I was at the special School District Trustee meeting tonight. Wow. An excellent, top-flight presentation from some respectable, well-spoken gentlemen regarding how the school district can save money. Serious, sober points made and heard.
December 8, 2008
14 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
The upcoming levy was discussed. Superintendent Bauman mentioned that they were thinking of running the levy sooner than later. She and the Trustees were cautioned not to ask for too much, in fact, to cut what they’re asking way, way down. They were also told to wean themselves from the SPFL habit. Hazel commented that they were working in that direction.
Comment by Dan — December 8, 2008 @ 8:58 pm
One of the first things the Finance Panel suggested cutting was the International Baccalaureate (IB) program. Apparently it’s not producing the kind of results that justify the expense.
Comment by Dan — December 8, 2008 @ 8:59 pm
The Financial Panel suggested a forensic audit of the Special Ed programs.
Comment by Dan — December 8, 2008 @ 8:59 pm
Staff cuts were suggested.
I was appalled to find out that the school district actually pays life insurance. That’s probably going to go.
An immediate hiring freeze was suggested.
The sale of property was suggested, including Person Field.
Comment by Dan — December 8, 2008 @ 9:02 pm
Dan, before anyone jumps through the roof, the suggestion for Person Field was to “trade it away” for land that could be sold. The city owns half the park, the school district owns the other half. I agree that the district should trade with the city for some land that could be turned into cash…they need it now.
Comment by mary — December 8, 2008 @ 9:27 pm
I heard the words “sell” and “develop.” Okay, “trade” was also mentioned, and it was obvious that everyone knew how Person Field was a delicate topic. But the speaker also made it plain that the School District would never do anything with that property and that it was a liability for insurance and maintenance reasons. Agreed.
Comment by Dan — December 8, 2008 @ 9:32 pm
It was a very informative meeting, wasn’t it Dan? I thought the 5 gentlemen on the Finance Panel brought incredible experience to the table–they have each been very successful in business or education careers that had heavy finance and budget involvement. I loved that they said they weren’t paying attention to any politics of the situation, they were simply going to suggest the most fiscally responsible ideas, with no concern for the repercussions. And they did.
Comment by mary — December 8, 2008 @ 9:32 pm
It would have been helpful if the School District had copies of the entire report available for the public at the meeting. Hopefully SD-271 will post the complete report on its website so the community can study the details of the Panel’s recommendations. The panel urged community involvement, so this would be a good way to help inform the community.
Comment by Bill — December 9, 2008 @ 8:46 am
The CDA Press did a very complete and accurate report on this meeting, if the comments above are a benchmark.
Comment by Gary Ingram — December 9, 2008 @ 10:07 am
Maureen Dolan’s article did a very good job outlining what was said.
The entire meeting, including the Panel’s presentation, was recorded for rebroadcast on CDA TV 19 (unless there are “technical” difficulties that originate at City Hall). It would still be helpful to have the final report for study. I digitally recorded the presentation live, but the house sound reinforcement kept cutting in and out. As Dan and Mary both said, the Panel members were highly qualified for their task, and they did an outstanding service to the community in their findings and recommendations.
Comment by Bill — December 9, 2008 @ 11:44 am
I can tell the school district where to find 10 million! Or would that be too sensible?
Comment by Faringdon — December 9, 2008 @ 12:29 pm
Probably far too sensible, Faringdon, and the NIC Trustees would never let it be pulled from their tightly clenched fingers!
The difference in attitude, approach and response between the “new” SD271 board with Hazel at the helm and the NIC board is remarkable. SD271 is open, interested and willing to consider changes. NIC is not: Don’t bother us. So what if you’re a State Representative or a successful businessperson representing over 30 local manufacturers and 7,000 employees…we still don’t have to listen to you…you can’t make us.
Comment by mary — December 9, 2008 @ 1:57 pm
I suspect NIC is,in fact,trying harder. At least yesterday afternoon. The NIC board hosted a legislative forum to present their hopes for legislative action this next session. 15 chairs, 15 name tags for the legislators. I was embarrassed to see only 5 show up and none of them democrats. That doesn’t excuse the missing 8 republicans, however, nearly all of them from the counties north of Coeur d’Alene. Judy Meyer was also absent. There was no announcement by Mrs. Wood, board chair, that anyone had other commitments, which is possible. Suggestion to legislators: Appoint a stand-in to represent your place at the table. It is not only proper courtesy to your hosts, the sponsors, but also smart politics!
Comment by Gary Ingram — December 9, 2008 @ 2:24 pm
Gary,
I give a lot of credit to the five legislators who did attend, ask questions, and listen. Why do you suppose the other 10 didn’t show?
Comment by Bill — December 9, 2008 @ 4:34 pm