I want to shift the focus now to the Wisconsin Education Association Council, or WEAC as it is commonly known.  Following this, we'll look at the WEAC affiliate that delivers health and other insurance coverages.

WEAC is among the state's 800 lb. gorillas so far as labor organizations are concerned.  It touts having some 98,000 members.  Its history shows a start in 1853, some 8 years after Wisconsin became a state.  It became known as WEAC in 1972 following adoption of collective bargaining laws for public employees in Wisconsin.

WEAC represents the following segments of education today: teachers, education support professionals, custodians, university students, state education employees, paraprofessionals, retired education support professionals, retired educators, library media specialists (one of whom, Mary Bell, is the current WEAC President), nutrition employees, school safety personnel, Wisconsin Technical College faculty and support staff, clerical staff, counselors, secretaries, teacher aides, bus drivers, cooks and state-employed education and information professionals.

WEAC's structure begins at the local level with the local unions such as the Germantown Education Association (GEA).

The local unions are members of a unified services unit, or UniServe unit, in their local area.  That unit includes the professionals required to support the locals, and is typically limited to some 1,200 to 1,500 individual union members.  Five of the largest school districts have their own UniServ units (Milwaukee, Madison, Racine, Kenosha and Green Bay).  The staffs of each UniServ provide locals with collective bargaining, member rights, public relations, professional development, and political action assistance.

The UniServ entities are tied to WEAC in Madison and WEAC is a member of the National Education Association, or NEA located in Washington, D.C.

It is easy to see that this organization is very well developed for the functions it has carved out for itself.  That is among the reasons that education is such an effective political force.  I have made earlier references to the fact that WEAC has spent millions of dollars to assure an attentive audience in the halls of Wisconsin government and in the Governor's mansion.

WEAC has identified its major initiatives for the period 2008-2010 and those are:

School Funding  They state: "It is evident that school funding is broken.  It is at the center of discussion from local to local.  The WEAC Board of Directors has identified measures of success for school funding reform, and they are offering a comprehensive education to kids and fair compensation for members."

Health Care  They state:  "We know that under the Qualified Economic Offer we've been sacrificing salary increases for health insurance.  But WEAC's commitment to health care reform is much bigger.  We care deeply for kids and their families because we all know that health care is also a learning issue."

Professional Development & Licensure  They state:  "Educators are required to focus more attention than ever on licensing and professional development, and WEAC is stepping up to provide quality support and services.  You are the best person to manage your professional development, with support from your union and financing from your district."

Achievement Gaps  They state:  "This issue is very close to the hearts of WEAC members.  The frustration of not being able to meet the needs of all our students drives us to do more - demanding needed resources and bringing the issue forward into a public conversation.  We will continue our work to involve communities, corporations and government in closing the achievement gap."

Membership  They state:  "We are listening to what you need and value, and connecting your union to your daily work.  We are focusing on groups who are already organized - and those who are not yet - in order to fulfill the promise of public education for future generations."

I'll close this piece with the 2009-2010 WEAC legislative agenda.  Their printed material says:

"WEAC Supports Legislation To:

• Repeal the Qualified Economic Offer law.
• Repeal revenue caps.
• Make preparation time for educators a mandatory subject of collective bargaining.
• Increase funding for SAGE to provide $2,500 per low income pupil beginning in the 2009-2010 fiscal year.
• Implement voucher accountability.
• Make attendance of 5-year-old kindergarten mandatory and a prerequisite to admission to first grade.
• Treat education support professionals the same as teachers under the Wisconsin Retirement System in terms of qualifying for coverage and for early retirement calculations.
• Establish WTCS pay equity by requiring that the salary and fringe benefits of part-time technical college instructors be prorated based on the salary and fringe benefits of full-time staff.
• Create a loan forgiveness program for teaching math, science, special education and ELL in high-poverty districts.
• Repeal residency requirements.
• Provide a tax deduction for non-reimbursed classroom purchases.
• Adopt the 'Wisconsin Indoor Environmental Quality in Schools Act' for public school buildings.
• Require school boards to adopt anti-bullying policies.
• Allow parents to take leave time from work to attend school conferences and activities."

~~~~~~~~~~

Several things jump out at me as I write this but I'll use another piece to explore those.  The one major thing that occurs is that virtually everything about WEAC means higher costs of education which translates into restructuring school financing laws and that will ultimately translate into more tax dollars.

First, there was a story by Thomas J. McKillen in the November 15th edition of Germantown Express News concerning the November 10th School Board meeting.  In that story there were quotes attributed to Jon Stachowiak who is the President of the Germantown Education Association.  The article stated:

"GEA President Jon Stachowiak opened his remarks...by noting that Germantown ranked 'number one in all levels' on the WKCE test scores out of 50 school districts in southeast Wisconsin."

"'The teachers have led their students to a high level of success', Stachowiak said."

"He further stated that two-thirds of district teaching staff have Master's Degrees."

"'This success achieved on the WKCE test is not achieved by putting in a contracted day or working to the minimum", Stachowiak said."

It is important that we recognize the excellence in our district; I was pleased to see this in print.  I thought it also interesting that this had been achieved with the classroom crowding we have been told about.

In that same meeting, Stachowiak also cited that teachers had higher wages in the Hartford, Slinger, West Bend and Kewaskum districts, and said that "another offer by the school board which is the state minimum will not be accepted".  I was disappointed that this comment was made in this setting; that seemed more appropriate in a negotiating session and the board meeting was not being held for that purpose so far as I know.  Additionally, I don't know what he meant by "will not be accepted".  That sounds like a job action of some sort could result.

Teacher compensation has always been a bit of a mystery to me, and I suspect it may be for you, also.

We have a step system in place in Germantown which recognizes the combination of tenure and education.  There are a total of 84 different steps, or pay grades, in this matrix.  It is this matrix that is affected by the QEO that we covered in the first part of this discussion.  If a 3.8% increase is made, part of that goes for benefits and the rest, if there is a "rest", goes for salary and is applied to this matrix.

My understanding is that it is possible for teachers to gain salary increases even if no increase has been granted through contract negotiations.  That would happen if more credit hours had been earned, or if a new degree level had been achieved, or if tenure demarcations had been passed.  It is also possible for both education and tenure increases to be involved and that could see a higher increase in overall salary without regard to contract negotiations.  It seems that it can also be said that increases in total are not always limited to the 3.8% or whatever had been approved.  Certainly, steps could be passed at the same time increases were made to the matrix.

The step increases max out, I believe, when a teacher has obtained a Master's Degree with an additional 30 credit hours earned, and has at least 14 years in the district.  The GEA President mentioned that two-thirds of our district's teachers have their Master's Degrees, although I have no idea as to the cumulative years in the district for any of those people.  That suggests to me that our district has more people in the higher steps than in the lower steps, thus the overall costs to the district would be higher than might seem to be the case.

The 'rule of thumb' I've heard applied says that some 85% of the district budget is consumed by people costs.

This is basically how the system looks at this time.  I want to explore the benefit cost implications and am planning that for another part to this discussion since it could take some time to put together. 

The angst that followed the election concerning the defeat of the referenda items has subsided a bit.  I want to explore the whole subject of education in our community and state, and have been discussing many issues with those involved including school board members from communities in Wisconsin, educators and taxpayers.  I have no idea how long this series will run, but the input of the citizenry is important and I hope this might provoke some additional rational discussion.

~~~~~~~~~~

I was off the mark on the qualified economic offer (QEO) when I referred to it as the maximum amount that could be provided to teachers in the combination of salary and benefits.  The QEO was instituted in 1993 and replaced the then mediation and arbitration system,  It provided that school boards providing at least 3.8% increases of salary and benefits combined would be protected from binding arbitration which had been problematic for school districts up to that time.  In this sense, the QEO is the minimum and usually the maximum.

There are teachers/former teachers who would admit that the QEO has served to protect the jobs of teachers that might otherwise have been cut in the old binding arbitration days since the arbitrators could assess whatever they felt was appropriate in terms of combined increases without regard to the district's ability to pay the added load.

Similarly, those people would also indicate that rescission of the current QEO rules and their replacement with mediation/arbitration, as the governor has tried to gain over the past several budgets, would probably cause teacher terminations since the proposed mediation/arbitration language has been moot on the subject of districts' ability to pay.  That leads, I suspect, to some of the 'scare' tactics citizens face whenever teachers' compensation is debated.  We almost always hear of the 'programs that will have to be ended if...' there were to be limits to increases proposed.  Those debates seldom, if ever, are concerned with actual reductions, but almost always with limits to the amounts of increases.

The cost of healthcare has played a significant part in the rising cost of education.  The 3.8% increase has to cover the cost of benefits and compensation.  If the health premium increases in double-digits annually, that translates into relatively little remaining for salary increases.  In the unregulated world that most of us occupy, the employer makes the decisions and enforces those decisions.  That world does not exist in education.

So, it is possible to extrapolate that the removal of QEO and its replacement with mediation/arbitration, without consideration for a district's ability to pay, could result in teacher losses, increased class sizes and some issues surrounding the nebulous issue of 'quality of education'.  That issue is nebulous in that it is poorly defined on a consistent basis.  It seems that whenever we get into those discussions, the achievement side becomes dynamic so that it is never quite possible to gather information permitting solid decision-making to occur.  Cause and effect are difficult to equate in those discussions.  That coupled with the emotional response that comes very quickly from one or both sides fairly well suggests that we'll not get to a good, solid, well-informed decision.

Under our current rules, after the 3.8% has been granted by the district, and that is not acceptable to the teachers, a mediator is brought in to attempt to help the sides find common ground.  If neither side is willing to give ground, the mediator can declare an impasse and the 3.8% offer is put into place with no further negotiation.  This has tilted the equation to the district's side and it has been that way since QEO was created.  It is understandable that teachers would find this 'unfair' even though you and me might think 3.8% was a pretty fair increase...especially if we've not received an increase for awhile...or if we've lost our job due to cutbacks.

Next time, we'll look at some hypotheticals that put some numbers in place.

Sendik's Food Market 60 Days Later...

I have yet to encounter a Sendik's associate who wasn't happy to be there and who wasn't happy to help me.

I have noted that the facility remains bright and cheery with a very clean floor, which I thought might be problematic given carpeting.  Winter will be a bigger challenge.  Shelves are always fully stocked; delicious samples are scattered throughout the store.

I don't know about you, but I am happy Sendik's selected Germantown as the site for one of their beautiful grocery facilities.

~~~~~~~~~~

Veterans Day 2008...

Remember that the 2008 Veterans Day ceremony will be held at the Veterans Memorial at the corner of Freistadt Road and Park Avenue on Sunday, November 9th at 10:30AM.  If you've not seen the memorial, it is worth your time.

A little history...

Veterans Day was originally known as Armistice Day when proclaimed by President Woodrow Wilson for November 11, 1919 to celebrate all veterans of World War I.  It finally became known as Veterans Day on November 8, 1954 when Congress amended the act to change the name and to have the day honor all veterans who have served their country.  The President was Dwight D. Eisenhower.

The American Legion will also conduct a flag disposal ceremony following the program so that you can properly dispose of any torn, tattered and/or faded American Flag you may have.

~~~~~~~~~~

County Supervisors Cut Property Tax Levy...

The supervisors agreed to take half of the county's sales tax revenue into the operating budget for 2009.

Unfortunately, this budget cuts the $35,000 for the County Convention and Visitors Bureau and cuts $15,000 from the Fair Park.  The Village of Germantown is working to assist the Convention and Visitors Bureau since it receives significant promotion from that organization and felt that the funding cut by the county would have consequences for the community and its merchants.

The county set a 2009 tax rate of $2.71 per $1,000 which is down about $0.10 per $1,000 from this year.

~~~~~~~~~~

SRO Officer In Schools...

I had the pleasure of meeting SRO Tim Miller during the Citizen Police Academy session this past Wednesday evening.  He gave us an overview of his duties in the schools and discussed the changes that have been brought about since this program was initiated.  "SRO" means School Resource Officer.  The SRO is a sworn officer and funding for this position is paid jointly by the school district and the police department on a 75%-25% ratio, respectively.

Our high school is a much quieter place of learning than before the initiation of this program several years ago.  Student fights seldom occur now; the SRO has formed relationships that help both students and administration.  And, students develop, I suspect, a much different view of police officers having had this experience.  The SRO is available for class instruction whenever the subject matter entails.  SRO Miller, in this case, can 'tell it like it is' during driver education and health classes, for example.

This strikes me as a very good use of taxpayer dollars that provides both a current payback as well as future benefits.

GEA Members Protesting...

I have learned that teachers in Germantown, members of the Germantown Education Association, are apparently protesting by wearing black clothing, or black armbands and pins over their lack of a contract that expired a few months earlier.

The offer from the Board/Administration was in accordance with the QEO (qualified economic offer) rules still in effect in Wisconsin that cite a maximum of 3.8% compensation increase including benefits according to my information.

I Blogged yesterday about the QEO going away in Wisconsin given Democrat control and WEAC support.

Could this be the first salvo in that battle?  Is it just coincidence that this occurs the day after the election, or is it part of well-planned scenario to force that issue sooner rather than later.

~~~~~~~~~~

GOP Voter Turn-Out Down In Washington County...

I learned from an benefits industry newsletter this morning that voter turn-out on the GOP side of the race for president were off from the most recent similar race.

Washington County showed 50,641 votes for Bush in 2004 while there were a total of 47,725 votes cast for McCain.  Waukesha County showed 9,837 fewer votes for McCain versus Bush in 2004, and Ozaukee County reported 2,744 fewer votes for McCain versus Bush.

Given the intensity of the campaigning and other races that were involved, this would seem to suggest that conservatives were really 'put out' over being forced to cast votes for the least desirable of the Republican candidates that started the race.

These three counties are solid conservative counties typically.  Maybe this was a backlash or maybe there were more casual Republican voters who were swayed to cast their ballots for Obama because they liked him rather than as a protest of their selection.

~~~~~~~~~~

MATC Response Opposing The Germantown School District Petition Filed...

A 54 page response is available for your review on the MATC website if you like.  I've gleaned some of that information as follows:

• "MATC offers the highest quality and greatest variety of programs and learning opportunities in the most diverse college in Wisconsin.  Germantown has benefited enormously from MATC's resources."
• "As discussed below, reorganization would certainly not be in the best interests of the hundreds of Germantown residents who attend MATC, utilizing programming and coursework that is unavailable at Moraine Park."
• "...Germantown has not presented any compelling reason to sever its productive, long-standing relationship with MATC and realign Germantown with Moraine Park.  To do so would-in effect-place an unfunded mandate upon MATC by reducing its revenues without any corresponding reduction in costs.  Programming and enrollment data strongly suggest that Germantown residents will continue to attend MATC and utilize its resources, even if reorganization occurs."

This could, and does, go on and on through the course of the 15 page letter signed by the MATC President, Dr. Darnell E.Cole, and the MATC Board Chairperson, Lauren Baker.

It asserts that there is no real reason for the petition other than our desire to get out from under the $5.7 million annual tax burden (that MATC fails to acknowledge has climbed exponentially over time).  It complains that the sole reason for the petition is financial and it says that isn't permitted as a reason for consideration.

I was struck by the fact that MATC can decry the petition on the basis of the financial havoc that would be visited on MATC but the citizens of the school district are denied the same opportunity.

MATC brags about the unique courses available, and the commuting distance differences.

That rings hollow to me since there has been no indication that Germantown students, as few as they are in total number, are seeking out MATC for those "unique" courses.  The discussion of "distance" rings hollow for me since I can drive "more quickly and more easily" from Germantown to West Bend than to either the Mequon campus or the downtown campus.

MATC points out the $2.7 million investment made in the Mequon campus over the past ten years but fails to acknowledge the $40 to $50 million in taxes paid by us citizens over that same time span.  Again, the point of money is made by MATC but cannot be used to defend the petition.

MATC says it would have to engage in "substantial" program/job cuts" if the petition were to be approved.  What a novel idea for this organization contrasted with the endless tax increases that have been and will continue to be levied.  Once again, they can use the fiscal fact set they create to defend against our petition but we cannot use the fiscal fact set we create to auger in favor of our petition.

I  have long maintained that the likelihood of a ruling favorable to the Germantown School District in its petition to move to Moraine Park was a long shot, at best.

Reading the story put together to defend the poorly run MATC organization makes me ill, as it also helps me see that the likelihood of a favorable ruling is probably much more remote than I had ever supposed.

This is such a classic case of a non-elected governmental body with taxing authority being judged by its own parent to the detriment of us citizens.  This simply has to change...but that isn't going to happen for the time period during which the Democrats control state government.  I'd simply better come to understand that and forget trying to tip windmills.

The Sunday Journal Sentinel contains a story by Tom Kertscher that discusses the school referenda with interviews of Bruce Warnimont, school board member, and others representing both sides of the debate over a new elementary school and the operating cap 'forgiveness' that would permit an additional $500,000 for operations of the new school.

Mr. Warnimont is quoted as pointing out the potential, based on presumed increases in full day kindergarten enrollment, for the increases in state aid to offset or exceed the cost of the referenda issues on the property tax bills in the district.  He is very knowledgeable on such things and I do not presume to espouse a position, either pro or con, in this Blog.

I will say that this is a most counterintuitive argument.  How does one approve a $22.5 MM bond issue and an additional $500M in annual operating costs and still see his or her property tax bill stay the same or decrease so far as the school district's portion of that bill?  The assumption is that some 230 full time kindergarten students would be enrolled (76 more than now) and that the additional state funding would offset the tax increases necessary to pay off the building and to operate the school.

Those in favor point to this as justification while those opposed point to this skeptically given that there can be no assurances that the supposition will prove valid.

I have difficulty in thinking that anyone would be disingenuous and therefore presume that each side is speaking what it considers to be the truth.  Perhaps I am terribly naive but I hope that isn't the case.

Given the lay of the land today so far as this project goes, I must say that I am happy to be an interested observer and not a direct participant on either side.  As I stated above, this is one tough counterintuitive argument to mount.  I do not know how I will vote but you can be sure I will vote.  I trust that the vast majority of our school district citizens will vote, as well.  We need to learn the true will of the people...and this election should point that out...unless the referenda pass by a handful or lose by a handful of votes.

New School Support Group Formed... 

Tom Kertscher has written on JSOnline that a new group has been formed in Germantown for purposes of supporting the school referenda.

The organizers appear to be Sara Sina and Merissa Osswald and their email address is abettergermantown@gmail.com if you'd like to make contact.  They reportedly will establish a website at www.abettergermantown.com but that has not yet been turned on to the public.

Larry Prodoehl, president of Germantown Citizens Action Coalition may again become active on the opposition side of the equation although that announcement has yet to be made.

The forum of the Village Buzz is certainly available for a debate on the issues should these two groups desire.  The more information that can be gotten into the hands of more voters, the better for us all regardless of the outcome of the election.

There has been speculation that the greater voter turn-out would auger favorably for the referenda proponents.  The last Presidential race in 2004 saw some 11,500 votes cast in Germantown.

Waste Management Draws Line In The Sand...

Waste Management has advised the Teamsters Local 200 leadership that it will amend the offer currently on the table if the union members have not been given complete information on the latest proposal and an opportunity to vote prior to 4:00PM this coming Sunday.  Among the changes would be a reduction in the amount being offered over the coming 5 years.

I don't know for how long Waste Management will be able to keep their replacement workers on the job, but it does seem that the leverage of the union may have eroded a bit since the Harley 105th Anniversary crowd has gone home and there seems relatively little complaint, at least in Germantown, about late garbage pick-ups.

Quiet Thursday...

I'll be unable to Blog tomorrow but will be back with you on Friday.  See...you can catch a break once in awhile ;>)

Vote Today...

There is still time to vote.  Polls are open until 8:00PM.  I voted at about 10:30AM and was number 112 in my district.  Two contested races will be decided by today's vote.

Sendik's Again...

I was VERY pleased to learn yesterday that, at my age with sparse grey hair (stubble actually), I can actually purchase beer, wine or liquor in the Sendik's liquor store WITHOUT the need to show someone that I'm at least 21 years old.

And, I can report that items I purchase regularly appear to be priced at or below the prices in the neighboring establishment...at least during the initial stages of their operation.  Maybe that will change, but I hope not.

School Referendum...

Ty Finke reports in an adjacent article that the school board has approved the administration preparing a new referendum question for the November election concerning a new elementary building, and additional funds for two other needs identified.

I really think this is going to antagonize the electorate, but I have been wrong before.  The probable thinking is that with the normally heavy turn-out during a Presidential election, the issue will be carried substantially.  I have no way of knowing, but I fear this will pollute the stream no matter the side one finds himself or herself supporting.

Apparently a special meeting will be called to review the question before a final commitment is made.  Citizens need to make their positions known before and during that meeting.

An angry electorate will do no one any good, and could backfire to the eventual detriment of the community.  Emotion is a tough taskmaster and yields strange decisions on occasion.

That was the title of an editorial appearing this morning in the Journal Sentinel.  It went on with a header that read: "Germantown officials should drop the effort to secede from the Milwaukee Area Technical College.  The savings aren't worth the cost."

I was quite interested to see what logic had led the editorial group to reach this conclusion.  Even though the petition cannot be about money, they admit that this would probably save the Germantown taxpayer with a home valued at $300,000 about $129 per year, or a little more if the change requested led to a slight decrease in the tax rate for the new district, MPTC.

They opined that this was simply not worth the cost...not to those of us in Germantown necessarily, but to the seven county metropolitan area.  It would "deprive" MATC of some $5.5 million in revenue.  They talk about this being harmful to the students of MATC including those from Germantown.  If there are 100 students from our area attending MATC, the cost to the Germantown School District taxpayer has to be in the range of $55,000 per student per year.  If there are 200, then we drop all the way down to an average of $27,500 per student per year.  That is an over-simplification but it helps put all this into perspective.

They discuss what they see as the poor timing of this and, in essence, lay blame for whatever happens to the seven county area economic development efforts at our feet if the petition is approved.  Wow!  If only we'd known what power we had before this, we could've really gone for something big!

We now become an integral part of the Milwaukee metropolitan region.  Funny how that is always the case when they seek our money, but is never the case when they're formulating some master plan.

The editorial does finally admit that MATC's taxes are too high, and they say that officials there need to place "some restraint" on expenditures.  That message doesn't seem to get through, however, to an appointed (unelected) board that rolls over every time MATC President Darnell Cole says "roll over".

Now, back to that $129 that we're not supposed to be concerned about.   For the Germantown School District, that could easily have been converted to a new elementary school.  That would've taken some $84 of the tax relief had this been available when we all voted on that issue...before prices climbed.  It could've likely funded our village road repair coffers very nicely on the balance of $45 per $300,000 of home value.

$129 isn't 'chump change' as so many would try to shame us into believing. 

And why is it our responsibility to pump more and more money into MATC so that it can try, unsuccessfully, to repair some of the MPS damage?  Why is it our responsibility to sit out here in 'the boonies' (from the perspective of the decision-makers in Milwaukee) and continually cough up more money for their needs.  When do they reciprocate? 

News reports indicate that Village President Tom Kempinski is considering asking the Board to approve a referendum that would appear on either the September ballot or the November ballot.  This referendum would deal with just how Germantown voters desire to fund some $2,000,000 per year in road repairs, if they desire to do so.  The choices apparently would be borrowing, increasing property taxes or a combination of both or none.

The referendum could be advisory or binding in nature.  Obviously, if advisory, the Board would then decide what, if any action it would take, but it would do so with some idea of the public's mood.  If binding, the results would stand as the electorate decided at least until the Board was reconstituted or until the Board found some other approach to achieve the end if that were possible.

If property taxes were increased by $2,000,000 annually, the increase in village taxes over 2008 would be some 20.5% without consideration for any other line item increases in the village budget. It is unrealistic to assume that all other expenses will remain constant.  If the amount were to be borrowed, the debt service would be part of the tax increase each year so that both the amount spent each year plus interest would be added to the tax bills over a number of years.

The village's portion of our total tax bill in 2008 was 24.52%; that share would climb to 30.67% if all other taxing units remained at 2008 levels which, unfortunately, is very unlikely.  The actual increase in total property taxes due to the village's portion of the total could be something in the range of 1% to 2% I would suspect.

Use of a referendum will please some people and anger others.  Some will say that this gives the voter the direct voice on specific items that they otherwise lack in representative government.  Others will say the referendum gives the Board a place to hide; still others will say that there should be no referendum.

There are several questions that come to mind about which you may wish to make your views known:

1.  Do we need $2 million worth of road repair every year?  For how many years?

2.  What portion of the village's road surfaces need to be repaired today? 

3.  Have past Boards avoided their responsibilities and not funded road repairs properly?

4.  Is a referendum a good idea or is it a convenient tool for a Board that doesn't wish to stake out a position that may be very unpopular?

5.  If this referendum appears on the ballot, what impact will that have on any issue the School Board may advance at the same time?

6.  If we are to see a referendum, should it be simply an advisory referendum or should it bind the Board to a specific direction?

What think you G'town?

There seems a very real sense in our community that bodes ill if the school board decides to pursue a re-vote on the same bonding issue from the spring election this fall.

Judging from the discussion that has ensued since that news was made public, whether or not formalized by the board at the time of its disclosure, the residents of the school district appear to feel very much opposed to the idea that a re-vote would follow so closely on the heels of the recent defeat.  And, they seem to be especially opposed to a re-vote on the identical bonding questions.

We are able to observe the 'test tube' that is called Hartford and what we see in that situation could easily be what we'll see in Germantown unless the school board steps to the plate with a different approach.  Even though the board used the services of a communications consultant, the communication seemed to be unidirectional.  The district voters' response was this: "you talk to us but you don't seem to listen to us".  That may be an over-simplification, but that is the essence of the problem today.  In Hartford, now, when the real damage is done, the board seems to have realized that it might need to reach out and learn why.  That may well be 'too little, too late' and that will be a shame because there are undoubtedly needs.

If the voters are 'given another opportunity' in the same form and in such a quick fashion, they may very well take that as an insult and seize that opportunity to really show their dissatisfaction. That will succeed in nothing more than polluting the well for a good long time to come.

There seems more a problem with feeling that the board has ignored the voters' feelings as expressed in the initial outcome, than outright opposition to anything the district wants to do.  Although, the district is getting very close to the edge of that chasm, in my opinion, and really needs to step back, reassess and reformulate its approach.  The outright distrust factor is growing and will only be overcome with earnest effort.  It will not be overcome with 'in your face' tactics...and that is what seems to be happening today. 

It seems from my vantage point that communication has been lacking.  I know that the school board hasn't taken that approach intentionally; at least I hope that has not been the case. Communication involves give and take.  It involves outreach in a form that seems more earnest than purely intended to show voters why the district is correct.  The district may well be correct, but the voters need to come to understand that.

Just as all students don't learn in the same way, all voters don't learn in the same way.  Maybe we need to slow the process a bit, engage the citizenry in other ways and have some earnest back and forth conversations.

My opinion is that a mistake was made when taxpayer money was spent on the Baird effort; it wasn't a lot of money, but it didn't sit well in the community.  I think that simply having had board members out in the community would've been better providing they were each on the same page.

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.

I received an email from a regular reader this morning asking me what my opinion was concerning the announcement that the elementary school bond issue will be back on the November ballot.  He forced me to give thought to something I had managed to push from my mind for about a week, but that hiatus is over.

First, let me say that I think the district has had a poor public relations week.  The announcement that the bond issue, apparently unchanged, is expected to be on the ballot in November was probably awkward enough.  Then, we learn of the expected budget deficit for the current year, and we learn that the proposed budget will require a property tax increase if approved as explained.

I've not engaged anyone from the district on the subject of the reappearance of the bond issue, and have had no contact regarding budget shortfalls.

There was some analysis done as the result of the spring election where the bond issue was defeated.  That apparently showed some interesting results when reviewed area by area.  Remember that the Germantown School District encompasses more than simply the Village of Germantown.  The most recent election apparently showed results indicating that some non-village areas were quite opposed while the village proper was more evenly split, or at least that is my recollection.

My supposition, and it is only that, is this:  November will see a significantly higher turn-out of voters.  The district may have reasoned that this will be a 'fairer' review of the proposal and it may have reasoned that the outlying non-village areas' votes might be outweighed by greater village turn-out, desiring to take its chances on that populations' decision this time around.

Beyond this, the budget deficit is understandable given the economic conditions we're experiencing.  Energy and food costs are up significantly and those are the primary areas identified as the 'culprits' in the budget shortfall.  The fact that preliminary budget numbers for the next period are reflecting the need for greater revenue is not surprising on its face.  The amount of the deficit and the amount of the need for the next period will be of more interest.  The tactics employed by the school board and the district administration in meeting these issues will be very informative.  We are in a superintendent 'lame duck' position and the new person selected will have had little, if any, substantial input by the time hiring decisions have been taken.

I must say that I'm disappointed with this confluence of events.  I don't know what, if any, press releases may have been issued on the bond issue decision.  If there were such releases, there is little indication of that fact since the news was simply dropped in our laps without forewarning or preparation for receipt of the news.  Then, to see the news about the current and prospective budgets pop up within days, citizens were subjected to what in our small world is tantamount to a 'media blitz'.

I fear that some significant damage has been done to the district's credibility on both issues whether or not deserved.  Those opposed to the bond issue have a ready-made counter offensive dropped into their laps.  Those who favored the bond issue have been embarrassed, self included.

All the old bromides about school boards being more interested in buildings than students, etc., etc. will be front and center during the election season.  And, frankly, the district has brought that unto itself whether through arrogance or ignorance or simple mishandling.

The question posed above is that which we will see on the April 1st ballots in the Germantown School District.  The District obviously encompasses more than just the Village of Germantown.

We have come to expect an almost constant preprogrammed reaction against proposed school building referenda issues and probably for good reason in many instances.  There has been over-reaching to be found in more than one referendum across the state, and each of those instances affects every other referendum issue to follow.  Taxpayers are being made to pay more and more virtually every year and there is the feeling that 'enough is enough' prevailing in our society.

Bruce Warnimont has taken a great deal of time to help you and me better understand the current referendum issue, and I want to thank him for the many hours I know he has given us.  There has been criticism about the Board hiring the Baird organization to assist in getting information out to the voters.  I do not think the relatively small amount paid for this service is a bad idea; instead, I think it is evidence of the Board's desire that we all be as informed as we can be when we step into the voting booth on April 1st.

My votes have typically been against such expenditures and probably for many of the reasons that the majority has held.  I am a fiscal conservative.  I do not like to see my tax bill increase.  I find more than sufficient waste in government already.  I have grandsons who are now making their way through our public education system, and I believe they are receiving a very solid education from very dedicated teachers and administrators.  My biases are thus exposed.

New Elementary School Or No New Elementary School?  That is the question.

I believe that there does come a time when all other workable options have been tried, exhausted or disproved.  I see the population increases that are projected by a very reliable firm.  I understand far better now the limitations imposed on the district in terms of remodeling or expanding existing structures.  I believe I have a better understanding of how state dollars flow and how some of the intricacies of district accounting can be deceiving.  I believe the tax 'hit' is reasonable...all things considered.

My answer is going to be Yes.  I believe that a new elementary school is necessary and I believe this is the time for that to happen.  I will be interested to see if I end up in the majority or the minority this time.

As a follow up to the last question, the question posed to Bruce Warnimont was this:

Question:  If the vote on April 1st is against the referendum question, will we see it again?

Response:  If a majority of the voters in the Germantown School District vote against the referendum on April 1st, it will come back again in November.

Passage this spring means that the school will be open for the start of the 2009-2010 school year, and the construction costs will be locked in at 2008 rates for materials, labor, etc.  Postponing approval until November 2008 or April 2009 will add a year to the completion date, and probably increase the construction costs by 10% or more.

Two years ago, the School Board was able to implement an optional full-day Kindergarten program, on a limited basis, because of moderate shifts in elementary school enrollments.  That opportunity will not exist after the coming school year, based on data produced by Applied Population Laboratory.  The APL has been extremely accurate thus far, and two major factors weren't included when the study was done: the new addition of water and sewer to the northern most part of the school district, and a new housing boom in Richfield.  Absent these developments, APL still projects that elementary school enrollments will top 1,800 in just a few years.

The effect of notoriety as the thirtieth best place to live will have an unexpected effect on migration into the school district.

Since implementing a new class size policy in 2002, Germantown's fourth grade test scores have marched upwards.  This past year, we were third best district in southeast Wisconsin when "advanced and proficient" scores were compared.  Teachers and children agree that small, controlled class sizes afford the time and attention needed to build the skills of struggling students and enhance the achievements of all.  So this becomes a "Catch-22" situation:  customers get attracted to our schools due to the proven success of smaller class sizes, then those children raise the class size to the point where less benefits are achieved.

I'd like to take the space that's available in this response to comment on "space".  Each grade level at each school, and the size of the classrooms available, has to be examined separately.  For example, School A may have 84 children enrolled in second grade and 66 enrolled in fourth grade: that's 150 children, total, and quick math might say "25 per classroom" when in actuality it's 22 in 3 fourth grade classrooms and 28 or 29 in 3 second grade classrooms - where 21 in 4 classrooms for second grade means better chances for high achievement.

*******

Once again, thanks to Bruce Warnimont for taking the time to respond to this question.  Please take the time to voice your comments and to pose other questions that come to mind.  Those can be done either through e-mails to me or comments posted to this Blog. 

As mentioned in the January 30th Blog that inaugurated this series of discussions about a new elementary school in Germantown, we sought questions to be posed to Bruce Warnimont, Committee Chair of the School Board's Building Committee.

Question:  How do us citizens know that this proposal is truly the best of the alternatives that were considered?

Answer by Bruce Warnimont:  Perhaps an appropriate way to answer this question is to briefly recount the building alternatives considered over the past five years.

• Building addition to Amy Belle:  Amy Belle's enrollment is constrained by the site's septic system, and the septic system is restricted by the lot size, system design and soil hydrology.  No expansion of this school can be done with any reasonable degree of feasibility and cost.
• Building additions to MacArthur and County Line:  These schools are land-locked.  Expansion would require the acquisition of adjoining homes and their subsequent demolition.  Additional art and music rooms would be required, and gymnasiums would have to be enlarged.  Also, the entire buildings would have to be brought up to the most current building codes at tremendous expense.
• Portable classrooms:  There's no such thing anymore.  The correct term would be 'modular classrooms' and they're nothing more than pre-fabricated buildings.  All of the other construction expenses, such as foundations and sprinkler systems, are required.  Local building codes prohibit them.  Plus, the same concerns expressed above for Amy Belle, County Line and MacArthur still apply.
• Adding on to Kennedy Middle School and relocating fifth graders:  This would require a sizable addition of at least 14 classrooms, and would have to include more art, music, PE and lunchroom space.  Construction would have to be coordinated around the school schedule/year.  And again, the entire KMS building would have to be renovated to meet all of the current codes.
• Renovate and re-open Highway View School or remodel the Administration Building (Victory Center School) for use as a half-day Kindergarten building:  This would only solve the Kindergarten issue, to a degree, and does not address any of the over-population issues in other grades.
• Build a new Kindergarten-only building, or K-1 building:  This would cost nearly the same as a K-5 building but with higher transportation costs.
• There is a non-building alternative:  Do nothing.  The immediate consequence to this option would be to realign attendance boundaries to conform to the restrictions on Amy Belle School, compounding the crowding at County Line and MacArthur.  And, abandon the full-day Kindergarten option, resulting in the loss of millions of dollars in state aid (with a corresponding increase in local taxes).  Other losses would probably occur, as well, but since I'm charged with recounting 'knowns' rather than 'beliefs', I prefer not to speculate, regardless of how probable those beliefs might be.

I want to thank Bruce for the time and attention he has given this question, and I'd like to invite comments and other questions from readers.  Comments are easy and might help your neighbors reach a good decision.    

I encourage readers to click on the earlier Elementary School Blog for the give and take between citizen Irwin Fletcher and School Board member Bruce Warnimont.

This dialog will likely continue for some time and some of Mr. Warnimont's responses will appear at that location while others will comprise separate Blogs.  He has responded to questions that Mr. Fletcher had posted earlier, and the responses are very instructive.

Besides, this makes the Blog stay fresher while I'm out of town than it might otherwise :>). 

Seriously, the question as to a Yes or No vote on the elementary school issue is very important to our community, our parents and, especially, our children.  Mr. Warnimont has explained, I believe, how the expenditure of funds to build a new building might very well be offset ++ by state revenue increases. 

You need to be the judge, and you need information to be able to make the proper judgement.

That is our aim in this series.