The local school district continues to use the parental contact system to inundate voters with propaganda for their sinking fund vote on January 15th.
Here is the document they sent me 3 times tonight. 2008 sinking fund proposal
Personally, I am against this for a number of reasons.
- They continually use a marketing trick on this document, saying that voting “yes” on renewing this fund isn’t a tax increase. What they fail to mention is that if we vote “no” we will decrease our taxes by 1.25 mils. (For my family this means a lot of money.) We need tax relief so I am saying no to this tax.
- I don’t believe they have spent the money in the past wisely. Romeo schools are the absolutely least secure schools I have ever been exposed to. Their solution this year was to spend oodles of money installing cameras. But with the doors still unlocked at all buildings all day long, the cameras will merely be evidence for how stupid they are on the local news when something goes wrong. Had they ditched the expensive camera system in favor of a $500 per school buzzer system, the schools could be locked and only provide access to people who need to be there. This is just one example, of many, of their stupid financial decisions. Because of their track record I am saying no to this tax.
- The sinking fund pays for things the budget should. Why do I have to pay a special tax to pay for stuff I already pay taxes on? Because the district mismanages money they have already. This is just a fancy way to charge us extra tax for things that we’re already being taxed on. In order to balance their budget they are double taxing us. With 90% of the school funds spent on staffing, the solution lays in renegotiating with the union for a package this district can afford so these normal building/grounds maintenance items can be budgeted for. With unemployment as high as it is… are they afraid what would happen if the teachers won’t renegotiate? Because of their mismanagement of current funds and failure to renegotiate labor contracts I am saying no to this tax.
- In 2007, the school board tried to sneak a massive school bond by the public. The school districts plan was to self-fund a special election where a handful of voters (strategically timed when many residents would be away) could vote to spend hundreds of millions of dollars. Fortunately, alert citizens raised awareness with the general public and the massive school district slush account was thwarted… beaten heavily in the election we weren’t supposed to know aboout. The school district continues to live in denial. They project growth when a huge percentage of homes in the district are for sale! They want to increase our taxes and pay staff more money at a time when the local economy is struggling. Because of continued school district and school board blindness to the realities of what the public wants, I am saying no to this tax.
- The school district continually uses teachers and other district employees as marketers of their agenda. My inbox is full of their letters. Even my child comes home with reminders. I wouldn’t be surprised to see Megan bring home a coloring sheet or a word search with terms like “sinking fund” and “not a tax increase” as answers. This is a waste of my child’s educational time and a waste of teachers work hours. A teacher is paid to educate children, not publicize a political agenda. Because the district continually tried to manipulate me through my child I am voting no to this tax.
I’m not a politically minded person by nature. But I smell a rat. I hope that hundreds of other people smell the same rat and make a wise decision on January 15th. Until this district deals with the core issues at hand I will vote no on any and every bond measure or tax increase. A band aid applied to a hemorrhage is a terrible first aid solution. Let’s use a more appropriate first aid technique. Pressure.
A sidenote: Some of what I’ve written here could be seen as attacking the school board and school district. It is actually a call to fix the core problem of over-spending. Read what Board of Education Trustee Jennifer White wrote in April 2007, before her term began. And yet on December 10th the vote for renewing the bond was unanimous. Clearly, we elected a reformer who doesn’t believe in reform enough to vote against pork spending.
- BROWSE / IN TIMELINE
- « Looking for a Wii for Christmas?
- » Our Christmas wish list for the church
- BROWSE / IN Romeo News
- » Good news for Romeo
COMMENTS / 4 COMMENTS
Jennifer White added these words on Dec 22 07 at 9:55 amPlease reread my article, I do not speak out against the sinking fund, the article is about our fund equity (or savings account). I do agree with many of your points in your article, especially about not spending money wisely, which is why I voted NO on the sinking fund (September 24, 2007), as it was originally presented. Two other trustees and myself stated that we would not approve until the community/district developed a list of needs (not wants) that would be addressed if the sinking fund passes, we refused to support a blank check to the district. We have many safety/health issues in most of our buildings that need to be addressed, the passage of the sinking fund would allow us to quickly address these items for the students and staff that are currently in the buildings. If we tried to address those items with our general fund, at best, very little would be done, it would be too little too late for our current students and staff. I would be very interested in hearing more of your ideas. My goal is to get more dollars to the classroom, working with what we have. I am not a naysayer who will sit on the board and continue to place blame on the state. I want the district to start “thinking outside the box” and work with what we have, business as usual, doesn’t fly with me. You can contact me at jennifer.white@romeo.k12.mi.us
adam mclane added these words on Dec 22 07 at 11:49 amJennifer, first off, kudos for the reply.
Can you explain the various funds that the district has and what they are supposedly used for?
Such as, what is the difference between a “sinking fund” and the “fund equity?” To a layman these seem to be the same and your article didn’t delineate. I apologize if I misread that… how was I supposed to know?
Can you explain how renewing a tax will fix the problem? It seems like unless there is a crisis (e.g. you’ve got no money to spend on things you are required to have) the public can only expect more out of control spending until this slush fund is up for renewal again.
Let me reiterate. I won’t vote for any bond, fund, or any other school spending until the core problems are taken care of. Renewing a fund which encourages an unbalanced budget is foolish. You must do the heavy lifting of renegotiating contracts, choosing contractors who are best for the district instead of discriminating against non-union companies, and stop wasting money on things like “studies” and special elections. (Not to mention wasting staff time pushing votes.)
In regards to the vote. The Observer reported that the vote was unanimous on 12/10. Does that mean you voted for renewing the sinking fund? Saying that you voted against it 9/24 is meaningless since the Observer reports you re-took the 9/24 vote on 12/10. (Unless I’m reading the newspaper incorrectly.)
What steps are currently being taken to rectify out of control spending? Who is leading the way?
When will district employees be prohibited from acting a lobbyist on district time?
Jennifer White added these words on Dec 28 07 at 5:29 pmFirst, please remember I have been on the board for all of 6 months, I am still getting my feet wet, I will answer as best as I can at this point.
The General Fund is used to pay the monthly expenses (like a checking account). The Fund Equity is the “savings account”, the state and or auditors recommend school districts maintain a certain % of their expenses as an emergency or “rainy day” account, somewhere between 10-15% is recommended, Romeo has approx. 3-6% (I would need to contact our business manager for an accurate number) no where near the recommended amount. The Sinking Fund is a short-term tax that must be renewed . Traditionally, sinking funds were a way for school districts to set aside money to repay principal on a debt, and for future capital projects - like buying real estate, or building and repairing buildings.
I agree with you, that renewing the tax does not fix the problem of “out of control” spending. I also agree, that all along, the maintenance items, such as roofing, should have been budgeted for out of the general fund, BUT they were not! So we are left with 8 schools that need a lot of work. At this point we are so far behind the game in maintaining these buildings, that what we could budget for today wouldn’t even scratch the surface! So that brings us back to the sinking fund, and whether or not you believe the maintenance needs to occur, so that are children are attending safe and healthy schools.
Addressing the core problems, first of all, majority rules. Having said that, I can tell you that I have voted no on numerous items, because we did not have competive bids, because we did not have full disclosure of information, because other companies offered substantially lower fees, etc., etc. I also support no special elections, and as far as negotiations go, I am not comfortable with the status quo. We’ve got 4 years now to try and elect a board that is more responsive and responsible. Leadership is needed not only for issues like the sinking fund, but for many other district issues, as well. I could really use help from people like you!
As far as my vote on the sinking fund, the first vote was for some open-ended slush-fund, I voted NO. Instead I asked for accountablility, by requesting specifics. I can support each of the things thate were requested in this new renewal. And while philosophically I can agree the the last item- the roof maintenance- should be covered under the disticts normal budget, the fact is that this item couldn’t be covered the price tag is too high and our roofs would continue to deteriorate. So, in the spirit of compromise, and trying to be pragmatic rather than totally idealistic, I voted to support the sinking fund.
If you don’t already, I encourage you to attend or view the board meetings. You can see first hand what decisions are being made to control spending and who is leading the way.
The state legislature took up the employee lobbying issue, but it went nowhere. See details on House Bill 4980, which is now stuck in committee. If you support this legislation, then you should contact Representative Brian Palmer from our district, and also contact Tim Melton, Chair of the House Committee on Education, who must move it out of committee in order for any action to be taken on it. Http://www.michiganvotes.com/2007-HB-4980
I would welcome the opportunity to meet with you to discuss these issues in greater detail.
adam mclane added these words on Dec 29 07 at 11:03 amAgain, thanks for your feedback. We should get together for coffee to talk about this.
For me, this goes back to the original post. I’m voting against the sinking fund for the following reasons:
- This community can’t afford a new tax, call it what you want. But killing the sinking fund saves all taxpayers a lot of money.
- I won’t vote for something that doesn’t fix the problem at hand. Renewing the sinking fund allows the district to continue to live outside of their means. Killing the fund forces the board to deal with core issues today instead of waiting. What are the core issues? Renegotiate contracts to save the district money. Look at where district dollars go, and trim from the LARGE things. (Health care, staff dollars) Don’t allow stupid things that save a few thousand dollars to get cut to get an emotional rise out of the people. (sports, arts, etc) Cut the things that cost us millions of dollars. Again, with unemployment near 6% in Michigan, what is the district afraid of? Think you won’t get enough teachers at a price you can afford? Think again!
- I don’t care if it’s legal, it’s wrong for district employees to be used as lobbyists. The board can/should create a policy prohibiting employees from using district time, resources, and other tactics to support political activity of any kind.I truly like what you have to say. And I believe that you were elected to be a change agent for this district. All I am asking you to do is to act today and not put it off. Your comment here is “let’s work within the process.” That’s not going to get it done… it’s just a stall technique to waste more money, fill more pockets, and tax the community more.
I say create a crisis. If these projects truly need to be done, the district should live within its means, make the tough decisions today, and move forward. Find a district that can effectively teach students with the General funds provided and learn from them.
The solution isn’t more money. The solution is doing today what we can afford today. I looked over the list of “needs.” All of those should be budgeted for and not a special tax levied on the community. None of these are capital expenditures… they all seem to be maintenance items that the school district must budget for. If they didn’t, it’s time to make the tough decisions to rectify the poor planning. If heads roll because money was mismanaged, again… unemployment in Michigan is super high and you’ll find more responsible employees.
The fact remains that you voted YES for the sinking fund. Your vote was for putting a tax increase (however you want to phrase it) on the January 15th ballot. A 6-1 vote is a lot better to me than 7-0. 7-0 tells me that the district just thinks it can mismanage money forever and the bills will always be paid by the taxpayers.
All I am saying and asking other people around me to do is “vote no.” Voting yes is status quo. Voting no forces the district to make some changes.
I want to support you. I have lots of ideas. And I truly want to see our district put the needs of the students above anything else. Let me know how I can help you with my limited time.
SPEAK / ADD YOUR COMMENT
Comments are moderated.
