Get your volunteers, and WE ARE KEEPING SCORE!

THANKS!!

Cyle Feldman, AD

From: CRAIG JOANNA 

Sent: Wednesday, July 06,2011   12:10pm

To:Milford,Deb; Feldman, Cyle;Moore,Karen;

Subject: Volunteer recruiting

 The major event in our levy campaign is fast approaching: the door-to-door canvassing of the Stow and Munroe Falls neighborhoods.  We need more volunteers to go either July 23 or July 30 to distribute informational postcards and engage the voters in a brief positive exchange that will remind them to VOTE YES on August 2.  Research shows that the single –most-effective approach in a campaign is the direct approach—where a candidate or issue supporter greets the prospective voter and talks about the issue.

AGAIN, importantly, we’re only visiting the “friendly” voters, those Stow and Munroe Falls registered voters who are likely to vote yes and have a record of supporting our schools.

I’m asking you to help me recruit volunteers to give 2-3 hours of their time on one of those days, either July 23 or July 30. The pairing-up we’re looking for is one adult (principal, coach, teacher, parent, grandparent…) accompanied by a SMF student or student-to-be (of your choice).

Each walker will receive a clearly marked and manageable walking route, postcards to leave, and “crib notes ”with  talking points and common questions/answers in case there are any questions.  AGAIN, these are school supporters we’re calling on, so we don’t expect slammed doors or confrontation.

So please consider lending a couple of hours of your time—or signing on a spouse or friend or neighbor—to get out the vote for this very important issue.  Contact me at —-with any volunteers or if anyone has questions or would like to volunteer in some other way.

Thanks,

Joanna

Head Coaches & Boosters & Leaders

We need volunteers to canvass for just a few hours on July 23 and July 30. We NEED YOU TO GET INVOLVED, and please send the below email to your parents and URGE  them to participate.  Your recruited volunteers should contact Joanna Craig, Canvassing Chairperson, at the following email:———— This is more than just a drop, but a drop and a few positive comments about our schools to only our supporters. Therefore, we really need adults plus students, and we will pair you up with a friend or a neighborhood you might want to canvass.  Please forward this onto any of your team email lists, social media, and utilize your parent representatives to get the word out.  Personal contact is the #1 predictor in getting a yes vote.  If you care about the direction of our school district, we need you to get involved.

We have 95 volunteers signed up, and we need an additional 105!  If everyone (27 sports teams) is able to actively recruit 4 parents/student/volunteers, then we can reach our goal of 200 plus volunteers to spread the positive new, and get out the vote!

Where is our City headed?

*The City of Stow is looking to grab a little more of your hard-earned money.  A Mayor appointed sub-committee of the Public Improvement Committee has been studying the feasibility of establishing a rental property registration and inspection program, which appears to be designed to increase city revenue at a time when the residents are already cash-strapped.  Initially, the inspection fee will start out at $45.00 per rental unit.  However, if there are violations discovered, the property owners will have to make repairs and if the work is not completed to the City’s satisfaction, additional fines will be imposed for each day the work is not completed.

 

Ward Three Council Representative, John Pribonic, wants to further embellish the program by requiring that all single family home owners also pay a yearly inspection fee of  $25.00.  If the inspected homes do not meet the City’s general requirements, the owners can face additional repair costs and fees.

This program comes at a time when the City is struggling to meet its financial responsibilities .  Income tax revenue is way below estimates for the year, while rising deficits for the Municipal Court and City owned golf course are eating away at the City’s cash reserves.  This program, similar to the collection of the water improvement fee and the storm water improvement fee, is designed to generate additional revenue for the City’s general fund.  It may not be labeled as an additional tax, but it certainly smells like one.

When is the current Mayor and Council going to get a handle on their over-spending?  People at home have had to make extreme cuts while they continue to make difficult choices.  The City has to figure their own way out of this economic downturn without continuing to burden the residents with additional fees and/or tax increases.  We in the private sector call it  “living within your budget”.  *Bob Adaska

Councilman John Pribonic, chairperson of Council’s Public Improvement Committee, answered affirmatively when asked at a meeting if this proposal could be extended to private residences.  The Mayor agreed. 

There are also questions regarding how this whole proposal came into being.  Violations of the Ohio Open Records Act (also referred to as the “Sunshine Law”) seem to have been committed by the sub-committee and possibly by others involved in the process.  There also seems to be a difference of opinion among City leaders on many fronts:  The Mayor has stated that there will be no inspector.  The $46,285 yearly salary for a part-time position seems to be a little excessive.  What will they pay a full-time inspector when that becomes necessary (probably in the not too distant future)?  Why is not Council beefing up the current laws to cover many of the “violations”?  Has anyone considered alternative programs that might not hit the people who can least afford it so hard? 

What about requiring landlords to hold in escrow a certain amount of money so that repairs that are cited by inspectors can be dealt with immediately?  Since we are already a city of laws, why not look at those laws and make a few changes?  Even Councilperson Janet D’Antonio stated that the current laws should be good enough to handle such problems.  Why don’t we just enforce them?

Why do we need to kick business in the teeth by charging  them fees for vacant buildings?  Isn’t business lousy enough right now?  Some of the long-standing vacancies in the area can still be looked at from a different, more creative perspective.  Don’t compare Stow to Cuyahoga Falls when we are doing nothing to improve one of our oldest shopping plazas.  Out of all the cities listed by the “Rental Registration/Inspection Committee”, only one (Beachwood) actually has an inspection program.  Other cities just collect fees.  Do we have to collect fees because other cities do it?

Two outside attorney firms are looking into this proposal.  Could the City be exceeding their authority?

$60,285 seems to be an awful lot of money to cover a part-time position. 

We believe the City of Stow does not have a FUNDING problem, but it does have a SPENDING  problem.

Along with other Cities across the United States, Stow too has reduced revenue. The income level of most families has gone down thereby reducing the amount of income taxes the City is collecting. The latest figure puts the City’s revenue from income taxes down about a million dollars. Couple this with the current deficit being paid to operate the new court house and golf course and this really creates some financial problems for the City. There has been some talk of raising the income tax or property tax level to offset the decline in revenues. So far the City has been reluctant to go to these extreme measures but that is because they still have some money in their reserve accounts. That might all change in the beginning of 2011. Now is the time to encourage the Council and Mayor to continue to reduce their spending. Large projects such as the improvement of the Seasons Road area as well as the widening of Hudson Drive should be suspended until the economy improves. Available funds should be focused on the minimal operations of the City and existing infrastructure. The City should discourage unnecessary travel expenses for the Mayor and her staff.   Consideration should be given to possibly halting the Community Improvement Corporation. Their loan program to help recover and expand private businesses out of the City’s treasury has got to stop.

            Some difficult choices have to be made now. This idea of pouring more and more money into economic development and less and less into our city streets, water lines and sewers has got to change. Look around your neighborhoods; have you seen any new improvements?  Two major streets have never even seen city water services while the Mayor and Council continues to dump millions of our tax dollars into a project on Seasons Road that will, at least in the short term, benefit only a few investors.

            If we don’t act today to get the City’s spending under control, you probably will see increased taxes next year. Please try to attend these important budget meetings next week. Let’s show the Mayor and Council that we are concerned about how our tax dollars are being spent.

A Red Herring?

The odd part of the whole thing is that he has used the school district’s attorneys (disguised as the “U-B Corporation” in Cleveland) as the agent for the foundation.  We’re not sure what the Superintendent and the law firm of Ulmer and Berne are up to but we will be watching.  Why must everything in this district be done under the table?

 It begs a lot of questions, Why a 501(c)(4) whose contributions are not tax deductible?  If it is really for the citizens of stow then why not a 501(c)(3) whose contributions are deductible, like B.E.S.T., the committee formed to put artificial turf on the football field, or the Band Boosters or the PTA?   Who paid the filing fees and attorney fees (Ulmer Berne)? Who is going to appoint the Board for this foundation, the School? It also seems strange because Russ Jones is not a Stow citizen and this is the type of organization that a citizen would start. Something does not smell very good here in suburbia.

Click here to see the forms filed with the Secretary of State                 Click here to see an IRS definition

Warner Mendenhall, Attorney at Law

190 North Union Street, Suite 201,  Akron, Ohio 44304 330.535.9160

December 8, 2009                                                                                   Dr.RussJones,  Superintendent                                                                     Stow-Munroe Falls Schools                                                          4350 Allen Road                                                                               Stow, OH 44224

Dear Superintendent Jones,

My client Donald Bettio has determined that the Stow Munroe Falls School District has paid twice for the same legal services. Additionally, the School Board apparently paid for legal representation before the Ohio Elections Commission when it had no business before the Ohio Elections Commission.  My client suspects that Attorneys Adam Miller and Donald McTigue were paid by the school district for work they performed for the Stow Munroe Falls School District Levy Committee. These payments are contained within Ulmer and Berne Invoice #1959251.

I have attached the relevant records of the double payment and payments related to work before the Ohio Elections Commission.

My client is of the opinion that there may have been an improper use of taxpayer funds and has requested that I begin the process of instituting a taxpayer lawsuit.

Before doing so, I want to give you a chance to address these issues. Please respond in writing.

Sincerely, Warner Mendenhall

See the various copies of each transaction as a PDF here.   You will need a PDF reader such as Adobe Reader or Foxit Reader.

Maybe this will help:

The Board has outlined its first five “consequences” if the levy fails:

1.  Reduce busing to the state minimum level

2.  Reduce the school lunch program in the cafeteria (a federal program)

3.  Close one school building

4.  Reduce the teacher/student ratio (larger classes)

5.  “Pay-to-play” for sports, clubs, etc.

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.

The school board recently gave the district treasurer a very favorable evaluation. In considering some of the public concerns expressed regarding her performance, we would have asked the treasurer…

- Why are board agendas and meeting minutes consistently posted late?

- Why are meeting minutes inconsistent and not adequate to convey the board’s rationale for voting, as the law requires?

- Why is the five-year forecast not prepared in a timely manner, with only brief opportunity for public (not to mention board) comment or questions? – Why are you consistently late posting meeting information?

- Why is the public unable to reach you directly?

- Why do you have so much trouble complying with public records requests, often consulting lawyers at district expense? Are you not conversant with school law regarding such requests?

- Why are you consistently “unavailable” to the press for comment on district finances?

- Why, when asked any of the above questions, do you always find someone else or some situation to fault? As CFO aren’t you ultimately accountable for the accuracy, legality and transparency of your office and employees?

In considering any additional raises, perks, incentives, etc. as a result of her recent evaluation, perhaps the board should also contemplate a few of the awards the previous treasurer earned for the district. They truly exhibit fiscal efficiency, accountability and accuracy in reporting:

- 2005 Making Your Dollars Count Award (for demonstrating commitment to careful spending, accurate fiscal recording and efficiency) – State Auditor – 2006-07 Meritorious Budget Award (for excellence in the preparation and issuance of its school system budget) – Association of School Business Officials International – Fiscal Year ending 6/2006 Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting (for achieving the highest standards in government accounting and financial reporting) – Government Finance Officers Assoc.

MAYBE SOME ANSWERS TO THE ABOVE QUESTIONS ARE CONTAINED IN THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENT RECEIVED THROUGH THE OHIO OPEN RECORDS ACT:

AGREEMENT CLARIFYING TERMS OF SEPARATION FOR TREASURER CATHERINE M. BULGRIN

WHEREAS there is currently in existence a contract between the South-Western City School District Board of Education (hereinafter “the Board”) and Catherine M. Bulgrin (hereinafter “Ms. Bulgrin”) for the employment of Ms. Bulgrin as Treasurer through December 31, 2007; and

WHEREAS certain issues have arisen which the parties wish to resolve with a minimum of cost, delay, and disruption; and

WHEREAS the parties are desirous of facilitating a smooth transition in the position of Treasurer for the benefit of the District and its students;

IT iS HEREBY AGREED by the Board and Ms. Bulgrin as follows:

1. The Board will continue to pay Ms. Bulgrin at her currently contracted salary rate for the balance of her contract, and will continue to provide insurance coverage and other fringe benefits without change for the balance of her current contract, except as set forth in this Agreement.

2. Ms. Bulgrin will submit her irrevocable resignation from employment in the District effective as of December 31, 2007. Such resignation shall be submitted for the Board’s acceptance at the same time this Agreement is submitted for the Board’s approval, it being understood and agreed that such resignation shall be conditioned upon the Board’s approval of this Agreement..

3. Beginning with the effective date of this Agreement, Ms. Bulgrin will utilize her unused vacation leave until such leave is exhausted. Notwithstanding anything in Ms. Bulgrin’s individual contract or Board policy, no further vacation leave shall be accrued during Ms. Bulgrin’s employment in the District.

4. Upon the exhaustion of her vacation leave, Ms. Bulgrin will utilize sick leave through June 30, 2007. The Board will not make any objection or require any type of verification for the utilization of sick leave during this period.

5 Effective July 1, 2007, or at such earlier time as the District may identify and hire another individual to serve as Treasurer, Ms. Bulgrin will be placed on special assignment to perform such projects as the Board may determine for the balance of her contract term. During this period, Ms. Bulgrin will not report to work in the District offices but will perform her assigned duties from home or another office location of her choosing. It is also agreed that during this period, Ms. Bulgrin will assume the title of Special Assistant to the Treasurer; provided, however, that such change in title will not affect the salary or fringe benefits paid to Ms. Bulgrin.

6. If, at any time following the Board’s approval of this Agreement, Ms. Buigrin should accept. a position with another SERS, STRS, or PERS public employer, the Board’s obligations under its contract with Ms. Bulgrin shall end as of the effective date of such alternate employment; provided, however, that if the base salary earned under such alternate employment through December 31, 2007 is less that the base salary paid in her current position, the Board shall pay the difference to Ms. Buigrin in a lump sum. The projected difference will be paid to Ms. Buigrin in a lump sum within thirty (30) calendar days of the effective date of such alternate employment. Any required adjustment to the difference, based upon the actual difference as of December 31, 2007, will be paid by one party to the other, as appropriate, by January 31, 2008.

7. Ms. Buigrin may continue to use her District e-mail account as long as she remains an employee of the District, subject to any applicable policies relating to employee usage of school computers and networks.

8. The Board agrees that nothing herein shall be construed as an admission of fault or wrongdoing on the part of the Ms. Bulgrin, and M.s. Bulgrin likewise agrees that nothing herein shall be construed as an admission of fault or wrongdoing on the part of the Board. Both parties will exercise all efforts in good faith to refrain from public comment on either the terms of this Agreement or the circumstances giving rise to this Agreement, and will likewise exercise their good-faith efforts to ensure that the underlying purpose of this Agreement is achieved, namely, a smooth transition in the position of Treasurer for the benefit of all concerned.

9. The Board and Ms. Bulgrin hereby release any and all claims they may now have or could have asserted against the other, or the officers, employees, or agents of the other, past or present, arising from or connected with the employment of Ms. Bulgrin in the South-Western City School District. The Board will not exercise its legal option to nonrenew the contract of Ms. Bulgrin.

WHEREFORE the parties, by their own hand or through their designated representatives, have indicated their acceptance of the foregoing terms by affixing their signatures below:

SOUTH-WESTERN CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION

Here is an example of a teacher’s compensation.  This teacher has 11 years with the school district and a bachelor’s degree:

Contract Salary: $51,364.00

Amount of increase negotiated for ‘07-’08: $1,426.50

Longevity increase for ‘07-’08: $1,581.50

Total increase: $3,008.00

Total % increase for ‘07-’08: 6.22%

Extended time (0 days): -0-

Supplemental Contract: -0-

TOTAL SALARY: $51,364.00

BENEFIT INFORMATION

STRS (State Teacher’s Retirement System) (14% of salary): $7,190.96

Medicare Tax (1.45% of salary): $744.78

Worker’s Comp/Unemployment Insurance: $1,027.28

Life Insurance ($50,000.00 policy): $117.00

Medical/Rx Insurance (family coverage) Board paid: $11,496.24

(Teacher’s ANNUAL premium for Medical/Rx Insurance: $605.16)

Dental Insurance (family coverage) Board paid: $1,482.12

(Teachers ANNUAL premium for dental insurance (family coverage): $1,482.12)

TOTAL BOARD PAID BENEFITS: $22,058.38

TOTAL COMPENSATION PACKAGE: $73,422.38

1. The Board has hired a “public engagement advisor” to help them “incentivize” the voters of Stow-Munroe Falls School District. We don’t yet know how much money was blown on this contract, but we do intend to find out.

2. From August 1,2007 to June 2008 (the school year) 15,570 days were missed by school system employees. The majority of these days were sick days. This figure also includes “professional days”, and other days that were missed. The vast majority of these days were paid days off. 11,521 substitutes were called in to replace the employees missing work. In many cases, there were not enough substitutes to cover the missing staff. The taxpayers paid for both the missing employee and the substitute. The Board of Education has negotiated away so much money to the unions it is shocking. A private sector business would go bankrupt immediately. Why do we allow this in the public sector? It happens when taxpayers are not aware. The public does not know what these employees are getting through negotiations with their unions.

3. A high school unit principal received a $26,000 raise when promoted to Principal. This raise elevated the new Principal to a pay range higher than the preceding Principal.

4. A high school Principal with no experience was given the job of Human Resource Director at a salary higher than the former H.R. Director who had experience.

The Board had the opportunity to save significantly with both of these positions, but they failed. There were at least 40 applicants for each position, some already loaded with experience, that possibly could have been hired for less.

5. The Assistant Treasurer’s salary went from $41,000 to $51,000. When the Board of Education members were candidates they criticized the raise. But when it came time to hire a replacement they raised the salary even higher to over $58,000.

6. Attempts have been made to offer the school system free services. The Booster Club offered to raise funds to carpet the football stadium with artificial turf. The Superintendant vetoed the idea because he did not want the club raising private monies. We feel that this school district belongs to the taxpayers. We feel that the Superintendant has no right to refuse such offers if they are accepted by the School Board. Why would you want to raise taxes when you can get the services free? Simply because if the field was carpeted with new levy funds, that levy would not expire. The subsequent money could be used to pay for something else.

7. Why would you want to pay an ongoing tax for an all-day kindergarten when it is cheaper to pay a one-time fee for the service and only if you use it? permanent and all  Does the senior citizen on Social Security who lives down the street from you care about a carpeted football field or an all-day kindergarten that they will never use?

We have been told, in letters to the local newspaper, how hard teachers work. Don’t we all? We have also been told by one teacher how she creates “miracles in the classroom every day”. We are told that if you want to see how hard she works, come to her classroom. Don’t we all create miracles in our daily jobs? This smacks of total arrogance and is down-right insulting to anyone who works. Do teachers think they are the only ones who work hard? If she is doing a job and doing it very well, “thank you very much”. That’s all anyone else gets from their boss. It is what you are paid to do.

8. The Treasurer has never written a policy governing the use of time clocks. Why did we pay for this equipment?

It would appear, from the taxpayer’s viewpoint, that the levies asked for by the school district serve only the purpose of giving someone a raise. The private sector businesses can’t do that. Where else can you work and get about 15 weeks a year off, a great pension, and best of all, guaranteed raises? The taxpayer is losing jobs, taking pay cuts, giving up things like sick days, and suffering loss of benefits regarding medical insurance and retirement.

We do not propose the removal of anything the district employees have gained. We only ask that they join the rest of the workforce and accept that taxpayers are quickly running out of money to keep your jobs alive. We don’t propose pay cuts. Just don’t hit us with a raise for you every time we turn around, especially when the economic hole is growing larger.