Saturday, February 09, 2008

Facts and Fictions

The following piece of fiction is from the district's levy FAQ page:

How Was the Cut/Reduction List Developed and What are the Cuts?

The list was developed using a combination of factors including the independent State Standard Analysis Report and the cut list from the 2004 operating levy. The superintendent stated that his intent was to protect core instruction as much as possible.

When asked, the district could provide no proof that the State Standards Analysis Report was ever used for planning purposes.[1] And, this is for certain, the board never discussed this report publicly. The board never once reviewed this report. That is fiscal irresponsibility.

Had the board reviewed this report when it was issued two years ago, they could have cleared with ease the $2 million deficit reported for FY09.

Yet, in the interim, the district carried on, business as usual, spending close to $300 million. Don't you think that with a little planning, the district could have found 7/10th's of a percent in cost savings over that time?

But here we are with a superintendent crying the end of the world, telling tales to get his levy passed. The reality is that, if the levy fails, the district negotiates a fair contract -- fair to teachers and taxpayers -- and programs remain.

Simple solutions to a superintendent's spending problem.


notes: I've posted on this report many times. It has as much chance of speaking its truths in public as Scott Galloway. The Galloway watch is fast approaching two weeks -- bunker mentality I suppose.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Great point. Thank you for posting the links to the State Standards Analysis on past posts. This was a real eye opener when I read it and district residents need to be reminded of it at every opportunity.

So, what we have is a situation where the administration and board are inflicting great sacrifice and pain among the many (cutting busing and other ESSENTIAL services) by not having the political will to demand minor discomfort from the few (holding the line on teachers' salaries and cutting wasteful spending. Cutting strings alone would bridge 30% of the $2M deficit.

In light of these commonsense solutions not being applied one has to conclude that the administration and board never had an interest in plugging the deficit.

Anonymous said...

I and the vast majority of my neighbors are absolutely tired of feeding this monster at ever increasing rates. Rates that are increasing much higher that that of inflation, wages, and certainly property values.

This district needs to hold salary increases to no more than an average of 3% each year just like in the private sector. The district also needs to fund employee health care in the same manner.

If you really think about it, why should the taxpayer, someone getting a 3% raise and worsening and more expensive health care each year, fund huge raises and great health care via his/her taxes?

I'm going to need to see more fiscal restraint before I vote yes to any school issue.

Anonymous said...

At the very least the administration should expect teachers to pay more of their healthcare, instead of the $10 or $20 per pay cycle they currently pay. More than $500 is taken out of my check monthly to pay for coverage that is nowhere near as good as what teachers have.