Ouch! The Springer Stinger

You got to love this -- OFK is sending out an email refuting the issues and facts I've posted on this blog. As you read, ask yourself this: Why does OFK feel that their supposed $80,000 levy campaign (partially paid by district contractors) is threatened by this blog and its facts?

Let me start with my favorite.

Springer quotes a blog post over at SaveTheHilliardSchools.blogspot.com by some unverified poster named Dave. She does not provide Dave's complete comment. Here is a little more wisdom from Dave: "I think our Olentangy levy will not pass. I think they have asked for too much and threatened the voters. I'll be in favor of a trimmed down honest version." Unlike Springer, I've provided the link.

Then there are these whoppers:

-- Springer states that I was instrumental in developing the Davis contract. True. But the issue is not the original one. The issue is the amended contract approved last June, when I was no longer on the board. The board amended Davis's contract and changed his performance bonus to a guaranteed bonus. In fact, the board approved his bonus for this fiscal year last June. Did you get that? The board stated in June, 2007, that Davis already satisfied his performance for 07-08. In addition, the board added close to $400,000 in potential post-employment liabilities. Shameful for the board. Shameful for Springer. By the way, I posted his contract here.

-- Springer quotes Stacy Overly as some unbiased expert on school district cash management. Overly works for Baird, a company that will make hundreds of thousands from the bond portion of the levy. Unbiased? Huh.

But, read the Overly comment, he never states the next claim that Springer makes regarding bond ratings and cash balances. Why not? Because it's not true. The Overly comment is found here, click on Opinion on Cash Balances.

-- Springer disputes my claim that school-related local property taxes are rising at double inflation. She wants to know which time frame I used in making that claim. Look back 10 years. Or, look out 3 years. This levy is close to a 25% increase in your local school district property tax, and it will only last 3 years. That is almost an 8% annualized increase. More than double inflation.

-- Springer never refutes my claim that teacher salaries are rising by 6.5%. She only states that I never voted against such raises. Sure, I held my nose many times while serving on the board, but my past errors are no reason to continue down a faulty path. What you learn on the board is that the majority will spend whatever it can. The best the minority can do is fight for lower increases.

-- Closing schools. Yes, Springer and OFT love that threat. But the attorney only opined on the information provide by Davis. I tried to get clarification from the attorney and a copy of the Davis information from the district. Alas, no one is talking. You can read this sordid affair here.

Of course, there are the expected ad hominem. While such attacks make good politics, they are light on substance.

Really, just go back to the Dave comment to see the games being played over at OFK. Whatever happened to truth? Times change I suppose.

Olentangy Levy -- Voter Check-List

Here's a final check list as you prepare to vote. I encourage you to read all my other postings so you can understand that there is no need for the March levy.

Let's focus on just five of the things we know:

1. The $10.5 million in cuts is not required.
2. Bond investment is available and can be used.
3. The administration and board have no intent on negotiating tighter contracts.
4. Schools cannot be closed to the public, churches are safe.
5. The last year(s) of all district levies have deficit spending.

Additional explanation:

1. The cuts list is a threat; plain and simple.
2. The fact that there is bond investment income means that the district is not selling bonds only when bond money is needed. I don't think anyone wants the district to sit on a pile of bond money -- funded by tax dollars -- so that investment income can be earned. The board will consider this option after the levy fails.
3. The negative balance in FY09 is cleared by tighter negotiations. It's that simple. The district is not currently proposing this as a solution, but it will after the levy fails.
4. The district can't close schools to the public. Never could. State laws will not allow it.
5. Deficit spending in the out-years of a levy is normal, in fact all district levies are structured that way -- including the one on the ballot.

Kicking Churches Out of Schools

Pass or fail, I learned a lot during this levy campaign. One aspect of the campaign that troubles me most is desire of the superintendent and board to close school buildings to churches, should the levy fail. Why is this so troubling?

Many Christians lament the fact that God is no longer welcome in public education. They believe that a faceless government has done this, against their will, and against their beliefs. Yet, come levy time, some of these very same folks play God as a bargaining chip: "If we can't have our levy, you can't have your church!"

Think about that for a minute. The superintendent and board is looking to use God and His Church as a means to pass a levy. In this instance, need has no meaning. Such a stand is pure arrogance and disobedience. Christians threatening churches is an action to mourned. But they've done it, and they are doing it.

I noted the lilt and glee coming from the board during the discussion of the threatened cuts.[1] Not one defense of taxpayer, community, parent, or church. It was as if closing the schools to churches is a good thing -- or, at least a good threat. Shouldn't someone have protested? Alas, there was no voice in the wilderness.

There is no need for the proposed cuts, pass or fail. This district faced a situation that was much worse in FY03.[2] Yet, no cuts were made in FY04. Different board, different superintendent.

Instead of taking the high road and negotiating contracts in favor of the taxpayer, the district is claiming that it will kick churches out of its buildings should the levy fail.[3] That really troubles me. It should trouble you.

The next time that someone laments the removal of God from public education, remember that it's not always some faceless government doing this, it may just be our friends and neighbors doing it for some worldly reason.

Something to think about.

notes:
[1] The audio is available on the district web site.
[2] The deficit for FY05 was greater than the current deficit, and, the district's valuation was much lower. Greater deficit with less resources.
[3] As I have posted many times, the district cannot close its buildings to churches, or any organization for that matter, should the levy pass and the cuts enacted.

Olentangy levy: The Taxpayer Summary

There's really nothing more to say about the Olentangy levy. I am reposting my executive summary -- actually taxpayer summary. I encourage you to read all my other postings so you can understand that there is no need for the March levy.

Let's focus on just five of the things we know:

1. The $10.5 million in cuts is not required.
2. Bond investment is available and can be used.
3. The administration and board have no intent on negotiating tighter contracts.
4. Schools cannot be closed to the public, churches are safe.
5. The last year(s) of all district levies have deficit spending.

Additional explanation:

1. The cuts list is a threat; plain and simple.
2. The fact that there is bond investment income means that the district is not selling bonds only when bond money is needed. I don't think anyone wants the district to sit on a pile of bond money -- funded by tax dollars -- so that investment income can be earned. The board will consider this option after the levy fails.
3. The negative balance in FY09 is cleared by tighter negotiations. It's that simple. The district is not currently proposing this as a solution, but it will after the levy fails.
4. The district can't close schools to the public. Never could. State laws will not allow it.
5. Deficit spending in the out-years of a levy are normal, in fact all district levies are structured that way -- including the one on the ballot.

Olentangy Levy -- Breaking News: A District Flush with Cash

Important news ... Please read carefully.


Two recent reports show that Olentangy is a district flush with cash.

As always, I have provided either the document or its link. Take some time to read these financial statements in order to understand the district's financial condition. I encourage you to research, ask questions, and learn.

By the way: You won't find this analysis at the Olentangy for Kids website. They just stick to the district spin. And, when I was involved with the committee (even chaired it), my numbers and analysis were consider the end; the final answer. Now that I don't like their levy, they don't like my numbers and analysis. Oh, well. Such is life.


First -- The monthly Comparative Statement of Receipts and Expenditures

The statement below -- reported to the board last night -- shows that revenue is up and expenses are down. Likely, though it's too early to be certain, the ending negative balance for next fiscal year -- the reason for the levy -- will be gone when the district updates its Five-Year Financial Forecast in May.

The deficit is gone! No need for a levy.

(note: Click on the document to enlarge. Also, the second analysis follows this document.)

Second -- Investment Income

The district's latest Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) is now available on the state auditor's website. This CAFR reports financial activities within the district for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2007 (FY07).

Once again, the district is reporting bond investment income -- $4.7 million worth. Over the past three fiscal years, the district has reported $9.6 million in investment income. And, more is being generated this fiscal year.

This money is available to be used for operating expenses. There is no need for the levy.

While it is true that money generated through bond sales cannot be used for operating expenses -- in fact such money must be used in the manner specified on the ballot, the investment earnings can be used for operating expenses. And, most likely, they will be used for expenses that are typically funded through the general fund.

There is no need for this new levy. There is more than enough available through the investment income alone to offset any negative year ending balance for FY09.

Oh, sure, the administration and levy committee will state that the investment income was approved by voters for future capital expenses. But, that contradicts the claim that the district only sells bonds when needed. In order to earn investment income, the district must have excess bond funds to invest. Therefore, bonds were sold before they were needed; if they are even needed at all.

The district typically puts more debt on the ballot than will be needed to fund the capital projects listed. There is a reason for that: to protect against rising and hidden costs. It is a contingency plan. Makes sense, but this pot of money is not supposed to continually grow.

The voters never approved a large bond fund to be used as a means to generate investment income. That money -- your tax dollars -- should be in your account generating investment income for you.

So, the district sells more bonds than needed, before they are needed, builds up a pot on bond funds as an investment tool, all the while claiming it is out of cash. Hmmm. Doesn't sound too honest to me.

See if the levy committee addresses either of these documents. Likely, they won't as these truths don't match their story. But, ask them anyway.

Olentangy Levy: True costs

Annually, school districts in Ohio create a Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR), an audited document that provides different views of costs, expenditures, and revenue. Olentangy's latest CAFR -- found here on the state auditor website -- provides a simply way to get beyond the spin and into true district expenses.

The administration and Olentangy for Kids have been touting the district's costs per pupil as if their number details the total cost of running district operations. But, the Ohio Deparment of Education figure being used does not include real costs that any business would consider in its financial reports; namely interest, depreciation, etc.

Using accrual-based accounting, district costs per pupil soar from the advertised $8,507 per pupil to the true cost of $11,111. Shocked?

Well, you shouldn't be. Note that, despite the spin coming out of the district and levy committee, you are taxed for both operating and capital expenses. [1]

Consider this contrived example: Ask the manager of the local Burger King what the cost is to produce one hamburger. He thinks, and then states (say) 50 cents. You question him on that number and he says that salaries, benefits, beef, bun, etc, total only 50 cents, as if there are no capital costs associated with his store. The manager has understated his costs, just as the district understates its costs.

Read the CAFR and learn the true cost of education in Olentangy, your taxes paid for it.

note:
[1] The district is ranked 31st highest for bond millage rate out of the 614 districts in Ohio.