I finally received a copy of the 10-11 Budget a couple of days ago and have been busy analyzing the numbers therein. As everyone knows, we are still in a tough budget cycle with more cuts looming before us. This is a result of a national economic melt-down that the district has absolutely no control over. All we can control is our response to a problem we did not create.
Budgets are projections; the current budget indicates where the district plans to spend its money next year. It reflects both legal requirements as well as the administration's priorities. The district administration always says that its priority is kids - "Kids first" "There are no acceptable losses" and so on. But does the budget reflect this? You be the judge.
In an article published in the Polk County Itemizer-Observer on June 29, 2010, Superintendent Hunter announced the potential loss of nine teachers, twelve classified workers, and half an administrator for next year. ""We cut in all the flexible places - travel, supplies - last year," Hunter said. "We don't have those places to cut that aren't personnel anymore."" Well, they may have cut some travel last year but what he didn't mention is that it is all back in the adopted budget. In 07-08 (before the current recession), the district spent $35,906 on travel reimbursements; this year it plans to spend $39,395. This is an increase of 10 percent even as our general fund dollars diminish. In addition, administrator's receive a mileage stipend each month which in the budget is recorded as part of their salary. This means they receive that money regardless of how much they do or don't travel each month as part of their duties. This year the district will give administrator's a total of $36,600 in monthly stipends which is slightly higher than in 07-08. Taken together, then, there is still $75,995 in the budget for travel. Since each teacher costs the district about $70,000 in salary and benefits, that would be enough to save one teacher with a bit to spare.
The district also gives administrators, but no other employees, a tax-deferred annuity which will cost us $37,591 this year. It's in their contracts so the district cannot unilaterally rescind those payments; if one party to a contract can unilaterally change it, it is not really a contract [Don't get me started on the mandated furloughs, i.e., pay reductions, we faced at OSU!] Did the School Board ask them to give up their extra benefits? It seems to me that "extras" are always the first place to cut. Administrators already receive very high salaries. Why do they need benefits over and above the package received by other employees?
Compared to 07-08, the district has cut licensed salaries (i.e., teachers) by six percent. For the same period, administrative salaries (overall, not individual salaries) have increased by 23 percent! In just four years! What priorities are reflected in those numbers? Why are the employees who interact directly with students paid so much less? Are administrators more important than teachers? Why do administrators earn roughly twice as much as teachers? Do they have twice as much education? Do they work twice as hard? Do they put in twice as many hours? Or is it a function of who controls the budget? Kids first? Or last?
The high school has faced steeper cuts than any of the other schools. Teacher reductions at the other schools have averaged two percent since 07-08. (Remember this is in terms of salaries, not the number of teachers.) At the high school, however, the reduction has been a whopping 12 percent despite its current "in need of improvement" designation. Our high school staff work very hard and put in lots of extra hours. But it's hard to be successful, or even feel good about coming to work everyday, without support. If the administration truly wants the high school to be successful (according to admittedly arbitrary state and national policies), shouldn't the high school be receiving more funding rather than less? It's almost as if the administration is setting them up to fail. Have they never heard of the self-fulfilling prophecy?
The district is also retaining its bond manager - after the bond is done. Not only that, he's getting a 12.5 percent raise! He will oversee the last part of the high school reconstruction this summer and then oversee installation of $765, 000 in HVAC equipment at various schools. His services will cost us $165,312 or the equivalent of two teachers. He earned less to oversee a $47 million bond. When this was brought up by a Board member, she was told this was an "administrative decision" (see the minutes of the June meeting). Even though the Board retains legal authority over the budget, they shouldn't get the idea they have any real authority.
Kids first? You be the judge.
Note: I would be happy to share my analysis in more detail. Simply email me and I will explain how I arrived at these numbers. Click on "view my complete profile" in the right-hand column and then "email."
I have been told by the district office that only the superintendent can "cash out" vacation days. If you have other information please send it to me and I will attempt to verify it.
ReplyDeleteThe cost for the HVAC equipment mentioned above came in at a much lower price than anticipated -a little less than $500,000. So now we are paying $165,000 for someone to supervise the installation (not do the actual installation) of $500,000 worth of equipment. When we are cutting teachers and slashing programs that just doesn't make sense. The superintendent should be challenged to justify that decision!
ReplyDeleteExamination of the Board minutes from June revealed no mention of the question asked by a board member about paying someone $165,000 to manage the intallation of the HVAC equipment. Did I just miss that?
ReplyDeleteSince the high school is nearly complete, I want to be clear, is this HVAC project ( the equipment and intallation as well as the management costs) part of the same bond money or does it come from another source? Another question: what has happened to any savings on building the high school, realized from lower bids due to the slowed economy? A list of projected costs compared to actual costs, would be helpful.
I'm not sure why it is not in the June minutes. I may be wrong about the date. I do know that the issue has been raised by Board Member Kathy Zehner and so I would suggest contacting her for clarification.
ReplyDeleteAt least some of the HVAC work was to be paid for out of the bond. It is now going to be paid for out of $2 million in very low interest Qualified Construction Bonds that the district has borrowed. Repayment of the bonds as well as the management costs will be coming out of our general fund revenues.
What happened to the savings from the slowed economy? That is a very good question that a lot of people would like answered. We need a very thorough audit of all bond expenditures.
The $165,000 is the total cost for employing Mike Maloney next year. It includes his salary of $110,000 (salary and mileage stipend) and benefits of $51,000.
ReplyDelete