I find Sally Jo Nelson's recommended change to the tax levy laughable at best and insulting at worst. It is clear that she has a strong disdain for the taxpayers of the Waterford community and demonstrates how out of touch she is with the current economic climate facing hard-working citizens. Sally Jo's recommendation of cutting $4,990 from the original budget proposal is a joke.
The citizens of this community, with a majority vote, voted down the original budget amount of $9,716,869 at the August 2008 annual meeting and recommended the 2008-2009 budget be held constant to 2007-2008 levels. It is unimaginable that after careful scrutiny and a conscious effort to make necessary cuts, Sally Jo could only find $4,990 to take out of the budget. This amount represents a .05% reduction of the proposed budget.
I question the sincerity of Sally Jo's effort to review the budget for cuts and take the recommendation of the taxpayers into thoughtful consideration. This is evident by the amount and line item (Community Service Section) from which her recommended cut would come. We require a more thoughtful, serious, and in-depth evaluation from our District Administrator, and you, our elected School Board members, should expect the same. Instead, we get a flippant recommendation that will have no material impact on the tax levy.
We have a looming recession facing our country which is projected to be deeper than anticipated with a slower recovery than previous recessions. The housing sector continues to be very weak, the credit markets remain mostly frozen, retail sales have fallen dramatically, unemployment is projected to be +7%, and consumer confidence recorded its steepest drop on record last month as families are tightening their belts. Now is the time to make fiscally responsible decisions that will keep the tax levy impact as minimal as possible.
I realize that many of you agree with Sally Jo based on your votes during the annual meeting last August. I believe all taxpayers have a right to know where you stand on this issue and recommend that Monday's vote be role-call so that individual votes are part of the published minutes.
Greg Amborn
4 comments:
There was a roll call vote on the levy. The vote was 3 to 2. The 3 in favor of the levy were Kastengren, Plantz and Fulton. The 2 that voted no were Poole and Nichols.
I agree that they effort made by the Administrator to find appropriate cuts was not a very good one. I found it more amazing that the School Board members did not see a line item budget proposal; they simply had to go by what Sally Jo was telling them.
It's also important to note that salaries are a big part of their budget that they don't have control over thanks to the too powerful Teacher's Union. And based on who the country just voted into office, that is something that will continue to be a problem for taxpayers.
No wonder no cuts were possible. These part time employees have a health insurance that is run by the teachers union, at a cost of over $21,000 per year, at no cost to them.
The enrollment went down, not up, as was pushed during the debate over a new middle school. The reduction of teachers will be coming soon.
I feel compelled to respond to Mr. Amborn’s 11/2/08 blog entry because I feel he has made some worthy comments, but has simultaneously unfairly demonized our Grade School District Superintendent.
1st, I agree with Mr. Amborn’s summation of our recession.. Therefore, we need to have all our decisions fiscally responsible to keep the tax levy impact as minimal as possible. That’s 100% my goal.
2nd, prior to casting my vote on our budget, I reviewed the complex budget line-by-line and could find no way to responsibly recommend further cuts. I presume our Board Treasurer likewise made a thorough review since he also had no specific suggestions for further cuts.
I would personally like to not only freeze the budget at last year’s level, but I’d like to cut the budget by, let’s say, 10%. But as everyone with a true knowledge in the tax matters should know, around 80% of the budget is comprised of items that have contractural increases already built-in - and we also suffered a greater-than-expected increase in the Special Education area. So voting for a no-increase budget was, in my opinion, simply an illusion that could not work in reality.
If you look around, you see that our WGSD budget increase is lower than that of the High School and lower than that of our surrounding communities.
Lastly, demonizing our Superintendent certainly does not build any bridges for working together toward harmony between our citizens and our Waterford grade schools. Dr. Nelson is not out-of-touch with the current economic climate facing our hard-working Waterford citizens. Through hard work, Dr. Nelson has earned a PhD in education. To say she has a strong disdain for Waterford taxpayers is untrue and unkind. To question her sincerity is likewise hurtful. Since Dr. Nelson has arrived here, we have experienced a myriad of improvements in the WGSD. She has inspired our Principals and all our educators to the advantage of our students. Our schools are a tremendous asset to our community, and Dr. Nelson’s current leadership is responsible for this bright spot in these glum economic times.
Bob Kastengren
Mr. Kastengren points out that the majority of the budget is salaries and benefits. What he didn't mention is that the number of teachers increased at the same time that number of students decreased.
The board needs to review the choice to have the house system in place for the middle school. The middle school is far below the minimum of 24 students per classroom under the house system.
The administration and the middle school principal were clever in putting this system in place. If they had said they wanted to just reduce the student teacher ratio and give teachers an extra prep period, no one would buy it.
The second problem was the last minute addition of $500,000 added by the special ed program with no reason given. It's amazing that the previous budget couldn't be cut a penny but they could $500K at the last minute. I bet there is more that could be cut. I would start by cutting the 5 new teachers they just hired.
Post a Comment