I don't know if the MATC has a public relations agency under contract but, if it does, they deserve a raise..more than the president of MATC deserves the one he just received!  It is impossible for any PR firm to cover the smell of this institution.

That's right.  The president of MATC, Darnell Cole, just received a pay increase of 5.2%.  This is the same Darnell Cole that was trying to get out of MATC by applying for a position with Lansing Community College in Michigan.  This is the same Darnell Cole that thumbs his nose at the constituency and gets higher and higher budgets passed that take more and more of our money in property taxes.

This almost seems like the college basketball coaches and football coaches who apply for other jobs simply to 'justify' increased compensation when they change their minds and stay in their already over-paid positions.  Maybe this is the way of the world of academia.  Maybe I simply am so out of touch that I can't comprehend that fact.

Cole now receives, effective today, $223,675 in base salary.  That's not all, of course.  He gets a total of $259,131 which includes retirement plan contributions and travel allowance.  The base pay increase was 3.25%.  The retirement supplement increase was 6.7%, and the travel allowance increase was some 44%.  His travel allowance doesn't cover the trips he takes by plane, etc.; it covers the cost of him driving around the MATC world in his automobile.  The retirement supplement is in addition to his already very attractive retirement under the Wisconsin Retirement System.  A little gravy for the gravy, as it were.

Even worse, if that is possible, is the fact that three of the nine members of the MATC Board didn't think it worth their while to be in attendance at the meeting where this was approved.  The remaining six voted, 5-1, in favor.  The sole dissenting vote was from Rep. Pedro Colon (D-Milwaukee) who felt Cole's long-term commitment to MATC was called into question by the recent attempt to leave the college for a better-paying job. 

Kudos to Rep. Colon!  Was his decision prompted by the fact that he must face the electorate?  Obviously, if the full MATC board were comprised of people who were forced to face the electorate, we would very likely see a much different MATC. 

There is but one conclusion.  MATC simply rubs our noses in it every chance it gets.  MATC is impervious to our scolding.  It never has to face the music.  It simply goes on its merry way increasing programs whether or not there is a return on that investment.  It simply goes on providing largess for its own.

This is an example of why the overall tax increase caused by the recently approved MATC budget was 4.9%.  Of course, we weren't told, before the budget was cast in stone, that Darnell Cole had yet to get his.  That might have been too obvious...even for we members of the great unwashed who only pay the toll on this road to nowhere!

Where does the secession petition stand?  Will it be filed on time?  Will the school board and the village board see eye-to-eye on the desired district?  Will our elected officials, both local, county and state, get behind this is a vocal and meaningful way? 

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.

Nicole Sell...

What a miracle this 16 year old's recovery from a gunshot wound to the head is to behold.  It is nothing short of an act of God that she continues to live with us in this place.

I hope the sheriff's department will be relentless in its efforts to locate the person or persons responsible for this near-tragedy.  Someone knows something, as is almost always the case.  That someone needs to step forward and enable the authorities to close the file on this case.

Kenneth Rogers...

The new superintendent of Germantown Schools will take his new position on July 1st.  Now the superintendent of the Eleva-Strum Schools, he'll be moving to our community soon.  Welcome Mr. Superintendent.

I hope you will be able to work closely with the elected school board members while you breathe new ideas and approaches into our district.

Allan Kehl...

Another politician gets caught with his hand out, and has entered guilty pleas to federal charges that he took $15,000 from Dennis Troha of Kenosha.  Worse yet is the fact that Kehl is the former Kenosha County Sheriff.  He maintains, of course, that this money didn't influence his thoughts about the gaming casino Troha was trying to get established.  Sure Allan, we believe you...sure we do.

Newsweek...

We can all relax now that Newsweek has declared the debate on global warming to be over.  Here I was thinking that an honest, earnest debate had yet to begin on the subject, but I must've been wrong.

Certainly this liberal bastion of a magazine couldn't have misinterpreted all the evidence.  Oh, that's right...we really don't have any hard evidence yet do we?

Charles Krauthammer has a great column in the Journal Sentinel this morning if you're interested.

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.

We are, by all signs, involved in an oil cost run-up driven by demand being greater than supply.  It is exacerbated for us Americans because our monetary policy has seen an intentional softening of the dollar (our money is worth less than other peoples' money, so it takes more of it to buy a barrel of crude oil).  I paid $4.20 per gallon yesterday with the price of crude oil standing at about $130 +/- per barrel.  Predictions of crude oil prices of $150 per barrel or more are seen or heard regularly now.  And, the cost of oil could well be higher than that by year-end.

How did we get to this point?  We got there by congressional law making, by presidents rolling over and signing those bills, and by our country's increasing needs/demand for gasoline and diesel fuel.  Why would we permit ourselves to become part of such a quagmire?

Politics!  Politics played by those on both sides of the aisle.  Conservatives seem to have lost their voices.  Liberals never seem to lose their voices.

Laws were re-written more than thirty years ago to make it nearly impossible for a new refinery to be built.  Those were the result of congress being rolled by the environmentalists and presidents either believing the rhetoric of the day or fearing the backlash should they stand up to the rhetoric.  This has continued to this very day.  We are forbidden from drilling within 200 miles of the California and Florida coastlines but the Chinese are already doing so as we sit on our thumbs.  We are unable to pursue the shale oil deposits that span our northern plains and southwestern states.  We have ample untapped resources that are readily available but our laws don't permit us to make use of those resources.

We see the 'global warming' group and the 'environmentalist group' driving our economy into the ground...and we have not found the moral outrage/courage to stand up to them and say "no more"!  We could easily build new refineries in any number of locations around our country but we're not permitted to do so.  We know how to drill and refine today without ruining our world.  It takes from 6 to 10 years to bring a new refinery on-line so the time to have declared a moratorium on the rules that made it impossible to build new refining capacity has come and gone.  But, the typical congressional response of "that will take ten years" should remind us that if we don't roll back those silly laws today, it'll take ten years from whenever we do roll back those silly laws.  The time to begin is now, not next week or next month.

We witnessed the ridiculous 'hearings' held by congress in the past few weeks.  We watched as Sen. Herb Kohl embarrassed himself by chiding the 'big bad oil companies' for making a profit.  He is a former businessman who certainly understands that profit must be derived in order for businesses to exist and grow.  He knew how that worked when he ran Kohl's Food Stores.  He certainly must have some comprehension as the owner of the Milwaukee Bucks.  His statement to the oil company executives that their profits didn't seem fair gives one a lot of insight.  He knows better but he will play/pander to the crowd he favors.  He 'feels' as do most liberals.  He doesn't necessarily reason.  He has his millions, so he can set out to control everyone else who aspires to similar success.

Sen. Kohl is but one of the 535 members of congress.  Too many of those men and women are too intent on keeping their offices to actually vote the way they probably know they should.  You have probably heard the old phrase that states you must "go along to get along".  That should be inscribed over the doorways leading to the House and the Senate chambers since it is the rule that is followed by the vast majority of people who walk through those portals.  That is true on the national stage, the state stage and the local stage.

The people who go to Washington and who do not give in and play by the Washingtonian rules are few and very far between.

Whose fault is this dilemma in the final analysis?  Yours and mine. 

We're the men and women who have permitted this to happen.  We don't vote in the House or the Senate, but we do elect those who do...and we do not seem to unelect people very often once they've gotten into office.  Rep. Steve Kagen (D) from the Appleton area stands for re-election this November.  He is at his most defeatable point historically.  If he survives the first re-election campaign and keeps his seat, he is likely to be in that seat for so long as he desires without regard to how he votes or doesn't vote.

We're so unconcerned about our vote, it seems, that we don't even think voting is sacrosanct enough to require valid photo identification before we're permitted to cast a ballot. 

So, all this angst has been brought to us by us.  Remember that the next time you buy gasoline or diesel fuel.  Remember that the next time you go to the grocery store and try to make your food budget stretch.  Remember that when you ponder whether or not you'll be able to take a vacation this year, or buy new school clothing for your children, or go out for a fish fry.  Remember that when you try to stretch your retirement income to cover your basic needs.

And, when you've gotten yourself all 'cranked up', if that happens, make a resolution to get involved and stay involved and to talk with your elected representatives at every level of government and let them know what you think and what you want them to do on your behalf.  And, if they fail you, fire them with your vote at the polling place.

Had you and I done that two decades ago instead of simply going with the flow, maybe we'd not be in the situation we find ourselves in today.

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.

It was reported a week ago that the school board had interviewed the desired applicants and narrowed the field to three 'finalists'.  Sources indicate that while three of the six who were interviewed were to be invited for a follow-up interview, none were labeled as 'finalists' at this point contrary to press reports.

Seventeen people responded with indications of interest in the position being vacated by Victor Rossetti on June 30th.  A handful were or had been superintendents and the balance were principals and/or human resource directors who were seeking the position as their next step up the leadership ladder.

Some on the board are concerned with the relatively small level of respondents for this position and wonder why that was the case.  Reports indicate that there are more open positions than qualified candidates across Wisconsin.  Was it due to the fact that the Germantown district does not pay as much as other districts?  Was it due to the recent vote on a new elementary school building initiative?  Is it due to the size of the district?  Is there something else at work that caused such a small initial response?

Given the fact that there were few sitting or experienced superintendents seeking our position, are we now faced with finding the best candidate without that level of initial experience and bringing her or him into the district?  Will the citizens support that approach or will they demand that Germantown keep interviewing until it finds an experienced and willing candidate who has no negative baggage.

If you were a member of the board and were faced with this open position, what do you think is most important?  Would you be willing to seek out the best candidate without actual experience?  Would you be willing to "take a chance" on a candidate that seems to have everything but experience?  Would you be looking for that next Jennifer Semmann or would you be content with the best of the lot that appears available to you?  Would you broaden the search if possible?

Please share your thoughts.  This is a very important position and the person selected will participate in shaping our community's future.

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.

Governor Doyle signed the bill that permits continued funding of virtual schools, with a relaxed cap on enrollments while a study is being conducted to determine their effectiveness on several different fronts.  This is a temporary 'fix'.

This represents a real victory for those parents who have enrolled their children in these educational institutions and who love the result.  Yes, these are educational 'institutions' even though it is difficult to see the walls.  Yes, the students do seem to thrive in this setting.  Yes, union teachers are involved in the instructional process.  Yes, they do seem more efficient in some ways than the typical brick and mortar schools with which we are all familiar.

But, they are different...and they are frightening to some...and threatening to others.  Certainly some students would not fare well in this environment.  Certainly some teachers would not fare well in such an environment.  So, maybe over the next couple of years, we'll have the opportunity to learn a lot more about this approach to education of our children.

Lest we forget, there is still the drive to end most forms of 'outside the box' education.  California's court system recently held that parents in that state are not fit to teach their children in a 'home school' setting.  Milwaukee Public Schools graduate less than 50% of their students but school choice is not looked upon with favor. 

Our system of education is in a state of flux.  Taxpayers are not happy about spending more money on buildings as we saw recently in Germantown.  Maybe all this will prove to have been part of a healthy debate as to just how our educational system of the future will look and function.

It seems obvious that we do need to have such a debate.  It seems obvious that we do need to get 'outside the box' as we discuss the future of education.  But, how are we going to do this?  Where will this debate be conducted?  Who will participate?  Will this be structured or will it simply be done through the free flow of ideas?  We have much greater communications abilities today than ever before. 

Will the debate be done at community levels, then county and state levels?  Or will it be done at the state level and then be pushed down to the place where education really happens?

Sadly, if there is to be such a debate, it will probably happen at the federal and state levels and be force-fed to the communities.  It will probably be done in courts of law with attorneys crafting the future of our educational system.  It will probably be funded by unions with their own agenda that may or may not look like the agenda of a community or of a parent.

I have no answers to these questions.  It might be better if we simply have a lot of questions and then seek the right answers...rather than to have the answers and then try to make those fit no matter what the questions may be.

It seems to me that we are on the cusp of exciting and frightening times in the world of education.  I hope we citizens and parents are up to the test.

Random thoughts:

• The turn-out by voters in Germantown was reported to be some 34%, as contrasted with the statewide prediction of only about 20%.  That may well be a 'victory' for the group that was pushing its agenda using postcards and telephone calls.  I suspect that this group stimulated a greater turnout than would've otherwise been the case.  That is a good thing.
• It seems though that the voters were not swayed sufficiently so as to follow the suggestions made by this group.  Those who were criticized by this group seem to have fared well enough to win.  Those who were 'favored' by not being attacked by this group didn't fare as well.  Are we likely done with this kind of electioneering in Germantown?  I am admittedly naive, but I'm not that naive.  I expect these tactics will continue to be seen in future Germantown elections.
• The need for some kind of solution to the school crowding in the Germantown district will have to be addressed at some point in the future.  It may be that a scaled down version of the defeated proposition will find its way to a ballot later this year.  If so, I suspect we'll see higher interest rates and increases in all the associated costs so that, even if the total bond issue were to be reduced, the ultimate costs could very well exceed what would've been the case with this issue.  The reported 55% to 45% margin was a bit surprising; I had suspected the issue might have been outvoted by a larger number.  The smaller turn-out obviously included a higher number of voters who favored the referendum.  That might be expected in a non-Presidential election.
• The face of the School Board changes a bit.
• The state Supreme Court race was critical, in my view, and the conservative won albeit by a relatively slim margin.  That bodes well for the state.
• There is a large segment of new members elected to the Washington County Board.  What that will mean can only be determined as we see the outcome of the various issues that will face this new board.  I hope that we will see special attention paid to holding down spending and thus taxes.  Maybe my naivite' is showing again.
• And, the 'Frankenstein Veto' has died at the hands of the voters.  That, also, is a very good thing without regard to which party might control the Governor's Mansion.

All in all, the voters have spoken and our representative form of government is working as was intended.

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.

It may seem to be a little early to begin the discussion about the proposed elementary school that would be built if the April 1st referendum question about the $16.5 Million bond issue is approved, but we're going to do so anyway.  April 1st will be here before we know it, and this is a complex issue that deserves some thought and discussion.

I note that the Board has hired the Robert W. Baird organization to assist with the dissemination of information about the referendum, but I thought it would be good to get questions from those of you who are interested regardless of your position today or on April 1st.

Bruce Warnimont, School Board member and Chair of the Building Committee, has been invited to respond to questions raised by citizens about the need for the school, the costs involved, the alternatives explored, etc.  He has indicated that he would be happy to do so.  Mr. Warnimont has been deeply involved in this subject, and will provide his thoughts and opinions in a forthright manner. 

There are two ways for you to submit your questions for Mr. Warnimont:

• You can logon below and post your question for all to see as a comment to this Blog, or
• You can click on the 'email author' button at the top of this Blog and send me an e-mail with your question(s).

If you send questions by e-mail, please advise if you wish your name to not be shown as the person who posed the question.  I'll do what you wish in that regard.

We'll do this for so long as there are questions remaining unanswered, and often enough that we get through the questions posed prior to the election.  You're in control.

Wisconsin citizens get the opportunity to vote on whether or not the 'Frankenstein Veto' should be eliminated by constitutional amendment.  This was made possible when the Assembly gave its final approval yesterday. 

The question will appear on the April 1st ballots.

As you'll probably remember, Governor Doyle found letters, numbers and punctuation marks across many pages of the budget to enable him to cobble together a new budget item that transferred some $470,000 from the transportation fund to another pet program that the legislature had not given him.

His spokespersons, of course, decry the elimination of this 'tool' since it gives them the opportunity to protect us from the evil legislature whenever it is misguided from Doyle's perspective.

I often disagree with legislative actions, but I have to believe that we're better off not having the governor armed with this ability.  No matter your feelings about the current governor, do you want future governors to have this kind of a tool?

You will also have the opportunity to help shape the future of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, choose your state senator, vote on the school referendum and school board members, and elect county supervisors and village trustees.  Mark April 1st on your calendar (and ignore the fact that this is also "April Fool's Day').

"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 boards of the school district and village met last night to discuss common issues.  Those common issues included the construction now taking place at Blackwood Creek across from the high school, the joint intent to push secession from the MATC technical college district, and the TIF district revenue shift proposed by the village.

There were no 'fireworks' as some had suggested; there were also no final decisions taken.

Representatives of MATC seemed 'lukewarm' to the TIF transfers, citing the 2003 transfer that they stated had lengthened the TIF district 3 life by two years.  The school board president, Michael Erdmann, discussed the fact that the school district would be able to reduce the tax levy if the transfer were not to occur.  The school district covers more taxing entities than just the village, so those entities need be considered, as well.

Village president Kempinski stated his hope that MATC would not be seeking 'retaliation' (my word) against Germantown's secession movement by not approving the TIF action.  There was no reaction visible on the part of the two MATC representatives when this statement was made, but I'm sure they've had practice.

The MATC secession discussion focused on the need for uniform positions on the part of the school district and the village (both agreed but neither offered to abandon its position) with attorneys for both the village and the school district present and speaking to the boards.  Since there is no haste required (the earliest date for a change in districts would be July 1, 2009 assuming the petition were filed at least ninety days prior to the end of 2008), both sides agreed to form a joint task force and to continue to work the issue. 

Issues that need to be fleshed out include the negative impact to MATC as well as the positive impact to either MPTC or WCTC if Germantown were to move.  The money we send to MATC is a small part of that budget, while the reduced amount that would flow to one of the others would represent a sizable increase to that district.  Beyond this are all the substantive issues concerning educational opportunities in the other districts as contrasted with MATC, and which of the other districts would seem the best potential overall partner. 

My take-away was this: 

I don't think the TIF deal is necessarily a slam dunk, although a new project soon to commence in TIF district 4 carries much promise. 

I continue to be all for the secession but am honestly skeptical as to the ultimate outcome given how everything appears stacked against us.  This is a highly political battle.  My estimate of the odds against our success would be in the range of 10-1, and that is probably being generous to our side.  We're playing with the 'big dogs' now! 

If there were any schisms between the two boards, they were well-controlled, almost to the point of being too saccharin.