A note from Freedom Watch

An interesting note from Freedom Watch -- Jim

Spending the Money of Future Generations

From: Bernhard1848@att.net


American patriots like Robert Hayne followed Jefferson's admonition that the national debt was not something to be passed on to future generations, and most presidents of that era and until the War Between the States endeavored to pay the debts incurred under their administrations before leaving office. In encouraging an unending public debt, Webster was promoting the American System of Whig politician Henry Clay which would give the government an endless supply of money with which to buy influence and power.

Bernhard Thuersam, Executive Director
Cape Fear Historical Institute
Post Office Box 328
Wilmington, NC 28402
www.CFHI.net



Spending the Money of Future Generations:

"The gentleman from Massachusetts (Webster), in alluding to a remark of mine that before any disposition could be made of the public lands, the national debt (for which they stand pledged) must be first paid, took occasion to intimate (that Southerners desire to pay the national debt) "arises from a disposition to weaken the ties which bind the people to the Union." But, adds he gentleman, "so far as the debt may have an effect in binding the debtors to the country, and thereby serving as a link to hold the States together, he would be glad that it should exist forever." Surely then, sir, on the gentleman's own principles, he must be opposed to the payment of the debt.

Sir, let me tell that gentleman that the South repudiates the idea that a pecuniary dependence on the Federal Government is one of the legitimate means of holding the States together. A monied interest in the Government is essentially a base interest...it is opposed to all the principles of free government and at war with virtue and patriotism. In a free government, this principle of abject dependence if extended through all the ramifications of society must be fatal to liberty. Already we have made alarming strides in that direction.

The entire class of manufacturers, the holders of stocks with their hundreds of millions in capital, are held to the Government by the strong link of pecuniary interests; millions of people, entire sections of the country, interested, or believing themselves to be so, in the public lands and the public treasure, are bound to the Government by the expectation of pecuniary favors. If this system is carried on much further, no man can fail to see that every generous motive of attachment to the country will be destroyed, and in its place will spring up those low, groveling, base and selfish feelings which bind men to the footstool of despots by bonds as strong and as enduring as those which attach them to free institutions."

(The Webster-Hayne Debate on the Nature of the Union, Herman Belz, Editor, Liberty Fund, 2000, pp. 42-43. Speech of Robert Y. Hayne of South Carolina, January 25, 1830)

Olentangy Levy: Parents Blinked

Frightened by your own board.

It certainly appears that threats work. But, to be threatened by your own elected officials and paid bureaucrats. Well ...

A little push and the board wouldn't have cut your busing -- it had no reason to cut that or any program. In your hearts, you knew it. Yet, you cowed under pressure of your own elected officials. Democracy at work, I assume.

Really, 10 parents in the boardroom are enough for any board to question its decisions. Make that 50 parents, and busing would have stayed, along with everything else.

Keep in mind that accountability is a two-way street. The community must be willing to stare down the board and administration every now and again. Otherwise, in their own minds, the board and administration grow more and more conceited. Olentangy saw that in the 90's, and I expect that we will see it again.

So, as the board and superintendent stared, the parents blinked. The result is this: Parents gave the board and superintendent a mandate to do whatever they choose. Whether the next issue is likely high salary increases, perverse books, or something else -- parents, do not complain. Your blink allowed whatever power you once held to pass from community to board and superintendent.

Transportation for control -- a Faustian bargain of sorts.

It was as simple as that.

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.

What Olentangy for Kids is not saying

1. Local school district property taxes have been rising at an annualized rate of over 7%.

Is this rate of increase -- double inflation -- due to something special about education in Olentangy? Yes. The average employee has been reaping yearly salary increases of close to 6.5%, plus projected increases for health insurance of 12%; far, far above the private sector.

2. The levy on the ballot will increase operating millage by almost 30%.

That's a huge increase, isn't it? But, as I have previously written, the money is not for the kids, it's for salaries and benefits. The district is facing a $2 million deficit -- which can be covered by reduced salary increases and controlled insurance costs -- yet the superintendent plans to cut $10.5 million. Why such large cuts? To supposedly punish parents should the levy fail. All about the kids? Huh. It's all about the ego of the superintendent. Oh, and your hard-earned tax dollars.

3. The district does not need to cut $10.5 million.

Olentangy for Kids is supposed to be separate from the administration, yet they have appear to take marching orders from district officials. The district simply needs to balance its books for FY09. Since the treasurer just reported that revenue is up and expenditures are down, the district will likely show a positive cash balance for FY09 when it files its updated Five-Year Financial Forecast in May (read this previous post for more details). In addition, the district can also reduce expenditures by controlling costs as it negotiates with its unions. FY09 is safe: there is no need for this levy.

Olentangy Levy: hiding money under the mattress

The Olentengy School District claims that it is in dire need of another property tax levy. Things are bad, and the district is running on a shoestring. Yet ...

The Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) is the audited document that details the financial position of the Olentangy School District. It's lengthy and a little esoteric for average readers, but it is a wealth of information.

The CAFR -- available on the district and state auditor websites -- is addressed to the board and community. In a representative form of government, the community gives the power and responsibility of governance to its elected officials. So, board members need to read the CAFR and understand all of its nuances, yet I would bet that all but a few of past and current board members have ever taken the time to read this important report. The nonreading board members simply allow the administration to run the schools. These board members take their pay but do no work. Shameful.

In addition to the CAFR, the district is required by state law to create a Five-Year Forecast every October, with an update every May. In addition, the district is supposed to update the forecast whenever a significant change occurs to its financial position.

The board approves the Five-Year Forecast and any subsequent updates, after which the forecast is sent to the state department of education (ODE). The latest version of the forecast is available on both the district and ODE websites.

A momentary diversion. The district earns investment income from surplus operating funds -- cash -- invested in a number of investment vehicles. The income from these investments is deposited back to the operating fund. The district also earns investment income from the cash received from the sale of bonds; cash that has not yet been used to pay construction costs. The income from these investments is initially deposited into the building funds.

School districts cannot use revenue generated from the sale of construction bonds for operating expenses, but districts can use the investment income resulting from these bonds for any purpose, subject to board approval.

OK, we have a CAFR and a Five-Year Forecast, as well as investment income from operating surpluses and bond sales.

The Five-Year Forecast is reporting an approximate $2 million shortage for FY 2009. This is the reason for the dire need for a March 2008 levy. However, the 2006 CAFR reports over $3 million in investment income resulting from construction bonds. They more than wash.

Keep in mind that additional investment income was generated in FY07, with more being generated this fiscal year.

It is prudent for the district to hold onto some money as a contingency should something occur during construction. However, since the majority of construction will be completed by the start of FY09, the majority of the investment income will be freed from contingency planning and available to be moved to the operating fund.

The administration will certainly recognise this money once the levy passes. That's what they did when I served on the board. The investment income simply appears when the superintendent has a pet project to fund. This year will be the same.

So, the questions to be answered in just a few weeks are these: Why has the district refused to recognize its stash of bond investment income as operating funds in order to wipe away the FY09 negative balance on the October Five-Year Forecast? Why are the superintendent, board, and now Olentangy for Kids, pushing an issue that is not needed? Don't they respect the community anymore?

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.

Money for Nothing

My latest article published by the Ludwig von Mises Institute (Mises.org).


Money for Nothing

By Jim Fedako
Posted on 11/16/2007
[Subscribe or Tell Others]

digg it


If you want to expose the absurdity of the state, think governmental accounting. Really, there is no better way to show the impossibility of a government solution to scarcity than by reading the annual audit of any governmental entity.

Goethe considered double-entry bookkeeping — the essence of accounting — to be "one of the finest inventions of the human mind." For without accounting, we lose the ability to calculate, and without the ability to calculate, modern civilization is impossible.

Accounting lets the entrepreneur know whether he earned a profit, utilizing scarce resources in order to produce something of greater value. Accounting also lets the entrepreneur know whether activities he performs are better outsourced, or, conversely, whether he should expand into new orders of production. In essence, accounting directs the entrepreneur toward activities that satisfy the wants of the consumer.[1]

Government accounting is a true oxymoron. We can determine the cost of government, but what about the value produced? What is the product? What is its value? What is the bottom line? Of course, these unanswered questions do not stop government from playing business, pretending to create value and profit for society.

Governmental entities operate under the cash basis of accounting, tracking cash in and cash out. To direct their activities, these entities create budgets that list revenue and expenditures. Accounting then is simply the recording of cash flows against the budget. In this world, the cheered concept of fiscal accountability is the process of reporting how close the entity's final revenue and expenditures matched its approved budget. And nothing more.

This is an important point to note: whenever government officials speak of fiscal accountability, they are only considering approved budget versus actual spending. They are not referring to worthiness of expenditures, only whether or not they spent revenue according to the budget, with no outright theft of money. Oh, sure, the officials will claim that fiscal accountability means that money was spent on productive activities since, as expected, it is assumed by the governmental entity that only productive activities were approved in the budget. Circular reasoning.

With cash accounting, the cost of infrastructure investments — roads, bridges, buildings, etc. — is reported in the year it occurs, though the capital assets continue to have value or usefulness for years. Reporting cash flow misses the complete financial picture of the government entity, leaving this question unanswered: is it in a better financial position than the year before?

To answer that question, the Government Accounting Standards Board issued its Statement 34 in 1999. Annual reports that satisfy this statement supposedly detail the financial health of governmental entities as if these entities were profit-oriented businesses. Reporting is now done on the accrual basis of accounting, and assets are depreciated over their lifetime. This change provides a bottom line: net assets. With a view of either increasing or decreasing assets over liabilities, we can now determine a profit or loss of sorts.

Under this logic, when a governmental entity has more net assets this year than the prior year, it is in a better financial state — it has achieved a profit. Government can now report to its constituents whether or not it was able to take scarce resources and turn them into something of greater value. Socialism, here we come.

But not so fast. Government assets are the product of theft, not the result of satisfying the wants of consumers. A governmental entity with increasing assets is simply stealing more from taxpayers year after year. Ironically, the same holds true for a governmental entity that has decreasing assets. In either situation, more is being thieved, with nothing of value being created.

The implication is that a governmental entity that increases its tax revenue faster than its expenditures is performing a service for its constituents; the entity is achieving a profit for the taxpayers. Conversely, a governmental entity in a deficit cycle is creating a loss for its taxpayers. So, the more a government confiscates, the better off the taxpayers. Does that make sense? Down is up, and up is down. Somewhere, somehow, we ventured down the rabbit hole.

It is as if we are to cheer a government that taxes and builds since increasing assets count as profit, not waste. The public school district that builds a $50 million high school is bettering its financial position. Whether or not the high school produces anything of value is of no consideration. In government accounting, the cost itself is a benefit.[2] Of course, that is not how businesses serve the consumer, but, with government, we are through the looking glass.

The difference between government and business is the chain of taxation versus the dollar vote. The public school district taxes regardless of value produced. Once the bond issue passes the voters, the bill must be paid, to be enforced by the long, strong arm of government. On the other hand, the entrepreneur must face the consumer every day, product in hand, hoping to make a sale. The consumer can as easily bypass as enter his store, based on a whim if he so chooses. The taxpayer? Well, just try to hide.

If government is of the people, and I am one of the people, shouldn't I include changes in the net assets of my local school district in my financial portfolio? Since the local schools are my schools — or so the mantra goes — don't those changes have an impact on my finances? Shouldn't I record changes of district assets in my ledger?

Moreover, shouldn't I be able to sell my shares of the supposed public good and use the resulting proceeds for my benefit? Yes, I should. But, as I learned growing up in Allegheny County in southwestern Pennsylvania, the sign that reads, "Keep out, Property of Allegheny County," does not refer only to those who live outside the county; it means that even the taxpayers of Allegheny County have no right to that property.

The bottom line — increasing government net assets — is not my property; never was; never will be.


Jim Fedako, a homeschooling father of five who lives in Lewis Center, OH, maintains a blog: Anti-Positivist. Send him mail. See his archive. Comment on the blog.

Notes
[1] Of course, accounting has changed as taxation creates financial incentives to beat the taxman by showing as little profit as possible, but that is another article.
[2] During the Cold War, both the US and Soviet governments calculated Soviet GDP to include tractors rusting on the plains of the Ukraine. That the tractors had no real value to the local farmer was not considered. With government, cost is always recorded as value.

Olentangy Levy: Short of repetition, there's nothing more to say

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 four 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: What about my current tax burden?

Glad you asked.

The Ohio Department of Taxation reports the tax effort -- burden -- for each district in Ohio. Tax burden is defined as the amount of local school district taxes collected as a percentage of personal income. Despite the spin to the contrary, Olentangy has a relatively high tax burden. In fact, the district is the 101st highest ranked out of the state's 614 districts based on the tax department's latest report. It's all right here in Appendix D.


note: School-related property taxes in Olentangy are rising at an annualized rate of over 7% per year, meaning that school-related property taxes are taking an ever-increasing portion of the incomes of district residents. In fact, the district tax burden has increased 61% over the latest seven year's worth of department data.

Olentangy Levy: Three Card Monte

OK, here is a screenshot of the district's latest Five-Year Financial Forecast.[1] You will note the red circle near the bottom. This figure, and this figure alone, is the negative balance that the district must clear in order to satisfy the state. [2]

In a true slight-of-hand, the superintendent has been showing reporters line 6.010 under FY08 [3] and stating that this is the amount the state requires the district to clear; Three Card Monte in the administrative offices.

note:

[1] This is just a screenshot and not a complete page. Click on the screenshot to see a larger version (still incomplete though). In order to see the full page and the complete forecast, click here (links to the district website).

[2] Clearing the negative balance can be done by negotiating tighter contracts; they all end at the end of this school year.

[3] Come on now, he's pointing to the wrong fiscal year for goodness sake. This is a classic con, or sting for that matter.

Lying to the churches

I really don't understand how the superintendent and his administration can look their community in the eye and repeatedly lie, with Olentangy for Kids smiling and nodding in agreement.

These folks are threatening churches and other local organizations that, should the levy fail, district schools will be closed to the community. It's a great lie to spread since it creates an immediate need and a reason for those groups to campaign for the levy, but it's absolutely false.

According to Ohio law:

3313.76 Schoolhouses available for educational and recreational purposes.
Upon application of any responsible organization, or of a group of at least seven citizens, all school grounds and schoolhouses, as well as all other buildings under the supervision and control of the state, or buildings maintained by taxation under the laws of this state, shall be available for use as social centers for the entertainment and education of the people, including the adult and youthful population, and for the discussion of all topics tending to the development of personal character and of civic welfare, and for religious exercises. Such occupation should not seriously infringe upon the original and necessary uses of such properties. The public officials in charge of such buildings shall prescribe such rules and regulations for their occupancy and use as will secure a fair, reasonable, and impartial use of the same.

Effective Date: 10-01-1953 (emphasis added)

The superintendent cannot legally close the schools, and he knows it.

Yet, the superintendent, his administration, and their levy campaigners are now lying to churches and other organizations.

What lesson is being taught? That it's OK to lie as long as you get what you want? What about ethics and personal integrity.

Lying to churches? Hmmm.

Olentangy Ballot Issue: Fuzzy Math

From the district's ballot issue FAQ page:

What is on the ballot for Olentangy?
The March 4, 2008 request will include a combined bond issue and operating levy issue. The bond portion of the issue will appear on the ballot as 1.8 mills but will be collected at .82 additional mills. Olentangy is able to collect at a lower rate due to our rapid growth and debt repayment structure just as we did for the bonds for the 2004 and 2005 ballot issues.

In reality, the .82 advertised mills are a result of a number of factors, including the current over-collection of debt. That's right, the district is collecting more mills than it needs to keep the current bond millage high so that the additional millage on the ballot, and advertised by Olentangy for Kids, appears low.

I'm not going to go into the arcane world of school bond taxation save to say that the taxpayers vote on debt, not mills. And, that what appears to be is not always so.

Back check: Does anyone really believe that the district -- or anyone for that matter -- can miraculously have bond mills that remain steady between levies?

Of course not. There are too many volatile factors for the mills to neither increase nor decrease. The millage rate should have reduced over time -- due to a conservative bond structure and assumed valuation growth -- yet it continues remain at 7.9 mills.

The district continues to ask for 7.9 mills from the county auditor so that the advertised mills appear lower. But, you've been paying too much year over year.

Funny how they forget to mention that little fact.

Spin heard along the way

Spin: Olentangy has a relatively low cost per pupil.

True? Not when you take into account all district funds.

An example: According to the latest data available from the state, Olentangy's bond millage is the 31st highest out of the 614 school districts in Ohio. 31st? Wow, that's expensive! And, it's bound to get more expensive should the levy pass.

It is correct that growing districts pass bond mills to pay for new schools, but they also use bonds to pay for things that other districts fund through their operating budget; items such as capital improvements and technology. And, districts with older building are more likely to incur such expense.

Olentangy has a relatively large demand for new buildings which is offset by a relatively low demand for capital improvements. It's just like a new house versus an older one. The new one has a large mortgage while the older house has high costs for upkeep; normal wear and tear (roofs, AC, etc.)

So, only including the general -- operating -- fund does not tell the true story; a story you recognize when your property tax bill is due.

Olentangy Watch: The public records request

Besides Scott Galloway, the clock is running now on an three unfulfilled public records request. Day four has come and gone; no data. You would think that with the new push for open records, the district would satisfy this request in the timely manner specified by state law. Let's see where this goes.

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.

The Olentangy Watch: Why the silence?

I have never -- never -- met a politician who didn't seek the opportunity to defend his position. Could it be that Olentangy board president Scott Galloway's levy has no defense; it's illegitimate, and Galloway knows it.

Readers of this blog, consider why the board president does not defend his district's expenditures, especially given that he ran on a platform of controlled expenses and reduced levies. His silence alone is reason enough to question the March issue.

The Olentangy Watch: A challenge

Has anyone ever received a response for Scott Galloway -- district school board president -- on any issue? I will keep my vigil until he responds to my request for clarifications -- though this could be a long wait.

Typically, when someone has a valid concept to sell, he is eager to get the word out. It appears that Galloway is fearful of being exposed. Why else would he be hiding from his levy? Hmmm.