Curmudgeon's Corner

I think that everyone pondering the school referendum issue absolutely must check out a posting on the MenomoneeFallsNow.com website, under the Vanguard blog written by Jefferson Davis.  The heading is “Public Employee Benefits Cost”, but about half way down he writes about MF’s recent experience with school referendums and enrollment.

blogs.menomoneefallsnow.com/.../public-employee-benefit-costs.aspx

Apparently, in 2004 the MF school board put forth a referendum to build a new elementary school, declaring it absolutely essential.  The referendum failed, and now, just 4 years later, the MF school district has had such significant enrollment declines that they are looking to close one of the existing elementary schools.  Could the same thing happen in Germantown?  I fear that the enrollment projections were based on approved new construction, but based on the recent economic situation, I doubt that many of those approved projects will come to fruition.

Even more interesting, there is a link to a story about the Waukesha District Attorney finding ethical and legal violations within the Distict involving the failed referendum and a group that was advocating for passage of the referendum.  It seems that something similar may be going on now in Germantown.  Why is a pro-referendum group being allowed to use school district property and the library for meetings?  

The article Al refers to left me absolutely in shock this morning, as it made it 100% clear that the board eliminated full day kindergarten to manipulate the numbers.

This doesn't hold any water.

Let's try to put this in practical terms. Let's say you hold a job where you make $30,000 a year. You then are laid off from that job. One month later the owner of the company comes to you and offers you a new position for $60,000.

Now how much more money are you receiving than you were before? $30,000 or $60,000?

Cancel full day kindergarden so you can offer it again to more students is not an increase of the amount of state aid you get for the more students - its the DIFFERENCE between what you were getting before and what you are getting now.

And where is this "belief" that more students will sign up for full day kindergarden to gain the full amount. Plus - I agree with Gtownie, given the current mortgage mess - I wouldn't be betting on a lot of new construction in the next few years.

This is just another blatant attempt to confuse the voters. How these people sleep at night is behind my comprehension.

Seems to me this board is trying to make a lot of decisions based on assumtions, theory's and potential. This is not a way to spend 22 million dollars! They have no way of proving/guaranteeing  that any of these statements will come true. I have the potential of doubling my income next year, does that mean I should buy a bigger house? I don't think so. Why doesn't Mr.Warnimont give me $20,000 to me, I have the potential to double it for him base on a theory I have about investing.

And is he willing to pay my taxes if his thoery is not correct??I don't thin so!

TTTM

Your little math problem answer is neither $30,000.00 or $60,000.00. The truth is it would be the difference between $60,000.00 and the sum of unemployment. The $30,000.00 figure is gone due to the layoff. You can't work with the $30,000.00 figure because it's non existent.

Numo - a better way to state it might have been:  what if someone stole $30,000 from you, and then gave you a Christmas present of $60,000.  Should you send them a thank you note for $30,000 or $60,000?  The stealing (or layoff) is within the control of the person in question, therefore it IS relevant.

GTOWNIE,

I didn't realize stealing/layoff was one in the same. Send them a thank you note for $60,000.00. Again the $30,000.00 IS GONE out of sight and out of mind. MERRY CHRISTMAS.

Numo,

If you would feel obligated to thank someone for giving you back money they stole from you, I see that you are a person who I cannot reason with or help in any manner.  Good luck as you move forward in life.

Let's say you were unemployed but landed a job working for a small startup division within a large factory.  Business was off, and former inventory storage space was available to start up your division. You produce what you can in the confined space, but the company still has to go elsewhere to get more of the same component your division makes.

The business recovers.  Although your division produces a high quality product and is profitable, the space your division occupies  becomes needed by the mainstream business once again, to fulfill the needs of the much bigger customer base.  To protect the mainstream business, management announces they have to close your division in a year. You and your co-workers are hopeful that won't happen, and continue to produce a high quality product.  But, as the deadline approaches, the main business really needs your space, so the managers reconfirm the closing.

However, the managers recognize the profit potential of your division, so they plead with the stockholders to take out a construction loan to build another factory, enlarging the total space available for the main operations plus have room in both factories to double the size of your division, which gets reopened.  The profits from your division alone are enough to pay back the construction loan, your division supplements the main business with the quality it needs to grow itself, and the business is more successful than ever.  

You got your job back, the stockholders are really happy as their profits increase, and although you got hired back at the same pay rate as before, you're now included in a lucrative profit sharing plan.  And now you really do have a MERRY CHRISTMAS.

Or, you could just gripe about "mismanagement" and how your division shouldn't have been started up in the first place.  Kind of another look at the same issue, I'm not taking sides, I'm JAFO.

Dear Mr. Curmudgeon:

I respect and appreciate your interest in bringing issues into the public eye.  I am not sure that I agree with your chosen title of "Counterintuitive Argument" for this issue, since the principles of "state aid" to the schools in Wisconsin, and elsewhere, has long been founded on enrollments.  More students equals more state aid and less dependence on local taxes.  What might be counterintuitive, though, is the concept that a large tax base is more of a detraction than benefit.  I suggest this is only counterintuitive until you realize that Wisconsin's major population centers have a long history of socialist beliefs, and that the equalization aid law is simply made to "equalize".  If your school district's net worth exceeds the state norm, then you're less needy of a share of the appropriation and, in keeping with socialist principals, it's your duty to help fund those school districts who have less worth.  Wisconsin's "Two-Thirds Funding" is not "equalized" in the expected sense that all schools merely raise 1/3 of the operating revenue from within.

Dear GTOWNIE:

Your comparison with Menomonee Falls is apples-and-oranges.  You give no consideration to the $18.7 million referendum their voters did pass, later, which was for expansion of Menomonee Falls High School and which will result in moving the 9th grade from Falls North Junior High to the High School.  Falls North changes from the 8-9 school to a 6-7-8 middle school, and Thomas Jefferson changes from the 6-7 school to a 1-5 school.  There are no plans developed, yet, to "close one of the existing elementary schools", but to an observer, closing the tiny Valley View Elementary in favor of the larger Thomas Jefferson Elementary would probably be a wise choice.

And for what it's worth, in a straight line it's a mile from Shady Lane to TJ, another mile from TJ to Riverside, and another mile from Riverside to Ben Franklin.  The Menomonee Falls district is 1/3 the geographic size of Germantown, and if you take out the industrial developments in both districts, MF is more like 1/4.  Drill into the reasons for declining enrollment in the MF schools and you'll find that families are chosing to move to the Hamilton school district instead of MF due to better schools and lower taxes. They're probably moving to Germantown, too.

A final word on this part of your comparison:  I sure wouldn't give any credence to a blog by Jefferson Davis.

Final words on that same post:  get your facts right before you post them.  The school district doesn't own the Germantown Village library, and the pro-referendum group has never used a district property for their meetings.

Dear GTT:

Your credibility as a supposed authority might be better if you'd stop making claims that stem from made-up conversations with school board member Carrie Brust last March.  She wasn't on the school board then, and didn't attend a single "information meeting."

Also, this fixation with "road repairs necessary if this new school gets built."  There must be something I am not catching here.  First of all, why should the people of Richfield or Jackson have to pay to fix Germantown's streets, isn't that what Germantown village taxes are supposed to be spent on?  Second, those 5 to 11 year olds must haul in some pretty hefty allowances if they can afford $4/gallon gas for the cars you apparently think they'll be driving themselves to school in.

I've also noticed in another response of yours, that you had a 5th grade child at MacArthur School last year, you say the class size was 17, and that your child was never given instruction in a hallway.  I bet you'd have been in the face of the school principal if that class had been close to, or over 30, though, right?  And let's be honest and fair here:  one snapshot does not make a movie, nor would a movie in one hallway be representative of the whole panorama, so there's no credibility to be gained by "I didn't see it happening on these few dates and times, in my limited view of the school, therefore it is not happening anywhere at that school or anywhere else.  Listen to me, I am an authority on this."

Dear TAXEDTOTHEMAX:

I've read your many posts, and, in response to your challenge to another poster, may I suggest that you consider changing your name to BLOVIATER.  Not only does it fit, it would also be entertaining for those who read your constant bitterness.  It's just a suggestion, and I hope you're not so filled with self-importance that you can't at least chuckle at that idea.  If you really are "taxed to the max", then why not move back to Milwaukee or maybe to someplace cheaper like Trenton or Farmington?  I'm not saying you have to, it's just another suggestion.  How long have you lived in Germantown, anyhow?  I'll wager you've never studied your property tax bill (if you get one) and noticed that school taxes have dropped, as Mr. Magill stated in another thread in this blog.

Dear Everyone Else:

I used to be undecided on this issue, but I'm now persuaded by positive "let's move forward" approaches rather than the "we didn't need this stuff before, why do we need it now" crowd.  I think what we're seeing is a clash between those who have hopes and those who have hatred.  There are many people, like me, who realize that the community we enjoy today was built by people of modest means, who most likely had to dig very deep into their pockets to build these schools fifty years ago, but did it because they knew it was a part of being a citizen.  Maybe that's why we now call them "The Greatest Generation", because they went beyond service to their country in time of war, to service to their country, period.  They had a vision and desire to improve things for the successor generations, and they did it.  From my vantage point, we're seeing a clash of an interim generation of take-without-returning versus the younger and older generations who have a greater sense of duty.

Perhaps the Germantown school district and the many communities included in it would be well-served by a town-hall type problem solving discussion.  Personally, I'd tend to listen closely to what a group of deeply informed neighbors have learned and developed as a strategy that seems to simultaneously address the concerns of families with children as well as those who either cannot afford or just flatly refuse to fund 21st Century public education in their community.  I worry about the consequences to be imposed by a small but loud group of people who are intent on keeping Germantown and Richfield "small" by driving away families with high hopes for the future of themselves and their children.  Maybe they can afford tax hikes, but I can't.  I'm voting for this new school, the wide-spread security improvements, and the 21st Century technologies the kids and teachers need in their classrooms.

JAFO,

I am sorry I did not check back to this site until now to see your comment.  This whole issue is probably dead in the water due to the events of the past week, but I disagree with your statement that a pro-referendum group has never used district property.  Here is a direct cut-and-paste from an e-mail I received on Sept 5:

"There will be a meeting at the School District Office on Monday, September 8th at 7:00 pm for Germantown parents interested in helping to get the school referendum back on the ballot and passed in November.  Anyone interested is welcome to attend."

I really don't know if that meeting actually occurred, but I would guess it did as I didn't receive any further e-mails saying it was cancelled.

GTOWNIE:

The meeting on September 8 was a scheduled, open, public School Board meeting.  As one who tries to think "the best of people" rather than look for demons all of the time, I personally suspect that the email you quote from was a sort of rally for supporters to attend the School Board meeting and voice their support.  I don't believe it's against the law for groups to attend the meetings of public bodies, sit in the audience and see who else is there and might be like-minded, and ask then ask the prospects to join their group.

Of course, if you have information that something illegal occured and its different than that, you should contact the DA in West Bend and file a complaint.

I have several questions and concerns regarding this referendum.  My first, and biggest question is, how is it that roughly a decade ago we CLOSED area elementary schools, citing lack of enrollment, but now we are asked to build a new one?  Willow Creek school was sold in the mid 90's, and just this last Monday, the sale of Highway View School was voted on.  Also, several years in the early 2000's, enrollment was HIGHER than now, but there was no need for a new school proposed.  

   Then there is the question of all-day kindergarten.  I really feel this is yet another convenience sought by parents who work, rather than something they truly desire for their children's benefit. After all, it very often eliminates the cost and need for daycare.  Why do we continue to ask schools raise our children?  Schools are NOT babysitters, they are there to educate!  Has it occurred to anyone that if we went back to sessions of morning and afternoon kindergartens, that there would be more than enough room in our elementary schools, because there would be only half as many children per kindergarten attending at one time?  Seems to me that any cost of childcare incurred by these parents would be far cheaper than the 22 million proposed, yes?

On the second issue of the referendum... The taxpayers are to grant extra spending by the Village until the Village says it doesn't need to anymore?  Excuse me?  Does anyone really believe that day would come?  We are TERRIBLE at budgeting!  Do you realize the Village just paid tens of thousands of dollars to revamp the frankly mundane and silly little website it has?  The simplicity of this project could have been handled by any high school student.  The server fees the Village pays alone are outrageous and out of line with what they could easily secure in kind for about $25.00 a month.

I also think people need to beoome more aware of what the Village and School Board are up to, since they apparently feel no real need to make sure we know all the details.  For instance, how many parents are aware that not only is use of cell phones prohibted at the High School, which is probably fine, but now, POSSESSION of a cell phone anywhere on school property is banned.  If your child needs a phone in their car in winter on slippery roads, too bad, because if they are caught with one, disciplinary action can be taken!

Sorry for the long rant, which is actually shorter than I could post, but I am truly fed up with what is either corruption or ignorance, and possibly both, within our Village government bodies.

LAHIRA:

You're another person who enjoys spreading misinformation quite loudly, aren't you.  Willow Creek School had five classrooms, and was closed in 1990, when Amy Belle was added onto.  It was sold and the proceeds of the sale were used to pay part of the construction cost of Amy Belle.  If you want to know why it was sold then, ask the people who were on the school board in 1989 and 1990, twenty years ago, when Germantown was about 14,000 people.  Highway View has four little classrooms and is in the northwestern-most corner of the district, no where near the children.  It hasn't been used for 18 years.  

And of course, your enrollment statement is a lie. L-I-E.  In 2001, Amy Belle had 319 students, today it has 421; County Line had 526 students, today it has 555; MacArthur had 416 and now has 419; Rockfield had 286 then, and has 286 now.  And as you are well aware, unless you are new to the district, this new school has been talked about again and again since 2002.

Your "daycare" argument is founded on ignorance of what occurs in those classrooms and is an insult to the teachers and the students who are there to educate and be educated.  The state expects the public schools to have fullday kindergarden and provides the support to fund it:  all but six school districts out of 426 offer it, it's what parents expect, and its now gotten to the point that the state removes tax relief from school districts that refuse to offer it.  That money from the state has to be made up by local dollars, and that's why Germantown is the 7th most local-tax-dependent school district out of the 100 largest.  I heard the numbers and did my own research on this, and found that Warnimont was too conservative - we all stand to get at least a 20% tax break if this school is approved.  I could use that 20% cut, what about you?  Removing the fullday kindergarden program in Germantown frees up EXACTLY one room per school building, and that's not enough to solve the problems faced by all of the schools, but particularly County Line and Amy Belle.  County Line is 150 students above the legal capacity and Amy Belle is 80 children over the legal capacity.  MacArthur is 70 children over capacity and Rockfield is 35 over.

Lastly, you level some pretty dangerous charges against the elected officials:  I assume you can prove that those village and school board decisions were not discussed and made publicly?  State law has prohibited pupil possession of cell phones on all school properties for almost 20 years.  Sure, probably 90% of the students would have a legitimate reason to have one, but 10% do not, and if you really want to know what sort of illegal activities are occurring at the middle schools and high schools, read the papers and ask the cops.

Just one final thought and I am done, I swear.  I take exception to JAFOS's portrayal in the "Dear Everyone Else" section above of those who oppose the referendum as being full of hatred.  They are not full of hatred -- they just happen to believe that these proposals are not the optimal solutions to our community's educational needs.  But they still may fervently support education, be quite willing to pay whatever it takes to secure a better future for the next generation, and love Mom and apple pie.  Comments like the above only discourage open exchange of ideas and further divide the community.

I guess the Milwaukee Journal article from 1997 with the headline, "Germantown School District to buy 21.6 acres of farmland.

Money for purchase to come from sale of Willow Creek School" is a lie, then, and somehow, magically, we actually sold the school as you suggest, in 1990, and used the proceeds for Amybelle.

Additionally, the mailer I just received from the district showing that in 2000, MacArthur school had an enrollment of 425 students compared to 419 today, and Rockfield in 2002 having an enrollment of 305 compared to 286 today, must also be a lie according to you.

Please note, too, that I did not say that kindergarten teachers willingly are providing daycare, nor that it is the focus of schools.  What I said is that all-day kindergarten is, in large part, a convenience for working parents who do not want to, or cannot afford to, pay for daycare, and I stand by my statement.

As for your 20% tax break, forgive me for not seeing our children as commodities to be bartered for cash. Besides, assuming your figure is even correct, nearly 6% of that will be immediately eaten up by the repayment for the new school, and then more, for the seemingly uncapped request for exceeding spending limits currently in place by half a million per year, until?  Well, we don't know until when, do we?

Have you seen the budget?  I note that you did not address my claim about the outrageous expenditure for our village website.  I'm sorry, you can say it's a dangerous statement, but this expenditure IS based on either officials' ignorance or corruption, because there simply is no other excuse. It's also not the only place unnecessary money is bleeding from our village.

Lastly, I did not say that information about goings-on in the village are not publically accessible, only that residents need to seek out such information, since much of it is not specifically brought to their attention if they do not seek it out.  Did you see any articles regarding the cell phone ban on school property? No, you did not. Perhaps you saw an article or two on banning cell phone usage.  Also, you cite that state law prohibited cell phones on school property as long as 20 years ago.  Really? WHO had a cell phone in school 20 years ago?  Perhaps you don't realize that pay phones, which used to be accessible to students, have all been removed, as they have pretty much from around the village, everywhere.  That makes it difficult for anyone, including a student, to reach help if they need it, and cannot have a cell phone, doesn't it?  We are not Milwaukee.  Yes, we have drug problems, as do all districts, everywhere, and I assume that is the illegal activity you are referring to, but explain to me why a student cannot POSSESS a phone.  I did say it was fine, and probably preferable, to not allow them to use it during school hours, but it's frankly unsafe to send a teenage driver out without a cell phone to at least keep in their car.

I distinctly said Willow Creek was closed in 1990, I never said it was sold that same year.  It was actually sold several years later, and it may have been about the same time as the purchase of the land on Holy Hill Road, but the land on Holy Hill Road was bought using "impact fee money" that had been collected for some years.  The newspaper reporter probably just assumed that since the sale of Willow Creek and the purchase of the Holy Hill property might have occurred at the same special meeting of the community electorate, the money from one went to the other.  But records show otherwise.  The real facts are, though, that "roughly a decade ago" would be more like "two or three decades ago", because I believe we're almost to 2009, not 1999.  And being off by 100% isn't within most people's definition of "roughly".

I'm also willing to bet that you have absolutely no idea how small and inefficient those older schools were, all you know is that they were "schools" and therefore must have been large enough to be sustainable.

I like how, when called on it, you suddenly "cherry pick" the support of your "several years in the early 2000's, enrollment was HIGHER than now, but there was no need for a new school proposed".  Now that you've backpedaled and said "well, in one year, one school had more kids than this year.... and a few years later, another school had more in that one year than now", let's take a look at your examples.  Let's start with the presumption that there is an even distribution of the age population within the school, meaning that if MacArthur had 425 children in six grades, that's 70.9 children per grade level. If that number is now 419, that's 69.9, a whopping one child less per grade level.  LIkewise, Rockfield at 305 was 50.9 children/grade and is now 286 or 47.6 children/grade.  Of course, unless you want to move children around from grade level to grade level, or from school to school, to attain a uniform distribution of bodies per classroom without regard for learning abilities or maturity, then the uniform distribution idea doesn't work, because as you say, we shouldn't treat children like commodities such as cattle herded into pens.

Now, let's take a look at what was happening in the other schools in 2000 and 2003, using the same information you cited.  In 2000, Amy Belle had 347 kids, County Line had 549, Rockfield had 280, and as you said, MacArthur had 425, for a total enrollment of 1601.  In 2003, Amy Belle had 327, County Line had 541, MacArthur had 403, and as you said, Rockfield had 317, for a total enrollment of 1588.  Now it's 2008, and Amy Belle has 421, County Line has 555, MacArthur has 419 and Rockfield has 286, for a total of 1681.  Where I come from, neither 1601 nor 1588 is HIGHER than 1681.

I didn't comment on the Village website because this topic is about the schools, not the village.  One has nothing to do with the other, but to answer your question, no, I have not seen the village budget because it is not published.

And with regard to the "nearly 6% of that (20% tax reduction) will be immediately eaten up by repayment for the new school", is it your argument that a net reduction of 14% is a bad thing?  or 12%, if the half-million/year is also approved?  Excuse me for being selfish, but I could use a further 14% reduction in my school tax, and I bet 99.9% of the people in the school district would enjoy it, too.

So to summarize, you are against this referendum because it (1) provides for safer schools, (2) adds 21st Century technology to every single classroom in the district, (3) solves the current and future problem of 25% to 40% elementary school overcrowding, (4) gives our schools the ability to offer the same options for 5 year olds as 420 of our 426 competitors, and (5) cuts your school tax by over 10%.  Did I miss any of your reasons, or are you also against it because the village has a "mundane and silly website"?

If you really do not see "our children as commodities to be bartered for cash", then what's your point, since so many of your arguments against the issue of improvements for children is centered around your cash?

Jafo, are you aware how very condescending your posts come off?

In any case, to address your rebuttals above as best I can, no, the Journal did not make an error.  You are correct that other monies were used as well to purchase that farmland, but the proceeds from Willow Creek school were added to those funds.  That farmland has since been unused except for farmland, which I understand we are currently renting out at 70.00 per acre, which comes to a bit more than 1500.00 per year. At best, a poor business decision...over a million to purchase property that is recovering less than 2 thousand per year.  

Additionally, this property was purchased, and Willow Creek sold, in 1997, which is, yes, roughly a decade ago, plus a bit more than a year.

Having lived in Germantown since 1964, I am quite aware that both Highway View and Willow Creek were smaller schools. Both, as I recall, were in need of roof repair, which at the time would have amounted to about one hundred thousand dollars or so altogether to accomplish.  

I admit to not knowing exactly how many classrooms are proposed for the new school, but it seems to me that 100k to re-roof a total of 9 rooms would have been far more prudent than 21 million for however many are proposed now.  In fact, for maybe a million or two more than the 100k, I'd bet some pretty significant updating could have been accomplished, as well.

Unfortunately, it is too late to analyze, since we appear to be a society at large that doesn't believe in retaining and repairing the old, but instead throwing the old away, and acquiring new, and these properties are long since shut down.  I mention it, because to me, it's another example of the village's short-sightedness.  

It seems to me back awhile that it was also proposed that an addition to Rockfield be made, but we are told now that it is not feasible, as we were then, because not enough children are in that area.  Since Germantown is only 36 miles square, is it really THAT far for even the most distant family to go?  If so, we've become very spoiled, and I bet the children who come to our schools from other communities don't think that's a far distance at all, since they travel much farther, in theory, to get the superior education and safety our community currently provides.

Did I 'cherry pick' my enrollment numbers? Yes, as did you, when you  blatantly called me a liar for stating enrollments had been higher in the past.

Good arguments have been made elsewhere regarding just why it would be such a terrible thing to redistribute enrollments of students, and what exactly, 'over-capacity' entails anyhow, since individual class sizes seem perfectly manageable, as well as questions raised as to whether or not future expansions are about to be asked for the middle and high schools, since these terribly over crowded elementary populations will, presumably, grow up.  

It's also been asked time and again why the second part of the referendum is being asked for, since the proposed increased population's tax base should really be enough to cover operating expenses for a new school. No answers have come.

On the subject of taxes, why do you insist on touting the 20% tax break as a given, when it is only hypothetical?  The current 6% levy is real, as will be the coming additional nearly 6% raise if the referendum passes is real, not counting whatever additional tax levies will be needed for 'operational costs'.  Little bit here, little bit there, and pretty soon, that 20%, even if assured, which it isn't, doesn't look so grand.

You mistake my arguments as tight-fistedness with my money, and lack of concern for our children. I went through the entire Germantown school system, my children followed, and now my grandchild.  Of course I wanted the best for my children, and continue to, for my grandchild.  I just question that the WAYS we are being asked to spend our money really is the best...for anyone.