The Discussions We Will and Won't Have

It's kind of a moot point now that the state aid projections have been released, but as a lesson for the future, we still think the District and Board need to get on the same page.

The discussions we no longer need to have.

The School Board approved spending $350,000 of fund balance.
Partial credit.  Absolutely, the board voted that.  BUT...what they leave out is that the board made that vote with the express purpose of reducing the tax levy.  NOT as a placeholder to spend additional money.  We suppose in some warped thinking pattern, one could rationalize that since (in the district's eyes) the $350,000 was still earmarked for spending, as if the school board's action was simply a means to justify the district's end to spend $350K more.  In that case, using the money from fund balance actually ends up serving to reduce the levy which could have been.  But that thinking is seriously messed up.  For $120,000+ per year in salary, we expect more pragmatic, fiscally sound, thinking.  Shoulda...coulda...wouldas have no place in budgeting.

The school board removed $75,000 [from the budget] for the Human Resources & Recruitment Specialist.
Yep...they did. But what part of "remove" don't you people understand.  A visit to Webster will tell you that "remove" means to eliminate, to take away.  And...oh most highly paid ones....if something is removed, it's not there to be spent.

The School Board reduced the Building and Grounds budget by $150,000+.
Again with the Language Arts problems.  Now we see why SPASD will never hit the 90% Proficient/Advanced mark on the Language Arts portion of the WKCE.  Hello!  McFly!  If the budget is reduced, then THAT money is no longer there either.  And how can something not there be unallocated.  You've heard of the un-cola?  This is like un-money.

The district will save $150,000 on insurance (worker’s compensation, liability,& property).
We'll give 'em partial credit on this one too.  Yes, it is indeed an awesome thing that the district negotiated this savings. And because they did, we think this is the kind of money that COULD be available to support additional budget initiatives.

The parallel here is in your own household budgets.  If you budget for monthly gasoline costs based on a $3.75/gallon rate and the cost of gas drops to $3.00/gallon (yeah...right) then the difference in cost is additional money for which you budgeted (and for which one assumes you have the revenue).  Therefore you could instead use the savings to take your significant other out to a fancy restaurant....(but probably skip the $350 bottle of "Ryan" wine).  The difference here, folks, is that the district gets HALF its revenue from the taxpayers.  So...does spending this $150K come at a cost to the taxpayers?  Or should it be up to the taxpayers to decide whether it gets spent, or put back into the taxpayers' pockets?   See the problem?


Gone, Baby, Gone
This slide is great.  This is where the District finally sees that there is no unallocated money.  Granted, they still don't understand that there was never any money to be available to be unallocated....but at least they understand that there is no money now.

The discussion we now need to have

We have 3.5%....Do We Hear 4.7%?
This energizer bunny of a district just will not quit!
So, we have "no more unallocated money"...
The district would like to add one or more initiatives, the total tab for which is $$600,000...
They don't think they should have to cut anything...
...and so the only other option is to change the school board's budget parameter of a tax levy increase not to exceed 3.5%.  If the board votes to fund all of these initiatives, that's a 37.5% increase in the tax levy we've discussed thus far.  The tax levy increase would rise to 4.7% (or more).

And this when other districts are REDUCING the tax levy from 2010-11 levels.
WTF! 

OurDough Pants Discovered; District Switches to StashItWear

We must speak quickly. They're on to us.
The District knows that we've discovered their top secret OurDough pants.
They have subsequently switched tactics. Our intel reports suggest that they now are equipped with StashitWear! Be on the alert.

And Now.. A Taste of Things To Come?

Last night, school district administrators agreed to a contract "negotiation" salary and benefits package. In what was expected by some to be a protracted battle, administrations representatives simply said, "We'll take it", regarding the school board's offer:

1% SALARY INCREASE

1% ADDITIONAL PAY TOWARDS HEALTH INSURANCE

2% ADDITIONAL PAY TOWARDS DENTAL INSURANCE

There was some talk from Caren Diedrich about the school board changing its offer from initial...we wonder what it was initially.
Could the 1% be the magic number that was buried within the budget for raises?

There are many that will think, "They shouldn't get any raise at all...their [insert expletive here] salaries should be frozen".

....and we're inclined to agree.

However...the simple reality is that there are not 4 elected board members who collectively own a pair of cojones to freeze salaries. That is the fact, Jack.

WE the community elected them, so WE the community need to take responsibility for their lack of ...er....parts. Perhaps at next spring's elections, the community will take a deeper interest in candidates and support only those candidates who possess the required...let's say intestinal fortitude....to stand firm and represent the community's interests as well as they support education. Raises for administrators are not going to get our kids to scholarship levels.

A roadmap for other "contracts"?
Like dominoes toppling over in sequence, this agreement should establish the market for Administrative Support, Substitute Teachers, Local 60, and....come next spring...teachers.
Let the message ring loudly and clearly: 1% is the best you're going to get in this economy...and you WILL be paying a higher share of insurance premiums (except Local 60, who have been screwed for years).

We suspect we'll take some hits for this, but kudos to the school board for finally showing some semblance of fiscal restraint. Now let the other dominoes tumble and revise the budget DOWNWARD. This was the most community-friendly deal that the current school board was going to get done. And for at least a majority of them...even this deal is quite amazing. It may not be cost-neutral, but when one factors in the out-of-pocket costs associated with the 1% more towards health insurance (they are paying 4% now) and 2% more (it was 0%) towards dental, the percentage is much less than 1%. Remember this is the group that felt they were "entitled" to a 4.5% package increase last year, but "settled" for 3.8%.

If the average administrator makes $90K, a 1% increase is about $900.

Paying and additional 1% for health and 2% dental costs about $350-$400.

That means a net increase of about $500 for family insurance premiums. That, folks, we can live with.

Dear school board...nicely done. Keep the dominoes falling.

Administration Works to Resolve Property Tax "Bounce-back"...NOT!

Remember that ultimately annoying, but maniacally gleeful cry of "NOT!" shouted out by characters Wayne Campbell or Garth Algar (of SNL's "Wayne's World" fame) immediately following any insincere comment? That's what immediately comes to mind as we read through the district's proposals for "budget reductions".

Oh yes...the proposed "budget cuts" have been released, and will be up for discussion at next Monday's (11-23-09) school board meeting.

You'll recall that ultimate goal was to respond to the school board directive to "find" at least $1.1M in budget cuts for this year (2009-10) in order to limit the amount of fund balance required to balance the budget to about $800K.

"Logic would dictate...", as Spock so frequently began his monologues, that any such "cuts" would have been geared towards those permanent in nature. Permanent cuts are necessary to avoid the "bounce-back" to property taxes next year. Of course, since when does the district administration proceed according to some logical path?

The annual operating budget for 2009-10 is $68,800,000.
The amount of permanent cuts proposed: $21,000.

That's right. We didn't forget any zeros. These proposed "permanent" measures trim this year's spending by 0.023% and future spending by no more than 0.03%. And actually, that percentage will drop lower due to the District's propensity for increasing it's budget at a rate of 5-6% annually.

Guess the school board needed to be more clear in their directive.
Or does administration really see what transpired at October 12's annual meeting as an isolated "glitch", and the community will gladly dig deep into their pockets next year, and all future years, to shell out phenomenal property tax increases?

Of course, if we all received compensation approaching $150,000 per year, we might feel that way, too. NOT!!!!

Now the State Itself Gets Thrown Under the Bus!!!!!

MORE FUZZY MATH FROM ADMINISTRATION!!!!

The School District released its salvo of budget dis-information this week. Read the dis-information

Gotta hand it to 'em for maintaining a straight face as they blame 71% of the tax levy increase on the reduction is state aid.

Hello! You knew you were getting less state aid. You COULD choose to tighten your belt fiscally. Instead you gave what amounted to raises of over 4.0 % to administration and admin support staff. The school board rewarded some people already earning over $32.00 hour with raises of up to $2.50 per hour! Oh...but they're not going to mention that!

Isn't it funny that exactly the amount of tax levy NOT associated with debt service is totally attributed to cuts in state aid? And fuzzy math somehow makes a 4% aid cut into a 12% cut. It;s not that we spent $5M more this year...it's that we will receive $5M less.

" 71% of this increase is due to the reduction in state aid for schools. Historically, the school district has received annual increases of 8% in state aid (average over the last five years.) This year, we will see a 4.1% decrease in state aid, which results in a net loss of 12.1% in state aid. This net loss of $3.7 million is equal to 71% of the total tax levy increase of $5.2 million. "
--- School District flyer

How does 4.1% decrease become a 12.1% decrease in the same sentence????

Shame on the board and Administration.

• You KNEW the state was reducing equalized aid.
• ...and you knew what the cut would be.
• You COULD have tightened your belt and exercised fiscal restraint.
• But you didn't. Instead you opted to take it out of struggling taxpayers.
• And then you blame the state.