Okay, last night, I'll be honest, things were a bit chaotic. The beginning of the board meeting was a wonderful tribute to those who have given to the district's students, going above and beyond and frequently without recognition.
And from there it all went down, down, down hill. As usual, I'll post my disclaimer, these are my thoughts and mine alone. They do not represent the opinion of the CSD board or its administrators, now do they constitute minutes in any fashion.
Last night, I voted no to Rif our teachers. I was among those who were accused of being fiscally irresponsible and cowardly. I do not believe that I am either. I understand that the failure to pass the motion to reduce our teaching staff would have resulted in a budget expenditure that this district may not be able to sustain, and perhaps forcing us back into the nightmare days following Joe Wise.
I would offer this regarding my vote: A Fiscally Irresponsible board is what led us to bankruptcy during the Wise era. They failed to ask the right questions and provide the oversight dictated by the function of the board. We are still repaying the state loan that kept our district afloat.
CSD may have done everything right once the deficit was discovered. They may have managed their funding with diligence. And we cannot escape the effects of the economy on a district that going on 8 eight years without a successful operating referendum.
However, we can
1) Send a message to our folks in Dover that we, along with many other districts, desparately need the legislature to restore funding that our Governor and the Sec. of Education has proposed to be eliminated. We can appeal that funding for reading and math specialist, eliminated in the last budget cycle, be restored to the education budget. We can proactively correspond as a board with our legislators to educating them of reality of the budget cuts in our classrooms. Essentially, we can LEAD the charge to Dover that Education must be a PRIORITY!
2) Share the burden of the budget through a RIF process that includes district level administration. If we are to be 160 employees lighter next year (representing the 40 + eliminated last night in addition to the 120 temporary contracts that we cannot afford to renew) then perhaps we will require fewer Drew level support employees.
3) In a year that included the CLEAR Review (yet unseen by the board) and a promise from our superintendent that there would be no new programs this year so that we can evaluate which program work and which do not, this RIF could have been supported by documenting which programs DO NOT achieve the DESIRED results, instead of targeting Arts, Specials, and Languages.
4) Spread the cuts beyond the classroom, languages, and arts, to Athletics.
5) Eliminate some of our spending on Travel and Consultants. The fact is that we have a checkbook that's heavy with consultants.
6) Approach the state and ask to defer the loan payments until such time as we successfully pass an operating referendum.
What's the worse that can happen? They say No. But, you don't know until you try!
I have repeatedly raised these concerns regarding our budget and the difficult choices that we must make for our schools. And I have been rebuffed and ignored. My suggestions have not been taken into consideration by our administration nor have they been respected by some board members.
Essentially, we could have made good on a promise to constituents to protect the classrooms, to support programs that work, that are best practices, and that support acheivement. My vote was not cowardly or irresponsible. And though I am in no way advocating violating spending laws mandated by the state and federal government, I am soundly suggesting that we need to insist that the state stop sending Boards to the perp walk, and boldly Lead the state in funding reform.
At the end of the day would any of these suggestions save a single job? I don't know. But, we didn't try. And that's why the only vote I could offer was No. No, to Dover, we do not support you in devaluing education. No, to our administration, we do not support centering cuts to teachers. No, we insist you make good on the message your sent to our constituents in September, October, and November.
At the end of the day, the motion carried.
Greg Olear: Reading Charles Dickens Today
1 hour ago
4 comments:
Dear John Young and Elizabeth Scheinberg, As a fel... Dear John Young and Elizabeth Scheinberg,
As a fellow CSD board member, I am disappointed in you. You misused school board stationery to pursue this procedural nit-picking. You are not speaking for the school board, and you should not be using board stationery that suggests you are. Your little FOIA petition cost CSD and district taxpayers significant attorneys' fees.
Please focus on the fiscal responsibilities you were elected to deal with. We are facing an $8+ million operating deficit, but you voted at the 5/4 board meeting to keep spending millions of dollars that the district does not have, and you offered no alternative solution to the pending deficit. Your refusal to control spending was a violation of your fiduciary duty, and a betrayal of the trust the voters placed in you.
--John Mackenzie
May 5, 2010 at 11:26 am | #2 Reply | Quote Dear Mr. Mackenzie,
In regards to the use of district letterhead used for the FOIA Petition,
I would direct you to page 2 of the FOIA petition where Mr. Young and I state:
“While Mr. Young and I are hopeful that we are erroneous in our interpretation of teh code, we believe it would be a dereliction of our duties to not engage the Attorney General’s office in an investigation.”
Mr. Young and I have clearly articulated that we were acting in good faith, in our roles as board members, on behalf of those we have been elected to serve. While I personally feel that parsing the use of stationary is ridiculous, I would assert that 1) We did not want to be in the position to request an A.G. opinion 2)We sincerely hoped our interpretation was wrong, and 3) We were compelled to file the petition because our own president felt it necessary to convolute the concern at a following board meeting on March 9th, making it clear that within our board there was truly a difference in interpretation of the law. This was clearly a request of two board members performing their duties as board members to uphold the law and the use of stationary was appropriate.
As to the cost of the FOIA to our tax payers, I believe that our tax payers expect our board to uphold the law regarding public meetings. It is our duty to ensure that right, whether executed or not, is protected. Had our board responded appropriately on March 6th and withdrew the meeting, I would not have been compelled to study the state code regarding FOIA, nor would I have learned that the A.G. provides an avenue for filing for an opinion if you are concerned a violate MAY occur in the future. Our actions in regards to filing this petition are to the benefit and protection of the board. We now know that we are misinterpreting the law and are in a position to prevent that error from ocurring in the future.
I would suggest that you should be more concerned with other aspects of the March 6th meeting, including minutes presented to the board last night that indicate that at 12:35 pm on March 6th, the quorum dissolved, yet the remaining board continued to meet and conduct business for another 10 minutes. Was that a typo, an error? Or did the March 6th meeting again violate FOIA? I do not know, and my absention on last night’s meeting minutes reflects that. It was out of respect for this board that because this meeting was already deemed inappropriate that I chose let the issue lie. It was out of hope that we will respect the AG’s opinion and begin operating lawfully that I chose not to respond to numerous nuanced statements thrown at me last night by my fellow board members.
As to your second concern regarding fiscal responsibility: I have repeatedly made requests both in open board meetings and executive sessions that we consider alternatives in our approach to reducing spending. Did I expect that these suggestions would save all 160 positions, no. But, our board and administration has failed to provide an analysis that such suggestions would not save jobs. I refuse to vote to fire teachers and increase class sizes while the board fails to advocate to Dover on behalf of the students. If we are to do one, we are morally and ethically bound to do the other. It is not enough to send a rep to DSBA’s legislative committee. At an earlier Combined Boards Meeting, our legislators asked members to come to them, to talk to them, to educate them so that they could make informed decisions regarding our schools. I have yet to see our board issue any correspondence with these same legislators, though the request was reported back to our board at our following regularly scheduled meeting.
I respect your decision, your vote. I respectfully request you honor mine.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Scheinberg
May 5, 2010 at 10:14 am | #3 Reply | Quote John,
I respectfully disagree, in fact your vote to bring Joe Wise here and ardent support of him was the cause of our financial ruin. My disappointment in you is an order of magnitude greater than yours in me. I know I did the right thing last night, right by our students, taxpayers and constituents. The FOIA did not need to be contested as it was plainly obvious we were wrong. Perhaps if the leadership of the board that you follow and support would act in accordance with the law, the FOIA would be unnecessary. Out lawyer acted inappropriately in asking for more time and ostensibly conceded the case. If we paid for that, then maybe we need a new lawyer.
I know you feel strongly about you vote, and I do too. I accept your disappointment and I do consider it in a very large context. If I could get questions answered by my own administration I could support more recommendations, but business as usual in this district must go away .We are awash in consultants and, bad programs, and the resultant decisions are unacceptable.
My votes will continue to reflect an urgent need for change in how we operate and think about solving problems. When the day comes that our board is a partner in running the district we will have succeeded, until then, we are geldings.
Mr. John Young
Post a Comment
Word Verification May Be Case Sensitive