.

We DO need someone who can work with the businesses...and perhaps it should be a dedicated role.  We just are not overly fond of pulling back a double dipper to fill a role that perhaps could have been filled with an individual in need of a job, and who could provide the district with valuable diversity recruiting strength.  And why are we bringing back a double dipper as an FTE with benefits???  We could have saved over $20K by offering the position as a LTE role. This economy requires us to put people to work...not putting cushy-pensioned retirees BACK to work.  

And where is the cross-training here?  Shouldn't we have been having Ms. Everson mentor someone to assume that role upon her retirement?  Perhaps someone whose salary is not a burden for the district.

At the end of the day, we have to ask ourselves what is most critical: diversity recruitment or business-education liaison.  The diversity of SPASD students only continues to rise, yet we are not as fortunate in attracting qualified diverse candidates.

We also need to do our part to create jobs to keep the economy moving forward.  Hiring a bunch of double-dippers to serve as RTI tutors and fill the Business-Ed role did not create a single new job.  It just allowed retirees to cash their plush pension check (or even pout it off a bit) while still getting a regular check at a decent salary.  Could we really not find any young, energized, unemployed teachers who could assist with RTI efforts?  It's the ultimate "try before you buy" scenario.  If they work out, then they may be great candidates for future job openings.

Perhaps overly optimistic, but we believe we could have shared the wealth and come up with solutions to both our needs.  The Everson re-hire was clearly a stick of political dynamite that everyone shied away from.   Sadly, we should be able to expect better from our commander-in-chief.

Could YOUR Household Make it on $112K?

We looked just at those professional educators that are married to another professional educator.
To be more specific, we only looked at those that both work in the Sun Prairie School District AND they share the same last name.  Oh, yeah...not to worry...we verified our data on the linkage.

This of course does NOT include those whose spouse works in another district, those whose spouse is an administrator, or those with different last names, which includes domestic partners.  READ:  there are a lot more than what we found.

We found 11 confirmed pairs.

The average total compensation for the pair was $112,500.
The median total compensation was $113,000.
The average years of teaching was 14.5
The range of total income was $91,150 - $146,505

We hear how terrible it is for teachers...especially those that share a home.
We're going to have to call bullspit on this one.
We're pretty sure MOST household incomes in Sun Prairie are far less than $113,000.
These are, on average, young people doing QUITE well.

Hell...even the lowest total, $91,150 is a very do-able household income.
Wikipedia (yeah...we know...) shows a median income for a household of  $51,345, and the median income for a family is $61,197.  This 2009 data.  Remember...teachers have received increases since then, but not many others.

And they forget that only one of the pair needs to carry the health insurance cost.

A Few More Bites of the Apple

Some more things to ponder, regarding the "Total Compensation" data...

As they say...pictures tell 1,000 words...so we think none are really necessary.

You Can Lead Them To Data...But You Cannot Make Them Mine It

Click to view full-screen

And SP-EYE just happens to be Miner 49-ers when it comes to data!  Warning:  Reality can have a nasty bite to it.

If you were distressed as we were hearing how terrible that teachers...er...professional educators.... have it...how horribly undervalued (READS: underpaid) they are, this one's for you.   And if you were one of those that heard or read their gut-wrenching stories of financial struggles, then this is also for you.

The district office has been working on a document that compiles total compensation--not benefits mind you,  strictly cash-in-your-wallet compensation.  We heard about this at a recent HR Committee meeting (memo to people: you just may want to find time in your busy lives to start coming to some meetings).  We asked about it this week and learned that the compilation is complete and we requested a copy.  This study covers all professional educators and the "cash" compensation earned during the FY2011-12 school year.

We have pulled out several nuggets from the data; there are many more.
We have also taken the liberty of sorting the data by total compensation, showing base salary and "add-ons".  A copy of this is available here:

View the spreadsheet, sorted by total compensation

Warning Unheeded

Click to view full-screen

We have been warned by trusted compadres in the past that one should never poke an individual holding the keys to the newspaper ink, but we're certain that even someone in such a position whose significant other might just appear near the top of these lists will understand that "the truth shall set them free".  This of course includes a certain editor who happens to slant their OpEds so far to the right that Ann Romney is getting jealous.  Yet, when it comes to this school district, Mr. Right Lurching Journalist, tips so far to the left that they SPARCle.  But there's no link there...right?  It's just coincidence...right?  Someone who so strongly supported Gov. Walker and his "teachers are far too well compensated" rhetoric would never lay aside his political philosophies when it comes to a school district which employs his significant other...right?  Guess we'll see.

A word about "Add-Ons"
There are 23 options available to professional educators to enhance their salary...and take-home pay.

In 2011-12, $27.8M was paid out in salaries.  Another $1.8M was paid out as "add-ons".  That represents, overall, a 6.5% bump to salaries!  Are you kidding us!  And these folks are falling just shy of demanding not a 2% increase, but a 3.1% increase?

Click to view full-screen

And can we please keep in mind that Professional Eductaors operator under a 190 day contract.  Most of the rest of the world operates under a 260 day basis (2080 hrs/8 hrs/day).

Stay tuned...there's more to come as we pick through this.   A shout-out to the district office for putting this information together.

Final thoughts...Chrissie Hynde and the Pretenders just shouted out to us.

It is time for you to stop all of your sobbing
yes it's time for you to stop all of your sobbing oh oh oh
there's one thing you gotta do
to make me still want you
gotta stop sobbing now
yeah yeah stop it stop it

---The Pretenders, “Stop Your Sobbing”

Getting Back To Diversity Issues

This one's been brewing on the back burner for a bit.  At the August 16, 2012 public hearing on the budget, there were some public comments related to the need for a more diverse staff.

We've heard rumblings that blame the school board for not investing in diversity.  Let us be clear, that the record reflects that the school board voted to authorize the district --Tim Culver-- to hire a diversity recruitment specialist.  Their only stipulation was that it had to be done within the existing budget.

The district declined, basically saying that "no new money means no diversity specialist".

What we DO find interesting is that if one looks through the DPI list of 2011-12 staff, one should notice that VERY QUIETLY the district hired back Nancy Everson, who retired at the end of 2010-11 school year.

She was apparently brought back as a "double-dipper" at a salary of $44,436 with benefits of an additional $17,593.  Ms. Everson retired at a salary of over $86,000.  That must make for a pretty nice pension.

Noun 1.  double dipper - someone who draws two incomes from the government (usually by combining a salary and a pension)

Now don't get us wrong.  Ms. Everson served an incredibly vital and valuable role as the district's link to businesses to provide learning opportunities for our students.  We're just wondering...couldn't some of those skills have been passed on to existing staff?  Cross-training?  And what's more important to the district?  We seem to recall diversity being a primary goal.  We didn't see business education on that list.

Instead of blaming the school board, we might suggest that people ask Dr. Culver why he opted to spend over $60,000 on the Business-Education Partnership program when he could have invested in a diversity recruitment specialist.

We'd like to hear that answer.

Another Grade We Did Not Make

So...we had 2 schools recognized in 2010-11, but none for 2011-12?

Just wondering....how did all that RTI investment work out?

[Sept. 5, 2012] The Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction has recognized 132 high-poverty schools for above-average math and reading student achievement, though none in Madison or Dane County.

Eligible schools are among the top quarter in the state for percentage of low-income students as measured by free and reduced-price lunch participation. Last year Madison had 27 schools in the top quarter and Sun Prairie had two.  

Read more: http://host.madison.com/news/local/education/extra-credit/extra-credit-no-madison-schools-among-schools-of-recognition/article_ed3f8468-f76f-11e1-946c-0019bb2963f4.html#ixzz26e12aRgI

The Proof is in the Pudding

78 seniors in Dane Co. named as National Merit semi-finalists for 2012-13.
Sun Prairie had...wait for it...ONE
Our favorite rival....close in size but smaller Middleton, had THIRTEEN
Madison Memorial had FOURTEEN
Even Mount Horeb had TWO

Semifinalists represent the top 1 percent of the approximately 1.5 million students who took the Preliminary SAT/National Merit Scholarship Qualifying Test last year. About 90 percent of semifinalists become finalists who are eligible to receive one of 8,300 college scholarships totaling more than $32 million next spring.
Read more: http://host.madison.com/news/local/education/local_schools/high-school-seniors-in-dane-county-named-national-merit-semifinalists/article_994e97e4-fc6b-11e1-9341-001a4bcf887a.html#ixzz26dx1YYGP

We keep talking about Sun Prairie being the cream of the crop, but there's more crop than cream here.

Teachers want to be valued...and recognized with cash.
Ill-informed political groups just want to throw more money (tax dollars) at it.

People....spending more money does not produce National Merit scholarships!  It takes a strong curriculum as a foundation with strong teaching as the framework.  And while we're at it....knock off the Dr. FeelGood grade inflation.

Maybe if we laid off the teaching 100 Chinese characters and instead developed a Latin program that would without question benefits students.  And let's not even talk about how our offering Mandarin Chinese plays in a world in which the Chinese government is involved in some pretty serious human rights issues.

The pudding is here in the National Merit semifinalists list, and it only proves that Sun Prairie is mediocre in terms of educational achievement.
What other conclusion is there other than that the really smart kids do not choose to attend SPHS?

In the Interest of Full Disclosure

The professional educators that spoke out this week in an attempt to cajole the school board into giving them not just a 2%, but a 3.1% raise were not providing full disclosure.

While their pleas are certain have touched a few hearts, we wonder if their pleas would have had any effect at all had they shared a little more information about their positions.

We heard very clear that they feel that they are undervalued...that they do not earn enough.

If we were practicing full disclosure, however, what we SHOULD have heard would go something like this..

• Hi...I'm a professional educator with 7 years teaching experience.
• My salary is $45,118; expressed as an hourly rate that is $29.68/hour.
• Oh...and my spouse earns a little over $50,000/year.
• Our household is really struggling with a combined income of only $95,000.
• I have my summers off, as well as a week off at Christmas, a week in the spring, and several days at Thanksgiving.
• I have many other options available to me to that allow me to enhance my salary.
• I just completed 6 credits towards my PhD. degree, so I will be receiving a 3% increase this year for that.
• I'm still "on the grid", so by virtue of completing another year of service, I will receive an additional 2% salary increase.
• With the 2%, 3%, plus the 2% raise you offer, I will earn an additional $3,157/year ($263/month).
• I feel that if you truly valued me, you would give me a 3.1% raise instead of only 2%.
• That extra $42/month will really show me that I'm valued.

How do you suppose THAT would have gone over?

Decepticons Targeting SPASD?

Those familiar with the Transformers movie series will know that the Decepticons are in forever in search of the AllSpark....the essence of life for Transformers.  Here in Sun Prairie we have the SPARClers, apparently led by Al Guyant, who shall be dubbed the AlSPARC.  Or...maybe, SPARC-Al?

At this past week's meetings of the full school board and the board's Finance Committee, Sun Prairie's liberal..errr...progressive..."SPARC" group (Sun Prairie Action Resource Coalition made its presence known.  Looks like the comments made previously by John Whalen have born fruit.  Someone has engaged SPARC in what appears to be an attempt to outmaneuver the school board regarding the budget.   This is exactly what we get for allowing Jim McCourt to do what he did autonomously at last year's annual meeting.

The SPARC-Al spoke in opposition to having a 2% levy DECREASE to the tax levy. [Wait...cutting property taxes is bad????]   He used some metaphor about the electrical industry and focused on what he called a 5% reduction.  "We wouldn't accept 95% in our electrical system, and we won't accept 95% for our kids", he said.

The problem we're having is that his speechifying is no less full of half-truths or outright embellishments than any other political candidate.  The proposed 2012-13 budget DOES NOT reduce our kids' education to 95% levels.  In fact, the only "cuts" made were to administrative departments (10%).  And even summed up, those "cuts" don't even reside in the same galaxy as even 1% of the overall $73.2M district budget.

But he kept tossing out that "We won't accept 95% for our kids", hoping to catch the ears of uninformed electorate.  Shame! Shame! Shame!

Don't fall for comments that the school board's proposed budget means only "95% for our kids".  There IS no 5% reduction to education.   There is only a 2% REDUCTION to property taxes.  School programs are fully (100%) funded.

Why can't these political groups speak the truth?  Why must they embark on some never-ending quest to distort information to serve their purposes.

Be prepared for the Annual Electors Meeting to be a SPARClefest.
It is clear, people, that the Annul Meeting has degraded into a war of who can bring the most people to force the school board (at least in their minds) to do their bidding.  We anticipate that SPARC will be rallying a large contingent with the express purpose of taking back the $2.4M in state aid which exceeds that necessary to operate and maintain schools.  Instead of a 2% reduction in the tax levy, they appear hell bent to push for a 2-3% tax levy increase.

Perhaps THAT is the 5% alluded to by SPARC-Al. Giving the $2.4M surplus back to the taxpayers (in the form a tax levy relief) amounts to roughly a 5% drop in the tax levy from what was initially proposed by district administration.

Some SAY that they want to put the $2.4M into fund balance..."for a rainy day".  Yeah ...right....like the district would ever keep it there.  This is the same district that used $600K of 2011-12" surplus (which COULD have been placed in fund balance) to purchases books for 2012-13.  We hear reports that some of these texts will not even be used.

Oh well...as Wayne Campbell would shout, "Game On!"

Teachers Declare They Deserve a 3.1% Wage Increase

Listen...we value teachers.  Really, we do.
But it borders on unmitigated gall for them to rally at the meeting at which the school board's Finance Committee was slated to approve the district's proposed budget for 2012-13 and forward it to the full board for final approval and adoption.

Where have you been?

Caren Diedrich actually got it right when she chastised the large group of teachers in the audience.   She asked, accusingly, "Where the hell were you 4...5....6 months ago?  We needed to hear from you long before our backs were up against the wall.  You cannot wait till the 11th hour."
Can you blames them for not coming off the lake to attend a public hearing?
Diedrich's point is well taken; where WERE these folks at the public hearings on the budget?  Oh...wait...those were during the summer.  Our bad...teachers are off all summer.

Forgive us if we offend...but frankly the whole attitude on display was offensive.

At best, seniors will likely get a 1.5% increase in Social Security

What make you more deserving than anyone else?
Do any of these teacher have parents living on social security?  We guess not.  Do you care about those folks?  The current projections for a COLA (Cost of living adjustment) for seniors on social security is a whopping 1.5% increase.  And that's on an income of less than $20K.  Gee...your 2% doesn't look so bad now does it?

State employees, who have had NO raises since 2008, will get NO RAISES for 2013.  Or likely in 2014 either.  Municipal employees are finding similar territory.  What about private sector workers who haven't even made up ground lost since 2008?

Again, forgive us, but this sense of entitlement is really getting old.  In our humble opinion, you are actually turning more people off than developing a rally around yourselves.

Can we stop with the sob stories?
"I'm not getting paid what my friends get paid, yet I'm more educated and work more hours..."
"I took a pay cut to come to Sun Prairie and it's taken me 10 years to get back.."
"[A 3.1% raise] would make us feel valued..."
"With a 2% increase and insurance changes I will earn less"
"I can't afford to take too many more hits [on my paycheck] before I need to choose something else"

Even curriculum leadership was tossed under the bus vs. coaching!
"We [coach] 4-5 hours per day for 5-6 days each week for a small stipend.  Not trying to bash the CLC stipends, but they don't put in the time that [coaches] do."

Again....do you people realize that people are losing their homes!  We watched as an in-home daycare provider --who may have cared for some of your kids-- lost their home to foreclosure.
You seem to forget that you pay less for your insurance benefits --and get better benefits--than state workers do.   The E/R co-pay for state workers has long been $75....which is STILL more than you pay with an increase.  Maybe save the E/R for...um...emergencies?  You folks get dental insurance--at very low expense, while most of the rest of us have to pay those costs out of pocket.  Are you even aware--do you even care--that state workers have to pay $600/year to get $500-$1000 worth of dental coverage?

The sob stories aren't working.  Many people that did NOT flood the meeting are worse off than you.  Seriously, there's a part of us that wants to say, "If you're not happy, then you know where the door is and watch that it doesn't smack your backside on the way out."  But we shouldn't say that...so we won't.  Because if you're not happy, you're probably less effective in your job anyway.  And this district is not going to be held hostage to making you happy.

It's not just 3.1% either; raises could be as high as 8.1%!
But they won't tell you that, will they?  This is the classic magician's game.  Focus on the raise and maybe people will forget about "the other stuff" they get.  Most of the public do not know that the current teachers contract calls for an automatic 2% "step increase" each year they teach.  Now, some teachers have taught so long that they "fall off the grid" and are therefore no longer eligible for the 2% increase

Then there are the "lane" increases.  Gain 6 credits (2 college courses) and you get a 3% increase!  So a younger teacher who was here last year, gets a 2% pay bump automatically.  If they've completed 6 credits, they get another 3% bump.  And now...2% MORE isn't good enough?  You could see a 7% increase yet you want to demand 8.1%? It's called reality and you need to come to grips with it.

And then there are a ton of other opportunities for additional "stipends" on top of salaries.  It has been estimated that as much as $1.8M per year is divvied out to staff for these other opportunities.   If one adds up budget lines 105,106,107, and 110 (Extracurricular, Summer school, Leadership Council and "Other" Salaries) the total for 2012-13 is $1.9M.   That would translate to over $3,000 for every single SPEA member.

And you're not earning enough?
As we said...we value what you do, but you try our patience.  For a group that keeps saying that you don't do it for the money, it seems to be all about the benjamins.

Why Policy Governance is a Cop-Out

Without calling it out as such, John Whalen and Caren Diedrich constantly extol the virtues of policy governance.  And in their minds--well, after July 30th we're clear that not even Caren Diedrich knows what's in her mind---the SPASD school board has historically operated on a principle of policy governance.

Apparently they did not get the memo.  Or their Cliff Notes was missing a few pages.

Because in their minds, the school board simply writes policy--or delegates the writing of policy to administration-- and then steps back with their rubber stamp firmly in hand.

The problem with a policy governance model is that at its very foundation is a committment to ADHERE to the policies.  We've just seen far too many cases where the school district and even the school board either "forget" or outright ignore their own policies.

Perhaps, in their defense, there are simply too many policies to remember.
Scratch that...even we can't begin to accept that rationale.
Plain and simply stated, policy governance will not work as a model when there is rampant abuse of policy and no consequences.  How do you get people to obey the speed limit?  Set up random speed traps.  Issue a few tickets.  Smacking people where they sit is a good motivator.

What exasperates this problem when it comes to Diedrich and Whalen, is that they believe that having to step in and fix things when they are broken constitutes micro-managing.  So...Mr. Whalen, and Ms. Diedrich...do you apply the same logic in your private lives?  If your financial advisor is making decisions that loses you money, is it "micro-managing" to step in and issue some directives to squelch the problem?  If you do not like the advice offered by your doctor, do you just blindly follow it, believing that to do otherwise would be "micro-managing"?

We think not.
And thus comes the real question...why do you apply different logic at the board table?

If you do not like what your own policies say/require, then by all means, bring them forward publicly and declare in public how you wish to change them... and the rationale to support the change.  Those are discussions we'd love to hear from you.  Of course, that would actually mean having to prepare a Situation Report.....

How Does One Make a Decision Without New Information?

Tomorrow night's agenda for the School Board's HR Committee included the following agenda item:

Sound of Sun Prairie Stipends

But....there are no documents attached. This is basically EXACTLY what was presented previously when the item was tabled.

RECOMMENDATION:
The Executive Director of Human Resources recommends that the Sound of Sun Prairie stipends as stated above, be approved and forwarded to the full board.
ATTACHMENTS:
None

HR Committee Minutes from 8-6-12

Caren Diedrich moved to approve and forward to the full board the 2012-2013 Athletic/Activity Payment Schedule with noted changes except for the Sound of Sun Prairie payment stipends.

Why is it that we have to look to the Sun Prairie STAR to learn WHY this item was tabled--an unusual move?  Shouldn't this have been included in the HR minutes?

Stipends were not approved for the Sound of Sun Prairie Marching Band, as a full report on the program is due to come before the board at a later date.-- SP Star 8-15-12

OK...so if a full report was requested and there is no such report attached to the agenda item, what specific new information will the committee now use to make a decision which they did not have previously?  What's the point of even having the discussion.

Or...did the HR Committee members --but NOT the general public--get a copy of the aforementioned report?
If that's the case, then double dog shame on the district for once again avoiding the light of day.  Who needs Twilight when we have our very own daylight shunning vampires here in SPASD?

Or has the sacred cow used its powers to sweep information that it does not wish to see the light of day underneath the rug?

Oh, so very many questions.  At first glance, [withholding information] is not something we would expect from Ms. Mikula.  So one big question is: if documents were withheld from the public eye, WHO ORDERED THE CODE RED?

The very simplest question we have is this:

How come we pay the SOSP folks MORE than athletics coaches, MORE than activity advisors...and most egregiously...almost 3 times MORE than we pay those teachers who are working on new curriculum????

Please, please tell us that there's a rationale we can support for this apparent nonsense.

Kicking Can Down the Road

Proposing to add $1,000,000 to the 2012-13 tax (debt) levy to help reduce the impact of 2013-14's debt levy increase is ludicrous; it reeks of ill-informed representation.

Thankfully, clear headed Mike Krachey quickly made a motion to table this nonsense.  But John Whalen made a comment (as if he knew something) that we would be discussing this again at the annual meeting.

Caren Diedrich gets partial credit for at least requesting a report from the district on the "bounceback" impact on future debt levies.  Of course requesting clarity from the district administration is like asking John Whalen to cast a vote in opposition to district wishes.  Temper your expectations.

According to documents provided by the district, the 2012-13 debt levy portion of the total proposed (school district) tax levy is $11,505,387. And the scheduled debt levy payment for 2013-14 is $12,365,565. That means an increase in the scheduled debt service levy of almost $1M, which translates to about a 2% total tax levy increase (2013-14) before we talk about a dime in annual expenditure increases. 

Finance Committee Citizen Rep Mike Hietpas is desperately trying to get the board to tax us $1M for 2012-13 for the purpose of reducing the debt levy for 2013-14. Well...truth be told, he initially wanted to simply add it to fund balance with no express purpose other than building savings. Someone must have quietly whispered to him that you cannot simply budget (tax) to increase fund balance with no express.

 But....but...hold on a second...according to other documents from the district, the "one-time additional state aid" ($350K) will be used to lower the debt levy for 2012-13. And didn't the district also tell us at last year's annual meeting that $450K in construction "savings" would be applied to lower the debt levy for 2012-13? Welll...that adds up to $800K to reduce the 2012-13 debt levy.

The question we have...and certainly it's not clear in district documents...is whether that $800K being applied THIS year means that instead of taxing $11.5M for debt service, will we actually be taxed only $10.7M?   Because if that is the case, then the bounceback for next year (2013-14) is not just $1M due to programmed debt service payments.  It becomes closer to $1.7M ($12.4M - $10.7M).

The concern with making one-time payments to reduce debt levy (or any tax levy) is that it becomes a game of kicking the can down the road one year at a time.  And that means that EACH successive year we need to tax more to kick the can further.  The only time this approach works is when the next fiscal year projects to see a scheduled REDUCTION in debt service payment.  For SPASD, the first time programmed increases in debt service payments occurs is in 2017-18 (5 years from now), when instead of increasing by $500K, the increase is only a bit over $100K.  The first time a scheduled reduction in debt service payment will occur is the year 2021-12, nine years from now.

So...in sum...don't hold your breath, and don't tax us to reduce further debt levy.

Now...if someone is barking up the "let's make an extra payment towards principal" tree, that is a separate issue which would have to be discussed.  That's the equivalent of winning $2,400 in the lottery and deciding whether to blow it all on vacations and other things or whether to make an extra payment or three on your mortgage to pay it off earlier/gain equity.

That is the root of our situation.  SPASD is projected to receive $2.4M more in state aid than it anticipated.  That is currently being applied to reduce the tax levy by 2% over last year instead of having an increase of 2.5% or more.   Gee...people are still struggling, the economy isn't that great (unless you're a 1%er)....maybe  giving a year of tax relief would be a good thing to do.  You know...maybe to buy some good will with the electorate  for 3-4 years from now when you (really) need a $20+M referendum for a new elementary school.

Wait...what's this thing called Debt Service Fund Balance?
You know...historically when the talking heads speak about "fund balance", they are referring to Fund 10, or the "General" Fund.  In reality, there are a number of "funds" (think of them as individual checking accounts) that comprise a school district's finances.    At the end of fiscal 2012-13, we are still projecting to have a little over $4M in Debt Service (fund 39) fund balance.  Hmmm.

Perhaps the bigger issue is that the Debt Service fund balance is slated to drop almost $900K for 2012-13.  Hmmmm...we don't recall that ever being discussed.  Is THIS the magic holding pen for the $350K and the $450K being applied against this year's debt levy?

Oh happy day...we get to use one of our top all-time phrases here.  It would seem that our questions here would suggest that the budget information presented by the district is tantamount to exegesis without clarity.
Look that up in your F&Ws.  In any event, we can't be having any of this exegesis without clarity nonsense.

2 People Does Not a School District Electorate Make

So...why are we suddenly talking about putting money into fund balance this year?
That idea came from TWO...that's right...EXACTLY TWO people who attended the August 16th Budget Hearing.

We seem to recall a certain resident being concerned at the July 30th meeting about "proposals" that come out of the woodwork.  We think this fits that bill.

Oh...and it gets better...those two people BOTH have direct ties to the district.  Hmmmm...sensing a plant scenario here.
We don't need to "out" these folks, but one is currently an SPASD teacher and the other happens to be a citizen representative on the Finance Committee whose WIFE happens to be an SPASD teacher.

Gee...does that mean that when two citizens that normally attend Finance and School Board meetings speak out , THEIR wishes should be taken up by the board?

Kudos to board member Mike Krachey, who sits on the Finance Committee, for sniffing out the whole "let's put money into fund balance" and subsequently making a successful motion to postpone any fund balance discussion until December or January.

Shame on Administration...or was it Finance Chair John Whalen's work....for bringing forward a folly supported by exactly two people who both have ties to the district.  Shouldn't we have a little stronger c=omposition of the electorate before suggesting any moves to the budget?