The City’s Pulse Newsletter
By Mary Souza, April 11, 2009
School district 271 is in transition, I hope. Since taking over the top job last June, Hazel Bauman has made several bold moves, but serious questions remain about whether she has, in fact, stepped away from the status quo.
Her positive actions include a series of truly open, public meetings last summer, the appointment of a citizen Finance Panel with a follow-up recommendation forum, and the subsequent reduction of $1 million from the upcoming supplemental levy request.
Of the questions that remain, though, many center on why so few of the Finance Panel’s recommendations were implemented and why the levy was not reduced even further:
–Why was a RFP (Request for Proposal) not sent out to get info on outsourcing bus transportation services, which could increase state reimbursement and save money? The decision to stay with the current bus system was made without comparative bids or complete information.
–Why was the IB (International Baccalaureate) program retained when the cost per student is high and the previous AP (Advanced Placement) program is more effective and far less expensive?
–Why has no progress been made on negotiations with the Teacher’s Union? A proportional reduction in health care insurance for part-time employees could save the district $500,000, according to one Finance Panel member. (This would mean that half-time employees would get half the benefits, and so on. Right now, staff working 20 hours or more per week get full benefits for themselves and their families.)
A statistical comparison, done by one of the Finance Panel members, between the three area school districts of CdA, Post Falls and Lakeland, shows some interesting differences. CdA’s school district is noticeably “top heavy” as compared to the neighbors, with significantly higher ratios of administrators to teachers and administrators to students. CdA also has double the dependence on supplemental levies. That’s very important. Almost 15% of the annual budget for the CdA district comes from the supplemental levy, compared to only 5% for Post Falls and 8% for Lakeland.
Has Hazel done enough to push for change in the district? Has she insisted on increased efficiencies and deeper budget cuts? Hazel works for the School Board, who are the folks making the final decisions, so are they part of the solution or part of the problem? Why is the board not directing Hazel and staff to implement even more fiscally responsible restructuring? I hear that the school board initially wanted to increase the levy and that they limited reductions to just $1 million.
Reports are that district administrators say there’s a “Plan B” in case this April 21st supplemental levy does not pass; that they would revamp the levy request and bring it back to the voters with the May 19th school board election.
(It seems odd that the levy is being held on a separate date. I know the state mandates school board elections must be in May, but the school board pulled the levy to a different date. The levy draws the most people out to vote. Is that the reason? Do the incumbents on the school board want a smaller turnout for their election?)
All in all, this past year cannot have been easy for Hazel. I’m sure she’s not sitting around with her feet up, eating bon bons and sipping tea. It’s hard to tell if the district can get reorganized, and we all know big changes often take time, but as voters we must be involved. So, please, read all you can about the upcoming levy. There are letters and guest editorials in the newspaper, there are fliers and pamphlets going around town, and you can check out the district’s levy information web site at: http://www.cdalevy.org
I still would like to see a financial audit of certain areas performed by an out-of-state company with a team including forensic auditors. In my opinion, the special education and the maintenance funding needed scrutiny above and beyond what they had been getting. As I noted in the linked post:
Comment by Bill — April 12, 2009 @ 7:29 am
This town seems to enjoy a silent form of leadership, where elected representatives sit dispassionately, do not offer feedback or provide input, sit and nod their heads, vote in unison, always in the positive. It’s called being a “team player.” The “team,” of course, isn’t the taxpayers they should be representing, but rather the status quo as dictated from elsewhere. Go along, get along. It’s a rudderless way to run government, and it works — providing that there are no waves and the ship never needs to change directions. But when you have an economic disaster, that’s when this type of passive leadership fails utterly. It’s what you’re seeing now.
Comment by Dan — April 12, 2009 @ 11:00 am
do the three members of opencda support the upcoming supplemental levy?
Comment by raygun — April 12, 2009 @ 12:01 pm
http://www.cdalevy.org/support/supporters.php
I don’t see raygun on that list! 🙂
Comment by Dan — April 12, 2009 @ 12:52 pm
i see dan has listed his name in support, good for you. mary? bill?
Comment by raygun — April 12, 2009 @ 2:53 pm
I don’t know yet how I am going to vote on the supplemental levy, but if the brochure mailed by the school district at tax payer expense, and signed by Superintendent Bauman, is not illegal, it is so close as to have me wondering.
While Bauman signs off with a vote “ON” statement, the brochure clearly suggests “VOTE YES” with words like, “continue the quality; voters have approved; continue the legacy; fill the gap; provide opportunities; upgrade technology; support programs; help retain; asking voters to replace; appreciate that voters have supported” and so on.
It’s a risky thing to mail out this kind of propaganda and try to fool the public under the guise of offering information. But when when the information is so one sided, it is too obvious. One cannot expect supporters to offer opposing views so it is logical to leave this kind of electioneering to volunteer organizations and not use taxpayer funds to sell the election.
Comment by Gary Ingram — April 13, 2009 @ 4:07 pm
Gary,
What statute do you believe may have been violated?
Comment by Bill — April 13, 2009 @ 4:31 pm
Bill, I said that it might be close to illegal. I know that Title 67 has provisions for the conduct of campaigning on any measure. If it is OK to say vote yes on our levy, don’t you think that the literature would have said, “Vote Yes”?
Comment by Gary Ingram — April 13, 2009 @ 5:57 pm
What has offended me is releasing the names and phone numbers of the non-high school students to volunteer callers for the purpose of getting out the “yes” vote. According to my research FERMA (Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act) would prohibit this. There also seems to be a violation of Idaho Public Records Law Manuel 9-348. Also IDAPA Title 02 Chapter 02 ..Priniple VII seems to lend support to my concern. Idaho Statutes Title 9 “Evidence”
Chapter 3, Public Writings 9-348 is also a part of this body of evidence.
Each year phone calls are made by volunteers to parents of students for the purpose of getting out the vote.
Comment by citizen — April 14, 2009 @ 7:22 am
Come on now citizen, someone in the greater CdA are violate the law? 🙂
Comment by concerned citizen — April 14, 2009 @ 7:31 am
sorry, CdA area
Comment by concerned citizen — April 14, 2009 @ 7:32 am
might be close to illegal.–gary
does that mean it is legal?
Comment by raygun — April 14, 2009 @ 8:02 am
raygun, ethically, no. legally, maybe.
Comment by Gary Ingram — April 14, 2009 @ 8:33 am
ethically, no. legally, maybe.–gary
appears to be a lot of that type of behavior, situational ethics seems to depend on one’s perspective. eh?
Comment by raygun — April 14, 2009 @ 9:07 am
Yeah raygun. right on. You’re catching on. One more merit badge and you’re in.
Comment by Gary Ingram — April 14, 2009 @ 2:51 pm
To Concerned Citizen: Unless someone explains it otherwise it looks, to me, that releasing non-high school phone numbers to the public is not allowed by law. Obviously these are targeted calls to help pass levies (not a problem if the students are in high school), but it seems to be a “no, no” for younger students. Perhaps, there are changes in laws in the past few years, but I do not know about them. If someone knows other statutes than the ones I listed above I would appreciate hearing from them, or if they have reason to think I am wrong I would like to hear their reasoning.
Comment by citizen — April 14, 2009 @ 3:10 pm
Gary, nice photo—you look so much happier!
Comment by mary — April 15, 2009 @ 7:58 am
Mary, In reqard to your recent Newsletter I commend you on the tone. However, there was an opinion that I did not see. There are those of us who do not object to the amount of the levy only the non disclosure of expenses and the way the money is being spent…i.e. the Baccalaureate Program. Some of use want our teachers to be paid fairly, but know that we cannot afford fully paid medical insurance for all family members and full benefits for half time workers. Some of us want them to commit to education that works before we give this group of Trustees our money.
Comment by citizen — April 15, 2009 @ 11:49 am