ARE WE EVEN SURE WE NEED A LEVY?
by SCRGadmin on Oct.22, 2009, under Our School System
According to records forwarded to us by the Treasurer of the School District, the May 8th forecast for the fiscal year 2008 was off by $900,000. It is also hard to believe that fiscal year 2012 has gone from a negative $24.7 million dollars in the May forecast to a negative $12.0 million dollars in the October forecast. This makes us question if we need a levy. The Board of Education still has no action plan except to ditch the Finance Committee (an extremely valuable check-and-balance tool) and determine how to better sell a levy to the community. They are quite worried about getting rid of the Business Manager and screwing up that position rather than paying attention to what really needs their attention.
3 Comments for this entry
-
Welcome to the new Stow Citizens For Responsible Government website!
Click here for Website Navigation Help
Please note as of the most recent post's date, NO ONE has stepped forward to challenge any fact presented on this website. The easiest way to stay updated is to subscribe to our RSS feed, send us a message, or join us on our Facebook page!
Loading ...
We use Digsby to manage our social networks.
What do you use?
We use 1&1 for our hosting!
January 21st, 2010 on 2:38 am
The story “School officials: Plans for New Levy on hold,” Stow Sentry, Nov. 9, 2009 is newsworthy and worth commenting on for a number of reasons.
School superintendent Russell Jones says “… there will not be another levy until we have a green light from the community.” He than added, “We understand what ‘no’ means”
It seems Jones had to hear ‘no’ three times before he got the message. An optimist would say better late than never, but a skeptic can’t help but to have serious doubts on Jones’ sincerity. This will be developed as we go.
And then there’s Denny Mariola, SMF Board of Education President. According to the story, he said, “We aren’t going to push for another levy until we have a consensus from the community as to where we go from here.”
He went on: “Before we request another levy, we’re going to say, ’We’ve heard you and we understand what you’re saying.’ Now we’re going to invite you to come to the party and help us decide which direction we should go. We need your input.”’
Mariola plans to develop his consensus through series of community meetings. This may sound like a reasonable out-reach, but a closer examination reveals the idea to be patently absurd.
What will Mariola’s community meeting draw, 25, maybe 50 people, tops. Of of them, you can bet that the numbers will be heavily skewed to favor those who support the levies. You know, the usual suspects — those employed in the schools and/or their family members, the teachers union members from Stow and elsewhere, the PTAer, etc.
Such meetings have all the earmarks of being staged events. They will never be able to form a reliable consensus of what the community actually wants to do regarding the schools & taxes.
And why does Mariola need such meetings for anyway? He has been told three times in 2008 alone by overwhelming numbers that the community expects the schools to live within their means — that is, to operate with the money that is already given to them.
And are we to believe that Mariola doesn’t know were to cut to balance the budget? Given that salaries and benefits make up, what, 70% of the costs, maybe that’s where he should look. This isn’t rocket science — cut the squandering and cut those bloated compensation packages.
Here, it seems like Mariola is trying to get out of the tight spot the BOE finds itself in. The BOE is cornered because of its past subservient behavior to the education establishment, especially the teachers union. It committed taxpayer money far to freely. Now, rising costs are squeezing things, but the BOE is afraid to address the root of the problem. That’s the dilemma.
Speaking of this fear, it is worth noting that, in August 2007, the SMF teachers union threaten to shutdown the schools on opening day with a strike. At that point, the then BOE capitulated and granted raises to an already over compensated workforce. This effectively locked in excessive costs for another three years and bleed away money that should have been for the children.
It seems that this strike threat was so successful from the unionized teachers’ point of view. Pictures of the street demonstrations associated with the threaten strike are about all that’s on the union’s web site, http://www.smf.ohea.us, even now, over a year later. What are those pictures there for, to help keep the BOE on a tight leash? To gloat?
So count me skeptical that Russell Jones actually understand what “no” to more taxes means and that Denny Mariola is truly looking for a community consensus. If he was, the BOE would not have hired this consultant, Paul Pendleton of Santa Rita Collaborative who claims his mission is to “build healthy school-community partnerships” (“School board contracts with public engagement advisors,“ October 8, 2008, Stow Sentry).
Excuse me! Partnership?
Look at the perverse thinking that’s revealed in that word usage. There is no partnership between the community and its schools. The schools are not a separate entity, as a partnership would imply. The schools belong to the community, not those who are graced to be employed in them. And although it may be news to Mariola and his BOE, the schools exist solely to serve the community, not the education establishment. Thinking that there can be a partnership between the community and its schools shows how alienated this BOE is from both the community and reality. The schools are exist to serve.
See Santa Rita Collaborative’s web site: http://santaritacollaborative.com/aboutus.html.
The three partners from this consulting group come from the bowls of the education establishment. How can they see the world from any point of view other than that of the educrats? And as far as Mariola’s staged community meetings go, they come straight from Santa Rita Collaborative’s play book. Go check it out yourself on Santa Rita’s web site.
It’s all a farce.
If the BOE actually had the community’s interest in mind, it would not have bothered with people like Paul Pendleton of Santa Rita‘s in the first place. Instead, Mariola would have hired an expert in, say, school finance & accounting to go over the numbers presented to the BOE by school treasure Catherine Bulgrin with a fine tooth-comb to identify the squandering, waste, and where/how best to attack the bloat.
And if Mariola was really interested in community input, he would have open and easy access to the full financial reports and any pertinent backup information related to the operation of the school.
And there’s more. A community minded BOE would bring in experts on benefit packages to see where to cut. And most importantly, the BOE would bring in expert legal help so as to make strong contingency plans in the event of another threaten teachers strike. [Has this been done, and if not, why not? Given the recent past behavior of the SMF Teachers Association, not to do so borders on incompetence.]
But no. Instead our BOE brings in apologists for the education establishment to show the BOE how to sell levies to the community. That says it all.
January 21st, 2010 on 3:19 am
I just read with great interest the article in the stow sentry ( input sought on districts plans ).
It struck me as funny that in January they hired a consulting group ( Santa Rita Collaborative ) for the purpose of haveing them tell the district what they need to do to communicate with the people of the Stow/ Monroe falls school district.
They don’t have enough money but can afford to hire a consulting group to tell them what 11.000 people in the surrounding community who voted against the levy could have told them for free, i get it!!!.
Then instead of just having community meetings to get the voice of the people they are going to ( search out high profile leaders in the community, I.E. doctors , lawyers, dentists,) you know all the people who could afford a boost in their property tax’s,I get it!!!.
They still do not get it do they??, it is the little guy that is voting down their levies, the guy who is out of work, the guy who is just getting by, the older people who are on fixed incomes, etc.
What do we have to do to get through to these knuckle heads??.
If this is the best they can do im affraid its going to be a long time before another levy is passed.
January 21st, 2010 on 3:25 am
The data below is off the State auditor website tracking State Stabilization funds. I find it odd that they need to specify “Legal Fees” for their grant request.
Stow-munroe Falls City Sch Dist
Program 84.394 – State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF) – Education State Grants, Recovery Act
Category Budget Stabilization
Purpose State Foundation Payment
Description When: Monthly How: To pay for Services NEONET, MEOSERCC, legal fees and contracted services for building maintenance.
Received $205,749.44
Spent $224,950.01