I'm behind with my "letters to the board" updates, here is the latest installment:
https://acrobat.com/#d=ihP6q8wpZW7Ttowg*iNR9w
I've got more coming (once I get permission) but in the email switch and just the plain volume of mail I may have lost a few, so don't feel slighted if your's isn't in here. I will post any and all letters to the board with the authors permission. Let me know if I missed one that you would like posted.
Thanks for your thoughts---
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
26 comments:
Why do you need permission? These are a public record, are they not?
I ask permission because it is polite to and I try to be respectful of the community.
The other posts were deleted because of "facts not in evidence".
Oh, those posts had facts.
I will post the List letter in a few moments.
I deleted the above comment because although it did contain excerpts from a letter to the board from Jill, the quotes were taken out of context to make it seem that the Jill was complaining about the community when her comments were actually about the board. The conclusions reached by the commentor were clearly false based on a fair reading of the entire letter.
To the commentor: Please reread the entire letter, without the biases of the board member that forwarded this to you. You will see that the comments are clearly a criticism of the board's actions and behaviour, not a comparison of the communities or residents. Jill is complaining about the patterns of action about her fellow board members, something she is entitled to do, and if you view the last meeting you will see that her complaint is not unfounded.
Among the board members it is my experience that Jill gives issues before the board from both communities the fairest shake.
Anon- I'm curious - how did you get the letter from Jill List, did you file an open records request or did another board member send it to you?
"Anon- I'm curious - how did you get the letter from Jill List, did you file an open records request or did another board member send it to you?"
I do not recall where I got it (seriously-my e-mail box is a meass), but it was attached to that flyer about Manning and the Mayor that was originally sent from CG.
Peter-do you know where the heresay check button is located?
Yesterday you could find it and today your inbox is a mess. Clearly you are being deceptive or trying to hide something.
1) Your post is an edited version taken out of context is this the version you received or did you you edit this yourself?
2) This email was addressed to the board. How did you get a hold of it unless you are a board member?
"Among the board members it is my experience that Jill gives issues before the board from both communities the fairest shake."
Since you base this judgment on your "experience," please provide some examples to support your claim that this particular board member gives both communities a fairer shake than others on the board do. I watch the board, and based on what I've seen, I don't agree. I'd really like to see some specific evidence to show that she supports both communities more than other board members do. Your statement implies that you think she does a better job of this than you yourself do, which should make you question your own performance.
Happy too - When the issue of the Maywood/Winnequah consolidation was first discussed this year, it was Jill who did the most thorough questioning of the administration about the facilities and accomodations. Jill thought of several things I hadn't, and no one else brought up. Then when the issue of the TP modular classrooms came up, Jill pursued the issues there with the same thoroughness - something no one else did.
The thing about Jill is that she goes after these issues in both communities with equal thoroughness, and she complains (rightfully so) when the rest of us don't. And Jill certainly does a better job with student facilities needs than I do. We all have our strengths and weaknesses, I'm happy to give credit when someone has strengths where I might not.
We talk about the quality of product and service. What about the quality of our relationships and the quality of our communications and the quality of our promises to each other?
Peter,
Do you have any idea how much it would cost us as taxpayers a year if we went to referendum for a million a year for the next five years on an average, say $200,000 home??
Thanks
Ballpark, there is about $2G equalized property value in the district, so $1M is about 0.5 mil or $50 per 100,000. The answer is roughly $100
But the problem ISN'T a million a year, right Peter. It's a million this year, and it will be TWO million next year. So, $100 bucks next year, and then $200 bucks the year after.........all the way until we get up to $1500 bucks a year.
Won't fly.
We need a 5 and 10 year plan!!
The question was, what does a $1M referendum cost.
You are right that it doesn't solve the long term issue and we do need a long term plan to fix the problem. I have some thoughts on the issue:
http://sobolformgsd.blogspot.com/2010/02/plan-for-future.html
"The question was, what does a $1M referendum cost. "
My father always used to say-you ask me a dumb arse question and you're going to get a dumb arse answer/
A million referendum would generate 5 million over 5 years. By this math, a 5 year/15million averages about 3 million a year, and could be written as such. The extra money the first 2 years would go into the reserves to pay for the last 2.
This means a $300 increase on a $200,000 home, would pay about 5 years. Your taxes would be $300 higher then this year, and remain $300 higher probably forever, but wouldn't go up $100 each year.
Of course if the structural problem were not fixed by this time, everything would be the same in 5 years as it is now.
I'd be happy to pay more, and will support a referendum, but have a concern that if it passed, the board would feel less pressure to solve the problem, either in Monona Grove or with the State funding formula.
Your math is correct, as is your point about what happens after 5 years.
In the long run though the problem does need to be fixed in the state funding formula. Funding of education in WI as a % of GDP has been sinking for the last decade - at some point you simply can't do more with less.
Everyone wants a long term plan, and that is understandable and reasonable. Afterall, don't we all want to know what the future will bring and how we will address the challenges that will present themselves? But these long-range plans are out-of-date as soon as they are finished, and grow less useful with time. Why? Because when it comes to the future, we must make assumptions. But assumptions about the the future often prove to be wildly incorrect.
Nevertheless, I do believe the board needs to come to the public with budget predictions, a list of cuts that will be needed, and a spending referendum that covers the projected shortfall over the next 5 years or so. But we all need to understand that what we predict for future years will likely be incorrect and there is no way to avoid the school board finding themselves in a position where they must react quickly and decisively to changing circumstances.
I would like to see a long range plan that provided guidance to help make decisions. A plan can't really be specific about what will be cut when, because we don't have control over our revenue.
Instead I see a plan that should be "We value X over Y" then when it comes to budget cuts we have pre-agreed to cut Y first. Of course there would be a lot more utility than that simple example.
Another problem with any long-range plan, even one that gives "guidance," is that the board in a few years will almost certainly not be made up of the same individuals and there may even be a different superintendent. When you toss in the unpredictable uncertainties along with inevitable change in the leadership, long range planning is not the panacea many seem to think it is. But you must still attempt it.
Post a Comment