[
[
[
[The 2011 Idaho Report on Government Waste, better known as the Idaho Pork Report, has been published by the Idaho Freedom Foundation.
[For those in the Coeur d’Alene area, we made it into the Report big time! See pages 41, 43, 45, 52-53, and 76. Woo hoo!
I hope that JohnA reads;
PART III: URBAN RENEWAL IS A
BLIGHT ON IDAHO TAXPAYERS
This IS how the valuation of property works in URD. No twist. It costs TAXPAYERS for a select few to profit period.
Comment by concerned citizen — January 9, 2011 @ 9:18 am
Absolutely, Concerned Citizen.
Thank you to the Idaho Freedom Foundation. This is an interesting report, easy to read and full of information that will make your hair stand on end.
You think the school districts are going to face challenges with their levys? This Pork Report might give a clue as to why. Read pages 20-30 in the Pork Report. It’s not boring. It tells story after story about the misuse of school district money. You’ll find that, last year, in this tough economy, one district bought 34 of its teachers iPads. These weren’t just regular iPads, which would be outrageous enough, they purchased the top-of-the-line model at $829 each! Another story tells of a school superintendent who gets a generous salary of $105,000, plus full benefits. But that’s not all…his board included the following in his contract: $7,500 per year into his retirement account, and extra $15,000 per year in “incentive pay”, another $2,000 in merit pay, and much more.
Take the time to read this fascinating report on, not only our schools, but our legislature, urban renewal, and other abuses of our taxpayer money all over our state last year. I hope our elected officials are reading it too.
Comment by mary — January 9, 2011 @ 9:47 am
Please let me start by saying that I am in NO way condoning the actions of Jared Loughner in Arizona. However, IMO, it IS the divisiveness created by government that caused this tragedy. CdA is no exception and at the top of the scale in its tactics to divide this community with its blatant disregard to the taxpayer for the select few to profit. They twist and spin, and are in denial. Government is going to have to take responsibility. Their actions and/or inactions are just inviting more crazies or another revolution like no other history has ever seen.
Comment by concerned citizen — January 9, 2011 @ 9:59 am
The greedy, egotistical, elites who plan to rule over us failed to read Machiavelli.
Comment by Dan — January 9, 2011 @ 10:07 am
It is interesting to note that Dan Gookin, a Coeur d’Alene government watchdog, was the first in Idaho to turn on a spotlight on abuses in urban renewal fostered on the property taxpayers by the Lake City Development Corporation (LCDC), the Coeur d’Alene, urban renewal agency (URA). This was 4 or 5 years ago. Efforts to change the laws over those years were stonewalled by them and others who profit from the Urban Renewal Industry; those who make their living dreaming for the rest of us. We were told by some legislators and URA Industry Lobbyists around the state, that these were local issues and of no statewide concern; that solutions needed to be found in local elections.
The 2011 Idaho Freedom Foundation Pork report certainly debunks this fallacy that it is a local problem.
Comment by Gary Ingram — January 9, 2011 @ 1:03 pm
Dan, the members of the Urban Renewal Industry are indeed Machiavellian in that in their quest to foster their political schemes they gamble with their reputations.
Comment by Gary Ingram — January 9, 2011 @ 1:26 pm
Well, the Machiavellian flaw I was alluding to is the pressure. You can only twist the public so far before they get angry and revolt.
Also, the LCDC was set up to be successful as long as it could operate in secret. That’s the fundamental reason why their (expensive) efforts at transparency are doomed to failure. The ham-handed way that City Hall has handled the LCDC is also set up to fail; you don’t turn away a watchdog by telling them that there’s nothing to see and please stop asking questions.
Comment by Dan — January 9, 2011 @ 1:39 pm
Laws that provide neither severe penalties for violation nor enforcement are begging to be exploited. Idaho’s legislature seems always unwilling to attach both enforcement and penalties to laws like the urban renewal laws. Without fear of detection, apprehension, prosecution, and incarceration, we should not be surprised when locally-raised, trusted citizens become self-serving and turn predatory against those who entrust them with the public’s money.
Comment by Bill — January 9, 2011 @ 3:17 pm
Very good point, Bill. The penalty for breaking some of the ethics laws is a slap on the hand. One idea is to pay One Dollar per year to all volunteers on a public board or commission (like LCDC) so they will fall under the more stringent ethics requirements for paid personnel.
Comment by mary — January 9, 2011 @ 5:11 pm
Mary, Is Tony Berns the only paid person on the LCDC? I don’t know but you’ve got an idea to think about.
Comment by Ancientemplar — January 9, 2011 @ 6:27 pm
Mary,
What ethics laws? Idaho has ethics laws so it can say it has ethics laws, not because our city, county, or state officials want them. Now we learn our goofy Governator’s tax commission guy has been playing financial footsy with his friends. We’ve got a Secretary of State and an Attorney General for whom the state’s laws are mere suggestions to be bent or broken whimsically as the political winds dictate. So, why should we expect our local yokels to be honest when the state is corrupt from the top down?
Comment by Bill — January 9, 2011 @ 6:51 pm
I understand your frustration, Bill. Inch by inch we’ve got to tackle this big problem.
Ancient, Yes, Tony Berns is the only paid employee of LCDC. Ok, maybe there’s a small, part-time web site guy now, but nothing significant.
Tony makes more than the Governor. He’s close to or over $120,000 per year with full benefits and a very generous retirement package.
Tony types the minutes of the meetings into the computer. He hand writes the checks and signs them. He does it all. Have you ever heard of a multimillion dollar company wasting the time of the top executive by doing menial tasks?
Normally you would see one executive paid about $80,000 (good money around here) and a clerical assistant paid about $40,000. That would be a productive team.
Why only Tony? My guess is that he is SO well paid that he will control all the information.
Comment by mary — January 9, 2011 @ 7:41 pm
Mary, Let us not forget that he stated that it took him hours to find the past check registers requested via a public records request by Dan. I still find it odd that he didn’t have the check register on a computer and/or that he apparently lacked a filing system. All this from someone running a multimillion dollar company?
Comment by Susie Snedaker — January 9, 2011 @ 9:42 pm
Where is Austen to tell us all once again that URD’s have no economic impact on citizens living outside of their direct influence?
And, covertness evaporated long ago and is now replaced with outright arrogance. Out elected folks operate quite boldly. I’d have thought that the loss of English and the close Kennedy race might have imbued some degree of concern but this McEuen plan screams otherwise. Is the gauntlet now tossed? How will the next elections turn out?
Comment by Wallypog — January 10, 2011 @ 9:50 am
“but this McEuen plan screams otherwise. Is the gauntlet now tossed? How will the next elections turn out”?
I think that if the taxpaying public
isn’t allowed to vote on whether or not, they want to change the face of McEuen Field and turn it into the proposed McEuen Park; we could be seeing the faces of the city council
changing in the next few years. Whether, some CDA city council members retire or not.The proposed McEuen Park,affects too many people for it not to be voted on by the taxpaying public imo.
Comment by kageman — January 10, 2011 @ 11:50 am
Framing the question for voter approval will be the trick.
Will it be a take it or leave it?
Will an alternative plan be considered for a vote?
Will it be offering a menu?
If a menu, will there be options for phasing in segments over a period of years?
Will there be cost assignments to different menu segments?
What kind of vote should be presented to the public?
Comment by Gary Ingram — January 10, 2011 @ 4:10 pm
Great list of possible options, Gary. As you say, it will make a difference which direction they go with the structure of the voting question. But we must insist that they give us cost estimates and put it to a VOTE.
Comment by mary — January 10, 2011 @ 4:32 pm
I think we should be VERY VERY cautious with the city’s “What would you like to see?” and “What would you prefer?” It is their way of open ending and saying it is what we want.
Comment by concerned citizen — January 10, 2011 @ 7:18 pm
In the interest of fairness and balance by reporting the full context, my suggestion is that Pork Reporters contact a spokesman for the Boise School District (BSD) to fill in a few missing and illuminating details.
My experience indicates:
The primary purpose of a sabbatical is to provide professional improvement in academic work/research which will increase the teacher’s competence and professional growth with the goal of improving the school’s educational outcomes.
The teacher will become more competent in the classroom
Here is one example: A teacher, after meeting the seven year requirement, in granted a sabbatical grant which covers living expenses while he or she pays for tuition and books to gain certification at a university as a Special Education Educator. This grant might be timely if a current Special Ed teacher is retiring soon.
The same would apply to a teacher who earns a sabbatical grant to study Gifted and Talented instruction or to finish a self funded Masters Degree in Education.
A secondary purpose of sabbaticals is to avoid burnout of highly effective teachers
A sabbatical is an effective way for teachers to recharge their batteries while pursing further professional development
It’s important to avoid burnout early on — in BSD’s case after 7 years.
The total BSD 2010-2011 budget is $236,693,000 ($30 million less than the prior year) or $9,470 per student. The $100,000 sabbatical budget is .04% of that total.
There are 1,700 teacher certified teachers in the BSD serving 25,000 students.
$100,000 per year for sabbatical funding averages or about $60 per teacher or $4 per child.
Is is apparent that with 1,700 teachers and funding available for only 2-4 sabbaticals per year, most teachers will never have that opportunity. It is unclear whether BSD used those funds last year or since the recession began.
For further information from the BSD please call the Public Affairs/ Information Office at 854-4066.
Comment by BRR — January 12, 2011 @ 7:41 am
Ummm…
You spend $9,470 per student?! The state standard is around $6,000!
So much for any claim of economy of scale…
Comment by Larry Spencer — January 13, 2011 @ 12:49 pm
I love it when supporters of government bloat refer to the infinitesimal value of waste in a budget. Add up all those .04 percents and soon you can make a real dent.
Comment by Dan — January 13, 2011 @ 3:42 pm