The CdA School District plans serious budget cuts for the upcoming year, a recent Press article states. “The budget cuts have nothing to do with the failure of a $31 million school plant facilities levy at the polls May 20, Bauman said.”
She said the district’s budget cuts have to do with maintenance and operation fund challenges.
“That is a completely separate issue. The facilities money does not cross over,” Bauman said. “They are due to budget shortfalls. Our revenues are less than we anticipated and our expenditures higher than we thought they would be.” (CdA Press)
The district’s actions don’t seem to be in line with these statements. Questions abound.
Monday is the District’s public budget meeting at 5:00pm at their Midtown Meeting Center.
Tuesday is the District’s Community Forum: 12:00 noon to 1:30pm at the Midtown Meeting Center.
So, in anticipation of these meetings, let’s look at and discuss some of the questions that are floating around out there. I’ll start with a few that have been sent to me, and you can comment on or add any of your own.
1. If the Levy was for capital projects, new schools, and technology, then why is the District cutting personnel, both certified and classified, all over the District?
2. Did the loss of the Levy expose a possible District practice of shifting of funds for intended or declared purpose and instead using them for operational expenses?
3. Is it true that the District did not make payroll a few months ago, and checks had to be hand carried or picked up by employees, after making arrangements by Bank, and as a result, large number of employees had checks bounce?
4. Did the District fail in several areas of the State Audit this past year?
For those who haven’t seen it, here’s a link to the SD 271 budget summary on its website.
Comment by Bill — June 7, 2008 @ 12:11 pm
If true, an interpid reporter ought to be able to be able to write this story and see it on the front page. If not, the rumor needs to be denied emphatically and immediately.
Where did this story come from?
Comment by Pariah — June 7, 2008 @ 12:24 pm
The question came from one of my newsletter readers who has a relative that works for the District. Apparently employees don’t feel able to make public comments or ask questions because of the history of retribution in the school district.
Comment by mary — June 7, 2008 @ 12:27 pm
The proposed budget summary is too generalized for me to comprehend what is really going on. Where is the transportation budget? Where are the extra curricular activities budgets? I think the District is putting out the summary because “the devil is in the details” – as the saying goes.
I’m already getting concerned about Hazel’s ascension to the superintendent’s chair. She has been involved in the higher levels of the administration of District 271 longer than I have been in Cd’A – and I’ve been here 15 years. She has been too much a part of the District in crowd for far too long to make significant changes in the culture. That is unless a very strong willed CEO.
Comment by CdACanuck — June 7, 2008 @ 1:10 pm
Heavens! In North Idaho? Surely you must be joking.
Comment by Dan — June 7, 2008 @ 1:13 pm
Unreal. It seems like SD 271 is ready to turn into Enron North Idaho! How unbelievable.
Comment by Pariah — June 7, 2008 @ 1:14 pm
Hold on now. I tell my children, in any pack or herd of animals, in order to be a leader that wants change, you must be able to run with the pack, work your way to the top. Then and only then can you steer the herd in the right direction to greener pastures. Let us hope this is Hazel’s intention. She has the ability to change the direction of the current administration and could go down in history as the one that brought back honor, faith, trust and dignity to all of SD271.
Comment by concerned citizen — June 7, 2008 @ 1:26 pm
If — a seriously BIG IF – the District has so badly mismanaged funds that they are in a fiscal crisis, then Hazel has been part of the problem. She has to be held accountable.
Comment by Pariah — June 7, 2008 @ 1:27 pm
I hope you’re right, CC. After all, she will be the first woman Superintendent here. But my fear is that, as Pariah pointed out, she’s been the Assistant Superintendent for the past six years, so she’s likely a big part of the problems. I’d be happy to be wrong on this one.
Comment by mary — June 7, 2008 @ 2:06 pm
I am going to wait for the facts before passing any judgement. There is a separation of funds between building levies and money for instructional purposes. Hopefully money has not been flowing between these categories or it could be quite serious. My question is why were they asking taxpayers to pass building levies when the instructional needs were hurting? In these economic times priorities must be set.
Also how much money from LCDC is being diverted from school tax each year? When I hear of LCDC purchasing even more land I always think of lost money for the schools. Harry Amend always tried to minimalize the effect of LCDC on schools. I hope Hazel makes it an issue and starts bringing light to the subject.
Comment by Mama Bear — June 7, 2008 @ 2:48 pm
Hey, just trying a Mark Altman tactic. If I say it enough times it might be true. 🙂
Comment by concerned citizen — June 7, 2008 @ 2:49 pm
Where is Mark?
Comment by Pariah — June 7, 2008 @ 2:55 pm
I apologize for posting an argument not germane to the current discussion; however, after some of the arguments offered here I feel I am morally obligated. And despite the insult offered by “concerned citizen” (some might call it libel), I do not wish offend anyone here or elsewhere; however, I must say that my patience has been tested to its very limits by the throwing of stones from the safety of anonymity, by some who post here and other places. If you always sign your name to what you write, then PLEASE continue to do so knowing that like our founding fathers, I may not always agree with you, but I will stand with you to the bitter end; defending your right to speak your mind.
Next, before anyone writes me crying with paranoid notions of persecution, understand your protest falls on deaf ears. I am not interested in how you justify your cowardice. You publically smear reputations while doing so maintaining whatever perceived safety you are so concerned for (professional, physical, whatever). It makes me wish to VOMIT.
While I am certain they exist somewhere, I do not know of anyone so vindictive among the school district leaders. Believe me when I tell you that Harry and I have had some doosies of disagreements, and even in those times when we were in deep disagreements, I never found him to be vindictive. Thankfully, Hazel and I have not had those kinds of disagreements, but I feel very confident that if we did she would comport herself as a person of honor and integrity. These are just examples, and while I do not know all of them, can be extended to the members of the school board and NIC board I am pleased to know.
I urge you to consider your comments and either refrain from making them or summon the intestinal fortitude to make them openly; forthrightly putting your name and reputation to the hazard for what you believe. If you cannot do so for ANY reason, then I beg you keep your concerns private until you can own them publically and openly. To do otherwise discredits you completely, and forces all honorable people to discount every word you type.
I have signed my name, and now hand you the proverbial “white feather.” Either accept your cowardice and be silent, or prove you believe what you say.
Comment by Mark W Altman — June 7, 2008 @ 3:18 pm
Though we seem to be focusing on Bauman (now that Amend is gone), don’t the other administrators and the school board bear some responsibility for the district’s fiscal condition? I don’t think the summary budget really gives us enough information to accurately assess that condition, but I would expect all of them to be watching the details carefully not only throughout the year but also looking toward years ahead.
I tend to oversimplify things, but it seems to me that if the administrators see indicators of significant problems or changes, they are obligated to make the board aware of them. As our elected representatives, the board ought to be making us aware of them since they may affect the children’s educations and the family bank account. I’m not suggesting that we should be involved in all the operational decisions of the district, but we need enough information to understand what may be asked of us so we can make adjustments accordingly. We also need enough timely, accurate information to let us vote wisely.
Comment by Bill — June 7, 2008 @ 3:25 pm
It’s the nature of the medium, Mark, which is sad. Because you speak your mind and are present here, people will anonymously use you as a punching bag. I wish the blog medium were more civilized, but it’s not. We do keep things calmer here thanks to mandatory registration. Yet, please understand that there is anger and frustration out there.
In my business I get hit all the time, mostly because I’m probably the only person in the computer industry who dares to answer all incoming e-mail, and answer it expeditiously. Often times people will take their anger out on me simply because I’m the first person who’s bothered to respond to them.
It is my hope that in the future, City Hall, NIC, and SD271 make greater efforts in hearing people who want to be heard. They really need to drop the “us versus them” attitude, also evident by Hazel’s comment that people need to be “converted” regarding the levy. That’s frightening to me.
I’d also like everyone to know that I’ve heard good things about Mr. Altman from some sources. He’s an upstanding guy, and I’m happy to find him here on OpenCda, and to have him active in Education for Kootenai County.
Comment by Dan — June 7, 2008 @ 3:35 pm
Bill, I agree with you about the budget summary. It’s hard to make any sense of it without the details. And I agree that we, in the public, should not have to go through the budget with a fine-toothed comb. The city publicly submits its budget, in detail each year, and so should the school district. Mr. Steve Briggs, the CFO, and the school board join Hazel in the responsibility of spending our tax dollars. They should all be able to answer questions about the budget details.
Mark, I understand you are adverse to those who don’t use their real identities. But on this web site it is acceptable for people to use alternative names, just as long as they hold to the rules about respectful, rational discussion.
Comment by mary — June 7, 2008 @ 3:40 pm
Dan,
Thank you for the kind words. I do try, sometimes at great cost, to be a man of honor. I am by no means perfect and when I fall short, I appreciate it when I am called on it so I may apologize and make amends.
I recognize the frustration in the community. Some of the problems we face are so complex they seem to defy solution. The frustration is palpable on both sides of any given issue. However, I urge others in the strongest of terms that if you truly have proof of legal, moral or unethical wrongdoing take that proof to the proper authorities. But if you are just in disagreement with someone on an issue, please refrain from making unfounded accusations. I will also agree with Dan about the confrontational style that tends to be prevalent in the community right now. I do not know who is more to blame, if anyone really. But, I do know how difficult it is to manage a meeting when you are trying on the one hand to give everyone that wants it a fair say, and yet not have any one person or group monopolize the meeting. As with all human endeavors, sometimes our leaders do it well and other times not as well as even they would like.
Last, I realize that Hazel’s use of the word to convert had a negative connotation attached to it; however, she was using the word as an alliteration intending “convince.” I speak of this as someone who was standing next to her when she used the word.
Comment by Mark W Altman — June 7, 2008 @ 3:53 pm
Mary,
I agree that using a pseudonym is both perfectly legal and within the rules of this blog. However, being “legal” or even inside the rules, is not the same thing as being courteous, courageous, ethical, or moral. The practice all too often seduces us to our most base selves.
Comment by Mark W Altman — June 7, 2008 @ 3:57 pm
That’s why, Mark, we require respectful dialog on this blog. We have all seen the “most base” behavior on other blogs. It is what motivated us to start our own site, with our own tone, focus and rules.
We allow alternative names because of the functional realities of many people’s lives. They still deserve to speak out. Teachers, realtors, investment advisors, coffee shop owners, hair dressers, auto mechanics, lawyers, developers, etc. They all have opinions but not all of them can speak openly. It is one of the blessings of the internet when used judiciously. It is also one of the worst problems of the medium when allowed to go unchecked. That’s why all commenters here must register and there are three of us to watch over the action.
Comment by mary — June 7, 2008 @ 4:54 pm
Mark,
Please forgive my earlier comment.
I served here in CdA and watched the beauracracy at its finest. The powers that be assumed that I would play their game until I had questioned a VERY large sum of money that was presented to a big developer from the LCDC. I started asking questions as to why tax monies keep going to wealthy developers while others and services were being neglected. I was chastised for doing so. That very week my business suffered the loss of many regular customers consisting of a council person, the council persons family members, a couple of key developers and their family members, along with key real estate brokers, agents and their family members. My families very livelihood was threatened because I would not play their game. I was asked for my resignation and when it was placed in the paper they quoted only part of what I had said and not the whole reason I was leaving. I am not the only person that this has happened to over the years. Please forgive me, but since all of these people are interconnected I can’t help but be a little suspicious.
There is a lot of good in this community and it would be nice to not loose it completely. After all, isn’t that why most of us moved here. We should make sure that people of ALL economic status can afford to keep living here and not just a chosen few.
I get so irratated with the people that say “trust me” when they have been known to hide things for personal gain. This is about a community as a whole. Everyone should have a say and every vote should count no matter their economic status, amount of AND/OR lack of education. After all, isn’t this America?
Again, Please forgive my earlier comment.
sincerely,
Concerned citizen
Comment by concerned citizen — June 7, 2008 @ 5:49 pm
Concerned,
I accept your very gracious apology and am thankful for it. I was not just referring to the comments made to me however. I believe that just because you have chosen to serve your community through elected service does not mean that you should be made to suffer the slings and arrows of those who will not make their charges in public.
I realize the high standard I am placing on people and what it stands to cost them. However, I know that if we are going to make change for the better, it will require all the courage and fortitude all of us can muster. Our ancestors pledged their “property, lives and sacred honor” to the cause of liberty and better representative government. We repay them poorly indeed when we do less.
On a more practical note, I can’t help but notice that you have just told enough of your story that you have likely identified yourself; and while I applaud your courage, why not take the next step and stand bravely for the right as you see it, come what may? I for one would know you to be a person of high ideals and integrity even when you are (rarely I am sure) mistaken. I believe those who know me would tell you that I, for one, would gladly have dealings with you and call you “friend” even if I believed you to be on the wrong side of an argument and every single person in Kootenai County said I shouldn’t. I follow Lincoln’s maxim to the best of my ability, “I am not bound to win, but I am bound to be true. I am not bound to succeed, but I am bound to live by the light that I have. I must stand with anybody that stands right, stand with him while he is right, and part with him when he goes wrong.” Which is to say that while I wouldn’t always AGREE with you, I would defend your honesty and sincerity.
Thank you again for your candor, consideration and good conscience; they do you great credit even if I don’t know your name.
Comment by Mark W Altman — June 7, 2008 @ 6:18 pm
Mary,
I recognize the reasoning for why the rule is the way it is. And, you are correct with VERY limited exception I have been able to hold the minority opinion without much abuse. However, as I mentioned to Concerned, I know of a couple of public servants to who would likely use this blog as a forum to answer questions, but they are worn down by so many accusations to their whole person (ethical, legal, moral, professional, and what I have taken to be veiled physical threats) that they simply can’t continually summon the strength to even READ these comments let alone respond.
Tonight must be a Lincoln night because he and the public servants I am thinking of, have said very similar things to me. “I do the very best I know how- the very best I can; and I mean to keep doing so until the end. If the end brings me out all right, what is said about me won’t amount to anything. If the end brings me out wrong, ten angels swearing I was right would make no difference.”
I will say again, each of us at times explains our poor behavior as “less than admirable, but reasonable.” I leave you with the famous philosopher George Moore who said, “The wrong way always seems the more reasonable.”
Comment by Mark W Altman — June 7, 2008 @ 6:35 pm
Mark,
As a very long time resident, let me suggest that you have much to learn about the power elite in North Idaho. Like Dan and others I have heard very positive things about you and appreciate your presence here. Notwithstanding that, the fact is that I have seen (and others posting here have seen) the very nasty, vindictive and hateful retribution meted out to me, my family and those affiliated with me for standing up to the power structures in North Idaho.
If you want to meet in person for a cup of coffee I am happy to do so, on the condition that you honor my desire for anonymity.
You reference the Founding Fathers — they almost all published under nom de plumes — and for much the same reasons I choose to. It is NOT a dishonorable choice.
Now back to the saubject at hand — what is your opinion of the allegations made here today?
Comment by Pariah — June 7, 2008 @ 6:54 pm
Sorry Mark, no pass. If the cannot take the heat — resign. They are elected by the public (or hired by the public), they have an obligation to answer, if they choose to hide then their courage and honor come into legitimate question. This is a Town Square’s Liberty Tree. They can post here or not. But they are accountable either way.
Comment by Pariah — June 7, 2008 @ 7:12 pm
Mark, I agree with Pariah. Elected officials shouldn’t use excuses to shy away from public interaction. And we all know this blog is the most reasonable of all in this area. I’m not saying that elected officials must answer questions on this or any blog, but it would be a good public service if they did.
Christie Wood told me she posts over on the Review’s blog about once a week, but she was unsure about this one. And I’ve heard that Mic Armon has gone on that blog to answer questions too. Please encourage the public servants you know to come on here and have a dialog. We’re not mean and as you have said, Mark, we treat everyone respectfully.
Comment by mary — June 7, 2008 @ 7:42 pm
Pariah, Mary, et.al,
Sorry folks, the historical evidence is not on your side on this issue. When Ben Franklin was writing to his brother’s paper under an assumed name, he was still a boy and while ‘tis true that after he became a man he would write under assumed names he was so well known that most people knew who he really was. This was also true for most of the early patriots. I offer as partial proof of my statements that when the Founding Fathers signed the D.of I., they ALL signed their names. In any event, even then to argue a position from anonymity was generally considered acceptable; however, to attack another’s character from hiding was not considered honorable any more than today. Did it happen? Of course, but it was less acceptable than now. It was not very often people railed a position under the Liberty Tree with a hood over their face.
Pariah, I have to thank you (I am being sincere). You have caused me to think enough to clarify my position on anonymous posting. If you are going to comment on ISSUES anonymously then I would think you are in the clear. However, to comment on personalities or people in the same manner is not honorable. This is the kind of thing that causes me to pull out my soapbox, and none of us wants THAT! 🙂 I will note again, your protestations of personal harm fall under the category of whining as far as I am concerned, IF, you are going to expand your arguments past issues and comment on people.
As always, on any issue I do not expect any of you to agree with me unless my argument convinces you to do so. And as always, I do thank each of you for reading my posts as carefully as you do and providing insight and wonderful conversation.
Comment by Mark W Altman — June 7, 2008 @ 8:23 pm
Oh yeah, in post 23 I didn’t mean to insinuate that Lincoln has been speaking to ME. I was speaking metaphorically of course, I am not that old! 🙂
Comment by Mark W Altman — June 7, 2008 @ 8:26 pm
Not everyone has the mettle to be a founding father. I can see how someone would tolerate deceit because they “love their job,” but I believe such a stance is just as weak as saying, “I was under orders.” Especially in public service, if you see wrong you have a duty to the public to report it. If you are threatened, then make a note of it. Bring it to the Press. They eat that kind of stuff up. Whistleblowers are heros. But I recognize that such fortitude is uncommon. It’s uncomfortable to have people ridicule you for your beliefs or asking questions. Right, Mary? Bill? 🙂
Question: Would the things Mary mentions about SD271 in this post happen in an organization that is truly transparent?
Comment by Dan — June 7, 2008 @ 8:44 pm
See List of pseudonyms used in the American constitutional debates
Comment by Pariah — June 7, 2008 @ 9:21 pm
Sorry, Mark. Intimidation is alive and well in CdA. Dan, Bill and I have all witnessed or experienced it firsthand. I plan a post or newsletter on this subject soon because it’s happening even has we carry on this civilized dialog.
Interesting link, Pariah. As I remember my history class, many of the founding fathers used pseudonyms for their writings but they signed the Declaration of Independence with their real names. Weren’t many of them killed thereafter when their true identities were learned?
Comment by mary — June 7, 2008 @ 11:11 pm
Mary,
Referring to your post #30, let me start off by saying, I’M TO YOUNG TO DIE! 🙂
Now, have any of you read the press yet? Sorry, it is only 6:15 am. I get up early.
Anyway, if you haven’t, the articles is entitled “Failed levy leaves pricey legacy”.
“Idaho code regarding the hiring of design firms requires selection be made based on “qualifications and demonstrated competence” rather than a bid submission.”
That law needs to change NOW!
“That contract’s payment schedule was based on a percentage of the total construction cost as determined by Patano. It included phased payments to be made as the design process progressed.”
Are they telling us that Patano was the ONLY “qualified and/or competent” architect out their?
How about the ones that are qualified, BID ON THE CONTRACT.
A percentage of the total cost?
Have I got a bridge to sell them!
$818,000 for a set if plans?
Boy am I in the wrong business. My 13 year old draws plans everyday with an architectural software in a computer which automatically calculates the engineering for the project AND comes up with a COMPLETE set of plans that are printable.
Again, just like this admin, city council and mayor.
!!!NO BID!!!
Let us just give the contract away to one of our cronies!
I would say that this is the most ludicrous thing yet BUT, not funny at all.
Again, they are FOOLISH with our money!
Comment by concerned citizen — June 8, 2008 @ 6:21 am
I talked with a teacher who works for District 271 last night. I asked her about the unreported pay check problem. She said there was a one time problem, but that it was a computer glitch not a fund shortage that caused it. Apparently, the computer program that handles direct deposits malfunctioned. That makes more sense to me than it being a funding crisis.
Comment by CdACanuck — June 8, 2008 @ 7:28 am
Mark Altman, man of great honor. You told me flat out that NIC HAD the $10 million it needed to purchase the MIll site. But this morning we read that the city and NIC are in collusion to strike a sweetheart 99 year land lease deal at a pitiful rate to obtain $1.3 million for that purchase. Did you know this earlier? Is that what you honorably meant when you wrote that NIC “had” the money for the mill purchase?
I’ll ask you again. Does NIC have $10,000,000.00 sitting in a bank account that is 100% available for the purchase of the Mill site? I did not ask if they could raise the money through horrible asset management.
Comment by Wallypog — June 8, 2008 @ 8:40 am
CdACanuck: Regardless of the source, you have moved toward more solid confirmation of what Mary originally said. I would argue that the cause at this point can still be debated, but I believe this further proves that our school district is not being transparent. I would have preferred that they be open about such things. But as Mark said, eventually news does come out.
Wallypog: I won’t speak for Mark, but I believe he implied that the $10M was in place, not in the bank. The $1.3 for the Osprey was part of that picture, as is money from the LCDC — the same LCDC that one Trustee said has nothing to do with the transaction or NIC or the Education Corridor.
Comment by Dan — June 8, 2008 @ 8:45 am
Dan, with all due respect. I wrote that NIC did not have the money to buy the Mill site and Mark replied that they “did” have the money. If your child tells you they have the money to buy something then you find them selling their video game system for pennies on the dollar to fund the purchase after you agreed to their plan, you were lied to. I do not want parsed, well spun answers from my representatives particularly those claiming to be “honorable”. People are very weary of the double speak.
Here’s an even sillier question. If the city has 7 acres suitable for the U of I why not just turn that land over to NIC? What does the land have to be to be acceptable for NIC? Is 135 prairie acres too large and 7 acres good enough for U of I too little or does the land have to be next door and the most expensive option? The entire scenario reeks and people should be ashamed to be trying to ram it down the paying populations collective throat.
Comment by Wallypog — June 8, 2008 @ 9:56 am
The City is also failing to recognize what Sid Fredrickson showed them at the last City Council Meeting: That at its largest expansion, the Wastewater Treatment plant will consume 1/2 of the Osprey’s parking lot. This is okay because the land *is* owned by the Wastewater Dept; Wastewater rate payers bought and are paying for the land. Legally, it should be separate from the rest of the City’s budget. But, no.
Regardless, after the presentation, not a word was spoken by the Mayor or Council regarding the intrusion into the Education Corridor. Nothing was mentioned regarding the U of I lease. I was shocked. But then again, it seems to be part of a larger picture that we’re not being told everything or that our elected officials are not aware of everything that’s going on. Either way, a bad sign.
Comment by Dan — June 8, 2008 @ 10:36 am
Everybody,
I have to run out for a bit but all me to post real quick that I don’t KNOW one way or the other about the funding of the land purchase. I was only refering to a quote I had read from Dr. Bell(I think in the Press) that said the funding is in place. Sorry for any confusion or lack of clarity on my part.
Comment by Mark W Altman — June 8, 2008 @ 11:08 am
Well, here is a thought:
Dr. Bell why don’t you come right out and tell the good citizens of CdA about all the funding that is in place for the purchase of the land for NIC.
Where is the specific funding coming from? Or as taxpayers are we being kept in the dark and fed ——- like they do to mushrooms?
Lets see – forgone taxes; more taxes from the taxpayers; a hike in NIC tuition; will LCDC have any part in this.
Dr. Bell, now is the time to be transparent with you ideas to the community!
Comment by ShyAnn — June 8, 2008 @ 4:47 pm
This post started out as a discussion about SD 271 budget cuts due to excess spending. It kinda got sidetracked and appears to have run out of gas two days ago. Today’s CDA Press reveals the ugly details and brings it all into focus. It is hard for me to believe all this mismanagement has just been discovered in the last two weeks. It seems that protecting incumbent trustees is primary and now that the election is over we get the facts!
Comment by Gary Ingram — June 10, 2008 @ 6:45 pm
“It kinda got sidetracked…”
Probably on purpose Gary. The reality is that the money involved is enough to invite real corruption. The trustees are but bit actors on the stage, the six or seven “princes” of the District who make at or near six figures in salary and more in hidden benefits togather with their private sector vendors have been bleeding the taxpayer – the FORGOTTEN MAN – for decades. That is the issue. Follow the money. Just that. Follow the money.
$818,000 is the most recent clue. Follow it.
Comment by Pariah — June 10, 2008 @ 8:50 pm