Board of Education Meeting Review:

The agenda item concerning the secession petition involved some back and forth amongst board members.  Mr. Warnimont pointed out that the Board was already on record with its action of September 24, 2007 to the effect that the secession petition would go forward.  There was some discussion as to which district would be preferable to MATC.  Mr. Bowe indicated that his position favoring WCTC would probably change given new information he had developed.  Among the reasons was the indication that fire fighters seemed to favor the program offered by MPTC over that offered by WCTC.  Mr. Warnimont indicated that he remained in favor of WCTC based on his analysis.

The long and the short of this discussion and the ensuing vote is this:  The Board will have the petition in its hands by the meeting on September 8th, will make its final decision on desired district and will proceed with the filing prior to the deadline established by the Technical College System.

There was some consternation amongst Board members that they were being castigated in the press for having delayed this process.  It was pointed out that, given the Technical College System process, filing last year or filing this year prior to the deadline would have no effect on the actual date the secession could occur if approved.  The date of such a change, if approved, is set forth and is inflexible.

Discussion concerning the building referendum issue included a review of the findings from the recent survey.  There were 11,647 pieces mailed to district homes, and a response rate of some 15% had been logged.  This was felt to be a good return at a total cost of $4,200.  The results seemed to echo the election results in terms of the number in favor and the number opposed.

Mr. Warnimont indicated that recent reviews of the cost changes since the referendum was defeated showed an overall increase of about 20% if no changes were made to the plan as presented earlier.  This increase was caused by the general increase in prices being felt in most sectors of the economy.

If I had to guess as to what direction the Board will take regarding the referendum, I would expect that we'll not see the question on the ballot again until possibly in the spring of 2009.  I would also expect that the proposal for the elementary building will have been revised.

~~~~~~~~~~

Tax Knowledge Test Answers:

Remember that the questions asked for a true or false answer.

• Property taxes pay for most of the costs of the K-12 public schools in Wisconsin.
• False.  The most recent data we have available states that in 2004-05, gross property taxes paid for 38% of school districts' budgets in Wisconsin.  During that same period, inter-governmental aid paid for 56% of school districts' budgets.  The public opinion survey showed that 65% of survey respondents believed that property taxes fund the majority of costs for public K-12 education.
• Wisconsin taxpayers pay more of their personal income toward state and local taxes today than they did 10 years ago.
• False.  In 1994, the Wisconsin tax burden as a percent of personal income was 13.5%.  The most recent data available is for 2006; that year, Wisconsin taxpayers paid 11.6% of their income in taxes.  The public opinion survey found that 78% of respondents believed the statement was true.
• Wisconsin collects more money from sales taxes than it does from gasoline taxes and corporate taxes combined.
• True.  In 2007, sales tax accounted for 19% of all state and local taxes collected.  Corporate and gasoline taxes accounted for a total of 9% combined.  The public opinion survey found that only 26% of respondents believed the statement was true, while 35% believed the statement was false.

 (This courtesy of The Wisconsin Way.)

Test Your Tax Knowledge... 

A group named The Wisconsin Way sent an email today that had the following test of tax knowledge.  I'll re-publish this tomorrow with the answers added so you can check yours.

True or False:

1. Property taxes pay for most of the costs of the K-12 public schools in Wisconsin.
2. Wisconsin taxpayers pay more of their personal income toward state and local taxes today than they did 10 years ago.
3. Wisconsin collects more money from sales taxes than it does from gasoline taxes and corporate taxes combined.

~~~~~~~~~~

School Board Meeting Tonight...

The Board of Education meeting convenes at 7:00 PM tonight in the District Administrative Offices and agenda item VIII. B. "Discussion with appropriate action regarding secession from the MATC district" is included under "Unfinished Business".

This is an important topic and I'll cover the discussion and any public action tomorrow in another Village Buzz edition.

~~~~~~~~~~

Sendik's: Beehive of activity...

If you've not been past the new Sendik's facility during the day, it is a beehive of activity.  The crews working on this project have consumed most of the parking spaces in front of the building.  If they don't make their target opening date, it won't be for lack of trying!

~~~~~~~~~~

Thomas Square Bread Bagels...

Believe it or not, the George Weston Bakeries company responded by mail to my question about Thomas Square Bread Bagels.  Unfortunately, they told me that these are not currently available apparently anywhere in the U.S.  They didn't say 'never', so I'll continue to hope.  I wonder what the problem is that is keeping those off the market.  They sold very quickly.  Could it be that they stepped on another firm's exclusive process or something along those lines?  Or, is the cost of production so great today that they simply didn't think they could sell them?

If you find out, please let me know.

The Journal Sentinel carried an article this morning about the Practical Nurse program offered by MATC.  This program has been on probation for some time and that continues.  Another evaluation visit is scheduled for the Fall of this year.

Low rates of graduation apparently had prompted the probationary status and the state Board of Nursing has been carefully monitoring the progress or lack thereof at MATC in this program.

Dessie Levy was quoted as saying, "When you talk about implementing standards, our (graduation rate) will reflect a decline because we haven't had any standards (in the past).  She is Dean of Health Occupations for MATC.

WCTC has a similar program and it isn't on probation from all indications.  I was unsuccessful in contacting the Associate Dean at WCTC today, but there is no indication on the state Board of Nursing's website that WCTC is anything but in compliance and good standing.

We have been told repeatedly that our secession petition cannot simply focus on tax rates because apparently the Technical College System isn't concerned about the waste of our money.  We certainly can focus on substandard performance which seems to be the case in this program.

Students who have failed in this endeavor believe the fault lies with MATC and the curriculum.  Stephanie Wren was quoted as saying, "They just didn't prepare us, and I believe they set us up for failure.  When you have that much of your class failing, it seems like there's something wrong at that point."

How many other instances of low standards or no standards are there within MATC?

Another reason to petition for secession and permission to become part of the WCTC district in my opinion.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel featured an editorial this morning concerning the possibility that Germantown will pursue the secession effort from the Milwaukee Area Technical College district.  They spoke of 'outreach' by MATC and re-established their position that Germantown should remain in the MATC district.

The 'outreach' they spoke of consisted of the appointment of Victor Rossetti (then Superintendent of Germantown Schools) to a MATC Board vacancy, meetings held with Germantown officials, contribution of laptops to the library and a couple of 'free' programs.

This so-called 'outreach' seemed a lot like a feeble attempt to head off an embarrassing situation.  The addition of Mr. Rossetti did nothing to alter the course of MATC.  It continues to be, in my opinion, an out-of-control institution that answers to no one.  Germantown pays millions annually and we are supposed to take thirty laptops and shut our collective mouth.

The editors finally get to the last paragraph of this piece where they seem to catch a glimmer of a major reason for our angst.  They state, "And our guess is that until MATC does something to reduce its tax levy, not only will Germantown's efforts continue, but other communities may also start seriously considering secession."

The school board is scheduled to discuss this subject tonight.  I hope that it moves with all deliberate speed to push the secession from MATC.

MATC has now ended the suspense.  Whew!  It has officially increased its tax take by the 4.9% that it miraculously managed to get down to from the original 'straw man' of 6.4%.  This codifies the fact that MATC's appetite for tax dollars has risen by some 30% over the past five years.  MATC's leadership, if it can be called that without demeaning the word, just can't seem to understand that, while it is impervious to the wants and needs of the citizenry it serves, it really has permitted its reach to exceed our grasp.

MATC strikes me as an iceberg looking for a ship to sink.  It is floating along with the tip showing while the bulk of the 'bloat' lies just under the waterline, out of sight and, too often, out of mind.  Until it hits the ship of taxpayers yet again.  The taxpayers on this 'ship of fools' have finally come to understand, at least in Germantown, that they would be better-served if they were permitted to disembark from the current ship that continues to be victimized by the MATC iceberg...year after year after year after year!

That disembarkation is, however, contingent on so many disparate factors as to seem nearly unachievable.  First and foremost is that failure to make the petition to the state technical college board seeking a move from MATC to another contiguous tech college district renders all the other points moot.  If that is filed, then we wait and see what the august state tech college board members decide is to be our fate.  The last such application was made in 2004 and was denied.  That doesn't necessarily mean that this petition would suffer the same fate...but it is probably a decent precursor.  The only other successful action of this nature involved Germantown's petition to be moved into the MATC district back in the early 1970s.  (Ironic, isn't it?)

Back to the basics, however.  This rate of increase could've been far better controlled if the governing board for MATC were subject to re-election.  It isn't.  It is subject only to the parochial appointment desires of MATC.  Talk about a great deal, huh?  If I'm going to be governed by someone, I'd love the opportunity to pick the person without any outside interference over things such as how effective they'd be in administering their responsibilities.  If I 'accidentally' picked someone that was in lock-step with my positions and goals, could I possibly be faulted?  Sure, but it would be meaningless because no one could do anything about it except maybe move away to escape.

Maybe more to the point, I could've used the euphemism of a polar ice mass, a glacier, grinding everything in its path into submission.  Pretty soon there'll be nothing left here to tax.  It'll have been destroyed by the taxes rendered.

I guess the good news is that you can't tax the same dollar for more than 100 cents, so there is some ultimate end point.  Yet, there are so many taxes being levied against each of our dollars that we get less and less while everything costs us more and more.

Maybe, IF we pursue the change in tech college districts, and IF the state tech college board approves, we can rid ourselves of MATC President Cole, his board and his kingdom of fire-breathing dragons that burn everything of value they can identify in their domain.

I believe a full scale audit of that institution is called for and I believe one or more of our elected officials at the state level needs to pick up that banner and carry it high for all to see.  This is way past the point of being mere Blog fodder, although it sure has been good for that!

The move toward filing the documents necessary to seek secession from the Milwaukee Area Technical College tax district has begun to draw some debate amongst the politicos in Germantown.

Village President Kempinski has been quoted as being concerned with the seemingly slow movement in this process, and School Board President Erdmann says that we shouldn't worry because it is being taken up in July for ultimate filing in August.

Some have pointed to the earlier appointment of Superintendent Victor Rossetti as the death blow to any secession movement since Germantown is now directly represented on the MATC Board.

Mr. Rossetti will serve his last day as superintendent on June 30th.  What happens then?  Does he have to step down or is he permitted to serve out his term since he is then a 'former' superintendent.  What happens if he moves from the MATC district?  Is he immediately susceptible to removal if he doesn't resign?

Interesting questions all.  I have written earlier of some concern since the MATC discussion had been quiet for a seemingly long period of time.  Then we were advised that we shouldn't worry since the school board would resume its discussion in July. 

We are still a long way from the actual filing of documents and then we must await the decision of the state technical college board that is due within ninety days of the filing.  Then, even if we were to be successful...and that is far from a certainty...the actual secession wouldn't occur until the start of a new fiscal period for technical colleges.

And, of course, while this all plays out, we are being over-taxed and under-served by the money-eating monster that we know as MATC.

What we don't need are any artificial obstacles cropping up along the pathway to change.

MATC students along with all technical college and two-year college students in Wisconsin have a more difficult time gaining their education as the result of lenders leaving this marketplace.

MATC has nearly 5,300 students now at risk due to the fact that several lenders have decided to pull out of this market stating that it is unprofitable.  That supposedly is caused by too little money being borrowed for too short a time.

The total of loans that are affected by these pull-outs is more than $18 million, and involves five lenders for MATC students.

Several thoughts occur:

What other programs are available to these 5,300 students?  Supposedly there are from six to twenty other lenders available to the students if we are to believe the technical college system president, Daniel Clancy.  If that is the case, why would some big names pull out?  Those names included Chase, Citibank and TCF.  If there is money to be made, wouldn't they still want some of it?  Or is this indicative of some other more pervasive problem?

Will they qualify for replacement loans or is that really part of the problem that causes the lenders to want out?  Many of the students relying on these loans are low income people as you would presume could be the case.  It may not be possible for them to apply to other lenders and expect to be granted access to credit.  The federal government passed the College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007 and, contrary to what the name might suggest, this limited federal subsidies to those who lend money to students, and more than fifty such lenders left the market.  This suggests that we're talking about marginally-viable loans and that, without government guarantees, there will be fewer dollars available and those will go to better credit risks.

If there is a loss of significant numbers of MATC students, will MATC face up to the need to reduce budget?  There are nearly 5,300 students affected by this situation.  If half of those are unable to obtain different loans, there will likely be a similar number dropping out of MATC.  I don't know what the 'full time equivalent' student number is, but let's assume that these students are half-time.  So we would have a loss of half of the 5,300, or 2,650 and those would equate to 1,325 full time equivalent students.  That is about ten percent of the current total FTE students now attending MATC.  Will we see a ten percent reduction in the MATC budget?

Or, will MATC see this as forcing it to actually increase its tax take in order to offset the loss of student tuition?  Your guess is as good as mine, but I'll be amazed if we see a budget reduction as the result of this situation.  One cannot simply reduce staff because the student load has dropped, can one?  How does one manage to down-size when there are so many fixed costs, so many people relying on MATC for their livelihoods, so much left to do in the building of the empire?

What seems more likely is that this will be dragged out as alternatives are sought, and it will be talked about for awhile until we lose track of the issue.  Maybe state legislators will step up up and recommend new state guarantees.  After all, military veterans are given 100% tuition credits so it is only fair to begin providing everyone with 100% tuition to attend MATC.  It is only fair that MATC have this kind of support since the Milwaukee Public Schools are generating so few qualified graduates any longer.

The last paragraph was intended as 'tongue in cheek' in nature but I fear that it might be closer to reality than not. 

The president of the MATC teachers union, Michael Rosen, says he'll be in contact with Representative Gwen Moore (D-Milwaukee) to seek her help in assuring that students still have access to federal loans.  The dominoes have begun to fall and they threaten to crush us taxpayers yet again.  Why do they never topple in the other direction?

  

The MATC has developed yet another draft budget after the first such exercise produced the need for a 6.4% property tax increase (see Blog of April 23rd).  At the time of that budget draft, the governor apparently said he would not countenance such an increase.  MATC announced then that it would go back to the old drawing board and see what could be done to get down into the range of 'as little' as a 5.0% to 5.5% property tax increase.

Guess what?  They can now apparently declare victory in this onerous task since the finance committee is only proposing a revised draft budget that would consume another 4.9% increase in property taxes.  The proposed draft will come to a vote by the full board on May 27th.

MATC has developed budgets since 2004 that will have caused property tax increases of more than 30% if this draft is ultimately approved.

Has your personal income increased by 30% in the past four years?  Has your savings account grown by 30% in the past four years?  Has yours become a single income family instead of a dual income family in the past four years?  I doubt it.  But, if so, congratulations!  Even with such an increase, if that has happened for you, I'll wager that you have better places to put your hard-earned money.

The MATC finance committee says it has cut all it could cut from the budget.  Jeannette Bell, committee member and former West Allis mayor, was in favor of not only this 4.9% property tax increase, but also favors reducing the reserve account held by MATC which has been done as part of this draft. 

People costs are budgeted to increase significantly.  Wages and salaries will go up about $1.5 million.  Health care costs will rise by some $2 million.  Other 'fringe' benefits will add another $4.5 million, including  $2 million required to bring the recognition of accrued benefits onto the MATC books like any other 'business' must do today.  That is $2 million of 'funny money'; where else would we find accounting tricks employed if we were to subject this institution to the standards maintained by businesses?

I cannot accept the statement that MATC has cut 'everything possible' and still needs this kind of increase budget over budget.  The paragraph above suggests to me that people costs are way too high, and a very quick way to achieve reductions there is to have fewer people.  Maybe MATC should think about outsourcing certain functions.  Maybe they should think about 'tough love' negotiations with union representatives.  There are or ought to be limits even for tax-funded entities.

Maybe MATC needs to review its class demand and determine the bottom third by attendance and end those classes.  If there is insufficient demand, there is apparently not an identifiable 'significant' need.  MATC cannot be providing services to a market that doesn't exist in sufficient numbers to show demand.  That would free up space for other uses, and it would, or should, enable staff cuts that will reduce costs.

It is impossible to forget, in this debate over MATC, that there is a very real problem with the Milwaukee schools system and we must recognize that some of MATC's costs should rightfully be paid for by the Milwaukee school system since MATC is mopping up after that dismal performance.  Adult high school education classes and GED classes are an example of how the public education structure in Milwaukee fails its students and the residents of the community.  Interestingly enough, this may well be an intended consequence rather than an unintended consequence.  It gets non-Milwaukee taxpayers to pay more of the Milwaukee education costs than is already done through state tax distribution formula.

Finally, I suggest once again that MATC needs to clean up its many acts.  It needs to get out of the failed business incubator function.  It needs to quit building physical monuments to itself and its leaders.  It needs to look at sale and lease-back arrangements.  It needs to reduce staff. 

Frankly, it is becoming more and more apparent that significant leadership changes may be required, as well.  MATC leadership seems to be ignorant of the public's needs.  This is an institution answerable to no one other than the governor through his ability to appoint members to the state technical college board.  The state legislature and the governor must act to bring this renegade system under absolute control.  There must be a change in the manner in which the state board and the district boards are created; voters need to determine who sits on those boards.  The current incestuous approach simply doesn't work...for anyone other than the leaders and those who sit on the rubber stamp boards.

All this brings me to the next obvious question:  Where do we stand in the quest for permission to move to another technical college district?  There seems to have been a long delay in the process; maybe it is justified.  I hope it doesn't mean that the movement has been quietly put to sleep.

We've gone a long time between Blogs centering on MATC, but it is again time to take a critical look.  A 'headline' from some time ago suggested that MATC just can't help itself.  That seems to be the case.  They certainly don't seek out the kind of news coverage they tend to generate.  No organization would want to be in this type of 'limelight' and yet they do it to themselves over and over and over again.

Yesterday we learned that poor old MATC was being chastised by the 'state' for having proposed a budget that would require a property tax increase of some 6.4%.  It seems that even Governor Doyle thought that was too high, and that is going some when you think about all the tax increases and fee increases he has dumped in our laps.

So, having had their knuckles rapped with a ruler, they are being forced to the unthinkable...they may have to make some cuts in their expenses!!

They are now talking about cuts that will get the property tax increase down to as little as 5% to 5.5%.  These people do not live in the world that you and I populate.  They must breath some other life giving gas other than oxygen.  Maybe they're actually in a different orbit.  It seems obvious that they are not bound by the same life rules that we, the taxpayers, are bound to follow.

Hammering at an old theme again, if you and I have too little income for our expense load, we usually will look at our expense first and make the necessary adjustments.  In the world occupied by MATC, it seems that you first look at raising your revenue before you even give any thought to reductions in budget.

An article today centers upon the 'incubator boondoggle' that MATC created for itself many years ago.  We've Blogged about that before, as well.  Some of the businesses aren't real businesses with any hope of survival in the real world.  Many are considerably behind in their rent payments.  Now MATC is looking at actually closing or modifying the two incubators but it may have to give some money to those businesses that are to be displaced apparently according to some language in their agreement with each.  I've not seen those agreements, but I can't imagine that even MATC would give money away, much of it probably to those same businesses that are behind in their rent payments, if it were not bound to do so by the agreements.  Let's hope that MATC is sharp enough to hold back funds from this payment to at least recover the rental payments owed to it and to us taxpayers.

I have a high degree of difficulty in imagining that there is nothing else that can be cut out of the MATC budget.  How is it that MATC will cut expenses and still have to take us taxpayers to the cleaners for 5% to 5.5% more property taxes than we paid last time?  There are things that can be cut.  Let's talk about staff positions to begin with.  Let's look at the benefits next.  Let's review the travel expenses; it seems to me that was sort of a bloated area the last time we went down this pathway.  Maybe they need to sell off property and lease back the portions they actually need.  Maybe they need to shake up the status quo and actually take some real action like ending the deal with the current 'King' and getting a replacement that doesn't suffer from such egotism and illogical sense of institutional direction.  The Board should be capable of changing this direction unless it also suffers from something similar.

In the meantime, maybe the petitions to be removed from this system should be filed quickly and the case pressed while this iron is still hot enough to burn some sense into the directors of the state technical college system. 

By the way, Waukesha County Technical College has solidified its budget with a 3% increase in property taxes.  It is in the same geographic area, and faces most of the same issues.  What is the difference?  It seems to be leadership from my perspective.

"Timing of gift questioned" was the headline of Tom Kertscher's column in the morning Journal Sentinel.  That may well be a classic understatement, although I'm sure Mr. Kertscher needs to remain less 'curmudgeonly' than do I.

This is a blatant attempt to grease the skids for the denial of Germantown's soon-to-be-presented petition to the state technical college board.  MATC has not presented "free" computers to any other community and yet it has done so twice now for Germantown.  This coupled with the recent appointment of Germantown's Superintendent to the MATC board certainly shows that MATC is where we need to be sending our money.  This provides the technical college board a 'hidey-hole' from which they can summarily dismiss our petition.

These so-called "free" computers carry a very heavy price in my opinion.  The property tax increase alone to be collected from Germantown citizens will be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.  Let's say, for argument, that the increase in MATC's property tax collection will be $300,000.  If that were the case, then the "free" computers cost only about $15,000 each.  Too tough on MATC?  Okay.  Let's say they'll gather only $200,000.  Then each "free" computer will have only cost us about $10,000.  If we add the historic annual over-payment extracted from us without a voice, the cost is in the millions of dollars for "free" laptop computers.

Then there is this whole question of accountability.  Actually, there is a question as to UNaccountability.  How in the world is it that this frugally-run institution can come up with this kind of money when we didn't even request their assistance?  How is it that this appropriation didn't even require board approval?  How is it that WCTC actually sells its used computers at the end of their useful lives, let alone not giving "free" computers to communities in its district?

It appears this could well be validation that the inmates run this asylum.

No connection?  Please spare us the obvious truth-stretching.  Why else would we receive this largess at this time without knowing it was coming or even having made a request for such consideration?  Of course there is a connection.  To try to convince us otherwise gives us a very real look into the utter disregard with which us taxpayers of Germantown are held. 

We not only have no voice, we deserve no voice because we don't know enough to come in from the cold!

The Milwaukee Public School Board's Finance Committee took a vote last evening concerning whether or not to support "equal provision of employee benefits regardless of an employee's sexual orientation or family status".  The committee voted 4 to 1 in favor of that change in the MPS system.

Up to now, there are four school districts that provide similar benefit coverage.  Those schools are in Madison, Middleton, Sun Prairie and La Crosse.  Additionally, the City of Milwaukee and MATC provide domestic partner benefits.  These kinds of changes have been made elsewhere around the country so this is not new although it is still unusual.

It is not possible to fully step away from the 'third rail' of whether or not same sex partners should or should not receive benefits from the employer of one of the partners.  This subject evokes very strong feelings both pro and con.  This is one of those classic 'slippery slope' issue sets where those desiring such benefits nibble away at the elephant a bite at a time, and someday we awaken to find the entire elephant has been eaten.

The language portrayed in the committee's proposition also suggests that this is not simply a subject about same sex couples.  What is to prevent one MPS employee from cohabiting with a boyfriend or girlfriend whether or not there is an 'understanding' other than simple cohabitation for the time being?  Will a 'marriage certificate' be required in order to qualify?

How can a marriage certificate be presented unless it was obtained in one of the brief windows that have periodically opened for a day or two around the country?

If not a marriage certificate, then just what documentation will be required?  What would stop a person who has just been diagnosed with a very serious disease from applying for coverage through a friend employed by MPS or the City or MATC?

My recollection is that Jennifer Morales (the MPS board member who introduced this motion during a recent board meeting) and her partner traveled to Victoria, BC to be married.  Will that certificate be acceptable in Milwaukee, or will the MPS benefits people simply need to take the employee's word for the establishment of a domestic partner?

The Milwaukee Teachers' Education Association immediately jumped on this and will expect this to be made available to bargaining unit employees prior to the expiration of the current contract.  The slippery slope increases in angle rather quickly on occasion.

Is this a case of cart and horse in reverse?  Should this issue have been resolved in courts of law prior to these small incursions in one location and then another?  Or, is it the mood of the country that this is what should be available pure and simple?

The pure and simple truth is rarely pure and never simple.  Oscar Wilde

The CRG study published last year raised some additional points that suggest serious issues.

The composition of the board lends itself to decisions that do not reflect the circumstances of the general populace.  Two members are elected officials, three members are in the public sector heavily represented by unions, another is a business manager for a union local, one is a lawyer and and another is a consultant for a firm representing special interests.  The vast majority of the board at that time, seven members, came from the public sector and/or an environment tied to organized labor.  Many have personal wage and benefit packages that are similar to those found at MATC.  Given their perspective, it seems clear why special interests are better represented than is the average taxpayer.

Board member e-mails were obtained through open records requests.  Following are highlights:

In discussing financial decision-making, then board member Dr. William Hughes (Superintendent of the Greendale School District) writes to fellow board member Mark Maierle (Business Manager of Operating Engineers Local 317) on March 30, 2005 at 7:54AM: "In the end, a budget with over 90% perhaps as high as 94% of funds going to payroll, benefits and pensions MATC will need all the revenue it can generate."  Dr. Hughes continued at 9:31AM that morning: "the general public does not pay attention to the goings on at MATC"

The focus is obviously that of generating more revenue, and not that of managing costs.  MATC revenue comes from the taxpayers and the students.  The implication is that taxes and tuitions can be increased since the public pays no attention.

On May 23, 2005 at 10:13AM, board member Lauren Baker (program coordinator with Milwaukee Public Schools) writes to Mark Maierle regarding MATC child care expenditures: "Jeskiewitz (State Representative Sue Jeskiewitz) thought it was OK when we explained that the centers were used as learning labs.  The administration has not pursued that line of reasoning.  Craig P. thought we should charge the child care expense to teaching and learning, thus making the centers run as a learning lab...Remember, Jeskiewitz is a Republican and needs to be vocal on these issues.  I've never felt compelled to set policy based on what Alberta (State Senator Alberta Darling) and Jeskiewitz tell us...We need to have a sophisticated view of the politics in Madison or we will be jerked around"

The apparent philosophy is that lying to politicians is "political sophistication".  The Board promotes funneling "Child Care" into another budget, thus representing it as something other than babysitting at taxpayers' expense.

On March 31, 2005 at 8:45AM, Mark Maierle writes to board member Peter Earle (Lawyer) about a person's observation that Darnell Cole (MATC President) is tight with the union, and the union holds an axe over the Board's head.  "I believe his criticism of Cole came from his perception that Cole was in the union's pocket.  It sounds like the union is again threatening a no-confidence vote.  The Board has had this ax held to our heads long enough." It seems as though the special interests get their way, and the taxpayers get stuck with the bill.

This simply continues the process of establishing that MATC is poorly managed and unlikely to change of its own volition.  Germantown's petitions are not simply driven by taxes.  The state technical college board must come to grips with this rogue operation for which it has responsibility.  We citizens of Germantown cannot possibly be compelled by the state board to continue to support this abomination...unless that board and the Governor who appoints it are to be held equally complicit.

Based upon the CRG study, we have discussed many different aspects of the MATC issue.  We are going to shift, at this point, to drawing conclusions supported by this study.  This is where it gets tough.

MATC is failing to fulfill its mission as a technical college:

The CRG study is quoted as saying, "the clearest measure to determine success at the technical college level or higher, is shown by the ability of students to put their education to use in the job market".  In 1999, for instance, 85% of MATC graduates found employment related to their course of study.  At the time of this study (2006/2007), only 67% of MATC students are employed within the field from which they graduated.  Three possible factors were cited as possible contributors: Milwaukee ranks only 274 out of 367 in job growth among cities in the country; Milwaukee County's population has declined; and, Wisconsin had the third largest decline in median income in the entire nation.

Is MATC properly advising its students?  Statistics show that the demand for skilled technical workers, such as welders, was predicted to outstrip supply by over 200,000 jobs by 2010.  And yet, MATC graduated only 14 welders in 2005. 

Over 70% of all MATC students were enrolled in a General Education or Business curriculum.  The study questioned whether this sort of education was the core mission of a technical college, especially when the Greater Milwaukee area already had a taxpayer-funded education institution that provided similar education services for one-quarter the cost of MATC. 

How was it, the study queried, that only 8% of MATC's full-time equivalent students were enrolled in technical programs where the current job outlook is strong?  The study went on, "Even with an outrageous price tag of $23,760 per student, MATC is failing in its core mission.  Further, why should taxpayers support an institution that provides services already available to them from other sources at a fraction of the cost?

It is obvious to anyone who wishes to see it that MATC is not just a tax drain, but it is an inefficient tax drain.  It produces students who are skilled in things the employers of the community don't need, and it does so at outrageous fees and tax loads.

In 2005 alone, $37.4 Million could have been saved by the ten communities in the Greater Milwaukee area had MATC simply held its spending to the rise in the Consumer Price Index (CPI). 

The state technical college board needs to understand that egregious tax rates are but one aspect of the Germantown petitions for approval to leave the MATC district.  MATC is simply not doing its job; it has failed in its core mission.  The private sector would've fired MATC long, long ago.  In fact, from the hiring statistics, it appears MATC has been fired.  It sounds a lot like "dead man walking".

Again, from the CRG study published in 2006, we find amazing information about the health care benefits and retirement benefits available to MATC employees.

As of the 2006 study, all full-time teachers, operational employees, para-professional employees, and public television staff received health care coverage with 100% of the premiums paid by MATC.

When was the last time you received such a rich benefit, if ever? One of the health plans offered, the Humana Premier HMO, had no deductibles or coinsurance costs. This plan also contained unlimited hospitalization, 100% coverage for skilled nursing home care, all private duty nursing care, and a $300 annual reimbursement for a personal trainer.

What about retiree health insurance?

To be eligible for 10 years of fully paid retiree health care from age 55 to age 65, only 15 years of employment at MATC was required for full-time teaching faculty and full-time para-professionals. 20 years of employment were required for employees in public television (Channels 10 and 36 with their own fund raising activities and full scale HDTV studios before the first commercial stations in Milwaukee), and daily operations staff.

An actuarial study by J.F. Malloy and Associates on 10/14/2004 placed the then current liability for retiree medical and life insurance coverage at $62.2 Million; this number will very likely increase over time. As this study opined, “How much longer must taxpayers provide Cadillacs for government employees when all they can afford are Yugos?”

When we turn our attention to retirement, we find that full-time faculty and full or part-time para-professionals can retire at age 55 with only 10 years of service. They are also given their unused sick pay in a lump sum upon retirement.

Part-time faculty teaching 20 or more semesters can retire at age 55; they are given any unused sick pay upon retirement.

MATC employees are covered by the State of Wisconsin Retirement Fund or the Employees Retirement System of the City of Milwaukee. The MATC Board, at the time, paid the full cost of these retirement programs. Employees contributed nothing. These plans are what are known as defined benefit plans meaning that an ultimate benefit amount is promised and contributions by MATC are made until that benefit is fully funded, no matter the cost. These plans were used by private employers but have been largely discontinued years ago in favor of “defined contribution” plans. Such plans use whatever money is in the fund at retirement to purchase whatever benefit it will buy. There is no guaranteed benefit, only a guaranteed contribution.

Beyond this largess, the employees who retire at age 55 receive a “special” pension payment from MATC “as if they had retired at age 65 instead of at age 55”.

Does this sound vaguely familiar? Maybe something like the County pension scandels of a few years ago?

Believe it or not…there is more to follow and it gets worse!

Continuing with the series based on the CRG study concluded and released in 2006, we’ll next look at sick pay and time off policies.

All full-time teachers and para-professionals receive 15 days of sick leave credit annually. They are permitted to accumulate up to 150 days of their unused credits. After reaching the 150 day mark, they can add further to their account at the rate of a ½ day for each additional sick day unused. There is no limit on the account balance from that point forward.

Based upon the then average annual wage of $90,850 for MATC faculty members, cashing in 150 sick days (if none were used for retiree health care premiums) would be comparable to receiving an additional $53,000 as a “retirement” bonus at taxpayer expense.

The school year at MATC was defined as 162 days with student contact and an additional 6 days without student contact for a total of 168 days. This compares to an average 239 work days for the typical Milwaukee area full-time employee.

Additionally, a full week is defined as consisting of 32 hours on campus. If this is prorated, it amounts to the MATC teacher working the equivalent of about 134 days per year. If they were to use their full number if sick days and professional leave, they would end up putting in about 114 full days in a given year.

Add to this the sabbatical program which provides for a full year of time off to “improve themselves as employees” once every eight years, provided they worked six of those eight years, and you see a very nice package that most of us will never be close to earning. The package is especially nice when you consider the employee is receiving 60% of regular pay while away for the year. How does that compare to your work place policies?

All this simply points to an institution that appears to be run too loosely and for the primary benefit of its employees rather than the students and the taxpayers. This is not “just” a tax issue as members of the state board were quoted as saying was unworthy, by itself, of petition approval; it is a management and oversight issue that should’ve received the attention of the state technical college board long ago. But then, what does one do when tenure rears its ugly head?

(Note: The CRG study we’re using for this series was concluded and published in 2006. One or more new union agreements has been made since then, however it is unlikely that the agreements in place today are less rewarding than those in place at the time of the study.)

As we pointed out yesterday, full and part-time faculty and paraprofessionals are the largest group of employees at MATC. They work under collective bargaining agreements and have been able to receive two wage increases each year.

Each of those people received an automatic annual increase of 2.9% without regard to competence or merit.

Additionally, there were 15 labor steps in place (from 0 to 14) for the teaching professionals and 9 steps for the paraprofessionals. By completing a full year of employment, the employee automatically, regardless of competence or merit, moves up a labor step and that qualifies each for the next increase which amounted to 3% to 5% per year under the agreements then in place. So, each of the employees in these groups, the largest segment of all MATC employees, received automatic annual increases of from 5.9% to 7.9%.

As you can see, the qualified economic offer (QEO) that applies to public school teachers throughout Wisconsin holding wage and benefit increases to 3.9% annually does not apply in the MATC world.

Tenure is a word you likely don't have applied to you, but the MATC employees are tenured after they complete the initial three-year probationary period. Once tenured, the employee cannot be disciplined, dismissed, suspended, discharged or denied reappointment except for just cause.

The study analyzed the ten highest paid faculty members for each of five years. In the 2001/2002 school year, the average salary (without any benefits included) was $110,300 and that increased 5.7% each year to an average of $137,600 in the 2005/2006 school year. That is $23,000 per year more than is earned by the average professor at the University of Wisconsin.

It needs be noted that most MATC teachers do not have a doctorate, many do not have a Masters degree and some lack even a Bachelors degree.

Interestingly, the salary of each of these people had been capped at the top labor step grade of 14 for the full five years studied, but each received increases each year above the annual 2.9% cost of living increase…even though their contract didn’t call for that.

This is very dry but is, unfortunately, a required base of knowledge.

MATC has four locations: downtown Milwaukee (2 Million + square feet), Mequon (200,000 square feet), Oak Creek (318,500 square feet), and West Allis (177,000 square feet). It is one of the 16 state technical colleges in Wisconsin. It offers some 200 degree, diploma, certificate and apprentice programs, and is the largest technical school in the Wisconsin system.

MATC has a board of directors consisting of nine appointed members. That board, coupled with the MATC administration, is responsible for preparing/approving the annual budget and negotiating the several union agreements under which it operates. There are three unions representing full-time and part-time employees.

The study by CRG and GTG (which we’re using for this series) cited a total of 1,484 full-time equivalent (FTE) employees in the 1998/1999 school year with 1,412 FTEs in the 2006/2007 school year. The number of employees has gone down; a good thing. There were, in the 2006/2007 school year, 81 administrators, 723 other staff, and 608 teachers/specialists on staff. For every teacher there are 1.3 administrators and other staff; not such a good thing.

From the 1991/1992 to the 2006/2007 school year, the consumer price index (CPI) rose 55% while the MATC property tax levy increased 151%, nearly three times as much as the CPI. Had the MATC budget increased only at the pace of the CPI, the taxing district would have saved some $800 Million in revenue from all sources including property tax.

This runaway spending has occurred in the face of a declining number of FTEs with only a slight increase in student enrollment (only 2% over the past ten years). Spending has outpaced the CPI by about a 3 to 1 margin.

How is this possible?

It is quite simple. An unelected board with no taxpayer accountability appears to have catered to the whims of the special interests on campus; the educational literati and the unions.

It is assumed that our village board will pass its own resolution on October 1st to petition for removal from the MATC district and to be reassigned to the WCTC district. That is great and ought to be applauded by each of us.

The Germantown school board has already begun the process of working with the Quarles and Brady law firm following its 7-0 vote. It will develop the arguments supporting our petition. That effort is expected to be completed by November 12th.

It has already become very clear that we Germantown citizens face a daunting task. We are up against “the system”. We are about to see the true nature of MATC. It will pull all the stops to save the $5 Million that you and I give them annually. It will spend taxpayer dollars to lobby each and every member of the state technical college board. It is almost farcical that our own money can be used against us in our battle to regain control of some of our own money. If MATC wants to spend more for lobbying, it just raises our tax load.

But, that is “the system”.

The king, however, has no clothes; there are very significant issues that far surpass mere dollars (although these issues involve the waste of millions of our dollars). These issues have been pointedly made in a study released in 2006 by the Citizens for Responsible Government (CRG) and the Greendale Taxpayers Group.

We’ll take a careful look at that study. I think you’ll be as troubled as am I over these revelations. I’ll wager that you’ll get to the point of saying, “I’m fed up and I’m not going to take it anymore”!

Building Needs:

IF we are successful in being able to move from the MATC tax district to the WCTC tax district, the approximate savings to taxpayers would amount to about $1,650,000. Remember that number when we next confront a referendum seeking money for building maintenance and repair to correct the decade of forced neglect. Maybe it is time for us to put something back into physical plant and maybe this would be a relatively painless source for that money.

Technical College Boards:

Our 16 local technical college boards must be responsive to the electorate and the only way for that to be accomplished is if they are elected. Today, our local technical college boards are appointed. These are the boards, by the way, that have been granted taxing authority. The appointees have no real obligation to the public. They may instead feel obligated to the person or people who appointed them. That doesn’t equate to a system that is responsive to the taxpayer. The state board discussed below has no taxing authority. Bills have been introduced in both the Senate and the Assembly that would correct this local board problem. Senator Darling was instrumental in developing and bringing this bill to life, and I believe the Assembly version is supported by Rep. Jeskewitz, as well. Let them know you are supportive, too.

State System Board:

The big IF in my first subject is borne out by looking at the current state technical college board. The board is comprised of appointees of the sitting Governor and consists of:

-one employer representative: Allan Kehl, Kenosha County Executive
-one employee representative: Phil Neuenfeldt, State AFL-CIO
-one farmer representative: Ann Greenheck of Lone Rock
-the State Superintendent
-the Secretary of Workforce Development
-the President of the University of Wisconsin System
-six public members: Michael Rosen, MATC Professor & Union Officer/ Brent Smith, attorney and UW Board of Regents Member, La Crosse/ S. Mark Tyler, President of OEM Fabricators, Neillsville/ Jose Vasquez, Director of Operations, Next Door Foundation, Milwaukee/ Peggy Rosenzweig, Member of UW Board of Regents, Wauwatosa
-one student member: Vanessa Pickar, Western Tech, La Crosse

It appears that every member has the requisite credentials. The simple political reality, however, is that Germantown has a significant disadvantage as it attempts to move from the MATC district to the WCTC district.

You, the taxpayer and voter, need to assert your feelings and desires with your elected representatives (both are supportive of this move, by the way) and you need to interact with the state board members to let them know your feelings. If they do not hear the cries for redress, they will likely not honor our petition.

You can access the state board site at:

http://www.wtcsystem.edu/board/members/bios.htm

I read of the settlement between MATC and the American Federation of Teachers Local 212 in the morning Journal Sentinel. As I reread that article, I began to better understand the “disconnect” between the MATC leadership and the taxpayers that support that institution.

Bobbie Webber, MATC Board Chair, is quoted as saying, “I think it is huge. Clearly it shows we are moving in a direction to address some of the fiduciary issues. We’re in an arena where there’s a shared liability.”

I must agree that it seems this is a very significant settlement, but it still has a long way to go before it gets into the neighborhood of where the taxpayers supporting MATC have been for years.

This is indicative, to me at least, of the systemic issues that continue to exist at MATC. Bloated compensation and bloated benefits budgets appear to begin to explain the tax rate differences between the three systems involved in the current discussions with our village and school officials.

If we look at the private sector, we see that, in virtually every instance, there has long been a sharing of premium costs and not just a co-pay on an office visit and on prescriptions. The “huge” breakthrough now has the union members paying a whopping 4.4% of the total costs. The private sector averages are 20% or better. And, that is for the employees who even have health insurance provided by their employer.

We’re not privy to what those co-pays were compared to what was just approved. We’re told that “nobody on either side got everything they wanted”. That’s expected in a contract re-negotiation. But who started where, compared to who ended where? That would be at least as informative, if not more so.

The old canard (that held that public sector employees deserved better benefits due to the differences in pay rates) lost much of its impact years ago. Especially so, when one looks at the compensation levels inside MATC even today after this “huge” breakthrough.

We need to push the move toward a different technical college taxing district in spite of the fact that our Superintendent is now a member of the MATC board.