2/12/2008
ALWAYS our job to look over shoulders
Blogger Peter DeGaudio a couple of weeks ago named Racine Unified arguably the "worst run school district in Wisconsin.” Well, I don’t know the details, but I do know we’ve talked here numerous times about the mess Racine was in with the contract business managers they’re using over there. Peter’s analysis of the problem first quotes the chief financial officer, via the Racine Journal Times:
“Unified has not adequately funded building maintenance through the years, and the district hasn’t provided any money for several years to remodel facilities to meet the district’s changing educational needs, [David] Hazen said.”
Why haven’t they adequately funded building maintenance? Hint: increasing salaries and Rolls Royce benefits for district employees. This is evidence of poor planning and poor budgeting. Why give people who can’t plan and can’t budget even more money to fritter away?
The article goes on to point out the district is almost out of money from the last two maintenance referenda passed, totaling $5.6 million. According to the district, they have about $1.49 million left. Just what did they spend that $4 million and change on? Hint: those same salaries and Rolls Royce benefits for district employees, one of the largest if not the largest item in the RUSD budget.
A few million here, and a few million there and all of a sudden it adds up to real money. [Emphases are mine.]
There’s something to be said for suggestions of “poor planning and poor budgeting.”
Exhibit One: The Green Bay Enrollment Task Force, most surely is laying the groundwork for a future referendum. Whether or not the community will be asked to fund a new building, it will most surely be asked to fund a $60 - $70 million (!!!) backlog of facility maintenance needs. Wow.
The School Board president, in a summer, 2007 interview, acknowledged the difficulty of making decisions to improve academic achievement vs. other spending needs.
It’s my perception that we’ll never have enough money to do everything we want to do. That’s not unlike any other business. But in Wisconsin, most districts have sufficient funds that have to be more carefully allocated to impact the things that we need to impact – and that would be student achievement.
….We’ve put all of our resources into educational programming – but we have facility needs. So the task force will look at that, as well.
Hmm. Planning? Budgeting? Ok, nobody’s saying those decisions are easy ones. But DeGaudio’s suggestion of “poor budgeting” in the midst of “increasing salaries and Rolls Royce benefits” says a whole lot. Why are salary increases funded at the District when facilities weren’t being maintained? How does that work? [A look at Wisconsin’s public bargaining laws and rules, sad to say, gets us to that answer.]
Exhibit Two: The Superintendent of the Merrill Area Public Schools may have the answer. Trust and respect. Well, I don’t buy it.
Superintendent Sally Sarnstrom has apparently been hounded by a 60 year-old resident who “[doesn’t] trust the people managing the books.” Now, I can’t vouch for the positions or credibility of dear Mr. Robert Townsend, but I do know he’s been bugging the administration – a lot. Sarnstrom says Mr. Townsend “should believe the information on the district’s Web site and respect board members’ decisions.”
The Wausau Daily Herald is advocating a YES vote on the referendum to “beat back the beast for at least three more years.” Seems to me that might be more poor planning. (YES supporters organize; Superintendent responds to questions.)
It’s up to us to ask lots of questions. School districts have a blank credit card that is the people’s money. It’s our job to look over their shoulders. And it’s our job to insist on proper planning, including facilities needs in ongoing budgets and minding wage and benefit decisions accordingly.
More on that, later this week, including the Wausaukee School District’s upcoming referendum – and citizens dug in to oppose it.
COMMENTS
I wish all jobs were 100% cash up front with no benefits.
Stephen Flynn (Mon Feb 11 21:56:45 2008)
And...? Because...?
Surely the public would be able to more carefully (or easily?) watch spending for public wages and benefits.
Jo E. (Tue Feb 12 03:59:59)
I was at the MJSD committee meeting last night so I couldn't get to Kimberly - but how on earth can they approve $675,000 for a synthetic playing field? More than half the money coming from the district which is probably mostly shared revenue $. AND I suppose I'll have to buy my kid different shoes to play football there.
guy (Tue Feb 12 06:07:12 2008)
That's a good point - will every school that plays at Kimberly have to buy different shoes just to play there?
Mike (Tue Feb 12 08:52:08 2008)
|
