Again, 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.

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.

Jennifer, 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?